64 I rely also on what must be regarded as powerful obiter dicta in the reasons for judgment of Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé in Miron et al v. Trudel et al (1995), 1995 CanLII 97 (SCC), 124 D.L.R. (4th) 693 where at p. 731 she stated: As I noted above, in recognition of this reality, legislatures have intervened in a wide variety of contexts to protect individuals' vested interests in relationships of some permanence and interdependence. These interventions are not anti-marriage. They simply acknowledge that the family unit is evolving in response to changing times. In my respectful view, it would therefore be a significant step backwards for this court none the less to conclude that "unfettered choice" is the only framework by which to measure and evaluate extramarital cohabitation. Such logic would, in effect, entail adopting a narrower approach to the realities of cohabitation under s. 15 of the Charter -- which is supposed to be interpreted broadly and purposively -- than has already been widely accepted both in the common law and in statutes throughout Canada. (my emphasis) ... To recapitulate, the decision of whether or not to marry is most definitely capable of being a very fundamental and personal choice. The importance actually ascribed to the decision to marry or, alternatively, not to marry, depends entirely on the individuals concerned. For a significant number of persons in so-called "non-traditional" relationships, however, I dare say that notions of "choice" may be illusory. It is inappropriate, in my respectful view, to condense the forces underlying the adoption of one type of family unit over another into a simple dichotomy between "choice" or "no choice". Family means different things to different people, and the failure to adopt the traditional family form of marriage may stem from a multiplicity of reasons -- all of them equally valid and all of them equally worthy of concern, respect, consideration, and protection under the law.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.