In an intestate estate dispute, the legally married but long-separated spouse claimed the entire modest estate by virtue of the preferential share under s. 45(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act, while the respondent asserted status as a common law spouse and sought dependant's support and a constructive trust over the principal estate asset.
The court held that the domestic contract executed years earlier released only possessory rights and did not bar the married spouse's statutory intestacy claim.
The respondent established, by a very thin margin, that she was a spouse and dependant for Part V purposes, but her financial disclosure was found seriously deficient and unreliable, limiting her entitlement to a lump sum support award of $30,000.
Her unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims were dismissed for lack of proof of enrichment, deprivation, juristic reason, or a joint family venture.
Administration of the estate was committed to the married spouse, subject to payment of the support award.
