News

Canada Ruled By Unelected Supreme Court

OTTAWA, May 20 (LSN) – This morning the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the MvH case that
Ontario’s Family Law Act discriminates against practicing homosexual couples by not allowing
them to receive spousal benefits. It ruled that because the homosexual couple may be in a
long-term dependency relationship that they should be entitled to benefits under section 29
of the act since that section has already offered spousal benefits beyond married people to
common law couples.

Gwen Landolt, a lawyer working for REAL Women of Canada told LifeSite that although this ruling
does not redefine spouse or family, homosexualist activists are spinning the story to suit their
ends. Confirming Landolt’s observation, the CBC report on the ruling was entitled “Supreme Court
ruling redefines family.” The CBC went on to inaccurately claim that the ruling “radically
alters the way family is defined in Canada – “spouse” now includes same-sex partners.”

Supreme Court Justices Cory and Iacobucci wrote in the MVH ruling: “We emphasize that the
definition of “spouse” found in s. 1(1) of the FLA, and which applies to other parts of the FLA,
includes only married persons and is not at issue in this appeal.”

The ruling applies only to the Ontario government and must be implemented within six months if
it is not rejected by use of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Landolt said that the Ontario government could also avoid the situation by restricting spousal
benefits only to married couples.

Ontario PC Premier Mike Harris told the press this morning that the province would abide by the
court’s ruling. Since the Liberals and NDP parties have vowed to implement homosexualist
legislation, the only provincial party in Ontario which defends the historic definition of the
family is the Family Coalition Party.

Landolt warned that the decision was released at this time in order to coincide with the federal
bill C-78 to be voted on this Tuesday (May 25). The bill proposes to give same-sex benefits to
practicing homosexuals employed by the government.

Jim Hughes, national leader of Campaign Life Coalition commented that this ruling is yet another
affront to democracy. “Where government finds they cannot pass controversial issues through
Parliament they hand off the dirty work to the unaccountable courts,” he told LifeSite. “The
pattern is clear now: the courts are the preferred vehicle for major social restructuring of
Canada in a direction that the people don’t want to go. First with abortion and child
pornography, now with homosexuality, what is next? Euthanasia, genetic engineering of human
beings, pedophilia and much more.”

The ruling is available at:
https://www.droit.umontreal.ca/doc/csc-scc/en/rec/texte/m&h.en.txt
Canada Ruled By Unelected Supreme Court

OTTAWA, May 20 (LSN) – This morning the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the MvH case that
Ontario’s Family Law Act discriminates against practicing homosexual couples by not allowing
them to receive spousal benefits. It ruled that because the homosexual couple may be in a
long-term dependency relationship that they should be entitled to benefits under section 29
of the act since that section has already offered spousal benefits beyond married people to
common law couples.

Gwen Landolt, a lawyer working for REAL Women of Canada told LifeSite that although this ruling
does not redefine spouse or family, homosexualist activists are spinning the story to suit their
ends. Confirming Landolt’s observation, the CBC report on the ruling was entitled “Supreme Court
ruling redefines family.” The CBC went on to inaccurately claim that the ruling “radically
alters the way family is defined in Canada – “spouse” now includes same-sex partners.”

Supreme Court Justices Cory and Iacobucci wrote in the MVH ruling: “We emphasize that the
definition of “spouse” found in s. 1(1) of the FLA, and which applies to other parts of the FLA,
includes only married persons and is not at issue in this appeal.”

The ruling applies only to the Ontario government and must be implemented within six months if
it is not rejected by use of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Landolt said that the Ontario government could also avoid the situation by restricting spousal
benefits only to married couples.

Ontario PC Premier Mike Harris told the press this morning that the province would abide by the
court’s ruling. Since the Liberals and NDP parties have vowed to implement homosexualist
legislation, the only provincial party in Ontario which defends the historic definition of the
family is the Family Coalition Party.

Landolt warned that the decision was released at this time in order to coincide with the federal
bill C-78 to be voted on this Tuesday (May 25). The bill proposes to give same-sex benefits to
practicing homosexuals employed by the government.

Jim Hughes, national leader of Campaign Life Coalition commented that this ruling is yet another
affront to democracy. “Where government finds they cannot pass controversial issues through
Parliament they hand off the dirty work to the unaccountable courts,” he told LifeSite. “The
pattern is clear now: the courts are the preferred vehicle for major social restructuring of
Canada in a direction that the people don’t want to go. First with abortion and child
pornography, now with homosexuality, what is next? Euthanasia, genetic engineering of human
beings, pedophilia and much more.”

The ruling is available at:
https://www.droit.umontreal.ca/doc/csc-scc/en/rec/texte/m&h.en.txt

1 Comments

    Loading...