Williamson v. Williamson, (2003) 231 Sask.R. 272 (FD)

• Judge: Krueger, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 09, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2003), 231 Sask.R. 272 (FD);2003 SKQB 171

Williamson v. Williamson (2003), 231 Sask.R. 272 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.034

Waltraut Eva Williamson a.k.a. Trudy Eva Williamson (petitioner) v. Douglas Graham Williamson (respondent)

(2002 F.L.D. No. 3)

Waltraut Eva Williamson a.k.a. Trudy Eva Williamson (plaintiff) v. Douglas Graham Williamson (defendant)

(2003 Q.B. No. 40; 2003 SKQB 171)

Indexed As: Williamson v. Williamson

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Swift Current

Krueger, J.

April 9, 2003.

Summary:

The parties signed an interspousal contract whereby the husband agreed to purchase the wife's interest in family property for $180,000. The husband had a farm partnership with his brother and land leased from the Crown formed a substantial part of the operation. At the time of negotiating the interspousal contract, the husband and wife shared the mistaken assumption that the Crown lease land was not matrimonial property and had no divisible value. The husband subsequently sold his interest in the farm partnership to his brother and was paid $140,000 for his half interest in the Crown lease land. The wife commenced an action under the Family Property Act and a second action claiming rectification of the interspousal contract based on common mistake or innocent misrepresentation.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action under the Family Law Act because the Act only applied to spouses and the parties were no longer married when the action was commenced. The court allowed the second action and ordered that the interspousal contract be rectified to reflect an increase in the amount payable to the wife of $70,000.

Deeds and Documents - Topic 5059

Rectification - When available - Mistake - Common - The parties signed an interspousal contract whereby the husband agreed to purchase the wife's interest in family property for $180,000 - The husband had a farm partnership with his brother and land leased from the Crown formed a substantial part of the operation - At the time of negotiating the interspousal contract, the husband and wife shared the mistaken assumption that the Crown lease land was not matrimonial property and had no divisible value - The husband subsequently sold his interest in the farm partnership to his brother and was paid $140,000 for his half interest in the Crown lease land - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ordered that the interspousal contract be rectified to reflect an increase in the amount payable to the wife of $70,000 - The parties had intended to divide their property equally and the common mistake regarding the Crown lease land resulted in an unequal and unfair division of matrimonial property.

Equity - Topic 1108

Equitable relief - Contracts - Rectification - [See Deeds and Documents - Topic 5059 ].

Family Law - Topic 3395

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Grounds for setting aside - Mistake (incl. rectification) - [See Deeds and Documents - Topic 5059 ].

Mistake - Topic 604

Mistake of fact - Mutual mistake - What constitutes - [See Deeds and Documents - Topic 5059 ].

Mistake - Topic 4005

Relief - Circumstances when granted - [See Deeds and Documents - Topic 5059 ].

Cases Noticed:

Nepean Hydro Electric Commission v. Ontario Hydro, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 347; 41 N.R. 1; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 27].

Air Canada and Pacific Western Airlines Ltd. v. British Columbia (1989), 95 N.R. 1; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Brandt v. Brandt, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 204 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Solle v. Butcher, [1950] 1 K.B. 671 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Monroe v. Monroe Estate et al., [1995] 5 W.W.R. 760; 57 B.C.A.C. 137; 94 W.A.C. 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Di Cenzo Construction Co. v. Glassco (1978), 90 D.L.R.(3d) 127 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Joscelyne v. Nissen, [1970] 2 Q.B. 86, refd to. [para. 31].

Strickland et al. v. Costanzo (2002), 308 A.R. 246 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33].

Oakley v. Oakley (1990), 89 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 289; 278 A.P.R. 289 (Nfld. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Caroline (Village) v. Roper (1987), 82 A.R. 72; 37 D.L.R.(4th) 761 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

Counsel:

Noel S. Sandomirsky, Q.C., for the petitioner/plaintiff, Trudy Williamson;

Timothy J. Keene, for the respondent/defendant, Doug Williamson.

These actions were heard before Krueger, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Swift Current, who delivered the following judgment on April 9, 2003.