Estate Planning

Beyond Cummings

By Hull & Hull LLP

The Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”) governs the rights of beneficiaries to receive support and other benefits on death.

In Cummings v. Cummings, [2003] 5 E.T.R (3d) 81 (Ont. S.C.J.); affirmed [2004] 69 O.R. (3d) 398 (Ont. C.A.), Ontario’s Court of Appeal held that when examining all of the circumstances of an Application for Dependant’s Relief under the SLRA, the Court is entitled to take into account not only the needs of the dependants but the moral obligation of the deceased to those dependants.

Today’s blog, as well as my blogs for the balance of this week, will look at several dependant support cases in the post Cummings era. 

In Broderick v. Papathanasiou, [2006] O.J. No. 4707 (Ont. S.C.J.), Ms. Broderick contended that she lived with Mr. Papathanasiou (the “deceased”) in a common law relationship for 8 years prior to his death.

The deceased did not provide for Ms. Broderick in his Will or during his lifetime.  Ms. Broderick earned more money than the deceased during some of the years they lived together.  They lived in residences owned by the deceased.

Ms. Broderick claimed she was a dependent spouse and asked that the Court make an order for her support under the SLRA.

The Court found that Ms. Broderick’s contributions to the deceased’s personal and financial well-being, to the detriment of her own finances, should be recognized by an award from the estate.

The Court held that the requirement for “adequate provision” to a dependant under the SLRA had been expansively interpreted by the courts; it was no longer a strictly needs based analysis; the deceased’s moral duty towards his dependents was now also a relevant decision, citing Cummings.

As the estate was not large enough to make provision for Ms. Broderick’s support indefinitely, the Court found that a lump sum would support her in transition and provide for her relocation and that it was also equitable that the deceased’s daughters should enjoy the benefit of their father’s estate as he intended under the will.

In the end, the Court ordered that the deceased’s condominium be sold and Ms. Broderick receive one half of the net proceeds in recognition of her contributions to the deceased’s well-being.

Thanks for reading.

Craig

Full post as published by Toronto Estate Law Blog on June 11, 2008 (boomark / email).