Imagine spending months crafting a comprehensive cohabitation and estate plan — only to learn, years later, that the court disregards those agreements and varies the will in favour of a surviving partner.
That is precisely what happened in Ramadan v. Coupal, 2025 BCSC 1194, where the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "Court") considered whether relationship agreements that expressly deny spousal status can prevent a wills variation claim. This decision serves as a cautionary reminder for estate planners that even carefully drafted relationship or succession agreements may not be enough to protect an estate from future challenges.
Background: Relationship history and estate structure
The plaintiff brought a wills variation claim against the estate of the deceased, who passed away in November 2023 with an estate valued at approximately $4.3 million. The deceased's wife had predeceased him eight years earlier, and their three children (the defendants) acted as joint executors. Prior to his death, the deceased had transferred significant assets, including the family home and a crane business worth approximately $17 million, outside of his estate.
The relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased began in 1994, while the deceased was still married to his spouse. Following the deceased's heart attack in 2017, the plaintiff moved into his home and remained there until his death, acting as his primary caregiver in his later years. Under his will, the deceased left the plaintiff only a 2011 Lexus SUV. However, during his lifetime, he had purchased her a townhome and established a trust (the "AR Trust") to pay her $4,000 per month after his death, in addition to allowing her to live in his home rent-free for 12 months.
The agreements: Cohabitation, property and succession planning documents
Between 2010 and 2017, the plaintiff and the deceased entered into several Property, Succession and Support Agreements ("PSSA"). These included:
- 2012 PSSA: Described their relationship as "friends and companions" and expressly stated they were not spouses. It also waived any estate claims if a court ever found they were spouses.
- 2016 PSSA: Updated asset information and confirmed the plaintiff's rights were limited to claims against the AR Trust.
- 2017 PSSA: Signed after the plaintiff moved into the family home, again reaffirming non-spousal status and noting the home was held in the deceased's Alter Ego Trust.
- 2010 Declaration: Stated that the deceased paid in full for the jointly-owned townhome and intended the plaintiff to have it upon his death.
- 2023 Release: Signed after the deceased's death to access AR Trust funds; the defendants argued it constituted a settlement barring further claims.
The court also noted the plaintiff's modest finances: around $27,000 per year in CPP, OAS, and rental income, plus $37,000 in savings. In 2023, a $300,000 special levy was imposed on her townhome, forcing her to take out a loan (an expense she said created significant hardship).
The issue: Can these agreements bar a wills variation claim?
Marriage, cohabitation, and separation agreements are clearly relevant when assessing a will-maker's moral obligations. However, they do not, on their own, eliminate a spouse's right to bring a wills variation claim. The Court first found that the plaintiff and the deceased were spouses under the Wills, Estates, and Succession Act ("WESA"), but only from 2010 onward. It then considered whether their agreements could bar the plaintiff's claim, concluding that the answer was no – not automatically.
The defendants argued that the 2023 release was a stand-alone settlement that barred the plaintiff's claim. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the document was simply a re-signing of the 2016 PSSA materials and therefore formed part of a cohabitation agreement rather than a final settlement. The Court stressed that such agreements must be understood in context. While they may narrow a will-maker's moral obligations, they must be considered together with the broader estate plan and the surrounding circumstances.
Decision: Moral obligations still matter despite planning measures
The court acknowledged that the deceased had met his legal obligations to the plaintiff by providing her with the townhome and a monthly income of $4,000. However, it found that his moral obligation was a different matter. The unexpected $300,000 special levy on the plaintiff's home created a financial hardship that the deceased could not have anticipated. In light of the estate's substantial size and the fact that the defendants would still inherit the majority of it, the Court varied the will to award the plaintiff an additional $300,000.
Key takeaways from this case include:
- Relationship agreements are important, but not absolute. Marriage, cohabitation, and separation agreements can influence a court's assessment of a will-maker's moral obligations, yet they do not automatically bar wills variation claims.
- Spousal status is ultimately for the court to decide. Even when agreements state otherwise, the court has the final word on whether a relationship qualifies as "marriage-like" under WESA.
- Moral obligations remain. Agreements intended to waive spousal rights cannot fully override the requirement for a will-maker to make adequate and just provisions for a spouse.
This decision offers important guidance for lawyers, will-makers, and individuals in marriage-like relationships. It illustrates how the courts interpret such agreements under WESA and clarifies the limits of their ability to exclude a spouse's rights. For anyone involved in an estate dispute, whether contesting or defending a will, understanding how courts treat relationship agreements is essential. Contact our Estates and Trusts Litigation team to protect your rights, plan strategically, and reduce the risk of future disputes.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
