One of the presenters was Clare Burns. She has prepared an excellent checklist for solicitors advising estate trustees. The checklist covers topics such as the first interview with the client, reviewing wills, codicils and affidavits of execution, preparing and delivering initial report to the client, determining the estate assets and liabilities, applying for the Certificate of Appointment, realizing and distributing the estate, and preparing the final report to the client. Under each heading, there are detailed descriptions of matters to be considered.

Ms. Burns has advised that she hopes to have the checklist available on the LSUC website shortly.

Solicitors are encouraged to download the checklist, and personalize it and expand to it according to their needs and experience.

The benefits of using a good checklist cannot be overstated. They are an essential tool in any practice.

Thank you for reading.

Paul E. Trudelle - Click here for more information on Paul Trudelle. 

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

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

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

In her decision Justice Gerow states:

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

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

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

In Buswa v. Canzoneri, the Deceased died without a Will on September 29, 2010. The Deceased did not have a spouse and was survived by seven siblings, and two children.

The concern in this case was that the Deceased did not leave anyone with legal authority or responsibility to arrange his funeral and dispose of his remains.

Two of the Deceased’s siblings, the Applicants, applied for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee Without a Will. The daughter of the Deceased, the Respondent, also applied for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee Without a Will.

In his decision, the Honourable Justice Stinson considered the legal interpretation of section 29 of the Estates Act, which reads as follows:

1)  Subject to subsection (3), where a person dies intestate … administration of the property of the deceased may be committed by the Superior Court of Justice to:   a)      the person to whom the deceased was married immediately before the death of the deceased or person with whom the deceased was living in a conjugal relationship outside marriage immediately before the death;   b)      the next of kin of the deceased;

As the Deceased did not have a spouse, the court considered the definition of “next of kin.” In the Black’s Law Dictionary, “next of kin” is defined as “the person's nearest of kindred to the decedent, that is, those who are most nearly related by blood.”

Applying these concepts, the court held that the Respondent daughter was related to the Deceased by blood in the first degree, whereas the Applicants siblings were related to the Deceased in the second degree. Accordingly, the Respondent daughter was appointed as the Estate Trustee During Litigation.

Thank you for reading, and have a great day.

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

In D’Angelo Estate, Faust D’Angelo, deceased, resided in St. Catharines, Ontario. In his Last Will, he appointed his son, Emidio, and Emidio’s daughter, Denise as co-executors. His estate was divided equally amongst Emidio and his three surviving siblings. The estate, situate in Ontario, was worth approximately $1.5 Million.

Emidio and Denise, because they both lived in the United States, were obliged to obtain a Foreign Executors’ Bond. The insurer would only issue a bond if a lawyer in counsel’s firm was appointed by the Court as a monitor to supervise the administration of the estate.

The Court allowed the co-executors’ motion and appointed the monitor. Here are a few of the interesting findings leading up to its decision:

·        The co-executors both had standing under Rule 74.15(1)(i) as persons who appeared to have a financial interest in the estate. Emidio had a financial interest because he was a beneficiary. The Court found that the financial interest contemplated by the rule may be direct, indirect or contingent and although Denise was not a beneficiary, she had standing due to her entitlement to claim executor’s compensation, which was a contingent financial interest in the estate.

·        The Court noted that monitors had been appointed by courts in other situations to monitor the business and financial affairs of a charity and under the oppression remedies in the Ontario Business Corporation Act, which makes no provision for a monitor. 

·        The monitor would be an officer of the court and the responsibilities of an officer of the Court are: 1) to act fairly, honestly and impartially as a fiduciary on behalf of all persons having a financial interest; 2) to comply with the powers granted in the order of appointment; and 3) to be accountable to the Court and to the persons in 1).

·        The appointment of a monitor did not require approval or input from the beneficiaries (the motion was made without notice).

·        Pursuant to Rule 1.01(6), it was okay to modify the prescribed forms as circumstances required and so the form of Certificate could be varied to a “Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustees with a Will and Court-Appointed Monitor”.

I certainly think this case is novel and provides an alternative that could be quite a useful solution in some situations.

Sharon Davis - Click here for more information on Sharon Davis.

Arranging for the funeral and disposition of remains can be burdensome, especially if the estate trustee was related to the Deceased. This task becomes even more daunting when they are dealing with the expenses of a funeral in which case, fewer are in the mood to bargain. Regrettably, this leads many spending more then they have to. 

I recently came across an interesting article, How to Cut Funeral Costs, which was published in The Wall Street Journal. Under this article, the author provides us with a few tips on how to keep costs reasonable when arranging a funeral service:

 

1.                  Learn your Rights: Funeral homes are prohibited from charging certain fees, and there may be a requirement that compels funeral homes to provide a written fee list upon request

2.                  Pre-plan: “Have a conversation with your family about what you want and what’s going to be meaningful to them.”

3.                  Consider pre-owned plots: Purchasing a pre-owned plot has always been a common practice; but the purchaser has moved out of the area where his plot is purchased. 

