Post v. Johnson Estate, 2026 ONSC 2873

CITATION: Post v. Johnson Estate, 2026 ONSC 2873

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00062871-0000

DATE: 2026-05-15

BETWEEN:

Kristen Post

Applicant

– and –

Estate of Jay Michael Johnson, Deceased and Tammi-Lynn Stevens

Respondents

Johanna McNulty, counsel for the Applicant

Victor Li, counsel for the Respondent Tammi-Lynn Stevens

HEARD: March 5, 2026 at St. Catharines

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1On August 27, 2005, the applicant, Kristen Post, and Jay Michael Johnson (“Johnson”) were married in a religious ceremony at Johnson’s family home along the shore of Lake Ontario in St. Catharines, Ontario. They lived together as husband and wife for the next 18 years.

2In January 2023, Johnson began a relationship with the respondent, Tammi-Lynn Stevens. In December 2023, Johnson married the respondent in a civil ceremony at the Pelham Municipal Offices in Fonthill, Ontario.

3On April 11, 2024, at 45 years old, Johson died of a drug overdose without a will.

4This is an application pursuant to s. 31 of the Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.3, seeking a declaration that the marriage between the applicant and Johnson, solemnized on or about August 27, 2005, is a valid and subsisting marriage, a declaration that Johnson’s marriage to the respondent is void ab initio, and an order annulling that marriage. In the alternative, the applicant seeks a declaration that Johnson lacked capacity to enter into a marriage contract with the respondent, as a result of a serious drug addiction.

5For the reasons set out below, the application pursuant to s. 31 is granted. Accordingly, it is not necessary to rule on the alternate relief.

FACTS

6The evidence on this application included affidavits from the applicant, the respondent, and Johnson’s only sister, Jessica McShane-Wainman (“Jessica”). Cross-examinations on these three affidavits took place out of court. The applicant also filed affidavits from a number of friends and family members, speaking to her relationship with Johnson, Johnson’s relationship with the respondent, and towards the end of his life, his serious addictions issues. Many of these details are salacious.

7Evidence as to the relationship between the respondent and Johnson is of limited relevance to the issues on the s. 31 application. That said, the circumstances of Johnson’s relationship with the respondent do provide necessary context for how this matter came before the court. Accordingly, the details of Johnson’s relationship with the respondent receive brief mention in these reasons.

The relationship between the applicant and Johnson

8The applicant swore an affidavit detailing her relationship with Johnson, their wedding in August 2005, marital life, and Johnson’s struggles with substance abuse.

9The applicant met Johnson in May 2000, while a student at Brock University in St. Catharines. A friend got her a job at The Lakeside, a bar and restaurant owned and operated by Johnson and his extended family. The applicant and Johnson began dating in November of that year, and shortly thereafter moved to Alberta together to open a party promotion business. In the spring of 2001, Johnson moved back home. The two carried on a long-distance relationship. By the end of December 2001, the applicant had returned, and the couple began living together in a loft space at the Johnson family home.

10From the time they began living together, the applicant and Johnson took on traditional gender roles. The applicant took care of the cooking and cleaning; Johnson took care of household finances and maintenance. In 2001, they began filing taxes together as a common-law couple. Both the applicant and Johnson worked various jobs in the hospitality industry.

11The Johnson family was involved in various businesses in St. Catharines, including ownership of two factories and commercial plazas. Following his father’s cancer diagnosis, Johnson took on a role in the family business, which he would maintain until shortly before his death.

12In May 2005, Johnson proposed marriage and the applicant accepted. As Johnson’s father’s prognosis was uncertain, a wedding was planned for August that year.

13Johnson’s family was Catholic and it was important to his grandmother that the applicant and Johnson be married in the Catholic faith. It was important to Johnson’s father that the ceremony and reception take place at the family home, along the shore of Lake Ontario. Johnson’s father arranged for the couple to meet Father Philip, a Catholic priest he knew as a fellow attendee of an anonymous substance recovery group.

14The applicant and Johnson, Johnson’s parents, and Johnson’s grandmother met with Father Philip, who agreed to marry the couple. Father Philip guided the couple through various documents prior to the wedding. As far as the applicant knew, one of these documents was a marriage licence.

15The wedding took place on August 27, 2005. Father Philip officiated. Approximately 200 guests attended the ceremony and reception. Various photos were filed on this application to corroborate the wedding ceremony. These photos include the applicant in a white wedding dress, walking down the aisle with her step-father and brother; the applicant and Johnson standing before Father Philip exchanging vows and sitting at a table signing documents.

16During the ceremony, the applicant and Johnson made vows to one another and exchanged rings. They signed a marriage licence at a small table set aside for that purpose. Johnson’s best man and the applicant’s maid of honour signed as witnesses.

17As far as the applicant was aware, Father Philip left the wedding that day with all of the signed documents and was responsible for filing them.

18The marriage licence was never filed.

19Jessica is Johnson’s only sibling. She was a bridesmaid in the wedding. She witnessed the exchange of rings and vows. She saw the couple sign papers following the ceremony. Following Johnson’s death, Jessica tried to locate Father Philip but has been unable to do so.

20Additional witnesses who swore affidavits speaking to the wedding in August 2005 include Edward Horton, Johnson’s best man, who signed the marriage licence as a witness; Ashley Post, the applicant’s sister and maid of honour who also signed the marriage licence as a witness; Linda Tarry, the applicant’s mother, who was present at the wedding; Jayna Faragher, Johnson’s paternal aunt; and Daniel Post, the applicant’s brother.

The applicant’s married life with Johnson

21For the next 18 years, the applicant and Johnson lived together as husband and wife.

22The applicant has filed numerous documents in which Johnson refers to the applicant as his wife including emails to financial advisors, mortgage applications, intake forms for medical services, and transcripts of court proceedings.

23After the wedding, Johnson continued to work in his family business. They carried on life as before. Johnson continued to manage the couple’s finances; the applicant trusted him and their financial advisors, including their accountant, to take care of these things. Following the wedding, and up to 2022, the most recent date available at the time of this application, the applicant’s status on her tax returns is listed as “common law.”

24In 2016, Johnson’s father passed away. Two years later, Johnson’s mother passed away. Johnson gifted his mother’s wedding ring to the applicant.

25In 2019, after the estate of his parents was settled, the applicant and Johnson bought a home in Fenwick, Ontario. The couple moved in together, intending to make extensive renovations.

26In 2020, the applicant became director and president of one of the Johnson family companies.

27Jessica confirms that the applicant and Johnson lived together as husband and wife and were virtually inseparable until the applicant attended rehab in 2022. Jessica has included numerous documents to this effect, including family obituaries, mortgage applications, life insurance policies, and several emails in which Johnson referred to the applicant as his wife. These include emails with financial advisors, accountants, insurance brokers, and law firms. The applicant is named as Johnson’s beneficiary on the family business insurance and as in receipt of medical benefits.

28Ms. Post, Ms. Tarry, Ms. Faragher, and Mr. Post all understood the applicant and the respondent to be husband and wife. The applicant’s addictions doctor also understood the couple to be husband and wife. Finally, Calvin Daum, Johnson’s former personal assistant, met the couple in 2020 and also understood them to be husband and wife.

29There is no evidence that the applicant and Johnson ever lived apart following their wedding in 2005.

Struggles with addiction

30Over the course of the relationship, both the applicant and Johnson struggled with addiction.

31Johnson lost his driver’s licence in 2008 and did not get it back. For much of their relationship, he relied on the applicant to drive him to various appointments. This was an arrangement that continued until August 2022 when the applicant entered a rehabilitation facility to treat an addiction to painkillers.

32While the applicant was in rehab, Johnson gave her a card to celebrate their 17th wedding anniversary, photos of which were filed on this hearing. The front of the card reads, “To my wife with love. Being your husband is the best part of my life…” inside the card, Johnson has inserted “17th” between the words ‘”happy” and “anniversary.”

33When the applicant entered rehab, Daum began work as Johnson’s driver. Daum described Johnson as a “very highly functional addict” who bought and used cocaine and fentanyl daily. Daum’s affidavit sets out in some detail Johnson’s drug abuse and its effects.

34On September 28, 2022, the applicant completed rehab. The applicant would not let Johnson use drugs at home, but he continued to use outside the home. Daum’s affidavit details Johnson’s schedule during this time, including his escalating drug abuse.

35In early 2023, the applicant and Johnson purchased a second house which they were renovating as their “dream home.” They continued to reside together at their first home while they undertook renovations.

The relationship between Johnson and the respondent

36The respondent provided two affidavits on this application.

37The respondent deposes that she first met Johnson many years ago but reconnected in December 2022. The two reconnected via a “sugar baby” website and began dating. The respondent deposes that their relationship was not transactional. There is evidence to the contrary, though not strictly relevant to the issues on this application.

38There is no dispute that Johnson and the respondent abused drugs. According to several witnesses, including Jessica, her husband, and Daum, Johnson’s drug use escalated when he began spending time with the respondent. In May 2023, the applicant learned that Johnson was using drugs with the respondent. At that time, she believed the respondent was “just a friend to do drugs with.” Johnson continued to reside with the applicant during this time.

39According to the respondent, Johnson first described his relationship with the applicant in vague terms, saying that he was “sort of married.” Eventually he told the respondent that he was not “legally married” to the applicant, and they did not have a marriage licence.

Johnson’s arrests in July and September 2023

40On July 17, 2023, Johnson was involved in a serious motor vehicle collision while driving the applicant’s car. He was arrested, charged with criminal offences, and held for bail. On his first appearance in bail court, Johnson advised the court that his “wife” would come to court to act as his surety. The following day, the applicant appeared in court and testified on the bail hearing. She testified that she was his wife.

41The applicant’s car was destroyed in the accident. She received no insurance funds for the loss as Johnson was listed as her husband on the insurance policy.

42At this point in time, the applicant learned that Johnson was in a sexual relationship with the respondent.

43In September 2023, Johnson was arrested again while in the company of the respondent at the time. Johnson was held for bail, and the respondent was made his surety.

Johnson’s escalating drug use

44Several witnesses swore affidavits speaking to Johnson’s rapid decline beginning in October 2023. Johnson’s drug abuse escalated following his arrest that September. According to the applicant, Jessica, and Jessica’s husband, Johnson was experiencing what appeared to be psychotic episodes while high; he was no longer able to conduct his duties as part of the family business and appeared to be a full-time addict, squatting in commercial properties he owned and managed, or living out of hotels. At various times over the next few months, he reached out to Jessica and the applicant for assistance.

45According to the applicant, while residing with the respondent, Johnson continued to visit the home she shared with him. He told the applicant that he was not abandoning her but that he had to live with the respondent as she was his surety. During one of these brief visits, the respondent screamed at the applicant, “You’re not married anyways,” and Johnson told the respondent to “shut up.”

46According to the respondent, on October 18, 2023, Johnson proposed marriage. Shortly thereafter, Johnson applied for a marriage licence.

47On December 2, 2023, Johnson married the respondent in a civil ceremony.

48The respondent deposed that Jessica was invited to the wedding but chose not to attend. Jessica deposed that she was not invited to this wedding and was not told it was going to take place. She learned about it after the fact via a Facebook post. This was also how the applicant learned Johnson had purportedly married the respondent.

49During cross-examination, the applicant testified that she did not take the marriage seriously, as she was married to Johnson and believed he must have lied on his application to marry the respondent. By this time, Johnson was, to the best of her knowledge, in the throes of very serious addiction. Her attempts to speak to him during this time period were difficult; he was often very high, appearing very mentally unwell, and often paranoid.

50During cross-examination, Jessica advised that following the wedding to the respondent, she did her best to keep lines of communication with Johnson open to try and save her brother. She did not see Johnson over the Christmas holidays but did assist him and the respondent to attend rehab in January 2024. The couple did not stay at the facility long.

51By March 2024, Jessica and Johnson’s communication had become very erratic.

52In April 2024, Johnson died of a drug overdose.

THE LAW

53 Section 4 of the Marriage Act provides that “no marriage may be solemnized except under the authority of a licence issued in accordance with this Act or the publication of banns.”

