Harper v. Harper, (1979) 27 N.R. 554 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 28, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1979), 27 N.R. 554 (SCC);[1979] 5 WWR 289;[1979] SCJ No 92 (QL);1979 CanLII 168 (SCC);8 RPR 261;[1980] 1 SCR 2;13 RFL (2d) 5;98 DLR (3d) 600;27 NR 554

Harper v. Harper (1979), 27 N.R. 554 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Harper v. Harper

Indexed As: Harper v. Harper

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.

June 28, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a wife's claim to a one-half interest in the matrimonial home following a divorce. Pursuant to s. 8 of the British Columbia Family Relations Act the trial court awarded the wife a one-quarter interest in the matrimonial home. The husband appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the award made by the trial judge on the ground that title to the matrimonial home was held by the Director under the federal Veterans' Land Act. The wife appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and awarded the wife a one-third interest in the matrimonial home. The Supreme Court of Canada admitted fresh evidence to show that title to the matrimonial home had been conveyed to the husband contrary to the facts as stated to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Pigeon, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ., dissenting, in the Supreme Court of Canada, would have allowed the appeal and would have awarded the wife a one-half interest in the matrimonial home - see paragraphs 24 to 53.

Family Law - Topic 625

Husband and wife - Property rights during marriage - Title to property acquired by joint contribution or joint effort - Following a divorce a wife claimed a one-half interest in the matrimonial home (which was in her husband's name) on the ground that the home was purchased as a joint venture and that she made economic contributions to the family as a whole - British Columbia Family Relations Act, s. 8 - The Supreme Court of Canada awarded the wife a one-third interest in the home - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to relevant and irrelevant considerations in making such an order (see paragraphs 19, 20 and 34).

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 886

Duty to court - Presentation of evidence - Duty to disclose relevant documents - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a lawyer must disclose relevant documents of which he has knowledge (in answer to a notice to produce) or refuse to continue acting for his client (see paragraph 11).

Practice - Topic 7036

Costs - Party and party costs - Intervenants - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the general rule of the Supreme Court of Canada that no costs are awarded to or against any intervenant (see paragraph 16).

Practice - Topic 9095

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Hearing of fresh evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the circumstances when fresh evidence will be admitted in the Supreme Court of Canada (see paragraphs 8 and 9) - The Supreme Court of Canada admitted fresh evidence to correct false statements in the record before the lower courts (see paragraphs 10 to 15).

Cases Noticed:

Dormuth and Ursel v. Untereiner and Muskovitch, [1964] S.C.R. 122, refd to. [para. 8].

Brown v. Gentleman, [1971] S.C.R. 501, refd to. [para. 9].

Rathwell v. Rathwell, 19 N.R. 91; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436, refd to. [paras. 19 and 34].

Garratt v. Garratt (1974), 16 R.F.L. 168 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Re Hull Estate, [1943] O.R. 778 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Deleeuw v. Deleeuw (1977), 5 B.C.L.R. 106, refd to. [para. 37].

Murdoch v. Murdoch, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 457, refd to. [para. 41].

Thompson v. Thompson (1960), 26 D.L.R.(2d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Stevenson v. Stevenson (1974), 15 R.F.L. 248 (B.C.S.C.), folld. [para. 41]; refd to. [para. 44].

Rimmer v. Rimmer, [1952] 2 All E.R. 863, refd to. [para. 41].

Shehousky v. Shehousky (1974), 17 R.F.L. 270 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Wiley v. Wiley (1971), 6 R.F.L. 36 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Atamanchuk v. Atamanchuk (1955), 15 W.W.R. 301, refd to. [para. 45].

Pettitt v. Pettitt, [1970] A.C. 777, refd to. [para. 46].

Gissing v. Gissing, [1971] A.C. 886, refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Relations Act, S.B.C. 1972, sect. 8 [para. 2].

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19, sect. 67 [para. 8].

Counsel:

Robert Doell, and Deborah Acheson, for the appellant;

John W. Horn, for the respondent husband.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, PRATTE and McINTYRE, JJ. of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on May 10, 1979.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on June 28, 1979 and the following opinions were filed:

LASKIN, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 1 to 23.

ESTEY, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 24 to 53.

MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON and BEETZ, JJ. concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.

PIGEON, PRATTE and McINTYRE, JJ. concurred with ESTEY, J.