In recent years, Ontario courts have placed increasing emphasis on the moral obligations owed to dependants when assessing claims under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”). While testamentary autonomy remains a fundamental principle, recent decisions show that courts are prepared to intervene where a will fails to make adequate provision for a spouse or other dependant, even in circumstances where the claimant is not in immediate financial need.

Three recent cases – Shiomi v. Jarvela, 2025 ONSC 468, Shapiro v. Shapiro, 2025 ONSC 2781, and Cassan v. Giroux, 2026 ONSC 330 – illustrate how courts are increasingly focusing on moral duties, dignity, and long-standing relationships when determining what constitutes “proper support.”

In Shiomi v. Jarvela, 2025 ONSC 468, the applicant and the deceased were in a common-law relationship for over 50 years. The deceased’s will left the residue (approximately $1.6 million) to five charities and provided the surviving partner only personal/household belongings, which were essentially already jointly owned. The applicant conceded he was not truly in financial need in the everyday sense; he had a home and investments, yet argued the deceased’s will failed to make adequate provision for his proper support given the length and nature of the relationship. The applicant was 83 years old and his claim was unopposed.

The court found that the applicant was a dependant of the deceased and possessed a strong moral claim rooted in a decades-long partnership, mutual interdependence, and the expectation that a “judicious” testator would not leave a long-term spouse with effectively nothing. The court ultimately crafted a balancing remedy, preserving charitable intentions while still recognizing the spouse’s claim by ordering a meaningful share of the net estate to the surviving partner. Having regard to the size of the estate and the applicant’s financial position, the court concluded that an equal division of the net estate was appropriate, ordering that 50% be paid to the applicant and the remaining 50% divided among the charitable beneficiaries.

In reaching this conclusion, the court applied the principles summarized in Anderson v. Andrew, 2023 ONSC 6643, applicable to dependant support claims under Part V of the SLRA. In particular, the court emphasized that, in determining whether adequate provision has been made, it must consider moral obligations that arise between the deceased and his or her dependants as a result of society’s expectations of what a judicious person would do in the circumstances.

The court further confirmed that the concept of “proper support” is not confined to a strictly needs-based analysis. The inquiry is broader and may include considerations of dignity, security, and the preservation of a reasonable standard of living, even where the claimant is not destitute or in immediate financial hardship.

Determining what support is “adequate” for a “dependant” under the SLRA is discretionary.  It is not an exact science, and the court must consider all relevant circumstances in arriving at an appropriate award, as is reflected in the long list of applicable factors in s. 62 of the SLRA

In Shapiro v. Shapiro, 2025 ONSC 2781, the court dealt with a 53-year marriage, and a large estate (around $6.89 million) that primarily went to the deceased’s adult son. The deceased’s will did leave the applicant some assets, including $250,000, a life interest in the condominium, a joint investment account and a RIFF.  However, the applicant argued that he was financially and morally entitled to greater support and to ownership of the condominium, which the deceased had promised to put in his name. The adult son, as primary beneficiary, opposed the claim.

The applicant was deemed a dependent under the SLRA, evidence by the couple’s lengthy and stable marriage and the court ordered that title to the condominium be transferred to the applicant. This remedy was carefully structured to protect the surviving spouse’s future security and independence without simply rewriting the will or unduly interfering with the deceased’s testamentary intentions.

In considering whether existing support was adequate, the court stated that the psychological stress of the applicant of not knowing how he would manage financially if he needed more care was a very important factor. The decision was grounded in preserving the spouse’s dignity and autonomy, particularly where aging, foreseeable care needs, and strained family dynamics make it unrealistic to expect the spouse to repeatedly “go hat-in-hand” to the beneficiaries.

In Cassan v. Giroux (2026 ONSC 330), the court adopted the same analytical framework applied in Shiomi v. Jarvela and Shapiro v. Shapiro, emphasizing that the determination of dependant support requires a contextual assessment of the deceased’s legal and moral obligations, the circumstances of the dependant, and a careful balancing of competing interests in light of the size of the estate and the testator’s intentions.

The applicant was the deceased’s longtime spouse and partner, and was 76 years old at the time of the proceedings. She had already been found to be a dependant entitled to interim support of $2,000 per month, but sought approximately $1.136 million in lump-sum and ongoing support on a final basis. Her circumstances were further complicated by highly strained relations with the deceased’s children, who required her to leave the home shortly after the deceased’s death and contested the size of the estate by asserting ownership of two properties – an issue that directly affected the assets available to satisfy her support claim.

Focusing solely on the dependant support claim, the court’s approach was practical: rather than an all-or-nothing award, the remedy included a lump sum for past support ( $69,500)  and ongoing periodic support, paired with a requirement that the estate purchase an annuity (with a reversionary feature) to fund payments over time (and prevent unnecessary depletion or windfalls). That kind of structured order reflects an increasingly common judicial instinct in SLRA litigation: meet the dependant’s needs and moral claim but do so in a way that is proportionate and still respects the broader testamentary scheme.