the insurer. The appellant signed as a witness. The deceased did
not tell the respondent he had changed the beneficiary designation on the policy, and thus she continued to pay the premiums.
 The deceased and the respondent entered into a separation agreement dated May 1, 2002 dealing with the distribution
of assets and child support. It was silent about the life insurance
policy. Except for net equalization property claims, the separation agreement did not contain a general release of any property
claims by each party against the other.
 The deceased and the respondent divorced on October 3,
 The respondent did not learn the deceased had changed
the beneficiary designation on the life insurance policy in favour
of the appellant until she received correspondence from the insurance company on July 5, 2013, several weeks after his death.
 This case is the regrettable outcome of the fact, noted by
the application judge, that “[e]ach of the parties trusted the
Deceased, who betrayed that trust by acting duplicitously.” Neither is at fault. My colleague points out that “Ms. Sweet — who
is herself disabled — took care of Mr. Moore and, for practical
purposes, provided him with a home, a place to live, and a supportive family during the 13 years of their relationship.” True
enough, but these benefits to the deceased would not be as significant if he had died the day after signing the irrevocable designation in the appellant’s favour. In my view, they are not
equities that are relevant to the outcome.
 The effect of an irrevocable beneficiary designation is set
out in s. 191(1) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8. The
appellant submits the application judge should have given effect
to the irrevocable designation signed in her favour by the
deceased, despite the oral agreement the deceased made with
the respondent by which she paid the premiums in the expectation she would receive the proceeds on his death.
B. The Decision under Appeal
(1) The proceeding below
 The respondent stated in her affidavit: “It was expressly
agreed between the Deceased and I that in paying for the Policy
premiums, I would be entitled to receive the Policy benefits upon
his death.” She added:
The Policy was entered into due to the Deceased’s financial irresponsibility
and the understanding the Deceased and I shared, which was that the
Policy was required in order to support our Children in the event of the