T. (K.N.) v. P. (G.R.) [1992] 1 S.C.R. 210

K.N.T. Appellant

v.

G.R.P. Respondent

Indexed as: T. (K.N.) v. P. (G.R.)

File No.: 22232.

1992: February 5.

Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier and Stevenson JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec

Family law ‑‑ Compensatory allowance ‑‑ Family residence purchased jointly by spouses but paid for by husband ‑‑ Claim for compensatory allowance dismissed ‑‑ No reason to vary trial judge's finding ‑‑ Court of Appeal's intervention unwarranted.

Cases Cited

Followed: M. (M.E.) v. L. (P.), 1992 CanLII 113 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 183.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1990] R.J.Q. 2779 (sub nom. Droit de la famille ‑‑ 903), reversing in part a judgment of the Superior Court. Appeal allowed.

Michel Lecompte and Luc Drouin, for the appellant.

Daniel St‑Pierre and Léo Kravitz, for the respondent.

English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by

Lamer C.J. -- Mr. Justice Gonthier will pronounce the judgment of the Court.

Gonthier J. -- Referring to the principles set forth in the reasons in support of this Court's judgment in M. (M.E.) v. L. (P.), 1992 CanLII 113 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 183, rendered on January 23, 1992, we are in agreement with the reasons of Rousseau-Houle J.A. dissenting in the court below. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the conclusions of the judgment of the Superior Court restored. There shall be no adjudication as to costs.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellant: Lecompte, Drouin, Carrière & Associés, Valleyfield.

Solicitors for the respondent: Kravitz & Kravitz, Montréal.