Ontario Court Grants Dependant’s Relief Claim, Awards Half of Estate to Common-Law Spouse After 53-Year Relationship

Ontario Court Grants Dependant’s Relief Claim, Awards Half of Estate to Common-Law Spouse After 53-Year Relationship

CASE: Shiomi v. Jarvela, 2025 ONSC 468

Ronald Shiomi and Anna Maria Tocheri were in a common-law relationship for over 50 years but never legally married. They lived together in a home owned by Mr. Shiomi at the time of Ms. Tocheri’s death on May 9, 2022, at the age of 99. She left a will dated January 29, 2014, appointing Mr. Shiomi as her estate trustee, with her brother Guido Tocheri and her niece Cindy Jarvela as alternate trustees. Both Mr. Shiomi and Guido Tocheri renounced their right to act as trustees, and Ms. Jarvela was appointed as estate trustee.

Ms. Tocheri’s estate, valued at approximately $1.6 million, consisted primarily of bank and investment accounts held at RBC Trust. According to the will, Mr. Shiomi was to receive her personal and household belongings, while the residue of the estate was to be distributed among five charitable beneficiaries. However, Mr. Shiomi argued that he was financially dependent on the deceased and sought an order for support from the estate.

Legal Issues

The key legal issues before the court were:

1. Whether Mr. Shiomi qualified as a dependant under section 57(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).
2. Whether Ms. Tocheri had failed to make adequate provision for his support under section 58(1) of the SLRA.
3. If so, what amount of support should be ordered from the estate for Mr. Shiomi’s proper support.

The Law

In Ontario, dependant’s relief claims are governed by Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA), R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26. This legislation allows a court to intervene when a deceased person has failed to provide adequate financial support for their dependants.

A dependant includes a spouse, common-law partner (cohabiting for at least three years), child, parent, or sibling whom the deceased was supporting or was legally obligated to support immediately before their death.

The court considers several factors, including the financial need of the dependant and their accustomed standard of living, the deceased’s moral and legal obligations to provide for the dependant, and the size of the estate and whether it can accommodate the dependant’s claim while respecting testamentary freedom.

While individuals have the right to distribute their estate as they wish, this right is not absolute. Courts recognize both legal and moral obligations—especially in long-term relationships—and can override a will to ensure proper support.

Under section 58(1) of the SLRA, courts can order that “such provision as it considers adequate” be made from the estate for the dependant’s proper support. This can involve lump sum payments, ongoing financial support, or adjustments to estate distributions.

A testator’s will can be set aside in whole or in part if a dependant is left without adequate financial support, reinforcing that testamentary autonomy is subject to fairness and public policy considerations.

Court’s Decision

Justice Fregeau ruled in favor of Mr. Shiomi, holding that:

1. Mr. Shiomi qualified as a dependant because he was a common-law spouse under the Family Law Act (FLA) and had been receiving financial support from the deceased before her death.
2. The will failed to provide adequate support for Mr. Shiomi despite their long-term relationship and mutual support. The court considered the deceased’s moral obligation to Mr. Shiomi, noting that they had implicitly agreed to be each other’s beneficiaries.
3. An equal division of the estate between Mr. Shiomi and the five charities was appropriate to balance the deceased’s testamentary freedom with her obligation to provide for her dependant.

The court ordered that 50% of the net estate be paid to Mr. Shiomi, with the remaining 50% distributed equally among the five charitable beneficiaries.

Conclusion

• The court reaffirmed that a testator’s autonomy is subject to moral and legal obligations toward dependants.
• Given the size of the estate and the long-standing relationship, it was unreasonable for Ms. Tocheri to leave nothing substantial to Mr. Shiomi.
• Mr. Shiomi’s legal fees of $15,000 were to be paid from the estate, as the litigation was necessary due to Ms. Tocheri’s failure to provide for him in her will.

This case reinforces that long-term common-law partners may have a strong claim for dependant support, even if they are financially stable, when testamentary provisions fail to reflect a testator’s obligations.