DO VOWS AND RINGS MAKE A MARRIAGE?

Legal definition at heart of pair’s court battle

Linda Dwyer acknowledges that she and Lloyd Bussey didn’t exactly follow convention when they decided to tie the knot in a private ceremony in their Newfoundland and Labrador home in 2008.

They took turns saying vows and exchanged rings. But there was no officiant; nor were there any witnesses. And they didn’t bother getting a formal marriage licence. Still, they held themselves out to family, friends and fellow church members as “husband” and “wife” for years.

When Bussey abruptly broke off the relationship in 2014, Dwyer felt she was entitled to a “division of matrimonial property,” like any other spouse. But Bussey disagreed, setting the stage for an acrimonious and novel legal battle over what constitutes “marriage.”

In a 2-1 decision late last month, a provincial appeal court upheld a lower court decision that said the retired couple — Dwyer is 65 and Bussey is 74 — did not meet the definition of a married couple or qualify as spouses.

“I was his wife to his family, friends and neighbourhood, and as far as I can see, I should have been recognized as his spouse,” Dwyer told the National Post.

“I got screwed.” Dwyer and Bussey — both widowed — started dating around 2005. He ran an auto repair business. She did restoration work on old buildings. Dwyer eventually moved in to Bussey’s home in Port de Grave.

In July 2008, they sat on the edge of their bed with a Bible between them. Though Dwyer would’ve preferred a traditional church wedding, she says she went along with Bussey’s wish for a simple ceremony between just the two of them.

“He said to me, ‘You’re still my wife in the eyes of God.’ I was taken in ... He promised me we’d grow old together,” Dwyer recalled.

Each placed a hand on the Bible as they said their vows. They also exchanged rings, which they had previously taken to a local pastor to be blessed.

Bussey quoted a passage from the Bible: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

“We then went to his mother’s house because he wanted her to know first ... His sister was there also when he told her. They both were delighted,” Dwyer said.

“We then went to a restaurant for supper where he told the waitress we had just gotten married and she actually gave us two glasses of wine free.”

After living together for five years, Dwyer says Bussey abruptly ended the relationship in early 2014. It didn’t go down well. At one point, police needed to be called to separate them.

Dwyer, who says she invested a lot of money into a shared property and vehicles, insisted she was entitled to a division of property as his spouse.

But Bussey told the court he never intended to be in a legal marriage with Dwyer and they had strictly been in a common-law relationship.

Under provincial law, a spouse is entitled to an equal division of property; a common-law partner has a higher burden and must provide evidence of his or her financial contribution.

Dwyer agreed they never attained the status of a legally married couple. However, she and her lawyer argued provincial statutes did not require a couple to be legally married to qualify as spouses for the purpose of divvying up property.

A broad interpretation of provincial statutes, they argued, meant as long as Dwyer and Bussey entered into a “form of marriage,” or “putative marriage,” that’s all that was required.

But Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court Judge Jane Fitzpatrick sided with Bussey. In a June 2015 decision, she wrote: “Holding ceremonies yourself without a marriage licence, an officiant or witnesses and exchanging rings can only be recognized in this province as a common law union.”

Moving to a broader interpretation would only invite a “myriad of uncertainties,” the judge added, citing language used in an Ontario court case.

Dwyer appealed the decision.

In late November, an appeal court panel upheld the earlier decision in a 2-1 ruling. Creating an “ambiguous” intermediate class of people who are not legally married but still qualify as spouses would create too much uncertainty and lead to “needless, acrimonious litigation,” Judge Charles White wrote for the majority.

But in a dissenting opinion, Judge Derek Green wrote that Dwyer and Bussey met the definition of spouses after they entered into a “marriage-like” relationship that was intended to be permanent.

Douglas Moores, Dwyer’s lawyer, said they are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Bussey’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.