Before the enactment of federal laws recognizing similar-sex marriage, subsequently, the applying of federal marriage legislation differed depending on the province or territory. Until the passage of the Civil Marriage Act, the previous definition of marriage remained binding in the four jurisdictions (two provinces and two territories) the place courts had not yet ruled it unconstitutional, however void in the nine jurisdictions (eight provinces and one territory) where it had been efficiently challenged before the courts. The court docket additionally ruled that Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, and Elaine and Anne Vautour, two same-sex couples who have been married on January 14, 2001, at a wedding ceremony ceremony within the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto following an ancient common-law procedure known as the studying of the banns, could be thought-about legally married. Following the 2006 election, which was gained by a Conservative minority government below Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the House of Commons defeated a motion to reopen the matter by a vote of 175 to 123 on December 7, 2006, successfully reaffirming the laws. The government of Prime Minister Paul Martin supported the invoice but allowed a Free Porn.C vote by its backbench MPs in the House of Commons.



Before introducing it to Parliament, the Cabinet submitted the invoice as a reference to the Supreme Court (Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage), asking the court docket to rule on whether or not limiting marriage to heterosexual couples was according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if same-sex civil unions were a suitable various. On June 17, 2003, Prime Minister Jean Chr_tien introduced that the federal government would present a bill to grant similar-intercourse couples equal rights to marry. The choice of the federal government of Ontario to recognize two marriages that happened in Toronto on January 14, 2001, retroactively made Canada the primary nation on the earth to have a authorities-legitimized identical-intercourse marriage (the Netherlands and Belgium, which legalized similar-intercourse marriage earlier than Canada, had their first in April 2001 and June 2003, respectively). This pattern may have been reversed solely by Parliament passing a new regulation that explicitly restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples however the protection of equality rights afforded by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or by amending the Canadian Constitution by inserting the clause "marriage is defined as being between a man and a lady", as was really useful by several conservative religious groups and politicians.



However, unlike the previous three courtroom decisions, the Court of Appeal didn't suspend its resolution to allow Parliament to contemplate the issue. This was the third vote supporting identical-sex marriage taken by three parliaments below three prime ministers. However, this resolution stopped in need of giving them the fitting to full legal marriage. However, on June 10, 2003, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dominated on an appeal within the Halpern case. The federal government had appealed the trial choices to the provincial courts of appeal, however following the decision on the Ontario Court of Appeal, Prime Minister Chr_tien announced on June 17, 2003, that the federal government wouldn't seek to appeal the choices to the Supreme Court. In 2002 and 2003, selections within the superior trial courts of Ontario and Quebec, Halpern v Canada (AG) and Hendricks and Leboeuf v. Quebec, held that the restriction of marriage to reverse-intercourse couples was discriminatory and contrary to the equality clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms, while the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled oppositely. A few hours after the announcement, Antony Porcino and Tom Graff turned the first two men to be legally wed in British Columbia.



On January 14, 2001, Reverend Brent Hawkes pressured the issue by performing two same-intercourse marriages, taking advantage of the fact that Ontario legislation authorizes him to carry out marriages without a earlier license, by way of the issuance of banns of marriage. In some of these instances, some marriages had been in reality legal at an earlier date (for instance, an Ontario ruling held that marriages carried out in January 2001 had been authorized when performed), however the legality was questioned. The registrar refused to just accept the information of marriage, and a lawsuit was commenced over whether the marriages were legally carried out. Many commentators opined that a province doubtless couldn't use the however clause to keep away from recognizing identical-sex marriage as a result of the federal government had jurisdiction over marriage. A ruling, quite just like the Ontario ruling, was issued by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on July 8, 2003. Another choice in British Columbia in May of that 12 months had required the federal government to change the law to permit same-sex marriages, Barbeau v. British Columbia. On May 1, 2003, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the superior court resolution. On June 10, 2003, the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed that current Canadian regulation on marriage violated the equality provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in being restricted to heterosexual couples.