Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26 deals with the support of dependants, including a child to whom the deceased was providing support, or under a legal obligation to provide support immediately prior to death. The definition of a “child” in this context is fairly broad, and includes not only biological children, but also (among other things) a person whom the deceased has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his or her family.
The question of whether a “settled intention” has been demonstrated is very fact-specific. Most of the cases that deal with this are considered in the family law context, rather than estates. However, the recent decision in P.C.L., by her Litigation Guardians, E.C. et. al. v The Estate of B.L. et. al., 2022 ONSC 6307 is of assistance in understanding what considerations are relevant in the estates context, as well as the difference between an “intention” and a “settled intention”.
In that case, the minor, PCL, was born about eight months prior to the deceased’s death. The deceased had been in a romantic relationship of some kind with PCL’s mother, EC, over several years, but the court found that they were not common law spouses of one another, nor was their relationship permanent in nature.
EC was aware that the deceased was either not PCL’s father, or may not be PCL’s father, but she did not convey that information to the deceased. After the deceased’s death, and after the proceedings had been commenced, court-ordered DNA testing revealed that the deceased was not, in fact, PCL’s biological father. However, prior to his death, the deceased had acted in a manner that indicated he believed himself to be PCL’s biological father. For instance, he had been at the hospital for PCL’s birth and allowed himself to be listed as her father on the baptismal certificate.
Please log in to read the full article.