Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard and Registrar of Registration Division of Compton at Cookshire, (1984) 51 N.R. 288 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 02, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1984), 51 N.R. 288 (SCC);AZ-84111008;[1984] 1 SCR 2;37 RFL (2d) 225;JE 84-146;1984 CanLII 15 (SCC);51 NR 288

Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard (1984), 51 N.R. 288 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard and Registrar of Registration Division of Compton at Cookshire

(mis-en-cause)

Indexed As: Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard and Registrar of Registration Division of Compton at Cookshire

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.

February 2, 1984.

Summary:

After living together for two years a man and woman signed an agreement to buy a farm. To pay the purchase price of $16,000 the man borrowed $3,000 from his mother and obtained a loan for the balance by way of a first mortgage. The woman did not sign the deed or the mortgage. For the next five years both shared in the work of making the farm operational and in doing the chores and, as well, both had outside jobs. The woman contributed to repayment of the mortgage and both shared in the expenses and the income of the farm. When they broke up the woman claimed that their arrangement was a partnership to which she was entitled to an equal share of the assets.

The Quebec Superior Court allowed the woman's action and held that their arrangement was a partnership. Partition was ordered. The man appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the woman's action, holding that the arrangement was not a partnership. The Court of Appeal emphasized the failure of the woman to be a party to the purchase. The woman appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment, holding that a partnership existed. The court held that the Court of Appeal erred in interfering with the trial judge's fact findings.

Family Law - Topic 690

Husband and wife - Property rights during common law marriage or relationship - Partnerships - After living together for two years a man and woman signed an agreement to buy a farm - To pay the purchase price of $16,000 the man borrowed $3,000 from his mother and obtained a loan for the balance by way of a first mortgage - The woman did not sign the deed or the mortgage - For the next five years both shared in the work of making the farm operational and in doing the chores and, as well, both had outside jobs - The woman contributed to repayment of the mortgage and both shared in the expenses and the income of the farm - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the man and woman were partners and the woman was entitled to an equal share of the farm assets.

Partnership - Topic 101

Terms of existence - General principles - After living together for two years a man and woman signed an agreement to buy a farm - To pay the purchase price of $16,000, the man borrowed $3,000 from his mother and obtained a loan for the balance by way of a first mortgage - The woman did not sign the deed or the mortgage - For the next five years both shared in the work of making the farm operational and in doing the chores and, as well, both had outside jobs - The woman contributed to repayment of the mortgage and both shared in the expenses and the income of the farm - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the man and woman were partners and the woman was entitled to an equal share of the farm assets.

Practice - Topic 8800

Appeals - Duty of appeal court regarding fact findings by trial judge - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a Court of Appeal erred in interfering with a trial judge's fact findings, where he made no error in assessing the evidence - See paragraphs 9 to 12, 17 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

Demers v. The Montreal Steam Laundry Company (1897), 27 S.C.R. 537, appld. [para. 10].

Symington v. Symington, L.R. 2 H.L. Sc. 415, appld. [para. 10].

Pelletier v. Shykofsky, [1957] S.C.R. 635, appld. [para. 10].

Dorval v. Bouvier, [1968] S.C.R. 288, appld. [para. 10].

Schreiber Brothers Limited v. Currie Products & Gulf Oil Co., [1980] S.C.R. 78; 31 N.R. 335, appld. [para. 11].

Stein v. The Ship "Kathy K", [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359, appld. [para. 11].

Lewis v. Todd & McClure, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 694; 34 N.R. 1; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 257, appld. [para. 11].

Taylor v. Jaegil Enterprises, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 1; 40 N.R. 4, appld. [para. 11].

Rubis v. Gray Rocks Inn Limited, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 452; 41 N.R. 108, appld. [para. 11].

Doerner v. Bliss & Laughlin Industries Inc., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 865; 34 N.R. 168, appld. [para. 11].

Wire Rope Industries & B.C. Marine Shipbuilders et al., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 363; 23 N.R. 350, appld. [para. 11].

Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. v. Liverpool and London and Globe Ins. Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 600; 36 N.R. 541, appld. [para. 11].

Metivier v. Cadorette [1977] 1 S.C.R. 384; 8 N.R. 129, appld. [para. 11].

Latour v. Grenier, [1945] S.C.R. 749, appld. [para. 11].

Workmen's Compensation Board v. Greer, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 347; 1 N.R. 599, appld. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Lower Canada Civil Code, art. 1848 [para. 34].

Quebec Civil Code, art. 1830 et seq. [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Demain, Bernard, La liquidation des biens des concubins, L.G.D.J., Paris, 1968 [paras. 24, 30, 41].

Hemard, Jean, Theorie et pratique des nullites des societes et societes de fait (2nd Ed. 1926) [para. 32].

Pic and Krier, Les societes commerciales (3rd Ed. 1940) [para. 30].

Temple, Henri, Les societes de fait, L.G.D.J., Paris, 1975 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Martin Gauthier, for the appellant;

Andre Morissette, for the respondent.

This case was heard on March 15, 1983, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 2, 1984, Lamer, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: