A. v. B., (2013) 439 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 18, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 439 N.R. 1 (SCC);2013 SCC 5;[2013] CarswellQue 114;AZ-50929997;21 RFL (7th) 1;EYB 2013-216977;439 NR 1;[2013] EXP 288;[2013] SCJ No 5 (QL);354 DLR (4th) 191;[2013] 1 SCR 61;[2013] ACS no 5;JE 2013-141

A. v. B. (2013), 439 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.R. TBEd. JA.032

Attorney General of Quebec (appellant) v. A. (respondent)

B. (appellant) v. A. (respondent)

A. (appellant) v. B. and Attorney General of Quebec (respondents) and Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Alberta, Fédération des associations de familles monoparentales et recomposées du Québec and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (intervenors)

(33990; 2013 SCC 5; 2013 CSC 5)

Indexed As: A. v. B.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ.

January 25, 2013.

Summary:

The parties met in 1992 when A was 17 years old and B was 32 years old. They ultimately had three children, but never married because B did not believe in marriage. The parties separated in 2002, after living together for seven years. A filed a motion seeking custody of the children, support, a lump sum, use of the family residence, costs and an interim order. The motion was accompanied by a notice to the Attorney General of Quebec stating that A intended to challenge the constitutionality of several provisions of the Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64 (CCQ) in order to obtain the same legal regime for de facto spouses that existed for married spouses. The constitutionality of the provisions relating to child custody and the child support obligation were not challenged.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2009] R.J.Q. 2070, ruled on the constitutional issues. The court found that the impugned provisions did not violate the right to equality guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and denied A's requests for a declaration of constitutional invalidity. A appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at [2010] R.J.Q. 2259, held that the exclusion of de facto spouses from art. 585 of the CCQ (support provision) was discriminatory under s. 15(1) of the Charter, and not justified under s. 1. The court declared that art. 585 was invalid, but suspended the declaration for 12 months without any exemption for A. Beauregard, J.A., dissenting, held that the infringement could be justified under s. 1. A and B appealed. The Chief Justice also stated constitutional questions. At issue was whether the exclusion of de facto spouses from the scope of certain provisions of the CCQ was discriminatory within the meaning of s. 15(1) of the Charter and, if yes, was the discrimination justified under s. 1. The impugned provisions dealt with the family residence (arts. 401 et seq.), family patrimony (arts. 414 et seq.), compensatory allowance (arts. 427 et seq.), partnership of acquests (arts. 432 et seq.) and obligation of spousal support (art. 585).

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed B and the Attorney General's appeals and dismissed A's appeal. LeBel, J. (Fish, Rothstein and Moldaver, JJ., concurring), held that the exclusion was not discriminatory within the meaning of s. 15(1) of the Charter, and accordingly did not violate the equality right guaranteed by s. 15. Therefore, a s. 1 analysis was unnecessary. Abella, J., dissenting in the result, held that the total exclusion of de facto spouses from the legal protections for both support and property given to spouses in formal unions violated s. 15(1) and was not justified under s. 1. Deschamps, J., dissenting in part in the result (Cromwell and Karakatsanis, JJ., concurring), agreed with Abella, J.'s analysis respecting s. 15(1); however, Deschamps, J., concluded that only the exclusion from support was not justified under s. 1. McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring in the result, agreed with Abella, J., that the impugned provisions violated s. 15; however, McLachlin, C.J.C., held that they were saved by s. 1.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 925

Discrimination - Marital status - Common law or de facto relationships - The parties met in 1992 when A was 17 years old and B was 32 years old - They ultimately had three children, but never married because B did not believe in marriage - The parties separated in 2002, after living together for seven years - A filed a motion seeking custody of the children, support, a lump sum, use of the family residence, costs and an interim order - She also gave notice of her intention to challenge the constitutionality of several provisions of the Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64 (CCQ) in order to obtain the same legal regime for de facto spouses that existed for married spouses - The constitutionality of the provisions relating to child custody and the child support obligation were not challenged - The trial judge ruled that the impugned provisions did not violate the equality right guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and denied A's requests for a declaration of constitutional invalidity - A appealed - The Quebec Court of Appeal held that the exclusion of de facto spouses from art. 585 of the CCQ (support provision) was discriminatory under s. 15(1) of the Charter, and not justified under s. 1 - The court declared that art. 585 was invalid, but suspended the declaration for 12 months without any exemption for A - A and B appealed - The Chief Justice also stated constitutional questions - At issue was whether the exclusion of de facto spouses from the scope of certain provisions of the CCQ was discriminatory within the meaning of s. 15(1) of the Charter and, if yes, was the discrimination justified under s. 1 - The impugned provisions dealt with the family residence (arts. 401 et seq.), family patrimony (arts. 414 et seq.), compensatory allowance (arts. 427 et seq.), partnership of acquests (arts. 432 et seq.) and obligation of spousal support (art. 585) - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed B and the Attorney General's appeals and dismissed A's appeal - LeBel, J. (Fish, Rothstein and Moldaver, JJ., concurring), held that the exclusion was not discriminatory within the meaning of s. 15(1), and accordingly did not violate the equality right guaranteed by s. 15 - Therefore, a s. 1 analysis was unnecessary - Abella, J., dissenting in the result, held that the total exclusion of de facto spouses from the legal protections for both support and property given to spouses in formal unions violated s. 15(1) and was not justified under s. 1 - Deschamps, J., dissenting in part in the result (Cromwell and Karakatsanis, JJ., concurring), agreed with Abella, J.'s analysis respecting s. 15(1); however, Deschamps, J., concluded that only the exclusion from support was not justified under s. 1 - McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring in the result, agreed with Abella, J., that the impugned provisions violated s. 15; however, McLachlin, C.J.C., held that they were saved by s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 5666.2

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Spousal support legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5679.10

Equality and protection of the law - Matrimonial regimes and marital property legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8486

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular subjects - Equality provision (s. 15) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Family Law - Topic 1004

Common law, same-sex or adult interdependent relationships - Family home - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Family Law - Topic 1005

Common law or same-sex relationships - Personal property - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Family Law - Topic 1007

Common law, same-sex or adult interdependent relationships - Application of marital relations legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Family Law - Topic 1008

Common law, same-sex or adult interdependent relationships - Monetary awards - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Family Law - Topic 1013

Common law or same-sex relationships - Maintenance - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 2182

Marriage - Family patrimony - What constitutes (incl. general principles) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 2302

Matrimonial regimes - General principles - Constitutionality of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 2341

Matrimonial regimes - Partnership of acquests - General principles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 6489

Divorce - Financial settlements - Compensatory allowances - When available - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 6494

Divorce - Support obligation - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Quebec Family - Topic 6743

Support obligation - Entitlement - De facto spouses - [See Civil Rights - Topic 925 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kapp (J.M.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483; 376 N.R. 1; 256 B.C.A.C. 75; 431 W.A.C. 75; 2008 SCC 41, appld. [para. 14].

Walsh v. Bona, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325; 297 N.R. 203; 210 N.S.R.(2d) 273; 659 A.P.R. 273; 2002 SCC 83, appld. [para. 17], not folld. [para. 289].

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh - see Walsh v. Bona.

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 24].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, dist. [para. 25].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 27].

M.T. v. J.-Y.T., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 781; 380 N.R. 1; 2008 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 71].

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211, refd to. [paras. 80, 298].

G.B. v. C.C., [2001] R.J.Q. 1435, refd. to. [para. 90].

Couture v. Gagnon, [2001] R.J.Q. 2047 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2002] 3 S.C.R. vii; 301 N.R. 398, refd to. [para. 115].

Ponton v. Dubé, 2005 QCCA 413, refd to. [para. 115].

Bourbonnais v. Pratt, [2007] R.D.F. 124; 2006 QCCS 5611, refd to. [para. 115].

M.B. v. L.L., [2003] R.D.F. 539, refd to. [para. 115].

Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980; 150 N.R. 1; 23 B.C.A.C. 81; 39 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 117].

Lauréat Giguère Inc. v. Cie Immobilière Viger Ltée, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 67; 10 N.R. 277, refd to. [para. 117].

Benzina v. Le, 2008 QCCA 803, refd to. [para. 119].

Barrette v. Falardeau, 2010 QCCA 989, refd to. [para. 119].

C.L. v. J.Le., 2010 QCCA 2370, refd to. [para. 120].

Droit de la famille - 121120, Re, 2012 QCCA 909, refd to. [para. 120].

Lacroix v. Valois, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1259; 119 N.R. 64; 36 Q.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 120].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, appld. [para. 319]; consd. [para. 135].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 138].

