Everything about M V H totally explained
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.
Ruling on the appeal of a case originally brought by a
lesbian couple in
Ontario, the Court held on
May 19,
1999, 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 couldn't 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."
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're 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.
This ruling didn't 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.
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.
According to R. Douglas Elliott, one of the attorneys 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. . . . [TheSupreme Court] called upon the lawmakers of Canada to rectify all Canadian laws, rather than force gays and lesbians to resort to the Courts.
Further Information
Get more info on 'M V H'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://m__v__h.totallyexplained.com">M. v. H. Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
