L.G. v. G.B. (1995), 186 N.R. 201 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
L.G. (appelante) c. G.B. (intimé)
(23629)
Indexed As: L.G. v. G.B.
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,
Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin
and Iacobucci, JJ.
September 21, 1995.
Summary:
Mr. G.B. and Mrs. L.G. divorced. A 1986 corollary relief agreement between them provided, among others, that G.B. would pay L.G. $2,600 per month as spousal support and $100 per month for a minor child in L.G.’s physical custody. When the agreement was signed, L.G. was seeing a friend with whom she began a common law relationship in May 1989. G.B. then invoked s. 17 of the Divorce Act, 1985, and applied for an order seeking, among others, custody of the child, cancellation of the maintenance payments for him, a declaration that L.G. was financially independent and the cancellation of the spousal support payable to her.
The Quebec Superior Court (Benoit, J.) allowed the application only to the extent of ordering that G.B. would have physical custody of the child. Benoit, J., dismissed the application for the rest. G.B. appealed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision summarized at J.E. 93-880 (sub nom. Droit de la famille – 1783), allowed the appeal. L.G. appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The court ordered that spousal maintenance continue but discontinued child maintenance because the child was now married and independent.
Family Law – Topic 3997
Divorce – Corollary relief – Obligation to achieve financial independence – [See first
Family Law – Topic 4000
].
Family Law – Topic 4000
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – General principles – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the philosophy, objectives and factors governing the award of maintenance under the Divorce Act, 1985 – The court stated, among others, that the Act provided for “partnership in marriage and, at the time of the divorce, an equitable division of its economic consequences between the spouses. It thus rejected the presumption of economic self-sufficiency and substituted for it a number of criteria that would take into account the advantages and disadvantages to spouses accruing from the marriage or its breakdown. It did not, however, completely depart from the objective of economic self-sufficiency, although it underlined that this objective can only be pursued ‘insofar as practicable'” – See paragraphs 16 to 47.
Family Law – Topic 4000
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – General principles – In the context of an application for cancellation of maintenance payments based on s. 17 of the Divorce Act, the Supreme Court of Canada, per L’Heureux-Dubé, La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., reviewed the Pelech-Richardson-Caron trilogy, “rendered in the context of the provisions and philosophy” of the Divorce Act, 1968 – See paragraphs 18 to 37 – Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., stated, however, that the present case was not appropriate for the discussion of the trilogy – See paragraph 75.
Family Law – Topic 4006
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – Effect of agreements – [See first
Family Law – Topic 4017
].
Family Law – Topic 4017
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – Variation of periodic payments or lump sum award – The Supreme Court of Canada held that variation of maintenance awards was governed by s. 17 of the Divorce Act, 1985 – The court stated that the courts retained a discretionary power to be exercised according to the particular facts of each case and the factors and objectives mentioned in the Act – The court held that the courts must consider whether there has been a sufficient change of circumstances and should not ignore agreements between the parties even though s. 17 does not oblige the courts to consider them – The court stated that the more an agreement respects the Act’s objectives, the more likely it will influence the outcome of the variation application – See paragraphs 47 to 59.
Family Law – Topic 4017
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – Variation of periodic payments or lump sum award – In 1989, Mr. G.B. invoked s. 17 of the Divorce Act, 1985, and applied for an order cancelling spousal maintenance because Mrs. L.G. was now living with the friend she was seeing when a maintenance agreement between her and G.B. was signed in 1986 – The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application because of lack of sufficient change in circumstances in that (1) G.B. knew that L.G. was seeing a friend when the agreement was signed and (2) it was foreseeable that they would live together – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision – See paragraphs 62 to 76.
Family Law – Topic 4017
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – Variation of periodic payments or lump sum award – In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada cancelled child maintenance payments provided for by a 1986 agreement because there was sufficient change of circumstances in that the child concerned, then minor, was now married and independent – See paragraph 62.
Cases Noticed:
Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; 76 N.R. 81; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 481; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 14 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 1, not appld. [para. 16].
Richardson v. Richardson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857; 77 N.R. 1; 22 O.A.C. 1; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 304; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 699; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 104, not appld. [para. 16].
Caron v. Caron, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 892; 75 N.R. 36; 2 Y.R. 246; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 274; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 522; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 735; 14 B.C.L.R.(2d) 186, not appld. [para. 16].
Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 27].
Corkum v. Corkum (1988), 14 R.F.L.(3d) 275 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 28].
Snyder v. Snyder (1987), 80 N.S.R.(2d) 257; 200 A.P.R. 257; 10 R.F.L.(3d) 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
Schroeder v. Schroeder (1987), 52 Man.R.(2d) 219; 11 R.F.L.(3d) 413 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 28].
Williams v. Williams (1988), 70 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 331; 215 A.P.R. 331; 13 R.F.L.(3d) 321 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].
Willms v. Willms (1988), 27 O.A.C. 316; 14 R.F.L.(3d) 162 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
Droit de la famille – 382, [1988] R.J.Q. 2408; 16 R.F.L.(3d) 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
Brody v. Brody (1990), 105 A.R. 41; 25 R.F.L.(3d) 319 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].