Gosselin v. Québec (Procureur général), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429; 298 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 84, refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 139].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 139].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 139].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 140].

Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357; 326 N.R. 201; 2004 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 141].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 143].

Corbière et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 144, 335].

Thibaudeau v. Minister of National Revenue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 148].

Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 396; 412 N.R. 149; 300 B.C.A.C. 120; 509 W.A.C. 120; 2011 SCC 12, appld. [para. 160].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 164].

Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony et al. v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 171].

Ermineskin Indian Band and Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 222; 384 N.R. 203; 2009 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 172].

Director of Child and Family Services (Man.) v. A.C. et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181; 390 N.R. 1; 240 Man.R.(2d) 177; 456 W.A.C. 177; 2009 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 173].

Peavine Métis Settlement et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 670; 418 N.R. 100; 505 A.R. 1; 522 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 177].

Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v. Cunningham - see Peavine Métis Settlement et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) et al.

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, refd to. [para. 183].

Lavoie et al. v. Canada et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 769; 284 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 189].

D.W.T. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 835; 304 N.R. 201; 183 B.C.A.C. 1; 301 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 189].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 199].

R. v. Williams (V.D.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128; 226 N.R. 162; 107 B.C.A.C. 1; 174 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 237].

R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236; 2001 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 237].

R. v. Spence (S.A.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 458; 342 N.R. 126; 206 O.A.C. 150; 2005 SCC 71, refd to. [para. 238].

Québec (procureure général) v. B.T., [2005] R.D.F. 709 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 294].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 298].

M.E.M. v. P.L., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 183; 132 N.R. 266; 44 Q.A.C. 178, refd to. [para. 306].

Droit de la famille - 977, Re, [1991] R.J.Q. 904 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 306].

Rathwell v. Rathwell, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436; 19 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 310].

Murdoch v. Murdoch, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 423, refd to. [para. 310].

Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384, refd to. [para. 314].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 319].

Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 319].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) - see Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), 401 U.S. 424, refd to. [para. 332].

Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 336].

Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 354].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301, refd to. [para. 355].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 360].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 361].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 361].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 361].

R. v. Videoflicks et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 439].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks et al.

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 439].

R. v. Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 209; 276 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 440].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 15 [para. 31].

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, arts. 401-430, 432, 433, 448-585 [para. 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bala, Nicholas, Controversy Over Couples in Canada: The Evolution of Marriage and Other Adult Interdependent Relationships (2003), 29 Queen's L.J. 41, p. 53 [para. 373].

Baudouin, Jean-Louis and Jobin, Pierre-Gabriel, with Vézinal Nathalie, Les obligations (6th Ed. 2005), para. 566 [para. 118].

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, Examen critique de la situation juridique de l'enfant naturel (1966), 12 McGill L.J. 157, pp. 157, 158 [para. 102].

Bredt, Christopher D. and Dodek, Adam M., Breaking the Law's Grip on Equality: A New Paradigm for Section 15 (2003), 20 S.C.L.R.(2d) 33, p. 56 [para. 146].

British Columbia Law Institute, Report on Recognition of Spousal and Family Status (1998), p. 7 [para. 351].

British Columbia, Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law, Family Maintenance (1975), p. 7 [para. 296].

Brodsky, Gwen, Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General): Autonomy with a Vengeance (2003), 15 C.J.W.L. 194, p. 212 [para. 205].

Burman, Danielle, Politiques législatives québécoises dans l'aménagement des rapports pécuniaires entre époux: d'une justice bien pensée à un semblant de justice - un juste sujet de s'alarmer (1988), 22 R.J.T 149, pp. 151 [paras. 57, 151]; 152, 155 [para. 57].

Cameron, B. Jamie, A Work in Progress: The Supreme Court and the Charter's Equation of Rights and Limits in McAllister, Debra M. and Dodek, Adam M., The Charter at Twenty: Law and Practice 2002 (2002) 31, p. 34 [para. 146].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Maintenance on Divorce (1975), p. 17 [paras. 296, 297].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Studies on Family Property Law (1975), p. 61 [para. 307].

Caparros, Ernest, Les régimes matrimoniaux au Québec (3rd Ed. 1988), p. 97 [paras. 64, 66, 97].

Comtois, Roger, Traité théorique et pratique de la communauté de biens (1964), p. 195 [para. 65].

Cossette, André, Le concubinage au Québec (1985), 88 R. du N. 42, pp. 45 [para. 100]; 53 [paras. 100, 246].

D.-Castelli, Mireille and Goubau, Dominique, Le droit de la famille au Québec, (5th Ed. 2005), generally [para. 266], pp. 98 [para. 85]; 99 [para. 85, 86]; 173 [para. 122].

Deleury, Edith and Cano, Marlène, Le concubinage au Québec et dans l'ensemble du Canada: Deux systèmes juridiques, deux approches, in Rubellin-Devichi, Jacqueline, Des concubinages dans le monde (1990), p. 88 [para. 100].

Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously (1977), pp. 272, 273 [para. 136].

Faribault, Léon, Traité de droit civil du Québec (1952), vol. 10, pp. 44, 45 [para. 65].

Goubau, Dominique, Otis, Ghislain and Robitaille, David, La spécificité patrimoniale de l'union de fait: le libre choix et ses 'dommages collatéraux' (2003), 44 C. de D. 3, p. 13 [para. 104].

Greschner, Donna, The Purpose of Canadian Equality Rights (2002), 6 Rev. Const. Stud. 291, generally [para. 164].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (Supp.), vol. 2, pp. 38-39 [para. 440]; 55-26 [para. 146].

Holland, W.H., Marriage and Cohabitation - Has the Time Come to Bridge the Gap?, in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada 1993 - Family Law: Roles, Fairness and Equality (1994), p. 380 [para. 375].

Holland, Winifred, Intimate Relationships in the New Millennium: The Assimilation of Marriage and Cohabitation? (2000), 17 Can. J. Fam. L. 114, p. 128 [para. 280].

Jarry, Jocelyne, Les conjoints de fait au Québec: vers un encadrement légal (2008), pp. 87 [para. 60]; 134 [para. 115].

Koshan, Jennifer and Hamilton, Jonnette, Watson, Meaningless Mantra: Substantive Equality after Withler (2011), 16 Rev. Const. Stud. 31, pp. 48 to 51 [para. 170].

Lafond, Pierre-Claude and Lefebvre, Brigitte, L'union civile: nouveaux modèles de conjugalité et de parentalité au 21 e siècle, 101, pp. 111 [para. 79]; 127 [para. 100]; 133, 134 [para. 114].

Lafond, Pierre-Claude and Lefebvre, Brigitte, L'union civile: nouveaux modèles de conjugalité et de parentalité au 21 e siècle (2003), pp. 11 [para. 53]; 12 [para. 58]; 184 [para. 62]; 17 [para. 77]; 18 [para. 106]; 111 [para. 79]; 156 [para. 266].

Lafond, Pierre-Claude and Lefebvre, Brigitte, L'union civile: nouveaux modèles de conjugalité et de parentalité au 21 e siècle, pp. 183, arts. 432, 461, 467 [para. 91]; 184 [para. 62].

Langevin, Louise, Liberté de choix et protection juridique des conjoints de fait en cas de rupture: difficile exercice de jonglerie (2009), 54 McGill L.J. 697, p. 714 [para. 77].

Leckey, Robert, Chosen Discrimination (2002), 18 S.C.L.R.(2d) 445, p. 458 [para. 444].

Manitoba, Law Reform Commission, Reports on Family Law, Part 1, The Support Obligation (1976), p. 19 [para. 296].

Massé, Sylvie, Les régimes matrimoniaux au Canada - Analyse comparative des législations provinciales (1985), 88 R. du N. 103, p. 148 [para. 62].

McAllister, Debra M. and Dodek, Adam M., The Charter at Twenty: Law and Practice 2002 (2002) 31, p. 34 [para. 146].

McIntyre, Sheila, and Rodgers, Sanda, Diminishing Returns; Inequality and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2006), p. 59 [para. 205].

McIntyre, Sheila, and Rodgers, Sanda, Diminishing Returns: Inequality and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2006), p. 104 [para. 333].

McIntyre, Sheila, Deference and Dominance: Equality Without Substance in McIntyre, Sheila, and Rodgers, Sanda, Diminishing Returns: Inequality and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2006), p. 104 [para. 333].

Mignault, Pierre-Basile, Le droit civil canadien (1902), vol. 6, pp. 128, 129 [para. 65].

