Quebec (Attorney General) v A

In a fragmented decision, the SCC upheld Quebec civil law's exclusion of unmarried (de facto) couples from spousal-support and matrimonial-property regimes. A bare majority found the exclusion either did not violate s.15 or was saved by s.1.

A and B were unmarried Quebec partners with three children. After their separation, A sought spousal support and property division — remedies available to married couples but not de facto partners under the Civil Code of Quebec.

Does the exclusion of de facto spouses from spousal-support and matrimonial-property regimes violate s.15(1)?

5-4 against A. The legislative scheme stands.

Multiple judgments. McLachlin CJ found infringement saved by s.1 (preservation of personal autonomy in choice). Abella J found infringement not saved. LeBel J's plurality concluded no infringement: the distinction respected freedom of choice. The case illustrates the tension between formal autonomy and substantive equality, especially where one partner is economically vulnerable.

Quebec civil law provides extensive flexibility for couples to choose their regime by contract. The majority view respects that autonomy. The dissent argued that vulnerability is structural and that formal choice does not cure substantive disadvantage.

Most-discussed Quebec family-law decision of the modern era. Demonstrates the SCC's sensitivity to provincial civil-law autonomy. Quebec subsequently consulted on de facto spouse reform; Bill 56 (2024) eventually introduced a parental union regime for cohabiting parents.

Quebec (Attorney General) v A, 2013 SCC 5, [2013] 1 SCR 61.

McLachlin CJ, LeBel J, Deschamps J, Fish J, Abella J, Rothstein J, Cromwell J, Moldaver J, Karakatsanis J