Skip to content
Hull and Hull LLP
  • Home
  • About
  • Lawyers
  • Knowledge
  • Contact
Hull and Hull LLP
  • Home
  • About
  • Lawyers
  • Knowledge
  • Contact
Hull and Hull LLP Knowledge
  • All
  • Articles
  • News / Events
  • The Probater
  • Solicitor's Tips
  • Podcasts
  • Webinars / Videos

Some Solace for Surviving Married Spouses: Ontario Increases “Preferential Share” to Spouse on Intestacy

By Hull & Hull LLP | March 5, 2021 | 2 minutes of reading | Leave a Comment

Ontario has increased the preferential share payable to a spouse on intestacy from $200,000 to $350,000.

A recent amendment to the regulations under the Succession Law Reform Act prescribes the preferential share as being $350,000 for the estate of a person who died on or after March 1, 2021. The preferential share remains at $200,000 for estates of a person who died before March 1, 2021.

The last change to the value of the preferential share was in 1995, when it was increased from $75,000 to $200,000.

Under the Succession Law Reform Act, where a person dies without a will, but with a “spouse” and children, the spouse is entitled to the “preferential share”, and ½ of the balance of the estate if there is one child, or 1/3 of the balance if there is more than one child.

The provision applies to married spouses only, including married but separated spouses. However, other recent proposed amendments to the Succession Law Reform Act may change this. The proposed legislation provides that the intestacy rules that provide for a spouse do NOT apply if “the spouses are separated at the time of the person’s death”. “Separated” is defined as meaning either (i) they lived separate and apart for three years as a result of the breakdown of their marriage; (ii) they entered into an agreement that is a valid separation agreement; (iii) a court made an order settling their affairs arising from the breakdown of the marriage or (iv) a family arbitration award was made settling their affairs.  Further, there must have been no reconciliation: they must have been living separate and apart as a result of the breakdown at the time of death.

Cue the litigation.

On October 30, 2020, I blogged on the preferential share. In that blog, I asked whether it was time to reconsider the value of the preferential share. It looks like the time has come.

Have a great weekend.

Paul Trudelle


Related Posts

  • Re: O’Neill Estate: Another Application of Section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act By Hull & Hull LLP, May 21, 2024
  • Section 19 & 21.1 of the SLRA and the Estate of Harold Franklin Campbell By Geoffrey Sculthorpe, April 15, 2024
  • “The Gentlemen”: Primogeniture and Intestacies in Ontario By Doreen So, April 2, 2024
  • “Stupid but Constitutional”: How Might Foster Children Be Treated on an Intestacy? By Hull & Hull LLP, March 3, 2024
  • Maintaining Privacy in Estate Matters By Nick Esterbauer, July 25, 2023
  • How the Accelerating Access to Justice Act Changes the Application of the Intestacy Regime After a Three-Year Separation By Kenneth Raymond, May 5, 2023
Previous

When does the authority of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) end?

Next

Dying with a Double Life and Secret Wife

Subscribe

Sign up receive email communications from Hull & Hull LLP.

We send three types of communications: our quarterly Probater Newsletter, monthly Solicitor's Tips, and a daily summary of articles from our blog. By default you will receive all communications. You may set your personal preferences by deslecting the options below.

Hull and Hull LLP logo

Contact

Practice Areas

Hull e-State Planner

  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2026 Hull and Hull LLP

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}