Jennings v. Jennings, (1986) 77 N.B.R.(2d) 181 (FD)

• Judge: Guerette, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: December 17, 1986
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1986), 77 N.B.R.(2d) 181 (FD)

Jennings v. Jennings (1986), 77 N.B.R.(2d) 181 (FD);

    77 R.N.-B.(2e) 181; 195 A.P.R. 181

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Linda Marie Jennings and Irving Pulp and Paper Limited v. Kathleen Jennings

(No. FDSJ-3895-85)

Indexed As: Jennings v. Jennings

Répertorié: Jennings v. Jennings

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Guerette, J.

December 17, 1986.

Summary:

Résumé:

Jennings' husband died intestate 10 months after they were married. At the time of his death, the husband was employed at Irving Pulp and Paper Ltd., where he had a pension fund and group life insurance coverage. The beneficiary in each case was the husband's father. Jennings sought a determination of what she was entitled to under the Marital Property Act.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the portion of the pension fund accumulated before the parties were married was non-marital property and was part of the deceased husband's estate thereby giving the wife the right to half of the funds notwithstanding the fact that there was a designated beneficiary. However, the insurance proceeds, because they were a benefit acquired during the marriage and became payable during the marriage, were marital property.

Family Law - Topic 629

Husband and wife - Marital property - Marital property legislation - Application of - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that marital property legislation was not intended to be and should not be used as a substitute for remedies available elsewhere - See paragraph 43.

Family Law - Topic 629.1

Husband and wife - Marital property - Marital property legislation - Nature of - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that the Marital Property Act was remedial legislation arising out of the recognition that marriage was a partnership which entailed joint responsibilities of child care, household management and financial provision - If those responsibilities were fulfilled, the Act granted the spouses the right to share equally in the accumulated property - See paragraph 21.

Family Law - Topic 629.2

Husband and wife - Marital property - Marital property legislation - Interpretation of - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that the scope of the Marital Property Act was broad and that its provisions should be interpreted in such a way as to give full meaning to the original concepts - See paragraph 21.

Family Law - Topic 877

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Business, commercial or non-family assets - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that nonmarital as well as marital property was subject to the scrutiny of the court and was liable to an order for division if one of the parties chose to put it in dispute - Spouses, including surviving spouses, had a right to be heard on the character and disposition of any asset - See paragraph 42.

Family Law - Topic 880.28

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Pensions - A husband died intestate after 10 months of marriage - The husband had a pension fund and the employer returned the contributions to the husband's father who was the designated beneficiary - The wife applied for a determination of her rights under the Marital Property Act - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the portion of the pension accumulated before the parties were married was non-marital property and was part of the deceased husband's estate - The removal of assets, before death, by assignment to third parties had the effect of frustrating the Marital Property Act, the court should have all the property at its disposal before making an appropriate division - See paragraphs 33 to 36.

Family Law - Topic 880.34

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Intangible rights - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that intangible rights could be rights available for distribution under the Marital Property Act - See paragraph 56.

Family Law - Topic 880.35

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Insurance - A husband died intestate after 10 months of marriage - The husband had life insurance policies which were paid for by his employer - The husband's father was the designated beneficiary of the insurance proceeds - The wife applied for a determination of her rights under the Marital Property Act - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, held that the insurance protection was a benefit which the husband acquired during his marriage and which crystallized at death - Because it became payable during the currency of the marriage, it was marital property - See paragraph 64.

Cases Noticed:

Leatherdale v. Leatherdale, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 772; 30 R.F.L.(2d) 225; 45 N.R. 40, refd to. [para. 22].

Lyons v. Lyons and Central Trust (1987), 73 N.B.R.(2d) 103; 184 A.P.R. 103, appld. [para. 37].

Donkin v. Bugoy, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 85; 47 R.F.L.(2d) 113; 61 N.R. 172 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 38].

Tataryn v. Tataryn (1984), 38 R.F.L.(2d) 272; 30 Sask.R. 282 (Sask. C.A.), folld. [para. 55].

Rutherford v. Rutherford (1981), 23 R.F.L.(2d) 337 (B.C.C.A.), appvd. [para. 56].

Kozub v. Timko (1984), 39 R.F.L.(2d) 146; 3 O.A.C. 33 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Way v. Way & Jacobs (1984), 36 R.F.L.(2d) 439; 52 N.B.R.(2d) 447; 137 A.P.R. 447 (N.B.Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

Horne v. Evans (1986), 1 R.F.L.(3d) 335 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Ferguson v. Ferguson (1985), 42 R.F.L.(2d) 305; 36 Sask.R. 169 (Sask. U.F.C.), not folld. [para. 66].

Vodden v. Vodden, [1984] 1 L.R. 6756 (B.C.S.C.), dist. [para. 67].

Baker v. Hall and Hall (1985), 44 R.F.L.(2d) 275 (B.C.C.A.), dist. [para. 68].

Statutes Noticed:

Credit Union Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-32.1, sect. 24 [para. 58].

Family Services Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. F-2.2, sect. 115 [para. 73]; sect. 116(1)(L) [para. 73]; sect. 116(6) [para. 73].

Insurance Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-12, sect. 157 [para. 51].

Marital Property Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. M-1.1, sect. 1 [paras. 17, 31]; sect. 3 [para. 69]; sect. 4 [paras. 34, 59, 60, 71]; sect. 6 [para. 19]; sect. 7 [paras. 19, 37]; sect. 8 [paras. 32, 35, 71]; sect. 15 [para. 15]; sect. 42 [paras. 15, 43, 54].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bissett-Johnson, Death and the Matrimonial Property Act (1983), 32 R.F.L.(2d) 344 [para. 58].

Norwood, David, Life Insurance Law in Canada [para. 50].

Counsel:

William T. Grant, for the applicant;

Thomas Bishop, for the respondent, Kathleen Jennings;

No one appearing for Irving Pulp and Paper Limited.

This case was heard before Guérette, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following decision on December 17, 1986.