In a recent Saskatchewan ruling the court began the narrative this way:
The parties were casual acquaintances when they began an online friendship in 2007. At that time … [Jackie], was residing in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, with her husband and two children. … [Dean], lived in Prince Albert where he was employed as a police officer. Dean was also married with two children.
Before long, their relationship became sexual, and in the summer of 2009, Jackie packed up her children, left her husband and moved into Dean’s rental home near Prince Albert.
But from there, the rest of their relationship could be described by the popular phrase: “It’s complicated”. Over the subsequent 10 years, Jackie and Dean sometimes lived together, but sometimes apart. It seems that Dean wanted more commitment, but Jackie demurred.
The truly complicated part was that they had an “open” relationship that the court described as “mostly consensual and recreational.” Jackie took advantage of her freedom by periodically having sex with her ex-husband, Cory – a fact she hid from Dean, who nonetheless had his suspicions. These ongoing sexual activities, as the court put it, were “a source of conflict and strain on the relationship,” and caused Dean “intense anger and jealousy and led to frequent arguments followed by cooling-off periods in the relationship.”
Finally, in the Fall of 2017, the relationship between Jackie and Dean finally unravelled. They stayed in contact for over a year – and still got together periodically for sexual encounters, and for discussions about their potential future together. But they did not ultimately reconcile.
Then in 2019 Jackie, now aged 42, went to court to seek an unequal division of the family home and debts shared with Dean, now 52. She claimed they were spouses in law from the years 2009 to 2017.
In contrast, Dean countered by stating that Jackie should get nothing, since they were never “spouses” under the province’s Family Law Act. But even if they were at some point, they had numerous separations that disqualified them from that status; their relationship never lasted for a continuous period of two years or more.
The court wisely observed that the true impetus behind Dean’s position, was that he didn’t feel Jackie should “have her cake and eat it too”. That is, Jackie should not be allowed dodge a formal commitment to him, but then enjoy the fruits of a true spousal relationship in law. The court explained:
Dean clearly had/has intense feelings for Jackie. Much of the focus of his testimony was upon his subjective view of what type of relationship they had, what type of relationship he wished they had and what type of relationship Jackie insisted they had. He was eager to take the relationship to the next level if given the signal to do so and is now incensed that, despite the fact that Jackie was not willing to reciprocate his desire to commit when they were together, she is now seeking to characterize their relationship as a spousal relationship.
They are certainly not the first couple to have different views on what their relationship entails. Jackie, unapologetically, chose to love Dean as a spouse while also maintaining feelings for Cory. She saw nothing inconsistent about being in a spousal relationship with Dean while also having sexual encounters with Cory and others. That type of relationship was enough for Jackie, and she wanted it to be enough for Dean. This disconnect caused a number of blow-ups and separations.
Now that the relationship has ended, Dean wants it characterized as a “friendship with benefits” that was never committed or spousal in nature. In his mind, calling it a spousal relationship (when that is what he wanted all along) would be akin to allowing Jackie to have her cake and eat it too. He feels that she should not be entitled to reap the legal benefits of a committed spousal relationship upon its dissolution.
However, the court pointed out that this was not the proper legal test. It wrote:
The problem with Dean’s position is that the legal determination as to whether they were “spouses” is not tied to either party’s intentions or motivated by a desire to hold one or both parties to account. The court is required to undergo an objective assessment of the evidence in making this legal determination. Again, the legal burden of persuasion falls on Jackie.
The court then undertook the required legal assessment, and ultimately sided with Jackie: She and Dean were legally “spouses” under the Family Law, so Jackie was entitled to an equal distribution of their family property.
To make that determination, the court explained that it had to look objectively at whether the hallmarks of a common-law spousal relationship were present, after scrutinizing the facts and circumstances closely. The law on this point is flexible, and firmly recognizes that modern-day spousal relationships come in all shapes and sizes. Each one is varied and unique.
In this case, Jackie and Dean had acted throughout like a typical spouses, in a typical blended family. They lived together, ate meals together, and shared chores. They bought a home, a dog, a cabin, and a boat together. They shared family events and celebrations. They intermingled their families, and went on holidays together. They got formally engaged in 2015. They filed their income taxes as spouses. They also went to couples counselling. But while they broke up often, and sometimes had sex with third parties, this was interspersed with “episodes of commitment and companionship”. Despite their many periods of separation, neither of them demonstrated a desire to withdraw from the relationship permanently.
More to the point – and contrary to what Dean claimed during his “wildly emotional” testimony – he and Jackie were not “friends-with-benefits”; they were spouses since they had lived together continuously for two years or more, which met the definition for the Family Law Act. The court went on to consider how to divide the family assets with Jackie’s spousal status in mind, looking at the parties’ assets, debts, and liabilities in great detail.
For the full text of the decision, see:
Gareau v. Blanchard, 2024 SKKB 64 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k4kvs>,