54Where there has been non-compliance or imperfect compliance with s. 4, a party to a marriage may rely on s. 31 of the Act:

55If the parties to a marriage solemnized in good faith and intended to be in compliance with this Act are not under a legal disqualification to contract such marriage and after such solemnization have lived together and cohabited as a married couple, such marriage shall be deemed a valid marriage, although the person who solemnized the marriage was not authorized to solemnize marriage, and despite the absence of or any irregularity or insufficiency in the publication of banns or the issue of the licence.

56Section 31 protects a marriage contracted in good faith from invalidity on the ground of formal irregularities: Lalonde v. Agha, 2021 ONCA 651, 159 O.R. (3d) 367, at para. 31.

57As set out by Broad J. in Isse v. Said, 2012 ONSC 1829, 19 R.F.L. (7th) 413, at para. 16, for s. 31 to apply, a party must establish the following four elements:

The marriage must have been solemnized in good faith;
The marriage must have been intended to be in compliance with the Marriage Act;
Neither party was under a legal disqualification to contract marriage; and
The parties must have lived together and cohabitated as a married couple after solemnization.

58There is a long-standing presumption of the validity of marriages entered into in good faith, where the parties have lived and held themselves out to be a married couple: Lalonde, at para. 20. The presumption can only be rebutted by decisive evidence to the contrary: Lozinko v. Bazylok, [1976] 27 R.F.L. 141 (Ont. S.C.), at p. 151.

59The applicant submits that the evidence on this application overwhelmingly establishes all four criteria.

60The respondent does not dispute that the applicant and Johnson had a wedding in August 2005, that neither were under any disqualification to contract marriage at that time, or that they resided together for 18 years. For the respondent, the evidence does not establish an intention to comply with the Act. The respondent relies on the fact that the marriage was not legally registered as a deliberate act of non-compliance by the applicant and Johnson. Moreover, the respondent argues that the applicant and Johnson both knew they were not legally married, as they continued to file their taxes as a common-law couple after the wedding.

Was the marriage solemnized in good faith?

61The evidence the marriage between the applicant and Johnson was solemnized in good faith is simply overwhelming. I accept the evidence marshalled by the applicant, none of which was challenged by the respondent.

62There is no doubt that the applicant and Johnson married one another during a public ceremony on August 27, 2005, at the Johnson family home, in front of approximately 200 invited guests. The ceremony was conducted by a priest, Father Philip. The applicant and Johnson exchanged rings and vows and signed a marriage licence. The maid of honour and best man witnessed the signatures. The filing of the registration was left to the officiant; there is no evidence as to what happened next or why the marriage was not registered.

63I have no difficulty concluding that the marriage was solemnized in good faith, and that the applicant and Johnson intended to be married. The marriage followed a long-term relationship, Johnson’s proposal, and period of engagement.

64There is simply no evidence of bad faith.

Did the parties intend to comply with the Marriage Act?

65In Lalonde, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a marriage is intended to be in compliance with the Act,

66[W]here there is an intention to create a formally binding legal marriage, that is, one that would be recognized for civil, as opposed to only religious, purposes. That intention will not be present where the parties know of the relevant formal legal requirements and deliberately chose not to follow them, notwithstanding that their marriage is recognized as a valid religious ceremony or was solemnized in good faith. But that intention may be found where the parties believe they are marrying for all purposes, any non-compliance was non-deliberate, and where the parties’ subsequent behaviour confirms that they considered themselves, from the time of the marriage ceremony, to have become legally married.

67A party cannot rely on their own fraud to invalidate a marriage. In Alspector v. Alspector, [1957] O.R. 454 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal considered whether compliance with the Act must be intended by both parties to the marriage, or if it was sufficient that one of the parties to the marriage intended to comply. In that case, the parties were married in a religious ceremony. The husband made inquires and came to believe that a marriage licence was not required if the parties intended to live in Israel. The wife relied on the husband’s understanding. The court held that the wife’s subjective intention to comply with the laws of Ontario was sufficient to meet the “intention to comply” requirement of the Act:

I cannot conceive a case in which if both of the parties acted in good faith one of them could be held not to have intended the marriage ceremony to be in compliance with the law of the Province … moreover, if knowing of such non-compliance, he intended the ceremony to be a nullity, the law will not permit him in a subsequent action to plead his own fraud upon the bridge in order to have the ceremony declared a nullity. The law would not permit him to thus bastardize the offspring of the union and the fact that there may be none does not alter the policy of the law. [Emphasis added.]

