In Bott, a solicitor assisted an executor with his duties as estate trustee.  The solicitor ultimately sent two invoices, the first for his services as estate solicitor (for legal work), and the second charging a value amounting to five percent of the value of the estate, plus GST for services on behalf of the executor (even though the solicitor was not the executor).  The solicitor wished to have the second account addressed on a passing of accounts.

The Judge held that the estate trustee, and not the estate, was the solicitor's client and was personally liable to the solicitor.  The Judge further held that should the estate trustee wish to challenge the solicitor's legal fees, the proper avenue was through an assessment procedure pursuant to the Solicitor's Act, except in the case where the beneficiaries have called into question the reasonableness of the accounts as an expense of the estate trustee on a passing of accounts, or unless the estate trustee desires an order approving the right to an indemnity or reimbursement. 

These principles also were said to apply in cases where solicitors perform executor's work. In such instances, the estate trustee cannot claim compensation for that work done; compensation will be reduced accordingly.  Ultimately, the Judge held that the solicitor in the Bott case was not permitted to charge a fee amounting to compensation that might be awarded to the estate trustee (the 5% approach by the solicitor was disapproved) and that any amount to be awarded as a fee for the services intended to be covered by the second invoice must be determined on a quantum meruit basis. Even if there had been an agreement as between the estate trustee and estate solicitor regarding the payment of services rendered in such a manner, which there was not, such an agreement would bind only the estate trustee and not the “estate” or the beneficiaries.

Thanks for reading this week.

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee. 

In Church v. Gerlach, the ETDL was appealing the trial judge's fixing of compensation at $13,000 inclusive of GST.  The ETDL asked for $23,203,54 plus costs.  The ETDL had originally claimed $35,805.30 plus $2,973.30 for the costs of the application. 

The general provision authorizing compensation to ETDLs is s. 28 of the Estates Act: the ETDL "shall receive out of the property of the deceased such reasonable compensation as the court considers proper".  Section 61 of the Trustees Act authorizes "such fair and reasonable allowance for the care, pains and trouble, and the time expended in and about the estate, as may be allowed by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice." 

According to Ontario's Court of Appeal in Liang Estate v. Hines (1998) CanLII 6867 (ON C.A.), 41 O.R. (3d) 571, the proper approach is to start by applying percentages to the estate (customarily 2.5% of capital receipts and disbursements, 2.5% of income receipts and disbursements, and an annual care and management fee of 0.4% of gross value of the estate).  Then, each percentage is considered against five factors enumerated in Re Toronto General Trusts Corporation and Central Ontario Railway (1905), 6 O.W.N. 350 (H.C.):   

1.  the magnitude of the trust;

2.  the care and responsibility springing therefrom;

3.  the time occupied in performing its duties;

4.  the skill and ability diplayed; and

5.  the success which has attended its administration.

Applying this approach, the ETDL was awarded half of the usual percentages: he ought not to be fully compensated as if he was required to perform all of the functions of an Estate Trustee, and the reduction also took into account the complexity of the estate. 

As a general practice note on costs of appeals, while the ETDL had paid his lawyer more than $15,000 to prepare the appeal, given the amount in dispute, the relatively simple issues on appeal and the reasonable expectation of the appellant ETDL, costs were fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.  

The Divisional Court also noted that the standard of review for appeals under s. 10 of the Estates Act on a question of law is correctness.

Have a great day,

Chris Graham

This week on Hull on Estates and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana finish up the discussion on the question of accounting by reviewing deductions from compensation and briefly sum up the procedure of the passing of accounts.

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.

Deductions from Compensation - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning Podcast #125

Posted on August 12, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi, and welcome to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning. You’re listening to Episode #125 of our podcast on Tuesday, August 12^th, 2008.

Welcome to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, a series of podcasts hosted by Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag, that will provide information and insights into estate planning in Canada. From the offices of Hull Estate Mediation in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, here are Ian and Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi there, Ian.

Ian Hull:  Hi, Suzana. How are you doing?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: I’m good thank you, how are you?

Ian Hull: Just great. We’re having some fun with this whole question of accounting, and I think I’ve done the numbers, and I think we’re almost done. But before we go through our podcast today, let’s remind everyone, please feel free to call in on our call-in number and our call-in number is of course, 206-457-1985.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Or send us an e-mail at hullandhull@gmail.com or of course, you can visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com as well. 

Ian Hull: So before we launch into the substantive podcast today, I just wanted to do a couple of things. One, I want to deal with an e-mail that came in and another is I want to just welcome people to listen and look at the, last week we enjoyed Jordan Atin who is our associate counsel here, our Senior Associate Counsel, and he was on Canada AM for four days in a row talking about family feuds and the link to the webpage where CTV is still running the streaming is worth looking at, and we’ll make sure that’s in our show notes.  But Jordan had a great opportunity to talk about family feuds and sort of the issues that arise out of his book, “The Family War” which is co-written by Les Kotzer and of course, my good friend, Barry Fish.

Alright, so we were talking about some of the e-mails. And we had two e-mails last week come in. Both of them were semi-related and so I’m sort of going to merge the two of them together. And the question really comes down to this:  What are we talking about with The Shoebox Effect? And what we’ve been mentioning in the past and what we’re going to talk a little bit about today, because part of our wind-up is the importance of vouchers, is The Shoebox Effect is this. When you are a trustee, no matter what you think, no matter what you do, you will be someday possibly asked to show your receipts and that’s all I’m saying The Shoebox Effect is. Make sure you keep receipts, even if it’s in a shoebox. Your lawyer or your accountant can work on the presentation of it when you ultimately have to go to Court, but keep the receipts. So that was the two questions that came in, actually, both were from different parts of Canada but asking about the same question. So I’m not going to dwell on it other than that and say that when we’re winding up our comments on accounting, please, please, please keep your receipts if you’re a fiduciary.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And just to add one thought to that, Ian, I would also suggest that it’s really helpful to make sure that you document as much as possible everything that you do as a trustee.  And when it comes to exercising your discretion, and if particularly the Will or the trust document allows you to have a broad discretion, to write down your thoughts or your reasoning or the underlying reasons that you decided to do something or not do something and include that in the shoebox that you end up bringing to a lawyer one day possibly.

Ian Hull: That’s a great suggestion and it comes down to, when we’re talking about getting paid for all of these efforts, the deductions from compensation that we briefly talked about in the last podcasts, what can you look to? So we talked about that you can get paid, say approximately 5% as a tariff, so to speak.  And we’ve talked about some of the things we’re going to knock you out from, but one of the easy deductions is the delineation between the executor’s work and lawyer’s work or accountant’s work. And that ties into your comment, Suzana, on docketing, keeping records beyond just the receipts that I talked about.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And things for instance, like the preparation of tax returns, when fees are associated with that, depending on who’s preparing the tax returns and how much those fees are, that’s another thing that might possibly be a deduction from compensation if the trustee for instance is an accountant. And these are situations where a trustee is an accountant or a lawyer that you see most often, where these issues can arise.

Ian Hull: Alright, so another concern that we raise and probably the last deduction from compensation we’ll just mention now, is this whole idea of pre-taking compensation. Under Ontario legislation, if you’re a fiduciary or, as I say, a guardian under the Substitute Decisions Act, they actually allow you to pre-take your compensation, take before you’ve made your efforts. But we’ve talked about in the past the cases, and we’ve talked about them in the show notes as well, the case law that talks about Re: Knoch which we talked about in our previous podcast and others, and we want to be very, very careful about pre-taking, getting paid before you’ve done your work. So that’s an easy deduction.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Ian, just a question that I find often gets asked is whether or not GST is actually payable on executor’s compensation. What are your thoughts about that?

Ian Hull: Well, that’s a great question and it’s a murky area of the law.  And what has happened in the past is you would typically have to look at it case by case. First and foremost, you have to look at the amount of the payment that the compensation is. If it is over $30,000 that you’re being paid in compensation, which could be the case because it’s typically a one-time payment, you may have to pay GST on that income as having rendered services. So it’s really case-by-case. Talk to your accountant, get good advice before you wrap up that issue, but that’s an excellent question and a really important heads-up for people who are accounting and doing compensation work.

Okay, I think we’ve pretty well covered off our accounting in the in-depth form and so we wanted to make sure that we stayed the course and came full circle to our sort of checklist that we’re trying to work through. And one of the things I will say is we’re hopefully going to be changing our format and trying to pick up a video feed for our podcasts which is in the process. Some technology glitches haven’t allowed for it to fall in just yet, but we’re going to be moving into some different topic areas. But one of the topic areas that we have to, I think, just sort of at least wrap up in a minimum way, is the process itself. We’ve talked about the passing of accounts process but let’s talk about the physical steps that are taken because many people don’t understand passing of accounts and what you can expect in the courtroom once we’ve got the Court format accounts.  And my introduction to this, by way of the fact that we’re going to be moving this into an audio, is that we’re going to have our own mini-series on this issue, where we’re really going to flush out these topics.  But I think its worthwhile talking about them briefly now, so that people understand what they’re going to get themselves into once they’ve got these beautifully created Court format accounts.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And procedurally speaking, certainly here in Ontario, the Rules of Civil Procedure will govern what is included in an Application to pass the Court format accounts. And we started when, before we got into this discussion of how we would audit estate accounts or how to prepare a best kind of set of accounts in the circumstances, we talked about the fact that it’s all part of an application process.  And so there will be an actual Court date that’s assigned to the hearing for the return of the executor’s accounts, and you’ll serve a Notice of that application on all the beneficiaries together with, in many circumstances and many situations, a copy of the accounts as well. And the Rules themselves specifically provide what has to be in this Application record and I thought, Ian, it might be good to just sort of flush out some of those specific requirements.

