M. v. H., (1999) 238 N.R. 179 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 18, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 238 N.R. 179 (SCC);171 DLR (4th) 577;[1999] ACS no 23;46 RFL (4th) 32;238 NR 179;[1999] 2 SCR 3;EYB 1999-12460;121 OAC 1;62 CRR (2d) 1;1999 CanLII 686 (SCC);AZ-50065792;JE 99-1064;[1999] SCJ No 23 (QL);43 OR (3d) 254

M. v. H. (1999), 238 N.R. 179 (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: [1999] N.R. TBEd. MY.018

The Attorney General for Ontario (appellant) v. M. (respondent) and H. (respondent) and The Foundation for Equal Families, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the United Church of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Ontario Council of Sihks, the Islamic Society of North America, Focus on the Family and REAL Women of Canada (intervenors)

(25838)

Indexed As: M. v. H.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, and Binnie, JJ.

May 20, 1999.

Summary:

A same-sex couple, M. and H., separated after cohabiting for several years. M. sought support under the Family Law Act (Ont.). M. challenged the constitutional validity of s. 29 of the Family Law Act which defined "spouse" in such a way as to exclude same-sex couples. The definition provided that "spouse" included "either of a man and woman who are not married to each other and have cohabited ...". To have the question dealt with prior to trial, H. brought a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for a determination of the question under rule 21.01. The motion for summary judg­ment was dismissed and the constitutional question was ordered to be determined under rule 21.01. The Attorney General of Ontario subsequently became an intervenor in the matter.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported 27 O.R.(3d) 593, held that s. 29 was contrary to s. 15 of the Charter and not saved by s. 1. As a remedy the court declared that the definition of spouse in s. 29 was of no force or effect to the extent that it excluded same-sex couples, declared that the words "man and woman" be severed from the definition of spouse and that the words "two persons" be read in to the definition of "spouse". In a subsequent decision reported 8 O.T.C. 171, the court awarded M. costs against the Attorney General on a party and party basis. M. was entitled to her costs specific to the summary judgment motion from H. The Attorney General did not have to pay the costs of the unsuccessful de­fendant, H. H. and the Attorney General appealed on the merits and costs.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Finlayson, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 96 O.A.C. 173, dismissed the appeal on the merits and affirmed the remedy granted by the motions judge, subject to the provisio that the remedy be temporarily suspended for one year. The court affirmed the orders respecting costs at trial, but made no order as to costs on appeal. The Attorney General appealed. M. cross-appealed respecting the remedy and costs.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Gonthier, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal. The court varied the remedy, however, and declared that s. 29 should be severed and declared of no force or effect. The remedy was temporarily suspended for a period of six months.

Civil Rights - Topic 953

Discrimination - Sexual orientation - Homosexuals (incl. same-sex couples) - Following a same-sex relationship with H., M. sought support, arguing that the defini­tion of "spouse" in s. 29 of the Fam­ily Law Act, which excluded same-sex couples, was unconstitutional - The defi­ni­tion provided that "spouse" included "either of a man and woman who are not married to each other and have cohabited ..." - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the definition in s. 29 viol­ated s. 15(1) of the Charter and could not be saved under s. 1 -The court declared that s. 29 should be severed and was of no force and effect - The declaration was suspended for six months.

Civil Rights - Topic 5666.2

Equality and protection of the law - Spousal support legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the analytical framework for determining whether a law constitutes a reasonable limit that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 76 to 81.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Confer­ring of rights - Reading in - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "in determin­ing whether the reading in/reading down option is more appropriate than either striking down or severance, the Court must consider how precisely the remedy can be stated, budgetary implications, the effect the remedy would have on the remaining portion of the legislation, the significance or long-standing nature of the remaining portion and the extent to which a remedy would interfere with legislative objectives ... As to the first of these criteria, the remedy of reading in is only available where the court can direct with a sufficient degree of precision what is to be read in to comply with the Constitution. Remedial precision requires that the insertion of a handful of words will, without more, ensure the validity of the legislation and remedy the constitutional wrong" - See paragraph 139.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Confer­ring of rights - Reading in - Following a same-sex relationship with H., M. sought sup­port, arguing that the definition of "spouse" in s. 29 of the Family Law Act, which excluded same-sex couples, was unconsti­tutional - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 29 violated s. 15(1) of the Charter and could not be saved under s. 1 -The court declared that the s. 29 defini­tion of spouse was invalid to the extent that it excluded same-sex couples, severed the words "a man and a woman" from the definition and read in the words "two persons" instead - The Supreme Court of Canada held that this remedy was not suitable because the court was not per­suaded that the reading in would ensure the validity of the legislation - Further, where reading in to one part of a statute will have significant repercussions for a separate and distinct scheme under that Act, it is not safe to assume that the legis­lature would have enacted the statute in its altered form - See paragraphs 136 to 143.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declar­ation of statute invalidity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

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 953 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2507.1

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Reading in - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2507.2

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Declaration of invalidity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - Following a same-sex re­lationship with H., M. sought support, arguing that the definition of "spouse" in s. 29 of the Family Law Act, which excluded same-sex couples, was unconstitutional - The case made its way to the Supreme Court, but M. and H. reached a settlement shortly before the appeal was heard - The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal notwithstanding the settlement - The court noted that it was the Attorney General alone who sought and was granted leave to appeal - Further, even if the appeal was moot, the court should exercise its discre­tion to hear the appeal in order to decide the important issues raised - The social costs of leaving the matter undecided would be significant - The appeal came to court in an adversarial context - The record was complete and all points of view were very well presented - See paragraphs 43, 44.

Family Law - Topic 1013

Common law or same-sex relationships - Maintenance - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Practice - Topic 7029

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitle­ment - Successful party - Exceptions - Novel or important point - Following a same-sex relationship with H., M. chal­lenged the constitutional validity of s. 29 of the Fami­ly Law Act which excluded same-sex support claims - The Ontario Attorney General intervened - The motions judge held that s. 29 violated s. 15 of the Charter and awarded M. party and party costs against the Attorney General - The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision but made no order as to costs on appeal, ruling that because the appeal raised a consti­tutional issue of significant public im­portance, each party and the intervenors should bear their own costs - M. argued that the Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant costs to the successful party - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to inter­fere with the Court of Appeal's ruling absent a clear error - See paragraphs 148, 149.

Practice - Topic 7468

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - En­title­ment - Against the Crown - Following a same-sex relationship with H., M. chal­lenged the constitutional validity of s. 29 of the Family Law Act which excluded same-sex support claims - The Ontario Attorney General intervened - The motions judge held that s. 29 violated s. 15 of the Charter - The decision was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court - The Supreme Court of Canada ordered the Attorney General to pay M. and H.'s costs of the appeal to that court on a solicitor and client basis - The court noted that it was the Attorney Gen­eral who chose to pursue the matter not­withstanding that M. and H. had settled - The proceed­ings were in a large measure an attempt by the Attorney General to obtain judicial clarification of the state of the law - See paragraphs 147 to 150.

Practice - Topic 8601

Costs - Supreme Court of Canada - Gen­eral - [See Practice - Topic 8804 ].

Practice - Topic 8804

Appeals - Duty of appellate court regard­ing discretionary orders - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "costs are a discretionary determination and absent any clear error, this court should be loath to intervene" - See paragraph 149.

Practice - Topic 8858

Appeals - Bar or loss of right of appeal - Moot issues - [See Courts - Topic 2286 ].

Cases Noticed:

Law v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration (1999), 236 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 3, 158, 288].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 15, 214, 303].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [paras. 21, 215, 339].

Thibaudeau v. Minister of National Reve­nue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 21, 248].

Forget v. Québec (Procureur général) and Office de la langue française, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 90; 87 N.R. 37; 17 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 43].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 44].

Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980), 17 R.F.L.(2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 59].

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. [paras. 66, 185, 286].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [paras. 76, 321].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attor­ney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 76, 331].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­é­ral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [paras. 78, 295].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 78, 295].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 78].

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. [paras. 80, 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. [paras. 96, 200, 352].

Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384, refd to. [paras. 119, 305].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 126, 222, 313].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 131].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 133].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 137].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1947] A.C. 503, refd to. [para. 144].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 150].

Reference re Authority to Perform Func­tions Vested by the Adoption Act, [1938] S.C.R. 398, refd to. [para. 167].

Taylor v. Rossu (1998), 216 A.R. 348; 175 W.A.C. 348; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 177].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 182].

Athabasca Tribal Council v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al. and Alberta (Attorney General), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 699; 37 N.R. 366, refd to. [para. 185].

Yellowknife (City) v. Canada Labour Relations Board and Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 729; 14 N.R. 72, refd to. [para. 185].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 197, 327].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [paras. 223, 327].

