Ruskin v. Dewar, 2004 SKQB 3

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: McIntyre, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2003 SKQB 514,2004 SKQB 3
• Citation: 2004 SKQB 3,(2003), 243 Sask.R. 126 (FD),2003 SKQB 514,48 RFL (5th) 123,[2003] SJ No 793 (QL),243 Sask R 514,(2003), 243 SaskR 126 (FD),243 SaskR 126,243 Sask.R. 126,[2003] S.J. No 793 (QL)
• Date: 04 December 2003
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)

Ruskin v. Dewar (2003), 243 Sask.R. 126 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.021

Deborah Jane Ruskin (petitioner) v. Leith Robert Stewart Dewar (respondent)

(2000 F.L.D. No. 88; 2003 SKQB 514; 2004 SKQB 3)

Indexed As: Ruskin v. Dewar

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

McIntyre, J.

December 4, 2003 and January 6, 2004.

Summary:

The petitioner claimed a division of family property and spousal support arising out of an eight year period of cohabitation by the parties as spouses.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, divided the family property and ordered the respondent to make an equalization payment of $354,709.41 to the petitioner. The court also ordered the respondent to pay spousal support of $2,133 until the petitioner received the equalization payment, when spousal support would cease.

Family Law - Topic 868.2

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Debts - The petitioner claimed a division of family property arising out of an eight year period of cohabitation by the parties as spouses - The respondent claimed that a debt to his parents associated with a home should be taken into account - Each of his parents was said to have loaned the respondent $100,000 in 1994 - No payments had been made on the loans - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, stated that the collection of the loans appeared to be statute barred by the Limitation Act and statute barred debts were not considered in dividing family property - Apart from being statute barred, the court would also not consider the loans in the division of family property where it was far from clear that the respondent would ever be required to repay them - See paragraphs 57 to 58.

Family Law - Topic 880.1

Husband and wife - Martial property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - General - Including pre-marriage acquisitions - [See second Family Law - Topic 1001 ].

Family Law - Topic 1001

Common law or same-sex relationships - What constitutes common law relationship - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, found that the parties had cohabited as spouses continuously for a period of not less than two years as required by the definition of "spouse" in s. 2(1)(c) of the Family Property Act - They had lived together from 1992 to 2000 - They had an intimate relationship which was understood to be monogamous - Their relationship, both as toward each other and as represented to family and friends, was that of a couple cohabiting as spouses - While there was no intermingling of finances, the court found that there was no agreement as to their financial arrangements which was intended to be determinative of their relationship - The court noted that some married couples maintained separate finances - See paragraphs 29 to 43.

Family Law - Topic 1001

Common law or same-sex relationships - What constitutes common law relationship - The petitioner claimed a division of family property arising out of an eight year period of cohabitation by the parties as spouses - Section 23(1)(c) of the Family Property Act provided that the fair market value of family property was exempt from distribution where the property was owned by a spouse "before the commencement of the spousal relationship" - The petitioner argued that the commencement of the spousal relationship for the purposes of the exemption in s. 23(1)(c) was the date that cohabitation commenced - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, held that the parties' relationship did not become a spousal relationship for the purposes of the Act until they had cohabited for two years - It was at that point that the "spousal relationship" commenced for the purposes of the Act - See paragraphs 44 to 53.

Family Law - Topic 1002

Common law or same-sex relationships - Spouse - Meaning of - [See both Family Law - Topic 1001 ].

Family Law - Topic 1013

Common law or same-sex relationships - Maintenance - The parties cohabited as spouses for just under eight years - When they began cohabiting, the petitioner was a nurse and the respondent was a general surgery resident - The petitioner's career was disrupted when she moved to Regina with the respondent to begin his career as a cardiovascular surgeon - Near the end of the parties' cohabitation, the respondent was earning $500,000 and his income had been in the $500,000 to $600,000 range ever since - The respondent's financial support enabled the petitioner to earn a university degree during the relationship - The petitioner had employment income of $51,000 - The petitioner had received interim spousal support of $2,133 per month for over three years and would receive an equalization payment of $354,709.41 on account of family property - The petitioner sought spousal support - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, ordered that the respondent continue to pay spousal support of $2,133 until the petitioner received the equalization payment, when spousal support would cease - See paragraphs 61 to 86.

Cases Noticed:

Walsh v. Bona (2002), 297 N.R. 203; 210 N.S.R.(2d) 273; 659 A.P.R. 273; 221 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh - see Walsh v. Bona.

Romanchuk v. Robin (2003), 232 Sask.R. 198; 294 W.A.C. 198 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, [2003] S.J. No. 216 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Molodowich v. Penttinent (1980), 17 R.F.L.(2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Tanouye v. Tanouye (1993), 117 Sask.R. 196 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

D.B. v. J.A.B. (2002), 226 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), consd. [para. 50].

Russell v. Russell, [2001] 1 W.W.R. 619; 180 Sask.R. 196; 205 W.A.C. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Kalytuk v. Kalytuk (1992), 98 Sask.R. 311 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 456; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345, refd to. [para. 62].

Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420; 236 N.R. 79; 120 B.C.A.C. 211; 196 W.A.C. 211, refd to. [para. 62].

D.H. v. J.E.H. (2002), 215 Sask.R. 183; 2002 SKQB 39 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 90].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Property Act, S.S. 1997, c. F-6.3, sect. 23(1)(c) [para. 44].

Authors And Works Noticed:

Costs in Family Law - Selected Issues (2002-2003), 20 C.F.L.Q. 363, p. 381 [para. 91].

Counsel:

Jeffrey G. Brick, for the petitioner;

Hal B. Wellsch, for the respondent;

J. Thomson (Tom) Irvine, for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.

This matter was heard before McIntyre, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on December 4, 2003 and Supplementary Reasons on January 6, 2004.