Baker v. Baker

Baker v. Baker

The separation agreement was set aside under s.29 because it was unconscionable and unduly harsh on Ms. Gosbee given her vulnerable state and the circumstances of signing; the court fixed the matrimonial home value as of November 2005 at $160,000 for equalization purposes, determined an equalization entitlement framework (approximate equalization payment computed), but stayed any property payment pending determination of spousal support; Mr. Baker was permitted to advance a retroactive and prospective spousal support claim within a time limit (two months) and the divorce and property transfer are adjourned until spousal support is resolved.

Citation
2011 NSSC 272
Parties
Petitioner: Thomas Baker; Respondent: Joyce Baker (aka Ms. Gosbee)
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Divorce / Matrimonial Property / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Separation agreement set aside under s.29 of the Matrimonial Property Act; property value fixed at $160,000 as of November 2005; property settlement/payment stayed pending resolution of spousal support; Mr. Baker permitted to advance retroactive and future spousal support claim within two months; divorce adjourned;...
Legal Topics
Separation Agreement, Unconscionability, Section 29 Matrimonial Property Act, Retroactive Spousal Support, Equalization of Matrimonial Property
Source Language
English
Family Law Matrimonial Property Spousal Support Property Valuation Separation Agreement Unconscionability Section 29 Matrimonial Property Act Retroactive Spousal Support +1 more

Case Brief

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Baker

Petitioner

Joyce Baker (aka Ms. Gosbee)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce / Matrimonial Property / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2005 separation agreement should be set aside under s.29 of the Matrimonial Property Act as unconscionable or unduly harsh
  2. 2 Determination of matrimonial property value and equalization entitlements as of November 2005
  3. 3 Whether and to what extent Mr. Baker is entitled to retroactive and ongoing spousal support

Ratio Decidendi

The separation agreement was set aside under s.29 because it was unconscionable and unduly harsh on Ms. Gosbee given her vulnerable state and the circumstances of signing; the court fixed the matrimonial home value as of November 2005 at $160,000 for equalization purposes, determined an equalization entitlement framework (approximate equalization payment computed), but stayed any property payment pending determination of spousal support; Mr. Baker was permitted to advance a retroactive and prospective spousal support claim within a time limit (two months) and the divorce and property transfer are adjourned until spousal support is resolved.

Court Disposition

Separation agreement set aside under s.29 of the Matrimonial Property Act; property value fixed at $160,000 as of November 2005; property settlement/payment stayed pending resolution of spousal support; Mr. Baker permitted to advance retroactive and future spousal support claim within two months; divorce adjourned;...

Orders

  • Set aside the 2005 separation agreement under s.29 Matrimonial Property Act
  • Fix value of matrimonial home as of November 2005 at CAD 160000