duty - Toronto Estate Law Blog

The Duty to Dispose of the Body

nonley@hullandhull.com (Hull & Hull LLP) — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:00:00 -0500

Upon the death of a person, a duty arises to bury or otherwise dispose of the remains in a decent and dignified fashion. But who does this duty fall upon?

It is well established in the jurisprudence for Ontario that plans for the service and burial arrangements are the responsibility of the estate trustee. This responsibility can conflict with the wishes and expectations of the deceased and family members, particularly in a religious context.

In Saleh v. Reichert, the deceased was of the Muslim faith. Her husband had converted to the Muslim faith for the purpose of there marriage. There was evidence indicating that the deceased expressed her wish to be cremated upon her death. The deceased's husband was appointed as the estate trustee without a will and intended to honour the deceased's wishes. The deceased's father objected to the cremation on religious grounds.

The court affirmed the fundamental duty of an estate trustee is to ensure that the remains of a body be disposed of in a decent and dignified fashion. The court held that religious law has no bearing on the case. In Ontario, burial and cremation are both means that would meet the requirement for disposal in a decent and dignified fashion. The deceased's father's action was dismissed.

It is important to note that it was acknowledged that there is no property in a body. Therefore, any instructions left by the deceased, whether in a Will or otherwise are only precatory and are not binding on the estate trustee.

Rick Bickhram

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BY THE WILL MAKER - EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE'S ROLE - EVIDENTARY ISSUES - WHAT TO DO ABOUT ABUSE CLAIMS? - PART V

spopovic@hullandhull.com (Suzana Popovic-Montag) — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:07:32 -0500

In almost every case, the majority of the evidence will come from the allegedly abused child and, as such, the strength of that evidence can be problematic. In these types of situations, one must not forget the requirement of corroborative evidence pursuant to section 13 of the Estates Act R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, which provides that:

13. In an action by or against the heirs, next-of-kin, executors, administrators or assigns of a deceased person, an opposite or interested party shall not obtain a verdict, judgment or decision on his or her own evidence in respect of any matter occurring before the death of the deceased person, unless such evidence is corroborated by some other material evidence.

See also Schnurr B.A., "Estate Litigation - Requirement of Corroboration", 5 E.T.Q. 42.

Due to the evidentiary difficulties of these types of claims, one of the first steps that a claimant should consider taking is to obtain an expert's opinion.

The expert's opinion should contain evidence for the Court to consider with respect to such things as the recollections of the claimant, the details of abuse over the years and the results of both the mental and physical ramifications of that abuse.

]]>In support of that opinion, corroborative evidence should be obtained from as many medical institutions as possible. Evidence from the medical records of the child would presumably refer to long-term psychiatric care and, in particular, some reference to the abuse over the years.

To further assist, every effort should be made to obtain supporting corroborative evidence from family, friends and neighbours. In my view, anyone who has even a brief recollection of instances, such as the police showing up at the house for no apparent reason, episodes of yelling and screaming, or witnessing the actual physical attacks, can make or break a case.

It seems to me that, given the frailties of the evidence that must be led, one really must obtain a comprehensive and supportive expert's opinion, at a minimum.

Another precautionary consideration that should be reviewed with any child who is considering pursuing a claim for breach of fiduciary duty of parental obligations, is the nature of the evidence that must be led. In order to succeed, the child must be prepared to give full and frank disclosure of his/her physical and mental condition - and in many cases, this won't be easy.

All the best, Ian and Suzana.

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BY THE WILL MAKER - EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE'S ROLE - LIMITATION ISSUES? - Part IV

spopovic@hullandhull.com (Suzana Popovic-Montag) — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:07:48 -0500

As to the question of fiduciary duty between parent and child, the Supreme Court of Canada in M.(K.) v. M.(H.) held that the relationship of parent and child is fiduciary in nature and that incest was a breach of the parent's fiduciary duty to protect the child's well being and health.

Limitation Periods

It is perhaps the most compelling defence available to counsel defending a parent in such cases that the claim has been brought outside of the conventionally recognized limitation periods.

A significant portion of the decision in M.(K.) v. M.(H.) was devoted to the question of the limitation defences raised by the parent.

In contrast, counsel for the child argued that incest was a separate and distinct tort which was not subject to any limitation period; that incest constituted a breach of fiduciary duty by a parent and is not subject to any limitation period; and if a limitation period applies, the cause of action does not accrue until it is reasonably discoverable. Furthermore, it was argued that the child was of unsound mind pursuant to section 47 of the Limitations Act; that the tort is continuous in nature and the limitation period does not begin to run until the child is no longer subjected to parental authority and conditioning; and that the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment operates to postpone the limitation period.

The limitation defence failed and the Supreme Court of Canada held that the tort claim, although subject to limitations legislation, does not accrue until the child is reasonably capable of discovering the wrongful nature of the parent's acts and the nexus between those acts and her injuries. Furthermore, that the discovery took place only when the child entered therapy and the lawsuit was commenced promptly thereafter.

All the best, Suzana and Ian. --------

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BY THE WILL MAKER - EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE'S ROLE - WHAT TO DO ABOUT ABUSE CLAIMS? - PART III

spopovic@hullandhull.com (Suzana Popovic-Montag) — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:07:13 -0500

As is sometimes the case, an unequal distribution of an estate as between children can arise from a testator who has had a long history of mental illness, chronic alcoholism or other such personal reasons, which may affect the testator's state of mind over a period of many years.

For example, if a child who has been treated unequally grew up in a home where he or she suffered through instances of physical violence, as between the parents and him or herself, this may be the type of fact situation to consider when looking to pursue a claim for breach of fiduciary duty of parental obligations. Similarly, if the unequally treated child lived in a home that was constantly in turmoil, as a result of a chronically alcoholic parent, this situation should also be considered in the context of the fiduciary obligations of a parent.

In our view, one must find several compelling supporting facts to bolster any claim of breach of fiduciary duty or breach of parental obligation. Such facts should also be combined with a clear and identifiable estrangement as between parent and child.

Parental Obligations

In the decision of M. (K.) v. M. (H), the Supreme Court of Canada considered the whole concept of what is meant by the term "parental obligation".

The Court considered this issue in the context of a particularly gruesome and egregious set of facts.

In M.(K.) v. M.(H.), the Supreme Court of Canada examined the parent-child relationship in the circumstances of long-standing allegations of incest and abuse by a parent to a child.

]]>In this case, the child was a victim of incest and abuse which began when she was eight years of age and continued until she was seventeen, when she finally left home. Over the years, after she had left home, she told some individuals, including her husband, of the abuse. The child also sought counselling for depression and marital problems, and saw various medical practitioners who assisted her from time to time.

At the trial, the child retained a psychiatrist who testified that while the child had briefly dealt with the issues of incest in her early adulthood, she did not have an emotional awareness of the situation and was not able to assess her situation rationally.

The child sued her father for damages arising from the incest or, in the alternative, for the infliction of mental distress. Further damages were claimed for breach of parent's fiduciary duty to care for and minister to his child.

Counsel for the child argued that the incest constituted not only the tort of assault and battery but also a breach of fiduciary relationship between parent and child.

In a future blog, we will address the question of the fiduciary duty between a parent and a child, and discuss what the Court held in this important case.

All the best, Suzana and Ian. --------