A British Columbia widow who was denied spousal benefits after her husband died in a motorcycle accident successfully challenged the measure and the public insurer was ordered to pay her more than $400,000.
BC Civil Resolution ruled on the dispute on Friday, concluding that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia unfairly denied benefits on the basis that the woman and her husband were not living together at the time of the fatal accident.
Ghislain Dion died in June 2022 when he was 50, leaving behind two young children and his wife Grazzel Pabilona Dion, to whom he had been married since 2014. When Ms. Dion applied for the $380,000 spousal death benefit, she was denied . according to the decision.
“ICBC says that Ms. Dion was not Mr. Dion’s wife because, although they were legally married, they were not residing together when he died,” wrote the tribunal’s vice president, Eric Regehr.
“Ms. Dion says that ICBC’s argument ignores the complexity of her relationship with Mr. Dion. She maintains that they were spouses and that, as a result, she should receive a spousal death benefit.”
Disagreement over definition
The decision notes that the legal definition of the term “spouse” at issue in the case was that contained in British Columbia’s Enhanced Accident Benefits Regulations. The legislation defines a spouse as someone “who was married and residing with the decedent on the date of his or her death, or who lived in a marriage-like relationship with the decedent for at least two years immediately preceding the date of his or her death.” “.
ICBC, for its part, argued that because Ms. Dion did not meet all the criteria of the first definition, she should not be considered a spouse under the second – and less restrictive – definition. Regehr discovered that these definitions were not mutually exclusive.
“Two people can ‘live’ with each other in a relationship similar to that of marriage without residing in the same place, he wrote, rejecting the ICBC’s argument that “the words ‘live with’ have the same effect as ‘reside with’” .
Mrs Dion gave evidence acknowledging that she had moved out of the family home in the months before her husband’s death, but said the separation was never intended to be permanent. In support of her claim, she provided intimate details about her relationship and evidence including text messages, photographs, videos, financial information, and statements from family and friends.
What is legal separation?
Legally, the decision explains, a couple does not separate the moment they stop living under the same roof. It is also not necessary for someone to move out of a shared home for a couple to separate.
“Once formed, a marriage-like relationship continues to exist unless and until the spouses separate,” the decision says.
“When determining whether a marital relationship has ended, the court asks whether the spouse has communicated his or her intention to permanently separate and acted accordingly. The court also considers several factors, including whether the couple continues to reside in the same house, maintain sexual intimacy, engage in public activities as a couple, share financial resources, and share important family events.”
In this case, there was no evidence from either Mr. or Mrs. Dion that the separation was anything other than temporary. Furthermore, the couple’s relationship remained “marital” until Mr. Dion’s death.
“I believe Mr. and Mrs. Dion were never separated,” Regehr wrote.
The court’s decision also noted that ICBC was legally obligated to pay the spousal benefit to Mr. Dion’s children regardless of the outcome of this dispute and that the insurer had “no financial interest” in the outcome.
In addition to the $380,000 spousal benefit, the insurer was ordered to pay Ms. Dion $27,084.11 in prejudgment interest and $125 in court fees.