Riley Estate (Re), 2014 ABQB 725

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Riley Estate (Re), 2014 ABQB 725 Date: 20141128 Docket: ES1019493 Registry: Red Deer In the Matter of the Estate of Gary Ellis Riley Between: Margaret Ann Martin Applicant - and - Kelvin John Riley, Douglas Milton, Koreen Ann Riley, Lyall Gary Riley and Bruce Ellis Riley Respondents _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice F.L. Schutz _______________________________________________________ Table of Contents I. Introduction . 2 II. Overview .. 3 III. Issues . 4

A. Were Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin adult interdependent partners as defined in the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act , SA 2002, c A-4.5 at the time of Mr. Riley’s death? . 4 B. If Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley were adult interdependent partners, did Mr. Riley fail to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of Ms. Martin, under his will, as required under the Dependants Relief Act ? . 4 IV. Legislative Framework . 4 V. Guiding Principles and Shifting Societal Norms . 8 VI. ISSUE A: Were Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin Adult Interdependent Partners? . 9 1. Did Ms. Martin live with Mr.

Riley for a Continuous Period of Not Less than Three Years? 9 2. Did Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin Live in a Relationship of Interdependence? . 16

a) Existence of a conjugal relationship . 17

b) Degree of exclusivity . 17

c) Conduct and habits regarding household activities and living arrangements . 18

d) Holding themselves out as an economic and domestic unit 18

e) Degree to which the persons formalize their legal obligations . 18

f) Degree of financial dependence or interdependence . 18

g) Extent of Direct and Indirect Contributions . 19

h) Care and Support of Children . 20

i) Ownership and Acquisition of Property . 20

j) Other Considerations . 20 VII. Conclusion . 22 I. Introduction [ 1 ] Gary Riley died on 1 December, 2011. Margaret Martin claims relief as an adult interdependent partner of Mr. Riley, contending that she and Mr. Riley were in an exclusive adult interdependent relationship for approximately 36 years. There are five residuary beneficiaries named in Mr. Riley’s will; Ms. Martin is not one of them and is not otherwise a beneficiary of Mr. Riley’s estate. [ 2 ] The Respondents contend that Ms.

Martin does not qualify for relief. [ 3 ] It is important to note, as a preliminary matter, that counsel confirmed for the record that although their respective clients were aware that they could take this matter to trial, or to a viva voce hearing, it was the desire of all parties that this decision be made based upon the available affidavit and cross-examination evidence because this would achieve the most cost-effective, timely and efficient method of obtaining a final disposition. [ 4 ] Counsel agreed that this process would nonetheless achieve a fair and just result. I agree.

I am always mindful of the Court’s duty to facilitate timely, cost-effective and efficient processes where a fair and just result can be achieved: Hyrniak v Maudlin , 2014 SCC 14 ; Windsor v Canadian Pacific Railway , 2014 ABCA 108 . II. Overview [ 5 ] Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin maintained a relationship for approximately 36 years. [ 6 ] The participating respondents contend that although the two may at one time have been in an adult interdependent relationship, after Mr.

Riley’s construction of a dwelling-house in 1997, the relationship changed such that if ever there was a basis for determining that these were persons involved in in adult interpersonal relationship, after 1997 that status ended and at best the two were companions, nothing more. The respondents say that both took active steps to conduct their lives and affairs to deliberately exclude any indicia of the sort commonly found in adult interdependent relationships. [ 7 ] Ms. Martin, on the other hand, asserts that until Mr.

Riley’s 2011 death the parties maintained a continuous relationship that fits well within the statutory criteria and, thus, I can find that Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley maintained an adult interdependent relationship for a period of not less than three continuous years prior to Mr. Riley’s death. [ 8 ] It is not disputed that Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin cohabited for a continuous period between approximately 1975 until 1997,

residing in a home owned by Ms. Martin. It is not disputed that they had no children together, both were previously divorced and each owned significant real property, none of which was ever transferred to the other as tenants in common, or into joint ownership. They had separate bank accounts and investments. After Mr. Riley built the house in 1997, Ms. Martin continued to live in her own home. [ 9 ] Ms. Martin says that Mr. Riley built the dwelling-house ( Riley House ) to be his “breather place” but the fundamentals of their relationship did not change. [ 10 ] I agree, for the reasons that follow.

I find that at the time of his death in 2011, Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin had enjoyed an adult interdependent relationship for a continuous period of not less than three years. III. Issues A. Were Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin adult interdependent partners as defined in the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act , SA 2002, c A-4.5 at the time of Mr. Riley’s death? [ 11 ] It is useful to review the legislative framework. A number of specific factors must be considered but the answer to this first question involves answering two additional questions: 1. Did Ms. Martin live with Mr.

Riley for a continuous period of not less than three years? 2. Did Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin live in a relationship of interdependence? B. If Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley were adult interdependent partners, did Mr. Riley fail to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of Ms. Martin, under his will, as required under the Dependants Relief Act ? [ 12 ] I might have been asked to decide this second question as well; however, in this case I was not. No submissions were made in respect of how adequate provision may be made for the proper maintenance and support of Ms. Martin. IV.

Legislative Framework [ 13 ] Based on Mr. Riley’s date of death in December of 2011, the Wills Act applies. The Wills and Succession Act did not come into force until February 1, 2012. Under the now repealed Wills Act , s 11 of the Dependants Relief Act applied to give effect to any variations in Mr.

Riley’s will necessary to give effect to the order. [ 14 ] It is s 3 of the Dependants Relief Act that permits “any provision that the judge considers adequate be made out of the estate of the deceased for the proper maintenance and support of the dependants or any of them.” [ 15 ] The Adult Interdependent Relationships Act ( AIRA ) sets out the statutory criteria to be considered on an application to determine whether an adult interdependent relationship was extant:

Preamble WHEREAS marriage is an institution that has traditional religious, social and cultural meaning for many Albertans; and WHEREAS the Legislature of Alberta affirms that a spouse is a person who is married; and WHEREAS there are Albertans in interdependent relationships outside marriage; and WHEREAS it is appropriate to define a legal context for the nature of those interdependent relationships and to set out the applicability of Alberta laws to them;

THEREFORE HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:

Interpretation 1(1) In this Act, (a) “adult interdependent partner” means an adult interdependent partner within the meaning of

section 3, but does not include a former adult interdependent partner; (b) “adult interdependent partner agreement” means an agreement referred to in

section 7; (c) “adult interdependent relationship” means the relationship between 2 persons who are adult interdependent partners of each other; (d) “former adult interdependent partner” means a former adult interdependent partner within the meaning of

section 10; (e) “Minister” means the Minister determined under

section 16 of the Government Organization Act as the Minister responsible for this Act; (f) “relationship of interdependence” means a relationship outside marriage in which any 2 persons (

i) share one another’s lives, (ii) are emotionally committed to one another, and (iii) function as an economic and domestic unit. (

g) repealed 2014 c8 s10 .

(2) In determining whether 2 persons function as an economic and domestic unit for the purposes of subsection (1)(f)(iii), all the circumstances of the relationship must be taken into account, including such of the following matters as may be relevant: (

a) whether or not the persons have a conjugal relationship; (

b) the degree of exclusivity of the relationship; (

c) the conduct and habits of the persons in respect of household activities and living arrangements; (

d) the degree to which the persons hold themselves out to others as an economic and domestic unit; (

e) the degree to which the persons formalize their legal obligations, intentions and responsibilities toward one another; (

f) the extent to which direct and indirect contributions have been made by either person to the other or to their mutual well-being; (

g) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support between the persons; (

h) the care and support of children; (

i) the ownership, use and acquisition of property. Application of Act 2 This Act applies to adult interdependent relationships arising before or after this Act comes into force. Adult interdependent partner 3(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person is the adult interdependent partner of another person if (

a) the person has lived with the other person in a relationship of interdependence (

i) for a continuous period of not less than 3 years, or

[...] [ 16 ] The interaction of these AIRA provisions is described in Henschel Estate , 2008 ABQB 406 , at para 50 . In

summary, s 3(1)(

a) describes the situation in which a person may become an adult interdependent partner: it requires that the claimant live with the other person in a relationship of interdependence for a continuous period of not less than three years. [ 17 ] Each of the three discrete criterion is an independent prerequisite. The concept of “economic and domestic unit” applies only to determining whether the couple had a relationship of interdependence which is the second of the three criteria; living together for a continuous period of not less than three years is the first.

The shopping list of considerations I must take into account in determining whether the parties functioned as an economic and domestic unit relates only to the second prerequisite, not the first. [ 18 ] All three prerequisites must be proved. Ms. Martin has the onus of proving the existence of the adult interdependent relationship on a balance of probabilities: s 11 AIRA . [ 19 ] Further, Ms.

Martin’s evidence must be corroborated by other evidence to satisfy s 11 of the Alberta Evidence Act : Rogers v Bogi Estate , 2012 ABQB 253 at para 50 , [2012] AJ No 416; Kiernan v Stach Estate , 2009 ABQB 150 at para 41 , [2009] AJ No 243 . [ 20 ] The Alberta Evidence Act, RSA 2000, c A-18 s 11 requires materially corroborative evidence in the circumstances of this case: Evidence in action by heir, etc. 11 In an action by or against the heirs, next of kin, executors, administrators or assigns of a deceased person, an opposed or interested party shall not obtain a verdict, judgment or decision on that party’s own evidence in respect of any matter occurring before the death of the deceased person, unless the evidence is corroborated by other material evidence. [ 21 ] Once I find the existence of an adult interdependent partnership, then the Dependants Relief Act comes into play, and says:

Definitions 1 In this Act, (d) “dependant” means (ii) the adult interdependent partner of the deceased, [...] Order for maintenance support 3(1) If a person (

a) dies testate without making in the person’s will adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the person’s dependants or any of them, [...] a judge, on application by or on behalf of the dependants or any of them, may in the judge’s discretion, notwithstanding the provisions of the will or the Intestate Succession Act , order that any provision that the judge considers adequate be made out of the estate of the deceased for the proper maintenance and support of the dependants or any of them.

(2) The judge on the hearing of the application (

a) may inquire into and consider all matters that the judge considers should be fairly taken into account in deciding the application, (

b) may in addition to the evidence adduced by the parties appearing direct any other evidence to be given that the judge considers necessary or proper, and (

c) may accept any evidence that the judge considers proper of the deceased’s reasons, so far as ascertainable, (

i) for making the dispositions made by the deceased’s will, or (ii) for not making adequate provision for a dependant, including any statement in writing signed by the deceased. [ 22 ] Again, in this case, I was neither asked to decide what adequate provision for Ms. Martin ought to be made nor did counsel make submissions as to what inquiry ought to pertain and what considerations might bear upon answering this question. V.

Guiding Principles and Shifting Societal Norms [ 23 ] In undertaking my analysis of the questions I was asked to answer, however, I find persuasive guidance in the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in Austin v Goertz, 2007 BCCA 586 (Can LII) at paras 56-58 . The Court says that while the need to examine the financial relationship between the parties is part of the analysis, this does not support the proposition that a “marital- equivalent” relationship cannot exist absent some level of financial dependence.

The same must be said of Alberta’s legislation, where the degree of financial dependence or interdependence is but one aspect of the inquiry, of equal legislative weight to the others.

[24] Societal norms shift. Apposite this is the fairly recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in M. v H., (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3, which concerned Ontario legislation conferring certain rights on persons who are not married to each other butwho live together in a “conjugal relationship.” In discussing the requirements of conjugal (i.e., marriage-like) relationships, Cory J statedthat while financial dependence is a factor, financial dependence is but one of many factors to be considered. He refers to Molodowich vPenttinen (1980), (ON SC), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist.

Ct.), as setting out the generally accepted characteristics ofa conjugal relationship. [25] Generally accepted characteristics of a conjugal relationship include: shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services,social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple.

It was recognized that these elementsmay be present in varying degrees and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found conjugal. [26] Cory J concludes that while it is true that there may not be any consensus as to the societal perception of same-sex couples,there is agreement that same-sex couples share many other “conjugal” characteristics.

In order to come within the definition, neitheropposite-sex couples nor same-sex couples are required to fit precisely the traditional marital model to demonstrate that the relationshipis “conjugal.” [27] In Austin, the British Columbia Court of Appeal says that it is understandable that the presence or absence of any particularfactor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like and this is “because equally there is no checklist ofcharacteristics that will invariably be found in all marriages.” I find this to be self-evident. [28] Observations of Ryan-Froslie J in Yakiwchuk v Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124 , eloquently capture the conundrum facingany judge called upon to consider whether, in a given set of circumstances, an adult interdependent relationship exists.

Theseobservations bear repeating, best said by their author: [10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure theirrelationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep theirproperty and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the otherspouse having little or no knowledge or input.

For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take aback seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health orpersonal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touchingand kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” doeverything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart.

Some “spouses”have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination ofwhen a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriageceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain.Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Theirmotivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”.

Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriagebecause they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how theirrelationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations,spending more and more time together.

Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operateoften do not exist. [29] In a similar vein, Yamauchi J says in Kiernan v Stach Estate, 2009 ABQB 150 (para 42) that a judge must take an holisticapproach when deciding upon a relationship of interdependence because although “this Court will review the factors outlined in theAIRA, the better approach for a case such as this is to look at the facts as whole; no one factor will carry more weight than another.

AIRAtells us this when it says "all the circumstances of the relationship must be taken into account.” [30] With these guideposts in mind, I commence my analysis of this interesting case. VI. ISSUE A: Were Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin AdultInterdependent Partners? 1. Did Ms. Martin live with Mr. Riley for a Continuous Period of Not Less thanThree Years? [31] The respondents contend that at least since 1997, the relationship did not involve co-habitation and that Ms. Martin did notlive with Mr. Riley for a continuous period of not less than three years before his December 2011 death.

They submit, therefore, that Ms.Martin does not fall within the requirements of the AIRA. [32] If I agree, that is the end of the matter. If I disagree, then I must go on to decide whether Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin livedtogether in an adult interdependent relationship. I disagree, for the reasons that follow. [33] Mr. Riley’s children Koreen Riley, Kelvin Riley and Bruce Riley swore affidavits, which I have reviewed.

Some of theevidence overlaps between the question of “living with the other person for a continuous period of not less than three years,” and thequestion of whether it was in a “relationship of interdependence”. Notwithstanding, I will separately answer each question. [34] Those who urge me to find that Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley did not live together for a continuance period of not less than threeyears prior to Mr. Riley’s death – the adult children of Mr. Riley - collectively point to their own evidence, supplemented by Ms.Martin’s evidence, which can be initially summarized as follows:

a) The Riley House built by Mr. Riley in 1997 was 14 miles [23 km] from Ms. Martin’s home. Ms. Martin says that she only became aware that Mr. Riley was building a house when the basement was already dug.

b) The children say that at Mr. Riley’s insistence, Ms. Martin never lived in the Riley House.

c) Mr. Riley’s family was under strict instructions from Mr. Riley never to permit Ms. Martin into the Riley House.

d) Ms. Martin agrees that Mr. Riley financed the construction and paid for all contents.

e) Ms. Martin says that she never slept over at the Riley House and she first attended there in 2010 or 2011. [The children say that she never entered the Riley House until after Mr. Riley’s death.]

f) Ms. Martin says that she did not go there because it was not “handicap-friendly”.

g) The children say that although Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin did spend time together from 1997 until Mr. Riley’s death in 2011 and did maintain a relationship, it was a relationship of companionship whereby Mr. Riley helped Ms. Martin with her horses but he did his own household chores himself. Occasionally Mr. Riley borrowed Ms. Martin’s truck, and during 2011 Ms. Martin cooked quite a bit for Mr. Riley.

h) The children also say that after 1997, although Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin did go on a number of trips together and ate out at restaurants together, they also went on holidays separately from each other. Ms. Martin says that Mr. Riley picked where he wanted to go on trips and he went alone, or with her.

i) Bruce Riley lived at Riley House from 1997 to 2001 and his affidavit states that Mr. Riley spent the majority of his time at Riley House. Plus, Mr. Riley’s personal belongings were found in Riley House at the time of his death in December 2011.

j) Bruce Riley says that Mr. Riley initiated discussions - on three or four occasions in the fall of 2011 - about having Bruce and his wife live with Mr. Riley, to assist Mr. Riley as he grew older because Mr. Riley stated that he was starting to slow down and wanted help so that he could live in Riley House for the rest of his life.

k) In terms of finances, Bruce Riley says that his father stated on many occasions: “hers is hers and mine is mine.”

l) Ms. Martin says that she did not leave Mr. Riley anything in her own will because he owned more land than she did and her own daughter needed the money more than Mr. Riley, who did not need any more finances from her given the assets he had. Ms. Martin did not name Mr. Riley under her enduring power of attorney or personal directive. Further, Ms. Martin’s personal tax returns for 2009 and 2012 stated her marital status as “divorced”, and that status on her 2010 and 2011 tax returns was not disclosed

m) Mr. Riley signed his will in late June 2010 and did not name Ms. Martin as a beneficiary, nor was she named under his enduring power of attorney and appointment of guardians, both signed in late October 1997. [ 35 ] Ms. Martin swears that “I lived with the deceased in a cohabiting relationship for 36 years in an exclusive relationship;” and goes on to say that “during the relationship we resided in my home.” [ 36 ] When cross-examined, Ms. Martin said that Mr. Riley and she considered her home “our house”. [ 37 ] Ms.

Martin did not go to the Riley House more than three or four times because the bathroom facilities were not easy to use due to her hip surgeries and replacements and cataract surgery and, also, there were a lot of stairs. (Ms. Martin has had knee surgeries since 2011, has glaucoma and is waiting for back surgery.) She says of Riley House: “it’s not a handicap-friendly place.” [ 38 ] After Mr. Riley got his pacemaker, Ms. Martin believes that he “mellowed somewhat, so our relationship got closer.” Before that, he spent more time away from her Bentley home.

When asked whether it’s fair to say that during the last three years of Mr. Riley’s life, Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley did not live in the same house every night, Ms. Martin answered: “Not every night but most nights.” [ 39 ] I find that Henschel Estate [Brandenburg v Macleod] , 2008 ABQB 406 is distinguishable because there the parties never lived under the same roof. Here, Mr. Riley did reside with Ms. Martin. During cross-examination, Ms. Martin testified that in the last full month of Mr. Riley’s life - November of 2011 - for periods of between five to seven days per month Mr.

Riley went to stay at Riley House, his “breather place”. Ms. Martin did not have exact records for Mr. Riley’s stay-overs with her in the month of October of 2011, or for the preceding year. Much of 2011 was spent holidaying together. She explains that Mr.

Riley used Riley House “when he felt he needed to get away from the activities that were going on at our home in Bentley, he needed some space to be away from the Bentley home.” [ 40 ] Vinokurova v Seneker , 2005 ABQB 590 , para 21 , is also distinguishable because the pivotal finding of fact in that case was that the evidence strongly pointed “to the relationship having terminated more than one year prior to the deceased’s death so that Ms. Vinokurova would not be entitled to relief as a former adult interdependent partner under the AIRA.” [ 41 ] Ms. Martin’s evidence concerning Mr.

Riley living with her is corroborated by the evidence of the Pilgrims, and the Seilings. I find the Pilgrims’ and the Seilings’ evidence to be clear and their language simple, and provides observed interactions between the parties and specific recollections by these deponents of certain domestic arrangements they observed in their years of involvement with the parties. I find that these recollections and observations are well-supported by reference to specific memorable events spanning the years the parties and the Pilgrims and Seilings were friends.

I find the corroborating evidence of the Pilgrims and the Seilings to be entirely believable, and I accept the totality of this evidence. [ 42 ] For example, when close friends Mr. and Mrs. Seiling, stopped by to visit their friends – the parties - they found Mr. Riley in Ms. Martin’s home, they visited with both Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley in the home, and the Seilings stayed overnight and enjoyed

extensive visits with both Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin, as a couple, under the same roof. The Seilings deposed that Mr. Riley shared a bedroom, bathroom and living space with Ms. Martin. [ 43 ] The Seilings describe three occasions between 2006 and 2011 when they stopped by to visit both Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin, and visited and stayed at Ms. Martin’s home in Bentley. The Seilings had known the couple for 15 years and had visited back and forth on many occasions over the years. The Seilings state that when Mr. Riley retired for the evening, he retired to an upstairs bedroom shared with Ms.

Martin. [ 44 ] The last time the Seilings stayed in the Bentley home with Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin was in September of 2011, shortly before Mr. Riley’s death. They say that “as usual, we heard Gary moving about upstairs in the wee small hours.” The four went out together and the Seilings bought dinner, “to thank them for their latest hospitality.” This is important evidence because of its proximity to Mr. Riley’s death in December of 2011 and because the Seilings personally observed and related their reasons for believing that Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley were then living together as a domestic and economic unit.

This is an observation of intimate domesticity that Mr. Riley’s children did not see, and had no opportunity to observe. [ 45 ] The Seilings also say that when Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin came out together to visit the Seilings, the visiting couple used to stay in the Seilings’ guestroom together but, in later years, the visiting couple chose to stay at a motel, always in a single room. [ 46 ] The Pilgrims say they have been friends with Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin and “have known them as a couple since 1981.” The Pilgrims were invited to many family birthdays, Christmas dinners and that Ms.

Martin hosted a Christmas Eve gathering for Mr. Riley’s children for many years. [ 47 ] They say that Mr. Riley “lived in Marg’s home for several years and it was only during the last few years of his life that he built himself a house, where he stayed on occasion .” I find that the comment I have underlined is consistent with Ms. Martin’s evidence that Riley House was Mr.

Riley’s “breather place”. [ 48 ] The Pilgrims depose that that even after building Riley House, they observed “Gary to be a major part of Marg’s life as he took her to doctor’s appointments, assisted her with chores and appeared to very much enjoy her company”; and, “we also observed Marg to be a big help to Gary throughout the relationship and, in particular when Gary came home from the hospital after a major heart attack.” The Pilgrims visited with Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley, at Ms. Martin’s home, while Mr. Riley recuperated. [ 49 ] The Seilings say that Mr. Riley died at Ms.

Martin’s home during one of his nocturnal television-watching sessions – these same nocturnal sessions of Mr. Riley frequently heard by the Seilings when they stayed overnight with the parties. [ 50 ] Koreen Riley, Mr. Riley’s daughter, also says that Mr. Riley died in Ms. Martin’s home. This is consistent with Mr. Riley living together with Ms. Martin and is consistent with the Seilings’ evidence that the parties lived together up to and including the Seilings last visit in September of 2011 – which visit happened only several weeks before Mr.

Riley’s death. [ 51 ] When cross-examined on his affidavit, Kelvin Riley provided clarification with respect to many of the statements he made in his initial affidavit. I have reviewed in its entirety the cross-examination transcript because it is evidence at large in this case. I find that the cross-examination effectively neutralized and put into proper perspective many of the assertions deposed by Kelvin Riley. [ 52 ] For example, Kelvin Riley clarified that he phoned over to Riley House for his father “not very often.

Once a week maybe.” Kelvin Riley was relating to these once weekly calls when he deposed that when he needed to reach Mr. Riley, he called Riley House but there were times when his father did not answer the phone call. Without this clarification on cross-examination, I might have been left with the impression that Kelvin Riley called his father daily or even twice daily at Riley House. That erroneous impression may have led me to draw a wrong inference, to the possible prejudice of Ms. Martin. With this clarification, Kelvin Riley’s evidence with respect to the amount of time Mr.

Riley spent at Riley House, is far less cogent. [ 53 ] Similarly, although Kelvin Riley swears that Mr. Riley was spending the majority of his time at Riley House, Kelvin Riley confirmed that, in fact, he physically saw his father only two to three times per week, and this was when Mr. Riley would stop in at Kelvin Riley’s place. In other words, Kelvin Riley had no actual knowledge of that to which he deposed in his affidavit; rather, this was merely Kelvin Riley’s expression of an opinion, unsupported by direct observations or other facts. On another topic, Kelvin Riley agrees that it is possible that Mr.

Riley also kept personal belongings, music, photos and prescription medication at Ms. Martin’s home. Absent Kelvin Riley’s clarification on cross-examination, again I may have been left with the impression that this was not a possibility. [ 54 ] Kelvin Riley admits he does not know how often his father travelled between Riley House and Ms. Martin’s home. Kelvin Riley admits that he does not know if Mr. Riley had assistance from Ms. Martin or her family members with yard work or snow shoveling at Riley House. [ 55 ] In cross-examination, Kelvin Riley elaborates on the animosity he swore existed between Mr.

Riley and Ms. Martin, relating to this alleged animosity in support of his contention that the parties were no longer a couple. It seems that the “animosity” amounted to Ms. Martin being angry that Mr. Riley had built Riley House without her knowledge. Kelvin Riley explains that this is the reason his father gave as to why Ms. Martin was angry. Presumably, this anger arose in 1997. Many years passed and I am satisfied from her subsequent conduct that Ms. Martin has long since gotten over her disappointment, or anger, about this failing on Mr.

Riley’s part. [ 56 ] Kelvin Riley confirms during cross-examination that despite his father’s talk, Mr. Riley had never, in fact, found a spouse- like relationship, or companionship, other than with Ms. Martin. [ 57 ] Kelvin Riley agrees that his own children never called Ms. Martin anything other than “Grandma Marg.” [ 58 ] Charles v Young , 2013 ABQB 632 is instructive. In that case, the relationship was characterized as “turbulent”.

