In a recent case under the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”), a widower successfully claimed dependant support from the estate of his late wife and received title of the family condominium. The case highlights the role that morality plays in the determination of support for dependants to ensure a just result.
The Deceased passed away in 2020, leaving an estate of approximately $7 million, predominantly made up of a significant inheritance the Deceased received on the death of her parents, including a condominium in which the Deceased and the applicant, her husband, lived. Pursuant to the Deceased’s will, the applicant was left $250,000 and a life interest in the condominium, while the bulk of her estate was left to their son and his family. The applicant asserted that they were co-dependent throughout their 53-year marriage and he is entitled to support under s. 58(1) of the SLRA. He further claimed that the Deceased promised to put him on title to the condominium, which she failed to do.
The respondent son disputes that his father was a dependant of his mother, arguing that the applicant had significant personal savings, he and the Deceased kept separate finances, and they did not depend on each other for support once the Deceased received her inheritance.
Notably, in considering whether the applicant was dependent on the Deceased, the Court highlighted that support need not be direct financial support and can include a secondary meaning involving physical or moral support. In this case, the Court found that the applicant was indeed a dependant of the Deceased, for both shelter and moral support. It stated that “the couple had a lengthy and stable marriage…. They enjoyed each other’s company and provided each other with the companionship that is vital to human well-being.”
After concluding that the Deceased did not provide adequate support to the applicant, the Court went into a detailed analysis of the applicant’s moral claim to the condominium. While the applicant had a strong legal claim to half the condominium as their matrimonial home, the Court found that he had an even “stronger moral claim” to the entire property, noting that the couple initially had mirror wills leaving everything to each other, the Deceased had promised and subsequently failed to put the applicant on title, and the applicant significantly contributed to the couple’s first home and the family’s accumulation of assets throughout their marriage.
In the end, the Court ordered the respondent to transfer title to the condominium to the applicant in satisfaction of his dependant support claim, and in acknowledgement of the applicant’s moral claim to the property.
This case also intersected with prior litigation in 2024, where the applicant and the Deceased’s daughter challenged the Deceased’s will, alleging undue influence by the son. For a discussion of this earlier case, see David Smith’s blog post here.
Thanks for reading!