LEGREELEY v SCHMIDT, 2019 ABQB 263
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
1.3: General authority of the Court to provide remedies
The parties had previously been in a common law relationship lasting over three years. Upon sale of a house jointly owned by them, the parties asked the Court to determine the division of the sale proceeds, having regard to the co-mingling of their assets generally. The Application was brought under the Judicature Act, RSA 2000 c J-2, and the Law of Property Act, RSA 2000 c L-7, though argument focussed on the division of an interest in land pursuant to section 15 of the Law of Property Act, as well as the authority in section 17 to order an accounting and compensation with respect to land.
The Court noted that the parties had not claimed unjust enrichment or a resulting trust, and that the Law of Property Act did not provide broad jurisdiction to resolve financial issues arising out of cohabitation and separation. However, the Court found that the parties had, implicitly if not expressly, consented to the Court’s jurisdiction to do so. Referring to the purpose of the Rules as set out in Rule 1.2, and the broad remedial jurisdiction set out in Rule 1.3, Justice Graesser held that “[t]he foundational rules encourage the parties to find an effective and expedient way of resolving their disputes.”
The Court proceeded to evaluate the parties’ financial records and decide their respective entitlements and obligations with respect to various assets and liabilities.View CanLII Details