How have the courts treated allegations of enticement and/or procured or induced by the Respondent?

The courts, I suspect, are adapting to a certain extent to the realities of the times and thus have been reticent and reluctant to find the existence of these two conditions precedent. In Scott v. Scott (1979), 11 B.C.L.R. 173, 11 R.F.L. (2d) 213 (S.C.), Perry L.J.S.C. said [p. 175] The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the husband finally leaving her house and breaking off consortium was caused or procured or induced by some action of the co-respondent, as opposed to his own voluntary going in his pursuit of the co-respondent, Bearing in mind these conditions precedent, the facts of this case do not reveal such behavior or such outrageous conduct by the co-respondent. There was no enticement here. It would be ludicrous to conclude that the co-respondent in any way enticed this respondent. As well there is no evidence to support that the co-respondent hindered a reconciliation. This marriage was doomed before the European trip. It was deteriorating gradually over a period of time. The parties lived separate lives. There is no evidence that the co-respondent ruined this marriage or contrived in creating the marriage breakdown, It had already broken down. The claim for damages against the co-respondent is dismissed.