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.
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- October 2015
- July 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- January 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- September 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- October 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
Categories
- Advertising Injury
- Allocation of Defence Costs
- Appeals
- Auto
- Auto (Tort)
- CGL
- Collateral Benefits
- Commercial Litigation
- Conflict of Laws
- Contract
- Costs
- Damages
- Defamation
- Discoverability
- Discovery
- Duty to Defend
- Environmental
- Evidence
- Exclusions
- Experts and Opinions
- Fire Insurance
- Fires
- FLA
- Insurance News
- Juries
- Lawyers
- Limitation Periods
- Litigation Technology
- Municipalities
- Occupier's Liability
- Pleadings
- Practice and Procedure
- Practice of Law
- Privacy
- Privilege
- Products Liability
- Professional Liability
- Risk Transfer
- Sale of Goods
- Social and Commercial Host Liability
- Subrogation
- Threshold
- Tort News
- Trial Procedure
- Uncategorized
- Uninsured or Underinsured
- Waivers and releases
Meta