The ruling basically said women were chattels of their husbands and their work and contribution to marital property, children, etc was worth nothing. It was "expected a wife would work for her husband without any compensation, value given to her contribution, or share in the "family" wealth". Ms Murdoch "won" $200.00 a month in alimony, and not allowed to take so much as a spoon from the matrimonial home. Custody of her son was given to her husband, the ranch, the cattle, all the furnishing, including pots and pans, etc.

AND she was so badly beaten she suffered a permanent speech impediment -

I will never forget how that decision and that message made me feel as a woman. I felt completely devalued and humiliated and shamed - it had a HUGE impact on me mentally and emotionally. Imagine how she felt ..

I will NEVER forget the gloating male lawyers, ranchers, judges, her asshole husband who beat her half to death and her ignorant son who felt his father was right. Nor will I forget the women who felt she wasnt entitled to any compensation or award after 25 years of marriage working as an unpaid ranch hand for this bastard -

People, women especially, who bash "feminism" would be well advised to think on matters such as these - Irene Murdoch eventually created the community property laws in Canada. Not because the Supreme Court thought it was just but because of the sheer weight of "public opinion and pressure" from both men and women. Thus women became "equal partners" in marriage .. and not until 1985 I think it was in BC.

But she never recovered from the abuse, first from her husband then from the court system in Canada and suffered from depression and other issues for the rest of her life, and still does.

A very sad story. It is hard to imagine that the learned judges could get away with that. I believe that they were way out of step with the rest of us.

But it brings back the memory of a similar situation about 1980 involving a woman by the name I believe of Rose Becker in or near Ormstown Quebec.

I tried but cannot find the story on Google but as I recall it -

Rose and her common law partner started from nothing and built up over many years a farm worth a significant amount.
One day her partner throws Rose out in favour of a newer friend. Rose sues and is awarded half the value of the farm. It is apealed through the courts up to the Supreme Court all of whom sided with Rose. Rose's lawyer grabs what he can of what the partner has been unable to hide in the meantime.
Rose shoots herself.

End of story.

Moral? Perhaps-while the courts may evolve, the system doesn't necessarily follow.

We knew this woman. Rose, an immigrant, firmly believed that in this new country, Canada, Justice would prevail.

quote:

---

Rose, an immigrant, firmly believed that in this new country, Canada, Justice would prevail.

---

quote:

---

In most cases, appeals are heard by the Court only if leave is first given. Such permission, or leave to appeal, is given by the Court if, in the opinion of the panel, the case involves a question of public importance or if it raises an important issue of law (or a combination of law and fact) that warrants consideration by the Court. The Court grants leave to appeal based on its assessment of the public importance of the legal issues raised in a given case. The Court thus has control over its docket and is able to supervise the growth and development of Canadian jurisprudence./[QUOTE]
I guess the Supreme Court felt it was important at that time to "put women in their place" and remove their rights to marital property, as I said before "ruling they were unpaid, unrewarded chattels of their husbands". In teh Murdoch case the lawyers argued that it was an expectation of every husband that his wife "perform wifely duties as expected of any woman and that she do so without hope or or intent to gain compensation. It was "expected" a wife would serve her husband. ONLY if Irene Murdoch could prove her duties went beyond those "expected" of a wife could she lay claim to marital property.

Interestingly enough NONE of these cases are present in the Supreme Court Archives that I have searched.

There are currently three female justices sitting on the Supreme Court and five male. We think we have come a long way but not until 1999 did a woman ascend to Chief Justice. Until then women were represented by only 2 of the Supreme Court justices, while 6 were men.

[QUOTE] 1. FIRST FEMALE CHIEF JUSTICE DRAWS PRAISE November 4 1999
Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin's appointment as the first female chief justice of Canada yesterday was widely praised as fitting symbolism for a new century. She received her BA, MA, and LLB from the University of Alberta

---

Hope that worked

quote:

---

Rapid changes in the law and society in the 1960's and 1970's saw a marked increase in the number of separations, divorces and property settlements. [B}Until the statutes changed in 1980's, men usually held the property and, on marital dissolution, they generally kept it.[/B] At best, a wife could hope that her spouse had registered title to the marital home jointly or that she had a viable claim for spousal and child support.

Until the late 1970's, there were no legislative schemes for the redistribution of property or wealth on marriage breakdown. The use of the trust - which manipulates the notion that property divides into legal and equitable ownership - became a versatile tool in family law property actions and it has developed dramatically over the last 30 years with consequent ramifications in other areas of application such as commercial and estate matters.

---

Excellent material and history here "Unjust Enrichment in The Family Law Context" http://www.fbfamilylaw.mb.ca/unjust.htm

quote:

---

the Supreme Court of Canada rules that Rosa Becker is entitled to the farm and bee-keeping business she had built up with her common-law husband of 17 years. Overruling an earlier decision that found that Rosa Becker's contribution to the relationship "was in the nature of risk capital invested in the hope of seducing a younger defendant into marriage," the Court supports an Ontario Court of Appeal decision. Becker's ex-husband fought the award through a variety of means. She eventually collected $68,000 from the sale of property, but it was applied in its entirety to expenses incurred by her lawyer in his 11-year fight on her behalf. In November 1986, a bitter and destitute Becker shot herself to protest an unjust justice system.

---

Apparently she never collected her jundgement.

quote:

---

Property law has long been a concern of women. At one time, a married woman literally owned nothing, not even the clothes on her back. Her husband could sell the family home, even if it was bought with her money, and leave her and her children with nothing. Women fought for dower rights and for rights to the family home. Later, the Murdock and Rothwell cases (Herstory 1975) set legal history and unleashed a storm of protest; these cases ruled that a farm woman who had spent her life working along side her husband had no claim to the assets of the farm upon divorce. That is no longer the case. The Rosa Becker case (Herstory 1989) established the principle that a common-law wife had a claim to the business both had established, even if it was in the man's name.

---

Supreme Court Judgement http://www.legalsolutions.ca/decisns/pettkus.htm

it is interesting that this appeal was won on the basis that the 2 parties were NOT married and therefore Quebec Martrimonial Law did not dictate the decision. at least that is how I read it, and that the case for Matrimonial Law was not argued in previous courts with regards to this case.

Jeff can explain that and comment as to whether I am correct in this assumption.

quote:

---

Per Martland and Beetz JJ.: The case was not concerned with the rights of a wife and so was not concerned with matrimonial property. Any recognition by this Court of the right of a court to impose on one party the obligations of a trustee in respect of his property for the benefit of another founded on unjust enrichment would have very wide implications and would involve judicial legislation that would extend substantially the existing law.

---

quote:

---

Quebec Martrimonial Law did not dictate the decision. at least that is how I read it, and that the case for Matrimonial Law was not argued in previous courts with regards to this case.

---

That is correct, in one sense. The Court held that
Quebec Matrimonial law did not apply to a common law couple. The lawyers at that time were trying to use the law of "trusts" to argue that work done
which creates a benefit to husband "A" creates a corresponding right in the person doing the work, here, the wife.

The whole law of matrimony used to be completely archaic, as mentioned above, women had no right to property at all. If anything, they had the right to USE their husband's property during the duration of the relationship, only.

quote:

---

In November 1986, a bitter and destitute Becker shot herself to protest an unjust justice system.

---

Rose was bitter but not destitute; actually in quite comfortable circumstances, a highly respected housekeeper for an elderly widowed farmer.

My recollection is that she did not see a penny of the judgement in her favour.

Jake

PS thanks for the link

[ 20 June 2003: Message edited by: Jake ]