MacMillan-Dekker v. Dekker, [2000] O.T.C. 610 (SupCt)

• Judge: Wilson, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: August 04, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: [2000] O.T.C. 610 (SupCt)

MacMillan-Dekker v. Dekker, [2000] O.T.C. 610 (SupCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.T.C. TBEd. AU.044

Sharon MacMillan-Dekker (appellant) v. Ron A. Dekker (respondent)

(99-FA-8392)

Indexed As: MacMillan-Dekker v. Dekker

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Wilson, J.

August 4, 2000.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Evidence - Topic 3610

Documentary evidence - Private documents - Letters - General - Admissibility - See paragraphs 9 to 33.

Family Law - Topic 694

Husband and wife - Property rights during and after common law marriage or relationship - Evidence - See paragraphs 9 to 33.

Family Law - Topic 1001

Common law or same-sex relationships - What constitutes common law relationship - See paragraphs 1 to 124.

Family Law - Topic 1002

Common law or same-sex relationships - Spouse - Meaning of - See paragraphs 1 to 124.

Cases Noticed:

Hodgkinson v. Simms et al. (1994), 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1; 117 D.L.R.(4th) 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Equity Waste Management of Canada et al. v. Halton Hills (Town) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 324; 35 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

PWA Corp. v. Gemini Group Automated Distribution Systems Inc. et al. (1993), 64 O.A.C. 274; 15 O.R.(3d) 730 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Angoss II Partnership et al. v. Trifox, Inc. (1997), 46 O.T.C. 161 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1999), 126 O.A.C. 293 (C.A.), application for leave to appeal to the S.C.C. submitted [1999] S.C.C.A. No. 588, refd to. [para. 19].

Morris Estate v. Dominion Foundries and Steel Ltd., [1980] O.J. No. 66 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

Sullivan v. Letnik (1994), 5 R.F.L.(4th) 313 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980), 17 R.F.L.(2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].

Sanderson v. Russell (1979), 24 O.R.(2d) 429 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Feehan v. Attwells (1979), 24 O.R.(2d) 248 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

Harris v. Godkewitsch (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 779 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

Takacs v. Gallo (1998), 105 B.C.A.C. 115; 171 W.A.C. 115; 157 D.L.R.(4th) 623 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1998), 232 N.R. 200; 121 B.C.A.C. 160; 198 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Warwick v. Minister of Community and Social Services (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 528; 5 R.F.L.(2d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Thomas v. Thomas, [1948] 2 K.B. 294 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Gostlin v. Kergin (1986), 3 B.C.L.R.(2d) 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Fitton v. Hewton Estate et al. (1997), 94 B.C.A.C. 39; 152 W.A.C. 39 (Yuk. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Wepruk v. McMillan Estate (1993), 26 B.C.A.C. 127; 44 W.A.C. 127; 77 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Davies v. Vriend (1999), 92 O.T.C. 241; 48 R.F.L.(4th) 43 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 57].

Craddock v. Glover Estate, [2000] O.J. No. 680 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 57].

Mahoney v. King, [1998] O.J. No. 2296 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 57].

Kane v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1997), 152 D.L.R.(4th) 738 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 57].

M. v. H. (1996), 96 O.A.C. 173; 31 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), affd. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 57].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 62].

Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard and Registrar of Registration Division of Compton at Cookshire, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 2; 51 N.R. 288, refd to. [para. 72].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359, refd to. [para. 74].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, sect. 1(1) [para. 41]; sect. 29 [para. 42].

Counsel:

Sharon MacMillan-Dekker appeared on her own behalf;

Robert J. Spence, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 18 and 19, 2000, by Wilson, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who released the following decision on August 4, 2000.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.