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

Who says estates law isn’t glamorous?   A French judge in Nanterre, on the outskirts of Paris, has recently rejected the second attempt by Francoise Bettencourt-Meyers to obtain guardianship over her mother, Liliane Bettencourt.  87-year-old Bettencourt is the sole heir of L'Oreal, the world's largest cosmetics and beauty company that her father founded in 1909. She is the richest woman in the world, with her current fortune estimated at 17 billion euros.

Bettencourt-Meyers failed to produce a medical certificate and “in the absence of this document, nothing more can be done”, the Paris official said.  

According to Aol News, Bettencourt-Meyers wishes to protect her mother from a celebrity photographer who befriended Bettencourt and to whom the heiress has given gifts totaling a billion dollars.  France24 reports that Bettencourt accuses her daughter of "vile doggedness" and impatience to get her hands on her fortune.      

Whether a guardianship application is motivated by the desire for power and money or genuine love and concern, a court will not interfere with an individual’s autonomy lightly. For information on when a court will order a capacity assessment, see my previous blog on this topic here.

Sharon Davis - Click here for more information on Sharon Davis.

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

Trustees often run into difficulties when they pay themselves compensation prior to passing their accounts.  They are said to have "pre-taken" compensation, meaning having paid themselves compensation prior to passing their accounts.  Fortunately for guardians of property (and attorneys), section 40 of Ontario's Substitute Decisions Act allows guardians to pay themselves compensation at intervals during the guardianship before passing their accounts:

40.  (1)  A guardian of property or attorney under a continuing power of attorney may take annual compensation from the property in accordance with the prescribed fee scale.

(2)  The compensation may be taken monthly, quarterly or annually.

Amounts taken monthly or quarterly could be divisions of a calculated "annual" amount, but this provision contains no element requiring equal divisions.  Regardless of how the property guardian takes compensation, any payment is subject to court approval.  Clients applying for guardianship should always be advised specifically of this point: if the court later disagrees with the compensation taken, the guardian may have to repay such amounts.  This holds true even where the Management Plan pursuant to which the guardian is managing the incapable person's property authorizes the compensation the guardian has taken.

This raises another important consideration for lawyers in the application for guardianship stage.  Any compensation taken, or claimed later on a passing of accounts, should not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Management Plan.  Because the right to compensation is statutory, as are the prescribed percentages (though subject to discretionary reduction by the court), there is no need to declare an intention to take compensation in the Management Plan.  But if the Management Plan contains a provision disclaiming compensation, for instance, no compensation should be taken during the guardianship.

Have a great day,

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

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

Although one of the perils of running an estate blog over the past month has been (with apologies to CNN) the risk of over-reporting on the estate of Michael Jackson, the media frenzy has nonetheless served to shine a light on certain aspects of estate planning that otherwise go unnoticed.

A clause appointing a guardian for one's child(ren) is not always one that younger testators choose to put in their wills. This may in part be due to the statistical unlikelihood of both parents dying before a child reaches the age of eighteen.  In such a tragic eventuality, and as Natalia Angelini noted in her recent blog on the subject, the ultimate decision on guardianship is in the court's discretion.

A recent article posted online by the Canadian Press comments on the difficulty that couples may encounter in trying to agree on a guardian for their child(ren).  Some will want a friend; others will insist on a family member.  Complicating any decision may be such considerations as the likelihood of the proposed guardian relocating to a foreign jurisdiction or remarrying someone who, in hindsight, may not prove to be a good parent to the children.

It is always a good idea to plan for any statistical anomaly.  The Courts will typically respect the choice of the testator and assign great weight to his or her wishes.  The alternative of leaving the decision completely unfettered by such wishes is not one that any parent of a young child would want to contemplate.

David M. Smith

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

The sudden death of Michael Jackson has sent a shock-wave of sadness across the globe. I expect it will be some time before you can tune in to various media without seeing coverage on it. 

I find myself drawn in to the discussion, which one of my colleagues also blogged on last week.  His commentary focused on the expected complex administration of Jackson’s estate, given both his sizeable assets and debts. This blog focuses on one aspect of the human element of the tragedy, sparked by Jackson’s Will. 

As noted in a recent New York Times Article, in his Will Diana Ross is appointed as the guardian for Jackson’s children if his mother is no longer willing or able to fulfill that role. 

In Ontario, a custody or guardianship appointment by Will is not determinative of the issue. It only has a temporary effect, in that any appointment for custody or guardianship expires ninety-days after such appointment becomes effective (i.e. ninety-days from the date of death in this case) (see section 61(7) of the Children’s Law Reform Act). 

However, if the appointee applies to the court for custody or guardianship within the ninety-day period, the appointment expires when the application is disposed of.   While each case is usually fact-specific, I would expect that a testator’s wishes set out in his/her Will is a factor a court would give significant weight to when considering such an application.

In Jackson’s case this issue is already a live one, with potentially several people vying for custody and/or guardianship. It will be interesting to see who ends up being the primary caregiver(s) of his young children.

Have a great day,

Natalia Angelini

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

With the remarkably cold January (and now February) we have experienced, it is sadly inevitable that there may be seniors who fall victim to the elements.  However, a recent web posting regarding a 93 year-old WWII vet who died of hypothermia in his own home after the power was cut off is simply tragic.  The tragedy was compounded by the fact that there was no reason for him to be in arrears on his utility payments: he left an estate of over $500,000. 

Clearly this story raises at least two issues: (i) whether the cutting off of power in the deep of winter can ever be an appropriate remedy for non-payment of bills and (ii) whether this gentleman was in need of assistance from a substitute decision- maker.

Stories such as these should be rare and, thankfully (hopefully?), are.  However, there are many vulnerable seniors who are at risk in the winter months.  For those who are in need, incapable to manage their property or care for their person, and who do not have a Continuing Power of Attorney for Personal Care (and Property), there is doubtless a positive moral obligation for concerned family members to seek guardianship.  Such a step is likely to be perceived as threatening by such a person in need of assistance.  However, in circumstances where lives may be at risk, there may simply be no other option.

David M. Smith

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

Listen to Guardianship in Canada

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Suzana Popovic-Montag speaks with Rodney Hull about how the law has changed in Canada as it pertains to the appointment of guardians. Rodney suggests that today's laws (post-1994) are clearer than they were in the past.

If you have any comments, send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Guardianship in Canada - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning - Podcast #142

Posted on December 9, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Welcome to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, a series of podcasts hosted by Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag that will provide information and insights into estate planning in Canada. From the offices of Hull & Hull in Toronto, here are Ian and Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi and welcome to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning. You’re listening, and some of you may be watching, episode 142 of our podcast on Tuesday, December 9^th, 2008.

Hello there Rodney.

Rodney Hull: Hi Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: I’m very pleased to have Rodney Hull join me again this week to fill in for Ian Hull. We’re very pleased to have you and thank you for joining us, Rodney.

Rodney Hull: Thank you very much for having me.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: What I thought we might do a little bit today, since we have you sort of here in the hot seat is to get your thoughts, and I know we’ve talked a lot in the past about capacity litigation and this whole grey zone as to whether or not someone is capable or incapable and what happens if they’re no longer capable. And so I thought having you here, we’d have the opportunity to maybe talk a little bit about the change in the law since when you started practicing back in 1957 and we still called it like a committeeship, and how things may have changed since 1994 when the new Substitute Decisions Act came into place.

Rodney Hull: Well in the pre-1994 legislation, the first distinction was that they changed the fiduciary, the name of the fiduciary from a committee to what it is today, which is the…

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Guardian.

Rodney Hull: Guardian. And basically though the function of the guardian is the same today as it was then.  There is a far superior structure created by the new Substitute Decisions Act which gives a great deal more guidance to persons involved in committeeships as we used to call them. Before you simply applied, we did the same thing: we had psychiatrists and one would say this and one would say that, we would have doctors, we would have bankers, we would have investment people saying whatever their opinion was, and a committee was appointed for the person if it could be shown that the person was not capable of managing his or her affairs. Now it’s exactly the same but we have guidelines, much more direct, clear guidelines as to who we use, what we’re doing, we have referees, we have persons who are directed to make decisions as to whether or not there is the capacity to manage your own affairs. That’s clear, they’ve been set out. Before it was by guess and by God. The judge would listen to the evidence and it would be the judge that made the determination. Not a very satisfactory way of doing it, not because the judges weren’t every bit as good then as they are now or had less ability. It’s just that there is a scientific aspect to the appointment of guardians that I think we didn’t realize as much then as we do now, and that it isn’t basically simply a judicial function. It’s a function that involves almost all the aspects that one would put into ordinary daily living concepts.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Right and you say that comes about because of the clearer definition that’s set out in our statute now.

Rodney Hull: That is correct. Yes, I think so. I think it gives us great guidance. It makes clear what we should be doing and the procedure is far, far more closely defined. Before it was, as I say, by guess and by God. You brought an application to have a committee appointed under the Act and of course the Children’s Lawyer would sometimes be involved, and the Public Guardian and Trustee was involved, as they are today.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right. And now that’s certainly from the financial perspective. So when we’re appointing someone to manage property, but how would you say, if at all, its changed in terms of having someone appointed for personal care?

Rodney Hull: That, of course, is probably the most difficult aspect to try and deal with.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Yeah.

Rodney Hull: You know you…there are some people you don’t want to have the ability to pull the plug on you, that’s for certain. And we can all figure out who some of them are. But basically, I think the ones that are nearest and dearest to you are the ones that should have that decision. There is nothing worse, in my mind, than having no direction really, no written direction, but to have a gathering of 6 or 7 people around and there you are with one of these breathing devices in you, you hate it, your arms are tethered, you can’t tear it out, and they’re sitting around the table arguing whether or not it should be pulled out. We want Dad or Mom or Auntie so and so to have every chance to live and come back, even though the doctors say he or she is going to be a vegetable. That’s not good. But to be able to show the directing people that you have the authority to do it I think is very important. Finding that person is where the rubber hits the road.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: It’s so true and, you know, I wonder, from your experience, like I know certainly judges are reluctant these days to make those kinds of decisions, because those are such personal decisions that they don’t necessarily feel qualified in many cases to make that kind of a determination. Was it any different under the prior legislation?

Rodney Hull: Oh I don’t…I think myself that there was no clear authority to do it but the doctors looked after it pretty well.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s true.

Rodney Hull: But everybody has become very conscious of taking on any responsibility that might involve you with bad feelings between people and I think that basically is how it was done. It was just done by guess and by God and sometimes oxygen didn’t get through, that’s all, sorry about that.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: It really seems to underscore, to me anyway, the importance of this planning, of planning during your lifetime, of telling people what it is you want and why it is you want it so that when these tough decisions have to be made, then you know at least you’ve got some guideposts.

Rodney Hull: You really don’t have to be too clear as to what you want. You don’t want to be going through a lifetime of pain and suffering and stuck with one of those things in your head backed up, and the pump going and you’re there, you’re not conscious. You don’t have to be a Rhodes scholar to figure that person doesn’t want to hang around very long.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s for sure.

Rodney Hull: You know.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: So just in terms of some advice, Rodney, what would you say to people who are dealing with individuals who are sort of in this grey zone, where we’re just not sure if they are fully cognizant and capable or maybe they’re on the cusp of no longer having capacity? Any thoughts or any guidance for us in terms of dealing with those kinds of individuals?

Rodney Hull: Well I guess kindness is the only word that really comes on bidden to the lips. It’s a very difficult responsibility to take on; it’s a very difficult responsibility to pass on. So it just has to be guided by common sense and as I say, kindness, probably.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Yeah. Well thank you very, very much, Rodney. It was a pleasure having the opportunity to podcast with you again, and to seek some of your thoughts and guidance to us, so thank you for joining us.

Rodney Hull: Thank you, Suzana, for having me.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And just a quick reminder to everyone to feel free to provide us with any comments, any feedback, at hullandhull@gmail.com or feel free to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com.

You have been listening to Hull on Estates and Succession Planning by Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag. The podcast you have been listening to has been provided as an information service. It is a summary of current issues in estates and estate planning. It is not legal advice and you are reminded to always speak with a legal professional regarding your specific circumstance.

To listen to other Hull & Hull podcasts, or to leave any questions or comments, please visit our website at hullestatemediation.com. 

/mem

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

Listen to  Dealing with Estate Issues That Arise Immediately Upon Death

This week on Hull on Estates, David Smith and Natalia Angelini talk about the duties an estate trustee he or she is charged with from the moment of a testator's passing. Duties include locating the will, making funeral arrangements and being responsible to see the intentions of the testator preserved.

Feel free to send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estates blog.

Dealing with Estate Issues That Arise Immediately Upon Death - Hull on Estates Podcast #135

Posted on November 4^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Natalia Angelini: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode #135 on Tuesday, November 4^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: Hi and welcome to another episode of Hull on Estates. I’m David Smith.

Natalia Angelini: And I’m Natalia Angelini.

David Smith: If you want to be heard on Hull on Estates, you can participate by leaving us a comment. E-mail us at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or you can visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com. Hello, Natalia.

Natalia Angelini: Hi David. How are you?

David Smith: You know I’m okay. I’ve got a bit of a cold so my voice is about an octave lower than usual, but we’ll do our best today. So today, Natalia, we thought we were going to talk about the issue of what duties an estate trustee is charged with from the minute the deceased passes away.

Natalia Angelini: Right. It’s a really interesting topic because it’s a time when I think the estate trustee has to act fairly quickly to do a number of things, and I think the first of those is locating a Will.

David Smith: That’s right and I suppose at the outset too, we should give a little plug to Paul Trudelle of our office who has given a paper.  And there’s a webcast available on the website dealing with this issue as well. We’re, in our podcast, going to try and explore in a little more detail some of the issues that Paul touched on in his discussion.  So we commend that webcast to you. So I guess, what’s the first issue that usually arises for the estate trustee?

Natalia Angelini: I think the first can definitely be finding the Will of the deceased, because the first thing the estate trustee wants to ascertain is what the deceased’s testamentary wishes were.  And so that’s definitely an important thing to look for.

David Smith: That’s right and of course, you know everybody keeps their stuff somewhere different. In some cases, it’s a safety deposit box. In other cases, it’s a filing cabinet, under the mattress. It will depend on the person.  So if the executor is charged with the responsibility to look for the Will, they’re going to look in the obvious locations, and hopefully be able to find the Will.  And of course, the lawyer plays a role, because if the lawyer is known, he or she might have a copy of the Will.

Natalia Angelini: Right, exactly, so it’s a good idea to make inquiries with the lawyer of the deceased if you know who that lawyer is, or perhaps looking through the deceased’s personal papers, you can determine who the lawyer is and contact him or her that way.

David Smith: Right and you know, if you get into a situation where there’s just no luck finding a Will, you can advertise in the Ontario Reports.  That happens on occasion, we all see lawyers do that on the odd occasion.

Natalia Angelini: Right.

David Smith: When someone says, yeah, I knew so and so had a Will but I didn’t know who drew it.

Natalia Angelini:  Um hm. So I think aside from finding the Will, and probably one of the next things that the estate trustee is going to definitely be thinking about is making funeral arrangements.

David Smith: That’s right. And in the cases of an unexpected death, obviously that’s going to probably be a situation where the executor’s got to take some action of their own accord. Of course, with older people and people who are contemplating their own death through illness or what-have-you, or some other really sad situation, we’re seeing more and more that people will prepay their funeral or have them organized ahead of time.  But in most instances, the estate trustee is going to have to deal with this, you know, obviously rather unpleasant task, and certainly it’s the foremost concern.

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely.  And with respect to payment of the funeral, I think it’s helpful to note that those costs are of priority payment and come out of the assets of the estate.  So if it’s not prepaid then at least the estate trustee hopefully has assets available to make that payment.

David Smith: Well that’s right and it’s probably worth just making the point at this stage too, that the government provides a death benefit of $2,500.  And really that’s there primarily to fund the cost of the funeral or to contribute towards the cost of the funeral.

Natalia Angelini: Right, that’s a good point. In dealing with the funeral, I think this is a real interesting one, especially if you’ve maybe got a dispute between family members as to how it should happen, and potentially that may even differ with what the deceased has set out in his or her Will, and you’ve got a really interesting situation about how this deceased person is going to be put to rest.

