• Print
  • Family Law accounts for 16 out of 654 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Banton v Banton, 1998 CanLII 14926 (ON SC)

Ability to manage property is not essential to the validity of marriage

Braglin v Braglin, 2002 ABQB 816

A determination of whether occupation rent is payable is context-specific and discretionary. In this case, no occupation rent required. This is a discretionary remedy: therefore occupation rent may apply in other situations.

C.M.D. v. R.R.S. Jr. 2005 BCSC 757

Marriage of a woman who was drunk at the time of wedding was valid, because she went through a lot of steps to get the marriage license prior to ceremony

Contino v Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63

There is no presumption in awarding at least the table amount for child support. The court must look to the listed factors in s.9 once the 40% threshold met. Test:
**(a) Court must take into account applicable table for each of the parents
**(b) Adjust for the increased costs of shared custody arrangements
**(c) Adjust for other conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent and of any child
***Not every $ spent by payor will result in $ saved by recipient

Dupere v Dupere (1974), 19 RFL 270

To be considered living separate and apart need: Physical sep and withdrawal by 1 or more spouse of the matrimonial obligation w/ intent to destroy matrimonial consortium

Halpern v. Toronto (City) (2003), 36 R.F.L. (5th) 127 (Ont. C.A.)

The common law definition of marriage in Hyde infringed s.15 of the CA was not saved by s.1

Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee. [L.R.] 1 P. & D. 130 (1886)

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman

Kerr v Baranow, 2011 SCC 10

Monetary damages are not restricted to quantum meruit.

To demonstrate a joint family venture, the complainant must adduce evidence of:
-mutual effort
-economic integration
-actual intent
-priority of the family

If a joint family venture can be proven, then if the complainant can demonstrate a link between their contributions and that a monetary award would be insufficient, they are entitled to a share of the assets proportionate to their contributions.

In a business joint venture, the 4th consideration is eliminated.

Lewi v Lewi (2006), 267 DLR (4th) 193, [2006] OJ No 1847 (CA)

Court should consider child’s contribution to post-secondary expenses when determining child support payments by a parent
**S.3(2)(b) (for younger son) and s.7 (for older son) require that means of child be considered along w/ means of kid (no distinction between 7(1) and 3(2)(b))

P. (S.E.) v. P. (D.D.), 2005 BCSC 1290

Adultery can include sexual acts between people of the same sex

Peter v Beblow, [1993] 1 SCR 980

There are no obligations for services between common law spouses.

Rawluk v Rawluk [1990], 1 SCR 70.

The constructive trust remedy can be utilized by unmarried cohabitants. It would not only be inequitable but would also contravene the provisions of s. 64(2) if married persons were precluded by the Family Law Act, 1986 from utilizing the doctrine of remedial constructive trust which is available to unmarried persons.

Re Sorensen & Sorensen (1977), 90 D.L.R. (3d) 26 (Alta CA)

The failed attempt to created an express trust severed the joint tenancy.

Rushton v. Rushton [1969] 2 D.L.R. (3d) (BCSC)

There must be withdrawal from the matrimonial obligation with the intent to destroy the marriage, and must be physical separation in order to be "living separate and apart"
**Physical separation can occur under 1 roof

S.(A.) v. S.(A.) (1988), 15 R.F.L. (3d) 443 (Ont. U.F.C.)

Consent obtained by duress renders a marriage voidable (voidable because it could be ratified by the person who was under duress at a later date)