The Spouse Wars Trilogy:
Episode 3 Revenge of the Charter

Supreme Court of Canada Building
Ottawa, Canada
May 25, 1995

John Miron and Jocelyne Valliere have lived together in a common law relationship for a number of years, with their children. The family's auto insurance was in Jocelyne's name.

John was injured while he was a passenger in an uninsured car driven by an uninsured driver. He couldn't work and support his family. Without any insurance on the car or driver, John turned to the family auto insurance policy and claimed benefits under that, as Jocelyne's spouse.

But John Miron wasn't Jocelyne Valliere's spouse. They were living together at common law, and for the purposes of the law that the policy is based on, "spouse" meant a person who is legally married to the policy holder. Both the motions judge and Court of Appeal upheld that finding.

But in the end, the last word goes to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"The exclusion of unmarried partners from accident benefits available to married partners under the policy violates section 15(1) of the Charter."

Although marital status isn't one of the grounds listed in section 15(1), it is an "analogous ground" like sexual orientation. It is therefore a violation of the Charter to discriminate on the basis of someone's marital status.

And the law didn't pass the Section 1 test. The value of the insurance law is to sustain families when one of their members is injured in an automobile accident. That is an important objective. But in the 1990's, families are made up of more than just married couples. More and more people are choosing to live togther in common law relationships.

Restricting a "spouse" to a legally married person didn't fulfil the objective and infringed on the rights of unmarried people more than it needed to.

The remedy? The definition of spouse should include unmarried partners who have lived together for at least three years. And then that definition should be "read in " to the insurance policy.

It's a happy ending for John Miron and his family.

Déja Vu

See Haig v. Canada for more about reading in an analogous ground of discrimination.

Want To Know More?

See:
Miron v. Trudel