Family Law Act (Ontario)

Last updated

The Family Law Act (the Act) is a statute passed by the Legislature of Ontario in 1986 [1] , regulating the rights of spouses and dependants in regard to property, support, inheritance, prenuptial agreements, separation agreements, and other matters of family law. [2] In 1999, this statute was the subject of a watershed ruling in M. v. H. by the Supreme Court of Canada that established the equality of spousal rights for same-sex couples under Canadian law.

Contents

Content

According to the Preamble, the purpose of the law is "to encourage and strengthen the role of the family; ... to recognize the equal position of spouses as individuals within marriage and to recognize marriage as a form of partnership; ... to provide in law for the orderly and equitable settlement of the affairs of the spouses upon the breakdown of the partnership, and to provide for other mutual obligations in family relationships, including the equitable sharing by parents of responsibility for their children". [2]

The law covers the following subjects relating to marriage and common-law marriage in the province of Ontario:

Section 29

The Act has been amended numerous times since its enactment and has been modified by court rulings, most notably in the case of M. v. H. by the Supreme Court of Canada on May 19, 1999. In that historic ruling, the court held that the equality provisions of Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms require that the rights and benefits of common-law relationship be extended to same-sex couples as well as to different-sex couples. [3]

In particular, the court struck down section 29 of the Act as being unconstitutional in its definition of spouse, which was restricted to heterosexual couples. The original 1990 wording of the section included this definition:

"spouse" means a spouse as defined in subsection 1 (1) [i.e., "either of two persons who are married to each other"], and in addition includes either of a man and woman who are not married to each other and have cohabited ... continuously for a period of not less than three years.

The person(s) may not be married to another person simultaneously or the subsequent spousal relationship is void or voidable. According to the Supreme Court's ruling, [4]

the nature of the interest protected by s. 29 of the FLA is fundamental. The exclusion of same-sex partners from the benefits of s. 29 promotes the view that M., and individuals in same-sex relationships generally, are less worthy of recognition and protection. It implies that they are judged to be incapable of forming intimate relationships of economic interdependence as compared to opposite-sex couples, without regard to their actual circumstances. Such exclusion perpetuates the disadvantages suffered by individuals in same‑sex relationships and contributes to the erasure of their existence.

According to one of the attorneys in the M. v. H. case, the ruling dealt "a body blow to discrimination" in Canada. [3] Although the ruling applied specifically only to the Ontario law, the constitutional principles declared by the court had far-reaching implications for all other provinces in their treatment of same-sex couples' rights. [5]

Although the Court declared section 29 unconstitutional and thus unenforceable, the ruling was stayed for six months to give the province time to amend the law. Subsequently, the Legislature revised the definition of "spouse" in section 29 to include "either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited," thus applying equally to common-law partners of the same sex or different sexes. [6] Federal criminal code law against polygamy prohibits family court recognition or sanctioning of any form of subsequent marriage(s) whilst one or both persons are married to another person. [7]

Nevertheless, it is important to note that section 29 applies only to the provisions of Part III of the law, which deals with spousal support, child support, and child custody. This ruling did not affect the legal definition of marriage, and applies only to cohabiting partners in a common-law relationship, who have significantly fewer rights than married spouses in some areas, especially relating to division of property upon separation. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

Common-law marriage, also known as non-ceremonial marriage, sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, de facto marriage, or marriage by habit and repute. In the jurisdictions where marriage can still be contracted this way, a common law marriage is a legal marriage despite non-compliance with the requirements for a statutory marriage.

A domestic partnership is a relationship, usually between couples, who live together and share a common domestic life, but are not married. People in domestic partnerships receive legal benefits that guarantee right of survivorship, hospital visitation, and other rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Canada</span>

Same-sex marriage was progressively introduced in several provinces and territories of Canada by court decisions beginning in 2003 before being legally recognized nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act on July 20, 2005. On June 10, 2003, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a decision immediately legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario, thereby becoming the first province where it was legal. The introduction of a federal gender-neutral marriage definition made Canada the fourth country in the world, and the first country outside Europe, to legally recognize same-sex marriage throughout its borders. Before the federal recognition of same-sex marriage, court decisions had already introduced it in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents collectively made up about 90 percent of Canada's population. More than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in those areas before the Civil Marriage Act was passed. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

<i>Egan v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by a very divided Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Yukon</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Yukon since July 14, 2004, immediately following a ruling from the Supreme Court of Yukon. The territory became the fourth jurisdiction in Canada to legalise same-sex marriage, after the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. Yukon was the first of Canada's three territories to legalise same-sex marriage, and the only one to do so before the federal legalisation of same-sex marriage in July 2005 by the Parliament of Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Ontario</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Ontario since June 10, 2003. The first legal same-sex marriages performed in Ontario were of Kevin Bourassa to Joe Varnell, and Elaine Vautour to Anne Vautour, by Reverend Brent Hawkes on January 14, 2001. The legality of the marriages was questioned and they were not registered until after June 10, 2003, when the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Halpern v Canada (AG) upheld a lower court ruling which declared that defining marriage in heterosexual-only terms violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in British Columbia</span>

