Ross v Doehl, 2021 ABQB 1020

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Ross v Doehl, 2021 ABQB 1020 Date: 20211223 Docket: FL01 31475 Registry: Calgary Between: Douglas Robert Ross, also known as Doug Ross Applicant - and - Gregory Scott Doehl, also known as Greg Doehl Respondent _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice C.M. Jones _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] The Plaintiff, Douglas Ross (“Ross”), and the Defendant, Gregory Doehl (“Doehl”), had some kind of relationship from 1993 to 2017.

Ross claims that he and Doehl were adult interdependent partners. He seeks partner support. [ 2 ] Doehl denies that the two were adult interdependent partners. Accordingly, this case requires the Court to determine the nature of the parties’ relationship with reference to the criteria set out in the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, SA 2002, c A-4.5 (the “ AIRA ”), as considered in the jurisprudence. II. AIRA [ 3 ] The relevant portions of section 3(1) of the AIRA provide that: …a person is an 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… [ 4 ] Section 1(1) (

f) of the AIRA provides that: “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 [5] The AIRA does not give any specifics regarding (

i) or (ii) above but does provide some guidance for determining whetherparties function as an economic and domestic unit. Section 1(2) states: In determining whether 2 persons function as an economic and domestic unit for the purposes of subsection (1)(f)(iii), all thecircumstances 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. [6] The case law affords some assistance in applying these criteria. Perhaps most importantly, the Court must take into accountall the circumstances of the relationship and no one factor is determinative: Kiernan v Stach Estate, 2009 ABQB 150 and Rockey vHartwell, 2016 ABQB 438. [7] The factors listed in section 1(2) relate only to whether the parties had a relationship of interdependence, not to whether theylived together: Prykhodco v Anderson, 2021 ABQB 192.

Moreover, maintaining separate houses does not preclude finding an adultinterdependent relationship: Tait v Westpal, 2013 ABQB 668 and Rockey. [8] The length of the relationship is a relevant factor (Howard v Sandau, 2008 ABQB 34), but a brief cooling-off period doesnot bring a relationship to an end (Charles v Young, 2013 ABQB 632). [9] There needs to be flexibility in determining whether parties live together in a conjugal relationship.

Given the variety ofrelationships and living arrangements, a mechanical bright line test is not possible: Stephen v Stawecki, (2006) (ONCA), 32 RFL (6th) 282 (ONCA). [10] Other provisions of the AIRA also are relevant in this case. Section 5(2) provides that: A married person cannot become an adult interdependent partner while living with his or her spouse. [11] Section 10(1)(

b) provides that: Unless another enactment provides otherwise, an adult interdependent partner becomes the former adult interdependent partner ofanother person when the earliest of the following occurs: ... (

b) the adult interdependent partners live separate and apart for more than one year and one or both of the adult interdependentpartners intend that the adult interdependent relationship not continue; [12]

Section 11 provides that: A person who alleges in a court proceeding that the person is in or was in an adult interdependent relationship has the onus of provingthe existence of the relationship. [13] As the applicant for partner support, Ross must prove the existence of an adult interdependent relationship. To do this, hemust establish on a balance of probabilities that: (

a) He and Doehl lived together for a continuous period of not less than 3 years; (

b) During that 3-year period: (

i) They shared each other’s lives; (ii) They were emotionally committed; and (iii) They functioned as an economic and domestic unit. See Desnoyers Estate v Desnoyers, 2020 ABQB 120 at para 36.

III. Background [ 14 ] Manifestly, the facts of this case will be critical to determining whether the parties had an adult interdependent relationship that permits Ross to apply for partner support. I will lay out at this point a somewhat abbreviated chronology of the parties’ history and will consider further details in respect of the various criteria. Doehl’s counsel helpfully analyzed the parties’ interactions with reference to specific time periods and I adopt portions of her chosen convention for purposes of my analysis.

A. 1991 to 1997 [ 15 ] Ross and Doehl met in a bar in Saskatoon sometime in 1991 and engaged in sexual relations the evening they met. Ross was an electrician and Doehl worked in his family’s trucking business. [ 16 ] Ross says they developed a committed relationship over the year following their first encounter. He claims that Doehl began spending the majority of his evenings in Ross’ home and says that the parties would go to movies, have dinner together and venture out together. [ 17 ] Doehl tells a different story. He claims to have been a workaholic.

His evidence is that the parties would meet at bars for dinner and drinks and retire to Ross’ residence for sex. He characterizes the relationship as intermittent and sexually convenient. [ 18 ] At that time, Doehl was married with two young children. He continued to reside with his wife and children until 1993 or 1994 when they moved out. He and his wife divorced in 1995. This is relevant because section 5(2) of the AIRA provides that a person cannot become an adult interdependent partner while living with his or her spouse.

Therefore, the period from 1991 to 1994 cannot count toward the length of the alleged adult interdependent relationship between Ross and Doehl. [ 19 ] Ross testified that he believed the party’s relationship was monogamous at this time. Doehl claims to have had sexual relations with at least one other person during this time. Ross asserts that, even before Doehl’s divorce in 1995, he was spending most of his non- working time in Ross’ house. B. 1997 to 2001 [ 20 ] In 1997, Doehl moved to Calgary in connection with his family’s business.

At first, he rented an apartment, but in about 1998, he purchased a residence (the “Whitehorn Property”). Ross continued to own a residence in Saskatoon. [ 21 ] Ross claims that he would visit Doehl in Calgary, spending three or four days at a time at the Whitehorn Property. He claims that he slept in Doehl’s bed. [ 22 ] In the spring of 1999, Ross moved to Calgary. He took up residence at the Whitehorn Property, but also bought an acreage in his own name (the “Acreage”). Ross claims that the parties pooled their furnishings, choosing what to keep and what to discard.

Doehl admits only that Ross brought some of his personal property to the Whitehorn Property. [ 23 ] Ross claims that during this period, the parties were living together as partners. Doehl claims they were roommates and merely exploring the possibility of a further relationship. He notes that he allowed others to live at the Whitehorn Property for various periods of time during this interval, including his sister, his son, his niece and two friends.

However, with the exception of one other person, Ross appears to be the only occupant of the Whitehorn Property with whom Doehl had sex on a regular basis. [ 24 ] Further, the evidence establishes that, while the parties were living together in the Whitehorn Property, Ross did not pay rent and Doehl paid all of the parties’ expenses, including the cost of groceries, housekeeping and dining out. C. 2001 [ 25 ] On June 15, 2001, the parties entered an into agreement entitled “Cohabitation Agreement” (the “Agreement”).

The first recital of the Agreement states as follows: WHEREAS Doehl and Ross have resided together as life partners since February, 1999 [Emphasis added] [ 26 ] Doehl’s evidence was that his family pushed him to enter into the Agreement because they were worried that Ross might acquire rights with respect to Doehl’s interest in the family business. He asserts that the Agreement evidences an intention that the parties were and would remain financially separate.

However, the Agreement merely addresses claims against each other’s property and does not purport to prohibit either party from claiming support in the event the relationship ended. [ 27 ] Doehl did not, in testimony or in written argument, explain what the term “life partners” might mean, if it was intended to mean something other than that the parties were in a committed relationship. D. 2005 [ 28 ] In 2005, Doehl entered a 59-day residential treatment program for alcohol and drug addiction.

Doehl’s family asked Ross not to attend at the treatment facility, but he claims to have attended the facility’s alumni functions as Doehl’s partner. E. 2006

[ 29 ] There seems to be no dispute that Ross had a hoarding disorder. Doehl claims that he told Ross in 2006 he could no longer live at the Whitehorn Property because of this affliction. He claims that he had Ross’ hoard moved out of the Whitehorn Property and dumped at the Acreage and that he and Ross were not in communication for at least a year and a half thereafter. Ross denies that the parties were not in communication during this period.

F. 2008 [ 30 ] In 2008, Ross had been staying with his mother in the Crowsnest Pass area when he was arrested and charged with impaired driving and failing to appear in Court. He spent 45 days in jail. [ 31 ] Doehl claims that the parties re-established contact only after Ross’ arrest. Ross moved into the Whitehorn Property following his release from custody. G. 2012 [ 32 ] In 2012, the Acreage was in danger of foreclosure.

Ross’ brother Gordon and his sister Maureen previously had lent him money to assist with his financial difficulties, but by the time foreclosure proceedings were commenced, they had had enough. Gordon’s evidence was that he and Maureen were no longer willing to lend money and that Doehl should address Ross’ financial challenges, given their relationship. [ 33 ] Doehl found out about the foreclosure from Maureen. He bought the Acreage and subsequently resold it. However, Ross was not allowed to keep the net sale proceeds after his debts were discharged.

Instead, Doehl took an assignment of the net sale proceeds and it appears that he applied some of them to discharge Ross’ debt to Maureen. [ 34 ] Doehl’s evidence was that he and Ross were not in contact for 1-½ years or more before the foreclosure. He claims he acquired the Acreage not to relieve Ross of his financial difficulties, but because he thought he could renovate it and rent it out. Nevertheless, he allowed Ross to have use and occupation of the Acreage while it was being cleaned and renovated.

H. 2014 to 2017 [ 35 ] In 2014, Doehl’s family business was sold, significantly improving his financial position. [ 36 ] In April 2014, Doehl purchased a residential property outside Calgary (the “Grand Valley Property”). Ross claims that excess proceeds from the sale of the Acreage were applied to the purchase of the Grand Valley Property.

He also asserts that the parties investigated the purchase of the Grand Valley Property together and that Doehl told him that it would be their new home. [ 37 ] Doehl acknowledged that Ross was present during the planning and construction of the additions to the Grand Valley Property. He attended meetings to discuss the renovations and reviewed the blue prints. [ 38 ] The parties moved into the Grand Valley Property on July 7, 2014. Unlike the Whitehorn Property, nobody else ever lived there.

Ross claims that, as with the other residences they occupied together, he slept in the same bedroom with Doehl and that they shared a bed. Doehl confirmed that this was the case at the Grand Valley Property. [ 39 ] Ross’ evidence is that, as with the Whitehorn Property, Doehl paid all of the expenses at the Grand Valley Property, including groceries. Doehl did not contradict this. Even though Ross had little or no employment during this period, he was not expected to take on housekeeping tasks. Rather, Doehl did most of the cooking and hired a housekeeper.

Ross claims that, when the parties were living at Whitehorn Property, he cut the lawn and built planters and fountains. At the Grand Valley Property, he constructed planters and dog houses. [ 40 ] Doehl also purchased recreational vehicles that the parties used, as well as the required insurance. [ 41 ] In or around 2014, the parties attended meetings with Doehl’s financial planner. Ross’ evidence was that these meetings were held in the context of the parties being life partners.

Doehl acknowledged that he arranged these meetings because he was, at that time, pursuing what he referred to a committed relationship with Ross. Ross testified that Doehl’s accountant prepared tax returns for the two of them and that, for at least three years, the parties’ returns stated that they were common law partners. He did not tender those tax returns in evidence, but Doehl did not contradict Ross’ evidence. [ 42 ] Both parties testified that the sale of Doehl’s family business and the resulting change in Doehl’s financial situation prompted him to seek revisions to the Agreement.

Doehl testified that his receipt of a large sum of money heightened his concerns about exposure to claims from Ross. [ 43 ] Ross’ understanding was that the Agreement could not be located. He refused to execute the revised agreement Doehl presented to him. [ 44 ] Ross testified that, in June 2017, Doehl told him not to return to the Grand Valley Property after attending a doctor’s appointment. He acknowledges that the police had to remove him when he ventured back to the Grand Valley Property. He claims he left his personal property there because he thought the parties would be getting back together.

He thought they were still working on their relationship, even though he was prohibited from attending at the Grand Valley Property. [ 45 ] Ross claims the parties visited an “arbitrator” to discuss getting back together. He acknowledged that Doehl insisted Ross get treatment for his hoarding disorder. Ross did not seek treatment and the parties did not get back together.

IV. Analysis [46] As set out above, the AIRA requires the Court to determine whether the parties lived together for a continuous period of notless than three years, shared one another’s lives, were emotionally committed to one another and functioned as an economic anddomestic unit. A. Live Together for a Continuous Period of Not Less than Three Years [47] I note first that whether parties live together as roommates or as a conjugal couple is irrelevant for purposes of this first step inthe analysis under the AIRA. [48] Second, I note that the term “lived together” is not defined in the AIRA.

It is not clear on the face of the statute whether, forinstance, parties can live together for purposes of the AIRA if, for a period of time, they maintain separate residences. It is not clearwhether the presence of one party’s personal effects in the other party’s residence suggests “living together”. [49] In my view, parties do not necessarily have to live in the same residence to be said to be living together. There could be anynumber of reasons why parties choose to or must occupy separate residences. For example, their work may require them to reside indifferent cities.

One of them may need to reside in a care facility. The term “lived together” is ambiguous and does not account for suchexigencies. As the case law reminds me, I must take account of the parties’ individual circumstances in conducting this analysis. [50] In this case, the parties moved into the Grand Valley Property on July 7, 2014. There is some inconsistency in Doehl’s writtensubmissions. At one point, he asserts that the relationship ended on June 20, 2017 and that Ross moved out that day.

Later, however, heasserts that he forced Ross to move out of the Grand Valley Property on July 20, 2017. [51] Thus, Doehl’s submission is that the period of cohabitation at the Grand Valley Property was either just shy of three years orjust over three years. In my view, nothing turns on resolving this discrepancy as I find that the parties were living together prior to themove to the Grand Valley Property. [52] The Acreage was sold before Doehl purchased the Grand Valley Property and Ross lived at the Whitehorn Property duringthis intervening period.

Therefore, I find that the parties lived together for a continuous period of not less than three years and this firstcriterion is met. The nature of their relationship, however, requires further consideration. B. Economic and Domestic Unit [53] While the AIRA puts this criterion third in the definition of “relationship of interdependence”, I find it convenient to considerfirst the factors enumerated for assessing whether parties functioned as an economic and domestic unit. 1.

Conjugal Relationship [54] The Court in Kiernan quoted as follows from Sigouin v R (TCC), [2002] 1 CTC 2596 at para 11: The tests for a conjugal relationship are normally cohabitation and conjugal conduct. That conduct may be determined through sexualrelations, emotional and intellectual exchange, financial support and common knowledge. [55] I find the parties had a conjugal relationship. In addition to cohabiting and engaging in a long-term sexual relationship, theyattended social and family events together, contemplated couples counselling and renovated a home. 2.

Exclusivity [56] Doehl claims that there was no expectation of exclusivity, fidelity or monogamy between the parties. He continued over theyears to have sex with Ross and described him as a “safe haven”, but also had sexual relationships with other men. None of these othermen was called as a witness, though Doehl’s daughter and his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor, Ken Joiner, testified to these otherrelationships.

Ross, however, testified that he was unaware of other relationships and thought the parties’ relationship was exclusive. [57] While I accept Doehl’s evidence that he had other sexual liaisons, I find that they were unknown to Ross. Ross thought theparties had an exclusive relationship and Doehl did nothing to disabuse him of that belief.

To be blunt, Doehl is not the first individual toengage in sexual activities unbeknownst to a partner who was committed to them. [58] Faced now with a claim for support, Doehl raises his other sexual encounters in support of his assertion that the parties werenot in an exclusive relationship. In my view, that is analogous to a long-married individual asserting that because he or she hadundisclosed extra-marital affairs, the parties were not in an exclusive relationship for purposes of assessing liability for spousal support. [59] That cannot be a permissible result.

Undisclosed sexual liaisons with other persons cannot, by itself, be allowed to disqualifythe relationship as one of interdependence. 3. Household Activities and Living Arrangements [60] Ross claims that Doehl asked him to move to Calgary and that they lived together as a couple from 2000 until 2017. Doehlacknowledges that he invited Ross to move to Calgary to live with him at the Whitehorn Property, but claims that he was not ready tomake a commitment and that Ross was only a roommate.

[ 61 ] Ross’ evidence is that the parties shared a bedroom. Doehl’s evidence is that they did not, except for sex. Joiner lived at the Whitehorn Property during two periods, 2010-2011 and 2012-2013. His evidence was that Ross had his own bedroom during these periods. He further testified that there were times when Ross did not live at the Whitehorn Property or have any contact with Doehl at all. Gordon Ross and his partner, Richard Côté, testified that the parties shared a bedroom. [ 62 ] In my view, not much turns on this.

People in committed relationships sometimes choose, for any number of reasons, to sleep in separate bedrooms. Further, with other people, including Doehl’s children, living in the Whitehorn Property at various times, the parties may have wished to be less overt about their relationship. [ 63 ] Doehl argues that the parties’ living situation was unpredictable and inconsistent. He contends that only some of Ross’ possessions were moved from Saskatchewan to the Whitehorn Property and that Ross bought the Acreage because he needed a place to store his hoard.

He makes much of the fact that Ross maintained the Acreage as a separate residence from 1999 until 2012. He claims the parties would spend several weeks together and then be apart for months. Ross’ evidence was that he lived at the Acreage only occasionally and for brief periods, less than a week at a time, when he was working on his cars or tending to his hoard. [ 64 ] Doehl attempts to portray the Acreage as a separate residence that illustrates a lack of permanence and commitment in the parties’ relationship. I disagree.

I do not believe that Ross bought the Acreage so he could live separate and apart from Doehl. Rather, I believe he bought it because Doehl would not let him store his hoard at the Whitehorn Property. [ 65 ] It is clear to me that the Acreage was a safe location where Ross could accumulate his hoard without overtly provoking Doehl’s aversion to this behaviour. Rather than interfering with the parties’ relationship, the availability of the Acreage as a refuge for Ross enhanced it by taking pressure off the parties.

I am satisfied that while Ross was at the Acreage, he was nevertheless in contact with Doehl, with the possible exception of the period immediately prior to foreclosure. [ 66 ] Inconsistent and unpredictable living arrangements are not necessarily antithetical to a committed relationship. Parties to a committed relationship may have parental care responsibilities that necessitate their absence. They may be separated by employment or business requirements.

No one would seriously assert that such exigencies are fatal to a committed relationship. [ 67 ] The parties take diametrically opposed positions with respect to household activities. Doehl minimizes Ross’ contribution to the maintenance of a common household, saying that “Ross did not perform any domestic duties, including cleaning, repairs or renovations, preparation of shared meals on a regular basis or completing shared laundry” [Emphasis added].

Ross’ evidence is that he performed domestic chores such as dish washing and cooking for larger events. [ 68 ] I find that Doehl’s choice of the word “shared” to describe meals and laundry duties speaks to some sharing of basic household activities. Both parties confirmed that Doehl hired a housekeeper, making it unnecessary for Ross to undertake some of these routine tasks.

This, to me, does not undermine the interdependence of the parties’ relationship. [ 69 ] Ross testified that the parties travelled together, including trips to Florida, Hawaii and British Columbia where they frequently went to use snow track vehicles. Doehl does not deny taking and paying for these trips, but would have the Court believe that he did so as nothing more than Ross’ roommate. I do not accept that assertion. 4.

Holding Out to Others [ 70 ] In applying this criterion, it is important to account for the fact that the parties were in a same-sex relationship at a time when that potentially exposed them to scorn and rejection. They may not have felt comfortable manifesting their feelings for each other in public contexts in the same manner as a heterosexual couple. Public demonstrations of affection or acknowledgement of the relationship in the workplace potentially could have exposed the parties to unwelcome questioning.

Both parties acknowledged that this was an issue of some significance in the trucking industry in which they both worked. [ 71 ] Ross testified that by 1993, he considered the parties’ relationship to be a marriage, but that gay men were often hesitant in the 1990s to “come out” due concerns over society’s reaction. He claims that until he came out, he introduced Doehl to people as his friend. [ 72 ] Considerable evidence was provided respecting the parties’ interactions with their families. [ 73 ] Doehl claims to have attended Ross family events infrequently.

He did acknowledge that he attended some Ross family Christmas events. He says that the parties “came out” at the Christmas celebration in 2015, when he introduced Ross as his partner. [ 74 ] Ross gave evidence that the parties attended family events together. He provided photos of the two of them at his nephew’s wedding, his sister-in-law’s birthday, a Ross Christmas family function in Fernie, British Columbia and his mother’s birthday.

His evidence was that these events were attended only by “family members”, the implication being that mere friends were not included and, accordingly, that his relationship with Doehl must have been recognized as more than a mere friendship. [ 75 ] Ross testified that he attended as Doehl’s partner at a Doehl family event in Hawaii, though he acknowledged on cross- examination that this was the only trip the parties made with Doehl’s family and that Doehl spent most holidays with his children. [ 76 ] Ross claims that the parties’ respective parents interacted on more than one occasion, including when the parties were living at the Grand Valley Property. [ 77 ] Gordon Ross testified that, between 2000 and 2017, the parties attended a number of Ross family events together, including two of the three significant Ross family events held in Fernie.

He and his mother dined at the parties’ residence and his mother would stay there occasionally. He also stated that the parties took him and his partner Richard Côté to football games. [ 78 ] Doehl acknowledged that he and Ross had dinners with Gordon Ross and Richard Côté both at their home and at Doehl’s home.

[ 79 ] Ross also testified that he attended events sponsored by Doehl’s family business as Doehl’s partner. These events were limited to senior management as well as members of Doehl’s family who were involved with the family business. Ross claims that attendees could not just bring guests along randomly. He would have the Court draw the inference that only significant others were permitted to accompany attendees. [ 80 ] By contrast, Joiner testified that Doehl told him the parties were “roommates” and were not in a relationship. This, of course, is hearsay.

Joiner also claimed that Ross told him that he was only Doehl’s friend and never told him the parties were in a relationship. It is not clear to me what would have motivated Ross to make such a statement and, accordingly, I have some difficulty with Joiner’s recollection in this regard. [ 81 ] Understandably, the parties did not broadcast their relationship to the larger community. They were two gay men at a time when some members of society were openly hostile to such relationships. Nevertheless, I find that their immediate families knew the parties were in a marriage-like relationship.

The parties held themselves out as a domestic unit. Family events, Doehl’s workplace events and their day-to-day living arrangements would have been viewed by third parties as evidence of a domestic unit. That conclusion is inescapable in light of Doehl’s family’s insistence on the finalization of the Agreement. I also find Gordon Ross and Richard Côté to be credible witnesses who, though much of their evidence was hearsay, had sufficient interaction with the parties to assess their relationship realistically. 5. Formalized Obligations [ 82 ] Two points require consideration under this criterion.

First, the parties formalized their legal obligations, intentions and responsibilities in 2001 in the Agreement, which refers to them as “life partners”. In 2017, Doehl advocated revising the Agreement, but Ross appears to have been unhappy with the proposed terms. [ 83 ] I find that Doehl would not have insisted on revising the Agreement had he not been concerned that the parties’ relationship exposed him to potential claims by Ross. [ 84 ] Second, the absence of other formal agreements supports the notion that the parties were in a marriage-like relationship.

Doehl let Ross live in his properties without a lease agreement. He gave Ross money and paid some of Ross’ expenses, such as dental bills, without an employment or loan agreement. The absence of formal agreements reflecting the parties’ financial interactions speaks to a marriage-like, rather than roommate, relationship. [ 85 ] I am somewhat troubled by the fact that Doehl made no provision for Ross in either of the two wills introduced into evidence.

However, once Doehl came into significant personal wealth, he included Ross in discussions about financial planning, though the parties never progressed very far along that path. Doehl claims that he was hoping to be in a relationship with Ross and would have done something for Ross in his will if Ross had agreed to the changes to the Agreement. 6. Direct or Indirect Contributions to Well-Being [ 86 ] Ross claims the parties provided each other with guidance and would discuss issues and problems.

He claims to have assisted Doehl with his daily needs. [ 87 ] Doehl acknowledged that, when Ross was injured in a motorcycle accident, he attended some of Ross’ medical appointments, even joining him in the examining room. He confirmed that he was hoping to have a relationship with Ross and that he cared about Ross’ well being. [ 88 ] At least until 2005, Doehl was struggling with drug and alcohol addiction. Presumably, he has had to work hard since then to remain drug and alcohol free.

