Listen to: Hull on Estates #325 – Top Cases of 2012
Today on Hull on Estates, Stuart Clark and Natalia Angelini discuss two of the most interesting cases of 2012 - Rasouli v. Sunnybrook Health Services Centre and another case dealing with proprietary estoppel.
If you have any questions, please email us at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or leave a comment on our blog page.
With the growing population of older Canadians we also face increasing numbers of people with dementia, and with that families who are likely anxious of the risks of their loved ones going missing. I can appreciate how scary this must be, and given the statistics – three out of five people suffering from dementia go missing – it is no wonder that the Alzheimer Society of Ontario is taking action.
The Alzheimer Society of Ontario reportedly unveiled a new government-funded education program this week aimed at preventing wandering. The new project called “Finding Your Way” features a website - www.FindingYourWayOntario.ca – with downloadable “safety kits” that include instructions on how to prevent wandering and how to respond when someone goes missing.
Importantly, the Alzheimer Society of Ontario is also extending help to ethnic minorities who may otherwise not access relevant information due to language barriers, by launching public service announcements and online information in several languages.
Thanks for reading and have a great weekend,
Natalia Angelini
As a recent article in The Lawyers Weekly (March 15, 2013 issue) reminds us, the 21-year rule operates by deeming a trust to have sold its property on the day that is 21 years after the trust’s creation, and every 21 years thereafter, at a price equal to fair market value. The trust is then deemed to have acquired that property at the price equal to the deemed selling price, which then becomes the cost of that property for subsequent deemed or actual dispositions.
There are certain exceptions to the 21-year rule. Planning techniques have also developed to offset the potentially significant tax burden resulting from application of the rule.
However, the article addresses the difficulty when certain terms governing a trust, as set out in the trust document itself, create obstacles in the way of such planning techniques. In that regard, the Kanji v. Canada (Attorney General) decision is cited, where the settlor of the trust was also a co-trustee and beneficiary, thereby giving rise to an “attribution rule”. The application of this rule resulted in the inability of the trust to distribute its property to certain of the beneficiaries on a tax-deferred basis.
Unpleasant 21st anniversary tax surprises may be deferred or avoided if dealt with in a timely manner, and a tickler system to remind ourselves of pending deadlines a couple of years in advance may be useful.
Thanks for reading and have a good day,
Natalia Angelini
Where a person wishes to make a gift by will but keep the recipient and the nature of the gift away from public scrutiny, the testator could leave such a gift to a third party to hold on a secret trust for a beneficiary.
The essentials of a secret trust created by equitable principles are:
· the intention of a testator to benefit secret beneficiaries;
· communication of the trust to the beneficiaries/trustee; and
· express or tacit acceptance of the trust by the beneficiaries/trustee.
Whether or not a trust exists depends on the three certainties, being:
· the words must be so used that on the whole they ought to be construed as imperative;
· the subject matter of the trust must be certain; and
· the objects or intended beneficiaries must be certain.
A trust of this nature, not reduced to writing to constitute a Will, brings with it many difficulties. Some of these are:
· proving that a trust exists, the onus of which is on the person alleging the existence of a secret trust;
· determining whether the trust forms part of the testator’s will; and
· the danger of a named trustee using the trust property for him/herself.
Secret trusts are rare, and not an instrument I would recommend clients contemplate unless properly papered.
Thanks for reading and have a good day,
Natalia Angelini
Sometimes, timing is everything.
In Re Barbeau, the deceased died on September 17, 2011 at 5:40 am. He died leaving a Will that left the residue of his estate to his spouse if she survived him for a period of thirty days. If she did not survive him for thirty days, his estate would pass to one of his spouse’s daughters. Under the spouse’s Will, her estate passed to her five children.
As fate would have it, the deceased’s spouse died on October 17, 2011 at 4:45 pm.
The question the court had to grapple with was whether the deceased’s estate passed to his spouse, and therefore her five children under her Will, or to the one daugther, under his Will.
In the decision, the court set out the two possible interpretations: either the thirty days are calculated as thirty 24-hour periods commencing on September 17, 2011 at 5:40 am, or applying the analogy of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the thirty day period commenced on the day after the date of death. If the second interpretation prevailed, what was the effect of the spouse not being alive for the entire thirtieth day?
The court noted the purpose of such survivorship clauses: to prevent the application of s. 55 of the Succession Law Reform Act (survivorship), and to avoid the imposition of two sets of administration taxes and costs in the event that both spouses died at the same time or within a short period of one another.
The court also noted that the selection of a thirty day period was likely arbitrary. Further, the court noted that interpreting the Will, the court was to strive to determine the intention of the testator.
The court found that there was an inconsistency in the Will, in that it provided different outcomes if the first interpretation was applied. That is, the spouse would have survived for thirty days, but also have died within the thirtieth day. This, the court found, was not intended.
Thus, the court concluded that if the first day was excluded, applying the Rules of Civil Procedure, then the inconsistency was avoided. The spouse would have to survive for thiry full days: that is, survive until some time on the thirty-first day. As the spouse did not survive for thirty full days, and died within the thirty day period, the residue of the estate passed to the one daughter.
Until tomorrow,
Paul Trudelle
I am obsessed with mastering Parchesi (great board game that I highly recommend to those of you who still play!). I play weekly, and I can't even fathom risking something more than my next move on a roll of the dice, which is why the real-life story of a man who thought up having his nieces and nephews play Monopoly, with the winner getting his fine antique furniture, threw me for a loop. Another gentleman reportedly directed in his will that the winner between his nephews in a dice throw would get his palatial home in the tropics. One lucky nephew won, and the will was upheld in court.
These testators' wishes represent comical (at least for the winners) and extreme scenarios. Below I highlight some of the more common methods of gifting (usually of personal property) the author in the article mentions:
1 - Say nothing, and your executor will distribute in accordance with his/her discretion;
2 - Write your list of items and who they go to in your will or in an appendix thereto;
3 - Implement a rotating pick system (eg. Each beneficiary gets a number and picks when it is his/her turn until all items have been selected); and
4 - Direct the beneficiaries to get together and agree on who gets what, with the executor having the final say.
Thanks for reading and have a great weekend!
Natalia Angelini
As part of Canada Revenue Agency’s increased focus on tax compliance for trusts and estates, in the last couple of years it has made the following additions to its compliance program:
· Ontario Region Trust and Estates Coordinator – the person in this position is tasked with, among other things, coordinating and prioritizing the estates and trusts related tax issues that concern the province;
· Regional Trust Team – this team is engaging in substantial audit activity in the Golden Horseshoe region, concentrating on Mississauga, Hamilton, Kitchener, London and Windsor; and
· Related Party Initiative – this initiative focuses on high net-worth persons with net assets of $50 million or more, and who have 30 or more related economic entities (including trusts, corporations, partnerships, joint ventures and private foundations).
We can expect an increased number of CRA trust audits. It would seem given the decision in Antle v. Canada (where a trust was deemed invalid) that auditors will be concerned with the particulars of how a trust was set up. They will also look to whether it is being properly maintained (e.g. that tax filings are being done in compliance with the legislation).
This is something to keep in mind for estates and trusts lawyers, especially since CRA may perform reassessments that could result in additional tax, interest and penalties.
Thanks for reading and have a good day,
Natalia Angelini
There has been much written on the accounting duties of attorneys, and several cases address the issue. One such case may be helpful to those attorneys who find themselves being called to account by third parties notwithstanding that the grantor of the power of attorney is mentally capable and has not requested any accounting.
In Koperniak v. Wojtowicz the applicant was the grantor’s daughter, who made accusations regarding the attorneys’ management of her mother’s financial affairs. The attorneys were the grantor’s sons, and there was evidence that the grantor was content to have them handling her financial affairs.
The Court considered the evidence and the applicable legislation (s. 42(4) of the Substitute Decisions Act) that lists the persons who may apply to have attorneys pass their accounts. Despite the basket clause that states “any other person, with leave of the court” can apply to have attorneys’ accounts passed, the Judge did not agree that leave ought to be granted in this case, particularly as the grantor was capable and able to confirm her wishes, and as no evidence was found to have been advanced displaying the necessity to pass accounts. While the brothers had used their powers to sign a small number of cheques, the Judge held that this fact did not automatically give rise to an entitlement to a passing. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
You will be able to find more on this case and other topics covered at our firm’s recent breakfast series.
Thanks for reading and have a good day,
Natalia Angelini
“You never call”: a common lament of elderly parents aimed at their adult children. Now, it appears that failing to call, or more specifically, to visit your parents in China may result in legal action.
According to a recent Toronto Star article, China has recently amended its law on the elderly to require that adult children visit their parents “often”, or risk being sued by them.
