Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

(FAMILY DIVISION)

Citation: Conrad v. Bremner, 2005 NSSC 293

 

Date:  20051027

Docket: SFH OTH 10325

Registry: Halifax

Between:

Diane Conrad

Applicant

v.

 

Thomas Bremner

Respondent

 

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

 

 

Judge:             The Honourable Justice Beryl MacDonald

 

Heard:                        June 24 and September 14, 2005, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

Written Decision:      October 27, 2005

 

Subject:                      Family Law - Attacking validity of Domestic Contract - Unfairness           

Contract Law - Consensus ad idem - unjust enrichment - gift

 

Summary:                  Parties resided together in Respondent’s house in a common law relationship from October 1995 until March 1999. The Applicant had purchased storm doors, blinds and window treatments for the Respondent’s house and she provided domestic services. On April 3, 1999 the parties signed a hand written agreement requiring the Respondent to pay the Applicant $15,000.00 upon the sale of his house and to release items of furniture to the Applicant. Neither party sought legal advice before signing the Agreement. During the parties relationship the Respondent had paid a debt owed by the Applicant and had provided money to her daughter and brother.

 

                                                                                                                                                      .../2

 


                                                                                                                                                 Page 2

 

 

 

Issue:                          Did the Respondent sign the Agreement? Was there consensus ad idem when the Agreement was signed? Had the Applicant been unjustly enriched? Were payments made by the Respondent to the Applicant and others gifts?

 

Result:                        Agreement upheld as an enforceable contract. Payments made by the Respondent were gifts. The Applicant had not been unjustly enriched.

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.