Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:08:48.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Women's Labour, Relationship Breakdown and Ownership of the Family Farm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Lori Chambers
Lori Chambers
Affiliation:
Department of Women's Studies, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, ON P7B [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The dominant story of matrimonial property law reform in English Canada treats the farming family case of Murdoch v. Murdoch as the great catalyst for change, but there are persistent inequalities affecting farm women, even in provinces that have made progressive changes in the law of relationship breakdown. The farm is the quintessential family business and is both place of residence and source of income. Since the farm is not readily divisible, it is not surprising that all the major marital property law cases to reach the Supreme Court of Canada have involved farm property. What is surprising is that most provincial property reforms, though inspired by the Murdoch case, explicitly exclude farms from division, and those that include farms in the property to be divided still have mechanisms that tend to favour husbands. This article examines Canadian courts' gendered conceptualization of what constitutes a family business by examining the cases on farm property and the related legislative reforms. Feminists, and all women who have benefited from matrimonial property law reform, have an obligation to recognize the problems created by our persistent failure to understand the farm as simultaneously home and place of business.

Résumé

Au Canada anglais, le discours dominant de la réforme du droit lié aux biens immobiliers matrimoniaux considère le cas familial de Murdoch c. Murdoch comme un grand catalyseur du changement. Néanmoins, il existe toujours des inégalités affectant les femmes sur les fermes et ce, même dans les provinces qui ont apporté des changements progressifs en terme du droit liés à la rupture d'une relation conjugale. La ferme représente l'entreprise familiale par excellence. Elle constitue à la fois une résidence familiale ainsi qu'une source de revenu. Étant donné que la ferme n'est pas facilement divisible, il n'est pas surprenant que tous les cas immobiliers matrimoniaux majeurs qui se sont rendus à la Cour suprême du Canada ont impliqué des fermes. Ce qui est toutefois surprenant est le fait que la plupart des réformes immobilières provinciales, inspirées par le cas de Murdoch, excluent toujours la possibilité de diviser les fermes. Même les réformes qui permettent l'inclusion de la ferme dans la division des biens immobiliers ont des mécanismes ayant tendance à favoriser les maris. Cet article examine comment les cours canadiennes mettent de l'avant une conceptualisation de l'entreprise familiale fondée sur le sexe, en examinant les cas légaux qui incluent des biens immobiliers agricoles ainsi que les réformes législatives connexes. Les féministes ainsi que toutes les femmes qui ont bénéficié des réformes liées aux biens immobiliers matrimoniaux doivent reconnaître les problèmes créés par notre incapacité persistante de considérer la ferme comme étant simultanément une résidence familiale ainsi qu'une entreprise.

Keywords

farmfarmingmarital propertyproperty divisionrelationship breakdownferme ou exploitation agricolepropriété matrimonialedivision de la propriétérupture de relation
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , April 2010 , pp. 75 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Korven, Kim, “Returning to Its Rural Beginnings: Unjust Enrichment and the Constructive Trust from the Perspective of a Farm Child,” Saskatchewan Law Review 57 (1993), 429Google Scholar. Korven makes a convincing argument that the court should extend constructive trust doctrine to meet the needs of farm children.

2 Forbes-Chilibeck, Ella, “Have You Heard the One About the Farmer's Daughter? Gender Bias in the Intergenerational Transfer of Farm Land on the Canadian Prairies,” Canadian Woman Studies 24, 4 (2005), 27Google Scholar.

3 Province of Saskatchewan, Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural Life, vol. 5: Land Tenure (Regina: Queen's Printer, 1955), 116–7Google Scholar.

4 Smith, Pamela, “Murdoch's, Becker's and Sorochan's Challenge: Thinking Again about the Roles of Women in Primary Agriculture,” in The Political Economy of Agriculture in Western Canada, ed. Basran, G.S. and Hay, David (Toronto: Garamond Press, 1988), 168Google Scholar.

