MacNeil v. Hedmann, (2015) 368 B.C.A.C. 35 (YukCA)

• Judge: Chiasson, Schuler and Goepel, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Case Date: February 06, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Citations: (2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 35 (YukCA);2015 YKCA 6

MacNeil v. Hedmann (2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 35 (YukCA);

    633 W.A.C. 35

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.011

Cynthia Lynn MacNeil (respondent/plaintiff) v. David George Clinton Hedmann (appellant/defendant)

(14-YU734; 2015 YKCA 6)

Indexed As: MacNeil v. Hedmann

Yukon Court of Appeal

Chiasson, Schuler and Goepel, JJ.A.

February 6, 2015.

Summary:

Spouses divorced in 2010 after 6.5 years' cohabitation (common-law, then married in 2007). The spouses, with independent legal advice, executed a pre-nuptial agreement in 2006. The agreement provided, inter alia, that each spouse was to retain his or her own property. The husband destroyed the 2006 agreement. It was replaced by an almost identical agreement in 2007. Repeated attempts by the husband to have the wife void the agreement were rejected. Both spouses operated separate businesses. The husband's business owed the wife's business approximately $41,000. The wife needed those funds for a down payment on a second residential property. The day before that purchase was to close, the husband presented the wife with a document to execute. The husband would provide the funds if the wife varied the pre-nuptial agreement to give him a specified interest in the residence she solely owned and brought into the marriage and the second residence. The wife signed.

The Yukon Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [2014] Yukon Cases Uned. 16, held that the 2009 agreement presented by the husband was void due to undue influence and duress. The 2006 agreement (as replaced in 2007) was valid and entitled the wife to retain both residential properties. The husband appealed.

The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The trial judge did not err in finding the pre-nuptial agreement valid and the 2009 agreement void. The court noted the limited jurisdiction of the court to interfere with marital agreements. Under Yukon legislation, a court was not permitted to review marital agreements for fairness. In any event, the pre-nuptial agreement was not unfair or unconscionable.

Family Law - Topic 854

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Contracting out - Enforceable agreements - See paragraphs 1 to 63.

Family Law - Topic 855

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Contracting out - Grounds for attack on agreement - See paragraphs 1 to 63.

Family Law - Topic 873

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Bars - Unfair and inequitable - See paragraphs 1 to 63.

Family Law - Topic 3352

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Effect of agreement - In divorce actions - See paragraphs 1 to 63.

Family Law - Topic 3384

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Inequitable result or unfairness - See paragraphs 1 to 63.

Family Law - Topic 3388

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Duress or undue influence - See paragraphs 1 to 63.

Cases Noticed:

Hartshorne v. Hartshorne (2004), 318 N.R. 1; 194 B.C.A.C. 161; 317 W.A.C. 161; 2004 SCC 22, not appld. [para. 1].

Counsel:

Appellant appeared on his own behalf;

D.P. Hoffman, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 20, 2014, at Whitehorse, Yukon, before Chiasson, Schuler and Goepel, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal.

On February 6, 2015, Chiasson, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.