The Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test

We repeatedly hear about the grim details behind Alzheimer’s disease. In a previous blog titled “The Grim Toll of Alzheimer's, I touched on a reported study called The Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia in Canadian Society.   This study has cited that as our population continues to age, the number of people suffering from Alzheimer’s disease is expected to double to 1.25 million within 30 years. Again, another grim statistic.

Today, I blog on another Alzheimer’s study, which fortunately does not have such grim details. In a recent article, Lesley Ciarula Taylor states that specialists in Rochester, Minnesota have discovered “a cheap and easy memory test can predict who will develop Alzheimer’s disease with almost perfect accuracy.” The Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test is used to distinguish normal aging memory loss from a degenerative brain disease. 

Taylor states, “the cost is very low, much lower than an MRI. The hope is to be able to identify the disease as quickly as possible.”

There is no cure for Alzheimer’s. Diagnosing the likelihood of being vulnerable may not necessarily lead to a cure, but at least specialists in this area can now ask new questions that potentially could lead to different angles on handling this disease.

Thank you for reading,

Rick Bickhram-Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram

 

Another Family War

As I have been practising in the area of estate litigation for a few years, I occasionally think that I have seen it all; that every recurring story I hear about a family war tends to lose its originality. Not true. Take for instance a recent story that was posted online in the Telegraph, involving a U.S. estate fight.

Tasha Tudor was from New England and has been described as the “unconventional Martha Stewart.” Ms. Tudor died at the age of 92 following complications from a stroke.  The basis of Ms. Tudor’s estate dispute centers on her decision to leave almost her entire estate to her eldest son, virtually cutting out her three other children. 

The oldest son argues that his late mother intended to cut out his three siblings from her estate because they were estranged from her. One of the siblings, a U.S. Air Force lawyer, who claims he was not estranged from his late mother, has asserted that the 2001 Will is invalid on the basis that his older brother unduly influenced his late mother.

The dispute has gotten so acrimonious between the siblings that they could not even agree what to do with their mother's ashes. On motion to the Court, it was ordered that Ms. Tudor’s ashes be divided in half, with one-half to be given to the oldest son and the other half to his siblings. Lawyers are now fighting over who is responsible for a snow plough bill!

It is reported that some of the last words by Ms. Tudor were “Oh, will there ever be a cat and dogfight when I die. But I don't care. I won't be here to see it.” 

It is often difficult to comprehend the harsh realities of litigation until you step into the shoes of one of the parties. I wonder if Ms. Tudor were alive to witness the severity of this dispute whether she would take back those words?

Thank you for reading

Rick Bickhram

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

The Role of the Children's Lawyer in Settlements Involving Minors

I recently read an article composed by The Children’s Lawyer, Debra Stephens, named Minor Settlements: How to Ensure Court Approval. I found this article to be particularly helpful as the article speaks to the role of The Children’s Lawyer in litigious matters and explains the common issues that arise during settlements involving minors.

Fundamentally, it is important to understand the role of The Children’s Lawyer with respect to their involvement in settlements concerning minors, which Ms. Stephens describes as: “The Children’s Lawyer is not a party to the proceeding and is not in an adversarial role with any of the parties. Rather, The Children’s Lawyer acts as an advisor to the court, making recommendations to assist the judge in determining whether to approve the proposed settlement”.

In her article, Ms. Stephens talks about a few issues that commonly arise during settlements involving minors. One of those issues that Ms. Stephens touches on is legal fees. Ms. Stephens states that legal fees are an important factor in determining whether to approve a settlement on behalf of a minor. Factors that are relied on when considering the reasonableness of a solicitor’s account are set out in the Court of Appeal decision Cohen v. Kealey and Blaney and include:

1.                  time spent;

2.                  legal complexity;

3.                  degree of responsibility assumed by the lawyers;

4.                  monetary value of the matter in issue;

5.                  the importance of the matters to the client;

6.                  degree of skill of the lawyers, results achieved;

7.                  ability of the client to pay; and

8.                  expectation of the client with respect to the fee. 

Also, another factor not mentioned in the case above is ensuring that access to justice is obtained for parties under a disability. I found Ms. Stephens’ article to be particularly useful in my practice and I would certainly recommend it to any practitioner who ordinarily runs into issues involving The Children’s Lawyer.

Thank you for reading.

Rick Bickhram

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

Unworthy to Inherit

As most of us return to our offices from a long weekend, I would like to share with you an interesting case, which I read over the weekend and deals with an Application to declare a family member unworthy to inherit. S.R. (Succession de), 2008 QCCS 4015, is a decision released by the Quebec Superior Court.

In, S.R. (Succession de), the Deceased was survived by his spouse and four children.    The Deceased was a savvy businessman who, during his lifetime, was quite successful. In 1995, the Deceased asked a notary to prepare a Will. A draft Will was sent to the Deceased for his review but it appears that he never executed the Will. In 2000, the Deceased was diagnosed with cancer and subsequently died in 2003.

After the Deceased died, the children looked for their father’s Will in the home and at the Deceased’s office with no success. We are given to understand that all of the children, searched, under the bed, every closet, every brief case belonging to the Deceased, but were unable to recover a Will.   

One of the daughters prepared a proposal requesting the siblings to acknowledge that the Deceased promised to transfer a certain property to her. This would have the effect of increasing her entitlement under the Deceased’s estate. Her siblings refused to sign the acknowledgement, which led to the ensuing dispute. The disgruntled daughter, subsequently informed everyone that she had in fact, located a Will of the Deceased in an old briefcase, which was allegedly in the bedroom closet of the Deceased’s residence.

The discovered Will was similar to the draft Will prepared earlier, except that it included two additional provisions which favoured the disgruntled daughter, in the amount of $2.4 million dollars and was apparently executed by two witnesses from New York. 

