Application for Dependant’s Support Stayed for Lack of Jurisdiction in Bratusa v. Doersam
Bratusa v. Doersam[1], 2025 ONSC 4726, involved an application for dependant’s support from the deceased’s estate under the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”) in Ontario. Jurisdiction was the central issue on the application.
Nicole (the “Applicant”) and Ryan (the “Deceased”) met in Costa Rica in 2020, and together they lived there until the Deceased’s death in September of 2024. Olivia, their child, was born in Costa Rica in 2021. The Deceased was previously married to Kendra (the “Respondent“), and together they had four children, although the Deceased and Kendra were separated, they remained married until the Deceased’s passing.[2]
The Deceased executed a Last Will and Testament in 2007 (the “2007 Will”), while he was still married to the Respondent and appointed her as his estate trustee. Additionally, the 2007 Will provided the entirety of his estate to the Respondent.
At the Deceased’s death, he had a $4 million life insurance policy that designated his four children from his marriage with the Respondent, as beneficiaries.[3]
Following the Deceased’s death, the Applicant and Olivia moved to Ontario and commenced an application for dependant’s support (the “Application”). Following this, the Respondent brought a motion to dismiss the proceedings, arguing that the Ontario Superior Court lacked sufficient jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Respondent asserted that the courts of Costa Rica were more suited to hear the matter. [4]
The Applicant attempted to make a claim against the Deceased’s estate in Costa Rica for dependant’s support. However, Costa Rican law provides that dependant support may only be sought by a surviving spouse if married. Since at the time of the Deceased’s death, he was still married to the Respondent, the Costa Rican courts did not recognize the Applicant as the Deceased’s spouse.[5]
In a separate family law proceeding commenced by the Respondent in Ontario, the court determined that the Deceased was a permanent resident of Costa Rica. Meanwhile, the Applicant asserted that the Deceased “remained connected to Ontario” and intended to move back.[6]
The Applicant sought an order entitling her to the proceeds of the Deceased’s life insurance policy pursuant to her dependant’s support claim.
The Law:
To determine whether the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction to hear the Application, the court had to consider whether there were presumptive connecting factors that established a real and substantial connection between the claim and Ontario.[7]
Analysis:
The court determined that, even though the 2007 Will was executed in Ontario and the Deceased held an RRSP in Ontario with tax implications, this was not sufficient to constitute a presumptive connecting factor.[8]
On the issue of the insurance policy, the court stated that if the SLRA applied, the Applicant would be entitled to the insurance policy proceeds. However, the court found that the SLRA did not apply to the Applicant’s claim.
[29] “But this is where the issue becomes confusing. There is a circularity in that the only way the existence of the policies here might be a connecting factor is if one decides initially that the SLRA applies or likely applies. If the SLRA does not apply to allow the applicants to bring claims for dependant’s support that include accessing the insurance policies, it is hard to see how the existence of the trust could provide jurisdiction for this court to hear a dependant’s relief claim under Costa Rican law. That claim cannot reach the insurance policies.”[9]
The court stated that the presence of personal property in Ontario was not sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
[48] I agree. Like the credit card contract in Sinclair, it “would not be in keeping with the spirit of order and fairness that animated LeBel J. in Van Breda,” to recognize the existence of personal property here or contracts concerning the manner of holding personal property here alone as bases to allow potential dependants to bring claims in Ontario for dependant’s support against a foreign estate.[10]
The court determined that the Respondent rebutted the presumptive connecting factors, and the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the proceeding, therefore staying the Application.
—
[1] Bratusa v. Doersam, 2025 ONSC 4726
[2] Ibid at para 1
[3] Ibid at para 8
[4] Ibid at para 14
[5] Ibid at para 13
[6] Ibid at para 14
[7] Ibid at para 22
[8] Ibid at para 24
[9] Ibid at para 29
[10] Ibid at para 48
Menu
Written by: Gabriella Banhara
Posted on: September 2, 2025
Categories: Commentary
Bratusa v. Doersam[1], 2025 ONSC 4726, involved an application for dependant’s support from the deceased’s estate under the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”) in Ontario. Jurisdiction was the central issue on the application.
Nicole (the “Applicant”) and Ryan (the “Deceased”) met in Costa Rica in 2020, and together they lived there until the Deceased’s death in September of 2024. Olivia, their child, was born in Costa Rica in 2021. The Deceased was previously married to Kendra (the “Respondent“), and together they had four children, although the Deceased and Kendra were separated, they remained married until the Deceased’s passing.[2]
The Deceased executed a Last Will and Testament in 2007 (the “2007 Will”), while he was still married to the Respondent and appointed her as his estate trustee. Additionally, the 2007 Will provided the entirety of his estate to the Respondent.
At the Deceased’s death, he had a $4 million life insurance policy that designated his four children from his marriage with the Respondent, as beneficiaries.[3]
Following the Deceased’s death, the Applicant and Olivia moved to Ontario and commenced an application for dependant’s support (the “Application”). Following this, the Respondent brought a motion to dismiss the proceedings, arguing that the Ontario Superior Court lacked sufficient jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Respondent asserted that the courts of Costa Rica were more suited to hear the matter. [4]
The Applicant attempted to make a claim against the Deceased’s estate in Costa Rica for dependant’s support. However, Costa Rican law provides that dependant support may only be sought by a surviving spouse if married. Since at the time of the Deceased’s death, he was still married to the Respondent, the Costa Rican courts did not recognize the Applicant as the Deceased’s spouse.[5]
In a separate family law proceeding commenced by the Respondent in Ontario, the court determined that the Deceased was a permanent resident of Costa Rica. Meanwhile, the Applicant asserted that the Deceased “remained connected to Ontario” and intended to move back.[6]
The Applicant sought an order entitling her to the proceeds of the Deceased’s life insurance policy pursuant to her dependant’s support claim.
The Law:
To determine whether the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction to hear the Application, the court had to consider whether there were presumptive connecting factors that established a real and substantial connection between the claim and Ontario.[7]
Analysis:
The court determined that, even though the 2007 Will was executed in Ontario and the Deceased held an RRSP in Ontario with tax implications, this was not sufficient to constitute a presumptive connecting factor.[8]
On the issue of the insurance policy, the court stated that if the SLRA applied, the Applicant would be entitled to the insurance policy proceeds. However, the court found that the SLRA did not apply to the Applicant’s claim.
[29] “But this is where the issue becomes confusing. There is a circularity in that the only way the existence of the policies here might be a connecting factor is if one decides initially that the SLRA applies or likely applies. If the SLRA does not apply to allow the applicants to bring claims for dependant’s support that include accessing the insurance policies, it is hard to see how the existence of the trust could provide jurisdiction for this court to hear a dependant’s relief claim under Costa Rican law. That claim cannot reach the insurance policies.”[9]
The court stated that the presence of personal property in Ontario was not sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
[48] I agree. Like the credit card contract in Sinclair, it “would not be in keeping with the spirit of order and fairness that animated LeBel J. in Van Breda,” to recognize the existence of personal property here or contracts concerning the manner of holding personal property here alone as bases to allow potential dependants to bring claims in Ontario for dependant’s support against a foreign estate.[10]
The court determined that the Respondent rebutted the presumptive connecting factors, and the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the proceeding, therefore staying the Application.
—
[1] Bratusa v. Doersam, 2025 ONSC 4726
[2] Ibid at para 1
[3] Ibid at para 8
[4] Ibid at para 14
[5] Ibid at para 13
[6] Ibid at para 14
[7] Ibid at para 22
[8] Ibid at para 24
[9] Ibid at para 29
[10] Ibid at para 48
Author
View all posts