Narrow Definitions of "Family Status" 1988

"As to the word "family", however, common law authorities agree that "it has various meanings", "is used to designate many relations", "can mean many things according to its context" or, of course, may be determined by the statute in which it is found. On the other hand, it is fair to say that these authorities all agree that, although in a particular case a more limited meaning must be given, the word has always included the inter- relationship that arises from bonds of marriage, consanguinity or legal adoption, including, of course, the ancestral relationship, whether legitimate, illegitimate or by adoption, as well as the relationships between spouses, siblings, in- laws, uncles or aunts and nephews or nieces, cousins, etc.

Clearly and it will be seen that the very few human rights cases on point bear this out, the term "marital status", confined as it is to the spousal relationship and to issues concerning whether one is married or not, is much narrower than the term "family status" which includes many relationships beyond the spousal and the fact of being married or not. In this respect the Ontario definition of "family status" is surprising, for it considerably narrows the meaning of this term."

Parliament has chosen not to define marital status or family status in a way to include common law relationships as was done in Ontario and Saskatchewan. They have not chosen to include provisions to recognize certain common law situations as they have done in other of their legislation such as in the field of pensions.

In looking for the purpose of the legislation and seeking to give it effect, I must not legislate in an area the legislature has chosen to leave open. I cannot stretch the words beyond their ordinary and natural meaning.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/chrt/doc/1988/1988canlii125/1988canlii125.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAjImh1bWFuIHJpZ2h0cyIgK2lsbGVnaXRpbWF0ZSArY2hpbGQAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=5