Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

After legalizing his divorce, Wayne Hincks is now eligible for legal claims such as spousal support and equalization of net family income.

Jim Ross/The Globe and Mail

An Ontario Superior Court judge has taken the novel step of granting a divorce to a same-sex couple over legal objections from the federal Crown.

Madam Justice Ruth Mesbur ruled that same-sex civil partnerships from foreign countries that don't permit same-sex marriages can nonetheless qualify as marriages under Canadian law.

It was the second time in the past year that the federal government has adopted a restrictive position on same-sex marriages.

Story continues below advertisement

In an interview Friday, one of the ex-spouses, Wayne Hincks, expressed anger that the federal Crown strung out a costly, emotional process by injecting itself into the case.

"The Attorney-General of Canada intervened in my very private matter and caused it to be stretched out, almost bankrupting me in the process," Mr. Hincks said. "I eventually had to leave Toronto with no protections, no financial support to acquire my rights and no social network to rely on for personal support."

The divorcing couple both have Canadian citizenship. They moved to Toronto in 2010, a year after their civil ceremony took place in London, England.

Britain does not permit same-sex couples to marry. Instead, it has a separate legal regime for same-sex couples that involves a civil partnership ceremony.

Last year, Mr. Hincks petitioned the Ontario courts to carry out the divorce. His spouse, Gerardo Gallardo, argued that the couple could not be construed as being legally married in Canada since their union was the result of a civil partnership ceremony.

Sean Gaudet, a lawyer for the Attorney-General of Canada, supported Mr. Gallardo's position. Ontario Crown counsel Courtney Harris took the opposite position and supported Mr. Hincks.

In her decision, Judge Mesbur said that refusing a divorce would "constitute impermissible discrimination. It seems to me that to do anything other than recognize this particular civil partnership as a marriage would run contrary to the express values of Canadian society."

Story continues below advertisement

The decision means that Mr. Hincks can now pursue a claim for divorce, spousal support and equalization of net family income in Ontario.

Robert Leckey, a professor of family law at McGill University and president of Egale Canada, said he found the federal position to be disturbing.

"I don't see the legitimate public interest in opposing the bid for recognition in these circumstances," he said. "When the U.K. government says that a civil partnership is tantamount to marriage, there is no reason for the Government of Canada to deny its existence. … It's a troubling deployment of Department of Justice resources."

Last year, Mr. Gaudet argued in a separate case that a foreign couple who came to Canada for a wedding were not eligible to be divorced because their marriage was invalid. His argument, had it prevailed, would have meant that thousands of same-sex couples who flocked to Canada since 2004 for marriages were not legally wed.

Martha McCarthy, a lawyer for one of the spouses in the 2012 case, was critical of the federal Crown Friday for opposing Mr. Hincks.

"All the applicant wanted was to have his civil union dissolved and treated like a marriage for legal purposes," she said. "To be clear, the issue was not about non-residents nor was it about the validity of marriages that we solemnized. So, why the objection by Canada?"

Story continues below advertisement

Ms. McCarthy praised Judge Mesbur and the Ontario Crown for their "progressive approach" to the Hincks case.

Prof. Leckey said the reasoning in the Hincks case will likely extend to similar divorce cases involving civil partnerships that took place in much of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and several European countries.

A Justice Department spokesman, Julie Di Mambro, said Friday that the department cannot comment because the Hincks case is still before the courts.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies