M. (M.E.) v. L. (P.)

M. (M.E.) v. L. (P.)

The trial judge acted within the broad discretionary remedial power conferred by art.559 C.C.Q.; compensatory allowance requires contribution, enrichment, causal link, proportion, concomitant impoverishment and absence of justification; weighing all contributions and contractual context the respondent failed to prove unjustified enrichment warranting $40,000 and the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its view for the trial judge's discretionary assessment, so the allowance is denied.

Citation
[1992] 1 SCR 183
Parties
Appellant: M.E.M.; Respondent: P.L.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 1992
Procedural Posture
Divorce / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial decision upheld; respondent awarded no compensatory allowance.
Legal Topics
Compensatory Allowance, Divorce, Matrimonial Regime, Article 559 C.c.q.
Source Language
English
Family Law Property Law Unjust Enrichment Compensatory Allowance Divorce Matrimonial Regime Article 559 C.c.q.

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.E.M.

Appellant

P.L.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What approach should be taken under art.559 C.C.Q. on a claim for compensatory allowance?
  2. 2 Whether husband's repayment of hypothecary loan and payment of taxes/insurance constituted a contribution that unjustifiably enriched wife's patrimony
  3. 3 What elements must be proved for a compensatory allowance and what weight to give marriage contracts and matrimonial regime

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge acted within the broad discretionary remedial power conferred by art.559 C.C.Q.; compensatory allowance requires contribution, enrichment, causal link, proportion, concomitant impoverishment and absence of justification; weighing all contributions and contractual context the respondent failed to prove unjustified enrichment warranting $40,000 and the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its view for the trial judge's discretionary assessment, so the allowance is denied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial decision upheld; respondent awarded no compensatory allowance.

Orders

  • Respondent will not be awarded any compensatory allowance.
  • No order as to costs.