Publicover v. Publicover (No. 1) (1987), 81 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 203 A.P.R. 91; 9 R.F.L.(3d) 308 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].
Lynk v. Lynk (1989), 92 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 237 A.P.R. 1; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Doncaster v. Doncaster (1989), 76 Sask.R. 81; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 357 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Fisher v. Fisher (1989), 39 O.A.C. 154; 22 R.F.L.(3d) 225 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].
Story v. Story (1989), 23 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 42 B.C.L.R.(2d) 21 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Linton v. Linton (1990), 42 O.A.C. 328; 1 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Romanoff v. Romanoff (1992), 80 Man.R.(2d) 188; 41 R.F.L.(3d) 433 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].
Droit de la famille – 1567, [1992] R.J.Q. 931; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Droit de la famille – 1688, [1992] R.J.Q. 2797; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Bush v. Bush (1989), 21 R.F.L.(3d) 298 (Ont. U.F.C.), consd. [para. 30].
Messier v. Delage, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 401; 50 N.R. 16; 35 R.F.L.(2d) 337, consd. [para. 31].
Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81; 6 R.F.L.(4th) 161, folld. [para. 48].
Brockie v. Brockie (1987), 8 R.F.L.(3d) 302 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].
J.F. v. B.H., [1987] R.J.Q. 294 (sub nom. Droit de la famille – 333); 6 Q.A.C. 221 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].
Droit de la famille – 333 – see J.F. v. B.H.
Statutes Noticed:
Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 15(5), sect. 15(7), sect. 17(1), sect. 17(4), sect. 17(7), sect. 17(8) [para. 15].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bailey, Martha J., Pelech, Caron and Richardson (1989-90), 3 C.J.W.L. 615, generally [para. 34].
Bala, Nicholas, Domestic Contracts in Ontario and the Supreme Court Trilogy: A Deal is a Deal (1988), 13 Queen’s L.J. 1, p. 61 [para. 34].
Canada, Commission de réforme du droit, Rapport, Le droit de la famille, 1976, pp. 1 [para. 38, French version]; 18 [para. 39, French version]; 42 [para. 21, French version].
Canada, Department of Justice, Divorce Law in Canada: Proposals for Change (1984), p. 22 [para. 40, English version].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report on Family Law (1976), pp. 1 [para. 38, English version]; 17 to 18 [para. 39, English version]; 39 to 40 [para. 21, English version].
Canada, Ministère de la Justice, Propositions de réforme du droit du divorce au Canada, 1984, p. 22 [para 40, French version].
Davies, Christine, Family Law in Canada (4th Ed. 1984), p. 328 [para. 20].
Duff, David G., The Supreme Court and the New Family Law: Working through the Pelech Trilogy (1988), 46 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 542, generally [para. 34].
Durnford, John W., and Toope, Stephen J., Spousal Support in Family Law and Alimony in the Law of Taxation (1994), 42 Can. Tax J. 1, pp. 17 to 18 [para. 35].
Goubau, Dominique, Une nouvelle ère pour la pension alimentaire entre ex-conjoints au Canada (1993), 72 Can. Bar Rev. 279, p. 300 [para. 46].
Heeney, Thomas A., The Application of Pelech to the Variation of an Ongoing Support Order: Respecting the Intention of Parties (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 217, generally [para. 32].
McDermid, D.R., The Causal Connection Conundrum (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 107, p. 119 [para. 27].
McLeod, James G., Annotation of Pelech v. Pelech (1987), 7 R.F.L.(2d) 225, p. 232 [para. 27].
Neave, Marcia, Resolving the Dilemma of Difference: A Critique of “The Role of Private Ordering in Family Law” (1994), 44 U.T.L.J. 97, generally [para. 34].
Payne, Julien D., Further Reflections on Spousal and Child Support after Pelech, Caron and Richardson (1989), 20 R.G.D. 447, generally [para. 34].
Payne, Julien D., Spousal and Child Support after Moge, Willick and Levesque (1995), 12 C.F.L.Q. 261, p. 271 [para. 46].
Proudfoot, Patricia, and Jewell, Karen, Restricting Application of the Causal Connection Test: Story v. Story (1990), 9 Can. J. Fam. L. 143, generally [para. 34].
Rogerson, Carol J., Judicial Interpretation of the Spousal and Child Support Provisions of the Divorce Act, 1985 (Part I) (1990-91), 7 C.F.L.Q. 155, generally [para. 34].
Rogerson, Carol, J., The Causal Connection Test in Spousal Support Law (1989), 8 Can. J. Fam. L. 95, p. 103 [para. 35]; 122 [para. 33].
Counsel:
Simon Lahaie, for the appellant;
George Artinian, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Alarie, Legault & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;
Martineau, Walker, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on March 2, 1995, by La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on September 21, 1995 and the following opinions were filed:
L’Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 72;
Sopinka, J. (Cory, McLachlin and Iaco-bucci, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 73 to 76.
