Berthin v. Berthin

Berthin v. Berthin

The Court of Appeal concluded the November 26, 2010 document lacked the required certainty on essential terms and amounted more to guiding principles; the trial judge erred by supplying and imposing definitive terms (including sale directions) contrary to the written document and by misapprehending key evidence (financial capacity and whether the repudiation argument was abandoned); additionally, even if the document had been binding, the wife's April 2011 Notice of Family Claim and related conduct repudiated the agreement; accordingly the trial orders were set aside and the claim remitted to trial court under the FRA.

Citation
2016 BCCA 104
Parties
Respondent: Helen Berthin; Appellant: Wayne Berthin
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal (property/separation Agreement) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judge's orders set aside; matter remitted to trial court for determination in accordance with relevant legislation
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Separation Agreement, Repudiation, Mistake (unilateral/equitable), Certainty of Contract Terms, Implcation/rectification of Terms, Section 65 Family Relations Act (fairness/reapportionment), Sale of Matrimonial Home
Source Language
English
Family Law Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Equity Enforceability of Separation Agreement Repudiation Mistake (unilateral/equitable) +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen Berthin

Respondent

Wayne Berthin

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal (property/separation Agreement) / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the November 26, 2010 separation agreement was a binding and enforceable contract
  2. 2 Whether essential terms (timing/payment/refinancing) were too vague/uncertain to enforce
  3. 3 Whether the wife repudiated the agreement by filing a Notice of Family Claim and related correspondence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal concluded the November 26, 2010 document lacked the required certainty on essential terms and amounted more to guiding principles; the trial judge erred by supplying and imposing definitive terms (including sale directions) contrary to the written document and by misapprehending key evidence (financial capacity and whether the repudiation argument was abandoned); additionally, even if the document had been binding, the wife's April 2011 Notice of Family Claim and related conduct repudiated the agreement; accordingly the trial orders were set aside and the claim remitted to trial court under the FRA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judge's orders set aside; matter remitted to trial court for determination in accordance with relevant legislation

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Set aside the trial judge's January 21, 2015 and March 6, 2015 orders