J.L.P. v. J.R., (2014) 461 Sask.R. 139 (QB)

• Judge: Dufour, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 06, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 461 Sask.R. 139 (QB);2014 SKQB 366

J.L.P. v. J.R. (2014), 461 Sask.R. 139 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.032

J.L.P. (petitioner) v. J.R. (respondent)

(2012 FLD No. 372; 2014 SKQB 366)

Indexed As: J.L.P. v. J.R.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Dufour, J.

November 6, 2014.

Summary:

The parties separated in late 2012 and the wife applied for continued exclusive possession of the family home and child and spousal support. The application was adjourned while the parties negotiated. An agreement was drafted, providing for, inter alia, joint custody, shared parenting, child and spousal support and the distribution of property. Each party signed a different (although exactly the same) copy of the agreement and, subsequently, abided by its terms until late 2013, when the wife renewed her application. At issue was whether the agreement was binding.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the agreement was binding and enforceable. The wife's application was dismissed. The husband was entitled to take out a judgment based on the agreement.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Contracts - Topic 1503

Formation of contract - Consensus or agreement - What constitutes a consensus necessary for a binding contract - [See first Family Law - Topic 3202 ].

Contracts - Topic 1508

Formation of contract - Consensus or agreement - Intention - Inference of - From conduct - [See first Family Law - Topic 3202 ].

Contracts - Topic 3505

Performance or breach - Obligation to perform - Partial performance - The parties separated in late 2012 and the wife applied for continued exclusive possession of the family home and child and spousal support - The application was adjourned while the parties negotiated - An agreement was drafted, providing for, inter alia, joint custody, shared parenting, child and spousal support and the distribution of property - Each party signed a different (although exactly the same) copy of the agreement and, subsequently, abided by its terms until late 2013, when the wife renewed her application - At issue was whether the agreement was binding - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, having set out reasons for why the agreement was valid and binding, also stated that the doctrines of estoppel and part performance would have brought about the same result - The wife had not informed the husband of her position that the agreement was not binding until February 2014, 11 months after she told him that she had signed the agreement - During that time, the husband met his obligations under the agreement and the wife accepted the benefits without comment - She was estopped from denying the agreement because, through her words and actions, she had elected to treat it as binding - Further, as the husband had partly performed the agreement, he was entitled to treat it as binding - See paragraph 31.

Estoppel - Topic 1163

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Representation - By conduct - Practice or course of conduct - [See Contracts - Topic 3505 ].

Estoppel - Topic 1164

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Representation - By conduct - Course of conduct by litigant - [See Contracts - Topic 3505 ].

Estoppel - Topic 1441

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Acceptance of benefits - General - [See Contracts - Topic 3505 ].

Family Law - Topic 3202

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - General - What constitutes - The parties separated in late 2012 and the wife applied for continued exclusive possession of the family home and child and spousal support - The application was adjourned while the parties negotiated - An agreement was drafted, providing for, inter alia, joint custody, shared parenting, child and spousal support and the distribution of property - Each party signed a different (although exactly the same) copy of the agreement and, subsequently, abided by its terms until late 2013, when the wife renewed her application - At issue was whether the agreement was binding - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the wife's suggestion that the contract was not binding because she had "secretly told her lawyer 'not to go ahead' with the agreement" - An objective, reasonable person would conclude that the wife had entered into a legally binding contract - The terms were negotiated - The wife had signed the contract and had withdrawn her application after it was signed - The wife's assertion that the contract was not binding was the "contractual equivalent of the playground trump, 'I had my fingers crossed'" - See paragraphs 10 to 24.

Family Law - Topic 3202

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - General - What constitutes - The parties separated in late 2012 and the wife applied for continued exclusive possession of the family home and child and spousal support - The application was adjourned while the parties negotiated - An agreement was drafted, providing for, inter alia, joint custody, shared parenting, child and spousal support and the distribution of property - Each party signed a different (although exactly the same) copy of the agreement and, subsequently, abided by its terms until late 2013, when the wife renewed her application - At issue was whether the agreement was binding - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the wife's assertion that the agreement was not binding because, while it established that household effects would be divided in specie, it did not contain a formula that determined who would get what - A formal, written agreement was executed by both parties - The lack of a formula for division of household goods did not invalidate the entire agreement - Nothing prevented parties from reaching several independent, binding and enforceable agreements as part of an effort to reach an overall settlement - Further, there was a severability clause in the agreement - The parties clearly intended that the entire agreement would not be void if any particular portion was found to be invalid - See paragraphs 25 to 30.

Family Law - Topic 3394

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Lack of binding intent - [See first Family Law - Topic 3202 ].

Practice - Topic 9852

Settlements - What constitutes a settlement - [See both Family Law - Topic 3202 ].

Cases Noticed:

Iverson v. Iverson (2009), 334 Sask.R. 299; 2009 SKQB 246, refd to. [para. 23].

Tether v. Tether, [2009] 4 W.W.R. 274; 314 Sask.R. 121; 435 W.A.C. 121; 2008 SKCA 126, dist. [para. 26].

Yawney v. Jehring, [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. 589; 30 R.F.L.(6th) 137; 2006 BCSC 1017, refd to. [para. 29].

Rideout v. Rideout (1994), 148 N.B.R.(2d) 275; 378 A.P.R. 275 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].

Verma v. Verma (1995), 134 Sask.R. 252; 101 W.A.C. 252 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Hagen v. Hagen, [1994] O.J. No. 3107 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 30].

Abel v. Burke, [2000] 6 W.W.R. 120; 138 B.C.A.C. 105; 226 W.A.C. 105; 2000 BCCA 284, refd to. [para. 31].

Nelson v. Nelson (1998), 165 Sask.R. 224 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

Dlouhy v. Dlouhy (1995), 130 Sask.R. 285 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 35].

Antoine v. Campbell, [2010] Sask.R. Uned. 204; 2010 SKQB 466 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

Gusikoski v. Gusikoski (2001), 205 Sask.R. 145; 2001 SKQB 139 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

Counsel:

Davin R. Burlingham, for the petitioner;

Paul L. Clemens, for the respondent.

These applications were heard by Dufour, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on November 6, 2014.