Woman found unjustly enriched in case fuelled by 'sex for pay, opportunism and false expectations'

When Jeanette Elvie Fletcher dangled a toe between Michael Alexander Norkum's legs at a Toronto-area "gentleman's club" in 2007, the exotic dancer quite literally stepped into the lap of luxury.

Over the next nine years, the 65-year-old businessman would shower her with expensive gifts, fly Fletcher first-class to five-star adult vacation resorts and place her on his payroll to be at his "beck and call."

But the relationship dissolved in 2016 amid conflicts about Fletcher's involvement with another older man — a 61-year-old sometimes lover who kept in constant contact after donating the sperm that resulted in Fletcher's twins.

It's a tangled web indeed.

And the task of unweaving it fell this week to a judge with a flair for both legal and literary detail.

"Sex for pay, opportunism and false expectations form the backdrop to this litigation," Justice Dev Dley wrote in the opening lines of the 18-page judgment.

$10K a month ... plus benefits
Dley ordered Fletcher to repay Norkum $1.3 million after deciding she was unjustly enriched by payments he made to renovate the Coquitlam home Fletcher now shares with the biological father of her children.

Part of the award also covers the value of a house in Fletcher's native Trinidad that Norkum bought in 2011, so the couple could entertain guests during Carnival.

By that time, their relationship had come a long way since Norkum first met Fletcher — who is now 43 — at The Landing Strip club while commuting through Pearson Airport in July 2007.

"(She) introduced herself to him by planting her foot in his lap," wrote Dley.

"And so began their relationship."

A few months after they met, Fletcher agreed to accompany Norkum to Jamaica on condition that he pay her $1,000 a day to cover lost earnings from the club.

Shortly after that, he placed her on his payroll at $10,000 a month, plus health benefits. As Dley wrote, she was to be available when he called.

The other man
Meanwhile, according to Dley's decision, Fletcher had a plan to become a single mother through in-vitro fertilization.

She asked the other lover — who she met in 2006 — to donate his sperm, but didn't tell Norkum anything about her plans.

In April 2008 — while they were vacationing in Mexico — Norkum learned Fletcher was pregnant.

"(He) was shocked, but continued to provide his support, paid Ms. Fletcher's monthly salary and took her shopping in expectation of the new arrivals," Dley wrote.

The relationship continued, but the judgment says Norkum became "very upset" in 2013 after learning the other man was the sperm donor.

They separated. He cut Fletcher's salary for a month, but they ultimately got back together.

In 2016, Norkum "conducted some investigations" and learned Fletcher and the other man were still financially entangled and owned property together.

The judgment says the two had maintained an intermittent sexual relationship since 2006.

Norkum confronted Fletcher "and she accused him of invading her privacy." The relationship ended in February 2016.

Deceit in 'expressing love for him'
Norkum grounded his lawsuit in several legal claims — including one of deceit.

He argued that Fletcher "was guilty of the tort of deceit by expressing love for him, when she actually considered the relationship to be nothing more than an exchange of money for sex, companionship and availability."

In assessing the case, Dley found that Fletcher had referred to Norkum as a "sugar daddy" and a "good pocket book" and that some of her "expressions of love and devotion were not always genuine."

"However, not every untruth results in a deceit," the judge wrote.

"In these circumstances, Ms. Fletcher was not entirely forthright about her working relationship. She did not view her working conditions in the same way as did Mr. Norkum."

Dley denied the deceit claim, describing the unusual setup as "a transactional relationship built on a model designed at times to resemble a family circle."

'Pay for play'
He also refused to award Norkum the costs of about $650,000 in vacations and presents.

"He cannot now reconsider and change his mind because the relationship has ended," the judge wrote. "Once a gift, always a gift."

But Dley did find Fletcher had been enriched by $1.3 million worth of renovations Norkum paid for, on the Coquitlam home which Fletcher now shares with the other man.

"I am satisfied that Mr. Norkum would not have made the payments for renovations, unless there was an expectation for him to move in and receive the benefits of the improvements to the home," Dley wrote.

"The payments were not in the nature of a gift."

The judge stopped short of ordering Fletcher to repay her salary.

"This was an agreement which in artful terms was described as 'pay for play'," Dley wrote.

"Both parties performed their ends of the bargain."