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

Roundup of law firm hires, promotions, departures: April 29, 2024 update

Federal Court sets hearings for maritime, negligence, transportation cases

Goodmans and Davies act in commercial cases worth $114–550 million

Top 10 corporate boutiques for 2024–25 revealed by Canadian Lawyer

Ontario Superior Court certifies class action against crypto asset trading platform Binance

NS Court of Appeal denies request for the production of CCTV footage in a personal injury action

Most Read Articles

BC Supreme Court orders father to pay fines for continuous breaches of conduct and parenting orders

Ontario Superior Court certifies class action against The Bank of Nova Scotia

BC Supreme Court revokes probate grant for failure to properly notify testator’s son in Mexico

Manitoba First Nations' class action seeks treaty annuity payments