quote:

---

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court will consider today whether all unmarried couples who live together should be required to share their property 50-50 when their relationship ends.

Most provinces require married couples to divide their matrimonial property equally when they separate, but permit common-law partners to sue for only the share of wealth to which they contributed.

This unequal treatment was found to violate equality guarantees in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a June, 2000, ruling of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

Nova Scotia's Attorney-General is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision on the grounds that governments cannot impose the financial obligations of a marriage contract on couples who voluntarily choose not to marry. "Cohabitants have made the choice not to be held to the same obligations as married persons by not entering into a marriage contract," states Nova Scotia's written brief to the court.

---

What do people think of this? I tend to agree with the comment by the Nova Scotia AG above, that this decision essentially removes the ability to be in a serious relationship but still have less than the obligations of marriage. It seems to me as though that is a choice that some couples might consciously make, but would be unable to under the above interpretation.

Next thing you know, a casual summer affair will end up in divorce court to divy up the estate.