Boudreau v. Boudreau
Assuming without deciding the trial judge erred on limitation, the separation agreement was not unconscionable given the respondent's assumption of $112,000 in joint debts and resulting monthly deficit, so there was no basis to set aside the agreement and the appeal must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C39244
- Parties
- Appellant: Joanne Neanne D'Arc Boudreau a.k.a. Johanne Jeanne D'Arc Boudreau; Respondent: Guy Benoit Boudreau
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 April 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (family Law) / Appeal From Superior Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Separation Agreement, Unconscionability, Limitation Period, Set Aside Agreement, Standard of Appellate Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Joanne Neanne D'Arc Boudreau a.k.a. Johanne Jeanne D'Arc Boudreau
Appellant
Guy Benoit Boudreau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil (family Law) / Appeal From Superior Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the limitation period had expired
- 2 Whether the separation agreement was unconscionable and should be set aside
- 3 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial judge's factual findings
Ratio Decidendi
Assuming without deciding the trial judge erred on limitation, the separation agreement was not unconscionable given the respondent's assumption of $112,000 in joint debts and resulting monthly deficit, so there was no basis to set aside the agreement and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed without costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Boudreau v. Boudreau Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-04-16 Docket numbers C39244 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Armstrong, Robert Patrick Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20040416 DOCKET: C39244 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: JOANNE NEANNE D'ARC BOUDREAU a.k.a. JOHANNE JEANNE D'ARC BOUDREAU (Appellant) - and - GUY BENOIT BOUDREAU (Respondent) BEFORE: WEILER, ABELLA and ARMSTRONG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Paul E. Trenker for the appellant Charles C. Conroy for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: April 14, 2004 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Louise L. Gauthier of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 12, 2002. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Assuming without deciding that the trial judge erred in holding that the limitation period had expired, we would nonetheless dismiss this appeal. [2] Based on the evidence before us, we see no basis for interfering with the conclusion of the trial judge that the separation agreement was not unconscionable. The uncontradicted financial evidence was that at the time the agreement was signed and at trial, Mr. Boudreau had a monthly deficit of almost $600 because he had assumed responsibility for $112,000 in joint debts. In these unusual circumstances, we would not set aside this agreement. [3] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs.