Halpern et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2002) 163 O.A.C. 276 (DC)

• Judge: Smith, A.C.J.S.C., Blair, R.S.J., and LaForme, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: July 12, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2002), 163 O.A.C. 276 (DC)

Halpern v. Can. (A.G.) (2002), 163 O.A.C. 276 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.034

Halpern et al. (applicants) v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (respondents)

(Court File No. 684/00)

Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto (applicant) v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (respondents)

(Court File No. 39/2001)

Indexed As: Halpern et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Smith, A.C.J.S.C., Blair, R.S.J., and LaForme, J.

July 12, 2002.

Summary:

These proceedings involved two applications. The first was by eight same sex couples who applied for civil marriage licences from the Clerk of the City of Toronto. The clerk neither granted nor did she expressly refuse to issue the licenses, but instead indicated that the applications would be "held in abeyance" while directions from the court were sought. These couples commenced judicial review proceedings (the first application). Approximately six months later, a lesbian couple and a gay couple were married in the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, following the publication of banns of marriage, but the Registrar General of Ontario would not register the marriages. The church commenced a second judicial review application. Essentially, the orders sought in both applications would require the Clerk of the City of Toronto to grant marriage licences to gay, lesbian and bi-sexual couples and the Registrar General of Ontario to register such marriages solemnized in a church under publication of banns of marriage. In particular, the couples and the church argued that the common law rule that defined marriage as being the union of "one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" was contrary to the Charter.

The Ontario Divisional Court held: (a) that there was no statutory impediment to the issuance of marriage licences to same-sex couples who otherwise met the requisite criteria, or to the registration of their church marriages pursuant to the publication of banns of marriage; (b) that there was a common law rule - as the common law presently stood - which was an impediment to same-sex marriages; (c) that the existing common law rule offended the equality rights of gays and lesbians on the basis of sex and sexual orientation contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter; (d) that the infringement of s. 15(1) could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter, to the extent that such an analysis might be necessary when dealing with a common law provision; (e) that the existing common law rule did not infringe s. 2(a), s. 2(b) or s. 7 of the Charter; and (f) that the argument to the effect that any change in the word "marriage", as found in the division of powers in s. 91 and s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, required a constitutional amendment, could not succeed.

With respect to the appropriate remedy, Laforme, J., held that the court should reformulate the common law rule to be "the lawful and voluntary union of two persons to the exclusion of all others". Blair, R.S.J., held that the appropriate remedy was to strike down the common law definition of marriage but afford Parliament and the provincial Legislature an opportunity to resolve the problem before the declaration of invalidity became effective. Should Parliament and the provincial Legislature decline to act within 24 months, Blair R.S.J. would reformulate the common law rule in the same terms as LaForme J. Smith, A.C.J.S.C., opined that she would not attempt to reformulate the common law definition of marriage at this time. Rather, she declared the common law definition of marriage to be constitutionally invalid and inoperative but suspended the declaration for 24 months to enable Parliament or the provincial Legislature to create its own remedial provisions consistent with the Charter. Smith, A.C.J.S.C., stated that she would not declare the common law definition of marriage to be reformulated in the event that Parliament or the provincial Legislature did not act prior to the expiration of 24 months.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - Eight same sex couples applied for civil marriage licenses - The Clerk of the City of Toronto indicated that the applications would be "held in abeyance" pending court directions - The couples commenced judicial review proceedings (the first application) - Approximately six months later, the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto married a lesbian couple and a gay couple following the publication of banns of marriage, but the Registrar General of Ontario would not register the marriages - The church commenced a judicial review application (the second application) - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the standard of "correctness" must be applied to the interpretations of the Marriage Act and the Vital Statistics Act by the City Clerk and the Registrar General - See paragraphs 187 to 192.

Civil Rights - Topic 397

Freedom of conscience and religion - Infringement of - Marriage restrictions (incl. same-sex marriages) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 953

Discrimination - Sexual orientation - Homosexuals (incl. same-sex couples) - The Ontario Divisional Court held: (a) that there was no statutory impediment to the issuance of marriage licences to same-sex couples or to the registration of their church marriages pursuant to the publication of banns of marriage; (b) that there was a common law rule that defined marriage as the union of "one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" which was an impediment to same-sex marriages; (c) that this common law rule offended the equality rights of gays and lesbians on the basis of sex and sexual orientation contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter; (d) that the infringement of s. 15(1) could not be justified by a s. 1 analysis under the Charter, to the extent that such an analysis might be necessary when dealing with a common law provision; (e) that the existing common law rule did not infringe s. 2(a), s. 2(b) or s. 7 Charter; and (f) that the argument to the effect that any change in the word "marriage", as found in the division of powers in s. 91 and s. 92 of the Constitution Act 1867, required a constitutional amendment, could not succeed.

Civil Rights - Topic 953

Discrimination - Sexual orientation - Homosexuals (incl. same-sex couples) - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the common law rule that defined marriage as being the union of "one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" was contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - With respect to the appropriate remedy, Laforme, J., held that the court should reformulate the common law rule to be "the lawful and voluntary union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" - Blair, R.S.J., held that the appropriate remedy was to strike down the common law definition of marriage but afford Parliament and the provincial Legislature an opportunity to resolve the problem before the declaration of invalidity became effective - Should Parliament and the provincial Legislature decline to act within 24 months, Blair R.S.J. would reformulate the common law rule in the same terms as suggested by LaForme J. - Smith, A.C.J.S.C., opined that she would not attempt to reformulate the common law definition of marriage at this time - Rather she declared the definition of marriage to be constitutionally invalid and inoperative, but suspended the declaration for 24 months to enable Parliament or the provincial Legislature to create its own remedial provisions consistent with the Charter - Smith, A.C.J.S.C., stated that she would not declare the common law definition of marriage to be reformulated in the event that Parliament or the provincial Legislature did not act prior to the expiration of 24 months - See paragraphs 3 to 20, 111 to 148 and 435 to 477.

Civil Rights - Topic 1068

Discrimination - By sex - Homosexuals (incl. same-sex couples) - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1842.6

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Marriage restrictions (incl. same-sex marriages) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8306.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Common law - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading in - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.18

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading down - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Common Law - Topic 3224

Variation - Judicial variation - To meet changing circumstances - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Courts - Topic 7503

Provincial courts - Ontario - Divisional Court - Jurisdiction - Respecting judicial review - General - Eight same sex couples applied for civil marriage licenses - The Clerk of the City of Toronto indicated that the applications would be "held in abeyance" pending court directions - The couples commenced judicial review proceedings (the first application) - Approximately six months later, the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto married a lesbian couple and a gay couple following the publication of banns of marriage, but the Registrar General of Ontario would not register the marriages - The church commenced a judicial review application (the second application) - Lang, J., of the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the applications could be heard at the same time and by the Divisional Court - The Ontario Divisional Court affirmed these rulings - The Divisional Court's authority to hear the first application was found in s. 8 of the Marriage Act - The authority to hear the second application was found under ss. 2(1) and 6(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act - See paragraphs 179 to 186.

Family Law - Topic 240

Marriage - Formalities - Licences and registration (incl. publication of banns) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9102 , both Civil Rights - Topic 953 and Courts - Topic 7503 ].

Family Law - Topic 1000

Common law or same-sex relationships - General - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9102 , both Civil Rights - Topic 953 and Courts - Topic 7503 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee (1866), L.R. 1 P.D. 130 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 3, 42, 224, footnote 40].

Layland v. Ontario (Minister of Consumer & Commercial Relations) (1993), 14 O.R.(3d) 658 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 3, 42, 225, footnote 41].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [paras. 7, 285, footnote 74].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 481; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294; 50 C.C.L.T. 101, refd to. [paras. 8, 120, 446, footnote 148].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [paras. 9, 121, 446, footnote 148].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [paras. 11, 124, 373, footnote 120].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [paras. 12, 57, 222, footnote 38].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 56, 334, footnote 103].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 693; 13 R.F.L.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 91, 312, footnote 91].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [paras. 93, 299, footnote 86].

R. v. Swain , [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 5 C.R.(4th) 253, refd to. [paras. 106, 308, footnote 89].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 34 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 106].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [paras. 106, 309, footnote 90].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [paras. 108, 398, footnotes 19, 129].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [paras. 120, 446, footnote 148].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,036; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 126].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 130].

Corbière et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 130, 445, footnote 147].

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; 24 C.R.(4th) 281, refd to. [para. 142].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 289; 79 C.R.(3d) 332; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 142].

Halpern et al. v. Wong et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 300; 51 O.R.(3d) 742 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 174, footnote 29].

Halpern et al. v. Wong et al., [2000] O.T.C. 541 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 179, footnote 31].

Halpern v. Toronto (City) Clerk - see Halpern et al. v. Wong et al.

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 188, footnote 35].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 188, footnote 35].

North et al. and Matheson, Re (1974), 52 D.L.R.(3d) 280 (Man. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 232, footnote 47].

EGALE Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 1365 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 237, footnote 53].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 271, footnote 65].

Reference Re Alberta Bill of Rights Act, [1946] 3 W.W.R. 772 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 274, footnote 68].

Eskimo Reference, Re, [1939] S.C.R. 104, refd to. [para. 281, footnote 73].

Ellett's Estate v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 466; 32 N.R. 326, refd to. [para. 287, footnote 75].

Corbett v. Corbett (No. 2), [1970] 2 All E.R. 33 (P.D. and A. Div.), refd to. [para. 294, footnote 82].

