Tag: Marriage Act

By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student

Many television shows and movies portray it, and many couples live it. When a couple separates, who really should keep the engagement ring?

While some may argue that it is the recipient’s to keep (after all – it was a gift!), others take the position that the ring belongs to the giver (“If I bought it, it’s mine!”).

Based on my own personal survey – conducted amongst family, friends and colleagues – it appears that there is no general consensus on this issue.

Whatever your own personal answer may be, would it change depending upon who ended the relationship?

A Nova Scotia court has taken a position on this issue, and their opinion? If you broke off the engagement, the ring is not yours to keep.

The “who gets the ring” issue went before the small claims court for one ex-couple in Nova Scotia. Several issues the ex’s were in disagreement over were also dealt with by adjudicator Gregg Knudsen.

For Knudsen, it was of vital importance to determine who broke the engagement. Interestingly, Knuden was unconcerned with who ended the relationship.

“It is the conditional aspect of the gift, the marriage or the intent to marry, which is the critical issue. The determination of the entitlement to the engagement ring is based upon who broke off the engagement and who didn’t.”

This decision sparks some interesting questions. Under section 33 of the Ontario Marriage Act, the question of who caused the break-up is irrelevant in determining the right of the donor to recover the gift:

Where one person makes a gift to another in contemplation of or conditional upon their marriage to each other and the marriage fails to take place or is abandoned, the question of whether or not the failure or abandonment was caused by or was the fault of the donor shall not be considered in determining the right of the donor to recover the gift.

When one looks to the case law in Ontario, a slightly unclear picture emerges.

There is case law to support the proposition that engagement rings are conditional gifts that must be returned if the marriage does not take place. In those cases, the courts have looked at who broke off the engagement (similar to the practice taken by Knudsen). See for example McArthur v. Zaduk (2001), where because the donor broke off the engagement, the recipient kept the ring.

Though other cases have held that the engagement ring is an unconditional gift that does not have to be returned, regardless of the fault of either party. See Rakus v. Piccolo, (1989).

Yet another opinion on the issue comes from Newell v Allen (2012), where the judge ordered that the engagement ring be returned from the intended wife to the intended husband, regardless of who had broken the engagement.

In either case, if you ever find yourself in this position as a donor, it’s important that you request the ring back when the engagement is broken. If not, you may be prevented from demanding it back later.

Delay in demanding the return of the ring may also suggest that its character has changed from an engagement ring, conditional on marriage, to an unconditional gift: H. (A.) c. M. (M.) (1997).

Of course, a break-up is always an uncontemplated occurrence for couples – especially those who are engaged and intend on spending the rest of their lives together. However, having a cohabitation or pre-marital agreement in place can help you to avoid such conflicts down the road, if they were ever to occur.

If you need help drafting such an agreement, or if you are having trouble recovering damages or are being sued as a result of a broken engagement,  contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s family law group today or call us directly at 416-449-1400 for more information.

“This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.”