Harman Patil (Editor)

Miron v Trudel

Updated on
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Citations  [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418
Docket number  22,744
Docket No.  22744
Ruling court  Supreme Court of Canada
Miron v Trudel
Full case name  John O Miron and Jocelyne Valliere v Richard Trudel, William James McIsaac and the Economical Mutual Insurance Company
Majority  McLachlin J. (paras. 119-), joined by Sopinka, Cory and Iacobucci JJ.
Concurrence  L'Heureux‑Dubé J. (paras. 81-118)
Dissent  Gonthier J. (paras. 1-80), joined by Lamer C.J. and La Forest and Major JJ.
Similar  Andrews v Law Society of, R v Oakes, R v Keegstra, R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd

Miron v trudel top 7 facts

Miron v Trudel, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision on equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where the Court found "marital status" was an analogous ground for discrimination (i.e., a characteristic which cannot legally be the basis for discrimination under section 15). The Court held that an insurance benefit provided only to married couples discriminated against common-law couples.

John Miron and Jocelyne Valliere were a common law couple. Miron suffered a car accident and attempted to claim the injuries under his partner's insurance policy. However, the Ontario Insurance Act provided that benefits were only available to spouses who were legally married.

Miron sued the insurance company arguing that he was discriminated against and that the Insurance Act violated section 15.

In a five to four decision the Court found that there was a Charter violation and that it could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter.

The finding that common law marriages are protected by section 15 was repeated in Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh (2002) and Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (2004). However, both these cases saw section 15 claims lose in the Supreme Court, as the justices decided that differential treatment based on marital status in these cases should not affect dignity.


Miron v Trudel Wikipedia

Similar Topics
R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd
R v Keegstra
R v Oakes