Case information

Family law — Divorce — Family residence — Family patrimony — Matrimonial regime — Debts — Partition — Did the judgment a quo manifestly err in determining the parties’ date of separation? — Did the judgment a quo manifestly err by using the sale price of the family residence in 2018 as the starting point for the calculation of its net value? — Did the judgment a quo manifestly err in not determining the parties’ 2nd and 3rd credit lines secured by the family residence to be debts of the family patrimony and matrimonial regime? — Did the judgment a quo manifestly err in not ventilating the debts of the family patrimony (real estate sales commission and personal loan)? — Did the judgment a quo manifestly err in not ventilating the debts of the matrimonial regime (joint Mastercard balance and Revenue Quebec debt)? — Did the judgment a quo manifestly err in determining the value of the movable property comprised in the family patrimony? — Did the judgment a quo manifestly err in omitting to attribute a value to E.H.’s movables not subject to partition and which were removed by S.I. from the family residence without colour of right? — Did the judgment a quo err manifestly in not using new evidence and referring and using S.I.’s testimony, while at the same time confirming S.I. as a non-credible witness? — Civil Code of Quebec, art. 417.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (PUBLICATION BAN ON PARTY)

The applicant, E.H. and the respondent, S.I. were married in September 1994. The couple had no children. They separated in December 2013 and E.H. filed divorce proceedings in May 2014. From 1985 until 2002, S.I. was working as a nurse before suffering an injury unrelated to her work. In 2005, after a two-year sick leave, her contract was terminated. She became a welfare recipient and was deemed to have a temporarily limited capacity for employment according to social services. From January 2003 until June 2010, E.H. was a shareholder and a director of a company that went bankrupt. Later on, he decided to venture into the consulting business with mitigated success. Provisional orders were provided by the Superior Court on various aspects of the case. Besides some furniture and a car, the family residence was the parties’ main asset. They accumulated various debts during their cohabitation as a married couple. The Superior Court granted the divorce on November 15, 2018. E.H. filed an incidental appeal claiming several reviewable errors made by the trial judge regarding, among other things, the calculation of the net value of the family residence, the value of movable properties to be partitioned and his refusal to distribute some debts said to be related to the acquisition, improvement or maintenance of the family residence. The Court of Appeal granted in part the incidental appeal. E.H. filed an application for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.