Bill C-32 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Civil Marriage of Non-residents Act
An Act to amend the Civil Marriage Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 17, 2012
- Debated in principleJune 18, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 18, 2013
- Passed the second chamberJune 20, 2013
- Became lawJune 25, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government)Senate · Sponsor in the Senate
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 17 February 2012, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Civil Marriage Act (Civil Marriage of Non-residents Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-32 amends the Civil Marriage Act in order to provide that all marriages performed in Canada between non-residents, whether they are of the same sex or of the opposite sex, that would be valid in Canada if the spouses were domiciled in Canada are valid for the purposes of Canadian law even if one or both of the non-residents do not, at the time of the marriage, have the capacity to enter into it under the law of their respective state of domicile. It also establishes a new divorce process that allows a Canadian court to grant a divorce to non-resident spouses who reside in a state where a divorce cannot be granted to them because that state does not recognize the validity of their marriage.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
60% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,417 words introduced, 1,320 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only one minor wording change in the divorce application rules. All core provisions on validating non-resident marriages and creating a new divorce process remained the same from introduction to royal assent.
- The rule for applying without the other spouse's consent was expanded to include an order from the court.
Before: “on presentation of an order from a court located in the state where one of the spouses resides that declares that the other spouse”
After: “on presentation of an order from the court or a court located in the state where one of the spouses resides that declares that the other spouse”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses exact provincial court lists, a fixed one-year separation period, and clear residency tests to set out who may marry or divorce. A few phrases still leave room for argument over what counts as unreasonable or expedient.
Open to argument
“is unreasonably withholding consent”
The word 'unreasonably' introduces a subjective judgment without an objective standard or definition.“any other matter considered expedient to attain the ends of justice”
This phrase gives broad discretion rather than listing specific matters that may be regulated.
Clear-cut
“lived separate and apart for at least one year before the making of the application”
A numerical time period and an observable fact create a clear, testable requirement.“for Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice; (b) for Quebec, the Superior Court;”
The statute names the exact court for each province, eliminating any need to interpret which court has jurisdiction.“A divorce takes effect on the day on which the judgment granting the divorce is rendered.”
The effective date is tied to a single, verifiable court event rather than an opinion or future condition.
Discretion. Competent authorities may make detailed court rules and the Governor in Council may issue uniformity regulations and fix coming-into-force dates by order.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions confer benefits and set objective criteria, so a vagueness or overbreadth claim under section 7 of the Charter would face a high bar.
Disputing a charge under it. The Act creates no offences; disputes would centre on whether statutory conditions such as the one-year separation are factually met, which courts can resolve on evidence.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.