David Smith: Well you’re right Natalia and we’ve seen situations where it’s potentially very emotionally volatile. You can have a situation where you have religion sometimes clash with the intentions of the testator. There’s one case where, the name escapes me, but Rick Bickhram of our office recently, I think a couple of weeks ago, blogged on a case where a deceased person named her boyfriend as executor. He was charged with acting as executor and intended to cremate her remains. The family, for religious reasons, opposed that and this matter ultimately went to Court and the Court decided that it was in the authority of the executor to make that decision.

Natalia Angelini: Right, and during Paul’s talk, he went through a few cases dealing with this issue and it seems to be that the consensus of the Court is that the duty of an estate trustee includes that duty to dispose of the body and that the estate trustee really has final say.

David Smith: Right, and you know that really seems to be a very settled law. Unfortunately, I think you’re still going to see cases go to litigation on this in the odd instance, not because the outcome is ever really going to be in question because the law seems so settled that the estate trustee can do what he or she wants.  But I suppose if I’m a bit cynical, for settlement purposes, someone might start that litigation in the hopes of arriving at some kind of compromise. So you know, certainly that’s an issue which regrettably can result in litigation on the odd situation.   But, you know, we keep repeating the same refrain which is that the executor has that responsibility.  And it’s worth also mentioning I think, Natalia, that you can say whatever you want in your Will about how you would like your remains to be disposed of; the reality is that the executor does not have to follow those, does he or she?

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely.  He or she does not, but interestingly though, his or her duty is to dispose of the body in a manner suitable with the estate of the deceased.  So even though the estate trustee may seem to be able to do whatever he or she wants, there’s definitely going to be criticism of a trustee who just, you know, goes ahead and, for instance, has an elaborate $50,000 funeral where the deceased has a fairly modest estate.

David Smith: Right. I think generally it’s expected that the funeral will be commensurate with the size of the estate, so I think that’s a really good point.  And also, there’s just a moral duty, I think, in this situation, where you’d expect the executor to do what the testator wanted.

Natalia Angelini: Right.

David Smith: It’s probably worth doing a little segway here, while we’re on this topic. I mean, this has to do now with the issue of donation of body parts.  And, of course, there’s legislation in Ontario that deals with that, right Natalia?

Natalia Angelini: There is. It’s the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act and it’s an interesting piece of legislation that allows a person to consent to the donation of their own body, or body parts, upon death.

David Smith: That’s right. So we’ve all sort of seen the situation where the consent card is kept quite often with someone’s driver’s license and this is an important priority.  And, of course, it plays an important role in given the success of transplant surgeries and what have you, that this is obviously an important legislative prerogative that this kind of intention can be preserved, even if it’s not contained in the Will.

Natalia Angelini: Right. And a spouse or other family members can also give their consent, even if the deceased hasn’t done so during his or her lifetime. So the difference here, I think, with the ability to dispose of the body, is that the family members seem to get priority over the wishes of the estate trustee.

David Smith: Right and it’s obviously a specific situation but it’s important to know because it’s the one significant departure from the common law rule that the executor’s decisions are paramount. 

Natalia Angelini: And frankly, it makes sense to me anyway.

David Smith: Oh, absolutely. I don’t see how we can quarrel with that. So you know, harking back to our topic for the day which is the executor’s duties, again it all boils down to fiduciary duty, doesn’t it Natalia? I mean really the executor’s got to make sure that he or she does what is necessary to see the intentions of the testator preserved.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right and I think it’s important to note particularly with this issue of disposing of the body, the estate trustee has to do so in a dignified way.  And so I think that’s in keeping with fulfilling his or her fiduciary duty. 

David Smith: Good point. Okay, so I guess we should move on to a couple of more issues, just given our limited amount of time that’s left.  And we were going to touch on children and pets, in that order. So let’s talk about children briefly speaking. It’s possible in your Will, isn’t it, to speak to guardianship?

Natalia Angelini: That’s right. Under the Children’s Law Reform Act, you can appoint someone to have custody of your child upon your death, and I think sometimes people do this, and they put this provision in their Will and I’m not sure that they’re always aware that this has some limited value.

David Smith: That’s right. The appointment is valid for 90 days but, of course, it’s important to note that if anybody else is entitled to custody and is not named in the Will, that that person obviously has a right to exercise custody and it might be pointed out that an application for custody can be commenced within that 90 day period.  And so, to some extent the wishes of the guardian, with respect to their children in their Will is somewhat precatory, isn’t it, in that it’s subject to other considerations.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right, but I think it may give some assistance to the family and to the children, really, so they know I guess who they’re going to be spending time with, at least in the short-term.

David Smith: True. And I guess the important point too is, in all likelihood, the custodial parent in their Will will say that if they die, in all likelihood, they’re going to appoint the other parent as the guardian of the children. I suppose you could have a situation where there are two parents, where one parent dies and provides in his or her Will that the guardian for the children is someone other than the other parent.  And obviously in that situation, the other parent is going to have something to say about that. 

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely, I’ve seen that type of case and I think, unsurprisingly, the other parent proceeded with an application in the Family Court for custody and that issue was resolved that way.

David Smith: Now the last point is in keeping with our concern about issues arising immediately upon death, of course, lots of people have pets.  And lots of Wills provide for pets as beneficiaries.  And pets need to be fed and watered, so obviously the executor’s got to look after that.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right and like you said, that’s definitely got to happen at the get go because we don’t want pets to be neglected.  And they’re usually, especially if they’re in a Will, very near and dear to the deceased’s heart.  So it’s important to make those arrangements.

