Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Estate Planning Blogs -> Toronto Estate Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Estate Planning
: Toronto Estate Law BlogRevoking a Family Law Act Election
By Hull & Hull LLP
Does the Court have jurisdiction to set aside a Family Law Act election, or is such an election irrevocable?
This question was recently considered in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision of Iasenza v. Iasenza Estate 2007 CanLII 23351.
As background, Ontario’s Family Law Act (“FLA”) allows a surviving spouse to elect to either receive benefit under the deceased’s will (or on an intestacy if there is no will), or receive an equalization of net family property under the FLA. Normally, the surviving spouse seeks information regarding each of the options, and then elects for the greater benefit.
However, information regarding the values of each option is not always forthcoming in a timely fashion. The election must be filed within 6 months of the date of death, or the surviving spouse is deemed to elect to take under the will or on an intestacy.
The Court held that it did have discretion to set aside an election made in favour of an equalization. However, the Court noted that the discretion will be exercised sparingly and only in “restrictive circumstances where the interests of justice require it and where the balance of the interests of effected parties clearly warrants it.”
In considering whether to exercise its discretion, the Court will consider:
a. Was the election filed as a result of a material mistake of fact or law made in good faith?
b. Was there any responsibility or culpability on the part of the effected parties in relation to the election?
c. Was the notice of intent to seek revocation of the election given in a timely way, and in particular, how long after the 6 month filing period was notice given?
d. Has the estate been distributed or would interested parties otherwise be adversely effected?
e. Does the election result in an injustice to the surviving spouse in all of the circumstances?
On the particular facts of Iasenza, the Court decided to exercise its discretion and set aside the election filed by the surviving spouse. As a result, the spouse was entitled to receive 1/3 of the estate under the will, whereas she would have received nothing under the election.
Thanks for reading.
Paul Trudelle
Full post as published by Toronto Estate Law Blog on February 04, 2008 (boomark / email).
Ballot Device
Election Systems and Software agrees to pays city of San Francisco $3.5 million settlement after problems with AutoMARK lead to prolonged hand counting of votes.
Family of Car Accident Awarded $35 Million
Family of Car Accident Awarded $35 Million
$15 Million Settlement Awarded to Family of Plane Crash Victim
$15 Million Settlement Awarded to Family of Plane Crash Victim
Poling Family Receives $1.5 Million in First Autism Vaccine Settlement
Poling Family Receives $1.5 Million in Autism Vaccine Settlement
Family Law
involving divorce, child custody, spousal support, common law, adoption and same sex marriage.
Hazing Death
Phoummarath Family Receives $4.2 Million Settlement

Extrinsic evidence deemed insufficient to permit the reformation of a document revoking a trust
We have to defend family values! The Defense of Marriage Amendment
Ballot Revocation - Is it Legal in California
New York: " A family man for family court"









