Miglin v. Miglin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miglin v. Miglin

Hearing: October 29, 2002
Judgment: April 17, 2003


Full case name:	Eric Juri Miglin v. Linda Susan Miglin
Citations:	[2003] 1 S.C.R. 303, 2003 SCC 24
Ruling:	Appeal allowed

Court membership

Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps

Reasons given

Majority by: Bastarache and Arbour JJ.
Joined by: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, and Binnie JJ.
Dissent by: LeBel J.
Joined by: Deschamps J.

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303, 2003 SCC 24, is the leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the use separation agreements. The Court established a two-stage test to determine whether a separation agreement can be relied upon.

Prior to the Miglin decision, the leading cases on separation agreements was the Pelech Trilogy. In those cases, it was held that a separation agreement is binding and a party can only apply for spousal support where there has been a radical and unforeseeable change in circumstances which has a causal connection to the marriage. The Miglin decision rejected this strict test.

1 Opinion of the Court
2 Notes
3 See also
4 External links

[edit] Opinion of the Court

Justices Bastarache and Arbour, writing for the majority, allowed the appeal.

In their analysis they set out the test for re-opening a separation agreement. Test has two phases. First, the court considers the circumstances in which the initial greement was made: whether the agreement was negotiated fairly^[1] and whether the agreement conformed with the objectives of the Divorce Act. Second, the court must consider the current circumstances: whether the agreement still reflects the intentions of the parties and wehther there has been significant change in circumstances such that it was reasonably unforseeable at the time of formation.^[2]