Moge v. Moge (1992), 145 N.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Andrzej Moge (appellant) v. Zofia Moge (respondent) and Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (intervener)
(No. 21979)
Indexed As: Moge v. Moge
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier,
Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and
Iacobucci, JJ.
December 17, 1992.
Summary:
A husband applied to terminate spousal and child support.
The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, in a judgment reported 60 Man.R.(2d) 281, allowed the application. The wife appealed the termination of the spousal support.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Helper, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 64 Man.R.(2d) 172, allowed the appeal. The husband appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Evidence – Topic 2260
Special modes of proof – Judicial notice – Social conditions – [See third
Family Law – Topic 3997
].
Family Law – Topic 3995
Divorce – Corollary relief – Divorce Act 1970 v. Divorce Act 1985 – [See first and second
Family Law – Topic 3997
].
Family Law – Topic 3997
Divorce – Corollary relief – Obligation to achieve financial independence – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the concept of spousal support as contemplated by the 1985 Divorce Act, including a detailed discussion of the notion of self-sufficiency – The court also discussed the objectives of the 1985 Divorce Act, noting that the principles embodied in ss. 15 and 17, require a different type of analysis than that required under the 1970 Divorce Act when considering support – The court discussed the factors to be applied in reaching the objectives of the 1985 Act in awarding spousal support – The court held that the notion of self-sufficiency does not have priority over other objectives of the Act – See paragraphs 21 to 100.
Family Law – Topic 3997
Divorce – Corollary relief – Obligation to achieve financial independence – A husband and wife, with three children, experienced marital difficulties after a 20 year marriage – In 1974 the court granted a separation, granted custody to the wife, and ordered the husband to pay $150 spousal and child support – There was no formal separation agreement – In 1980 the couple divorced – The wife did not appear at the hearing of the divorce petition, nor did she oppose the husband’s proposal to continue paying $150 support – In 1989, the husband sought to terminate maintenance – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trilogy of cases, Richardson v. Richardson, Pelech v. Pelech and Caron v. Caron, decided under the 1970 Divorce Act, did not apply to this case (i.e., a nonconsensual disposition under the Divorce Act 1985) – See paragraphs 21 to 31.
Family Law – Topic 3997
Divorce – Corollary relief – Obligation to achieve financial independence – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “based upon the studies … cited earlier in these reasons, the general economic impact of divorce on women is a phenomenon the existence of which cannot reasonably be questioned and should be amenable to judicial notice. More extensive social science data are also appearing. Such studies are beginning to provide reasonable assessments of some of the disadvantages incurred and advantages conferred post-divorce … while quantification will remain difficult and fact related in each particular case, judicial notice should be taken of such studies, subject to other expert evidence which may bear on them, as background information at the very least.” – See paragraph 91.
Family Law – Topic 3997
Divorce – Corollary relief – Obligation to achieve financial independence – The Supreme Court of Canada expressed concerns about “making a spouse’s entitlement to support contingent upon the degree to which he or she is able to fit within a mythological stereotype … the distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ marriages does not seem to … be as useful as perhaps courts have indicated so far. While it may reflect flexibility on the part of courts and constitute an attempt to achieve fairness, I am of the view that there are much more sophisticated means which may be resorted to in order to achieve the objectives set out in the Act …” – See paragraph 41 – The court thereafter discussed the factors to be applied in such situations to achieve the objectives of the Divorce Act 1985 – See paragraphs 78 to 93.
Family Law – Topic 3997
Divorce – Corollary relief – Obligation to achieve financial independence – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that … “spousal support in the context of divorce … is not about the emotional and social benefits of marriage. Rather, the purpose of spousal support is to relieve
economic
hardship that results from ‘marriage or its breakdown’. Whatever the respective advantages to the parties of a marriage in other areas, the focus of the inquiry when assessing spousal support after the marriage has ended must be the effect of the marriage in either impairing or improving each party’s economic prospects” – See paragraph 43.
Family Law – Topic 3997
Divorce – Corollary relief – Obligation to achieve financial independence – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “many proponents of the deemed self-sufficiency model effectively elevate it to the pre-eminent objective in determining the right to, quantum and duration of spousal support … this approach is not consonant with proper principles of statutory interpretation. The objective of self-sufficiency is only one of several objectives enumerated … [there is] no indication that any one is to be given priority. Parliament … intended that support reflect the diverse dynamics of many unique marital relationships … It is also imperative to realize that the objective of self-sufficiency is tempered by the caveat that it is to be made a goal only ‘insofar as is practicable'” – See paragraphs 53 and 54.