Cited in Isse, at para. 24.

68Similarly, in Friedman v. Smookler, [1964] 1 O.R. 577 (S.C.) the parties did not obtain a marriage licence, as the wife was advised by her husband that “the local government recognizes Jewish marriages.” After the husband’s death, the wife sought a declaration that the marriage was valid. The court found that the deceased’s representations were made in good faith and that the plaintiff wife relied on them. The marriage was validated after the death of the husband.

69More recently, in Isse, the court accepted that the wife honestly believed the religious ceremony legalized the marriage and did not know further steps were required to comply with the civil law. The marriage was validated. Similarly, in Jama v. Basdeo, 2020 ONSC 2922, the court accepted the evidence of the wife that she did not know a marriage licence was required and that if she had known she would have obtained one. The marriage was again validated.

70A marriage will be deemed to be valid “provided there is some evidence of intent to comply with marriage laws and absent deliberate non-compliance”: Lalonde, at para. 49. Whether both parties intended to conform with the law is a question of mixed fact and law that involves issues of credibility and reliability: Lalonde, at para. 40.

71Courts have refused to deem a marriage valid where there is evidence of the parties’ deliberate choice not to comply with the Act: see Debora v. Debora (1999), 167 D.L.R. (4th) 759 (Ont. C.A.); Chhokar v. Bains, 2012 ONSC 6602; Aden v. Mohamud, 2019 ONSC 6493; Sidhu v. Kaur, 2025 ONSC 6523; and Jamil v. Akhtar, 2023 ONSC 474.

72In Swinden and Crowell, 2023 ONSC 2310, the parties obtained a marriage licence and held a religious ceremony before family and friends. The officiant who performed the marriage was unaware that he was not registered as a person authorized to solemnize a marriage. The parties signed the licence and the officiant mailed it to Service Canada. The parties’ marriage certificate was never delivered and when they followed up were told there was no record of their marriage. In that case, the court had no difficulty concluding that the parties intended to comply with the Act.

73The respondent argues that the applicant and Johnson deliberately chose not to comply with the Act. Johnson was clearly aware of the need to obtain a marriage licence; he did so when he married the respondent. The respondent argues that this fact is sufficient for this court to find that non-compliance with the registration component was deliberate.

74I cannot agree; there is simply no evidence that either the applicant or Johnson deliberately chose not to comply with the Act.

75The evidence is overwhelming that the applicant and Johnson were married in a ceremony by an officiant that they – and others present at the time – believed to be a legitimate officiant. The evidence is also overwhelming that following the religious ceremony, the applicant and Johnson signed a marriage licence. It was for the officiant to register the marriage; there is no evidence before the court as to why that was not completed.

76The respondent asks this court to infer that the applicant and Johnson knew that their marriage was not registered and deliberately chose not to do so. In this, the respondent relies on the fact that after the marriage, the applicant continued to file her tax returns as “common law” rather than change her status to “married” as evidence of deliberate non-compliance with the Act. In other words, the respondent argues that the applicant’s failure to change her relationship status with the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) is evidence that she deliberately chose not to enter into a legal marriage with Johnson.

77Tax returns have been relied on by the court as evidence that the parties believed themselves to be married – or not. For instance, in Saima v. Waseem, 2025 ONSC 2960, the parties’ change in martial status with CRA was relied on by the trial judge as corroborative of the wife’s evidence that she believed a religious ceremony was also a legal marriage: at para. 75. In that case, the change in martial status was but one of several factors the court considered in concluding the wife intended to comply with the Act. Here, it is the only factor against several others pointing the opposite way.

78In this case, I do not find that the tax returns are sufficient for a finding that the applicant did not intend to comply with the Act. Indeed, based on the circumstances of the applicant and Johnson’s relationship, I accept that the applicant trusted and relied on Johnson and their financial advisors to ensure that the tax filings were properly done. I accept her evidence in cross-examination that had she noticed or known filing as a common law couple would become an issue for the validity of her marriage, she would have taken steps to correct her filings.

79Finally, the respondent suggested that the applicant’s decision not to begin this application until after Johnson’s death is evidence from which this court ought to infer that the applicant knew she was not legally married to Johnson.

80I cannot agree. During cross-examination, the applicant advised that she obtained legal advice beginning in the fall of 2023, prior to Johnson’s purported marriage to the respondent. There is evidence on this application from multiple sources that Johnson’s drug addiction was incredibly serious and that he was, by all accounts, non-functional. There is nothing inappropriate in the timing of this application.

81As a matter of law, it is sufficient if the party seeking relief under s. 31 intended to comply with the Act.

82I have no difficulty concluding that the applicant intended to comply with the Act. The evidence in this regard is overwhelming. The applicant obtained a marriage licence, which was signed, witnessed, and provided to the officiant to register. There is no evidence of deliberate non-compliance with the Act on the part of the applicant. The applicant was aware of the legal requirement to obtain a licence and trusted Father Philip to register the marriage. There is no evidence as to why that marriage was not registered in 2005, but I do not find that the failure to do so had anything to do with the applicant, or a deliberate choice on her part not to comply with the Act.

83While that is sufficient to satisfy this requirement, it must also be noted that there is no evidence that Johnson did not intend to comply with the Act or somehow orchestrated the non-registration in 2005. There is no evidence over the following 18 years that Johnson ever took the position that he was not legally married to the applicant until he met the respondent.

84In October 2023, Johnson applied for a licence to marry the respondent. From this fact, it may be inferred that, at that time, he at least suspected his marriage to the applicant was not registered. I am not prepared to infer from the fact of the 2023 application that Johnson did not intend to enter a legal marriage when he married the applicant in 2005. It is equally plausible that, at some point after his 2005 wedding, Johnson learned that the marriage was not registered and took no steps to inform the applicant or regularize the marriage, content to continue to hold himself out to the world – and to the applicant – as her lawfully wedded husband.

85In declaring the marriage in Lalonde valid, the court concluded, at para. 66:

Denying the parties’ marriage would work an injustice on the respondent who relied on the appellant and unjustly relieve the appellant of his legal obligations in respect of the marriage that he voluntarily arranged, entered into, and derived the benefit of for 18 years. As this court stated in Alspector, “the law will not permit him in a subsequent action to plead his own fraud upon the bride in order to have the ceremony declared a nullity”: at pp. 687-88. This would run counter to the long-standing presumption of the validity of marriage and frustrate the socially important goal of avoiding the very circumstances that s. 31 of the Marriage Act was intended to address.

86It matters not at all that Johnson is now deceased; denying the applicant’s marriage in this case would allow the respondent to plead Johnson’s fraud on the applicant. Section 31 exists for circumstances such as these.

Was either party under a legal disqualification to contract marriage?

87There is no evidence that the applicant or Johnson was under a legal disqualification to enter into the marriage in August 2005.

Did the parties live together and cohabitate as a married couple after solemnization?

88Again, the evidence is overwhelming on this issue; from the date of the marriage ceremony, up until September 2023, the applicant and Johnson lived together as husband and wife.

CONCLUSION

89The application is allowed.

90Order to go as follows:

The marriage ceremony which took place between Kristen Post and Jay Michael Johnson on August 27, 2005 in St. Catharines, Ontario, is hereby deemed to be a valid marriage pursuant to s. 31 of the Marriage Act;
The marriage between Jay Michael Johnson and Tammi-Lynn Stevens is void ab initio; and
The marriage between Jay Michael Johnson and Tammi-Lynn Stevens is annulled.

91The parties are strongly encouraged to agree on costs of this application. If the parties cannot agree, the applicant may file costs submissions of no more than three pages, double spaced, in 12-point font, with a detailed costs outline and any offers to settle attached within 15 days of the release of this decision, and the respondent may file costs submissions on the same terms a further 10 days thereafter. Once filed with the court, a copy of the submissions shall be sent to my attention by email to St.Catharines.SCJJA@ontario.ca with confirmation of filing. If a party does not meet these deadlines, there shall be no costs payable to that party. In the event there are no submissions filed in accordance with these timelines, costs shall be deemed resolved.

A. J. Ohler, J.

Date Released: May 15, 2026