Spracklin v. Kichton, (2000) 278 A.R. 27 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 20, 2000
• Citations: (2000), 278 A.R. 27 (QB);2000 ABQB 812

Spracklin v. Kichton (2000), 278 A.R. 27 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. NO.105

Denise Roxanne Spracklin (plaintiff/applicant) v. Michael James Kichton (defendant/respondent)

Denise Roxanne Kichton (plaintiff) v. Michael James Kichton, Vera Kichton and Kichton Holdings Ltd. (defendants)

(Action Nos. 0003 03202; 0003 04035) (2000 ABQB 812)

Indexed As: Spracklin v. Kichton

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

November 10, 2000.

Summary:

The applicant applied for interim spousal support under the Domestic Relations Act, alleging that the parties lived in a common law relationship for approximately 10 years.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application. The court discussed in detail the threshold jurisdiction which must be established before an award for interim common law spousal support could be made under the Domestic Relations Act.

Family Law - Topic 1013

Common law relationships - Maintenance -Interim maintenance - The applicant claimed interim spousal support under the Domestic Relations Act, alleging that the parties lived in a common law relationship for approximately 10 years - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the applicant established that the court had the threshold jurisdiction to award interim spousal sup­port, notwith­standing that the parties had periods of separation and filed as single for income tax purposes - The court noted that the parties lived under the same roof, vacationed together, the re­spondent sup­ported the applicant's business endeavours and the respondent did not deny that the parties had sexual relations on occasion - Because of a lack of budge­tary informa­tion, the court issued a nom­inal interim spousal support award of $300 per month.

Family Law - Topic 1013

Common law relationships - Maintenance -Interim maintenance - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the jurisdic­tional threshold that must be estab­lished to permit the court to award interim common law spousal support under the Domestic Relations Act - The court stated that: (1) the applicant must make a pre­liminary show­ing of merit; (2) the prelimi­nary showing does not have to reach the ultimate level of proof applicable to a trial, but the court should be able to say from the affidavits that there is a discernible common ground from which the court could find or infer the existence of a mar­riage-like relation­ship for the relevant period of time; (3) the court may consider the criteria set out in the case law as to what constitutes a mar­riage-like relation­ship, but is not obliged to apply any set check-list; and (4) the issues of need and dependence need not be finally resolved at the interim stage - See paragraphs 1 to 64.

Cases Noticed:

Taylor v. Rossu (1998), 216 A.R. 348; 175 W.A.C. 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3, footnote 1].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 28 C.R.(5th) 207; [2000] 2 W.W.R. 180; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1, reving. [1998] 4 W.W.R. 83; 205 A.R. 321; 12 C.R.(5th) 138, supplementary reasons [1998] 4 W.W.R. 107; 207 A.R. 161; 12 C.R.(5th) 163 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Young v. Young (1989), 21 R.F.L.(3d) 57 (B.C.C.A.), affing. [1988] W.D.F.L. 2317; [1988] B.C.W.L.D. 3403; 16 R.F.L.(3d) 302 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 26, footnote 3].

Randle v. Randle (1999), 254 A.R. 323 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 4].

R. v. Clark (P.D.) (2000), 266 A.R. 343; 228 W.A.C. 343 (C.A.), reving. [2000] 3 W.W.R. 358; 252 A.R. 120; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 194; 47 M.V.R.(3d) 22; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 186 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 5].

Nelson v. Nelson (1999), 240 A.R. 311 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 6].

MacFarlane v. Eberhardt, [1994] W.D.F.L. 1305 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 7].

Hughes v. Scarlett, [1995] W.D.F.L. 784 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 8].

Kolia v. Kolia and National Trust Co., [1981] 5 W.W.R. 540 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 10].

Noble v. Postnikoff, [1994] B.C.W.L.D. 1036 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 10].

Frenette v. Cwyk, [1994] B.C.J. No. 3093 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 11].

Roch v. Payne et al. (1999), 25 B.C.T.C. 200 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 12].

Davies v. Cardillo, [2000] O.T.C. Uned. 866 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39, foot­note 13].

Mohoney v. King, [1998] O.T.C. Uned. 235; 39 R.F.L.(4th) 361 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 14].

Haensgen v. Karpuchin (1999), 18 B.C.T.C. 64 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 15].

Takacs et al. v. Gallo (1998), 105 B.C.A.C. 115; 171 W.A.C. 115 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 232 N.R. 200; 121 B.C.A.C. 160; 198 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 16].

Gostlin v. Kergin, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 1; 3 B.C.L.R.(2d) 264; 1 R.F.L.(3d) 448 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 17].

Gostlin v. Kergin (1985), 47 R.F.L.(2d) 43 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 17].

