Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Estate Planning Blogs -> Toronto Estate Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Estate Planning
: Toronto Estate Law BlogConflicts of Laws and Dependants' Relief
By Hull & Hull LLP
When advancing a dependant support claim, it is important to determine where the deceased person was domiciled[1] at death.
Under the former dependants’ relief legislation (Dependants’ Relief Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 126) the court could only make orders for dependant support in cases where the deceased died domiciled in Ontario. In contrast, under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA), courts in Ontario have the jurisdiction to also make such orders for support where the deceased died domiciled outside of Ontario.
The issue becomes one of jurisdiction – what assets will the Ontario courts have authority over? In brief, the answer appears to be as follows:
- if the deceased person was not domiciled in Ontario, then the jurisdiction of the Ontario court will be limited to real property/immovables in Ontario;
- if the deceased was domiciled in Ontario, and a support application was brought in Ontario, the court has jurisdiction to charge the movables of the deceased worldwide; and
- even if the deceased person was domiciled in Ontario at death, an Ontario court order directing support for a dependant may not be enforced over real property/immovables located outside Ontario, such that the dependant may be forced to bring an application in the jurisdiction where this property is located in order to obtain the relief granted in the Ontario court order.
In Corina Weigl’s paper entitled “Conflicts of Laws in the Context of Dependant’s Relief – A Matter of Domicile”, presented at the Ontario Bar Association 2009 Institute of Continuing Legal Education, she discusses this and other related issues in greater depth. A worthwhile read!
Have a great day,
Natalia Angelini
[1] “Domicile” refers to an individual’s fixed place of habitation based upon an intention to make that place his/her permanent home.
Full post as published by Toronto Estate Law Blog on February 19, 2009 (boomark / email).
Dumb New York Laws
Stupid Laws in the Empire State
Dumb Texas Laws
Stupid Laws in the Lone Star State
Dumb California Laws
Stupid Laws in the Sunshine State
Dumb Foreign Laws
Stupid Laws of Other Countries
The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act
Phantom Income Relief on Debt Cancellation
Mylicon Baby's Gas Relief Drops
Urgently Recalled Nationwide
Stock Market Losses
alleging bad financial advice and conflicts of interest.
California Labor Laws
alleged violations of California labor laws such as overtime pay, discrimination and harassment.
Grubb & Ellis
alleging violations of fiduciary duties to shareholders and securities laws.
Hewlett-Packard and Staples
allegedly violated antitrust laws in collaborating on the sale of replacement ink jet printer cartridges.
Damaged Billboards
Lamar Advertising pays $35,000 settlement after violating permit laws.

A Big Week for Conflicts of Interest
Does disclosure solve the conflicts problem
Schwarcz on Conflicts of Interest Involving Secondary Managers
Zucca on Conflicts of Fundamental Rights
Inconsistent State Laws in Australia
The Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act of 2007