There was physical separation of the parties yet the Court recognized - citing to other cases - that the law must be realistic and flexible enough to recognize that a “brief cooling-off period does not bring the relationship to an end.” Further, in the Charles case, the Court found that

there was no evidence that either party had another relationship during the preceding three years before death. [59] Thus, while there was some unproven speculation about exclusivity based upon comments Mr. Riley made concerningfinding other companionship, there is no evidence to support that he ever acted upon those comments. [60] Ms. Martin’s evidence is expressly to the contrary: Ms. Martin says she lived with Mr.

Riley “in a cohabiting relationship for36 years in an exclusive relationship.” The friends corroborate this and to the extent that anyone has knowledge of intimate details of theparties’ relationship, I am satisfied that Ms. Martin’s evidence is to be preferred, strengthened by the evidence of the couple’s friends,legal confidante Mr. Vanden Brink, and by the evidence of Ms.

Martin’s daughter, Lisa Martin. [61] “All the statute requires is that the evidence to be corroborated shall be ‘strengthened by some evidence which appreciablyhelps the judicial mind to believe one or more of the material statements or facts deposed to’ and … the ‘material evidence’ incorroboration may consist of inferences or probabilities arising from other facts and circumstances.” Stephenson v McLean, (1977), (AB KB), 4 Alta. L.R. (2d) 197, citied in Charles at para 28. [62] I find that the evidence of the third parties appreciably helps me to believe the categorical statement of Ms.

Martin, madeunder oath, that she and Mr. Riley were in an exclusive cohabiting relationship for approximately 36 years. [63] Kelvin Riley deposes that his father’s intention was to control his own assets as he wanted. Kelvin Riley also said that it wasnot his father’s intention to marry Ms. Martin. Kelvin Riley cannot recall when these things were said to him by his father and he agreesthat his father could have said this because Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin had a fight and Mr. Riley was angry. [64] In a relationship spanning decades, it is understandable that people will fight and be angry, from time to time.

Then, peoplecool off and continue in their adult interdependent relationships. In contrast to Kelvin Riley’s evidence, moreover, friends depose thatMr. Riley did in fact ask Ms. Martin to marry him. On cross-examination, Ms. Martin says she and Mr. Riley talked in the last five yearsabout getting married, in “comical, casual discussions,” and the comedy was: “oh, why now, so many years have gone by and too oldand why mess up things.” Ms Martin says that in the beginning she maybe wanted to get married, but later it made no difference to her. [65] The dispute that Mr.

Riley had with Lisa Martin and Lisa Martin’s husband arose - according to what Mr. Riley told KelvinRiley - because Mr. Riley insulted Lisa Martin and Lisa Martin’s husband took exception to the insults and threatened to fight with Mr.Riley. Kelvin Riley is not sure if it was at around the same time that Mr. Riley commented that “moving to his own place was the bestthing that happened to him.” Kelvin Riley cannot recall when his father said this or in what circumstances. [66] Kelvin Riley had no independent knowledge about whether Ms. Martin stepped foot in Riley House or whether Ms.

Martincontributed financially to its finishing or decoration or, indeed, what his father paid for and what Ms. Martin paid for. Kelvin Rileyexplains that he never discussed these topics with his father. [67] In

summary, I find that Kelvin Riley has minimal personal or direct knowledge about the most pivotal aspects of therelationship between Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin, and can add very little admissible evidence to my considerations. Unfortunately, that towhich Kelvin Riley does depose is largely based upon comments his father made, the veracity of which were never checked in anyfashion by Kelvin Riley.

Accordingly, I give Kelvin Riley’s evidence very little weight and find that none of it is determinative of theissues I am called upon to decide. [68] When Bruce Riley was cross-examined, similar frailties were revealed in his affidavit evidence. I have reviewed in its entiretythe transcript from the cross-examination of Bruce Riley because it is evidence at large. [69] Bruce Riley lived with Mr. Riley at Riley House for a continuous period between 1997 and 2001. Bruce Riley says Mr. Rileyspent the majority of his nights there but Bruce Riley did not keep track.

And, Bruce Riley does not know what personal effects Mr.Riley may have had at Ms. Martin’s place. [70] As to Bruce Riley’s sworn statement that Ms. Martin “never stepped foot” in Riley House until after Mr. Riley’s death, andthe further statement that the finances of Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin were not intermingled, he confirms on cross-examination that theseassertions were based solely upon what Mr. Riley said to Bruce Riley. These assertions were not based upon anything within the personalor direct knowledge of Bruce Riley. [71] Bruce Riley’s sworn statement that Mr. Riley paid his own expenses and that both Mr.

Riley and Ms. Martin paid their ownway on trips, again, was merely a reflection of what his father told Bruce Riley. The difficulty, however, is that Bruce Riley never wenton vacation with Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley, and Bruce Riley never personally observed their spending patterns on travel or holidays.There is uncontradicted evidence from Ms. Martin, for example, that Mr. Riley did in fact pay for her trip to Qatar. [72] Bruce Riley testified that he went out for supper with Mr. Riley and Ms.

Martin on special occasions but agrees that he reallydoes not know whether they alternated paying on those special occasions, or how it worked out between the two. [73] Bruce Riley also agrees that he had no personal knowledge as to how Ms. Martin’s assets were depleted, whether she spentmoney for the benefit of Mr. Riley, or whether Ms. Martin was involved in Mr. Riley’s farm. The statements Bruce Riley made in hisaffidavit were opinions he formed, without personal knowledge, based upon what Mr.

Riley had told him and for which no independentverification was done by Bruce Riley. [74] Discussions about Bruce Riley and his wife moving in with Mr. Riley occurred on three or four occasions shortly before Mr.Riley’s death. Bruce Riley testified that he was seeing Mr. Riley in the fall of 2011 perhaps every two weeks, and they talked on thephone probably weekly.

It was this weekly phone call that was the basis for Bruce Riley’s statement in his affidavit that “on most days,my father could be reached at his own home in the early morning and early evening.” This important clarification about the frequency oftelephone calls between Bruce Riley and Mr. Riley is consistent with Bruce Riley’s testimony that he personally did not know muchabout his father’s comings and goings.

[ 75 ] As with Kelvin Riley, Bruce Riley confirms that Ms. Martin hosted special events and dinners a couple of times each year, and these special gatherings took place after 1997, at Ms. Martin’s house. These events were well attended by Riley family members. [ 76 ] Moreover, Bruce Riley confirmed that Ms. Martin was at the hospital when Mr. Riley had the pacemaker installed and Bruce Riley assumes that Ms. Martin accompanied Mr.

Riley to medical appointments, but does not know. [ 77 ] Bruce Riley does not know who filled out his father’s tax returns and he does not know what marital status his father referred to on medical forms. [ 78 ] I find that following cross-examination and taking Bruce Riley’s evidence in its totality, it is not determinative of any of the pivotal matters in issue and is based largely upon unverified assumptions, supposition and inadmissible opinions. I therefore give the evidence very little weight and find, in any event, that it does not controvert Ms.

Martin’s evidence with respect to any material aspects of the issues I am to determine. [ 79 ] I will refer to Koreen Riley’s evidence in a later

section of this judgment. [ 80 ] I find that the admissible evidence before me reaches well beyond the evidence available in the Henschel Estate case, a case where there was no cohabitation whatsoever. [ 81 ] Moreover, in Tait v Westphal , 2013 ABQB 668 Gates, J found that maintaining separate houses did not preclude finding an adult interdependent partnership: para 20. The existence of a separate residence was found not to be sufficient proof of an “intent that the adult interdependent relationships not continue” under the former adult interdependent partner provisions. [ 82 ] In

summary, when friends came to visit, Mr. Riley was in Ms. Martin’s home and stayed there overnight. [Seilings’ affidavit paras 3.9, 3.10, 3.12, and 3.16; Pilgrims’ affidavit para 3.4] [ 83 ] Mr. Riley contributed to the upkeep of both houses. This corroborating evidence strengthens Ms. Martin’s case. [ 84 ] Further, on the matter of exclusivity, Mr. Riley’s children say that the Riley/Martin relationship was a relationship potentially interrupted by another relationship. Although Ms. Martin fairly concedes that Mr. Riley talked about dating and his children say that Mr.

Riley talked about more actively pursuing “companionship”, there is no evidence that Mr. Riley ever followed up on his pronouncements in this regard. [ 85 ] I find for the reasons given above, that Ms. Martin has met the onus upon her and I find that for the purposes of the AIRA, Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin did live together for a continuous period of not less than three years prior to Mr. Riley’s December 2011 death. [ 86 ] I must now determine whether Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin lived together in a “relationship of interdependence” as this is the next step in the analysis. To this analysis I turn. 2. Did Mr.

Riley and Ms. Martin Live in a Relationship of Interdependence? [ 87 ] Koreen Riley is of the opinion that Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin “were two lonely and selfish people who maintained a relationship because it was convenient.

He had someone to cook for him and do his laundry, she had someone to drive her around and feed her horses as required.” Even if I accepted that Koreen Riley’s opinions formed the outer limits of the parties’ relationship, and I do not accept this proposition, I am not persuaded in any event that mutual dependence - or even co-dependence –as a reason for maintaining a relationship necessarily speaks against finding an adult interdependent relationship, especially when this particular relationship is viewed as a whole. [ 88 ] Rather, I am satisfied that in most, if not all, adult interdependent relationships there are aspects of mutual dependence and assistance, and even chore-bartering.

Of course, each unique human relationship must be viewed holistically. Without more, I do not agree that being in a relationship because one is lonely and selfish ousts the authority Alberta’s legislators have given this Court to extend protection to persons found to be entitled to that protection. [ 89 ] The respondents contend that many other facts point to a relationship that was not one of adult interdependence, including: • The children of the deceased considered Riley House to be Mr. Riley’s residence; • Mail went to Riley House; • While some medication was kept at Ms.

Martin’s home, the bulk was at Riley House; • While Mr. Riley kept personal effects with Ms. Martin, the bulk were moved out; • Mr. Riley did not answer the telephone in Ms. Martin’s home; and, • Mr. Riley sought assistance from his son and daughter-in-law later in his life. [ 90 ] I find that these facts are neither irreconcilably inconsistent with nor do they essentially controvert Ms. Martin’s contention that she and Mr. Riley continued to live exclusively, together, even though Mr.

Riley built his “breather place”, to which he would retreat when he wanted some time and space for himself. [ 91 ] Once again, I find that the close friends’ and the legal confidante’s evidence is logically consistent with, strengthens and is sufficiently corroborative of Ms. Martin’s evidence. I find that the totality of evidence offered by the Pilgrims, the Seilings, Lisa Martin and Ben Vanden Brink is sufficiently weighty and corroborative of Ms. Martin’s evidence to support a finding of the existence of a

relationship that is one of adult interdependence, a relationship that fits within the requirements of the AIRA. [92] The length of the relationship is a relevant factor: Howard v Sandau, 2008 ABQB 34 . This was a very longrelationship. [93] I agree that Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin shared each other’s lives and that they were emotionally committed to one another. Ialso find that they functioned as an “economic and domestic unit”, by applying the relevant factors set out in s 1(2) of the AIRA,following.

a) Existence of a conjugal relationship [94] Even had there been substantively conflicting evidence as to whether Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin had a physical relationship orshared a bed – and I find no such conflict in the evidence - this would not have been determinative. In Kiernan, Yamauchi J found theenjoyment of each other’s company to be an important determinant of a conjugal relationship (at para 45).

Here, there the best admissibleevidence leads me to conclude that the couple did enjoy a conjugal relationship, of some sort, for a very lengthy period of time. [95] Although the physical aspects of the relationship may have changed or evolved over 36 years, there is nonetheless clearevidence, which I accept, that Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley enjoyed each other’s company, dined together, sometimes slept together,travelled together and visited mutual friends together. Lisa Martin says that she and her own children saw her mother and Mr. Riley sharemany affectionate moments together including kisses good-bye and hugs.

b) Degree of exclusivity [96] As previously discussed, while it is possible that the Mr. Riley had a dating relationship with someone else for a period of attime and evidence was given that Mr. Riley spoke of looking for companionship at times, there was also strong evidence that Ms. Martinand Mr. Riley held themselves out as an exclusive couple to family and friends. The weight of admissible evidence is that Mr. Riley andMs. Martin had a long term, committed, exclusive relationship up until the end of Mr. Riley’s life. I believe Ms. Martin when she swearsthat she lived with Mr. Riley “in a cohabiting relationship for 36 years in an exclusive relationship.”

c) Conduct and habits regarding household activities and living arrangements [97] There is good evidence that Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin shared domestic responsibilities, including raising Ms. Martin’sdaughter, mutual care of grandchildren, travel with the grandchildren, and hosting responsibilities. Ms. Martin did some domestic choressuch as cooking and laundry; Mr. Riley did other domestic chores, such as horse care, maintenance of buildings and yards, and vehicleupkeep. There is little actual dispute as to the extent and timing of the sharing by the parties of most of these important domestic roles.

d) Holding themselves out as an economic and domestic unit [98] The couple held themselves out to family and friends as a couple. [99] The parties were called “Grandpa” and “Grandma” by the grandchildren on either side. I find that this personal publicrecognition of their relationship is strong indicia of the existence of an adult interdependent relationship.