David Smith: Right. And that’s going to also require the executor to act quickly as you pointed out. So good point as well, and Paul, in his paper, talks about crops and perishables. If you’ve got a business that’s running fresh produce for instance, and the business owner dies, any other perishable products, obviously it’s important to keep the electricity on, to keep things refrigerated and all of those sort of important things that have to do with ensuring that any inventory of the estate does not go to waste, because ultimately, the executor is going to be accountable to the beneficiaries, right, for what happens.

Natalia Angelini: Exactly. And I think, I guess the one thing to remember is, it’s so important for the estate trustee, I suppose to know, as far in advance as possible, whether he or she is a trustee and what the assets of the estate are and what the circumstances are so they can do their best to act as quickly as possible.

David Smith: Absolutely. That’s the biggest part of good estate planning, isn’t it? And it makes the job so much easier. And we should point out, too, that if it’s just an insurmountable job for the executor to take on, maybe you renounce.

Natalia Angelini: Right, or get a, if the estate assets can justify it, get a trust company in place or instead.

David Smith: Especially if there’s a business there, yeah, so I think that’s an important point to leave our listeners with is, you know, if you’re named as executor, you’re not duty bound to take on the job at all costs. If it’s not a realistic possibility for you to carry on the task, consider renouncing.

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely. Good point, David. So, I think that brings us to the end of this week’s discussion. Thanks for listening and thanks for joining me today, David.

David Smith: It was a pleasure, Natalia. I really look forward to podcasting with you again soon.

Natalia Angelini: And we look forward to hearing from our listeners. You can send us an e-mail at hull.lawyers@gmail.com. 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. We hope that you enjoyed the show. I’m Natalia Angelini.

David Smith: I’m David Smith. 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

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

Listen to:

The Interrelationship Between a Guardian of Property and a Trustee Under a Testamentary Trust

This week on Hull on Estates, Rick Bickhram and David M. Smith discuss the complications that can arise when an incapable person is both the subject of a guardianship order and the beneficiary of a testamentary trust.

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.

The Interrelationship Between a Guardian of Property and a Trustee Under a Testamentary Trust - Hull on Estates Podcast #133

Posted on October 21^st, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Rick Bickhram: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode 133 on Tuesday, October 21^st, 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.

David Smith: And I’m David Smith.

Rick Bickhram: If you want to be heard on Hull on Estates you can participate in our discussion by leaving a comment. Give us a call at area code 206-350-6636. The number is in the show notes along with our e-mail address which is hull.lawyers@gmail.com, or you can visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com. Today David Smith and I are going to be discussing the complications that can arise as a result of guardianship applications.

David Smith: That’s right, Rick. I think what we thought we would discuss is, we’re generally familiar with the concept of guardianship applications. I want you Rick, just to give us a refresher on that before we delve into some of the complications that can arise, because the management of property is not always a simple thing, especially when there are competing interests that arise which require the guardian to seek legal advice or consider whether there is any kind of conflict of interest. Before we get into that, Rick, though, let’s talk about guardianship generally. What are the two types of guardianship and how is a guardian appointed in Ontario?

Rick Bickhram: Well, there are two types of guardianships. The first type of guardianship is the guardianship of property.  And basically a person is appointed to manage with the individual’s or the incapable’s financial affairs.  And the other type of guardianship is the guardianship of personal care. And what that pretty much entails is a substitute decision-maker is appointed to handle the personal care decisions involving the incapable individual. Now looking at what governs substitute decision-makers, there is a statute, which is known as the Substitute Decision Act which is the primary statute governing the appointment of all substitute decision-makers in Ontario.

David Smith: That’s right, Rick, and you know, guardianship is under the supervision of the Court. It’s where the Court steps in and appoints a guardian in those circumstances where someone may not have otherwise provided for a substitute decision-maker by making a Power of Attorney either for property or for personal care. And of course, you can sometimes have situations where one or more attorneys are appointed under a Power of Attorney and can’t agree, and in that situation, where there’s a contest between the individuals who are meant to act jointly but can’t, that’s a situation where you’ll see a contested guardianship application, where the parties basically go in front of the Court and say, judge, over to you, we can’t agree, we need some help here. So that’s the subject of another podcast. 

But today what we want to talk about is complexities that can arise when the alleged incapable person has an interest in property where the discretion to encroach or the discretion to exercise an entitlement may be in question. So, Rick, typically in the guardianship applications that we see in our office, and that you see in this area of practice, when someone is alleged to be incapable and the Court is asked to supervise the substitute decision-making for that person by appointing a guardian, obviously one step a guardian has to make is to prepare a management plan, right?

Rick Bickhram: My understanding of what a management plan is, is that it sets out the guardian’s plan, or his or her proposal to manage this individual’s property going forward.

David Smith: When we’re talking about property, Rick, what are we talking about? Are we talking about just real estate or are we talking about financial assets or can it be all these things?

Rick Bickhram: My understanding is that it involves all of the incapable person’s property, real estate, his bank accounts, any investments that he may have, etc.

David Smith: Right. Now the interesting thing with this area of law is you get all kinds of different scenarios. You will have an incapable person who may have no interest in property or money whatsoever.  You may have someone who simply receives a pension.  You may have someone who’s been brain-injured in an automobile accident and who, therefore, is receiving the benefit of a structured settlement.  Or you may have someone who, through whatever means, has gained a significant amount of their own assets. 

And the complication I want to talk today, Rick, is an interesting situation which I’ve run across, and that’s a situation where let’s suppose that the incapable person has been incapable since childhood. Through one means or another, that person has managed to accumulate some significant personal assets. In addition, that person’s parents, when they passed away, left Wills that provided a testamentary trust for the benefit of the incapable person. So the incapable person then has two sets of assets. One of the assets is let’s say, an investment portfolio, consisting of their own personal investments. The other asset is an interest in a testamentary trust. Now the testamentary trust will be in the discretion of the trustee appointed under the testamentary trust, and that trustee will have a discretion to pay out income to the incapable person. The interesting question, of course is, how does that responsibility dove-tail with the responsibility of the guardian? And the Courts are beginning to have to wrestle with this question. Because once the guardian is in place, the guardian has to manage the affairs. And while the guardian is responsible for administering the property of the incapable person, there’s also a responsibility to receive income from the testamentary trust. The complication, of course, is that the trustee under the testamentary trust is an entirely different person from the guardian.  And so you’ve got two sets of responsibility here. You’ve got a trustee under a testamentary trust making decisions as to what and how much money to pay out to the incapable person.  And on the other hand, you’ve got the guardian for the incapable person who is themselves looking after the property. It’s kind of an interesting question, eh, Rick?

Rick Bickhram: I completely agree with you. What’s your take on whether or not a conflict is present?

David Smith: Well, good question, Rick, because let’s suppose the guardian for the incapable person is also the same person who would be the capital beneficiary on the death of the incapable person. That is to say, let’s assume that the testamentary trust provides for the benefit of the incapable person, gives the trustee the discretion to encroach on the capital for the beneficiary person, but also says that on the death of the incapable person, the beneficiary is by happenstance the same person who seeks to be appointed as the guardian. Sounds like a conflict to me, Rick. What do you think?

Rick Bickhram: Absolutely, and the conflict, I guess, at least in my mind, has to deal with the even hand principle.

David Smith: What’s the even hand principle and how would that apply here, Rick?

Rick Bickhram: Well the even hand principle pretty much is where there’s a trust set up, there are two beneficiaries. There’s a capital beneficiary and then there’s the income beneficiary.  And what the even hand principle stands for, is that the trustee has to act with an even hand for the benefit of both the income beneficiary and the capital beneficiary.

David Smith: That’s right. And of course, you know the difficulty is that the trustee who has to decide whether to exercise discretion, needs to, there are some questions to what criteria the trustee has to consider in deciding whether or not to pay money out of the trust.  And there’s been some talk in some of the cases that talks about a means test which basically is, does the trustee have to look to the means of the alleged incapable to decide whether they’re in need of money from the trust, and if so, how much money?

Rick Bickhram: Well that sounds like an interesting decision, Dave. What case is that?

David Smith: Well you know, Rick, there was a case of Hinton and Canada Permanent Trust Company, and in that case, the wording of the Will in question was strongly in favour of a claim to encroach. Nevertheless, the principle applied. The failure of the author of the trust to allude to the resources of the beneficiary led to an inference that the trust is to maintain and benefit the beneficiary, regardless of and without recourse to his own needs. 

So Hinton seems to stand for the proposition that you don’t necessarily look to means. I think the other interesting issue is there’s a whole body of cases that deal with when the Court has jurisdiction to interfere with discretion exercised by the trustee. And we’re not going to get into that now. One of the cases is Fox and Fox Estate, and there are some other cases that deal with situations when the Court will be critical of the trustee for not acting for the, not appropriately exercising discretion for the benefit of the beneficiary. That’s the issue for a separate podcast. 

But again, I think the really curious issue here is, to what extent does the guardian have any sway over the exercise of the discretion by the trustee, and to put it another way, when the trustee has to consider on what basis to pay out money to the beneficiary. To my mind, that trustee is him or herself exercising a substitute decision-making role in a sense, over the incapable person because the trustee is having to consider what and how much money is required by the incapable person which, of course, is exactly the same responsibility that the guardian has. I suppose another way of looking at it, is that the guardian can simply just passively wait to see how much the trustee is going to give him.  But in any scenario, it’s hard not to imagine that the trustee on a testamentary trust would have to communicate at some level with the guardian.

Rick Bickhram: Absolutely. It’s a give and take relationship it sounds like to me.

David Smith: Right, because both of them are looking after the same person. The guardian is safeguarded to look after the well-being of the incapable, whereas the trustee under the testamentary trust has a fiduciary duty to ensure that the beneficial entitlement of that person, who happens to be incapable, is provided for. And of course, the whole reason that the testamentary trust was set up was because the person was incapable and needed a trustee to look after their affairs. So you’ve got an interesting dove-tailing of responsibility between a trustee and a guardian.

Rick Bickhram: Sounds very interesting, Dave.

David Smith: Well, Rick, thanks a lot for this discussion. I really enjoyed it and it was good to sort of explore some of the outer limits of the relationship that can occur between guardians and trustees.

Rick Bickhram: It was a pleasure to podcast with you today, and we look forward to hearing from our listeners.  You can send us an e-mail at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or just pick up the phone and leave us a message on our comment line at again, 206-350-6636. 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. We hope you enjoyed the show. I’m Rick Bickhram.

David Smith: And I’m David Smith.

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

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

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

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 Estate blog.

The Family Conference - Hull on Estates Podcast #96

Posted on February 5^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Natalia Angelini: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode #96 on Tuesday, February 5^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.

Natalia Angelini: Hi and welcome to another episode on Hull on Estates. I’m Natalia Angelini.

Allan Socken: Hi and I’m Allan Socken.

