Digest: Hurton v Lafayette, 2018 SKQB 99

Date:March 29, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 99

Docket Number: FLD 216/17 JCS , QB17482

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-03-29


  • Rothery


  • Family Law � Division of Family Property Statutes � Interpretation � Family Property Act, Section 30

Digest: The petitioner petitioned for the division of property under The Family Property Act. The petitioner was the surviving common law spouse of Grace Lafayette, who died in 2015, and the deceased�s executor was the respondent in the matter. The parties agreed that the petitioner and Lafayette were spouses as defined in s. 2(1) of the Act and that the house registered in Lafayette�s name was the family home. The respondent sought disclosure of certain assets referred to in the petitioner�s property statement, particularly his pensions, but the petitioner resisted on the ground that the information was irrelevant for the purposes of family property litigation because of s. 36 of the Act. The petitioner applied for summary judgment under Queen�s Bench rule 7-2 for an order that the family home that was registered in the deceased�s name alone be vested in the petitioner�s name upon him paying the estate one-half of the equity and assuming the existing mortgage. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in dealing with a family property application, the court must deal with the family home separately from the other family property under s. 22(1)(a), the other family property was subject to s. 36 of the Act, and therefore the estate was not entitled to receive any benefit from family property held in the petitioner�s name.
HELD: The application for summary judgment was dismissed. The court held that the law was settled that the value of the family home must be included in the totality of the family property for the purposes of an application pursuant to s. 30(1) of the Act. Once all disclosure of the petitioner�s assets had been provided to the respondent, a summary judgment application pursuant to Queen�s Bench rule 7-2 might be made to settle outstanding issues.

Statutes Considered:


To continue reading