Nullity

• Author: Stephen G.A. Pitel/Nicholas S. Rafferty
• Profession: Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario/Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
• Pages: 427-439

427

CHAPTER 23

NULLITY

A.VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

The law distinguishes between void and voidable marriages. In De

Reneville v. De Ren eville, Lord Greene M.R. explained the distinction in

the following manner:

a void marriage is one that will be regarded by every court in any

case in which the existence of the marriage is in issue as never hav-

ing taken place and c an be so treated by both part ies to it without the

necessity of any decree annulling it: a voidable marriage is one that

will be regarded by every court as a valid subsisting marriage until

a decree annulling it has been pronounced by a court of competent

jurisdiction.1

In the past, the distinction was of particular consequence in the deter-

mination of the domicile of the parties. At common law, in the case of

a voidable marriage, a married woman’s domicile was dependent upon

that of her husband. A void marriage, on the other hand, was regarded

as a complete nullity and thus a woman was free to acquire a domi-

cile separate from that of her supposed husband.2 Since the abolition

of a married woman’s domicile of dependency,3 the importance of the

1[1948] P. 100 at 111 (C.A.) [De Reneville].

2Savelieff v. Glouchkoff (1964), 45 D.L.R. (2d) 520 (B.C.C.A.) [Savelieff].

3See Chapter 2.