Following the hearing of this application, I advised the
applicant that I would be granting the relief requested subject
to minor modifications with reasons to follow. These are those
 The applicant is the widow of Mr. Anthony George Aquilina.
Mr. Aquilina passed away in December 2017 at the age of 69, leaving his wife of almost 47 years and three adult children.
 The applicant and the deceased were both immigrants from
Malta. Happily, they were successful in their adopted country and
managed to earn and save a considerable fortune while raising
a family. The applicant was somewhat involved in the family’s
finances, but was primarily a homemaker. Her level of information regarding the family’s financial affairs is imprecise.
 Mr. Aquilina was struck down by cancer a very short while
after his diagnosis. Unfortunately, the deceased did not prepare
a will (or at least none has yet been found). His estate will not be
a simple one to administer. Among other reasons for this, he had
a number of business interests in Malta held through various
corporations that the applicant is only beginning to understand
even if she too is a shareholder in some of them. In addition to
real estate holdings, there is an active business in Malta as well.
 At this point, the estate has no administrator. It is expected
that that situation will soon be remedied. Now that it seems clear
that no will exists, steps to appoint an administrator will be
 I am fully satisfied that it is going to take a period of time —
very likely a year or more — to permit the gathering of the facts
necessary to understand the value of this estate and the applicant’s
intersecting interests within it. By “intersecting” interests I refer to
the consequences flowing from her different roles as shareholder,
widow and spouse. Valuations of a number of properties in Canada
and in Malta will need to be undertaken. Legal advice will be
needed to consider the various holding companies and the share-holdings in each. Based upon all of that information, more time
will be needed to consider the rights of a surviving spouse under
the SLRA as compared to those of a spouse under the FLA.
Issue to be Decided
 The issue in this case is whether the facts warrant extending the time conferred by the SLRA upon a surviving spouse to
elect to have his or her property rights determined under the
FLA equalization regime or under the SLRA regime ( i.e., will,
intestacy or combination of both).