'The courts have turned women into slaves for the men of this world': Irene Murdoch's Quest for Justice

• Author: Vanessa Gruben, Angela Cameron, and Angela Chaisson
• Pages: 159-192

ﾅﾉﾍ

“The courts have turned women into

slaves for the men of this world”:

Irene Murdoch’s Quest for Justice

VanessaGrubenAngelaCameronandAngelaChaisson

“If they hadn’t abolished appeals to the Pr ivy Council . . .

I would have gone all the way to the Privy Counc il.”

—Ernest Shymka

Introduction

I Suprem e Court of Canada issued a ruling i n MurdochvMurdoch

denying Irene “Ginger”Murdochaninterestinthecalera nchthatsheand

her husband, James Alexander “Alex” Murdoch, had built together over

many years. Irene performed extensive manual labour on the far m, includ

ing driv ing bra ndi ng vacc inat ing and deho rni ngc ale hayi ng rak ing and 

mowingShe oftendid this workalonedue tolong oranchworkrelated

absences by Alex. When their marr iage began to break down, Irene sought to

receive her ownership interest in the ranch propert y.Howevert hece rti cate 

of title to the property showed that the land belonged solely to Alex Mur

doch. For Irene to receive an interest in the property it would be necessar y

for a court to declare that a portion of the title to t he ranch was held by Alex

Murdoch in trust for his wi fe.T hepr inc ipal basi sfor ndi ngsuc hat rus the r

lawyer argued, was her contribution through labour to the ranc h operations.

That argument was rejected at tr ial and ultimately also by the Supreme Court

of Canada, which held that under existing Can adian law no property claim

was available to Irene Murdoch in the circumst ances of her case.

ﾅﾊﾄVanessaGrubenAngelaCameronandAngelaChaisson

In one sense, the case was un remarkable. Irene Murdoch’s ci rcumstances

reected the socioeconomic real ity of many Albertan far m wivesi n fact

most married women in Canada during the s and s Cultural and

legal perceptions of farms had been profoundly shaped by the t raditional

belief that “men farm, women help” and remained an omnipresent ex

ample of the invisibility of women’s work. While husbands no longer sub

sumedtheir wiveslegaland nancialidentities aswasthelaw inAlberta

until a nachronistic matrimonial lawas wellas hierarchical farming

and family struct ures subjugated wives, forced them into positions of de

pendency, and often trapped them in relationships. Those who left their

husbands often found themselves invisible under the law, and left their mar

riages with nothing. The case reports were replete with deci sions similar to

that in Murdoch, almost a ll unsuccessful. In these a nd other cases, women

worked on family farms and in households held in their husbands’ names

and were left without proprietary interests at the relationsh ip’s dissolution.

Behind thesethere are likelyu nreportedjudgments tot hesame eectas

well as many instances in wh ich no claim was advanced owing to the per

ceived futility of such a tack, the absence of t he needed resources to take

legal action, or myriad other personal factors.

What is exceptional is that the Murdo ch case prompted outrage in Can

ada and undoubtedly contributed to law reform that sought to ameliorate

the plight of women in the position of Irene Murdoch. Her circumsta nces

provided an important narrative tool to feminists a nd other advocates for

lawreformCa nadianwomenidentied withIrene andbecame conscious

of howeasi lyt hey could nd themselves in a simila r situation Womens

groups mobilized around her experience stood up to say I am an Irene

Murdoch,” and successfully secured reforms to Ca nadian marital property

law regimes.

None of that would have been possible had it not been for Irene Mur

doch’s personal determination — and that of her lawyer, Ernest Shymka —

to bring her case to court in t he face of formidable obstacles.Irenesuered

extremeviolenceatthehandsofherhusbandhadlilemoneyandevenless

desireforpublicfanfareandfacedanuphilllegalbaleYetsheandShymka

pursued the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Muchhas beenwrien aboutthe politicaland legislativeconsequences

of this decision. This chapter looks at the Murdoc hcase through two lenses.

Therstis throughthe personalaccountof ErnestShymka The second is

by framing the case as part of a larger feminist movement for law reform, in

Thecourtshaveturnedwomenintoslavesforthemenofthisworldﾅﾊﾅ

cluding reform to matrimonial propert y regimes. Murdochwas not only the

product of personal struggle by Irene and her lawyer; it was also a pivotal

event within the Canadia n women’s movement.

Irene as Rancher and Wife

I , I AlexMurdochseparated aftertwentyveyearsofma r

riage. The trial trans cript reveals that Irene worked tirelessly throughout

her marriage, as a “wife,” as a “ranch hand,” and at “outside jobs to augment

the farm i ncome.” Shortly after they married, Irene worked with Alex on

other ranches and they pooled their ea rnings.In the yus edt he ir  

savingsfromthisworktogetherwithacontributionfromIrenesfath

er, to acquire a guest ranch known as the Bragg Creek property, the title

to which was taken in Alex’s name alone. Throughout the marriage they

bought and sold various properties to which both Alex and Irene contr ib

utednanciallyIntheypurchasedtheWardpropertyforand

intheBrockwaypropertywaspurchasedforItwastheBrock

way property that was the subject of the cas e before the Supreme Court of

Canada These properties were purchased in part w ith the proceeds from

Irene’s father’s life insurance policies. Upon his death, Ire ne’s mother, Mrs.

Nash, had deposited part of the proceeds in Irene’s account and these mon

ieswerelateru sedtoacquire grazingrightsandtopurchaseland Yet, in

each instance title was held in Alex’s name.

For most of their marriage, Irene was almost exclusively responsible for

thedaytodayrunn ingofthe ranchbearing thebruntof thephysicallyde

manding work, while Alex was employed with the stock association in the

Forestry Service.Herlab ourw asba ckbr eak ingA ttr ial Iren edes cri bedh er

work as: “haying, raking, swathing, moving , driving trucks and tractors and

team squ ieti nghor sest aki ngca lebac kand forth toth eres erved ehorn ing 

vaccinating, branding, a nything that was to be done.” I n her own words, she

worked “like any other man.” In addition to her farm work and domestic

labour as a wife and mother to their one c hild, William Frederick Murdoch,

Irenefrequentlyworkedotheranchasawaitressorasalabourer

Throughout, Irene endured an unhappy and often abusive mar riage. It

seems she was a victim of domestic violence for much of her marriage. Irene

indicated in her pleadings that Alex had “assaulted [her] on a number of

occasions causing her grievous bodily har ms.” Ire nesmother conrmed

thish istoryofv iolenceattrial Shetestied thatIrene hadbeent hevictim