By: Emily Harrison
Case Name:
Quebec (Attorney General) v. A.
Legal Citation: (2013 SCC 5)
Facts:
Quebec (Attorney General) v. A involves a legal disagreement between a woman, identified as "A", and the Attorney General of Quebec concerning the property rights of unmarried couples upon separation. A was in a long-term common law relationship with “B”, an affluent businessman, for more than seven years. During their relationship, they had three children. A pursued spousal support and a division of the family property that was similar to the provisions of Quebec’s Civil Code for lawfully married spouses following separation.
However, Quebec’s Civil Code does not grant unmarried couples the right to property division or spousal support. As opposed to other provinces, Quebec law does not automatically grant common-law partners such rights upon separation. Consequently, A had no right to claim any assets or financial support belonging to B outside of child support.
A contested these provisions claiming that the law was discriminatory against unmarried couples, thereby, it was violating the right to equality under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which ensures the right to equal protection and benefits under the law. The Attorney General of Quebec defended the provisions, arguing that the law was a reflection of Quebec’s policy decision to honour the freedom of individuals to choose not to marry and the financial repercussions connected to it.
Procedural Process:
Quebec Superior Court
In 2009, a Quebec Superior Court judge dismissed A’s constitutional challenge to the Civil Code of Quebec. Quebec was granted a favourable ruling by the trial court, which determined that the Civil Code provisions did not violate section 15 of the Charter. The Superior Court ruled that the legislation did draw a distinction between married spouses and common law partners, but it did not impose discrimination. It instead represented and protected freedom of choice and the decision of those who choose not to marry
Quebec Court of Appeal
In 2010, the Quebec Court of Appeal instead reversed the Superior Court’s trial decision. The Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that article 585 (spousal support) of the civil code of Quebec violated section 15 of the Charter and was not justified under section 1 (reasonable limits clause) of the Charter, therefore making it unconstitutional. But that the other exclusions relating to the division of property and compensatory allowance were constitutional. All parties appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Supreme Court’s Review:
The Supreme Court of Canada considered the following issues:
Did the exclusion of common law spouses from the Civil Code of Quebec violate section 15 (1) of the Charter?
If there was a violation, was it justified under section 1 of the Charter?
The Supreme Court was deeply divided on the decision. The majority, consisting of five judges, found that the provisions did indeed violate section 15 of the Charter. However, one of the judges in the majority also found that the exclusion was justified under section 1 as a reasonable limit, resulting in the exclusion being upheld as constitutional. The dissenting opinion, held by four judges, agreed that the exclusion did not violate section 15 of the Charter..
A’s appeal was dismissed, and no remedy was necessary.
Reasonings:
Section 15(1) – Violation of Equality Rights
Quebec's law was found to contravene section 15(1) of the Charter by discriminating against unmarried spouses, as determined by a majority of the Supreme Court (5 out of 9 justices).
The Court determined that the denial of spousal support to common-law partners established a distinction based on marital status, which resulted in a disadvantage for individuals (often women) who were financially dependent in long-term relationships but did not receive the same protections as legally married spouses.
Section 1 - Reasonable Limit
Nevertheless, a distinct majority of justices (5 out of 9) determined that the infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter. Within this majority, 4 judges were in full agreement that the exclusion was justified under section 1. The Court underscored Quebec's legislative objective of upholding personal autonomy and the freedom to make relationship decisions. The province intentionally selected not to impose marriage-like obligations on common-law couples, thereby enabling individuals to freely opt out of marriage and its legal repercussions. The remaining 4 dissenting justices disagreed with this interpretation.
The law was ultimately upheld, and Quebec was not obligated to modify its legislation,
as no single majority concurred on both components of the analysis.
Result:
The SCC recognized that the Quebec Law discriminated against common-law partners as it denied them spousal support rights, an infringement of section 15.
However, the infringement was justified under section 1, the SCC upheld the law, resulting in Quebec not being required to extend spousal support rights to common law partners.
A’s appeal was dismissed and thus A did not receive any spousal support from B.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Document with citations can be found here:
Comments