Cassan v. Giroux, 2024 ONSC 4785

Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-89327 DATE: 2024/08/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

LISE CASSAN Applicant – and – MANON GIROUX IN HER CAPACITY AS THE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF JEAN-GUY VILLENEUVE Respondent

Counsel: Carol Craig, Counsel for the Applicant Pierre Champagne, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: January 16, 2024 (Ottawa)

Reasons for Decision

H.J. Williams, J.

Overview

[1] The applicant Lise Cassan has brought an application for dependent’s relief under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26. The respondent is the estate of Jean-Guy Villeneuve.

[2] Mr. Villeneuve died on January 16, 2022.

[3] The applicant submits that although she and Mr. Villeneuve were not married, they lived together in a conjugal relationship from 2006 until Mr. Villeneuve’s death and that Mr. Villeneuve supported her financially.

[4] Mr. Villeneuve had three children, Manon Giroux, Todd Villeneuve and Colin Villeneuve. Manon, Todd and Colin are the beneficiaries of Mr. Villeneuve’s estate.

[5] The estate forcefully opposes the application. The estate argues that the applicant did not live with Mr. Villeneuve. The estate argues that throughout the time the applicant said she was living with Mr. Villeneuve, she maintained an apartment. The estate also argues that the applicant was just one of Mr. Villeneuve’s many women friends.

[6] It is not in dispute that Mr. Villeneuve did not provide for the applicant in his will. The estate emphasizes the importance of testamentary autonomy, arguing that Mr. Villeneuve could have provided for the applicant in his will, but obviously chose not to do so.

[7] The onus is on the applicant to prove that she was a dependent spouse of Mr. Villeneuve.

The Issue

[8] The issue is whether the applicant was a dependent spouse of Mr. Villeneuve under s. 57(1) of the SLRA, and therefore entitled to seek an order for dependent’s support under s. 58 of the SLRA.

[9] Mr. Villeneuve’s sons, Todd and Colin Villeneuve, brought a last-minute motion seeking to intervene in the applicant’s application and to convert an action they brought against their father’s estate into an application, to be heard with the applicant’s application.

[10] As the issues raised by Todd and Colin may be relevant to the determination of the value of Mr. Villeneuve’s estate, for reasons given orally, I allowed them to intervene and ordered that the hearing would proceed only on the issue of whether the applicant was a dependent spouse. I would then hear Todd and Colin’s application at the same time as the applicant’s request for an order for support, if I found that the applicant was a dependent spouse entitled to request such an order.

[11] In light of my decision in respect of Todd and Colin’s motion, I ruled that if I found that the applicant was a dependent spouse, I would consider a request from her for interim support, pending the further hearing.

Analysis

[12] Under s. 57(1) of the SLRA, a “dependent” includes “the spouse 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.”

[13] Under s. 57(1) of the SLRA, “spouse” under the SLRA has the same meaning as in s. 2 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3.

[14] Under s. 29 of the FLA, “spouse” includes either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years.

[15] Section 57 of the SLRA defines “cohabit” as “to live together in a conjugal relationship, whether within or outside marriage.”

[16] The parties agree that to determine whether the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve cohabited, the court must look to the factors identified in Molodowich v. Pettinen, (1980), which were endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in M. v. H., [1999] 2 SCR 3. These factors and some associated questions for the court’s consideration were set out in para. 16 of Molodowich:

I propose to consolidate the statements just quoted by considering the facts and circumstances of this case with the guidance of a series of questions listed under the seven descriptive components involved, to varying degrees and combinations, in the complex group of human inter-relationships broadly described by the words “cohabitation” and “consortium”:

(1) SHELTER: (a) Did the parties live under the same roof? (b) What were the sleeping arrangements? (c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

(2) SEXUAL AND PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR: (a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not? (b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other? (c) What were their feelings toward each other? (d) Did they communicate on a personal level? (e) Did they eat their meals together? (f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness? (g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

(3) SERVICES: What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to: (a) Preparation of meals, (b) Washing and mending clothes, (c) Shopping, (d) Household maintenance, (e) Any other domestic services?

(4) SOCIAL: (a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities? (b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them towards members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

(5) SOCIETAL: (a) What was the attitude and conduct of the community towards each of them and as a couple?

(6) SUPPORT (ECONOMIC): (a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution towards the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)? (b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property? (c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

(7) CHILDREN: (a) What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[17] The extent to which the different elements of the marriage relationship will be taken into account must vary with the circumstances of each case. (Molodowich, at para. 16.)

[18] I will consider each of the seven factors in turn.

Shelter

[19] The applicant says she met Mr. Villeneuve in 2005 and moved into his home at 4020 Leitrim Rd. in Ottawa in 2006. The applicant was in her mid 50s at the time; Mr. Villeneuve was in his early 60s. The applicant says she shared a bedroom and a bed with Mr. Villeneuve and that she slept in the home every night unless she and Mr. Villeneuve were together elsewhere.

[20] The applicant admits that she kept an apartment throughout her relationship with Mr. Villeneuve. The estate argues that Mr. Villeneuve insisted that the applicant keep the apartment, because he did not want her to move in with him. The applicant agrees that Mr. Villeneuve encouraged her to keep the apartment but says that he did so because it was subsidized. The applicant says that she and Mr. Villeneuve would use the apartment from time to time when they wanted privacy. She said that because Mr. Villeneuve operated his company from his home, employers were frequently coming in and out.

[21] Throughout her relationship with Mr. Villeneuve, the applicant used the address of her apartment for her mail and for official documents, such as her driver’s license.

[22] Manon, Todd and Colin all downplayed the amount of time the applicant spent at 4020 Leitrim Rd. Manon described the applicant as a “guest” in Mr. Villeneuve’s home. On cross-examination, Todd resisted the suggestion that the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve even had a relationship. “Do not say he was in a relationship with Lise,” Todd said to the applicant’s counsel. “He dated Lise, but he dated a lot of people. I would not say it was a relationship.” Colin said the applicant never lived with his father “permanently.” Asked what he meant by that, Colin said that if the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve had an argument, he would tell her to go home. Asked whether, other than that, the applicant stayed at 4020 Leitrim, Colin said, “[i]t depends. If my father was gone to an auction and stuff, she was not here, she was at her house.” I infer from Colin’s answer that if Mr. Villeneuve was at 4020 Leitrim Rd., the applicant was staying there with him. The applicant’s evidence was that if Mr. Villeneuve was not at his home, she was usually with him wherever he was. The applicant said she would accompany Mr. Villeneuve to auctions related to his business, that they travelled together frequently and spent weekends at a trailer in Limoges from May to November each year.

[23] I prefer the applicant’s evidence in respect of where she lived over that of Manon, Todd and Colin. A friend of the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve, Sharon Washer, gave evidence that the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve “shared a house together on Leitrim Road in the City of Ottawa.” The applicant’s grandson, Anthony Valenti, said he considered 4020 Leitrim Rd. to be the home of “his grandparents”, referring to the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve.

[24] There was also evidence that other people lived in the applicant’s apartment from time to time, sometimes for extended periods. Anthony lived there from September 2020 to February 2022, when he went to university, The applicant’s daughter, Christine, lived there when her marriage ended and Mr. Villeneuve’s colleague and friend, Marvin Dillon, lived there for a few months with his wife after a fire at his home.

[25] The estate argued that the applicant’s furniture, clothing and personal effects remained at her apartment. In support of this argument, the estate cited Anthony’s evidence. The full extent of Anthony’s evidence in this regard was when he moved into the apartment, a couch, a bed, some of the applicant’s clothes, some of Mr. Villeneuve’s clothes and an old laptop were there. The applicant said that her personal belongings were at 4020 Leitrim Rd. The applicant’s evidence that most of her belongings were at 4020 Leitrim Rd. was consistent with Manon’s evidence that when Mr. Villeneuve’s children forced the applicant to leave 4020 Leitrim Rd. after Mr. Villeneuve died, a number of vehicles loads of “stuff” belonging to the applicant were delivered to her.

Sexual and personal behaviour

Sexual behaviour

[26] The estate argued that Mr. Villeneuve had many women friends, and that the applicant was only one of them.

[27] The estate argued that Mr. Villeneuve had been generous with the applicant, but that he had been generous with all of his female friends. Manon said that when Mr. Villeneuve bought the applicant a car, he bought the same car for another of his girlfriends, Lise Dupuis, and was pleased to have been given a good deal because he had bought two of them.

[28] Ms. Dupuis said in her affidavit that Mr. Villeneuve also bought a house so that she could live in it. Ms. Dupuis explained that Mr. Villeneuve had been dating her sister, Suzanne, but that after Suzanne became ill and moved in with her, Mr. Villeneuve would visit them both, and eventually she and Mr. Villeneuve realized that they were in love with each other. Ms. Dupuis said that she stopped working as a real estate agent because Mr. Villeneuve told her that he wanted to take care of her financially, and that Mr. Villeneuve then supported her “completely”.

[29] Ms. Dupuis continues to live in the house Mr. Villeneuve purchased. Ms. Dupuis said she is not paying rent; she is waiting to find out what Mr. Villeneuve’s children decide to do about the house.

[30] The estate also relied on an affidavit from a housekeeper hired by Mr. Villeneuve, Paulette Cleroux, who said she had a sexual relationship with Mr. Villeneuve for the last 10 years of his life. Ms. Cleroux said it was nothing serious, describing the relationship as “more of a long-term fling.”

[31] The estate also relied on an affidavit from Muriel Fyfe, who said she had had a close relationship with Mr. Villeneuve and his children but had ended it around 1999-2000 because Mr. Villeneuve wanted an open relationship, and she could not deal with that. Ms. Fyfe said that she and Mr. Villeneuve nonetheless continued to see each other over the years. On cross-examination, she said she did not attend Mr. Villeneuve’s funeral, because she felt that “that was Lise’s [the applicant’s] time”. Ms. Fyfe agreed that the applicant was Mr. Villeneuve’s partner at the time.

[32] Mr. Villeneuve’s colleague and friend Mr. Dillon said that although Mr. Villeneuve had women friends, they did not visit his home after Mr. Villeneuve’s relationship with the applicant began and that Mr. Villeneuve did not stay out overnight.

[33] The applicant said that she and Mr. Villeneuve were intimate throughout their relationship until May 2021 when Mr. Villeneuve’s illness rendered him unable to be physically intimate. The applicant also said that Mr. Villeneuve suffered from erectile dysfunction and that they were required to rely on a medical device and a needle to enable them to have sexual relations. Manon, however, said the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve had both told her that they had not had sexual relations in the five years before his death.

Personal behaviour

[34] The applicant said that she and Mr. Villeneuve typically had meals together on a daily basis, either at home or at restaurants.

[35] She said they exchanged love letters and Valentine’s Day and Christmas cards.

[36] She said they travelled together, and that they went to the Dominican Republic every January for 15 years in a row.

[37] The applicant said she cared for Mr. Villeneuve when he became ill. She said that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, she would sleep at the hospital to remain with him. She was his contact person during the pandemic. She arranged for nurses and social workers to assist him after he was released from hospital.

[38] The estate notes that Mr. Villeneuve had not named the applicant as his attorney for property or personal care. The estate acknowledged that Mr. Villeneuve spent time with the applicant’s grandchildren and her extended family but said the applicant was not involved in Mr. Villeneuve’s family circle.

Services

[39] The applicant said that she managed the home that she and Mr. Villeneuve shared. She said that, although Mr. Villeneuve hired Ms. Cleroux to clean the house, the applicant continued to clean on a day-to-day basis. The applicant said she also arranged for home repairs.

[40] The applicant said although she and Mr. Villeneuve frequently ate at restaurants, she would also prepare some meals for them, and they would prepare meals together.

[41] The applicant said she bought groceries for herself and Mr. Villeneuve, although she said that Mr. Villeneuve’s son, Colin, who lived next door, began to bring them groceries and meals when Mr. Villeneuve became ill.

[42] The estate argued the applicant contributed very little to 4020 Leitrim Rd., other than cleaning occasionally. The estate said that Mr. Villeneuve always did his own laundry and that Todd and Colin picked up his medication for him.

Social

[43] The applicant said that she and Mr. Villeneuve socialized together a great deal, both in Ottawa and at the trailer in Limoges. The applicant said they went to restaurants together, on their own and with friends and played cards with friends.

[44] The applicant said they hosted family parties and would invite families from both sides to attend. They would host a party for the applicant’s family in November.

[45] The applicant said that she and Mr. Villeneuve celebrated all holidays together, including Christmas.

[46] The applicant said that, before their relationship soured after Mr. Villeneuve’s death, she was in regular contact with Mr. Villeneuve’s children. Todd and Colin both lived and worked next door to the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve. Manon lived in Sudbury but, before the pandemic, would visit three or four times per year.

[47] Mr. Villeneuve’s children said that Mr. Villeneuve played a larger role in the applicant’s family than the applicant did in theirs. They said the applicant attended only the occasional Villeneuve family event and that she was not a fixture in the lives of Mr. Villeneuve’s grandchildren.

[48] There was, however, compelling evidence that, despite the efforts of Mr. Villeneuve’s children to minimize the role of the applicant in Mr. Villeneuve’s life, Mr. Villeneuve family had in fact considered the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve to be very much a couple.

[49] Although Manon said in her affidavit that the applicant was “simply one of” Mr. Villeneuve’s many girlfriends, Mr. Villeneuve’s obituary, written by Manon and her brothers, described the applicant as Mr. Villeneuve’s “long-time partner.” The obituary also described the applicant’s daughter as Mr. Villeneuve’s “stepdaughter” and the applicant’s grandchildren as Mr. Villeneuve’s “step-grandchildren.”

[50] Manon said the obituary was written this way at the applicant’s insistence and in order to buy peace with her.

[51] In Mr. Villeneuve’s funeral procession, which Mr. Villeneuve’s children organized, the applicant, the applicant’s daughter and the applicant’s grandchildren were in the second vehicle behind the hearse; only a vehicle carrying Manon, Todd and Colin preceded the applicant’s vehicle.

Societal

[52] There was also evidence that the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve were considered to be a couple by the broader community.

[53] The applicant included in evidence a sympathy card from friends of Mr. Villeneuve, which said, “[y]ou have been the best wife/partner to John.”

[54] Ms. Washer said in her affidavit that she believed that the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve had a loving and caring relationship. Ms. Washer said that she had spent Christmas Eve with the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve and other friends “at their Leitrim Road home.” Ms. Washer also described how, in Mr. Villeneuve’s last days, the applicant had helped Mr. Villeneuve visit friends at their trailer park, using a golf cart.

[55] There was evidence that many people knew that Mr. Villeneuve was having relationships with other women and that while the applicant worried that this was the case, she did not know for sure. Ms. Cleroux and Ms. Washer both gave evidence that the applicant had shared concerns with them that Mr. Villeneuve might be involved with someone else. Manon said that if the applicant was trying to reach Mr. Villeneuve when “he was out being promiscuous”, her brothers and other people at work would cover for Mr. Villeneuve and pretend they didn’t know where he was. Manon said that if Mr. Villeneuve had wanted the applicant to know what he was up to, he would have told her.

Economic support

[56] The applicant said that Mr. Villeneuve paid for most of her expenses during their relationship. She said that he contributed to the rent she paid for her apartment by paying her $300 each month. She said he also paid for her cell phone and for the gas for her car. The applicant said that whenever she and Mr. Villeneuve ate a meal in a restaurant, Mr. Villeneuve paid for it. She said they ate in restaurants regularly.

[57] The applicant also said that she and Mr. Villeneuve travelled together frequently, and that Mr. Villeneuve always paid for most of her expenses.

[58] The applicant said that Mr. Villeneuve paid for their trailer and the trailer park fees.

[59] The applicant said that she could not have afforded the lifestyle she enjoyed with Mr. Villeneuve, based on her annual income alone.

[60] As the estate noted, neither the applicant nor Mr. Villeneuve described themselves as being in a common law relationship on their tax returns. The applicant and Mr. Villeneuve did not have a joint bank account.

[61] Mr. Villeneuve’s children acknowledge that Mr. Villeneuve was generous to the applicant and would give her cash and helped her whenever he could. They say that Mr. Villeneuve was a generous person, but they deny that he was providing the applicant with regular financial support.

[62] As I noted above, Mr. Villeneuve did not make any provision for the applicant in his will.

Children

[63] The applicant and Mr. Villeneuve each had children but did not have children together.

[64] I am satisfied that Mr. Villeneuve treated the applicant’s daughter and granddaughter as though they were his own and had a close relationship with Anthony.

[65] Even before this litigation began, the applicant was not as close to Mr. Villeneuve’s children and extended family as he was to hers.

Issue #1: Was the applicant the spouse of Mr. Villeneuve?

[66] Having considered the seven Molodowich factors, and all of the evidence, the applicant has satisfied me that she and Mr. Villeneuve cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years.

[67] Parties may maintain separate residences and still be found to be cohabiting. (Su v. Lam, 2011 ONSC 1086, at paras. 33 and 45.) Further, although the applicant kept her apartment, there was no evidence that she stayed there for an extended period of time after she moved into 4020 Leitrim in or around 2006. There was evidence that she and Mr. Villeneuve spent time at the apartment together from time to time. There was also evidence that Anthony lived there while he attended university, that Christine lived there for a period of time and that Mr. Dillon and his wife lived there for at least a few months.

[68] I prefer the evidence of the applicant, supported by the evidence of Anthony and Ms. Washer, that she and Mr. Villeneuve lived together at 4020 Leitrim Rd., over the evidence of Manon, Todd and Colin, who argued that the applicant was only a guest who did not live with their father permanently.

[69] Mr. Villeneuve was having relationships with other women while he and the applicant lived together. That the other women knew about the applicant, that Mr. Villeneuve did not tell the applicant about the other women and that other people, including Todd and Colin, covered for Mr. Villeneuve when he was with the other women, suggest that Mr. Villeneuve did not want his other relationships to jeopardize what he had with the applicant. There was no suggestion that the applicant was involved with anyone other than Mr. Villeneuve. That it appears to have been an open secret that Mr. Villeneuve had other relationships does not, in my view, necessarily weigh against a finding that the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve were cohabiting.

[70] Significantly, despite the estate’s efforts to characterize the applicant as just one of Mr. Villeneuve’s many women friends, the obituary in which the applicant was described as Mr. Villeneuve’s “long-time partner” and the prominence of the applicant, her daughter and her grandchildren in Mr. Villeneuve’s funeral procession speak to the nature of the relationship between the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve. Ms. Fyfe acknowledged that, although she had at one time been Mr. Villeneuve’s partner, the applicant was Mr. Villeneuve’s partner when he died, and she (Ms. Fyfe) felt, as a result, that it would be inappropriate for her to attend Mr. Villeneuve’s funeral.

[71] I find that the applicant and Mr. Villeneuve began to cohabit around 2006 and that they continued to cohabit until Mr. Villeneuve died in January 2022. Although there was evidence that Mr. Villeneuve would tell the applicant to return to her apartment from time to time, and she would do so, there was no evidence that they were ever separated for a protracted period of time. I am satisfied that they cohabited continuously for a period of not less than three years.

[72] In my consideration of the evidence, I was mindful of s. 13 of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, which provides that in an action by or against the heirs, next of kind, executors, administrators or assigns of a deceased person, an opposite or interested party shall not obtain a verdict, judgment or decision on his or her own evidence in respect of any matter occurring before the death of the deceased person, unless such evidence is corroborated by some other material evidence.

Issue #2: Was Mr. Villeneuve providing support or under a legal obligation to provide support for the applicant immediately before his death?

[73] Providing support, for purposes of s. 57(1) of the SLRA, means more than periodic monetary transfers or gifts, made sporadically, and disconnected from the need to support or sustain the recipient’s well-being or shelter. Providing support for the purposes of establishing a relationship of dependency under the SLRA requires an ongoing, systematic provision of money or money’s kind, including food, shelter, or the funding of expenses, to support or sustain a recipient where the recipient is otherwise unable to support themselves. (Shafman v. Shafman, 2023 ONSC 1391, at para. 40.)

[74] The estate acknowledges that Mr. Villeneuve gave money to the applicant from time to time but argues that the applicant was not receiving a regular amount of money on a regular basis.

[75] The applicant, however, said that Mr. Villeneuve was paying $300 per month toward the rent on her apartment. The estate admits that Mr. Villeneuve bought the applicant a car. The applicant said that Mr. Villeneuve, through his company, paid for gas for the car and for her cell phone. The applicant said that she and Mr. Villeneuve ate at restaurants regularly, and that Mr. Villeneuve always paid. Mr. Villeneuve also paid for manicures, pedicures and hair styling for the applicant. The applicant described their lifestyle as comfortable but not extravagant.

[76] The applicant’s annual income was in the $22,000 range. She was receiving a disability pension and was unable to work. I am satisfied that the applicant would not have been able to afford to pay for the apartment, to live at 4020 Leitrim Rd., gas and car maintenance, her cell phone, restaurant meals, regular travel and the Limoges trailer on that income, and that Mr. Villeneuve was subsidizing her. In my view, the monthly payments Mr. Villeneuve made on the applicant’s behalf, the money he gave her from time to time and the meals and travel he was paying for, qualify as the ongoing, systematic provision of money to support or sustain a recipient where the recipient is otherwise unable to support themselves that is required to meet the definition of “providing support” under s. 57(1).

[77] Mr. Villeneuve provided support to the applicant in this manner throughout their relationship. The applicant has satisfied me that Mr. Villeneuve was providing support or was under a legal obligation to provide support to the applicant immediately before his death.

Issue #3: Is The applicant entitled to interim support?

[78] Under s. 64 of the SLRA, where an application is made under this Part and the applicant is in need of and entitled to support but any or all of the matters referred to in section 62 or 63 have not been ascertained by the court, the court may make such interim order under section 63 as it considers appropriate.

[79] In my view, this is a case in which an order for interim support would be appropriate. The applicant has a very modest income. She is 74 years old and is in poor health. I have made an order allowing Todd and Colin to intervene in this application. Todd and Colin were obviously fully aware of the application but did not bring their motion until the application was ready to be heard.

[80] I have now decided that the applicant is a dependent spouse entitled to request an order for support. Interim support will provide the applicant with financial relief that she requires and will act as a disincentive to litigation delay.

[81] The applicant asked for interim support in the amount of $2,000 to $3,000 per month plus an advance payment of $15,000 toward costs.

[82] Although the value of Mr. Villeneuve’s estate has not yet been determined, there is evidence that, at a minimum, Mr. Villeneuve had RRSPs in the approximate amount of $200,000 and owned the house that Ms. Dupuis is living in.

[83] There was no evidence that Mr. Villeneuve has any other dependents.

[84] In my view, it would be fair and appropriate to make an interim support order in this case.

[85] Having considered the applicant’s needs and the information that is available about the estate’s ability to pay, I order the estate to pay the applicant $2,000 per month in interim support, commencing September 15, 2024 and on the 15th day of each month thereafter.

[86] I am not prepared to make an advance payment toward costs at this time. While additional costs will likely be incurred as a result of Todd and Colin’s late motion, I am not satisfied that the estate will ultimately be responsible for those costs.

Disposition

[87] For these reasons, I find that, under s. 57(1) of the SLRA, the applicant was the spouse of Mr. Villeneuve and that Mr. Villeneuve was providing support or was under a legal obligation to provide support to the applicant immediately before his death.

[88] I find that the applicant is entitled to an order for interim support. The estate shall pay the applicant interim support in the amount of $2,000 per month beginning September 15, 2024 and on the 15th day of each month thereafter, pending the final disposition of this application.

Next steps

[89] I encourage the parties to agree on the amount of support to which the applicant is entitled. If they are unable to agree, either party may contact the family law trial coordinator to schedule the second phase of the hearing.

[90] As Todd’s and Colin’s application will be heard at the same time, a full day shall be set aside.

[91] The parties’ counsel shall ensure that Todd’s and Colin’s counsel receives a copy of this decision.

Date: August 29, 2024 Madam Justice H. J. Williams