Murdoch v Murdoch | |
---|---|
Hearing: 22, 23 March 1973 Judgment: 2 October 1973 | |
Full case name | Irene Florence Murdoch v James Alexander Murdoch |
Citations | [1975] 1 S.C.R. 423 |
Ruling | Application for division of matrimonial property under trust law dismissed. |
Holding | |
No intention to create a trust in favour of the wife, who did not contribute to the finances in a way other than what was common for a ranch wife. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Gérald Fauteux Puisne Justices: Douglas Abbott, Ronald Martland, Wilfred Judson, Roland Ritchie, Emmett Hall, Wishart Spence, Louis-Philippe Pigeon, Bora Laskin | |
Reasons given | |
Majority | Ronald Martland, joined by Wilfred Judson, Roland Ritchie, Wishart Spence |
Dissent | Bora Laskin |
Chief Justice Fauteux and Justices Abbott, Hall, and Pigeon took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Murdoch v Murdoch, [1] also known as the Murdoch Case, was a controversial family law decision by the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court denied an abused ranch wife any interest in the family ranch. [2] This case is most notable for the public outcry it created at the time and for what many [ who? ] believe is Justice Laskin's most famous dissenting opinion.[ citation needed ]
Irene Murdoch, the wife of an Albertan rancher, submitted a claim for half the interest in the family ranch that was registered under the husband's name. The question put before the Court was whether there was an implied trust on behalf of the wife for all her years of labour on the ranch.
In a 4-1 decision, a majority of the Court dismissed the wife's application. Speaking for the majority, Justice Martland upheld the trial judge's finding that the wife's labour was not beyond what was normally expected of a ranch wife. [3] Martland J. held that since there was no financial contribution nor intention to create a trust, there could be no resulting trust, relying on a similar English case, Gissing v. Gissing. [4] [5]
In dissent, Laskin J. argued that the Court did not need to examine intent in order to find a trust; rather a constructive trust based in equity could be found.
Laskin's dissent proved to be among his most famous. Many scholars, himself included, believed that his dissent was a major factor in his unexpected promotion to Chief Justice several years later.[ citation needed ]
Canadian feminists publicized the case across the country. The outcry against the decision contributed to substantial reforms to matrimonial property laws across the country, giving husbands and wives equal rights to property acquired during the course of the marriage. [2] [6]
Following the Supreme Court decision, Irene Murdoch started a new proceeding, a petition for divorce. In the divorce proceedings, she was found to be entitled to a lump-sum award of $65,000 from James Murdoch, in place of monthly spousal maintenance. [6]
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), often referred to as the Dred Scott decision, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
Dred Scott was an enslaved African-American man in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife, Harriet Robinson Scott, and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott case". Scott claimed that he and his wife should be granted their freedom because they had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal and their laws said that slaveholders gave up their rights to slaves if they stayed for an extended period.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by federal or provincial legislation.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy. This case was overturned in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, though the statute had already been struck down by the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1998.
Bora Laskin, was a Canadian lawyer, academic and judge. He served on the Supreme Court of Canada for fourteen years, including a decade as the 14th Chief Justice of Canada.
Stephen Johnson Field was an American jurist. He was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from May 20, 1863, to December 1, 1897, the second longest tenure of any justice. Prior to this appointment, he was the fifth Chief Justice of California.
Ronald Martland, was a Canadian lawyer and Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was the second Albertan appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, taking the place of Justice Nolan, who died after only a short time on the Court.
Roland Almon Ritchie, was a Canadian lawyer and puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Jean-Marie Philémon Joseph Beetz,, c.r. was a Canadian lawyer, academic and judge from Quebec. He served as a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1974 to 1988.
Canadian Council of Churches v Canada , [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the law of standing in Canada. In particular, the case sets out the criteria a public-interest group must meet in order to be allowed to mount a constitutional challenge in court.
Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The two respondents, Lavell and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men.
Nova Scotia v McNeil, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662 is a famous pre-Charter decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on freedom of expression and the criminal law power under the Constitution Act, 1867. The film censorship laws of the province of Nova Scotia were challenged on the basis that it constituted criminal law which could only be legislated by the federal government. The Court held that though the censorship laws had a moral dimension to it, the laws did not have any prohibition or penalty required in a criminal law.
Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834 was a landmark family law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court established a new formulation of the constructive trust as a remedy for unjust enrichment based on the ideas of Professor Donovan Waters, and in particular the requirements for such constructive trust in a common law relationship separation. The Pettkus formulation of constructive trust was subsequently adopted elsewhere in the common law world.
Harrison v Carswell (1975), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200 is a famous pre-Charter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court denied the right to protest as a freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court of Canada was founded in 1875 and has served as the final court of appeal in Canada since 1949. Its history may be divided into three general eras. From its inception in 1875 until 1949, the Court served as an intermediate appellate court subject to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain. Following 1949, the Court gained importance and legitimacy as the court of last resort in Canada, establishing a greater role for the Canadian judiciary. In 1982, the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly changed the role of the Court in Canadian society, by providing the Court with greater powers of oversight over Parliament and through formal recognition of civil rights including aboriginal rights and equality rights.
Quebec (AG) v Kellogg's Co of Canada is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the pre-Charter right to freedom of expression. The Quebec Consumer Protection Act, which prohibited advertising to children through cartoons, was challenged by the Kellogg Company on the basis that it affected TV stations across the country. The Court held that the regulation of advertising is a matter within the authority of the province, and that the Act was valid law under the Property and Civil Rights power allocated to the province under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Canada v Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the standard for allowing public interests to gain standing to challenge a law. The Court developed what is known as the Borowski test for public interest standing.
Interprovincial Cooperatives Ltd v R (1975), [1976] 1 SCR 477 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutional limits of provincial powers.
Gissing v Gissing [1970] UKHL 3 is an English land law and trust law case dealing with constructive trusts arising in relationships between married couple. It may no longer represent good law, since the decisions of Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415 is a leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the context of English family law.
This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |