McDonald v. Trenchard

McDonald v. Trenchard

The court held that Mr. Trenchard may adduce evidence that the Minutes of Settlement/CRJ do not reflect the parties' agreement (i.e. mistake/rectification) as a defence or explanatory evidence in the contempt proceeding because such evidence is relevant to the mens rea element of contempt; res judicata does not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2011 NSSC 105
Parties
Petitioner: Rebekah Catherine McDonald (Trenchard); Respondent: Richard Thomas Trenchard
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Family Law Divorce and Corollary Relief (contempt/rectification) / Preliminary Jurisdictional Hearing on Whether Rectification Evidence May Be Admitted in Contempt Proceedings
Outcome
Court ruled defendant may present evidence of mistake/rectification in the contempt proceeding; res judicata does not bar consideration of the meaning of Clause 29; R.78.08 is inapplicable on these facts; whether rectification or variation will be granted is reserved for further hearing.
Legal Topics
Rectification, Res Judicata, Laches, Rule 78.08 (errors in Orders), Divorce Act S.17 (variation), Matrimonial Property Act S.16, Life Insurance, Declaratory Relief, Mens Rea in Contempt
Source Language
english
Family Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Equity Contempt of Court Matrimonial Property Rectification Res Judicata +7 more

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rebekah Catherine McDonald (Trenchard)

Petitioner

Richard Thomas Trenchard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Divorce and Corollary Relief (contempt/rectification) / Preliminary Jurisdictional Hearing on Whether Rectification Evidence May Be Admitted in Contempt Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does contempt procedure (R.89) apply?
  2. 2 Is the court interpreting a court order or a separation agreement?
  3. 3 May rectification be considered in relation to a court order/Minutes of Settlement?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Mr. Trenchard may adduce evidence that the Minutes of Settlement/CRJ do not reflect the parties' agreement (i.e. mistake/rectification) as a defence or explanatory evidence in the contempt proceeding because such evidence is relevant to the mens rea element of contempt; res judicata does not preclude consideration of the meaning of Clause 29; Rule 78.08 is not available on the facts to resolve the dispute; whether rectification should be granted and whether rectification would alter the CRJ are separate substantive issues reserved for further hearing and submissions.

Court Disposition

Court ruled defendant may present evidence of mistake/rectification in the contempt proceeding; res judicata does not bar consideration of the meaning of Clause 29; R.78.08 is inapplicable on these facts; whether rectification or variation will be granted is reserved for further hearing.