with chronic pain and his alcohol and substance abuse issues,
which no doubt contributed to what Ms. Moore refers to as his
financial irresponsibility, and build up of debts burdening them
both. They clearly went through a very difficult time. In fact, the
financial difficulties — including a very substantial debt of
Mr. Moore to Revenue Canada of over $70,000 — led to both
declaring bankruptcy in early 2000.
 Between 1999 and 2000, Mr. Moore lost his driver’s
licence and his job, for medical reasons, and for the rest of his
life his source of income was a long-term disability pension from
his former employer in the gross amount of $5,000 per month
(with some indexing). We do not know much about Ms. Moore’s
financial circumstances post-separation, except that it appears
she continues to reside in the former matrimonial home in Mississauga. We also know that there were disputes post-separation
about the payment by Mr. Moore of child support, that arrears
accumulated and that beginning in 2005 the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”) was garnishing his disability payment.
After an additional deduction for income tax, Mr. Moore was left
with a net disability amount of $2,125 per month, with the latest
 Ms. Moore says that Mr. Moore made an offer to settle the
arrears of child support in January 2005, but that arrears in the
amount of over $10,000 remained at the time of his death. There
is some dispute in the materials, however, over whether this
amount has been paid.
 Ms. Sweet and Mr. Moore cared for each other during
their 13 years of cohabitation. She is disabled as well. She suffers from chronic pain, is on numerous medications, requires
the use of a walker and cannot travel by public transit. Her sister, Ms. McAdam, has been given power of attorney over her
personal property. According to Ms. Sweet, Mr. Moore “helped
out” with the rent and assisted with chores and running errands
for her; when Mr. Moore’s disability income was garnished by
FRO, it caused them financial hardship and led to them borrowing from friends and relatives to make ends meet.
 As noted, Ms. Sweet does not contest the application judge’s
finding that there was an oral agreement between Ms. Moore, the
respondent and her former husband, the deceased Larry Moore,
to the effect that Ms. Moore would continue to pay the premiums
on the policy and would be entitled to the proceeds on his death.
Nor is it disputed that she paid the premiums and that he did not
tell her of the change in beneficiary.