In Canada, the family structure is constantly evolving, yet the law often lags behind these societal shifts. Presently, laws pertaining to divorce, separation and spousal rights upon death favour married couples, often leaving common-law spouses and other partners in a state of legal ambiguity.
However, in a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Deceased attempted to protect his partner’s interest in his estate before they were married, which had opened his Will to misinterpretation.
In Mohapel v. Young, 2024 ONSC 1332, the Applicant, Ms. Mohapel, sought an equal share from the estate of her deceased partner, Mr. Young. Ms. Mohapel argued for her entitlement based on the terms of the Will. The estate trustee contested her claim, alleging misinterpretation of the relevant clause.
The relevant clause in the Will read as follows:
- I GIVE all my PROPERTY, wheresoever situate, including any property over which I may have a general power of appointment to my trustee upon the following trusts, namely:
(e) In the event that IVA MOHAPEL and I do not have any ownership interest either separately or jointly in a primary residence at my death then to transfer the rest and residue of my estate to IVA MOHAPEL, LAURA ELIZABETH YOUNG, CATHERINE MARGARET DAHL and DOUGLAS MICHAEL CHARLES YOUNG in equal shares.
(f) In the event that IVA MOHAPEL and I do have an ownership interest in a primary residence at my death either separately or jointly then to transfer the rest of my estate to LAURA ELIZABETH YOUNG, CATHERINE MARGARET DAHL AND DOUGLAS MICHAEL CHARLES YOUNG in equal shares.
Although the couple were not married and each owned their own homes, the court determined that the Will was made with the contemplation of marriage. Ms. Mohapel argued her entitlement under paragraph 4(e) of the Will, asserting her right to a one-quarter share of the estate’s residue. The estate trustee claimed that she was ineligible due to her separate sole-ownership of a primary residence.
In their analysis, the court considered applying the “armchair rule” in order to discern the testators intention from the Will itself, as well as any surrounding circumstances. The court found that the testamentary intentions of the deceased were clear in his Will and provided that Ms. Mohapel is to receive an equal share of the residue of the estate under paragraph 4(e).
The court also looked at paragraph 7 of the Will, which included a reference to Ms. Mohapel as one of the beneficiaries under the Will. While the interpretation of this clause was not at the centre of this dispute, it nonetheless assisted the court in discerning the intentions of the deceased.
Ultimately, the court ordered that Ms. Mohapel was to receive an equal share of the residue of the estate, despite not being married to the Deceased at the time of death.
Thank you for reading.
Margarita Grup.