Exotic dancer ordered to repay $1.3M to ‘sugar daddy’

An exotic dancer who viewed her businessman friend as a “sugar daddy” during their eight-year relationship has been ordered to pay him $1.3 million in damages.

“Sex for pay, opportunism, deception and false expectations form the backdrop to this litigation,” B.C. Supreme Court Justice Dev Dley said in the opening line of his ruling on the case.

A lengthy trial heard that in July 2007, while commuting through Pearson Airport in Toronto, businessman Michael Alexander Norkum stopped in at a “gentleman’s club” known as the Landing Strip.

Jeanette Elvie Fletcher, an exotic dancer who was then earning $1,500-$3,000 on busy nights, introduced herself to Norkum by “planting her foot in his lap and so began their relationship,” says the judge’s ruling.

Norkum invited her to accompany him on a vacation to Jamaica, and to compensate her for her lost earnings during the trip, he agreed to pay her $3,000 in compensation.

A few months later he placed her on the payroll of his company, MAN Project Management Inc., which managed the construction of mining and power projects mainly in rural Saskatchewan, at a monthly salary of $10,000.

In 2009, she decided to move to Vancouver and purchased a home in Coquitlam, which is at the centre of the damages’ award.

In his ruling, the judge said that the nature of the relationship was key to the adjudication of Norkum’s claims, which were filed after the couple broke up.

Norkum, who is now 65, developed strong feelings for Fletcher, who is now 43, and her children, and paid her to be his companion and intimate partner, showering her with gifts and lavish vacations.

“They flew business class and frolicked at five-star, adult-vacation resorts,” noted the judge. “Mr. Norkum paid for all of the expenses and lavished Ms. Fletcher in luxury.”

Norkum bought her expensive gifts, including three watches valued in excess of $100,000, a leased Mercedes and a Lexus SUV as a Christmas gift.

He also paid for property in Trinidad and contributed to the purchase and extensive renovations of the home on Ranch Park Way in Coquitlam.

The judge noted that, although Fletcher had some romantic feelings for Norkum, she regarded the relationship as a business enterprise.

“Ms. Fletcher viewed Mr. Norkum as a ‘good pocketbook’ or ‘sugar daddy’ and regarded her monetary benefits as gifts and monies paid for her time. The nature of the relationship for her was highly transactional.”

The judge found that during the trial, the pair were accurate in their criticisms of each other’s evidence.

“Both parties went out of their way to ensure that they gave evidence that was tailored to put their respective positions in the best light,” said Dley. “Often times, the need for accuracy was an elusive target in contrast to shining the brightest light on their respective positions while dimming the lights on the opposing party.”

Norkum argued that Fletcher was guilty of the tort of deceit by expressing love for him when she actually considered the relationship nothing more than an exchange of money for sex, companionship and availability. He claimed that the deceit included a secret affair with another man, her business dealing with the other man, and the other man’s active parenting of her twins.

The judge said there was no doubt that Fletcher was less than candid, but added that he was cognizant of the circumstances under which the couple met, at an exotic dance club.

“It defies credulity that Mr. Norkum, a highly intelligent, successful and sophisticated businessman, could have been as easily deceived as he claims when he embarked upon a relationship with a woman who explicitly demanded to be paid for her time,” the judge said.

Norkum claimed the cost of gifts and vacations was nearly $650,000, but the judge rejected those claims and claims that she should repay him for the salary paid to her.

But the judge concluded that nearly $1.1 million in renovations to the Coquitlam home were not gifts and ordered Fletcher to pay Norkum that amount. He also found that the $200,000 purchase of a property in Trinidad was not a gift and should be paid back to Norkum.

David McEwan, a lawyer for Fletcher, said his client had no comment on the ruling.