Langdon v. Langdon, (2015) 321 Man.R.(2d) 52 (QBFD)

• Judge: Little, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: September 30, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2015), 321 Man.R.(2d) 52 (QBFD);2015 MBQB 153

Langdon v. Langdon (2015), 321 Man.R.(2d) 52 (QBFD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.012

Jacqueline Irene Langdon (petitioner) v. Timothy George Langdon (respondent)

(FD 13-06-00700; 2015 MBQB 153)

Indexed As: Langdon v. Langdon

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

St. Boniface Centre

Little, J.

September 30, 2015.

Summary:

The parties began cohabiting in 1998. In October 2000, they executed a cohabitation agreement. The parties separated for several months in 2004. In 2005, they married. In 2013, they separated. At issue was the effect and validity of the agreement.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, found that the agreement was valid and binding.

Contracts - Topic 1601

Formation of contract - Mistake, misunderstanding or misrepresentation - Plea of non est factum - [See Family Law - Topic 3389 ].

Contracts - Topic 1602

Formation of contract - Mistake, misunderstanding or misrepresentation - Non est factum - Bar - Carelessness or negligence - [See Family Law - Topic 3389 ].

Contracts - Topic 7415.1

Interpretation - General principles - Good faith - [See Family Law - Topic 3382 ].

Contracts - Topic 7433

Interpretation - Ambiguity - Contra proferentem rule - [See Family Law - Topic 3354 ].

Family Law - Topic 3248

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Terms - Release or waiver - [See Family Law - Topic 3361 and Family Law - Topic 3382 ].

Family Law - Topic 3300

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Termination of - Resumption of cohabitation - The parties began cohabiting in 1998 - In October 2000, they executed a cohabitation agreement - The parties separated for several months in 2004 - In 2005, they married - In 2013, they separated - At issue was the effect and validity of the agreement - The husband asserted, inter alia, that the resumption of cohabitation after the parties' separation in 2004 automatically terminated the agreement as there was no express wording to the contrary - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, found that the agreement was valid and binding - The agreement was unaffected by the parties' resumption of cohabitation and subsequent marriage - Whether a separation or cohabitation agreement ended on a resumption of cohabitation (and in the absence of specific provisions in the agreement) depended on the parties' intentions - The husband had no evidence before the court that his intention was ever anything but to be bound by the agreement - If there was a presumption that reconciliation automatically terminated a cohabitation agreement, there was sufficient evidence here to displace that presumption - See paragraphs 134 to 150.

Family Law - Topic 3353

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Effect of agreement - In divorce actions - Corollary relief - [See Family Law - Topic 3361 ].

Family Law - Topic 3354

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Effect of agreement - In matrimonial property application - The parties began cohabiting in 1998 - In October 2000, they executed a cohabitation agreement - In 2005, they married - In 2012, the wife purchased a condominium, which she registered in both parties' names "for probate purposes" - In 2013, the parties separated - Under s. 10 of the cohabitation agreement, the parties' interests in jointly held property was proportionate to the direct contribution made by the party to the purchase price - The husband sought a declaration that s. 10 was "not effective as to real property" - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, declined to make the requested declaration - Contra proferentem did not apply - There was no ambiguity - Further, the husband had an opportunity to participate in the agreement's negotiation and chose not to - There was no inequality of bargaining power that would vitiate the contract or result in the invocation of contra proferentem - See paragraphs 177 to 183.

Family Law - Topic 3355

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Effect of agreement - On title to land - The parties began cohabiting in 1998 - In October 2000, they executed a cohabitation agreement - In 2005, they married - In 2012, the wife purchased a condominium, which she placed in both parties' names "for probate purposes" - In 2013, the parties separated - Under s. 10 of the cohabitation agreement, the parties' interests in jointly held property was proportionate to the direct contribution made by the party to the purchase price - The husband asserted that the effect of s. 59(1) of the Real Property Act regarding indefeasibility of title negated s. 10 - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, rejected the argument - Section 59(1) protected bona fide third party purchasers for value who relied on the register's sanctity - Section 59(1) did not conclusively determine the interests of owners as between themselves or provide an override for legal consequences created by the owners - Here, there was a clear agreement between the titleholders that reflected ownership other than as evidenced by the title - Section 59(1) did not override that agreement - See paragraphs 188 to 198.

Family Law - Topic 3356

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Effect of agreement - Maintenance - [See Family Law - Topic 3361 ].

Family Law - Topic 3361

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Effect of agreement - Waiver of right to maintenance - The parties began cohabiting in 1998 - In October 2000, they executed a cohabitation agreement - Section 12 of the agreement provided that the parties waived any claim for spousal support "including any claims that the party might otherwise have had pursuant to The Family Maintenance Act of Manitoba or similar and successor legislation" - In 2005, they married - In 2013, the parties separated - The husband sought a declaration that he had a right to claim spousal support under the Divorce Act - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, declined to make the requested declaration - Such a declaration was unnecessary - The parties were not married when they executed the agreement - The Divorce Act did not apply - The phrase "similar or successor legislation" was not confined to provincial legislation only, but encompassed legislation that similarly provided for spousal support - The failure to refer to the Divorce Act did not impair the validity of the parties' mutual releases - The husband was neither authorized nor prohibited from filing a claim under the Divorce Act for spousal support - See paragraphs 183 to 187.

