Ontario Superior Court rejects additional funds claim from common-law spouse's estate

She claimed a secret trust existed between her partner and one of the estate trustees

Ontario Superior Court rejects additional funds claim from common-law spouse's estate

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed an applicant’s request for additional funds from the respondent's estate, the estate of her late common-law partner.

In Germana v Fennema Estate, 2024 ONSC 2011, the court found that the estate had fulfilled obligations to the applicant, Estelle Germania, under her common-law partner Mike Fennema’s will and their cohabitation agreement. Germania had received $1 million from Fennema's estate—$750,000 as designated in his will and $250,000 under the cohabitation agreement. Despite this, she sought an extra $1 million, claiming a secret trust existed between Fennema and one of the estate trustees. The court rejected this claim.

The dispute focused on two primary issues. Firstly, Germania claimed the estate trustees held $1 million in trust for her based on an alleged secret trust. Secondly, she argued that Fennema’s will had not made adequate provisions for her support, entitling her to additional support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Superior Court examined the couple’s financial arrangements and history during the trial. Shortly after they began cohabiting, Germania and Fennema signed a cohabitation agreement that asserted their financial independence and included a mutual waiver of claims against each other’s estates. The agreement stipulated payments to Germania upon Fennema's death, which were honoured, except a pending $50,000 related to moving expenses, which the estate acknowledged and agreed to pay.

Regarding the secret trust, the court found no evidence that Fennema intended to establish such an arrangement in his communications before his death. The court also confirmed that the estate trustees acted according to the terms of the will and the cohabitation agreement.

In assessing the claim for additional support, the court ruled that Fennema had made adequate provisions for Germania’s support, considering her assets, pension income, and the terms of the cohabitation agreement, alongside the payments she had already received.

Ultimately, the court denied Germania's request for additional support and granted the estate trustees their costs pending any resolution between the parties regarding this matter.

Recent articles & video

SCC confirms manslaughter convictions in case about proper jury instructions on causation

Law firm associate attrition continues to decline, NALP Foundation study shows

How systemizing law firm work allocation enhances diversity efforts and overcomes affinity bias

Dentons advises Saturn on $600 million acquisition of Saskatchewan oil assets

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds anesthesiologist’s liability in severe birth complications case

BC Supreme Court assigns liability in rear-end vehicle collision at Surrey intersection

Most Read Articles

BC Supreme Court rules for equal asset division in Port Alberni property dispute

BC Supreme Court rules vehicle owner and driver liable for 2011 Chilliwack collision

BC Supreme Court upholds solicitor-client privilege in medical negligence case

Top 20 personal injury law firms for 2024 revealed by Canadian Lawyer