A woman’s legal action seeking to hold her deceased father’s estate accountable for his alleged failure to pay child support during her childhood is being allowed to proceed by an Ontario court.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected a request to dismiss a legal action being brought by a 37-year old woman against the estate of her father seeking “dependent’s relief” — a request than an estate be required to pay adequate support to a dependent — alleging that he never provided any financial support after her parents separated when she was about three years old, despite a court order from 1998 requiring him to pay child support.
“According to the statement of claim, [the plaintiff] is seeking support from her late father’s estate … based on her father’s failure to provide financial assistance from the time he left their household when she was three years old, through to the completion of her post-secondary education,” the court noted in its decision.
Effectively, she “is seeking to hold her father accountable for his failure to support her financially (as well as emotionally) and for his neglect,” the court said.
According to the court’s ruling, at a case conference in August, the estate asked the court to dismiss the claim, arguing that it was “frivolous or abusive” and bound to fail.
Among other things, the estate argued that the plaintiff isn’t legally entitled to child support since she’s now an adult. It also alleged that she’s using this case to gain a tactical advantage in a separate action where she’s seeking to challenge the validity of the will, which it called “inappropriate and an abuse of process.”
However, the court sided with the plaintiff in the case, ruling that she could have a viable claim for dependent’s relief.
“The fact that [the plaintiff] had reached adulthood at the time of her father’s death does not automatically remove her from the statutory definition of ‘child’ or clearly disentitle her to claim relief,” the court found. “This is an issue more appropriately addressed through full legal argument.”
The estate also argued that a child doesn’t have standing to enforce a support order, since the order required the support to be paid to the mother.
However, the court noted that “child support is the right of the child and cannot be bargained away by the recipient parent.” And, it said this case “raises an interesting legal issue worthy of consideration.”
As a result, the court concluded that the case isn’t frivolous, as it “raises issues that are worthy of consideration.”
It also rejected the allegation that the proceeding is an abuse of process, saying that while there may be some overlap between the action seeking dependent’s relief, and the challenge to the will, the cases raise distinct issues.
“In my view, this is not a clear case where the frivolous or abusive nature of the claim is apparent on its face,” the court concluded in dismissing the request to toss out the action.