Rockey v Hartwell, 2016 ABQB 438

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rockey v Hartwell, 2016 ABQB 438 Date: 20160830 Docket: FL10 05406 Registry: Red Deer Between: Megan-Joy Rockey Applicant - and - Mark Hartwell Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice G.A. Campbell _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff Megan-Joy Rockey and the Defendant Mark Hartwell had a relationship that lasted from the summer of 2004 until it ended in October 2014. Ms. Rockey commenced this action seeking 50% of the assets acquired by Mr.

Hartwell during the course of their relationship on the ground of the unjust enrichment of Mr. Hartwell. Ms. Rockey also claims that she and Mr. Hartwell were adult interdependent partners (“AIPs”), entitling her to retroactive and ongoing AIP support. THE RELEVANT FACTS [ 2 ] There was confusion as to the relevant dates. I believe that I have pieced together the correct timeline from the oral and documentary evidence including the Agreed Statement of Facts presented to me. [ 3 ] The parties first met in May of 2003 while working for the same company, Spartek Systems Inc, in Red Deer, Alberta. At the time, Ms.

Rockey was 19 years old and living with her parents in Sylvan Lake. Ms. Rockey had graduated from high school with a GED but had not obtained her high school diploma. Mr. Hartwell was 24 years old and living in a home he owned in Gull Lake, Alberta that he later shared with his friend, Stephen Snelgrove. In 2002, Mr. Hartwell graduated as a mechanical engineer from the University of

Alberta. [ 4 ] In the summer of 2004, the parties began dating and spending a considerable amount of time together. A romantic and intimate relationship was developing between them. That same year, the parties spent their first Christmas together, splitting their time between their respective parents’ residences in Wetaskiwin and Stony Plain. Until December 2013, the parties spent every Christmas together, either abroad or with their families, splitting their holiday time between their respective families. [ 5 ] In 2005, Ms. Rockey and Mr. Hartwell commenced new employment with Canada Tech Corporation. Ms.

Rockey worked as a purchasing agent and Mr. Hartwell as a junior mechanical engineer. In the summer of 2005, the parties travelled to Ontario to visit Mr. Hartwell’s extended family. Until their separation, the parties spent approximately every second summer visiting Mr. Hartwell’s family in Ontario. [ 6 ] That same year, Mr. Hartwell began looking for a home to purchase in Sylvan Lake, Alberta. Ms. Rockey accompanied Mr. Hartwell to view prospective homes. Mr. Hartwell’s friend, Stephen Snelgrove, also toured prospective homes with Mr. Hartwell. Mr.

Hartwell’s reasons for purchasing a new home was to live in a home that was closer to his work and to find a home that he could improve and eventually resell at a profit. Both Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Snelgrove testified that the intention was that both he and Mr. Snelgrove would reside together in the new home, with Mr. Snelgrove continuing to pay him rent. [ 7 ] In August 2005, Mr. Hartwell purchased a home located on Fenwood Close in Sylvan Lake, Alberta (the “Fenwood Home”). The Fenwood Home had been viewed by Ms. Rockey but was not the home she would have chosen to purchase. [ 8 ] Mr.

Hartwell paid $185,000 for the Fenwood Home using money he had saved (it was a minimal down payment) and the proceeds from a mortgage he obtained. The title to the Fenwood Home was registered in his name alone. While Ms. Rockey may have voiced her opinion as to which house to purchase, the evidence is clear that Mr. Hartwell alone made the decision to purchase the Fenwood Home and the Fenwood Home was not purchased for the purpose of residing in it with Ms. Rockey. [ 9 ] Immediately after its purchase, Mr. Hartwell and Mr. Snelgrove moved into the Fenwood Home, with Mr. Hartwell living upstairs and Mr.

Snelgrove living in the basement. Mr. Snelgrove resided continuously in the Fenwood Home until he moved out in October 2012. Mr. Snelgrove paid rent to Mr. Hartwell of about $450 per month and he paid the monthly internet and satellite dish utilities. [ 10 ] During the time they resided together at the Fenwood Home, both Mr. Hartwell and Mr. Snelgrove testified that there was no formal division of labour and that each would clean up after themselves and make their own meals. There were times when they would eat together and share the cooking. Each did their own laundry. As it worked out, Mr.

Snelgrove primarily mowed the lawn and Mr. Hartwell did most of the vacuuming. Each party bought groceries as needed that they shared, although more expensive items, such as meat, were generally consumed by the party that bought it. [ 11 ] After moving into the Fenwood Home, Mr. Hartwell made some improvements to the basement. Both Mr. Hartwell and Mr. Snelgrove testified that together they completed the drywall and the flooring in the basement. Mr.

Hartwell testified that he also laid some tiling at the basement entrance and in the laundry room and that he painted and finished the trim and baseboards throughout the basement. Mr. Hartwell hired a contractor to complete the ceiling drywall. [ 12 ] Ms. Rockey testified that she assisted Mr. Hartwell with some of the improvements he made to the Fenwood Home. She said that she helped Mr. Hartwell with some of the painting and tile work that was completed in the basement. Mr. Hartwell testified that Ms. Rockey did not help him at all with the improvements made to the Fenwood Home basement. [ 13 ] I prefer Ms.

Rockey’s testimony on this point. I find that Ms. Rockey assisted Mr. Hartwell with some of the painting and tile work that was completed to the basement in the Fenwood Home. However, the improvements made to the Fenwood Home were made prior to Ms. Rockey moving into the Fenwood Home. [ 14 ] I find that Ms. Rockey had no involvement in Mr. Hartwell’s decision to purchase the Fenwood Home. I also find that Ms.

Rockey made no financial contribution to its initial purchase, the ongoing mortgage payments, the property taxes, the utilities, except cable and internet for one year, or to any improvement costs incurred for the Fenwood Home. [ 15 ] Mr. Hartwell estimates that the Fenwood Home’s current value is about $300,000. The mortgage balance is approximately $73,000. Thus, the equity in the Fenwood Home as at date of trial was approximately $230,000. [ 16 ] In January 2006, Ms. Rockey started taking courses at Red Deer College for the purpose of upgrading her high school marks for entrance to university. Ms.

Rockey’s aspiration at the time was to obtain a university degree that would enable her to facilitate the opening of medical clinics in third world countries. While she was attending Red Deer College, Ms. Rockey worked reduced hours with her employer, Canada Tech Corporation. [ 17 ] In approximately June 2006, Ms. Rockey moved into the Fenwood Home and she and Mr. Hartwell began living together. Ms. Rockey brought with her a bed, a dresser, a TV and CD player. At the time, Mr. Hartwell’s cousin Ben was also living in the Fenwood Home.

Ben lived at the Fenwood Home for the four summer months that year before returning to school. He paid rent and bought groceries. [ 18 ] Ms. Rockey testified that she moved in with Mr. Hartwell because the parties had planned to marry. Their relationship was conjugal. They slept together in the master bedroom bed and had sexual relations. Ms. Rockey moved her personal clothing into the master bedroom closet. [ 19 ] Ms.

Rockey testified that during their relationship, she did most of the housework, which included cleaning, laundry, some meal preparation, shopping for groceries and occasionally mowing the lawn and shoveling the walks. Ms. Rockey said that in the early years she also paid for some of the groceries and cleaning supplies for the home. Ms. Rockey acknowledged that Mr. Snelgrove washed

dishes, vacuumed and looked after most of the outdoor work, such as lawn mowing and snow shoveling. [ 20 ] Mr. Hartwell testified that there was no formal division of labour between he and Ms. Rockey in respect of domestic duties undertaken at the Fenwood Home. Mr. Hartwell described his house care arrangement with Ms. Rockey as a flexible, informal one that was very similar to the arrangement he and Mr. Snelgrove had while living together. He testified that he and Ms. Rockey would tidy up after themselves and clean when necessary.

He testified that he did his own laundry, most of the vacuuming and 95% of the outside work. Mr. Hartwell testified that generally each of he, Mr. Snelgrove and Ms. Rockey would cook their own meals, and that there was no formal supper time when the three of them would sit down and eat together. They often did not eat together. Mr. Hartwell said that there were times when Ms. Rockey would cook for him, times when he would cook for Ms. Rockey, and times when they would share the cooking. [ 21 ] Mr.

Snelgrove testified that there was a very informal division of labour while he was residing in the Fenwood Home, with the three of them sharing in the household duties. Mr. Snelgrove confirmed that he helped Mr. Hartwell with the renovations that were done to the basement of the Fenwood Home. [ 22 ] I find that, during the time Mr. Snelgrove resided in the Fenwood Home, there existed a very informal division of labour within the Fenwood Home, with the three residents sharing the domestic duties carried on inside and outside the Fenwood Home. I further find that Ms. Rockey and Mr.

Hartwell shared in the preparation of their meals, often cooking their own meals. [ 23 ] The evidence established that during much of the time Ms. Rockey lived in the Fenwood Home, there was another person besides Mr. Hartwell living there as well. As discussed earlier, Mr. Snelgrove lived in the Fenwood Home from August 2005 until October 2012. Mr. Hartwell’s cousin, Ben, lived at the Fenwood Home for four months during the summer of 2006. Mr. Hartwell’s cousins, Evan, Dave, and Julia, lived in the Fenwood Home, each for a few months but at different times.

They would pay rent and buy groceries. [ 24 ] In 2007, Mr. Hartwell started a business (the “Business’’) with three other individuals. Mr. Hartwell holds 25% of the shares of the Business and is its president. The Business designs, manufactures and sells product exclusively for use by service and production companies in the oil and gas industry. Mr. Hartwell is responsible for sales and marketing. [ 25 ] Mr. Hartwell said that Ms. Rockey had no involvement in the formation or ongoing business operations of the Business. [ 26 ] Mr.

Hartwell testified that the Business’s revenues since May 2015 have declined significantly as a result of declining oil and gas prices in Alberta. Mr. Hartwell’s monthly income fluctuated as it was dependent on whether bonuses were paid. His monthly income for January to May 2015 was: January $100,000 February $62,500 March $62,500 April $120,000 May $100,000 [ 27 ] Commencing in June 2015 to the date of trial, Mr. Hartwell received a monthly income of $12,500. Mr. Hartwell testified that his reduced monthly income was a result of the Business’s declined revenue. [ 28 ] During the summer of 2007, Ms.

Rockey worked full-time as a meter reader for ATCO Gas in Red Deer. [ 29 ] In the fall of 2007, Ms. Rockey commenced her studies towards a Bachelor of Health Sciences at the University of Calgary. Mr. Hartwell was neither consulted nor involved in Ms. Rockey’s decision to pursue post-secondary education studies. [ 30 ] Ms. Rockey lived in Calgary and attended the University of Calgary for the fall and winter sessions for each of the years 2007 through to 2011. [ 31 ] After finishing her first year of university in April or May 2008, Ms. Rockey returned to the Fenwood Home for the summer.

She found summer employment working as a meter reader for ATCO Gas from May to the end of August 2008. [ 32 ] In September of 2008, Ms. Rockey returned to Calgary to begin her second year of studies at the University of Calgary. Ms. Rockey lived with Mr. Hartwell’s cousin, Lauren, in Lauren’s apartment. Ms. Rockey paid rent to Lauren and bought her own groceries. [ 33 ] In 2009, Ms. Rockey and Mr. Hartwell began experiencing strains in their relationship and separated. When she finished university that spring, Ms. Rockey moved into her parents’ home in Wetaskiwin. That summer Ms.

Rockey worked for ATCO Gas in Ponoka. [ 34 ] Despite their physical separation, Ms. Rockey testified that she and Mr. Hartwell spent a lot time together that summer. She said they went on camping trips and on dinner and movie dates. Mr. Hartwell recalled them spending some time together but that it was very limited and sporadic. [ 35 ] In September 2009, Ms. Rockey returned to Calgary to begin her third year of studies at the University of Calgary. Ms. Rockey rented an apartment in the Kensington area of Calgary, which she shared with a roommate. During the fall of the 2009, the parties reconciled.

That Christmas, the parties travelled to Australia where they spent three weeks. [ 36 ] In March 2010, Ms. Rockey, who had obtained her National Lifeguard Certificate and Assistant Water Safety Instructor,

started working part-time at the Sylvan Lake Aquatic Centre as a water safety instructor and lifeguard on her weekends off from school. Ms. Rockey testified that she would work every Saturday from approximately seven in the morning until one or two the afternoon and sometimes on the Sunday. [ 37 ] In May of 2010, Ms. Rockey returned to the Fenwood Home for the summer. Ms. Rockey continued her employment at Sylvan Lake Aquatic Centre but with increased hours, often working up to 32 hours per week. [ 38 ] In the summer of 2010, Mr. Hartwell proposed marriage to Ms.

Rockey and she accepted his proposal of marriage and engagement ring. The parties had many discussions about their wedding but no formal date was ever set for the wedding. [ 39 ] In September 2010, Ms. Rockey returned to Calgary to begin her fourth year of studies at the University of Calgary. Ms. Rockey lived in a rental accommodation that she shared with two roommates. [ 40 ] In March 2011, Ms. Rockey started working part-time as a lifeguard at the University of Calgary Aquatic Centre.

She was eventually promoted to head lifeguard, a position she held until she quit in December 2011. [ 41 ] From May through August 2011, Ms. Rockey continued to take courses at the University of Calgary and live in Calgary. She took one course in the spring session and one course in the summer session. [ 42 ] Ms. Rockey testified that she enrolled in spring and summer session so that she would complete all but one of the requisite courses to complete her degree by the end of August 2011. Ms. Rockey testified that she did this to appease Mr. Hartwell who did not want her residing in Calgary any longer. Mr.

Hartwell had been pressuring her to move back to Sylvan Lake to live full-time with him. Ms. Rockey testified that Mr. Hartwell told her that if she did not return to Sylvan Lake full-time, he would not continue their relationship. [ 43 ] Mr. Hartwell acknowledged that he had told Ms. Rockey that he wanted her to return to Sylvan Lake so that they could have a normal relationship as a couple. He believed that their long-distance relationship was suffering and would not continue if Ms. Rockey remained in Calgary. [ 44 ] Ms.

Rockey testified that she would have likely pursued a Master’s Degree after completing her undergraduate program, had she not returned to Sylvan Lake. Ms. Rockey did not elaborate as to what Master’s Degree she would have pursued at that time. [ 45 ] I find that in response to Mr. Hartwell’s ultimatum, Ms. Rockey decided to take spring and summer sessions in Calgary, which would allow her to move back to Sylvan Lake by the fall of 2011, where she could complete her undergraduate program. Without the ultimatum, Ms.

Rockey would likely have continued to complete her undergraduate program in Calgary for the 2011/2012 fall and winter session. I find that Ms. Rockey was not in a position to pursue a Master’s Degree in the 2011/2012 fall and winter session. [ 46 ] In October 2011, Ms. Rockey, who was residing with friends, advised them that she would be leaving the apartment that month to return to live at the Fenwood Home. That month, Ms. Rockey moved most of her belongings back into the Fenwood Home.

However, she continued travelling back to Calgary to take her shifts at the University of Calgary Aquatic Centre until mid-December 2011. Ms. Rockey’s record of employment states that her last day worked with the University of Calgary Aquatic Centre was December 16, 2011. [ 47 ] I find that Ms. Rockey moved back to the Fenwood Home to live there permanently sometime in October 2011. [ 48 ] In late 2011, Ms. Rockey completed her last course for her degree through Athabasca University rather than at the University of Calgary. [ 49 ] Ms.

Rockey obtained student loans and worked during the summer months to finance her university education. After 2010, Ms. Rockey also earned income from her part-time positions with the Sylvan Lake and University of Calgary Aquatic Centres. Mr. Hartwell provided no financial assistance to Ms. Rockey to fund her university studies although he may have paid for one course. [ 50 ] The evidence of the parties was in conflict on the subject of the amount time that Ms. Rockey spent in Sylvan Lake at the Fenwood Home during the years she attended university in Calgary. [ 51 ] Ms.

Rockey testified that she never considered Calgary her home and would return to the Fenwood Home in Sylvan Lake whenever she could, which was most weekends and all school breaks. Many of her personal belongings remained in the Fenwood Home. Ms. Rockey testified that Mr. Hartwell would also come and visit her in Calgary. [ 52 ] Mr. Hartwell testified that Ms. Rockey would return to the Fenwood Home for many weekends but not every weekend.

He said that her weekend visits declined over time as she became more involved with her studies and activities in Calgary, particularly after she obtained employment at the University of Calgary Aquatic Centre. [ 53 ] Ms. Rockey’s friends who testified recalled Ms. Rockey travelling home most but not every weekend. Mr. Snelgrove also confirmed that while Ms. Rockey was attending university in Calgary she returned to the Fenwood Home on most weekends. [ 54 ] There is no question that Ms. Rockey lived in Sylvan Lake at the Fenwood Home with Mr.

Hartwell for the four months during her summer breaks from university, with the exception of the summers of 2009 and 2011. I am satisfied from the evidence that while they were together Ms. Rockey spent the majority of weekends and most school breaks living with Mr. Hartwell at the Fenwood Home. [ 55 ] In 2012, after completing her course work for her Bachelor’s Degree in Health Sciences, Ms. Rockey applied for related jobs in Calgary and Central Alberta.

[ 56 ] In February 2012, Mr. Hartwell arranged for Ms. Rockey to be added as a dependent under his Blue Cross health care policy. Ms. Rocky was taken off Mr. Hartwell’s Blue Cross policy after she secured employment with Alberta Health Services (“AHS”). [ 57 ] In 2012, Ms. Rockey also travelled to Europe with a girlfriend where she spent two weeks in Italy and France. [ 58 ] In April 2012, Ms. Rockey obtained part-time employment with AHS as a data analyst and research assistant at the Bariatric Specialty Clinic, Red Deer Regional Hospital. She was paid $28.80 per hour for 20 hours each week.

On her AHS Employee Status Form application Ms. Rockey’s marital status was recorded as “Single”, her emergency contact was stated to be her mother, Zoe Rockey, and her home address given was that of the Fenwood Home. [ 59 ] In 2012, Mr. Hartwell began looking for another property to purchase in the area. In June of 2012, Mr. Hartwell purchased a lot in Norglenwold, Alberta. He intended to build a new home on the lot for the parties to move into, get married and eventually have children (the “Norglenwold Home”). Mr. Hartwell paid $200,000 for the half acre lot. Ms.

Rockey had no involvement in the decision to purchase the Norglenwold Home and contributed no funds to its purchase. [ 60 ] Mr. Hartwell worked with an architect friend to come up with the plans for the home that he intended to build. Ms. Rockey had little input into the design of the Norglenwold Home, although her input was sought on some of the design features for the master bedroom. [ 61 ] Ms. Rockey testified that she was not interested in helping with the planning or construction of the Norglenwold Home because her name was not on its title and Mr.

Hartwell had not asked for her input into the home’s design. [ 62 ] Ms. Rockey’s former friend, Rehanna Ghany, testified that she and Ms. Rockey had discussed the Norglenwold Home. Ms. Ghany confirmed that Ms. Rockey was upset that Mr. Hartwell had excluded her from the planning and construction of the Norglenwold Home. Ms. Ghany confirmed that, as result, Ms. Rockey had no interest in having any involvement with the Norglenwold Home. [ 63 ] In the summer of 2013, Mr. Hartwell commenced construction of the Norglenwold Home. [ 64 ] Mr. Hartwell has spent approximately $550,000 building the Norglenwold Home.

At trial, the Norglenwold Home is substantially complete and is currently Mr. Hartwell’s residence. Mr. Hartwell estimates that it will take a further $50,000 to complete the Norglenwold Home. Ms. Rockey contributed no funds to the construction of the Norglenwold Home. [ 65 ] Mr. Hartwell, his father, uncle and his other family members and friends have all helped with the construction of the Norglenwold Home. Ms. Rockey’s family did not assist with any of the construction. [ 66 ] Mr. Hartwell testified that Ms. Rockey spent perhaps eight hours helping with the construction of the Norglenwold Home.

He recalled her helping with unloading insulation from his truck on one occasion, pulling wires on another occasion and helping a group of them put up the vapour barrier. Mr. Hartwell said that while Ms. Rockey might have accompanied him on a trip to IKEA to look at kitchen cabinets, she would not know which cabinets had been installed in the Norglenwold Home. [ 67 ] Ms. Rockey testified that she helped Mr. Hartwell with his construction of the Norglenwold Home. In addition, to the work identified by Mr. Hartwell, Ms.

Rockey testified that she was the one who contacted TELUS to arrange for someone to come out to install the telephone lines at the Norglenwold Home and sourced some information for the installation of the sewer or gas line from ATCO. Ms. Rockey conceded that other than the few telephone calls, she had no further involvement with either TELUS or the gas or sewer line. It was Mr. Hatwell who completed the dealings with TELUS and for the gas or sewer line. [ 68 ] I find that Ms. Rockey had very little involvement in the planning and construction of the Norglenwold Home. I accept Mr. Hartwell’s evidence that Ms.

Rockey may have spent 8 to 10 hours assisting with the construction of the Norglenwold Home, in addition to the time she spent contacting TELUS and sourcing information in relation to the gas or sewer line. [ 69 ] In October 2012, Mr. Hartwell purchased a used 2006 BMW vehicle for approximately $14,000 as a combination birthday/graduation/Christmas gift for Ms. Rockey. Ms. Rockey sold the BMW in 2013 for approximately $13,000. She used the proceeds to purchase another used vehicle and pay some of her credit card debt. Mr. Hartwell was not involved in Ms.

Rockey’s decision to sell the BMW or her decision to purchase the replacement vehicle. [ 70 ] The evidence is clear that Ms. Rockey told Mr. Hartwell that she wanted Mr. Snelgrove to move out of the Fenwood Home because she wanted some privacy and alone time with Mr. Hartwell. Mr. Hartwell acceded to her request. In October 2012, Mr. Snelgrove moved out of the Fenwood Home. [ 71 ] Mr. Hartwell testified that the arrangement that existed between the three of them regarding division of domestic duties around the Fenwood Home did not change significantly after Mr. Snelgrove moved out of Fenwood Home in 2012. Ms.

Rockey testified that she continued to carry out most of the housework, such as cleaning, laundry, some meal preparation, shopping for groceries. [ 72 ] Friends and family testified that they observed both parties cooking and cleaning on occasion, although they could not speak to the parties’ daily or even weekly household routines. [ 73 ] Robert Hartwell, Mr. Hartwell’s father, testified to his observations during his stays at the Fenwood Home.

In 2013 and 2014, Robert Hartwell resided at the Fenwood Home almost every week from Monday morning to Friday night and some weekends once he became involved in the construction of the Norglenwold. Home. Robert Hartwell said that during this time he and Mr. Hartwell often ate their meals out or ate meals that Mr. Hartwell’s mother had made. Robert Hartwell said that he observed no formal supper time during which the couple would sit down and eat a meal together. It seemed to Robert Hartwell that for most of the time everyone was making their own meals to eat. Robert Hartwell said that Mr. Hartwell and Ms.

Rockey always seemed to be busy with working and outside activities and that he rarely saw them eating together. Robert Hartwell said that Ms. Rockey was often not there when he was at the Fenwood Home.

[ 74 ] In the spring of 2014, Mr. Hartwell’s Uncle John Schrieber assisted with the construction of the Norglenwold. Home. He described the couple as putting in a team effort in carrying out duties around the Fenwood Home such as the cooking and grocery shopping. Mr. Schrieber said that he saw Ms. Rockey cleaning once when she offered to show him how to use a steam mop. Mr. Schrieber noticed that Ms.

Rockey was quite busy, often stopping in at the Fenwood Home for a short time between her job at the hospital and her evening shift at the Sylvan Aquatic Centre. [ 75 ] I find that the parties shared in carrying out the household chores at the Fenwood Home. It appears that Ms. Rockey performed more of the housework duties than did Mr. Hartwell and Mr. Hartwell performed more of the exterior yard care work than did Ms. Rockey. Both remained responsible for their own laundry. I find that Ms. Rockey did most of the grocery shopping and purchased most of the groceries.

Both shared in cooking meals for each other and often prepared their own meals. [ 76 ] In October 2012, Ms. Rockey secured a full-time data analyst and research position with AHS. Ms. Rockey earned an annual salary of approximately $56,000. [ 77 ] With Mr. Snelgrove moving out and no longer paying rent or the cable and internet utilities and Ms. Rockey then working full-time, Mr. Hartwell asked Ms. Rockey to be responsible for paying the monthly cable and internet utility bill. Ms.

Rockey paid the Shaw cable and internet utility bill for the Fenwood Home for approximately one year from June 2013 until September 2014. The total amount she paid for these utilities was approximately $3,100. [ 78 ] Ms. Rockey also used her earnings to purchase most of the groceries for the household. For a six-month period, from July 2013 through to December 2013, Ms. Rockey also paid for a cleaning service to come in and clean the Fenwood Home twice a month. Ms. Rockey paid a total of approximately $815 for the cleaning service. [ 79 ] That Christmas, Ms. Rockey and Mr.

Hartwell travelled to Australia. [ 80 ] During her employment with AHS, Ms. Rockey also took online courses through the University of Alberta and the University of Western Ontario. [ 81 ] In 2013, Ms. Rockey started seeing a relationship counsellor and asked Mr. Hartwell to attend couples’ therapy with her. Mr. Hartwell said that the counsellor gave Ms. Rockey the task of cooking one meal each week for the two of them and Mr. Hartwell was to help Ms. Rockey with the purchase of a new vehicle. Mr. Hartwell said that Ms. Rockey did not fulfil her task. Mr.

