Haus v. Harper, (2004) 248 Sask.R. 152 (FD)

• Judge: McIntyre, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 26, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2004), 248 Sask.R. 152 (FD);2004 SKQB 173

Haus v. Harper (2004), 248 Sask.R. 152 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.045

Joyce Elizabeth Haus (petitioner) v. Terry Roger Harper (respondent)

(2003 F.L.D. No. 268; 2004 SKQB 173)

Indexed As: Haus v. Harper

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

McIntyre, J.

April 26, 2004.

Summary:

A common law wife applied for judgment against the husband in accordance with the terms of an accepted settlement offer. The husband refused to sign the settlement agreement on the ground that there was a mutual mistake as to the value of a quarter section of land ($172,000 rather than $500,000).

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, granted judgment.

Family Law - Topic 3395

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Mistake (incl. rectification) - A common law wife applied for judgment against the husband in accordance with the terms of an accepted settlement offer - The husband refused to sign the settlement agreement on the ground that there was a mutual mistake as to the value of a quarter section of land ($172,000 rather than $500,000) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, granted judgment, stating that "applying the test adopted by this court, the reasonable person would conclude the parties here were in agreement as to a contract and its terms. There is no error as to any fundamental fact. Even if the respondent's version of events were accepted, the nature of his complaint is that the settlement is not as good a deal as he thought it would be. As Fridman has noted, mutual assent is not required for there to be a valid contract, 'only a manifestation of mutual assent'. The settlement clearly manifests mutual assent. The fact the respondent thought it represented an unequal division of property in his favour when it may in fact not be so, does not give rise to a claim for mutual mistake." - See paragraphs 1 to 11.

Mistake - Topic 604

Mistake of fact - General - Mutual mistake - What constitutes - [See Family Law - Topic 3395 ].

Practice - Topic 9857

Settlements - Setting aside - Grounds - [See Family Law - Topic 3395 ].

Cases Noticed:

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Grain Services Union et al. (2003), 237 Sask.R. 250; 2003 SKQB 323, refd to. [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston, The Law of Contract (14th Ed. 2001), pp. 252, 253 [para. 8].

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Contract in Canada (4th Ed. 1999), pp. 270, 271 [para. 9].

Counsel:

J.J. Vogel, for Joyce Elizabeth Haus;

D.A. Halvorsen, for Terry Roger Harper.

This application was heard before McIntyre, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on April 26, 2004.