Fostering hopes
In Estate of Sydney Monteith v Monteith et al,[1] George and Doris Monteith were described as having fostered 136 children over their lifetime. Three of those children, Sydney Monteith, Timothy Monteith and Ena Szasz, would subsequently become George and Doris’ legal children through adoption. [2]
Sandra Blair, one of the respondents in the case, would also come into George and Doris’s foster care and, later, under the foster care of other foster parents. It was not disputed that Sandra had never been adopted by George and Doris. However, Sandra maintained a close relationship with George as she grew older, so much so that she was named as a co-executor in George’s will, jointly with Sydney and Timothy, whom George collectively referred to as his ‘children’. Sandra was also named as residuary beneficiary of George’s estate. George and Doris would eventually pass away in 2016 and 1988, respectively.
In 2022, Sydney passed away intestate, leaving his entire estate to be distributed in accordance with Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act (the SLRA). Sydney left no parents, spouse or issue. Sandra sought to argue that she should be included as one of Sydney’s siblings for the purpose of intestate succession under the SLRA.
In holding that Sandra was excluded from the legal definition of a child and therefore had no legal entitlement to share in Sydney’s estate on an intestacy under s.47(4) of the SLRA, the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice (the Court) began its analysis with the definition of ‘child’ pursuant to ss.3 and 4 of Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act (the CLRA). It noted that this definition applied to all laws in Ontario, including the SLRA’s provisions governing intestate succession. It further noted that ss.3 and 4 of the CLRA define who a child is for the additional purpose of determining who is a brother or sister to that child.
Please login to access this content
If you are not a member, find out more about joining STEP or subscribing to STEP articles.