Willick v. Willick, (1994) 173 N.R. 321 (SCC)

JudgeGonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Case DateMarch 16, 1994
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1994), 173 N.R. 321 (SCC);[1994] 3 SCR 670;1994 CanLII 28 (SCC);119 DLR (4th) 405;6 RFL (4th) 161;173 NR 321;[1994] CarswellSask 48;JE 94-1704;[1994] SCJ No 94 (QL);125 Sask R 81;[1994] ACS no 94;[1994] RDF 617;51 ACWS (3d) 106;81 WAC 81

Willick v. Willick (1994), 173 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]

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

Lori Ann Willick (appellant) v. Bryan Douglas Albert Willick (respondent)

(23141)

Indexed As: Willick v. Willick

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin

and Iacobucci, JJ.

October 27, 1994.

Summary:

The parties divorced. Pursuant to an interspousal agreement, the wife had custody of two children and the husband paid child maintenance of $450 per month per child. The husband's income increased to over $100,000 annually compared to $40,000 at the time of the agreement. The wife applied to increase the maintenance.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 98 Sask.R. 239, allowed the application. The husband appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 100 Sask.R. 211; 18 W.A.C. 211; 41 R.F.L.(3d) 107, allowed the appeal. The wife appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the chambers judge.

Civil Rights - Topic 8318

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Statutory interpretation - Preference to Charter values - The Supreme Court of Canada stated "I have serious reservations about the use of the Charter as an interpretative tool where the other rules of construction make the inten­tion of the legislature plain. Use of the Charter in this manner means that the clear intention of Parliament is blunted by con­fining it within Charter values without resort to s. 1. If this approach is legitimate, resort to s. 1 of the Charter would be unnecessary. The legislature's intention would be headed off by a benign interpre­tation. The result would be to prevent the legislature from exercising the full extent of its powers as permitted by s. 1" - See paragraph 2.

Family Law - Topic 4006.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - To children - Effect of agree­ments - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the court is not bound by the terms of a separation agreement in exer­cising its jurisdiction to award support under the [Divorce] Act ... The reasoning which supports the restrictions with respect to spousal support does not apply to child support ... As against the parties, the agreement operates as strong evidence that at the time each accepted its terms as adequately providing for the needs of the children" - Where the agreement is embodied in the divorce judgment, it must be assumed that the court carried out its duty under s. 11(1)(b) of the Divorce Act and that the agreement made adequate arrangements for child support - "As such, the correctness of the previous order must not be reviewed during the variation pro­ceeding" - See paragraphs 15 to 19.

Family Law - Topic 4017

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Variation of periodic payments - Under an interspousal agreement, a wife had custody of two children and the hus­band paid $450/month maintenance per child - The husband's annual income at the time of the agreement was $40,000 - Two years later, it increased to $100,000 - The wife applied for increased main­tenance - The trial judge increased child support to $850/month per child on the basis of the increased salary - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision, holding that the trial judge did not err in finding changed circumstances sufficient to justify variation pursuant to s. 17(4) of the Divorce Act.

Family Law - Topic 4017

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Variation of periodic payments - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a trial judge, having found that the condi­tions for variation exist, should re-assess the needs of the children in light of the change - Children's reasonable expec­tations for future support upon marriage break-up are conditioned by the standard of living of the parents at the time and may change if, subsequently, there is significant change in the circumstances of one of the parents - An increase in the payor's means may require that the chil­dren's needs include benefits that pre­viously were not available - If the situ­ation is reversed, the needs of the children may need to be scaled down - There is, moreover, a limit to the extent to which the children's expectations for increased support can continue - See paragraph 26.

Family Law - Topic 4018

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Variation of - Jurisdiction - [See Statutes - Topic 2407 ].

Family Law - Topic 4018

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Variation of - Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "in a variation proceeding, it must be assumed that, at the time it was made, the original child support order or the previous vari­ation order accurately assessed the needs of the children having regard to the means of the parents. As such, the correctness of the previous order must not be reviewed during the variation proceeding. The pre­vious order will not be departed from lightly and will only be varied if the re­quirements under s. 17(4) of the Divorce Act are properly satisfied" - See paragraph 19.

