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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Whether voluntary or mandatory, mediation is now a common occurrence in estate and trust litigation. Much has been written and blogged on the subject. I therefore thought it worthwhile to comment on the changing nature of the plenary session from a practioner’s point of view. 

Traditionally, the plenary session brought the parties and their counsel together at the outset of the mediation so that the mediator could review the ground rules or “rules of engagement”, discuss the benefits of reaching a mediated settlement, and touch upon role of the mediator during the process. Counsel were then invited to present their client’s case usually adopting an adversarial stance and focusing on a “rights-based” approach to the mediation.  Next up were clients who, understandably, often became angry or confrontational.  

However, plenary sessions have largely changed. It is now widely recognized that allowing counsel and parties to make opening statements only inflames the situation and places the focus on what divides the parties rather than what unites them. Consequently, the mediation is off to a poor start and the mediator spends considerable energy unwinding the newly minted ill-will. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Welcome to my week of blogs.

Tax season is once again upon us with all of its attendant trepidation. No doubt, a general panic has set in as people gather together the necessary documentation to fill out and file their tax returns. 

Anybody who has been an estate trustee will know that he/she is responsible to prepare and file a terminal tax return and to ensure that any outstanding taxes are paid on time. To help cut through the confusion, I thought it worthwhile to set out some of the income/deduction tax receipts that an estate trustee may come across when preparing a tax return:

Income

Ø      T4                    Employment Income

Ø      T4A                  Pension/Annuity Benefits, Canada Pension Plan Benefits

Ø      T4A(OAS)       Old Age Security Benefits

Ø      T4RIF              Registered Retirement Income Fund Withdrawals

Ø      T4RSP            Registered Saving Plan Withdrawals

Ø      T4PS               Contributions by a Company to Profit Sharing Plan

Ø      T600                Cash Canada Savings Bonds

Ø      T4E                  Employment Insurance Benefits       

Ø      T5                     Investment Income

Ø      T3                     Trust Income (including mutual funds and income trusts)

Ø      T5008              Statement of Securities Transactions

Ø      T5013              Statement of Partnership Income

 

Deductions

Ø      T2200              Declaration of Conditions of Employment

Ø      T2201              Disability Tax Credit (completed by a doctor)

Ø      T2202              Tuition/Education Deduction Certificate

Ø      T101                 Statement of Renounced Resource Expense

Ø       T5006              Labour Sponsored Tax Fund Credit, RRSP Contribution, Union and Other  Professional Dues, Medical or Attendant Care Expenses, Charitable Donations, Political Donations, etc.

 

Thank you for reading, Justin.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

Checklists are wonderful things when it comes to the practice of law (list makers would argue that that is true in life as well). In today’s busy practice, a checklist can ease the troubled legal mind.

I was looking at several estate planning information checklists earlier this week. It is worthwhile to highlight some issues/items that can be easily overlooked but which a thorough solicitor should ensure is on his/her checklist:

·         If you are acting for both spouses/partners, advise the clients that you cannot act for one at a later date without the other’s knowledge;

·         Is the estate trustee to manage funds for minors and distribute monies to the guardian for care, maintenance and education of minor children. Who is the guardian;

·         If they can be transferred, who gets air mile/loyalty points. What about transferable equity in hunting/fishing lodges or sports clubs;

·         Joint Assets and the presumption of a resulting trust – is there a clear intention of ownership;

·         For foreign property, consider the necessity of executing a separate will or appointment of a local estate trustee;

·         Ensure every life interest is coupled with a remainder interest; and

·         Ensure any charitable organization named as beneficiary is still in existence and properly described.

Have a great weekend and for all those skiers out there, let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the Christmas break, a news story out of Winnipeg captured national headlines. Samuel Golubchuk is 84 years old and on life support in Winnipeg’s Grace Hospital. He apparently suffered a brain-injury from an earlier fall and part of his brain was removed at the time. Tragically, Mr. Golubchuk cannot walk, speak, eat or breathe on his own. His treating physicians say Mr. Golubchuk has no chance of recovery and that his quality of life is negligible. They want the right to remove him from life support. The news stories don’t indicate whether Mr. Golubchuk left a power of attorney or end-of-life instructions.

Mr. Golubchuk's family has gone to court to resist any attempt by the hospital’s doctors to remove him from life support. Mr. Golubchuk’s family claims that removing life support would violate Mr. Golubchuk's orthodox Jewish belief and amount to an assault as it would hasten his death.

In early December, the family was granted a temporary court injunction while a local judge considered the case. In January, the family returned to court and presented two opinions from New York doctors. According to the family’s doctors, Mr. Golubchuk was not beyond hope. 

The family has maintained throughout that it is a matter of self-determination and the right to live in a free and democratic society without an outside party making decisions for you. The hospital, on the other hand, maintains that it is up to the treating physician to make a judgment call as to whether or not life support should be removed.

As far as I can tell, the judge hearing the case has still not decided what will happen to Mr. Golubchuk. However, it is clear that the courts struggle with life and death decisions as much as guardians or family members do. There are simply no easy answers. In the end, I think it is difficult to say how any one of us would act or react when confronted with the ultimate decision.

Keep thinking and thanks for reading.

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mediation is a common occurrence in estate litigation. Mediation is also popular in other areas, including family law and even commercial litigation. When choosing a mediator, I look for the following characteristics:

• Knowledgeable (has to know the law)
• Experienced at mediating (too many “wannabes”)
• Litigation savvy (knows the true costs and challenges of litigation)
• Empathetic (a good, sympathetic listener is a must)
• Diligent (a mediator has to know the issues and subtleties)
• Firm (a mediator has to know when to read the “riot act”)
• Stamina (mediation is often a marathon)
• Adaptable (a mediator wears many hats)

If the other side suggests a mediator you’ve never heard of, ask around. What do your colleagues think and what is the mediator’s reputation like? To be honest, I’m never too quick to agree to a mediator suggested by opposing counsel if I don’t really know their style and reputation. Opposing counsel may have a comfort level with the mediator or know something you don’t that could work against your client. 

By keeping the above characteristics in mind and doing your homework, you and your client will likely have a better chance of satisfactorily settling the dispute.

Thanks for reading, Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I read an article in this week's Maclean’s magazine that more and more of Canada's "Super Rich" are drafting family value statements. According to the article, approximately $3 trillion (though the figure varies depending on the source) will be transferred in the coming decades to the next generation. The Super-Rich are particularly concerned that their children, as beneficiaries of this wealth transfer, will take the easy way out and decide not to work or give back to the community. Warren Buffet received a great deal of press when he stated publicly that he would not leave his fortune to his children. Instead, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the recipient of Mr. Buffet’s considerable largesse. 

According to the article, a value statement spells out those values that are important to the family and can include values that speak to community, work ethic, and religion. Apparently, the Super Rich are willing to pay various consultants significant amounts of money to get the statement just right. Every family member is asked to participate so that everyone buys into the process and the statement withstands the test of time.

Whether the average Canadian family actually sits down and crafts a family value statement is debatable. However, most families will discuss informally, whether over dinner or around the campfire, the values that motivate them and help them navigate life’s many choices. 

However it is done, it makes good sense for parents to sit down with their children to not only talk about the pending transfer of wealth, but their expectations (and aspirations) as to how their children will spend their inherited wealth. It is a truism that money has always been hard to handle.

Have a good weekend.

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In our rapidly aging society, powers of attorney for personal care and property are now widespread and their importance is recognized by the general public. A family member or friend can also apply to the court to be appointed guardian of the person or the person's property if powers of attorney have not been executed. However, family members often find themselves in a situation where a loved one is being legally cared for by a family member, or friend of the incapable person, who they no longer like or trust. 

A common complaint that I hear is from family members or friends who feel excluded from participating in or influencing decisions regarding the incapable person, particularly when it comes to personal care.  

However, under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, which generally governs the rights of an incapable person, any person, with leave, can seek directions from the court on any question arising under a power of attorney (the same is true regarding a court appointed guardian). Pursuant to sections 39 and 68 of the Act, the court may give such directions as it considers to be for the benefit of the incapable person and consistent with the Act.

Section 66(1) of the Act sets out the duties of an attorney for personal care (section 32 is the corresponding section for an attorney for property). In general, the attorney is required to exercise his or her duties and powers with diligence and in good faith. 

Section 66(6) also states that an attorney must foster regular personal contact between the incapable person and supportive family members and friends. Moreover, section 66(7) states that the attorney shall consult with supportive family members and friends who are in regular contact with the incapable person, as well as the incapable person’s caregivers. 

The requirements of section 66, coupled with the ability to seek directions from the court, offer family members and friends the means to ensure that they remain involved with their loved ones and are not simply sidelined. Proceeding to court is always expensive. However, where there is genuine concern and frustration that the incapable person is not being properly cared for and/or his or her finances are being squandered, recourse can be had to the courts.

Ciao!

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There has been some controversy as to whether a Will challenge is subject to a limitation period under the new Limitations Act, 2002, which came into force January 1, 2004. 

In her excellent paper presented at the 10^th Annual Estates and Trusts Summit last week, Anne Werker states that in her view no limitation period applies to Will challenges.  Not even the absolute 15 year limitation period set out in the Limitations Act, 2002 applies. In other words, a Will challenge is not statute-barred for being out of time. Keep in mind that the Limitations Act, 2002 was hailed at the time as bringing under one roof a myriad of limitation periods and imposing an almost universal 2 year limitation period (subject only to reasonable discoverability).

According to Anne, the Limitations Act, 2002 will not bar an application for a judicial declaration regarding the validity of the Will where, for example, there are grounds discovered subsequent to the issuing of a certificate of appointment of estate trustee, such as a later Will, or evidence that brings the Will into question.

However, Anne does acknowledge that the return of an issued certificate of appointment of estate trustee is not automatic when a Will challenge is launched after a certificate of appointment has been issued.  A party may rely on equitable relief such as laches (failure to act) or acquisition (concurrence). As Anne points out in her paper:

“When a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee has already been issued, on notice to the interested parties, and if the grounds to challenge the Will are weak, unexplained delay will be a significant factor in whether the Court exercises discretion to allow a Will challenge to proceed.”

No doubt, the courts will eventually be asked to consider limitation periods and Will challenges, but in the interim Anne’s paper has made a valuable contribution to the debate.

À demain

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of my partners likes to point out that we are in the “business of death”. The phrase is a bit morose, but probably accurate. One of the things we therefore do around here is look at the daily Globe & Mail obituaries. Many estate practitioners scan the obituaries in their local newspaper to see whether a client has passed away. From a professional point of view, if a lawyer was named as estate trustee because he/she drafted the Will, they take on fiduciary obligations. 

In any event, I try to approach obituaries with a positive spin. I often read an obituary with admiration for the remarkable life lived. Most of the obituaries I read canvass the lives of a generation that is often called the “greatest generation”. Many of the people I read about survived the depression as children or young adults and lived through World War II with all its agony, grief and sacrifice. They greeted the prosperity of the 1950s with relief after a long war, witnessed and ultimately embraced the social revolution of the 1960s, raised successful children (baby boomers) who themselves are changing the face of Canadian society. The greatest generation is, in fact, a testament to what can be accomplished when hard work, sacrifice and compassion are brought to bear. 

It was along these lines that I read with interest the recent passing of Anna Marie De Sousa. Mrs. De Sousa, along with her husband, was a shining star when it came to charitable fundraising in Toronto. She was the founder of the Brazilian Ball, a wild extravaganza held every year to raise money for charity (the recipient changes every year). I never met Mrs. De Sousa, but I certainly read about her in the newspaper and the success that her Brazilian Ball ultimately came to represent. The glittering elite of Toronto would come out to watch scantily clad Brazilian dancers and raise millions of dollars for a good cause. No doubt, there will be follow-up tributes to her life in more detail than the obituary that recently appeared in the Globe & Mail. However, she is an inspiration to many of us. Much can be accomplished in life if we set out mind to it. She made Toronto a better place and there are many others who strive to do the same.

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It is often impossible to predict how costs will be decided by the presiding judge at a motion, application, or trial.  The Rules of Civil Procedure encourage a judge to fix the costs of the proceeding before him or her. A judge has wide discretion to award costs - discretion that an appeal court will be reluctant to interfere when faced with the issue. With the demise of the infamous cost grid, costs have tended to come down and the court is now largely motivated by deciding what is reasonable in the circumstances and fair to all parties with an eye to the factors listed in Rule 57.01(1).

An interesting case recently released by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Rand Estate v Lenton caught my attention.  In a relatively rare decision, the court awarded costs against the solicitors for the respondents.

According to the court, the conduct of the solicitors for the respondents caused costs to be incurred without reasonable cause or wasted by undue delay, negligence or default. The solicitors for the respondents systematically engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conduct, including: (1) inordinate and unnecessary delays; (2) bringing numerous and unnecessary motions; (3) being inadequately prepared; (3) failing to appear; (3) disregarding the professional obligation to be civil and courteous to others; (4) presenting arguments that had no merit; (5) acting for the respondents despite having a clear conflict of interest; (6) failing to do anything to resolve the litigation; (7) disregarding court orders; and (8) continuing to produce documents in contempt of a court order.  As a result, the court found it appropriate to award costs against the solicitors for the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis to address the costs thrown away by the applicants. 

The case, and the laundry list of improper behaviour, is a good reminder to all counsel to think long and hard about tactics and strategy (no case is really worth sullying your own reputation and credibility). Lawyers also need to keep in mind that they are not just mouth pieces for their clients. Counsel should advise their clients of the minimum standard of behaviour, decorum and professionalism expected by the courts. A good way to control your client is to remind him/her that costs can be awarded against a party who makes frivolous claims, or engages in egregious behaviour. Of course, lawyers are clearly not immune from costs and must govern themselves accordingly. If a client refuses to listen or expects you to take a position that will be frowned upon by the court, it is time to get off the record. 

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Welcome to my week of blogs! As you may have gathered, lawyers at Hull & Hull alternate weeks when it comes to blogging.  The hope is to provide you with a cornucopia of perspectives on various issues of interest to the estate bar and the profession generally. We try to mix light-hearted topics with serious ones. 

Turning to today’s blog, I read with interest that Pavarotti’s Will was recently opened. The great tenor ultimately succumbed to pancreatic cancer. Pavarotti was colourful both on and off the stage. He was married twice and sired 4 children. It now turns out that Pavarotti’s estate is as rich as his voice.

Pavarotti left the bulk of his estate to his second wife and four children pursuant to a recent June 13^th Will (his youngest and only child from his second marriage is four years old). In a second Will dated July 29^th Pavarotti apparently created a trust in favour of his second wife of approximately €15 million.  This was a surprise to his friends and family.  The second Will dealt with Pavarotti’s three New York apartments as well as personal items, including paintings by Matisse.  The family has denied rumours in the Italian press that Pavarotti’s first and second families were at odds. Like so many, Pavarotti waited until the end of his life to deal with his Estate.  No doubt, the opera star was reluctant to confront his own death (though death looms large in many operas).  

The reading of a Will by family members is often fertile ground for surprise and disappointment. Many testators use a Will to settle old scores, reward or punish behaviour, or favour those who nursed the testator through illness or old age. 

I struggle with whether to advise a client to reveal the contents of his/her Will to family members before death. Overcoming the trepidation to execute a Will is one thing, but to then reveal its contents to family members, who may benefit unequally, is an entirely different matter. For example, a disappointed son or daughter may punish their parents by no longer seeing them or cutting off access to grandchildren.  However, if the Will comes as a surprise after the testator’s death and is a disappointment, the potential for litigation is rife.  A disappointed beneficiary will justify litigation by claiming that they are only doing “what mom really wanted”.  Emotions come into play, judgment becomes clouded, and lawyers are retained. 

In the end, there is no easy answer as to whether to advise your client to reveal the contents of his/her Will.

Ciao, Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Prince Edward Island court recently entertained an Application for directions by the trustees of the estate of Owen Connolly, reported at Connolly Estate (Re) [2006] P.E.I.J. No. 61.

Mr. Connolly died in 1887. He left a will which established a trust “for the purpose of educating or assisting to educate poor children resident in Prince Edward Island who are members of the Roman Catholic Church and who are either Irish or the sons of Irish farmers...".

The trust was said to have paid out over $1 million in bursaries since inception, and had a reserved capital of approximately $1 million.

The trustees stated that with the passage of time, the question of eligibility had become more difficult. The trustees sought direction from the court as to whether eligibility was open only to males, and whether eligibility was open to those who had “significant” Irish ancestry, being at least 50%.

It was noted that the administration of the trust was not affected by the discrimination provisions of the relevant human rights legislation.

The court had little difficulty in concluding that the trust did not benefit males only.

A more difficult question is what was meant by the term "Irish". The court reviewed the history of Ireland and its society and noted that 19th century Ireland was not the product of a pure strain of "Irish", but was a melding of a variety of ethnic strains of immigrants who arrived at different times through history. The court traced the history of Ireland back to 3000 B.C. The court concluded that when he referred to a person being “Irish”, the testator intended to refer to either a person who had emigrated from Ireland, or to a person who was a descendent of a person who had emigrated from Ireland. By making reference to "sons of Irish fathers", the court concluded that the testator had visualized the Irish blending into the larger community in PEI, and thus, felt that having 50% Irish blood was reasonable and sufficient.

The case is an interesting read, as it not only reviews Irish history, but it sets out in some detail the life of the testator in the mid-1800s, including a detailed report of his death in December, 1887.

Thanks for reading,

Paul Trudelle

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Ontario Supreme Court of Justice recently ruled on the issue of whether a solicitor can assert a solicitor’s lien over an original will.

In Szabo Estate v. Adelson (2007), CanLII 4588, the solicitor acted as estate solicitor, having been retained by the estate trustee named in the will. He rendered an account for legal services in the amount of $3,230.79. This account was not paid, and the solicitor asserted a solicitor’s lien over the documents in his file, including the original will.

Interestingly, the solicitor offered to release the will if the estate trustee agreed to a charge against the estate. The estate trustee would not agree.

The estate trustee brought an Application under s. 9 of the Estates Act for the production of the original will. In considering the Application, the court noted the basic proposition that where a client discharges a solicitor without cause, the solicitor may exercise a lien for his or her fees over the documents in the solicitor’s possession, and may retain them until paid. 

The estate trustee relied upon an article and an excerpt from a text that stated that a solicitor’s lien did not extend to a will. The court found that the article did not cite any authority for that proposition, and that the case referred to in the text, an 1823 decision, did not support the proposition, either. 

This illustrates that one should not blindly rely on articles and texts as setting out black letter law (unless, of course, one is relying on Hull and Hull, Probate Practice).

The court concluded that a solicitor can exercise a lien over a will, just as he or she could over any other important document.

However, the court can and will intervene in order to prevent an injustice to a client resulting from the exercise of the lien. In the case under consideration, the court ordered the solicitor to deliver up the will IF AND WHEN the estate trustee agreed to a charge against the estate in the amount of the solicitor’s account.

Thanks for reading,

Paul Trudelle

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Leona Helmsley’s estate continues to raise eyebrows, and serves as an illustration of what not to do when estate planning.

Following her death, it was revealed that she set up a $12m US trust to care for her dog, Trouble.

Last week, it was reported that the named trustee of the trust, her 80 year old brother (who received over $15m US himself from the estate) does not want to care for Trouble. It is yet to be seen whether the alternate trustee, Leona’s grandson, will take on the responsibility.

In addition, Leona’s will directed that Trouble, following his death, be buried with her at the family mausoleum. However, state laws forbid animal remains from being interred at human graveyards.

To make matters worse, it appears that Trouble bit a housekeeper, and the housekeeper now wants a piece of Trouble’s money.

The present circumstances illustrate the need for open discussion of estate plans. Trustees should be consulted in order to ensure that they actually will agree to take on the role of trustee; special requests should be explored to ensure that they are feasible.

Thank you for reading,

Paul Trudelle

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Unfortunately, the following quote applies to many of the cases that we deal with on a daily basis:

“To say that brother and sister do not get along in this case is an understatement. There is plenty of mistrust, suspicion and bitterness to go around. The applicant blames her brother for high-handed and unilateral conduct. He claims he has acted improperly. On the other hand, [brother] blames his sister for being non-communicative and hard to get along with. He was compelled to take the steps that he did because his sister which not deal with him.”

The quote is from Hill v. McLoughlin, 2007 CanLII 1334 (Ont. S.C.). There, brother and sister were co-estate trustees and residual beneficiaries of their mother’s estate. As a result of the above-noted mistrust, sister brought an application to have brother removed as an estate trustee.

The court found that while there was friction and hostility between brother and sister which hindered the administration of the estate, it was not satisfied that brother committed a breach of trust as alleged, or was in a conflict of interest.

