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.
Appeal 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.
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.
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]
^Makin, Kirk (May 21, 1999). "Gay couples win rights". www.fact.on.ca. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved November 23, 2016.
^"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.
^"An outline of Ontario Family Law". Skapinker & Shapiro LLP. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
^"Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, complete text". Consolidated Statutes of Ontario. Canadian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
^Elliott, R. Douglas. (PDF). The New England Law Review. 38 (3): 608, 610. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 4, 2006. Retrieved July 29, 2007.
Transcript of a discussion on CBC between Brenda Cossman and Ted Morton on the legal implications of the M. v. H. ruling, October 1999
January 01, 1970
1999, landmark, decision, supreme, court, canada, rights, cohabiting, same, couples, equal, treatment, under, court, found, that, definition, spouse, section, ontario, family, which, extended, spousal, support, rights, unmarried, cohabiting, opposite, couples,. 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 M v HSupreme Court of CanadaHearing March 18 1998 Judgment May 20 1999Full 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 1RulingAppeal and cross appeal dismissed remedy modifiedHoldingSection 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 membershipChief Justice Antonio LamerPuisne Justices Claire L Heureux Dube Charles Gonthier Peter Cory Beverley McLachlin Frank Iacobucci John C Major Michel Bastarache Ian BinnieReasons givenMajorityCory and Iacobucci JJ joined by Lamer C J and L Heureux Dube McLachlin and Binnie JJ ConcurrenceMajor J ConcurrenceBastarache J DissentGonthier J Contents 1 Background 2 Ruling 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksBackground editM 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 editAccording 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 editList of Supreme Court of Canada cases Lamer Court Same sex marriage in CanadaReferences edit Makin Kirk May 21 1999 Gay couples win rights www fact on ca The Globe and Mail Retrieved November 23 2016 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 An outline of Ontario Family Law Skapinker amp Shapiro LLP Retrieved July 29 2007 Family Law Act R S O 1990 c F 3 complete text Consolidated Statutes of Ontario Canadian Legal Information Institute Retrieved July 29 2007 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 External links editFull text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII Ontario Court of Appeals decision on Canlii org A spouse is a spouse regardless of gender article from The Globe and Mail 21 May 1999 reprinted at the website of Press for Change Supreme Court ruling redefines family article from CBC News Online 20 May 1999 reprinted at the website of Press for Change Gay couples win rights article from The Globe and Mail 21 May 1999 reprinted at the website of Press for Change Vive le Quebec gai article in English from The Globe and Mail 22 May 1999 reprinted at the website of Press for Change Transcript of a discussion on CBC between Brenda Cossman and Ted Morton on the legal implications of the M v H ruling October 1999 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title M v H amp oldid 1222364476, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