Family Law - Topic 4018

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Variation of - Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 17(4) of the Divorce Act permitted vari­ation of support orders where there is a material change of circumstances, i.e., a change that, if known at the time, would likely have resulted in different terms - The material change may be in either the child's circumstances or in the circum­stances of one or both of the parents - "In this way, the child is sheltered as much as possible from the consequences of divorce by providing for escalating needs and by permitting the child to benefit from any improvement in the lifestyle of one or both of the parents" - A payor spouse may also use s. 17(4) to protect against a drop in income even where the children's needs have not changed - See paragraphs 20 to 25.

Statutes - Topic 2407

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - General principles - By context - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a contextual approach to the interpre­tation of s. 17(4) of the Divorce Act, 1985, was appropriate - The court concluded that, in the context of the Act, its pre­decessor and principles set out in the cases, the intention of Parliament was clear - Accordingly, resort to extrinsic materials and an examination of broad policy grounds was unnecessary - See paragraphs 1 to 2.

Cases Noticed:

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 2].

Thomson v. Thomson (1988), 69 Sask.R. 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Anwender v. Anwender (1991), 92 Sask.R. 276; 32 R.F.L.(3d) 135 (C.A.), refd to [para. 10].

Langelier v. Anwender - see Anwender v. Anwender.

Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; 76 N.R. 81; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 481; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 14 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Richardson v. Richardson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 857; 77 N.R. 1; 22 O.A.C. 1; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 304; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 699; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 104, refd to. [para. 16].

Dickson v. Dickson, [1988] 2 W.W.R. 117; 11 R.F.L.(3d) 337 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Lanteigne v. Lanteigne (1988), 91 N.B.R.(2d) 275; 232 A.P.R. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Moosa v. Moosa (1990), 26 R.F.L.(3d) 107 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 159 N.R. 321; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 24].

Friesen v. Friesen (1985), 48 R.F.L.(2d) 137 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Paras v. Paras, [1971] 1 O.R. 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

McKinney v. Polston, [1992] B.C.J. No. 1422 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Snelgrove-Fowler v. Fowler (1993), 138 A.R. 192 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Bucher v. Bucher (1990), 67 Man.R.(2d) 233 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 25].

Goncalves v. Goncalves (1986), 49 R.F.L.(2d) 376 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Harrington v. Harrington (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 42].

Levesque v. Levesque (1994), 155 A.R. 26; 73 W.A.C. 26 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 48].

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. S.(S.) - see R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme.

R. v. Downey and Reynolds, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10; 136 N.R. 266; 125 A.R. 342; 14 W.A.C. 342; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Penno, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 865; 115 N.R. 249; 42 O.A.C. 271; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 344, refd to. [para. 48].

Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 48].

Janzen and Gouvreau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 48].

Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. - see Janzen and Gouvreau v. Pharos Res­taurant and Grammas et al.

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Lavalee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 76 C.R.(3d) 329; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 49].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 3; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 49].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 134, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Chartrand (J.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 864; 170 N.R. 161; 74 O.A.C. 257, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Rowbotham (R.) and Roblin (D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 463; 168 N.R. 220; 72 O.A.C. 98, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22; 30 Q.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 50].

Marzetti v. Marzetti (Bankrupt), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 765; 169 N.R. 161; 155 A.R. 340; 73 W.A.C. 340, refd to. [para. 51].

Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86, refd to. [para. 52].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [para. 52].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Co­lumbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 52].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 52 O.R.(2d) 799; 9 C.C.E.L. 185; 17 Admin. L.R. 89; 86 C.L.L.C. 17,002, refd to. [para. 53].

Murray v. Murray (1991), 123 A.R. 68; 35 R.F.L.(3d) 449 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

Stunt v. Stunt (1990), 30 R.F.L.(3d) 353 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].

King v. King (1990), 95 N.S.R.(2d) 409; 251 A.P.R. 409; 25 R.F.L.(3d) 338 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].

Northcut v. Ruppel (1989), 59 Man.R.(2d) 113; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 195 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59].

Mitchell v. Mitchell (1988), 18 R.F.L.(3d) 206 (Sask. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Oakley v. Oakley (1990), 83 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 266; 260 A.P.R. 266 (Nfld. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Conroy v. Conroy (1977), 1 R.F.L.(2d) 193 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Menage v. Hedges (1987), 8 R.F.L.(3d) 225 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

Syvitski v. Syvitski (1988), 86 N.S.R.(2d) 248; 218 A.P.R. 248 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].

Brockie v. Brockie (1987), 46 Man.R.(2d) 33 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 74].

Smith v. Smith (1986), 4 R.F.L.(3d) 210 (Ont. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 79].