Hartwell said that he did not fulfil his assignment because Ms. Rockey had gone with her father and purchased the new vehicle. [ 82 ] Ms. Rockey says that as a result of counselling she has come to realize that Mr. Hartwell had been emotionally abusive to her for years. Ms. Rockey testified her counsellor has diagnosed her as having Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Mr. Hartwell denies being emotionally abusive to Ms. Rockey although he concedes that he has said some unkind words to her. [ 83 ] Mr. Hartwell testified that Ms. Rockey had also engaged in bad behavior toward him. Mr.

Hartwell’s cousin testified to a time when Ms. Rockey slapped Mr. Hartwell across the face in front of her and other family members because Mr. Hartwell would not pay for Ms. Rockey to travel to Texas with him. [ 84 ] I accept that there were times when both parties engaged in unkind behaviour towards each other. I also accept that Ms. Rockey felt emotionally abused by Mr. Hartwell and that she sought counselling as a result. I also accept that Mr. Hartwell felt mistreated by Ms. Rockey. [ 85 ] By early 2014 the parties’ relationship was further deteriorating. [ 86 ] In January 2014, Ms.

Rockey had elective PRK eye surgery for which she paid approximately $3,000 from her own money. After her surgery, Ms. Rockey resided at her parents’ home in Wetaskiwin while she recuperated. Ms. Rockey suffered complications from her eye surgery that required her to take time off work. [ 87 ] In April 2014, Ms. Rockey quit her position with AHS. [ 88 ] There is conflicting evidence as to why Ms. Rockey did this. [ 89 ] Ms. Rockey said she quit because she was suffering from the anxiety and stress of her relationship with Mr. Hartwell and from the high expectations required of her at work. Mr.

Hartwell suggested it may have had to do with the performance issues Ms. Rockey was having at work. Ms. Ghany testified that she had suggested to Ms. Rockey that given her issues with her work supervisors, Ms. Rockey might want to quit before she was fired. Ms. Ghany candidly stated that she did not know if Ms. Rockey had followed her advice. [ 90 ] Shortly thereafter, Ms. Rockey told Mr. Hartwell that she intended to return to university to pursue a Master’s Degree in Psychology. Ms. Rockey testified that her work with AHS had prompted her interest in pursuing a career as a psychologist.

This decision required Ms. Rockey to take some courses at Red Deer College for her to meet the prerequisites for admission to a Master’s Program in Psychology. [ 91 ] Mr. Hartwell was neither consulted nor involved in Ms. Rockey’s decision to return to university to pursue a Master’s Degree. Mr. Hartwell did not pay for any costs associated with the education upgrading undertaken by Ms. Rockey. [ 92 ] In September 2014, the parties agreed to terminate their relationship. Mr. Hartwell asked Ms. Rockey to move out of the Fenwood Home. Ms.

Rockey began searching for alternate accommodation. [ 93 ] On October 1, 2014, Mr. Hartwell held a birthday party for Ms. Rockey, which was attended by many of their friends. Many of their friends did not know that the couple had decided to separate.

[94] A couple of weeks later, on October 17, 2014, Ms. Rockey moved out of the Fenwood Home she was sharing with Mr.Hartwell and into rented premises. Ms. Rockey testified that she believed at the time that she and Mr. Hartwell would resolve theirdifferences and reconcile in a few months. There was no reconciliation. [95] After the termination of their relationship, Mr. Hartwell agreed to Ms. Rockey’s request to provide her with financialassistance. Mr. Hartwell provided Ms.

Rockey with $2,500 in each of October, November 2014 and January 2015, $2,900 in February,2015 and $2,500 in May, 2015. [96] On June 3, 2015, a court order (the “June 2015 Partner Support Order”) was issued that ordered Mr. Hartwell to pay, on an“Interim Without Prejudice” basis, partner support to Ms. Rockey in the amount of $5,000 per month. As of trial, Mr. Hartwell had paidthis support up to and including March 2015. [97] In the fall of 2015, Ms. Rockey commenced her studies toward a Master’s Degree in Psychology at the University ofLethbridge. Ms.

Rockey testified that it will take her a total of four years to become employed as a certified Registered Psychologist,which includes approximately one year of supervised experience and one year to obtain employment. [98] Ms. Rockey provided a budget in which she estimates her monthly expenses will be approximately $8,100. [99] Ms. Rockey’s income tax returns disclose that she had an income of $37,842 in 2012, $60,111 for 2013 and $31,075 for 2014. [100] Ms. Rockey stated her marital status as single on all of her income tax returns. Mr. Hartwell prepared Ms.

Rockey’s income taxreturns up until the 2012 taxation year. Ms. Rockey also stated that she was single on her application for student loans and in her AHSjob application. Ms. Rockey testified that Mr. Hartwell advised her to do this for her student loan application as she may not have beeneligible for a student loan if Mr. Hartwell’s financial position was considered. [101] During their time together, there was no comingling of money between Mr. Hartwell and Ms. Rockey. There were no joint bankaccounts or joint credit cards. Mr. Hartwell designated someone else and not Ms.

Rockey as the beneficiary of his registered retirementsavings plan (“RRSP”). [102] Other than for the brief period in 2012, neither party were on each other health benefits plans. [103] While they were together, the parties spent most of their spare time together. They were active playing on the same baseballteam, hiking, and enjoying watersports together. They entertained friends in their home and attended friends and family events together. [104] The evidence is clear that Mr. Hartwell spent more of his money on their joint activities, such as traveling.

The parties travelledquite extensively during their time together. They travelled three times to Mexico, and once to each of Australia, Brazil, Hawaii, Europe,Guatemala, Las Vegas and Houston. Other than Ms. Rockey paying for her airfare to Brazil and reimbursing Mr. Hartwell $700 for a tripto Mexico to attend one of her friend’s wedding, Mr. Hartwell paid for the majority of the costs for Ms. Rockey to travel with him. Ms.Rockey paid for some of the meals and used her money for her personal spending while travelling abroad with Mr. Hartwell. [105] Mr. Hartwell also bought Ms.

Rockey gifts of clothing, her engagement ring and the BMW vehicle. Ms. Rockey lived rent-freein the Fenwood Home. THE LENGTH OF COHABITATION [106] The length of the parties’ cohabitation is a relevant consideration to both the unjust enrichment and AIP support issues. [107] The Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, SA 2002 c A-4.5 (“AIRA”) defines an AIP as a person living with another person ina relationship of interdependence for a continuous period of not less than three years. [108] Mr. Hartwell argues as a threshold issue that he and Ms.

Rockey never cohabitated continuously for a period of three years.Therefore, Ms. Rockey is not an AIP. [109] Ms. Rockey argues that she and Mr. Hartwell had cohabitated continuously for a period in excess of 10 years. [110] The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that while cohabitation is a constituent element of a common law relationship, it is notsynonymous with co-residence.

Depending on the circumstances, two people may be found to be cohabiting even though they do not liveunder the same roof; conversely, two people may be found not to be cohabiting, even though they are living under the same roof: Hodgev Canada (Minister of Human Resource Development), 2004 SCC 65 ; 2004 SCC 65. The fact of one party maintaining aseparate residence does not preclude a finding that the parties are cohabiting in a relationship of interdependence. Maintaining separateresidences does not necessarily mean that an AIP relationship has not continued: Tait v Westphal, 2013 ABQB 668. [111] Ms.

Rockey and Mr. Hartwell commenced living together in approximately June 2006. [112] Once Ms. Rockey commenced her university studies in Calgary she spent her weekdays in Calgary and maintained a separateresidence while she attended university. [113] However, that separation did not affect the continuation of the parties’ personal relationship. Ms. Rockey spent most weekendsand school breaks, other than the summer of 2009 and December of 2014, in Sylvan Lake, where she resided with Mr. Hartwell in theFenwood Home.

The parties continued to sleep together, have sexual relations, eat together, buy each other gifts, send each other cardsand spend a lot of their free time together. Ms. Rockey kept some of her personal belongings at the Fenwood Home throughout their timetogether. Ms. Rockey continued to purchase groceries from time to time and assisted with some of the household duties. They celebratedspecial occasions together. They visited each other’s families and friends and were seen as a couple.

[114] Although they kept their financial affairs separate and maintained separate residences during the school year until Ms. Rockeymoved to Sylvan Lake permanently in 2011, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that Mr. Hartwell and Ms. Rockey lived togethercontinuously from June of 2006, which was a period of eight years. In any event, the evidence is clear that the parties, at the very least,continuously cohabited from October 2011 to October 2014, which was a period of at least three years. I so find. THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIM [115] Ms. Rockey claims that Mr.

Hartwell was unjustly enriched as a result of contributions she made to the household in which theycohabited in a domestic relationship. She claims that she and Mr. Hartwell were engaged in a family joint venture entitling her to receiveone-half of all of the property amassed by Mr. Hartwell during their relationship and retained by him. Mr. Hartwell denies that he wasunjustly enriched. A. Property Rights for Domestic Cohabiting Partners [116] Alberta law distinguishes between married spouses and domestic cohabiting partners. When a marriage ends, the MatrimonialProperty Act, RSA 2000, c.

M-8 (the “MPA”) provides legally married spouses with a statutory right to division of all property ownedby both spouses and by each of them. Subject to certain defined exemptions, and in the absence of agreement, presumptively there willbe an equal division of the property acquired by the spouses during the marriage, unless the Court determines that an equal distributionwould not be just and equitable.

The statutory right to share in a division of property acquired during a marriage is available only tolegally married spouses. [117] As will be discussed later, while the AIRA creates certain legal rights for domestic cohabiting partners, it provides them with noproperty division rights. There is no presumed entitlement to property sharing in a common-law relationship. [118] The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that legislation providing for the division of property for married but not common-lawspouses was not discriminatory: Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Walsh, 2002 SCC 83 .

Bastarache J., speaking for themajority, described the implications for property rights that flow from the freedom of choice, that is, to marry or not marry, as follows (atparas 49 and 50): Unmarried cohabitants,…maintain their respective proprietary rights and interests throughout the duration of their relationship and at itsend. These couples are free to marry, enter into domestic contracts, to own property jointly.

In short, if they so choose, they are able toaccess all of the benefits extended to married couples under the MPA.… The MPA, then, can be viewed as creating a shared property regime that is tailored to persons who have taken a mutual positive step toinvoke it. Conversely, it excludes from its ambit those persons who have not taken such a step.

This requirement of consensus, be itthrough marriage or registration of a domestic partnership, enhances rather than diminishes respect for the autonomy and self-determination of unmarried cohabitants and their ability to live in relationships of their own design.… [119] Thus, the parties’ choice not to marry affects how their property dispute is resolved. Ms. Rockey presumptively has no statutoryright to a distributive share of any of the property acquired by Mr. Hartwell during the time they were together. Ms.

Rockey, as anunmarried cohabitant, must establish that this is a case of unjust enrichment entitling her to the division of property she seeks. B. Applicable Legal Principles for Unjust Enrichment Claims [120] There is a plethora of jurisprudence surrounding the issue of unjust enrichment. As evident from the case law provided by theparties, each case is not easily reconcilable with the other. This is because every cohabiting couple’s circumstances are different. Notsurprisingly, each case is decided on its own facts. [121] The Supreme Court of Canada in its seminal decision in Kerr v.

Baranow, 2011 SCC 10 269 [Kerr] provided guidanceon how a court is to assess claims for unjust enrichment in the context of the end of a domestic relationship between unmarried persons.The Supreme Court clarified that to grant a remedy for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must establish the presence of three elements: 1) An enrichment or benefit received by the defendant; 2) A corresponding deprivation to the plaintiff; and 3) No juristic reason for the enrichment. [122] Accordingly, to succeed on a claim for unjust enrichment, the three facts of enrichment, deprivation, and absence of juristicreason for the enrichment, must be established. [123] If it is established that it is a case of unjust enrichment, the court next assesses whether there are any reasons to deny the unjustenrichment claim. [124] If it cannot be demonstrated that there is a reason to deny the claim for unjust enrichment, the court then determines theremedy.

The court assesses whether the circumstances support a monetary award or a proprietary award, and if so, determines thequantification of the award. [125] In determining the first two elements as to whether there has been an enrichment and corresponding deprivation, the court

applies a straightforward economic analysis. The court considers whether the plaintiff has proven that he or she gave something to thedefendant which the defendant received and retained. The contribution need not be monetary. The benefit can be positive or negative.The benefit can be in the form of something that was provided to the defendant or something that relieved the defendant of an expense.However, the benefit must be tangible: Kerr at para 38. [126] The plaintiff must then demonstrate that he or she has suffered a deprivation that corresponded with the enrichment to thedefendant.

It must be shown that the plaintiff’s loss was material because the defendant’s benefit was at the expense of the plaintiff: Kerrat para 39. [127] The third element requires the court to consider whether there is any juristic reason for the benefit and corresponding detriment.That is, if there is no reason in law or justice for the defendant to retain the benefit bestowed by the plaintiff, then its retention is “unjust”in the circumstances and the defendant should not be able to keep that benefit: Kerr at para 40. [128] The Supreme Court of Canada provided a two-step analysis for courts to use in determining whether there is an absence of ajuristic reason: Garland vs Consumer’s Gas Co, 2004 SCC 25 .

The first step is to determine whether there is a juristic reasonfor the enrichment which falls within an established legal category, such as a contract, gift, disposition, or any other common law orequitable statutory obligation. The second step is for the court to consider the reasonable expectations of the parties and if there is someother reason to deny unjust enrichment.

This could include any public policy reasons or potential new categories that would provide ajuristic reason for the enrichment. [129] Remedies for unjust enrichment are intended to “… require the defendant to repay or reverse the unjustified enrichment”: Kerrat para 46.

While a plaintiff may be entitled to a monetary or proprietary remedy, in most cases, a monetary award is generally sufficientand is the remedy that should be considered first: Kerr at para 47. [130] A defendant who has been unjustly enriched may be required to pay a monetary remedy calculated on the basis of the “valuereceived” method (quantum merit or fee for service) or the “value survived” method (joint family venture). [131] The calculation of what would be an appropriate monetary remedy is often complicated in domestic claims for unjustenrichment where there has been a mutual conferral of benefits and as such, both parties contributions must be evaluated in order to fairlydetermine the appropriate remedy.

Furthermore, practical difficulties may arise in attempting to place a value on all the services eachperson has provided to the other over the course of their relationship: Kerr at paras 48-49.

In such cases, it may be more appropriate toconsider the overall increase in the couples’ wealth accumulated over the course of the relationship rather than the monetary value ofservices provided by each person: Kerr at para 49. [132] In cases in which the unjust enrichment arises from one party retaining a disproportionate share of assets resulting from a jointfamily venture where both parties had contributed to the overall accumulation of wealth, the monetary remedy should be calculated onthe basis of the share of those assets which is proportionate to the plaintiff’s contribution.

In such cases, there is a link between the“value received” and the “value surviving”: Kerr at para 60.

A monetary remedy calculated on this basis requires a finding that thecouple was engaged in a joint family venture and there is a link between the plaintiff’s contributions to the joint venture and the wealthgenerated: Kerr at paras 81 and100. [133] In assessing a money remedy, Courts are guided by the following considerations (Kerr at paras 7, and 81): [7] … where both parties have worked together for the common good, with each making extensive, but different, contributions to thewelfare of the other and, as a result, have accumulated assets, the money remedy for unjust enrichment should reflect that reality.

Themoney remedy in those circumstances should not be based on a minute totting up of the give and take of daily domestic life, but rathershould treat the claimant as a co-venturer, not as the hired help. ... [81] In such cases, the basis of the unjust enrichment is the retention of an inappropriately disproportionate amount of wealth by oneparty when the parties have been engaged in a joint family venture and there is a clear link between the claimant’s contributions to thejoint venture and the accumulation of wealth.

Irrespective of the status of legal title to particular assets, the parties in those circumstancesare realistically viewed as “creating wealth in a common enterprise that will assist in sustaining their relationship, their well-being andtheir family life” (McCamus, at p. 366). The wealth created during the period of cohabitation will be treated as the fruit of their domesticand financial relationship, though not necessarily by the parties in equal measure. Since the spouses are domestic and financial partners,there is no need for “duelling quantum meruits”.

In such cases, the unjust enrichment is understood to arise because the party who leavesthe relationship with a disproportionate share of the wealth is denying to the claimant a reasonable share of the wealth accumulated inthe course of the relationship through their joint efforts. The monetary award for unjust enrichment should be assessed by determiningthe proportionate contribution of the claimant to the accumulation of the wealth. [134] A family joint venture will not be presumed.