Prager v. Blatspiel, Stamp and Heacock Ltd., [1924] 1 K.B. 566, refd to. [para. 303, footnote 87].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 334, footnote 103].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 69 C.R.(3d) 97; 39 C.R.R. 306, refd to. [para. 339, footnote 104].

Vancouver Society of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women v. Minister of National Revenue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 10; 234 N.R. 249, refd to. [para. 352, footnote 107].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 359, footnote 113].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Moore et al., [1998] 4 F.C. 585; 160 F.T.R. 233 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 360, footnote 115].

Loving v. Virginia (1967), 388 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 367, footnote 119].

Adler et al. v. Ontario et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609; 204 N.R. 81; 95 O.A.C. 1; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 384, footnote 124].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 16 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 386, footnote 125].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 391, footnote 127].

Thomson Newspapers Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 398, footnote 130].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 399, footnote 131].

Baxter v. Baxter, [1948] A.C. 274 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 409, footnote 136].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 411, footnote 137].

Rosenberg et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1998), 108 O.A.C. 335; 38 O.R.(3d) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 412, footnote 139].

R. v. Robinson (D.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683; 194 N.R. 181; 72 B.C.A.C. 161; 119 W.A.C. 161; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 46 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 423, footnote 143].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241; 82 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 445, footnote 147].

Baker v. Vermont, [1999] 744 A.2d 864 (Vt.), refd to. [para. 449, footnote 150].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 2(a) [paras. 2, 41, 381]; sect. 2(b) [paras. 2, 41, 386]; sect. 15(1) [para. 1 et seq.].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 307].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(26), sect. 92(12) [paras. 2, 41, 257].

Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, S.C. 2000, c. 12, sect. 1.1 [paras. 47, 140, 264].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Department of Justice, Guide Document to Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act (S.C. 2000), Backgrounder: Modernization of Benefits and Obligations (February 11, 2000), generally [para. 264, footnote 64].

Canada, Hansard, Parliamentary Motion, House of Commons Debates (June 8, 1999), Vol. 135, 1st Sess., 36th Parliament, pp. 15960 to 15993, 16034, 16035, 16036, 16068, 16069 [para. 140].

Canada, Law Commission of Canada, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Relationships Between Adults, Discussion Paper (May 2000), generally [para. 152].

Crépeau, P., and Brierley, J., Code civil, 1866-1980: An Historical and Critical Edition/Code civil, 1866-1980, Edition historique et critique (1981), generally [para. 245, footnote 56].

Eckols, L.S., The Marriage Mirage: The Personal and Social Identity Implications of Same-Sex Matrimony (1995), 5 Mich. J. of Gender and L. 353, p. 354 [para. 357, footnote 11].

Hansard (Can.) - see Canada, Hansard, Parliamentary Motion, House of Commons Debates.

Hansard (Ont.) - see Ontario, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997), generally [para. 280, footnote 72].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997) (Looseleaf Supp.), pp. 15-44, 15-45 [para. 285, footnote 74].

King, Jr., Martin Luther, Letter from Birmingham Jail (April 16, 1963), generally [para. 475, footnote 162].

Krige, Eileen Jensen, Woman-Marriage with special reference to the Lovedu - Its Significance for the Definition of Marriage (1974), 44 Africa 11, para. 38 [para. 66, footnote 10].

MacDougall, B., The Celebration of Same-Sex Marriage (2000), 32:2 Ott. L. Rev. 235, p. 242 [para. 356; footnote 109].

O'Brien, Denise, Female Husbands in Southern Bantu Societies, Sexual Stratification: A Cross-Cultural View 109 (1977), para. 39 [para. 66, footnote 9].

Ontario, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates, Vol. 12, 1st Sess., 37th Parliament, (October 27, 1999) pp. 3923, 3924, [para. 244, footnote 55].

Counsel:

M. McCarthy and J. Radbord, for Halpern et al.;

R.D. Elliot and R.T. Morris, for the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto;

R.J. Levine, Q.C., G. Sinclair and M. Morris, for the Attorney General of Canada;

R.E. Charney and L. Sand, for the Attorney General of Ontario;

L. Mendleson and R. Zuech, for the City of Toronto;

C. Peterson, V. Payne and C. Wiseman, for EGALE Canada Inc.;

D.M. Brown, C. Phillips and C. Silver, for the Association of Marriage and the Family;

P.R. Jervis, J. Buckingham and I.T. Benson, for the Interfaith Coalition.

These applications were heard on November 5 to 9, 2001, before Smith, A.C.J.S.C., Blair, R.S.J., and LaForme, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of the court was released on July 12, 2002, including the following opinions:

Smith, A.C.J.S.C. - see paragraphs 1 to 20;

Blair, R.S.J. - see paragraphs 21 to 168;

LaForme, J. - see paragraphs 169 to 478.