Toronto Estate Law Blog : Toronto Estate Lawyer : Hull & Hull Law Firm : Trust Mediation and Succession Planning : Serving Ontario, Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 I recently finished reading The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Swedish author, Stieg Larsson. Larsson is one the world’s best selling authors, having sold 20 million books worldwide. He is currently on both the hardcover and paperback fiction bestsellers lists for the Globe and Mail and the New York Times.

In 2004, shortly after entering into a publishing agreement, Larsson unexpectedly died at the age of 50.  His three bestselling novels were published posthumously and have been immensely popular both in Sweden and internationally.

The drama behind his estate has also captured Sweden’s attention pitting Larsson’s common law spouse of thirty years, Eva Gabrielsson, against Larsson’s other surviving relatives.

While at the time of his death, Larsson’s estate was modest, the success of his books has resulted in a windfall for his estate. A Will made in 1977, leaving his estate to the Communist Workers League, was found to be invalid and Mr. Larsson was found to have died in intestate.  Larsson’s father and brother inherited his full estate.

Gabrielsson inherited nothing from Larsson’s estate and has become a symbol for what many see as unfair inheritance laws. She is currently writing a memoir on her experiences and is working to change Sweden’s inheritance laws to include rights for common-law spouses.

In Ontario, common law spouses are not included in Part II of the Succession Law Reform Act, which governs intestate succession. A common law spouse can bring a dependant’s relief claim to sue the estate for support or bring a claim for unjust enrichment, constructive trust, or quantum meruit claim against the estate.

Thanks for reading,

Diane Vieira 

 Diane Vieira - Click here for more information on Diane Vieira.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Annuities are often employed when an individual plans his or her estate. We have covered different aspects of annuities on past blogs on Hull on Estates.

A testator, for example, may choose to have one child’s portion of the future estate placed into an annuity that will create a flow of money over time. The child would have access to the cash flow, but not necessarily access to the principal amount. 

In September 2008, Gayle Reid applied to the Superior Court of Justice for an interpretation.  The claimant’s father, Bernard Wiesberg, died and left an annuity to his friend, Avonne Richter (also identified as his common-law spouse). Minimum annual payments of the annuity were directed in the Will to Ms. Richter who received them from 2003 through to 2007. 

The Applicant was to receive the residue of her father’s estate.  A 2005 Order by Dandie  J.  required Ms. Richter to designate Ms. Reid as the beneficiary.  (A provision of the Income Tax Act required the beneficiary to be named, otherwise the retirement income fund would have collapsed, defeating the testator's intent.)

The issue arose when Ms. Richter, who received the previous annual annuity payments in arrears up to 2006, chose to take the $17,015.57 payment in January, in advance for that year. Ms. Richter died on April 17, 2007.

The Applicant sought an interpretation of her father’s Will, specifically regarding the annual payments. As the payments were for the “lifetime” of Ms. Richter, the Estate owed $12,027.44 to the Applicant because the Court reasoned that calculations must be made to the date of Ms. Richter’s death. Therefore a pro-rata calculation was “the only reasonable and fair manner to ensure the two gifts in the Will are honoured.”

If the annuity had been paid in arrears that December, Ms. Richter’s Estate would have been owed a pro-rata amount of the annuity for that year calculated to the date of her death.

Have a good day.

Jonathan

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Listen to A Review of Dependant Support Claims

This week on Hull on Estates, David Smith and Jonathan Morse review some of the recent podcasts and hone in on some of the evidentiary requirements of a common-law spousal relationship as it relates to dependant support claims under the Succession Law Reform Act. They look at some recent case law and some of the requirements under the Ontario statute.

Comments? Send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com, call us on the comment line at 206-350-6636, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estates blog.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Common law spouses are not included in Part II of Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act, which governs intestate succession (dying without a valid Will).

In British Columbia, unlike Ontario, intestate laws now provide the same rights to common law spouses as to married spouses, if the couple lived together in a marriage-like relationship for a period of at least two years before the death of one of them.  Recent case law out of British Columbia has grappled with the issue of identifying common law spouses in cases of intestacy. 

In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the deceased had been separated, but not divorced, from his wife for six years.  During the last six years of his life, the deceased lived with another woman, Ms. Goerz, as husband and wife.  The deceased died without a Will.  On the death of the deceased, the legally married spouse, Mrs. Austin, brought a claim seeking a declaration that Ms. Goerz was not the deceased’s common law spouse.  The lower court dismissed Mrs. Austin’s claim, and she appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.  On appeal, Mrs. Austin argued that the deceased, while legally married, could not have a common law spouse as he lacked the legal capacity to marry.  Mrs. Austin also argued that Ms. Goerz was not a common law spouse as there was no financial dependence between her and the deceased during their relationship.  Both arguments were dismissed.  The Court of Appeal recognized that common law relationships can exist even though one or both partners lack the capacity to marry.  Furthermore, lack of financial dependence is not determinative in identifying common law relationships. 

Have a great day!

Bianca La Neve