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

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

On Tuesday of this week, I blogged on s.35.1 of the Substitute Decisions Act.  This section of the Act provides that a guardian of property for an incapable person has an obligation to preserve property that is subject to a specific legacy in the incapable person's Will unless that property must be used to fund the needs of the incapable person.  As I noted, litigation can ensue on the death of the incapable person if a disappointed beneficiary is not in receipt of his or her legacy.  The disappointed beneficiary must demonstrate that the guardian knew or ought to have known the contents of the incapable person's Will.  While the Act itself  provides an imperative in this regard, it is not at all clear what other evidence would be admissible.  Specifically, the notes and records of the solicitor who drew the incapable person's Will may shed some light on whether the guardian knew of the contents of the Will.  The question, of course, is whether such solicitor's notes are privileged.

In a conventional will challenge, little thought is given to the potentially sticky issue of privilege.  Indeed, solicitor's notes and records are produced as a matter of course when the validity of a Will is challenged.  But when the notes are sought, not to challenge the Will but, rather, to establish the knowledge of someone other than the testator as to the contents of the Will, it is not at all clear whether privilege would be waived by the Court.  

As a corollary to the entitlement of a beneficiary under a Will to make enquiry under s.35.1, a recent decision which Megan Connolly blogged on supports the obligation of a guardian (who is also an estate trustee) to account to such beneficiaries.

David M. Smith

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

Section 35 of the Substitute Decisions Act ("Act") states that "a guardian of property shall not dispose of property that the guardian knows is subject to a specific testamentary gift in the incapable person's will."  And under s 33.1 of the Act, a guardian of property needs to make reasonable efforts to determine "whether the incapable person has a Will" and, if so, "what the provisions of the Will are."

Under the authority of these sections of the Act, a beneficiary of a specific testamentary gift can legitimately make enquiry into the actions of the guardian who, more often than not, is also the estate trustee under the Will.  Take, for instance, a demonstrative legacy of a bank account at a specific financial institution.  If the account is no longer in existence at the date of death, the legacy will usually be subject to ademption: the gift has failed because the account was closed before the date of death.  But what if the account was accessed by the guardian either: (i)  for his own purposes or (ii) for the care of the incapable person when there where other assets available to fund the care of the incapable person?  In such a situation, the beneficiary of the account under the Will may seek redress. 

To prove his or her case, the beneficiary will seek an accounting from the guardian in order to ascertain to what extent his or her beneficial entitlement was wrongfully encroached upon in breach of the Act.  Given the imperative under s. 33.1 of the Act, it questionable whether the guardian/estate trustee could ever  successfully argue ignorance of the terms of the Will as a defence to such claim.

 David M. Smith

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

As a WWII pay officer in the Canadian military, my paternal grandfather met a British woman on the beach when he was stationed in the south of England. They married soon after the War and retired in England in the mid-1960s.  My grandfather died in the early 1990s; when my step-grandmother, Tessa, died in 2008, in her Will she left her house to my father and aunt.

If there were no Will, Tessa's estate could have contributed to the British government's coffers.  In that circumstance, a probate research firm could have played a role. 

Title Research is one of the firms highlighted in yesterdays blog about "heir hunters".  Its services include: searches for missing beneficiaries, heirs, and legal documents (such as marriage, birth and death certificates back to the 1800s); asset research to value, verify and find missing or unknown assets; missing beneficiary indemnity insurance; probate valuations; and will searches to determine that the Will is the deceased's last will. 

If Tessa had died intestate, Title Research, and other firms, could have located her heirs around the world.  Alternatively, if the estate trustee had questions about the value of the estate assets, or had the trustee not known the whereabouts of the beneficiaries, it could have enlisted a search firm's services as some anecdotes suggest.

Potentially trustees can protect their personal liability by engaging a firm that has a best practices endorsement of Britain's Law Society.  It seems that an estate need not just have ties to the UK, but the extent of a firm's expertise in a specific jurisdiction would have to be assessed.

Interestingly, some of the detective work can be done by amateur sleuths: www.findmypast.com and www.ancestry.co.uk allow access to census data from the 1800s and a host of other historical information.  If genealogy is in your blood, it's a place to start.  And, as one UK law firm suggests, it might be advisable to do some of your own investigating.

Jonathan Morse

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

In Scotland for my honeymoon, I encountered a few different “estates”. Hiking the West Highland Way – averaging about 12 miles a day – we passed Blackmount Lodge, in the Bridge of Orchy. The lodge, owned by the Fleming family (of James Bond fame) sits on the edge of an idyllic loch. It took a day to walk across the estate.

Fellow walkers from Britain were interested to learn that I work in estate litigation. After sorting out differences in our terminology, they asked if “heir hunters” exist in Canada. I was intrigued.

While I still do not know the extent of “heir hunting” here, I learned that Heir Hunters is a BBC series that follows probate detectives who look for distant relatives of people who have died without making a will. I have not heard of a similar program in North America.

Several UK firms track down missing relatives: Fraser and Fraser  and Title Research are two examples. About 545,000 people die in Britain every year and half of them do not have a will. As in Ontario, there are rules in Britain which dictate that when people die intestate, their estate passes to the deceased’s legal next of kin. In Britain, if there is no family, the estate falls to the Crown.  The Guardian claims that £10 million to £20 million falls to the government every year because there is no one to claim the estate. Heir hunters locate the next of kin and alert them to their inheritance; there is a finder’s fee of up to 25% of the amount.

Many people in Canada can trace their roots to the United Kingdom. Estate practitioners, if advising estate trustees, would be well served to keep “heir hunting” firms in mind. 

Thank you for reading.  Enjoy your day.

Jonathan Morse

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

 Yesterday I blogged on the decision in McAllister v. Hudgin and the issue of when and how a trustee has a duty to account. 

In its decision, the court also considered the removal of a trustee. 

In McAllister, the applicant had argued that the trustee was in a conflict of interest.  Specifically, prior to the Deceased’s death, the daughter who was named as estate trustee had acted as the Deceased’s attorney for property.  The applicant argued that since the estate trustee was refusing to pass accounts for her actions as attorney for property, it was inappropriate for her to continue to administer the estate. 

The court rejected these submissions for two reasons.  The first reason was that the court determined that the estate trustee had proceeded prudently in her administration of the estate.  Moreover, there had been no accusation that the trustee had acted dishonestly or with mala fides with respect to the estate that would justify her removal. 

The second reason related to her “refusal” to bring an application to pass accounts.  The court found that at this stage, it was only a “supposition” on the part of the applicant with an inadequate evidentiary basis.  It determined that if the applicant wished to pursue a removal on this ground that he could only do so once further evidence had been adduced.

I hope you enjoyed my blogs this week.  Have a great weekend!

Megan F. Connolly 

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

The contemporary attitude is that we live in a young country.  True in some respects.  Yet we own the oldest contiguous institutions.  Trusts are one aspect of this venerable inheritance: the trust is as old as the Common Law.  Actually, a little older in some respects: the English trust finds its roots in the 12th century.  

It all started when a few knights returned from their crusades to find that the "friends" to whom they had entrusted management of their feudal lands refused to return said lands.  There was no mechanism at law to force the new untrustworthy owners to return the land so the law courts could do nothing. 

Naturally, the irate knights went to the Lord Chancellor and "asked" for justice.  One can imagine the scene: the silk-gowned Lord Chancellor looking down at the length of his shoe, then up at a selection of battle-worn armored thugs with gauntlets tapping hilts on chipped swords, over at the foppish, yawning new land-holder, then down again at the length of his shoe.  Unsurprisingly, the knights who had nothing else to live for continually won in the Courts of the Chancellory and the concept of trustees and beneficiaries was born.  I wager that trial by ordeal would have reached similar results so this must have been fate at work.

Tomorrow some interesting case law, I promise. 

Chris Graham