Colson v. Beauregard, (2014) 424 N.B.R.(2d) 78 (FD)

• Judge: Baird, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: May 27, 2014
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2014), 424 N.B.R.(2d) 78 (FD);2014 NBQB 155

Colson v. Beauregard (2014), 424 N.B.R.(2d) 78 (FD);

    424 R.N.-B.(2e) 78; 1104 A.P.R. 78

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.001

Renvoi temp.: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.001

Deborah Ann Colson (petitioner) v. Marc Roland Beauregard (respondent)

(FDF-563-12; 1301-64878; 2014 NBQB 155; 2014 NBBR 155)

Indexed As: Colson v. Beauregard

Répertorié: Colson v. Beauregard

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Judicial District of Fredericton

Baird, J.

June 19, 2014.

Summary:

Résumé:

The parties began living together in 2000, married in 2007 and separated in 2010. The wife sought an equal division of marital property pursuant to the Marital Property Act, including the husband's pension and retirement allowance from the Canadian Forces. The husband argued that the property should be divided pursuant to an agreement that the parties entered into following their separation.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the agreement was unenforceable. The wife was entitled to an equal division of the pension and retirement allowance calculated in accordance with the parties' periods of cohabitation.

Family Law - Topic 880.33

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Severance or retirement allowance - The parties began cohabiting in 2000, married in 2007 and separated in 2010 - The wife sought an equal division of marital property, including the husband's retirement allowance from the Canadian Forces - The husband argued that the wife was not entitled to his retirement allowance because he did not receive it until two years post-separation - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the husband's submission was inconsistent with the jurisprudence - The husband "was entitled to receive retirement allowance benefits on [the] separation date, they were calculable, and would have crystallized on that date for the purposes of calculating a division of those benefits for marital property purposes." - The wife's retirement allowance entitlement accrued after one year of cohabitation - See paragraphs 117 to 129.

Family Law - Topic 3263

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Enforcement - Conditions precedent - The parties married in 2007 and separated in 2010 - Two months following the separation, the husband had the wife sign a handwritten document in which she released her interest in his pension - Neither party had legal counsel - The wife sought an equal division of marital property pursuant to the Marital Property Act - The husband argued that the property should be divided in accordance with the handwritten agreement - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the handwritten agreement was not enforceable - The husband demanded concessions from the wife and she granted them - The husband would not permit the wife to enter the marital home to remove items of property unless she made an appointment - Ultimately, the husband wore down the wife to the point where she was vulnerable and oppressed - It was under those circumstances that she executed the agreement, whose terms were inequitable and did not meet the objectives of the Marital Property Act - See paragraphs 83 to 112.

Family Law - Topic 3263

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Enforcement - Conditions precedent - The parties married in 2007 and separated in May 2009 - The wife arranged for sessions with a mediator (Jackson) - Jackson met with the parties for two one-hour sessions - No financial statements were exchanged - There were no appraisals - Jackson gave the parties a boiler plate version of a separation agreement and told each of them to meet with a lawyer - The wife gave her copy of the document to her lawyer, who reviewed it and "made comments" - The husband did not have legal representation - The parties reconciled in October 2009 and finally separated in September 2010 - In divorce proceedings, the husband argued that the document given to them by Jackson represented a settlement of the division of marital property - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated "I will not find that there was a binding agreement concluded in October 2009 following two mediation sessions, with no proof of financial disclosure, incomplete legal advice, with no legal advice in [the husband's] case, and with 'comments' from counsel for [the wife]." - In any event, the document specifically noted that the proposed contract would be void if the parties cohabited by mutual consent for a period of 90 days or more, which they did - During the reconciliation, any valuation of assets would have changed and the parties would have had to start afresh - See paragraphs 113 to 116.

Family Law - Topic 3266

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Enforcement - Distribution of property - [See first Family Law - Topic 3263 ].

Family Law - Topic 3300

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Termination of - Resumption of cohabitation - [See second Family Law - Topic 3263 ].

Family Law - Topic 3384

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Inequitable result or unfairness - [See first Family Law - Topic 3263 ].

Family Law - Topic 3388

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Duress or undue influence - [See first Family Law - Topic 3263 ].

