While perhaps obvious, it continues to strike me as to the extent that these athletes live in the moment or for the day. So much rises and falls for them with one or in some cases several performances. What onlookers of the Olympics take away from the Olympics is no doubt personal but perhaps the notion of setting objectives, striving to obtain them while living for the day is the most universal.

What do these stories actually have to do with Estates? From a legal standpoint, nothing. However, perhaps the above notion may focus us to consider our own legacy and the steps that have been taken, or should be taken now, to ensure that those that benefit from that legacy are the intended ones.

Keep watching.

Craig
 

However, even the mildly famous or sainted can have their moment in the estate spotlight.  Recently, Luciano Pavarotti's family was in the news when a dispute arose among his offspring in respect of his considerable fortune.  They have apparently reached a settlement.

I also read with interest a recent US newspaper article indicating that two of Martin Luther King's children had filed a lawsuit against a third regarding a dispute over the civil rights leader's estate (J. Edger Hoover would have loved it).  Bernice King and Martin Luther King III filed a lawsuit in Atlanta in order to force their brother, Dexter King, to open the books of their famous father's estate.

From what I understand, the lawsuit claims that Dexter King, who is the executor of his father's estate, has refused to provide his brother and sister with documents concerning the estate's administration.  The lawsuit claims that Dexter King and the estate "converted substantial funds from the estate's financial accounts…for their own use".  The siblings were never told beforehand and are now seeking financial records and other documents in order to investigate the administration of the estate. 

Martin Luther King's "dream" seems to have stalled when it comes to sibling rivalry and the fortunes of his estate.  However, on a more serious note, the dispute once again reminds us of the importance of transparency in the administration of an estate and open communication between executor and beneficiary.

Thanks for reading.  Auf Wiedersehen

An issue that can crop up in estate litigation is whether a party is entitled to interim payment of costs payable out of the estate.  The reason for such an order is to fund litigation, such as a will challenge, out of the largesse of the estate.

The court has the discretion to order the interim payment of costs pursuant to Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.  A number of cases have addressed the interim payment of costs, including Waese v. Bojman as well as Zhao v. Ismail Estate (Trustee of) (link not available).  Both decisions recognize the court’s inherent jurisdiction to award interim costs in a proceeding, including estate actions.

As with any exercise of judicial discretion, the facts are crucial and how those facts are marshalled and presented to the court may carry the day.  Proper evidence and complete and financial disclosure is required.  However, even where an interim payment of costs is allowed, the court is likely to impose terms and require costs to be paid out in stages based on the progress of the litigation.

Thanks for reading.  A demain.

Justin

The privatization of BCE shares means that some shareholders are now looking for a way to minimize their tax liabilities from the sale of shares. Some financial advisors have advocated  the direct transfer of the publically traded securities to registered charities as one way to minimize any capital gains.

Since 2006, charities seem to have benefitted from the elimination of capital gains for donated shares. In turn, charities have become more sophisticated and take a business-like approach to attracting potential donors of shares. By providing the contact information of a gift planner, easy to fill out share transfer forms with step-by-step instructions, and information about the advantages of share donation, charities are hoping shareholders donate their shares directly to them by presenting them with a win-win situation.

Additionally, charities are providing more information to potential donors about estate planning and the potential tax benefits of donations-in-kind, such as the transfer of shares. Charities and private foundations are sending the message to potential donors that donors can benefit on multiple levels through different types of donations and charities are there to assist them with their choices.

Enjoy your weekend,

Diane Vieira

The sister argued that her brother intended to gift to her the balance of the funds as he did not have a good relationship with his son. The son of the deceased, the sole beneficiary of his estate, contented the funds belonged to the deceased’s estate on the basis of a resulting trust. The court found as the deceased was the only contributor to the account, the sister had to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust and as she was neither his spouse nor his child, she derived no benefit from the presumption of advancement.

Referencing the Supreme Court of Canada decisions of Pecore v. Pecore and Madsen Estate v. Saylor, the court looked at the evidence to determine the deceased’s actual intention. The court found the testimony by the deceased’s lawyer and a bank employee indicated that the deceased was interested in providing his sister with the authority to manage his finances and had not intended to gift her funds.

Weighing the evidence, the court found on a balance of probabilities that the resulting trust had not been rebutted and the intention of the deceased was to have his sister assist with bill payments if he became incapable.

To learn more about joint accounts, listen to Episode HOESP #60  where Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag discuss Percore v Pecore or read the transcribed version.

Thanks for reading,

Diane Vieira

Other Canadian legal podcasts include Osler Audio Reports offered by Osler, Hoskin, & Harcourt LLP that discuss a variety of business legal issues. The Canadian Bar Association provides PracticeLink Podcasts offering practice management information to its members. Law is Cool is both a blog and podcast produced by and for Canadian law students. (Podcast Episode No. 8 features an interview with Ian Hull).

Law schools are also providing a tremendous amount of information through the podcasting medium. The University of Ottawa’s Law and Technology Program was one of the first educational institutions to utilize podcasting and make classes available via podcasts. Through podcasts, many American law schools are making special lectures available to the public. Harvard Law School’s Program on Negotiation produces PONcasts offering advice on negotiation skills.

On a slightly different note, BBC Radio 4’s Law in Action is a half hour weekly podcast from the UK that discusses legal issues in the news.  

These are just a few of the legal podcast choices out there. Whether it is for education or entertainment purposes, there is a lot of information out there.  

Have a nice day,

Diane Vieira

Her husband, a London millionaire, died in 2007 without leaving a Will.  As he died intestate, his estate, worth about £2,231,201 (approximately 4.5 million dollars), was distributed in accordance with the United Kingdom’s intestacy rules. According to those rules, Ms. Dielle is to receive the statutory legacy and £50,000.00 ($100,000) per year in interest from her late husband’s estate, while her two children inherit the rest of the estate.

The United Kingdom’s intestacy rules provide that when someone dies intestate, leaving a spouse and issue, the surviving spouse receives all personal chattels, a lump sum of £125,000 (just over $250,000 dollars) referred to as the statutory legacy, and a life interest in one half of the residue. The surviving spouse can only receive the interest from the residue and cannot encroach upon the capital. The issue of the Deceased receive one half of any excess over the statutory legacy and ultimately they receive the other half of the residue when the surviving spouse dies. To contrast the UK law with Canada’s intestacy succession law, please read David Smith’s blog on intestacy distribution.

This will be an interesting case to follow and is already being referred to as an example that highlights the importance of estate planning.

Thanks for reading,

Diane Vieira 

In Reid v. Reid, [2005] O.J. No. 2359 (Ont. S.C.J.), [2008] O.J. No. 826 (Ont. Div. Ct.), the deceased was survived by her son, her daughter and her daughter’s two children (the deceased’s grandchildren).

According to the trial judge, the deceased’s daughter was a 42 year old mentally challenged individual with one of the grandchildren also being mentally challenged.

The deceased’s estate was worth approximately $200,000, consisting primarily of a house.  The deceased’s daughter and her two children resided with the deceased. The deceased’s Will left her estate equally to her daughter and son.

The daughter and grandchildren brought an application for support.

Having acknowledged the considerations set out in the Cummings decision, the trial judge found that there was a relationship of dependency such that the deceased was contributing to the support of her daughter and her two grandchildren.

The trial judge held that the son should receive $25,000 from the estate with the balance of the estate (the house) to be held for the deceased’s daughter, and on her death, the net proceeds from the sale of the house divided equally between her two children. 

On appeal, counsel for the son conceded the issue of the dependency of the deceased’s daughter and grandchildren as found by the trial judge within the meaning of the Succession Law Reform Act (s.57). Interestingly though, the Divisional Court stated:

“We also agree with the appellant…[the deceased’s son] that the trial judge fell into error by ordering that the residue of the estate pass to… [the grandchildren] without having any evidence before her as to what their needs might be at some unidentified time in the future.  Nor was there any evidence before the trial judge that either of these two applicants would still be dependant within the meaning of the Succession Law Reform Act at this unidentified future date, the date of…[the deceased’s daughter’s] death.”

The Divisional Court ordered, amongst other things, that the son be paid $25,000 from the estate (from a mortgage to be obtained on the house), the house be transferred to the daughter, the daughter and her two children may live in the house until 2018, at which time the property will be sold and the proceeds distributed equally between the son and the daughter, provided that the son’s share be reduced by the above-noted $25,000. 

Thanks for reading. 

Craig

In Cummings v. Cummings, [2003] 5 E.T.R (3d) 81 (Ont. S.C.J.); affirmed [2004] 69 O.R. (3d) 398 (Ont. C.A.), Ontario’s Court of Appeal held that when examining all of the circumstances of an Application for Dependant’s Relief under the SLRA, the Court is entitled to take into account not only the needs of the dependants but the moral obligation of the deceased to those dependants.

Today’s blog, as well as my blogs for the balance of this week, will look at several dependant support cases in the post Cummings era. 

In Broderick v. Papathanasiou, [2006] O.J. No. 4707 (Ont. S.C.J.), Ms. Broderick contended that she lived with Mr. Papathanasiou (the “deceased”) in a common law relationship for 8 years prior to his death.

The deceased did not provide for Ms. Broderick in his Will or during his lifetime.  Ms. Broderick earned more money than the deceased during some of the years they lived together.  They lived in residences owned by the deceased.

Ms. Broderick claimed she was a dependent spouse and asked that the Court make an order for her support under the SLRA.

The Court found that Ms. Broderick’s contributions to the deceased’s personal and financial well-being, to the detriment of her own finances, should be recognized by an award from the estate.

The Court held that the requirement for “adequate provision” to a dependant under the SLRA had been expansively interpreted by the courts; it was no longer a strictly needs based analysis; the deceased’s moral duty towards his dependents was now also a relevant decision, citing Cummings.

As the estate was not large enough to make provision for Ms. Broderick’s support indefinitely, the Court found that a lump sum would support her in transition and provide for her relocation and that it was also equitable that the deceased’s daughters should enjoy the benefit of their father’s estate as he intended under the will.

In the end, the Court ordered that the deceased’s condominium be sold and Ms. Broderick receive one half of the net proceeds in recognition of her contributions to the deceased’s well-being.

Thanks for reading.

Craig

Jordan Atin, the Chair of the Section for the past year, brought the past year to a close and the election of the OBA, Trusts and Estates Section Executive for the 2007/2008 year, was confirmed. 

The Section also paid tribute to this year’s recipient of the Award for Excellence in Trusts and Estates, Barry Corbin.

The Award for Excellence was created to recognize exceptional contributions and achievements by members of the OBA to the area of trusts and estates. The criteria for the award is demonstrated leadership in the trusts and estates bar through knowledge, experience, skill, commitment, passion and strength of character, plus all or some of the following:

·         academic excellence through teaching at the Bar Admission Course, lecturing at a law school, participating in Continuing Legal Education and/or academic writing;

·         participation in the OBA Trusts and Estates Section Executive or the Law Society of Upper Canada on wills, trusts and estate matters; and

·         contribution to the development of wills, trusts and estate law.

In addition to the Award for Excellence, Archie Rabinowitz was presented with the Widdifield Award and Corina Weigl with the Hoffstein Book Prize.

Congrats to Barry, Archie and Corina.  The venue, dinner (and particularly the Cornish Hen) and evening were all quite enjoyable.

Thanks for reading.

Craig

It was great to see a full house of estate, trust, accounting and tax practitioners decked out in their finest to enjoy an evening with their peers, and honouring the lifetime achievements of Professor Emeritus Donovan Waters.  Prof. Waters, a pioneer of trust law and author of the leading text of trust law in Canada, was introduced by four esteemed speakers. True to his reputation, Prof. Waters delivered a thoughtful and engaging acceptance speech.  It was a lovely evening.

The conference will wrap up after another full day of talks today. See you there!

Have a great weekend,

Natalia

David Smith started off the seminar with a talk on the challenge of exercising an estate’s controlling interest in private corporations.  His discussion included the following observations:

-                   the obligation of an estate trustee to exercise his or her controlling interest is that of a “reasonably prudent businessman”

-                   the trustee must determine the value of the company in as timely a manner as possible

-                   depending on the wording of the Will, the trustee must provide for the company’s continuation, sale or liquidation

-                   in order for the trustee to make such a decision he/she should review the Will, financial statements and corporate records, and should inquire with individuals who have knowledge of the company’s affairs including beneficiaries, family, directors, shareholders, employees, solicitors, accountants and bankers

-                   it is advisable for a trustee to have an active role in management by, among other things, sitting on the board of directors (despite there being no legal obligation to do so)

Sean Graham followed with a discussion on evidence in estate litigation, and Ian Hull spoke about interesting case law developments.  You can find a more thorough consideration of these topics in their presented papers.

Until tomorrow,

Natalia

The father died in 2003.  A dispute arose about the purported understanding between the parents in making these Wills leading Elaine to commence an action seeking, among other things, that her mother disclose the testamentary instructions given to her solicitor for the purposes of drafting her Wills, which the mother opposed on the ground that such instructions were privileged. 

The Court held that although a Will is privileged until the testator dies, and although instructions to a testator's solicitor and the related work product are also privileged, that the mother voluntarily waived privilege by producing her Wills and by swearing affidavits relying on their content.

Another approach one could perhaps take in such circumstances is to refuse to produce a Will at the outset and claim that it is a privileged document, which may then likely lead to a court determining the issue.  If one is ultimately compelled to produce their Will by court order it would likely be viewed as involuntary disclosure, and therefore any claim for further disclosure (i.e. solicitor's instructions and file documents) could again be met with a fresh assertion of privilege. 

Have a nice day,

Natalia

While counsel may often overlook the option of summary trial (in Rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure), there is no reason that it shouldn't be invoked in certain estate disputes.  At a minimum, some thought should be given to it before the pre-trial stage, since the pre-trial judge or master can decide what mode of trial is appropriate if no agreement has been reached between the parties before that time.

Some of the cost-saving measures of a summary trial include the following:

1. Evidence in chief is to be adduced by affidavit.

2. A party wishing to cross-examine the deponent on an affidavit, which can be done orally, can take no more than 50 minutes.

3. Closing arguments can take no more than 45 minutes for each party.

Proceeding by way of summary trial may also lead to a comparatively quick result and correspondingly lower cost awards.  Something worth considering…

Thanks for reading,

Natalia

The couple had been married for 20 years, and after the breakdown of their marriage the ex-husband was ordered to make periodic payments to the ex-wife.  The couple remained on friendly terms.  The ex-husband later suggested that rather than continue to pay periodic support that he should leave £100,000 to the ex-wife in his Will.  The ex-wife agreed to this proposal and they put their agreement into effect.

The ex-husband subsequently fell ill and died, marrying another woman on the morning of his death, which revoked his Will.  After his widow refused to pay the legacy from the estate, the ex-wife brought a claim for payment.

The trial judge found in favour of the ex-wife, holding that a binding agreement had been entered into between the couple.  The widow unsuccessfully appealed.  In response to her arguments to the contrary, the appellate Court held that (i) by entering into the agreement the ex-wife had not bartered away her right to future maintenance or ousted the jurisdiction of the matrimonial court; and (ii) the agreement between the couple was governed by ordinary contract principles (not principles relating to an agreement for the compromise of ancillary relief) and therefore the principal that such an agreement does not give rise to a contract enforceable at law did not apply. 

This serves as a good reminder that when contemplating rearranging one’s support arrangements, in even the most amicable of scenarios, a contingency plan should be in place to deal with the event that either of the parties may enter into a subsequent marriage.