Caron v. Caron, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 892; 75 N.R. 36; 2 Y.R. 246; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 522; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 274; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 735; 14 B.C.L.R. 186, refd to. [para. 86].

Masters v. Masters, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 883; 168 N.R. 11; 120 Sask.R. 318; 68 W.A.C. 318, refd to. [para. 87].

Guemili v. Guemili (1989), 19 R.F.L.(3d) 347 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

Chelmick v. Chelmick (1992), 131 A.R. 161; 25 W.A.C. 161; 41 R.F.L.(3d) 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

Chelmick v. Cochlan - see Chelmick v. Chelmick.

Kitson v. Kitson (1986), 1 R.F.L.(3d) 103 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 95].

Robertson v. Robertson (1989), 23 R.F.L.(3d) 188 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 96].

Michel v. Michel (1988), 18 R.F.L.(3d) 182 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 98].

Gaudet v. Gaudet (1988), 70 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 107; 215 A.P.R. 107; 15 R.F.L.(3d) 65 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Vervoorst v. Vervoorst (1991), 122 A.R. 280; 37 R.F.L.(3d) 178 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 101].

Gillis v. Gillis (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 112; 367 A.P.R. 112; 3 R.F.L.(4th) 128 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 103].

Ryan v. Ryan (1992), 114 N.S.R.(2d) 255; 313 A.P.R. 255 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 103].

James v. James (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 318; 23 W.A.C. 318; 41 R.F.L.(3d) 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

Marshall v. Marshall (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 156; 30 W.A.C. 156; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

Taplin v. Laurie (1992), 78 Man.R.(2d) 296; 16 W.A.C. 296; 41 R.F.L.(3d) 197 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

House v. Tunney (1991), 95 Sask.R. 73; 35 R.F.L.(3d) 68 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 108].

House v. House - see House v. Tunney.

Crowfoot v. Crowfoot (1992), 38 R.F.L.(3d) 354 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 112].

Weaver v. Tate (1989), 24 R.F.L.(3d) 266 (Ont. H.C.), additional reasons (1990), 24 R.F.L.(3d) 372, affd. (1990), 28 R.F.L.(3d) 188 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

Mallen v. Mallen (1988), 13 R.F.L.(3d) 54 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

Cheng v. Cheng (1988), 13 R.F.L.(3d) 140 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

Monaghan v. Monaghan (1988), 14 R.F.L.(3d) 308 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 112].

Heinemann v. Heinemann (1988), 86 N.S.R.(2d) 278; 218 A.P.R. 278 (T.D.), affd. (1989), 91 N.S.R.(2d) 136; 233 A.P.R. 136; 20 R.F.L.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

Wilbur v. Wilbur (1983), 147 D.L.R.(3d) 69 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

Lensen v. Lensen, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 672; 79 N.R. 334; 64 Sask.R. 6; [1988] 1 W.W.R. 481; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 116].

Reza v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; 167 N.R. 282, refd to. [para. 116].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321; [1992] 2 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 118].

Statutes Noticed:

Bankruptcy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, generally [para. 51].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 2]; sect. 15 [para. 52].

Court of Appeal Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. C-42, sect. 8 [para. 115].

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8, sect. 11 [para. 87]; sect. 11(2) [para. 93]; sect. 17(2) [para. 114].

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 11(1)(b), sect. 15(2), sect. 15(4), sect. 15(5) [para. 14]; sect. 15(7)(b) [para. 80]; sect. 15(8) [para. 14]; sect. 15(8)(a) [para. 81]; sect. 17(1), sect. 17(4) [para. 13]; sect. 17(5) [para. 54]; sect. 17(6) [para. 41]; sect. 17(7)(b) [para. 80]; sect. 17(8) [para. 13]; sect. 21(1), sect. 21(5) [para. 114].

Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, S.S. 1983, c. R-4.1, gen­erally [para. 5].

Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, rule 29(3) [para. 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Abella, Rosalie S., Economic Adjustment on Marriage Breakdown: Support (1981), 4 Fam. L. Rev. 1, generally [para. 68].

Canada, Department of Justice, Bureau of Review, Evaluation of the Divorce Act - Phase II: Monitoring and Evaluation (1990), pp. 81, 132 [para. 66].

Canada, Department of Justice, Divorce Law in Canada: Proposals for Change (1984), p. 23 [para. 57]

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 219 [para. 23]; 257 [para. 24].

Durnford, John W., and Stephen J. Toope, Spousal Support in Family Law and Alimony in the Law of Taxation (1994), 42:1 Can. Tax. J. 1, pp. 17 to 18 [para. 87].

