sary by the courts using the Charter. Factors favouring ascription for specific issues include: protection of theinterests of children; protection of vulnerability or dependence; compensation for contribution; protection the public purse orother public interests; and protection of third parties . Taylor v Rossu and M . v H. demonstrate that the courts will bereluctant to allow individuals in same or opposite sex conjugal relationships to use a choice based argument to claimexemption from individual obligations towards one another that may arise. Further, as demonstrated by the response toheterosexual cohabitants, Canadian legislatures are also likely to be reluctant to allow couples to chose not to formalize theirrelationships to avoid public obligations, such as in regard to welfare eligibility and income tax status.(32) Prof. Holland argues in favour of total ascription to "spousal status" as a "default position" i.e subject to the right to contractout for certain private purposes.(33) There is, however, a strong argument that for some issues there should be legalsignificance attached to the fact that parties in a conjugal relationship have chosen not to formalize their relationship or enterinto a contract. To take an important example, at present in Canada heterosexual partners who chose not to marry do notget a presumptive property share on separation, but must prove contribution to claim property rights or compensation. TheSupreme Court decision in M .v H. appears to accept that for the purposes of property rights, this may be a constitutionallypermissible distinction (or at least the decision does not require ascription for property purposes.)(34) Especially in provinces like Ontario, where there is a complex property regime with relatively little...
