FACTS
The applicant, Jack Shapiro, was the spouse of the late Carol-Sue Shapiro, who passed away in June 2020. The estate was substantial, valued at approximately $7 million, largely composed of an inheritance that Carol-Sue had received from her parents. This inheritance included a condominium unit in which Carol-Sue Shapiro, Jack Shapiro, and their son, Michael Shapiro, resided.
In 2008 Carol-Sue and Jack had mirror wills drafted, and later mirror codicils in 2011. Carol-Sue then made a series of changes to her wills, unbeknown to Jack, the last change taking place in October 2018.
In October 2018, Carol-Sue executed two wills. Under the terms of these wills, Jack Shapiro was to receive $250,000 and a life interest in the condominium, while the majority of the estate was directed to their son, Michael Shapiro and his family.
Jack Shapiro brought an application under section 58(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA), arguing that adequate provision had not been made for him in the deceased’s will.[1] He emphasized the couple’s 53-year marriage, the long-standing interdependence in their relationship, and his ongoing financial needs, claiming that the $250,000 bequest was insufficient.[2] He further asserted that Carol-Sue had promised to place him on title to the condominium but failed to do so.
However, the respondent, Michael Shapiro disputed his father’s claim, maintaining that Jack Shapiro was not a dependant of the deceased. He argued that Jack Shapiro had sufficient personal savings and income, that he and the deceased maintained largely separate finances, and that they had not relied on one another for support after she received her inheritance.[3] Michael Shapiro further contended that the deceased had no legal or moral obligation to provide beyond what she had already left Jack Shapiro, namely, $250,000, a life interest in the condominium, and other assets. He also refuted the claim regarding ownership of the condominium, asserting that it was part of the deceased’s inheritance and therefore not subject to division.[4]
ISSUES
- Was the applicant a dependant within the meaning of the SLRA?
- Did the deceased provide adequate support for the applicant through the provisions of her will?
- Is the applicant entitled to ownership of the condominium?
RULES
- An individual may be considered a dependant under the SLRA where they shared a long-term marriage with the deceased and received shelter and moral support from the deceased during the relationship.
- The deceased may still be found to have failed to provide adequate support for the applicant, even where the parties had maintained separate finances, if circumstances have since changed and that financial arrangement is no longer sustainable.
APPLICATION
With respect to the dependant support claim, the Court determined that Jack Shapiro qualified as a dependant and was entitled to support, granting him title to the family condominium. In assessing dependency, the Court emphasized that support is not limited to direct financial assistance, but may extend to physical and moral support.[5] On this basis, the Court found that the applicant was indeed a dependant of the deceased by virtue of both shelter and companionship, noting that “the couple had a lengthy and stable marriage… they enjoyed each other’s company and provided each other with the companionship that is vital to human well-being.”[6] The condominium, as the matrimonial home, represented a basic need for the applicant, while the companionship of the deceased constituted moral support.[7]
The Court also concluded that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the applicant’s support. The Court considered Re Duranceau, which stated that to determine if the testator made adequate provisions for the dependant that “the Court must consider whether the testator provided sufficient support to enable the dependant to live “neither luxuriously nor miserably, but decently and comfortably according to his or her station in life.”[8] Although the deceased had believed the applicant held sufficient savings, his resources had been depleted by legal expenses and were inadequate given his modest income.[9] Considering his age, health, and future care requirements, the Court found that the $250,000 bequest did not provide the level of financial stability and dignity required.[10]
Following this, the Court conducted a detailed analysis of the applicant’s legal and moral claims to the condominium. While Jack Shapiro held a strong legal entitlement to half of the condominium as it was their matrimonial home, the Court recognized an even “stronger moral claim” to the entire property.[11] The Court observed that the couple had originally executed mirror wills leaving all assets to each other, and Carol-Sue made several subsequent changes without informing Jack, that the deceased had promised, but failed, to place the applicant on title, and that the applicant had made significant contributions both to their first home and to the accumulation of family assets throughout the marriage.[12]The Court affirmed that moral considerations are relevant in dependant support applications in order to achieve a just outcome, and in this case, the moral claim reinforced the conclusion that the applicant should receive full ownership of the condominium.
By contrast, the Court rejected the allegations of undue influence, upholding the validity of the deceased’s wills. It found no evidence that the respondent or his wife had coerced or improperly influenced the deceased. Michael Shapiro was therefore confirmed as estate trustee, with authority to administer the estate.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that the applicant qualified as a dependant under the SLRA.[13] It further determined that the deceased had failed to make adequate provision for Jack Shapiro’s support.[14] As a result, the applicant was awarded ownership of the condominium in fee simple, granting him absolute ownership, in addition to receiving the $250,000 bequest.[15] The rest of the estate passed to the son pursuant to the terms of the deceased’s valid will.
This case underscores the significance of moral considerations in dependant support claims, highlighting the Court’s role in ensuring that outcomes are both equitable and just.
Written by: Maya Kawale
[1] Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, at s.58(1) [SLRA]; Shapiro v. Shapiro, 2025 ONSC 2781, at para 40 [Shapiro]
[2] Ibid, at paras 4-5, 53-55
[3] Ibid, at para 26, 41
[4] Ibid, at paras 6-7, 41-42, 79-80
[5] Khemraj v. Khemraj, 2016 ONSC 7796, at para 120 [Khemraj]; Re Davies and Davies (1980), 1979 CanLII 1979 (ONSC), 27 O.R. (2d) 98, at p.103 [Re Davies]
[6] Supra note 1, Shapiro, at para 47-48
[7] Ibid, at paras 47-48
[8] Re Duranceau (1952), 1952 CanLII 102 (ONCA), O.R. 584 (C.A.), at para 36 [Re Duranceau]
[9] Supra note 1, Shapiro, at para 52
[10] Ibid, at paras 52-59, 65-68, 74
[11] Ibid, at paras 78-85
[12] Ibid, at paras 13-, 31-36
[13] Shapiro, at para 47
[14] Shapiro, at para 65
[15] Shapiro, at paras 107-108