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 Re Estate of Michael O’Flynn, 2009 CanLII 57149 (ON S.C.), the Honourable Justice Brown encouraged the development of a culture of common sense in processing applications for certificates of appointment of estate trustee. This approach is further illustrated in the recent decision in Re Estate of Daniel O’Donnell, 2010.

In Re Estate of Daniel O’Donnell, the date of Mr. O’Donnell’s death was mistakenly listed as May 1, 2009 (not May 2) on the application for a certificate of appointment and resulting certificate. This mistake did not stop the administration of the estate. Mr. O’Donnell’s Will named Mr. Wilson as the sole estate trustee and sole beneficiary, and Mr. Wilson distributed virtually all of the estate assets to himself. He died a short time later, in July 2009. The administration of Mr. O’Donnell’s estate was yet to be completed, but the alternate estate trustee in Mr. O’Donnell’s Will had renounced her right to act. 

Accordingly, the named estate trustee for Mr. Wilson’s estate, Ms. Thomas, applied for a certificate of appointment as succeeding estate trustee with a will for Mr. O’Donnell’s estate. The application materials filed by Mr. Wilson’s estate trustee listed May 2, 2009 as Mr. O’Donnell’s date of death. The original error in the date of death went unnoticed for some time.

When the mistake in the date of Mr. O’Donnell’s death was finally identified, the Toronto Estates Office took the position that the applicant should bring an ex parte motion to correct the error made in the original certificate before the second certificate could be issued. Ms. Thomas argued, among other things, that she should not have to bear the cost of correcting a mistake she had not made and that the cost of preparing such a motion was out of proportion to what was at stake in the succeeding application (the succeeding application was only needed to complete tax filings and distribute the remaining assets valued at only $1,000.00.) 

Justice Brown’s solution was as follows. If the Estates Office identifies a discrepancy in the date of death between the original certificate and the application for a succeeding certificate, it should request an affidavit from the applicant that confirms that a mistake was made on the original certificate and attests to the correct date of death. Upon receiving such an affidavit, the Estates Registrar can then process the application for a succeeding certificate using the corrected date of death, and make any required changes to the original certificate and Ontario’s central registry which records information regarding estates. 

Thanks for reading,

Bianca V. La Neve - Click here to learn more about Bianca La Neve.

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

The Arkansas blogosphere is abuzz over the colourful facts of Heirs of F.D. Goza, Jr., et al. v. Estate of William E. Potts, Deceased, a decision of the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  Relatives of the testator tried to propound a photocopy of his Last Will, arguing that he lacked testamentary capacity and was under insane delusions when he destroyed the original.  The Appelate Court affirmed the decision of the trial judge that the deceased validly revoked his Will and died intestate. 

The evidence of revocation was overwhelming: The testator wrote such phrases as “void”, "bastards" and "get nothing" over each paragraph, applied Liquid Paper over the names of the beneficiaries, and later shredded the document in front of his insurance agent.  The Court held that ”the evidence clearly showed that [the testator] was an irascible, angry, suspicious, controlling, profane, and difficult man for most of his adult life; however, we cannot say that the trial court erred in refusing to find that he labored under insane delusions.”

The remarkable aspect of this case is the fact that there was a credible and disinterested witness to the shredding of the original Will.  This fact certainly bolsters the presumption of destruction that exists in Ontario when the original Will can not be located on the death of a testator. 

David M. Smith

David M. Smith - Click here for more information on David Smith.

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

On December 15, 2009, the Good Government Act, 2009 received royal assent. This statute amended or repealed over 300 pieces of legislation, ranging from the Accumulations Act to the Off-Road Vehicles Act. There are various amendments that should be of particular interest to those of us who practice estate, capacity and trust litigation.

The Crown Administration of Estates Act is amended by adding a new section 5.1, dealing with the enforceability of compensation agreements. A “compensation agreement” is defined to mean an agreement with an heir of an estate that provides for compensation, directly or indirectly, to one or more persons or entities on the location, recovery or distribution of any interest in the estate to which the heir may be entitled. In cases of estates administered by the Public Guardian and Trustee, there must be fair disclosure before a possible heir is asked to sign a compensation agreement. In addition, there is a cap on compensation of 10 per cent of the value of the possible heir’s interest in the estate. Click here for the complete text of the Act.

The Health Care Consent Act, 1996 is amended to increase the time allowed, from two days to four days, for the Consent and Capacity Board to issue written reasons for decisions. In addition, the Act is amended to allow the Board to direct Legal Aid Ontario (instead of the Public Guardian and Trustee or the Office of the Children’s Lawyer) to arrange for legal representation for a person who may be incapable with respect to a treatment, managing property, admission to a care facility or a personal assistance service. Click here for the complete text of this Act.

Bianca La Neve

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

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

The Toronto Star recently reported on Alzheimer’s disease, stating that “cases of the mind-robbing disease will more than double to 1.25 million within 30 years as baby boomers age”. 

With the numbers pointing upward as the population grays, a recent report by the Alzheimer Society, entitled Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia on Canadian Society suggests the following steps to help reduce the impact of dementia:

1.                  Prevention programs based on healthy diet and physical activity that can delay the onset of dementia by two years, with a potential cost saving of $219 billion over the 30-year period.

2.                  Enhanced skill-building and support programs for family caregivers, many of whom suffer financial hardship because they must leave jobs to look after a relative with dementia.

3.                  Assigning a case manager to each newly diagnosed dementia patient and their caregivers, which could help the person remain at home longer and lessen the strain on the long-term-care system.

Today, annual funding for Alzheimer’s is approximately $24 million. The Toronto Star reports that if “nothing changes, this sharp increase in the number of people living with dementia will mean that by 2038, the total costs associated with dementia will reach $153 billion a year”. 

We have already seen a substantial influx with respect to Will challenges, particularly because there has been a big question mark about the testator’s capacity. The grim realty is that this will be a continuing problem that Estate Solicitors are going to have to tackle.

Thank you for reading.

Rick Bickhram

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

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

As I was recently researching the duty of trustees, I stumbled upon a term that I might fully have expected to have found in a Dr. Seuss book rather than a legal text. I shall use it in the context in which it appears, as a subject title, although I doubt this will help you figure out what it means:

Dishonourable duty to “gazump” 

I found the whole passage so fascinating that I shall reproduce it for your enjoyment and potential enlightenment:

“Where trustees who have entered into negotiations for the sale of trust property receive a subsequent higher offer from another party they should at least probe the subsequent offer irrespective of questions of commercial morality which might have led a vendor who was not a trustee to close the deal with the original purchaser. Nevertheless, the trustees retain such a discretion as will allow them to act with proper prudence, and may pray in aid the commonsense rule underlying the old proverb “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”; so that there may be cases in which they could properly refuse a higher offer and proceed with a lower one.”

Underhill & Hayton, “The Law of Trusts and Trustees” (London: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2007) at page 716

Click here for the Wikipedia definition of gazumping and its opposite, gazundering (just for fun). Here is a link to a gazumping reference in a 2006 judgment, just in case you don’t believe me  - see paragraph 45. 

There are a couple of lessons to be learned here. The first is that not all legal terms need be Latin or pretentious-sounding. The second is that while the law may apparently foist a dishonourable duty upon (poor unsuspecting) trustees, if they happen to be holding a bird in one hand they will probably be okay. 

I’ll bet every Who in Whoville already knew that.

 Sharon Davis

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

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

Rule 45 of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure contains mechanisms by which a party can freeze assets that are in issue or relevant to the proceeding.  However, this should be done prior to the close of pleadings because once the matter is set down for trial, Rule 48.04(1) applies.  Rule 48.04(1) requires that any motion brought after the close of pleadings have leave of the court.  Leave will only be available where there has been a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances.

A recent example of Rule 48.04(1) barring a motion for interim preservation occured in Trapukowitcz Estate v. Royal Bank of Canada.  In this case, an estate trustee was seeking an order that the proceeds of a GIC and a bank account be paid into court pending determination of ownership.  Justice Harris refused to grant leave to bring the motion because, on the basis of the admissible evidence, the estate trustee had not shown a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances. 

Justice Harris followed Machado v. Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc. (1993), 16 O.R. (3d) 250, which requires strong affidavit evidence to demonstrate a "substantial and unexpected change in circumstances to the extent that to refuse the order would be manifestly unjust".  The grounds in the moving estate trustee's affidavit were unconvincing. 

As importantly, viva voce evidence given in submissions was not considered.  To do so would be unfair to the respondent, particularly since the evidence had been available since June 4, 2009 and the hearing took place in August 6, 2009.  Therefore, Justice Harris cited Rule 37.06(b), which stipulates that every notice of motion must state the grounds to be argued, and refused to consider the viva voce evidence. 

There is no requirement under Rule 45 to prove the assets are actually at risk, so a R. 45 freezing order is easier to get before the close of pleadings.

Enjoy your day,

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

We have reported on Alzheimer’s frequently in our blogs. A World Alzheimer’s Report released this week is another reminder of the widespread implications of the disease.

In Canada, about one in every 11 people over the age of 65 is living with Alzheimer's or a related dementia. Worldwide, the figure is about 35.6 million and it will grow to 115 million in 40 years. The report focuses on the impact on caregivers, healthcare infrastructure and the economy.

Of course the impacts will be felt in the legal field as capacity issues occur more frequently: a spouse caring for his or her partner; children caring for parents and the state stepping in when no one else is available to assist. Each scenario will require that guardianship issues be addressed; personal property and personal care decisions will ideally have been addressed in advance.

A story that unfolded over the last few years is a case in point. A Nova Scotia couple was separated as a woman with dementia was brought back to Britain against the wishes of her husband. The siblings who took her back to the U.K. claimed they were following her wishes. The husband said otherwise. The saga ended this week as the woman’s ashes were returned to her husband. 

Advances in medicine may halt the advance of this disease. In any event, it is advisable to consider continuing powers for property and continuing powers for personal care.

Enjoy your day. 

Jonathan

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

 

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

The moment of death is obviously the seminal triggering event in the context of estate and trust law.  As but one example, a Will speaks from the moment of death.

A recent article in the National Post raises an interesting question regarding when death actually occurs and how it is defined.  There is a medical difference between "cardiac death" and "brain death."  As the article notes, the issue is of most concern in the context or organ donation. Simply put, the cardiac death protocol provides that declaration of death may be made 5 minutes after cardiac death.  However, in extremely rare instances, case have been reported of a "Lazarus syndrome" and "auto-resuscitation" as long as ten minutes after cardiac death.  In any event, a person may still have brain activity for a period of time after cardiac death.

As Jocelyn Downie, an ethicist at Dalhousie University notes: "It is only after the declaration of death that certain things can happen:  we can take your organs, we can bury you, we can do an autopsy...we can trigger all sorts of things around your property."  Downie advocates a more rigid definition. 

Legislation in most provinces suggests that death is to be determined by physicians according to "current medical practice." PEI's law is more specific (death can "include brain death").  In Quebec, there is no legal definition at all:  the matter is left completely to the physician.

Ontario's Trillium Gift of Life Network endorsed the new donation-after-cardiac-death (DCD) protocol only after extensive research and consultation that ensured it is a moral and medically appropriate practice.

David M. Smith

 

 

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

Today’s blog is the last in my series this week addressing certain aspects of preparation for trial in a contested passing of accounts.    The items discussed this week were certainly not meant to be, nor were they, exhaustive. Preparation necessary for a hearing/trial with narrow issues, few documents, few evidentiary concerns and an uncomplicated Estate will obviously be different than a case with numerous issues, voluminous documents, evidentiary issues and a complicated administration. The critical aspect of trial preparation is that it begins at the beginning of a case; not literally, but certainly in the sense of being mindful at pre-trial stages of the evidentiary considerations and how the evidence is to be marshalled and presented.

Aside from ensuring that you have appropriate resource materials at the trial (such as texts dealing with the rules of evidence, the Rules of Civil Procedure, Probate Practice etc.), it is important to have prepared your opening and closing statements (to the extent possible), have prepared the necessary law regarding the substantive issues in dispute (casebook, factum), have addressed costs submissions (organizing offers to settle, preparing a Bill of Costs etc.), and have a trial binder with you at trial for your own use. 

A trial binder typically contains the pertinent materials that you would like to have at your fingertips during the trial (ie. pleadings, orders, witness lists, witness summaries, answers to undertakings, listing of the types of evidence, objections, offers to settle etc.).  The trial binder will allow you to have quick access to information that you might only have a few minutes or less to locate and quickly review. 

 

While most contested passings settle at a pre-trial stage, if a trial is necessary, success may hinge on the preparedness of the parties.

 

Thanks for reading this week. 

 

Have a great weekend.

 

Craig

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

The recent case of Re Henry (2009) CanLII 12329 (ON S.C.) is an excellent illustration of how a court scrutinizes evidence in a will challenge. 

In Re Henry, the deceased died on May 28, 2005.  Two weeks earlier, on May 12, 2005, he had made a Will designating his second wife as his sole beneficiary.  The deceased's son from a prior marriage challenged the will on the grounds of undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity and lack of knowledge and approval of the contents of the will.   

The trial judge found in favour of the second wife on all issues: due execution was shown, the deceased had testamentary capacity along with full knowledge and approval of the contents of the will.  The challenger's evidence, which consisted largely of his and his sister's testimony, did not bear scrutiny: some of it was inadmissible, testimony appeared reconstructed as opposed to remembered, testimony contained factual inconsistencies, legal submissions contained errors of law and so on.  By contrast, the evidence brought by the second wife was accepted in whole.

No new law is generated in Re Henry, at least not per se.  But there is a concise consideration of the applicable standard of proof which will be helpful for any lawyer making submissions regarding evidence in a will challenge.  Newbould J. points out that the principle in Vout v. Hay, [1995] S.C.R. 6 that evidence of suspicious circumstances must "be scrutinized in accordance with the gravity of the suspicion" may no longer be good law as a result of F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 S.C.C. 53.  F.H. v. McDougall states "[t]here is only one legal rule and that is in all cases, evidence must be scrutinized with care by the trial judge."  So which is it: Vout v. Hay or F.H. v McDougall? 

Having laid out the jurisprudence, Justice Newbould states:

"I need not decide in this case whether the passage from Vout v. Hay that I have referred to is still good law because in my view the evidence is the same regardless of whether the evidence is scrutinized with greater care in accordance with the gravity of the suspicious circumstances.  I have taken care to scrutinize all of the evidence".

Have a great day,

Chris Graham

 

 

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

 As an aging society, we are likely to see an increase in issues surrounding abuse of our elderly. Just simply take a look at our recent estate and trust literature and you will notice that there has been an increase in articles about elder law. 

Recently, I read an article labeled “Putting the Brakes on POA Fraud.” This article can be found in Briefly Speaking which is the official magazine of the Ontario Bar Association. The article is authored by David Freedman, who is an associate professor at Queen’s University faculty of Law.  In his article, Professor Freedman looks at the common situation in which elder abuse is likely to occur wherein he states: “The prototypical example is the situation in which the elderly parent resides with one child who is to take principal responsibility for the parent’s care and who has been given a POA by the parent over his or her assets. Perhaps it is the siblings or a third-party care-giver who complains about the exercise or non-exercise of the POA, but there are many cases in which the assets are misappropriated.” Of course there is a strong public interest in protecting our elderly against financial exploitation, but what can we do?

For those of us who practice in this area of the law, how often have we heard of a family member approaching the police  to make a complaint about an elderly person who has been taken advantage of and being told “it’s a civil matter”? False. Section 331 of the Criminal Code of Canada addresses the issue of “Theft by a Person Holding a Power of Attorney.” In addition to the Criminal Code, there are civil remedies that are founded on the principles of restitution. Professor Freedman states that regardless of the type of case (criminal or civil) “the interest is the same, stripping the wrong-doer of any illicit gain and restoring the victim as much as it is possible to do in the circumstances.”

Thank you for reading,

Rick Bickhram

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

An attorney acting under a power of attorney may be required to account to the beneficiaries of the grantor’s estate after the death of the grantor. This is the holding in the decision of McAllister Estate v. Hudgin. Megan Connolly blogged on this case here, on the issue of accounting, and here, on the issue of removal of an estate trustee.

In the May 11/18, 2009 issue of the Law Times, in a comment titled “The duty of an attorney to account”, John O’Sullivan and Lori M. Duffy comment further on the McAllister decision. They note other cases where an attorney for property has been compelled to account to the beneficiaries of an estate after the death of the grantor.

The authors suggest that in light of the duty to account, “the wisest course for a person exercising a power of attorney for property following these decisions is to assume that he or she will be required at some point in the future to account to persons opposed in interest, and to conduct themselves accordingly throughout their tenure as power of attorney.”

The authors go on to suggest that attorneys should, if they can, ensure that the power of attorney document provides protection for the costs that they may be forced to incur in preparing the accounts and passing them before the court.

Thank you for reading,

Paul Trudelle

 

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

In keeping with modern advances in our society, The Honourable Coulter Osborne (former Associate Chief Justice of Ontario), was asked to propose some options that would assist in making our civil justice system more accessible and affordable.  The Honourable Coulter Osborne submitted his findings and recommendations and in December 2008 The Civil Rules Committee filed amendments, which are scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 2010 (amendments can be found here).  It is important to note that there is no transitional stage with respect to the amendments coming into force. 

The following are a few amendments that caught my eye:

1.    Rule 1.04 (1.1) provides that the court shall make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of issues, and the amount involved, in the proceeding.  

2.    Rule 1.08 will permit the court, on its own initiative, to hear matters by telephone or video conference.  

3.    Pursuant to Rule 20 (summary judgment), the general test to obtain judgment is the moving parties ability to show that there is "no genuine issue for trial".  Rule 20 has now been amended which imposes the burden on the moving party to show that there is "no genuine issue requiring a trial".   

4.    In actions commenced in Toronto, Ottawa and Essex County, mandatory mediations are to take place within 180 days, rather than from 90 days of filing the first defence unless the court orders otherwise.  

5.    Where the discovery tools are likely to be implemented in a litigious matter, Rule 29.1 now requires the parties to agree to a discovery plan before the earlier of 60 days after the close of pleadings or such longer period as agreed.  The discovery plan must be in writing and it must include the intended scope of documentary discovery, taking into account relevance, costs and the importance and complexity of the issues.

6.    With respect to examinations for discovery, regardless of the number of parties or other persons to be examined, no party is allowed to examine for more than seven hours unless the party has obtained the consent of the parties or has obtained a court order.

7.    The monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court will be increased to $25,000.00.

Again, these amendments were made with a view that it would make our civil justice system more accessible and affordable.  For instance, permitting courts to hear matters via telephone or video conference will free up judicial resources, and reduce Lawyers fees.   Increasing the monetary jurisdiction of Small Claims Court to $25,000.00 will provide access to justice for many in need and at the same time eliminate the demanding obligations that are imposed upon parties under the Rules of Civil Procedure.   I will be looking on with interest as these amendments take effect in the new year.

Thank you for reading and have a great day.  

Rick



 

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

The British lawyer and author, John Mortimer, died on January 16, 2009. During his 85 years he produced more than 50 novels, biographies and memoirs. Of course he was best known for the creation of Rumpole of the Bailey.

Mr. Mortimer had an active professional life, and by many accounts, an active private life as well. He was first married in 1949: apparently he noticed his first wife while he rode a horse and peered over a hedge.  After divorcing around 1970, he married again in 1972.  Both wives were named Penelope, although he called his second wife Penny.

While the deceased lawyer may have organized his affairs with the requisite estate planning in place, the experience in Canada might suggest that Mr. Mortimer’s Estate will encounter some challenges not least of which may relate to copyright issues.

I refer to Lucy Maud Montgomery who died on April 24, 1942. The creator of Anne of Green Gables left a legacy of work and maybe just a few headaches for her heirs. 

After all the copyright kinks were ironed out, it seems that Anne of Green Gables has a bright future ahead of her.  With luck, and the combined efforts of lawyers and artists, Rumpole will experience similar success and longevity.

Thank you for reading.

Jonathan Morse

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

Powers of Appointment may appear in a Will when a testator wishes to entrust the donee with authority to direct who will be the recipients of the testator's property.  A not uncommon scenario is one in which the donee of the power is given a life interest in the testator's estate and a Power of Appointment to determine which of the donee's issue shall be the recipients of the residue of the testator's estate on the death of the donee.

To exercise such Power of Appointment, the donee has to, first of all, survive the testator and, secondly, make a Will which successfully exercises the Power of Appointment. If the donee dies before the testator whose Will grants the Power of Appointment, the power clearly lapses and the Will will presumably provide a gift over to address such eventuality.

Such a decision to effectively delegate testamentary authority is not without its perils and counsel should probably carefully review with the testator the ramifications of granting a Power of Appointment respecting the distribution of residue.  For instance, if the testator has a good relationship with her grandchildren (i.e. the donee's children) the testator ought not to presume how the donee will in fact exercise the Power of Appointment.  In addition, the donee's Will may be vulnerable to a challenge which could conceivably defeat the testator's intention in granting the Power of Appointment

David M. Smith

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Primary and secondary wills are common enough situations for estates practitioners: one will for probate and the other for assets that can pass outside probate, to minimize estates administration taxes.  But what about situations with multiple wills requiring probate?

According to the October 8, 2008 endorsement of Mr. Justice Brown (court file no. 01-2725-08, no link available yet), where a testator makes 2 wills, each covering different assets, and each naming different executors, a local estates registrar can issue separate Certificates of Appointment of Estate Trustees to different executors limited to the assets referred to in each Will.

The endorsement closes with 2 "reminders" to applicants in multiple wills situations (I won't paraphrase):...

 

First "reminder":

 

 "If multiple wills exist and the executors plan to obtain probate for each, in addition to including an affidavit attesting to non-revocation as I described above, the applicants should ensure that the draft limited assets certificates of appointment which they submit each clearly identify the will for which probate is sought - e.g. the General Will dated X, or the Secondary Will dated Y, or the "will dated Z styled as the Limited Assets Will".  With each will clearly identified on the face of each certificate, the risk of any confusion arising from the issuance of separate certificates for each will should be kept to a minimum."

Second "reminder":

"If the application for a certificate involves a Granovsky-type situation where probate is sought only for one of the wills, it is important that the application materials contain a brief affidavit attesting that the non-probated will does not contain any provision revoking the will for which probate is being sought.  Such evidence will permit the Estates Office to be satisfied that the will for which probate is sought remains in force and governs the disposition of the assets enumerated in it: Re Kerzner Estate, 2008 CanLII 42020 (ON S.C.)."

I hope this helps.

Chris Graham

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

The cooler weather is cause for many people, retirees especially, to plan an annual sojourn south.

In preparing for the winter, protecting real property -- often a significant asset -- may be top of mind.

My colleague, Paul Trudelle, wrote about "Real Estate Transactions Involving Powers of Attorney" in July 2008.  While travelling south for the winter does not require a sale, steps can be taken to minimize risks to real property.  The Government of Ontario suggests that to avoid real estate fraud one should protect his or her identity and be alert to identity theft.

Regarding a Power of Attorney, the government also suggests caution:  "Whenever you give another person a power of attorney that permits them to deal with your personal assets, you should consult with your lawyers or advisers regarding appropriate limitations."

In a 2004 Canadian Bar Association paper -- Cross-Border Issues for Snowbirds and Roaming Retirees - Marilyn Piccini Roy wrote: "If the Snowbird owns real estate elsewhere, this power of attorney may not be recognized there if the law of the situs applies its own law to the formal or substantive validity of the power of attorney or to its effectiveness vis-à-vis third parties."   If a Power of Attorney deals with assets in different jurisdictions, one should seek legal advice in the jurisdiction of the asset(s).

Recent Ontario case law highlights issues that can arise regarding real estate when a fraudulent Power of Attorney is used.  Reviczky v. Meleknia; Caplan (Intervenor) 2007 Canlii 56494 (On. S.C.) raises quesitons about a solicitor's duty to"go behind" a Power of Attorney by enquiring about the donor's mental capacity at the time of signing and later, as well as evidentiary requirements.  The recent case law reminds all of us, including snowbirds, of the risks that exist with a Power of Attorney.  

Jonathan Morse 

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

I have learned that only a small percentage of applications for certificate of appointment of an estate trustee, filed in Toronto, are approved without being sent back for correction.  

Some common problems associated with these types of applications are, incorrect or inconsistent references to the deceased's name, problems concerning the mailing of the application to beneficiaries who have an interest in the subject estate, incorrect calculations of estate administration tax and in cases involving holographic wills, a missing affidavit attesting to the handwriting of the deceased.  Needless to mention, most of these errors can be avoided if the application is carefully reviewed.

But what happens if the deceased's name is spelled incorrectly in the Will?  If there is an error in the deceased's name in the Will, the heading on all of the documents should reflect the correct name, followed by a statement stating "incorrectly referred to in the Will as (insert the name is it appears in the Will).  It is also important to remember, that the names of beneficiaries shown in the notice of application must be identical to the way in which their names appear in the Will.  

Thanks for reading,

Rick Bickhram

 

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

Today’s blog is a continuation of my blogs this week on the variation of a trust under the Variation of Trusts Act and will focus on the Deed of Arrangement. 

The approach to, and content of, the Deed of Arrangement will most certainly depend on the circumstances involved. The approach to the Deed of Arrangement may be quite different if the variation arises as a result of an ongoing proceeding (and has been negotiated as part of that proceeding conditional on Court approval) than if it does not.
 

A Deed of Arrangement typically names and is signed by all capacitated beneficiaries. These beneficiaries are usually identified and grouped according to their interest in the trust. The trustee is also usually identified and is a signatory of the Deed of Arrangement as the trustee consents to act under the varied trust. Incapacitated beneficiaries are not typically named as parties to the Deed of Arrangement as the Court is approving the variation on their behalf.

A Deed of Arrangement may (depending on the provision and as necessary) also contain (the following are not meant to be exhaustive) (i) recitals which provide background on the trust, the parties, trustee, potential beneficiaries and provisions of the trust including, as necessary, the term in the trust that is being varied, (ii) a paragraph that the Deed of Arrangement is subject to Court approval on behalf of the incapacitated beneficiary(ies), (iii) paragraphs setting out the variation, with the paragraph number of where the paragraph fits into the trust and indicating how the paragraph fits into the trust, (iv) paragraphs addressing, if applicable, any action that is required as part of the variation, (v) a paragraph allowing for the Deed of Arrangement to be signed in counterpart if there are numerous parties, (vi) a paragraph addressing the payment of the costs of the preparation of the Deed of Arrangement and the Application, and (vii) a paragraph addressing the legal advice obtained.

Thanks for reading, Craig
 

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

In yesterday’s blog on the procedure typically involved with a variation of a trust proceeding under the Variation of Trusts Act, I mentioned that today I would touch upon the need to appoint a litigation guardian for a minor, unascertained, unborn and/or for an incapable party in such a proceeding. 

Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regulates the bringing of proceedings by or against parties under disability.  As set out in the commentary to the Rule, “its central requirement is that persons under disability must be represented by a litigation guardian…Rule 7.02 creates a presumptive right for a mentally incapable person’s guardian or attorney under power of attorney to act as litigation guardian, so long as the guardian or attorney has the authority to act by the terms of his or her appointment as guardian or attorney.”  

However, a litigation guardian for such a defendant or respondent must be appointed by the Court.  The procedure for same is set out in Rule 7.03.  Unless there is some other proper person willing to act as litigation guardian, the Court is to appoint the Children’s Lawyer or the Public Guardian and Trustee as applicable.

Rule 7.03(2), specifically requires, however, that where a proceeding (ie. a variation of trust) is against a minor in respect of the minor’s interest in an estate or trust, the Children’s Lawyer shall act as the litigation guardian of the minor respondent, unless the Court orders otherwise.

It may also be that a representation order, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, is required to have a person appointed to represent persons who are unborn or unascertained and have an interest in the trust.

Although Rule 10 does not refer specifically to the Children’s Lawyer, the Courts have traditionally appointed the Children’s Lawyer to represent this class of beneficiaries.

If there is more than one group of incapacitated beneficiaries requiring representation by the Children’s Lawyer, the Public Guardian and Trustee will often represent one group if there is a conflict of interest.

Thanks for reading.  Craig

 

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

On a contested passing of accounts, counsel may be requested to represent two or more clients, such as multiple beneficiaries of an estate or co-estate trustees. In such cases, it is critical to ensure that a conflict of interest does not exist. When counsel first meets with potential multiple clients their respective interests may well be perfectly aligned and identical and it may not appear that there is a potential conflict of interest. Further, all consent to the representation of multiple parties. 

In the case of multiple executors, in order to avoid a conflict of interest the controversial issues need to be addressed and discussed in detail. For instance, how will executor’s compensation be apportioned as between them? Is there a different relationship between each executor and the beneficiaries? Does one executor disagree with any actions taken by any of the other executors? Will their evidence be the same? Do the executors share the identical expectations of how the litigation should proceed as well as in respect of potential settlement? The potential disagreements can be discovered by exploring the issues up front.
 

If a conflict arises and the clients are not able to resolve a conflict, counsel may not be able to continue to act for any of them. Pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct, if a conflict exists or is likely to exist, clients need to be advised of the consequences of sharing counsel and consent after being informed of those consequences. In certain circumstances where clients wish and consent to having one lawyer represent them despite a conflict of interest, independent legal advice may be needed.

Joint retainer agreements or letters explaining the joint retainer relationship can set out the above issues so that clients and their lawyer are clear on their relationship and the passing of accounts.

Canadian Olympic medal count: 13. Keep watching.

Craig
 

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

When an irresistable force meets an immovable object, we appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

In Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44, the force is the Personal Information Protection of Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA") and the object is solicitor-client privilege.  Section 12 of PIPEDA grants the Privacy Commissioner express statutory power to compel a person to produce any records that the Privacy Commissioner considers necessary to investigate a complaint “in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record”.  The issue in Blood Tribe was whether this conferred a right of access to documents protected by solicitor-client privilege.  The Court held unanimously that the broad grant did not contain the requisite specific express authority to override privilege.

The Court stated the rule that "general words of a statutory grant of authority to an office holder such as an ombudsperson or a regulator do not confer a right to access solicitor-client documents, even for the limited purpose of determining whether the privilege is properly claimed.  That role is reserved to the courts.  Express words are necessary to permit a regulator or other statutory official to “pierce” the privilege." 

The Court also noted that "while the solicitor-client privilege may have started life as a rule of evidence, it is now unquestionably a rule of substance applicable to all interactions between a client and his or her lawyer when the lawyer is engaged in providing legal advice or otherwise acting as a lawyer rather than as a business counsellor or in some other non-legal capacity."

Speaking of the Supreme Court of Canada, the law you're looking for just might be in the "unreported judgments" section of the Supreme Court's user-friendly website.  How does a Supreme Court decision go unreported?

Have a great day,

Chris Graham

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

The issue of when a missing person will be deemed to be deceased was most recently (and prominently) in the news during the search for Steve Fossett.  Notwithstanding the relatively short duration of time since his disappearance on September 3, 2007, circumstantial evidence suggested that, on a balance of probabilities, his death was a safe assumption and Fossett was declared legally dead on February 15 , 2008.

In Ontario, the Absentee Act deals with the situation in which a person is missing but about whom there is "no knowledge as to whether he or she is alive or dead."  In such a situation, the Court has the power to appoint a trust company or others to deal with that person's affairs in the interim.  Interestingly, the term "Committee" (which also used to be the title given to the person now appointed as a "Guardian" under the provisions of the Substitute Decisions Act) still is used for this purpose.

The Act provides that certain persons including the Absentee's spouse or (adult) child can make application to the court for a declaration of Absentee and the appointment of a Committee to manage such person's property. 

The question that inevitably arises in any such situation is:  what if the Absentee in fact shows up one day, alive and well, and wanting to know what has happened to his or her property?  Of course, such situations are rare but not unheard of.  In such a case, the Committee will have the obligations of a fiduciary to account for the Absentee's property.  The Committee will likely make a compelling argument that the Absentee's assets ought to be available to fund the costs of making the application and compensating the Committee for safeguarding the Absentee's assets.

David M. Smith

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act establishes the authority for the Court to award costs. Section 131 states that the Court has absolute discretion in awarding costs, subject to the provisions of an Act or the rules of court. 

Before July 2005, the Rules of Civil Procedure provided some sense of certainty to the Court’s broad discretion in awarding costs as the Rules provided a costs grid. The costs grid suggested that costs were to be determined by an hourly rate multiplied by the time spent. In 2004, the Court of Appeal in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council set forth the general principle as to the fixing of costs pursuant to Rule 57.01 and the costs grid. With respect to costs, the Court stated that the overall “objective is to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the particular proceeding, rather than an amount fixed by the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant”. Subsequently, in July 2005, the Rules were amended. 

