The litigation in Cassan v. Giroux arose from a dependant’s relief claim brought by Ms. Cassan against the estate of her late partner, Mr. Villeneuve. Although the parties were never married, Ms. Cassan asserted that they had lived in a conjugal relationship since 2006 and that she was financially dependant on Mr. Villeneuve at the time of his death in January 2022. Mr. Villeneuve’s will made no provision for Ms. Cassan and instead left his estate to his three adult children, one of whom acted as estate trustee. The dispute resulted in a 2024 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressing Ms. Cassan’s status as a dependant spouse, followed by a 2026 decision determining the amount and form of her support entitlement.
These decisions confirmed that public acknowledgements of a relationship can be relevant evidence in determining spousal status under the Succession Law Reform Act. They also illustrate that a finding of dependency does not dictate the quantum of support, which remains carefully constrained.
The 2024 decision: Obituary and funeral evidence supported the dependency finding
In the 2024 decision, Justice Williams found that Ms. Cassan qualified as a “spouse” and a “dependant” under s. 57 of the SLRA. Although the parties were never married and Ms. Cassan maintained a separate apartment, the evidence established that they had cohabited in a conjugal relationship from approximately 2006 until Mr. Villeneuve’s death in 2022.
Applying the Molodowich factors, the court concluded that the relationship functioned as spousal in substance. Mr. Villeneuve provided ongoing financial support, and Ms. Cassan was not financially self‑sufficient. That finding entitled her to interim support and to a subsequent determination of final support.
The court gave some weight to how the relationship was publicly described at the time of death. The obituary, written by Mr. Villeneuve’s children, described Ms. Cassan as his “long‑time partner” and referred to her daughter and grandchildren as his step‑family. This characterization conflicted with the estate’s litigation position that Ms. Cassan was merely one of several romantic companions.
The funeral arrangements were treated similarly. Ms. Cassan and her family were placed immediately behind the hearse in the funeral procession, ahead of all others except the deceased’s children. The court relied on this evidence as corroboration of the relationship, particularly in light of the evidentiary constraints imposed by s. 13 of the Evidence Act.
The 2026 decision: dependency did not determine quantum
By 2026, Ms. Cassan’s status as a dependant spouse was settled. The issue before the court was the amount and structure of support required to meet the statutory requirement of adequate provision under s. 58 of the SLRA.
Justice Williams emphasized that dependant’s relief is not intended to permit a broad reallocation of an estate. Although Ms. Cassan advanced a lump‑sum claim exceeding $1 million, the court found that amount unsupported by the evidence and inconsistent with the limited intrusion on testamentary autonomy contemplated by the legislation.
Life expectancy and future needs were approached cautiously
Ms. Cassan relied on general Statistics Canada life‑expectancy data to argue that support should be calculated on the assumption that she would live to approximately age 89. The court declined to apply that assumption without adjustment. Ms. Cassan had multiple serious health conditions and emerging cognitive impairment, making generalized actuarial data an unreliable predictor of her personal circumstances.
While the court accepted that Ms. Cassan was likely to require increased support in the future, particularly for assisted living, it found the timing and extent of those needs uncertain due to limited medical and expert evidence.
Support was structured rather than awarded as a large lump sum
Instead of awarding a substantial lump sum, the court ordered:
- A modest lump‑sum payment for past support;
- Ongoing monthly support of $2,000, increasing to $3,000 beginning in 2029; and
- The purchase of an annuity to fund future payments, with a reversionary interest to the estate upon Ms. Cassan’s death.
This structure provided ongoing support while limiting the risk of over‑ or under‑compensation and avoiding continued interaction between the parties.
Takeaways
- Obituary wording and funeral arrangements may be relevant evidence in establishing spousal status under the SLRA.
- A finding of dependancy does not determine the amount of support; entitlement remains carefully constrained by statute.
- Courts will scrutinize life‑expectancy assumptions and prefer evidence tied to the claimant’s specific circumstances.
- Structured solutions, including annuities, may be used to balance support obligations with testamentary autonomy.
Thanks for reading!
Li-Mei Mayer