Bruker v. Marcovitz, (2007) 370 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 14, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 370 N.R. 1 (SCC);2007 SCC 54

Bruker v. Marcovitz (2007), 370 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]

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

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.R. TBEd. DE.003

Stephanie Brenda Bruker (appellant) v. Jessel (Jason) Benjamin Marcovitz (respondent) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenor)

(31212; 2007 SCC 54; 2007 CSC 54)

Indexed As: Bruker v. Marcovitz

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

December 14, 2007.

Summary:

A Jewish couple divorced in the civil courts. They signed a "Consent to Corollary Relief", which stated that the parties agreed to appear before the rabbinical authorities to obtain a get, a Jewish religious divorce delivered by the husband, immediately upon the granting of the civil decree nisi of divorce. The decree nisi was granted on October 23, 1980. The husband refused to deliver the get for 15 years. In 1989, the wife sued him for damages, alleging that the absence of a get prevented her from remarrying and having children who would have been considered "legitimate" under Jewish law.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [2003] R.J.Q. 1189, allowed the action. The court awarded $47,500 in damages: $2,500 for each of the 15 years between the decree nisi and the get, and $10,000 for inability to have children considered "legitimate" under Jewish law. The court awarded interest and the additional indemnity as of the date of service of the wife's amended statement of claim, where the wife's claim for damages became a real issue only after the get was delivered and the wife delivered her amended statement of claim. The husband appealed. The wife cross-appealed for an increase in damages.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2005] R.J.Q. 2482, allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. The wife appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Deschamps and Charron, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The court declined to intervene in the Superior Court's award of damages.

Civil Rights - Topic 345

Freedom of conscience and religion - Exercise of - Restrictions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7168 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7168

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Application - Exceptions - Legislative limits to rights and freedoms - When a Jewish couple divorced in the civil courts, they signed a "Consent to Corollary Relief" committing the husband to deliver a Jewish religious divorce, called a get - Under Jewish law, only a husband could deliver a get - Absent a get, a wife could not remarry and could not have children who were considered "legitimate" under Jewish law - The husband refused to deliver the get for 15 years - The wife sued him for damages - The husband invoked freedom of religion, guaranteed by Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and argued that he was shielded from the consequences of refusing to comply with his commitment - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judge's decision to allow the action - An agreement between spouses to take the necessary steps to permit each other to remarry in accordance with their own religions, constituted a valid and binding contractual obligation under Quebec law - Applying the balancing mandated by s. 9.1 of the Charter, any harm to the husband's religious freedom in requiring him to pay damages for unilaterally breaching his commitment, was significantly outweighed by the harm caused by his unilateral decision not to honour it - See paragraphs 3 to 20, 65 to 93.

Courts - Topic 2007

Jurisdiction - General principles - Issues not suitable for judicial determination - Religious doctrine or dispute - When a Jewish couple divorced in the civil courts, they signed a "Consent to Corollary Relief" committing the husband to deliver a Jewish religious divorce, called a get, and committing the parties to appear before a rabbinical court - The husband refused to deliver the get for 15 years - The wife sued him for damages - At issue was the justiciability of the agreement to remove religious barriers to remarriage - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judge's decision to allow the action - The fact that the "Consent to Corollary Relief" had religious elements did not thereby immunize it from judicial scrutiny - The court was not dealing with judicial review of doctrinal religious principles, such as whether a particular get was valid - Nor was the court required to speculate on what the rabbinical court would do - The husband's promise to remove the religious barriers by delivering a get was negotiated between two consenting adults, each represented by counsel, as part of a voluntary exchange of commitments intended to have legally enforceable consequences - This put the obligation appropriately under a judicial microscope - See paragraphs 39 to 47.

Quebec Obligations - Topic 760

Formation of contracts - Object of contract - Whether prohibited by law or contrary to public order - When a Jewish couple divorced in the civil courts, they signed a "Consent to Corollary Relief" committing the husband to deliver a Jewish religious divorce, called a get - The husband refused to deliver the get for 15 years - The wife sued him for damages - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judge's decision to allow the action - The object of the contract, the husband's commitment to deliver a get, was not contrary to public order, and since all the other requirements for a valid contract in accordance with Quebec law existed, the husband's contractual obligation was valid and legally binding under Quebec law - See paragraphs 48 to 68.

Cases Noticed:

Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; 323 N.R. 59; 2004 SCC 47, consd. [para. 37]; refd to. [para. 131].

McCaw v. United Church of Canada (1991), 49 O.A.C. 389; 4 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), consd. [para. 44].

Lindenburger v. United Church of Canada (1985), 10 O.A.C. 191 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

Nathoo v. Nathoo, [1996] B.C.T.C. Uned. H25 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 44, 123].

Amlani v. Hirani, [2000] B.C.T.C. 1023; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 543; 2000 BCSC 1653, refd to. [paras. 44, 123].

N.M.M. v. N.S.M., [2004] B.C.T.C. 346; 26 B.C.L.R.(4th) 80; 2004 BCSC 346, refd to. [paras. 44, 123].

Lakeside Colony of Hutterian Brethren et al. v. Hofer et al., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 165; 142 N.R. 241; 81 Man.R.(2d) 1; 30 W.A.C. 1, consd. [paras. 45, 130].

Morris v. Morris (1973), 42 D.L.R.(3d) 550 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 46]; refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, consd. [para. 71].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 72].

D.P. v. C.S., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141; 159 N.R. 241; 58 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 72].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 72].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 72].

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256; 345 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 72].

Temple Mount Faithful v. Jerusalem District Police Commander, H.C. 292/83, 38(2) P.D. 449, consd. [paras. 73, 149].

Christian Education South Africa v. Minister of Education (2000), 10 B. Const. L.R. 1051 (S. Afr. Const. Ct.), consd. [para. 74].

Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa inc. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591; 224 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 77].

D. v. France (1983), 35 Eur. Comm. H.R.D.R. 199, consd. [para. 84].

Muskat v. Danan, Trib. civ. Seine, February 22, 1957, Gaz. Pal. 1957.1.246, consd. [para. 85].

Gasman v. Kulbokas, Civ. 2e, December 13, 1972, D.1973.493, refd to. [para. 85].

Brett v. Brett, [1969] 1 All E.R. 1007 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 86, 140].

Shulsinger, In the Marriage of (1977), 13 A.L.R. 537 (Aust. Fam. Ct.), consd. [para. 87].

Steinmetz, In the Marriage of (1980), 6 F.L.R. 554 (Aust. Fam. Ct.), consd. [para. 87].

Avitzur v. Avitzur (1983), 459 N.Y.S.2d 572 (N.Y. Ct. App.), consd. [paras. 88, 146].

Waxstein v. Waxstein (1976), 395 N.Y.S.2d 877 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (1977), 394 N.Y.S.2d 253 (App. Div.), refd to. [para. 88].

Rubin v. Rubin (1973), 348 N.Y.S.2d 61 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 88].

Minkin v. Minkin (1981), 434 A.2d 665 (N.J. Super. Ch.), refd to. [para. 88].

Jane Doe v. John Doe, Jerusalem Family Court, 19270/03, December 21, 2004, consd. [para. 89]; refd to. [para. 152].

Sabag v. Supreme Rabbinical Court of Appeals, HCJ No. 6751/04 (Israel H.C.), consd. [para. 89].

Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jerôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650; 323 N.R. 1; 241 D.L.R.(4th) 83; 2004 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 120].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 122].

Kaddoura v. Hammoud (1998), 83 O.T.C. 30; 168 D.L.R.(4th) 503 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 123].

Despatie v. Tremblay (1921), 47 B.R. 305 (P.C.), consd. [para. 127].

Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada v. Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Cathedral of St. Mary the Protectress (Trustees), [1940] S.C.R. 586, consd. [para. 128].

