LAWS1002 Final Essay
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Carleton University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1002B
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
10
Uploaded by ChiefDove3742
FINAL ESSAY // THE IMPORTANCE OF PETTKUS V. BECKER
Prof: Sam Schwisberg
LAWS1002: Intro to Legal Studies 2
November 30, 2022
The case of Pettkus v. Becker was an important decision for the development of
common-law relationship precedent, and it furthered the pursuit of equal rights for women in
Canada. The importance of this case is illustrated through the sequence of events leading up to
Becker's unfortunate death, including the beginning of Pettkus and Becker’s relationship, the
trial, the appeal, the media attention throughout, and the final settlement. The issues that arose
after the settlement included Becker not receiving what she was owed and her lawyer’s huge
fees. Furthermore, the flaws with the litigation process during matters of family law are
highlighted in this case and how alternative methods like meditation can resolve common-law
disputes in a more equal manner, if the parties are willing to compromise. This case also dealt
with biases towards women in the litigation process, as Becker had to fight to change how
common-law settlements were handled in the Canadian legal system.
To properly analyze the case of Pettkus v. Becker it is essential to understand the union
between Lothar Pettkus and Rosa Becker. They both emigrated from Germany after the events of
WW2; in 1955 they met in Montreal, Canada and quickly began living together (Tasson, 2019).
They never legally married, however Pettkus began to introduce Becker as his wife and claim her
as his wife for tax purposes (86). In the 1950s it was especially taboo to be living together and
not be married. Becker made some indications that she wanted to get married, however this was
not a mutual goal of Pettkus and they never legally married at any point in their relationship. In
April 1961, Pettkus paid $5000 to buy a beekeeping farm in Quebec and registered it solely in
his name. Over the next ten years the relationship between both parties deteriorated and by the
beginning of the 1970s, the fighting was constant (Schwisberg, 2015).
In the 1970s the legal precedent for common law partners was not well established and
common law relationships had few articulated rights in the eye of the law. In 1973 Pettkus
1.
purchased a second beekeeping farm and once again registered it solely in his name; the price for
said farm was $5500 and it was located on the property noted as “East Hawkesbury” (Tasson,
2019). By the end of 1974 the relationship between Becker and Pettkus had irreversibly
crumbled. On October 11
th
, 1974, Becker met with Lawyer Gerry Langlois to find out what she
could be legally entitled to upon her permanent separation from Pettkus (87). At the first trial
Becker failed to earn an equal percentage of the beekeeping business or the property and instead
she was given $1500 and other assets from the business. After Becker was dismissed at the first
trial, she appealed, and at the Ontario Court of Appeal she was successful and awarded half the
interest of the land owned by the appellant and half the equity of the beekeeping business
(Schwisberg, 2015). Pettkus appealed this decision, and the case went to the Supreme Court of
Canada where they found the decision to be justified and dismissed Pettkus’ appeal (SCC, 1980).
An important development during the separation trial in 1974 was when Becker proved
that she paid for most of the shared living expenses during the first three years of her relationship
with Pettkus, this included all major bills as well as payments for the shared home. Becker also
claimed that she contributed $1900 cash to the initial payment for the East Hawkesbury property,
however she failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove this. Even though Becker failed to
prove said investment for the farm it was clear that she supported the household financially.
Without her contribution’s Pettkus would not have been able to save up the money needed to buy
the initial farm in 1961. Becker also showed in court that she worked on the construction and
labor for the new farm and did hard manual labor to maintain said beekeeping operation. For
these reasons, the claim was heard at the Supreme Court of Canada and Becker eventually
received half the equity in the business and property.
2.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Although the final judgement was in Becker’s favor, there were multiple problems
throughout the trials including the assessment of assets, the media, and the eventual ending that
left Becker penniless and without hope. In 1981 the case between Becker and Pettkus had been
broadcasted widely by media and had made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. However,
despite this long and undoubtedly difficult process, it had been two years since the trial at the
Supreme Court of Canada and a mere $17,000 had been collected by Becker. To determine the
specific settlement that Becker was entitled to, it was going to take even longer and require more
services by her lawyer Langlois; most importantly this was going to cost even more money.
A valuable excerpt from Samuel Schwisberg (2015) shows passages from a letter
Langlois wrote to Pettkus’ lawyer Simpson on November 9
th
, 1981. It read as follows, “…put to
its very minimum, and wholly without prejudice, I would be prepared to recommend to my client
that she accept the sum of $123,000 in full satisfaction of all her right, title and interest in the
properties, assets, costs and affairs with Mr. Pettkus…”.
