Court backlog caused the filing issue and did not reflect inaction by the claimant: court
The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed a 91-year-old man’s late support claim against his deceased partner’s estate, ruling that a minor filing delay due to court backlog did not justify dismissal.
The appellant, who had been in a committed relationship with the deceased for 22 years, sought financial support after discovering that her will left her estate solely to her children. When probate was granted in February 2023, the appellant’s lawyer informed the estate’s representatives of his intention to file a claim. The application was submitted electronically to the court a day before the statutory six-month deadline, but due to a court delay, it was formally filed six days late.
The estate’s representatives moved to dismiss the claim based on the missed deadline, and the appellant requested court permission to proceed despite the delay. The chambers judge denied this request, citing insufficient justification for the delay and finding limited merit in the claim. He noted the appellant’s reliance on incomplete financial disclosure and suggested the evidence did not support a finding of financial dependency on the deceased.
On appeal, however, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge erred in dismissing the claim based on the technical delay. The appellate court emphasized that the filing delay was largely due to court backlog and did not reflect inaction on the part of the appellant. Given that the estate representatives had received the unfiled application in advance of the deadline, the court concluded there was no prejudice to the estate.
Additionally, the appellate court disagreed with the chambers judge’s interpretation of the available evidence regarding financial dependency. Contrary to the previous ruling, the appellant had not explicitly declared financial independence, and the estate’s remaining asset had not been distributed, which allowed room for his claim under Alberta’s Wills and Succession Act. The court also noted that changes to the property’s ownership arrangement between the couple raised questions about their financial interdependence, an issue the chambers judge did not fully explore.
By permitting the claim to proceed, the Court of Appeal clarified that slight delays due to court processes should not necessarily prevent legitimate claims from being heard, especially when such claims involve long-term partners who may depend on estate assets.
