What does it take to be legally considered someone’s “spouse”? Do you have to be officially married? Can a long-distance relationship ever qualify?
Although this seems like a strictly family law related question, in situations where one of the parties to the alleged “spousal” relationship is a deceased person the estate law can be come prevalent and you can find yourself reading about it on our Hull & Hull blog.
In Coad v Lariviere, 2022 BCCA 222 the court was asked to consider whether a spousal relationship existed between a deceased woman and a man living with her at the time of her death and whether he was entitled to inherit her estate. Mr. Coad moved in with Ms. Lariviere in 2013 and was living with her until she died in 2016. He argued that Ms. Laviere died intestate and that at the time of her death she was living with him in a marriage-like relationship, which would make him her estate’s sole beneficiary and administrator.
The court considered a number of legal issues, but the scope of this blog post will be limited to the sole legal issue of whether Mr. Coad had a marriage-like relationship with Ms. Laviere.
The Appellate Court Overturned the Trial Decision
At trial, the judge found that Ms. Ariviere did die intestate, however Mr. Coad did not have a marriage-like relationship with her. The trial judge considered the definition of “spouse” in section 2 of Wills, Estates and Succession Act as well as relevant caselaw, including Weber v. LeClerc, 2015 BCCA 492.
On appeal, the court held that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error because the trial judge failed to consider what their relationship was in the “relevant period”, which was the two years prior to Ms. Laiviere’s death. The court stated:
“[146]… He placed undue emphasis on the fact that Mr. Coad and Ms. Lariviere did not share what he referred to as conjugal relations, meaning sexual relations, after she left in 2006 (at para. 200). He turned it into a competition between Mr. Coad and Mr. Lariviere: who shared her bed more, who attended to her medical needs more, who gave her advice on her financial affairs more (at paras. 202, 204). But, the uncontested evidence was that Mr. Coad did live with Ms. Lariviere, shared her bed, attended to her medical needs, advised her on her finances, shared meals and celebrations with her, ran errands for her and spent substantial portions of his day with her. All circumstances that led friends who observed them to conclude that they were in a marriage-like relationship.”
Ultimately, the court allowed Mr. Coad’s appeal because the trial judge’s conclusion was based on a failure to take a contextual approach to the evidence by applying a checklist and a failure to consider the whole of evidence.
Ontario Law
Obviously, this raises some real issues – what exactly is considered a “marriage-like” relationship and would this decision have been treated the same in Ontario?
In terms of statutory law, the Succession Law Reform Act incorporates the definition of “spouse” from section 29 of the Family Law Act.
However in terms of caselaw, the leading case in Ontario is Molodowich v. Penttinen [1980] OJ No 1904 where the court set out the generally accepted characteristics of a conjugal relationship. They include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple. However, it was recognized that these elements may be present in carrying degrees and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found to be conjugal.
Take away
We leave it to speculate whether Coad would have been decided differently in Ontario or not. However, the key takeaway is that courts will treat each case differently, based on the contextual analysis of the facts of each case. Such a contextual approach can create uncertainty and unpredictability in spousal disputes. It is recommended to seek independent legal advice and work with the lawyer to put together a litigation strategy that can take this into account.