Family Law Case Study: Nova Scotia V. Walsh

Introduction:

The main case that will be discussed in this paper is Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh. This paper will argue that Bastarache J delivers the significant argument due to the recognition that individual’s choice to marry or not to marry must be respected; benefits arise from both married and common law relationships therefore, the Matrimonial Property Act does not discriminate unmarried heterosexual couples. This essay will address the facts, the legal issues, the decision, and an analysis of the decision.

Summary of the Walsh Case:

The parties proceeding the case are the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, appellants: vs. Susan Walsh and Wayne Bona, respondents, and the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General

She began to explain that both married and unmarried couples have an increased chance of experiencing poverty after the relationships ends. The goal of the MPA as well as family law is focused on the redistribution of economic resources of the family. L’Heureux-Dube understand that failing to recognize contributions made by unmarried couples, they are not getting the respect they deserve. Secondly, she goes on to discuss the decrease in marriage and increase in “common law.” “The reality of modern society dictates a richer understanding of the various forms of familial relations in this country and the shedding of the idea that family life is reserved to one particular conception of what is deemed to be an acceptable family model.” Therefore, there are different family form that can be found within an unmarried cohabitation. If we fail to recognize this ongoing trend and do not provide the benefits then we are discriminating against these individuals. She concludes to say that married and unmarried couples share many similarities the only difference is the contract that the coupled entered

They all identify the importance of the right to have the choice and the right to exercise there right to choice. All three cases revolving around marriage issues that violated s. 15 of the Charter. An example of the right to choose was in the Halpern case where same-sex couples were not allowed to get married. The decision of the court of appeal allowed them to do so because they believe they were being discriminated against for not having their freedom of choice to marry. In the Layland case, the majority’s decision was that same-sex do not have the right to marry each other. However, the dissent opinion believed that same-sex marriage should be allowed and that not having the choice violates s. 15 of the Charter. These cases are all regarding the decision one should have when making decision about choices. Therefore, we can argue that having freedom of choice is an important factor to the