Having commented on the benefits I believe a registration system would provide and on the systems I suggest Manitoba not adopt, I will now move to a consideration of how a system that would enable common-law partnerships to be registered in Manitoba might be established.

As in Nova Scotia, I believe the Vital Statistics Office is the place where a registry system could most easily and effectively be established. That office deals with the recording of births, deaths, marriages, adoptions and other matters. As the name indicates, it is the place where personal information is recorded. It would not be difficult to add a provision for the registration of common-law partnerships and any special rules that would apply to them.

The Manitoba Vital Statistics Act permits registrations to take place throughout the province as each Municipality and unorganized territory, as well as other areas that are annexed to them, is designated as a "registration division." Each has its own district registrar appointed by the Minister. Applications for registration are submitted on a prescribed form and the person submitting an application has to satisfy the district registrar that the information is legitimate and that the form is properly completed. If not satisfied that an application is legitimate, the registrar may reject the application. The rejection may then be appealed to a court.

Searches and requests for certificates are not provided locally but must be directed to the director, who may conduct an investigation or a hearing to make certain no unlawful or improper use will be made of the information. There are provisions in place to protect the privacy of the information provided by a registrant and the Act contains a provision that if there is any inconsistency, the provisions of the Vital Statistics Act prevail over those of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

A search may be made for research or statistical purposes but only if the director is satisfied the information is essential to the research and has received a written undertaking not to disclose the contents of the record in any way that would identify an individual. The registrar must, in any event, make his or her own statistical report to the Minister every year. In view of the lack of certainty in other jurisdictions, it might be well, for statistical purposes only, if registrants indicate their sex.

A certificate of marriage may be provided to a person on payment of the prescribed fee, if the director is satisfied it will not be used for an unlawful or improper purpose, but it will only show the names of the parties to the marriage, its date, place of solemnization, the date of registration and the number of the registration. A copy of the registration of the marriage will only be provided to a party to the marriage, a person on the authority of the minister, or on the order of a judge.

Section 34 provides that every certificate is admissible in evidence in any court in the province as prima facie proof of the particulars certified to be recorded. Where an application to register is refused by a registrar, an appeal may be taken to the Court of Queen's Bench. If satisfied it was made in good faith, and of the truth and sufficiency of the evidence, the court may order the registrar to accept the application and register the marriage.

There are headings throughout the Act that apply to each type of registration and the conditions differ somewhat. An amendment to the Act could add another heading and sections to deal with common-law partnerships that would enable the subsequent enforcement provisions to apply, but because of Section 50 of the Act it might be better to do what Nova Scotia has done and add a separate part to deal specifically with common-law registrations.

Section 50 provides that the Act "shall be so interpreted and construed as to effect its general purpose of making uniform the law of the provinces that enact it." This indicates that the basic Act was developed by the uniformity of law commissioners and should not be unduly disturbed. Nova Scotia added Part II to its Act to deal with the registration of domestic partnerships.

A Part II of a Manitoba Act could also deal exclusively with the registration of common-law partnerships and set out a complete scheme that pertains to them. I will not cover all the matters that should be copied from the existing Act but do think it important the following matters be included:

1. Any two people who are living together in a conjugal relationship may register a "common-law partnership" by completing a statement in the prescribed form, which shall be signed by
   1. each of the parties to the partnership, and
   2. two credible witnesses.
2. If satisfied as to the truth and sufficiency of the statement, the district registrar shall register the common-law partnership by signing the statement as district registrar, giving the date of filing in his office, and thereupon the statement constitutes the registration of the common-law partnership, and the registrar shall deliver the statement to the director.
3. Provisions dealing with the registration, dissolution or de-registration of a partnership.
4. The provision of a certificate to each of the registering parties.
5. The provision of a certified or photographic copy to an officer of the Crown, a Court, Hospital, School, Child and Family Services Agency or any similar institution that requires it for use in the discharge of its official duties.
6. A statement that a certificate or certified copy of a certificate issued by the registrar is prima facie proof of the existence of a common-law partnership.
7. An appeal mechanism to permit a court to review, confirm or reverse a decision of a Registrar, District Registrar or the Director of Vital Statistics.
8. Penalties for the improper use of a certificate