Moore, BenoÎt, Culture et droit de la famille: de l'institution à l'autonomie individuelle (2009), 54 McGill L.J. 257, pp. 266 [para. 102]; 267 [para. 103]; 268 [paras. 79, 436].

Moreau, Sophia, R. v. Kapp: New Directions for Section 15 (2008-2009), 40 Ottawa L. Rev. 283, pp. 286, 291 [para. 170]; 292 [paras. 170, 326].

Moreau, Sophia, The Promise of Law v. Canada (2007), 57 U.T.L.J. 415, p. 426 [para. 180].

Moreau, Sophia R., The Wongs of Unequal Treatment (2004), 54 U.T.L.J. 291, p. 293 [para. 179]; 298 [para. 201].

Nova Scotia, Final Report: Reform of the Law Dealing with Matrimonial Property in Nova Scotia (1997), p. 21 [para. 351].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Rights and Responsibilities of Cohabitants under the Family Law Act (1993), p. 1 [para. 313].

Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Family Law Reform (1976), pp. 1 [para. 296]; 18 [para. 350].

Pineau, Jean and Burman, Danielle, Effets du mariage et régimes matrimoniaux (1984), p. 123 [para. 55].

Pineau, Jean and Pratte, Marie, La famille (2006), pp. 132 [paras. 85, 86, 88]; 133 [paras. 86, 88, 294]; 156, 157 [para. 86]; 782 [para. 294].

Proulx, Daniel, Le concept de dignité et son usage en contexte de discrimination: deux Chartes, deux modèles, [2003] R. du B. 485, generally [para. 164].

Québec, Journal des débates, No. 22, 1st Sess., 34th Leg. (November 19, 1991), p. SCI-859 [para. 109].

Québec, Journal des débates, vol. 23, No. 15, 6th Sess., 31st Leg. (December 4, 1980), pp. 608, 663 [para. 108].

Québec, Journal des débates, vol. 30, No. 125, 2nd Sess., 33rd Leg. (June 8, 1989), pp. 6487 [paras. 109, 436], 6489 [para. 308]; 6497 [para. 308].

Québec, Journal des débates, vol. 37, No. 46, 2nd Sess. 36th Leg. (February 12, 2002), pp. 4, 5 [para. 109].

Québec, Journal des débates, vol. 37, No. 96, 2nd Sess., 36th Leg. (May 7, 2002), p. 5816 [para. 110].

Québec, Journal des débates, No. 197, 2nd Sess., 35th Leg. (June 18, 1998), pp. 12069, 12070 [para. 109].

Québec, Mémoire du Conseil du statut de la femme présenté lors de la consultation générale sur les droits économiques des conjoints (1988), p. 40 [para. 107].

Québec, Mémoire présenté à la Commission parlementaire sur la réforme du droit de la famille (1979), pp. 23, 24 [para. 107].

Québec, Report on Matrimonial Regimes (1968), pp. 6 [para. 306]; 9 [para. 68].

Québec, Report on the Québec Civil Code, vol. II - Commentaries, t. 1 (1978), pp. 113 [para. 106, 352], 206 [para. 106].

Réaume, Denise G., Discrimination and Dignity (2003), 63 La. L. Rev. 645, pp. 652, 653 [para. 146]; 679, 680 [paras. 195, 244]; 681, 682 [para. 202]; 686 [para. 198]; 687 [para. 182].

Rodgers, Sanda, and McIntyre, Sheila, The Supreme Court of Canada and Social Justice: Commitment, Retrenchment or Retreat (2010), pp. 190, 191, 196 [para. 342]; 204 to 209 [para. 205].

Roy, Alain, La charte de vie commune ou l'émergence d'une pratique réflexive du contrat conjugal (2007), 41 R.J.T. 399, generally [para. 114].

Roy, Alain, Le contrat de mariage en droit québécois: un destin marqué du sceau du paradoxe (2006), 51 McGill L.J. 665, p. 668 [para. 67].

Roy, Alain, Le contrat de mariage réinventé: Perspectives socio-juridiques pour une réforme (2002), pp. 58 to 62 [para. 55]; 63, 64 [para. 67]; 99, 100 [para. 65]; 125 [para. 66].

Roy, Alain, Le régime juridique de l'union civile: entre symbolisme et anachronisme, in Lafond, Pierre-Claude and Lefebvre, Brigitte, L'union civile: nouveaux modèles de conjugalité et de parentalité au 21 e siècle, pp. 170 [para. 305]; 183, arts. 432, 461, 467 [para. 91]; 184 [para. 62].