Same-sex marriage became legal in British Columbia on July 8, 2003, after a series of court rulings which ultimately landed in favour of same-sex couples seeking marriage licences. This made British Columbia the second province in Canada after Ontario, as well as the second jurisdiction in North America, to legalise same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Nova Scotia</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Nova Scotia since September 24, 2004 when the province began issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples immediately following a court ruling from the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. Nova Scotia became the sixth jurisdiction in Canada, and the ninth worldwide after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Massachusetts, Yukon, and Manitoba, to legalise same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Saskatchewan</span>

Same-sex marriage became legal in Saskatchewan on November 5, 2004 as a result of a decision of the Family Law Division of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench. This decision followed similar cases in six other provinces and territories, and pre-dated by eight months the federal Civil Marriage Act of 2005, which made same-sex marriage available throughout Canada. Later court decisions have dealt with the issue of marriage commissioners who object to performing same-sex marriages on the basis of their religious beliefs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in New Brunswick</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in New Brunswick since June 23, 2005 in accordance with a ruling from the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick. This decision followed similar cases in eight other provinces and territories, and pre-dated by only one month the federal Civil Marriage Act of 2005, which legalised same-sex marriage throughout Canada. New Brunswick became the ninth jurisdiction in Canada to recognise same-sex marriage, and the twelfth worldwide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Newfoundland and Labrador</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Newfoundland and Labrador since December 21, 2004, when the province was ordered by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples. This decision followed similar cases in seven other provinces and territories, and pre-dated by seven months the federal Civil Marriage Act of 2005, which legalised same-sex marriage throughout Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador was the eighth jurisdiction in Canada to legalise same-sex marriage, and the eleventh worldwide.

Latvia does not recognize same-sex marriage but same-sex couples are able to register their partnerships with the courts. On 12 November 2020, the Constitutional Court of Latvia ruled that the Latvian Constitution entitles same-sex couples to receive the benefits and protections afforded by Latvian law to married opposite-sex couples, and gave the Saeima until 1 June 2022 to enact a law protecting same-sex couples. In December 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that should the Saeima fail to pass civil union legislation before the 1 June 2022 deadline, same-sex couples may apply with a court to have their relationship recognized and enjoy some of the rights and benefits offered to married couples. The Saeima failed to approve such legislation by the deadline, and the first same-sex union was recognized by the Administrative District Court on 30 May 2022.

<i>M v H</i> Supreme Court of Canada case on same-sex couples

M v H [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of same-sex couples to equal treatment under the Constitution of Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foundation for Equal Families</span>

The Foundation for Equal Families is a Canadian gay and lesbian rights group founded in 1994 following the failure of Bill 167 in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The group's mandate is "Dedicated to achieving recognition and equality for same sex relationships and associated family rights through education and legal action". Meeting this mandate was accomplished by intervening in various precedent-setting legal cases, through representation at various pride parades and most notably in suing the Canadian federal government over failure to amend 58 pieces of federal legislation that were charter-infringing due to the definition of spouse.

Common-law relationships in Manitoba are government-sanctioned relationships available to both same-sex and different-sex unmarried couples in the Canadian province of Manitoba. While not as extensive as the rights and benefits of marriage, these relationships provide some important benefits to unmarried couples. Registration is voluntary; many of the laws apply automatically to any couple in the province after living together for several years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adult interdependent relationship in Alberta</span>

Since 2003, adult interdependent relationships have been available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the Canadian province of Alberta, imposing some but not all of the obligations of marriage and providing some but not all the rights and benefits thereof.

Cohabitation in the United States is loosely defined as two or more people, in an intimate relationship, who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by marriage nor a civil union.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The United States policy regarding same-sex immigration denied couples in same-sex relationships the same rights and privileges afforded different-sex couples based on several court decisions and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013.

References

  1. ↑ "c 4 Family Law Act, 1986 - c 4 Family Law Act 1986.pdf". digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca. Osgoode Digital Commons. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
  2. 1 2 R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3.
  3. 1 2 Elliott, R. Douglas. "The Canadian Earthquake: Same-sex Marriage in Canada" (PDF). The New England Law Review. 38 (3): 608, 610. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 4, 2006. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
  4. ↑ "M. v. H., 1999 CanLII 686 (S.C.C.), complete text". Supreme Court of Canada. Canadian Legal Information Institute. May 20, 1999. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
  5. ↑ "The M v H debate". CBC News. cbc.ca. October 1999. Archived from the original on February 10, 2007. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
  6. ↑ "Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, complete text". Consolidated Statutes of Ontario. Canadian Legal Information Institute. June 14, 2007. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
  7. ↑ see Art 290 Bigamy and Art 293 Polygamy
  8. ↑ "An outline of Ontario Family Law". Skapinker & Shapiro LLP. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.