Federal/Provincial/Territorial Family Law Committee, Child Support: Public Dis­cussion Paper (June 1991), p. 34 [para. 108].

Federal/Provincial/Territorial Family Law Committee, The Financial Implications of Child Support Guidelines: Research Report (May 1992), p. 1 [para. 67].

Grassby, Miriam, Women in their Forties: The Extent of Their Rights to Ali­mentary Support (1991), 30 R.F.L.(3d) 369, pp. 390 [para. 68]; 397 [para. 69].

Hughes, M.E. and E.D. Pask, National Themes in Family Law (1988), p. 44 [para. 72].

La Novara, Pina, A Portrait of Families in Canada (1993), p. 34 et seq. [para. 64].

McKie, D.C., B. Prentice, and P. Reed, Divorce: Law and the Family in Canada (1983), p. 198 [para. 68].

McLeod, James G., Annotation on Silver­man v. Silverman (1987), 7 R.F.L.(3d) 292, pp. 293 to 294 [para. 15].

Monahan, John, and Lauren Walker, Judi­cial Use of Social Science Research (1991), 15 L. & Hum. Behav. 571, gen­erally [para. 47].

Monahan, John, and Lauren Walker, Social Authority: Obtaining, Evaluating, and Establishing Social Science Law (1986), 134 U. Pa. L. Rev. 477, pp. 508 to 512 [para. 46]; footnote 2 [para. 45].

Neave, Marcia, Resolving the Dilemma of Difference: A Critique of The Role of Private Ordering in Family Law (1994), 44 U.T.L.J. 97, generally [para. 87].

Pask, Diane E., Gender Bias and Child Support: Sharing the Poverty (1993), 10 C.F.L.Q. 33, pp. 51 [para. 62]; 83 to 84 [para. 72]; 89 [para. 108].

Payne on Divorce (3rd Ed. 1993), pp. 92 to 93 [para. 58]; 96 [para. 108]; 197 to 199 [para. 88]; 217 [para. 99].

Perry, Gail S., and Gary B. Melton, Precedential Value of Judicial Notice of Social Facts: Parham as an Example (1983-84), 22 J. Fam. L. 633, p. 642 [para. 46].

Rogerson, Carol J., Judicial Interpretation of the Spousal and Child Support Provi­sions of the Divorce Act, 1985 (Part II) (1991), 7 C.F.L.Q. 271, pp. 274 [para. 62]; 280 to 285 [para. 58]; 285 to 286 [para. 70]; 293 [para. 88].

Rogerson, Carol, Winning the Battle, Los­ing the War: The Plight of the Custodial Mother After Judgment, in National Themes in Family Law (1988), pp. 43 [para. 82]; 44 [para. 72].

Walker, Lauren, and John Monahan, Social Frameworks: A New Use of Social Science in Law (1987), 73 Va. L. Rev. 559, generally [para. 47].

Zweibel, Ellen B., Child Support Guidelines: An Ineffective and Poten­tially Gender-Biased Response to Child Support Issues (1993), p. 1 [para. 65].

Zweibel, Ellen B., Valuing the Custodial Parents' Contribution: Dealing with Increased Monetary Costs and Non-Monetary Costs Absorbed by the Cus­todial Parent, generally [para. 72].

Counsel:

Donna Wilson and Gary Bainbridge, for the appellant;

Deryk J. Kendall and F. Neil Turcotte, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Woloshyn Mattison, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the appellant;

