Wednesday, December 18, 2002

A story released today by the Canadian Press reports that the Canadian Supreme Court will be ruling on two landmark cases that could have social repercussions across the country. The top court will decide whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires minimum standards of social assistance. In a separate judgment, it will rule whether common-law couples should be included under provincial laws that force married couples to evenly split assets after break-up.

A single woman from Montreal spearheads the first case, leading a class-action challenge of former Quebec welfare policy.

Louise Gosselin, 43, seeks $389 million in damages on behalf of 75,000 welfare recipients. She says Quebec rules in force from 1985 to 1989 discriminated against the plaintiffs.

Gosselin, who now lives on social assistance in Montreal, argued the age distinction unjustifiably infringed on equality rights. Moreover, she said $163 a month was paltry enough to violate charter guarantees to life, liberty and security of the person.

Lawyers for the Quebec government countered that the province had no obligation to provide a guaranteed minimum income.

The age-based policy was scrapped in 1989.

Gosselin's case was dismissed in Quebec Superior Court, in part because she failed to prove how she and other plaintiffs suffered discriminatory hardship.

She also lost at the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Thursday's ruling - especially if large damages are awarded - could send shock waves across several provinces that have tied social assistance to training or age distinctions.

Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and New Brunswick all intervened in the Gosselin case to back the Quebec government.

The second potentially dramatic ruling Thursday stems from the 1995 breakup of Susan Walsh and Wayne Bona. The common-law couple lived together for 10 years in Nova Scotia, and had two sons.

Walsh wanted the family assets to be evenly shared. But Nova Scotia's Matrimonial Property Act, like similar legislation in most provinces, only requires married couples to split assets 50-50.

Common-law partners are typically allowed to sue only for the share of wealth to which they contributed.

Walsh argued that the act breached charter equality rights.

In response, Nova Scotia passed domestic partnership legislation.

It allows same-sex or heterosexual, common-law couples to register with the department of vital statistics, said Edward Gores, lawyer for the Nova Scotia attorney general.

"Then they have all the rights and responsibilities of a spouse under various legislation, including the Matrimonial Property Act."

Unmarried couples can still choose not to register, Gores said in an interview.

Nova Scotia asked the high court to reverse the appeal court judgment, arguing governments can't impose marital obligations on couples who choose not to marry.

Walsh's lawyer, Kathy Briand, countered that provinces include common-law couples under support and alimony legislation. It should be the same for property division, she said.

The high court ruling could shape provincial laws that vary widely on how common-law assets should be split.