This week on Hull on Estates, Rick and Sean discuss evidence issues in estate matters when a main party is deceased. They reference "Burns Estate and Mellon"; a 2000 Court of Appeal Case cited in 34 Estates and Trusts Reports, 2nd Edition, p.175.

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.

Posted on May 20^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Sean Graham: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode #111 on Tuesday, May 20^th, 2008.

Welcome to Hull on Estates, a series of podcasts for the Canadian legal community dealing with issues and insights surrounding estate planning in Canada.  Hosted by the lawyers of Hull & Hull, the podcast will touch on some key considerations when planning estates and Wills. Now, here are today’s hosts.

Rick Bickhram:  Hi and welcome to another episode of Hull on Estates. I’m Rick Bickhram.

Sean Graham: And I’m Sean Graham.

Rick Bickhram: And today, we’re going to be touching on one of the statutes, specifically the Evidence Act and we’re going to be looking at Section 13 of the Evidence Act.

Sean Graham: Yeah, and in a more general sense, we’re going to be discussing how evidence issues or at least some of the concepts dealing with evidence issues and estates, given that one of the main parties that would normally be a party is deceased.  And so some of the direct evidence that might normally be available is not available to the Court and how the Court struggles with that problem. So, Rick, maybe you can frame the problem with respect to claims by or against an estate.

Rick Bickhram: Well, Sean, I’m looking at Section 13 of the Evidence Act and under Section 13 it states, “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”.

Sean Graham: And the way I read that Section is basically that it’s not enough for someone claiming against an estate to show up after the death of the deceased and say, “I had a contract with the deceased. I was going to provide services and the deceased was going to pay me $100,000, and I provided those services.  I mowed the lawn of the deceased and I kept the house clean and so forth, and I fulfilled my side of the bargain, and now I want my $100,000”. If you want to bring a claim like that, you need to have some sort of corroborative evidence because otherwise it’s your word against the deceased’s, and of course, the deceased is not able to speak for him or herself.

Rick Bickhram: Before we touch on what type of evidence, I guess, we can use to corroborate such a claim, Sean, I’d just like to get what you think about the public policy reasons behind the Evidence Act. I’m guessing that the reason why this statute exists pretty much is because any evidence that is not corroborated by some type of external evidence other than testimony or viva voce evidence, is probably because it would constitute hearsay evidence.

Sean Graham: Well I’m not sure about, I mean a lot of the evidence that would be relied on would be purportedly direct evidence because the claimant would say, “No, the deceased told me this, I heard the deceased say this”, so that’s direct evidence. The issue I would have is that you can’t test that evidence, you can’t weigh the credibility of that evidence against what the deceased might say because, of course, you don’t know what the deceased might say. And so it’s an added hurdle to someone who shows up after the death and says, “Well I have all these entitlements because of this arrangement with the deceased or that arrangement with the deceased, and you can trust me because I’m telling the truth”. Well the Court, you know, holds people to a higher standard than that. 

And another comment I would make is that in many cases where somebody brings a suit against the estate, the facts that might give rise to that suit might have been present while the deceased was still alive and so there might be…another public policy aspect to this is, “Hey, if you didn’t start the lawsuit while they were alive and could defend themselves, you’d better have some pretty good evidence after that”, or not pretty good evidence but you’d better have some evidence to corroborate what you’re saying because otherwise, we’re going to assume that you might not be telling the truth and we’re not going to give your evidence any weight and you can’t bring your claim. So you need some corroboration to be able to bring it.

Rick Bickhram: Now, touching on the evidence, the corroborating evidence that would necessarily be used to prove such a claim, there’s a vast amount of case law out there which touches on this, such as, corroborating evidence can be the course of conduct of the parties, it can be an existing contract in place, it possibly could be witnesses who’ve heard the deceased mentioned or some form of verbal contract. And I’ll let Sean, I guess, discuss more specifically any case laws that may come to mind.

Sean Graham: Oh sure, and I think that when you talk about sort of broad categories of evidence that might be applicable and helpful to corroborate and meet the standard under Section 13, when you have broad categories like that then almost inevitably it seems to me the Court is bound to treat these matters on a case-by-case basis. So I don’t think there is likely to be any hard and fast rules where, you know, if you can check off box 1, 2 and 3 on a checklist well then you meet the standard under Section 13 and you’re good to go ahead with the litigation. I think that in each case, you know, you’re never going to be really sure because the Court is going to look at whatever evidence is purported to be pursuant to Section 13, and look at it in the circumstances of that particular case before deciding whether you meet the standard. But maybe, I think it’s worth mentioning at least one case, and if we’re going to mention one case, I guess it should be the Burns Estate and Mellon case.  That’s Burns is B-U-R-N-S and Mellon is M-E-L-L-O-N. This is a Court of Appeal case from the year 2000 and you can find it at 34 Estates and Trusts Reports, 2^nd. ed., page 175. 

In this case the personal representative of an estate was the one bringing the claim.  So you can either sue the estate or the estate can sue you, but in either case, you need Section 13 evidence. In this case it was the estate doing the suing and the estate brought an action against a person who received a large transfer from the deceased about two years before death.  And so the issues dealt with by the Court of Appeal were how exactly do you corroborate the claim and what standard did the estate have to meet and was the standard met in this case? Now the Court of Appeal held that if you are assessing Section 13 evidence, of course, it’s the civil standard, meaning the balance of probabilities. So if the Court feels that on a 51% basis you’ve proven that you have corroborative evidence, that’s good enough and on you go with the lawsuit. But if you’re at the 48%, in theory anyway, then its full-stop and you don’t meet the standard.

In this case, there were several pieces of evidence and each piece of evidence on its own was not necessarily strong evidence.  But again, in all the facts of the case, and I think this is the exercise we have to do, in all the facts of that particular case it was good enough, when you add it altogether to provide the necessary corroboration.  And I think it’s important to note that the Court of Appeal did, in fact, state that if each separate piece of purported corroborative evidence wasn’t particularly strong and it was only when you cumulatively looked at them in a cumulative sense that they were enough to get the estate over the standard threshold.

Rick Bickhram: And looking at the facts and the reasonings of the Court, it makes complete sense.  What the Court came out here pretty much, I’m guessing it did, and said here was that based on each individual piece of evidence, it wouldn’t probably be enough to sway a Court to say on the balance of probabilities, there’s enough corroborating evidence to verify the claim.  However, the Courts addressed that issue by saying they’ve looked at the totality of the circumstances here and in light of that, it was enough to validate the claim.

Sean Graham: Yeah, and I think that’s a pretty good example of just to what extent these matters are going to be treated with on a case-by-case basis by the Court.  And just a comment on clients and advising on this point. I find very often clients are very surprised when they come in and want to discuss a claim against an estate and you ask them, “well, okay, but what evidence do you have supporting that claim?” and they say, ”well, what do you mean? The deceased told me X, Y and Z, and that’s all the evidence I need, that’s the claim”. Well, no.  And that can be an uncomfortable discussion because, you know, parties, when someone is often elderly and often in ill health, the last thing most of them want to do is start collecting evidence to be able to sue their estate down the road and often the deceased is in the exact same position. The last thing they want to worry about if they’re maybe in ill health and declining is setting up a bunch of lawsuits for their personal representatives to bring on their estate’s behalf after their death. So, very often there may have well been a very good claim, except that nobody, the priority during life was not to create a bunch of evidence or to collect a bunch of evidence to be able to sue someone after the fact. And clients often, you know, they’re sort of kicking themselves in the foot because they weren’t thinking about this.  But, of course, to me it seems perfectly natural not to be thinking about that.

Rick Bickhram: I agree, Sean, and that definitely can lead to some uncomfortable discussions.

Sean Graham: I think that brings us to the end of this week’s discussion. Thanks to everyone for listening and thanks for joining us today.  And Rick, thanks so much.

Rick Bickhram: It was a pleasure to podcast with you today, Sean, and I look forward to podcasting with you again soon.

Sean Graham: And we always look forward to hearing from our listeners.  If you care to comment, you can send us an e-mail at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or you can just pick up the phone and leave us a message on our comment line, that’s 206-350-6636. We love to get constructive criticism and comments whenever anyone is kind enough to provide it. Be sure to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com. You’ll find lots of information, lots of discussion on estate litigation and capacity litigation. We hope you enjoyed today’s show.  Again, I’m Sean Graham.

Rick Bickhram: And I’m Rick Bickhram. Until next week, so long.

This has been Hull on Estates with the lawyers of Hull & Hull. 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 podcasts, or to leave a question or comment, please visit our website at www.hullandhull.com.

Our theme music is Upper Structure by DJ AKid  and is courtesy of the Podsafe Music Network.

/mem

The riddle of proving a negative is quite relevant to estates litigation because the star witness for the estate is usually, by definition, dead.  Fortunately, since estate trustees can't prove negatives, they don't have to.  Section 13 of the Evidence Act specifically addresses this scenario, requiring independent corroboration of evidence in claims against estates.   The provision is designed to prevent claims that consist of mere allegations, which are easy to make, difficult to refute and expensive to litigate.  There is a great deal of case law on what constitutes corroboration, the standard of proof and so forth but the provision is a great deterrent to frivolous claims.

It seems trite to say but the Act is worth a review, even for non-litigators.  It's full of counter-intuitive gems that are easily forgotten: for instance, section 9 the Evidence Act states that witnesses are not excused from answering questions tending to criminate them under any Act of the Legislature.   

Have a great day,

Chris Graham

This week on Hull on Estates, Diane and Craig discuss what to consider when dealing with experts and expert reports in cross examination.

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.

This week on Hull on Estates, Paul and Allan discuss the deemed undertaking rule and its application to estate matters.

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 at http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com.

The Deemed Undertaking Rule - Hull on Estates Podcast #102

Posted on March 18^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Paul Trudelle: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode #102 on Tuesday, March 18^th, 2008.

Welcome to Hull on Estates, a series of podcasts for the Canadian legal community dealing with issues and insights surrounding estate planning in Canada.   Hosted by the lawyers of Hull & Hull, the podcast will touch on some key considerations when planning estates and Wills.  Now, here are today’s hosts.

Paul Trudelle:  Hi, I’m Paul Trudelle.

Allan Socken: Hi, and I’m Allan Socken.

Paul Trudelle:  Hi Allen, how are you today?

Allan Socken:  I’m good, thank you. How are you Paul?

Paul Trudelle: Good, withstanding the winter?

Allan Socken: Yeah, hopefully it’s close to an end.

Paul Trudelle:  The end is in sight, we’re almost there. With respect to our podcast today and we’re now up into the triple digits, we thought we’d talk a bit about the deemed undertaking rule. The deemed undertaking rule is a rule that applies in litigation, it’s a common law rule, that talks about the use of evidence, and it’s now codified in the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Allan Socken:  I think it’s also just important to make mention that while this appears to be standard practice in all jurisdictions in Canada, it’s interesting to note that only P.E.I. and Ontario have this codified within our Rules of Practice.

Paul Trudelle:  Yeah, that is a bit strange, but we have it codified in Ontario and that’s the system that we’re working under, so we’re going to talk a bit about the rule as it applies in Ontario.  However, it should be noted that it probably applies to the same effect in other jurisdictions as well, being a common law rule that is now codified.

With respect to the purpose of the rule, it basically… the rule is set to limit the use that one can make use of when obtaining evidence in the litigation process.  And there’s a very good quote from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Goodman v. Rosi that talks about the basis upon which the rule exists or why it exists.

Allan Socken:  It basically says the principle is based on recognition of the general right of privacy which a person has with respect to his or her documents. The discovery process represents an intrusion on this right under the compulsory processes of the Court. The necessary corollary is that this intrusion should not be allowed for any purpose, other than that of securing justice in the proceeding in which the discovery takes place.

Paul Trudelle:  Right, and I think that’s a great quote and I think it summarizes the purpose of the rule quite well and quite succinctly … I guess, put another way or restated, if you’re going to be forced to the litigation table by someone and you’re forced to disclose your documents, the documents only need to be disclosed for that limited purpose and they shouldn’t be disclosed for the whole world to see or they shouldn’t be used in some other proceeding and come back to bite you that way.

Allan Socken:  I think also to point out, I think the purpose of the deemed undertaking rule as is set out in Rule 30.1.01 sub 1, is that you can only use evidentiary documents that relate to the discovery and inspection of property, medical examination and the like. That’s what the rule tries to capture. So, for example, if you are in Court and there’s evidence given, then that probably isn’t captured under the deemed undertaking rule.

Paul Trudelle:  That’s right. The principle of the rule is if you’re forced to disclose information in the litigation process before it gets to open Court, it’s that information that’s going to be protected by the deemed undertaking rule. And the rule sets out that the rule applies to evidence obtained under the rules relating to documentary discovery, Examination for Discovery, that’s of the parties and of witnesses as well, inspection of property, medical examination, written interrogatories if they are used, and even as far as examinations in aid of execution after judgment is obtained. So it is of limited application, however, in the context of litigation, it seems to protect most evidence that you are able to obtain from the other party or from the witnesses.

Allan Socken:  For example, for Will challenges, a lot of the time, it’s very standard to ask for complete disclosure of medical, financial and legal information.  And especially in the case of legal materials, when you do a Will challenge, it may be necessary or it may be an option for the client subsequent to the Will challenge or during the Will challenge, to want to pursue a negligence claim against the solicitor in certain circumstances.

Paul Trudelle:  That’s right, Allen. And I think that that’s very important from an estate point of view. The only way we are able to obtain evidence, usually from medical practitioners, and perhaps more importantly from solicitors, is through the litigation process. If that evidence is protected by the deemed undertaking rule, that’s going to have a significant impact on the rights of the parties to pursue those types of claims, and we’ll talk about that in a minute.

The substance of the rule, I think we should mention briefly, we talked about what evidence it applies to. With respect to the substance, that’s set out in the rule itself.  And the rule states that all parties and their counsel are deemed to undertake not to use evidence or information to which the rule applies, and we talked about that, for any purposes other than those of the proceeding in which the evidence was obtained. So that’s very limiting.  You can’t use it for any other purpose other than the purpose of the very litigation that’s before the Court. And that’s quite restrictive. Having said that, there are exceptions to that rule and perhaps we can talk about some of the exceptions that are set out in the rule itself.

Allan Socken:  Sure. Some of the exceptions are that the deemed undertaking rule does not apply to evidence that is filed with the Court. Similarly, it doesn’t apply to evidence that is given or referred to during the hearing, as well as information obtained from evidence regarding the evidence filed within the Court, or evidence that is given or referred to in the hearing.

Paul Trudelle:  That’s right. So once the material is aired in an open Court, then its open game and the parties are able to … the protection no longer applies. Similarly, if you obtain some information and it’s disclosed in open Court that leads to other information, that information isn’t protected either. There’s another exception that deals with using evidence to which the parties consent. So if you get the consent of the person with respect to the evidence that’s disclosed, then it can be used for another purpose.  Although if you’re going to be suing that person, it’s probably not likely you’re going to be getting their consent.

Allan Socken:  And I think another exception is the deemed undertaking rule doesn’t apply when the interests of justice outweigh the prejudices of the parties. I think that’s kind of an interesting exception, simply because it’s such a broad exception and it could probably capture a number of situations.

Paul Trudelle:  That’s right.  And to deal with that exception, you’d need to get an order of the Court allowing you to use that evidence for the ulterior purpose or for the purpose of the other proceeding. What you would need to do is show the Court that, just as the rule states, that the interests of justice outweigh any prejudice that would result to a party. That is often a sort of a way of saving yourself or allowing you to proceed with the action after the fact. If you obtain evidence through the examination process or the discovery process and there is no other way to get that, you may be able to argue that you have a legitimate interest in using that evidence for the purpose of the subsequent proceeding.

Allan Socken:  From your experience, Paul, is it easy to get that kind of order?

Paul Trudelle:  I think that that’s a very tough thing to do because I think that we have to look at the overriding purpose and the intrusive nature of the disclosure process. People are dragged to the table and forced to disclose their evidence, their documents.  And to allow that sort of fishing expedition to be used to commence another proceeding against another party, I think, is something that the Courts are not going to do lightly. Having said that, if there was no other way to get that evidence, or it’s clear that the evidence ought not to be protected, then the Court, I think, will make that type of an order and allow it to proceed. I think that’s still a very tough order to get, though.

Allan Socken:  Absolutely. I mean, because, I think, in most matters, certainly a Court would be very careful before it goes ahead and grants a rule or grants an order which basically prejudices a party in a certain way.

Paul Trudelle:  That’s right. With respect to the exceptions, there’s another exception.  You can use that evidence to impeach someone’s testimony in another proceeding. So the evidence, if it’s... documents are given in one proceeding, they can be used in another proceeding to impeach testimony. And that’s another exception as set out in the rules.

We were talking, or you mentioned before, the estates context and I think that’s what we should maybe touch on before we wrap up. In the estates context, we usually get an order in a Will challenge, that would allow the parties to obtain evidence on examination or through witnesses. That may be, for example, the evidence of a solicitor who prepared the Will and the instructions that were given to that solicitor. That information may be protected by the rule and it may preclude a party from bringing an action as against a solicitor. There was a case back in 1998 that’s an unreported decision of Giamanco and Zahora that dealt with that very issue. And there, the Court was faced with a motion to consolidate proceedings. There was a Will challenge, there was an action against a solicitor and there was a motion to consolidate.  The solicitor resisted that, as did the parties to the other lawsuit, on the basis that the deemed undertaking rule was breached.  And the Court there dealt with the issue of the deemed undertaking rule.

Allan Socken:  And what’s also interesting about that case was, it cited a decision known as Orfis Realty and D.J. Jewellery of Canada Ltd., which basically says that if you try to use evidence from one proceeding to another, notwithstanding the deemed undertaking rule, that a contempt order can be issued against the party who tries to do that. And notwithstanding that ruling, Justice Mossep in the Giamanco decision did not proceed to make a contempt order in the Giamanco decision.  But the Justice did make mention of the fact that the solicitor, the defendant, could go ahead and try to stay the proceedings. But what’s interesting about it is Justice Mossep didn’t, on its on volition, try to stay the proceeding.

