Cohabiting couples who split up in the Canadian state of Quebec are not entitled to the same rights as legally married couples, when it comes to spousal support, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

By a 5-4 margin, the Court ruled that Quebec’s treatment of couples who are not legally married and who separate was constitutional.

The decision means Quebec remains the only province that does not recognise “de facto” marriages.

The decision was welcomed by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC) who said it accurately reflected “the fact that social science research shows marriage to be substantively different from living common law”.

“There is great consensus from social scientists, no matter their political stripe, that marriage is different from living together,” says IMFC Manager of Research Andrea Mrozek.

She said: “Unfortunately, the statistical reality is that people living together break up more readily – even if they do eventually wed. They are more likely to have multiple partners. Their children face more problems – higher rates of school dropout, more drug use and an earlier age of sexual initiation.

“And single parents – typically mothers – are more likely to be poor. These are some of the harsh statistical realities of living together versus getting married, and it is wise to acknowledge this difference.”

In a statement, the IMFC said that providing the same benefits to those living common-law and those who are married belies the research, would send the wrong signal about the importance of marriage for our culture and goes against the freedom to choose.

“As the saying goes, cohabitation is good preparation not for marriage, but for divorce. The Supreme Court of Canada decision today reflects the importance of establishing that marriage is a uniquely positive force for families in our culture,” concludes Mrozek.

Over thirty percent of couples in Quebec report being in cohabiting relationships, versus an average of 12.1 per cent in the rest of Canada.

Justice Louis LeBel, writing for the five-judge majority, said there was no charter violation at play because the current provincial law promotes autonomy.

“The Quebec National Assembly has not favoured one form of union over another,” he wrote.

“The legislature has merely defined the legal content of the different forms of conjugal relationships. It has made consent the key to changing the spouses’ mutual patrimonial relationship.

“In this way, it has preserved the freedom of those who wish to organise their patrimonial relationships outside the mandatory statutory framework.”

While the province’s Civil Code does not regulate the status of de facto spouses, some laws — including those governing social assistance, income tax and Quebec’s Pension Plan — treat them as a couple.

The case that sparked the debate, known as Lola vs. Eric, had been making its way through the court system for years. It involved a Quebec couple who never married, but lived together for seven years and share three children.

A court order prevents the publication of the parties’ real names.

Pierre Bienvenu, the lawyer representing “Eric,” said his client is relieved the long court process is over and is satisfied with the decision.

“It is really by force that he was dragged into this long debate,” Bienvenu said.

After separating, Lola sought spousal support, but Quebec’s Civil Code provides no such provision for couples who are not legally married.

Lola had been seeking a $50-million lump-sum payment as well as $56,000 a month from her former partner — a well-known Quebec business tycoon known in the case as Eric. Lola was 17 when she met the then 32-year-old entrepreneur.

When they split, Eric agreed to pay generous child support — but he rejected the lump sum and annual alimony settlement claim.

The woman took her case to the Quebec Superior Court in 2009, when a judge rejected her claims, saying that under existing law, partners in a de facto relationship have no rights, duties and responsibilities to each other — no matter how many years they’ve lived together.

In November 2010, a Quebec Court of Appeal decision invalidated that section of the civil code, saying the law discriminates against unmarried couples, and the province was given one year to change the law.

The Quebec government described that ruling as a mistake, and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Guy Pratte, the lawyer who argued Lola’s case, said Friday morning that he was disappointed with the decision, but it doesn’t mean the matter is settled.

“The implication for Quebec society is that the ball is now back in the legislators’ court.”

Quebec Justice Minister Bertrand St-Arnaud said the decision “confirms the principle of freedom of choice which has always governed life in Quebec, in other words the freedom of couples who choose the rules that will govern their union.”

He said there are already a number of options open to unmarried couples who want the same rights as married couples, including civil unions and a cohabitation contract.