A marriage between an elderly person and someone much younger, known as a May-December marriage, often causes family members to worry or “raise an eyebrow,” as Justice Mandhane noted in this case. However, the court’s job is not to judge personal choices or social norms.
The fundamental question is: Did the person have the mental capacity to understand the marriage at the time it happened? This answer lies in the legal concept of “Capacity to Marry.”
The Story of Tanti v. Tanti
Paul, a man in his late 80s, met a younger woman named Sharon through a volunteer organization. What started as simple help around the house eventually turned into a deep emotional relationship. In 2019, when Paul was 89 years old, they decided to get married.
The conflict began because Paul’s son, Raymond, strongly opposed the relationship. He believed his father was suffering from dementia and was being financially exploited by Sharon. Immediately after the wedding, Raymond started legal proceedings to have the marriage declared void.
The Son’s Legal Claims
Raymond provided medical certificates stating that his father could not manage his own finances or personal care. He asked the court to:
- Declare the marriage invalid.
- Freeze Paul’s bank accounts.
- Remove Sharon’s authority over his father’s affairs.
Capacity to Marry vs. Financial Capacity
One of the most important parts of this case is the difference between different types of “legal capacity.” In Ontario law, the mental standard required to get married is much lower than the standard required to write a will or manage a large estate.
The table below shows the differences between these two types of capacity:
| Type of Capacity | Level of Thinking Required | Main Goal of the Law |
| Financial Capacity | High (Requires understanding complex assets and numbers) | To protect a person’s property and wealth. |
| Capacity to Marry | Low (Requires a basic understanding of the relationship) | To respect a person’s autonomy and freedom of choice. |
Key Point: The court believes a person might not be able to manage a complex bank account, but they can still understand who they want to live with and marry.
Why Medical Certificates Weren’t Enough
In this case, four medical certificates were presented. All of them suggested Paul could not manage his money. However, the court did not find them sufficient to cancel the marriage for several reasons:
- Lack of Specificity: None of the doctors specifically stated that Paul lacked the capacity to marry.
- Timing: The medical assessments were not done close enough to the actual wedding date.
- The Nature of Dementia: Dementia is a progressive illness. A person might have “good days” where they are fully aware and “bad days” where they are confused.
Behavioral Evidence: What Really Happened?
The court looked beyond medical papers and focused on Paul’s actual behavior. The evidence showed:
- He lived alone and managed his daily life until his marriage.
- Witnesses at the wedding testified that he was happy, aware, and in control.
- A few days after the wedding, Paul met with his lawyer to sign new Power of Attorney documents.
His lawyer testified that Paul understood exactly what he was doing and was not being pressured or tricked.
The Final Verdict and Lessons Learned
The Ontario Superior Court ruled that the marriage between Paul and Sharon was valid. The judge emphasized that family disagreements or concerns about inheritance are not legal reasons to take away an adult’s right to marry.
4 Key Lessons from This Case:
- Age is Just a Number: Advanced age or a large age gap does not automatically make a marriage invalid.
- The Marriage Test is Simple: A person only needs to understand the general nature of marriage and its duties.
- The Lawyer’s Role: Testimony from a lawyer who saw the person sign documents is often more powerful than a general medical report.
- Respect for Independence: Ontario law protects the right of individuals to make their own life choices as long as they meet the basic mental requirements.
Summary
The case of Tanti v. Tanti reminds us that Ontario family law prioritizes the dignity and independence of seniors. While the law must protect the elderly from abuse, it should not be used as a tool to take away their fundamental freedoms.
Are you or your family facing similar challenges regarding senior rights or the validity of a marriage? Contact us using the form below.

No comment