Natalia Angelini: If you want to be heard on Hull on Estates, you can participate in our discussion by leaving a comment. Give us a call at 206-350-6636. The number is in the show notes along with our e-mail address: hull.lawyers@gmail.com or you can visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com.

So Allan, it’s great to be podcasting with you today. It’s our first time together.

Allan Socken: I’m very excited about it, Natalia.

Natalia Angelini: That’s good. We’re going to be talking about the family conference. So perhaps I’ll just set out what it is. The family conference is a professionally mediated conference and it essentially provides a forum whereby a testator can reveal his or her proposed estate plan to intended adult beneficiaries. And the objective is to obtain their approval of the plan. So it’s quite a unique animal, the family conference. It’s really the only formal mechanism in place in estate matters where someone can, you know, look their loved ones in the eyes and explain their plan to them, answer any questions about why they wish to have their plans set out in that manner. And ultimately in an ideal scenario, get agreement on it. So Allan, why don’t you tell our listeners what needs to happen in preparation for a conference.

Allan Socken: Well before the conference, I think probably the most important question to ask is who do you invite to the conference? And the simple answer is you invite all adults who are involved in the estate plan. At least, at a minimum, the people you invite would be the spouse of the person who made this estate plan as well as his children. And I think in inviting these people, it’s really important that you speak to them and have a candid conversation with them, obviously before the conference, explain the purpose of a conference, namely for all the people to appreciate what the person’s estate plan looks like and the reasons as to why they’re leaving certain gifts the way that they are.

Natalia Angelini: And who else can be invited?

Allan Socken: Really, any person who has an interest or involvement in the estate plan of the person.

Natalia Angelini: Right. And that would even include professionals, like the testator’s estate lawyer, their financial planner or accountant, because they certainly can have a critical role in explaining or answering questions dealing with the assets.

Allan Socken: For sure. And I think the other important thing to make mention of is there may be certain circumstances, probably quite frequently, where minor children have an interest in the estate plan. And it’s important to note that minor children should not be included in the family conference. In most jurisdictions, Ontario included, there’s an office known as the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, whose mandate is to protect the interests of minor children. And depending on what the estate plan looks like, it may be necessary to have discussions with them to see if it’s necessary for them to attend the conference as well.

Natalia Angelini: That’s a good point, Allan. So are there any other preparatory steps?

Allan Socken: The only other thing I’d like to make mention of is the question as to where to hold the family conference. Often people think that it may be prudent to hold it at a family member’s house.  But the reason why, I think, it’s not a good idea is, is often when you go to a person’s house, it may turn into a social function and it may lose the business touch that’s essential in planning for this conference. So I think probably the best place to hold a conference would be at the mediator’s office so people can really appreciate the business-like environment that they’re encountering and the importance placed on the family conference.

Natalia Angelini: In addition, it really is like a mediation and you want to be able to have individual caucuses as well as group caucuses. So you need several rooms and breakout rooms and privacy so you can really have it proceed in a meaningful way. So again, I think a mediator’s office or some other kind of office is ideal.

Allan Socken: I think moving along, Natalia, now we should address the agenda that’s put in place before the family conference. I think it’s important to stress to our listeners that an agenda is essential to have so that people are aware of what’s going to be taking place at the conference and so that divergence can be avoided as much as possible. So probably what’s important to include in the agenda is really the overview of the person’s estate plan which would include the proposed new Will, who the executor will be, funeral arrangements, debts of the person, taxation issues, guardianship of minor children, who may be the Power of Attorney and dealing with the distribution of specific assets for the estate.

Natalia Angelini: Right. I think it is critical to have an agenda and the family conference is chaired. And it’s usually chaired by either the testator or the mediator or someone else selected by the testator. So it’s great assistance to them to have an agenda to follow.

Now in respect of how the actual conference works over the course of a day or more than one day, it is much like a mediation.  And, you know, there is, I think, initially, commonly a group meeting where the chairperson goes through the rules of the day. There’s usually a family conference agreement signed which sets out that the mediator is neutral, that he or she is not offering legal advice, that all discussions are without prejudice, and of course, that the mediator is not liable for anything done or omitted at the family conference. So the usual sort of waivers. In addition, a document entitled Rules for Meeting is also signed. And Allan, why don’t you set out what is contained in that document?

Allan Socken: Typically for the Rules of the Meeting, it sets out that the parties understand who’s paying for the mediator’s time but not withstanding whoever is paying for the mediator’s time, the mediator still will be neutral throughout the process. As well, the parties agree that they’ll conduct themselves in a business and professional approach. And in that sense, there’ll be no harsh language spoken either at the other parties or the mediator. And believe me, I’m sure Natalia also can attest to the fact she’s seen certain times where discussions can get pretty heated.

Natalia Angelini: This is true. This is true. And I think in this kind of conference you really want to encourage views to be shared and grievances to be aired, but at the same time, in order for resolutions to come about, you want to make sure that everything is discussed in a cordial manner.

Allan Socken: And just the other thing to make mention of also is one of the rules should also include that all the parties are bound and acknowledge that they’re bound by the Family Conference Agreement. So they can leave whenever they feel like it if they feel progress is not being made. Certainly the mediator will try to keep them there and have the parties agree to at least spend a day there to try to sort things out. But even if the parties want to leave at the end of the day and no agreement can be reached, the parties still agree that all information and all people who were present can’t be subpoenaed in that respect. I think that’s important also to include in the agreement, Natalia.