Rubellin-Devichi, Jacqueline, Des concubinages dans le monde (1990), p. 88 [para. 100].

Ryder, Bruse, Faria, Cidalia C. and Lawrence, Emily, What's Law Good For? An Empirical Oveerview of Charter Equality Rights Decisions (2004), 24 S.C.L.R.(2d) 103, pp. 120 to 125 [para. 206].

Saskatchewan, Common Law Relationships Under the Matrimonial Property Act, (1997), http://www.lawreformcommission.sk.ca/Commonlaw.pdf, p. 112 [para. 352].

Senécal, Jean-Pierre, Droit de la famille québécois, (Loose-leaf), vol. 1, paras. 11-615 [para. 85]; 11-625 [para. 86].

Senécal, Jean-Pierre, Droit de la famille québécois, vol. 2, paras. 65-770 [para. 88]; 65-815 [para. 98].

Sylvestre, Jean, Les accords entre concubins, [1981] C.P. du N. 195, paras. 1 to 3 [para. 101]; 8 [para. 103].

Tarnopolsky, Walter Surma, Discrimination and The Law in Canada (1982), p. 86 [para. 326].

Tétrault, Michel, Droit de la famille (4th. Ed. 2010), vol. 1, pp. 134, 135 [para. 85]; 562 [paras. 57, 59]; 571 [para. 94]; 587 [para. 98]; 839 to 849 [para. 100]; 870, 871 [para. 114]; 908 [para. 79].

Tétrault, Michel, L'union civile: j'me marie, j'me marie pas, in Lafond, Pierre-Claude and Lefebvre, Brigitte, L'union civile: nouveaux modèles de conjugalité et de parentalité au 21 e siècle, 101, pp. 111 [para. 79]; 127 [para. 100]; 133, 134 [para. 114].

Tremblay, Luc B., Promoting Equality and Combating Discrimination Through Affirmative Action: The Same Challenge? Questioning the Canadian Substantive Equality Paradigm (2012), 60 Am. J. Comp. J. 181, pp. 185 [para. 146]; 188 [para. 170]; 189 to 192 [para. 179].

Young, Margot, Blissed Out: Section 15 at Twenty, in McIntyre, Sheila and Rodgers, Sanda, Diminishing Returns; Inequality and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2006), p. 59 [para. 205].

Young, Margot, Unequal to the Task: Kapp'ing the Substantive Potential of Section 15, in Rodgers, Sanda, and McIntyre, Sheila, The Supreme Court of Canada and Social Justice: Commitment, Retrenchment or Retreat (2010), pp. 190, 191, 196 [para. 342]; 204 to 209 [para. 205].

Counsel:

Benoît Belleau and Hugo Jean, for the appellant/respondent, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Guy J. Pratte and Mark Phillips, for the appellant/respondent, A.;

Pierre Bienvenu, Suzanne H. Pringle, Catherine Martel and Azim Hussain, for the appellant/respondent, B.;

Gaétan Migneault, for the intervener, the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Robert J. Normey, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Alberta;

Jocelyn Verdon, Dominique Goubau and Mireille Pélissier-Simard, for the intervener, Fédération des associations de familles monoparentales et recomposées du Québec;

Martha McCarthy and Johanne Elizabeth O'Hanlon, for the intervener, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund.

Solicitors of Record:

Bernard, Roy & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant/respondent, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Borden Ladner Gervais, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant/respondent, A.;

Norton Rose Canada, Montreal, Quebec; Suzanne H. Pringle, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant/respondent, B.;

Attorney General of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervener, the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Alberta;

Garneau, Verdon, Michaud, Samson, Quebec, Quebec, for the intervener, Fédération des associations de familles monoparentales et recomposées du Québec;

Martha McCarthy & Company, Toronto, Ontario; O'Hanlon, Sanders, Teixeira, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund.

This appeal was heard on January 18, 2012, by McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The court delivered the following reasons for judgment in both official languages on January 25, 2013, which included the following opinions:

LeBel, J. (Fish, Rothstein and Moldaver, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 282;

Abella, J., dissenting in the result - see paragraphs 283 to 381;

Deschamps, J., dissenting in part in the result (Cromwell and Karakatsanis, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 382 to 409;

McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring in the result - see paragraphs 410 to 450.