Difference between revisions of "Family Relationships"

Unmarried couples can do all of the things married couples can. They can live together, they can have a child together, they can buy a house together, and they can have a relationship that last for decades and looks, in all respects, exactly like a married relationship. Why is there a difference in the way the law treats unmarried couples?

In the 2003 Supreme Court of Canada case of Walsh v. Bona, the court was asked to decide whether it was unfair to deny unmarried couples the benefits of certain legislation that only applied to married couples. In its decision, the court held that regardless of how the similar the parties' relationship appeared to a married relationship, they had nevertheless made the choice not to become married, and the fact that they chose not to marry meant that they had also chosen not to have the benefits of the legislation that applied to married people.

Looking at it another way, getting married implies a certain level of committment that living together usually doesn't. The parties to a marriage expect that their relationship will be permanent, a view which is generally shared by society and by the legislation on family law. The Family Relations Act imposes a greater responsibility on married couples than it does on common-law couples, and a greater responsibility on common-law couples than it does on people who are only parents and not spouses; the Divorce Act doesn't apply to anyone who isn't married.

These are the legal rights available to people who are married and common-law spouses, and to people who are neither married nor common-law but have a child together: