Miron v. Trudel

Miron v. Trudel
Miron v. Trudel
Supreme Court of Canada.jpg

Supreme Court of Canada

Hearing: June 2, 1994
Judgment: May 25, 1995
Full case name: John O. Miron and Jocelyne Valliere v. Richard Trudel, William James McIsaac and the Economical Mutual Insurance Company
Citations: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418
Docket No.: 22744
Ruling: Miron appeal allowed
Court membership

Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major

Reasons given

Majority by: McLachlin J. (paras. 119-)
Joined by: Sopinka, Cory and Iacobucci JJ.
Concurrence by: L'Heureux‑Dubé J. (paras. 81-118)
Dissent by: Gonthier J. (paras. 1-80)
Joined by: Lamer C.J. and La Forest and Major JJ.

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.

See also

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем решить контрольную работу

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Miron — or Mirón may refer to: El Mirón Collado del Mirón 17049 Miron Miron v. Trudel People Miron (name) See also Miron Costin (disambiguation) …   Wikipedia

  • Egan v. Canada — SCCInfoBox case name=Egan v. Canada full case name=James Egan and John Norris Nesbit v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada heard date=Argued November 1, 1994 decided date=Decided May 25, 1995 citations= [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, 124 D.L.R. (4th) …   Wikipedia

  • Article 15 De La Charte Canadienne Des Droits Et Libertés — ██████████ …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Article 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes — Article 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ██████████ …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Article 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés — ██████████85  …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Article 15 de la charte canadienne des droits et libertés — ██████████ …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — contains guaranteed equality rights. As part of the Constitution, the section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by the governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative programs (affirmative action) and rights or… …   Wikipedia

  • Thibaudeau v. Canada — [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by a very divided Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. [The other two being Miron v. Trudel , [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; Egan v. Canada , [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513.] The C …   Wikipedia

  • Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) — ! bgcolor= 6699FF | Case opinions | Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found …   Wikipedia

  • Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh — Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325 is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and matrimonial property. The Court held that the Nova Scotia… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”