The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered a decision in Allmendinger v. The Estate of Heather Ruth Brown, Deceased, by its Estate Trustee, Garry Cass.[1]
Background
Heather Ruth Brown (the “Deceased”) passed away on November 17, 2023. She had a valid will executed in 2006 that left the entirety of her estate to her daughter. At the time of her passing, she had resided with Michael Allmendinger (the “Plaintiff”) for 10 years in a condominium in Etobicoke owned by the Deceased. Her will made no provision for the Plaintiff. The overall value of the Deceased’s estate was somewhere in the range of $1.4 million to $1.8 million.
Following the Deceased’s passing, the Plaintiff continued to reside in the condo, and in September of 2024, the Deceased’s estate (the “Estate”) brought an application for possession of the condo. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff commenced his application seeking dependant’s relief pursuant to the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”).[2]
The Plaintiff and the Deceased were common law spouses, and the Deceased had been largely supporting him financially throughout their decade long relationship.
Throughout oral arguments, the Plaintiff effectively abandoned any argument that he had an interest in the condo, and as such it was found that there were no grounds for him to remain in it. The larger issue in this decision centred on whether the Plaintiff was in fact a dependant within the meaning of the SLRA, and if so, what should be the amount and duration of a support award.
Analysis
The court began by citing section 57 of the SLRA, which defines a dependant to mean a spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the deceased, to whom the deceased was providing support or was under a legal obligation to provide support immediately before death.[3] The court also noted that the SLRA defines the term “spouse” to have the same meaning as in section 29 of the Family Law Act, which includes common law relationships for partners who have cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years.[4]
Since the Plaintiff had resided with the Deceased for a decade, and both the Deceased and Plaintiff claimed that they were common law spouses on their income tax filings, the court held that the Plaintiff met the definition of a spouse, and further found that he met the definition of a dependant under the SLRA, as the Deceased had been largely supporting him financially.
The larger issue then became what an appropriate amount and duration of support would be. The Estate argued that the Plaintiff should only receive $1800 a month for a short period of time. The Plaintiff argued that he should receive $4873 per month for a period of 14 years.
The Honourable Justice Stewart of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice began the analysis by noting the list of facts set out in section 62(1) of the SLRA that courts must consider in determining the amount and duration of support, although noting that how the factors are weighed depends on the individual circumstances of each case.[5]
Justice Stewart took care to consider each factor carefully and followed the four-step analysis for a dependant’s support claim set out in Quinn v. Carrigan.[6]
The first step is identifying the dependants, which in this case was clear since it included only the Plaintiff.
The second step is to ask what the value of the claim of the dependant is. The court here found that, based on the section 62 factors, the Plaintiff has a claim for support, as aside from government benefits totaling $1470 a month, he was completely financially dependant on the Deceased over the course of their decade long relationship.
To determine the Plaintiff’s ongoing living expenses, the court dealt with a significant lack of credible evidence. The court therefore looked at the annual amount drawn from the Deceased’s bank account in 2022, which was $44,279. Of that, $17,000 went to carrying costs of the condo which would leave $27,279 for general living expenses and transportation. The court then estimated that $3000 of that $27,279 went towards running the Deceased’s car. The Plaintiff had not held a driver’s licence since 2011, so that $3000 was further taken off the living expense estimate, leaving $24,279, which would have been divided between the Deceased and Plaintiff for food, clothing, and household supplies, roughly leaving $12,600 a month for the Plaintiff. The court then noted that the Plaintiff will have to pay rent now that he is moving out of the condo, which it estimated to be around $2000 a month.
The court then discounted the $1470 per month the Plaintiff received through his benefits to arrive at a final total of $3,300 per month, or $39,600 per year.
The court then went on to note that there is no reliable evidence before it regarding the Plaintiff’s life expectancy, though it noted that given the degree of dependency the Plaintiff had upon the Deceased, it accepted that the support should be for the remainder of the Plaintiff’s lifetime.
Step 3 of the Quinn framework is to identify and value the claims of non-dependants. In this case, the Deceased’s daughter, to whom she left the Estate to, is not a dependant. Her claim is for the value of the entire estate, which is between $1.4 to 1.8 million dollars.
The final step is to balance the competing claims. The court held that, as the dependant, the Plaintiff’s claim takes priority over the claims of the Deceased’s daughter. On the other hand, the intention of the Deceased was clear – she wanted to provide for her daughter. The Deceased made no effort to revise her will, and her property was hers to dispose of as she saw fit. However, the court held that the practical reality of the circumstances is that the Deceased entered a ten-year relationship with a dependant who had no assets. Therefore, the balancing here requires the Estate to support the Plaintiff, while being careful so that there is no windfall to the Plaintiff.
Ultimately, the court awarded dependant support in the amount of $39,600 per year for a period of 14 years, reflecting his anticipated life expectancy.
Final Thoughts
This decision is a good example of the court’s analysis regarding the calculation of dependant’s support. Although testamentary autonomy is important, courts will still depart from a testator’s estate plan should a dependant not be accounted for.
—
[1] Allmendinger v. The Estate of Heather Ruth Brown, Deceased, by its Estate Trustee, Garry Cass, 2026 ONSC 4710
[2] Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26
[3] Ibid at s.57
[4] Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, s.29
[5] Supra note 2 at s.62(1)
[6] Quinn v. Carrigan, (2014) ONSC 5682 (Div. Ct.)
Written by: Mark Polese
Posted on: September 3, 2026
Categories: Commentary
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered a decision in Allmendinger v. The Estate of Heather Ruth Brown, Deceased, by its Estate Trustee, Garry Cass.[1]
Background
Heather Ruth Brown (the “Deceased”) passed away on November 17, 2023. She had a valid will executed in 2006 that left the entirety of her estate to her daughter. At the time of her passing, she had resided with Michael Allmendinger (the “Plaintiff”) for 10 years in a condominium in Etobicoke owned by the Deceased. Her will made no provision for the Plaintiff. The overall value of the Deceased’s estate was somewhere in the range of $1.4 million to $1.8 million.
Following the Deceased’s passing, the Plaintiff continued to reside in the condo, and in September of 2024, the Deceased’s estate (the “Estate”) brought an application for possession of the condo. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff commenced his application seeking dependant’s relief pursuant to the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”).[2]
The Plaintiff and the Deceased were common law spouses, and the Deceased had been largely supporting him financially throughout their decade long relationship.
Throughout oral arguments, the Plaintiff effectively abandoned any argument that he had an interest in the condo, and as such it was found that there were no grounds for him to remain in it. The larger issue in this decision centred on whether the Plaintiff was in fact a dependant within the meaning of the SLRA, and if so, what should be the amount and duration of a support award.
Analysis
The court began by citing section 57 of the SLRA, which defines a dependant to mean a spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the deceased, to whom the deceased was providing support or was under a legal obligation to provide support immediately before death.[3] The court also noted that the SLRA defines the term “spouse” to have the same meaning as in section 29 of the Family Law Act, which includes common law relationships for partners who have cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years.[4]
Since the Plaintiff had resided with the Deceased for a decade, and both the Deceased and Plaintiff claimed that they were common law spouses on their income tax filings, the court held that the Plaintiff met the definition of a spouse, and further found that he met the definition of a dependant under the SLRA, as the Deceased had been largely supporting him financially.
The larger issue then became what an appropriate amount and duration of support would be. The Estate argued that the Plaintiff should only receive $1800 a month for a short period of time. The Plaintiff argued that he should receive $4873 per month for a period of 14 years.
The Honourable Justice Stewart of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice began the analysis by noting the list of facts set out in section 62(1) of the SLRA that courts must consider in determining the amount and duration of support, although noting that how the factors are weighed depends on the individual circumstances of each case.[5]
Justice Stewart took care to consider each factor carefully and followed the four-step analysis for a dependant’s support claim set out in Quinn v. Carrigan.[6]
The first step is identifying the dependants, which in this case was clear since it included only the Plaintiff.
The second step is to ask what the value of the claim of the dependant is. The court here found that, based on the section 62 factors, the Plaintiff has a claim for support, as aside from government benefits totaling $1470 a month, he was completely financially dependant on the Deceased over the course of their decade long relationship.
To determine the Plaintiff’s ongoing living expenses, the court dealt with a significant lack of credible evidence. The court therefore looked at the annual amount drawn from the Deceased’s bank account in 2022, which was $44,279. Of that, $17,000 went to carrying costs of the condo which would leave $27,279 for general living expenses and transportation. The court then estimated that $3000 of that $27,279 went towards running the Deceased’s car. The Plaintiff had not held a driver’s licence since 2011, so that $3000 was further taken off the living expense estimate, leaving $24,279, which would have been divided between the Deceased and Plaintiff for food, clothing, and household supplies, roughly leaving $12,600 a month for the Plaintiff. The court then noted that the Plaintiff will have to pay rent now that he is moving out of the condo, which it estimated to be around $2000 a month.
The court then discounted the $1470 per month the Plaintiff received through his benefits to arrive at a final total of $3,300 per month, or $39,600 per year.
The court then went on to note that there is no reliable evidence before it regarding the Plaintiff’s life expectancy, though it noted that given the degree of dependency the Plaintiff had upon the Deceased, it accepted that the support should be for the remainder of the Plaintiff’s lifetime.
Step 3 of the Quinn framework is to identify and value the claims of non-dependants. In this case, the Deceased’s daughter, to whom she left the Estate to, is not a dependant. Her claim is for the value of the entire estate, which is between $1.4 to 1.8 million dollars.
The final step is to balance the competing claims. The court held that, as the dependant, the Plaintiff’s claim takes priority over the claims of the Deceased’s daughter. On the other hand, the intention of the Deceased was clear – she wanted to provide for her daughter. The Deceased made no effort to revise her will, and her property was hers to dispose of as she saw fit. However, the court held that the practical reality of the circumstances is that the Deceased entered a ten-year relationship with a dependant who had no assets. Therefore, the balancing here requires the Estate to support the Plaintiff, while being careful so that there is no windfall to the Plaintiff.
Ultimately, the court awarded dependant support in the amount of $39,600 per year for a period of 14 years, reflecting his anticipated life expectancy.
Final Thoughts
This decision is a good example of the court’s analysis regarding the calculation of dependant’s support. Although testamentary autonomy is important, courts will still depart from a testator’s estate plan should a dependant not be accounted for.
—
[1] Allmendinger v. The Estate of Heather Ruth Brown, Deceased, by its Estate Trustee, Garry Cass, 2026 ONSC 4710
[2] Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26
[3] Ibid at s.57
[4] Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, s.29
[5] Supra note 2 at s.62(1)
[6] Quinn v. Carrigan, (2014) ONSC 5682 (Div. Ct.)
Author