China, perhaps more than any other country, is facing a significant issue with its aging population. In just fifty years, the average life expectancy soared from 41 to 73. Coupled with family planning policies that limit most families to a single child, and a lack of affordable options for the care of the elderly, such as retirement or nursing homes, this has led to an elder care crisis. The legislation is aimed at assisting the elderly in seeking care.
While the legislation may seem extreme, there is already legislation on the books in Ontario to a similar effect. While it does not require visits, section 32 of the Family Law Act provides that an adult child has “an obligation to provide support, in accordance with need, for his or her parent who has cared for or provided support for the child, to the extent that the child is capable of doing so.”
The Ontario provision was applied in a few reported decisions. It was discussed in an adoption decision, Re Proposed Adoption of Q.(A.L.K.). There, the court noted that “dependencies shift” from parent to child, and an adult child has a “clear responsibility … to shore up the parent’s own financial resources, if the parent has need of that.”
Note to my children: Govern yourselves accordingly, Christopher and Marc.
Have a great weekend.
Paul Trudelle
Yesterday, I read in the Toronto Star about a couple that resolved last year to make the year a year of “firsts”. They resolved to learn, make or experience 365 new things in 365 days. They blogged about their progress in knocking items off of their bucket list at http://www.365thingsin365days.com/.
Inspired by their story, yesterday I went indoor rock climbing with my two teenaged sons at True North Climbing at Downsview Park. We had a blast, and were very proud of our achievements. We tried a new adventure that took us out of our comfort zone. We had a great time, got a little exercise, and bonded over what is a combination of a personal challenge, and a trust exercise. (Sort of like that exercise where you fall backwards, hoping to be caught by the group. Only in this case, the fall is from 10 metres, with your young son at the bottom, controlling (or not) your fall.)
In our Hull and Hull blogs this year, we hope to do something like the couple reported on in the Star did. We want to expose our readers (and ourselves) to new things every day: new lessons to learn, new ways of looking at old issues, new cases, new approaches to difficult estates and trusts issues.
We value you feedback. Please comment on what you read, or what you would like to read.
Please stay tuned. It is going to be a great year.
Until tomorrow,
Paul Trudelle
A representative of William Faulkner’s estate is suing representatives of Woody Allen’s movie project, “Midnight in Paris” over its use of a quote from Mr. Faulkner.
The line, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past”, is taken from Faulkner’s 1950 novel “Requiem for a Nun”. In the movie “Midnight in Paris”, time-travelling Owen Wilson says “The past is not dead. Actually, it’s not even past.”
Faulkner’s estate is suing for copyright infringement, and is seeking damages, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney fees. The defendants are defending the claim, relying on the “fair use” defence. Consistent with the “fair use” claim, it is noted in the article that President Obama paraphrased the quote in a speech during his 2008 campaign.
Faulkner’s executor, Lee Caplin, is quoted as saying that the suit is being brought in order to look out for the fiduciary responsibilities of the Faulkner estate.
We have blogged before on various estates involving literary works. In most cases, the estate trustee(s) will go to great lengths in order to ensure that there is an appropriate financial return on the literary works, while also ensuring that the works are not devalued or cheapened.
(Paranthetically, I note that Woody Allen did not chose to quote Faulkner’s Guiness Book of World Records record-setting 1,288 word “Longest Sentence in Literature” found in “Absalom, Absalom”, published in 1936.)
“Thank you for reading.”*
Paul Trudelle - Click here for more information on Paul Trudelle.
*may be subject to copyright
In Thiemer Estate, a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, 2012 BCSC 629 (CanLII), the deceased left an estate having a value of $20m. He left a will that provided for various specific legacies. The will also included a clause that directed the payment of “the balance of any money which I may have at the time of my death” to a common-law spouse. The will went on to define “money” as including “the balance of any money which I may have in any savings and current accounts in my name, any savings certificates, shares and bonds but excluding” insurance proceeds and RRSPs.
At the time of his death, the deceased had bank accounts, GICs, a mortgage receivable, and most relevant to the proceeding, shares in private companies having a value of $14m.
At issue in the interpretation application was whether the definition of “money” in the will, which referred to “shares”, meant that the value of the private companies was to be paid to the common-law spouse.
The decision sets out the relevant guiding principles, and case law on the definition of “money”.