Natalia Angelini: Good point, Allan. So again, it is a fluid process like any other type of mediation and it really can unfold in a different way depending on the parties and the circumstances.  And if an agreement is not ultimately reached at the end of the day, you can, you know, reconvene on another day if all or some of the people are willing to and you can get an agreement at a later time. What that looks like doesn’t necessarily have to be in accordance with the proposed estate plan. It’s not necessarily an imposition of that plan. The plan can be varied or amended pursuant to the comments and views of the beneficiaries and once an agreement is ultimately reached, it’s papered in a document that’s called The Family Constitution. And Allan, maybe you can expand a bit on that.

Allan Socken: Sure. Basically, you probably remember from law school, Natalia, that we always talk about the constitution as being a living tree.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right. Way back when I do remember.

Allan Socken: Well not surprisingly, The Family Constitution is also a living document that requires amendments from time to time. Because as people move on and age in years, no doubt their estate plan changes and when their estate plan changes, it’s really important that The Family Constitution is also updated. And I think as a preamble to The Family Constitution, it’s important to note that while family members may have different views and opinions, they unanimously - hopefully that’s the goal at the end of the day - that they unanimously decide to create this Family Constitution. And I mean, in certain circumstances, there may be family members who don’t want to agree to The Family Constitution or some people may not even want to have the meeting in the first place. So I think the role of the mediator shouldn’t necessarily be to prevent the family conference from going ahead, but perhaps to engage the people who are willing and interested at first to participate in the conference and hopefully, if success can be achieved there, people who didn’t want to participate in the first place may be inclined to give it another look and perhaps be willing to review the constitution that was agreed to. And even in certain circumstances, they may be willing to sign the agreement, albeit they may expect some changes to be made. But at the end of the day, some progress can happen even if not everyone in the family conference is willing at first to participate. And I think that’s important to keep in mind.

Natalia Angelini: Right, and one benefit to proceeding even if you don’t have everyone’s consensus is that the process can be of real value because it shows a testator’s clear intention as to how he or she wishes to divide his or her assets, which can really deflate any kind of brewing Will challenge at the end of the day. So litigation avoidance is one real positive potential outcome of the conference. And if you actually do get a Family Constitution signed, then it’s a great thing to have because it includes an agreement not to contest the Will. So that’s a great way to avoid litigation or ultimately if litigation is commenced, to use that document in defence of that.

Allan Socken: And just one final point for me to make Natalia, if that’s okay, is probably the most complicated aspect of this family conference is really the need for full disclosure. And for a lot of people, that’s really a difficult thing to do because there may be situations that people are embarrassed to admit or really don’t want to disclose.  For example, extra-marital affairs, not dividing your estate equally among your children.  But at the end of the day, if you want success to be reached with the family conference and you don’t want your Will to be contested or other legal remedies pursued when you die, I really think it’s important that you make mention of these difficult aspects so people can appreciate and they don’t feel as though you’re hiding anything. So while it’s difficult to disclose this information, I really think it’s important to get across that at the end, if you hide it, it will really do more harm than good at the end of the day.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right. I mean the fact is this is a delicate process and it’s not one that I think most people are willing to enter into because I think a lot of us would rather not deal with these delicate and difficult issues during our lifetime and we’ll just wait for everyone else to kind of deal with it after we’ve passed on. So I think people need to have, I think in a lot of cases, it helps to sort of have the courage to go ahead with the process and be open and ultimately, in an ideal scenario, get agreement on the issues or at least, you know, canvass them in an open and honest way.

So well, I think that brings us to the end of this week’s discussion.  Thanks for listening and thanks for joining me today, Allan.

Allan Socken: Thanks Natalia, I had a great time.

Natalia Angelini: That’s great. And we look forward to hearing from our listeners. You can send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or just pick up the phone and leave us a message on our comment line at 206-350-6636. And again, you can also visit our blogs at estatelaw.hullandhull.com, where you’ll even find more information and discussion on today’s practice of estate law. We hope you enjoyed the show. I’m Natalia.

Allan Socken: And I’m Allan.

Natalia Angelini: And until next time, 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

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

Over the Christmas break, a news story out of Winnipeg captured national headlines. Samuel Golubchuk is 84 years old and on life support in Winnipeg’s Grace Hospital. He apparently suffered a brain-injury from an earlier fall and part of his brain was removed at the time. Tragically, Mr. Golubchuk cannot walk, speak, eat or breathe on his own. His treating physicians say Mr. Golubchuk has no chance of recovery and that his quality of life is negligible. They want the right to remove him from life support. The news stories don’t indicate whether Mr. Golubchuk left a power of attorney or end-of-life instructions.

Mr. Golubchuk's family has gone to court to resist any attempt by the hospital’s doctors to remove him from life support. Mr. Golubchuk’s family claims that removing life support would violate Mr. Golubchuk's orthodox Jewish belief and amount to an assault as it would hasten his death.

In early December, the family was granted a temporary court injunction while a local judge considered the case. In January, the family returned to court and presented two opinions from New York doctors. According to the family’s doctors, Mr. Golubchuk was not beyond hope. 

The family has maintained throughout that it is a matter of self-determination and the right to live in a free and democratic society without an outside party making decisions for you. The hospital, on the other hand, maintains that it is up to the treating physician to make a judgment call as to whether or not life support should be removed.

As far as I can tell, the judge hearing the case has still not decided what will happen to Mr. Golubchuk. However, it is clear that the courts struggle with life and death decisions as much as guardians or family members do. There are simply no easy answers. In the end, I think it is difficult to say how any one of us would act or react when confronted with the ultimate decision.

Keep thinking and thanks for reading.