Robertson v. Robinson
- Citation
- [1929] SCR 175
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 28 November 1928
- Posture
- Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (creditors' Claim Concerning Property and Insurance of Debtor) / Hearing on Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 28 November 1928
- Posture
- Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (creditors' Claim Concerning Property and Insurance of Debtor) / Hearing on Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellant failed to prove that the land in the wife's name was the beneficial property of the husband or that his payments created an equitable charge; similarly there was insufficient evidence to charge life insurance policies payable to the wife with premiums paid by the husband. Accordingly the property and policies were not exigible to satisfy the husband's creditors and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents.
- No order charging the land standing in the wife's name in favour of the husband's creditors.
- No order charging the life insurance policies payable to the wife in favour of the husband's creditors for premiums paid by the husband.
02
Material facts
Parties
Donald M. Robertson (on behalf of himself and all other creditors of George H. Robinson)
Appellant / Plaintiff (creditors' Representative) Counsel: J.P. MacGregor K.C.Esther M. Robinson
Respondent / Defendant (wife) Counsel: D.L. McCarthy K.C.George H. Robinson
Respondent / Defendant (husband) Counsel: D.L. McCarthy K.C.03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (creditors' Claim Concerning Property and Insurance of Debtor) / Hearing on Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether land standing in the wife's name was the property of the husband or held on trust for him and therefore exigible to satisfy his creditors
- 02
Whether payments by the husband toward purchase, title improvements or benefits to property in the wife's name created a charge in favour of the husband's creditors
- 03
Whether life insurance policies on the husband's life payable to the wife are chargeable in favour of the husband's creditors to the extent of premiums paid by the husband
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant contended that the land registered in the wife's name was purchased with the husband's money or improved with his funds to defeat creditors; therefore the property was beneficially the husband's or should be charged to the extent of his contributions and that life insurance policies payable to the wife should be charged with premiums paid by the husband.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that the land was the wife's legal property and not held on trust for the husband, that payments did not create any equitable charge in favour of the husband's creditors, and that insurance policies payable to the wife were not liable to be charged with premiums paid by the husband without clear proof of a trust or assignment.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law equity principles / jurisprudence on resulting and constructive trusts
A resulting or constructive trust will be imposed only where the evidence clearly establishes that purchase money or beneficial interest was provided by one person while legal title was taken in another.
- 02
General principles of creditors' remedies and fraudulent conveyance doctrine
Transfers or arrangements alleged to be intended to defeat creditors are subject to close scrunity, but the burden lies on the claimant to prove intent and the equitable interest requisite to charge the property.
- 03
Principles of insurance beneficiary rights and equity
A life insurance policy payable to a named beneficiary is not automatically subject to charges for premiums paid by another absent clear evidence of assignment, trust, or equitable charge in favour of creditors.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellant failed to prove that the land in the wife's name was the beneficial property of the husband or that his payments created an equitable charge; similarly there was insufficient evidence to charge life insurance policies payable to the wife with premiums paid by the husband. Accordingly the property and policies were not exigible to satisfy the husband's creditors and the appeal must be dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The Appellate Division's reversal of Kelly J.'s findings was affirmed by this Court as the proper application of the evidence and legal standards.
- The Court emphasized the necessity of clear and convincing proof to convert legal title into an equitable interest for the protection of creditors.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents.
- No order charging the land standing in the wife's name in favour of the husband's creditors.
- No order charging the life insurance policies payable to the wife in favour of the husband's creditors for premiums paid by the husband.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 28 November 1928
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 28 November 1928
Robertson v. Robinson Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1928-11-28 Report [1929] SCR 175 Judges Duff, Lyman Poore; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Lamont, John Henderson; Smith, Robert On appeal from Ontario Subjects Family law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Robertson v. Robinson, [1929] S.C.R. 175 Date: 1928-11-28 Donald M. Robertson, on behalf of himself and all Other Creditors of George H. Robinson (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Esther M. Robinson, wife of George H. Robinson, and the said George H. Robinson (Defendants) Respondents. 1928: November 28. Present: Duff, Mignault, Newcombe, Lamont and Smith JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO. Husband and wife—Alleged attempts to defeat husband’s creditors—Alleged payment of husband’s moneys in purchase of, or for benefit of, property standing in name of wife—Whether property exigible to satisfy claims of husband’s creditors—Claim on behalf of creditors as to policies of insurance on husband’s life payable to wife. APPEAL by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario[1] which, reversing in part the judgment of Kelly J.1, held against the plaintiff’s claim that certain land standing in the name of the defendant wife was the property of her husband and exigible to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff and the other
creditors of her husband, or that the said land should be charged in favour of the plaintiff and all other creditors of the husband to the extent of moneys of the husband alleged to have been paid in the purchase of, or for the benefit of the title to, or for improvements or additions to, the property; and also held against the plaintiff’s claim that certain policies insuring the life of the husband, and payable to his wife, should be charged in favour of the creditors of the husband with the amount of premiums paid thereon with interest. After hearing argument, the Court retired for consideration of the case, and, on returning to the Bench, dismissed the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. J.P. MacGregor K.C. for the appellant. D.L. McCarthy K.C. for the respondent. [1] 62 Ont. L.R. 12.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.