I accept Ross’ statement that one of the reasons the parties were in a relationship is that each gave the other something he needed. They provided each other with emotional support. They were there for each other. 7. Financial Interdependence [ 89 ] Ross claims that, until 1998, he was financially independent regardless of his relationship with Doehl. He claims to have worked as an electrician for the same company from 2000 to 2012 and says that he never formally decided not to work. However, he claims never to have made more than $50,000 per annum.

Doehl testified that Ross stopped working for his long-time employer as a result of some disagreement. [ 90 ] Ross bought the Acreage while he was living at the Whitehorn Property. At that time, Doehl was paying the parties’ living expenses, though Ross may have bought some groceries for consumption at the Acreage. [ 91 ] To purchase the Acreage, Ross borrowed money from Gordon, Maureen and his parents. He testified that he paid the mortgage and maintenance costs for the Acreage from his earnings as an electrician and truck driver.

However, I find that the fact that Doehl met most of the parties’ day-to-day living expenses made it possible for Ross to own the Acreage, at least until it went into foreclosure. [ 92 ] Gordon testified that he and Maureen lent substantial sums of money to Ross. He felt that Doehl should be assisting Ross financially because he understood them to be life partners. He indicated that Ross suffered from financial challenges from 1999 to 2017. [ 93 ] Doehl argues that he and Ross maintained their real property interests independent of one another.

He asserts that Ross may have been financially dependent on his brother and sister, but not on him. In my view, the fact that Ross’ brother and sister loaned money to him does not establish that Ross was not financially dependant on Doehl. [ 94 ] Doehl bought the Acreage in 2012 and subsequently resold it. In his words, he was “putting money into Doug”. He allowed

Ross to go onto the Acreage after he bought it because he thought it would be good for Ross’ mental health. He retained control of the sale proceeds and applied at least some of them to Ross’ debts. [ 95 ] Doehl claims not to have known of the imminent foreclosure of the Acreage. He asks the Court to infer that, had the parties been an economic unit, he would have prevented Ross’ debt from becoming so unmanageable that foreclosure became a possibility. That is speculation. [ 96 ] It is uncontroverted that Doehl enjoyed superior financial resources, in part due his family’s business.

He claimed that the parties always had separate financial interests. It is clear to me, however, that at some point in the parties’ relationship, a pattern developed of Doehl paying their expenses. [ 97 ] Doehl provided recreational vehicles for Ross’ use and paid for trips the two of them took. He paid for Ross’ dental work and for physiotherapy he required after his motorcycle accident. He paid for Ross’ life coaching and counselling directed at treating Ross’ hoarding issues.

At some point, the parties filed their tax returns as commonlaw partners. [ 98 ] There was evidence of e-transfers of funds from Doehl to Ross. Ross testified that these were to assist him in paying his credit card bills for such things as gas and groceries. The credit card was in Ross’ name alone. He claims that they were not in exchange for work he did while at the Grand Valley Property, but were instead just funds Doehl gave to him as a spouse.

He characterized them as support by the more financially capable partner in the relationship. [ 99 ] Doehl claims he gave money to Ross for various jobs he did at the Grand Valley Property, but acknowledges that he found excuses to pay Ross for various tasks. [ 100 ] Doehl claimed that, previously, he would not let anyone into his finances but that he relented in 2017 when he and Ross visited with Doehl’s financial advisor.

He says that he involved Ross in his financial planning in the hope that the parties could be in a relationship. [ 101 ] That notwithstanding, Doehl argues that the Agreement codified the parties’ financial independence from one another. I disagree. On the contrary, his family’s insistence that he secure such an agreement is express recognition that the parties were in a relationship that could give rise to claims against Doehl’s property. [ 102 ] Moreover, the Agreement was limited to property claims and was silent on support.

In my view, the absence of any provision in the Agreement dealing with support is evidence that the parties recognized that Doehl was supporting and would continue to support Ross. [ 103 ] The evidence satisfies me that Ross was financially dependent on Doehl. Doehl funded their day-to-day living arrangements and found ways to provide Ross with some income. As near as I can determine, Ross made no financial contribution to the relationship. He was not expected to. I find that Doehl was content with and even encouraged Ross’ financial dependence. 8.

Care and Support of Children [ 104 ] Ross testified that he had a relationship with Doehl’s children, Curtis and Jacqueline, but that his relationship with Jacqueline was strained. Jacqueline testified that when her father had specified parenting time with her, Ross was not present. She received birthday cards only from Doehl, not from the parties jointly. [ 105 ] I do not find that Ross played any meaningful role in Doehl’s relationship with his children. The evidence leaves me with the impression that he was a largely passive participant in Doehl’s child rearing efforts.

This, however, is not unusual for people whose partners have children from prior relationships. Doehl’s children may not have responded positively had Ross attempted to assert any form of parental authority. 9. Ownership, Use and Acquisition of Property [ 106 ] The parties did not acquire property jointly, but occupied both the Whitehorn Property and the Grand Valley Property together. They also attempted to live at the Acreage, but a mouse infestation made that impossible.

Doehl acknowledged that some of Ross’ personal property was moved into the Whitehorn Property when Ross moved to Calgary and that there was some joint usage of Ross’ furniture. [ 107 ] Ross acquired the Acreage in his own name. Doehl acquired the Whitehorn and Grand Valley Properties in his own name. All assets at Wood Gundy were in Doehl’s name only. The parties never shared a credit card or bank account, but did obtain a joint Costco membership sometime before 2014. [ 108 ] The fact that the parties did not have a joint credit card, joint bank accounts or jointly held property does not surprise me.

Those would be indicia of an equal partnership. In my view, Doehl was prepared to have Ross dependent upon him. 10. Conclusion [ 109 ] Taking all of the foregoing into account, I find that the parties did function as an economic and domestic unit. C. Sharing Each Other’s Lives [ 110 ] Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “share” as “ to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others”. The notion of sharing another person’s life suggests more than just casual or occasional interaction with that person. It implies a degree of mutual

acceptance of and commitment to a common endeavor embraced by both parties. In my view, it also requires voluntariness; forced or mandated sharing of life experiences is not what is contemplated in AIRA . The concept would not, for example, encompass the relationship between a person living in long term care and a staff caregiver at the facility. [ 111 ] The presence or absence of communication between parties may provide some insight into the nature of their relationship.

The parties gave differing evidence as to the level of communication between them and any gaps therein. [ 112 ] Ross testified that there were two periods during which he and Doehl were not in communication with each other. The first was when Doehl went into residential alcohol and drug treatment in 2005. The second was in 2008 when Ross was in jail awaiting trial. [ 113 ] Ross asserts that the parties were in contact during the period when he was in the Crowsnest Pass area helping his mother.

He acknowledged, however, that between 1999 and 2012, he could have spent more than one month away from Doehl as part of a “cooling off” period. [ 114 ] Ross was not sure if he was in contact with Doehl at the time he began to have financial difficulties respecting the Acreage or if Doehl initially was aware of those difficulties. [ 115 ] Doehl argues that the parties had an unstable and sporadic relationship. He described it as being on and off for weeks or months. He claims that, after he moved to Calgary, he would return to Saskatoon to visit his children.

He acknowledges that Ross, who was driving a truck at the time, occasionally would come through Calgary. Doehl contends that, after he purchased the Whitehorn Property, the relationship continued in the same way and that the parties communicated only occasionally. He acknowledged giving Ross some birthday, Valentine’s Day and Christmas cards. [ 116 ] Doehl claims that, prior to his treatment in 2005, the parties would, to use his expression, alternate between being around each other and not being around each other.

He claims that the distance between them grew larger during his period of recovery and that they ceased communicating after he forced Ross out of the Whitehorn Property in 2006 until Ross’ arrest in 2008. Doehl also claims the parties ceased communicating for over a year when, prior to 2012, Ross moved out of the Whitehorn Property. Only at the end of that period of time did Doehl learn about the foreclosure on the Acreage. [ 117 ] I accept that the parties had periods of physical separation.

Ross’ evidence was that the parties were in communication throughout those separations, with the exception of Doehl’s 2005 residential treatment and, possibly, Ross’ 2008 time in jail. If that were entirely correct, I would expect Doehl to have found about the foreclosure on the Acreage from Ross, rather than Maureen. [ 118 ] I accept Doehl’s evidence that he and Ross would be out of touch for periods of time. Generally, however, I find Doehl and Ross maintained communication throughout their relationship.

I believe each filled a need for the other and that regular communication fostered that exchange of support. [ 119 ] Before the parties co-habited at the Grand Valley Property, they usually did not spend holidays and birthdays together. That changed once they moved to the Grand Valley Property. I do not find the fact that Doehl spent most or all of his Christmases with his children negatives the assertion that the parties shared each other’s lives.

Couples with children from a former relationship often are required to divide their time among competing interests. [ 120 ] Taken as a whole, the evidence satisfies me that, at least until 2017, the parties experienced each other’s lives. These were not always happy experiences. They had their challenges. But despite their issues, they continued purposely to interact with each other. [ 121 ] Accordingly, I find that the parties shared one another’s lives. D.

Emotional Commitment [ 122 ] Doehl argues that the parties’ living arrangements demonstrate that the parties did not provide consistent or reciprocal emotional support to one another and were not emotionally committed to one another. [ 123 ] One of Doehl’s primary contentions is that Ross left the Whitehorn Property for extended periods of time without explanation and that his behaviour was random, sporadic and inconsistent.

