In Ontario, dependants may claim for support against a deceased person’s estate in a process known as a Dependant Relief Claim. These applicants must meet the definition of “dependant” under the Succession Law Reform Act (“the SLRA”). This article discusses the legal principles underpinning Dependant Relief Claims and the factors which courts consider in evaluating them. Ultimately, the goal is to achieve a fair distribution of a deceased’s assets with due regard for the applicant’s interests as well as the deceased’s wishes.
Eligibility for a Dependant Relief Claim
The SLRA provides for, among other things, inheritance rules under particular situations. Section 58(1) states:
Where a deceased, whether testate or intestate, has not made adequate provision for the proper support of his dependants or any of them, the court, on application, may order that such provision as it considers adequate be made out of the estate of the deceased for the proper support of the dependants or any of them.[1]
Section 57(1) expands upon the meaning of a dependant by defining it as follows:
“dependant” means, (a) the spouse of the deceased, (b) a parent of the deceased, (c) a child of the deceased, or (d) a brother or sister of the deceased, to whom the deceased was providing support or was under a legal obligation to provide support immediately before his or her death.[2]
In making a claim, the applicant has the burden to establish on a balance of probabilities that he or she is a dependant within the meaning of the SLRA, and that the deceased had not adequately provided for his or her proper support.[3]
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has examined the extent and type of support provided to applicants to make determinations with respect to their dependency.
In Shafman v Shafman, the court held that “providing support” for the purpose of establishing a relationship of dependency under the SLRA means the continuous provision of financial support or essentials such as food, shelter, or funding expenses.[4] The court underscored that this support must be ongoing —i.e., not periodic nor sporadic transfers.
For example, in Reeves v Inglis, the court held that a deceased mother who shared her home with her adult child was indeed providing support to a dependant immediately before her death.[5] The deceased mother provided her child with transportation to and from work, laundry services, groceries, meal preparation, and pocket money. These forms of support considered together were sufficient to find an ongoing provision of support by the deceased to a dependant.
In contrast, in Bormans v Estate of Bormans et al, the court held that a deceased father who provided his adult daughter with some “small purchases” immediately before his death was not sufficient to establish a relationship of dependency.[6] These small purchases included “food and treats for the family…. shoes for the children, and bikes for their daughter.”[7] Crucially, the deceased did not provide his daughter with either shelter or significant financial assistance; indeed, she was reliant on her spouse—not her father—for financial support.[8]
Determining Proper Support for Eligible Dependants
Where an applicant is eligible, the appropriate amount and duration of support is decided by the court in light of all of the facts and circumstances of the application. It is a discretionary matter for the court, and it is specifically “not an exact science.”[9] The discretion of the court goes beyond a simple economic analysis and also consider moral duties of the deceased.
The SLRA provides a detailed framework in section 62(1) to guide the court in making determinations for support. These economic factors include the dependant’s means, ability to support themselves, age, health, needs, relationship with the deceased, and their contributions to the deceased’s welfare. Certain other considerations may apply where the dependant is a child or spouse of the deceased, including educational prospects for children and caregiving responsibilities for spouses.
However, this framework is not exhaustive and no single factor is determinative.[10] For example, the Court may looks beyond the needs of the applicant, and the suitability of the support order for the future may also be considered.[11]
Moral Duties Are Relevant
In Tataryn v Tataryn Estate, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court is not limited to carrying out a needs-based economic analysis in determining the appropriate disposition, and may also consider a deceased’s moral duty to his or her dependants.[12]
Tataryn outlined a two-stage-test to determine what is an “adequate, just and equitable” provision of support in the circumstances. First, the court shall consider the deceased’s legal obligations to his or her dependants during his or her lifetime. Second, the court shall consider the deceased’s moral obligations to their spouse and children, based on societal expectations of what a judicious person would do in the circumstances by reference to “contemporary community standards.”[13]
The legal principles outlined in Tataryn were decided by the Court in the context of the law in British Columbia. The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in the Cummings decision that these principles are applicable in Ontario.[14]
Identifying and Valuing Claims of Dependants Not Seeking Relief
In Cummings, the Ontario Court of Appeal also held that the SLRA is not only to provide for the deceased’s dependants, but additionally to ensure that spouses and children receive an equitable share of the deceased’s estate.[15] Spouses and children who are not seeking relief may nonetheless be entitled to support from the estate provided that there are no circumstances that undermine this obligation.[16]
In Cummings, the Testator had a married spouse, a divorced spouse, and two (2) dependant children from the former marriage.[17] The son had a debilitating neuromuscular disease, and it was predicted that his future care would exceed the estate value.[18] The testator’s wife was not in need of support and was not seeking it. Despite the son’s medical needs that would deplete the estate, and the testator’s wife’s lack of need of support, the court still factored in the testator’s moral obligation to provide support for his wife. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the court is to consider the interests of all dependants including those not seeking relief.[19] This is to prevent those not seeking relief from being placed into a state of need in the future.[20]
Balancing Competing Claims
In order to arrive at a judicious distribution of the estate in the face of competing claims, the court must attempt to balance and prioritize such competing claims by taking into account “the size of the estate, the strength of the claims, and the intentions of the deceased.”[21]
As per Tataryn, the court will need to, among other things, weigh the strength of each claim.[22]
In Quinn v Carrigan, the testator died leaving a spouse whom he was separated from for twelve (12) years, two (2) adult independent daughters, and a common law spouse of eight and a half (8.5) years.[23] The testator left the proceeds of his estate to his separated spouse and two daughters.[24] However, his common law spouse was a dependant entitled to relief under the SLRA.[25] In balancing these competing claims, the court duly considered the proper framework described above and applied as follows to arrive at a fair distribution:
