Becker v. Pettkus (1980), 34 N.R. 384 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Becker v. Pettkus
Indexed As: Becker v. Pettkus
Supreme Court of Canada
Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
December 18, 1980.
Summary:
This case arose out of the plaintiff woman’s claim against the defendant man for a share of his assets. The plaintiff woman and the defendant man immigrated separately to Canada in 1954 and met in 1955 when she was 30 years old and he 25. They moved in together, both earning very low wages. They lived together without marriage for nearly the next 20 years, during which time they both worked and built up a successful beekeeping business. All property was acquired in the man’s name and he accumulated savings, because the woman’s income was completely used to support them. When she left him in 1974, she claimed an interest in the man’s assets and business. The Ontario High Court allowed the action, but awarded the woman only 40 bee hives without bees and $1500. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the woman’s appeal and awarded her a one half interest in the lands and beekeeping business. The man appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment to find a constructive trust in favour of the woman. See paragraphs 37 to 43 and 49 to 51. The court held that the resulting trust doctrine was inapplicable, where there was no evidence of a common intention that she share equally with him. The court discussed the limitations of the resulting trust approach in such circumstances. See paragraphs 19 to 36.
Martland and Ritchie, JJ., while concurring in the result , did so on the basis that there was a resulting trust in favor of the woman. Both disapproved extending the doctrine of constructive trusts to the situation. See paragraphs 55 to 86.
Estoppel – Topic 1426
Estoppel by conduct – Acceptance of money or property – The plaintiff woman left the defendant man after a common law relationship of nearly 20 years during which she contributed equally to the acquisition of assets and a business in the man’s name – When they temporarily separated on a prior occasion, he gave her $3000, a six year old Volkswagon and 40 bee hives with bees – When she returned after the temporary separation, she brought back the car and returned $1900 plus the hives – He also agreed to pay her $500 a year – The man argued upon their final separation that the woman was estopped from claiming any share of his assets by her acceptance of money and goods on the prior separation and the imposition of terms on her return – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the woman was not estopped from claiming a share of his assets, where there was no negotiation or agreement about joint assets – See paragraph 48.
Statutes – Topic 5946
Operation and effect – Effect on common law – Effect of statute on related areas – The plaintiff woman brought an action for a share of the assets of the defendant man with whom she lived for nearly 20 years during which she contributed equally to the acquisition of assets and a business in the man’s name – The man pleaded in defence that the equitable remedy of constructive trust should not be used to give the woman a share of his assets, where the Ontario legislature specifically omitted application of the Family Law Reform Act to common law relationships, arguing that it was the apparent policy of the legislature to not require equal division of assets in common law relationships – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the fact there was no statutory regime directing equal division of assets acquired by common law spouses was no bar to the availability of the equitable remedy of constructive trust in the circumstances – See paragraphs 44 to 47.
Trusts – Topic 2346
Constructive trusts – Basis for imposition – Unjust enrichment – The plaintiff woman and the defendant man immigrated separately to Canada in 1954 and met in 1955, when she was 30 years old and he 25 – They moved in together, both earning very low wages – They lived together without marriage for nearly the next twenty years, during which time they both worked and built up a successful beekeeping business – All property was acquired in the man’s name and he accumulated savings, because the woman’s income was completely used to support them – When she left him in 1974, she claimed an interest in the man’s assets and business – The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the action and held that the woman was entitled to one half of the assets on a constructive trust – The court in finding a constructive trust applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment, where the man was enriched, the woman suffered a corresponding deprivation and it was unfair for her not to be compensated – See paragraphs 37 to 43 and 49 to 51 – The court held that the remedy of constructive trust was available notwithstanding that the parties were never married – See paragraphs 44 to 47.
Cases Noticed:
Rathwell v. Rathwell, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436; 19 N.R. 91; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 289, consd. [paras. 19, 60, 75].
Pettit v. Pettit, [1970] A.C. 777, consd. [paras. 20, 57, 76].
Gissing v. Gissing, [1971] A.C. 886, consd. [paras. 20, 57, 76].
Murdoch v. Murdoch, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 423, consd. [paras. 21, 57, 75].
Fibrance v. Fibrance, [1957] 1 All E.R. 357, refd to. [para. 22].
Moses v. Macferlan (1760), 2 Burr. 1005, consd. [paras. 37, 62].
Babrociak v. Babrociak (1978), 1 R.F.L. (2d) 95 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 37].
Re Spears and Levy et al. (1975) 52 D.L.R.(3d) 146 (N.S.C.A.), consd. [para. 37].
Douglas v. Guaranty Trust Company of Canada (1978), 8 R.F.L.(2d) 98 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 37].
Armstrong v. Armstrong (1978), 93 D.L.R. (3d) 128 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 37].
Ruabon S.S. Co. Ltd. v. London Assurance, [1900] A.C. 6, appld. [para. 39].
Cooke v. Head, [1972] 2 All E.R. 38, folld. [paras. 45, 76].
Eves v. Eves, [1975] 3 All E.R. 768, folld. [para. 45].
Marvin v. Marvin (1976), 557 P. 2d 106, folld. [para. 45].
Cooper v. Cooper (1888), 13 A.C. 88 (H.L.), appld. [para. 53].
Canadian National Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Watson, [1939] S.C.R. 11, appld. [para. 53].
Holt v. Markham, [1923] 1 K.B. 504, consd. [para. 63].
Maryon v. Ashcroft, [1938] 1 K.B. 49, consd. [para. 63].
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd., [1943] A.C. 32, consd. [para. 64].
Reading v. Attorney-General, [1951] A. C. 507, consd. [para. 64].
Hussey v. Palmer, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1286, consd. [para. 69].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Castel, Droit international privé québécois (1980), pp. 803-4 [para. 53].
Pollock, Leonard, Matrimonial Property and Trusts: The Situation from Murdoch to Rathwell (1978), 16 Alta. L. Rev. 357 [para. 37].
Scott, A.W., Constructive Trusts (1955), 71 L.Q.R. 39 [para. 37].
Snell, Principles of Equity (27th Ed.), p. 186 [para. 68].
Waters, Donovan, Comment on Matrimonial Property Disputes – Resulting and Constructive Trusts – Restitution (1975), 53 Can. B. Rev. 366 [para. 23].
Counsel:
Barry B. Swadron, Q.C., and Susan G. Himel, for the appellant;
Sidney N. Lederman and G.E. Langlois, for the respondent.
This case was heard on June 23, 1980, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C, MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On December 18, 1980, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:
DICKSON, J. – see paragraphs 1 to 54;
MARTLAND, J. – see paragraphs 55 to 72;
RITCHIE, J. – see paragraphs 73 to 86.
BEETZ, J., concurred with MARTLAND, J.
LASKIN, C.J.C., ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.
