Maysels v. Maysels, (1975) 17 N.R. 111 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Judson, Ritchie, Spence and Dickson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 13, 1975
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1975), 17 N.R. 111 (SCC);[1975] SCJ No 144 (QL);19 RFL 256;[1976] 1 SCR 353;53 DLR (3d) 410;1975 CanLII 206 (SCC);1975 CanLII 1209 (SCC);[1975] 5 WWR 547;17 NR 111;64 DLR (3d) 765

Maysels v. Maysels (1975), 17 N.R. 111 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Maysels v. Maysels

Indexed As: Maysels v. Maysels

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Judson, Ritchie, Spence and Dickson, JJ.

February 13, 1975.

Summary:

This case arose out of a wife's application for alimony on the ground of cruelty against her husband. One of the issues on the application was the ownership of the marital home. The husband and wife purchased the home, each contributing to the down payment. The property was conveyed into the wife's name alone, because the husband wished to keep the home away from his creditors should he ever suffer business reverses. On the wife's application for alimony the husband claimed that his wife held the home on a resulting trust for him. The Ontario Supreme Court in a judgment reported 7 R.F.L. 282 dismissed the wife's application for alimony, but on the issue of the ownership of the home held that title was held by the husband and wife as tenants in common. The wife appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in a judgment reported at paragraphs 2 to 35 below and in 3 O.R.(2d) 321 allowed the appeal and held that the husband could not rebut the presumption of advancement to his wife by setting up his own fraudulent intent to defeat creditors. The husband appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal. See paragraph 1.

Family Law - Topic 642

Husband and wife - Property rights during marriage - Transfer by husband to wife - Presumption of gift or advancement - Rebuttal of presumption - A husband and wife purchased a home with each contributing to the down payment - The property was conveyed into the wife's name alone, because the husband wished to keep the home away from his creditors should he ever suffer business reverses - In later years marital difficulties arose and the husband claimed that his wife held the property on a resulting trust for him - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that the husband could not rebut the presumption of advancement to his wife by setting up his own fraudulent intent to defeat creditors.

Cases Noticed:

Goodfriend v. Goodfriend, [1971] 1 O.R. 411; 15 D.L.R.(3d) 513, revd. [1972] S.C.R. 640; 22 D.L.R.(3d) 699; 6 R.F.L. 60, dist. [para. 4].

Symes v. Hughes (1870), L.R. 9 Eq. 475, dist. [para. 15].

Taylor v. Bowers (1876), 1 Q.B.D. 291, dist. [para. 15].

Dyer v. Dyer (1788), 2 Cox 92, refd to. [para. 17].

Christ's Hospital v. Budgin et ux. (1712), 2 Vern. 683; 23 E.R. 1043, appld. [para. 18].

Davies v. Otty (No. 2) (1865), 35 Beav. 208; 55 E.R. 875, dist. [para. 22].

Krys v. Krys, [1929] S.C.R. 153; [1929] 1 D.L.R. 289, dist. [para. 22].

Gascoigne v. Gascoigne, [1918] 1 K.B. 223, appld. [para. 24].

Re Emery's Investments' Trusts, [1959] 1 All E.R. 577; [1959] 1 Ch. 410, folld. [para. 24].

McEvoy v. Belfast Banking Co. Ltd., [1934] N.I. 67, folld. [para. 24].

Tinker v. Tinker, [1970] 1 All E.R. 540, appld. [para. 24].

Scheuerman v. Scheuerman (1916), 52 S.C.R. 625; 28 D.L.R. 223; 10 W.W.R. 379, folld. [para. 24].

Counsel:

S. Kirsh, for the appellant;

H.H. Wengle, for the respondent.

This case was heard on February 13, 1975, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., JUDSON, RITCHIE, SPENCE and DICKSON, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 13, 1975, LASKIN, C.J.C., orally delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada.