In Clark v. Matossian Estate [1] one of the main issues that the British Columbia Court of Appeal was tasked with determining was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the deceased and her partner were in a marriage-like relationship for the purposes of an intestate distribution.[2]

Facts:

The facts arise in the estate of Sharon Clark (the “Deceased”) who died without a will and with no children or surviving parents but one sibling, a brother, David Clark (the “Appellant”).[3] At the time of the Deceased’s passing she was in a relationship with Mr. Dikran Matossian for roughly 38 years. Mr. Matossian passed away two years following the Deceased, but his Estate continued to be represented in these proceedings by his executor, Marcus von Albrecht (the “Respondent”).[4]

At the trial, the Respondent sought an order that the Deceased and Mr. Matossian were spouses pursuant to s. 2(1)(b) of Wills, Estates and Succession Act, SBC 2009, C 13 (“WESA”).[5]

Under sections 20 – 23 of British Columbia’s WESA an intestate distribution takes place as follows:[6]

• No children, estate passes to their spouse
• No spouse, estate passes to their parents
• No parents, estate passes to their siblings

Therefore, absent a finding that Mr. Matossian was the Deceased’s spouse, and given the Deceased had no living issue or parents, the Appellant would have stood to inherit the entirety of his sister’s estate under an intestacy.

The Trial:

The trial judge heard from various witnesses who attested to the nature of the relationship between the Deceased and Mr. Matossian which was often corroborated by documentary evidence i.e photographs, cards and emails exchanged between the two, medical records and tax returns.[7]

The application judge ultimately found that the Deceased and Mr. Matossian were in a marriage-like relationship and therefore spouses for at least 2 years before the Deceased passed.[8] As a result, Mr. Matossian’s estate became the sole beneficiary of the Deceased’s estate.

Appeal:

The appeal arises on the basis that the trial judge failed to take into proper consideration the Deceased’s subjective intention when making the finding that the Deceased and Mr. Matossian were spouses.[9] The Appellant points to the lack of the trial judge’s discussion of the Deceased’s separate intentions regarding her relationship with Mr. Matossian, and argues that due to this, the Deceased’s intentions were not considered at all.[10]

The court however, held that there was no merit to this ground of appeal. In reviewing the caselaw, the court found that mutual intention was not a prerequisite to a finding that there was a marriage, but instead that the “intentions of the parties plural is identified as a factor that must be considered”. [11]

The court reviewed the approach taken by the trial judge in their reasons and determined that the direct evidence of Mr. Matossain regarding his intentions was tested by objective evidence provided by individuals that socialized with the deceased and Mr. Matossian.[12] In fact, many individuals attested to the pair being a couple and a long-standing one at that.[13] [13] Further, the consideration of objective evidence was explicit in the trial judge’s findings. Which read as follows:

“[h]aving considered all of the evidence of the mutual intentions of Dick and Sharon as well as the objective evidence regarding those intentions, I find on a balance of probabilities that Dick and Sharon were in [a] committed, marriage-like relationship …” [14]

While there was no direct evidence of the Deceased’s intention, the Court of Appeal highlighted the importance of interpreting reasons “holistically, generously and functionally” – by doing so the court stated that while considering the entirety of the evidence of mutual intentions, a consideration of the Deceased’s intentions was implicit.[15] As a result, the court could not arrive at a finding that the trial judge erred in failing to consider the Deceased’s intentions.[16]

Takeaways:

This case serves as an important reminder that on an intestacy, the court will take a broad and all-encompassing approach to determining the nature of a spousal relationship. A process which the court notes is “not capable of precision”.[17] Judicial discretion will guide appellate review, and the fact that one judge might have decided a case differently from another is not fatal, if the appropriate considerations of the evidence formed their findings.[18]

—

[1] 2026 BCCA 27 (CanLII).

[2] ibid at para 6.

[3] ibid at para 1 & 2.

[4] ibid at para 2.

[5] ibid at para 3.

[6] Wills, Estates and Succession Act, SBC 2009, C 13, at s.20-23.

[7] ibid at para 4.

[8] ibid at para 5.

[9] ibid at para 6.

[10] ibid at para 27.

[11] ibid at para 29.

[12] ibid at para 31.

[13] ibid.

[14] ibid at para 32.

[15] ibid at paras 32&33.

[16] ibid at para 33.

[17] ibid at para 41.

[18] ibid at para 42.