The court stated that where the deceased has expressly appointed trustees, a court should be loath to interfere with the testator’s expressed intention except on the clearest of evidence that there was no other course to follow. The expressed wishes of the testator should be respected and not interfered with lightly. It is only where a court determines that the welfare of the beneficiaries requires removal and replacement of trustees that the court should undertake such action. It is not any mistake or neglect of duty on the part of the trustees which would lead to their removal. It must be shown that the non-removal of the trustee will likely prevent the trust from being properly executed.

While the court did not order removal of the brother, it did not condone his actions. The court required that the brother undertake certain steps, such as provide specific information to the sister.

On the issue of costs, judge ordered that each party should bear their own costs.

It is often hard for siblings or others to get along and cooperate in the administration of an estate. Further, actions taken by trustees, out of spite or otherwise, can serve to exacerbate the mistrust that already exists. Knowing that the courts will not automatically step in and remove an estate trustee in the circumstances should encourage the parties to an estate to act reasonably and simply get the job done.

Thank you.

Paul Trudelle

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The world wide web offers a wealth of information: some useful; some not so. Recently, I came across www.stealanestate.com. The website puffs “Get Rich! On Other People’s Money”, “Displace Rightful Heirs Legally!” and “Never Have to Work Again!”

The web page offers a three step program:

Step One: Assess Opportunities & Establish Yourself
Step Two: Discredit and Displace the Heirs
Step Three: Savour Your Triumph

Tips incude:

• Identify elderly affluent people who are alone;
• Use alcohol;
• Create reasons to see them often;
• Always take their side and fault anyone who disagrees with them;
• Get into a position of trust and authority;
• Act like the perfect son or daughter;
• Keep the rightful heirs ignorant of your relationship;
• Sever all communications between the victim and their heirs;
• Create conflict – lie to the victim about the heirs and their dishonesty and misdeeds.

The site contains many more “tips”.

At first blush, the site is shocking and disturbing. However, deeper into the site there is an explanation. The site claims be operated by individuals “currently in litigation fighting years of undue influence for our mother’s estate”. The tactics and tips set out in the site were apparently used against them. The page is “meant to shock you into action and attention.”

The site should be read as a cautionary tale: a shopping list of things to look out for: both for ourselves and for our loved ones, rather than as a “how-to” list on elder abuse.

Thank you.

Paul Trudelle

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Thursday’s Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente wrote about “Geezers in Paradise”, and observed that tomorrow’s seniors will be able to enjoy “the most delightful old age of any generation the world has ever known”. Seniors are the fastest growing group in Canada, and by 2017, seniors will outnumber those under 15.

Ms. Wente sees a future where “mature lifestyle residences” replace schools, nannies are imported to care for your mom rather than for your kids, and the most popular diapers will be size XXL. Industries will sprout up to service this aging population, medicines will improve, and the political clout of this older group will ensure their comfort and entitlements.

This optimistic future is contrasted by reports earlier last week that one in three Canadians worry about outliving their savings (Toronto Star, July 16, 2007). The report found that many older Canadians did not foresee such a rosy retirement. 33% of respondents over 60 worked either part-time or full-time, and 19% indicated that their financial situation was worse or much worse than 5 years ago.

The vision of the baby boomer generation, on the cusp of becoming senior citizens, being the most affluent group ever is not universal. “There’s going to be a group of baby boomers for whom all of this image of affluence and consumption isn’t reality,” said professor Doug Owram of the University of British Columbia.

Rich or poor, the articles both highlight the importance of planning for our later years.

Thank you.

Paul Trudelle

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mr. Bernard Bayer has won the right to receive a salary from his former employer until March 1, 2012. Unfortunately, Bernard died on April 23, 2005.

In this most unusual case, Bernard's estate will be entitled to receive payment equal to Bernard’s salary until 2012, notwithstanding Bernard's death.

The case turns on the peculiar wording of Bernard's employment agreement with his employer, the Blue Button Club. Pursuant to this agreement, which was entered into on March 1, 2002, Bernard was employed as the Executive Manager of the Club. The agreement had a 10 year term. The agreement described Bernard's duties at the Club. It provided that he was to be paid at least $60,000 per year.

An unusual provision of the employment agreement provided that the Club was to maintain insurance on the life of Bernard, naming the Club as beneficiary, so that the Club could comply with the termination provisions of the agreement. The termination provisions provided that the employment agreement could be terminated in the event that Bernard failed repeatedly and demonstrably to perform his duties, and failed to remedy this problem after receiving reasonable notice; for just cause; or upon his death, in which case, the Club was to collect the insurance proceeds and pay these to Bernard's estate.  Apparently, the Club did not take out such a policy of insurance.

In resisting the claim by Bernard’s estate, the Club argued that, prior to his death, Bernard failed to fill his duties. The court rejected this submission, holding that the Club did not provide the required written warning to Bernard.

The Club also submitted that the agreement was not enforceable, and that neither of the parties expected the agreement to be enforceable. The court easily rejected this submission.

As the agreement clearly contemplated Bernard’s death, it was not frustrated by his death.

The court found that Bernard's estate was entitled to the payments due until the end of the agreement. These damages totalled $410,000.

In this case, the employment agreement was drafted by or on behalf of the Club. The court held the Club to its agreement, notwithstanding its unusual provisions, or the fact that it produced, at least at first blush, an unusual result.

