B. v. B.

Given the undisputed facts of prolonged cohabitation, repeated imperfect intercourse, long unexplained delay and the availability of means to discover the incurability earlier, the appellant should have known years before; his explanation was insufficient and his conduct amounted to approbation and laches, therefore the appellate court properly set aside the trial decree and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation: [1935] SCR 231
Parties: Appellant (husband): B. (husband); Respondent (wife): B. (wife)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 12 December 1934
Procedural Posture: Nullity of Marriage / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba (leave Granted); Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics: Nullity of Marriage, Impotence, Approbation by Conduct, Laches/delay, Consummation
Source Language: English

Family Law Nullity of Marriage Impotence Approbation by Conduct Laches/delay Consummation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

B. (husband)

Appellant (husband)

B. (wife)

Respondent (wife)

Procedural Posture

Nullity of Marriage / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba (leave Granted); Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

1 Whether laches/delay and approbation by conduct bar a petition for nullity for impotence
2 Whether the husband should have known of the incurability of the wife’s condition earlier
3 Whether an appellate court may overturn trial credibility findings where the relevant facts are undisputed

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba reversing the trial judge’s decree of nullity is affirmed.