Age of child shouldn't matter (when deciding dependence of parents).

An Alberta woman named Anita Lemke died in a car accident in 1995. She was single and childless. Her parents sued for damages but the defendant argued that they were not entitled to do so became of the terms of the Fatal Accidents Act. It stated that only parents of a child under the age of twenty-six who was not married could claim damages. Evidence at trial indicated that the legislature, in drafting the law, was persuaded that the age of twenty-five is the outer limit of a child's dependence, and after that, the relationship between parent and child is not so important and therefore, the loss is not so great. Ms Lemke's parents challenged that assumption, arguing that the Act violates s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality under the law. Justice Lomas of the Court of Queen's Bench agreed with them. He wrote "the differential treatment of the plaintiffs ... does discriminate against them by withholding from them a meaningful benefit on the basis that their deceased child was over the age of twenty-five at the time of death." He rejected the notion that parental grief, and the loss of care and companionship of a child is any less for children over twenty-five, and in fact wondered if older parents might be more dependent on an older, unmarried child. Lawyers for the Alberta government asked for a six-month stay to consider revisions to the Act, but Justice Lomas chose to take the words "and has not reached his 26th birthday" out of the Act, thus giving the parents an immediate judgment.

Lemke v. Juckes Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta November 2000