In the recent decision of Sabarros v. Morrell, 2025 ONSC 6122 (CanLII), the Court considered whether the dependant support claim by the adult child to whom the deceased never provided support could be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

Facts:

Karen Sabarros commenced two proceedings against the estate of her late father: a claim for dependant’s relief under section 58 of the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”) and an application challenging the Will of her late father based on her entitlement as a dependant under Part V of the SLRA.

Ms. Sabarros, who was now 37 years old, based her claim on her father’s failure to provide financial support to her from the time of her parents’ separation in 1991 when she was three years old until his death.

Her father’s estate trustee moved for summary dismissal of Ms. Sabarros’ claim pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. In considering the motion, the Court stated that Rule 2.1.01 provides for a summary procedure which allows the Court to dismiss a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Summarizing the caselaw on Rule 2.1.01, the Court confirmed that the rule must be interpreted and applied robustly to permit a motion judge to exercise their gatekeeping function to weed out frivolous cases. However, it may only be used in the clearest of cases, where the abusive nature of the proceeding is clear on the face of the pleadings. Moreover, Rule 2.1.01 is not intended to be a more accessible pleadings motion (Rule 21 or 25.11), a motion for summary judgment (Rule 20) or a trial. In considering the merits of such a motion, the Court must read the facts in the statement of claim generously, and assume the facts are true unless they are obviously implausible or ridiculous.

While no evidence is admissible on a Rule 2.1.01 motion, the Court may review reasons and pleadings from other proceedings to determine whether a case meets the high threshold for dismissal.

Was the claim frivolous?

The definition of “dependant” under s. 57(1) of the SLRA 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.” Ms. Sabarros’ claim was based on the second branch of the definition, as she alleged that her father remained under a legal obligation to support her pursuant to a 1998 court order requiring her father to pay child support for her benefit (the ” spousal support order”). The Court held that the definition of “child” under s.57(1) of the SLRA is not limited to a minor child. The fact that Ms. Sabarros was an adult when her father died did not automatically exclude her from the definition of “child”, nor did it disentitle her to claim dependant’s relief under Part V of the SLRA. Such an issue was more appropriately addressed in a hearing with full legal argument.

While s. 8(3) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act precluded the Family Responsibility Office from taking steps to enforce a support order against an estate, it did not preclude a claimant from attempting to enforce such an order or seek relief under the SLRA.

Ms. Sabarros’ right to support from her father was the right of a child, and such a right could not bargained away by her mother who was a party to the spousal support order.

That Ms. Sabarros had no relationship with her father at the time of his death was of no moment. The SLRA is a remedial legislation enacted to ensure the support of dependants, and s. 58(1) empowers the Court with broad discretion to make adequate provision for a dependant where a deceased has failed to do so. As Rule 2.1.01 is only to be used in the clearest of cases, the Court was not persuaded that Ms. Sabarros’ action was frivolous based on the pleadings.

Was the claim frivolous?

A multiplicity of proceedings with respect to the same issues may constitute an abuse of proceed, but that alone is not the end of the enquiry. Rather, the Court will consider whether allowing the litigation to move forward would violate principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice. Here, the Court did not consider Ms. Sabarros’ action to be an abuse of process or that she was using her claim to gain a tactical advantage in her application to challenge her father’s will. Although there may be evidence in common in the action and the application, the two proceeds were distinct.

As this was not a case whether the action was frivolous or abusive on its fact, the estate trustee’s request pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 was dismissed.

Takeaway

Rule 2.1.01 is reserved for the clearest of cases. The Court will not allow defendant’s to use this Rule, designed to weed out frivolous, vexatious and abusive claims, as a shortcut to summary judgment or a motion to strike pleadings. Where the action at issue is for dependant support, the Court will not rule in favour of technical legal arguments to dismiss claims alleging that a deceased failed to provide for their dependants.