Wooldridge v. Doiron, (1993) 112 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 226 (PEITD)

• Judge: Jenkins, J.
• Case Date: November 19, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: (1993), 112 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 226 (PEITD)

Wooldridge v. Doiron (1993), 112 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 226 (PEITD);

    350 A.P.R. 226

MLB headnote and full text

Gary David Goops Wooldridge (petitioner (husband)/respondent by counterpetition (defendant)) v. Gaylene Mary (Wooldridge) Doiron (respondent (wife)/petitioner by counterpetition (plaintiff))

(No. 1101-02821)

Indexed As: Wooldridge v. Doiron

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court

Trial Division

Jenkins, J.

November 19, 1993.

Summary:

The parties separated and the husband petitioned for divorce. The wife consented to the divorce and counterpetitioned for main­tenance and support. The wife claimed that a separation agreement executed shortly after the separation was unconscionable and should be set aside. The wife also filed a claim requesting similar relief and an equal division of family assets under the Family Law Reform Act.

The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, determined the issues accord­ingly.

Family Law - Topic 877

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Business, commercial or nonfamily assets - The parties separ­ated after 11 years of marriage - The hus­band earned $33,000 per annum - The wife earned $23,000 per annum - As part of the divorce, the wife applied to have a separa­tion agreement set aside and an equal division of marital property - The wife claimed that an antique hearse (a 1938 Packard) purchased by the husband a year before for $2,000 should be con­sidered a family asset and valued at $14,600 - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the hearse was not a family asset - The court found that "it was for the sole use and enjoyment of the husband. The wife displayed no interest in this asset at any time" - See paragraphs 31 and 32.

Family Law - Topic 3385

Separation agreements and marriage con­tracts - Grounds for setting aside - Im­provident bargain - A husband and wife executed a separation agreement - The wife kept her car and received a $7,000 cash payment - The wife released her claim to the matrimonial home - The husband assumed the family's debts - As part of the divorce proceeding four years later, the wife applied to have the separ­ation agreement set aside and an equal division of matrimonial assets ordered - The wife claimed the agreement was im­provident and unfair - She claimed the husband received assets of $86,000 com­pared to her $21,000 - The wife had received indepen­dent legal advice - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, declined to set aside the separ­ation agree­ment - See paragraphs 25 to 42.

Family Law - Topic 3388

Separation agreements and marriage con­tracts - Grounds for setting aside - Duress or undue influence - A husband and wife executed a separation agreement - The wife kept her car and received a $7,000 cash payment - The wife released her claim to the matrimonial home - As part of the divorce proceeding four years later, the wife applied to have the separation agreement set aside and an equal division of matrimonial assets ordered - The wife claimed she was stressed at the time of execution and just wanted to stop the husband's harassment - The husband sub­mitted that the wife knew their financial situation and had independent legal advice - She was capable of making her own demands - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, declined to set aside the separation agreement - See paragraphs 5 to 24.

Family Law - Topic 3388

Separation agreements and marriage con­tracts - Grounds for setting aside - Duress or undue influence - A wife applied to have a separation agreement set aside on the ground that she executed it while under the husband's dominance - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Divi­sion, stated that "[w]here one party is not preyed upon by the other, an improvident, or even grossly inadequate, consideration is no ground upon which to set aside a contract freely entered into. It is the com­bination of inequality and improvidence which alone may invoke this jurisdiction. The onus is placed upon the party seeking to uphold the contract to show that his conduct throughout was scrupulously considerate of the other's interests" - See paragraph 24.

Family Law - Topic 4006

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Effect of agreements - The parties separated after 11 years of marriage - The parties executed a sep­aration agree­ment in which the family assets were divided and the parties agreed that neither party would be required to pay mainte­nance - The husband earned $33,000 per annum - The wife earned $23,000 per annum - As part of the divorce proceed­ing, the wife requested that the separation agreement be set aside and the husband ordered to pay maintenance - Section 18(4)(a) of the Family Law Reform Act stated that a separation agree­ment regard­ing maintenance could be set aside where the contractual provisions "results in cir­cumstances that are uncon­scionable ..." - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, declined to award mainte­nance - See paragraphs 43 to 57.

Cases Noticed:

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, consd. [para. 5].

Morrison v. Coast Finance Ltd. (1965), 55 D.L.R.(2d) 710 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 6].

Mundinger v. Mundinger (1968), 3 D.L.R.(3d) 338 (Ont. C.A.), affd. 14 D.L.R.(3d) 256 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

MacIntyre v. MacIntyre (1987), 80 N.S.R.(2d) 358; 200 A.P.R. 358 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Farquar v. Farquar (1983), 43 O.R.(2d) 423 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Currie v. Currie (1986), 75 N.S.R.(2d) 439; 186 A.P.R. 439; 5 R.F.L.(3d) 192 (C.A.), dist. [para. 19].

Crouse v. Crouse (1988), 88 N.S.R.(2d) 199; 225 A.P.R. 199 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Graham v. Graham (1988), 83 N.S.R.(2d) 164; 210 A.P.R. 164; 12 R.F.L.(3d) 84 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

Campbell v. Campbell (No. 2) (1990), 83 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 260 A.P.R. 340 (Nfld. U.F.C.), consd. [para. 25].

Ablaka v. Ablaka (1991), 32 R.F.L.(3d) 369 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Bragg v. Bragg (1986), 60 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 261; 181 A.P.R. 261 (Nfld. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Lindsay v. Lindsay (1989), 59 Man.R.(2d) 186; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 34 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Cline v. Cline (1988), 84 N.B.R.(2d) 301; 214 A.P.R. 301; 12 R.F.L.(3d) 289 (Fam. Div.), dist. [para. 34].

Mushrow v. Mushrow (1986), 60 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 305; 181 A.P.R. 305; 4 R.F.L.(3d) 82 (Nfld. C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

Dal Santo v. Dal Santo (1975), 21 R.F.L. 117 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 46].

Ross v. Ross and Howe (1984), 26 Man.R.(2d) 122; 39 R.F.L.(2d) 51 (C.A.), consd. [para. 48].

Gold v. Gold et al. (No. 1) (1993), 32 B.C.A.C. 275; 53 W.A.C. 275 (C.A.), dist. [para. 50].

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) 699, refd to. [para. 53].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Law Reform Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. F-3, sect. 3(a), sect. 4(1), sect. 4(4) [para. 30]; sect. 4(5) [para. 32]; sect. 5(6) [para. 30]; sect. 11 [para. 44]; sect. 18(4)(a) [para. 52].

Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 121, generally [para. 50].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Crawford, Bradley E., Restitution, Uncon­scionable Transactions, Undue Advan­tage Taken of Inequality Between Parties (1966), 44 Can. Bar Rev. 142, p. 143 [para. 24].

Counsel:

John A. Carr, Q.C., for the petitioner;

M. Lynn Murray, for the respondent.

This matter was heard on September 13, 14, 15, 1993, by Jenkins, J., of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Divi­sion, who delivered the following decision on November 19, 1993.