Thank you,
Paul Trudelle

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

From 1993 to 1996, Daniel Assh, a Pensions Advocate with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Veterans Affairs Canada assisted Maria Orn, a veteran and the widow of a veteran in obtaining her pension benefits.

In 2001, Maria prepared her will. In it, she left specific legacies totalling more than $100,000, and divided the residue of her estate amongst various named persons and a charity. Three weeks later, she died.

One of the specific legacies was a $5,000 bequest to Daniel.

Daniel told his superiors about the bequest, and that he intended to accept it as it could not give rise to a conflict of interest. They told him to "hold off" on accepting the bequest until the matter was cleared through the “appropriate department channels”.
Daniel argued that because he did not know of the bequest in advance, and because there could not be the expectation of further services, and no possibility that Daniel could provide special assistance to Maria or her family, there was no conflict. Daniel submitted that he had stopped providing services to Maria long before her death. It was agreed that Daniel had in no way attempted to influence Maria into making the gift.

Did he get to keep the bequest?

No. Veterans Affairs determined that accepting the gift would be in contravention of the federal Conflict of Interest Code.

Daniel grieved the decision through two levels of the internal grievance process, and then applied for judicial review when the decision was upheld at both levels. Judicial review was allowed, and Daniel was allowed to keep the bequest. However, the decision was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”).

The FCA held that the bequest could give rise to a perception of conflict. The question was whether a reasonable person would think that there was a realistic possibility that acceptance of the legacy could influence the employee’s future performance of official duties. The FCA noted that a pensions advocate is in a position of confidence and influence. The clientele are usually elderly and vulnerable, and often in difficult circumstances, such as the death of a spouse.
The FCA stated that while Daniel could not accept the gift, “the acknowledgment of her gratitude to him for assisting her is effectively communicated to him, and to others.”

Thank you for reading.
Paul Trudelle

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many litigants are disappointed to learn that costs are no longer automatically paid out of an estate. In fact, it is now widely accepted that estate litigation can attract the usual costs consequence. As such, costs are an issue that should be considered by a party before embarking upon estate litigation. Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corp. of Easter Canada v. Pidwerbecki, a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, is instructive in this regard.

The respondents were success at trial and sought their costs. The applicant, the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corp. of Easter Canada (the “Church”), argued that no costs should be awarded and that the costs requested were, in any event, excessive.

The court recognized that in estate matters, issues frequently arose upon which “reasonable persons” could “reasonably disagree”. Ambiguity in a testamentary document was cited as one such example. The court held that where there were reasonable grounds for an application, costs should generally be paid by the estate.

However, in the case at hand, there was no dispute arising out of any mistake or lack of clarity or default of the testator. According to the court, the lack of evidence supporting the Church’s position ought to have been apparent from the beginning and certainly at the end of discoveries (a good reminder to counsel to write to clients at the end of discoveries to address the merits of the case). Given the allegations of misconduct, coupled with the lack of evidence, the court held that costs, on a partial indemnity scale, should follow the cause (loser pays the winner).

The fact that the Church was a not-for-profit organization carried no weight with the court. Moreover, even though there was no adversity of interest between the respondents, the court was satisfied, despite the arguments of the Church, that it was reasonable for the parties to be separately represented. The respondents were awarded their separate costs.

Thanks for reading and have a good weekend.

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The census-takers tell us that our population is rapidly ageing (the need for sound estate planning seems obvious). The challenges that Canadian society faces are likely profound and there is much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands about the future. There is a certain irony to the fact that as the information age accelerates, driven by our pervasive youth culture, our population ages.

In the above context, it is worth considering what I believe to be the motivating factor or thinking behind the Supreme Court of Canada’s (“S.C.C.”) decisions in Pecore v. Pecore and Madsen Estate v. Saylor. The two recently released companion cases were eagerly anticipated by the estate bar and addressed the transfer of property by an ageing parent into joint ownership with one of their children.

The S.C.C. made it clear that the “presumption of resulting trust” is the general rule that applies to gratuitous transfers of property into joint ownership. The onus is therefore placed on the person who received the gift to demonstrate that a gift was, in fact, intended. The court also held that the “presumption of advancement” applied to transfers of property by parents into joint ownership with their minor children. The burden of rebutting such a presumption falls to the party challenging the transfer rather than the gift-receiver.

The transfer of property by an ageing parent, particularly funds into joint bank accounts, is becoming widespread. In the context of an ageing population, Rothstein J., writing for the majority of the court, specifically addressed why the presumption of resulting trust arose rather than a presumption of a gift.

As Rothstein J. noted in his decision: “… it is common nowadays for ageing parents to transfer their assets into joint accounts with their adult children in order to have that child assist them in managing their financial affairs. There should therefore be a rebuttable presumption that the adult child is holding the property in trust for the ageing parent to facilitate the free and efficient management of their parent’s affairs”. In taking note of this stepped-up practice, the S.C.C. recognized the changing dynamics of Canada’s population and framed its decision accordingly.

Thanks for reading!

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Most lawyers have come across the vexatious litigant, the complainant who has an endless array of grievances and regards the courts as a convenient forum to pursue frivolous claims. The Oxford Dictionary defines vexatious as "... not having sufficient grounds for action and seeking only to annoy the defendant". Endless proceedings and countless motions are brought over a number of years. Regrettably, the vexatious litigant knows enough about the rules of court, often through trial and error, to be a menace and not easily put off. As no one judge initially hears all proceedings and accompanying motions, a great deal of sympathy is often extended to the vexatious plaintiff together with ample leeway to pursue his or her claims.