Butler v. Voll, [1999] B.C.T.C. Uned. 498 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 49, footnote 18].

Ring et al. v. Bourgeois, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. F72 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 49, footnote 20].

MacMillan-Dekker v. Dekker, [2000] O.T.C. 61 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 21].

Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980), 17 R.F.L.(2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 22].

Opie v. Zegil (1994), 8 R.F.L.(4th) 91 (Gen. Div.), revd. (1997), 100 O.A.C. 197; 28 R.F.L.(4th) 405 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 225 N.R. 398; 110 O.A.C. 176 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 23].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, affing. (1996), 96 O.A.C. 173; 31 O.R.(3d) 417; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 25 R.F.L.(4th) 116; 40 C.R.R.(2d) 240 (C.A.), affing. (1996), 27 O.R.(3d) 593; 132 D.L.R.(4th) 538; 17 R.F.L.(4th) 365; 35 C.R.R.(2d) 123, supplementary reasons 8 O.T.C. 271 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 24].

Tanouye v. Tanouye (1993), 117 Sask.R. 196 (Q.B.), revd. (1994), 128 Sask.R. 48; 85 W.A.C. 48, addendum (1995), 134 Sask.R. 159; 101 W.A.C. 159 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 25].

Hackett v. Theaker - see Hackett v. Carr Estate et al.

Hackett v. Carr Estate et al. (2000), 197 Sask.R. 269 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 26].

Thompson v. Haley (2000), 188 Sask.R. 300 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 55, footnote 27].

Prakash v. Semkiw (1999), 184 Sask.R. 229 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 55, footnote 28].

Wepruk v. Fortin - see Wepruk v. McMillan Estate.

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, footnote 29].

Aktary v. Dobroslavic et al. (1983), 48 B.C.L.R. 26 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 30].

Bishop v. Dac et al. (1999), 18 B.C.T.C. 95; 16 C.C.L.I.(3d) 121 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 31].

Nichols v. Hawes (1997), 155 Sask.R. 28; 31 R.F.L.(4th) 399 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 32].

Craddock v. Glover Estate, [2000] O.T.C. Uned. 92; 32 E.T.R.(2d) 52 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 33].

Davies v. Vriend (1999), 92 O.T.C. 241; 48 R.F.L.(4th) 43 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 34].

Obringer v. Price - see Obringer v. Kennedy Estate et al.

Obringer v. Kennedy Estate et al. (1996), 11 O.T.C. 378; 16 E.T.R.(2d) 27 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 35].

Horodyski v. Estey - see Horodyski v. Tobin Estate.

Horodyski v. Tobin Estate (1996), 10 O.T.C. 227; 13 E.T.R.(2d) 305 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 36].

Thauvette v. Malyon (1996), 23 R.F.L.(4th) 217 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 37].

Theriault v. Theriault (1994), 149 A.R. 210; 63 W.A.C. 210; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 38].

Allen v. Allen (1999), 256 A.R. 121; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 305 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 39].

Barrett v. Barrett (1982), 29 R.F.L.(2d) 13 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 58, footnote 40].

Nishikawa v. Nishikawa (1971), 6 R.F.L. 191 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 58, foot­note 41].

Laur, Re (1975), 7 O.R.(2d) 385 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 42].

C.A.M. v. D.J.G., [1991] Q.J. No. 511 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 43].

Renko et al. v. Stevens Estate, [1996] B.C.J. No. 339 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 44].

R.I., Re, [1998] Y.J. No. 189 (Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 45].

Aalderink v. Brossart - see Aalderink v. Boyko Estate.

Aalderink v. Boyko Estate (1999), 183 Sask.R. 223 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 46].

Feehan v. Attwells (1979), 24 O.R.(2d) 248; 1 F.L.R.A.C. 332 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 47].

Kossakowski v. Sierchio (1983), 36 R.F.L.(2d) 395 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 48].

Santos v. Santos, [1972] 3 All E.R. 246 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 48].

Robertson v. Hotte (1996), 2 O.T.C. 1; 21 R.F.L.(4th) 452 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 49].

Tchakarova v. Rofaiel, [1995] W.D.F.L. 234 (Ont. C.J. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 50].

Sanderson v. Russell (1979), 9 R.F.L.(2d) 81; 24 O.R.(2d) 429 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnoe 51].

Economical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lott et al. (1998), 106 O.A.C. 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A. 1990, c. D-37, sect. 2(a), sect. 2(b) [para. 8]; sect. 8 [para. 5]; sect. 16.1 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Brenda L. Stothert-Kennedy (Pollock Stothert-Kennedy Rollins), for the plain­tiff/applicant;

Roderick J. Hall (Hall & Burchak), for the defendant/respondent.

This application was heard on September 20, 2000, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on November 10, 2000.