In determining whether an unmarried couple has organized their life in a domesticpartnership or joint family venture, the court should consider the evidence of its existence by using the following four concepts set out inKerr at paras 87-99: (

a) Mutual Effort: involves the parties working collaboratively towards a common goal or goals, which may be identified by thepooling of effort and team work, joint contributions and pooling of resources. (

b) Economic Integration: is the degree of independence and integration that characterizes the relationship such as joint bankaccounts, sharing of expenses, and prioritizing the family unit over individual interests. (

c) Actual Intent: is the actual intention of the parties as expressed or manifested by their conduct; and (

d) Priority of the Family: is the extent to which the parties have given priority to their family in their decision-making, the

focus being on their respective contributions to domestic and financial partnership and on sacrifices made by them. [ 135 ] A proprietary remedy might be ordered in circumstances where a monetary remedy is inappropriate or insufficient: Kerr at para 50 . In a case where the plaintiff shows that there is a substantial direct link or causal connection between his or her contributions and the acquisition, preservation, maintenance, or improvement of certain property, a constructive trust might be impressed for the plaintiff in proportionate to the extent of his or her contribution on that specific property: Kerr at paras 53 . C. Was Mr. Hartwell Unjustly Enriched? (

i) The Parties’ Positions [ 136 ] Ms. Rockey claims that the relationship she had with Mr. Hartwell was a joint family venture and their joint efforts led to an accumulation of wealth, but Mr. Hartwell retains a disproportionate share of the assets. Ms. Rockey claims that Mr. Hartwell has been unjustly enriched at her expense and there is no juristic reason for him to retain that enrichment. [ 137 ] Mr. Hartwell disputes that he and Ms. Rockey were engaged in any joint family venture but contends that Ms. Rockey did nothing of substance that freed up Mr.

Hartwell to spend more time at the Business, constructing the Norglenwold Home or accumulating his overall wealth. Mr. Hartwell argues that Ms. Rockey’s limited contributions were more than compensated by Mr. Hartwell’s provision of gifts, vacations, and free accommodation at the Fenwood Home. (ii) Character of the Parties’ Relationship [ 138 ] The parties’ relationship can be divided into two distinct periods. [ 139 ] The first period is from June 2006 when the parties began cohabiting in the Fenwood Home to October 2011 when Ms. Rockey returned to live in Sylvan Lake full-time (the “First Cohabitation Period”).

The second period is from when Ms. Rockey returned to live in Sylvan Lake full-time at the Fenwood Home in October 2011 to the date of the parties’ separation in October 2014 (the “Second Cohabitation Period”). (

A) First Cohabitation Period [ 140 ] The parties’ evidence differed as to their respective contributions during the First Cohabitation Period. [ 141 ] For the First Cohabitation Period, the evidence gave reason to conclude that there was no formal or expected division of household labour, with Ms. Rockey, Mr. Hartwell and Mr. Snelgrove each sharing in the household chores and the cost of groceries. For the most part, it appears that each party did their own laundry and cooking.

The evidence supports concluding that the men were primarily responsible for the exterior work done to and around the Fenwood Home. [ 142 ] Ms. Rockey and Mr. Hartwell would share meals on occasion, with both contributing to the cooking. There were occasions where Ms. Rockey cooked meals for Mr. Hartwell and occasions when Mr. Hartwell cooked meals for Ms. Rockey. Ms. Rockey cooked meals for special occasions when family and friends attended at the Fenwood Home, but often with the assistance of Mr. Hartwell. [ 143 ] There was no evidence as to the exact amount of time that Ms. Rockey spent under this arrangement.

However, during the First Cohabitation Period, Ms. Rockey was away attending university for a large part of each year, which would have significantly decreased the amount of her contribution to the domestic services she provided to Mr. Hartwell and the amount of groceries she bought for consumption by Mr. Hartwell at the Fenwood Home. [ 144 ] In the result, I find that during the First Cohabitation Period, Ms. Rockey provided some housekeeping services to Mr. Hartwell but she was not primarily responsible for the performance of these duties. I find that given her extended absences from the Fenwood Home, Mr.

Hartwell and Mr. Snelgrove were responsible for the bulk of the domestic duties carried out at the Fenwood Home. [ 145 ] I accept that Ms. Rockey did assist Mr. Hartwell with some of the painting and tiling in the basement of the Fenwood Home. However, by both accounts, it appears to have been a modest effort on her part and occurred prior to her moving in to live in the Fenwood Home and the commencement of the First Cohabitation Period. As discussed earlier, I found that Ms. Rockey played no role in Mr.

Hartwell’s decision to purchase the Fenwood Home and made no financial contribution to its purchase or ongoing expenses. [ 146 ] As to contributions to the Business, there is no dispute that Ms. Rockey carried out Mr. Hartwell’s requests to pick up and deliver parts for the Business between Calgary and Red Deer. The evidence indicates that Ms. Rockey carried out between 8 to 14 deliveries for the Business over the five years she was living in Calgary. The evidence indicates that Ms.

Rockey would make these deliveries at times that were convenient to her and coincided when she was either returning to Calgary or Sylvan Lake. Mr. Hartwell testified that Ms. Rockey was paid her mileage costs by the Business, although she may not have been paid for every trip. I find that Ms. Rockey efforts in making these deliveries was minimal and had little, if any, impact on Mr. Hartwell’s activities in the Business. [ 147 ] During the First Cohabitation Period, the evidence is clear that each party pursued their own independent interests. Ms.

Rockey decided to pursue secondary education on her own initiative without consultation with Mr. Hartwell. To do so, Ms. Rockey resided in Calgary, attending university full-time. Mr. Hartwell decided on his own initiative without consultation with Ms. Rockey to pursue a business venture with three friends. To do so, Mr. Hartwell remained residing in the Fenwood Home in Sylvan Lake pursing the development of the Business. During the summers when Ms. Rockey was not attending school, she worked full-time, keeping the money she earned to pay for her education and for other of her own personal expenses. Mr.

Hartwell continued his work with the Business, using the money he earned for his own purposes. Neither party apparently shared their dreams and aspirations. Mr. Hartwell did not know Ms. Rockey’s ultimate career path. Ms. Rockey had little knowledge of the Business. [ 148 ] The parties did not share bank accounts, investments, property or debts. All property was kept separate and neither had direct or

indirect access to the other’s income. They were not privy to information about each other’s financial position, except to the extent that Mr. Hartwell knew what Ms. Rockey’s annual income was as a result of preparing Ms. Rockey’s income tax returns. [ 149 ] Neither party accounted to the other for his or her expenditures; they spent their money as they saw fit for their own purposes. Other than Mr. Hartwell paying off Ms. Rockey’s credit card on one or two occasions, each party was responsible for their own debts. To do so, Ms.

Rockey took out student loans to finance her university education during the time they cohabited. She made the student loan payments without any financial contribution from Mr. Hartwell, other than when Mr. Hartwell may have paid for one of Ms. Rockey’s courses or for some of her text books. Neither had any say nor financial involvement in the other party’s purchase or sale of major items, such as real estate, homes, vehicles or boats. [ 150 ] I cannot find that during the First Cohabitation Period Mr. Hartwell was enriched to the detriment of Ms. Rockey.

I am satisfied that during this time in their division of domestic services and in the payment of household expenses, the parties contributed in an overall roughly equal way. Mr. Hartwell, as the larger income earner, paid the parties’ household bills, other than the purchases of some groceries by Ms. Rockey. I do not think that Ms. Rockey spent more time than Mr. Hartwell on household duties. At the time, Mr. Snelgrove was also assisting with some of the household duties. While Ms. Rockey was away in Calgary attending university, I would think it reasonable to infer that Mr.

Hartwell carried out more of the household duties than did Ms. Rockey. [ 151 ] Ms. Rockey’s Bachelor of Health Science degree, obtained while Mr. Hartwell worked, has enabled her to significantly increase her income potential from her previous experience as a purchasing agent. While Ms. Rockey provided some modest service to the Business, Ms. Rockey received significant financial benefits from her relationship with Mr.

Hartwell, including the benefit of living in the Fenwood Home rent free, vacation trips and a comfortable lifestyle. [ 152 ] On the totality of the evidence, I find that with their somewhat fractured relationship, the parties’ respective contributions during the First Cohabitation Period were proportional and neither party was unjustly enriched by the contributions of the other. (

B) Second Cohabitation Period [ 153 ] During the Second Cohabitation Period, Ms. Rockey was living full-time at the Fenwood Home. The evidence indicates that the same informal division of household labour continued between the three occupants of the Fenwood Home. However, in October 2012, Mr. Snelgrove moved out of the Fenwood Home. At this time, the evidence indicates that the parties, who were both working full-time, shared domestic household duties around the Fenwood Home but each did their own laundry. The evidence indicates that the parties continued to eat separately a lot of the time.

