The Commentary on the 1954 Convention explains that the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition helps to avoid the problems that foreigners without a nationality experience in establishing their personal status. This is due to the tradition in Anglo-Saxon countries that foreigners without a nationality are subject to the rules of their domicile, rather than the country of their “nationality.”75 As a rule though, each state decides in accordance with its own law, when a domicile exists and when it does not.76 Furthermore, the commentary on the 1954 Convention states that Article 12 provides that the law of the country of domicile is to be applied in the first instance and the law of the country of residence applied only if a stateless person’s domicile was unknown, or if they have no domicile. This is because “residence” is often easier to establish than domicile.77 With respect to Article 12(2), the intention of this provision is to ensure Contracting States recognize certain acquired rights as valid, even though the rights were acquired under another law. The example provided is that of recognition of marriages concluded in another state. However, if the acquired right is not recognized by the Contracting State due to public order concerns, and not because the person has become stateless, then the acquired right need not be recognized.78 The drafters of the 1954 Convention mention that the non-recognition of polygamous marriages is one such example. II. Canadian Legal Framework a. Article 12(1) In accordance with the Anglo-Saxon tradition, in Canada “[q]uestions of personal status are generally determined under the law of a person’s domicile.”79 In Quebec, the Civil Code similarly provides that the “status and capacity of a natural person are governed by the law of his domicile.”80 A person's “domicile” is the place at which he or she permanently has his or her home. “Domicile” is distinguished from “residence” and the distinction is determined by examining an individual’s circumstances and intention. Domicile generally implies a personal intent, while residence is a question of fact. A person may have more than one residence, but can have only one domicile, or permanent home. A person can change residence without changing domicile.81 Ibid., at 30. Ibid., at 31. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid., at 32. 79 Olney v. Rainville, 2009 BCCA 380, at para. 33, available at: http://canlii.ca/t/25dwr. 80 Civil Code of Québec, CQLR c C-1991, at § 3083, available at: http://canlii.ca/t/52bhc. Domicile is further defined under s. 75: “The domicile of a person, for the exercise of his civil rights, is at the place of his principal establishment.” Residence on the other hand is defined at s. 77 as: “The residence of a person is the place where he ordinarily resides; if a person has more than one residence, his principal residence is considered in establishing his domicile.” And s. 78 provides: “A person whose domicile cannot be determined with certainty is deemed to be domiciled at the place of his residence…A person who has no residence is deemed to be domiciled at the place where he lives or, if that is unknown, at the place of his last known domicile.” 81 Canadian Encyclopedic Digest, Conflict of Laws, Domicile – General Consideration, IV.1 (WestlawNext) at 75 76 20