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
ODSP Benefits Not Deductible from MVA Damages
In Moss v. Hutchinson & Associates, Mr. Justice Peter Howden has ruled that benefits received by a plaintiff from the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) are not deductible from an award of tort damages. The action arose out of a…
Plaintiff Back to Work, Engaged, But Still Meets Threshold
After a series of recent Bill 59 “threshold” decisions that have favoured insurers (most recently Page v. Primeau, which was the subject of a previous Update), a Superior Court judge has decided a threshold motion in favour of the plaintiff. In Sasso…
C.A. Finds No Duty to Defend “Advertising Injury” Claim
We are especially pleased to bring you today’s Update. Minutes ago, the Court of Appeal released its decision in PrairieFyre Software v. St. Paul Fire and Marine, in which our firm acted for St. Paul. The case dealt with the…
- Auto | Auto (Tort) | Insurance News | Juries | Threshold | Trial Procedure
Judge Finds that Threshold Motion Must Succeed Where Jury Assesses Damages at Zero
Bisier v. Thorimbert was an action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident. At the trial, Mr. Justice J.R. Henderson of the Ontario Superior Court granted the defendant’s motion for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim, on the basis that…
C.A. Rules $3.1 Million AB Settlement Enforceable Despite Claimant’s Death
The Court of Appeal ruled today, in Wu v. Zurich Insurance Company, that a $3.1 million settlement of an accident benefits claim was enforceable by the estate of the injured claimant, who died before the settlement had been approved by…
Jolly Jurist Juxtaposes Jocosely in Judgment
Mr. Justice David M. Brown hasn’t been a judge for very long (he was appointed to the Superior Court on September 14, 2006). Maybe he hasn’t lost his sense of humour. Or maybe the opposite is true: the job is…