Paul Trudelle:  That’s right.  I think she left it open to the party to bring the appropriate motion in the second proceeding to have it stayed. And I think that’s maybe something we can touch on before we wrap up, which is the remedies where there is a breach of the deemed undertaking rule. You mentioned that contempt was one of them.  And the other was a motion or a staying of the second proceeding or perhaps even a dismissal of that. You think that might be a fair conclusion?

Allan Socken:  Absolutely.

Paul Trudelle:  Okay.  Now how do we, as parties to a litigation, when we’re going to be getting evidence from solicitors, how do we protect the right to pursue an action, if one is advisable, as against the third parties or those people who are giving evidence?

Allan Socken:  Well generally, when we do a Will challenge, in that kind of situation, when we proceed with the order giving direction, which basically sets out the procedure for the litigation, we’ll specifically ask the Court within that order to ensure that this rule, the deemed undertaking rule, doesn’t apply for that litigation.

Paul Trudelle:  And the Court can make an order that the deemed undertaking rule doesn’t apply. Often, in estate matters, we seek that in the order giving directions, usually on the basis that there’s no other way to get that information. The solicitor is…the information that he has can only be produced on a Court order in this proceeding because the person who gave the instructions is deceased. In effect, the parties are stepping into the shoes of that deceased person to get the information.  And on that reasoning, we would argue that the deemed undertaking rule shouldn’t apply and that evidence shouldn’t be protected from an action, if it turns out that such an action is warranted.

Okay, well I think that’s a good, initial discussion with respect to the deemed undertaking rule, and when it can be invoked and the considerations to be taken into account. Thank you very much, Allan.

Allan Socken:  Thanks Paul.

Paul Trudelle:  And just before we go, we welcome your comments and we ask for your comments. You can send us an e-mail at hull.lawyers@gmail.com and send in any comments, your questions or suggestions that you might have.

Allan Socken:  And be sure to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com where you’ll find even more information and discussion on today’s practice of estate law.

Paul Trudelle:  And we also have a comment line.  You can call us at 206-350-6636, and give us your comments and you might even end up on the air, on our podcast, if you leave a comment.

Well, thanks a lot Allan, that was very good.  It was a pleasure blogging with you this week.

Allan Socken:  Likewise, Paul.

Paul Trudelle:  Podcasting with you, and I look forward to doing this again, thank you.

Allan Socken:  Thanks.

This has been Hull on Estates with the lawyers of Hull & Hull.  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 podcasts, or to leave a question or comment, please visit our website at www.hullandhull.com.

Our theme music is Upper Structure by DJ AKid  and is courtesy of the Podsafe Music Network.

/mem

This week on Hull on Estates, Craig Vander Zee and Sarah Fitzpatrick discuss expert evidence in estate matters. In this episode they outline circumstances when one should use expert evidence, different types of experts, timing of reports, limitations of experts and the court appointed expert.

Experts in Estate Matters - Hull on Estates Podcast #94

Posted on January 22^nd, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  Hi and welcome to Hull on Estates.  You are listening to Episode #94 of our podcast on Tuesday, January 22^nd, 2008.

Welcome to Hull on Estates, a series of podcasts for the Canadian legal community dealing with issues and insights surrounding estate planning in Canada.   Hosted by the lawyers of Hull & Hull, the podcast will touch on some key considerations when planning estates and Wills.  Now, here are today’s hosts.

Craig Vander Zee:  How are you today Sarah?

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  I’m fine, thanks Craig. How are you?

Craig Vander Zee:  Good. It’s Craig Vander Zee and Sarah Fitzpatrick is with me today. As you well know, I’ve been podcasting with Paul Trudelle the last couple of times, but it is my pleasure, today, to be podcasting with Sarah.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  It’s nice to be here, Craig.

Craig Vander Zee:  Have you had a happy new year so far?

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  I’ve had a great new year, it’s been busy.

Craig Vander Zee:  Yeah?

 Sarah Fitzpatrick:  But very nice, how about you?

Craig Vander Zee:  Yeah it’s been good. Of course, with hockey and my little guys’ playoffs coming up, it gets a bit busy but it’s fantastic to watch them play.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  Excellent.

Craig Vander Zee:  Sarah, today I thought that we would touch upon the topic of expert evidence in the context of an estate proceeding. And there is certainly a bunch of topics that you can deal with. I think for today we won’t touch upon selecting an expert or the expert report itself or perhaps an examination-in-chief or the cross examination of the expert. Maybe today we can focus on issues dealing with perhaps the different kind of experts and the discovery and the timing for the provision of the expert report.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  That’s right, and I think perhaps we could start by talking about the circumstances when you would consider using expert evidence.

Craig Vander Zee:  Certainly there are a number of different kinds of experts that could be used in an estate context, and again, you know, we’re dealing with different types of claims. They could be passing of accounts in the context of a trust, it could be in the context of an estate, it could be a dependant support claim, it could be a will challenge or other types of estate and trust related proceedings. It could be a guardianship application and there’s medical experts that are required. So there are a number and wide range of experts that you could have. But perhaps we could comment on a couple of them in the context of focusing on assets. And certainly you might have someone assess whether investments in an estate or trust were handled prudently, assess the performance of an investment portfolio, the management of assets in general, evaluation of a current asset. Or perhaps you’re unravelling a family company that was used as a family bank, again in the context of an estate passing of accounts. And there are certainly others.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  Right.  That’s right Craig. Some others as well might be the income potential of an asset, the invested rate of return of specific assets. There can be tax issues as well as forensic accounting issues to consider.

Craig Vander Zee:  And again, we’re not leaving out the need in certain types of proceedings such as a will challenge, where capacity is in dispute, of medical experts, or psychiatric experts, to deal with the issues in those cases.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  That’s right.

Craig Vander Zee:  Now when you do have an expert, it’s critical that you consider the timing for retaining the expert. And part of the reason for that being a factor in your proceeding is that you have to be mindful as to the disclosure requirements at an Examination for Discovery, if there’s going to be Examinations for Discovery in your particular proceeding. And Rule 31.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure deals with that very aspect.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  They have been defined, Craig, as the findings, opinions and conclusions. It includes such things as notes, data, research, calculations and documents that can be used by the experts to prepare the report.

Craig Vander Zee:  Right and when you’re considering that, sort of going back to what the disclosure could be, it’s the findings,  opinions and conclusions of that expert engaged by or on behalf of your client that relate to the issue, okay.  And knowing what findings, opinions and conclusions might mean, you would want to know whether it’s going to be an obligation that you provide those to the other side. Because if you have an expert report that you don’t intend to rely on, you don’t want to disclose that to the other side. So the Rules…if you can help it at all, and certainly within the confines of the rules. So the Rules also allow you not to disclose the information, that is, not to disclose findings, opinions and conclusions, where the findings, opinions and conclusions of the expert were formed in preparation of contemplated litigation or pending litigation and…and that’s the key part…and you undertake not to call the witness at trial. So, practically speaking, your client is getting examined, and as counsel, you would be there with them at the examination and you’re being asked these questions regarding the expert. And typically, and certainly it’s my practice, that the client would not be answering questions on the expert evidence, that I would be dealing with those questions. And if there was an expert report that we were relying on and we were bound by the Rules to give the findings, opinions and conclusions, then we would deal with that appropriately. But if we weren’t, that’s when we would also have to undertake not to call that witness at trial.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  That’s right Craig.

Craig Vander Zee:  Having considered how the expert’s findings, opinions and conclusions might be dealt with at a discovery, and how you might be able to avoid, within the confines of the Rules, of having to reveal or disclose those findings, opinions and conclusions if you don’t have any intention of calling them as a witness, it’s important to consider the service requirements for an expert report because it’s critical that they be delivered in the time provided by the Rules.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  That’s right. So when thinking about service requirements, it is Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure that deals with this. And specifically, that Rule provides that you have 90 days before the commencement of trial for the person serving the report to serve that on the other side. And there are other time restrictions as well. The person responding to that expert report then has 60 days before the commencement of trial to serve on the other party their expert report.

Craig Vander Zee:  Essentially it breaks down into really three critical time periods, as you’ve mentioned, Sarah. And really the first one is 90 days before the commencement of a trial, if you’re serving your report. And then there’s the responding report, as you mentioned, 60 days, at least, before.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  That’s right.

Craig Vander Zee:  And then 30 days if you’re doing a reply report. And where it’s critical is that if you miss these time periods as a matter of right, you may find yourself not being in a position of controlling whether the expert report gets in. And by that, I mean if you miss these time periods, the Rules indicate that, subject to another Rule, that is, that grants leave to allow the report to be filed, you may not file that report. So you move from a situation where you have a right and can file the report, assuming that it’s a proper report. You go from a situation where you had a right to enter it, to a situation where you’re not allowed to enter it, unless the Court gives you leave or the other side consents. And if the other side were to consent then that would…then certainly the report would be able to go in. But if you find yourself in a situation where you’ve not complied with the Rules with respect to the service of the report, there is still hope. Rule 53.08 allows for the service of the report in situations where the Court grants leave. And the leave shall be granted on such terms as are just with an adjournment unless, and here’s the key, unless to do so will cause prejudice to the opposite party or will cause undue delay in the conduct of the trial. So in most cases, those last two hurdles can be jumped. But in certain circumstances, perhaps if it was on the eve of trial or during trial that you wanted to have an expert report, you may find a situation where the judge is not prepared to do that. The one caveat with all of that is that the phrase “on terms that are just” usually means cost consequences. And so…but if you file an expert report outside of the time periods allowed, you may find that if the other party isn’t going to consent to it being admitted and filed with the Court…sorry, to allowing the expert report to be received and then having the expert called to trial, you may find yourself facing a cost award that would have to be explained to the client. And so that would obviously…is a situation you want to avoid in every circumstance, if possible.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  The practical matter you should also bear in mind when serving the expert report there are a few key considerations to include. You need to include the CV of the expert. The report should be signed by the expert and needs to include the experts name and address and well as his or her base of qualifications.

Craig Vander Zee:  So now that we know when to serve the report and we know how it’s going to be dealt with in examination for discovery at least in terms of the scope, we should be mindful as to the number of experts at a trial.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  Right and they are actually limited to 3 on each side. If the party intends to call more than 3 it’s important to give notice of one’s intention to call more than those 3 that are allowed.

Craig Vander Zee:  Well that’s right and in section 12 of the Ontario Evidence Act covers that off, Sarah. And having said that though, there is some debate whether the limitation of 3 witnesses is in respect of 3 experts on the same issue, or 3 experts in total on each side. But as you said, to ensure that you, at least, can address the issue, you put the other side on notice.  And if you’re certainly within the time periods, that is, if you’re delivering 3 reports and they are 6 months in advance of the trial, there is a better chance of being able to deal with the issue and trying to work it out, or at least have the issue dealt with before trial, so that you know what your situation is going into the trial, rather than leaving it to a time period when it’s perhaps not as practical to deal with the issues or may have cost consequences.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  Good point, Craig. One last thing that we would like to touch on today is the issue of the Court appointed expert.

Craig Vander Zee:  Well, here’s a situation where the Court actually does the appointing of the expert, as the name to the Rule would indicate. It’s really 52.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. And what this Rule allows is on motion, or on the judge’s…motion by a party, or on the judge’s own initiative, the Court appoints an expert report in the situation. And it could be that each side has an expert on a matter, both seem to be equally qualified, perhaps even equal in terms of their experience and credibility, but have completely different findings.  And maybe the Court wants another expert to come in and deal with it. It could very well be that the expert reports in a particular case are unsatisfactory. Maybe they don’t address all the issues and the judge feels rather than having the parties go out and agree to get further expert reports, that it’s just easier for the Court to take charge of the issue. And what the Court would typically do is make an order that would deal with the content of that report in a sense of what the issue is going to be. But it would also include how the expert is going to get paid, you know, with respect to the preparation of the report, the daily attendance in Court for that expert, who should bear the cost of the report itself and would also touch upon typically directions regarding the delivery of the report to the parties, and the potential cross-examination of that expert by those parties. And so the order wouldn’t be in a vacuum, it would be in a situation that would have directions with it so that there is a clear understanding as to what that expert is supposed to do, what he or she is to be paid and the availability of that expert for cross- examination by the parties so they have ample opportunity before going into trial of testing the evidence of that expert.

And I think with that, we’ve ended our discussion today, Sarah. I think next time we’ll touch upon, as I mentioned at the beginning of the podcast today, what you might consider in selecting an expert, the report itself, and if we have time during that podcast, items that you might consider when cross-examining or doing an examination-in-chief of the expert. I can say that it has been a real pleasure podcasting with you today. I wouldn’t know it, that this was your very first podcast. And I look forward to our next.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:  Well thanks Craig, I look forward to our next one as well.

This has been Hull on Estates with the lawyers of Hull & Hull.  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 podcasts, or to leave a question or comment, please visit our website at www.hullandhull.com.

Our theme music is Upper Structure by DJ AKid  and is courtesy of the Podsafe Music Network.

/mem

This week on Hull on Estates, Paul Trudelle and Diane Vieira discuss the case of Karkus v. Cotroneo 2007. The case addresses many of the issues that estate lawyers face on a daily basis, such as: proving or disproving gifts, slander of title and the importance of corroborative evidence.

Karkus v. Cotroneo 2007 - Hull on Estates Podcast #93

Posted on January 15^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Paul Trudelle: Hi and welcome to Hull on Estates.  You’re listening to Episode 93 on Tuesday, January 15^th, 2008.

Welcome to Hull on Estates, a series of podcasts for the Canadian legal community dealing with issues and insights surrounding estate planning in Canada.   Hosted by the lawyers of Hull & Hull, the podcast will touch on some key considerations when planning estates and Wills.  Now, here are today’s hosts.

Paul Trudelle: I’m Paul Trudelle.

Diane Vieira:  I’m Diana Vieira.

Paul Trudelle:  Hi Diane.  How are you?

Diane Vieira:  I’m good.  How are you?

Paul Trudelle:  Very good.  This is our first podcast together and our first podcast of 2008, so I wish everyone a Happy New Year.  And why don’t we get into what we thought we would talk about today.

Diane Vieira:  Sure.  This is an interesting case that deals with a lot of things that we deal with in our practice.

Paul Trudelle:  Yeah, the case is Karkus and Cotroneo.  It’s a 2007 case, April 19, 2007, out of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  It’s a decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Sheppard.  And I thought that it would be great to talk about this case because it deals with a number of issues that we deal with day in and day out.  It deals with issues such as gifts, proving a gift or disproving a gift, corroborative evidence required, remedies where there is a finding that there was no gift.  It talks about resulting trusts, set-offs, slander of title, costs regarding Certificates of Pending Litigation when those are resorted to early in the litigation, and also costs of the litigation.  So there’s a lot in this relatively short case…11 pages…but I thought we would spend a little time going through some of those issues.   Perhaps we can talk a bit about the background or the facts of the case.

Diane Vieira:  Oh, sure.  This is a case where the deceased died without a Will and her daughter was appointed the estate trustee.  The deceased was a business woman and near the end of her life, her business had been failing so there was a number of creditors.  And her daughter, the estate trustee, who is the plaintiff in this action, was looking through her mother’s financial records and an entry in her bank book showed a $65,000 transfer from her mother to her mother’s boyfriend, who’s the defendant in this case.

Paul Trudelle:  Right.  And I think just before we go on, I think the fact that the deceased was in some financial difficulty in her business, is an important factor that the Court relies on later on, so that’s important to note.

Diane Vieira:  Later on, the defendant admits that he received the $65,000.  His position is that this was a gift.  The daughter’s position is that this represents money that the defendant was holding on behalf of his mother.  A little more explanation to that was that the $65,000 the defendant used to purchase a property.  And then on that property, the defendant’s name is listed alone, but the property is listed as registered as being in trust.

Paul Trudelle:  That’s right.  And I think that’s important as well.  The Court deals with the resulting trust claim and looks at that factor, and we’ll talk about that briefly in a second.  So in essence the claim was by the estate for the return of the $65,000 and for a claim that the defendant held a property on a resulting trust and the estate had an interest in that property.  The Court looked at the evidence with respect to the gift and before doing that, set out the test that is required and what the estate must argue or try to establish in order to show that there was a debt or resulting trust and what the defendant needs to show in order to prove that there was in fact a gift.

Diane Vieira:  I just wanted to…another point of fact is where the $65,000 came from and when it was transferred.  The deceased had sold her house and she was moving in…she moved in with her boyfriend, who is the defendant.  And the $65,000 represents the proceeds of the estate…the proceeds of the sale of the house, excuse me.  And the money wasn’t gifted or transferred to the defendant until six or seven months later on, which is something that the Court reflected on.

Paul Trudelle:  That’s right. They looked at the fact that the parties had moved in together, the $65,000 was used to, in part, to purchase this house and make renovations that the plaintiff wanted.  The Court considered the fact that the onus is on the defendant to prove, or the recipient to prove that this was a gift, there was no presumption that would work in his favour.  And in fact, the presumptions which aren’t really referred to, would be the opposite, that there was a resulting trust or the money was owed back to the estate.  And the Court found ultimately that the defendant wasn’t successful in proving that this was a gift.  His evidence was that the money was used…was given to him to help with the purchase of the house and to pay for expenses and that was contrary to a finding of a gift.  Just another point on that - the Court refers to the evidence required in order to establish a claim by or against an estate and dealt with the issue of corroborative evidence.  Perhaps we can talk a bit about what corroborative evidence is required and what the rule is there.

Diana Vieira:  With respect to corroborative evidence, Section 13 of the Evidence Act requires that there be some corroboration of the material evidence.  And the onus is the civil litigation onus, but with corroboration.  And in this case, the judge and the Court had problems with the defendant and the plaintiff’s evidence.  He called that evidence unreliable.

Paul Trudelle:  Right.  He felt that the evidence of the parties was of questionable credibility and in the absence of any corroborative evidence, he wasn’t able to find that there was in fact a gift.  And as you mentioned, the Court referred to the burden on the defendant to prove it but said that there was also what he said was a healthy scepticism in addition to that.  Now there’s other cases that talk about whether there’s a higher burden on a party.  The burden is still the civil burden but the Courts will look at these claims with some scepticism.