Family Law - Topic 3391

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Lack of independent or competent legal advice - [See second Family Law - Topic 3263 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 880.33

Mari et femme - Biens matrimoniaux - Ordonnances de répartition - Biens particuliers - Indemnités de départ ou de retraite - [Voir Family Law - Topic 880.33 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 3263

Ententes de séparation, contrats domestiques et contrats de mariage - Mise en application - Conditions préalables - [Voir Family Law - Topic 3263 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 3266

Ententes de séparation, contrats domestiques et contrats de mariage - Mise en application - Distribution de biens - [Voir Family Law - Topic 3266 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 3300

Ententes de séparation, contrats domestiques et contrats de mariage - Causes de caducité - Reprise de la cohabitation - [Voir Family Law - Topic 3300 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 3384

Ententes de séparation, contrats domestiques et contrats de mariage - Motifs d'annulation - Résultat inéquitable ou injustice - [Voir Family Law - Topic 3384 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 3388

Ententes de séparation, contrats domestiques et contrats de mariage - Motifs d'annulation - Contrainte ou abus d'influence (y compris le moment pour soulever la question) - [Voir Family Law - Topic 3388 ].

Droit de la famille - Cote 3391

Ententes de séparation, contrats domestiques et contrats de mariage - Motifs d'annulation - Absence de conseil juridiques indépendants ou compétents - [Voir Family Law - Topic 3391 ].

Cases Noticed:

R.C. v. McDougall - see/voir F.H. v. McDougall.

F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41; 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 12].

O'Brien v. O'Brien (2011), 375 N.B.R.(2d) 42; 969 A.P.R. 42; 2011 CarswellNB 348; 2011 NBQB 179 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 13].

Passarello v. Passarello, [1998] O.J. No. 2792 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 16].

N.R. v. B.B. et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 295; 385 N.R. 85; 266 B.C.A.C. 1; 449 W.A.C. 1; 2009 CarswellBC 342; 2009 SCC 10, refd to. [paras. 17, 95].

C.M. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice and Consumer Affairs) (2011), 389 N.B.R.(2d) 12; 1008 A.P.R. 12; 2012 NBQB 36 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 25].

D.A. v. L.A. (2013), 409 N.B.R.(2d) 219; 1062 A.P.R. 219; 2013 NBQB 258, affd. (2014), 420 N.B.R.(2d) 133; 1091 A.P.R. 133; 2014 NBCA 39, refd to. [para. 72].

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 302 N.R. 201; 171 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 86].

Carrier v. Carrier (2007), 312 N.B.R.(2d) 285; 806 A.P.R. 285; 2007 CarswellNB 155; 2007 NBCA 23, refd to. [para. 89].

Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 550; 318 N.R. 1; 194 B.C.A.C. 161; 317 W.A.C. 161; 2004 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 91].

J.L. v. R.B. (2010), 369 N.B.R.(2d) 90; 952 A.P.R. 90; 2010 CarswellNB 626; 2010 NBQB 413 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 98].

Virc v. Blair et al. (2014), 319 O.A.C. 359; 2014 ONCA 392, refd to. [para. 99].

Campbell v. Campbell (No. 2) (1990), 83 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 260 A.P.R. 340; 1990 CarswellNfld 156 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 105].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 109].

Spence v. Spence (1994), 146 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 374 A.P.R. 321 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 118].

Stapleton v. Stapleton (1990), 112 N.B.R.(2d) 181; 281 A.P.R. 181 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 118].

Adams v. Adams, [1998] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 7 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 118].

Boucher v. Boucher, [1997] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 2 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 118].

Fraser v. Fraser (1983), 47 N.B.R.(2d) 364; 124 A.P.R. 364; 35 R.F.L.(2d) 45 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].

Clarke v. Clarke (1990), 113 N.R. 321; 101 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 275 A.P.R. 1; 1990 CanLII 86 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 140].

Miller v. Miller (2003), 259 N.B.R.(2d) 132; 681 A.P.R. 132; 2009 CarswellNB 226; 2003 NBCA 37, refd to. [para. 140].

C.J.G. v. L.T.G. (2011), 369 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 952 A.P.R. 202; 2011 NBCA 12, refd to. [para. 146].

Burns et al. v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 219 et al. (2012), 383 N.B.R.(2d) 245; 991 A.P.R. 245; 2012 NBCA 13, refd to. [para. 146].

Bourque v. Bourque, [2003] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 100; 2003 NBQB 315 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 148].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Kelly Anne Driscoll, appearing on behalf of the petitioner;

Leah M. Toner, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

This matter was heard on May 27, 2014, before Baird, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Fredericton, who delivered the following decision on June 19, 2014.