Ouaknine v. Elbilia, [1981] C.S. 32 (Que.), consd. [para. 129].

Ouellette v. Gingras, [1972] C.A. 247 (Que.), refd to. [para. 132].

Curé et marguilliers de l'oeuvre et fabrique de la paroisse de St-Zacharie v. Morin, [1968] C.S. 615 (Que.), refd to. [para. 132].

Mathys v. Demers, [1968] C.S. 172 (Que.), refd to. [para. 132].

Bergeron v. Proulx, [1967] C.S. 579 (Que.), refd to. [para. 132].

Trib. civ. Metz, April 27, 1955, Trib. civ. Grenoble, May 7, 1958, Paris 1re, February 4, 1959, J.C.P. 1960.II.11632, obs. de Naurois, refd to. [para. 136].

Civ. 2e, December 13, 1972, Bull. civ. II, No. 320, refd to. [para. 136].

Civ. 2e, April 21, 1982, Bull. civ. II, No. 62, refd to. [para. 136].

Civ. 2e, June 5, 1985, Bull. civ. II, No. 113, refd to. [para. 136].

Civ. 2e, June 15, 1988, Bull. civ. II, No. 146, refd to. [para. 136].

Civ. 2e, November 21, 1990, D.1991.434, refd to. [para. 136].

Civ. 2e, June 5, 1985, J.C.P. 1987.II.20728, obs. Agostini, refd to. [para. 137].

Civ. 2e, December 13, 1972, D.1973.493, note Larroumet, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School, [2006] N.R. Uned. 44; [2007] 1 A.C. 100; [2006] UKHL 15, consd. [para. 139].

Leskun v. Leskun, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 920; 349 N.R. 158; 226 B.C.A.C. 1; 373 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 141].

Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and Canada v. Milivojevich (1976), 426 U.S. 696, consd. [para. 142].

Schwartz v. Schwartz (1992), 583 N.Y.S.2d 716 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 144].

Segal v. Segal (1994), 650 A.2d 996 (N.J. Super. Ct.), consd. [para. 147].

Yosifof v. Attorney General, Cr. A. 112/50, refd to. [para. 149].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 160].

Christiaenssens v. Rigault, 2006 QCCA 853, refd to. [para. 173].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 9.1 [para. 76].

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1373 [para. 56]; art. 1378, art. 1385 [para. 52]; art. 1412 [para. 55]; art. 1413 [para. 58].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Atlan, Gabrielle, Les Juifs et le divorce: Droit, histoire et sociologie du divorce religieux (2002), p. 231 [para. 138].

Barbier, Pierre, Le problème du "Gueth" (1987), Gaz. Pal. 484, generally [para. 137].

Barnett, Adrienne, Getting a "Get" - The Limits of Law's Authority? (2000), 8 Fem. Legal Stud. 241, p. 252 [para. 140].

Basedow, Jürgen, et al., Private Law in the International Arena: From National Conflict Rules Towards Harmonization and Unification: Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr (2000), p. 135 [para. 6].

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, and Jobin, Pierre-Gabriel, Les obligations (6th Ed. 2005), pp. 28 [para. 50]; 203, 206 [para. 61]; paras. 19, 367 [para. 57]; 368 [para. 59].

Benjamin, Ben, Judaism and the Laws of Divorce (2002), in Shirley, J., UCL Jurisprudence Review 2001, pp. 177 [para. 143]; 188 [para. 145].

Bleich, J. David, Jewish Divorce: Judicial Misconceptions and Possible Means of Civil Enforcement (1983-1984), 16 Conn. L.R. 201, generally [para. 6].

Brierley, John E.C., and Macdonald, Roderick A., Quebec Civil Law: An Introduction to Quebec Private Law (1993), p. 382 [para. 50].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 6, 2nd Sess., 34th Parliament (February 15, 1990), pp. 8375 [paras. 7, 104]; 8376, 8377 [para. 7].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 8, 2nd Sess., 34th Parliament (May 4, 1990), pp. 11033, 11034 [para. 8].

