M v H

Last updated

M v H
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: March 18, 1998
Judgment: May 20, 1999
Full case nameThe Attorney General for Ontario v. M. and H.
Citations [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 171 D.L.R. (4th) 577; 46 R.F.L. (4th) 32; 238 N.R. 179; AZ-50065792; E.Y.B. 1999-12460; J.E. 99-1064; [1999] S.C.J. No 23 (QL); 121 O.A.C. 1; [1999] A.C.S. no 23; 62 C.R.R. (2d) 1
RulingAppeal and cross-appeal dismissed, remedy modified
Holding
Section 29 of the Family Law Act is declared of no force or effect. The effect of that declaration is temporarily suspended for a period of six months.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie
Reasons given
MajorityCory and Iacobucci JJ., joined by Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin, and Binnie JJ.
ConcurrenceMajor J.
ConcurrenceBastarache J.
DissentGonthier J.

M v H [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of cohabiting same-sex couples to equal treatment under the law. The court found that the definition of spouse in section 29 of Ontario's Family Law Act , which extended spousal support rights to unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex couples but not same-sex couples, was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

Contents

Background

M v H was on the appeal of a case originally brought by a lesbian couple, Joanne Mitchell ("M") and Lorraine McFarland ("H"). The initials belonged to their lawyers.

On May 19, 1999, Justice Gloria Epstein—who was, at that time, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice—ruled that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the definition of common-law spouse under section 29 of the Ontario Family Law Act was in violation of equality rights under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter, which allows only "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The ruling was appealed by Ontario Premier Mike Harris to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which upheld the ruling, and then to the Supreme Court. [1]

Ruling

According to the Supreme Court's ruling,

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. [2]

This ruling did not affect the legal definition of marriage, and applied only to cohabiting partners in a common-law marriage, who have significantly fewer rights than married spouses in some areas, especially relating to division of property upon separation. [3]

As a remedy, the court struck down section 29 altogether rather than read in any necessary changes, but the ruling was suspended for six months to give the province time to change it. The section was subsequently amended by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to include all common-law spouses, whether same-sex or different-sex. [4]

According to R. Douglas Elliott, one of the lawyers in the case, the ruling dealt "a body blow to discrimination" in Canada: "This important decision found that it was constitutionally imperative under the Canadian Charter for laws to provide equal treatment of same-sex common-law couples and opposite-sex common-law couples. . . . [The Supreme Court] called upon the lawmakers of Canada to rectify all Canadian laws, rather than force gays and lesbians to resort to the Courts. [5]

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, is a marriage that results from the parties' agreement to consider themselves married and subsequent cohabitation, rather than through a statutorily defined process. Not all jurisdictions permit common law marriage, but will typically respect the validity of such a marriage lawfully entered in another state or country.

<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. This made the territory the fourth jurisdiction in Canada, and the seventh worldwide, after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Massachusetts, to legalise same-sex marriage. 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 and the fourth worldwide, 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 was 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 was the ninth jurisdiction in Canada to recognise same-sex marriage, and the twelfth worldwide.

<i>Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698, 2004 SCC 79, was a reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage in Canada. The ruling was announced December 2004, following arguments made two months prior.

Israel has granted unregistered cohabitation for same-sex couples since 1994, in the form of common-law marriage, a status that until then was only extended to opposite-sex couples. Following lawsuits, same-sex couples enjoy several spousal benefits (1994–1996) and the right of same-sex partners of civil service employees to survivor benefits (1998).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto</span> Church in Ontario, Canada

The Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto is a congregation of the worldwide Metropolitan Community Church movement located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and is a welcoming congregation openly affirming lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual and transgender people. MCC Toronto was instrumental in changing the law on same sex marriage in Ontario, when two same-sex marriage ceremonies performed at the church on January 14, 2001 initiated the process leading to the Halpern v Canada (AG) decision of 2003.

Same-sex marriages are not performed in Aruba, Curaçao, or Sint Maarten, which are constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The islands were obliged after several court rulings to register any marriage registered in the Kingdom, but this primarily considers residency rights, and they do not have to give same-sex marriages the same legal effect as opposite-sex marriages. Marriage in the European territory of the Netherlands, as well as in the Caribbean municipalities of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, is open to any two people irrespective of sex.

<i>Halpern v Canada (AG)</i> 2003 Canadian court case

Halpern v Canada (AG), [2003] O.J. No. 2268 is a June 10, 2003 decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in which the Court found that the common law definition of marriage, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, violated section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Leshner and Michael Stark</span> Canadian same-sex couple

Michael Leshner and Michael Stark, also known as The Michaels, were the men who in 2003 entered into the first legal same-sex marriage in Canada. They were consequently named the Canadian Newsmakers of the Year by Time magazine.

<i>Family Law Act</i> (Ontario) Ontario, Canada statute

The Family Law Act is a statute passed by the Legislature of Ontario in 1986, regulating the rights of spouses and dependants in regard to property, support, inheritance, prenuptial agreements, separation agreements, and other matters of family law. 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.

Bulgaria does not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. Though these issues have been discussed frequently over the past few years, no law on the matter has passed the National Assembly. In September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ordered the government to establish a legal framework recognizing same-sex unions.

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.

<i>Equality Rights Statute Amendment Act</i> Ontario, Canada statute

The Equality Rights Statute Amendment Act,, commonly known as Bill 167, was a proposed law in the Canadian province of Ontario, introduced by the government of Bob Rae in 1994, which would have provided cohabiting same-sex couples with rights and obligations mostly equal to those of opposite-sex couples in a common-law marriage by amending the definition of "spouse" in 79 provincial statutes. Despite the changes, the bill did not formally confer same-sex marriage rights in the province, as the definition of marriage in Canada is under federal jurisdiction; instead, the bill proposed a status similar to civil unions for same-sex couples, although it was not explicitly labelled as such since the term was not yet in widespread international use.

References

  1. Makin, Kirk (May 21, 1999). "Gay couples win rights". www.fact.on.ca. The Globe and Mail . Retrieved November 23, 2016.
  2. "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.
  3. "An outline of Ontario Family Law". Skapinker & Shapiro LLP. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
  4. "Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, complete text". Consolidated Statutes of Ontario. Canadian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
  5. 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.