The amendment to the Rules abolished the costs grid and expanded on the list of factors, set out in Rule 57.01, which the Court may consider before making a cost award. Rule 57.01 was now expanded to include the principle of full indemnity and the reasonable expectations of an unsuccessful party to pay a cost award.

The principle of the reasonable expectations of an unsuccessful party to pay a cost award appears to provide the parties with some flexibility in obtaining the maximum cost award by permitting the successful party to establish the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.  

Thanks for reading, and have a great day!

Rick

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

Today’s blog is the last in my series addressing preparation for trial in a contested passing. The items discussed this week were certainly not meant to be, nor were they, exhaustive. Preparation necessary for a trial with narrow issues, few documents, few evidentiary concerns and an uncomplicated Estate will obviously be different than a case with numerous issues, voluminous documents, evidentiary issues and a complicated administration. The critical aspect of trial preparation is that it begins at the beginning of a case; not literally, but certainly in the sense of being mindful at pre-trial stages of the evidentiary considerations and how the evidence is to be marshalled and presented.

Aside from ensuring that you have appropriate resource materials at the trial (such as texts dealing with the rules of evidence, the Rules of Civil Procedure, Probate Practice etc.), it is important to have prepared your opening and closing statements (to the extent possible), have prepared the necessary law regarding the substantive issues in dispute (casebook, factum), have addressed costs submissions (organizing offers to settle, preparing a Bill of Costs etc.), and have a trial binder with you at trial for your own use.

A trial binder usually contains the pertinent materials that you would like to have at your fingertips during the trial (ie. pleadings, orders, witness lists, witness summaries, answers to undertakings, listing of the types of evidence objections, offers to settle etc.). The trial binder will allow you to have quick access to information that you might only have a few minutes or less to locate and quickly review.

While most contested passings settle at a pre-trial stage, if a trial is necessary, it might well be won because one party was more prepared than the other.

Thanks for reading this week. Have a great weekend.

Craig

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

Today’s blog, which is part of my series this week addressing preparation for trial in a contested passing, deals with several issues regarding evidence at trial.

Rule 52.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure deals with the marking and numbering of exhibits at trial. Where appropriate and practical, a joint book of documents simplifies the use of documents and the marking of exhibits during the trial. With a joint book of documents, the Judge, the Registrar, each counsel and the witnesses only need to refer to one set of documents, rather than to multiple sets of documents. Depending on issues of admissibility, exhibits can be dealt with by marking each volume as an exhibit or each specific document, within a volume, as it is dealt with.

With respect to witnesses, amongst other things, the following may be done:
(i) make a witness list of anticipated witnesses for each of the parties;
(ii) prepare a chart of the issues/documents to be proved by each witness;
(iii) identify and consider the concerns, evidentiary or not, with the evidence and documents to be dealt with by each witness (some concerns might include whether the Rule in Browne v. Dunn is an issue, are there hearsay evidence concerns, do originals of the documents need to be proved, is a document admissible, what Notices are required under the Ontario Evidence Act, is a witness a hostile witness, and s.13 of the Evidence Act);
(iv) ensure summaries of the evidence of witnesses are obtained and provided if the provision of summaries has been agreed to, or ordered at the pre-trial conference;
(v) prepare all witnesses you are calling and provide the witnesses with copies of the documents applicable to them, where practical;
(vi) prepare for the examinations in-chief and cross-examinations and the documents to be referred to prior to preparing your witnesses;
(vii) if the witnesses are experts, ensure Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is complied and be mindful of Rule 31.06 regarding the scope of examination on discovery of the findings, opinions and conclusions of one’s experts;
(viii) prepare and serve Summons to Witness (Rule 53.04); and
(ix) consider whether an Order excluding witnesses is necessary (Rule 52.06).

Consider anticipated objections to evidence to be adduced by opposing parties and prepare submissions and applicable law, as necessary, prior to the trial.

In addition, while demonstrative evidence is a common feature of jury trials, thought should be given as to whether there are tools such as a family tree diagram and/or a chronology of events that can be prepared to assist the Judge at trial.

Thanks for reading.

Craig

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

Today’s blog is a continuation of my blogs this week addressing preparation for trial in a contested passing.

It is important in preparing for trial to prepare summaries of the transcripts of the examinations conducted to assist counsel with locating evidence in the transcripts during trial, including admissions and/or inconsistent statements made by a witness at trial. Having said that counsel should personally review the transcripts as part of trial preparation. By reviewing the transcripts, counsel can address issues involving: (i) the completeness and answers to undertakings/refusals, (ii) admissions made by the respective parties, (iii) incomplete answers provided by the respective parties to questions on the examinations, and (iv) whether additional discovery is needed before trial.

Ensure all of your client’s undertakings have been answered. Opposing counsel may not be pressing for the answers to your client’s undertakings, but the answers should be obtained so that (i) you are not surprised by the answer of your client to an unanswered undertaking at trial, (ii) delay cannot be alleged as against your client at a pre-trial stage should the issue arise, (iii) no adverse inferences can be drawn at trial as to why your client has not provided an answer, and (iv) a request for further discovery on the answers will not be entertained just prior to trial, or perhaps even as an issue during the trial. Ensure all of the opposing party’s undertakings have been answered and any follow up discovery has been conducted. If a damages brief is to be provided by the opposing party as a result of an undertaking at examinations or otherwise, ensure that it has been provided.

A party may also, further to Rule 51.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, at any time, by serving a Request to Admit, request any other party to admit, for the purposes of the proceeding only, the truth of a fact or the authenticity of a document. A copy of any document mentioned in the Request to Admit shall, where practicable be served with the request (unless a copy is already in the possession of the other party).

The opposing party must respond to the Request to Admit within 20 days, failing which the opposing party will be deemed to admit the truth of the facts asserted in the Request to Admit or the authenticity of the documents referred to in the Request to Admit. As such, the Request to Admit should be served at least 20 days before the commencement of the trial, and quite some time before that, if possible, so that counsel will know what facts need not be proved or the authenticity of documents that will not need to be proved.

There may be cost consequences if a party refuses to admit the truth of a fact or authenticate documents which are proven or authenticated during the trial.

Requests to Admit may be effective to: (i) reduce the facts in dispute, (ii) reduce the number of witnesses to be called and/or the examination of a witness, (iii) minimize the costs and length of the trial, and (iv) avoid having to authenticate documents.

Thanks for reading.

Craig

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

While contentious passings of accounts are regularly resolved at a pre-trial stage such as mediation, and without the necessity for a hearing, in certain circumstances a contested passing of accounts may only be resolved by way of a trial. In many cases, a successful result at trial is the direct result of the trial preparation.

It is perhaps trite to say, but trial preparation does not begin between the pre-trial conference and the commencement of trial; rather, it begins with the formulation of a strategy for the case, the identification of the issues in dispute, the determination of the evidence required to prove the case and the marshalling of that evidence. As such, while the ultimate strategy for a trial cannot be finalized until the pre-trial stages of the passing have been completed, and counsel have the benefit of a thorough review of the case (before the pre-trial conference), parties ought to be mindful of the matters to be dealt with at trial throughout the litigation and how such matters can be dealt with or addressed during the pre-trial stages, including through documentary disclosure, examinations and by way of orders of the Court (such as an Order Giving Directions or otherwise).

Having said that, my blogs this week will include a series that considers preparation for a trial of a contested passing.

Have a great day.

Craig

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

You know a trust has the potential to run off the rails when the beneficiary refers to the trustees as "The Three Musketeers".

After his untimely death in 2003, Dr. Robert Atkins' widow sold his business netting proceeds of some $420 million. In his will, the famous diet guru set up two trusts: (i) a spousal trust that would benefit his wife, holding 90% of his assets, and (ii) a research foundation which would get the remaining 10%.   

Cue the sword clanging of the three musketeers:  a self-described entrepreneur, an accountant, and a lawyer, who befriended Ms. Atkins and became the widow's closest advisors as well as trustees for the spousal trust (replacing the two trustees who had been appointed by Dr. Atkins). It is reported that Ms. Atkins subsequently agreed to pay each of them $1.2 million per year (excluding bonuses), signed them to 10-yr contracts, and allowed each of them to take out a $5 million life insurance policy on her life, naming themselves as beneficiaries.  

Fast forward to a Wall Street Journal online report  that a lawsuit had been filed by the Musketeers accusing Ms. Atkins of improperly firing them.  Ms. Atkins and her new spouse asked for the trio to be removed as her trustees and further sought reimbursement of some of their fees.  The relationship between the Musketeers and Ms. Atkins began to disintegrate in 2006 when Ms. Atkins met her new spouse to be, who himself then became increasingly involved in her finances. When the Musketeers balked at her new spouse's demands to encroach for an additional $100 million for Ms. Atkins (above and beyond her $15 million annual income), he started making noise about having them removed as trustees.  

$420 million.    

That's a lot of bread.

Have a great weekend,

David

 

 

 

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

It is widely assumed, and accepted for that matter, that a formal passing of accounts affords full protection to an estate trustee. The familiar mantra is that those with a financial interest in an estate are not only required to object to the accounts proffered, but must concurrently raise any other issue regarding the overall competency of the estate trustee (succinctly summed by the phrase “you snooze you lose”). However, I recently came across an Ontario Court of Appeal (“C.A.”) case that challenges that proposition.

By way of background, section 49(2) of the Estates Act states: “The judge, on passing the accounts of an executor… has jurisdiction to enter into and make full inquiry and accounting of … the whole property that the deceased was possessed of… [including] its administration and disbursement”. Section 49(3) authorizes a judge to order the estate trustee to pay damages if the estate trustee occasioned financial loss to the estate through misconduct, neglect, or default. It is worth noting that the language is permissive, not mandatory, seemingly providing a beneficiary with the opportunity to make a later complaint.

In Simone Estate v. Cheifetz, www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2005/2005canlii36155/2005canlii36155.html,Stephen Cheifetz was a Windsor lawyer who was named as one of three executors of the respective estates of a husband and wife (his clients) who died tragically in a plane crash. Mr. Cheifetz eventually resigned as estate trustee and was ordered to pass his accounts. His compensation was challenged and Mr. Cheifetz was ultimately ordered to repay monies taken as compensation. The successor estate trustee then brought an action against Mr. Cheifetz for damages for breach of fiduciary duty/breach of trust.

Somewhat complicating the matter was the fact that the decision arose out of a rule 20 and rule 21 motion. However, to cut to the chase, the C.A. held that on the earlier passing of accounts the court was concerned with the proper compensation to be paid to Mr. Cheifetz as estate trustee. Conversely, in the action for damages for breach of trust, the court would be concerned with issues of a very different nature. While aspects of Mr. Cheifetz’s conduct considered on the passing of accounts might be considered in the action for damages, it would be for a different purpose and different legal considerations would apply. 

The C.A. went on to point out the undesirability of litigating the issue of breach of fiduciary duty/breach of trust on a passing of accounts (apparently disregarding the fact that a section 49 claim could be carved out as a trial of an issue). In the end, the action for damages stood and Mr. Cheifetz was permitted to litigate issues pertaining to his alleged breach even if such issues had been raised on the passing of accounts.

For a more fulsome discussion of this case, please see this week’s Podcast. Enjoy and keep reading.

Justin