Gross v. Gross, (1977) 2 A.R. 440 (TD)

JudgeMoshansky, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 08, 1977
Citations(1977), 2 A.R. 440 (TD)

Gross v. Gross (1977), 2 A.R. 440 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Gross v. Gross

Indexed As: Gross v. Gross

Alberta Supreme Court

Trial Division

Judicial District of Calgary

Moshansky, J.

February 8, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a husband's petition for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty under s. 3(d) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8. The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, granted the husband's petition and held that the wife's conduct constituted cruelty. The Trial Division ordered the husband to pay $125.00 per month for each child of the marriage and to pay his wife $100.00 per month during the duration of a training course she was attending.

Family Law - Topic 3650

Divorce - Grounds - Cruelty - What constitutes - Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8, s. 3(d) - The husband, who had been an alcoholic, decided to try to give up drinking in 1971 - For the next ten months prior to his separation from his wife in 1972 his wife belittled his efforts to stop drinking and taunted and goaded him into drinking by spilling liquor on his shirt and in other ways - The wife otherwise verbally abused the husband with insults and belittling remarks in front of their children - The wife once struck her husband on the head, when a daughter wanted to go to church with the husband - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the wife's conduct constituted cruelty and granted the husband's petition for divorce - See paragraphs 1 to 10.

Family Law - Topic 3868

Divorce - Defences - Condonation - Whether public interest would be better served by granting decree - Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8, s. 9(1)(c) - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, granted a husband a divorce on the ground of mental cruelty, where the wife's conduct completely destroyed the marriage - The Trial Division stated that, even if the wife's conduct had been condoned, a divorce should be granted under the discretionary power of s. 9(1)(c), because the public interest would not be served by keeping the parties together - See paragraphs 11 to 13.

Family Law - Topic 4010

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Periodic payments - The husband earned a net income of $800.00 per month - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, ordered the husband upon divorce to pay $125.00 per month for each child of the marriage and to pay his wife $100.00 per month during the duration of a training course she was attending - See paragraphs 15 to 17.

Cases Noticed:

Jaworski v. Jaworski (1973), 10 R.F.L. 190, folld. [para. 12].

Ivany v. Ivany (1971), 2 R.F.L. 172, consd. [para. 13].

Retzer v. Retzer (1974), 19 R.F.L. 365, consd. [para. 13].

Giesbrecht v. Giesbrecht (1974), 16 R.F.L. 399, consd. [para. 13].

Powell v. Powell (1972), 5 R.F.L. 594, consd. [para. 13].

Saunders v. Saunders (1976), 22 R.F.L. 210, consd. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8, sect. 3(d) [para. 3]; sect. 9(1)(c) [para. 11].

Counsel:

B.E. Romaine, for the petitioner;

P.S. Vallance, for the respondent.

This case was heard at Calgary, Alberta, before MOSHANSKY, J., of the Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, Judicial District of Calgary.

On February 8, 1977, MOSHANSKY, J., delivered the following judgment:

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT