Miron v. Trudel
Excluding unmarried common‑law partners from accident benefits granted to married spouses under the Ontario Standard Automobile Policy infringed s.15(1) because marital status is an analogous ground and the exclusion perpetuated disadvantage; the state failed to justify the distinction under s.1 (it was not a reasonably relevant or minimally impairing marker), and the appropriate remedial measure was to "read in" the 1990 broader statutory definition of "spouse" retroactively and remit for determination of eligibility.
- Citation
- [1995] 2 SCR 418
- Parties
- Appellant: John O. Miron; Appellant: Jocelyne Valliere; Respondent: Richard Trudel; Respondent: William James McIsaac; Respondent: Economical Mutual Insurance Company; Intervener: Attorney General of Canada; Intervener: Attorney General for Ontario; Intervener: Attorney General of Quebec; Intervener: Attorney General of Manitoba; Amicus Curiae: Amicus Curiae (W. Ian Binnie and Lisa A. Clarkson)
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 May 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Ontario Court of Appeal (preliminary Motion Concerning Statutory Meaning of "spouse")
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; primary holding that exclusion of unmarried common‑law partners from the prescribed policy violated s.15(1) and was not justified under s.1; remedy to read in 1990 definition of "spouse" retroactively and remit for trial.
- Legal Topics
- Charter S.15 Equality, Section 1 Justification (oakes), Marital Status Discrimination, Automobile Insurance Benefits, Remedial Reading‑in Under S.24(1)
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John O. Miron
Appellant
Jocelyne Valliere
Appellant
Richard Trudel
Respondent
William James McIsaac
Respondent
Economical Mutual Insurance Company
Respondent
Attorney General of Canada
Intervener
Attorney General for Ontario
Intervener
Attorney General of Quebec
Intervener
Attorney General of Manitoba
Intervener
Amicus Curiae (W. Ian Binnie and Lisa A. Clarkson)
Amicus Curiae
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Ontario Court of Appeal (preliminary Motion Concerning Statutory Meaning of "spouse")
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether "spouse" in the Ontario Standard Automobile Policy includes an unmarried common‑law partner
- 2 Whether exclusion of unmarried common‑law partners from policy benefits violates s.15(1) of the Charter
- 3 If s.15(1) breached, whether the exclusion is justified under s.1 of the Charter
Ratio Decidendi
Excluding unmarried common‑law partners from accident benefits granted to married spouses under the Ontario Standard Automobile Policy infringed s.15(1) because marital status is an analogous ground and the exclusion perpetuated disadvantage; the state failed to justify the distinction under s.1 (it was not a reasonably relevant or minimally impairing marker), and the appropriate remedial measure was to "read in" the 1990 broader statutory definition of "spouse" retroactively and remit for determination of eligibility.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; primary holding that exclusion of unmarried common‑law partners from the prescribed policy violated s.15(1) and was not justified under s.1; remedy to read in 1990 definition of "spouse" retroactively and remit for trial.
Orders
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Insurer's application to strike out the appellants' action dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment