Nadia Harasymowycz

The applicant and the deceased lived together as common-law spouses for 12 years.

The deceased, a wealthy car dealership owner, executed new wills shortly before her death that left her entire estate to her daughter and various trusts, making no provision for the applicant.

The applicant brought a claim for dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court found that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the applicant's proper support, noting her legal and moral obligations to him.

The court ordered the transfer of a $1.2 million home to the applicant, a tax-free capital payment of $100,000 per year for life, and $50,000 every five years for a vehicle.

The applicant sought a declaration under the Declarations of Death Act, 2002 that a missing individual was dead after disappearing while apparently travelling to a cottage, or alternatively an order declaring the individual an absentee and appointing the applicant as committee of property under the Absentees Act.

The court reviewed the statutory requirements for declaring death before seven years have elapsed, including proof that the individual disappeared in circumstances of peril.

Despite extensive searches, investigations, and evidence of past mental health issues and prior suicidal ideation, the court found insufficient evidence that the disappearance occurred in circumstances of peril within the meaning of the statute.

The court emphasized the legislature’s intention that declarations of death be made cautiously and only when statutory conditions are clearly met.

The request for a declaration of death was refused, but the court declared the missing person an absentee and appointed the applicant as committee of property.

The testator executed a will in Spain in 2002 dealing with her European property.

In 2006, she executed a Canadian will dealing with her entire estate, which contained a standard revocation clause.

The drafting solicitor was unaware of the Spanish will.

Following her death, the appellants sought to introduce third-party affidavit evidence to prove the testator did not intend to revoke the Spanish will.

The application judge ruled the evidence inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the common law rule that direct extrinsic evidence of a testator's intention is inadmissible to construe an unambiguous will.