5 Heather, Barbara, Skillen, Lynn, Young, Jennifer, and Vladicka, Theresa, “Women's Gendered Identities and the Restructuring of Rural Alberta,” Sociologia Ruralis 45, 1/2 (2005), 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Of course, farms are also family businesses, and, as Mary Yeager asserts with respect to the United States, family businesses have not been adequately studied and women's role in such businesses has largely been ignored: “there is no theory of entrepreneurship, no theory of the firm, no theory of contracts or of marriage, no theory of the family, no feminist theory that adequately explains the history of women in business.” Yeager, Mary A., “Introduction,” in Women in Business, vol. 1, ed. Yeager, Mary A. (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1999), xxiiGoogle Scholar.

6 Shortall, Sally, “Women in the Field: Women, Farming and Organizations,” Gender, Work and Organization 8, 2 (2001), 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Keet, Jean, “The Law Reform Process, Matrimonial Property and Farm Women: A Case Study of Saskatchewan, 1980–1986,” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 4 (1990), 176Google Scholar.

8 Forbes-Chilibeck, , “Have You Heard,” 27Google Scholar. See also Canadian Federation of Agriculture [CFA], The Canadian Farm (Ottawa: CFA, 2004)Google Scholar.

9 Rosenfeld, Rachel Ann, Farm Women: Work, Farm and Family in the United States (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 19Google Scholar.

10 Heather, et al. , “Women's Gendered Identities,” 89Google Scholar.

11 Kohl, Seena, “Women's Participation in the North American Family Farm,” Women's Studies International Forum 1, 1 (1978), 48Google Scholar.

12 Cohen, Griffin, Women's Work.Google Scholar

13 Heather et al., “Women's Gendered Identities,” 87.

14 Ghorayshi, Parvin, “The Indispensable Nature of Wives' Work for the Family Farm Enterprise,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26, 4 (1989), 576Google Scholar. See also Barthez, Alice, “Femmes dans l'agriculture et travail familial,” Sociologie du travail 3 (1984), 255–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delphy, Christine, “Agriculture et travail domestique,” Nouvelles questions feministes 5 (1983), 3–18Google Scholar.

15 Ghorayshi, , “The Indispensable Nature of Wives' Work,” 572Google Scholar.

16 The particular importance of Murdoch v. Murdoch in feminist protest and consciousness raising with regard to the problems in matrimonial property law has recently been analysed in Clapton, Mysty S., “Murdoch v. Murdoch: The Organizing Narrative of Matrimonial Property Law Reform,” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 20, 2 (2008), 197–230Google Scholar.

17 Kary, Joseph, “Farmland, Free Markets and Marital Breakdown,” Canadian Journal of Family Law 11 (1992), 42Google Scholar.

18 Zeigler, Sara, “Wifely Duties: Marriage, Labor and the Common Law,” Social Science History 20, 1 (1996), 65Google Scholar.

19 Watts v. Watts, Chancery 510/9/1/10-360/1873, AO (RG 22).

20 Backhouse, Constance, “Married Women's Property Law in Nineteenth Century Canada,” Law and History Review 6 (1988), 211–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Backhouse, Constance, “Pure Patriarchy: Nineteenth Century Canadian Marriage,” McGill Law Journal 31 (1986), 264–312Google Scholar; Chambers, Lori, Married Women and Property Law in Victorian Ontario (Toronto: University of Toronto Press / Osgoode Society for Legal History, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Although Peter Baskerville provides convincing evidence that for some women the changes in the law provided unprecedented opportunity for market involvement, most women did not benefit directly through ownership of significant estates. Moreover, it is perhaps noteworthy that he considers only evidence from urban centres. Baskerville, Peter, A Silent Revolution: Gender and Wealth in English Canada, 1860–1930 (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

