## Facts

- Two observant Jewish spouses married in 1969 and began civil divorce proceedings in 1980.
- As part of a negotiated, lawyer-assisted civil divorce settlement (“Consent to Corollary Relief”), they agreed to appear before rabbinical authorities to obtain a Jewish religious divorce (a get) immediately after a decree nisi.
- A get could be granted only if the husband agreed to provide it; without it, the wife could not remarry within Jewish law.
- A decree nisi issued in October 1980, but the husband refused for 15 years to provide a get despite repeated requests.
- The wife sued for breach of contract seeking damages for the period during which she could not remarry within her faith and for related consequences within her religious community.

## Issues

1. Whether the divorce-settlement clause requiring the parties to appear before rabbinical authorities to obtain a get created a valid and justiciable civil obligation under Quebec private law.
2. If the obligation was civilly valid, whether the husband could rely on freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter to avoid civil damages for non-performance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the wife’s appeal and restored the trial judgment awarding damages.
- The get clause was a valid, binding civil contractual obligation, and the dispute was justiciable because the court was enforcing a civil promise, not ruling on religious doctrine.
- The husband breached the agreement by refusing for 15 years to take the agreed steps to obtain the get, making him liable in damages.
- Even if civil enforcement engaged the husband’s freedom of religion, any impairment was justified and outweighed by the wife’s harm and by public interests including equality and autonomy in marriage and divorce.
- The Court upheld the damages assessment of $47,500 (plus interest and additional indemnity) as a discretionary, fact-based evaluation.

## Legal Principles

- A contractual undertaking made in a civil settlement may be enforceable even if the promised act has religious content, so long as the obligation satisfies ordinary requirements for civil validity and is not contrary to public order.
- The presence of a religious aspect does not alone make a dispute non-justiciable; civil courts may adjudicate where the claim concerns civil consequences of a civil agreement and does not require determining religious validity.
- Parties may transform moral or religious commitments into legally binding civil obligations by clearly assuming them in a civil contract.
- Freedom of religion does not confer immunity from civil liability for breach of contract; where protected beliefs are affected, courts may balance competing rights and interests and uphold proportionate limits grounded in democratic values, public order, and the general well-being.
- In assessing proportionality, courts may consider the concrete harm caused by non-performance and broader equality and autonomy concerns implicated by religious barriers to remarriage.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a civil divorce agreement’s promise to take steps to obtain a get was enforceable in damages, and that freedom of religion did not shield a spouse from civil liability for a prolonged refusal that caused serious harm and conflicted with equality and autonomy values in divorce.


Bruker v. Marcovitz, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 607 (Can. 2007)