Understanding Ross Estate (Re), 2024 BCSC 459: Insights on Capacity to Marry
In Ross Estate (Re), a standard application to prove a will in solemn form was derailed in part by a possible predatory marriage. While the case involves multiple legal questions,[1] this post (and frankly, the judgment) focuses primarily on capacity to make someone your spouse.
Case Overview: Facts of Ross Estate (Re)
The case concerns the estate of Mr. Ross, who had an intellectual disability throughout his lifetime.[2] Mr. Ross entered a marriage late in life, in 2016.[3] Mr. Ross executed a will in 2019, revoking his 1997 will.
After Mr. Ross passed away in 2020, a disputes arose regarding the validity of his marriage and the distribution of his estate.
Legal Issues in Ross Estate (Re)
Mr. Ross’ siblings and alleged spouse both brought applications to prove a will in solemn form. The most contentious issue, however, was:
- Whether Mr. Ross had the capacity to marry or, alternatively,
- Whether he was in a marriage-like relationship.[4]
Capacity to Marry: The Court’s Analysis in Ross Estate (Re)
The court examined whether Mr. Ross had the mental capacity to enter into a legally valid marriage. The court cursorily reviewed emphasized that capacity to marry requires an individual to understand the nature of the marriage ceremony and the rights and obligations that marriage entails at the time the marriage takes place.
The court also considered the context of the marriage, including the alleged spouse’s behaviour, which Mr. Ross’ treating physician characterized as predatory. [5] This raised concerns about whether Mr. Ross’s consent was genuine or whether he was unduly influenced or manipulated into the marriage (paras 60–65). The court underscored that capacity is not a mere formality; it is a substantive requirement to protect vulnerable individuals from entering into marriages they do not comprehend or that are procured through exploitation.
Ultimately, the court’s discussion reflects the principle that capacity to marry is a threshold legal requirement, ensuring that both parties knowingly and voluntarily enter into the marital relationship. If capacity is lacking, the marriage may be declared invalid, which has significant implications for Mr. Ross’ estate.
Capacity to Enter into a Marriage-Like Relationship: Court’s Perspective
Beyond the formal capacity to marry, the court in Ross Estate (Re) also addressed the concept of capacity to enter into a marriage-like relationship, which is relevant under British Columbia’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act and family law. A marriage-like relationship requires parties to live together in a relationship of some permanence and intimacy, with mutual commitment akin to marriage, even if not formally married (paras 70–75).
The court considered whether Mr. Ross had the capacity to understand and consent to such a relationship, given his intellectual disability and the circumstances of his interactions with Korenna. The predatory nature of Korenna’s conduct, as highlighted by medical evidence, raised serious doubts about whether Mr. Ross was capable of freely entering into this type of relationship or whether he was subject to manipulation.
This analysis is important because, under the law, a marriage-like relationship can confer rights similar to those of marriage, including claims on an estate.[6]
Since the existence of a marriage-like relationship can be inferred from the actions of the partners, I conclude that the partner whose capacity is questioned must have the minimal intellectual ability that is necessary to engage intentionally in those actions, with the understating that they are in furtherance of a relationship with the other partner. Where the parties’ intentions are expressed, the partner whose capacity is questioned should be able to demonstrate, at a basic level, an understanding of the nature of their relationship and a wish to continue in it.[7]
…
It is also telling that despite her detailed recitation of her activities with Mr. Ross as a couple, which portrayed a rich and varied life together, she was unable to attach photos or documents referring any of those activities to her affidavit, including anything relating to their wedding (even documentation showing that it was performed), or to provide affidavits from any friends, members of her family or wedding participants to support her version of events. To be clear, such evidence is not a mandatory element of an application of this nature, but since the credibility of her account of their lifestyle has been severely damaged, the absence of any objective support for it means that there is nothing to avoid the conclusions that will otherwise follow
Findings
The court found that Mr. Ross lacked the capacity to marry due to his intellectual disability and inability to understand the nature and consequences of marriage at the time it occurred. The court also concluded that he lacked the capacity to enter into a marriage-like relationship, particularly given the predatory behaviour exhibited by Korenna, which undermined any genuine consent or mutual commitment. As a result, the marriage was declared invalid, and the surviving spouse’s claims to the estate were rejected.
Mr. Ross’ understanding of the nature and responsibilities of nature were “severely limited.”[8]
… To be clear, these conclusions do not necessarily mean that the petitioner’s relationship with Mr. Ross was only predatory, or that it was not beneficial to him in some respects. Genuine caring and a desire for personal enrichment are certainly capable of co-existing in such situations. It simply means that there is no credible evidence to support her description of Mr. Ross’s capacities or the nature of their relationship.[9]
Conclusion
Ross Estate (Re), 2024 BCSC 459, underscores the importance of capacity to marry as a fundamental legal requirement. The case clarifies that for a marriage to be valid, both parties must have the mental capacity to understand the ceremony and the legal consequences of marriage. This decision is a valuable reference for lawyers dealing with family law, estates, and related litigation, as well as for anyone interested in the legal standards governing marriage.