In the letter it is articulated that along with the $17,000 already collected, Becker would
be satisfied with another $123,000 for her share in the business and estate. This would put the
total at around $140,000, which was a similar estimation to the figure of $150,000 that Langlois
had predicted before the trial, and shared with the Globe and Mail (Schwisberg, 2015). This
would have been a fair settlement had the value of the business and property been accurately
assessed and not simply assumed. After a professional appraisal it was determined that the actual
worth of the business and properties upon Pettkus’ separation from Becker was a mere
$122,248.90. Almost a third of the $300,000 figure that was expected. This failure to properly
appraise the value of the total assets before the trial is a crucial mistake on behalf of the parties
involved and it led Becker down a long, expensive path that eventually left her with nothing. In
3.
the end she was paid out roughly $68,000, not even enough to cover her legal fees. Once the
money was claimed, Langlois took everything and left Becker with nothing. Shortly after this
strenuous and long legal battle, Becker took her own life on November 5
th
, 1986, writing a brief
suicide note that protested the quality of the Canadian legal system.
The main challenge after Becker was given an equal split in the total assets was the lack
of cooperation, and the seemingly unyielding nature of Pettkus during the negotiation process.
The media articles which reported on the case villainized Pettkus to an extreme, and inaccurately
exaggerated him as a monster. However, this facet of the case brings up important sociological
and psychological aspects of litigation, specifically the divorce or common law litigation
process. The litigation process itself has a confrontational nature and as studies show, men are
generally more dominating over their female counterparts during face-to-face negotiations
(Tasson, 2019). Certain gender-based stereotypes are also implied and perhaps subconsciously
present during divorce litigation. It has been found that if the husband is making more money
than his wife, this puts him in a position of power and at an overall advantage to discredit the
contributions of said wife in court.
There is also the problem of sexism and direct bias of the court that reflects these
sociological and societal stereotypes towards one party, traditionally against the wife in cases of
settlement and what she is entitled to. Schwisberg (2015) highlights this point very clearly during
the first trial when Becker was dismissed by Judge Omer Chartrand. The judge dismisses
Becker’s significant financial contributions during the first years of the relationship with Pettkus
and says, “…risk capital invested in the hope of seducing a younger Defendant into marriage.”
He is stating that Becker does not deserve the money that she contributed because she was
simply trying to seduce a younger, more ideal, man into marriage. These types of stereotypes and
4.
gender archetypes were commonly placed on women at the time and Schwisberg (2015) brings
up an excellent point when he asks if the same stereotypes would be considered if Pettkus had
been the older partner in the relationship. It seems obvious that such a situation would not have
been out of place, and it is clear that the judge was distinctly opposed to logically assess the
situation and consider giving Becker what she was owed simply based off her gender and his
own personal biases.
This entire trial does a great job of outlining the flaws of divorce litigation and its
venomously adversarial nature. It shows the clear lack of control that the parties involved have
over the decisions of the court and how said decisions can be laced with biases surrounding the
dynamics between husband and wife in situations of family law litigation. Another critical factor
throughout the entire case and one that feasibly added to the stress, anger and distaste between
both parties was the constant coverage and harassment by the media. The breakdown of a
household is a very personal and difficult situation. Another problematic aspect of divorce
litigation is the fact that the process publicizes all sensitive information. With a case of this
magnitude and potential precedent, mass media followed it as it made its way up to the Supreme
Court of Canada and dramatized the entire process. The media painted elaborate stories of
Pettkus as the villain, often noting his German background and his imposing physical size over
Becker. They were fixed on painting Pettkus as evil and Becker as the poor victim, when in
reality both parties simply wanted what they believed they were owed. This type of media
attention undoubtedly added to the chaos of the trial and perhaps fueled Pettkus’ resolve not to
compromise with Becker or acknowledge her contributions to the business and home
(Schwisberg, 2015).
5.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
An approach that is becoming increasingly popular in family law disputes is mediation or
private negotiation. All of the less-than-ideal byproducts of litigation can potentially be avoided
with one of these alternate methods; and some of the prominent power imbalances between the
gendered parties can be slightly nullified in a less confrontational setting (Wright, 2019). The
legal indeterminacy of family law disputes has always been a difficult problem to navigate as the
laws surrounding separation and divorce traditionally use vague language like “needs of each
partner as well as the contribution of the spouse as a homemaker” (Tasson, 2019). These statutes
regarding family law settlements are not clearly articulated to govern each unique situation, and
like most of the common law, they provide a broader guideline which individual judges have the
discretion to interpret and apply as they see fit. This can potentially pose a problem because
without clear rules and precedent, the application of laws governing divorce and common law
separation can be unexpected, therefore undermining the effectiveness of Canadian courts.
