Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Ruling on Mountie's burial may go to Supreme Court

DAWN WALTON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:54 AM EDT 18/05/08

Appeal court says widow may have body moved; dead man's parents still battling idea ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Wide Awake from Canada writes: Its very unfortunate that this couldn't have been resolved privately. I'm sure its causing much more pain for everyone.


    Still, I can't help but think there must be much more to this story than can be written by the media: why is the widow so adamant?

    Regardless, there can't be any other implications than that the wife has the final say. To do anything else would have grave implications for all sorts of families and cause much more pain elsewhere.
  2. Vote NDP in the next federal/ provincial election from Toronto, Canada writes: This case resembles the Terry Shavio case in Florida where it has become a soap opera between ethics, justice and social issues.
  3. smelter rat from Canada writes: A toonie says the SC won't get involved.
  4. David Loewen from Canada writes: Maybe it's just me, but I find it interesting that he (supposedly) told his BROTHER his wishes, but not his WIFE. Just a thought. YMMV.
  5. CD W from Canada writes: Well there is a bit of difference between this mountie and terry S. in florida, she was already dead, but no one would admit it. It seems that the rules agree with the wishes of the wife, not the mother, or any one else. I guess it is better to leave it in the will. You would think that the RCMP would have you fill out a card denoting burial preference when killed in the line of duty.
  6. bob gervitz from United States writes: What a sad, silly ending to a life. That all this bickering should be taking place seems a huge waste of time and emotion. I say, why does it matter where a body is buried? The memories and affection for a dead person travel around with the living left behind, not with a decaying, buried inaccessible body. One can honour a relative anywhere they are; it's not necessary to be standing over a burial plot to do so.

    Having said that, the hierarchy is clear...spouse first. The father and mother GAVE AWAY their son when he married his wife. Husband and wife became ONE. His primary affection, attention, responsibility, interest, support was transferred on that day to his wife, and vice versa.

    It is for the wife to decide.
  7. marna mcilrath from Canada writes: The entire situation is extremely sad. I understand why the court had to side with the wife but after only 4 months I really think she should not have intervened. Yes, they met and fell in love in Regina but where will she be living? Will anyone close to him be able to visit on a regular basis? I realize some will think that not important but I suspect it is a very real issue for the mother.
  8. shoshana berman from Canada writes: The parents need to let it go.

    He was married. It's not their place and they need to stop beingn selfish and let his widow decide where to lay him to rest.

    I hope they have to pay her legal expenses.
  9. shoshana berman from Canada writes: One of the main reasons why I got married, being happy in a common law relationship was so that my paretns could not decide what to do with my health in the event I was unconscious or my body in the event that I died.

    I even told people that was why I was getting married when they asked. "So my father doesn't decide what to do with my body if I die" Isn't that romantic.

    It is also the main reason why same sex marriage must exist.

    The Supreme Court ruling will be clear and shouldn't have to happen and it effects every married personin Canada. These parents are wrong and they should back off.
  10. diana diana from Toronto, Canada writes: When you are married your spouse becomes your next of line kin - this is not only the law of the land but it is a social, moral exceptance in Canadian society. This is a travesty allowing the issue to continue on in the Supreme court and should not be allowed. Here is another example to people - get a will - it makes no matter if you are a pauper or a king.
  11. Vincent Clement from Windsor, Canada writes: diana diana: It's unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear the appeal. This is not a Charter issue and I am not aware that the lower court made an error.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Top National Stories

National Page Columnists

Top Stories by Section