ight affectthe interests of children.In Canada (especially the common law provinces) heterosexual partners rarely make domestic contracts like cohabitationagreements or marriage contracts. For many couples this type of domestic contract seems unromantic and expensive. Theremay also be an intuitive understanding that is difficult to make a contract at the beginning of a long and evolving relationshipthat will deal fairly with the myriad life circumstances that may arise. There has been less reluctance for same sex partners than for heterosexual partners to enter into domestic contracts. Thishas, at least in part, reflected the absence of a statutory framework for same sex partners and the need for them to havecontracts to have clarity about their respective rights and obligations. But even now, it seems that only a minority of same sexpartners enter into domestic contracts to help legally structure their relationships. If the relatively inexpensive and simplealternatives of marriage or some form of Registered Domestic Partnership were available to same sex partners, it seemslikely that use of agreements would decline among same sex partners, though contracts will always remain important forsome same sex and heterosexual couples, especially those who want to "opt out" of any statutory regime. The fact that the main focus of such an agreement is the relationship between the parties also limits their utility. There aremany legal issues related to third parties and the state that cannot be affected by a domestic contract. While legislation toregulate domestic contracts between same sex partners is desirable (and undoubtedly required by the Charter in thosejurisdictions that regulate such contracts between heterosexual partners(30)), regulation of contracts cannot provide acomplete statutory response to the challenges posed by M v. H. Ascription: Courts and Legislatures Imposing Spousal StatusCanadian legislatures and courts have recognized t...
