Brodytsch v. Brodytsch, (1977) 7 A.R. 541 (CA)

• Judge: MacGillivray, C.J.A., Prowse, J.A. and Greschuk, J.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: February 21, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 7 A.R. 541 (CA)

Brodytsch v. Brodytsch (1977), 7 A.R. 541 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Brodytsch v. Brodytsch

Indexed As: Brodytsch v. Brodytsch

Alberta Court of Appeal

MacGillivray, C.J.A., Prowse, J.A. and Greschuk, J.

February 21, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a petition for a divorce by a wife on the ground of cruelty. The wife also claimed maintenance. The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, granted the wife a divorce and ordered the husband to pay to the wife a lump sum of $22,000.00 for maintenance. The Trial Division made no order for periodic payments. The judgment of the Trial Division is set out below - see paragraphs 7 to 37.

On appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed in part. The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside the lump sum maintenance award in favour of the wife and ordered instead periodic maintenance of $200.00 per month.

Family Law - Topic 4010

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Periodic payments - The husband, age 53, a carpenter, had gross annual earnings of $24,000.00 and a net worth of approximately $45,000.00 - The wife, age 49, a cook, had net annual earnings of $7,200.00 and a net worth of approximately $45,000.00 - The Alberta Court of Appeal awarded the wife $200.00 per month for maintenance.

Family Law - Topic 4011

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Lump sum maintenance awards - The husband, age 53, a carpenter, had gross annual earnings of $24,000.00 and a net worth of approximately $45,000.00 - The wife, age 49, a cook, had a net annual earnings of $7,200.00 and a net worth of approximately $45,000.00 - The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside a lump sum maintenance award of $22,000.00 in favour of the wife and ordered instead periodic payments of $200.00 per month.

Family Law - Topic 3657

Divorce - Grounds - Cruelty - Intention - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, stated that it is not necessary that a spouse intend to be cruel, it is enough if intentional acts amount to cruelty - See paragraph 9.

Cases Noticed:

Grandy v. Grandy (1972), 7 R.F.L. 69, folld. [para. 9].

Anderson v. Anderson, [1972] 6 W.W.R. 53; 8 R.F.L. 299, folld. [para. 9].

Galbraith v. Galbraith (1969), 1 R.F.L. 77, folld. [para. 9].

Evans v. Evans (1770), 1 Hag. Con. 35; 161 E.R. 466, folld. [para. 9].

Knoll v. Knoll, [1970] 2 O.R. 169, folld. [para. 9].

Attwood v. Attwood, [1968] P. 591, folld. [para. 15].

Chequer v. Chequer, 9 R.F.L. 208, folld. [para. 16].

Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 6 R.F.L. 353, folld. [para. 26].

Feldman v. Feldman, 2 R.F.L. 773, folld. [para. 27].

Hayre v. Hayre, 11 R.F.L. 188, refd to. [para. 17].

Davis v. Davis, [1967] P. 185, folld. [para. 27].

Counsel:

W. Wintermute, for the husband, appellant;

L.L. Decore, for the wife, respondent.

This appeal was heard by MacGILLIVRAY, C.J.A., PROWSE, J.A. and GRESCHUK, J., at Edmonton, Alberta on February 21, 1977. The judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal was delivered from the bench by PROWSE, J.A., on February 21, 1977.