—
[1] E.g., 226
[2] 7
[3] 27
[4] 233
[5] 41
[6] 191
[7] 197
[8] 225
[9] 231
Menu
Written by: Jaclyn Holdsworth
Posted on: June 19, 2025
Categories: Commentary
In Ross Estate (Re), a standard application to prove a will in solemn form was derailed in part by a possible predatory marriage. While the case involves multiple legal questions,[1] this post (and frankly, the judgment) focuses primarily on capacity to make someone your spouse.
Case Overview: Facts of Ross Estate (Re)
The case concerns the estate of Mr. Ross, who had an intellectual disability throughout his lifetime.[2] Mr. Ross entered a marriage late in life, in 2016.[3] Mr. Ross executed a will in 2019, revoking his 1997 will.
After Mr. Ross passed away in 2020, a disputes arose regarding the validity of his marriage and the distribution of his estate.
Legal Issues in Ross Estate (Re)
Mr. Ross’ siblings and alleged spouse both brought applications to prove a will in solemn form. The most contentious issue, however, was:
Capacity to Marry: The Court’s Analysis in Ross Estate (Re)
The court examined whether Mr. Ross had the mental capacity to enter into a legally valid marriage. The court cursorily reviewed emphasized that capacity to marry requires an individual to understand the nature of the marriage ceremony and the rights and obligations that marriage entails at the time the marriage takes place.
The court also considered the context of the marriage, including the alleged spouse’s behaviour, which Mr. Ross’ treating physician characterized as predatory. [5] This raised concerns about whether Mr. Ross’s consent was genuine or whether he was unduly influenced or manipulated into the marriage (paras 60–65). The court underscored that capacity is not a mere formality; it is a substantive requirement to protect vulnerable individuals from entering into marriages they do not comprehend or that are procured through exploitation.
Ultimately, the court’s discussion reflects the principle that capacity to marry is a threshold legal requirement, ensuring that both parties knowingly and voluntarily enter into the marital relationship. If capacity is lacking, the marriage may be declared invalid, which has significant implications for Mr. Ross’ estate.
Capacity to Enter into a Marriage-Like Relationship: Court’s Perspective
Beyond the formal capacity to marry, the court in Ross Estate (Re) also addressed the concept of capacity to enter into a marriage-like relationship, which is relevant under British Columbia’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act and family law. A marriage-like relationship requires parties to live together in a relationship of some permanence and intimacy, with mutual commitment akin to marriage, even if not formally married (paras 70–75).
The court considered whether Mr. Ross had the capacity to understand and consent to such a relationship, given his intellectual disability and the circumstances of his interactions with Korenna. The predatory nature of Korenna’s conduct, as highlighted by medical evidence, raised serious doubts about whether Mr. Ross was capable of freely entering into this type of relationship or whether he was subject to manipulation.
This analysis is important because, under the law, a marriage-like relationship can confer rights similar to those of marriage, including claims on an estate.[6]
Since the existence of a marriage-like relationship can be inferred from the actions of the partners, I conclude that the partner whose capacity is questioned must have the minimal intellectual ability that is necessary to engage intentionally in those actions, with the understating that they are in furtherance of a relationship with the other partner. Where the parties’ intentions are expressed, the partner whose capacity is questioned should be able to demonstrate, at a basic level, an understanding of the nature of their relationship and a wish to continue in it.[7]
…
It is also telling that despite her detailed recitation of her activities with Mr. Ross as a couple, which portrayed a rich and varied life together, she was unable to attach photos or documents referring any of those activities to her affidavit, including anything relating to their wedding (even documentation showing that it was performed), or to provide affidavits from any friends, members of her family or wedding participants to support her version of events. To be clear, such evidence is not a mandatory element of an application of this nature, but since the credibility of her account of their lifestyle has been severely damaged, the absence of any objective support for it means that there is nothing to avoid the conclusions that will otherwise follow
Findings
The court found that Mr. Ross lacked the capacity to marry due to his intellectual disability and inability to understand the nature and consequences of marriage at the time it occurred. The court also concluded that he lacked the capacity to enter into a marriage-like relationship, particularly given the predatory behaviour exhibited by Korenna, which undermined any genuine consent or mutual commitment. As a result, the marriage was declared invalid, and the surviving spouse’s claims to the estate were rejected.
Mr. Ross’ understanding of the nature and responsibilities of nature were “severely limited.”[8]
… To be clear, these conclusions do not necessarily mean that the petitioner’s relationship with Mr. Ross was only predatory, or that it was not beneficial to him in some respects. Genuine caring and a desire for personal enrichment are certainly capable of co-existing in such situations. It simply means that there is no credible evidence to support her description of Mr. Ross’s capacities or the nature of their relationship.[9]
Conclusion
Ross Estate (Re), 2024 BCSC 459, underscores the importance of capacity to marry as a fundamental legal requirement. The case clarifies that for a marriage to be valid, both parties must have the mental capacity to understand the ceremony and the legal consequences of marriage. This decision is a valuable reference for lawyers dealing with family law, estates, and related litigation, as well as for anyone interested in the legal standards governing marriage.
—
[1] E.g., 226
[2] 7
[3] 27
[4] 233
[5] 41
[6] 191
[7] 197
[8] 225
[9] 231
Author
View all posts