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

Comments? Send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com, call us on the comment line at 206-350-6636, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estates blog at http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com.

The Deemed Undertaking Rule - Hull on Estates Podcast #102

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

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

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

Paul Trudelle:  Hi, I’m Paul Trudelle.

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

Paul Trudelle:  Hi Allen, how are you today?

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

Paul Trudelle: Good, withstanding the winter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allan Socken:  Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

Allan Socken:  Thanks Paul.

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

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

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

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

Allan Socken:  Likewise, Paul.

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

Allan Socken:  Thanks.

This has been Hull on Estates with the lawyers of Hull & Hull.  The podcast you have been listening to has been provided as an information service.  It is a summary of current legal issues in estates and estate planning.  It is not legal advice and you are reminded to always talk with a legal professional regarding your specific circumstances.

To listen to other podcasts, or to leave a question or comment, please visit our website at www.hullandhull.com.

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

/mem

This week on Hull on Estates, Rick and David discuss procedure under the Substitution Decisions Act and review executor and attorney obligations as well as specific procedures permitting someone to compel an accounting.

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.

Accounting Procedure Available Under the Substitute Decisions Act - Hull on Estates Podcast #98

Posted on February 19^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

David Smith: Hello, welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode #98 in our continuing podcast series on Tuesday, February 19^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: Hello Rick.

Rick Bickhram: Hi Dave. How are you doing today?

David Smith: You know, I’m doing well, Rick. And, you know, today we’ve decided… its David Smith here and I’m with Rick Bickhram of my office.  And we’ve decided today, Rick, that what we’re going to podcast on is a bit of a potpourri but the focus is really going to be on the accounting procedure available under the Substitute Decisions Act. And in particular, how the obligation to account as an attorney is the same as or is different from the obligation to account as an executor, for instance. And then we thought we’d talk about the specific procedures under the Substitute Decisions Act that permit someone to compel an accounting. So Rick, let’s talk about this whole idea of accounting generally. What is it about an attorney that opens them up to the whole concept of a duty to account?

Rick Bickhram: That’s a good question, Dave. My understanding is that an attorney, by virtue of the fact that you’re an attorney, there’s a fiduciary relationship. And that fiduciary relationship is established by the fact that the attorney has the power to do what the incapable person or on behalf of the incapable person, anything that the incapable person would have been able to do had he or she been capable.

David Smith: You know, and that’s right, Rick. And certainly, when we’re talking about the Substitute Decisions Act, intuitively we’re thinking about someone substituting their decision-making role for that of someone who can’t otherwise exercise it. Of course, the Substitute Decisions Act also applies to people who are perfectly capable, but who voluntarily surrender their decision-making ability to someone in more of a principal/ agent relationship. But you’re quite right, it’s a fiduciary relationship and it’s clearly a fiduciary relationship when the grantor of the Power of Attorney is incapable, isn’t it?

Rick Bickhram: Absolutely. And I think it’s also important to note that the fiduciary in the fiduciary relationship, whether it be voluntary or involuntary, the attorney or a guardian in the situation would have the ability to manage the grantor’s or incapable person’s finances.

David Smith: And that’s where the duty to account comes in, isn’t it, Rick?

Rick Bickhram: Absolutely, Dave.

David Smith: Rick, when we talk about the form of accounts, obviously it’s beyond the ambit of our discussion today to talk about the form of accounts and the whole process of a passing of accounts which is clearly a subject matter for another podcast. But I think continuing on with this idea of the concept of a duty to account, what ties into that and what we really want to explore to some extent today is, how do we compel an accounting? And what does the Substitute Decisions Act say to the duty of an attorney to account, and what remedies are available to someone who wants to compel an accounting?

Rick Bickhram: Well Dave, the authority to obtain an Order to compel an attorney to account can be found under Section 42 of the Substitute Decisions Act. Now under Section 42 of the Substitute Decisions Act, specifically sub-section 1, it states that the Court may, on an application, order that all or a specific part of the accounts of an attorney or guardian be passed. Going through this section, it lists the types of individuals who can bring this application to obtain this unique remedy.

David Smith: And who are those people, Rick?

Rick Bickhram: Under sub-section 4-- well, first of all, let me take a step back. Looking at sub-section 2, it states an attorney, the grantor or any of the persons listed in sub-section 4, may apply to pass the attorney’s accounts. From this, I gather that it means the attorney or the grantor of the Power of Attorney. Sub-section 4 states the grantor or incapable person’s guardian of the person or attorney for personal care. As we all know, a Power of Attorney can be given with respect to property and personal care. Section 42, sub-section 4, sub 1 states that it’s the guardian or attorney for the personal care that can proceed with the Court application to compel a passing of accounts.

David Smith: Okay, and that’s an interesting safeguard, isn’t it? Because, I mean, there’s a fair bit of case law dealing with situations where somebody appoints different people to be their attorneys for property and attorneys for personal care respectively. And quite often, there’s conflict between those two and the attorney for personal care who, for example, chooses a care facility for a senior grantor, may run into conflict with the person who’s paying the bills, namely the attorney for property. So intuitively, it makes some sense actually to give that attorney for personal care the power to say to the attorney for property, “Hey, attorney for property, I’m not satisfied that you’re doing everything you should or I want to see what you’re doing and make sure that the books are in order”. What about… what other people have the ability there?

Rick Bickhram: Under Section 42, sub-section 4, sub 2, a dependant of the grantor or incapable person. So the individual who grants the Power of Attorney or has been declared incapable, may move by way of a Court application to obtain a passing of accounts from the attorney or guardian. The third, I guess this is an entity, the Public Guardian and Trustee may move by way of an application to obtain a passing of accounts.

David Smith: Right and then the remaining 3, Rick, are the Children’s Lawyer, in the case of a minor who’s got an interest.  There’s obviously some standing there for them to do it. I think the next two are the most interesting. A judgment creditor of the grantor or incapable person. That’s a rarely used remedy in my experience, but it’s certainly interesting to think that somebody who is owed money by the grantor of the Power of Attorney or the incapable person can seek to compel an accounting, presumably as a way of seeking to recover monies to which they’re owed. So it’s very interesting that that person is given that remedy. And then, of course, the last one is any other person with leave of the Court. And I guess, you know, the interesting question there is, what is the test that the Court’s going to require before granting leave to someone? And certainly, in my experience, the Court is going to say to an applicant seeking leave, what is your reason for doing this? What is your standing before the Court to seek an accounting? Do you have any relationship to the person? Be you a blood relative or someone else with good cause to be concerned about the management of the person’s finances? And Rick, what do you think we’d need to do in terms of Affidavit evidence on that application, to convince a judge that our client should get leave?

Rick Bickhram: The person who is trying to obtain leave would have to demonstrate in his Affidavit that there was a relationship between himself and the incapable person or the grantor who’s granted the Power of Attorney in the situation. Also I would like to believe that the individual, the deponent here, who’s making this Affidavit, would probably want to establish some type of financial interest. Why is it that he’s seeking and why is that he is seeking a compelling of the accounts? What is his interest in this individual or this individual’s estate?

David Smith: Yeah, and you know, that’s a really interesting point, Rick, and something I wrestle with, with clients quite often in the sense that look, quite often, you’ll be dealing with a situation where you’ll have persons who have a financial interest on the death of the grantor. And the problem is this; if they go in front of the Court seeking leave to compel an accounting and say “My interest in this matter is that I have a financial interest on the death of the grantor, therefore in order to make sure that the amount I eventually inherit has not been improperly squandered before the death of the grantor, I want to monitor what’s being done with the money.” Of course, the problem with making that pitch is that the judge hearing this will be inclined to say, “Well, hold on a second. My job is not to protect the inheritance of the grantor for the benefit of the person who benefits under the estate. It’s to make sure the grantor is well looked after”. And the way I approach that is to say, “Certainly it’s relevant to say that you’ve got an expectation of an inheritance and that does give you some financial standing.” On the other hand, I think the Affidavit has to be crafted in such a way as to make it clear to the judge that the overriding, compelling basis by which the person is seeking leave to compel an accounting is to look out for the best interests of the grantor because the Court is not going to care one iota about preserving the inheritance of the grantor for the benefit of the person seeking leave, is it?

Rick Bickhram: And that makes complete sense, Dave. And if you think about it, I guess as an attorney or as a solicitor, I would be a little reluctant to go in front of the judge and explain to the judge that my client is, you know, pretty much monitoring his financial interest in the estate, especially being that the individual, the individual being the grantor or the incapable person, is still alive, it’s his money. And right now, the first concern should be his well-being.

David Smith: Right.  So fine line there. But, you know, something that needs to be mentioned because it does, as you stated at the outset there Rick, tie into what is the interest of the person seeking leave. And a complete stranger seeking to compel an accounting isn’t going to get anywhere if they can’t show a compelling relationship with the grantor. Now Rick, looking at the time, you know, we’re getting close to the end of the podcast.  Did, before we finish, want to touch on Section 39 of the Substitute Decisions Act. And this is a really interesting Section in my mind. It’s probably an underused Section for anyone engaged in capacity litigation. And what it is, is it’s a Section of the Act which provides directions from the Court and I’ll read it. It says, “If an incapable person has a guardian or an attorney under a continuing Power of Attorney, the Court may give directions on any question arising in the management of the property”. And that’s pretty broad language, isn’t it, Rick?

Rick Bickhram: Absolutely. And as I was reading through this section earlier today, I was thinking to myself, “What is the prospects or how likely is it that the individual would bring or ask for a remedy seeking the passing of accounts under this Section, you know, versus 42.” I understand that 42 specifically sets out a passing of accounts. But let’s say there are other Orders that they’re seeking. You would very well stick in Section 39 in there.

David Smith: That’s absolutely right, Rick. I think these two Sections can quite often be used together. And it’s an important tool for the litigator to keep in mind. If you look at the people who are eligible to apply under Section 39. Section 39, sub 3, similarly provides the Court with the power to grant leave to anyone to apply for directions. And the nice thing about Section 39 is you might have a situation where you don’t have a guardianship application; that’s to say that your client isn’t seeking guardianship of the incapable person, but is seeking more than merely an accounting. And Section 39 is this nice… it gives you this nice, intermediary approach between a full blown guardianship application on the one hand and an application for directions or to compel a passing of accounts rather. And it gives you that much more room and it’s nice, broad language. You know, you can be creative, you do some lateral thinking and really, you know, use that Section to your advantage. And remember, the Court is under a duty here to supervise the role of the attorney, the role of the guardian. It’s a powerful Section and the Court has a great deal of power under this Section and it should always be considered when looking at remedies available to the client who is seeking to look out for the concerns of an incapable grantor of a Power of Attorney.

Rick Bickhram: Great point, Dave. Well looking at the time, it looks like we are just about at the end of our podcast. It was great talking with you today, Dave.

David Smith: You know Rick, I enjoyed it too and we’ll look forward to the next opportunity to podcast. Take care.

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