22 Harrison v. Douglas (1877), 40 U.C.Q.B. 410.

23 Thompson v. Thompson, [1961] S.C.R. 3 at para. 31.

24 Ibid.

25 Klutz v. Klutz, [1968] S.J. No. 146 at para. 2.

26 Ibid. at para. 3.

27 Ibid. at para. 4.

28 Ibid. at para. 7.

29 Ibid. at para. 17.

30 Rooney v. Rooney, [1969] S.J. No. 73 at para. 1.

31 Ibid. at para. 3.

32 Ibid. at para. 5.

33 Ibid. at para. 11.

34 Trueman v. Trueman, [1971] 18 D.L.R. (3d) 109.

35 Clapton, , “Murdoch v. Murdoch,” 229Google Scholar.

36 Girard, Philip, Bora Laskin: Bringing Law to Life (Toronto: Osgoode Society for Legal History, 2005), 398CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 “The Human Stories behind the Irene Murdoch/Helen Rathwell Cases” (Editorial), Chatelaine (September 1974)Google Scholar.

38 Editorial, Toronto Star, 29 December 1973, A15.

39 Murdoch v. Murdoch, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 423 at 427 [Murdoch].

40 Rathwell v. Rathwell, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436 at 455 [Rathwell (S.C.C.)].

41 Clapton, , “Murdoch v. Murdoch,” 201Google Scholar.

42 Welstead, Mary, “Domestic Contribution and Constructive Trusts: The Canadian Perspective,” Denning Law Journal 3 (1987), 154Google Scholar.

43 McCamus, John D., “Chief Justice Dickson and the Law of Restitution,” Manitoba Law Journal 20 (1991), 345Google Scholar.

44 Gosse, Richard, keynote address, in Fair Share: Women's Conference on Family Property Law (Provincial Secretary for Social Development), Toronto, 1974, 31Google Scholar.

45 Quoted in Sharpe, Robert J. and Roach, Kent, Brian Dickson: A Judge's Journey (Toronto: University of Toronto Press / Osgoode Society for Legal History, 2003), 181Google Scholar.

46 Welstead, , “Domestic Contribution and Constructive Trusts,” 155Google Scholar.

47 Clapton, , “Murdoch v. Murdoch,” 203Google Scholar.

48 Girard, , Bora Laskin, 400–401Google Scholar. For extended commentary on the contradictions within Laskin J.'s family law decisions see Rogerson, Carol, “From Murdoch to Leatherdale: The Uneven Course of Bora Laskin's Family Law Decisions,” University of Toronto Law Journal 35 (1985), 499–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Rathwell (S.C.C.) at para. 12.

50 Quoted in Rathwell v. Rathwell, [1976] 5 W.W.R. 148 at 159 (Sask. C.A.).

51 Rathwell (S.C.C.) at para. 2.

52 Ibid. at para. 43.

53 Ibid. at 436.

54 Clapton, , “Murdoch v. Murdoch,” 223Google Scholar.

55 Nova Scotia Task Force on the Status of Women, Herself—Elle-Même: Report of the Nova Scotia Task Force on the Status of Women (Halifax: Nova Scotia Task Force on the Status of Women, 1976), 12Google Scholar.

56 The irony of this failure is heightened by the fact that the Law Reform Commission of Canada explicitly noted the need to recognize farm labour: “no doctrine exists that the value of a contribution towards the family home, farm or business by way of management, physical labour, cooking, housekeeping, or child care is sufficient to give a spouse making such a contribution—and these are almost invariably wives—any share in the business, farm, home or property.” Law Reform Commission of Canada, Family Property: Working Paper 8 (Ottawa: Law Reform Commission, 1975), 10Google Scholar.

57 Family Law Act, R.S.O. (1990), c. F.3, s. 18(3).

58 Ibid., s. 11.

59 Keet, , “Law Reform Process,” 167Google Scholar.

60 Ibid., 174.

61 Chambers, Lori, Misconceptions: Unmarried Mothers and the Ontario Children of Unmarried Parents Act, 1921–1969 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press / Osgoode Society for Legal History, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Pepperas v. LeDuc, [1913] 11 D.L.R. 193.

63 Kusilenko v. Wasilenko (1959), 19 D.L.R. (2d) 665 at 666.

64 Murdoch at 371.

65 Welstead, , “Domestic Contribution and Constructive Trusts,” 158Google Scholar.

66 Pettkus v. Becker, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834 [Pettkus (S.C.C.)].

67 Anderson, Ellen, Judging Bertha Wilson: Law as Large as Life (Toronto: University of Toronto Press/ Osgoode Society for Legal History, 2001), 103Google Scholar.

