In Shapiro v. Shapiro, 2025 ONSC 2781 (“Shapiro”) the Court addressed whether the husband of the Deceased qualified as a dependant spouse under s. 58(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”).

Brief Background

The Applicant, Jack Shapiro (“Jack”) was the late husband of Carol-Sue and together, they had a son, Michael Shapiro (“Michael”). Jack and Carol-Sue were married together for 53 years.[1] Prior to Carol-Sue’s death, Jack asserted that Carol-Sue promised to put him on the title to the Condominium they had been living in together prior to her death.

On June 24, 2020, Carol-Sue passed away. Her Last Will and Testament (the “Will”) provided that most of her estate worth approximately $6,889,713.00, which included the value of the Condominium, was to be given to Michael and his family. Jack was provided a bequest of $250,000.00. [2] On this basis, Jack filed for dependant’s support under s.58(1) of the SLRA and a declaration of trust over a Condominium. In Jack’s Application, he not only stated that he and his late wife were co-dependants, but that she failed to sufficiently provide for him in her Will.

Michael opposed his father’s dependant support claim on the basis that there was a lack of evidence to prove that Jack was being provided for by Carol-Sue at her death. Upon review, the Court determined that Jack was a dependant of Carol-Sue.

The primary issue in Shapiro was whether Jack qualified as a dependant under the SLRA.

Determining Support According to the SLRA

According to s.58(1) of the SLRA, where a deceased has not made an adequate provision for the proper support of their dependants, a change to the distribution of an estate may be ordered by the Court where it is considered necessary.[3]  In order to determine the quantum of support, a Court will consider multiple evidentiary factors as garnered from s. 62(1) of the SLRA, which was summarized by the Court in, Shiomi v. Jarvela.[4] Together with these evidentiary factors, the Court also uses a four-part test (the “Test”) to determine proper support as followst:

“(a) Identify all dependants;

(b) Tentatively value the claims considering the legal and moral obligations of the dependants;

(c) Identify all non-dependant persons with a legal or moral claim to a share in the estate;

(d) Balance the competing claims taking into account: the size of the estate, strength of the claims, and intentions of the deceased, to arrive at a judicious distribution of the estate.”[5]

Analysis

The Court found that Jack was entitled to the Condominium as the sole title holder. The respondent, Michael claimed that Jack was not entitled to the Condominium since inheritance is excluded from net family property as per the Family Law Act. However, as stated by the Court, when an inherited home is used as the family residence, it “loses its status as an excluded asset”. [6] Jack provided that he and Carol-Sue used the Condominium as their matrimonial home for their family life.[7] Therefore, Michael was unable to uphold his claim regarding Jack’s exclusion from the Condominium.

Additionally, other factors solidified Jack’s claim to the Condominium. Carol-Sue had promised to place Jack on title as a joint tenant to the Condominium, allowing him to obtain sole title by rights of survivorship upon her death. Regardless of this, the Court highlighted that if the couple separated before Carol-Sue’s death, Jack would have been entitled to half the condominium. In this respect, Jack’s legal claim to the Condominium was strengthened.

As per part (d) of the Test, the Court weighed the respective interests of Jack and Michael. The Court took into consideration that Jack supported Carol-Sue in her long health battles from 2007 throughout 2013 and as a result, Jack now lives on limited means. Jack was dependant on his pension and his modest savings to survive, a large portion of which were depleted by legal fees. Unlike Jack, Michael received inter vivos gifts that Carol-Sue and Jack provided him which totalled approximately $3,000,000. The Court also asserted that Michael held a unionized job with a world class airline carrier.[8] On the other hand, Jack was 80 years old and nearing an age where he would require age related care assistance.

With no means to provide for himself, the Court concluded that it was only fair that Jack received title to the Condominium. This would ensure that Jack would be able to pay for his care services down the line and the future condominium fees, “with dignity and autonomy”.[9]

Concluding Comments

Shapiro demonstrates the relevant SLRA factors the Court may use to assess a dependant support claim to ensure there is a fair and equitable balance of interests. As mentioned, this may include considering the size of the estate, the strength of the claims, and the intentions of the deceased to arrive at a fair distribution of the estate. In Shapiro, Jack was able to maintain his dignity and autonomy following the Court’s assertion that he was, in fact, a dependant of Carol-Sue.

—

[1] Shapiro v. Shapiro, 2025 ONSC 2781.

[2] Ibid at para 3.

[3] Ibid at para 71.

[4] Ibid at para 72.

[5] Ibid at para 75.

[6] Ibid at para 80.

[7] Ibid at para 82.

[8] Ibid at para 104.

[9] Para 106