The Limitations Clause: Halpern v. Canada
Over the past decade, the debate on same-sex marriage has been ongoing, but lately people are becoming more open minded about the idea that two women or two men getting married. In the case of Halpern v. Canada [2003], seven gay and denied lesbian couples from getting civil marriage licenses in the City of Toronto. Claiming that the actions of Clerk of the City of Toronto violated their s.15(1) Equal Rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they decided to take the case to the Divisional Courts, where they would decide whether the common law definition of marriage violates the couples’ rights under s.15(1) of the Charter or not and if it is justified by s.1 Limitations Clause of the Charter. …show more content…
In this case, this section was infringed because it states that everyone is equal before and under the law with equal benefits, without discrimination of sex, including sexual orientation. However, the common law definition of marriage excludes same sex couples and focuses only on heterosexual couples which is the main infringement in this case. Still, the couples’ were refused marriage licenses because they were same sex couples which demonstrated a violation of the Charter that states everyone is entitled to equality without discrimination of your sex. This is where the Oakes Test comes into play. An Oakes test is used by judges and justices to decide if an individual’s right that has been restricted by the law can be justified or if it is an infringement on the Charter and can no longer be in effect. The judge in this case ruled that the common law definition of marriage does indeed infringe s.15(1) of the charter and the purpose of the definition is not important enough to be saved by s.1 Limitations Clause because saying that marriage is between a man and a woman implies that it is meant to encourage reproduction and taking care of a child. Although same sex couples cannot reproduce together, they still have other options for having children and can still have a fully functioning family. Although the judges decided that the violation did not need to go past the …show more content…
When the common law definition of marriage mentions “one man and one woman with the exclusion of all others,” this dismisses everyone who is not heterosexual and therefore discriminates based on sex. Additionally, refusing to allow same sex couples to marry violates the equal benefits that the Charter guarantees. Since the world is slowly becoming more open minded about same sex couples, the judges’ decision to not have the common law definition marriage justified under s.1 Limitations Clause is valid because the law is not important enough to be saved, especially since the Charter explicitly includes sexual orientation as something that is protected under Equal Rights. Dating back to the origin of this common law definition of marriage, it has been proved to be outdated and unfit for the current
Over the past decade, the debate on same-sex marriage has been ongoing, but lately people are becoming more open minded about the idea that two women or two men getting married. In the case of Halpern v. Canada [2003], seven gay and denied lesbian couples from getting civil marriage licenses in the City of Toronto. Claiming that the actions of Clerk of the City of Toronto violated their s.15(1) Equal Rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they decided to take the case to the Divisional Courts, where they would decide whether the common law definition of marriage violates the couples’ rights under s.15(1) of the Charter or not and if it is justified by s.1 Limitations Clause of the Charter. …show more content…
In this case, this section was infringed because it states that everyone is equal before and under the law with equal benefits, without discrimination of sex, including sexual orientation. However, the common law definition of marriage excludes same sex couples and focuses only on heterosexual couples which is the main infringement in this case. Still, the couples’ were refused marriage licenses because they were same sex couples which demonstrated a violation of the Charter that states everyone is entitled to equality without discrimination of your sex. This is where the Oakes Test comes into play. An Oakes test is used by judges and justices to decide if an individual’s right that has been restricted by the law can be justified or if it is an infringement on the Charter and can no longer be in effect. The judge in this case ruled that the common law definition of marriage does indeed infringe s.15(1) of the charter and the purpose of the definition is not important enough to be saved by s.1 Limitations Clause because saying that marriage is between a man and a woman implies that it is meant to encourage reproduction and taking care of a child. Although same sex couples cannot reproduce together, they still have other options for having children and can still have a fully functioning family. Although the judges decided that the violation did not need to go past the …show more content…
When the common law definition of marriage mentions “one man and one woman with the exclusion of all others,” this dismisses everyone who is not heterosexual and therefore discriminates based on sex. Additionally, refusing to allow same sex couples to marry violates the equal benefits that the Charter guarantees. Since the world is slowly becoming more open minded about same sex couples, the judges’ decision to not have the common law definition marriage justified under s.1 Limitations Clause is valid because the law is not important enough to be saved, especially since the Charter explicitly includes sexual orientation as something that is protected under Equal Rights. Dating back to the origin of this common law definition of marriage, it has been proved to be outdated and unfit for the current