T. (K.N.) v. P. (G.R.)
- Citation
- [1992] 1 SCR 210
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 5 February 1992
- Posture
- Family Law / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 5 February 1992
- Posture
- Family Law / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was allowed and the Superior Court judgment dismissing the compensatory allowance claim was restored because there was no reason to vary the trial judge's findings; the Court applied the standard of deference to trial findings as articulated in M. (M.E.) v. L. (P.).
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; Superior Court judgment restored
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment of the Superior Court restored
- There shall be no adjudication as to costs
02
Material facts
Parties
T. (K.N.)
Appellant Counsel: Michel Lecompte; Luc DrouinP. (G.R.)
Respondent Counsel: Daniel St‑Pierre; Léo Kravitz03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a compensatory allowance should be awarded where the family residence was purchased jointly but paid for by the husband
- 02
Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in varying the trial judge's factual findings
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued that the trial judge correctly dismissed the claim for a compensatory allowance and that there was no basis for appellate intervention into the trial judge's findings.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued that the Court of Appeal was correct to vary the trial judge's findings and that a compensatory allowance should be awarded.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
M. (M.E.) v. L. (P.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 183
Appellate courts must defer to trial judge findings of fact and should not intervene absent a palpable and overriding error.
- 02
Superior Court judgment (restored by this Court)
A claim for compensatory allowance must be supported by evidence of contribution and prejudice sufficient to warrant compensation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was allowed and the Superior Court judgment dismissing the compensatory allowance claim was restored because there was no reason to vary the trial judge's findings; the Court applied the standard of deference to trial findings as articulated in M. (M.E.) v. L. (P.).
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; Superior Court judgment restored
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment of the Superior Court restored
- There shall be no adjudication as to costs
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 5 February 1992
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· 5 February 1992
T. (K.N.) v. P. (G.R.) Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-02-05 Report [1992] 1 SCR 210 Case number 22232 Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Stevenson, William On appeal from Quebec Subjects Family law Notes SCC Case Information: 22232 Decision Content T. (K.N.) v. P. (G.R.) [1992] 1 S.C.R. 210 K.N.T. Appellant v. G.R.P. Respondent Indexed as: T. (K.N.) v. P. (G.R.) File No.: 22232. 1992: February 5. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier and Stevenson JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Family law ‑‑ Compensatory allowance ‑‑ Family residence purchased jointly by spouses but paid for by husband ‑‑ Claim for compensatory allowance dismissed ‑‑ No reason to vary trial judge's finding ‑‑ Court of Appeal's intervention unwarranted. Cases Cited Followed: M. (M.E.) v. L. (P.), [1992] 1 S.C.R.
183. APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1990] R.J.Q. 2779 (sub nom. Droit de la famille ‑‑ 903), reversing in part a judgment of the Superior Court. Appeal allowed. Michel Lecompte and Luc Drouin, for the appellant. Daniel St‑Pierre and Léo Kravitz, for the respondent. English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by Lamer C.J. -- Mr. Justice Gonthier will pronounce the judgment of the Court. Gonthier J. -- Referring to the principles set forth in the reasons in support of this Court's judgment in M. (M.E.) v. L. (P.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 183, rendered on January 23, 1992, we are in agreement with the reasons of Rousseau-Houle J.A. dissenting in the court below. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the conclusions of the judgment of the Superior Court restored. There shall be no adjudication as to costs. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Lecompte, Drouin, Carrière & Associés, Valleyfield. Solicitors for the respondent: Kravitz & Kravitz, Montréal.
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.