Ian Hull: Alright. Well I think and it’s helpful because it’s not quite as daunting when you get the document itself thrown at you because, as I say, a lot of these accounts are passed in a non-contentious environment.  But it’s legal mumbo-jumbo to some people so you want to make sure you sort of know what you’re getting yourselves into when you get it. And the main document behind the accounts is the Affidavit verifying the accounts, they’re proving that you’re swearing to the truth of the accounts, and that’s the fiduciary sort of statement that says these accounts are true and accurate.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And that Affidavit, as I say, is included in the record that is served upon everyone who has a financial interest in the estate. And financial interest in the estate I think we’ve talked about on previous podcasts, has a very broad meaning in the sense that even people with a contingent interest in an estate will be served with the accounts as well.

Ian Hull: And talking about service, we don’t want to forget that there may be government agencies that we have to serve, of course; the Office of the Children’s Lawyer should there be any minor child’s interests, or interests of those who are unborn and unascertained.  And without getting too technical about it, we just want to look at the trust document or the Will and see if there is a trust. And typically if there’s a trust, more often than not, almost certainly in fact, the Children’s Lawyer would be served, that’s the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.  And it’s different in each Ontario jurisdiction, but basically the lawyer in charge of minor interests. Another person to be concerned about serving is

Suzana Popovic-Montag: the Public Guardian and Trustee. That office would be served on behalf of any incapable beneficiaries of the estate. And so just like the Children’s Lawyer protects the minor, the unborn or the unascertained, the Public Guardian and Trustee here in Ontario will represent those incapable beneficiaries.

Ian Hull: So those are just things to keep a heads-up on so that you don’t get out of the box and miss a page of the application process by not putting important entities on notice. Obviously, we come back to our cardinal rule: Read the document, read the Will, read the trust and make sure you’ve served everyone named in that, but the Public Guardian and Trustee and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, are two entities that aren’t necessarily named and quite often aren’t named, so just a heads-up. 

So I think that gives you sort of a sense of what the document itself, in a friendly environment will be, so I think we’ll wrap up today’s podcast and again reminding you, please feel free to e-mail at hullandhull, h u l l a n d h u l l @gmail.com.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Or feel free to call and leave us an audio comment at 206-457-1985. Thanks very much, Ian.

Ian Hull: Thanks, Suzana.

You’ve been listening to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning with Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag. The podcast you have been listening to has been provided as an information service. It is a summary of current legal issues in estates and estate planning. It is not legal advice and you are reminded to always talk with a legal professional regarding your specific circumstances.

To listen to other Hull On podcasts, or to leave a question or comment, please visit our website at www.hullestatemediation.com.

Our theme music is UpTempo14 by Gary and is courtesy of the Podsafe Music Network.

/mem

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.

This week on Hull on Estates, Paul Trudelle and Diane Vieira discuss compensation for work done by estate trustees and estate solicitors.

Case citation:

Rooney Estate v. Stewart Estate 2007 WL3019262 (Ont. S.C.J.), 2007 CarswellOnt 650

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

The basic premise is that executor compensation is taxable in the hands of the recipient. It is either income from an office or employment (if the executor is not in the business of being an executor) or income from a business (if the executor is in the business of being an executor, or if such a function is in the executor’s usual course of business). Various consequences flow from the distinction, such as allowable deductions, and withholding requirements for EI and CPP.

CRA takes this obligation to report executor compensation quite seriously. An example of the lengths to which CRA will go is found in the decision of Oolup v. The Queen. There, Ms. Oolup, the executor held a joint account with her grandmother, the deceased. She was advised by her lawyer that upon the death of the deceased, the joint account became hers, by right of survivorship. However, for “reasons of family harmony”, she decided to keep only $10,000 from the joint account, and divided the rest with the deceased’s next of kin.

CRA took the position that the $10,000 was executor compensation, and was therefore taxable, and they assessed Ms. Oolup accordingly. To get to this point, they argued that the joint account was held on a resulting trust for the estate. The CRA argued that the presumption of resulting trust applied, and was not rebutted. Accordingly, they asserted that Ms. Oolup received the $10,000 from the estate, as executor compensation.

Luckily for Ms. Oolup, she was able to rebut the presumption, and the court found that the joint account funds became her property upon the death of the deceased. She received the money by right of survivorship. Therefore, her keeping $10,000 was not receipt of compensation by her, and was not to be included in her income.

Thank you for reading,

Paul Trudelle

READ THE TRANSCRIBED PODCAST

During Hull on Estates Podcast #26, we discussed compensation of an estate trustee.