I find that the parties mutuallyagreed upon - and readily accepted – their grandchildren’s very intimate, public declaration and recognition of their relationship andconsistently encouraged continuation of this recognition of their relationship. [100] From the time Lisa Martin was eight years old, she considered Mr. Riley to be her stepfather. She spent birthdays, Christmasand most holidays together with Mr. Riley. Mr. Riley gave Lisa Martin away at her first wedding. Lisa Martin hosted Mr. Riley at herown farm and Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin “would often take my own children on holidays with them.” [101] Mr.

Ben Vanden Brink swears that he and his wife spent a lot of time with Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin at horse-related events,due to a mutual interest Ms. Martin and Mrs. Vanden Brink shared in horses. Mr. Vanden Brink deposes that “based on the manyinteractions we had with them, their actions and representations, my wife and I always considered them to be a spousal-type couple.” [102] I find that all of the foregoing is very strong indicia that Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin held themselves out as an economic anddomestic unit. [103] The couple often received invitations to, and hosted family events, as a couple.

e) Degree to which the persons formalize their legal obligations [104] There was a low degree of formalization of their legal obligations towards each other but Ms. Martin says that Mr. Rileymarked medical intake forms to indicate that he was in a “common-law relationship”. Ms. Martin explains that given that “each of usowned substantial assets and had children from previous relationships we thought that it would be simpler to not get married and as aresult we kept our property and bank accounts in our sole names.” [105] Ms. Martin gave her marital status as “divorced”. Ms. Martin did not name Mr.

Riley in her personal directive. On cross-examination, evidence at large, she said that this was because she was given to understand that it was better to have a younger person inthat role. Mr. Riley was older than Ms. Martin. Ms. Martin chose her daughter and cousin.

f) Degree of financial dependence or interdependence [106] The parties maintained separate bank accounts but, as I said at the outset in adopting the approach of the British Columbia

Court of Appeal and, also, for the additional reasons given above, this separation of bank accounts does not militate against finding an adult interdependent relationship. Ms. Martin says she co-signed a loan for Mr. Riley so that the bank would lend him the money to buy a new tractor or cultivator and she helped one of Mr. Riley’s son with the purchase of a horse trailer. Ms. Martin lent money to Mr. Riley; Mr. Riley paid it back. Ms. Martin says her own mother, at her request, also lent Mr.

Riley money so that he could retire debt. (Kelvin Riley says that this particular loan was 35 years ago, and was paid back.) [ 107 ] Kelvin Riley says his father sold off quarters of land to pay down debt and most likely to finance building the house in 1997 after Mr. Riley had “a very large dispute” with Ms. Martin’s daughter and her daughter’s husband. Kelvin Riley observed Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley “taking turns” paying for items such as gas, dining out. Other children say they observed Mr. Riley paying for meals when they were out with him and Ms. Martin. [ 108 ] Ms.

Martin says that she looked after most of the utilities and most of the groceries until “maybe the latter part – closer to 1997, he was helping out with groceries.” When asked whether she thought that she and Mr. Riley “were even” during that time, Ms. Martin replied that “when you’re in a relationship of a marriage, I don’t think you try to be even with someone dollar-wise”. [ 109 ] And, for example, in 2010 or 2011 although Mr. Riley used all the fuel from her place she didn’t want to get paid back because Mr. Riley contributed “just by being my companion.”

g) Extent of Direct and Indirect Contributions [ 110 ] As previously discussed, there is strong evidence that each made direct and indirect contributions to the physical well-being of the other, they were emotionally connected to one another and they cared for the well-being and were emotionally connected to each other’s children and their children’s children. [ 111 ] Ms. Martin’s evidence about separate bank accounts and investments does not preclude a finding that the parties were a domestic and economic unit because Ms. Martin also says that while she paid for the majority of day-to-day living expenses, Mr.

Riley contributed mainly to the cost of fuel for their vehicles and he did much of the upkeep around the house and on their respective lands, as long as his health permitted. And, during the last two years of his life he also contributed to the groceries. [ 112 ] I find that there was a blending of significant economic contributions, although these respective contributions were not always monetary. Giving to a partner, or receiving from a partner, non-monetary contributions that are nonetheless highly-valued is a common incident of adult interdependent relationships.

These highly-valued non-monetary contributions are infinite in kind. Maintaining substantial acres of land, homes, vehicles, yards, animals and outbuildings must certainly be very arduous. I find it easy to understand why Ms. Martin highly valued Mr. Riley’s ongoing contributions in these many areas of domestic work. No one suggested that Mr. Riley did not do this work and no one suggested that Mr. Riley’s contributions to this domestic work were not valuable. [ 113 ] Ms. Martin and Mr.

Riley talked to one another when they were thinking of selling land, but decisions to sell their own land were made solely by the owner. Mr. Riley kept his investments separate as did Ms. Martin. Ms. Martin had an insurance policy naming Mr. Riley as beneficiary, however she believes the insurance coverage expired “with him as a dependant” when Mr. Riley turned 70 years old. Ms. Martin explains that it was kind of confusing with the Bank of Montreal paying a portion and she paying a portion, so she is not clear about it. [ 114 ] Ms. Martin did not contribute financially to building the Riley House but she and Mr.

Riley made shopping trips in 1997, 1998 and 1999 to buy things for the Riley House that “a man would not normally to think of to decorate a home.” Mr. Riley sought her advice on decorating and domestic matters. Ms. Martin sought his advice on horse matters and maintaining vehicles and property.

h) Care and Support of Children [ 115 ] Ms. Martin has monetarily supported her adult daughter using her own resources. Mr. Riley maintained his own relationships with his own children, including monetarily. There is also evidence, though, that many times over the years Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley together - as a couple - hosted the children and grandchildren, bought gifts for the children and grandchildren, shared their joint hospitality with the family and took an active interest in the lives of their children and grandchildren. [ 116 ] There is no evidence to suggest that Ms.

