Estate litigation frequently arises when surviving spouses or partners are not adequately provided for in a will. When this occurs, Ontario law allows dependants to seek financial support from the estate under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA). However, determining whether support should be awarded (and in what amount) often requires courts to carefully analyze the deceased’s assets, family relationships, and financial obligations.

A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Cassan v. Giroux, provides an instructive example of how courts resolve complex estate disputes involving dependant support claims and competing ownership claims over estate property. The case involved three separate legal proceedings heard together and raised two key questions: whether certain real estate properties were part of the deceased’s estate and how much support the deceased’s surviving partner should receive.

Claims Brought by Deceased’s Surviving Spouse and Sons

The litigation arose following the death of Jean-Guy Villeneuve, whose estate became the subject of multiple legal proceedings involving his surviving partner and his children.

The primary claimant was the defendant’s surviving spouse, who applied for dependant’s relief from the estate under Part V of the SLRA. She alleged that the deceased had failed to make adequate provision for her in his will and sought financial support from the estate.

The defendant in the application was the deceased’s daughter and the estate trustee. In addition, two of the deceased’s sons commenced separate proceedings asserting ownership over two Ottawa-area properties.

Ultimately, the court heard three proceedings together:

• The dependant’s relief application brought by the surviving spouse;
• An action brought by the sons claiming beneficial ownership of the properties; and
• A related application advancing similar trust-based claims.

The court’s decision resolved all three proceedings at once. At the centre of the dispute were two critical issues:

1. Whether two properties were assets of the estate; and
2. If so, what amount of financial support the surviving partner was entitled to receive from the estate.

Dependant’s Relief Under Ontario Law

Under Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA), certain individuals, including spouses and dependants, may apply to the court if a deceased person’s will does not make adequate provision for their support.

A claimant must first establish that they qualify as a “dependant” under the legislation. In this case, the court had already ruled in a prior decision that the deceased’s partner (the claimant) qualified as a spouse and dependant under the SLRA because she had been living with the deceased in a conjugal relationship and had been financially supported by him.

Once dependency is established, the court must determine whether the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the dependant’s proper support. If so, the court may order that support be paid from the estate.

The analysis involves balancing competing interests, including the testator’s freedom to dispose of their property and the legal and moral obligations owed to dependants.

However, before determining the amount of support owed, the court had to determine the size of the estate itself. This required deciding whether the disputed properties formed part of the estate’s assets.

Dispute Over Ownership of Ottawa Properties

Two properties located in Ottawa became the focus of the litigation. The deceased’s sons argued that the properties did not belong to the estate and instead belonged to them individually. If successful, this would significantly reduce the estate’s value and therefore limit the amount available to satisfy the dependant’s relief claim. The court therefore examined each property separately.

Property Held in Trust for the Son

The first property was claimed by one of the sons, Colin. Evidence showed that the deceased purchased the property in 2011 and registered the title in his name as trustee. A declaration of trust executed the day before the purchase explicitly stated that the property was being held in trust for Colin as the sole beneficiary.

Several witnesses also testified that the deceased referred to the property as Colin’s home and that Colin lived there with his family. Despite deficiencies in the evidence (including the absence of an affidavit from Colin himself), the court concluded that the declaration of trust constituted reliable evidence of the deceased’s intention.

Because the property was held in trust, the deceased did not beneficially own it at the time of his death. The court therefore determined that the property was not part of the estate’s assets.

Property Deemed Part of the Estate

The second property was claimed by the deceased’s other son, Todd. Todd argued that the property belonged to him based on several alternative legal theories. He asserted that the property had been gifted to him by his father, that it was held in trust for him, or that he was entitled to a constructive trust because he had built the house on the land.

However, the court rejected these arguments after closely examining the evidence. One major issue was Todd’s credibility. During cross-examination, he contradicted or withdrew portions of his sworn affidavits, sometimes describing his earlier statements as inaccurate or untrue. The court ultimately placed little weight on much of his evidence.

The court also found that the construction of the house had likely been funded by a company controlled by the deceased rather than by Todd personally. As a result, the legal requirements for unjust enrichment (necessary to establish a constructive trust) were not satisfied. The court also concluded that the property had never been transferred to Todd and that there was insufficient evidence of a completed gift.

Importantly, the deceased’s will specifically left the property to Todd, suggesting that the deceased intended Todd to receive it only after his death, rather than during his lifetime. For these reasons, the court held that the property remained an asset of the estate.

Assessing the Dependant Support Claim

With the estate’s assets clarified, the court turned to the question of how much support the spouse should receive. In determining the appropriate amount of support, courts must consider numerous factors under section 62 of the SLRA, including:

• The dependant’s current and future financial means;
• Their age and health;
• Their ability to support themselves;
• Their accustomed standard of living;
• The size of the estate; and
• The claims of other beneficiaries.

The spouse, who was in her mid-seventies, had limited income derived primarily from pension benefits. She also suffered from multiple health issues and had limited ability to improve her financial situation in the future.

She sought a lump-sum award exceeding $1 million to cover past and future support. The estate argued that this claim was excessive and proposed continuing interim payments of $2,000 per month for a limited period. The court confirmed that the spouse would receive $2,000 per month until December 2028, at which time her support would be increased to $3,000 per month until her death.

Balancing Competing Claims in Estate Litigation

When deciding a dependant’s relief claim, courts must balance the needs of the dependant against the rights of other beneficiaries.

In this case, the deceased’s children were the primary beneficiaries under the will. Their interests, therefore, had to be weighed against the surviving partner’s claim for support.

Ontario courts have repeatedly emphasized that dependant relief claims do not allow courts to simply rewrite a will. Instead, courts must determine the extent to which the deceased’s testamentary freedom must be limited to ensure that dependants receive adequate support.

This balancing exercise is highly fact-specific and requires careful consideration of both legal obligations and moral expectations arising from family relationships. The court applied this approach to determine the appropriate level of financial support for the surviving partner, while respecting the deceased’s testamentary intentions.

Contact the Toronto Estate Litigation Lawyers at Eisen Law for Comprehensive Advice in Dependant Support Claims

Estate disputes can be emotionally and financially challenging. Whether you are pursuing a dependant support claim, defending an estate, or dealing with contested property ownership, experienced legal representation can help protect your interests.

If you believe an estate has failed to make adequate provision for your support, or if you are defending an estate against such claims, Eisen Law can help. Our team of estate litigation lawyers can provide strategic advice and effective representation in complex estate disputes, including dependant support claims.

Contact our firm online or call 416-591-9997 to schedule a confidential consultation and learn how we can assist with your estate litigation matter.