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 a recent decision out of the Supreme Court of B.C., Re Thomasson Estate, the Honourable Justice Gerow considered the circumstances where the court may pass over an executor, on an application by a co-executor/beneficiary.

The two Deceased (collectively referred to as the “Deceased”) had been married and had four children together, all of whom survived the Deceased. In their Wills, they named two of their children, as their executors, and directed the executors to distribute the estate to three of their four children. 

 

One son commenced this application to obtain an order that would pass over the other son as his co-executor for the Estates. The Applicant argued that it is necessary for the Estates to make a proper enquiry into the nature of inter-vivos transactions between the co-executor Respondent and the Deceased and such an inquiry must be made independent of the co-executor Respondent as he would be in a conflict of interest.

 

The co-executor Respondent opposed the Applicant’s application, and argued, amongst other things, that the court should not interfere with the testator’s right to nominate his or her executor and removing him would be prejudging the case.

In her decision Justice Gerow states:

In the circumstances of this case, it is my opinion that there is a perceived conflict of interest between the co-executor Respondent in his role as an executor and his interest in his personal capacity. If an action is instituted by the executors as a result of the transfer of the Property, it would be against the co-executor Respondent. In my opinion, the co-executor Respondent, in his capacity as executor, cannot attack the transfer of the Property to himself while at the same time maintaining, in his personal capacity, that the transfer of the Property was proper. By making such a finding I am not prejudging the case. I am simply of the view that, in the circumstances of this case, if an action is commenced as a result of the enquiries into the transfer, the co-executor Respondent cannot conscientiously act as a plaintiff in his capacity as an executor in a case where he will be the defendant.

B.C. legislation is unique compared to the legislation that governs estate trustees in Ontario; however, if a similar situation arose, an application seeking similar relief could be brought under Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

 

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

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

In the recent case of Re Estate of Assunta Marino, 2010 ONSC 5237 (CanLII), the court granted an order to set aside an unopposed judgment passing accounts obtained by the estate trustee, on a Rule 38.11(1) motion brought by a beneficiary who had failed to file a notice of objection to accounts within the prescribed time.  Justice Brown, presiding, applied the test in HSBC Securities (Canada) Inc. v. Firestar Capital Management Corp., 2008 ONCA 894 (CanLII), 2008 ONCA 894, which has three elements: 

(i) whether the motion was brought without delay after the defendant (i.e., the moving beneficiary) learned of the default judgment;

(ii) whether the circumstances giving rise to the default were adequately explained; and

(iii) whether the defendant has an arguable defence on the merits – in order to determine whether the interests of justice favour granting the order.  To that end, the court should consider the potential prejudice to the moving party if the motion were dismissed, the potential prejudice to the respondent if the motion were allowed, and the effect of any order on the overall integrity of the administration of justice. 

The first element was met: time elapsing between the beneficiary learning of the default judgment and the motion was the result of attempted negotiations rather than inactivity, so it was not "delay".  The second element was met by the beneficiary's lawyer filing an affidavit explaining the default.  With respect to the the third element, the beneficiary had raised valid arguable objections, which is analogous to a defence.  The prejudice resulting from a delay in the estate's distribution combined with the fact that the estate trustee had properly engaged the court's legal process to account for his administration was not enough to save the unopposed judgment.  Justice Brown wrote that while the case was close, "significant weight should be given to the need to ensure that fiduciaries fully account for their management of property", and so the order setting aside the default judgment was granted.  Mediation was ordered before further steps in the passing of accounts, and the beneficiary was ordered to pay all of the mediator's costs.

Enjoy your day,

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

 

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

In the February 2009 edition of The Probator, I reported on the decision of Brown J. in Re McMichael Estate. There, Brown J. clarified the requirement that an application for a Certificate of Appointment be filed in the court office for the county or district in which the testator was living at the time of death.

In the recent decision of Re Pearsall released May 21, 2009, (Court File No. 05-36/09, not yet reported) Brown J. offers further clarification on the issue of where applications involving estates may be commenced. 

Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a proceeding must be commenced at the place required by the applicable statute or Rule. If no statute or Rule applies, it may be commenced at any court office.

While the Estates Act stipulates where an application for a Certificate of Appointment must be made, no statute or Rule dictates where an application to pass accounts must be brought, whether as Estate Trustee or guardian for property.

Thus, as held by Brown J., an application to pass accounts can be brought in any county, regardless of where the Certificate of Appointment may have been issued.

Thank you for reading.

Paul Trudelle

• 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

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

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

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