Andrews v. Ontario (Minister of Health) (1988), 64 O.R.(2d) 258 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 227].

Dean v. District of Columbia (1995), 653 A.2d 307, refd to. [para. 227].

Layland v. Ontario (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations) (1993), 104 D.L.R.(4th) 214 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 228].

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. 228].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 229].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, refd to. [para. 229].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [paras. 234, 353].

Grant v. South-West Trains Ltd., [1998] I.C.R. 449, refd to. [para. 240].

Corbière v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) (1999), 239 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 262].

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 295].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 295].

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. 305].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Northwest v. D.F.G., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 925; 219 N.R. 241; 121 Man.R.(2d) 241; 158 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 310].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 311].

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

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

Romer v. Evans (1996), 116 S. Ct. 1620, refd to. [para. 315].

Heydon's Case (1584), 3 Co. Rep. 7a; 76 E.R. 637, refd to. [para. 323].

Pepper v. Hart, [1993] A.C. 593, refd to. [para. 323].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 327].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 331].

Statutes Noticed:

Absentees Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A-3, gen­erally [para. 346].

Adoption Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 5, sect. 5(1) [para. 302].

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, sect. 121(4), sect. 136(1)(d.1), sect. 178(1)(c) [paras. 123, 219].

Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B-16, generally [para. 346].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 1 [paras. 19, 292]; sect. 15(1) [para. 19].

Canadian Human Rights Act - see Human Rights Act.

Change of Name Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-7, generally [para. 346].

Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11, generally [para. 346].

Consent to Treatment Act, S.O. 1992, c. 31, generally [para. 346].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(26), sect. 92(12), sect. 92(13) [para. 227].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 136].

Coroners Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-37, gen­erally [para. 346].

Court of Chancery in this Province, Act to Establish a, S.U.C. 1837, 7 Wm. IV, c. 2, sect. 3 [para. 167].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 718.2(a)(i) [para. 303].

Deserted Wives' and Children's Main­tenance Act, R.S.O. 1937, c. 211, gen­erally [paras. 89, 167].

Deserted Wives' and Children's Main­tenance Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 105, gen­erally [para. 89].

Deserted Wives' and Children's Main­tenance Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 128, gen­erally [paras. 89, 167].

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 15(2), sect. 15(3), sect. 15(7) [para. 19].

Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-37, generally [para. 177].

Election Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-6, gen­erally [para. 346].

Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-21, gen­erally [para. 346].

Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-23, gen­erally [para. 346].

Execution Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-24, generally [para. 346].

Family Law Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. F-2, sect. 35(c) [para. 176].

Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, preamble [paras. 83, 345]; sect. 1(1), sect. 1(2) [para. 19]; sect. 29 [paras. 19, 172]; sect. 30 [paras. 19, 171]; sect. 31, sect. 33(1), sect. 33(2), sect. 33(7) [para. 19]; sect. 33(8) [paras. 19, 183]; sect. 33(9), sect. 34(4), sect. 34(5), sect. 35, sect. 41; sect. 53, sect. 54 [para. 19].

Family Law Act, S.N.W.T. 1997, c. 18, sect. 1 [para. 176].

Family Law Act, S.P.E.I. 1995, c. 12, sect. 1(g), sect. 29 [para. 176].

Family Law Act, S.O. 1986, c. 4, sect. 29 [para. 175].

Family Law Reform Act, S.O. 1975, c. 41, generally [para. 174].

Family Law Reform Act, S.O. 1978, c. 2, generally [paras. 84, 175, 338]; sect. 14 [para. 175].

Family Maintenance Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. F-20; C.C.S.M., c. F-20, sect. 4(3) [para. 176].

Family Maintenance Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 160, sect. 2(m) [para. 176].

Family Maintenance Act, S.S. 1990-91, c. F-6.1, sect. 2(l)(iii) [para. 176].

Family Maintenance Enforcement Amend­ment Act, S.B.C. 1997, c. 19, sect. 1(d) [para. 178].

Family Property and Support Act, R.S.Y. 1986, c. 63, sect. 35 [para. 176].

Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, sect. 1(1) [paras. 176, 302].

Family Relations Amendment Act, S.B.C. 1997, c. 20, sect. 1(c) [para. 178].

Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, S.O. 1996, c. 31, gen­erally [paras. 123, 219].

Family Services Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. F-2.2, sect. 112(3) [para. 176].

Family Support Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-28, generally [para. 346].

Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, generally [para. 303].

Income Tax Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I-2, generally [para. 346].

Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I-11, sect. 8, sect. 17 [paras. 105, 185].

Juries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J-3, generally [para. 346].

Land Transfer Tax Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L-6, generally [para. 346].

Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-3, gen­erally [para. 346].

Married Women's Property Act, C.S.U.C. 1859, c. 73, generally [para. 167].

Married Women's Property Act, S.O. 1872, c. 16, generally [para. 167].

Married Women's Property Act, S.O. 1884, c. 19, generally [para. 167].

Married Women's Property Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 262, generally [para. 167].

Married Women's Real Estate Act, 1873, S.O. 1873, c. 18, generally [para. 167].

Matrimonial Causes Act, S.O. 1931, c. 25, generally [para. 167].

Members' Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-6, generally [para. 346].

Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-7, generally [para. 346].

Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-45, generally [para. 346].

Municipal Elections Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-53, generally [para. 346].

Nunavut Act, S.C. 1993, c. 28, sect. 29(1) [para. 176].

Nursing Homes Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N-7, generally [para. 346].

Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O-17, generally [para. 346].

Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-5, generally [para. 346].

Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-8, generally [para. 346].

Rent Control Act, S.O. 1992, c. 11, gen­erally [para. 346].

Retail Sales Tax Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R-31, generally [para. 346].

Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-5, gen­erally [para. 346].

Small Business Development Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-12, generally [para. 346].

Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-26, generally [para. 346].

Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T-23, gen­erally [para. 346].

Workers' Compensation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. W-11, generally [para. 346].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I (4th Ed. 1770), p. 442 [para. 164].

Blumstein, Philip, and Schwartz, Pepper, American Couples (1983), p. 151 [para. 239].

Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy and Legislation (1998), generally [para. 302].

Canada, Statistics Canada, Family Ex­penditure in Canada 1992, p. 160 [para. 239].

Canada, Statistics Canada, Family Income After Separation (1997), p. 17 [para. 353].

Canada, Statistics Canada, The Daily (Oc­tober 14, 1997), generally [para. 353].

Cardell, Mona, Finn, Stephen and Marecek, Jeanne, Sex-Role Identity, "Sex-Role Behaviour, and Satisfaction in Heterosexual, Lesbian, and Gay Male Couples", Psychology of Women Quar­terly, 5 (Spring 1981), pp. 492, 493 [para. 242].

Chambers, Lori, Married Women and Property Law in Victorian Ontario (1997), pp. 3 [para. 164]; 19 [para. 203].

Cossman, Brenda, and Ryder, Bruce, Gay, Lesbian and Unmarried Heterosexual Couples and the Family Law Act: Ac­commodating a Diversity of Family Forms (June 1993), pp. 135 to 139 [para. 127].

Cretney, S.M., and Masson, J.M., Prin­ciples of Family Law (6th Ed. 1997), pp. 81, 82 [para. 166].

Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 51 to 59 [para. 323]; 63 [para. 329].

Dworkin, Ronald, Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Consti­tution (1996), generally [para. 315].

Eldridge, Natalie S., and Gilbert, Lucia A., Correlates of Relationship Satisfaction in Lesbian Couples, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14 (1990), p. 44 [para. 243].

Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (1980), generally [para. 315].

Evans, R.R., The Law and Practice Relat­ing to Divorce and Other Matrimonial Causes (1923), pp. 303, 304 [para. 166].

Herek, Gregory M., Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social Science Research (1991), 1 Law & Sexuality 133, p. 163 [para. 298].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1992), p. 35-17 [para. 322]; s. 52.7(b) [para. 248].

Hogg, Peter W., and Bushell, Allison A., The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps The Charter of Rights Isn't Such A Bad Thing After All) (1997), 35 Osgoode Hall L.J. 75, p. 105 [para. 328].

Jackman, Martha, Protecting Rights and Promoting Democracy: Judicial Review Under Section 1 of the Charter (1996), 34 Osgoode Hall L.J. 661, pp. 668, 669 [para. 315].

Lynch, Jean M., and Reilly, Mary Ellen, Role Relationships: Lesbian Perspectives, Journal of Homosexuality, 12(2) (Winter 1985/86), pp. 53 [paras. 110, 239]; 54 [para. 110]; 56 [paras. 110, 239]; 66 [para. 244].

MacDougall, Donald J., Alimony and Maintenance, in D. Mendes da Costa, ed., Studies in Canadian Family Law, vol. 1 (1972), pp. 288, 289 [para. 166].