Family Law – Topic 3997
Divorce – Corollary relief – Obligation to achieve financial independence – A Polish immigrant couple separated in 1973 after a 20 year marriage – During the marriage and after, the wife looked after their three children, did the household work and worked outside the home cleaning offices – The parties divorced in 1980 – From 1974 to 1989 the husband paid support to the wife on a nonconsensual basis (i.e., there was no final agreement by the parties settling the economic consequences of their divorce) – In 1989 the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench ordered termination of spousal support because the wife had ample time to become financially independent – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the trial judge erred in principle in terminating support and that support should continue.
Family Law – Topic 4000
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – General principles – [See first, second and third
Family Law – Topic 3997
].
Family Law – Topic 4017
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – Variation of periodic payments – [See all
Family Law – Topic 3997
].
Family Law – Topic 4019
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – Awards – Appeals – A husband and wife separated in 1973 and divorced after being married for over 20 years – The husband paid spousal support from 1974 until 1989 when he applied for a termination – The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench ordered the support be terminated because the wife had long enough to become self-sufficient – The Manitoba Court of Appeal restored the support order – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge committed an error in principle in engaging in an analysis premised upon a model of spousal support not sustainable on the wording of the Act – Correcting such an error fell within the court of appeal’s scope of review under the Divorce Act, 1985, ss. 21(1), 21(5) – See paragraphs 18 to 20.
Family Law – Topic 4022.1
Divorce – Corollary relief – Maintenance awards – To wife – Extent of obligation – [See all
Family Law – Topic 3997
].
Family Law – Topic 4170
Divorce – Practice – Appeals – Duty of appellate court – Discretionary orders – [See
Family Law – Topic 4019
].
Cases Noticed:
Tutiah v. Tutiah (1988), 54 Man.R.(2d) 76; 14 R.F.L.(3d) 37 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].
Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 481; 76 N.R. 81; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 14 B.C.L.R. 145; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 18].
Harrington v. Harrington (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].
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, refd to. [para. 21].
Caron v. Caron, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 892; 75 N.R. 36; 2 Y.R. 246; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 522; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 274; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 735; 14 B.C.L.R. 186, refd to. [para. 21].
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. 28].
Story v. Story (1989), 23 R.F.L.(3d) 225 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 28, 36, 39].
Doncaster v. Doncaster (1989), 76 Sask.R. 81; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 357 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
Trainor v. Trainor (1989), 80 Sask.R. 1; 23 R.F.L.(3d) 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
Droit de la famille — 598, [1989] R.D.F. 15 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
Derkach v. Derkach (1989), 60 Man.R.(2d) 278; 22 R.F.L.(3d) 423 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].
Klaudi v. Klaudi (1990), 25 R.F.L.(3d) 134 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 34].
Heinemann v. Heinemann (1989), 91 N.S.R.(2d) 136; 233 A.P.R. 136; 20 R.F.L.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 36, 39, 40, 82].
Messier v. Delage, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 401; 50 N.R. 16; 35 R.F.L.(2d) 337; 2 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 36, 74].
White v. White (1988), 87 N.B.R.(2d) 181; 221 A.P.R. 181; 13 R.F.L.(3d) 458 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].
Droit de la famille — 614, [1989] R.J.Q. 535 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].
Christian v. Christian (1991), 37 R.F.L.(3d) 26, refd to. [para. 36].
Touwslager v. Touwslager (1992), 9 B.C.A.C. 203; 19 W.A.C. 203; 63 B.C.L.R.(2d) 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].
Vigneault v. Cloutier, [1989] R.D.F. 686; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 598 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].
Droit de la famille — 716 – see Vigneault v. Cloutier.
Droit de la famille — 1567, [1992] R.J.Q. 931 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].
Oswell v. Oswell (1990), 28 R.F.L.(3d) 10 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 37].
Grohmann v. Grohmann (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 277; 11 W.A.C. 277; 37 R.F.L.(3d) 73 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
Patrick v. Patrick (1991), 35 R.F.L.(3d) 382 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 38].
Mullin v. Mullin (1989), 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 22; 249 A.P.R. 22; 24 R.F.L.(3d) 1 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].
Mullin v. Mullin (1991), 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 73; 301 A.P.R. 73; 37 R.F.L.(3d) 142 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 39, 52, 84].
Seward v. Seward (1988), 85 N.S.R.(2d) 30; 216 A.P.R. 30; 12 R.F.L.(3d) 54 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 40].
Regan v. Regan, [1991] O.J. No. 1350 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 40].
Cymbalisty v. Cymbalisty (1989), 56 Man.R.(2d) 28 (Q.B.F.D.), refd to. [para. 40].
Crowfoot v. Crowfoot (1992), 38 R.F.L.(3d) 354 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 52].
Linton v. Linton (1990), 42 O.A.C. 328; 30 R.F.L.(3d) 1; 1 O.R.(3d) 1; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 637; 41 E.T.R. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 53, 75, 84].
Droit de la famille — 623, [1989] R.D.F. 196 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].
Multiform Manufacturing Co. Ltd. et autres v. R. et autres, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 624; 113 N.R. 373; 32 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Multiform Manufacturing Co. – see Multiform Manufacturing Co. Ltd. et autres v. R. et autres.
Brockie v. Brockie (1987), 46 Man.R.(2d) 33; 5 R.F.L.(3d) 440 (Q.B.F.D.), affd. (1987), 8 R.F.L.(3d) 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].
Ormerod v. Ormerod (1990), 27 R.F.L.(3d) 225 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 87].
Elliot v. Elliot, [1992] O.J. No. 1665 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 87].
Varcoe v. Lee (1919), 181 P. 223 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 90].
R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 58 O.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].
R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22; 30 Q.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 90].
R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 10; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 90].
Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. – see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.
R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. – see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.
Droit de la famille — 182, [1985] C.A. 92, refd to. [para. 93].
Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 229, refd to. [para. 115].
Statutes Noticed:
Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8, sect. 17(2) [para. 18].
Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 15(2), sect. 15(4), sect. 15(5), sect. 15(6), sect. 15(7) [para. 32 et seq.]; sect. 17 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 17(1), sect. 17(3), sect. 17(4), sect. 17(6), sect. 17(7), sect. 17(8), sect. 17(10) [para. 32]; sect. 17(7) [paras. 12, 32]; sect. 21(1), sect. 21(5) [para. 19].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Abella, Rosalie S., Economic Adjustment on Marriage Breakdown: Support (1981), 4 Fam. L. Rev. 1, pp. 3 [paras. 67, 73]; 4 [para. 35].
Abbella, Rosalie S. and C. L’Heureux-Dubé, Family Law; Dimensions of Justice (1983), pp. 19, 22 [para. 70].
Artinian, George, The Application of Pelech to Variation of Maintenance in Quebec (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 265, generally [para. 24].
Bailey, Martha J., Pelech, Caron, and Richardson (1989-90), 3 C.J.W.L. 615, generally [para. 23]; p. 633 [paras. 54, 63].
Baker, Katharine K., Contracting for Security: Paying Married Women What They’ve Earned (1988), 55 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1193, generally [para. 65].
Bala, Nicholas, Recognizing Spousal Contributions to the Acquisition of Degrees, Licences and Other Career Assets: Towards Compensatory Support (1989), 8 Can. J. Fam. L. 23, generally [para. 83].
Bala, Nicholas and Martha Bailey, Canada: Controversy Continues Over Spousal Abortion and Support (1990-91), 29 J. Fam. L. 303, generally [para. 23].
Brinig, Margaret F. and June Carbone, The Reliance Interest in Marriage and Divorce (1988), 62 Tul. L. Rev. 855, generally [para. 65].
Canada, Department of Justice, Bureau of Review, Evaluation of the Divorce Act: Phase I — Monitoring and Evaluation (1986), generally [para. 57].
Canada, Department of Justice, Bureau of Review, Evaluation of the Divorce Act: Phase II — Monitoring and Evaluation (1990), pp. 92-95 [para. 57]; 101 [para. 72].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper 12, Maintenance on Divorce (1975), pp. 22-25 [para. 67].
Canada, National Council of Welfare, Women and Poverty Revisited (1990), p. 58 [para. 59].
Canada, Statistics Canada, Family History Survey: Preliminary Findings, Thomas K. Burch (1985), p. 26 [para. 71].
Canada, Statistics Canada, Alimony and Child Support, by Diane Galarneau, In Perspectives on Labour and Income (1992), p. 18 [para. 58].
Canada, Statistics Canada, Women in Canada: A Statistical Report (2nd Ed. 1990), p. 16 [para. 59].