Further, he claims to have kicked Ross out of the Whitehorn Property on more than one occasion because of his hoarding. [ 124 ] Doehl claims that he did not rely on Ross for emotional support. He asserts that Ross did not support him during his struggle with addiction in 2005 and that others came to his assistance. [ 125 ] I note, however, that Ross was barred from the treatment centre by Doehl’s family. Doehl did not provide any evidence of having asked for assistance that Ross declined to give. [ 126 ] I agree that there were periods during which the parties were physically apart.

That is not atypical of parties who have different interests or experience different challenges. In some respects, however, the evidence in respect of those separations actually indicates emotional commitment. Doehl claims that Ross’ mental state was always a concern to him; that to me is reflective of a commitment to Ross. [ 127 ] As noted above, Ross spent time in jail in 2008. Doehl testified that he hoped Ross had bottomed out and would start to recover from his hoarding disorder.

He hoped at that time that it would be possible for the parties to work on a committed relationship. [ 128 ] Doehl claims that he and Ross were “not together” in 2012 when he learned from Maureen that the Acreage was in foreclosure. Doehl testified that he got involved, inter alia , to help Ross with his mental health, which he said was the only barrier to the parties being together. Doehl acknowledged feelings for Ross that speak to the hope of a long-term relationship.

[ 129 ] Doehl testified that, after the move to the Grand Valley Property, the parties were a family unit, but that prior to that, they were not a “couple”. I do not accept that. [ 130 ] Doehl’s evidence satisfies me that the parties were in a committed relationship while they were living together at the Grand Valley Property. In my view, the period of time leading up to the move is also relevant given that the parties were planning to move in together.

If they had not been in a committed relationship, they would not have undertaken the move. [ 131 ] Ross asserts that both parties tried to help each other overcome their issues and challenges. Doehl claims that Ross did not provide him with reciprocal, dependable and consistent emotional support. It seems he would have the Court take a “quantitative” approach to the assessment of the parties’ degree of emotional support and commitment. It is important to recognize that parties to a relationship will express their degree of commitment differently, depending on their unique personalities and skills.

People have different capacities to manifest their commitments and to receive expressions of commitment from others. [ 132 ] In support of his argument that the parties were not emotionally committed to one another, Doehl points to his relationships with other men during periods when Ross thought the parties were in an exclusive relationship. Doehl’s casual sexual relationships do not preclude a finding that he was emotionally committed to Ross.

I find that Doehl did not disclose these other relationships to Ross because he feared that to do so would jeopardize their relationship, which manifests a degree of commitment on Doehl’s part. [ 133 ] I find that Doehl was emotionally committed to Ross.

The duration of their sexual relationship, his financial assistance to Ross, the reference in the Agreement to them as life partners, his willingness to engage in couples counselling and financial planning and the activities they shared manifest commitment on Doehl’s part to a long-relationship. [ 134 ] Ross provided evidence of the parties’ many interactions with both the Ross and Doehl families. These were important events in the lives of both parties.

The fact that they jointly attended these events, together with Ross’ evidence, which I accept, that they were recognized as a couple and slept in the same bed, further underscores their commitment to each other’s lives. [ 135 ] Accordingly, I find that the parties were emotionally committed to one another. E. Periods of Separation [ 136 ] Doehl argues that the parties’ separations prior to Ross’ arrest in 2008, prior to the foreclosure in 2012 and prior to the parties moving into the Grand Valley Property in 2014 engage

section 10 of the AIRA . That

section provides that if the parties are separated for a year or more and only one party intends the relationship to end, the parties cease to be adult interdependent partners. [ 137 ] As will be clear from the foregoing analysis, I am not persuaded that the parties’ periods of separation obviate a finding that they were adult interdependent partners.

As discussed above, some of these periods of separation and non-communication were, effectively, involuntary. [ 138 ] Moreover, I have found that the parties were in a continuous relationship at least from 2014 to 2017, rendering these earlier separations irrelevant. V. Conclusion [ 139 ] The parties had their challenges. Ross suffered from a hoarding disorder and Doehl from drug and alcohol addiction. Their issues influenced the course of their relationship. Each had to accommodate the other’s challenges.

It would be unreasonable to ignore this need to accommodate the parties’ unique circumstances in the Court’s attempts to apply the law relating to adult interdependent relationships. [ 140 ] Put simply, one size does not fit all. The assessment of interdependence in a relationship must be flexible enough to take into account the parties’ unique circumstances and how those circumstances evolved over time. [ 141 ] On the evidence before me, I find the parties were in a relationship of interdependence for a period in excess of three years.

I find that relationship ended on June 20, 2017. [ 142 ] I also grant Ross’ preliminary application to amend his Statement of Claim filed on June 17, 2019 to remove claims to Doehl’s property. [ 143 ] If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may provide written submissions not to exceed five pages within thirty days of the date of this Decision. Heard on the13 th day of October, 2021, to the 14 th day of October, 2021. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 23 rd day of December, 2021.

C.M. Jones J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Lourdes Garcia Foster LLP for the Plaintiff Kerry Lynn Okita Bishop & McKenzie LLP for the Defendant