Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-1649/18 DATE: 20200102 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

FRITZIE DELEON and CASEYLYNN DELEON, a minor Applicants – and – ESTATE OF RAYMON DERANNEY, deceased Respondent

COUNSEL: Alissa N. Winicki, for the Applicants Brendan Donovan and Praniet Chopra, for the Respondent

HEARD: October 3, 2019

Reasons for Decision

DIETRICH J.

[1] Raymon DeRanney was a kind and generous man who worked as an IT project manager. On December 26, 2017, he suffered a fatal heart attack while vacationing in Punta Cana, in the Dominican Republic. He was 68 years of age at the time of his death.

[2] Mr. DeRanney did not leave a last will and testament. A Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee without a Will was granted by this Court to Royal Trust Corporation of Canada on October 10, 2018. It takes no position on this application.

[3] Mr. DeRanney was survived by his only biological child, Sonya DeRanney (“Sonya”), who was 37 years of age at the time of his death. He was also survived by his sister Virginia Paul (“Jean”) and his brother Carlton Paul (“Carlton”), both of whom reside in the City of Toronto, as did Mr. DeRanney. His parents had predeceased him.

[4] Mr. DeRanney never married. He met the applicant Fritzie Deleon (“Ms. Deleon”) in 1993 and they had a romantic relationship that ended about a year before Ms. Deleon gave birth to the applicant Caseylynn Deleon (“Caseylynn”) on September 24, 2000. Following the birth, Mr. DeRanney remained supportive of and friendly with Ms. Deleon. Around the time of Caseylynn’s first birthday, in 2001, Mr. DeRanney invited Ms. Deleon and her daughter Caseylynn to live in his residence on Donlea Drive, in the City of Toronto (the “Donlea residence”), together with his daughter Sonya and him. Sonya was 13 years of age at that time.

[5] Caseylynn lived primarily at the Donlea residence for the following 15 years, but Ms. Deleon lived at other residences for some of those years. Between 2001 and 2017, Mr. DeRanney also lived at or stayed at other residences. Sonya lived there until 2014. In 2017, Mr. DeRanney arranged for Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn to live together in a two-bedroom bungalow on Laird Drive, in the City of Toronto, which he rented, and then sublet to them at less than market value rent. They were living there at the time of Mr. DeRanney’s death and continue to reside there.

[6] Following Mr. DeRanney’s death, Ms. Deleon brought this application, on July 25, 2018, seeking dependant’s relief from Mr. DeRanney’s estate for herself and Caseylynn. On April 2, 2019, Ms. Deleon abandoned her claim for dependant’s relief.

[7] Caseylynn was 17 years of age at the time of Mr. DeRanney’s death and is now 19 years of age. She and Ms. Deleon are pursuing the former’s claim on the basis that Caseylynn was Mr. DeRanney’s child for the purposes of the dependant’s relief provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26 (“SLRA”).

[8] At issue is whether Mr. DeRanney demonstrated a settled intention to treat Caseylynn as a member of his family. Notwithstanding that Mr. DeRanney’s family was unconventional and, in my view, he and Ms. Deleon did not co-parent Caseylynn in any traditional sense, I find that Mr. DeRanney did provide Caseylynn with food and shelter in his residence for over 15 years of her life as well as other financial support on a regular basis until his death. Accordingly, I find that Caseylynn is a dependant within the meaning of the SLRA, who is entitled to support from Mr. DeRanney’s estate as an adult dependant child.

Position of the Parties

[9] Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn assert that, for all intents and purposes, Caseylynn was Mr. DeRanney’s daughter and, as such, she should share in Mr. DeRanney’s intestate estate as an equal beneficiary with Sonya. Each would receive fifty percent (50%) of his global estate.

[10] Sonya disputes Caseylynn’s claim for dependant’s relief. She asserts that her father, Mr. DeRanney, treated Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn as friends. She further asserts that while Mr. DeRanney was very generous to them, as he was to many others, including Sonya’s mother and her family and Mr. DeRanney’s close friend Rudolph, he did not demonstrate a settled intention to treat Caseylynn as a child of his family. Therefore, she submits, Caseylynn is not a dependant of Mr. DeRanney and she has no claim to support from his estate.

[11] Alternatively, Sonya submits, that if Caseylynn is found to be a child of Mr. DeRanney’s family, and a dependant, she is an adult dependent child and as such would not be entitled to benefit significantly from Mr. DeRanney’s estate.

Issues

[12] The issues to be determined on this application are as follows:

1. Is Caseylynn a person whom Mr. DeRanney demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his family?
2. If so, what is adequate provision for Caseylynn’s support from Mr. DeRanney’s estate?

Factual Background

The relationships among the residents at the Donlea residence

[13] Although there are a number of inconsistencies between Ms. Deleon’s affidavit in support of her application and her testimony on cross-examination regarding her living arrangements from time to time, it appears that Ms. Deleon was cohabiting with Mr. DeRanney at the Donlea residence, where he lived with his daughter Sonya, some of the time between 1993 and 1999. In 1993, around the time that Mr. DeRanney and Ms. Deleon were dating, Ms. Deleon met and married another man, Jon Bansil. She divorced him in 1997.

[14] In 1997, Ms. Deleon met Jay-ar Dagdag and she also dated him. By 1999, according to Ms. DeLeon’s evidence, the romantic relationship between Mr. DeRanney and her had come to an end. Ms. Deleon moved out of the Donlea residence into a nearby apartment that she then shared with her father, who had recently immigrated to Canada from the Philippines. Mr. DeRanney assisted her father in his immigration. In the following year, 2000, Ms. Deleon gave birth to Caseylynn whose father is Mr. Dagdag. Mr. Dagdag has not had a presence in Caseylynn’s life, though he has been paying child support to Ms. Deleon for Caseylynn since she was two years old. Mr. DeRanney continued to assist Ms. Deleon after she moved out of the Donlea residence in 1999. It was he who encouraged Ms. Deleon to retain a lawyer to pursue child support from Mr. Dagdag. When Caseylynn was baptized, Mr. DeRanney accepted the role of godfather. Within about a year of Caseylynn’s birth, in September 2001, Ms. Deleon’s father moved out of the apartment and Ms. Deleon could not afford the rent on her own. Mr. DeRanney then invited Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn to live in the Donlea residence, together with Sonya and him. Ms. Deleon had her own room there and, according to her evidence, Mr. DeRanney and she lived there like brother and sister.

[15] Each of Mr. DeRanney and Ms. Deleon cohabited or spent time with different romantic partners at residences other than the Donlea residence between 1994 and 2017. Between September 2001 and 2014, while Caseylynn and Sonya resided at the Donlea residence, the relationships among the other persons living there from time to time were somewhat fluid. It is fair to say that Mr. DeRanney, Ms. Deleon, Sonya and Caseylynn did not form a conventional family.

[16] In December 2001, Mr. DeRanney paid for Ms. Deleon, Caseylynn, Sonya and him to travel to the Philippines to visit Ms. DeLeon’s grandparents and to Hong Kong to visit Ms. Deleon’s mother and step-siblings. This is the only travel that the four of them did together. Upon their return, they all moved into a townhouse, rented by Mr. DeRanney, for about one year while the Donlea residence was renovated. They all moved back into the Donlea residence following the renovations and resided there together until 2014, at the latest, when both Sonya and Ms. Deleon moved out permanently. Mr. DeRanney and Caseylynn continued to reside at the Donlea residence until 2016.

[17] Before Ms. Deleon gave birth to Caseylynn in 2000, she had met Judi Augustin and she dated him until 2003 when that relationship ended. Even though Ms. Deleon was living at the Donlea residence, she testified that she would spend a lot of time at Judi Augustin’s residence. Mr. Augustin, his mother and his sister would also spend time at the Donlea residence visiting with Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn.

[18] Between 2005 and 2009, Mr. DeRanney was working in London, Ontario and he had an apartment there. During this period, he was dating Rashain Ma who lived on Sheppard Avenue in the City of Toronto. Mr. DeRanney would return to Toronto and stay at the Donlea residence or with Ms. Ma during these years. Around this time, Mr.Ranney bought a condominium unit in the building where Ms. Ma lived (the “Sheppard Avenue condo”). Mr. DeRanney’s relationship with Ms. Ma came to an end when Mr. DeRanney disclosed that he did not wish to marry or have any more children.

[19] When Mr. DeRanney returned to Toronto from London, Ontario, he began dating Iryna Boiko in or around 2010. He would stay at her residence 2-3 days a week. In 2011, Ms. Boiko and her daughter Julia moved into the Donlea residence for a time after Ms. Boiko sold her home. Eventually, Mr. DeRanney and Ms. Boiko purchased a condominium on Yonge St. in Toronto (the “Yonge St. condo”). They took title to the Yonge St. condo as equal tenants in common. The relationship between Mr. DeRanney and Ms. Boiko came to an end around 2015 before the Yonge St. condo purchase closed. They never lived there together.

[20] Ms. Deleon’s evidence on where she was living between 2011 and 2016 is inconsistent. In her affidavit, she swears that she moved out of the Donlea residence in 2014, but under cross-examination, she was argumentative about where she was living at any given time. When asked about who was living at the Donlea residence from 2011 to 2016, she stated: “Because I don’t live there, how do I know?” and then stated that she was then living in a nearby apartment but she still had a key to the Donlea residence because her daughter was living there and she was driving her daughter and her daughter’s classmates to school and extracurricular activities. Sonya’s evidence is that Ms. Deleon moved out of the Donlea residence in 2012 or 2013.

[21] In 2013, Ms. Deleon began to date Adam Wayne, and in her affidavit, she testifies that she moved out of the Donlea residence in 2014 and that Adam Wayne moved into her apartment with her. Sonya moved out of the Donlea residence in 2014. Caseylynn continued to live at the Donlea residence and Ms. Deleon continued to drive Caseylynn to school and her dance classes. Caseylynn would sometimes stay at her mother’s apartment, especially on weekends. Though Ms. Deleon had been engaged to Mr. Wayne, her relationship with him ended in 2015. She then began dating Rob Lane who moved into her apartment. That relationship ended in September 2016. Ms. Deleon was again having difficulty paying her rent and Mr. DeRanney provided her financial assistance so she could stay in the apartment.

[22] In late 2016, Mr. DeRanney decided that the Donlea residence was too big for just Caseylynn and him, so he offered it for lease, beginning in 2017. Caseylynn and he moved to the Yonge St. condo, a one-bedroom condominium, which was then vacant. They lived there for a few months according to Caseylynn’s evidence. Caseylynn would stay there during the week, while at school, and she would stay at her mother’s apartment on the weekends.

[23] Mr. DeRanney then decided that it would be best if Caseylynn and her mother resided in the same home, so he rented and then sublet the Laird Drive property to them. He charged them $1,600 per month though the rent was $2,150. He made up the $550 shortfall. Mr. DeRanney covered the tenant insurance and paid for some of the utilities at the Laird Drive property while Ms. Deleon paid for others. He also bought groceries for Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn regularly, and paid first and last months’ rent, and bought them a mattress and a sofa bed.

Financial support during Mr. DeRanney’s lifetime

[24] In addition to providing a family residence to Caseylynn from her first birthday until she was 16, Mr. DeRanney provided her other financial support as well. At all times when she was residing at the Donlea residence, he alone made the mortgage payments and paid the property tax, home owner’s insurance, and utilities. He also bought the groceries for all residing there from time to time.

[25] According to Ms. Deleon’s evidence, Mr. DeRanney paid for all of Caseylynn’s extracurricular activities, including dance, which involved costumes and competitions in Europe and the United States. He bought her a puppy and paid for its food and veterinarian bills. Based on the receipts contained in the record, Mr. DeRanney also paid for a pair of eyeglasses, boots, and a summer school course for Caseylynn.

[26] Mr. DeRanney would permit Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn to use his credit cards from time to time to cover certain of their expenses such as car maintenance, fuel and clothing.

[27] Mr. DeRanney took a few vacations with Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn. They all went to Mexico together in 2005. Mr. DeRanney and Caseylynn went back to Mexico in 2016 for a March break vacation. In 2017, all three went to Cuba and to New York. In December of the same year, Mr. DeRanney joined Ms. Deleon, Caseylynn and other members of Ms. Deleon’s family on the trip to Punta Cana, where Mr. DeRanney passed away. Sonya did not go on any of these vacations. Apart from the one March break vacation when Mr. DeRanney and Caseylynn went to Mexico, Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn went on March break vacations on their own. Ms. Deleon testified that Mr. DeRanney paid for all the vacations they took together.

Ms. Deleon’s ability to support Caseylynn

[28] Ms. Deleon’s uncle, Greg Rymaszewski, was on the trip to Punta Cana where Mr. DeRanney passed away. He testified that he had known Mr. DeRanney since 2010 and that Mr. DeRanney “wants to take care of Caseylynn, make sure she goes through school and take care of all that stuff and whatnot.” When asked if Mr. DeRanney was providing financial support to Caseylynn, he testified: “99 percent. Fritzie was not making very much money of any kind, so there’s no other way to do it.”

[29] Ms. Deleon’s evidence is that Mr. DeRanney assisted Ms. Deleon to improve her skills and to find work at a bank in Toronto. When she was transferred to Hamilton, she gave up her job at the bank because of the long commute. In 2004, she focused on driving Caseylynn to her extracurricular activities in a second-hand car that Mr. DeRanney initially lent to her and ultimately transferred to her. In 2006, Mr. DeRanney encouraged her to go to school, where she upgraded her skills and earned an accounting certificate. Ms. Deleon was then hired as a sales advisor at Sport Chek in 2011.

[30] In 2014, Ms. Deleon was diagnosed with breast cancer and treated. She is now in remission. She testified that the side effects of her medication affect her energy such that she cannot work more than a few hours a day. She did go back to work at Sport Chek following her treatment, but because of her health issues, she could not put in many hours. Ms. Deleon continues to be employed by Sport Chek. She applied for and now receives ODSP.

[31] In 2015, she qualified as a nail technician and received an esthetician, medical spa and body therapist certificate. Ms. Deleon provides esthetic services for cash from time to time. Her income for 2015 to 2017 has been in the range of $27,000 in 2015 to $20,000 in 2017. She now receives $1,800 per month from ODSP, subject to any adjustment for other employment income.

[32] As a consequence of extending her credit and loaning money to boyfriends, in 2016, Ms. Deleon filed a Consumer Proposal to repay her creditors. Mr. Wayne, a beneficiary of such credit or loans, is assisting her with the repayments to creditors.

Mr. DeRanney’s assets at the time of his death

[33] At the time of his death, Mr. DeRanney owned the Sheppard Avenue condo and one-half of the Yonge St. condo as well as the Donlea residence. During his lifetime, Mr. DeRanney had also purchased a downtown Toronto condominium at 55 Merchant’s Wharf (the “Merchant’s Wharf condo”). When he purchased it, it was in the process of being built. He listed Sonya and himself as purchasers. The Merchant’s Wharf condo was transferred from the builder directly to Sonya alone upon completion in 2018. It had a value at that time of $564,957 and it was purchased as an investment property for rental income.

[34] Mr. DeRanney also owned an RRSP with a date of death value of $697,810 on which he had designated Sonya as the beneficiary. He also had a BMW car, which had been leased and was returned to the dealership following his death.

[35] Ms. Deleon asserts that Mr. DeRanney died leaving an estate worth approximately $2 million. However, the application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee without a Will shows that he owned personal property with a value of $3,632.81 and real property, net of encumbrances, of $1,551,001.00 for a total date of death value of $1,554,633.81.

1. Did Mr. DeRanney demonstrate a settled intention to treat Caseylynn as child of his family?

Legal Principles

[36] Part V of the SLRA makes provision for the dependants of a deceased person. Section 58 of the SLRA provides, in part, as follows:

58(1) Where a deceased whether testate or intestate, has not made adequate provision for the proper support of his dependants or any of them, the court, on application, may order that such provision as it considers adequate be made out of the estate of the deceased for the proper support of the dependants or any of them.

[37] A “dependant” is defined, at s. 57(1) of the SLRA, and includes:

… a child of the deceased to whom the deceased was providing support or was under a legal obligation to provide support immediately before his or her death;

and a “child” includes:

a person whom the deceased has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his or her family.

[38] In Hyatt v. Ralph, 2015 ONSC 580 at para. 21, the court, citing Widdis v. Widdis, 2000 SKQB 441 at para. 16, identified a number of indicia of parenthood from the case law as follows:

a) did the “parents” pool their income into a joint account? b) did the “parents” pay the expenses for all children out of this same account? c) did the child in question refer to the man as “daddy” or woman as “mommy”? d) did the “parents” refer to themselves as “mommy” and “daddy”? e) did the “parents” share the task of discipling the child? f) did the child participate in the extended family in the same way as a biological child? g) did the child have a relationship with the biological parent? h) was there a change of surname? i) was there a discussion of adoption? j) was the “parent” engaging in decisions about education and attending at parent-teacher meetings? k) did the “parent” express to the child, the family and the world, either implicitly or explicitly, that he or she is responsible as a parent to the child?

Analysis

[39] Most of the indicia of parenthood, as set out in Hyatt are not present in this case. Following Caseylynn’s birth, Mr. DeRanney and Ms. Deleon never lived together as spouses. They did not hold themselves out as her parents. For some of the time during which Caseylynn lived at the Donlea residence, Mr. DeRanney and Ms. Deleon did not live together at all. By Ms. Deleon’s own admission, when they were both living at the Donlea residence at the same time, they lived there as brother and sister. Mr. DeRanney and Ms. Deleon did not pool their incomes into a joint account out of which they paid for the expenses of the children, Sonya and Caseylynn.

[40] Caseylynn referred to Mr. DeRanney as “Uncle Raymon” and not as “daddy” or her father. Mr. DeRanney did not hold himself out as her father and, on occasion, he described her as his niece. To Mr. DeRanney’s friends, including girlfriends, his siblings and Sonya, Mr. DeRanney described Ms. DeRanney and Caseylynn as friends. Following his death, Ms. Deleon described the loss felt by Caseylynn and her as the loss of “our best friend.”

[41] There is no evidence that Mr. DeRanney and Ms. Deleon shared the task of disciplining Caseylynn. Caseylynn describes Mr. DeRanney as someone who “spoiled” her with his generosity.