The disgruntled daughter tried to probate this Will, but it was contested by her siblings and it was ultimately ruled that the Will could not be probated by the Honourable Justice Gagnon. Justice Gagnon held that there were all the sorts of question marks surrounding the validity and execution of the Will. 

After the Application for probate was refused, the disgruntled daughter then produced a document which was a blank cheque allegedly signed by the Deceased and which purported to give the disgruntled daughter her share in a building that she coveted and various other monies for her home. The siblings refused to admit the authenticity of the blank cheque and commenced proceedings against the disgruntled daughter to have her declared unworthy to inherit under the Deceased’s estate. 

Under the section 621 of the Civil Code of Quebec, it states that a person “may be declared unworthy of inheriting where a person is guilty of cruelty towards the deceased, and where the person has concealed, altered or destroyed in bad faith the Will of the deceased, or a person who has hindered the testator in the writing, amending or revoking of their Will.” 

In relying on this provision, the children advocated that the disgruntled should be precluded from inheriting because she concealed and altered, in bad faith the alleged Will of the Deceased. 

The court held that the disgruntled daughter had likely altered the Deceased’s Will, had taken the draft prepared by the notary and added some typewritten additions that benefited her to the detriment of her siblings and mother. The court further held that the disgruntled daughter likely had taken the blank cheque from the Deceased’s home and also forged that after his death.

Accordingly, the disgruntled daughter was declared unworthy to inherit and her claims against the estate were dismissed.

An interesting point, in Ontario we do not have any similar case law or legislation that would actually allow someone to commence a proceeding, seeking to have someone else precluded from receiving their entitlement absent criminal activity such as murder.

Have a great day,

Rick Bickhram

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

 

Rule 74.15 - Orders for Assistance

After a long and relaxing weekend, most of us now return to work geared to face the challenges of our week.  I start my blog by discussing the recent issue of the Probater.

The Probater is a quarterly newsletter that is prepared by the lawyers at Hull & Hull LLP and is provided to the community as an information service.  Our most recent newsletter was released in September 2009.  In the September 2009 issue, Jonathan Morse writes about the fundamental principles behind Rules 74 and 75 of The Rules of Civil Procedure, but more particularly focuses his article on the purpose behind Rule 74.15.

Rule 74.15 allows “any person who appears to have a financial interest in an estate” to obtain orders that would assist them in administering an estate. There is an abundance of case law that defines financial interest and clarifies the threshold question as to who may have a financial interest in an estate.

In his article, Jonathan does a good job in explaining the application of such orders and concludes by referring to a recent decision of the Honourable Justice Brown in Barletta v. Donne, which highlights the recent application of Rule 74.15. 

Thank you for reading,

 

Rick Bickhram

 

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

 

The Distinction Between Bringing Motions and Commencing Proceedings - Hull on Estates #162

 

Listen to The Distinction Between Bringing Motions and Commencing Proceedings

This week on Hull on Estates Rick Bickhram and Chris Graham discuss some important distinctions between bringing motions and commencing proceedings in the estates context as opposed to general civil litigation. They look at this in the context of applications, motions and statements of claim.  

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

 

The Distinction Between Bringing Motions and Commencing Proceedings - Hull on Estates- Episode #162

 

Posted on May 12, 2009 by Hull & Hull LLP

 

Chris Graham:  Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to episode 162 on Tuesday, May 12, 2009.

 

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

 

Rick Bickhram:  Hi and welcome to another episode of Hull on Estates.  I’m Rick Bickhram.

 

Chris Graham:   And I’m Chris Graham.

 

Rick Bickhram:  If you want to be heard on Hull on Estates you can participate by leaving us a comment.  Please e-mail us at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or you can visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com.  Good morning Chris.  How are you doing today?

 

Chris Graham:   Morning Rick.  I’m doing just fine.  How are you?

 

Rick Bickhram:  I’m not doing bad.  I had a great weekend.  How about yours?

 

Chris Graham:   Well as I was preparing for this podcast all weekend, I’d have to say it was the best weekend I’ve had in life.  Now today we’re going to talk about some important distinctions between bringing motions and commencing proceedings in the estates context as opposed to general civil litigation.

 

Rick Bickhram:  Well I’m going to dive into it and I’m going to look at applications.  After looking at the Rules I’m impressed about some of the similarities with the estates, with applications being commenced in the estates context and applications being commenced in the civil context.    Rule 38.06(3) dictates the service requirements for commencing an application.  So after an application is issued at the appropriate Court, Rule, as I said, 38.06(3) states that the application is to be served at least 10 days before the hearing date returns to Court.

 

Chris Graham:   Yeah, so you have 10 days to serve.  And that’s the same as, I guess, the general rule so to speak in estates litigation.  If you bring an application for an Order for Directions which is a prototypical step in almost every contentious matter, you have 10 days to serve.  That’s Rule 75.06(2), requires 10 days to serve before the return date.

 

Rick Bickhram:  Moving ahead, I’m looking at motions now and I’m looking at the general requirements again for service of motions.  37.07 again is specific to civil matters and the general requirement for service of a Notice of Motion is 4 days prior to the return of a hearing date.

 

Chris Graham:   Which Rule number is that Rick?

 

Rick Bickhram:  That’s Rule 37.07(6) Chris.

 

Chris Graham:   Yeah, okay.  So let’s recap.  You commence properly by bringing your application and serving 10 days before the hearing date.  You thought everything was great.  You thought your lawsuit was on track.  And then you brought a motion.  You thought it was 4 days.  Oops.  Actually most motions are 10 days, the same way an application for directions is 10 days.  Well a motion for directions is also 10 days.  And since that’s the most common step, odds are the motion that you bring has to be served 10 days before the return date.

 

Rick Bickhram:  And that’s within the estates context, right Chris?

 

Chris Graham:   That’s right.  And that’s Rule 75.06(2) again.  Now if you jump over to so-called non-contentious matters under Rule 74, if you bring an application for assistance, that’s another very common step in most matters.  Under Rule 74.15, well a lot of those can be brought in theory without notice, but some of those require notice. And where notice is required, what do you know?  It’s 10 days.

 

Rick Bickhram:  I’m going to presume that the more substantive orders are going to require notice, whereas the more procedural orders generally will be allowed to be brought if it’s a motion, the motion will be allowed to be brought without notice, is that correct?

 

Chris Graham:   Exactly.  If you read the types of orders you can get, well with the exception of 74.15(1)(i) which is an order for other matters, that’s a huge catch-all subparagraph that everybody dealing with estates litigation should read 5 or 6 times a day, all of the rest of them with the exception of subparagraph (e) are necessary steps in a lot of matters that could probably be cleared up among counsel without requiring an order.  For instance, an order to accept or refuse an appointment as estate trustee with a Will.  Well, you know, you either accept it or you refuse it.  And if it’s not something that an opposing party is just willing to do to keep costs down, then you write your letters and you go ahead and you bring your application for an order.  But you’re probably not going to have to do this ex parte.  And why would you?  You just write a letter first.

 

Rick Bickhram:  Just to wrap that point up that Chris left off with.  It seems to me that you’re permitted under the Rules to bring these sort of motions without notice but it appears that it would be likely that counsel would provide some sort of notice by way of sending an informal letter to counsel seeking their consent on the matter.

 

Chris Graham:   Yeah, exactly.  I mean, you don’t need to bring an application for an order for somebody to refuse an appointment as estate trustee when you can just write a letter asking them to accept or refuse.  And you would only really bring the application if they didn’t respond or if their response was vague.  Because you don’t want to draft materials and prepare Affidavits and all that stuff if a simple letter will suffice.  And maybe you can get it on consent.

 

Rick Bickhram:  Absolutely.  And you would be pretty much adhering to the spirit of the new practice direction, which is to be more cost-effective, more efficient in our practices.

 

Chris Graham:   Yeah.  It’s really just common sense.  And it does adhere to that practice direction for sure.  Why don’t we move over to Statement of Claims.

 

Rick Bickhram:  Okay, well I’m going to look at actions which are commenced by having a Statement of Claim issued and served.  The time requirements for service of a Statement of Claim is basically a Statement of Claim has to be served within 6 months after it’s issued.

 

Chris Graham:   Yeah we mostly do applications in estates.  But, yeah, we also do actions.  And it’s a completely different world from the 10 days, 10 days, 10 days in the application world.

 

Rick Bickhram:  Absolutely.  And it differs procedurally with respect to the hearing date because after a motion for directions or an application for directions, there’s a hearing date that’s set for the actual hearing for directions.  Whereas in a Statement of Claim, normally an Affidavit of Documents.  Sorry, let me take a step back.  After the Statement of Claim, a Statement of Defence is normally served and filed.  A Reply is permitted.  And then we look at Affidavit of Documents.

 

Chris Graham:   Yeah.  So I mean most civil litigators are all over this stuff.  I guess the closest analogy in pure estates analogy is bringing an application to pass your accounts as an estate trustee under Rule 74.18 where you file it with the Court and then you issue it on the beneficiaries.  You serve them and then it goes from there.

 

Rick Bickhram:  To summarize the major distinctions here.  A Statement of Claim is a Statement of Claim.

 

Chris Graham:   Yeah.  You just follow the process in the rest of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which of course we read religiously.  But I should note that if you bring an order for assistance or if you bring a motion for an order for directions within a claim proceeding, you still have to wait your 10 days.  You’re not pushed over into the civil 4 days.

 

Rick Bickhram:  And an application is an application.

 

Chris Graham:   Yeah, that’s how it works.

 

Rick Bickhram:  10 days.

 

Chris Graham:   10 days.  But any motion within that application is probably going to be 10 days as well.

 

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

 

Rick Bickhram:  It was a pleasure Chris.  I look forward to podcasting with you again soon.

 

Chris Graham:   And we look forward to hearing from our listeners.  So send us an e-mail at hull.lawyers@gmail.com and visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com where you’ll find even more information and discussion on today’s practice of estate law.  It evolves everyday.  We hope that you enjoyed the show.  I’m Chris Graham.

 

Rick Bickhram:  And I’m Rick Bickhram.  Until next week, so long.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Henson Trusts - Hull on Estates #159

Listen to Henson Trusts

This week on Hull on Estates, Rick Bickhram and Sarah Fitzpatrick discuss Henson trusts (also called absolute discretionary trusts). They consider the use of such trusts to benefit disabled persons, and how best to protect the assets (typically an inheritance) as well as the right to collect government benefits and assistance."
 
Feel free to send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estates blog.
 

Henson Trusts - Episode #159

Posted on April 21, 2009 by Hull & Hull LLP

Sarah Fitzpatrick: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to episode 158 on Tuesday, April 21, 2009.

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

 

Rick Bickhram:    Hi and welcome to another episode of Hull on Estates. I’m Rick Bickhram.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:   Hi and I’m Sarah Fitzpatrick.

Rick Bickhram:    If you want to be heard on Hull on Estates, you can participate by leaving us a comment. Please e-mail us at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or you can visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com.

Well I believe this is the first time Sarah and I are podcasting. How are you doing today, Sarah?

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    I’m doing well, Rick. How are you today?

Rick Bickhram:    I’m not doing bad, I’m trying to enjoy the weather. Unfortunately today it looks like its raining so there’s only so much enjoyment you can have.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    That’s right, but it looks like the beautiful weather is just around the corner this weekend, so we can hope that spring is finally just around the corner.

Rick Bickhram:    I know and I’m excited for it.

So today we’re going to be discussing trusts, more particularly we’re going to be focusing on the Henson trusts.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    That’s right. Today, Rick and I thought that we’d talk about a specific kind of trust that actually comes into play quite frequently in estate planning and it really concerns the type of trust when you are looking at a disabled beneficiary. And specifically, do you want to talk a little bit about what the Henson trust is designed to achieve, Rick? 

Rick Bickhram:    Well Sarah, I understand that the Ontario Disability Support Program - its exactly what it says it is. It’s a support program and the Henson trust is designed to prevent disentitling any beneficiaries who may be entitled to support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    That’s right. And we’ll call that the ODSP benefit, because we’re going to be mentioning that a lot during this podcast. And that’s right. Specifically it protects the assets, which in the context that we’re going to be referring to today, its typically an inheritance. And it protects those assets as well as the right to collect future government benefits. So not only it protects income but it also protects government benefits and assistance. So it basically is ensuring that the beneficiary, when they receive income from the trust - income or capital from a trust - that by receiving such income or capital, that they’re not going to be disentitled from any assets that they are receiving from the ODSP. Now essentially to qualify for ODSP benefits, there are certain exemptions. You can’t exceed certain benefits or you’ll be disentitled to those. So there are certain specific restrictions and specifically, Rick you can go through those restrictions right now. One of them, for example, is you cannot have assets valued at more than $5,000. You cannot receive gifts or other voluntary payments that exceed more than, I believe it’s $4,000. It may have been recently adjusted upwards to $5,000 over a 12 month period. There are other exceptions as well.

Rick Bickhram:    I understand those exceptions to be, well first of all, this is when we’re calculating the value of the person’s assets.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    That’s correct, that’s right.

Rick Bickhram:    And the person being the beneficiary of the ODSP entitlement. So when we’re valuing the assets, some assets that will be considered exempt in determining what your total assets are, a principal residence, I think there are public policy reasons why a principal residence may be exempted.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    That’s right. And just to clarify on that principal residence, the value of that has no bearing on it whatsoever. It can be valued, for example, at $100,000 or it can be valued at $2,000,000 but if the disabled beneficiary does own a principal residence, that is not considered part of the calculation when determining whether you’re eligible for the ODSP benefit. So that’s right. And so what are some of the other assets that are not included in the calculation of the value of assets under the general rule?

Rick Bickhram:    A second property. Apparently the beneficiary may be entitled to a second property if approved for the health and well-being of the recipient.   A third item that is exempt from the calculation of assets if a motor vehicle. And as Sarah described with the principal residence, there is no value of this vehicle that the beneficiary may be cut off at. So he could be driving a Hyundai or he could be driving, I don’t know, what’s a good car nowadays? A Bentley?

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    And that’s right. And there’s one further thing there as well. A pre-paid funeral of any value. So all of those items essentially aren’t going to be included in the calculation. There is one other important exception as well. The disabled beneficiary can also have a vested interest in a trust provided that the assets in that trust do not exceed $100,000. And that can be an inter vivos trust or a testamentary trust. But that cannot exceed $100,000. So then we’re left with the situation where you have these specific exemptions that we’ve just discussed. Perhaps you have assets that will exceed the $100,000 mark and you’re trying to determine how you can gift these assets, perhaps in your Will or as we said, it can be an inter vivos trust as well. How do you gift those assets to the beneficiary without disentitling them to the ODSP benefits? And that’s where the nature of this Henson trust becomes critical and the use of a Henson trust can actually benefit the beneficiary so they can actually maintain their ODSP benefits.

Rick Bickhram:    That’s correct Sarah. And I believe what a Henson trust is essentially, it’s a completely discretionary trust and there’s two points on this discretionary trust that are looked at. And I like to refer to them as the “when” and “how much”. In this completely discretionary trust, the trustees have complete discretion as to when to make a distribution. So again, that’s time. And how much, as to the quantum of the distribution. How much are they going to distribute to the beneficiaries? Again, those two points must be absolutely in the trustee’s discretion to be characterized as a Henson trust.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    That’s right and if it doesn’t include that absolute discretionary nature, then it’s not going to be considered a Henson trust. So the absolute discretionary nature means as Rick said, it’s not only the quantum, how much can be distributed. It’s timing. So essentially its going to empower your trustee or your trustees to distribute little or even none, arguably none. So what that creates then, what that trust creates is it creates no vested interest whatsoever in the beneficiary. So the trustee, because they’ve got this discretion, the beneficiary cannot claim that they have any absolute entitlement to the funds. They have no vested interest whatsoever. So arguably the trustee could distribute none of the income or none of the capital at any time throughout the lifetime of the trust, for the benefit of the trustee. Now that brings up an important point because of this all-encompassing discretionary nature of the trust. You want to make sure that you’ve got absolute, complete faith in who you choose as your trustee because there is, obviously, the potential for abuse.

Rick Bickhram:    I have a question for you, Sarah.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    Sure.

Rick Bickhram:    Let’s say that I am setting up, I’m designing a trust, a Henson trust.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    Right.

Rick Bickhram:    And I have 2 children. One of my children is disabled and so I’m looking out for the disabled child’s benefit. I create the Henson trust. And I name my second child, who is not disabled, as the trustee.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    Right.

Rick Bickhram:    What type of conflict could you see arising from that?

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    Yeah, that’s a really good point because when you’re choosing your trustee, often in this type of a context, you’ve got the testator that says well I’d really like to appoint my other child because that’s the individual in whom you might have the most trust. And also it’s a good idea to have somebody that’s around the same age, perhaps as the disabled beneficiary or younger than, because this trust is going to be designed to last throughout the lifetime of the beneficiary. So the potential conflict there, if you do appoint a sibling, an important provision in this trustee is going to be your residual beneficiaries. And you’re going to have to have somewhere in that trust provision for where the capital of the trust is to go when the beneficiary passes away. And most likely you’re going to have that going to your other children. So you can see right there that that’s got to be very carefully considered because that can be a very powerful conflict of interest if you have one disabled child and you’ve got a Henson trust set up for them and you’ve got the other child as the trustee of the trust, and they’re also the residuary beneficiary of the trust. That’s obviously going to be a pretty powerful conflict so you’ve obviously got to keep that in mind as well.

I think other issues we can maybe touch a little bit on, there was an important case where they considered what happens with income as opposed to capital. In that case, the alleged Henson trust had all the income actually being distributed out to the disabled beneficiary. And the Court actually found that that precluded that from being a Henson trust because there was a vested interest in the income. So its really important when you’re drafting this kind of trust as well to have regard to where that income is going and you want to make sure that there’s a provision to distribute none of the income to the disabled beneficiary and perhaps sprinkle it amongst someone else, some other beneficiaries as well. So there’s all kinds of things that need to be considered when you’re looking at this Henson trust but it can absolutely be a really vital estate planning tool in the appropriate context.

Rick Bickhram:    I think that brings us to an end of this week’s discussion. Thanks for listening and thanks for joining me today, Sarah.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:    It was a pleasure, Rick. And I look forward to podcasting with you again soon.

Rick Bickhram:    And we look forward to hearing from our listeners. You can send us an e-mail at hull.lawyers@gmail.com. Be sure to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com where you’ll find even more information and discussion on today’s practice of estate law. We hope that you enjoyed the show. I’m Rick Bickhram.

Sarah Fitzpatrick:   And I’m Sarah Fitzpatrick. Until next week, so long.

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

 

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

 

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

Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure - Episode #152

Listen to Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This week on Hull on Estates Rick Bickhram and Paul Trudelle discuss the amendments to the rules of civil procedure that have be set out by the government and come into effect on January 1, 2010.
The purpose of these amendments is to provide the civil justice system with a means of being more affordable and accessible.

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

Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure - Episode #152

Posted on March 4th, 2009 by Hull & Hull LLP

Rick Bickhram:   Hello, and welcome to Hull on Estates. You are listening to episode 152 on Wednesday, March 4th, 2009.

 

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

Rick Bickhram:   Hi and welcome to another episode of Hull on Estates. I’m Rick Bickhram.

Paul Trudelle:   And I’m Paul Trudelle.

Rick Bickhram:   If you want to be heard on Hull on Estates, you can participate by leaving us a comment. Please e-mail us at: hull.lawyers@gmail.com, or you can visit us at our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com.

Paul Trudelle:   Yes, and thanks Rick, I thought we’d get right into our topic today and I thought we’d either talk about the Bank of Canada drop of interest rates from 1% to ½ % and the effect that that’s going to have on my mortgage negotiations. Or we could talk about the new Rules of Civil Procedure. What do you think? 

Rick Bickhram:   I think probably the Rules or the amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Paul Trudelle:   Okay, that’s a great idea. Let’s get right into that then. There are new Rules of Civil Procedure that have been proposed, or set out by the government. They come into effect on January 1, 2010.

Rick Bickhram:   I think its important to note that the purpose of these amendments were to provide our civil justice system with the means of being more affordable and accessible for all who, I don’t want to use the word participate, but who are into the system.

Paul Trudelle:   Yes and I think that the rule changes tweak a number of existing rules in some important ways, all of which is designed to improve access to justice, keep the costs of civil litigation which can be quite high, to keep those costs down, if possible.

 

Rick Bickhram:   When do these amendments come into place?

Paul Trudelle:   They come into place on January 1, 2010. They’ll affect all proceedings, whether commenced on or before or after that date. So it’s important for everyone to know what those changes are and how they’re going to affect their proceeding, whether the proceeding is now in the works or whether it’s going to be commenced after January 1, 2010. They have quite a broad ranging affect and therefore it’s important to be aware of what those changes are.

Rick Bickhram:   So I guess the first step is to talk about one of, I guess, the broader principles of the rules and the first one is going to be Rule 1.04(1.1) and the overarching principle of interpretation on this rule is 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. I think the key here is to understand that proportionality is expressly required to be considered on all motions relating to discovery.

Paul Trudelle:   Yes and this is the Rule 1.04, is the general interpretation of the rules and in that section there’s the requirement of proportionality in making any Orders. And it’s felt that this particularly affects the issue of discovery because that’s a very expensive part of the litigation process, so it’s important to know that there is that overarching principle of interpretation that the Courts will apply in making any decision substantive or procedural.

In addition, the Rule 1.08 also allows the Court to hear matters by way of telephone or video conference. Again, designed to keep costs down, the cost of attending at a Court hearing.

Rick Bickhram:   And I think this rule kind of exemplifies the purpose of making it more affordable and accessible for all who are in the civil justice system because (a) it will loosen up some judicial resources; and (b) it should make it more affordable by reducing lawyer’s fees. We don’t have to necessarily attend every single motion now.

Paul Trudelle:   That’s right. And it also reaches out to embrace the technology that we do have now with respect to telephone conferencing and video conferencing. And makes the Court more accessible by using that technology. We’ll see when we talk about the rules of electronic discovery that again there is reference to or an appreciation of modern technology and how it affects civil litigation.

So also I was saying the rules address to some extent the issue of discovery and a lot of the amendments tweak the discovery requirements and the obligations of the parties to make full and fair disclosure. And it also streamlines the discovery process with a view to avoiding what can sometimes be very costly disclosure requirements. One of the important rules there is that the Courts have changed what is needed to be disclosed. They’ve taken out the requirement that you disclose any document that has a semblance of relevance which is a very broad requirement and has replaced that with a requirement that you produce any documents not relating to a matter in issue but relevant to any matter in issue. So it fine-tunes that.  It goes beyond requiring that the document relate to a matter in issue, but it has to be relevant to a matter in issue. We often see in estate litigation, for example, a number of documents that relate to a matter in issue but may not necessarily be relevant should the matter proceed to trial.

 

Rick Bickhram:   And I think that’s again another important distinguishment and it goes back to the purpose of the rule which hopefully will reduce costs. We don’t necessarily have to comb through every single document now. We only look at the relevant documents. And it will thus make it more affordable for individuals to access our civil justice system.

Paul Trudelle:  Yes.

Rick Bickhram:   One of the interesting tweaks I’ve noticed about the discovery rules is the parties, I guess, pursuant to Rule 29.1, are required to file a discovery plan. And the plan (a) must be in writing; and (b) it must include the intended scope of any documentary discovery that’s to occur. What’s your view on that?

Paul Trudelle:   Well I think that is going to get parties thinking at an early stage about the discovery process, what is going to be discovered, what is relevant to the matters in issue. Rather than just leave it open to discovery and have those issues come up at discovery, the parties must turn their minds to the discovery plan at an early date. It’s either 60 days after the close of pleadings or at the time they wish to obtain the evidence. So when you request the Affidavit of Documents, for example, before you do that, you must have this discovery plan. And you said that the plan has to be in writing, it needs to set out what the intended scope of discovery is so the parties need to look at what the issues are and what’s going to be relevant to that. The parties must go on to set out a timetable for the discovery process, dates for service of Affidavits of Documents, information on timing, the costs and the manner of production, address who is going to be examined for discovery, the place of discovery, the timing of the discovery, when they’re going to take place obviously, and also the length of the examinations.

 

Rick Bickhram:  Another interesting tweak about the discovery rules is the Examination for Discovery. Under the new rules, no party is allowed to discover for more than 7 hours without the consent of the parties or a Court Order. And my understanding of this rule is that I call it the 7 hour rule, is in place regardless of the amount of witnesses that a party may have to examine. Is that correct, Paul?

Paul Trudelle:  I understand the rules to limit discovery to 7 hours for each party. So each party would have 7 hours to examine the other parties. The rule specifically provides that no party may examine for discovery more than 7 hours, except with the consent of the parties or with a Court Order. And whether the Court will grant that Order will depend on the amount in issue, the complexity of the facts in law and the time that the Court expects would be reasonably required. The Court also looks at the financial position of each party, what financial resources they bring to the table and whether they are able to bear a longer discovery. Finally, the Courts will look at the conduct of any party. If there is conduct of one party that serves to delay the examination process or to drag out the examination process, then the Court may relieve against any injustice that may result from that. And the Court goes back to the overriding principle that we talked about earlier with respect to proportionality and I think that’s going to be particularly important or germane to the issue of discovery and the length of discovery.

Another important point on the principles of discovery is that the parties must consult and have regard to what has been referred to as the Sedona Canada principles of addressing electronic discovery. I did a little research into that. There is a document on the web and I’ll put the link on our website. The document entitled the Sedona Canada principles, which is a conference or a project that dealt with the issue of addressing electronic discovery. It’s quite lengthy and detailed however there is an executive summary which is quite helpful. It provides, just to summarize, that electronically stored information is discoverable. Steps to produce that information must be proportionate, again proportionate to the nature of the litigation and the dollar value. As soon as litigation is anticipated, a party must preserve potential electronic information. Counsel and parties are to meet and confer as soon as practical in order to identify, preserve, collect, review and produce electronically stored information. That information must be produced. A party shouldn’t be required, without agreement or a Court Order, to search for or collect deleted or residual electronically stored information. There are procedures set out for searching for information that may be relevant. And there is reference to reliance on electronic tools for searching. And the rule also addresses the costs of producing that electronic information and at first blush, the reasonable costs of preserving and collecting the information is to be borne by the party producing it. So if there is a case that deals with electronic information, just to wrap up this point, a party should address at an early stage and identify how that electronic information is going to be preserved and produced and used in the litigation.

 

So we won’t get into any more detail because our time is running short. The new rules alter the existing rules with respect to the…

Rick Bickhram:  The following categories…

Paul Trudelle:   Thank you. Summary judgment, mandatory mediation, listing matters for trials, extends the time with respect to service for motions and applications, deals with issues at pre-trial and how expert reports are to be produced prior to pre-trial, deals with new requirements for expert reports and what needs to be set out in the expert reports, specific proviso that expert reports must be non-partisan and must certify that they are aware of their duty to be fair, objective and non-partisan. There is an amendment to the Simplified Procedure, an increase in jurisdiction to $100,000. There’s also an increase in the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court which is going to be increased to $25,000. We’ll put a link to the rules commentary and the new rules on our website so I think that it’s required reading for any litigator and should be important reading for anyone who may be involved in litigation in the coming months and years.

Rick Bickhram:   Well I think that brings us to the end of this week’s discussion. Thanks for listening and thanks for joining me today, Paul.

Paul Trudelle:   Thank you, Rick. I look forward to podcasting again.

Rick Bickhram:   And we look forward to hearing from our listeners. You can send us an e-mail at hull.lawyers@gmail.com. Be sure to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com where you’ll find even more information and discussion on today’s practice of estate law. We hope that you enjoyed the show. I’m Rick.

Paul Trudelle:   And I’m Paul Trudelle. Till next week, so long.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure


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



 

The Appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation

 

An Estate Trustee During Litigation (“ETDL”) is typically seen as an officer of the court who represents the Deceased.  An ETDL has a wide variety of duties, which fundamentally includes administering assets, and paying the outstanding debts of the Deceased.  The purpose of today’s blog is to consider two Ontario decisions where an application seeking the appointment of an ETDL was rejected and granted, respectively.

Re Lloyd, 24 O.R. (2d) 340, is a 1979 decision by the Ontario Surrogate Court, as it was called.  In this case, the widow of the deceased filed a Notice of Objection challenging the Last Will and Testament of the deceased and sought the appointment of an ETDL.  On the motion, the evidence indicated that the Applicant was unhappy because she was not being kept aware of the status of the assets, but there were no allegations expressing a concern about the preservation of estate assets or that an ETDL was necessary to prevent waste or mismanagement.  In fact, the evidence indicated that the assets of the estate were well managed, and increasing in value.  Accordingly, the Honourable Justice Clements refused the appointment of the ETDL.  

Re Groner Estate, 1994 CarswellOnt 2478, is a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  In this case, the Applicant filed a Notice of Objection challenging the Last Will and Testament of the Deceased and also sought the appointment of an ETDL.  The Applicant was concerned that the named estate trustee had been administering the estate, despite no legal authority to do so.  The named estate trustee opposed the appointment of an ETDL.  The Honourable Justice Greer held that the size of the estate was large, however the administration of the estate was uncomplicated.  Nevertheless, Justice Greer, expressed concern over the conflict in having the named estate trustee’s lawyers acting as de facto administrator.  Justice Greer held that assets cannot be administered in a vacuum and that the perception of neutrality must be seen.

From an evidentiary point of view, both cases provide insight into what Lawyers should consider when drafting materials seeking the appointment of an ETDL.

Thank you for reading, and have a great day.

 

Rick Bickhram

 

 

The Concept of Capacity

 

I recently learned that an old neighbour of mine was residing in a long-term care facility and I decided to visit him.  As a child, I remember my neighbour would often come out to join us in a pick up game of baseball or street-hockey.  Having known my neighbour to be a strong and vibrant individual, and despite having prepared myself, it was nonetheless disarming for me to see him in need of assistance and so dependent on others. Although, in my practice, I have cause to consider the issue of capacity almost daily, this experience caused me to reflect on the issue in a much more personal fashion.

Lawyers, particularly in our area of practice, are often required to consider capacity issues and it is easy to allow our personal views to affect our analysis.   For instance, if my neighbour left his entire estate equally among his three children, in most circumstances we would presume he had capacity.  However, if he left his estate to his caregiver, to the exclusion of his children, most of us would be inclined to conclude that he had either acted for want of capacity or was perhaps coerced to make a Will while vulnerable to undue influence.  

People do not typically become incapacitated overnight, except in circumstances where a catastrophic event has occurred.   Capacity to make a Will has been described as knowing and understanding the nature and effect of your dispositions and understanding who would be the natural persons to enjoy the bounty of their estate.

In making this determination, if there is any doubt regarding a client's capacity it is surely advisable to obtain the appropriate capacity assessment in the circumstances.

Have a great week! 

 

Rick Bickhram

The Top Three Common Claims Against Lawyers

I recently read an article regarding the most common claims against lawyers, which is authored by Dan Pinnington who is the director of practicePro, LawPro’s risk and practice management program (click here for the article). I found it particularly interesting that only a small portion of LawPro claims account for a lawyer’s inability to know or apply the substantive law.    

The most common claim involves communication between lawyer and client. Dan breaks down the type of communication errors into three categories. According to the article, the most common communication related error, is the failure to follow the client’s instructions.  The second type of communication error is the lawyer doing work or taking steps on a matter, but failing to obtain the client’s consent or to inform the client. The third type of communication error involves the failure to explain to the client simple administrative things (i.e. timing of steps on the matter, fees and disbursement). Dan states that you can reduce your exposure to this type of claim by managing your client’s expectations from the very start of the matter and actively communicating with the client at all stages of the matter. 

The second most common claim is missed deadlines and time management related errors. The most common time-related error is a failure to know or to ascertain a deadline (i.e. limitation period). There is a concern that procrastination-related errors are on an upwards trend. Dan states that these types of errors are easily preventable with better time management skills and the proper use of tickler systems.

The third most common error is the inadequate investigation or discovery of facts.   To avoid these types of claims lawyers have to “dig deeper”, take the time to read between the lines so that all of the appropriate issues and concerns associated with the subject matter can be identified. 

I hope my final blog will assist all of us in our practise. 

Rick Bickhram   

The Dreaded Application for Certificate of Appointment of an Estate Trustee

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

 

The Duty to Dispose of the Body

Upon the death of a person, a duty arises to bury or otherwise dispose of the remains in a decent and dignified fashion.  But who does this duty fall upon?  

It is well established in the jurisprudence for Ontario that plans for the service and burial arrangements are the responsibility of the estate trustee.  This responsibility can conflict with the wishes and expectations of the deceased and family members, particularly in a religious context.

In Saleh v. Reichert, the deceased was of the Muslim faith.  Her husband had converted to the Muslim faith for the purpose of there marriage.  There was evidence indicating that the deceased expressed her wish to be cremated upon her death.  The deceased's husband was appointed as the estate trustee without a will and intended to honour the deceased's wishes.  The deceased's father objected to the cremation on religious grounds.

The court affirmed the fundamental duty of an estate trustee is to ensure that the remains of a body be disposed of in a decent and dignified fashion.  The court held that religious law has no bearing on the case.   In Ontario, burial and cremation are both means that would meet the requirement for disposal in a decent and dignified fashion.  The deceased's father's action was dismissed.  

It is important to note that it was acknowledged that there is no property in a body.  Therefore, any instructions left by the deceased, whether in a Will or otherwise are only precatory and are not binding on the estate trustee.

Rick Bickhram

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

 

Listen to:

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

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

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

 

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

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

Rick Bickhram: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode 133 on Tuesday, October 21st, 2008.

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

 

Rick Bickhram: Hi and welcome to another episode of Hull on Estates. I’m Rick Bickhram.

David Smith: And I’m David Smith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Rick Bickhram: Sounds very interesting, Dave.

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

Rick Bickhram: It was a pleasure to podcast with you today, and we look forward to hearing from our listeners.  You can send us an e-mail at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or just pick up the phone and leave us a message on our comment line at again, 206-350-6636. Be sure to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com where you’ll find even more information and discussion on today’s practice of estate law. We hope you enjoyed the show. I’m Rick Bickhram.

David Smith: And I’m David Smith.

Rick Bickhram: Until next week, so long.

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

 

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

 

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

 

/mem

Tracking Down Heirs - Hull on Estates #126

Listen to Tracking Down Heirs

This week on Hull on Estates, Diane Vieira and Rick Bickhram discuss the issue of when an estate trustee is responsible to search for potential heirs to an estate.

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

The Power of the Public Guardian and Trustee

Last night, I overheard a distressed woman confiding to a friend about a relative who was declared incapable of managing her property. The Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”) had stepped into her shoes to take control and to care for her property. This case peaked my curiosity, so I went home and did some research on this topic. 

Pursuant to Section 15 of the Substitute Decision Act (“SDA”), the PGT can be declared a person’s statutory guardian of property where a certificate is issued under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) certifying that a person who is a patient of a psychiatric facility is incapable of managing property. Whenever a patient is admitted to a “psychiatric facility”, as defined by the MHA, a physician examines the patient to determine if he or she is capable of managing property. If the physician determines that the patient is not capable of managing property, then he or she must issue a certificate of incapacity. The certificate is subsequently sent to the PGT. As a result, Section 15 is triggered and the PGT steps in as the statutory guardian without any procedural requirement.

Pursuant to Section 16 of the SDA, the PGT can be declared a persons statutory guardian of property where a person requests an assessor to perform an assessment of either their capacity or another person’s capacity. This assessment is done with the view of determining whether the PGT should become the statutory guardian’s of the property. If a person wishes to request that an assessor perform an assessment of another person’s capacity, the person requesting the assessment must: (i) have reason to believe that the other person may be incapable of managing property, (ii) have made reasonable enquiries and have no knowledge of the existence of any attorney under a continuing power of attorney, and (iii) have made reasonable enquiries and have no knowledge of any spouse, partner or relative of the other person who intends to make an application for the appointment of a guardianship of property.

Thank you for reading and I hope my blogs added extra flavour to your favourite morning beverage. 

Rick Bickhram

A Trustee's Liability For Bad Investments

As we all know, it is not uncommon for any investor to occasionally experience a substantial decrease in the value of one of the stocks in his or her portfolio.  But what if the investor is a trustee?   

In light of the recent amendments to the Trustee Act which appear to embrace the modern portfolio theory, it will be interesting to see how the Court will utilize this theory to assess a trustee's investment performance. Section 28 of the Trustee Act adopts an approach that is consistent with the modern portfolio theory.  Under this section, a trustee is insulated from liability if “the conduct of the trustee, which led to the loss from the trust, conformed to a plan or strategy, for the investment of the trust property, comprising reasonable assessments of risk and return that a prudent investor could adopt under comparable circumstances”.

Under the “statutory legal list” approach, which I described yesterday, a trustee was limited to investing trust assets in authorized investments.   However, with the development of the prudent investor rule, trustees are provided with a broader range of investment choices, which will likely increase their responsibility in determining an acceptable standard of care.

Presuming that a trustee is found liable for breaching the standard of care, section 29 of the Trustee Act permits a court to assess “the overall performance of the investments” when it is assessing damages.  Based on the language of section 29, it appears that a trustee may be allowed to offset the loss of a bad investment against the gain of a good investment.

The trusts and estates bar will be watching with interest to see how the judicial consideration of the prudent investor rule evolves.


Happy Super Bowl Weekend!  Go Patriots!

Rick

Application for Opinion, Advice, or Direction vs. Application for Direction

As this is the beginning of the week, I would like to take this opportunity to visit two of the rules from the Rules of Civil Procedure, which are frequently used by estate litigators.

Rule 14.05(3)(a) states that "a proceeding may be brought by application where these rules authorize the commencement of a proceeding by application or where the relief claimed is, the opinion, advice or direction of the court on a question affecting the rights of a person in respect of the administration of the estate of a deceased person or the execution of a trust".  In contrast, Rule 75.06(1) states that "any person who appears to have a financial interest in an estate may apply for directions … as to the procedure for bringing any matter before the court".

It is clear from the language of these rules that an Applicant may use either rule to apply for directions from the court.  The difference between the two rules lies in the relief that the Applicant seeks. 

Rule 14.05(3)(a) is a substantive remedy that addresses the rights of a person with respect to the administration of an estate or the execution of a trust.  Therefore an Applicant who relies on Rule 14.05(3)(a), is asking the court to make a determination of his or her rights in the context of an estate.  For example, whether or not an Applicant has an interest under the deceased's Last  Will and Testament.

Rule 75.06(1) is a procedural remedy.  In essence, Rule 75.06(1) provides the road-map for "any matter before the court".  Therefore an Applicant who utilizes Rule 75.06(1) may seek a court order that permits the disclosure of relevant documents to their matter and establish time-lines for the completion of a specific phase in their court proceeding.  For example, the court may decide that mediation should be completed within 90 days and as such, include a mediation clause in a court order.

In summary, both rules can may be used to apply to the court for direction, however with Rule 14.05 (3)(a), the Applicant is asking the court for a specific answer to a question affecting his or her rights, whereas with Rule 75.06(1), the Applicant is requesting that the court provide them with a guideline to their court proceeding.

Have a Great Day!


Rick Bickhram