By Sally Ding on April 7, 2011
| ID: |
HARP-456 |
| Title: |
Reframing family |
| Source: |
Law Now , v.20(4) February/March, 1996 pg 36-37 |
| Parties: |
|
| Dispute Resolution Organ: |
|
| Year: |
1996 |
| Pages: |
0 |
| Author(s): |
|
| Keywords: |
Canada, common law, decision making, discrimination, economic, social, and cultural rights, equality before the law, human rights, Ontario, civil and political rights, family law, Supreme Court, family |
| Abstract: |
The Supreme Court of Canada gave a judgment in an insurance case that has far-reaching implications in family law. The case, Miron v. Trudel, May 25, 1995, involved an Ontario couple who lived in a common-law relationship since 1983. The wife already had a child and the couple had two children of their own. In 1987, the husband was injured while a passenger in someone else’s car. Neither the owner nor the driver had insurance. The husband tried to claim accident benefits for his loss of income under his common-law wife’s insurance policy. However, it was clear that the policy defined spouse to include only legally-married persons. The husband said this discriminated against him in contravention of his Charter rights, and the majority of the Supreme Court agreed. Madam Justice McLaughlin found discrimination existed because the distinction based on marital status violated the dignity and freedom of persons who live together outside marriage; had historically been used to cause group disadvantage; and entertained the danger of stereotypical group-based decision-making. |
| Secured: |
False |
| Download Article: |
Available here |
Posted in 1996 | Tagged Canada, civil and political rights, common law, decision/decision-making, discrimination, economic, equality before the law, family, family law, human rights, Ontario, social, social and cultural rights, Supreme Court