[42] Caseylynn did not participate in extended DeRanney family activities to the same extent as Sonya. In her affidavit, Ms. Deleon testified that she and Caseylynn spent most holidays, birthdays and special occasions with Mr. DeRanney’s family. On cross-examination, Ms. Deleon admitted that they had only spent a couple of Sonya’s birthdays with her, a few with Mr. DeRanney’s brother Carlton and none with his sister Jean. Caseylynn admitted on cross-examination that she and her mother spent holidays with Mr. DeRanney and his family sporadically. Jean testified that she spent about 75% of special occasions (Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.) with Mr. DeRanney and she tracked these occasions in her diary. Her evidence is that Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn were never in attendance when she was with the exception of one Christmas gathering in 2015. Carlton deposed that Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn were at some DeRanney family holiday celebrations, but not in the last four to six years of Mr. DeRanney’s life. Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn spent some holidays, like Christmas, together with Mr. DeRanney and Sonya, but not all. There are photos of a family Christmas including the four of them for 2004, 2005 and 2006, but nothing since. There are some family photos taken at some but not all Caseylynn’s birthdays. Carlton’s evidence is that Mr. DeRanney would drive Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn to Deleon family Christmas and Thanksgiving gatherings, and pick them up, but he would not stay or participate. Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn did not participate in vacations taken by Mr. DeRanney and Sonya, and others, like Ms. Boiko. Mr. DeRanney favoured Sonya in ways that he did not favour Caseylynn. For example, he purchased the Merchant’s Wharf condo for Sonya, he named her as the beneficiary of his RRSPs, and he bought her a luxury Lexus car. He also paid Sonya an allowance of $1,200 per month well into her 30’s.

[43] There is some evidence that Mr. DeRanney chauffeured Caseylynn to and from her extracurricular activities from time to time. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that Mr. DeRanney went to her games when she played sports or, apart from one competition in Hamilton in 2017, went to her dance competitions. Ms. Deleon admitted in cross-examination that Mr. DeRanney would drive Caseylynn to the competitions but not stay. Prior to 2017, Mr. DeRanney and Caseylynn went on only three vacations together between 2002 and 2016. Apart from vacation photos or photos of special occasion meals, there is no evidence, photographic or otherwise, of activities which Mr. DeRanney and Caseylynn enjoyed together.

[44] Caseylynn did not have a relationship with her biological father. She met him for the first-time following Mr. DeRanney’s death when Ms. DeLeon successfully doubled the child support he was paying for Caseylynn. There is no evidence to suggest that a change in Caseylynn’s surname was ever contemplated.

[45] There is a difference of opinion between Ms. Deleon and Sonya on whether Mr. DeRanney ever considered adopting Caseylynn. Ms. Deleon submits that Mr. DeRanney twice asked her if he could adopt Caseylynn and both times she declined. She reasoned that she hoped to get married one day and she did not want to “give her daughter away.” Ms. Deleon deposed that Adam Wayne also wished to adopt Caseylynn. Sonya testified that Mr. DeRanney did not wish to adopt Caseylynn. She submits that her father did not wish to have any more children, which is supported by the fact that when Ms. Deleon got pregnant with Mr. DeRanney’s baby in 1997 before she had Caseylynn, Mr. DeRanney suggested that she abort the child because he did not wish to have any more children, and Ms. Deleon did so. Further, Sonya submits that Mr. DeRanney’s relationship with Ms. Ma ended was because he did not wish to marry or have any more children. Sonya also testified that her father endured a lengthy and challenging custody battle with Sonya’s mother to be awarded custody of Sonya as a toddler. Accordingly, Sonya asserts, if Mr. DeRanney were serious about adopting Caseylynn, he would have undertaken considerable effort to make it happen.

[46] There is little evidence to show that Mr. DeRanney was actively engaged in specific discussions relating to Caseylynn’s education. Ms. Deleon submits that Mr. DeRanney spent time helping Caseylynn with her homework, “giving her advice and discussing and worrying about her future.”

[47] There is no evidence that Mr. DeRanney attended parent-teacher meetings. It appears that he encouraged Caseylynn to pursue a post-secondary education. He paid for additional training so Caseylynn could improve her math grade to better her chances of admission to a university. Mr. Rymaszewski testified that Mr. DeRanney wanted Caseylynn to go to university and was prepared to assist her financially to achieve that goal. Ms. Deleon testified that Mr. DeRanney paid for Caseylynn’s application to the Ontario Universities Application Centre on his way to Punta Cana in December 2017. The record includes a receipt for a $200 payment to the Centre but there is no evidence to show that the payment was made by Mr. DeRanney. The email address on the receipt, though partially concealed, appears to by Caseylynn’s email address. Mr. DeRanney’s name or identifiable credit card details do not appear anywhere on the receipt.

[48] Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn also testified that Mr. DeRanney had promised to either give Caseylynn one of his condominiums or allow her to use one of them as her residence while she studied at Ryerson University. Caseylynn’s evidence on this point was inconsistent and she could not say with certainty whether she would be given one of Mr. DeRanney’s condominiums, or whether she would be permitted to use one while going to university, and if so, which one. Given that the Merchant’s Wharf condominiums was purchased for Sonya and the Yonge St. condo was owned by Mr. DeRanney and Ms. Boiko as equal tenants in common, it seems unlikely the Mr. DeRanney would be gifting or letting either of those condos to Caseylynn. The Sheppard Avenue condo would not be particularly convenient for a student attending at Ryerson University. Mr. DeRanney would have been required to forgo the rental income from any of his condominiums in which he permitted Caseylynn to reside while attending university.

[49] There is no evidence that Mr. DeRanney, implicitly or explicitly, expressed to Caseylynn, or to his family and to the world that he was responsible as a parent to Caseylynn. By contrast, in 2017, Mr. DeRanney met a number of times with Leslie McCormack, a financial advisor with Scotia Wealth Management, to discuss retirement planning. In the course of these discussions, Ms. McCormack prepared a document entitled “Financial & Lifestyle Objectives.” The document records that Mr. DeRanney has one daughter and that he wishes to leave the Donlea residence (worth $2.3 million) to her. In his proposed budget, he includes a monthly allowance for Sonya but nothing for Caseylynn. The document states that he anticipates that he will need $50,000, net of tax, on an annual basis, to fund his retirement. He makes no mention of Caseylynn or any need to provide financially for her or her mother. Ms. McCormack testified that when she asked Mr. DeRanney if he had any dependants he replied that he did not. Despite having had several meetings with Ms. McCormack to discuss his retirement planning, Ms. McCormack’s evidence is that he never once mentioned Caseylynn or Ms. Deleon. In his discussions with Ms. McCormack, he contemplates selling two of the condominiums and keeping one in which to live.

[50] On the evidence, I am not persuaded that Mr. DeRanney and Ms. Deleon co-parented Caseylynn. There is no evidence of his attendance at her medical appointments, parent-teacher interviews or of his involvement in disciplining her. Apart from Caseylynn’s own self-serving evidence, in the form of an Instagram post following Mr. DeRanney’s death, there is no evidence of his role as an influential father figure. Her evidence supports his role as a very generous benefactor, someone who “spoiled” her.

