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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In her new book, They're Your Parents, Too!: How Siblings Can Survive Their Parents' Aging Without Driving Each Other Crazy, journalist Francine Russo writes about a difficult stage of life: the “twilight transition” when boomer-aged siblings reunite to care for aging parents. This period is laden with new challenges – dividing assets, dementia, caregiving issues - and has the potential to inflame old sibling rivalries as adult siblings deal with the end of their first family and take over their parents’ place as the decision-making generation. As noted by Ms. Russo in a recent interview with The Globe and Mail: “There’s a huge re-emergence of sibling rivalry over parents because when we see that our parents’ time is limited, all the unmet needs we’ve had resurface: to be loved, approved of, forgiven….”

In her book, Ms. Russo interviewed siblings, gerontologists, family therapists, elder-care attorneys, financial planners, and health workers to offer practical advice on such topics as:

-          the negotiation of caregiving issues and dealing with unequal contributions or power struggles;

-          the making of major medical and financial decisions, when parents cannot;

-          how to cope with unresolved childhood rivalries and hurts; and

-          tips for avoiding conflict.

Click here to read Ms. Russo’s interview in Monday’s edition of The Globe and Mail.

Bianca La Neve

Bianca V. La Neve - Click here for more information on Bianca La Neve.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Attorneys for property who receive gifts from grantors tomorrow will have to give them back, unless they have good evidence supporting the fact of the gift.  The rule that fiduciaries (including attorneys for property) must prove purported gifts is stated in Cooke v. Lamotte(1851), 15 Beav. 234 at page 239.

Justice Sheard applied this rule in Kee v. Yip [1995] O.J. No. 2879, disallowing a series of transfers by an attorney to himself, stating with respect to one such transfer, “The burden on Tom Kee to show that his mother gave him the $20,000 is a heavy one. His evidence, simply the assertion that this transaction, one of many that he did under power of attorney, was intended by her as a gift to him falls well short of discharging that burden of proof. Under the principle stated in Cooke v. Lamotte, supra, the $20,000 cannot be allowed as a gift and must be refunded." 

Even more recently, in Volchuk v. Kotsis, 2007 CanLII 28527 (ON S.C.) Justice Langdon disallowed a series of purported gifts (cheques and money transfers) effected by an attorney, noting in addition that attorneys were precluded from relying solely on their own evidence by section 13 of the Ontario Evidence Act, which provides that the claimant “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.” 

In estates litigation, this rule is very useful in passings of accounts initiated pursuant to section 42 of the Sustitute Decisions Act by disappointed beneficiaries of an estate against the deceased's former attorney for property.  Of course, this rule forms part of the Common Law and is not confined to passing of accounts proceedings.

Merry Christmas to fiduciaries including attorneys, and enjoy your presents.

Chris Graham

Christopher M.B. Graham - Click here for more information on Chris Graham.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A September 8, 2009 endorsement of Justice D.M. Brown helps to clarify the costs of capacity litigation.

 Fiacco v. Lombardi, 2009 CanLII 46170 (ON S.C.) involves four siblings who disputed the management of their mother’s property. She executed a continuing power of attorney for property appointing all four of her children as her attorneys to act jointly. That didn’t go so well.

The mother suffers from dementia. In 2008, the four children entered into contested guardianship litigation over their mother; two were appointed guardians by on January 23, 2009 by Order of Cameron J. That round of litigation cost the mother $30,022.22.

The two children who were not appointed were ordered to provide information about their mother’s assets and the original will of their mother to the guardians, and to transfer assets to the guardians. They did not act quickly.

Justice Brown states, at paragraph 14, that “The view…that the Order did not require compliance forthwith was dead wrong: when a court appoints guardians of the property of an incapable person, any other person with notice of the order is required to deliver up immediately to the guardians all property of the incapable person that he or she might possess.”

At paragraph 10, His Honour states that the “respondents acted contrary to their obligations under the SDA [Substitute Decisions Act] and they obstructed their mother’s guardians in discharging their statutory duties.”

The SDA at sections 33.1 requires guardians to make reasonable efforts to determine if an incapable person has a will; and sections 33.2(1) and (2) require a person who has the incapable person’s will to deliver it to the guardian “when required by the guardian.”

The Court did not approve of the children seeking further funds ($29,154.14) from their mother’s estate to “fund their continuing sibling rivalry.”

Justice Brown emphasized that “capacity litigation should reflect the basic purpose of the SDA – to protect the property of a person found to be incapable and to ensure that such property is managed wisely so that it provides a stream of income to support the needs of the incapable person: SDA, sections 32(1) and 37.”

His Honour states that members of the Bar should not presume that all parties to contested capacity litigation will have their costs paid by the estate of the incapable person.

This endorsement emphasizes that family fights cost everyone involved. 

Enjoy the weekend. 

Jonathan

Jonathan Morse - Click here for more information on Jonathan Morse.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Ontario Lawyers Gazette recently published a helpful article titled “Succession Planning Protects You and Your Clients”, which reminds licensees of the importance of planning for the future.

According to a 2006 survey, 80% of sole practitioners do not have a plan detailing who would service their clients in the event of their death or incapacity. This is an alarming number of sole practitioners who are putting themselves at unnecessary risk.

Under the provisions of the Law Society Act, the Trustee Services department of the Law Society may intervene in a practitioner’s practice and obtain a variety of orders which would have the effect of winding up the practitioner’s practice in the event that the practitioner became incapacitated or deceased. Margaret Cowtan, manager of Trustee Services states that “it can be a very intrusive and often expensive undertaking if Trustee Services is required to resort to an order to enable a practice to be wound up.” 

One alternative that we can consider in planning for our future is to “name a licensed lawyer as a limited trustee in their wills for the sole purpose of winding up the practice. By appointing another lawyer as a trustee for the purposes of the practice, on death, that lawyer can not only take professional responsibility for the trust account and make appropriate distributions to clients he or she can review client files, continue matters should clients elect to engage them, or return files to clients as appropriate.” We can also give signing authority on the trust account to another lawyer in the event of an emergency. Only licensed lawyers or paralegals are permitted to deal with trust accounts.

If you are interested in learning more about planning for your future, please click the following link which will take you to the Law Society’s Succession Planning Toolkit.

Thank you for reading,


Rick Bickhram

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Estates litigation is full of wonderful little procedural differences from general civil litigation.  The most basic differences are found in Rules 74 and 75 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.  Take for example motions.  One would think a motion is fairly straightforward, but...

The general provision governing motions is Rule 37, of course, which requires motions made on notice to be served at least 4 days before the hearing (R. 37.07(6)).  But in estates litigation, often a mere 4 days is not sufficient.  The handy all-purpose Rule 74.15 Order for Assistance requires service at least 10 days before the hearing, even though a mere motion.  So does a motion (or an application) for Directions under Rule 75.06. 

Not only that, "any person who appears to have a financial interest in the estate may move" under R. 74.15 for Assistance or under R. 75.06 for Directions, so the usual standing arguments may not apply.  In estates litigation (depending on the jurisdiction), even the family dog has standing (sometimes).  I'll leave the rest for another blog, but as a reminder, R. 75.06(2) requires service on "all persons appearing to have a financial interest in the estate."  But that's a topic for another blog.

Enjoy your day.

Chris Graham