Case information

Charter — Freedom of religion — Equality rights — Civil marriage— Religious solemnization of marriage — Ministers of religion — Legal effects of marriage — Free choice — Autonomy — Family patrimony — Partnership of acquests — Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that applicant had not shown that imposition of mandatory legal effects on religious marriage infringed his freedom of conscience and of religion — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that Quebec legislature’s objective in family matters is one of protection rather than of promotion of free choice and autonomy, thereby distorting its analysis of violation alleged by applicant of his right to equality — Whether Court of Appeal erred in ordering applicant to pay costs, thereby departing from rule established in article 340(2) C.C.P. — Civil Code of Québec, CQLR, c. CCQ 1991, arts. 118, 366, 375 — Canadian Charter, ss. 2, 15 — Quebec Charter, ss. 3, 10.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (PUBLICATION BAN ON PARTY) (COURT FILE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY THE PUBLIC)

The parties married in 2001 under the regime of partnership of acquests, and the husband filed for divorce in 2013. He stated that he would have preferred a solely religious marriage, because the financial consequences imposed on spouses by marriage are in his opinion irrational. In the divorce proceedings, he raised constitutional arguments to the effect that articles 118 and 366 of the Civil Code of Québec infringe freedom of religion and the right to equality, as they deprive believers of free choice of their conjugality. The Superior Court denied the conclusion that these articles are unconstitutional, as well as the claims for relief, moral damages or reimbursement of extrajudicial fees, with costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs to the respondent and the impleaded party.