[51] Most of the typical indicia of demonstrating a settled intention to treat Caseylynn as a child of Mr. DeRanney’s family are simply not present in this case. I am mindful of the case of Stajduhar v. Wolfe, 2017 ONSC 4954, in which this Court found that the deceased, Mr. Wolfe, while very generous in his financial support of his girlfriend and her 18-year old daughter Andreja, and greatly affectionate toward them, had not expressed a settled intentioned to treat Andreja as a child of his family. The Ontario Court of appeal affirmed the decision and leave to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied. As the court noted in Hyatt at para. 17, citing Gower v. Gower (1987) 4 R.F.L. (3d) 275, “it is wrong to ascribe too great an importance to the provision of financial assistance or material things.”

[52] However, I find that there is a material difference between the support that Mr. Wolfe provided to Andreja in Stajduhar and the support that Mr. DeRanney provided to Caseylynn. Mr. Wolfe did not provide shelter to Andreja and he never lived with her or her mother. By contrast, Mr. DeRanney provided Caseylynn with safe and comfortable shelter in his home for more than 15 consecutive years following her first birthday. His home was, for all intents and purposes, her childhood home, and where she spent the majority of her formative years. In this way, he provided her with “the most basic of human needs, shelter”: Reid v. Reid, 2003 CarswellOnt 2370 (S.C.J.), reversed in part, [2008] O.J. No. 826 (Div. Ct.)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2008/2008canlii826/2008canlii826.html), at para. 21. While she lived there, he provided her with food, some clothing, and paid for all of her extracurricular activities.

[53] I find that this provision of shelter and the other financial support that he provided for Caseylynn, his own daughter Sonya and Caseylynn’s mother, Ms. Deleon, while they were all residing together at the Donlea residence, demonstrates Mr. DeRanney’s settled intention to treat Caseylynn as a member of his family. Even when Ms. Deleon and Sonya permanently vacated the Donlea residence, Mr. DeRanney continued to provide shelter, food and other support for Caseylynn at that property, until he leased it, and then at the Yonge St. condo, albeit briefly. In my view, Mr. DeRanney’s support of Caseylynn in these ways rises above affection and generosity. Despite the atypical family relationships between Mr. DeRanney, Ms. Deleon, Sonya and Caseylynn, Mr. DeRanney’s support of Caseylynn demonstrates his settled intention to treat her as a member of his unconventional family. I find that Caseylynn is therefore a dependant for the purposes of the SLRA.

2. What is adequate provision for Caseylynn’s support from Mr. DeRanney’s estate?

Legal Principles

[54] Regarding the support of a deceased’s dependants, the Supreme Court of Canada in Tatryn v. Tatryn Estate, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807 considered the two competing interests identified in the legislation: a) what is adequate, just and equitable; and b) a testator’s right to testamentary autonomy.

[55] In the same case, the Supreme Court of Canada included in the concept of “adequate, just and equitable” a legal and moral duty. The legal duty refers to obligations that would be imposed on a person during his lifetime taking into account the needs and means of the dependant. The moral duty is society’s reasonable expectations of what a judicious person would do by reference to contemporary standards: Tatryn at para. 28.

[56] In Reid at para. 20-21, the deceased was found to have demonstrated a settled intention to treat her grandchildren as children of her family by providing support to them immediately prior to her death, including providing a home for them and playing an active daily role in their lives from the time they were born until her death. In addition to housing, the testator also provided transportation, food, nurturing, clothing, heat, hydro and moral support. The Ontario Divisional Court held that by providing the most basic of human needs, shelter, the testator provided substantial financial support to the grandchildren all their lives.

[57] Section 62(1) of the SLRA sets out the criteria that the court shall consider in determining the amount and duration of support as follows:

62 (1) In determining the amount and duration, if any, of support, the court shall consider all the circumstances of the application, including,

a) the dependant’s current assets and means; b) the assets and means that the dependant is likely to have in the future; c) the dependant’s capacity to contribute to his or her own support; d) the dependant’s age and physical and mental health; e) the dependant’s needs, in determining which the court shall have regard to the dependant’s accustomed standard of living; f) the measures available for the dependant to become able to provide for his or her own support and the length of time and cost involved to enable the dependant to take those measures; g) the proximity and duration of the dependant’s relationship with the deceased; h) the contributions made by the dependant to the deceased’s welfare, including indirect and non-financial contributions; i) the contributions made by the dependant to the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of the deceased’s property or business; j) a contribution by the dependant to the realization of the deceased’s career potential; k) whether the dependant has a legal obligation to provide support for another person; l) the circumstances of the deceased at the time of death; m) any agreement between the deceased and the dependant; n) any previous distribution or division of property made by the deceased in favour of the dependant by gift or agreement or under court order; o) the claims that any other person may have as a dependant; p) if the dependant is a child, i) the child’s aptitude for and reasonable prospects of obtaining an education, and ii) the child’s need for a stable environment; q) if the dependant is a child of the age of sixteen years or more, whether the child has withdrawn from parental control; r) if the dependant is a spouse, i. a course of conduct by the spouse during the deceased’s lifetime that is so unconscionable as to constitute an obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship, ii. the length of time the spouses cohabited, iii. the effect on the spouse’s earning capacity of the responsibilities assumed during cohabitation, iv. whether the spouse has undertaken the care of a child who is of the age of eighteen years or over and unable by reason of illness, disability or other cause to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents, v. whether the spouse has undertaken to assist in the continuation of a program of education for a child eighteen years of age or over who is unable for that reason to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents, vi. any housekeeping, child care or other domestic service performed by the spouse for the family, as if the spouse had devoted the time spent in performing that service in remunerative employment and had contributed the earnings to the family’s support, (vi.1) Repealed: 2005, c. 5, s. 66 (10). vii. the effect on the spouse’s earnings and career development of the responsibility of caring for a child, viii. the desirability of the spouse remaining at home to care for a child; and s) any other legal right of the dependant to support, other than out of public money. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s. 62 (1); 1999, c. 6, s. 61 (3-5); 2005, c. 5, s. 66 (9-11).

Analysis

[58] In considering the criteria set out in s. 62(1) of the SLRA, I face less than ideal clarity respecting Caseylynn’s assets and means. I agree with Sonya’s submission that Caseylynn has not adduced the evidence necessary for me to ascertain whether Mr. DeRanney made adequate provision for Caseylynn’s support. She has not made full financial disclosure of her needs and means.

[59] Caseylynn has only provided the briefest of affidavit evidence and relies on the Form 13 Financial Statement sworn by Ms. Deleon and submitted as part of Ms. Deleon’s application for dependant’s relief. Unfortunately, the Form 13 was prepared in July, 2018, based on Ms. Deleon’s 2017 income, and includes no information on Caseylynn’s assets. For example, Caseylynn testified that she owns a Kia car, but it is not included on the Form 13.

[60] Caseylynn also testified that she quit her job at Sport Chek and now works as a server at Glow Restaurant, but the Form 13 does not disclose any of Caseylynn’s income from employment while at Sport Chek or at Glow Restaurant. Once Caseylynn attained the age of majority it would have been appropriate for a new Form 13 to have been filed or, at a minimum, for Caseylynn to include details of her assets and means in her affidavit. There is no evidence with respect to the number of shifts Caseylynn works and whether she plans to work additional shifts during the summer when she is not in school. Caseylynn deposed that she applied for and receives OSAP, but she has not disclosed whether the OSAP support is in the form of a grant or a loan, or both, or the quantum of the support she is receiving. Though she deposed that she files tax returns, none is in evidence. Caseylynn deposed that she uses some of her income from employment to pay for car insurance, TTC and fuel and otherwise she uses it to go out with her friends.

[61] There is no evidence to suggest that Caseylynn has any limitation that would prevent her from continuing to work part-time while she goes to school, or to work full-time in the summer when she is not in school. Based on the record, she appears to be a healthy, active 19-year-old, who was accepted into Ryerson University on a scholarship. She is living in a stable home with her mother and is receiving child support from her biological father.

[62] Caseylynn’s accustomed standard of living had changed in the year prior to Mr. DeRanney’s death. She was no longer living at the Donlea residence and Mr. DeRanney was no longer fully subsidizing the costs of her shelter. Unlike Sonya, Caseylynn was not receiving a generous monthly allowance and she had not been provided with a fully furnished apartment. She was living, with her mother, in a two-bedroom bungalow on Laird Drive, where Ms. Deleon was paying the lion’s share of the rent. Mr. DeRanney contributed a mattress and sofa bed. He also continued to provide Ms. Deleon, Caseylynn and Sonya with groceries. In Morassut v. Jaczynski Estate, 2015 ONSC 502 (Div. Ct.), the court held that it should consider not only the economic needs of the dependants, but also the standard of living that was enjoyed by the dependants as a result of the deceased’s support.

[63] At the time of his death, Mr. DeRanney was planning for his retirement. Following his retirement, it is unlikely that he would have been in the same position to provide financial support to Caseylynn, as he was while employed. He had told his financial planner, Ms. McCormack, that he required about $50,000 of income, net of tax, per year in order to support himself, and he was looking to help Sonya to become more financially secure and independent. In his discussions with Ms. McCormack, he did not include support for Caseylynn among the expenses he anticipated in his retirement. In his proposed budget he estimated approximately $3,000 per month for his own living expenses (not including mortgage and car lease payments).

[64] Owing to the lack of evidence directly on point, it is difficult to determine Caseylynn’s actual expenses. She submits that they are included with her mother’s expenses on the Form 13, which is intended to cover their blended expenses. The Form 13 is limited to household expenses and does not include expenses directly related to Caseylynn’s university education.

[65] I do not find that the Form 13 provides reliable evidence of the income or expenses of Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn. In addition to not disclosing any of Caseylynn’s income, the Form 13 does not disclose the child support payment or Ms. Deleon’s employment income paid to her in cash for esthetic services, which she admitted she does not report. The Form 13 shows Ms. Deleon as having $80,000 in debt, but her debt shown on the Form 65 (Monthly Income and Expense Statement of the Debtor and Family Unit), which Ms. Deleon filed as part of her Consumer Proposal, shows debt of less than half that amount, most of which Ms. Deleon admitted to having repaid. Ms. Deleon also testified that Mr. Wayne, who benefited from Ms. Deleon extending him her credit, is assisting in the debt repayment. His contribution to the debt repayment is not reflected on the Form 13.

[66] The Proposed Budget put forth by Ms. Deleon in the Form 13 shows Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn as having a lifestyle cost of greater than $86,000 per year. While they submit that this lifestyle was supported in large measure by Mr. DeRanney, I do not find this submission credible. The record shows Mr. DeRanney’s net income in 2016 to be $44,000 per year.

[67] I find the lifestyle cost to be exaggerated. In December of 2016, when Ms. Deleon signed a Form 65 as part of her Consumer Proposal, she stated that her household expenses were $32,100 per year (as opposed to $86,000 as shown in her proposed budget).

[68] Under cross-examination, Caseylynn admitted that some of the expenses on the Form 13 Proposed Budget were higher than the expenses actually incurred by her mother and her and paid for by Mr. DeRanney. For example, she admitted that it was unlikely that Mr. DeRanney was spending $750 per month on groceries for her and her mother alone, and that when Mr. DeRanney bought food or groceries, he bought for the family, including himself and for Sonya as well. Caseylynn also admitted that a budget of $800 per month for clothing for her was not accurate and that Mr. DeRanney would not have spent that much money on her clothing each month. She submitted that a monthly expenditure of $200 per month would be more realistic.

[69] Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn submit that because Mr. DeRanney paid entirely for Caseylynn’s expenses, it would be fair for his estate to continue to pay all of those expenses. In making this submission, they rely on Mihaescu v. Zodian Estate, in which the court calculated the quantum of support to be paid to the deceased’s stepson by taking the expenses incurred for the stepson’s support up to the date of trial, and the expenses that would be incurred to finish his degree and assigned the amount proportionate to what was paid by the deceased during his lifetime to his estate.

[70] I disagree that Mr. DeRanney was paying all of Caseylynn’s expenses immediately before his death. This assertion is not supported by the evidence. Immediately before his death, Mr. DeRanney was subsidizing the rent at the Laird Drive property, where Caseylynn was living, by paying $550 per month; he was paying about one-quarter of the rent. While he paid some of the utilities at this property, Ms. Deleon deposed that she paid for internet/cable, fuel (some of the time), car insurance and hydro. Ms. Deleon was, at this time, also receiving child support from Mr. Dagdag for the benefit of Caseylynn. Caseylynn had a job at Sport Chek and testified that she would use her employment income to pay transportation costs and to go out with her friends. While there is evidence that Mr. DeRanney generously permitted Caseylynn to use his credit card from time to time, she did not have carte blanche to use it to fund all of her expenses all of the time. For example, there are text messages between Caseylynn and Mr. DeRanney in which Caseylynn discusses purchasing tickets to go to the aquarium with her friend. She negotiates with Mr. DeRanney to have him buy her ticket, but assures him that she will pay for her friend’s ticket and asks if she can use his credit card to pay for both. His text in reply is “Yes, you can use my cc and pay me back in cash.”

[71] Caseylynn further submits that she should be treated the same as Sonya with respect to the distribution of Mr. DeRanney’s estate. She cites Gaudet (Litigation Guardian of) v. Young Estate as authority for the proposition that a stepchild should be treated the same as a biological child. I find Gaudet to be distinguishable from the case at bar. Caseylynn is not a stepchild of Mr. DeRanney and, in the Gaudet case, the court was considering awards of support as between the deceased’s two minor children, a stepson and a biological son. Neither Caseylynn nor Sonya is a minor and Sonya is not seeking support from Mr. DeRanney’s estate. Also, in Gaudet, the court found that the two dependant minor boys spent an equal amount of time with the deceased. The evidence in the case at bar is that Caseylynn and Ms. Deleon did not regularly attend DeRanney family functions and spend the holidays with them. Caseylynn attended such functions sporadically. At other times, they spent the holidays with members of Ms. Deleon’s family and her friends, and Mr. DeRanney’s role was limited to driving them there or picking them up. Also, Caseylynn spent weekends at her mother’s apartment with her mother and others, like Mr. Wayne. Caseylynn and her mother went away together on March break vacations without Mr. DeRanney. Mr. DeRanney spent only one March break with Caseylynn, and Caseylynn did not go on vacations taken by Mr. DeRanney and Sonya.

[72] Caseylynn submits that because Mr. DeRanney provided Sonya with a condominium, furnishings for her condominium, an expensive car and an allowance well into her 30’s, Caseylynn should be provided the same. However, Caseylynn’s submission in support of equal treatment is inconsistent with her own evidence on cross-examination. During cross-examination, when asked about the fact that Mr. DeRanney had disclosed to Ms. McCormack that he wished to continue to offer the Donlea residence for rent and one day give it to Sonya, Caseylynn testified that she was not surprised by this and said “I knew that like that would never go to my mom or I or me.” She also testified that she was not surprised that Mr. DeRanney did not designate her as a beneficiary of his RRSP’s. Caseylynn further testified that she believed that Mr. DeRanney owned three condominiums, and that it was only during this litigation that she learned that one was co-owned with Iryna Boiko and another was purchased for Sonya.

[73] When cross-examined on whether it was likely that Mr. DeRanney intended to treat Sonya and Caseylynn equally, Caseylynn testified: “So, like maybe, like all the condos and stuff, he wouldn’t be giving it that to an 18-year-old but as I grew older, he could have potentially done that. Like he treated us emotionally like the exact same way.”

[74] The record does not support any intention on the part of Mr. DeRanney to treat Sonya and Caseylynn equally. While he did not leave a will, he did exercise his testamentary freedom during his lifetime. On October 4, 2006, he specifically designated Sonya as the beneficiary of his RRSPs. He could have chosen to designate Caseylynn, who was then living with him, or both Sonya and Caseylynn, as beneficiaries, but he did not. Similarly, he purchased the Merchant’s Wharf property in the names of both Sonya and himself and title was taken in Sonya’s name alone once the Merchant’s Wharf condo was built. In this financial planning, some of which was testamentary in nature, he exercised his testamentary freedom to choose Sonya to the exclusion of all other potential beneficiaries. In his financial planning discussions with Ms. McCormack, he specifically mentioned that he wished to leave the Donlea residence to Sonya and made no mention of anyone else he planned to provide for, including Caseylynn.

[75] Despite the weakness in the evidence provided by Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn regarding the level of support that Mr. DeRanney’s estate ought to provide Caseylynn as a dependant, I am satisfied that Mr. DeRanney was providing financial support to Caseylynn at the time of his death and she is entitled to some support as a dependant. On his death, Mr. DeRanney made no provision for Caseylynn. He died intestate.

[76] At the time of his death, Caseylynn was months away from becoming an adult. A parent’s duty to provide for a capable adult child is different than his duty to provide for a minor dependant child.

[77] I have been provided with no authority to support the proposition that Caseylynn, a healthy 19-year-old dependant, who is receiving support from her biological father and her mother, should be entitled to the same share of Mr. DeRanney’s estate to which Mr. DeRanney’s biological child, Sonya, would be entitled. Caseylynn herself acknowledges that while Mr. DeRanney may have, in her mind, treated Sonya and her equally, “emotionally”, Sonya would be entitled to a greater share of her father’s estate (e.g., the family home) and that she, Caseylynn, would not be entitled to an asset like that.

[78] I am, however, satisfied that had Mr. DeRanney survived his heart attack, he would likely have made a significant contribution to Caseylynn’s university education. The record shows that he encouraged her to pursue post-secondary education and assisted her by paying for a summer school course to improve her grades. He may have also paid for her application to the Ontario Universities Application Centre.

[79] Again, I find the evidence lacking. I am not able to readily ascertain the actual costs of Caseylynn’s post-secondary education. Caseylynn testified that in 2018 she was accepted into and commenced Ryerson University’s Bachelor of Arts, Child and Youth Care program and that she remains enrolled in this program.

[80] While I would have expected to see evidence of the payment of her tuition for her first and second year, no such evidence was adduced. For the four-year program, Ms. Deleon testified that Caseylynn’s tuition alone would “likely amount to more than $41,000.” This amount is supported by a document entitled “2018-2019 Undergraduate Fees Schedule – Child and Youth Care” for each of “Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4 for the Fall Term and the Winter Term”, which was downloaded from the internet. The tuition for each year is broken down into “units”. It is impossible to tell what these “units” represent and how many units form the tuition that Caseylynn has paid or would be required to pay. The tuition calculation also factors in a number of items that may or may not be optional (e.g., Ryerson Students Union, Special Activities Reserve, RSU Health and Dental Plan, Athletics and Mattamy Athletic Centre, among others), and whether these items form part of the tuition that Caseylynn has paid or would be required to pay. The total tuition per year, based on the maximum units, is approximately $10,489 per year. The document does not reflect any adjustment for the scholarship Caseylynn received.

