Justice David Little’s ruling in Stephens v. Stawecki makes it clear that, in determining whether a couple has “cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years”, so as to make them “spouses” under s. 61 of the Family Law Act, the date on which they began to live in the same residence is only one factor to be considered. This claim arose out of a motor vehicle accident. A woman sought damages under s. 61 of the FLA , for the death of the man whom she said had been her “spouse”. The couple was not married. But s. 29 of the FLA contains an extended definition of “spouse” that includes “either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years”. Section 1(1) of the Act says that “cohabit” means “to live together in a conjugal relationship…” The accident happened on May 6, 2003 and the couple had not begun to live in the same residence until January, 2001. At first blush, it would not appear that these facts would bring the plaintiff within the FLA definition. A requirement that the couple “live together” for a period of “not less than three years” would, one might think, make the relevant date May 6, 2000 (three years before the date of the accident). But Justice Little ruled that the plaintiff had been a spouse of the deceased and was entitled to claim. He reasoned that even though the plaintiff had maintained a separate residence prior to January, 2001, the couple had “slept, shopped, gardened, cooked, cleaned, socialized, and lived together as a couple and were treated as such by their friends, family and neighbours”. Justice Little assessed the plaintiff’s damages for loss of care, guidance and companionship at $70,000.
Similar Posts
Fire Caused by Auto Repairs Not Covered by Tenant’s Liability Insurance
Attached is a copy of Justice Lally’s reasons in Blight v. AXA and Royal & SunAlliance, decided last Friday in Belleville. The court ruled that there was no liability coverage under a tenant’s insurance policy for a fire that broke…
Important Ruling on Litigation Privilege
In what appears to have been a longstanding battle between Coseco Insurance Company and one of its insureds, Mr. Justice John Macdonald has released an important decision on the issue of litigation privilege. He dismissed the insurer’s appeal from a master’s…
Superior Court Judge Strikes Down Limitation Period in Underinsured Endorsement
Schmitz v Lombard In a recent decision, Mr. Justice Martin James of the Superior Court has ruled that the limitation period contained in s. 17 of the underinsured automobile endorsement, OPCF 44R “cannot operate as a limitation defence and that…
Threshold Decision Underlines Dichotomy Within Ontario Insurance Act
The Ontario legislature has chosen to confer upon judges (alone) the right to decide whether or not a plaintiff in an MVA action meets the statutory “threshold”, making him or her eligible to receive an award of non-pecuniary general damages….
Insureds Ordered to Pay $1 Million in Costs After Jury Dismisses Bad Faith Claim
An Oakville couple has been ordered by an Ontario Superior Court Justice Kendra Coats to pay more than $1 million in costs after a jury dismissed their action against their insurer. In DiBattista v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company et al.,…
- Auto | Costs | Insurance News | Lawyers
“Minimal Financial Risk” to Law Firm in Prosecuting AB Claim in Catastrophic Case, So Substantial Fee Premium Not Appropriate
In Adler v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, Madam Justice Nancy Spies dealt with an application by the law firm of Aylesworth LLP for court approval of lawyer-client fees and disbursements, to be paid out of the proceeds of the settlement…
