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

Yesterday, I blogged on the September 14, 2011 LSUC CLE program entitled “Practice Gems: The Administration of Estates 2011: Avoiding the Pitfalls. This excellent program featured a number of great speakers. The program is being repeated on October 31, 2011, and I highly recommend it.

Another speaker was our own Craig Vander Zee. Craig spoke on the topic of administering an estate where there are claims made against the estate, such as claims for equalization under the Family Law Act, dependant support claims under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, or trust claims, such as claims involving jointly held assets, or quantum meruit claims.

Such claims necessarily complicate the administration, and give rise to a number of issues and considerations on the part of the Estate Trustee. Craig’s paper addresses a number of these issues, including the nature of the claim, what procedural steps must be taken to defend the claim, representation and notice to all of the interested parties, limitation periods, and the thorny issue of costs.

Thank you for reading, and have a great weekend.

Paul E. Trudelle - Click here fore more information on Paul Trudelle. 

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

Estates law often has distinct legal meanings for common terms. Take the term "personal representative". The term is defined in estates statutes, but also appears with and without definition in business corporations statutes and other statutes. 

Adams v. Ontario (1996) provides that when the phrase "personal representative" is used in connection with a deceased and the administration of the deceased’s estate, it can have only one meaning, which is the meaning set out in the definition contained in the Estates Administration Act, the Trustee Act, and in the Succession Law Reform Act:

1(1) “personal representative” means an executor, an administrator, or an administrator
with the will annexed.

The term is therefore very broad: it includes both the executor (who may never receive probate) and the recipient of a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will.

The same case acknowledges that the term “personal representative” can have other meanings when it is not applied to a deceased or the administration of a deceased’s estate, such as in Ontario's Business Corporations Act.

Thanks for reading,

Christopher M.B. Graham - Click here for more information on Chris Graham.

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

As most of us return to our offices from a long weekend, I would like to share with you an interesting case, which I read over the weekend and deals with an Application to declare a family member unworthy to inherit. S.R. (Succession de), 2008 QCCS 4015, is a decision released by the Quebec Superior Court.

In, S.R. (Succession de), the Deceased was survived by his spouse and four children.    The Deceased was a savvy businessman who, during his lifetime, was quite successful. In 1995, the Deceased asked a notary to prepare a Will. A draft Will was sent to the Deceased for his review but it appears that he never executed the Will. In 2000, the Deceased was diagnosed with cancer and subsequently died in 2003.

After the Deceased died, the children looked for their father’s Will in the home and at the Deceased’s office with no success. We are given to understand that all of the children, searched, under the bed, every closet, every brief case belonging to the Deceased, but were unable to recover a Will.   

One of the daughters prepared a proposal requesting the siblings to acknowledge that the Deceased promised to transfer a certain property to her. This would have the effect of increasing her entitlement under the Deceased’s estate. Her siblings refused to sign the acknowledgement, which led to the ensuing dispute. The disgruntled daughter, subsequently informed everyone that she had in fact, located a Will of the Deceased in an old briefcase, which was allegedly in the bedroom closet of the Deceased’s residence.

The discovered Will was similar to the draft Will prepared earlier, except that it included two additional provisions which favoured the disgruntled daughter, in the amount of $2.4 million dollars and was apparently executed by two witnesses from New York. 

The disgruntled daughter tried to probate this Will, but it was contested by her siblings and it was ultimately ruled that the Will could not be probated by the Honourable Justice Gagnon. Justice Gagnon held that there were all the sorts of question marks surrounding the validity and execution of the Will. 

After the Application for probate was refused, the disgruntled daughter then produced a document which was a blank cheque allegedly signed by the Deceased and which purported to give the disgruntled daughter her share in a building that she coveted and various other monies for her home. The siblings refused to admit the authenticity of the blank cheque and commenced proceedings against the disgruntled daughter to have her declared unworthy to inherit under the Deceased’s estate. 

Under the section 621 of the Civil Code of Quebec, it states that a person “may be declared unworthy of inheriting where a person is guilty of cruelty towards the deceased, and where the person has concealed, altered or destroyed in bad faith the Will of the deceased, or a person who has hindered the testator in the writing, amending or revoking of their Will.” 

In relying on this provision, the children advocated that the disgruntled should be precluded from inheriting because she concealed and altered, in bad faith the alleged Will of the Deceased. 

The court held that the disgruntled daughter had likely altered the Deceased’s Will, had taken the draft prepared by the notary and added some typewritten additions that benefited her to the detriment of her siblings and mother. The court further held that the disgruntled daughter likely had taken the blank cheque from the Deceased’s home and also forged that after his death.

Accordingly, the disgruntled daughter was declared unworthy to inherit and her claims against the estate were dismissed.

An interesting point, in Ontario we do not have any similar case law or legislation that would actually allow someone to commence a proceeding, seeking to have someone else precluded from receiving their entitlement absent criminal activity such as murder.

Have a great day,

Rick Bickhram

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

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

On December 15, 2009, the Good Government Act, 2009 received royal assent. This statute amended or repealed over 300 pieces of legislation, ranging from the Accumulations Act to the Off-Road Vehicles Act. There are various amendments that should be of particular interest to those of us who practice estate, capacity and trust litigation.

The Crown Administration of Estates Act is amended by adding a new section 5.1, dealing with the enforceability of compensation agreements. A “compensation agreement” is defined to mean an agreement with an heir of an estate that provides for compensation, directly or indirectly, to one or more persons or entities on the location, recovery or distribution of any interest in the estate to which the heir may be entitled. In cases of estates administered by the Public Guardian and Trustee, there must be fair disclosure before a possible heir is asked to sign a compensation agreement. In addition, there is a cap on compensation of 10 per cent of the value of the possible heir’s interest in the estate. Click here for the complete text of the Act.

The Health Care Consent Act, 1996 is amended to increase the time allowed, from two days to four days, for the Consent and Capacity Board to issue written reasons for decisions. In addition, the Act is amended to allow the Board to direct Legal Aid Ontario (instead of the Public Guardian and Trustee or the Office of the Children’s Lawyer) to arrange for legal representation for a person who may be incapable with respect to a treatment, managing property, admission to a care facility or a personal assistance service. Click here for the complete text of this Act.

Bianca La Neve

Bianca V. La Neve - Click here for more information on Bianca La Neve.

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

Many people, including myself, paused on learning of Michael Jackson’s death.   While I have not searched out his music for several years, his death marks the end of an era. 

Michael Jackson’s music is part of my memory of growing up. I attended his concert in October 1984 at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto.

Of course, in my role as an estate litigator, other thoughts also come to mind. Namely, what issues will arise in untangling Michael Jackson’s estate?

Some of these issues are addressed in a New York Times article. One executive describes the singer's estate as a "mess".  There are clearly valuable assets, including a 50 percent share of Sony/ATV Music Publishing which owns the rights to more than 200 Beatles songs; this asset alone may be worth more than $500 million.  Apparently these shares were not owned directly by the pop star, but rather by a trust controlled by his mother.  The shares therefore may not fall to Michael Jackson's  estate but they would be part of his legacy.

The estate has debts too: Neverland cost many millions of dollars to operate annually and in recent years there was a $24.5 million debt against the property. Some commentators estimate Michael Jackson’s overall debt to be $400 million. 

All of these issues – from copyright and real estate assets to Michael Jackson's personal and business loans – will take many months, if not years, to sort out.   

There were recent plans for a 50-concert comeback in London, England. Apparently fans had paid $90 million which will have to reimbursed and the concert preparations included payments for renovations to the venue as well as advance payments to Michael Jackson. 

As the administration of Michael Jackson’s estate unfolds, I suspect there may be more related topics to be covered in our blog.

Of course, for us regular folks, estate issues that we encounter in our own lives will be simple in comparison to the challenges faced by the Jackson family.  But there are some lessons: careful management of one’s affairs and good planning will lessen the load on named executors and estate trustees. 

Enjoy your Monday. 

Jonathan

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In many estates, the estate trustee seeks to dispense with the normal requirement of posting an administration bond, if one is in fact necessary. (A bond is usually required where a person dies intestate, where the will does not name an estate trustee, where the will names a foreign estate trustee, or where the application is by a succeeding estate trustee where the will does not name a successor.)

