Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Determining spousal status under the Wills, Estates and Successions Act (WESA) requires a contextual, holistic analysis of all evidence relevant to various indicia of a marriage-like relationship, not a checklist approach.

• Cohabitation and shared finances are no longer prerequisites for establishing a marriage-like relationship under the modern statutory framework.

• The appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider the deceased's subjective intentions, but the Court found this was adequately addressed through objective evidence of mutual intentions.

• Witness testimony corroborated that the couple was viewed as long-standing, committed, and exclusive partners for 38 years.

• Mr. Matossian's conduct during Ms. Clark's hospitalization and after her death was explained by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, his advanced age, and grief-related depression.

• Appeal dismissed as the trial judge properly engaged in the requisite fact-driven analysis and was entitled to find a marriage-like relationship existed.

Background and parties involved

Sharon Patricia Clark died intestate in December 2020 at the age of 79. She had no children or surviving parents, leaving only her brother, David Clark, as her closest relative. Her estate, comprised of investments and proceeds from the sale of her house, was valued at over $3.1 million. At the time of her death, Ms. Clark had been in a relationship with Dikran Matheos Matossian for 38 years. Mr. Matossian passed away about two years later at the age of 88, having named Marcus von Albrecht as executor and as one of several beneficiaries in a will made after Ms. Clark's death.

The central legal dispute

The respondent, Marcus von Albrecht, applied for an order declaring that Ms. Clark and Mr. Matossian were spouses under section 2(1)(b) of the Wills, Estates and Successions Act (WESA). Under section 20 of WESA, the estate of a person who dies without a will and has no children passes to their spouse. Absent a spouse, the estate passes to their parents, and absent surviving parents, to their siblings under section 23(2). The determination of whether Ms. Clark and Mr. Matossian were spouses would therefore decide whether her estate would pass to Mr. Matossian's estate or to her brother David Clark. A 13-day trial followed, which occurred after Mr. Matossian's death, resulting in the trial judge finding that the couple were in a marriage-like relationship for at least two years up until Ms. Clark's death, thereby qualifying as spouses under WESA.

Nature of the relationship

Ms. Clark and Mr. Matossian met at Jericho Tennis Club in 1982, soon after Ms. Clark became a member. She was 40 and divorced, while he was 48, had never been married, and like Ms. Clark, had no children. Despite maintaining separate residences and finances throughout their relationship, the couple's daily routines revolved around each other. After Ms. Clark retired in 2006, they typically met for coffee in the morning and for drinks and dinner at Jericho, unless they had plans to meet friends for dinner. Mr. Matossian also prepared dinner for the two of them at his home sometimes. They spent the majority of their time together sharing meals, doing activities, vacationing, and socializing with friends. They resided together when they travelled to Hawaii for two to eight weeks each year from 1982 to 2015, apart from one or two years. Those trips ended after Ms. Clark became ill in Hawaii and was reluctant to return. The relationship included sexual intimacy that was exclusive, with one exception. Some witnesses testified to them being affectionate with each other, which was also depicted in photographs. Some witnesses described them treating each other as a couple, and some initially assumed Ms. Clark and Mr. Matossian were married or lived together. There was no evidence of either of them being observed with or talking about anyone else in a romantic sense in the 38 years they were together. Ms. Clark was a part of Mr. Matossian's family events and considered part of his family. Ms. Clark's family, in contrast, did not see Mr. Matossian as a member of the family, although she brought him to family events prior to 2000.

Financial arrangements and living situation

The couple had separate finances throughout the relationship and did not provide for each other in a will or through beneficiary designations, with each indicating they were single on their income tax returns. However, Ms. Clark and Mr. Matossian each contributed some funds to the other, him to a much greater extent than her, to support spending time together as a couple and to render assistance. Mr. Matossian would pay for Ms. Clark's drinks and meals, one or the other would pay the cost of their accommodation in Hawaii, and Mr. Matossian occasionally assisted Ms. Clark with home repairs. Regarding their living arrangements, although Ms. Clark slept at her house most nights, she had a parking stall in Mr. Matossian's building and a key to his apartment. He too had a key to her house. In his affidavit, Mr. Matossian deposed to asking Ms. Clark to move into his apartment early in their relationship. It was not possible for him to contemplate moving into her house because it was overcrowded with belongings and barely livable for her. According to Mr. Matossian, Ms. Clark did not want to go through the process of getting her house ready for sale, and moving in together was never seriously discussed again. The trial judge noted that Ms. Clark had an undisputed "hoarding problem" that was also evident from the state of her house when she died.

The appellant's arguments on appeal

David Clark challenged the trial judge's finding on two grounds. First, he alleged the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider Ms. Clark's subjective intentions, arguing that because the authorities required her to consider the subjective intentions of the parties, she was obliged to consider Ms. Clark's separate intentions. He emphasized the absence of any discussion of her intentions under the subheading "Parties Intentions" or at all, and submitted the absence of findings on the issue establishes that it was not considered. Second, he contended that the finding of a marriage-like relationship reflected a palpable and overriding error, asserting that all of the trial judge's specific findings about the characteristics of the relationship taken together cannot support the finding. He emphasized that they maintained separate homes and finances, did not name each other as beneficiaries or include each other in estate planning, and each identified themselves as "single" on their income tax returns. He also pointed to Mr. Matossian's lack of involvement in Ms. Clark's hospitalization leading up to her death and in arrangements after she died.

The Court of Appeal's analysis

The Court of Appeal found no merit to the first ground of appeal. Justice Fleming explained that the authorities identify the intentions of the parties plural as a factor, and in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company Limited, 2021 BCCA 461, as a factor that must be considered in deciding whether a relationship was marriage-like. Mother 1 also provides that a finding of mutual intention is not a prerequisite as explained in Weber v. Leclerc. The Court noted that while the court will consider evidence expressly describing the parties' intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions. The question of whether a relationship is marriage-like will also typically depend on more than just their intentions, and objective evidence of the parties' lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance.

The trial judge properly found that Mr. Matossian considered himself to be in a lengthy, indeterminate relationship with Ms. Clark, based on his affidavit where he deposed in some detail to the history, nature, and various aspects of their relationship. This intention was corroborated by the evidence of several witnesses who regarded them as a couple and several, who knew them well, viewed them as a long-standing, committed, exclusive couple. Although there was no direct evidence of Ms. Clark's subjective intention, the trial judge's subsequent discussion of the objective evidence explicitly informed her ultimate finding that she had considered all of the evidence of the mutual intentions. The Court stated that implicit in a consideration of all the evidence of mutual intentions is a consideration of any indirect evidence of Ms. Clark's intentions.

Regarding the second ground, the Court identified multiple difficulties with the appellant's argument. The appellant relied on some of the trial judge's specific findings but neglected others, and most of the specific findings identified by the appellant were decontextualized or taken outside of how the trial judge treated them. The Court emphasized significant findings that the appellant did not mention which played a significant role in the finding of a marriage-like relationship: the extraordinary length of the relationship, which only ended in death; for those 38 years, the relationship was exclusive in terms of sexual intimacy; Ms. Clark and Mr. Matossian's daily routines revolved around each other and they spent the majority of their time together sharing meals, doing activities, vacationing, and socializing with friends; they resided together every year for decades while vacationing in Hawaii; friends and others viewed them as a couple and those who knew them well viewed them as a long-standing, committed, exclusive couple; and Mr. Matossian's family viewed Ms. Clark as a family member.

Ruling and outcome

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Justice Fleming, with Chief Justice Marchand and Justice Iyer concurring, concluded that the trial judge properly engaged in the requisite fact-driven contextual analysis of all the evidence relevant to the various factors, indicia, or characteristics of a spousal relationship, in order to characterize the relationship. The Court acknowledged that while another judge may have concluded the respondent failed to establish Ms. Clark and Mr. Matossian were in a marriage-like relationship, the trial judge was entitled to find that they were. As a result, the trial court's declaration that Ms. Clark and Mr. Matossian were spouses under WESA stands. The estate, valued at over $3.1 million, is therefore subject to the spousal inheritance provisions rather than passing to her brother David Clark. No specific monetary award was ordered by the Court of Appeal, as the appeal concerned only the declaration of spousal status.