So the result of the defendant’s failure to prove that it was a gift meant that money was owing to the estate.  The Court went on to deal with the issue of whether the estate had a trust claim against the defendant.  And the Court dismissed the trust claim for a number of reasons.  The first reason, or one of the reasons was that in establishing a trust, there is case law to the effect that evidence of an illegal scheme will not be received to support a resulting trust.  And the illegal scheme that the Court referred to here was the fact that the monies were transferred by the deceased to the plaintiff probably for the purpose of avoiding creditors.  And as a result, they had…the Court had a difficult time in finding that the estate could rely on the doctrine of resulting trust in these circumstances.   So how did the Court deal with the money owing to the estate then?

Diane Vieira:  The Court goes on to find that the defendant does owe money to the estate.  It’s a debt to the estate.  And he then goes on to discuss the concept of unjust enrichment.

Paul Trudelle:  Yeah, and the Court found that the money was owing to the estate and I guess the defendant had assets here.  The Court felt that it wasn’t necessary, in fact, to rely on the concept of trust or impose a trust over the property owned by the defendant.  A judgment, a monetary judgment, was sufficient.  You mentioned the unjust enrichment part of it and the Court talked a bit there about when they will find unjust enrichment in order to bring in the equitable remedy.

Diane Vieira:  Yes, the Court refers to the Supreme Court of Canada case, Peter vs. Bellow and the three steps that are needed for a finding of unjust enrichment.  And all three were here in this case.  There was an enrichment on behalf of the defendant receiving the $65,000 and a corresponding deprivation to the deceased, now the estate of the deceased, and then an absence for the reason of this enrichment.

Paul Trudelle:  Yeah, but having found all of those circumstances present, the Court still goes on to say that they won’t impose the equitable remedy of a constructive trust.  The Court refers to that Supreme Court of Canada decision and extracts a point to the effect that a monetary award would be the appropriate remedy in many cases, and that was the case here.  And the Court concludes that a monetary award is appropriate and makes an Order that the defendant pay back the $65,000 to the estate.  However, he doesn’t end there.

Diane Vieira:  No, it’s…the Court goes on to find that the estate is not entitled to that full $65,000 because the defendant did provide something in the excess of $20,000 in renovations to the house.  And if the deceased’s $65,000 was in a gift to the defendant, then the money that he contributed to the relationship was also not a gift. 

Paul Trudelle:  That’s right.  So in effect, they awarded the defendant…they made an award in favour of the defendant with respect to his Counterclaim for money that he said he spent on behalf of the plaintiff, and that reduced the recovery by the estate.  There is also the issue of a claim by the defendant for slander of title.  The defendant alleged that a Certificate of Pending Litigation put on his property was slander of title, and the Court dealt with that in very short order.

Diane Vieira:  Yes, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not…didn’t have a credible position to have had that Certificate of Pending Litigation registered.  And consequently they awarded the money that the defendant had spent on removing that Certificate, credited back to the defendant.

Paul Trudelle:  That’s right.  And finally, on the issue of costs of the action itself, the Court considered the fact that the plaintiff had some success, made recovery for the estate.  However, it didn’t establish its claim for resulting trust.  The Court also felt that the evidence of the witnesses was unreliable to a certain extent and in fact in some parts the judge said that in some parts, the evidence was fabricated.  And as a consequence of that he ordered that there be no order as to costs, and each party had to bear its own costs.

Well, I think that’s an interesting case on a number of grounds.  We’ve touched on a few of the points that the case deals with.  I recommend the case highly to anyone dealing with those types of situations where there are gifts, where you’re considering a claim for a resulting trust, an interesting counterclaim where you’re faced with a claim for the return of a gift or money advanced on the basis of benefits provided to the deceased, and also considerations for dealing with Certificates of Pending Litigation and the costs that may be involved in that.

Well thank you very much, Diane.

Diane Vieira:  Thanks Paul.

This has been Hull on Estates with the lawyers of Hull & Hull.  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 podcasts, or to leave a question or comment, please visit our website at www.hullandhull.com.

Our theme music is Upper Structure by DJ AKid  and is courtesy of the Podsafe Music Network.

/mem

This week on Hull on Estates, David Smith and Rick Bickhram discuss proprietary estoppel.

Proprietary Estoppel - Hull on Estates Podcast #92

Posted on January 8^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

David Smith:  Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates.  You’re listening to Episode #92 of our continuing podcast series on Tuesday, January 8^th, 2008.

Welcome to Hull on Estates, a series of podcasts for the Canadian legal community dealing with issues and insights surrounding estate planning in Canada.   Hosted by the lawyers of Hull & Hull, the podcast will touch on some key considerations when planning estates and Wills.  Now, here are today’s hosts.

David Smith:  Good morning Rick.

Rick Bickhram:  Good morning Dave.

David Smith:  My name is David Smith.  I’m one of the partners at Hull & Hull.  And I’m here today with my associate, Rick Bickhram.  And today, Rick, we thought we’d talk about an interesting equitable concept which is gaining considerable traction in a lot of the cases that we look at, and certainly is an established concept in the British estates Bar.  And that, of course, is this whole issue of proprietary estoppel and when it can be used.  Rick, just generally speaking, what is proprietary estoppel?

Rick Bickhram:  Good question, Dave.  The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is primarily used by a claimant who has been promised all or part of an estate and has acted to his or her detriment in reliance on that promise.

David Smith:  So that’s really a classic equitable concept, isn’t it?  It’s where the Court is looking to fashion a remedy based on principles of fairness, when you boil it down, and principles of equity, to correct a situation which it would be unjust to leave as is.  And, of course, in the estate context, we’re always looking initially at the Will.  And I assume, Rick, that the situation where this arises is where someone’s been promised an inheritance in an estate by a testator and then subsequently discovers that they’re not receiving that inheritance?

Rick Bickhram:  That is correct, Dave.

David Smith:  Now Rick, this…I want to flesh this whole concept out a little bit more.  How does it differ from promissory estoppel, which is a term that we encounter in other areas of civil litigation?

Rick Bickhram:  Great question, Dave.  A promissory estoppel is pretty similar to the definition of proprietary estoppel.  If we look at the textbook definition of promissory estoppel, a claimant can rely on promissory estoppel where there is a clear promise by the deceased, and that promise affected their legal relationship and the promisee or representee acted to his or her detriment.  The difference between proprietary estoppel and promissory estoppel is that proprietary estoppel can be used as a sword and shield.  Proprietary estoppel can give rise to a cause of action.  Whereas promissory estoppel cannot give rise to a cause of action.

David Smith:  Okay.  And that’s really critical, isn’t it, for us, as litigation lawyers, isn’t it, Rick?  I mean, we’re always looking for opportunities to advance claims and defend or advance our clients’ interests.  And I think in a situation where…the classic example is someone’s cut out of a Will.  Well, were they relatives?  Were they…did they have an expectation of receiving a benefit?  The first thing we always tend to look at is, is there a Will challenge here, and is there a benefit to challenging a Will?  But in a lot of these cases where proprietary estoppel is useful, there’s a couple of points.  One is, the Will may not be one that can be challenged in any event because it may be a perfectly valid Will.  And the other problem may be that the person who rendered services to the deceased may not be a beneficiary under a prior Will, in which case, there’s no benefit to advancing a Will challenge in any event.  And so when we go through the flow chart of decisions or possible remedies available to any client, and we come to the conclusion that a Will challenge is not a viable option, in these circumstances we then look to other options.  And certainly, you know, proprietary estoppel is related to the concepts of quantum meruit, constructive trust, all of those other kinds of remedies that are a little better known in the Ontario Court system.  Proprietary estoppel is simply another means by which we can rely on the Court of equity to correct an injustice.  And that’s it at its highest.  But if we boil it down to its various components, Rick, what’s the first and most pivotal element of a proprietary estoppel claim?

Rick Bickhram:  Well, the first element of a proprietary estoppel claim is that the claimant must have incurred an expenditure or otherwise have prejudiced himself or herself or has acted to his or her detriment.

David Smith:  What’s an example of that, Rick?

Rick Bickhram:  Well, for instance, if the deceased represented to the claimant that if the claimant had built a road, she would leave them one third of her estate.  The claimant then built the road in reliance on that representation and the claimant is able to verify or back that up with corroborating evidence, then I think that satisfies the first element that he acted to his detriment by building that road and prejudiced himself as a result of the deceased’s representations.

David Smith:  And let’s pick up on this acting to your detriment or prejudicing yourself concept.  I mean, to my mind, any time you act to your detriment or prejudice yourself, you’re basically saying look, I spent time doing something for you, mister testator, that ate into time that I could otherwise spend doing something else.  So instead of investing in the stock market in my spare time as a day trader, I spent my time working for you because I understood that you were going to give me an entitlement.  I relied upon that to my detriment.  And my reliance was reasonable, right Rick?  Isn’t that a pretty key component of this?

Rick Bickhram:  Oh, that’s very important, and a good point, Dave.  And I guess as a general rule of thumb, your expectation should always have some type of benchmark where it can be considered reasonable from an objective point of view.

David Smith:  And so, of course, that brings us to the question of proof which we’ll talk about in a minute.  But if we think about, again, the equitable concept here.  On the one hand, you’ve got the innocent, naïve if you will, worker bee doing all of this work for the benefit of the testator.  And on the other hand, there’s a bit of a value judgment about the testator in the sense that if the person doing the services relies…reasonably relies…on representations made, and if the testator breaches the arrangement, then really it’s a bit of a damning indictment, isn’t it, of the testator who leads the promisee to expect an entitlement which he or she doesn’t receive.

Rick Bickhram:  And I guess that’s why it’s sort of an equitable remedy.  There is no formal contract.  It sounds like a contract, but there is no actual written document.  And that’s why we ask that the Court of equity step in here and correct the injustice that has been done by the testator’s breach.

David Smith:  As I understand it, too, Rick, the third component that we think about is that we have to obviously deal with proving this.  We have to prove that the testator encouraged the promisee to do the work which was done, and the testator must have known of the work incurred or the expenditure incurred, and consciously made a decision not to honour the equitable obligation to provide a benefit.

Rick Bickhram:  Absolutely, Dave.  And it’s interesting that you say that, because there is a case, a 2006 decision by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, wherein the claimant here had built a causeway across an island that was owned by the deceased.  The deceased had promised the claimant here, the son, that he would receive an interest in that island if he had built the causeway. Now, during the deceased’s lifetime, she attended her solicitor’s office.  While at her solicitor’s office, she put the deed, or put an interest of the island into her two other children’s.  So not the claimant.  She put it into her daughter’s name and to her other son’s name.  The Courts, in the situation…well the claimant brought an action on the grounds of proprietary estoppel.  And the Courts here dismissed Ronald’s claim.  And the reason for dismissing Ronald’s claim was because there was insufficient evidence.  Ronald, who was the deceased’s son, the claimant here, he was unable to demonstrate that the deceased had promised him the island and he had built the causeway because of that promise.  Primarily what he was…or the evidence that the Court was looking for…was some form of corroboration of the alleged promise.  And the only evidence that the claimant, Ronald, had in this situation, was his own evidence.

David Smith:  And let’s finish up the podcast, Rick, by talking about evidence.  You know, Section 13 of the Evidence Act, requires corroboration in claims made against estates, for the very good reason that unless there is corroboration, it’s open to unscrupulous plaintiffs to advance claims which may be completely without merit.  Of course, there’s lots of good claims where regrettably there is no corroborating evidence.  And it would seem, given the rigidity of Section 13 of the Evidence Act, that those are unfortunately situations where the Court quite likely will be compelled to reject the claim if there’s no corroborative evidence.

In terms of the kind of corroboration we look for, obviously paper is the best thing we can have.  If there’s any kind of paper which evidences the nature of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant, it’s really good to have something of that nature.  I might point out also that there’s other cases that you can have where you might be able to argue proprietary estoppel.  A case that comes to mind is one in which a deceased, during his lifetime, befriends a woman late in life.  She’s younger in age, she comes in and agrees to live with him as husband and wife.  He buys her an engagement ring, although he never actually marries her.  And when he dies, leaves her out of the Will.  Now, of course, other remedies would be available to someone in that case.  She’d be able to advance, presumably, a support claim under Part V of the