Marcovitz v. Bruker
Canada Supreme Court
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 607 (2007)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Stephanie Bruker (plaintiff) and Jason Marcovitz (defendant) were a married couple who practiced the Jewish faith. Bruker and Marcovitz decided to divorce and negotiated a settlement agreement. As part of the agreement, Marcovitz agreed to give Bruker a get immediately after the civil divorce was granted. In the Jewish faith, a get was a document that a husband could grant to his wife, releasing her from their marriage and thus allowing her to remarry and have children with a new husband. A husband had the discretion to grant or withhold a get. When Bruker and Marcovitz’s civil divorce was granted, Marcovitz did not deliver the get. According to Marcovitz, he withheld the get because Bruker harassed him, alienated the children, and stole from him. Fifteen years after the civil divorce was granted, Marcovitz had still not given Bruker the get. Bruker sued for breach of contract, seeking damages for having been unable to remarry or have children during the previous 15 years. The trial court found for Bruker and awarded $47,500 in damages to her. Marcovitz appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that Marcovitz’s duty was religious in nature and unenforceable by the court. Bruker appealed to the Canada Supreme Court. One issue on appeal was Marcovitz’s argument that ordering him to pay damages violated his right to religious freedom.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Abella, J.)
Dissent (Deschamps, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.