An Ontario court has allowed a 37-year-old woman’s claim for dependant support against her late father’s estate to proceed, dismissing an attempt by the estate to have the case summarily thrown out as frivolous and an abuse of process1. The woman, Karen Sabarros, is seeking financial support based on her father’s failure to pay child support for over thirty years, relying on a 1998 court order. In a decision dated October 30, 2025, Associate Justice Kamal of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the complex legal issues raised by Ms. Sabarros were not clear-cut enough to be dismissed using the summary procedure of Rule 2.1.01, which is reserved only for the most obvious cases of improper litigation.
The case centers on Ms. Sabarros’s action for dependant’s relief under Part V of Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA). According to her Statement of Claim, Ms. Sabarros is the 37-year-old daughter of the deceased. Her parents separated in 1991 when she was approximately three years old. She alleges that from that time until his death, her father provided no child support or financial support of any kind to her or her mother, despite a court order for child support being issued on June 15, 1998. Ms. Sabarros’s claim seeks to hold her father accountable for this alleged failure to support her financially and emotionally, asking the court to “correct” the neglect by ordering support from his estate. Ms. Sabarros has also commenced a separate, parallel Application to challenge the validity of her father’s Will, but that proceeding was not the subject of this motion.
The defendant, Nally Catala Morell, brought a motion to have the dependant’s relief action dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule provides a summary procedure allowing a court to dismiss a proceeding if it appears “on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.” Associate Justice Kamal noted that this rule is an “extremely blunt instrument” and is “reserved for the clearest of cases” where the abusive nature is “plainly evident on the face of the pleading.” The court must read the statement of claim generously, assume the facts asserted are true unless they are implausible, and only dismiss the claim if it is clear it lacks any legal basis.
Ms. Morell argued the claim was frivolous because Ms. Sabarros does not meet the statutory definition of a “dependant” under section 57(1) of the SLRA. That section defines a dependant as including a child of the deceased “to whom the deceased was providing support or was under a legal obligation to provide support immediately before his or her death.” Ms. Morell submitted that Ms. Sabarros failed both parts of this test. First, Ms. Sabarros herself admitted in her pleadings that she had never received support from her father, meaning he was not “providing support” at the time of his death. Second, Ms. Morell argued that the deceased was not under a “legal obligation to provide support” because Ms. Sabarros, at 37 years old, was “long since reached adulthood” and was no longer legally entitled to ongoing child support.
The defendant further argued that Ms. Sabarros’s claim was, at its core, an attempt to enforce the 1998 child support order against the estate. Ms. Morell’s counsel argued that this distinction was critical. While unpaid arrears might be a debt that could be claimed against an estate, she argued, this does not satisfy the SLRA‘s requirement of an ongoing legal obligation to provide support, which is necessary to establish the status of a “dependant” in the first place. Without this status, the defendant argued, Ms. Sabarros had no legal basis to seek dependant’s relief.
Ms. Morell raised two other technical arguments. She submitted that the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) has exclusive authority to enforce support orders, and its governing statute specifically precludes the FRO from taking enforcement steps against an estate. Furthermore, she argued that Ms. Sabarros, as the child, did not have legal standing to enforce the 1998 order. The recipient of that order was her mother, meaning any arrears, in the defendant’s view, were owed to the mother, not to Ms. Sabarros.
Ms. Sabarros, who represented herself in the proceeding, argued that her action was not frivolous and was brought in good faith. She focused on the second branch of the SLRA‘s dependant definition, arguing that her father was “under a legal obligation to provide support immediately before his or her death.” Her position was that the 1998 child support order, which was enforceable through the FRO and expressly stated that arrears would accrue interest at 6 percent per annum, constituted a continuous legal obligation that remained in effect at the time of her father’s death. In response to the standing issue, Ms. Sabarros relied on established case law, specifically Gray v. Rizzi from the Ontario Court of Appeal, which holds that “child support is the right of the child” and cannot be bargained away by a parent. She also argued that the court should consider the broad, remedial nature of the SLRA, which, as noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, must be interpreted through the “prism of modern values” and gives the court broad discretion to make orders that are just.
Associate Justice Kamal did not agree with the defendant’s submission that the claim was clearly frivolous. He ruled that Ms. Sabarros’s admission of not receiving support was not determinative, as the test also included the “legal obligation” branch. He found that the defendant’s argument distinguishing between arrears as a “debt” and an “ongoing obligation” for dependant status was a complex legal issue, not a clear-cut one, and was “more appropriately addressed through full legal argument.” The fact that Ms. Sabarros is an adult, the judge noted, “does not automatically remove her from the statutory definition of ‘child’ or clearly disentitle her” from claiming relief under the SLRA.
Addressing the defendant’s other arguments, Associate Justice Kamal found that the FRO’s inability to enforce against an estate “does not preclude the claimant from taking steps to enforce or seek relief under the SLRA.” Regarding Ms. Sabarros’s standing to make the claim, the judge referenced the principle that child support is the right of the child and concluded that Ms. Sabarros “raises an interesting legal issue worthy of consideration.” Finding that the allegations were “not completely implausible,” Associate Justice Kamal was not persuaded that this was a “clear-cut case” that could be determined to be frivolous.
Ms. Morell had also argued that the proceeding was an “abuse of process.” The doctrine of abuse of process is concerned with the administration of justice and fairness, preventing the misuse of court proceedings in a way that would be “manifestly unfair” or “bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” The defendant argued Ms. Sabarros was improperly using the dependant’s relief claim to gain a “tactical advantage” in her separate Will challenge Application. As proof of improper overlap, the defendant noted that Ms. Sabarros planned to use an affidavit from her mother in the Will challenge detailing the hardship caused by the unpaid support.
Associate Justice Kamal rejected this argument as well. He found no evidence that the claim was being used for a tactical advantage or any other improper purpose. He stated that while there “may be evidence that is common to both proceedings, this does not violate principles such as judicial economy, consistency, finality, and the integrity of the administration of justice.” He concluded that the claims in each proceeding are “distinct” and allowing both to proceed would not “waste the resources of the parties, courts, and witnesses, or risk inconsistent results.”
Finally, the Associate Justice commented on the submissions made by both parties. He noted that on a Rule 2.1 motion, no evidence is to be submitted; the decision must be made based only on the face of the pleadings. He pointed out that “ironically,” while the defendant’s submissions criticized Ms. Sabarros for trying to introduce evidence, the “defendant’s submissions specifically state ‘if one were to delve into the evidence, it would demonstrate…'” He stated he had not considered the unsworn evidence from either side, and reminded the parties that other rules exist, such as Rule 20 (summary judgment) or Rule 21 (determination of a question of law), for cases that require evidence or complex legal debate.
In his final conclusion, Associate Justice Kamal determined that “this is not a clear case where the frivolous or abusive nature of the claim is apparent on its face.” He held that Ms. Sabarros “raises arguments under the broad dependant’s relief provision of the SLRA that ought to be considered by the Court.” The defendant’s request to dismiss the action was therefore dismissed, and the case will be allowed to proceed.
Read more about family law and estate law cases.
