In the present case there now exists an irreconcilable marriage breakdown, but I must find this state of affairs is due to the conduct of the petitioner. Her refusal to fulfil the sexual obligation, without justification, amounts to desertion on her part. It was so held by Mackenzie, J. (as he then was) in Connolley v. Connolley 1923 CanLII 221 (SK QB), [1925] 2 WWR 426, at 429 (Sask.). Furthermore, while the parties lived apart physically, she in the bedroom and he in the basement, this, I find, was due to the conduct of the petitioner. I am sure the respondent did not enlist the aid of the family minister so that he might again take up residence, rat-like, in part of the washroom in the basement of the family home.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.