Canada, Statistics Canada, Work and Relative Poverty, by John M. Evans and Raj K. Chawla, In Perspectives on Labour and Income (1990), p. 32 [para. 59].
Carbone, June, Economics, Feminism, and the Reinvention of Alimony: A Reply to Ira Ellman (1990), 43 Vand. L. Rev. 1463, generally [para. 65].
Carbone, June and Margaret F. Brinig, Rethinking Marriage: Feminist Ideology, Economic Change, and Divorce Reform (1991), 65 Tul. L. Rev. 953, generally [para. 65].
Cook, Gail C.A., Economic Issues in Marriage Breakdown, in Rosalie S. Abella and Claire L’Heureux-Dubé; eds., Family Law: Dimensions of Justice (1983), pp. 19, 22 [para. 70].
Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), p. 346 [para. 62].
Davies, Christine, Judicial Interpretation of the Support Provisions of the Divorce Act, 1985 (1992), 8 C.F.L.Q. 265, generally [para. 24]; p. 270 ff. [para. 66].
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. 23].
Eichler, Margrit, The Limits of Family Law Reform or, The Privatization of Female and Child Poverty (1990-91), 7 C.F.L.Q. 59, p. 60 [para. 60].
Ellman, Ira Mark, The Theory of Alimony (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 1, generally [paras. 65]; pp. 99, 100 [para. 91].
Florida, Supreme Court Gender Bias Commission, Report of the Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Study Commission, March 1990, p. 58 [paras. 65, 71].
Freeman, M.D.A., The State, the Law and the Family: Critical Perspectives (1984), pp. 25, 28 ff. [para. 65].
Glendon, Mary Ann, The New Family and The New Property (1981), generally [para. 44].
Goldfarb, Sally F., Marital Partnership and the Case for Permanent Alimony (1988-89), 27 J. Fam. L. 351, generally [para. 65].
Grassby, Miriam, Women in Their Forties: The Extent of Their Rights to Alimentary Support (1991), 30 R.F.L.(3d) 369, generally [para. 66]; p. 396 [para. 86].
Gunderson, Morley, Leon Muszynski and Jennifer Keck, Women and Labour Market Poverty (1990), pp. 8 [para. 55]; 18 [para. 59].
Halvorson, K.R., Causal Connection and Spousal Support (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 195, generally [para. 23].
Heeney, Thomas A., The Application of Pelech to the Variation of an Ongoing Support Order: Respecting the Intention of the Parties (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 217, p. 218 [para. 27].
Higginson, Katherine, Causal Connection: The Development of a Threshold Test for Entitlement to Spousal Support: A Commentary on Willms v. Willms, Payne v. Payne, Weppler v. Weppler and Brace v. Brace (1989), 4 C.F.L.Q. 107, generally [para. 24].
Joshi, Heather and Hugh Davies, Pensions, Divorce and Wives’ Double Burden (1992), 6 Intl. J.L. & Fam. 289, generally [para. 79].
Kerr, Richard, An Economic Model to Assist in the Determination of Spousal Support (1992), generally [para. 91]; p. 1 [para. 72].
Krauskopf, Joan M., Recompense for Financing Spouse’s Education: Legal Protection for the Marital Investor in Human Capital (1980), 28 Kan. L. Rev. 379, generally [para. 83].
Krauskopf, Joan M., Theories of Property Division/Spousal Support: Searching for Solutions to the Mystery (1989), 23 Fam. L.Q. 253, generally [para. 65].
Land, Hilary, Changing Women’s Claims to Maintenance, in Michael D.A. Freeman, ed., The State, the Law, and the Family: Critical Perspectives (1984), pp. 25, 28 ff. [para. 65].
Martin, S.L., and K.E. Mahoney, Equality and Judicial Neutrality (1987), pp. 158-160 [para. 41].
McDermid, D.R., The Causal Connection Conundrum (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 107, p. 109 [para. 25].
McLeod, James G., Annotation (1987), 7 R.F.L.(3d) 225, p. 232 [para. 25].
McLindon, James B., Separate But Unequal: The Economic Disaster of Divorce for Women and Children (1987), 21 Fam. L.Q. 351, generally [para. 56].
Meulders-Klein, M.T., Famille, état et sécurité économique d’existence dans la tourmente, in M.T. Meulders-Klein and J. Eekelaar, eds., Family, State and Individual Economic Security, vol. II (1988), p. 1077 [para. 75].