Robert Hartwell described how it looked to him that the parties did not have a “dinner time” when they would sit down for dinner together. However, John Schrieber described the preparation of meals as a “team effort”. Both parties agreed that Ms. Rockey was the primary grocery purchaser after October 2012, with Mr. Hartwell buying small amounts of groceries from time to time. Commencing in 2013, Ms. Rockey paid for a cleaning service for six months and paid the cable and internet utility bill for approximately one year. [ 154 ] There is no evidence that Ms.

Rockey contributed to any further improvements or work towards the improvement or maintenance of the Fenwood Home. [ 155 ] As to contributions to the planning and construction of the Norglenwold Home during the Second Cohabitation Period, the evidence is clear from many of the witnesses that Ms. Rockey had little to do with the planning and construction of the Norglenwold Home because she was annoyed that her name was not on its title and she had not been consulted on the home’s design. However, in addition to the work identified by Mr. Hartwell, Ms.

Rockey did make arrangements for TELUS to come to the Norglenwold Home and meet with Mr. Hartwell and she spent some time researching and arranging for a sewer or gas company to meet with Mr. Hartwell to set up the sewer or gas lines. I accept Mr. Hartwell’s estimate that Ms. Rockey spent a total of between 8 to 10 hours helping with the construction and that she gave some input into the design of the Norglenwold Home. I find that Ms. Rockey made some contribution to the planning and construction of the Norglenwold Home, but that her contribution was very minimal and had little impact on Mr.

Hartwell’s financing, planning and construction activities he undertook to complete the construction of the Norglenwold Home. [ 156 ] I find that Mr. Hartwell took on sole responsibility for the purchase, financing, planning and construction of the Norglenwold Home, hiring and working with the architect, finalizing the plans, hiring all the trades and constructing large parts of the home himself. Mr. Hartwell paid for all of the costs of construction of the Norglenwold Home. [ 157 ] There is no evidence that Ms. Rockey made any contributions to the Business during the Second Cohabitation Period.

Any courier activity she did for the Business ceased with her attendance at the University of Calgary at the end of the First Cohabitation Period. [ 158 ] Case law establishes that the provision of domestic services can constitute a benefit and a corresponding deprivation for the purposes of considering whether a claim for unjust enrichment is established: Thompson v Williams , 2011 ABQB 311 . [ 159 ] These are not the circumstances of a lengthy common-law relationship during which one party stayed at home and looked after all day-to-day household matters while the other party was able to pursue their own interests, increase their financial position and accumulate wealth. [ 160 ] Nonetheless, Mr.

Hartwell received some benefit as a result of the financial contributions and services provided by Ms. Rockey. The groceries that she purchased, the cable and internet and cleaning services that she paid for, the cooking and housecleaning services that she provided, her input into the planning, and efforts in assisting in the construction, of the Norglenwold Home were tangible economic benefits that Mr. Hartwell received and retained. These financial contributions and services provided by Ms. Rockey, to a certain degree, relieved Mr. Hartwell from the matters attended to by Ms. Rockey.

These were expenses and services that Mr. Hartwell would have had to make and provide them himself or paid others to do so. [ 161 ] Mr. Hartwell was therefore enriched as a result of these financial contributions and services provided by Ms. Rockey.

[ 162 ] The domestic and other services that enriched Mr. Hartwell also corresponded to a deprivation for Ms. Rockey. Paying expenses for the household and buying groceries deprived Ms. Rockey of the money spent. Time spent caring for the home and on the planning and construction activities for the Norglenwold Home deprived Ms. Rockey of time that she might have spent on activities that would have benefited herself solely. [ 163 ] There may be a juristic reason for the enrichment of Mr. Hartwell.

The juristic reason would be either within the established category, “contract” or “gift” or found in the category of residual defences, namely, the mutual reasonable expectations of the parties. This element of “mutual benefit conferral” should be assessed in these circumstances because it might provide relevant evidence of a juristic reason for the enrichment such as reciprocal benefits giving rise to no reasonable expectation of additional compensation for the services. [ 164 ] In this case, there is no evidence that Ms.

Rockey provided the housekeeping and other services and financial contributions as a gift to Mr. Hartwell or under some contract for services of money. Ms. Rockey’s provision of domestic and other services during the course of her intimate relationship with Mr. Hartwell does not provide Mr. Hartwell with a juristic reason to deny Ms. Rockey compensation for her services and money. [ 165 ] “Natural love and affection” given during a relationship does not provide a juristic reason for the enrichment.

On an economic approach, there is no reason to distinguish domestic services from other contributions, because such services are of great value to the family or to the other partner. If the services are unpaid, this constitutes a deprivation: Kerr at para 42 . This is because the law does not oblige Ms. Rockey to perform any work or services for Mr. Hartwell just because they are living together. [ 166 ] I am satisfied that the parties’ relationship was such that there is no juristic reason for Mr. Hartwell’s enrichment. While the arrangements between the parties was not “traditional” in the sense that Ms.

Rockey was not an uncompensated stay-at-home housewife or uncompensated partner in a joint business venture, I find that the benefits that Ms. Rockey did receive would not have completely negated any reasonable expectation she might have for further compensation for the services and monies that she gave to Mr. Hartwell during the Second Cohabitation Period. [ 167 ] Ms. Rockey has established her claim for unjust enrichment of Mr. Hartwell resulting from the domestic and other services and money she provided to him during their Second Cohabitation Period. D. Appropriate Remedy

i) Legal Principles [ 168 ] The determination that Ms. Rockey is owed something for the unjust enrichment of Mr. Hartwell does not mean that she is entitled to share equally in the assets accumulated by Mr. Hartwell during the Second Cohabitation Period or that her efforts had a clear causal connection to the accumulation of the assets or to any proportion of the assets retained by Mr. Hartwell.

The question is what is an appropriate remedy in these circumstances? [ 169 ] In most cases, a monetary award will be the appropriate remedy because the objective is to have the enriched party repay the deprived party for the benefit received unjustly. When assessing the appropriate remedy, the court must decide whether to take a “value received” or a “value survived” approach.

Relevant to this determination is to consider whether the nature of the parties’ relationship was that of a joint family venture. [ 170 ] A finding of a joint family venture suggests an unjust enrichment of one of the parties because while both parties over time contributed to the accumulation of wealth, on the breakdown of the relationship, one party has retained a disproportionate share of the jointly created wealth to the detriment of the other party: Kerr at para 60 . [ 171 ] A joint family venture can only be determined from the evidence of how the parties actually lived their lives together.

As noted earlier, the courts are guided to assess the parties’ living arrangements by reference to four concepts: mutual effort, economic integration, actual intent and priority of the family. None of these concepts consider the nature of the parties’ intimate relationship, whether they were sexual partners or shared a bed. The focus is elsewhere. ii) Joint Family Venture

a) Mutual effort [ 172 ] Mutual effort may exist where the parties are “pooling their resources where one spouse takes on all, or a greater proportion, of the domestic labour, freeing the other spouse from those responsibilities, and enabling him or her to pursue activities in the paid workforce”: Kerr at para 91 . Indicators of collaborative work toward common goals include “the pooling of effort and team work, the decision to have and raise children together”: Kerr at para 90 . [ 173 ] There is very little evidence to support the conclusion that Ms. Rockey and Mr.

Hartwell worked collaboratively towards common goals. In my view, this was not a relationship focused on mutual effort. [ 174 ] While the parties had what would be considered a mid-length intimate relationship of some 8 to 10 years, it is difficult to conclude that they were building a life together as evidenced by “pooling of effort and team work”. [ 175 ] During the Second Cohabitation Period, Ms. Rockey pursued her own career path with AHS, eventually securing full-time employment. Ms.

Rockey also continued her pursuit of further education, taking online courses offered by universities and continued to work part-time as a lifeguard. Ms. Rockey unilaterally and without consultation with Mr. Hartwell quit her position at AHS. Ms. Rockey

unilaterally and without consultation with Mr. Hartwell decided to return to university to pursue a career as a registered psychologist. [ 176 ] During this time, Mr. Hartwell continued working with the Business and constructing the Norglenwold Home. [ 177 ] There was no evidence that Ms. Rockey’s contributions and efforts enabled Mr. Hartwell to pursue his activities with the Business and the Norglenwold Home. There is no evidence that Mr. Hartwell enabled Ms. Rockey in the pursuit of her career at AHS. Both parties worked before, during and after the relationship ended. [ 178 ] Ms.

