131:
22:
302:
assets. He held that: "where one person, in a relationship tantamount to spousal, prejudices herself in the reasonable expectation of receiving an interest in property, and the other person in the relationship freely accepts benefits conferred by the first person in circumstances where he knows or ought to have known of that reasonable expectation, it would be unjust to allow the recipient of the benefit to retain it."
311:
suicide note accused the legal system of forcing her to do it. Several provinces subsequently amended their family relations legislation to include common law relationships as to the division of family assets. (Under the
Canadian Constitution divorce is governed by federal statute, property by provincial statute.
273:
Rosa Becker and Lothar
Pettkus, two immigrants to Canada, met in 1955. They moved in together and lived as husband and wife, although they did not marry, and they had no children. Until 1960, Becker paid the rent and living expenses from her outside income and Pettkus deposited his income in a bank
310:
After the ruling in Becker's favour, Pettkus avoided paying out the money owed. When
Pettkus's assets were finally liquidated, Becker's lawyer took most of the share, and left her with nothing. In a tragic turn of events, Becker committed suicide with a gunshot to the head on November 5, 1986. The
301:
set out three requirements for finding a constructive trust. There must be 1) an enrichment; 2) a corresponding deprivation; and 3) the absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment. In this case, Dickson found that the requirements were satisfied and held that Becker was entitled to half the
289:
She also sued for a one-half interest in the properties, bee-keeping business and assets acquired through their joint efforts. Pettkus and Becker had lived together as husband and wife for almost twenty years. Under
Ontario legislation at that time, a common law wife was not legally entitled to a
285:
At his request, she moved back in with him three months later. She returned with the car, deposited $ 1,900 in his account, and the forty bee-hives without the bees. Shortly thereafter, with these returned assets, joint savings and proceeds from the sale of the Quebec land, they purchased another
281:
In 1971, with profits from the farm and more money from
Pettkus' bank account, they purchased a property in Ontario and again registered it in his name. In 1972, Becker separated from Pettkus. He threw $ 3,000 on the floor and told her to take it, along with a car and forty beehives with bees.
286:
Ontario farm in
Pettkus' name. They now had two valuable pieces of land, and in 1974 they moved and built a house upon one of them. They lived off their income from their thriving bee-keeping business. In the fall of that year, she left him for good, taking the car and $ 2,600 in cash.
277:
They shared the farm labour and both worked very hard. They turned their farm into a profitable bee-keeping operation. Becker also earned some income which was used for household expenses and to repair the farmhouse. Their savings went back into the farm or the
Pettkus bank account.
261:. The Court established a new formulation of the constructive trust as a remedy for unjust enrichment based on the ideas of Professor Donovan Waters, and in particular the requirements for such constructive trust in a common law relationship separation. The
290:
share in any property owned by her husband. Therefore, any remedy for Becker would have to be based on the wholly equitable doctrine of constructive trust and principles of unjust enrichment.
274:
account in his name. In 1961, they bought a farm in Quebec. The money came from
Pettkus' account and ownership ("title") was taken out in his name, as was the custom in those days.
43:
36:
327:(1987) 164 CLR 137, albeit with the caveat that the complaining party must not have been responsible for the breakdown of the relationship.
317:
with its new version of the constructive trust was soon adopted in
Australia. The High Court of Australia enunciated a similar rule in
411:
86:
58:
65:
416:
406:
105:
72:
54:
391:
385:
421:
381:
207:
377:
258:
136:
32:
265:
formulation of constructive trust was subsequently adopted elsewhere in the common law world.
79:
8:
337:
319:
162:
130:
211:
187:
191:
230:
Dickson J., joined by Laskin C.J. and Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.
400:
298:
215:
203:
195:
180:
199:
21:
361:
257:
2 S.C.R. 834 was a landmark family law decision of the
341:a similar controversial matrimonial property case.
390:Full text of Ontario Court of Appeal decision at
398:
106:Learn how and when to remove this message
357:
355:
293:
399:
42:Please improve this article by adding
352:
15:
13:
14:
433:
370:
129:
20:
1:
412:Supreme Court of Canada cases
345:
268:
44:secondary or tertiary sources
305:
156:Lothar Pettkus v Rosa Becker
118:Supreme Court of Canada case
7:
330:
147:Judgment: December 18, 1980
10:
438:
417:1980 in Canadian case law
325:Baumgartner v Baumgartner
242:
234:
226:
221:
176:
171:
161:
151:
144:
128:
123:
407:Canadian family case law
378:Supreme Court of Canada
323:(1985) 160 CLR 583 and
259:Supreme Court of Canada
145:Hearing: June 23, 1980
137:Supreme Court of Canada
31:relies excessively on
294:Reasons of the court
338:Murdoch v. Murdoch
320:Muschinski v Dodds
55:"Pettkus v Becker"
422:Unjust enrichment
250:
249:
116:
115:
108:
90:
429:
364:
359:
254:Pettkus v Becker
212:Julien Chouinard
208:William McIntyre
185:Puisne Justices:
172:Court membership
133:
124:Pettkus v Becker
121:
120:
111:
104:
100:
97:
91:
89:
48:
24:
16:
437:
436:
432:
431:
430:
428:
427:
426:
397:
396:
373:
368:
367:
360:
353:
348:
333:
308:
296:
271:
188:Ronald Martland
183:
146:
140:
119:
112:
101:
95:
92:
49:
47:
41:
37:primary sources
25:
12:
11:
5:
435:
425:
424:
419:
414:
409:
395:
394:
388:
372:
371:External links
369:
366:
365:
350:
349:
347:
344:
343:
342:
332:
329:
307:
304:
295:
292:
270:
267:
248:
247:
244:
240:
239:
236:
232:
231:
228:
224:
223:
219:
218:
192:Roland Ritchie
178:Chief Justice:
174:
173:
169:
168:
165:
159:
158:
153:
152:Full case name
149:
148:
142:
141:
134:
126:
125:
117:
114:
113:
28:
26:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
434:
423:
420:
418:
415:
413:
410:
408:
405:
404:
402:
393:
389:
387:
383:
379:
376:Full text of
375:
374:
363:
358:
356:
351:
340:
339:
335:
334:
328:
326:
322:
321:
316:
312:
303:
300:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
266:
264:
260:
256:
255:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:Reasons given
220:
217:
216:Antonio Lamer
213:
209:
205:
204:Willard Estey
201:
197:
196:Brian Dickson
193:
189:
186:
182:
179:
175:
170:
166:
164:
160:
157:
154:
150:
143:
139:
138:
132:
127:
122:
110:
107:
99:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
71:
67:
64:
60:
57: –
56:
52:
51:Find sources:
45:
39:
38:
34:
29:This article
27:
23:
18:
17:
380:decision at
362:2 S.C.R. 834
336:
324:
318:
314:
313:
309:
297:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
262:
253:
252:
251:
184:
177:
167:2 S.C.R. 834
155:
135:
102:
93:
83:
76:
69:
62:
50:
30:
246:Martland J.
243:Concurrence
235:Concurrence
181:Bora Laskin
401:Categories
384: and
346:References
299:Dickson J.
269:Background
238:Ritchie J.
200:Jean Beetz
96:March 2024
66:newspapers
33:references
306:Aftermath
163:Citations
331:See also
227:Majority
315:Pettkus
263:Pettkus
80:scholar
392:CanLII
386:CanLII
82:
75:
68:
61:
53:
382:LexUM
87:JSTOR
73:books
59:news
35:to
403::
354:^
214:,
210:,
206:,
202:,
198:,
194:,
190:,
46:.
109:)
103:(
98:)
94:(
84:·
77:·
70:·
63:·
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
