Toronto Estate Lawyer : Hull & Hull Law Firm : Trust Mediation and Succession Planning : Serving Ontario, Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The intense media coverage of the raid on the polygamist ranch in Texas has also generated scrutiny of Canada’s polygamous communities.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dame Anita Roddick, the founder of the Body Shop, gave away her entire wealth, approximately 102 million dollars, to various charities while alive. She only left enough money in her estate to pay the inheritance tax on those charitable gifts. Once the inheritance tax is paid, the value of her estate will be nil.

Roddick had been very vocal about her intentions to give her wealth to charities and called the idea of bequeathing her estate to her two daughters obscene. Prior to their mother's death, her two daughters were interviewed and reportedly relieved to not be inheriting their mother's wealth and supportive of their mother's charitable giving.

Needless to say, Roddick's decision to leave nothing to her two daughters sparked some discussion. David Smith's previous blog on wealthy parents and transfer of wealth discusses some of the concerns such individuals have about estate planning.

Thanks for reading,

Diane Vieira

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An Alberta case, Re Boychuk, looks at the legal and moral obligations to provide support to a dependant of the estate.

The testator executed his Will in 2003 when he was 89 years old leaving his entire estate, just over $62,000.00, to two of his five children and leaving nothing to his wife of 71 years who resided in a nursing home. The testator’s wife suffered from dementia and a stroke and had been living in a long term care facility since 1997.

Alberta’s Office of the Public Trustee, as the trustee of the wife’s property, brought an application pursuant to Alberta’s Dependant’s Relief Act for an order that the residue of the estate be paid to the Public Trustee for the proper maintenance and support of the wife. The Respondents were the executors of the testator’s estate.

The Court found that the wife was a dependant of the estate and adequate provisions were not made for her maintenance. The Court rejected the Respondents’ argument that the support claimant currently had a surplus of income over expenses for each month, including a trust for unanticipated expenses, and no need for any additional support. The Court found that while the support claimant may presently be able to meet her expenses it does not mean that she will always be able to nor does it mean that she should be deprived of her entitlement and stated that the testator had both a legal and moral obligation to provide support to his wife. The Court also noted the length of the marriage and the extensive contributions the wife had made to her husband’s estate.

Thanks for reading,

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Vanity Fair article published late last year writes on the relationship between playwright, Arthur Miller and his son, Daniel Miller who was born with Down Syndrome. Daniel was born in 1966 and institutionalized one week after being born and apparently while other family members kept in touch with Daniel, Miller rarely visited him or spoke of him.

When Miller died in February 2005, very few people knew of Daniel’s existence. Only one obituary notice mentioned Daniel and Miller’s own memoirs include no mention of Daniel.

Six weeks before his death, Miller made Daniel a full and direct heir equal to his other three children. While Daniel is not mentioned in the Will directly; separate trust documents, created the same day and sealed from public view, make Daniel an equal heir to Miller’s estate.

The article speculates that this was likely done contrary to legal advice as Miller’s bequest makes Daniel too wealthy to receive government assistance and a special trust was not created that would allow Daniel to inherit from the estate and continue to receive government assistance. In fact, Connecticut’s Department of Administrative Services issued a reimbursement claim to the estate for Daniel’s care since infancy and the estate is settling the claim.

Miller’s relationship with Daniel was complex and only Miller would be able to answer as to why he decided to make Daniel, who he did not publically acknowledge during his lifetime,an equal heir to his estate.

Until tomorrow,

Diane Vieira

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I read an article in this week's Maclean’s magazine that more and more of Canada's "Super Rich" are drafting family value statements. According to the article, approximately $3 trillion (though the figure varies depending on the source) will be transferred in the coming decades to the next generation. The Super-Rich are particularly concerned that their children, as beneficiaries of this wealth transfer, will take the easy way out and decide not to work or give back to the community. Warren Buffet received a great deal of press when he stated publicly that he would not leave his fortune to his children. Instead, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the recipient of Mr. Buffet’s considerable largesse. 

According to the article, a value statement spells out those values that are important to the family and can include values that speak to community, work ethic, and religion. Apparently, the Super Rich are willing to pay various consultants significant amounts of money to get the statement just right. Every family member is asked to participate so that everyone buys into the process and the statement withstands the test of time.

Whether the average Canadian family actually sits down and crafts a family value statement is debatable. However, most families will discuss informally, whether over dinner or around the campfire, the values that motivate them and help them navigate life’s many choices. 

However it is done, it makes good sense for parents to sit down with their children to not only talk about the pending transfer of wealth, but their expectations (and aspirations) as to how their children will spend their inherited wealth. It is a truism that money has always been hard to handle.

Have a good weekend.

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The census-takers tell us that our population is rapidly ageing (the need for sound estate planning seems obvious). The challenges that Canadian society faces are likely profound and there is much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands about the future. There is a certain irony to the fact that as the information age accelerates, driven by our pervasive youth culture, our population ages.

In the above context, it is worth considering what I believe to be the motivating factor or thinking behind the Supreme Court of Canada’s (“S.C.C.”) decisions in Pecore v. Pecore and Madsen Estate v. Saylor. The two recently released companion cases were eagerly anticipated by the estate bar and addressed the transfer of property by an ageing parent into joint ownership with one of their children.

The S.C.C. made it clear that the “presumption of resulting trust” is the general rule that applies to gratuitous transfers of property into joint ownership. The onus is therefore placed on the person who received the gift to demonstrate that a gift was, in fact, intended. The court also held that the “presumption of advancement” applied to transfers of property by parents into joint ownership with their minor children. The burden of rebutting such a presumption falls to the party challenging the transfer rather than the gift-receiver.

The transfer of property by an ageing parent, particularly funds into joint bank accounts, is becoming widespread. In the context of an ageing population, Rothstein J., writing for the majority of the court, specifically addressed why the presumption of resulting trust arose rather than a presumption of a gift.

As Rothstein J. noted in his decision: “… it is common nowadays for ageing parents to transfer their assets into joint accounts with their adult children in order to have that child assist them in managing their financial affairs. There should therefore be a rebuttable presumption that the adult child is holding the property in trust for the ageing parent to facilitate the free and efficient management of their parent’s affairs”. In taking note of this stepped-up practice, the S.C.C. recognized the changing dynamics of Canada’s population and framed its decision accordingly.

Thanks for reading!

Justin

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, Paul Trudelle commented in two of his blogs on the well-deserved awards presented at the Ontario Bar Association, Trusts and Estates Section Year End Dinner that was held on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at the Royal York Hotel. Specifically, Brian Schnurr was awarded the Award of Excellence, Jordan Atin the Hoffstein Book Prize and Peter Lawson the Widdifield Award.

In addition, Corina Weigl, the Chair of the 2006-2007 Section Executive presented a report on the past year's activities undertaken, and dealt with, by the Section Executive.

Following Ms. Weigl's report, the slate for the 2007-2008 Section Executive was dealt with and confirmed.

The 2007-2008 Section Executive is: Jordan Atin (Chair), Kimberly Whaley (Vice-Chair), Corina Weigl (Past-Chair) and Suzana Popovic-Montag (Secretary), together with the following Members-at-Large: Ann Elise Alexander, Robert Coates, Ed Esposto, Jan Goddard, Susan Heakes, Danielle Joel, Sean Lawler, Mitchell Leitman, Joanna Ringrose, Susan Stamm, Sender Tator, Craig Vander Zee, Mary Wahbi and Melanie Yach.

I thoroughly enjoyed working with this past year's Section Executive and look forward to working with the 2007-2008 Section Executive and Jordan, its new Chair.

Thanks for reading,

Craig