|
* 19 Feb 2011 Ruling shifts family law The six-year battle of an estranged couple from Ottawa ended Friday with a Supreme Court ruling that may cause some to re-think commonlaw relationships. The top court has concluded that a partner who gets rich at the expense of the other in a relationship must share what he or she accumulates. David Seguin, who battled with his former common-law wife in court for half-a-dozen years, told the Citizen he believes the ruling will make it “impossible” for him, or anyone, to live with a partner. Seguin, who runs a venture capital firm in Ottawa, said he was especially disappointed by the ruling after what he says was all he had done for Michele Vanasse’s family, including providing the funds to help her father retire. “If I would have known they would have changed the law, I would have had her sign all kinds of things,” said Seguin, who lived with Vanasse for 12 years. The couple had two children together before separating. Vanasse saw the court ruling in a different light. She called it a victory that the court ruled that a partner who gets rich at the expense of the other in a relationship must share what he or she accumulates. “ The Supreme Court of Canada realized that a family partnership can exist outside a traditional marriage,” Vanasse said in a brief interview Friday. “I feel that everything I’ve done for my family has been validated.” The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision regarding the Vanasse and Seguin case and a second case from British Columbia. The court ruled that a person deserves fair compensation for making a sacrifice, such as giving up a career, in support of a partner when he or she is engaged in a “joint venture” as a common-law couple. “In my view, where both parties have worked together for the common good, with each making extensive, but different, contributions to the welfare of the other and, as a result, have accumulated assets, the money remedy for unjust enrichment should reflect that reality,” wrote Justice Thomas Albert Cromwell. “The money remedy in those circumstances should not be based on a minute totting up of the give and take of daily domestic life, but rather should treat the claimant as a co-venture, not as the hired help.” Vanasse was seeking compensation after giving up her job in the 1990s for a few years, moving to Halifax and staying at home to take care of their two children while Seguin built up a multimillion-dollar technology business called FastLane Technologies Inc. Working from his kitchen, Seguin said he and his partner, Eric Kitchen, developed software that helps administrators of very large computer networks automate part of their jobs. The business was sold for $110 million. Seguin realized about $11 million from the deal. On Friday, the court restored an order of compensation that was originally established for Vanasse, sharing a portion of wealth accumulated during the period when she gave up her career, along with legal costs. Vanasse will receive $1.2 million, plus interest and legal fees. He said the ruling didn’t take into account the fact he stepped down from his job as CEO so he could spend more time with family. By doing so, Seguin said he lost about $2 million that he would have made if he stayed as head of the company. The B.C. case involved a couple that lived together for 25 years, Margaret Kerr and Nelson Baranow. Kerr was seeking compensation after sharing a home and other assets that Baranow eventually helped purchase. He also filed a counterclaim to receive compensation for his own “housekeeping and personal assistance services provided after (Kerr) suffered a debilitating stroke.” In this case, the courts ordered a new trial and hearing to review both claims, while awarding legal costs to Kerr. Changes to Canadian law in the 1970s and 1980s provided rights that allowed married couples to split property following a divorce, but the same rights do not apply to an unmarried couple that lives together. Friday’s decision appears to have changed that. Under the Constitution, conditions and legislation governing family law, marriage and relationships fall under provincial jurisdiction. “I can tell you that I am pleased, and I spoke to my client this morning and she was ecstatic,” said John E. Johnson, Vanasse’s Ottawa lawyer. “She said she’s waited a long time for this, she always believed in the righteousness of her cause and she’s glad it’s all over.” The court also awarded Vanasse legal costs for the lengthy battle. “It’s a good day all around for Ms. Vanasse,” said Johnson, who described the ruling as a significant development in family law. “It’s not going to be the answer to everybody’s situation. It’s much better if people protect their interests before they enter into these relationships, because this is a very expensive way to find out how the story ends.” Hunter Phillips, representing Seguin, said he was disappointed by the ruling, which he believes has loosened conditions for calculating a monetary reward for unmarried couples in a case of “unjust enrichment.” This concept is considered to be defined by a case when one spouse is allowed to accumulate wealth because of an arrangement or sacrifice made by the other partner. But Phillips added that the decision does not guarantee automatic property rights for all common-law couples. “There’s a common misconception amongst the public that a commonlaw
marriage means that after some period of cohabitation, there’s automatic
property rights,” said Phillips. “That is wrong and that (Supreme
Court) decision doesn’t change that at all.” |