Cuelenaere, Kendall, Fisher, Gaucher, Katzman & Duncan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 16, 1994, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On Oc­tober 27, 1994, the judgment of the court was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (La Forest, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 29;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Gonthier, McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 30 to 124.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1487 practice notes
  • Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., (2002) 287 N.R. 248 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • April 26, 2002
    ...to. [para. 63]. Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 64]. Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.......
  • R. v. Monney (I.), (1997) 105 O.A.C. 1 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • December 9, 1996
    ...(Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86; 48 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 88 C.L.L.C. 14,011, refd to. [para. 40]. Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81; 6 R.F.L.(4th) 162; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 405, refd to. [para. Davidson v. Slaight Communications I......
  • R. v. Jackpine (R.), (2006) 347 N.R. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • April 27, 2006
    ...to. [para. 18]. Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 19]. Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.......
  • Ready v Saskatoon Regional Health Authority, 2017 SKCA 20
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • March 9, 2017
    ...framework setting up a right of appeal and speaking to the purpose of the Tribunal. As observed by Sopinka J. in Willick v Willick, [1994] 3 SCR 670 at 689: With respect to the application of the contextual approach … the objective is to interpret statutory provisions to harmonize the compo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1254 cases
  • Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., (2002) 287 N.R. 248 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • April 26, 2002
    ...to. [para. 63]. Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 64]. Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.......
  • Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie‑Britannique v. British Columbia, 2020 SCC 13
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 12, 2020
    ...General), 2015 SCC 25, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 282; Lavoie v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1989), 91 N.S.R. (2d) 184; Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; Quebec (Education, Recreation and Sports) v. Nguyen, 2009 SCC 47, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 208; Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R.......
  • R. v. Monney (I.), (1997) 105 O.A.C. 1 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • December 9, 1996
    ...(Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86; 48 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 88 C.L.L.C. 14,011, refd to. [para. 40]. Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81; 6 R.F.L.(4th) 162; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 405, refd to. [para. Davidson v. Slaight Communications I......
  • R. v. Jackpine (R.), (2006) 347 N.R. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • April 27, 2006
    ...to. [para. 18]. Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 19]. Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 firm's commentaries
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (April 19 – April 23, 2021)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • April 25, 2021
    ...aff’d [1984] 2 S.C.R. 137, Stevens v. Stevens (2005), 20 R.F.L. (6th) 453 (Ont. S.C.J.), aff’d 214 O.A.C. 201, Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670, L.M.P. v. L.S., 2011 SCC 64 Martin v. 11037315 Canada Inc. , 2021 ONCA 246 Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Civil Procedure......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 19 ' April 23, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 27, 2021
    ...aff'd [1984] 2 S.C.R. 137, Stevens v. Stevens (2005), 20 R.F.L. (6th) 453 (Ont. S.C.J.), aff'd 214 O.A.C. 201, Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670, L.M.P. v. L.S., 2011 SCC 64 Martin v. 11037315 Canada Inc., 2021 ONCA 246 Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Civil Procedure, A......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (March 28, 2022 ' April 1, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 6, 2022
    ...s. 14(b), Gray v. Rizzi, 2016 ONCA 152, Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, L.M.P. v. L.S., 2011 SCC 64, citing Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670, Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, N.L. v. R.R.M., 2016 ONCA 915, Farden v. Farden (1993), 48 R.F.L. (3d) 60 (B.C. S.C.), Whitton v.......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (January 9 ' 13, 2023)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • January 20, 2023
    ...130, Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, r. 25(19), Crosbie v. Crosbie, 2012 ONCA 516, L.M.P. v. L.S., 2011 SCC 64, Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670, Robert McAlpine Ltd. v. Byrne Glass Enterprises Ltd., [2001] O.J. No. 3208 (C.A.), Eastwalsh Homes Ltd. v. Anatal Development Corporatio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
141 books & journal articles
  • Special or extraordinary expenses
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2020
    • June 23, 2019
    ...applies the respective incomes of the spouses as the guiding principle, not the value of their contributions. Compare Willick v Willick, [1994] 3 SCR 670, 6 RFL (4th) 161 at 204. 203 Moge v Moge, [1992] 3 SCR 813. 204 Sikler v Snow, [2000] SJ No 271 (QB); see also Abulnaga v Jamshidian, [20......
  • Child Support on or after Divorce
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Canadian Family Law. Eighth Edition
    • August 3, 2020
    ...Kolada v Kolada, [2000] AJ No 342 (QB). Birks v Birks, [2003] BCJ No 949 (SC); Sikler v Snow, [2000] SJ No 271 (QB). Willick v Willick, [1994] 3 SCR 670. See also MEL v PRH, 2018 NBQB Bartlett v Bartlett (1994), 2 RFL (4th) 202 (Nfld UFC). Daku v Daku, [1999] SJ No 330 (QB). 467 468 Canadia......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2022
    • July 27, 2022
    ...1180...........................................................................................................251 Willick v Willick, [1994] 3 SCR 670, 6 RFL (4th) 161............................ 15, 292, 398, 411, 426, 428, 546, 547, 549, 550, 574, 644 Willie v Willie, [2000] SJ No 750, 20......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2020
    • June 23, 2019
    ...1180 ..........................................................................................................237 Willick v Willick, [1994] 3 SCR 670, 6 RFL (4th) 161 .........................16, 277, 379, 393, 407–8, 489–90, 514, 515, 516, 517, 546, 604 Willie v Willie, [2000] SJ No 750, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT