Baron+c.+Bull

//Barron v. Bull, Alberta Queen’s Bench, 1987// __Facts__: Husband petitions for divorce from wife on basis of “mental cruelty” (sec.8, subsection 2(b)(ii) of Divorce Act). Husband claims wife demands they have a child (he does not think it’s a good idea) and threatens to leave him with the family debts. __Issue__: Does wife’s behavior constitute mental cruelty that justifies divorce? __Decision__: No evidence that wife’s conduct caused husband to suffer and rendered continued cohabitation intolerable. Petition for divorce refused. __Reasoning__: Divorce Act, 1985, s.8 states that divorce can be granted where the breakdown of the marriage is established only if one spouse has treated the other “with physical or mental cruelty of such a kind as to render intolerable the continued cohabitation of the spouses”. Husband’s claim that wife’s behavior (threat to leave him with debt, child jealous of material items of others, discusses marital problems with friends and family, continuous lying) constitutes mental cruelty is rejected by the court because nowhere does the husband state that his wife’s conduct has caused him to suffer. His displeasure “appears to be based on their differing views”, but he does not provide any particulars of the alleged cruelty. He fails to indicate that his wife deliberately behaved in a way that he found so intolerable that he could not continue to live with her. Court examines definitions of cruelty from case law: no general definition of cruelty, but in ordinary parlance cruelty “signifies a disposition to inflict suffering; to delight in or exhibit indifference to the pain or misery of others” (//Knoll v. Knoll// ); subjective and objective aspects must be involved, distasteful or irritating conduct is not cruelty, cruelty involves excessive suffering, severity of pain, mercilessness ( //Chouinard v. Chouinard// ); “standard of tolerable behavior should… reflect the contemporary community standards and not the judge’s personal views nor what may have been considered tolerable in the past” ( //Bens v. Bens// ). Court does not see how the wife’s behavior could have caused husband’s suffering (ex. she is jealous of material items, but husband does not say that she spends money irresponsibly or that her wishes have caused him to suffer). Court is not persuaded that wife has been cruel, merciless or hard-hearted toward her husband, or that she has delighted or been indifferent to his suffering, if it exists. Court says her desire for a child is a normal expectation. Court also holds that husband’s preoccupation with the debts is basis for his refusal to have a child and engage in marital sex. __Ratio__: Test for cruelty is subjective.