However, there is hope. Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act states that where a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is satisfied that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner, the judge may order that no further proceedings be instituted or current proceedings continued without leave of a judge.

In Dale Streiman & Kurz LLP v. De Teresi, Mr. De Teresi had commenced 73 proceedings over 10 years. According to the court, Mr. De Teresi had a history of serially litigating against the same party over essentially the same set of facts. He brought sequential lawsuits, often suing lawyers who had acted for or against him in past proceedings and continued to litigate even when a settlement had been reached. The court held that Mr. De Teresi had deliberately misled the court and instituted proceedings that could not succeed but were simply designed to harass other parties. Mr. De Teresi was declared a vexatious litigant and could no longer institute proceedings without leave.

Finally, if a section 40 order is not yet open to the defendant, the defendant can ask that a judge be appointed to case manage all proceedings commenced by the vexatious plaintiff. Once assigned, a judge will quickly take the measure of the plaintiff and begin to shut down frivolous proceedings and useless motions.

Thanks for reading!

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the next week, I will blog on a variety of topics within the estate and and trust world. I will canvas notable case law as well as draw on my recent experience. My first topic deals with evidence.

It is crucial when litigating to amass the right evidence. A great deal of thought usually goes into deciding whether to litigate, but once that decision has been made, the right evidence has to be put forward in order to win or to facilitate a favourable settlement. Much of what litigators now do is by way of application so affidavit evidence is key. The beauty of affidavit evidence is that it allows the lawyer time to draft or finesse the evidence - not change it, but just present it in its most persuasive format.

When dealing with a will challenge and capacity, the notes of the solicitor who drew up the will are obviously critical, as is any medical evidence particularly from a family doctor. In a guardianship fight, medical evidence is again key, but so is evidence from family or friends. However, when deciding what evidence to submit, a careful litigator will take the time to decide what evidence is required over and above the usual. In other words, what avenues are worth exploring that may reveal the unexpected. Is there some person who may be able to add fresh evidence that will make the difference and carry the day?

In a recent guardianship case that I was involved with, the evidence of two neighbours turned out to be critical. The neighbours were able to comment on the slow deterioration of the incapable. As family members had applied to the court to be appointed guardians, the neighbour were also able to comment on whether the family members visited and how often. The neighbours, who still kept in touch with the incapable, were also able speak to the wishes of the incapable when it came to who should look after the incapable. A caregiver at a nursing home was also in a position to comment on the mental state of the incapable and, in fact, assisted a doctor who was retained to prepare a retrospective assessment. What the neighbours and the caregiver brought to the table was the fact that their evidence was credible and independent. In other words, they had no particular stake, one way or the other, in the outcome of the litigation. They were simply interested in doing what was best for the incapable. When it comes to evidence from outside or third parties, their evidence will likely be believed because it is seen as untainted. As a result, every effort should be made to get evidence from outside or third parties and from sources that may be out of the ordinary.

Thanks for reading.

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Ontario, a valid Holograph Will, by definition, is made and signed entirely in the handwriting of the testator. While this sounds simple enough, such documents often invite litigation.

For the person propounding such a Will, the first objective is to prove that the handwriting is that of the alleged testator. Of course, another distinctive feature of a Holograph Will is the absence of witnesses. Proving the identity of the author of a Holograph Will therefore usually requires expert analysis of the handwriting. The expert may encounter difficulties. Rather than writing a Holograph Will in her ordinary handwriting, the testator may have printed the document.

To successfully prove the handwriting of the testator, an expert typically requires several samples of the testator’s signature and writing style. In the absence of such samples (and in the absence of witnesses) it is far from a certainty that the Will can be proved. Further complicating matters is the absence of the original.

While a copy of a Will can be proved in the right circumstances, the absence of witnesses makes it more difficult to prove a copy of a holograph will. On a final note, Holograph Wills frequently give rise to questions of interpretation.

Until next time,

David

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Persons found to be incapable to manage their property may, nonetheless, be capable to marry (for an in depth discussion of this issue see the 1998 decision of Justice Cullity in Banton v. Banton).

This reality gives rise to all kinds of potential legal dilemmas and truly represents the flashpoint between capacity litigation and family law litigation. If a person incapable of managing their property enters into a marriage, there is a near-certain likelihood that friction will develop between the new spouse and the incapable person’s substitute decision maker.

In large part, the making of financial decisions together is one of the defining characteristics of a marriage. In the situation of a marriage between a capable person and an incapable person with a guardian of property, the substitute decision maker inevitably has a role to play. And what if the new spouse brings a child into the marriage?

Clearly, the family law regime imposes support obligations upon spouses in the event of separation. But how is this obligation reconciled with the obligation of the substitute decision maker to act in the financial best interests of the incapable person?

From the perspective of the legal practitioner, expertise in both family and capacity law is required to seek a creative resolution of any disputes that can develop

Have a great day,

David 

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Listen to "The Dog Days of Summer: Planning for the Transfer of the Family Cottage"

Read the transcribed version of "The Dog Days of Summer: Planning for the Transfer of the Family Cottage"

Justin and Megan discuss estate planning issues surrounding the family cottage. They cover specific practice tips of transferring the family cottage and the consequences of poor planning.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Ontario, an estate becomes liable for probate fees when the estate trustees apply for a Certificate of Appointment. Depending on the value of the estate, these fees can sizeable and cannot by set off by debts owed by the Deceased or estate-related expenses.

The main reason probate is required is because the estate trustees will require proof of authority before they are permitted to deal with certain assets. For example, generally speaking, banks will not release funds to estate trustees unless they have a Certificate of Appointment. Similarly, estate trustees will usually not be able to transfer real property into their names, list it for sale, or enter in to an agreement of purchase and sale without the Certificate of Appointment. Luckily, not all estates require a Certificate of Appointment to be administered. If the estate trustees can avoid applying for probate, then they can avoid paying probate fees.

There are several planning techniques that can be used to avoid the necessity of a Certificate of Appointment and, thus, paying probate fees:

•  Making inter vivos transfers of property - if you give it away prior to death, it won't form part of your estate;
• Making more than one Will - in one Will you deal with assets that will not require probate, while in the other Will you deal with assets that will; 
• Making RRSPs, RRIFs, and insurance policies payable to a named beneficiary, rather than your estate; and Transferring property into joint ownership.

By giving some thought to how you structure your estate, it might be possible to save a significant amount of money on probate fees - or avoid them all together.

Thanks for reading,

Megan F. Connolly

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I am always somewhat bemused when clients involved in Estate litigation tell me they are embarrassed that their family is fighting. Many believe that their family is somehow abnormal because they cannot work out the problem amongst themselves.

My first instinct is generally to tell them there is no such thing as a ‘normal family’. Put another way, the ‘normal happy family’ seems to be a mythical creature viewed only in “Leave it to Beaver” reruns. No one ever has to apologize to me about their family. I’m a lawyer, not a judge. Even a judge will wisely avoid condemning families in turmoil wherever possible.

Every family has its idiosyncracies, some more notable than others. Those oddities are the sum total of decades’ worth of shared experience. A lawyer can probably never fully understand how a family gets to where it is at any point, let alone judging.

Definitely family members can carry grudges long past the time when an outside observer would think healthy, but some grudges are justified. By necessity, estate litigators often end up working along the outskirts of those grievances. Without conscious effort to stay out of it, those arguments can start to impact our advice to the point where we are no longer being the objective, dispassionate advisors that we need to be. Cases where children were (or allege to have been) abused by parents in the past are particularly prone to this dynamic.

It can be hard to get clients past their animosities to focus on the cost-benefit of litigation, but well worth the effort. If they want to continue Estate litigation once they understand the risks, delays and expense of litigation, so be it, so long as we first put them in the position to make that decision.

Thanks for reading.

Sean Graham

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

During my talk at Hull & Hull’s recent breakfast held at the Ontario Bar Association offices, I touched on the Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17 (“Pecore”) and Madsen Estate v. Saylor, 2007 SCC 18 (“Madsen”) Supreme Court of Canada decisions which essentially did away with the presumption of advancement except as it pertains to minor children. In effect, a child of a deceased who holds assets jointly with the deceased can no longer rely on the presumption that the deceased wanted the child to take the asset at death.

Given that new law, executors not wanting to challenge rights of survivorship by asserting a resulting trust against the surviving account holder should obtain clear and comprehensive releases and indemnities from all beneficiaries. If possible, the beneficiaries should get independent legal advice. Where independent legal advice is feasible the beneficiaries should be encouraged to get it. In any case foregoing a resulting trust claim to joint assets has risks.

The circumstances or even the identities of gift-over beneficiaries can change so much over time that a release or indemnity may not be enforced by the court. New beneficiaries can be born who may be less generously inclined as their predecessors. Family relations can turn to the worst, changing the approach to joint assets.

All in all, a difficult recipe for Executors to be sure.

Thanks for reading.

Sean Graham

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

By virtue of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 the United Kingdom now recognizes a change of gender as being permanent for all legal purposes. Specifically, the Act provides a framework for a person who is at least 18 years old to acquire a legally-recognized gender by making an application for a Gender Recognition Certificate on the basis of living in the other gender or having changed gender under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.

In an article by Jo Summers with the above-captioned title, published in the June 2006 edition of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners Journal, Ms. Summers outlines the consequences of acquiring a gender under the Act.

In the estates context, the Act does not affect Wills made before it came into force. For example, if a Will states that certain property is to go to "my son alive at the date of my death", and the child had become recognized as a woman under the Act, the child would be treated as a son and allowed to receive the gift if the Will was dated before April 4, 2005 (the date the Act came into force). However, if the Will was dated on or after April 4, 2005, the child would be treated as a daughter and disentitled to the legacy (depending on the wording of the gift).

Although this seems to be an unfair result for the intended beneficiary, the Act attempts to address it by allowing anyone who has been adversely affected as a result of the gender change to commence a court application for relief.

While I know of no similar legislation being contemplated in Ontario, given that Parliament has recently broadened its definition of a spouse, I expect it will not be long before gender change will be similarly acknowledged. Once that time comes, more care will likely be needed in drafting testamentary documents. Sensible solutions proposed by Ms. Summers are to avoid referring to beneficiaries by class and instead referring to them by name, and/or to insert a clause setting out the meaning of references to gender.

Natalia Angelini

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At Hull & Hull LLP, we have litigated many estate cases involving interesting ownership and custody disputes over var