68 Ibid.; Becker v. Pettkus (1978) 20 O.R. (2d), 105.

69 Pettkus (S.C.C.). at para. 86.

70 Anderson, , Judging Bertha Wilson, 104Google Scholar.

71 In fact, some commentators asserted that more female judges were necessary to eliminate judicial bias: “Need More Women Judges to End Bias,” Toronto Star, 19 December 1980.

72 “Fair Shares,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 27 December 1980Google Scholar.

73 Anderson, , Judging Bertha Wilson, 104Google Scholar.

74 Ibid.

75 Welstead, , “Domestic Contribution and Constructive Trusts,” 151Google Scholar.

76 Ibid., 160.

77 Sorochan v. Sorochan (1986), 29 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.) at 2–3 [Sorochan (S.C.C.)].

78 Sorochan v. Sorochan (1984), 36 Alta. L.R. (2d) 119.

79 Sorochan (S.C.C.) at 2–3.

80 The constitutionality of this exclusion was tested and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis of the assertion that this interpretation of the law respects the choice of unmarried cohabitants not to enter into formal marriage: Nova Scotia (A.G.) v. Walsh, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325 [Nova Scotia v. Walsh].

81 Hovius, Berend, “Property Division for Unmarried Cohabitees,” Canadian Family Law Quarterly 21 (2004), 181Google Scholar.

82 Heather Conway and Philip Girard, “No Place Like Home: The Search for a Legal Framework for Cohabitants and the Family Home in Canada and Britain,” Queen's Law Journal 30 (2005), 725Google Scholar.

83 It should be noted here that in Quebec, cohabitants can also seek the division of property based upon a tacit or undeclared business partnership. The applicability of this doctrine to the farm was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1984: Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 2.

84 The Family Property Act, S.S. 1997, c. F-6.3, s. 2(1) [Family Property Act (SK)]; Manitoba Family Property Act, C.C.S.M. c. F-25, s. 1(1). It is worth noting that both acts were revised between 2000 and 2002, based on a Nova Scotia case, before the reversal of that decision by the Supreme Court of Canada: see Nova Scotia v. Walsh. Both provinces have continued to include unmarried cohabitants under property-division sections of these acts, despite the fact that they are not constitutionally required to do so.

85 Family Property Act (SK), ss. 21–7.

86 Torrens, M. Jean, “Farm Viability in the Context of Matrimonial Property Disputes,” Saskatchewan Law Review 57 (1993), 495Google Scholar.

87 Werner v. Werner, [1981] S.J. No. 952.

88 Torrens, , “Farm Viability,” 495Google Scholar.

89 Farr v. Farr, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 252.

90 Torrens, , “Farm Viability,” 496Google Scholar.

91 Ibid., 493.

92 Saskatchewan Law Reform Commission, Tentative Proposals for Reform of the Matrimonial Property Act (Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Law Reform Commission, 1984), 8–9Google Scholar.

93 Torrens, , “Farm Viability,” 493Google Scholar.

94 Keet, “Law Reform Process,” 182.

95 Ibid., 185.

96 Torrens, , “Farm Viability,” 498Google Scholar.

97 Hoffman v. Hoffman, [1987] 9 R.F.L. (3d) 321 at 326.

98 Ibid.

99 McCulloch v. McCulloch, [1997] A.J. No. 1313.

100 Family Law Act, R.S.O. (1990), c. F.3, s. 11.

101 Kary, “Farmland, Free Markets, and Marital Breakdown,” para. 11.

102 Ibid., para. 19.

103 Ibid., para. 21.

104 Rathwell (S.C.C.) at para. 43.

105 Clapton, , “Murdoch v. Murdoch,” 223Google Scholar.

106 Kubik, Wendee, “Farm Women: The Hidden Subsidy in our Food,” Canadian Woman Studies 24, 4 (2005), 89Google Scholar.

107 Ibid., 85.