Toronto Estate Lawyer : Hull & Hull Law Firm : Trust Mediation and Succession Planning : Serving Ontario, Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In my blog yesterday, I introduced the prudent investor rule as the standard of care for trustees when investing assets that are held in a trust. Today, I will address how a trustee’s investment performance may be assessed.

Prior to July 1999, trustees were required to make investments pursuant to the “statutory legal list” provided for in the Trustee Act. This had the effect of holding trustees accountable for each particular investment, rather then the investment portfolio as a whole. The principle was further illuminated by the anti-netting rule, which stated that a trustee, who committed a breach of trust, was not entitled to set off a gain in one transaction against a loss in another. However, through recent amendments to the Trustee Act, the statutory legal list was repealed and replaced with the Prudent Investor Rule.

The Prudent Investor Rule reflects the modern portfolio approach to investments, the emphasis being on the prudence of the portfolio as a whole as opposed to each particular component. This theory is captured in Section 27(5) of the Trustee Act. Section 27(5) requires “a trustee to consider … the role that each investment plays within the overall trust portfolio”. Furthermore, under section 27(6) “a trustee is required to diversify the investments of the trust property. It appears that under the modern portfolio approach, a trustee would not be breaching the standard of care, should he or she invest a substantial amount of trust assets into a single security. As described above, section 27(6) requires that the trustee consider diversifying the portfolio, which is necessary if the Prudent Investor Rule is to be followed. To conclude my topic, tomorrow I will consider the liability of a trustee with respect to the investment of trust assets.

Thanks for reading,

Rick

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Not all Wills provide for an outright distribution to the beneficiaries. In some cases, the assets of an estate are held in trust over a period of time for the benefit of one or more beneficiaries, sometimes in succession.  When a trustee administers a trust, he or she is entrusted to act for the benefit of others. As such, our common law and statutes impose standards that trustees must comply with when dealing with trust property.

With the recent plummet in the stock market, I believe many trustees are considering how the stock market losses have affected the trust investments and what action they should take in the circumstances. 

Section 27 of the Trustee Act addresses the standard of care for trustees when investing assets held in a trust. Section 27(1) states, “in investing trust property, a trustee must exercise the care, skill, diligence and judgment that a prudent investor would exercise in making investments”. Section 27(2) states that “a trustee may invest trust property in any form of property in which a prudent investor might invest”.

Section 27(1) and (2) outlines the prudent investor rule. When investing trust assets, a trustee must comply with the prudent investor rule to protect himself or herself from liability.   Section 28 of the Trustee Act, emphasizes this point as it states that a Trustee will not be liable for losses arising from investments if the standard of the prudent investor is met. Nevertheless, the issue remains how does a trustee meet the “prudent investor” standard? In keeping with this theme, tomorrow I will address how a trustee’s investment performance may be assessed.

Thanks for reading, and have a great day!

Rick

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading, and have a great day!

Rick

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over the next week, I will blog on a variety of topics within the estate and and trust world. I will canvas notable case law as well as draw on my recent experience. My first topic deals with evidence.

It is crucial when litigating to amass the right evidence. A great deal of thought usually goes into deciding whether to litigate, but once that decision has been made, the right evidence has to be put forward in order to win or to facilitate a favourable settlement. Much of what litigators now do is by way of application so affidavit evidence is key. The beauty of affidavit evidence is that it allows the lawyer time to draft or finesse the evidence - not change it, but just present it in its most persuasive format.

When dealing with a will challenge and capacity, the notes of the solicitor who drew up the will are obviously critical, as is any medical evidence particularly from a family doctor. In a guardianship fight, medical evidence is again key, but so is evidence from family or friends. However, when deciding what evidence to submit, a careful litigator will take the time to decide what evidence is required over and above the usual. In other words, what avenues are worth exploring that may reveal the unexpected. Is there some person who may be able to add fresh evidence that will make the difference and carry the day?

In a recent guardianship case that I was involved with, the evidence of two neighbours turned out to be critical. The neighbours were able to comment on the slow deterioration of the incapable. As family members had applied to the court to be appointed guardians, the neighbour were also able to comment on whether the family members visited and how often. The neighbours, who still kept in touch with the incapable, were also able speak to the wishes of the incapable when it came to who should look after the incapable. A caregiver at a nursing home was also in a position to comment on the mental state of the incapable and, in fact, assisted a doctor who was retained to prepare a retrospective assessment. What the neighbours and the caregiver brought to the table was the fact that their evidence was credible and independent. In other words, they had no particular stake, one way or the other, in the outcome of the litigation. They were simply interested in doing what was best for the incapable. When it comes to evidence from outside or third parties, their evidence will likely be believed because it is seen as untainted. As a result, every effort should be made to get evidence from outside or third parties and from sources that may be out of the ordinary.

Thanks for reading.

Justin