Have a good day,

Natalia

Polygamy is against the law in Canada but there has not been a prosecution of a case in over sixty years. For a background on the issues surrounding polygamy and Canadian law, read A Polygamy Primer on Osgoode Hall’s law blog, The Court.

The primer provides a link to a collection of research policy reports commissioned by the federal government exploring polygamy in the Canadian context. While the focus of the papers is on polygamy in a criminal law and family law context, the paper by Alberta’s Civil Liberties Research Centre discusses the civil case of Yew v. British Columbia (Attorney General) [1924] 1 D.O.D. 1166 (B.C.C.A.). In the case, the British Columbia Court of Appeal gave limited recognition to a polygamous marriage that had occurred in China to allow the two surviving wives to receive their annuities from their husband’s estate at a lower tax rate.

It will be interesting to see if the possible recognition of polygamous unions in the family law context will have an impact on estates law.

Enjoy your weekend,

Diane Vieira

One of our previous blogs reviews the facts of the case and the appellate decision of the Divisional Court, which I will not repeat except to say that the Divisional Court reversed the application judge’s finding that the policy could be included as part of the estate, and decided that the contractual rights of the spouse to the joint policy trumped the needs of the deceased’s dependants.

Two of the minor children appealed the Divisional Court’s decision and asked that the application judge's decision be restored.  The deceased’s spouse cross-appealed. 

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding as follows:

-          the policy was not caught within the ambit of section 72(1)(f) of the Succession Law Reform Act;

-          the policy was not an arrangement that was made to jeopardize the maintenance of the deceased’s dependants; and

-          section 199 of the Insurance Act did not apply to the policy.

Have a good day,

Natalia

I thought I would close off this week’s blogs with a recent decision that reviews the law on surrogate parents.

In M.D. v. L.L. a married couple wished to have a child.  Unfortunately, the wife, M.D., was unable to bear children.  So, the couple turned to a family friend, L.L., who was willing to act as a surrogate mother.  M.D. and L.L. papered the terms of their understanding in a Gestational Carriage Agreement. 

After L.L. gave birth to the child, a Statement of Live Birth had to be completed and filed with the Registrar, which statement required L.L. to place her name on the form as the “mother” of the child, notwithstanding the Agreement and the fact that M.D. and her husband were the genetic parents of the child.

M.D. and her husband sought orders declaring themselves to be the parents of the child, and declaring L.L. and her husband not to be the parents.  The Court granted the orders sought, and in so doing held that despite a statutory definition defining “mother” by reference to birth, the genetic parents were the true parents.

This decision is likely going to be the authority relied upon in surrogate parenting litigation to come.

Have a great long weekend!

Natalia

In a recent Superior Court of Quebec decision a family’s patriarch, Leon, died intestate in 1968.  The main asset of his estate was his home (registered in Leon’s name) where he resided with his wife and son, Walter.  At law Leon’s wife was entitled to 1/3 of the home, and Walter was entitled to 2/3 of the home.  Following Leon’s death, his wife and son continued to live in the home and dealt with it as their own property.

Leon’s wife died intestate in 1983.  Her sole heir was Walter.  The home remained registered in Leon’s name, but Walter continued to live there and dealt with it as his own property.

Walter disappeared after 1992, and in 2004 was declared dead.  Walter’s maternal and paternal cousins began fighting over Walter’s estate.  While all the cousins agreed they were equal beneficiaries of Walter’s estate, the argument of the maternal cousins was that they were beneficiaries of his mother’s estate (including her interest in the home), since she died intestate and Walter had never formally accepted her estate.

After applying various provisions of the Quebec Civil Code, the Court held that Walter, by being an absentee, was deemed to have accepted his mother’s estate because an absentee can only renounce through his representative. 

This case reveals an interesting distinction between Quebec and Ontario legislation, the latter of which does not impose any obligation to accept or reject one’s interest in an estate.

Until tomorrow,

Natalia