L.N.S. v. W.M.K., 1999 ABQB 478

• Judge: Perras, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 18, 1999
• Citations: 1999 ABQB 478;(1999), 246 A.R. 60 (QB)

L.N.S. v. W.M.K. (1999), 246 A.R. 60 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. JL.025

L.N.S. (plaintiff) v. W.M.K. (defendant)

(Action No. 9712-00858; 1999 ABQB 478)

Indexed As: L.N.S. v. W.M.K.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Wetaskiwin

Perras, J.

June 18 and October 8, 1999.

Summary:

The parties separated in 1996 after a 16 year common law relationship. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was unjustly enriched as a result of his financial contributions and his labour in improving the dwellings in which they lived. He sought a 60/40 split of the equity in the house or, alternatively, compensation on a quantum meruit basis. The house had been sold for $90,000 and the funds were being held in trust. It was acknowledged that the basis for the defendant's unjust enrichment claim was established, but the remedy was in issue. The defendant sought general and punitive damages for assault and battery by the plaintiff.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the plaintiff a portion of the equity in the house based on his contributions of capital and labour. The court awarded the defendant $15,000 general damages and $4,000 punitive damages for assault and battery. The defendant's damage award could be offset against the award to the plaintiff for unjust enrichment.

Damage Awards - Topic 628

Torts - Injury to the person - Assault and battery - W.M.K. sought general and punitive damages for assaults committed against her by her former common law partner (L.N.S.) over a period of 18 years - An incident in 1996 had led to L.N.S. being convicted of assault and sentenced to incarceration and probation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded $15,000 general damages - The court also awarded $4,000 punitive damages where L.N.S.'s conduct which was not the subject of the criminal charges was reprehensible and malicious and offended a reasonable view of common decency - See paragraphs 32 to 47.

Damages - Topic 1302

Exemplary or punitive damages - Assault and battery - [See Damage Awards - Topic 628 ].

Family Law - Topic 684

Husband and wife - Property rights during and after common law marriage or relationships - Family home - The parties separated after a 16 year common law relationship - At issue was the plaintiff's entitlement to a share of the equity in the house based on an unjust enrichment claim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the plaintiff's share of the equity based on his contributions of capital and labour - See paragraph 30.

Family Law - Topic 695

Husband and wife - Property rights during and after common law marriage or relationships - Valuation (incl. time for) - The parties separated after a lengthy common law relationship - At issue was the plaintiff's entitlement to a share of the equity in the house based on an unjust enrichment claim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench selected the time of separation as the date for valuing the house as opposed to the date of trial - The Matrimonial Property Act and the principles based on the Act as to the timing of valuation did not apply - While in some cases there might be good reasons to use a valuation date other than the date of separation, as a general rule the date of separation appeared to be a fair and workable point for valuation purposes when dealing with breakdowns of common law marriages - See paragraph 19 to 20.

Family Law - Topic 695

Husband and wife - Property rights during and after common law marriage or relationships - Valuation (incl. time for) - The parties separated after a 16 year common law relationship - At issue was the plaintiff's entitlement to a share of the equity in the house based on an unjust enrichment claim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the value of the house to be $102,000 at the time of separation based on a purchase price of $68,000 in 1984 and adjusting for inflation each year with the Consumer Price Index - See paragraph 28.

Cases Noticed:

Hantel v. Hilscher (1996), 182 A.R. 285 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

Surgeoner v. Surgeoner, [1993] O.J. No. 2940 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 40].

Bellsmith v. Bellsmith, [1996] B.C.J. No. 289, refd to. [para. 40].

R.V. v. R.V., [1995] O.J. No. 3703 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 40].

B.P.I. Resources Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. and Anderson (1986), 72 A.R. 6 (Q.B.), affd. (1989), 95 A.R. 211; 7 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. v. Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. (1981), 123 D.L.R.(3d) 66 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

S.P. v. F.K., [1997] 3 W.W.R. 161; 150 Sask.R. 173 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

A.B. et al. v. I.J. (1991), 119 A.R. 210 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 46].

Counsel:

Stacey M. Johnson (Duhamel Manning Feehan Warrender Glass), for the plaintiff;

Wayne Throndson (Fielding Syed Smith & Throndson), for the defendant.

This action was heard before Perras, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Wetaskiwin, who delivered judgment on June 18, 1999, and supplemental reasons on October 8, 1999.