Dependant Support Claims

Why A Lifestyle Analysis Matters More Than Ever

Learn more about our VFL Practice

One of the questions most frequently raised in dependant support claims is deceptively simple: how much support does a dependant actually require?

At first glance, the answer seems straightforward. One might compare expenses to available income and resources, identify any shortfall, and calculate support needed accordingly. In practice, however the analysis is more complex.

Key considerations include:

How should “needs” be distinguished from “wants”?
How does one determine the amount required today to fund future expenses?

As a result, dependant support claims rarely rely on a simple income‑and‑expense comparison.

The central challenge is determining what financial resources are required to allow a claimant to maintain a reasonably similar standard of living following the loss. Rather than limiting the analysis to whether a surviving dependant can meet basic needs, a proper dependency assessment must consider lifestyle, future financial requirements, and long‑term security.

The Court of Appeal in Re Duranceau, [1952] O.R. 584 (C.A.), at para. 36, emphasized that the appropriate measure is whether the dependant can live “neither luxuriously nor miserably, but decently and comfortably according to his or her station in life.”

This broader approach is reflected in the Ontario Superior Court’s decision in Anderson v. Andrew, where Justice Sanfilippo highlighted the importance of a comprehensive and individualized analysis. Crowe Soberman acted as the independent financial expert for the estate, and the decision underscores the Court’s recognition that dependant support claims require an understanding of the claimant’s actual circumstances, anticipated future needs, and long‑term financial stability. The Court focused on the economic reality of the claimant’s life rather than a narrow basic‑needs calculation - an approach that aligns with the methodology typically applied in dependency assessments.

That focus matters because dependency calculations are often far more complex than they initially appear.

Determining future support often requires long‑term financial modeling that accounts for numerous interacting factors, including:

Pension benefits and survivor pension timing
Investment income, portfolio drawdown rates, and market variability
Inflation and changing tax rates
Government benefits and eligibility changes over time
Evolving spending patterns as the claimant ages
Increasing healthcare and personal‑care costs
Home maintenance expenses and eventual downsizing or assisted‑living needs
Liquidity created by the sale of a family home, along with new housing costs
The impact of different life‑expectancy assumptions on required support

Even lifestyle‑related expenses can require detailed analysis, such as:

Annual travel and recreational spending
Charitable giving
Support for adult children or grandchildren
Anticipated vehicle replacements
Future home renovations
Long‑term healthcare needs

Small adjustments to any of these assumptions can materially change the overall support calculation. This is why lifestyle analysis has become such an important component of dependant support claims.

When assessing a dependant support claim, one of the most important early steps is understanding how the family actually lived before the loss - not simply what the claimant happens to spend today.

A thorough analysis considers questions such as:

What were the household spending priorities?
What did retirement plans look like?
Was additional travel anticipated?
Did the family regularly provide financial assistance to adult children or other relatives?
Were there foreseeable healthcare needs that had not yet materialized?

Professionals with experience in dependant support matters play a crucial role in identifying and evaluating these factors. A clear picture of the family’s pre‑loss lifestyle is essential to determining an appropriate level of support and ensuring the analysis reflects the claimant’s true economic reality.

The answers often reveal far more than a current budget.

The more difficult task is translating those realities into a forward-looking financial model. That requires assessing not only current resources, but how those resources are likely to evolve over the claimant's lifetime.

What is particularly noteworthy in Anderson v. Andrew is the Court’s willingness to engage with a broader and more nuanced analysis. The decision recognized that dependant support claims are highly individualized, and that generalized assumptions cannot replace evidence about a claimant's actual circumstances, financial resources, and future needs. The Court appeared to place significant value on evidence that connected the calculations to the claimant's lived reality rather than treating support as a simple arithmetic exercise.

For lawyers, the practical takeaway is clear. Courts increasingly want evidence that explains not only what a claimant spends today, but how they lived before the loss, what resources remain available, and what financial support will be required in the years ahead.

Transforming Complex Data into Clear Conclusions

At Crowe Soberman, our team plays a role that extends well beyond calculating a shortfall. Our professionals are often asked to model decades of future financial outcomes, test alternative assumptions, and help the Court understand the economic consequences of a significant loss in a way that reflects the claimant's actual life.

When that analysis is done well, the resut is a more realistic and individualized assessment of support—an approach that was evident in Anderson and one that continues to shape dependency alims more broadly.

When retained in dependency matters, we focus on more than simply performing calculations. Our approach includes:

Testing assumptions at their source. We do not simply accept the assumptions relied upon by other experts. We review the underlying documents and evidence that support those assumptions and assess whether the reliance itself is reasonable and complete.
Presenting evidence in a way the Court can readily understand. Complex financial analyses are translated into a clear narrative with concise conclusions, transparent assumptions, and explanations that do not require advanced financial expertise to follow.
Challenging common weaknesses in opposing reports. We frequently examine whether reports properly distinguish between needs and wants and whether key assumptions - including discount rates, mortality and life expectancy assumptions, investment returns, inflation, taxes, and government benefits - are appropriately supported.
Providing realistic alternatives when the future is uncertain. Where future needs or spending patterns are unclear, we often present multiple reasonable and supportable scenarios, allowing the Court to evaluate a range of outcomes rather than relying on a single assumption-driven result.
Connecting financial analysis to lived reality. Our focus is not simply on what can be calculated, but on how individuals and families actually lived before the loss, how their circumstances are likely to evolve, and what resources will be required to maintain an appropriate standard of living over time.

When the future is uncertain, clear financial evidence matters more than ever. At Crowe Soberman, our team delivers court‑ready lifestyle and dependency analyses that stand up to scrutiny. Connect with us to bring clarity and confidence to your next claim.

This article has been prepared for the general information of our clients. Please note that this publication should not be considered a substitute for personalized advice related to your situation.

View More Insights