Rawluk v. Rawluk, (1990) 103 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 25, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 103 N.R. 321 (SCC);38 OAC 81;23 RFL (3d) 337;19 ACWS (3d) 260;71 OR (2d) 480;[1990] 1 SCR 70;288 APR 306;JE 90-299;[1990] SCJ No 4 (QL);103 NR 321;1990 CanLII 152 (SCC);36 ETR 1;65 DLR (4th) 161

Rawluk v. Rawluk (1990), 103 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Harry Phillip Rawluk (appellant) v. Jacqueline Dorothy Rawluk (respondent)

(20736)

Indexed As: Rawluk v. Rawluk

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

January 25, 1990.

Summary:

A husband and wife separated in 1984 after 29 years of marriage. Title to most marital assets was held in the husband's name only. Pursuant to the equalization regime of the Family Law Act, S.O. 1986, c. 4, the wife was entitled to one-half the value of the marital assets at the date of valuation, which was the date of separation. The value of the marital assets appreciated considerably between the date of separation and the date of trial. The wife claimed that notwithstanding the statutory regime, the doctrine of constructive trust applied to entitle her to one-half the value of the marital assets, valued at the date of trial. The husband claimed that the remedy of constructive trust was superseded and implicitly abolished by the Act.

The Ontario Supreme Court held that the constructive trust doctrine survived the Family Law Act; the wife was entitled to one-half of the marital assets, valued at the date of trial. The husband appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The husband appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, La Forest and Sopinka, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the Act recognized and accommodated the remedial constructive trust; that the constructive trust was properly applied to award the wife one-half of the marital assets, valued as of the date of trial.

Family Law - Topic 629.3

Husband and wife - Marital property - Marital property legislation - Availability of constructive trust - [See Trusts - Topic 2309 below].

Family Law - Topic 637

Husband and wife - Marital property - Constructive trusts - [See Trusts - Topic 2309 below].

Trusts - Topic 2305

Constructive trusts - Nature of - The Supreme Court of Canada traced the evolution of the remedial constructive trust doctrine in Canada and its application to the division of marital property.

Trusts - Topic 2309

Constructive trusts - Effect of marital property legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that notwithstanding the equalization regime under the Family Law Act, S.O. 1986, c. 4, a spouse was not precluded from a division of marital property under the doctrine of constructive trust absent clear provisions to the contrary - The court stated that the doctrine of constructive trust applied to determine ownership of assets of married spouses under the Act - The Act incorporated the constructive trust remedy as an integral part of the two step process of determining ownership and equalization - The doctrine furthered the fundamental objectives of the Act - The court stated that "the nontitled spouse's constructive trust interest in this property is distinct from the right to an equalizing share of property value that is derived not from an independent property right but from the status as a married person ... the constructive trust is used in the matrimonial property context to allocate proprietary interests, a function that is totally distinct from the process of determining how the value of matrimonial property should be distributed under the equalization process".

Cases Noticed:

Murdoch v. Murdoch, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 423, refd to. [para. 17].

Sorochan v. Sorochan, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 38; 69 N.R. 81; 74 A.R. 67, consd. [para. 17].

Thompson v. Thompson, [1961] S.C.R. 3, refd to. [para. 19].

Trueman v. Trueman (1971), 18 D.L.R.(3d) 109 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Pettitt v. Pettitt, [1969] 2 All E.R. 385, refd to. [para. 20].

Gissing v. Gissing, [1970] 2 All E.R. 780, refd to. [para. 20].

Hussey v. Palmer, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Rathwell v. Rathwell, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436; 19 N.R. 91, consd. [para. 24].

Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384, consd. [para. 25].

Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Hunter Engineering Co. and Allis-Chalmers Canada Ltd. et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 426; 92 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Nuti v. Nuti (1980), 28 O.R.(2d) 102, refd to. [para. 30].

Vedovato v. Vedovato (1984), 39 R.F.L.(2d) 18 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Thoreson v. Thoreson (1982), 17 Sask.R. 64; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 535 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Leatherdale v. Leatherdale, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 743; 45 N.R. 40, refd to. [para. 31].

Seed v. Seed (1986), 5 R.F.L.(3d) 120, refd to. [para. 33].

Leslie v. Leslie and Clyde (1987), 9 R.F.L.(3d) 82, refd to. [para. 33].

Cowan v. Cowan (1987), 9 R.F.L.(3d) 401, refd to. [para. 33].

Corless and Corless, Re (1987), 58 O.R.(2d) 19, refd to. [para. 33].

Benke v. Benke (1986), 4 R.F.L.(3d) 58, refd to. [para. 33].

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada v. T. Eaton Co., [1956] S.C.R. 610, refd to. [para. 36].

McDonald v. McDonald (1988), 11 R.F.L.(3d) 321 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para 100].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Law Act, S.O. 1986, c. 4, sect. 4, sect. 5 [para. 39]; sect. 5(6)[para. 45]; sect. 10 [para. 47]; sect. 14 [para. 50]; sect. 64 [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees (2nd Ed.), para. 472 [para. 77].

McClean, Constructive and Resulting Trusts - Unjust Enrichment in a Common Law Relationship - Pettkus v. Becker (1982), 16 U.B.C. Law Rev. 155 [para. 76].

McLeod, J., Annotation to Benke v. Benke (1986), 4 R.F.L.(3d) 58, p. 60 [para. 34].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Family Law (1974), Part IV, p. 55 [para. 16].

Oosterhoff, A.H., Text, Commentary and Cases on Trusts (3rd Ed. 1987), p. 379 [para. 41].

Paciocco, D.M., The Remedial Constructive Trust: A Principled Basis for Priorities over Creditors (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 315 [para. 76].

Pettit, Equity and The Law of Trusts (4th Ed. 1979), p. 46 [para. 72].

Scott, A.W., The Law of Trusts (3rd Ed. 1967), vol. 5, p. 3416, para. 462.1 [para. 75].

Scott, A.W., The Law of Trusts (4th Ed. 1989), vol. 5, pp. 304 [para. 21]; 323, 324 [para. 41].

Waters, Comment (1975), 53 Can. Bar Rev. 366, p. 368 [para. 25].

Waters, Law of Trusts in Canada (2nd Ed.), pp. 385 [para. 74]; 388 [para. 75]; 391, 393 [para. 84].

Counsel:

Malcolm C. Kronby, Q.C., for the appellant;

Melanie A. Manchee, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

McMillan, Binch, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Melanie A. Manchee, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was on heard on October 6, 1989, before Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 25, 1990, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 57;

McLachlin, J., (La Forest and Sopinka, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 58 to 107.