Miglin v Miglin

Last updated
Miglin v Miglin
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: October 29, 2002
Judgment: April 17, 2003
Full case nameEric Juri Miglin v Linda Susan Miglin
Citations [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303, 2003 SCC 24
RulingAppeal allowed
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps
Reasons given
MajorityBastarache and Arbour JJ., joined by McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, and Binnie JJ.
DissentLeBel J., joined by Deschamps J.

Miglin v Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303, 2003 SCC 24, is the leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the use of separation agreements. The Court established a two-stage test to determine whether a separation agreement can be relied upon.

Contents

Prior to the Miglin decision, the leading cases on separation agreements was the Pelech Trilogy. In those cases, it was held that a separation agreement is binding and a party can only apply for spousal support where there has been a radical and unforeseeable change in circumstances which has a causal connection to the marriage. The Miglin decision rejected this strict test.

Facts

The parties separated and spent more than 12 months negotiating a separation agreement. As part of the separation agreement, the parties agreed to a complete release of spousal support; that is, no spousal support would be payable in the future for any reason. At the same time, the parties entered into a consulting agreement in which the husband paid the wife $15,000 per annum, renewable after five years if both parties agreed. Six months before the expiration of the first five-year term of the consulting agreement, the wife applied to court for spousal support, asking the court to find the spousal support release invalid. [1]

Opinion of the Court

Justices Bastarache and Arbour, writing for the majority, allowed the appeal, upholding the spousal support release in the separation agreement.

In their analysis they set out the test for re-opening a domestic contract of any sort. The test has two steps. First, the court considers the circumstances in which the initial agreement was made: whether the agreement was negotiated in an unimpeachable fashion [2] and whether the agreement conformed with the objectives of the Divorce Act. [3] Second, the court must consider the current circumstances: whether the agreement still reflects the intentions of the parties and whether there has been significant change in circumstances such that it was reasonably unforeseeable at the time of formation such that the results of the agreement no longer meet the objectives of the Divorce Act. [4]

Significance

If a person is contemplating entering into a separation agreement or domestic contract of any kind, the decision in Miglin emphasizes the importance of the negotiation process and of obtaining professional legal advice to ensure that the agreement substantially complies with the factors and objectives set out in the Divorce Act, and the process leading up to the signing of the agreement is fair. [5]

A fairly negotiated domestic contract will be given great weight in the event of a challenge to it later on. [6]

Notes

  1. "Overriding Agreements".
  2. para. 83
  3. "The Worth of Family Law Agreements".
  4. para. 88
  5. "Miglin v Miglin Case Note".
  6. "Miglin Proofing Your Separation Agreement" (PDF).

See also

Related Research Articles

Alimony, also called aliment (Scotland), maintenance, spousal support and spouse maintenance (Australia), is a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to their spouse before or after marital separation or divorce. The obligation arises from the divorce law or family law of each country. In most jurisdictions, it is distinct from child support, where, after divorce, one parent is required to contribute to the support of their children by paying money to the child's other parent or guardian.

Legal separation is a legal process by which a married couple may formalize a de facto separation while remaining legally married. A legal separation is granted in the form of a court order. In cases where children are involved, a court order of legal separation often makes child custody arrangements, specifying sole custody or shared parenting, as well as child support. Some couples obtain a legal separation as an alternative to a divorce, based on moral or religious objections to divorce.

Common-law marriage, also known as non-ceremonial marriage, sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, de facto marriage, or marriage by habit and repute, is a legal marriage despite non-compliance with the requirements for a statutory marriage, at least in the jurisdictions where marriage can still be contracted this way.

A prenuptial agreement, antenuptial agreement, or premarital agreement is a written contract entered into by a couple before marriage or a civil union that enables them to select and control many of the legal rights they acquire upon marrying, and what happens when their marriage eventually ends by death or divorce. Couples enter into a written prenuptial agreement to supersede many of the default marital laws that would otherwise apply in the event of divorce, such as the laws that govern the division of property, retirement benefits, savings, and the right to seek alimony with agreed-upon terms that provide certainty and clarify their marital rights. A premarital agreement may also contain waivers of a surviving spouse's right to claim an elective share of the estate of the deceased spouse.