Rockey was not a stay-at-home mother and she had not assumed all or a greater proportion of the domestic labour, which allowed Mr. Hartwell time to pursue to build up the Business, construct the Norglenwold Home and purchase other assets, only to find on separation that all the assets are in his name. She had not partnered with him in his Business only to find their resultant wealth was in his name alone. [ 179 ] There was no “pooling of effort and team work” in the financing, planning or construction of the Norglenwold Home, a project that Mr. Hartwell embraced personally and one that took up a lot of Mr.

Hartwell’s spare time. Indeed, Ms. Rockey made a conscious decision not to be involved in the Norglenwold Home. [ 180 ] However, there seems to have been some pooling of effort and teamwork with respect to domestic activities undertaken at the Fenwood Home. [ 181 ] Thus, there is some evidence of mutual effort present in this couple’s relationship.

b) Economic integration [ 182 ] The more extensive a couple’s economic integration, the more likely they will be considered to have engaged in a family venture: Kerr at para 92 . [ 183 ] Throughout both the First and Second Cohabitation Periods, there appears to have been very little economic integration between Ms. Rockey and Mr. Hartwell. [ 184 ] As was the case during the First Cohabitation Period, although the parties were devoted to each other and planning to marry, their financial affairs remained separate, with no sharing of bank accounts, investments, property or debts. All property was kept separate.

They were not privy to information about each other’s financial position. Both spent their money as they saw fit and there was no accounting to the other for his or her expenditures. The parties continued to have no financial involvement in the other party’s purchase or sale of major consumer items. Except for a few months between Ms. Rockey’s graduation from university and obtaining full-time employment when Mr. Hartwell put Ms. Rockey on his health care plan, neither named the other as beneficiary on any coverages obtained through their respective employers or otherwise.

They each filed their income tax returns under the status of “single”. Ms. Rockey described herself as “single” on her student loan applications and on her application for employment with AHS. Mr. Hartwell designated his former girlfriend as the beneficiary of his RRSP. [ 185 ] However, there was some economic integration. While incomes, debts, assets and property were separate, the parties did more equally share household expenses for the Fenwood Home. After Ms.

Rockey returned to Sylvan Lake and secured employment, she paid most of the household’s groceries and some of the other expenses, such as the cable and internet bill and the cleaning service. Mr. Hartwell continued to pay the majority of the Fenwood Home household bills. They each shared in the household duties. [ 186 ] Thus, each party was primarily responsible for certain areas of expenditure, with each contributing to their joint living expenses. In this way, their finances were integrated and there was some degree of economic dependency.

The parties divided the household expenses and household duties for their mutual benefit. Ms. Rockey was financially dependent on Mr. Hartwell to pay for her housing costs and Mr. Hartwell was financially dependent on Ms. Rockey to pay for their groceries, internet and some cleaning and carry out the housekeeping that she did. This was not a case where each party was solely responsible for all of his or her own expenses. [ 187 ] Thus there is some evidence of economic integration in this relationship.

c) Actual Intent [ 188 ] Intention may be expressed or inferred from conduct. [ 189 ] Mr. Hartwell testified that he did not consider the parties to be “a married couple”. He told Ms. Rockey that she was responsible for providing for herself. Ms. Rockey testified that she was irked that Mr. Hartwell expected her to work and that she expected that once they were married he would take care of her. However, while Ms. Rockey and Mr. Hartwell were engaged to be married, they chose not to get married. [ 190 ] There is no evidence that the parties explicitly discussed any intention that Ms.

Rockey would be compensated for her contribution if they separated or that she would be entitled to share in any of the assets accumulated by Mr. Hartwell during their cohabitation. The evidence indicates that there no discussions about future expectations other than at one time it was expected that the parties would eventually marry and have children and, at that time, Ms. Rockey would work part-time. [ 191 ] Mr. Hartwell was clear that his intention was that his finances and assets were to be separate from Ms. Rockey’s finances and assets. He did not provide for Ms.

Rockey’s financial support during their cohabitation and had no intention to do so. Title to both the Fenwood Home and later, to Ms. Rockey’s dismay, the Norglenwold Home, were registered solely in the name of Mr. Hartwell. The parties did not have a joint bank account and titles to vehicles and boats were registered in their respective names. The parties’ failure to register any assets in joint names would seem to evidence that there was no intention to share in their respective cohabitation assets.

[ 192 ] As discussed earlier, Mr. Hartwell had not named Ms. Rockey as a beneficiary of his RRSP or his health insurance (except for an interim period) and the parties’ respective income tax returns described their status as “single”. I accept that Mr. Hartwell completed Ms. Rockey’s tax returns for many years and it was he that decided their status. I can only find that these acts are consistent with Mr. Hartwell’s view of their status. [ 193 ] Ms. Rockey testified that she was advised by Mr.

Hartwell to describe herself as single on her student loan applications because she might not get funding if his financial position was considered. Ms. Rockey apparently followed Mr. Hartwell’s advice and described herself as “single” in each year’s student loan application, presumably because she knew that she was responsible for funding her education. Ms. Rockey also described herself or led the AHS human resource personnel to consider her status as “single” as reflected in her AHS’s job application. Ms.

Rockey’s actions suggest that she too considered herself “single”. [ 194 ] There is little indication that the parties intended that their relationship was such that they were in engaged in a joint family venture with both working towards the accumulation of family wealth.

d) Priority of the family [ 195 ] Relevant to the question of whether the parties were engaged in a joint family venture is “whether there has been in some sense detrimental reliance on the relationship, by one or both of the parties, for the sake of the family”: Kerr at para 98 . [ 196 ] In assessing this factor, the Court should consider financial sacrifices made by the parties for the welfare of the collective or family unit and whether the parties fell into the traditional division of breadwinner and homemaker.

A joint family venture may be identified where one party encourages the other to leave or delay entry into the workforce or defer or forego career opportunities for the benefit of the family life, and the breakdown of the relationship leaves the party in a worse position than they would otherwise have been had they not acted in this way to their economic detriment”: Kerr at para 99 . [ 197 ] While the parties had no children, they were engaged to be married. According to witnesses, they were seen as a couple, a family unit. The parties themselves appeared to treat each other as if they were a couple.

They spent a lot of their leisure time together, playing on the same baseball team, hiking, boating, and entertaining friends. They attended some 13 weddings together as a couple. They travelled frequently together on nice vacations. Mr. Hartwell subsidized Ms. Rockey’s trips with him without any expectation of a repayment. He gave her many gifts, including the used BMW vehicle. According to pictures and other witnesses, the couple enjoyed spending time together as a couple. [ 198 ] The evidence does support a finding that Ms. Rockey and Mr. Hartwell were living as a family unit following Ms.

Rockey’s return to Sylvan Lake in 2011 after receiving Mr. Hartwell’s ultimatum. In the fall of 2012, Mr. Hartwell acceded to Ms. Rockey’s request that Mr. Snelgrove move out of the Fenwood Home so that it would just be the two of them living together in the Fenwood Home. The parties lived together in the Fenwood Home, sharing most of the domestic duties and contributing what they had agreed on to their monthly expenses for running the Fenwood Home.

e) Conclusion [ 199 ] Many aspects of the parties’ relationship are not consistent with a joint family venture. [ 200 ] However, as is not uncommon, the nature of the parties’ relationship evolved over time. During the Second Cohabitation Period, they became more than mere roommates with benefits who were sharing expenses. They became engaged to be married. Mr. Snelgrove moved out of the Fenwood Home. The parties then shared the Fenwood Home jointly together. They were, and were seen by their family and friends as a common law couple.

While they were not as economically integrated as is the case in many common law and spousal relationships, I am satisfied that they were engaged in a form of joint family venture with respect to some but not all of their assets. iii) Link to Accumulation of Assets [ 201 ] The primary assets of the parties during the Second Cohabitation Period consisted of the following assets, all of which were registered in Mr. Hartwell’s name alone: Fenwood Home Norglenwold Home 2001 Jetta vehicle 2001 Mastercraft boat 2009 Ford F-150 Money in a Savings Account RRSP 25% of the shares of the Business

[ 202 ] Some of these assets were acquired prior to the Second Cohabitation Period such as the Fenwood Home, 25 % of the shares of the Business, some of the money in the savings account, the vehicles and the boat. No values were provided for these assets at the date of their acquisition. Mr. Hartwell provided a Statement of Income, Assets and Liabilities as at June 1, 2015, which provided his value of these assets. [ 203 ] Ms. Rockey has no direct claim to any of the assets accumulated by Mr. Hartwell as she contributed no money to any of these assets’ acquisitions. However, the case law suggests that there is no requirement to demon

[…]