Share on Facebook
Share on X
Share by Email
Share on Google Classroom
The Murdoch Case, a.k.a. Murdoch v. Murdoch, was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973. The case involved matrimonial property law. In its ruling, the Court decided that a wife was not entitled, as part of her divorce settlement, to any part of a property she helped run with her husband. The lone dissenting opinion, written by Justice Bora Laskin shortly before he was named the Court’s chief justice, focused on the issue of equity. His findings proved more influential than the Court’s ruling, eventually leading to reforms in provincial matrimonial property laws across Canada.
Background
Historically, wives could only own property by having it placed in their names or by providing all or part of its purchase price. No allowance was made for indirect contributions by them toward property acquisition or for their role in nurturing the family. (See also Property Law; Family Law.)
Court Ruling
In the Murdoch Case, the Supreme Court ruled in a 4–1 decision that Irene Murdoch was not owed, as part of her divorce settlement, any part of the 480-acre cattle ranch she ran with her husband for 25 years. The majority decision indicated Murdoch’s labour was “just about what the ordinary rancher’s wife does.” She was awarded only $200 per month in exchange for her contributions.
However, in his dissenting opinion, Justice Bora Laskin argued that a constructive trust based on equity could be found (i.e., that both Murdochs contributed to the ranch equally or equitably and were therefore both shareholders in the property).
Aftermath
The outcry to the Supreme Court ruling from women's groups produced reforms in provincial matrimonial property laws across Canada. Irene Murdoch later obtained a settlement of $65,000 under the Federal Divorce Act.
(See also Divorce in Canada; Equity in Canada; Gender Equity in Canada.)