A registration form should include the following information:

A form requesting the de-registration of a common-law partnership, signed by the partners and giving the date of termination, should also be established to enable the director to mark an original registration as de-registered. The form should refer to the original registration and give the date of termination of the relationship

If both partners do not agree to sign a form of de-registration, there should be a provision in the Act to permit a de-registration to be recorded on the receipt of an Order of the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court of Queen's Bench Act would have to be amended to permit the court to dissolve a common-law relationship and to Order its de-registration. As with the system in London, England, I suggest that the original registration remain on file but be marked "De-Registered" or "Dissolved".

A dissolution proceeding could deal with any and all issues between the partners such as the financial support that one or another is entitled to by law or under the terms of a partnership agreement the parties have signed. The court should also be able to deal with the custody of a child that has been adopted or raised by the couple and the division of accumulated assets. For all intents and purposes the court should be able to deal with the same issues that arise in a divorce.

The Family Maintenance Act and the Marital Property Act would likely have to be amended to provide each common-law partner with the right to financial support and to participate in the division of assets if they separate. The appropriate Act should also guarantee that any children being raised by the couple have a right to support, maintenance and succession rights.

This system of registration should also, in my opinion, permit couples, one of whom is still married to another, to record their relationship, particularly if they are raising a child. A registration need not and should not interfere with any rights and obligations that exist as the result of a previous marriage but it would permit the new association to be recorded as well.

The other systems to which I have referred excluded this type of family from their legislation. That may be because some difficulties might arise if conflicting claims are made by a spouse and a common-law partner or it may be because that sort of relationship has been seen as inappropriate and unworthy of support. In my opinion government can no longer exclude this type of common-law family from its legislation. Problems of administering rights may arise from time to time, but the courts are equipped to deal with them, as Bastarach J. said in Chartier.

At the present time, if there are competing claims from a spouse and a common-law "wife" they can be resolved by the court and if a person has been in several relationships the merits of various claims can also be dealt with. It is impossible for a legislature to anticipate every situation, but if there are children of a common-law relationship their rights should be no less than those born to a married couple.

The law at this point has steered away from a recognition of the rights of children, in this type of common-law relationship, possibly assuming that the effect of a continuing marriage to another makes their recognition or administration either impossible or inappropriate. Looking at the matter from the standpoint of the unmarried partner and the child, I can see no reason why the married partner who is living common-law in another relationship should not be as liable as other common-law partners to provide all the rights and benefits married partners or unmarried common-law partners have to provide. The law should not make a distinction.

I recognize there could be some problems for those who administer employee benefits if they are faced with a request that benefits be paid to a common-law partner where the employee also has a wife or husband. That situation may arise at the present time and there may be procedures in place to deal with it. I don't know that. I can appreciate that benefits cannot be paid to two dependants unless a court order requires a division between them. The Pension Benefits Act might have to be amended, if it has not already been amended, to provide a means of resolving competing claims.

These problems, and others like them, can hopefully be worked out at the administrative level. It would be a shame if they could not be or if other problems made it impossible or impracticable for that type of common-law arrangement to be registered. If that were the case, I would revert to my "deemed common-law partnership" proposal that I referred to in the property part of this report.

In my opinion, the registration of common-law relationships would go a long way to establishing and providing the equality of rights to which common-law couples and their children are entitled. As one presenter said to us, "If you want the benefits of marriage you have to marry." I do not suggest the registration be compulsory, but it should provide those who take advantage of it to enjoy a new degree of recognition and responsibility. It should lead to the equalization of rights for them and for the children they are raising.

Opinion on Common-Law Relationships of Hon. A.C Hamilton, Q.C. - Final Report Part IV) Existing Systems Which Record Common-Law Associations Manitoba Common-Law Registry
Part IV) Europe	Part IV) Conclusion
Opinion on Common-Law Relationships of Jennifer A. Cooper, Q.C. Volume 1 Volume 2 (proposed Statute Amendments) Opinion on Common-Law Relationships of Hon. A.C Hamilton, Q.C. Final Report