Lapointe v. Klint

Lapointe v. Klint

Because the respondent had raised maintenance before the decree nisi and the decrees expressly reserved other rights, the court retained jurisdiction to determine maintenance after the decree absolute; s.13(3) does not bar the court from deciding corollary relief that was pending or reserved at the time of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1975] 2 SCR 539
Parties
Appellant (husband): Pierre Lapointe; Respondent (wife): Dame Vibeke Klint
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 1974
Procedural Posture
Divorce (maintenance) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Corollary Relief, Decree Nisi Vs Decree Absolute, Jurisdiction to Grant Maintenance, Statutory Interpretation of Divorce Act Ss.11(1) and 13(3)
Source Language
english
Family Law Divorce Maintenance Corollary Relief Decree Nisi Vs Decree Absolute Jurisdiction to Grant Maintenance Statutory Interpretation of Divorce Act Ss.11(1) and 13(3)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pierre Lapointe

Appellant (husband)

Dame Vibeke Klint

Respondent (wife)

Procedural Posture

Divorce (maintenance) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court retains jurisdiction to grant maintenance after a decree absolute where maintenance was raised before the decree nisi and rights were expressly reserved in the decrees
  2. 2 Whether s.13(3) of the Divorce Act prohibits further orders on corollary relief after a decree absolute
  3. 3 Whether reservation language in decree nisi and decree absolute preserves the right to seek maintenance thereafter

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent had raised maintenance before the decree nisi and the decrees expressly reserved other rights, the court retained jurisdiction to determine maintenance after the decree absolute; s.13(3) does not bar the court from deciding corollary relief that was pending or reserved at the time of the decree nisi.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs