Listen to Direct and Indirect Approaches to Estate Planning - Part 1

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana start a discussion on their global philosophy toward the estate planning process. There are direct and indirect approaches to capacity and estate planning and in this episode, Ian and Suzana explore these approaches as they pertain to the choice of attorney.

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

Direct and Indirect Approaches to Estate Planning - Part 1 - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning - Podcast #140

Posted on November 25, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

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

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi and welcome to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning. You’re listening to episode #140 of our podcast on Tuesday, November 25^th, 2008.

Hi there, Ian.

Ian Hull: Hi Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: How are you today?

Ian Hull: I’m terrific.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s good.

Ian Hull: It’s a big day today. It’s the founder of our firm’s birthday.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right.

Ian Hull: Rodney Hull turns something significantly more than 70. I’m not sure what. And it’s a big day for him. So…

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Congratulations Rodney.

Ian Hull: The topic that we wanted to cover today and we don’t know if we’ll get it done in one podcast, so we’re happy to do it in two, would interest I think a lot of listeners on a couple of levels. So we do remind you that you’re free to send some input to us. And e-mail us at hullandhull@gmail.com.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Or of course, feel free to send us an e-mail at estatelaw.hullandhull.com.

Ian Hull: Alright. So one of the topics that has come up in the past six months in our blog and one that we wanted to sort of flesh out a little bit today was some of our sort of global approach to estate planning and how that dove-tails into the different kinds of contentious matters that can arise. And one of the most difficult contentious matters is when you get into a Power of Attorney fight. When you are fighting over the body, so to speak, while it’s alive. And when you have a person who’s in that grey zone of incapacity, who should control what and so on. So let’s, before we get into how that works, let’s talk a little bit about sort of our global philosophy that we kind of break down when we think about how we’re going to manage people’s estate plans. And we’ve sort of broken it down into three categories: one is the direct; one is the indirect approach; and the third is sort of a meshing of the two.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right.

Ian Hull: So let’s start with defining the estate planning process as we have with the indirect. What do we mean by that?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well that, Ian, I think is more or less what people would recognize as the traditional way of planning an estate. So it’s the documents that you create, for instance, in a Power of Attorney situation, the Power of Attorney document. It is a testamentary instrument, a Will perhaps. Those are the things that we have a comfort level with as lawyers, and probably a lot of lay people as well. Those are those documents that we typically identify with an estate plan.

Ian Hull: So we call them indirect because they are people’s efforts to estate plan or capacity plan without actually talking to anyone typically.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right.

Ian Hull: Because the document does the talking.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right.

Ian Hull: When you become incapable, the Power of Attorney does the talking. When you pass away, the Will does the talking. And that’s not to say that people don’t talk about those documents with their beneficiaries and their attorneys before they fall into those categories, those gruesome categories. But that’s how we look at indirect.

Alright. So then let’s step back again and if we’ve got sort of two categories, the indirect, what’s the direct estate planning techniques that we have used in the past that are of some help?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well those, Ian, are what we sort of call the eyeball effect planning methods. And we talked a little bit during our last podcast about the family meeting, for instance, as a suggestion of a way to do that, where you’re actually sitting around a table or in some informal environment with your family members and telling them what your plan is. What you would like to happen if something were to become of your capacity. What you would like to do with your estate upon your death. So you’re having that conversation with individuals. You’re looking them in the eye as we say, and explaining to them why you’re perhaps treating them differently than they might otherwise have expected.

Ian Hull: Alright. Well for today, we no doubt will talk in some detail about the family meeting. But we want to remind people that the first probably thirty podcasts of Hull on Estates and Succession Planning really particularize the process in extensive detail. So should they be interested, they’ve got a resource there. We always like to remind ourselves that we have done some hopefully useful things in the past.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right.

Ian Hull: So this indirect approach and the direct approach, these two options, what do we mean by the sort of third, hybrid option? What are we talking about in terms of the general concepts?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well both processes, Ian, are so fluid because they really, you can mold them to whatever your particular circumstances are. And so when we say a hybrid, what we’re talking about is the fact that some plans will have these kinds of informal arrangements where there is the meeting, there is the discussion which will then be turned into some kind of document, the traditional kind of estate planning documents that we typically see. And you’ll gear your particular circumstances to your situation. And so you’ll have maybe a written part, verbal part discussion or whatever it is, and you’ll come to something where its not sort of the, you know, cookie-cutter expectation of either the direct with the family meeting, or ADR or we call it Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms, or the actual traditional documentation.

Ian Hull: Okay. So a good illustration I’ve seen in the past with the hybrid approach is that an easy one would be someone does a Will, wants to give their gifts to certain individuals in the family and they tell them that. So they tell them who the executor is and who the beneficiaries are. So that (a) there’s no surprises; and (b) that if there’s some time to get feedback, they may as well do it while you’re alive.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right.

Ian Hull: So that’s our hybrid analysis.

Okay, let’s spend some time talking about how the indirect, direct and sometimes hybrid approaches are used sort of, let’s put some real tangibles to it, alright? And we talked earlier in this podcast about Power of Attorney litigation and those kinds of fights. Because there is really capacity planning which is Power of Attorneys, and then there’s Will planning. So let’s start with capacity planning and how we can use the indirect and direct form of communication to properly and effectively capacity plan. And let’s use one illustration that comes to mind. The first illustration that comes to mind is choice of attorney. So how are we going to deal with choice of attorney in the two different models?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s a great set-up, Ian, for a discussion and I think, you know, we start of course with an individual saying or doing the planning, doing the determination of who he or she would ultimately want to take care of their affairs if something were to happen to their faculties and their own ability to do so. And so they will have an individual or two probably in mind, or, you know, other family members. They’ll call a meeting.

Ian Hull: Okay, so sorry, we’ll stop there. We’ve picked the person, right? So we’ve done our homework and that’s a personal step that we’re going to take, with maybe consultation. So there is some, that’s indirect because it’s ultimately, we’re not talking to anyone yet, but it might become more direct because we might say, geez you know, I’m thinking of x, y and z with our friends or our trusted advisors, not our family yet.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Okay.

Ian Hull: Okay? So then you’re saying we need to call a meeting of some sort.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: It’s certainly a suggestion in those circumstances. If you do want to steer away from just having it become a surprise at the end of the day, then you’ll set up that kind of arrangement where you can have these discussions. And I think its really important to have them with your proposed attorneys. In particular, you want to make sure that they know how it is that you would ultimately like things to be handled once you can no longer handle them yourself, and also consider anyone else who might be affected by that decision, and perhaps consider bringing them into it.

Ian Hull: Good, alright. So we’re talking now, we’re leaving it from just this indirect; it will pop into the system when I become incapable and we’re bringing in some direct steps.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right.

Ian Hull: So let’s break down those two direct steps. The first is you say we should talk to our attorney. Alright, first of all, why would we talk to our attorney? And second of all, what are some of the things that we want to talk to them about?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well clearly, the fact that you are contemplating them as an attorney would be one of the first things that you’d want to discuss with them, I’d expect. And then beyond that, how you would like them to deal with this. And how you would like them to, for instance, if its your property that you’re dealing with, you’d like your assets managed during your lifetime. If its your personal care, you would want to discuss what kinds of things are important to you so that if these decisions have to be made one day, they’ll have some ideas as to how you would have liked them to have been executed.

Ian Hull: Well look, I think what we’ve done is we’ve started the process of how we’re going to use the two communication models, direct and indirect. We’re starting to put some illustration to that with the choice of attorney. The next podcast, let’s move on to talking a little bit about with some particulars, what are some of the actual things we’re going to talk about to our attorney. Before we’ve come out to them and once we’ve decided it, we’ve done our testing the waters.  We come out to them, we’ve chosen the person who we’re going to deal with, and what are some of the issues we’ll want to talk to them about. And we can do that both in indirect ways and direct ways, and we’ll talk a little bit about that in our next podcast.

So please, again, we remind you that we welcome and look forward to any feedback you may have. Easiest way to do it might be at hullandhull@gmail.com if you’re liking the e-mail from that venue.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Or feel free to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com.

Ian Hull: Thanks Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Thanks Ian.

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

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

/mem

This week on Hull on Estates, Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag discuss innovative techniques that add value to doing a will and powers of attorney. Specifically they discuss the concept of ethical wills and how they are different from a traditional will.  

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

The Concept of Ethical Wills - Hull on Estates Podcast #138

Posted on November 25^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to episode 138 of our podcast on Tuesday, November 25^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.

Ian Hull: Hi this is Ian Hull.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And Suzana Popovic-Montag.

Ian Hull: And welcome to another episode of Hull on Estates. If you want to give us some comments, please do so at our e-mail address at hull.lawyers@gmail.com.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Or, of course, you can visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com.

How are you today, Ian?

Ian Hull: I’m terrific, Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s great.

Ian Hull: We have been talking in the past few months about different ways to work with our clients on estate planning. One of the things that we’ve noticed is that there are some really innovative techniques that are out there that really add some value to the process of not just the classic scenario where someone comes in and offers, you know, as a lawyer, you offer your services to do a Will and Powers of Attorney. But we’ve got some other ideas that we wanted to sort of banty around today.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And one of those in particular that I find quite interesting is the concept of ethical Wills. And what an ethical Will is, as opposed to a traditional Will, is an interesting distinction because traditionally with a Will, what people will do is they’ll say this is what I have and this is who I want it to go to. The idea of an ethical Will, however, is that you are leaving behind a legacy of what you want people to know.

Ian Hull: And, you know, it really seems to us anyway, it adds some value to the whole estate planning process, isn’t a tremendous cost to the clients but helps get us to the point where we like to tell our clients and that is, is that don’t just leave a financial legacy, which of course will be well received by the beneficiaries. But leave an emotional legacy. And the concept of ethical Wills is not new to society generally. In biblical times, there were obviously techniques used in the Bible where different players in the process would leave messages for their families and guideposts of their families in terms of how to live and how to consider their lives. But in terms of a modern approach, one classic example of an ethical Will-like thing to do is to write your memoirs. I noticed recently Ted Rogers, the famous Ted Rogers, has published his own autobiography. And in it, he talks about a lot of things but it’s got to be a wonderful document just alone for his family to have, really his thoughts and his views on life and some of his experiences in life. So that’s one wonderful thing for his family. I know he didn’t write the book just for his family. He’s left his own ethical Will for all of us. I noticed an interesting point where in the book he talks about, you know, he’s asked who his idol in life is and he unhesitatingly says it was his father, who interestingly enough died when Ted Rogers was 5 years of age, his dad died when he was 38 years old. So one of the sort of dying wishes that appears from the book that Ted wanted to pursue was his buying back of CFRB from the family that apparently took it from under Ted’s father.

But the point is, is that it was a neat illustration to me anyway, of what would be a voluminous ethical Will.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s a nice story, actually and it sort of underscores, as you say, a modern approach to this idea of an ethical Will, or I know in other jurisdictions they call it letters of wishes, or letters of intention, something like that. In terms of another example, one that sort of we’re classically faced with a situation where we’ve got a Will that will create a trust arrangement within it for perhaps the minor children. And it will have staggered payouts at let’s say 21 years of age, at 25 years of age and then at 30 years of age, the full capital and any accumulated interest gets paid out. And what people are doing in these situations is including when there’s an encroachment on capital or a payout on the capital, with the money that’s being paid to the beneficiary, trustees are also providing them with letters of wishes or letters of intention that were created by the settlor and passed down at these points in time to send along messages to the beneficiaries that weren’t said perhaps during a lifetime, or were being reinforced after death as well.

Ian Hull: And what’s an example of…so obviously we do our Wills now and we don’t know when we’re going to die. But in situations where we have clients that are unfortunately very gravely ill, how would that ethical Will, sort of letter of wishes, unfold?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well it’s something that is typically left with a trustee so that when a Will is provided to the beneficiaries or read to the beneficiaries, it’s something that’s found at the same time perhaps, or it could be somewhere else.

Ian Hull: So an example might be a young professional who may be faced with, your client might be faced with knowing that he or she is going to pass away soon and they want to make sure that these notes trickle out and maybe as you say tie into the distribution stages. They may also want to just have them trickle out at different times. I mean a classic example would be if you had young kids and you knew you had terminal cancer, you might say well look, here’s three sets of notes. One set I want to go to each of my kids when they turn 16; another set when they turn, I don’t know, 21 when the money comes out; and maybe another set of notes that come out when they get married or a significant turning point in their life. So there is a tangible way of doing this, you don’t have to be Ted Rogers to put this proposition to your clients. There’s a really tangible way of adding some wonderful sort of value to your legacy.

Now let’s just spend a minute here now just talking, a minute or two talking about what types of topics we might want to cover in the context of an ethical Will. And you know, maybe in this podcast or another one, we can talk about some specific examples. But we’ve told you some illustrations but what kind of topic headings would one want to consider putting in the ethical Will as opposed to writing a book like Ted Rogers did?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well the first one that comes to mind, Ian, is sort of a situation where you want to express love and care for family members or loved ones after the fact. Perhaps you’ve done it during lifetime or you’re doing it differently afterwards. And so that’s one of the examples that quickly comes to mind.

Ian Hull: So another thing that some of the examples that we’ve seen of the ethical Wills have been where someone wants to set out their statement of beliefs.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And so religious icons or religious thoughts that are important to you are being transferred by way of these kinds of letters perhaps, attitudes towards death, attitudes towards life, values that you might hold dear to you or feelings that you’d like to express. Even something as sort of paternalistic or maternalistic as you know, how life should be lived by that individual could also be encapsulated in these kinds of Wills.

Ian Hull: And these moments of sort of documenting your views, its not just sort of flaky stuff. It can also become an important tool to guide the beneficiaries as they go through life, when they are enjoying maybe benefits from a trust or something like that as well. And, you know, a lot of Wills will deal with gratitude. They’ll say I give a gift of so and so to my caring, attendant caregiver or something like that. But these ethical Wills can also flush out gratitude comments even further and really spell out how the individual feels about someone who has played a special part in their lives.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And similarly, if heritage is something that’s particularly important to someone, they could take that opportunity to also address that in this ethical Will or letter of intention as well.

Ian Hull: Alright, so why don’t we speak about some questions that you might want to consider to answer in your ethical Will. We’ve talked about the general concepts. Some specific questions we might ask ourselves if we’re going to do an ethical Will. And what we might want to put in it.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Questions, Ian, I think would help sort of people formulate these kinds of Wills is things like who do you love that you haven’t told during your lifetime?

Ian Hull: And what, if you do take it that next question, like a good illustration was the Ted Rogers’ one, where who is the most influential person in your life?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: How about something like, who has taught you the most in your life?

Ian Hull: And just as a further to that, if we want to talk about who’s taught you the most in life, what was the lesson that they shared?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Another one that sort of pops into mind is, you know, what would you have done differently in your life?

Ian Hull: That’s a great question. One that comes out of Ted Rogers’ book that I saw was interesting is that there was a real discussion on his part about what was his greatest accomplishment. And in his example, it was accomplishments, plural, but it’s a neat question to ask yourself and maybe put some comment down for your beneficiaries and your family to read later in life.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: From a religious perspective, you know, the question of is there anything that you need to confess before you die? And if so, what is it?

Ian Hull: Alright, so we’ve covered off sort of the gambit of both secular and religious questions you may want to consider. We think that this is an interesting proposition to put to clients. We know, from our practice in the contentious world, that it is a very useful tool, a wonderful legacy to leave for people. Sometimes not so wonderful if its in the negative, but most of the time its positive and well-received.

So as a drafting solicitor, its something else to consider in your arsenal of putting it to your client and allowing them to leave an expression, a little more plain English than the expression that is set out in a boilerplate Will.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And with that, Ian, I think that brings us to the end of this week’s podcast. Thank you very much to everyone who is listening.  And thank you, Ian, for joining me today.

Ian Hull: It’s a pleasure and look forward to doing our next podcast. Again, please feel free to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com where you’ll find more information and discussion about the ethical Will and our practice of law.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Thanks very much, Ian.

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

Listen to Will Challenge Litigation - Part 12

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana clarify the distinction between claims of resulting trust and claims of constructive trust.

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

Will Challenge Litigation Part 12 – Hull on Estate and Succession Planning – Podcast #137

Posted on November 7, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

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

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  Hi and welcome to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning. You’re listening to episode 137 of our podcast on Tuesday, November 4^th, 2008.

Ian Hull:  Hi Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  Hi there Ian, how are you today?

Ian Hull:  Just great.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  That’s good.

Ian Hull:  Remember, of course, we’ve got our call-in, 206-457-1985.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  And please feel free to continue with the feedback at hullandhull@gmail.com.

Ian Hull:  And speaking of feedback, we got an interesting comment on our last podcast and thought we might touch on it today as we were working through additional issues beyond the Will challenge, but in the context of a Will challenge.  And the comment was that they didn’t understand when we referred to a Supreme Court of Canada case, the Picori decision, how it sort of was relevant.  So it was a timely question and one that we are going to deal with today actually because we want to talk a little bit about what those two claims are and how they fit into a global Will challenge piece of litigation.  They can be separated from Will challenge litigation but they also can be part and parcel of the Will challenge.  So why don’t we spend a little bit of time talking about them.  First of all, the concept of resulting trust is again and what constructive trust is again, and then we’ll talk a little bit about how we’re using them in our day-to-day practice.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  That’s great Ian.  And we know basically that a resulting trust is a trust that arises at law by virtue of the fact that Courts are looking for ways to make sure that people are treated equitably.  And so if someone is left in a situation where they ought to be able to make some kind of claim against a certain pool of funds, for instance, or some other type of asset, that this remedy is something that is available to them.

Ian Hull:  And the constructive trust, really the concept comes from this idea of unjust enrichment that we talked about and that someone’s done work and not been paid for it.  It’s as simple as that.  With the constructive trust world and where it developed, and it certainly developed very intensely out of the United Kingdom and the in Canada.  In Canada, there was sort of a trilogy of cases that developed.  But what happened was, the cases that started if off and why its sort of helpful is that it gives us an idea of how its being used today, is that the Courts sat back and said, in this case, the Murdoch and Murdoch decision and the following decisions that came from that, the Court sort of said look, there was an unequitable treatment of a husband and wife.  This was pre-family law equalization times.  And the Court said, well the wife has demonstrated that she participated equally in the marriage but on death, I mean not on death, in this case on marriage breakdown, the assets were being split up based on legal title.  And the Court said that’s not fair.  So they stepped in and said if you’re going to participate, you are constructively holding, you’re actually participating in the growth and the build up of assets, then you’re entitled to be replenished from your work.  And whether you have legal title, whether the farm is in your name or its not, the Courts have said that doesn’t really matter.  What matters is, what did you do?  And it comes back to our similar way that we looked at quantum meruit as well.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  And in fact unjust enrichment is very, very similar to constructive trust except whereas you’re looking for payment of money in the cases of unjust enrichment, with constructive trust you’re usually looking to have some kind of claim to an asset itself, some interest in, you know, because these cases seem to have arisen in a family law context, an interest in the family home or some other property that is owned by one of the two people in a relationship.

Ian Hull:  So that’s developed and in the estates law, the constructive trust claim is prevalent, certainly easily identified in a Will challenge scenario when you might have someone who is excluded from the Will.  And say doesn’t get any of the family farm, and let’s say it’s the son.  But that son has been working the farm for many, many years.  And instead of looking to get paid for work and services as we did in quantum meruit or instead of trying to create a claim of proprietary estoppel which we talked about in a prior podcast, there is the claim that that asset is being held in trust by virtue of the work and services performed, and that you’re entitled to a portion of it.  Not maybe more than you’d get paid on a quantum meruit, maybe less than you’d get on a proprietary estoppel.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  And just by virtue of a claim, of course, Ian, there has to be a real relationship between the work that was done for the property and the property itself.  So that’s what takes this sort of, I think, outside of the box of being entitled to just a money payment for services rendered, that there’s actually a correlation between what you did and the property that you were doing it for.

Ian Hull:  Absolutely.  So I think its just one of those things that if we can consider, looking at both resulting trust and constructive trust.  We’ve talked a little bit about the distinction.  Sometimes on the facts it’s a distinction without any difference because you’re sometimes looking at trying to oppose a constructive trust or a resulting trust over a joint bank account.  You can sometimes impose it over land or specific items.  So, you know, we’ve tried to get into the distinction a little bit today but as long as we remember, and we try to remind our clients, you know, it’s an option.  And it is part of the various approaches that we may or may not want to take when we’re dealing with a Will challenge-like scenario where we have been excluded or we are excluded and on what basis.  And I think really from our perspective anyway, it is one of the more difficult claims to pursue.  So we typically don’t want to pursue it unless we think we’ve got some decent hold on it because it’s a bit of a flaky claim, to use a term of art and the Courts are not going to use it unless you’ve got the rights facts.  And where the Courts have historically imposed these kinds of trusts is when you’ve got obvious unjust deeds being done here, where someone has been unjustly treated at a level that there is no other way to solve it but by imposing these principles of equity on top of the facts and ultimately then coming to the Court, coming to say look, now I have a legal reason to say why that farm should go to Johnny and actually I only need 25% of the farm to go to Johnny because that represents the efforts that Johnny put into the farm property.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  That’s a really good point, Ian, because the truth is, these kinds of cases are hard to demonstrate factually because of the requirement for corroboration, because of the fact that so much of the evidence that would traditionally be led is more or less viewed by the Court as self-serving evidenced.  And so to be able to find third party evidence of these situations is not necessarily that easy, but when it is, then strictly these claims are ones that we do pursue and as best as we can in the circumstances, knowing of course that there’s no guarantees even with that at the end of the day.

Ian Hull:  Absolutely.  Alright, well before we turn to our next topic, one of the things that we’re trying to work through with our video podcasts is we’re going to, from time to time as well, we wanted to let everyone know that we’re going to try to do from time to time an audio and a video blog where we run into an issue that demonstrates a really interesting point that in and of itself doesn’t justify a whole podcast or a video podcast, but might be worthwhile having a couple of minutes.  So you’ll see us, from time to time, putting our little short snippets in, hopefully they’re helpful.  And we have a couple of ideas and really we’re going to try to do is just grab them from our practice.  And it may not happen once a week, it may not happen once a month, but every once and a while you’ll see that.  So we look forward to that new little twist in our day-to-day social media efforts.

So thank you very much. That winds up, I think, our discussions for today’s podcast.  We’ll continue with our Will challenge series and please feel free to send us an e-mail at hullandhull@gmail.com.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  Or, of course, call us and leave us a video comment at 206-457-1985.  Thanks very much, Ian.

Ian Hull:  Thanks Suzana.

You’ve been listening to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning with Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag.  The podcast you have been listening to has been provided as an information service.  It is a summary of current 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 Hull On podcasts, or to leave any questions or comments, please visit our website at hullestatemediation.com.

/mem

This week on Hull on Estates, Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag discuss a recent consultation paper from the Law Commission of Ontario(LCO) titled: The Law as it Affects Older Adults. The LCO has initiated a project to develop a legal framework for the law as it affects older persons and will be essential in addressing the needs and experiences of this group.

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

The Law as it Affects Older Adults - Hull on Estates Podcast #134

Posted on October 28^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to episode 134 of our podcast on Tuesday, October 28^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.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi this is Suzana Popovic-Montag.

Ian Hull: And this is Ian Hull. And we are back on Hull on Estates for, I guess what you indicated at the outset, 134. So it’s been a continuing ride and always interesting. So please, we always look forward to hearing from you. And we encourage you to check out our daily blog. Suzana and I both do a podcast that is an audio and a video podcast plus we have our daily blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com where we touch on daily issues of interest in the area of estates, not just legal but personal and other matters that we touch on. So please feel free to check us out and also send us a note if you have any comments.

Alright Suzana, well what we were going to talk about today was we thought was an interesting report that hasn’t seen the sort of mainstream media exposure that we think it might not ever see. But we’re going to do our best to put it through the back line of the internet world. And first of all, just by way of background, it’s a report written, a preliminary report written by the Law Commission of Ontario. And this is the successor, thank goodness finally, successor of the Law Reform Commission of Ontario. The Law Reform Commission of Ontario was established, worked intensely in the 70s and the 80s and the 70s in particular with things like changes to the Family Law Act and the Succession Law Reform Act in 1978 when Roy McMurtry was the Attorney-General. In those days, the law was really being pushed by this branch of the government, at that time, the Law Reform Commission. It was reinstated by Michael Bryant in, I forget the exact year, but within the last few years certainly, when the new Liberal government came in. Now they’re not so new but when they first came in, Michael Bryant had the vision to bring it back in. And it really is a source of pushing the law forward. We would not see the family law legislation that we did in the 70s and the 80s, nor would we have seen the changes to the Succession Law Reform Act without the Law Reform Commission then and we’re going to probably hopefully see some real positive impacts of this. So the thing we wanted to talk about was a consultation paper that came out in May of 2008. And again, may have gone below the radar screen for some but is a timely topic for Suzana and I as we are getting organized to head out to Vancouver for our trip for the Canadian Conference on Elder Law where we are speaking at it. That is the preeminent conference on Elder Law and one that we really enjoy speaking at. So in the course of getting ready for that, we have been working through some of the developments in 2008 and this May 2008 Ontario Law Commission of Ontario report was vital and its called “The Law as it affects Older Adults”.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And it really seems to me, Ian, to be a timely report in the sense that there is so much more of an awareness of, you know, the elderly community and the fact that we have an aging society. And we, frequently when we speak about these topics, we talk about the statistics and they’re very interesting and especially as they get updated on a regular basis.

Ian Hull: Well we’re going to go through some of those statistics, because this report does it. But at 30,000 feet, the report, we want to get through this in this podcast and sort of just give people an idea of it. Its obviously available on the web, easily linked to. But the report really, and the introduction of it, gives us some interesting background facts that we’ll talk about in a moment here. But it really, it touches on sort of the fundamental issues of national and international policy reforms, what’s going on out there, what frameworks we’re working within.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: It also sets out sort of the stereotypes of ageism, paternalism and the law and how it affects the elderly population, as well as sets out an interesting discussion about how age is used as a decision-making criterion in a lot of the legislation that’s existing right now.

Ian Hull: And one area where we constantly struggle is participation in access to the legal system and to the services available for the elderly. When you get into situations of mental cognition and mental frailty, it is so difficult for elderly people to actually engage in the process of the system. So the report goes through a really interesting analysis of that.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And apart from the legal ramifications or the legal implications of these kinds of discussions, the report also talks about the reality of the relationships that elderly people have with others, with their family members and with society as well. So it sets out some discussions on elder care, elder abuse and also recognizes the fact that older adults are caregivers to others as well.

It then goes on to talk about some secure and dignified living environments and it describes the difference between a retirement home and a nursing home and how the legislation applies to each of those different arrangements.

Ian Hull: So Suzana, coming back to your statistics, what, its always good to get a sort of framework of what we’re working with here and just how important this topic is to Canada over the next twenty years.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And the numbers really are quite surprising, at least to me they are. The number of Canadians they say that are currently over the age of 65 is expected to double in the next little while and so where it was 4.2 million back in 2005, they’re predicting that its going to be 9.8 million in 2036.

Ian Hull: So with this growing demographic in Canada, we also enjoy a wide variety of diversity within our communities and of course that community is becoming elderly as well. So each of the cultural and unique aspects of the various communities in Canada play out with the elderly and this report really struggles with the different, and that’s why they touch on the international perspective, is because they really do touch on the importance of factoring in elder care, elder law in the context of a cultural nation that Canada is.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And even within the grouping of the elderly, I think the report is really intuitive in that it recognizes that and sort of breaks it down into three different categories of what they call the young old, the middle old and then the frail old, recognizing the fact that even though someone may be over the age of 65, they can still be a very when they say young old in the sense of very vibrant, very self-independent, and functioning without the assistance of anyone. Whereas there are different gradations of what you’re capable of as you get older.

Ian Hull: And, you know, I think that’s a great illustration of the sort of level of analysis that this consultation report sends us through. It doesn’t just say people are getting old, we have to worry. They get into some really tough questions. And by grading it that way and breaking down the elderly category into sub-categories, identifying our immigrant population, identifying our diverse culture, identifying the fact that we deal with a predominantly female audience at some point in the statistics. This report really is throwing out all of the different variables to the sort of culture of the elderly and how we have to consider them and their place in society. So we also see a unique twist on it too because I think for the first time, certainly in any meaningful way, they throw out the option of considering how we are going to deal with the proportionate growth and also the trend among the fact that this, what we’ll call how you describe, this new categories of the young old, how we’re going to accommodate them in the work force because many of the young old aren’t prepared to simply quit work and in fact with this economic downturn, I’m told that the statistics are that the young old are going to be wanting to stay in or come back into the work force as they feel they have lost enough of their savings that has put themselves in danger. So its going to be an interesting economic tug on the whole economy.

Alright, so now that we’ve talked about sort of the background, and as I say, I think the summary that we started the podcast with really touches on the importance of the various issues. I just wanted to before we close talk about the one point that I thought was really well demonstrated and one that this consultation paper has thrown out to the community to address, and that is, some of the international and national frameworks. And where they started from, and I just think it’s, as a say, it’s a good starting point but its also a good finishing point, was that they looked at the United Nations Principles for Older Persons and they talked about five principles that the United Nations felt should be considered in pursuing elder law and elder care.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And those five principles were: independence, participation, care, self-fulfilment and dignity, which I think really are five of the main things to keep in mind when you’re dealing with these kinds of situations. And I think very intuitive recognition by the United Nations of the fact that this really does summarize the nub of the issues.

Ian Hull: So they took those five principles and they’ve thrown those out as we have thrown them out, into the gauntlet of how we intend to deal with the law as it affects older adults and that consultation paper is out there, they’re looking for feedback and input and at the very least, it’s a good read and interesting sort of parameters that are set out to give us some food for thought and to see where this law and the important law of elder law will be developing over the next ten years. So kudos to the Law Commission of Ontario to get us thinking and asking really useful and intuitive questions as opposed to just saying there’s a problem, go fix it.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And I guess that brings us to the end of this podcast. I’m Suzana Popovic-Montag.

Ian Hull: I’m Ian Hull. Thank you very much for listening. And again, please feel free to give us some feedback at hull.lawyers@gmail.com.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And feel free to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com. Thanks very much, Ian.

Ian Hull: Thanks Suzana.

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

Listen to Will Challenge Litigation - Part 11

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana talk about the differences between quantum meruit and propriety estoppel. As with any add-on claims, the courts require solid corroboration. They also discuss claims of resulting trust and claims of constructive trust.

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

Will Challenge Litigation Part 11 - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning - Podcast #136

Posted on October 28, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

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

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi and welcome to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning. You’re listening to episode 136 of our podcast on Tuesday, October 28, 2008.

Ian Hull: Hi Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi there Ian, how are you today?

Ian Hull: Great thanks. It’s a big day. It’s my brother’s birthday so “happy birthday” to my brother.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Happy birthday.

Ian Hull: And we’re going to, I’m sure he’s not listening, he’s stuck in the throws of a software development firm that is going crazy. 

Suzana Popovic-Montag: So you’re not going to sing?

Ian Hull: No, we’re not going to sing, we’ll definitely not sing. But we will invite everyone please, to come and hit our web page because we have had such great fun with feedback and just engaging in the social media world with people: estatelaw@hullandhull.com is where you can get your blog and hullandhull@gmail.com; we invite you to please feel free to send us an e-mail.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Or feel free to leave an audio comment for us at 206-457-1985. We always appreciate hearing from people directly in terms of what they think.

Ian Hull: Absolutely. So where we left off last week was, and I actually got an e-mail from one of my colleagues about this question. And so we left off on this pointing out the difference. We talked about the concept of proprietary estoppel. We talked about the importance of not just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks but pursuing claims that need to be pursued. We talked about how best to pursue it with good corroborative evidence. But what we left off was, we left it sort of with the listeners hanging, so to speak, is what’s the difference between the two? And I guess, let’s talk about the result. What is the different result that you achieve between pursuing a proprietary estoppel claim and a quantum meruit claim? And then let’s talk a little bit about what a quantum meruit claim is because then you can frame the kinds of approaches you want to take in respect of an add-on claim to a Will challenge.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  Well Ian, I typically tend to think of a quantum meruit claim as a claim like an hourly paid claim for services rendered to someone without having been paid at the time, but with the expectation that at some later point they’d somehow be compensated. Is that sort of how you view it as well?

Ian Hull: No question. And the big difference between a quantum meruit claim and a proprietary estoppel claim is that a proprietary estoppel claim allows the Court to give you a home run. Whereas the quantum meruit claim restricts the Court because it is a fee for services claim. As you say, it’s an hourly wage based claim. How much did you work for the individual whose now died who promised to pay you when they died and didn’t? And the Court will calculate your hours. So it’s a very different claim and we’ll talk a minute about how we pursue those claims but I think the result is the key and where again we come back to being surgical about what kind of claims we want to take is that if we think we can get the home run play, and that is, get the whole house as opposed to just some repayment of hourly wages, the proprietary estoppel claim opens us up to a tremendous result. And again, we come back to the classic example of a nice, elderly gentleman who was helping a widow with her home and when she said, in one of the leading proprietary estoppel cases, this will all be yours, the Court was able to say, this is really all of yours and that meant the house as opposed to don’t worry, you’ll be looked after. And that could be construed as more of a quantum meruit claim.

So let’s talk a little bit about the history as we’re in the world of, our case law is always historic in every way. The history of quantum meruit claims, so that we can help better understand how we’re going to pursue those kinds of claims.

And we go back to the 1940s in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, where they started to develop the law out of England. And it basically came out of the same, the Degelman case its called and we’ll have the case in the Show Notes. But the case was much like my proprietary estoppel example in terms of the facts. And in Degelman the same sort of thing happened. A nice gentleman came to assist, in that case again, a widower and the comments were made and expectations were created that he would be paid for cutting the lawn and looking after the house and so on. And sure enough, when she died, he wasn’t. So the Court struggled with how we can deal with this unjust enrichment because the Court doesn’t like the idea that this person acted to his detriment and didn’t get paid. And so the Court basically sat down, and as you say, did an hourly wage basis analysis and said, took the Latin phrase quantum meruit, paid for work for services rendered approach, and said well, how many hours did you work and what’s a fair hourly wage? So the Degelman case established what is, I think, a really important add-on claim in a Will challenge because sometimes you can’t prove there’s lack of capacity. Sometimes you can’t prove you were promised the whole enchilada and the whole house. But you can prove your services rendered. And it comes back to this high standard that the Courts expect on corroboration and the fact that you’ve got to put such good evidence forward to the Court, or they’re not going to give you your claim.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right. I mean, the truth is, we do have the benefit of an equitable Court, I’d say, in the sense of what you just said, nobody wants to see someone work for free on an expectation that they would receive something at the end of the day. And when you’re in these situations, the facts are really going to drive, I think, the result, in addition to the evidence that you can put forward in support of it. But if you’ve got someone who is mowing the lawn, buying groceries and taking someone to appointments and that, you can see where a Court might think more in terms of a quantum meruit kind of claim, because those are kind of services that are rendered, as opposed to the other situation where you’re claiming proprietary estoppel and you’re dealing maybe specifically with maintaining a house or a farm property or something to that effect, where it might make more sense that the whole enchilada, as you say Ian, was what was expected, what was intended, and what hopefully you’ll be able to prove in terms of entitlement at the end of the day.

Ian Hull: So now that we’ve got two efficient and can be very powerful add-on claims, we also have to