La France v. Saroli 2026 ONSC 1783

BACKGROUND

This is an application brought by the Applicant, Ms. La France against the Respondent, Mr. Saroli requesting an order for spousal support and an award for unjust enrichment against her partner. The parties in this case were never married, nor did they have any children. Ms. La France practiced family, real estate, and estates law until her retirement in 2014. She was 55 years old at the time of trial. Mr. Saroli, although separated from his second wife since 2009, was legally still married to her. Mr. Saroli attended engineering school and built several successful businesses. At 74 years old at the time of trial, he was extremely wealthy and enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle, which Ms. La France had the benefit of enjoying as well. There was a disagreement between the parties as to whether they qualified as common-law spouses under the Family Law Act; Ms. La France believed they qualified and Mr. Saroli did not. It is also important to note that, on the issues of credibility and reliability, the court preferred Ms. La France’s evidence to Mr. Saroli’s, finding that his was “neither reliable nor credible”. For most discrepancies throughout trial, Ms. La France’s evidence was preferred to Mr. Saroli’s.

ISSUES

1. Did the parties’ relationship meet the definition of “spouse” under section 29 of the Family Law Act?
2. If so, is Ms. La France entitled to spousal support?
3. Was Mr. Saroli unjustly enriched by Ms. La France to her corresponding deprivation?

ANALYSIS

Did the parties’ relationship meet the definition of “spouse” under the Family Law Act?

Section 29 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse to include “either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabitated … continuously for a period of not less than three years…”. The Family Law Act goes further to define “cohabit” to mean “to live together in a conjugal relationship, whether inside or outside marriage.” This meant that Ms. La France had to prove that her and Mr. Saroli lived together, in a conjugal relationship for at least three years.

The case follows the Molodowich factors set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in order to reach its conclusion. These include: shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviours, services, social activities, economic support, children, and the societal perception of the couple. It is important to consider that a couple is not required to meet every single factor, rather the factors are meant to guide a holistic assessment of the relationship.

With respect to shared shelter, the court found that the parties began living together and sharing a bed on January 1, 2019, when Mr. Saroli invited Ms. La France to move in with him. With respect to sexual and personal behaviour, the parties had an active sexual relationship until May of 2019 when Mr. Saroli had undergone surgery that impacted his ability to engage in intercourse. Ms. La France provided an “enormous” amount of critical assistance and care to Mr. Saroli following his prostate cancer diagnosis. In regard to services, Mr. Saroli did all the cooking for the parties, and they frequently ate meals together. In considering societal perception of the couple, there was evidence that Mr. Saroli and Ms. La France were well-integrated into each other’s family life. With respect to economic support, the parties did not integrate their finances, however, a partial explanation for this was that Mr. Saroli paid for everything and there was no need to jointly own any property or accounts.

For those reasons, the court found that the parties had began a conjugal relationship on January 1, 2019.

With respect to the end of the parties’ cohabitation, the Court of Appeal has outlined that cohabitation ends when either party regards it as being at an end by their conduct or expression. Mr. Saroli argued that he was trying to have Ms. La France move out of the house since 2021, however, the court found that they always made up after those fights. The court determined that August 23, 2023 was the end of the parties’ conjugal relationship. This was when Ms. La France moved out of the home.

As such, the parties were cohabitating for at least 3 years and Ms. La France was able to advance her spousal support argument.

Is Ms. La France entitled to spousal support?

The court clarified that there is no presumptive entitlement for spousal support, and so, the onus was on Ms. La France. However, where there is a significant income disparity, the claimant (Ms. La France, in this case) is still able to claim spousal support despite her own relatively high income. A business valuator determined Mr. Saroli’s income to be $63.69 million per year. Ms. La France’s annual income was $473,645. The court ruled that Ms. La France was entitled to non-compensatory spousal support based on the fact that her standard of living would have decreased significantly following separation.

Ms. La France was not entitled to spousal support on a compensatory basis because there was nothing about her role in the relationship that caused economic loss or disadvantage to her. Both parties were set in their careers when they began dating, and so, Ms. La France did not need to make any sacrifices to her career to advance Mr. Saroli’s.

Was Mr. Saroli unjustly enriched by Ms. La France to her corresponding deprivation?

The court did not accept Ms. La France’s argument that she was entitled to an award for her unjust enrichment of Mr. Saroli. Although Ms. La France did provide domestic services to Mr. Saroli, and he received a benefit from those services, this was insufficient to establish unjust enrichment.

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, the court ordered that the parties were in a common-law relationship between January 1, 2019 and August 23, 2023. Based on Mr. Saroli’s income of $63.69 million, he owed Ms. La France approximately $200,000.00 per month for a period of three years. Although the court does not usually do this, given the circumstances of the case, they allowed Mr. Saroli to pay a lump sum amount of $3,000,000.00.

Attention Legal Counsel: Professional Mediation Services

When your clients have reached an impasse in settlement discussions, Andrew Feldstein offers third-party mediation services specifically designed for cases where both parties have independent legal representation.

Why lawyers refer cases to Andrew:

• 30+ years family law litigation experience providing courtroom-informed reality testing
• Expertise in complex financial matters including business valuations and professional corporations
• Efficient, structured process that respects counsel's time and maintains client relationships
• Flexible scheduling including virtual mediation and travel to counsel offices

Cases we handle: Negotiation stalemates, complex asset division, support calculation disputes, parenting arrangements, multi-jurisdictional matters, and post-separation modifications.

Refer your next mediation: Call Andrew directly at 905-415-1635 ext. 255 or email info@separation.ca. Virtual and in-person sessions available throughout the GTA.