[81] In assessing an adequate level of support for Caseylynn, who is now 19 years of age and attending Ryerson University, having earned a $2,000 entrance scholarship, I am guided by the principles set out in Fernandez v. Fernandez Estate, 2011 ONSC 8023. In Fernandez, the Court considered the deceased’s moral and legal obligations to his daughter Sarah who was 17 years of age at the time of his death and receiving support from him at that time. Sarah had no assets or means. She was a strong student planning to enter a four-year undergraduate program at a cost of $74,978 inclusive of tuition, textbooks and living expenses. The court held that Sarah was entitled to $82,978 less $25,000, being the sum it was expected that Sarah could earn in full-time summer employment. The net award was $57,998.

[82] A similar approach was applied in Mihaescu in which the deceased’s son was awarded a lump sum of $102,874.48 for his educational and living expenses over five years of high school and post-secondary education. Of this amount, $63,674.48 was attributed to his post-secondary education.

[83] Unfortunately, Caseylynn has not provided reliable evidence regarding her actual tuition costs for the four-year program she is pursuing at Ryerson University, and she has provided no evidence with respect to post-secondary education costs, other than tuition, such as textbooks, technology and living expenses relating specifically to her post-secondary education. As noted, I find Ms. Deleon’s Form 13 unreliable in setting out Caseylynn’s actual living expenses.

[84] Based on Ms. Deleon’s Form 65 as part of her Consumer Proposal, the more realistic household expenses of Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn, combined, are likely in the $32,000 range, annually; or, approximately, $2,670 per month. Living expenses in this amount are similar to Mr. DeRanney’s estimate of his own annual living expenses (not including mortgage and car payments). Ms. Deleon testified that she receives rental income of $750 per month from a tenant at the Laird Drive property, $461 in child support from Caseylynn’s father and income from providing esthetic services, which she has not disclosed on her Form 13. Ms. Deleon also receives ODSP (while she is recovering from cancer treatment) and should be able to return to full-time employment once she is no longer taking her cancer medication in about six months’ time. When Ms. Deleon returns to work, her income should be higher, and she should have a greater ability to support Caseylynn in her post-secondary education. The amount she pays in debt reduction should also be eliminated over time.

[85] Ignoring Caseylynn’s OSAP payments and income from employment, and assuming that Ms. Deleon has an annual income of at least $21,000 from ODSP and employment, $9,000 from rental income, and $5,532 from child support, their household income would be at least $36,132. This annual income would cover the blended household expenses of Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn of $32,000, but not likely additional post-secondary expenses such as textbooks and technology, among others. Without the benefit of evidence of additional post-secondary education costs while Caseylynn is living at the Laird Drive residence, it is difficult to quantify these additional expenses. If I ascribe an additional $500 per month to cover such additional post-secondary expenses and to provide a cushion for any increase in living expenses, Caseylynn would need an additional $6,000 per year, for a total of $24,000 over four years. Adding $24,000 to the estimated tuition cost of $41,955 (as set out on the “Undergraduate Fees, Schedule for the Year 2018-2019” with no deduction for her scholarship), for her current four-year program of study, Caseylynn would need $65,955 to cover her post-secondary education costs. From this amount it is reasonable to deduct $25,000 to take into account the OSAP support Caseylynn is receiving, the income Caseylynn earns from her employment at Glow Restaurant, as well as income she could be expected to earn through full-time employment during the summers. Accordingly, I find that adequate support owing from Mr. DeRanney’s estate to Caseylynn as his adult dependant child is $40,955, which I find to be just and equitable in the circumstances of this case.

Disposition and Costs

[86] The applicants have succeeded on their application for dependant’s relief for Caseylynn Deleon. The Estate Trustee of the Estate of Raymon DeRanney shall pay $40,955 to Caseylynn Deleon as dependant’s relief within 30 days hereof.

[87] Sonya submits that Ms. Deleon should be responsible for the costs thrown away relating to the application she abandoned in support of her claim as dependant common law spouse of Mr. DeRanney. Rule 38.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that where an application is abandoned or deemed to have been abandoned, a respondent on whom the notice of application was served is entitled to the costs of the application unless the court orders otherwise: Mihaescu at para. 48.

[88] Ms. Deleon commenced her application on July 17, 2018 and abandoned it on April 2, 2019, by way of a letter from her counsel, following a failed mediation. Ms. Deleon did not file a notice of abandonment, but she has admitted that she knew that she was not a common law spouse of Mr. DeRanney when she brought her claim.

[89] Sonya submits that the significance of Ms. Deleon’s abandoned application cannot be taken lightly. Both Ms. Deleon and Caseylynn admitted in cross examination that they did not believe that Ms. Deleon was a common law spouse of Mr. DeRanney at the time of his death, but Ms. DeLeon brought her application for dependant’s relief regardless. I find that Ms. Deleon’s action in this regard demonstrates a willingness by her to abuse the court’s processes.

[90] Ms. Deleon argues that costs thrown away should not be awarded against her because Ms. Deleon’s affidavit evidence and her Form 13 Financial Statement were useful in pursuing the dependant’s relief claim brought by Caseylynn.

[91] Sonya argues that, notwithstanding that some of Ms. Deleon’s evidence may have been helpful in support of Caseylynn’s claim, Sonya was nonetheless required to respond to Ms. Deleon’s claim before it was abandoned. She estimates that 64 percent of her litigation costs prior to April 2, 2019 relate to her response to Ms. Deleon’s claim. Sonya has served and filed a bill of costs relating to her costs thrown away in which she seeks $14,238.66 on a full indemnity basis and $11,213.88 on a partial indemnity basis.

[92] The parties did not submit cost outlines on Caseylynn’s application alone and I understand that settlement offers have been exchanged. In the context of these reasons for decision, the parties are strongly encouraged to agree on the matter of all costs, including the costs thrown away by Sonya in responding to Ms. Deleon’s application for dependant’s support, which was abandoned. If the parties cannot so agree, Caseylynn shall serve and file written costs submissions on any matter on which there is no agreement, not to exceed three pages in length (excluding a costs outline or bill of costs and offers to settle, if any) within 14 days hereof. Sonya shall serve and file written costs submissions, on any matter on which there is no agreement, not to exceed three pages in length (excluding a costs outline or bill or costs and offers to settle, if any) within 14 days of receipt of Caseylynn’s written submissions. Reply submissions may only be made with leave.

Dietrich J.

Released: January 2, 2020