The court decided that the reference to “shares” in the definition of “money” was not intended to include the shares in the private corporations. Essentially, the items included in the meaning of “money” were items that were in the form of cash, or which could be readily converted into cash. This might, then, include shares in publicly traded corporations. It was held, however, that the definition did not extend to shares in a private corporation, which by their very nature could not be readily liquidated.
This conclusion was fortified by other terms of the will. For example, the will established a spousal trust. If the spouse’s position on the definition of “money” was accepted, there would be very little left in the spousal trust. Further, the will provided extensive administrative powers to the trustees with respect to the ongoing operation of the companies. The spouse’s interpretation of “money” would render these powers “superfluous”.
The case is very instructive in the interpretation of wills, generally, and the application of those principles of interpretation in a specific context.
Thank you for reading,
Paul Trudelle - Click here for more information on Paul Trudelle.
This past Sunday was Remembrance Day: a day when we pause to remember those who made tremendous sacrifices for our freedom.
Of particular note are the sacrifices made by Corporal Leo Clarke, Sergeant-Major Frederick William Hall and Lieutenant Robert Shankland. All three men fought and gave their lives during World War I. All three men received the Victoria Cross for acts of bravery. All three men lived on one block of Pine Street in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
On September 9, 1916, Corporal Clarke was involved in a battle that wiped out his entire section. 20 enemy soldiers counter-attacked, and Clarke defended the position. He single-handedly killed 19 enemy soldiers, and captured one. Corporal Clarke was later seriously injured in battle on October 11, 1916, and died on October 19,1916 at the age of 23.
Sergeant-Major Frederick William Hall died in battle on April 24, 1915 at the age of 30. During a battle in Belgium, Hall left his position of shelter and ventured onto the battle field to recover wounded soldiers. He brought two wounded soldiers back to safety, but lost his life will trying to save a third.
Lieutenant Robert Shankland fought in both World War I and II. He was awarded the Victoria Cross for his acts of bravery while a Sergeant in World War I. On October 26, 1917, Shankland led a platoon and captured a position at Passchendaele, Belgium. The position was exposed and under heavy attack, and was at risk of being lost. Shankland turned over command to another officer, and fended his way through mud and enemy shelling to return to battalion headquarters, where he was able to report on the situation, obtain reinforcements, and plan a counterattack. He returned to the front to lead the counterattack. Shankland rejoined the military for World War II. Lieutenant Shankland died in 1968,
What united the three men, apart from their extraordinary valour, was the fact that they all lived, and one point, on Pine Street, Winnipeg. In 1925, Pine Street was renamed Valour Road. in honour of these wonderful gentlemen.
Shankland’s medal was purchased by the Canadian War Museum in 2009 for $240,000 from, it is believed, Shankland’s family. Shankland’s Victoria Cross, along with those of Hall and Clarke are now displayed at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.
Thank you for reading,
Paul Trudelle - Click here for more information on Paul Trudelle.
Suzana Popovic-Montag presented an excellent paper on accounts at the October 18, 2012 Hull & Hull LLP Breakfast Series, and I made special note of her comments on adjusting compensation awarded. Some occasions that adjustments are appropriate are:
· increase - when a care and management fee is charged on an annual basis (usually 2/5 of 1% on the gross value of the estate), which is properly sought where the estate or part of it, is to be held in trust and not distributed to the beneficiaries within the executor’s year;
· increase - when a special fee is claimed by the executors, where the administration is extraordinarily complex or time-consuming; for instance, when the estate has been involved in litigation, where the executors were required to operate the deceased’s business, or where the executors were required to deal with new legislation;
· decrease – when transfer are made in specie or are simple transactions;
· decrease - where an executor retains another to act as an agent to perform duties, the agent’s fees should be deducted;
· decrease - where a trust company is retained on an agency basis to administer an estate or trust, fees paid to the trust company ought to be deducted;
· decrease - where a solicitor performs executor’s work, the fees relating thereto ought to be deducted; for example, when the solicitor compiles an inventory of estate assets, keeps accounts, pays bills, makes investments, or opens estate accounts;
· decrease – where the estate’s accountant prepares income tax returns, the fees relating thereto should be deducted (although some case law says this should be decided on a case by case basis);
· decrease - the costs for preparation of accounts in court format for a passing of accounts ought to be deducted; and
· decrease - compensation charged on disbursements to an executor/solicitor for legal services provided by him or her ought to be deducted.
You can find a much more fulsome commentary on this and other account issues in the paper itself, which will be posted on our website.
Thanks for reading and have a great weekend!
Natalia Angelini - Click here for more information on Natalia Angelini.
The legislation in Ontario requires that (aside from a Holograph Will or a Will of a member of the Canadian Forces on active service) a Will must be signed at its end by the testator or by some other person in his/her presence and by his/her direction, the signature must be made in the presence of two attesting witnesses present at the same time, and two or more of the attesting witnesses must also subscribe the Will in the presence of the testator.
As in most cases these requirements are adhered to, this is not the most common ground upon which to support one’s challenge to the validity of a Will. However, two English cases contain interesting commentary of the subject.
In Esterhuizen v. Allied Dunbar Assurance PLC [1998] 2 FLR 668, the lawyer attended at the testator’s house three times to attempt to get the Will signed, but was unsuccessful. The testator was extremely reclusive, and could not organize to have any witnesses to the Will on hand. The Court found that a solicitor owes a duty to take proper care in advising the testator as to the formalities of execution, and a lawyer needs to do more than leave written instructions for the client. Rather, the Court stated that a lawyer ought to invite the client to his office to sign the Will there or visit the client with a staff member at home to have it executed.
In Gray v. Richards Butler [2000] WTLR 143, the client was departing the next day for a holiday and the lawyer met her at a restaurant that night to attend to the execution of the Will. However, as the client was enjoying the evening out and did not wish to sign at that moment, he left the Will with a set of standard instructions for her to execute and return to him. The Will was returned with deficiencies, including signatures in the wrong place, and the witnesses were not both present at the same time for the signing. The testator was treated as having assumed responsibility for the errors given that the solicitor made what the court viewed to be reasonable efforts to ensure due execution was observed.
While these cases have very different outcomes, in my view they serve as reminders that the best practice for drafting lawyers in order to make due execution a non-issue is to have the Will signing process entirely supervised and presided over by them.
For more on this topic, David Smith's paper and presentation given at our recent Hull & Hull LLP breakfast series will be posted on our webiste.
Thanks for reading,
Natalia Angelini - Click here for more information on Natalia Angelini.
The traditional manner of distribution looks like this - a couple owns their home together as joint tenants, such that when one parent dies it goes to the other spouse by right of survivorship. When the remaining parent dies, all that wealth goes to the kids.
Entering into a second marriage can put this natural progression of ownership into question. With second marriages becoming more main-stream, one of the most contentious types of cases I see involves children from the first marriage battling with step parents over this asset. The Financial Post’s recent article on estate planning speaks to how your home gets treated on death, and the author notes the following about joint ownership and second marriages:
· Owning property as joint tenants to avoid probate fees (such fees are not significant in the grand scheme of things) is not always worth the consequences. Learn about the risks before you do it.
· A better option may be tenancy-in-common ownership, where the couple chooses the ownership split on a property. Each parent can then have their share of the property go to whoever they want, including children from a previous marriage. This can also protect the children in situations where the surviving stepparent changes his/her will so as to disinherit them from their natural father or mother’s assets.
· If you take care of your spouse, you can avoid other problems - in Ontario, there is legislation that allows your spouse to elect to make an equalization claim instead of accept what was given to him/her under the will.
· Allowing the surviving partner a right for a finite period of time (e.g. two years) to find replacement living arrangements is usually best for everyone.
· Consider such things as maintenance, taxes and other costs associated with a home to avoid problems that may otherwise be unavoidable if the deceased partner did not plan well and left enough liquid assets to allow the surviving partner to pay the regular upkeep and real estate taxes.
Thanks for reading and have a great day,
Natalia Angelini - Click here for more information on Natalia Angelini.
A client (or friend, or my mother: I can’t quite remember who) once referred to her children as “waiters”, as in “They’re waiting for me to die”.
To this point, a recent article on the Globe and Mail online by Rob Carrick warns against children relying on an inheritance to bail them out.
The article refers to an oft-quoted report from 2006 that suggested that $1-trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) will be inherited in the next twenty years. The article suggests that this number might be less today, due to increased debt-load, falling property values, weak investment returns and longer lifespans. However, whatever the number may be today, it is still a significant one.
The article cautions children from relying on these numbers and a potential inheritance to bail them out of trouble. Carrick says “As for people counting on an inheritance, that’s only one step away, in financial planning terms, from waiting for a lottery win.”
As ill-advised as it may be, 53 per cent of Canadians are expecting an inheritance, and 57% of those who think they know what they are getting expect it to be in the six-figure range.
However, those expecting a big inheritance may be disappointed. Second (or third, or fourth…) relationships may eat into their inheritance. Further, seniors are living longer, and the costs of senior care can take up a large portion of a senior’s savings. Coupled with this is the fact that government pensions may not be able to provide significant assistance.
The message seems to be to live within your means, and plan for your own future needs and well-being. Don’t spend your inheritance before it comes in.
Have a great long weekend.
On Tuesday, I blogged on the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Aragona v. Aragona, 2012 ONCA 639.
There, the application judge denied the guardian compensation. In so doing, the application judge noted the guardian’s failure to keep proper accounts. The Court of Appeal stated that a guardian has, by statute, a fiduciary obligation to carry out his or her obligations with honesty and due care and attention. “The core of these obligations includes the duty to be in a position at all times to prove the legitimacy of disbursements made on behalf of the estate.”
Further, the application judge went on to find that “the conduct [of the guardian] has been shocking. He has literally helped himself to many thousands of dollars from his mother’s estate, at a time when his mother had Alzheimer’s and was unable to look after her own affairs.”
Together, these two factors led to a denial of compensation: a conclusion that was said to be clearly in the discretion of the application judge.
In denying compensation, both the Court of Appeal and the court below relied on the decision of Zimmerman v. McMichael Estate, 2010 ONSC 2947. This decision clearly sets out the obligations of a trustee, including the obligation to account. The application judge found that because significant funds disappeared from the estate without adequate explanation, it was appropriate to award no compensation. The application judge contrasted this with the situation in Re Assaf Estate, 2009 CanLII 11210. There, there was wrongdoing found, but no harm was said to have resulted to the estate. In that situation, compensation was reduced by 50%, but not disallowed completely.
Thanks for reading,
Paul Trudelle - Click here for more information on Paul Trudelle.
Yesterday, Ian Hull tweeted on the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Aragona v. Aragona, 2012 ONCA 639.
There, the Court of Appeal dismissed, for the most part, an appeal by a guardian from a decision dismissing his application to pass accounts. The motions judge ordered that the guardian repay a significant amount to the estate; dismissed his claim for reimbursement for certain legal fees, and deprived the guardian of compensation.
The guardian appealed the finding that he had to repay funds to the estate on the basis that the application judge did not provide adequate reasons. The Court of Appeal noted that the appellate court’s focus is on whether the reasons explain what was decided and why the decision was made. “Ultimately, the test is whether the reasons permit reasonable appellate review.” The Court of Appeal found that, “Shortcomings notwithstanding”, the application judge’s reasons were adequate. The findings of the applications judge were supported by the record; the applications judge’s assessment of credibility was entitled to deference; and the application of the facts to the controlling legal principles leading to the conclusions reached was explained.
Tomorrow, I will look at the discussion of the application judge’s denial of compensation.
Thanks for reading,
An unusual and admittedly morbid article peaked my interest this week, which reviewed a US study about death row inmates’ choices for their last meal. The results indicate unsurprisingly that comfort foods and fried foods are most popular, with meals tending to be high in calories and heavy on meat. French fries, soda, ice cream, hamburgers, chicken, steak and pie seem to be the most commonly requested items.
The average meal request apparently came in at an estimated 2,756 calories, more than a typical grown man needs in a whole day. Fruits and vegetables were requested much less often, though more than a quarter asked for salad.
It is reported that lead researcher Brian Wansink, who directs the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., said the popularity of comfort foods and name-brand products like Coca-Cola could reflect people trying to deal with extremely high stress by surrounding themselves with familiar food. "In some ways, this might be a way to bring the level of stress and negative excitement down to something that's something a little bit more manageable," Wansink said. "You don't find people going for Neapolitan ice cream or for Chunky Monkey or Chubby Hubby. They go for chocolate; they go for vanilla."
Researchers note that some of patterns, like the limited number of vegetarian meals, could reflect the socio-economic backgrounds of people on death row. In addition, the fact that most death row inmates are men is a factor to take into account.
I have never really thought about what I would want to eat for my last meal. Considering it now, I would imagine that facing imminent execution would make me lose my appetite, so I am not surprised to see that several inmates (more than 50 of the almost 250 people studied) chose to forego a last meal altogether.
Thanks for reading and have a great weekend,
Natalia Angelini
Enter keywords:
