Joint Tenancy – Gift – Severance – Right of Survivorship – A son sought an order to sell a family farm and an order that the sale proceeds be divided on an unequal basis that would see him receive well over 50 per cent of the monies realized on the sale. The land in question in the litigation was originally owned by his parents. In 2008, the parents had added the son as a joint tenant to the title without consideration. The parents maintain that they did this due to an undocumented understanding with the son that:
The son would continue to assist them with their active farming operation on the Farmland on a full-time basis;
They would continue with their farming operation on the Farmland “until they were no longer able”; and
They wouId continue to live in their house on the Farmland “until they passed away“
The relationship between the parents and the son broke down and the parents served the son with a notice of intention to sever the joint tenancy of the farmland. The son took no action in opposition to the notice. The court held that the son had no exercisable rights in connection to the farmland prior to the deaths of the parents. In coming to this conclusion, the court stated that the law recognized that a gift of a right of survivorship after death can exist independently and in the absence of a beneficial right of ownership during the donor’s lifetime. Further, although the gift of the right of survivorship took effect immediately, and such a gift could not be revoked, there was nothing at law precluding the parents from severing the joint tenancy at a later date, which had the effect of terminating the son’s right of survivorship to the interest the parents held in the farmland. The notice of severance had clearly stated that the new title would show each parent as holding an undivided one-third interest in the farmland and the son also having an undivided one-third interest. Although the son has lost his right of survivorship with respect to the parents’ two-thirds share of the farmland, the parents could not revoke the gift of survivorship with respect to the son’s one-third share. The terms of the resulting trust in this case would cause the parents’ two-thirds share of whatever equity remains in the farmland to fall to their estates, while the son’s one-third share of whatever equity remains in the farmland would pass to him after the death of the parents, in accordance with the intention of the parents at the time of the 2008 transfer was completed. The court stressed at para. 79: “To be clear, the Parents are free to enjoy the Farmland as they see fit during their lifetimes, which can include developing it, registering a mortgage against it or otherwise encumbering it without regard to the equity that may remain after their deaths.” The court went on to add that if its conclusion that the son has no exercisable rights in connection to the farmland prior to the deaths of the parents was incorrect, it would still deny his application for partition and sale of the farmland. The court cited Siwak v. Siwak, 2019 MBCA 60, 2019 CarswellMan 435 (Man. C.A.), which stated that although s. 19(1) of The Law of Property Act, C.C.S.M., c. L90 (the “LPA”), gave a joint tenant or tenants in common a prima facie right to apply for an order of partition and sale, there are circumstances where a judge can exercise discretion to refuse such a request. These were outlined at para. 95, in that judgment. The court found that the facts in the case before it brought it within the principles found in Siwak. The son had not come before the court with clean hands, given the uncontradicted evidence that he had drained the accounts of the farming operation, sold farm assets and confiscated farm equipment belonging to the parents without offering any kind of accounting or compensation: Berry v. Berry et al., 2025 MBKB 32, 2025 CarswellMan 74 (Man. K.B.).
Marriage-like relationship – Meaning of “Lived with” and “Cohabitation” – Spouses not Sharing Same Residence – In this case, the court noted that the concept of living with another person is by necessity “‘susceptible to some factual fluidity to take account of the complexities of mode ing employment and education needs and geography’: Jones v. Davidson, 2022 BCCA 31 at para. 17”. Cohabitation was not synonymous with co-residence. Two people can cohabit even if they do not live under the same roof: Jones v. Davidson, 2022 BCCA 31, 2022 CarswellBC 213 (B.C. C.A.), at para. 17, citing Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), 2004 SCC 65, 2004 CarswellNat 3695, 2004 CarswellNat 3696 (S.C.C.), at para. 42. The words “lived with” therefore encompass relationships where the couple do not share the same residence. Maintaining separate residences does not preclude a finding of a marriage-like relationship: see e.g. Matossian Estate v. Clark Estate, 2024 BCSC 2214, 2024 CarswellBC 3613 (B.C. S.C.): Hill v. Dhanda, 2025 BCSC 333, 2025 CarswellBC 491 (B.C. S.C.).
Spousal Support – Whether Obligation Survives Death of of Payor – On the eve of a 2003 support-and-property trial, the parties agreed to spousal support of $9,000 per month “until further order”, reviewable at the option of either party on the payor’s retirement. The spousal support agreement was incorporated into a corollary relief order dated January 8, 2003 which stated:
…[t]he Defendant will pay spousal support to the Plaintiff of $9,000.00 per month payable on the 1st day of the month following the granting of the Divorce Judgment and payable on the 1st day of each month thereafter, until further Order of the Court. …on the Defendant’s retirement from Deloitte & Touche LLP, the quantum of spousal support payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff may be reviewed at the option of either party.
The payor twice applied, unsuccessfully, for a review. He died in 2023. His second wife took the position here that spousal support was no longer payable. The payor’s first spouse maintained that the spousal support obligation survived the payor’s death. The court found that with the spousal-support order neither expressly addressing the impact of the payor’s death nor doing so indirectly (e.g. via directing support for “the life of the recipient” or making the support obligation binding on the payor’s estate), the spousal support obligation ended with the payor’s death. In applying the principles found in the jurisprudence on this matter, the court stated at paras. 72 et seq.:
72 Is the 2003 divorce judgment sufficient to require spousal support (or some equivaalent) on or after the payor’s death? 73 I restate the judgment’s key provision: …the [payor] will pay spousal support to the [first spouse] of $9,000.00 per month …until further Order of the Court. 74 The judgment does not:
set the order’s duration as recipient’s lifetime or any other “fixed duration” yardstick possibly exceeding the payor’s lifetime i.e. other than “until further order”;
refer expressly to the payor’s death or its impact, let alone provide that support will survive;
state that the support obligation binds or charges or will bind or charge the payor’s estate;
provide for security of any form for spousal support payable after the payor’s death;
provide a replacement for spousal support on or after the payor’s death e.g. life insurance on the payor’s life in favour of the recipient
direct or reflect a relinquishment of the recipient’s claims against the payor other than enforcement of spousal support against the payor or his or her estate; or
otherwise state or signal that support (or equivalent) will continue or be payable in any respect after the payor’s death.
75 There is no underlying settlement agreement here, let alone one providing for any of these elements lacking in the judgment or otherwise reflecting an estate-binding intention e.g. an inurement clause [.] 76 The reference to “until further Order of the Court” does not qualify as a “clear, specific, and unequivocal” direction that the ordered support would continue after the payor’s death.
The Department of Justice Canada is reopening the Survey of Criminal Justice System Stakeholders: Efficiencies, Legislative Amendments, and the Ongoing Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. This survey examines stakeholders’ perceptions of criminal justice system (CJS) efficiencies, explores the impacts of recent legislative changes related to criminal court efficiencies, remote court attendance, and bail, as well as looking at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the CJS.
The Department of Justice Canada wants to hear about your perceptions of the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system (CJS), in your role as a CJS professional. Former Bill C-75 (earliest amendments came into force July 22, 2019) made changes related to remote court appearances, bail, sentencing and administration of justice offences, among other sections of the Criminal Code and Youth Criminal Justice Act with a view to improving efficiencies; while the COVID-19 pandemic affected how courts operated. Bill S-4 (came into force on January 15, 2023), made further changes to the Criminal Code to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on criminal courts while increasing the flexibility and efficiency of the CJS, including by enhancing and clarifying rules for remote criminal proceedings. Since then, a number of additional relevant amendments to Criminal Code procedures have been made, namely under Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform) which came into force on January 5, 2024.
The survey was first launched in February 2025 and closed in late March due to the election period. To ensure that all interested stakeholders have an opportunity to provide feedback, the survey will be reopened until July 11, 2025.
We thank all those who have already taken the time to complete the survey. In order to receive as many additional responses as possible, we would greatly appreciate your assistance in sending an email to inform your members/networks that the survey has been reopened and to encourage those who did not have an opportunity previously, to participate. As a reminder, the survey seeks the views of stakeholders with experience in the criminal justice system, including Crown and defence lawyers, the judiciary, police officers, court administrators and other court workers.
Le ministère de la Justice du Canada ouvre à nouveau le Sondage auprès des intervenants du système de justice pénale : gains d’efficience, modifications législatives et répercussions continues de la pandémie de COVID-19. Ce sondage examine les perceptions des intervenants à l’égard de l’efficience du système de justice pénale (SJP), explore les répercussions des récentes modifications législatives liées à l’efficacité des tribunaux de juridiction criminelle, à la comparution à distance et à la mise en liberté sous caution, ainsi que l’incidence de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur le SJP.
Le ministère de la Justice du Canada veut connaître votre point de vue, en tant que professionnel du système de justice pénale (SJP), sur l’efficience et l’efficacité du SJP. L’ancien projet de loi C‑75 (les premières modifications sont entrées en vigueur le 22 juillet 2019) a entre autres apporté des modifications à des articles du Code criminel et de la Loi sur le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents concernant les comparutions à distance, la mise en liberté sous caution, la détermination de la peine et les infractions contre l’administration de la justice dans l’objectif de réaliser des gains d’efficacité; parallèlement, la pandémie de COVID-19 a eu une incidence sur le fonctionnement des tribunaux. Le projet de loi S-4 (entré en vigueur le 15 janvier 2023) a apporté d’autres modifications au Code criminel afin de remédier aux répercussions de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les tribunaux de juridiction pénale tout en améliorant la souplesse et l’efficacité du SJP, y compris par l’amélioration et la clarification des règles relatives aux procédures pénales tenues à distance. Depuis, un certain nombre d’autres modifications pertinentes ont été apportées aux procédures du Code criminel, notamment en vertu du projet de loi C-48, Loi modifiant le Code criminel (réforme sur la mise en liberté sous caution), lequel est entré en vigueur le 5 janvier 2024.
L’enquête a été lancée pour la première fois en février 2025 et s’est terminée fin mars en raison de la période électorale. Pour s’assurer que tous les intervenants intéressés ont l’occasion de donner leur avis, le sondage sera rouvert jusqu’à 11 juillet 2025.
Nous remercions tous ceux qui ont déjà pris le temps de répondre au sondage. Afin de recevoir le plus grand nombre possible de réponses supplémentaires, nous vous serions très reconnaissants de partager à nouveau ce courriel pour informer vos membres et réseaux que le sondage a été rouvert et pour encourager ceux qui n’ont pas eu l’occasion d’y participer auparavant. À titre de rappel, le sondage vise à recueillir les points de vue d’intervenants ayant de l’expérience dans le système de justice pénale, notamment des avocats de la Couronne et de la défense, des juges, des policiers, des administrateurs de tribunaux et d’autres travailleurs judiciaires.
News ReleaseManitoba Government Declares State of Emergency to Protect Manitobans from WildfiresMay 28, 2025 – The Manitoba government is declaring a provincewide state of emergency under the Emergency Measures Act, Premier Wab Kinew and Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Lisa Naylor, minister responsible for the Emergency Measures Organization, declared based on the recommendation from Manitoba’s wildfire and emergency management officials.
News ReleaseManitoba Government Passes Groundbreaking Interprovincial Trade Bill with All-Party SupportJune 2, 2025 – The Manitoba government is strengthening the economy and protecting Manitobans from tariffs with the passage of Bill 47, the Fair Trade in Canada (Internal Trade Mutual Recognition) Act, and amendments to the Commemoration of Days, Weeks and Months Act (Buy Manitoba, Buy Canadian Day), Business, Mining, Trade and Job Creation Minister Jamie Moses announced today.
News ReleaseManitoba Government Delivers on Ambitious Agenda as Spring Session EndsJune 3, 2025 – The Manitoba government passed 39 bills into law that help to improve health care, make life more affordable and enhance public safety, among other matters. The session also included the passage of measures that would strengthen renters’ rights (Bill 10), protect the environment (Bill 22) and ensure food in every school for students through Nello’s Law (Bill 17).
Bill 229The Human Rights Code Amendment Act (Non-Disclosure Agreements) – The Human Rights Code is amended to provide that a provision in an agreement is unenforceable if it prevents a person from disclosing information about discrimination or harassment or penalizes a person for doing so.
A person contravenes the Code if they attempt or threaten to enforce such a provision.
Bill 236The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Stalking-Related Measures) – The Highway Traffic Act is amended to impose automatic driver’s licence suspensions on persons convicted of criminal harassment if a vehicle has been used in the commission of the offence.
The licence suspensions are in addition to an existing provision under The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act that enables a person who is subject to stalking to request a court order that suspends a stalker’s driver’s licence.
Further amendments authorize a peace officer to seize and impound a vehicle if the peace officer discovers a person using the vehicle to commit criminal harassment.
When a person who previously committed two or more criminal harassment offences using a vehicle commits another such offence, their vehicle is subject to forfeiture
The Manitoba Law Library would like to acknowledge with gratitude that we are situated on Treaty One Territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree and Dakota peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.
Printing and Photocopying
If you need to use the library’s printing and photocopying services you will need to create an account. See us at the front desk for assistance.