Part2 ln Pettkus v Becker [1930] 2 S.C.R. 834 [Introduction to Legal Studies Chapter 4-, page 36] the Supreme Court of Canada held that Becker reasonably expected to get something for her money and money's worth contributions to the bee business ,and Pettkus ,her common law spouse for 19 years [they never married )knew that , so it awarded her a share of the business Briey review the facts ,issues ,and ratio [reasons for deciding )the case ,and then answer the following : 1. Describe the civil procedure that would have been used in the case [as in any civil case], and the appeal routes available to Pettkus[again as in all civil litigation] i.e. go through the steps necessary to commence an action to and including the trial, and then the appeal route to the Supreme Court of Canada 2. Would the parties have been better offifthey went through Alternative Dispute Resolution? Why/why not? [Rosa Becker committed suicide even though she was ultimately successful in court ]. 3. Describe the various forms ofdispute resolution, and explain the advantages and disadvantages for each . 4-. Rosa Becker could not take advantage ofthe Ontario Family Law Act [5.5] which insures that married spouses are required to equally divide all the property a couple acquired during their marriage , because she was not married to Pettkus . 'Nhy was there no Charter challenge heard by the Court? If there could have been a lCharter challenge, what section ofthe Charter might have applied and what limitations would there have been on the Court's ability to strike any offending section of the Family Law Act