In the case of Pettkus v. Becker mediation could potentially have resulted in a better
outcome for both parties because of the lower costs, decreased stress, and faster resolution time.
They could have immediately worked out the accurate value of the properties and assets owned
rather than spending years in the court system fighting over a sum of money that was never
properly appraised. Had Becker known the value of all assets was roughly $122,000 instead of
$300,000 as previously conceived, it is likely that she would not have spent the amount of time
and money she did going through litigation because of the massive costs, time, and stress.
Instead, she could have negotiated and accepted the accurate and lower settlement of around
$70,000 immediately. Mediation could have shone the light that was needed on this case and
solved things in a more civilized and less public manner, removing the stress of the media and
confrontation. However, such alternate methods require cooperation from both sides and
6.
particularly in matters of family law, such requirements can be very difficult to meet. After
reading about the distaste both parties had for each other in Pettkus v. Becker, mediation was
probably never an option, even if it was presented. There is much to take away from the case as it
questions the efficiency of the courts and the effectiveness of litigation for matters of family
disputes and divorce settlements; disputes where money is often tight, and personal emotions are
at their highest. It outlines how mediation and settlement out of court can result in the most
optimal situation for both parties if they are willing to work together.
Through analyzing this case and understanding the alternate options to divorce litigation,
the important precedent of Pettkus v. Becker becomes clear. This case was notably one of the
first examples of a common law partner receiving an equal division of assets that were registered
solely in the other partner’s name. Most notably it was a precedent setting case at the highest
level of the Canadian court system that demanded the woman be owed the value of her
contribution to the assets, even though the relationship was never formalized with marriage.
Based on the contributions of both labor and time, the court decided that anything other than an
equal split would unjustly enrich the other partner; and even though the relationship was not
bound by marriage the couple had lived as if they were married for many years. This was one of
the first massive steps in establishing modern common law relationship precedent in Canada. It
also established equally important precedents for women’s rights to property and assets, even if
said assets are only registered in her partner's name, traditionally the husbands (Wright, 2019).
The precedent set in this case is often cited in the court system to this day. One of the
many cases that has relied on the precedent established in Pettkus v. Becker was the 2017 case of
Reiter v. Hollub. In the latter case, Jessica Reiter appealed the dismissal of her application
regarding equity in a home owned by Tiar Hollub, her previous common-law partner of six
7.
years. In addition, Reiter gave Hollub $5000 to go towards the mortgage of the house,
contributed to home repairs, and paid for shared living expenses. The precedent set in Pettkus v.
Becker allowed for the support of “claims made by domestic partners upon the breakdown of
their relationship,” based of the established principles of unjust enrichment. Using these
principles and additional case law, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court
ordered Hollub to return the $5000 to Reiter and encouraged the parties to resolve the cost issues
within a timeframe. This cases’ use of the principles established in Pettkus v. Becker is just one
example of the significance of said precedent, as it has changed the way modern common law
disputes are handled.
In conclusion, Pettkus v. Becker was an important precedent setting case that changed the
way common-law disputes are handled in court. It established modern principles for the
application of unjust enrichment and provided crucial standards for women's rights in common
law relationships. Although this case furthered women’s rights and helped develop the modern
statutes for common law relationships, Becker herself was unable to find her own justice within
the Canadian legal system. After fighting for the money she was entitled to, Becker ended up
giving her lawyer the entire amount of her winnings. While this case established many important
principles, it did so with Becker’s blood on the hands of the justice system.
8.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
References
Schwisberg, Samuel.
Swarm before Me: The Tragic Case of Becker v Petkus
. Victoria, British
Columbia: FriesenPress, 2015.
Supreme Court of Canada. Pettkus v. Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834.
Tasson, Stephen, Rebecca Bromwich, Jane Dickson, Vincent Kazmierski, Betina Kuzmarov,
Sébastien Malette, and Umut Özsu.
Introduction to Legal Studies
. Concord, Ontario:
Captus Press, 2019.
Wright, Barry, Vincent Kazmierski, Betina Kuzmarov, and Rebecca Bromwich.
Looking at Law:
Canada's Legal System
. Toronto, Ontario: LexisNexis Canada, 2019.
9.