The answer, as always: it depends. The starting point is a review of Sections 21 and 23 of Saskatchewan’s Family Property Act, which consider how Family Property is distributed and under what circumstances property is exempt from distribution as Family Property. Because engagement rings may be considered gifts or matters of contract, there are other considerations.
An engagement ring is a gift, but whether it is an absolute gift or a conditional gift often determines who keeps it if the engagement or marriage ends. An absolute gift is given with no expectations attached—it belongs to the recipient outright. A conditional gift, however, is given with the expectation that a certain condition will be met. In this case, marriage. The key question in determining who is entitled to keep an engagement ring is: Was the ring given on the condition that the recipient marries the giver?
Scenario 1: The Ring is Conditional on Marriage – Whitney Ends the Engagement
Suppose Wade proposes to Whitney, and she accepts. He places the ring on her finger. In this situation, the ring is likely a conditional gift—its purpose being tied to marriage. Had Whitney said no, Wade presumably would not have given her the ring. If Whitney ends the engagement before the wedding, Whitney would likely be required to return the ring to Wade.
Scenario 2: The Ring is Conditional On Marriage – Wade Ends the Engagement
Suppose Wade proposes to Whitney, and she accepts. Later on, however, Wade changes his mind and breaks off the engagement. This is where things get tricky. There is no Saskatchewan legislation that speaks to this issue. Saskatchewan’s Court of King’s Bench did, in D’Andrea v Schmidt, 2005 SKQB 201, quote the Court in Jacobs v Davis, [1917] 2 K.B. 532, where it was stated:
This I hold to be the correct legal view. If a woman who has received a ring refuses to fulfil the condition of the gift, she must return it. So, on the other hand, I think that if the man has, without a recognized legal justification, refused to carry out his promise of marriage, he cannot demand the return of the engagement ring. It matters not in law that the repudiation of the promise may turn out to the ultimate advantage of both parties. A judge must apply the existing law as to the limits of justification for breach.
This statement of the law is over 100 years old, but it continues to be referenced in 21st century decisions. The conclusion here is that Wade may be able to recover the ring from Whitney, but Whitney certainly has a much stronger argument here than if she broke off the engagement. Remember that the consideration here is who broke off the engagement and not whose fault it is that the engagement ended.
Scenario 3: The Ring Becomes an Absolute Gift
Now suppose that Whitney ends their engagement but the two continue their relationship. When Whitney offers to return the ring, Wade tells her to keep it. At this moment, the ring transitions from a conditional gift to an absolute gift. If they later break up permanently, Wade would likely have no claim to the ring—it now belongs to Whitney unconditionally. A very similar situation to this was considered by the Court in P.S. v. H.R., 2016 BCSC 2071.
Scenario 4: Divorce After Marriage
If Wade and Whitney get married but later separate and divorce, the situation becomes more complex. In Saskatchewan, the engagement ring is typically considered exempt Family Property because it belonged to Whitney before marriage. The Court in Saskatchewan has confirmed this principle (Bueckert v. Haydon, 2010 SKQB 44; Zielenin-Sibley v. Sibley Estate, 2011 SKQB 336; B.N.M. v. P.J.M., 2017 SKQB 331). The same reasoning has been applied in other provinces where marriage marks the beginning of a spousal relationship (Nielsen v. Nielsen, 2006 BCSC 756).
However, if the ring was purchased during an already established spousal relationship (following marriage or following cohabitation for two years), Courts in some jurisdictions have ruled that it becomes divisible Family Property (M.N. v. C.G.F, 2019 BCSC 1406). For example, if Wade and Whitney were in a common law relationship before he bought the ring and proposed, a Court could decide that the ring should be divided if they later divorce.
Another consideration is Saskatchewan’s Family Property Act, Section 21(3)(i), which directs Courts to consider “a previous distribution of Family Property between the spouses by gift or agreement or pursuant to an order of any court of competent jurisdiction.” This means a Saskatchewan Court could order the engagement ring or its value to be equitably distributed between Wade and Whitney in any manner it sees fit.
Conclusion
Who keeps the engagement ring depends on whether it was a conditional or absolute gift, the timing of the gift, and whether marriage occurred. Legal precedent provides guidance, but every situation is unique. Some of the cases referenced above are from other provinces, and Saskatchewan Courts are not bound by decisions made by Courts in other jurisdictions. Seeking legal advice is always the best approach.
RELEVANT CASES AND LEGISLATION
B.N.M. v. P.J.M., 2017 SKQB 331
Bueckert v. Haydon, 2010 SKQB 44
D’Andrea v Schmidt, 2005 SKQB 201
Family Property Act, Saskatchewan – Sections 21 and 23
Jacobs v Davis, [1917] 2 K.B. 532
M.N. v. C.G.F, 2019 BCSC 1406
Nielsen v. Nielsen, 2006 BCSC 756
P.S. v. H.R., 2016 BCSC 2071
Zielenin-Sibley v. Sibley Estate, 2011 SKQB 336