<i>Egan v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by a very divided Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Divorce Act</i> (Canada) Canadian federal law governing divorce

The Divorce Act is the federal Act that governs divorce in Canada. The Constitution of Canada gives the federal Parliament exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the law of marriage and divorce.

<i>Moge v Moge</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Moge v Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court greatly restricted a court's ability to terminate alimony payments. The decision is viewed by some groups as a landmark for women's rights as it is said to protect women with little job experience from becoming destitute when they get a divorce.

<i>Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd v Can-Dive Services Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd v Can-Dive Services Ltd, [1999] 3 SCR 108 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the court re-affirmed and expanded on the exception to the doctrine of privity first established in London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] SCR 299.

<i>Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc</i> Canadian Supreme Court case about trademark names

Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc[2006] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2006 SCC 22 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the infringement of famous trade-mark names. The Court found that Mattel Inc. could not enforce the use of their trade-marked name "BARBIE" against a restaurant named "Barbie's".

<i>Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. The Court held that, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their homelands if they are a serious security risk to Canadians.

<i>Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario</i> (Labour Relations Board) Supreme Court of Canada case

Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 SCR 5 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction of tribunals to hear constitutional challenges of the tribunal's enabling statute.

<i>Peoples Department Stores Inc (Trustee of) v Wise</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Peoples Department Stores Inc v Wise, 2004 SCC 68 is a major Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of the fiduciary duty upon directors and officers of a corporation. When examining the duty of directors under section 122(1) of the Canada Business Corporations Act ("CBCA"), the Court held that there is a distinction between the interests of the corporation and those of the stakeholders and creditors.

<i>Chartier v Chartier</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Chartier v Chartier, 1999 1 S.C.R. 242 is a leading Canadian case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the legal role of step parents in a marriage. The Court held that a step parent who is found to be in loco parentis cannot unilaterally withdraw from the family relationship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Divorce law by country</span> Overview of divorce laws around the world

Divorce law, the legal provisions for the dissolution of marriage, varies widely across the globe, reflecting diverse legal systems and cultural norms. Most nations allow for residents to divorce under some conditions except the Philippines and the Vatican City, an ecclesiastical sovereign city-state, which has no procedure for divorce. In these two countries, laws only allow annulment of marriages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian family law</span>

Family law in Canada concerns the body of Canadian law dealing with domestic partnerships, marriage, and divorce.

Intention to create legal relations, otherwise an "intention to be legally bound", is a doctrine used in contract law, particularly English contract law and related common law jurisdictions.

<i>Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v Lafontaine (Village of)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v Lafontaine , 2004 SCC 48, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canadian administrative law. The case applied the Baker framework for analysing the duty of fairness owed by an administrative decision-maker to a zoning request made to a municipality and found that the municipal government owed a duty of procedural fairness to the applicant in the way that it assessed and responded to their rezoning application.

<i>Canada v GlaxoSmithKline Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada v GlaxoSmithKline Inc is the first ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with issues involving transfer pricing and how they are treated under the Income Tax Act of Canada ("ITA").

In Canada, the duty to consult and accommodate with Aboriginal peoples arises when the Crown contemplates actions or decisions that may affect Aboriginal or Treaty rights. This duty arises most often in the context of natural resource extraction such as mining, forestry, oil, and gas.

<i>Macleod v Macleod</i>

Macleod v Macleod [2008] UKPC 64 was a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in an appeal originating from the Isle of Man. It made clear that postnuptial agreements in the Isle of Man cannot be varied by a court other than for sufficient policy reasons. Although technically only applying to Manx postnuptial agreements, the judgment is treated with authority in the United Kingdom.