A v B and Attorney General of Quebec (Eric V Lola) - The Implications for Cohabiting Couples Outside Quebec

Abstract

This paper discusses the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, A v B and Attorney General of Quebec, popularly known as Eric v Lola. In particular, it examines Eric v Lola by comparing it to an earlier family law case, Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Walsh. The paper argues that though the consequences of the decision in Eric v Lola reinforces Walsh in that unmarried cohabiting couples in some provinces still do not have the same legislative benefits extended to them upon relationship breakdown, the equality analysis in Eric v Lola in fact overturns Walsh. It is contended that cohabiting couples should have access to the entire “economic readjustment” package available to married persons upon relationship dissolution, in order to avoid the feminization of poverty that leaves many cohabiting women economically devastated. By examining the majority’s equality analysis in Eric v Lola, and using same-sex spousal litigation as an analogy, the author argues there is reason to believe that recognition of full spousal status for cohabitants may be in our future.