Martin was anything but supportive of Mr. Riley’s children and their children; indeed, there is evidence that one of Mr. Riley’s son lived in Ms. Martin’s home from time to time (although exactly when and on what terms is not clear). [ 117 ] Similarly, except for the big dispute in 1997 between Lisa Martin and her husband, it seems that Mr. Riley was supportive of Ms. Martin’s child and her children, and was emotionally close enough to Lisa that he agreed to walk Lisa down the aisle on her wedding day. [ 118 ] Lisa Martin deposes that Mr. Riley and Ms.

Martin took her own children on vacation with them, the last time being when the couple took her young son to Drumheller. This trip occurred during the week before Mr. Riley died. [ 119 ] I find that the bulk of the evidence unequivocally leads to a finding that both Ms. Martin and Ms. Riley cared for and emotionally supported – perhaps economically supported - the other’s child or children, at least to some degree. [ 120 ] Importantly, Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley indiscriminately cared for and emotionally supported the children of their own children, that is, the people who called them “Grandma” and “Grandpa”.

i) Ownership and Acquisition of Property [ 121 ] There was a sharing of some expenses - for example, restaurant meals - and evidence that Mr. Riley paid for at least one

vacation for Ms. Martin; however, the personal money and real property was largely kept separate and apart, and the parties took turns paying for restaurant meals and mostly paid for their own trips. [ 122 ] Given that both Mr. Riley and Ms. Martin had previously experienced divorce, and each had acquired substantial assets not part of their relationship, and given that each had children from previous relationships, it is quite understandable that they decided to keep their finances largely separated. Standing alone, this factor does not speak against Ms. Martin’s case.

j) Other Considerations [ 123 ] Ms. Martin agrees that after 1997, Mr. Riley did not invite her into Riley House. The reason, she says, is because Mr. Riley was hurt that she showed no interest in it “by looking at it as we drove by.” Ms. Martin says that nothing really changed in her relationship with Mr. Riley after he moved out in 1997 “other than he wasn’t there 24 hours, 7 on 7.” [ 124 ] Ms. Martin says that Mr.

Riley had a large amount of personal effects at her home when he died: “He has his snow boots, his good snow boots, his ski jacket, two to three pairs of pants, briefs, socks, three to four pair of T-shirts, his housecoat, hairbrush, deodorant, container of medicine, his glasses, his wallet.” When asked when it was Mr. Riley brought those things, Ms. Martin says: “Oh, I don’t know. In 2010 or...Most of the time they were – he had clothes there all of the time, so --”. Presumably, glasses and wallets are items used every day. Ms. Martin was not asked about the frequency Mr.

Riley used the items in her home but did say that he had clothes there all the time and that other intimate personal items were there when he died in her home. [ 125 ] Ms. Martin says Mr. Riley’s prescription pills were lined up in the bathroom at her house, too, inasmuch as there was other evidence that Mr. Riley’s prescription medications, personal appointments calendar, and personal care items were found in Riley House. Certainly, the Seilings recall that they never saw any of Mr. Riley’s personal items in the guestroom when they stayed overnight. [ 126 ] I find, on all of the admissible evidence, that Mr.

Riley kept clothing, personal items and medication both at the Riley House and also at Ms. Martin’s residence, consistent with his need to facilitate his overnight stays at both places. This factor does not speak against Ms. Martin’s case. [ 127 ] Kelvin Riley says that his father did travel back and forth between Ms. Martin’s home and Riley House and that after 1997 the parties’ relationship resumed. [ 128 ] Kelvin Riley says that Mr.

Riley did his own yard work and took pride in his place. “It was his place,” says Kelvin Riley, and his father “loved to burn fires to be a pest to his neighbours and shoot beavers from the porch.” [ 129 ] These statements do not inevitably, or logically, lead only to the conclusion that there was no interdependent adult relationship between Ms. Martin and Mr. Riley. These statements are confirmatory, however, of Ms. Martin’s evidence that that Mr. Riley craved solitude, from time to time. Ms. Martin agrees that Mr. Riley would retreat to Riley House “when he wanted some time and space for himself.” [ 130 ] Ms.

Martin says that it was she who made the medical appointments, and it was she who made the accounting appointments, did Mr. Riley’s books for tax purposes, attended to GST issue and dealt with credit card issues. Ms. Martin says that Mr. Riley was her primary caregiver during a series of surgeries she underwent, spanning 2005-2011. Similarly, Ms. Martin says she was Mr. Riley’s primary caregiver after he had a heart attack.

They went to one another’s medical appointments [ 131 ] Having considered the totality of the evidence, I prefer the evidence of the Pilgrims, the Seilings, Lisa Martin and Ben Vanden Brink, all of which evidence corroborates Ms. Martin’s claim that she and Mr. Riley lived for 36 years in an exclusive relationship and for a continuous period of not less than three years preceding Mr. Riley’s death. [ 132 ] I have given little weight to Wendy Park Ramage’s evidence since her observations seem to relate to the mid-1990s, before Riley House was built in 1997. [ 133 ] In

summary, I find that the collective evidence of the respondents does not substantially diminish the weight of the preferred evidence because, simply put, the respondents were not personally involved in the intimate life of their father, or Ms. Martin, and were not privy to the workings of the relationship in the same manner, and to the same degree, as the couple’s longstanding, close friends, and longstanding legal confidante. VII. Conclusion [ 134 ] The 36 year relationship between Ms. Martin and Mr.

Riley developed and evolved over time, and their relationship had features different than other adult interdependent relationships. [ 135 ] Ms. Martin has discharged the onus upon her and I am satisfied that at the time of Mr. Riley’s death on 1 December 2011, Ms. Martin was in an adult interdependent relationship with Mr. Riley and had been for a continuous period of not less than three years prior to his death. [ 136 ] I was not asked to decide what ought to be adequate provision for Ms. Martin from Mr. Riley’s estate. [ 137 ] Ms. Martin has been successful and is entitled to her costs.

If costs cannot be agreed, the parties may provide brief written submissions as soon as conveniently possible but no later than 45 days from the date of these Reasons for Judgment.

Heard on the 5 th day of November, 2014. Dated at the City of Red Deer, Alberta this 28 th day of November, 2014. F.L. Schutz J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Leonidas S. (Loney) Ziakris for Ms. Martin Corey L. Gish for the Participating Respondents