Capell, Heather Lynn, After the Glass Has Shattered: A Comparative Analysis of Orthodox Jewish Divorce in the United States and Israel (1998), 33 Tex. Int'l L.J. 331, p. 342 [para. 151].

Chigier, M., Ruminations Over the Agunah Problem (1981), 4 Jewish Law Annual 207, generally [para. 6].

Comparato, Fábio Konder, Essai d'analyse dualiste de l'obligation en droit privé (1964), pp. 135, 136 [para. 120].

Einhorn, Talia, Jewish Divorce in the International Arena, in Basedow, Jürgen, et al., Private Law in the International Arena: From National Conflict Rules Towards Harmonization and Unification: Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr (2000), p. 135 [para. 6].

Freeman, M.D.A., Jews and the Law of Divorce in England (1981), 4 Jewish Law Annual 276, generally [para. 6].

Glenn, H. Patrick, Where Heavens Meet: The Compelling of Religious Divorces (1980), 28 Am. J. Comp. L. 1, generally [para. 6].

Greenawalt, Kent, Religious Law and Civil Law: Using Secular Law to Assure Observance of Practices with Religious Significance (1998), 71 S. Cal. L. Rev. 781, p. 812 [para. 143].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Karim, Vincent, Les obligations (2nd Ed. 2002), vol. 1, pp. 19 [para. 56]; 279 [para. 171].

Lapidoth, Ruth, Freedom of Religion and of Conscience in Israel (1998), 47 Cath. U. L. Rev. 441, p. 444 [para. 149].

Lluelles, Didier, and Moore, Benoît, Droit des obligations (2006), paras. 1051 [para. 57]; 1054 [para. 171]; 1066 ff. [para. 168].

Meislin, Bernard J., Pursuit of the Wife's Right to a "Get" in United States and Canadian Courts (1981), 4 Jewish Law Annual 250, generally [para. 6].

Ogilvie, M.H., Religious Institutions and the Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 2003), pp. 217, 218 [para. 42].

Pineau, Jean, Theory of Obligations, in Reform of the Civil Code (1993), vol. 2A, pp. 11, 12 [para. 48].

Québec, Assemblée nationale, Journal des débats: Commissions parlementaires, 3rd Sess., 32nd Legislature (December 16, 1982), p. B-11609 [para. 77].

Québec, Ministère de la Justice, Commentaires du ministre de la Justice (1993), vol. 1, pp. 857, 858 [para. 55].

Riskin, Shlomo, A Jewish Woman's Right to Divorce: A Halakhic History and a Solution for the Agunah (2006), generally [para. 6].

Shachar, Ayelet, Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women's Rights (2001), generally [para. 6]; p. 62 [para. 82].

Shifman, Pinhas, Family Law in Israel: The Struggle Between Religious and Secular Law (1990), 24 Isr. L.R. 537, p. 543 [para. 150].

Shirley, J., UCL Jurisprudence Review 2001, pp. 177 [para. 143]; 188 [para. 145].

Sossin, Lorne M., Boundaries of Judicial Review: The Law of Justiciability in Canada (1999), p. 2 [para. 41].

Washofsky, Mark, The Recalcitrant Husband: The Problem of Definition (1981), 4 Jewish Law Annual 144, generally [para. 6].

Counsel:

Alan M. Stein, William Brock, David Stolow and Brandon Wiener, for the appellant;

Anne-France Goldwater and Marie-Hélène Dubé, for the respondent;

Andrew K. Lokan and Jeff Larry, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Stein & Stein, Montréal, Quebec, and Davies Ward Phillips and Vineberg, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Goldwater, Dubé, Westmount, Quebec, for the respondent;

Paliare, Roland, Rosenberg, Rothstein, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on December 5, 2006, by    McLachlin,    C.J.C.,   Bastarache,   Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on December 14, 2007, and the following reasons were filed:

Abella, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish and Rothstein, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 100;

Deschamps, J., dissenting (Charron, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 101 to 195.