Family Law - Topic 3382

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Material nondisclosure and misrepresentation - The parties began cohabiting in 1998 - In October 2000, they executed a cohabitation agreement - In 2005, they married - In 2013, they separated - At issue was the effect and validity of the agreement - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, found that the agreement was valid and binding - The husband's claims of duress, undue influence, absence of utmost good faith, inadequate financial disclosure and lack of independent legal advice were considered and rejected as a general issue of unconscionability - The husband was not financially dependent on the wife - He knew she had more assets and income than he did - Any nondisclosure was immaterial - A requirement of utmost good faith for parties to a cohabitation agreement was not a clear statement of the law in Manitoba - There was no obligation at common law on one party to a contract to ensure that every aspect of the agreement was discussed with the other side in advance (barring disability or infirmity) - Further, given the relationship's length at the time and the discrepancies between the parties' incomes and other circumstances, the exchange of spousal support waivers was fair and reasonable - Whether this was discussed or not, the husband had ample time and opportunity to obtain and review the agreement - See paragraphs 155 to 176.

Family Law - Topic 3386

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Unconscionable bargain - [See Family Law - Topic 3382 ].

Family Law - Topic 3388

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Duress or undue influence (incl. time for raising issue) - [See Family Law - Topic 3382 ].

Family Law - Topic 3389

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Non est factum - The parties began cohabiting in 1998 - In October 2000, they executed a cohabitation agreement - In 2005, they married - In 2013, they separated - At issue was the effect and validity of the agreement - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, found that the agreement was valid and binding - The husband's plea of non est factum failed - There was no issue of capacity - Whether or not representations were made by the wife as to the document's purpose, the document was not so radically or fundamentally different that the husband did not know what he was signing - If he did not know what he was signing, that was because he had not read the agreement - The husband was careless, or more probably willfully blind, as to the document's contents and effects - See paragraphs 151 to 154.

Family Law - Topic 3391

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Lack of independent or competent legal advice - [See Family Law - Topic 3382 ].

Family Law - Topic 3392

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Inequality of bargaining power - [See Family Law - Topic 3382 ].

Real Property - Topic 7802

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - General principles - Effect of registration - [See Family Law - Topic 3355 ].

Real Property - Topic 8024

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Land titles system - Certificate of title - Reliance on issue of - [See Family Law - Topic 3355 ].

Cases Noticed:

Lelond v. Kuip (2010), 252 Man.R.(2d) 73; 82 R.F.L.(6th) 373; 2010 MBQB 76, dist. [para. 136].

Bailey v. Bailey (1982), 26 R.F.L.(2d) 209 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

Szabo v. Szabo (1980), 15 R.F.L.(2d) 13 (Ont. U.F.C.), dist. [para. 143].

Hulleman v. Hulleman, [1999] A.R. Uned. 428; 2 R.F.L.(5th) 406; 1999 ABCA 366, dist. [para. 143].

Horne v. Horne (2010), 488 A.R. 352; 80 R.F.L.(6th) 297; 2010 ABQB 32, refd to. [para. 143].

Saunders v. Anglia Building Society, [1970] 3 All E.R. 961 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 151].

Marvco Color Research Ltd. v. Harris and Harris, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 774; 45 N.R. 302; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 577, refd to. [para. 151].

Dwinell v. Custom Motors Ltd. (1975), 12 N.S.R.(2d) 524; 6 A.P.R. 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

Castle Building Centres Group Ltd. v. Da Ros (1990), 95 N.S.R.(2d) 24; 251 A.P.R. 24 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 151].

Melnyk v. Melnyk (2010), 253 Man.R.(2d) 253; 2010 MBQB 121, refd to. [para. 157].

Toscano v. Toscano (2015), 57 R.F.L.(7th) 234; 2015 ONSC 487, refd to. [para. 158].

Hyldtoft v. Hyldtoft (1991), 33 R.F.L.(3d) 99 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 159].

Segal v. Qu, [2001] O.T.C. 500; 17 R.F.L.(5th) 152 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 160].

Dougherty v. Dougherty (2008), 235 O.A.C. 85; 89 O.R.(3d) 760; 2008 ONCA 302, refd to. [para. 161].

Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 550; 318 N.R. 1; 194 B.C.A.C. 161; 317 W.A.C. 161; 2004 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 161].

Lambert v. Lambert, [2008] O.T.C. Uned. 951; 52 R.F.L.(6th) 363 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 171].

Best v. Best (1990), 30 R.F.L.(3d) 279 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 171].

Patrick v. Patrick, [2002] O.T.C. 131 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 171].

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 302 N.R. 201; 171 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 175].

McClelland and Stewart Ltd. v. Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 6; 37 N.R. 190, refd to. [para. 179].

Kilitzoglou et al. v. Cure Estate et al., [2014] O.T.C. Uned. 1018; 97 E.T.R.(3d) 205; 2014 ONSC 1018, refd to. [para. 181].

Ehrmantraut (Bankrupt), Re (2008), 229 Man.R.(2d) 157; 2008 MBQB 140, affd. (2008), 231 Man.R.(2d) 176; 437 W.A.C. 176; 2008 MBCA 127, refd to. [para. 190].

Ehrmantraut v. Ehrmantraut (Trustee of) - see Ehrmantraut (Bankrupt), Re.

Hyczkewycz v. Hupe (2015), 316 Man.R.(2d) 51; 2015 MBQB 34 (Master), revd. (2015), 320 Man.R.(2d) 126; 2015 MBQB 134, refd to. [para. 190].

Steele v. Koppanyi (2002), 163 Man.R.(2d) 268; 269 W.A.C. 268; 2002 MBCA 60, refd to. [para. 207].

Statutes Noticed:

Real Property Act, R.S.M. 1988, c. R-30; C.C.S.M., c. R-30, sect. 59(1) [para. 188].

Counsel:

Shauna McCarthy, for the petitioner;

Martin G. Tadman, for the respondent.

This action was heard by Little, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, St. Boniface Centre, who delivered the following judgment on September 30, 2015.