Susan J. Woodley

The estate trustee sought directions regarding whether certain payments under a mediated consent judgment resolving family law claims could be distributed from the estate ahead of unrelated tort claims arising from aviation litigation.

The court considered the priority of equalization and dependant support claims under the Creditors’ Relief Act, the Family Law Act, and the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court held that the former spouse’s lump sum payment, characterized as an equalization payment and global settlement of retroactive and ongoing support, had priority over competing civil claims against the estate.

The court also held that the deceased’s common-law spouse’s lump sum dependant support award had priority over those claims.

However, the adult children failed to establish that they were dependants under the Succession Law Reform Act or that the amounts claimed were justified as support, and therefore their entitlements did not receive priority over the aviation claims.

An estate trustee sought the court’s advice and direction regarding the distribution of a lapsed residuary gift where a named beneficiary predeceased the testator.

The issue was whether the 25% share should pass on intestacy to distant next of kin identified through genealogical research or instead be redistributed among the surviving named residuary beneficiaries.

Applying principles of will interpretation, including the “armchair rule” and the presumption favouring testacy over intestacy, the court examined the testator’s relationships and intentions at the time the will was made.

The evidence demonstrated that the testator had meaningful relationships only with the named beneficiaries and believed she had no living relatives.

The court found a contrary intention in the will and ordered the lapsed share to be distributed proportionately among the surviving residuary beneficiaries.