Morgan, Edmund M., Judicial Notice (1944), 57 Harv. L. Rev. 269, p. 272 [para. 90].
O’Connell, Mary E., Alimony After No-Fault: A Practice in Search of a Theory (1988-89), 23 New Eng. L. Rev. 437, generally [para. 65].
Ontario, Social Assistance Review Committee, Transitions: Ministry of Community and Social Services (1988), p. 44 [para. 61].
Pask, E. Diane and M.L. McCall, How Much and Why? An Overview (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 129, generally [para. 66]; pp. 139-140 [para. 60].
Payne, Julien D., The Dichotomy Between Family Law and Family Crises on Marriage Breakdown (1989), 20 R.G.D. 109, pp. 116, 117 [para. 56].
Payne, Julien D., Further Reflections on Spousal and Child Support After Pelech, Caron and Richardson (1989), 20 R.G.D. 477, generally [para. 75]; pp. 477 [para. 28]; 487 [para. 51]; 493 ff. [para. 66].
Payne, Julien D., Management of a Family Law File with Particular Regard to Spousal Support on Divorce (1988-89), 10 Adv. Q. 424, pp. 438, 439 [para. 51]; 441, 442 [para. 83].
Payne, Julien D., Payne on Divorce (2nd Ed. 1988), p. 101 [para. 51].
Payne, Julien D., Permanent Spousal Support in Divorce Proceedings: Why? How Much? How Long? (1987), 6 Can. J. Fam. L. 384, generally [para. 51].
Perry, Twila L., No-Fault Divorce and Liability Without Fault: Can Family Law Learn From Torts? (1991), 52 Ohio St. L.J. 55, generally [para. 65].
Proudfoot, Patricia and Karen Jewell, Restricting Application of the Causal Connection Test: Story v. Story (1990), 9 Can. J. Fam. L. 143, generally [para. 39]; p. 151 [para. 66].
Quijano, G.M. and N.A. Trott, How Broadly Is the Causal Connection Test to Be Applied? (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 247, p. 248 [para. 27].
Rogerson, Carol, Evidentiary Issues in Spousal Support Cases, in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada 1991, Applying the Law of Evidence: Tactics and Techniques for the Nineties (1992), pp. 219, 271-273 [para. 88].
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 [paras. 23, 66]; pp. 164 [para. 40]; 171, 172 [para. 69]; 174, 175 [para. 84].
Rogerson, Carol J., The Causal Connection Test in Spousal Support Law (1989), 8 Can. J. Fam. L. 95, generally [para. 66].
Salhany, Roger E., Causal Connection — Is There a New Test for Spousal Support? (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 151, generally [para. 23].
Scutt, Jocelynne A., Women and the Law: Commentary and Materials (1990), p. 247 ff. [para. 65].
Sopinka, John, Sidney N. Lederman and Alan W. Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 976 [para. 90].
Steel, Freda M., Alimony and Maintenance Orders, in Sheilah L. Martin and Kathleen E. Mahoney, eds., Equality and Judicial Netrality (1987), pp. 155, 158-160 [para. 41].
Stewart, Dana G. and Linda E. McFadyen, Women and the Economic Consequences of Divorce in Manitoba: An Empirical Study (1992), 21 Man. L.J. 80, generally [para. 65].
Trebilcock, Michael J. and Rosemin Keshvani, The Role of Private Ordering in Family Law: A Law and Economics Perspective (1991), 41 U.T.L.J. 533, generally [para. 23].
Weitzman, Lenore J., The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America (1985), p. 323 [para. 56].
Wexler, Cottonwood, Causal Connection in British Columbia: A Critique (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 257, generally [para. 24].
Wolfson, Lorne H., The Legacy of Pelech v. Pelech (1989), 4 C.F.L.Q. 115, generally [para. 24].
Counsel:
Douglas E. Johnston, for the appellant;
Peter J. Bruckshaw, for the respondent;
Helena Orton and Alison Diduck, for the intervener.
Solicitors of Record:
Myers Weinberg Kussin Weinstein Bryk, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;
Teskey and Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent;
Helena Orton, Toronto, Ontario, Wilder, Wilder & Langtry, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener.
This appeal was heard on April 1, 1992, before La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on December 17, 1992, in both official languages including the following opinions:
L’Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 100;
McLachlin, J., with concurring reasons (Gonthier, J., concurring) – see paragraphs 101 to 117.
Stevenson, J., took no part in the judgment.
