When someone dies outside Ontario and leaves a partner or child without adequate provision, can they still bring a dependant support claim against the estate here? In Bratusa v. Doersam, 2026 ONCA 792, released November 6, 2026, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the claimant's residence in Ontario when the claim is made is a presumptive connecting factor for dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act — and that the tort connecting factors from Van Breda do not control that analysis (paras. 24, 37–44, 50). The Court decided jurisdiction only. Whether the SLRA, including life-insurance rules under s. 72, applies on the merits remains for a later stage (para. 49).
The decision at a glance
Citation: Bratusa v. Doersam, 2026 ONCA 792 (Court of Appeal for Ontario; Miller, Favreau and Rahman JJ.A.; reasons by Favreau J.A.). Heard April 28, 2026; released November 6, 2026.
Official text: Court of Appeal for Ontario decision
Result: appeal allowed; Ontario has jurisdiction over the dependant support claim; costs order below vacated; costs of the appeal and motion below to the appellants, quantum to be fixed on written submissions (paras. 51–53).
What happened
Nicole Bratusa and Ryan Doersam were in a relationship in Costa Rica from 2020 until his death there in 2024. They had one child. His will did not provide for them (paras. 2, 8–9). After his death, Ms. Bratusa and their child moved to Ontario. She applied for dependant support under s. 58 of the SLRA for herself and their child (paras. 2, 14).
The estate trustee sought a stay for want of jurisdiction. The motion judge stayed the application, finding no real and substantial connection with Ontario, and ordered Ms. Bratusa to pay costs of $88,937.81 (paras. 2, 15, 20–22). He also found that, if Ontario had jurisdiction, Ontario would be a convenient forum (paras. 15, 21).
Background the Court recited included over $4 million in life insurance bought in Ontario, held in a trust with a British Columbia resident as trustee (para. 6). Ms. Bratusa was originally from Ontario; she and their child now live and work or attend school in Ontario, and her parents still live in Ontario (para. 10).
Residence is a presumptive connecting factor
Jurisdiction simpliciter requires a real and substantial connection between the claim and the forum (para. 29). For tort claims, Van Breda sets out presumptive connecting factors, and a plaintiff's presence alone is not one of them (paras. 30, 37). That list is not an inventory for every kind of claim (para. 34).
The motion judge treated current residence as not a proper consideration and found any Ontario property connection too weak (paras. 17–20, 35–36). That was an error for dependant support. SLRA s. 58 allows the court to order adequate provision out of the estate when the deceased has not made it for dependants (para. 38). A "dependant" includes a child or a spouse to whom the deceased was providing support, or was under a legal obligation to provide support, immediately before death (para. 39). The Court held a dependant support claim is more akin to a claim for support in the family law context than a tort claim, so the claimant's residence when the claim is made is a presumptive connecting factor, as the Court of Appeal had already recognized for family law support claims in Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116 (paras. 24, 40–44).
Support is prospective: needs arise where the claimants are when they apply (para. 43).
The presumption was not rebutted
A defendant may still show the connection is too weak (para. 45). Here it was not: the need for support was in Ontario, they intended to continue living here at least part of the time, and, under SLRA s. 72(1)(f), the Ontario-established insurance policies are the estate's biggest asset through which a support claim may be satisfied (para. 46). Section 72(1)(f) deems amounts payable under a policy on the deceased's life that the deceased owned to be part of the net estate for dependant support (fn. 3); whether the SLRA applies here is undecided (para. 49). The presumption can still be rebutted for clearly transitory residence or evident forum shopping; it was not here, given Ms. Bratusa's real, pre-existing and ongoing ties to Ontario (para. 47).
Jurisdiction is not choice of law
Jurisdiction is distinct from choice of law. It may turn out that the SLRA does not apply, including s. 72(1)(f) access to life insurance. That issue is for a later stage and must not drive the jurisdiction analysis (para. 49). The Court did not decide entitlement, quantum, or whether the insurance is reachable on the merits.
Having found a real and substantial connection based on the appellants' residence in Ontario, and given the motion judge's unchallenged finding that Ontario is a convenient forum, the Court held Ontario has jurisdiction (para. 50).
What changed, and what didn't
The Court aligned SLRA dependant-support jurisdiction with family law support-claim authority (Knowles), not the tort presence rule (Van Breda) (paras. 24, 37–44). It did not decide the merits, applicable law, or ultimate treatment of the life insurance (para. 49). It also refused to admit the appellants' fresh evidence (para. 28) and found it unnecessary to address the doctrine of necessity (para. 24).
Who this affects
Surviving partners and children who move to Ontario after a death abroad and seek dependant support under the SLRA (paras. 2, 10, 14, 50).
Estate trustees and insurance trustees defending multi-jurisdictional estates who rely on Van Breda tort factors alone (paras. 24, 35–37).
Estates with Ontario-purchased life insurance that may reinforce the Ontario connection under s. 72(1)(f), with merits still open (paras. 46, 49).
Practical takeaways
Residence at filing matters. For SLRA dependant support, Ontario residence when the application is made is a presumptive connecting factor (paras. 24, 44).
Do not treat Van Breda as a complete answer. Tort connecting factors are not an inventory for every claim (paras. 34, 37–40).
Transitory residence can still lose. The presumption may be rebutted if residence is clearly temporary or looks like forum shopping (para. 47).
Life insurance may reinforce the Ontario link. Ontario-established policies can matter under s. 72(1)(f) at the jurisdiction stage; whether the SLRA applies to reach them is for later (paras. 46, 49).
Winning jurisdiction is not winning support. The Court held Ontario has jurisdiction; it did not decide entitlement, quantum or choice of law (paras. 49–52).
Frequently asked questions
If the death was abroad, can Ontario still hear a dependant support claim against the estate?
Yes, on these facts. The Court held Ontario had jurisdiction because the claimants' residence in Ontario when they applied was a presumptive connecting factor that was not rebutted (paras. 50–52).
Is a plaintiff's presence enough under Van Breda?
For tort claims, presence alone is not a presumptive connecting factor (Van Breda, discussed at para. 37). For dependant support under the SLRA, the Court held the claimant's residence at the time of the claim is a presumptive connecting factor (paras. 24, 44).
Did the Court decide whether the life insurance can be used for support?
No. It noted s. 72(1)(f) and the Ontario-established policies in the connection analysis, but said whether the SLRA (including s. 72(1)(f)) applies is a later-stage issue (paras. 46, 49).
Can the residence presumption be rebutted?
Yes, where the connection is too weak — for example, clearly transitory residence or evident forum shopping — but it was not rebutted on these facts (paras. 45–47).
Were the merits of the support claim decided?
No. The appeal decided jurisdiction (and vacated the costs order below). Entitlement and related merits issues remain for later (paras. 49, 51–52).
Facing a dependant support claim against an estate? Book a consultation
Francis Mehr LLP specializes in wills and estates for clients in Ottawa and across Ontario. Book a consultation with the lawyers at Francis Mehr LLP: call (613) 226-1011 or contact us.
Written by the lawyers of Francis Mehr LLP. Published [DATE OF PUBLICATION]; reflects the decision released November 6, 2026. This post is general information, not legal advice.