Many people assume that if a spouse receives a relatively small gift under a will, they will automatically be entitled to a larger share of the estate.
Alberta law is more nuanced.
While the Wills and Succession Act allows surviving spouses and certain family members to seek additional support from an estate, courts do not rewrite wills simply because a family member believes they deserve more. Instead, the court must determine whether the deceased provided adequate maintenance and support in light of all the circumstances.
The decision in Hart Estate (Re), 2025 ABKB 749 provides an important example of how Alberta courts approach these claims.
The Background
The case involved a surviving spouse who received a specific gift of $50,000 under her husband's will.
The remainder of the estate was left to other family members.
However, the surviving spouse also received more than $1 million through jointly held assets that passed to her outside of the estate.
Believing that the will did not adequately provide for her, she applied to the court for additional support under Alberta's Wills and Succession Act.
The estate itself was substantial, worth more than $6 million after taxes.
The question was not whether the estate was large enough to provide additional support. Rather, the issue was whether the surviving spouse actually needed more support than she had already received.
The Purpose of Family Maintenance Claims
Alberta's family maintenance legislation is designed to balance two competing principles.
On one hand, individuals generally have the right to decide how their property will be distributed after death.
On the other hand, the law recognizes that certain family members should not be left without adequate support.
The court's role is not to determine what would be fair in a broad sense. Instead, the court must decide whether the deceased failed to meet their legal and moral obligations to provide proper maintenance and support.
If adequate support has already been provided, the court has no authority to override the deceased's wishes.
Looking Beyond the Will
One of the most important lessons from the decision is that courts look at more than the wording of the will itself.
When assessing a support claim, the court considers all available financial resources, including:
- Property received through rights of survivorship;
- Jointly owned assets;
- Pension income;
- Investment income;
- Personal assets;
- Existing savings; and
- Other financial resources available to the applicant.
In this case, although the surviving spouse received only a modest gift under the will, she had already received substantial assets outside of the estate and had significant independent financial resources.
Proper Support Does Not Mean Unlimited Support
The court reaffirmed that proper maintenance and support means more than avoiding poverty.
A surviving spouse is not required to live at a subsistence level.
Courts may consider the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage and whether the applicant can reasonably continue that lifestyle.
However, there are limits.
The purpose of the legislation is to provide support, not to create an opportunity for wealth maximization or estate enhancement.
The court will generally focus on reasonable and supported expenses rather than aspirational spending.
Credibility Matters
A significant aspect of the decision involved the applicant's proposed budget.
The court found that many of the claimed expenses were considerably higher than the applicant's actual spending history.
Several expense categories were shown to be overstated when compared to supporting documentation and historical financial records.
As a result, the court placed greater weight on actual spending patterns than on projected future expenses.
This highlights an important point for anyone bringing a support claim: courts expect financial disclosure to be accurate, complete, and supported by evidence.
Where there are concerns regarding credibility, the court may give less weight to the applicant's evidence.
Charitable Giving and Family Gifts
The surviving spouse also sought funding for substantial charitable donations and significant gifts to family members.
The court drew an important distinction between expenses that support the applicant and expenses that benefit others.
While modest charitable giving may form part of a reasonable lifestyle, family maintenance claims are intended to support the applicant personally.
The court concluded that requiring the estate to finance substantial gifts to family members would go beyond the purpose of the legislation.
Similarly, the court was unwilling to significantly expand charitable contributions using estate funds where doing so would effectively rewrite the deceased's estate plan.
Existing Assets Must Be Considered
Another important principle reaffirmed by the court is that applicants are generally expected to use their own financial resources for their care and support.
The surviving spouse had:
- Significant pension income;
- Investment assets;
- Liquid savings;
- No meaningful debt obligations; and
- Valuable property holdings.
The court found that these resources were more than sufficient to meet her reasonable needs.
As a result, there was no basis for further intervention.
Key Takeaways
A Spouse Is Not Automatically Entitled to More
Receiving a smaller gift under a will does not automatically justify a successful support claim.
Assets Outside the Estate Matter
Jointly held property and survivorship assets may be highly relevant when assessing whether adequate support has been provided.
Courts Focus on Actual Need
The key question is whether the applicant requires additional support, not whether the estate can afford to provide it.
Financial Disclosure Must Be Credible
Inflated budgets and inaccurate financial reporting can undermine a support application.
Support Is for the Applicant
Family maintenance legislation is intended to support the applicant's reasonable needs, not to provide gifts to others or build wealth for future beneficiaries.
The Bottom Line
Hart Estate (Re) serves as a reminder that Alberta courts carefully balance testamentary freedom with the obligation to provide adequate support for family members. Even where an estate is substantial, a support application will not succeed if the applicant already has sufficient resources to maintain their lifestyle and meet their reasonable needs.
The decision illustrates that courts consider the complete financial picture, including assets received outside the will, when deciding whether intervention is justified.
MerGen Law is Here to Help You
At MerGen Law, we assist clients throughout Alberta with estate litigation, family maintenance and support claims, will challenges, estate administration, and estate planning. Whether you are considering a claim against an estate or defending a will, we are here to help.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals facing concerns about estate disputes and challenging a will should seek professional advice tailored to their specific circumstances.