Leclair v. Flemming, (1996) 154 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (FC)

• Case Date: September 24, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1996), 154 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (FC)

Leclair v. Flemming (1996), 154 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (FC);

    452 A.P.R. 352

MLB headnote and full text

Lori A. Leclair (applicant) v. Gerry Flemming (respondent)

(H96-190)

Indexed As: Leclair v. Flemming

Nova Scotia Family Court

Daley, J.F.C.

October 17, 1996.

Summary:

Leclair and Flemming resided together between 1989 and 1995. During this period, Flemming was periodically away pursuing his hockey career. The parties separated in 1995 and Leclair applied for spousal support pursuant to the Family Maintenance Act. Flemming argued that Leclair was not a spouse within the meaning of the Act and that her applica­tion was not brought within six months of the termination of their rela­tionship.

The Nova Scotia Family Court allowed the application.

Family Law - Topic 314

Marriage - Common law marriage - What constitutes - [See Family Law - Topic 1002 ].

Family Law - Topic 1001

Common law relationships - What consti­tutes common law relationship - [See Family Law - Topic 1002 ].

Family Law - Topic 1002

Common law relationships - Spouse - Meaning of - Leclair and Flemming resided together between 1989 and 1995 - During this period, Flemming was periodically away pursuing his hockey career - The parties separated in 1995 and Leclair applied for spousal support under the Family Maintenance Act - Flemming argued that Leclair was not a spouse within the meaning of the Act - The Nova Scotia Family Court held that the parties were in a spousal relationship - The court stated that regardless of Flemming's peri­odic absences, the parties resided together for twelve consecutive months - The court stated that the parties established a defini­tive pattern since they had met and that a reasonable person would conclude that theirs was not a casual relationship - But for Flemming's pursuit of his hockey career, the parties would have been physi­cally together until their separation - See paragraphs 4 to 16.

Family Law - Topic 1003

Common law relationships - Cohabits - Meaning of - [See Family Law - Topic 1002 ].

Family Law - Topic 1013

Common law relationships - Maintenance - Leclair and Flemming separated in 1995 - Leclair applied for short term spousal support to assist in re-establishing herself in the workplace - Believing that her music training was not a marketable skill, Leclair began the 1995 academic year at Dalhousie University with the intention of becoming an occupational therapist - At the time of the application, Leclair, 29 years of age, was employed on a full-time basis and had no dependents - Flemming offered financial assistance with respect to Leclair's future educational costs - The Nova Scotia Family Court ordered Flemming to pay one-half of Leclair's university tuition fees for both the January 1997 term and the full 1997-98 academic year, upon receipt of Leclair's tuition payment - See paragraphs 19 to 21.

Family Law - Topic 1025

Common law relationships - Limitation period - Leclair and Flemming resided together between 1989 and 1995 - Leclair applied for spousal support under the Family Maintenance Act in April 1996 - Flemming argued that the application was not made within six months of the end of the relationship - Flemming contended that the relationship ended when he left home in July 1995 - Leclair claims the relation­ship ended in November 1995 when Flemming told her that he did not love her any more - The Nova Scotia Family Court held that the application was made within the six month period - The court under­lined that once a dependence relationship is established, it continues until an event brings it to an end - The court found that the relationship ended in November 1995 when Flemming told Leclair that the relationship was over and financial help was discussed - See para­graphs 17 and 18.

Cases Noticed:

Jansen v. Montgomery (1982), 54 N.S.R.(2d) 267; 112 A.P.R. 267 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Gallagher v. Stark (1983), 59 N.S.R.(2d) 376; 125 A.P.R. 376 (Co. Ct.), folld. [para. 5].

Langille v. Wentzell (1984), 64 N.S.R.(2d) 334; 143 A.P.R. 334 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Soper v. Soper (1985), 67 N.S.R.(2d) 49; 155 A.P.R. 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Cann v. Huxley (1987), 78 N.S.R.(2d) 422; 193 A.P.R. 422 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Crane v. Crane (1987), 83 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 210 A.P.R. 271 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

K.B. v. H.K. (1988), 85 N.S.R.(2d) 46; 216 A.P.R. 46 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

B.J.C. v. B.F.C. (1988), 87 N.S.R.(2d) 114; 222 A.P.R. 114 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Burke v. Waldron (1989), 91 N.S.R.(2d) 204; 233 A.P.R. 204 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Eisnor v. Jensen (1989), 92 N.S.R.(2d) 60; 237 A.P.R. 60 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Chapman v. Simpson (1989), 89 N.S.R.(2d) 280; 227 A.P.R. 280 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

MacIntyre v. MacDonald (1992), 118 N.S.R.(2d) 112; 327 A.P.R. 112 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bent v. Landry (1993), 128 N.S.R.(2d) 376; 359 A.P.R. 376 (Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Maintenance Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 160, sect. 21 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Jane McClure, for the applicant;

Anna Paton, for the respondent.

This application was heard on September 24, 1996, before Daley, J.F.C., of the Nova Scotia Family Court, who delivered the following judgment on October 17, 1996.