The primary purpose of the bond is to ensure that the estate trustee pays the debts of the estate, and distributes the estate to those who are entitled to it. An applicant that wants to dispense with the bond must satisfy the court that the protection afforded by the bond is not required or will be met in some other way.

Brown J. in the recent decision of Re Henderson, 2008 CanLII 69136 addresses the issue, and highlights the evidence required by the court when determining whether a bond is to be dispensed with. He states that in order to allow the court to properly consider the matter, the applicant should file affidavit evidence setting out:

(a)               The identity of all beneficiaries of the estate;

(b)               The identity of any beneficiary who is a minor or incapable person;

(c)               The value of the interest of any minor or incapable person;

(d)               Executed consents from all sui juris beneficiaries to the appointment and to the dispensation of the bond. If consents cannot be obtained, the applicant must explain how the interests of those beneficiaries will be protected;

(e)               The last occupation of the deceased;

(f)                 Evidence as to whether all debts of the deceased have been paid, including any obligations under support agreements or orders;

(g)               Evidence as to whether the deceased operated a business at the time of death, and if so, whether any debts of that business have been or may be claimed against the estate, and a description of each debt and its amount;

(h)               If all debts of the estate have not been paid, evidence as to the value of the assets of the estate, particulars of each debt (amount and creditor), and an explanation of what arrangements have been made with those creditors to pay their debts and what security the applicant proposes to put in place to protect those creditors.

Thank you for reading.

Paul Trudelle

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

Two certainties and a long-shot.

The Toronto Star reported on January 4, 2009 that on the day Donald Peters died, he unknowingly provided financial security for his wife of 59 years, and for their family.

Peters bought two Connecticut Lottery tickets on November 1, 2008. He died of a heart attack later that day. His wife, in her grief, didn’t check the tickets until some time later. In fact, she states that she almost threw them out before checking them. On January 2, 2009, she collected the winning prize of $10,000,000 (U.S.).

Considering this matter from an estate administration angle, a number of potential questions or issues arise.

For example, in Ontario, would Estate Administration Tax (“E.A.T.”) be payable on the winnings under the Estates Administration Tax Act? E.A.T. on $10,000,000 would be approximately $150,000.

E.A.T. under the Act is payable based on the “value of the estate”, the stripped-down definition of which is the value of all the property that belonged to the deceased at the time of his or her death. Presuming the lottery took place after death, the value of the ticket at the date of death would likely be its face value or purchase price. Until the lottery takes place, a $1 ticket is, in most cases, only worth $1. (Believe me, I’ve tried to sell them for more, but my family wouldn’t pay my asking price, no matter how lucky I told them the ticket was.)

However, if the draw was pre-death, but the ticket wasn’t checked until post-death, then one would presume that the winnings would need to be included as property belonging to the deceased at the time of death, and E.A.T. would be payable on the winnings.

Good luck and good health,

Paul Trudelle

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

This week on Hull on Estates and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana discuss the question of compensation and complaints regarding compensation.

Comments? Send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com, call us on the comment line at 206-457-1985, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estate and Succession Planning blog.

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

Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act establishes the authority for the Court to award costs. Section 131 states that the Court has absolute discretion in awarding costs, subject to the provisions of an Act or the rules of court. 

Before July 2005, the Rules of Civil Procedure provided some sense of certainty to the Court’s broad discretion in awarding costs as the Rules provided a costs grid. The costs grid suggested that costs were to be determined by an hourly rate multiplied by the time spent. In 2004, the Court of Appeal in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council set forth the general principle as to the fixing of costs pursuant to Rule 57.01 and the costs grid. With respect to costs, the Court stated that the overall “objective is to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the particular proceeding, rather than an amount fixed by the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant”. Subsequently, in July 2005, the Rules were amended. 

The amendment to the Rules abolished the costs grid and expanded on the list of factors, set out in Rule 57.01, which the Court may consider before making a cost award. Rule 57.01 was now expanded to include the principle of full indemnity and the reasonable expectations of an unsuccessful party to pay a cost award.

The principle of the reasonable expectations of an unsuccessful party to pay a cost award appears to provide the parties with some flexibility in obtaining the maximum cost award by permitting the successful party to establish the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.  

Thanks for reading, and have a great day!

Rick