The parties separated after a 12-year marriage.
The respondent husband, a judge, sought unequal partition of the family patrimony to exclude his pension credits, arguing that equal partition would result in an injustice due to the age difference, his sole financial contribution, and his impending retirement.
The trial judge ordered equal partition, but the Court of Appeal reversed, ordering unequal partition.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's order, holding that the injustice contemplated by art. 422 C.C.Q. must relate to economic fault or a failure to contribute to the economic partnership of the marriage, neither of which was present.
