Canadian Marriage Law History and the Legal Regulation of Love

Sara Santos-Vigneault
9 hours ago
5 min read

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault

Date: February 14, 2026

Red heart pillow beside wooden blocks displaying "14 February" on a wooden table, against a dark background, conveying love and Valentine's Day. — Image by <a href="

Valentine’s Day is commonly associated with romance and personal choice. Its modern observance reflects a legal environment in which adults may form intimate relationships with relative freedom and equality. That legal environment did not always exist. Canadian marriage law developed within legal systems that treated men and women differently and assigned legal consequences to romantic commitments.

Marriage existed as a legal status long before it was understood as a partnership grounded in affection. Law governed who could marry, how marriage was formed, and what rights followed. Within that framework, men generally retained legal authority, while women experienced marriage as a condition that limited their legal independence.

Marriage and Women’s Legal Status

Under common law principles inherited from England, marriage altered a woman’s legal capacity in ways that did not apply to men. A married woman’s legal identity was absorbed into that of her husband under the doctrine of coverture. As a result, married women were generally unable to own property in their own names, control their earnings, enter contracts independently, or initiate legal proceedings without their husband’s involvement.

These principles formed part of Canadian law through reception of English common law. Marriage therefore created different legal consequences depending on gender. Men retained control over property and legal decision-making within marriage, while women’s legal capacity was restricted.

Marriage continues to be defined and regulated by statute. In Ontario, the Marriage Act, RSO 1990, c M.3, governs capacity, consent, licensing, and solemnization.[1] In Quebec, the Civil Code of Québec sets out the legal requirements and effects of marriage.[2] Modern statutes reflect legal equality, but they are built on a legal history in which marriage operated as a structured legal institution rather than a private romantic arrangement.

Engagement, Promises, and Legal Consequences

Romantic commitment once carried legal consequences under Canadian law. Courts recognized civil actions for breach of promise to marry, allowing damages to be claimed when an engagement was broken.

In McLean v Pettigrew, the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed damages arising from a broken promise to marry, confirming that such actions were recognized by the courts at that time.[3] The existence of this cause of action demonstrates that engagement was treated as legally significant rather than purely social.

Ontario later abolished this cause of action by statute. Section 57 of the Marriage Act provides that no action may be brought for breach of a promise to marry.[1] The statutory abolition confirms that breach of promise actions had previously existed and were removed through legislative reform.

Federal law reform bodies later identified breach of promise actions as inconsistent with modern views of marriage and personal autonomy. The Law Reform Commission of Canada discussed the historical use of these actions and supported their abolition in its Report on Family Law.[4]

Romantic Gifts and Property Law

Although promises to marry are no longer enforceable, Canadian law continues to address disputes arising from romantic relationships. Engagement rings have been treated by courts as conditional gifts given in contemplation of marriage.

In Fisher v Fisher, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that engagement rings are generally considered conditional gifts.[5] Where the marriage does not take place, entitlement to the ring depends on the intention attached to the gift and the surrounding circumstances. This legal treatment reflects the continued intersection of romantic relationships and property law.

Married Women’s Property and Legal Reform

The legal position of married women began to change through legislative reform. In Ontario, the Married Women’s Property Act recognized married women’s capacity to own property and engage in legal transactions independently of their husbands.[6] Similar legislation was enacted in other Canadian jurisdictions.

These statutes altered the legal structure of marriage by recognizing women as separate legal persons. The change did not arise from evolving romantic ideals, but from statutory reform addressing legal inequality within marriage.

Restrictions on Marriage and Legal Capacity

Marriage law historically imposed restrictions based on age, family relationship, and capacity. Provincial statutes regulated who could marry and under what conditions, reflecting legal concerns related to inheritance, family structure, and social order.

The application of marriage law was later influenced by constitutional equality protections. Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality before and under the law without discrimination.[7] This provision reshaped the interpretation of marriage laws and limited the use of legal distinctions that excluded certain relationships from recognition.

Open book with a red heart-shaped fabric bookmark on rustic white wooden surface. Pages show text, creating a sentimental mood. — Image by <a href="

Same-Sex Marriage and Legal Recognition

The recognition of same-sex marriage represents a significant change in Canadian marriage law. In Halpern v Canada (Attorney General), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the common law definition of marriage violated equality rights and reformulated marriage as the voluntary union for life of two persons.[8]

Following this decision, Parliament enacted the Civil Marriage Act, SC 2005, c 33, which established marriage as legally available to same-sex couples throughout Canada.[9] The statute extended legal recognition to relationships that had previously been excluded under Canadian law.

Divorce and the End of Enforced Intimacy

Divorce law further reflects the decline of legal enforcement of personal relationships. The Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3, permits marriage to be dissolved without proof of fault.[10] Courts no longer assess emotional commitment or personal conduct when granting a divorce.

Law continues to regulate the economic and parental consequences of marriage, but it no longer enforces the continuation of intimate relationships. This represents a departure from earlier legal approaches that treated marriage as a permanent legal condition.

Valentine’s Day and Legal Change

Valentine’s Day is celebrated in a legal setting that did not always exist. Today, people are generally free to choose their partners, express affection, and enter or leave relationships without legal punishment. Those conditions are the result of legal change, not long-standing tradition.

For much of Canada’s legal history, love was shaped by rules that governed marriage, property, and family roles. Marriage gave men legal authority and left women with limited control over property, earnings, and legal decisions. Engagements and intimate commitments could carry legal consequences, particularly for women, whose reputation and economic security were closely tied to marriage.

The modern meaning of Valentine’s Day depends on the removal of those rules. Law no longer treats romantic relationships as matters to be enforced or disciplined. Instead, it recognizes personal relationships as private choices made between legally equal partners. What now appears as a simple celebration of affection rests on legal reforms that changed who could love, on what terms, and with what consequences.