McCamus, John D., Family Law Reform in Ontario, in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada (1993), pp. 470, 471 [para. 246].

Mendes, Errol P., The Crucible of the Charter: Judicial Principles v. Judicial Deference in the Context of Section 1, in Gérald-A. Beaudoin and Errol P. Mendes, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (3rd Ed. 1996), p. 3-14 [para. 22].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Family Law, Part IV, Family Property Law (1974), pp. 3 [para. 169]; 4 [paras. 168, 169]; 5 [para. 168].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Family Law, Part VI, Support Obli­gations (1975), generally [para. 170]; pp. 6 [para. 340]; 7 [paras. 89, 340]; 10 [paras. 89, 341, 342]; 11 [para. 89].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Rights and Responsibilities of Cohabitants Under the Family Law Act (1993), pp. 3 [para. 179]; 6 [para. 203]; 10, 11 [para. 119]; 43, 44 [paras. 85, 196]; 45 [paras. 297, 307]; 46 [para. 297]; 47 [para. 298].

Ontario, Legislature of Ontario Debates, 3rd Sess., 30th Parl., October 26, 1976, pp. 4102 [paras. 94, 342]; 4103 [paras. 98, 187, 203, 204, 220, 338].

Ontario, Legislature of Ontario Debates, 3rd Sess., 30th Parl., November 18, 1976, pp. 4793 [paras. 98, 189, 338]; 4801 [para. 343].

Ontario, Legislature of Ontario Debates, 3rd Sess., 30th Parl., November 22, 1976, pp. 4890, 4891, 4898 [para. 98].

Ontario, Legislature of Ontario Debates, 1st Sess., 31st Parl., October 18, 1977, pp. 901 [para. 94]; 904 [para. 84].

Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates, 3rd Sess., 35th Parl., June 1, 1994, p. 6583 [para. 316].

Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Family Law Reform, Government Po­sition Paper 19 (1976), p. 9 [para. 89].

Peplau, Letitia Anne, Lesbian and Gay Relationships, in John C. Gonsiorek and James D. Weinrich, eds., Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy (1991), p. 183 [para. 242].

Schneider, Margaret S., The Relationships of Cohabiting Lesbian and Heterosexual Couples: A Comparison, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10 (1986), pp. 234 [para. 239]; 237 [paras. 110, 242].

Slater, Suzanne, The Lesbian Family Life Cycle (1995), pp. 50, 51 [para. 298].

Strauss, Peter L., The Courts and the Con­gress: Should Judges Disdain Political History? (1998), 98 Colum. L. Rev. 242, pp. 262 to 264 [para. 328].

Sullivan, Ruth, Driedger on the Construc­tion of Statutes - see Driedger on the Construction of Statutes.

Counsel:

Robert E. Charney and Peter C. Land­mann, for the appellant;

Martha A. McCarthy and Lynn D. Lovell, for the respondent M.;

Christopher D. Bredt, for the respondent H.;

R. Douglas Elliott, for the intervenor, the Foundation for Equal Families;

Carol A. Allen, for the intervenor, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF);

Cynthia Petersen and Pam McEachern, for the intervenor, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE);

Joanne D. Rosen, for the intervenor, the Ontario Human Rights Commission;

Jeff G. Cowan, for the intervenor, the United Church of Canada;

Peter R. Jervis, Michael Meredith and Daniel Shaw, for the intervenors, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Ontario Council of Sikhs, the Islamic Society of North America and Focus on the Family;

David M. Brown, for the intervenor, REAL Women of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Robert E. Charney and Peter C. Land­mann, Toronto, Ontario, for the appel­lant;

McMillan Binch, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent M.;

Borden & Elliot, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent H.;

Elliott & Kim, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Foundation for Equal Families;

Carol Allen, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Women's Legal Edu­cation and Action Fund (LEAF);

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE);

Joanne D. Rosen, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Ontario Human Rights Commission;

Weir & Foulds, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the United Church of Canada;

Lerner & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, the Evangelical Fellow­ship of Canada, the Ontario Council of Sikhs, the Islamic Society of North America and Focus on the Family;

Stikeman, Elliott, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, REAL Women of Canada.

This appeal was heard on March 18, 1998, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages, on May 20, 1999, and included the following opinions:

Cory and Iacobucci, JJ. (Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 153;

Gonthier, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 154 to 278;

Major, J. (concurring reasons) - see para­graphs 279 to 284;

Bastarache, J. (concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 285 to 357.