Sydney Osmar

The plaintiff, Liebgard Scharfenberg, sought dependant's relief from the estate of her deceased husband, August Karl-Heinz Scharfenberg, under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Deceased had made no provision for her in his will, citing a cohabitation agreement that released all claims to one another's estate.

The court found that the plaintiff was a dependant at the time of the Deceased's death, but ultimately dismissed her application for support.

The court found the plaintiff's credibility to be low and concluded that she had been financially opportunistic throughout the relationship, having divested herself of a significant asset from a previous marriage without rational explanation, and that she had not suffered financial detriment from the relationship with the Deceased.

The court held that it would be unconscionable to provide support from the estate given her actions and self-sufficiency.

In a will challenge action, the defendant estate trustees moved under Rule 21(1)(a) to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim that the deceased's wills were void for violating public policy on the basis of gender discrimination.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants could not resile from a prior consent order directing a trial on that issue.

On the issue of disclosure, the court limited the plaintiffs' broad requests for financial and corporate records, ordering production only of documents relevant to the will challenge between 1998 and 2003.

The plaintiffs' cross-motion for costs thrown away was dismissed, but they were awarded $5,000 in costs for responding to the reconstituted motion.