4.                  Compare Funeral Home Prices: it’s worthwhile to shop around. Prices vary from one home to another

Thank you for reading,

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

In Re Estate of Daniel O’Donnell, the date of Mr. O’Donnell’s death was mistakenly listed as May 1, 2009 (not May 2) on the application for a certificate of appointment and resulting certificate. This mistake did not stop the administration of the estate. Mr. O’Donnell’s Will named Mr. Wilson as the sole estate trustee and sole beneficiary, and Mr. Wilson distributed virtually all of the estate assets to himself. He died a short time later, in July 2009. The administration of Mr. O’Donnell’s estate was yet to be completed, but the alternate estate trustee in Mr. O’Donnell’s Will had renounced her right to act. 

Accordingly, the named estate trustee for Mr. Wilson’s estate, Ms. Thomas, applied for a certificate of appointment as succeeding estate trustee with a will for Mr. O’Donnell’s estate. The application materials filed by Mr. Wilson’s estate trustee listed May 2, 2009 as Mr. O’Donnell’s date of death. The original error in the date of death went unnoticed for some time.

When the mistake in the date of Mr. O’Donnell’s death was finally identified, the Toronto Estates Office took the position that the applicant should bring an ex parte motion to correct the error made in the original certificate before the second certificate could be issued. Ms. Thomas argued, among other things, that she should not have to bear the cost of correcting a mistake she had not made and that the cost of preparing such a motion was out of proportion to what was at stake in the succeeding application (the succeeding application was only needed to complete tax filings and distribute the remaining assets valued at only $1,000.00.) 

Justice Brown’s solution was as follows. If the Estates Office identifies a discrepancy in the date of death between the original certificate and the application for a succeeding certificate, it should request an affidavit from the applicant that confirms that a mistake was made on the original certificate and attests to the correct date of death. Upon receiving such an affidavit, the Estates Registrar can then process the application for a succeeding certificate using the corrected date of death, and make any required changes to the original certificate and Ontario’s central registry which records information regarding estates. 

Thanks for reading,

Bianca V. La Neve - Click here to learn more about Bianca La Neve.

In Lajhner v. Banoub, [2009] O.J. No. 1327, this issue was addressed once again. There, the deceased died on March 18, 2009 at the age of 24. He died without a Will. His parents on the one part, and his alleged spouse, on the other, sought to be appointed as Estate Trustees, primarily for the purpose of assuming the obligation of determining the disposition of the deceased’s remains.

Both sets of parties, the court found, were motivated by a desire to do what they believe the deceased would want.

The parents wanted to cremate the deceased’s remains. The alleged spouse opposed this, stating that the deceased was Muslim, and that the Muslim faith did not accept cremation.

The issue became who was most likely to be appointed as estate trustee under s. 29 of the Estates Act.

The court went on to find that the alleged spouse was not in a conjugal relationship with the deceased immediately before his death. The evidence was that they were not residing together, and that there was no intention of reconciliation. Thus, the court concluded that the parents would most likely be appointed as Estate Trustees, as the spouse did not qualify under s. 29 of the Estates Act. They were therefore entrusted with the obligation to dispose of the deceased’s remains.

The court once again confirmed prior case law to the effect that religious laws or beliefs are not a factor that the court may take into consideration. What the court must do is determine who is most properly appointed as Estate Trustee. As the alleged spouse did not qualify under s. 29 of the Estates Act, she could not be appointed as Estate Trustee.

Thanks for reading.

Paul Trudelle

Paul Trudelle - Click here for more information on Paul Trudelle.

In the 2009 case of Evans v. Gonder, (incorrectly cited as 2000 CanLII 27170), the deceased named her sister and brother in law as Estate Trustees. A Certificate of Appointment was obtained by them. However, the Estate Trustees were elderly, and in poor health. They lived far away from the estate, and said that they could not afford to continue to defend litigation that was brought against the estate by one of the heirs. They had already spent $40,000 of their own money in defending the litigation.

The estate was said to be small, consisting of a modest house in Hamilton. By her Will, the deceased left a life interest in the house to her mother. The mother was still alive, but not able to live in the house: the house was vacant. 1/3 of the residue was left to a brother (who brought an action against the Estate, claiming that the house was held by the deceased for his benefit). It is not clear who the other beneficiaries were.

The brother opposed the motion for an Order removing the Estate Trustees. He argued that the legislation did not allow the court to remove Estate Trustees unless another person has consented to replace them. He made no suggestion as to how the Estate Trustees could be relieved of their duty, and submitted that “they are stuck with it”.

The court disagreed. It cited 1867 case law which found that “if there was no means by which a trustee could denude himself of that character, it would operate as a great discouragement to mankind to undertake so arduous a task”.   It also held that a trustee is not bound to show that someone else is ready to act. The court may, however, in an appropriate case, keep the Estate Trustee on, “taking care that the trustee shall not suffer thereby”.

In the present case, the court discharged the Estate Trustees. In the circumstances, it did not feel obliged to keep them before the court. The court ruled that the trustees were not in a position to do anything meaningful. They could not sell the house, due to the litigation, and could not settle the litigation, due to a tax lien that was registered against the property. The brother’s litigation was not prejudiced, as he could move to appoint a litigation administrator.

Thanks for reading.

Paul Trudelle

Paul Trudelle - Click here for more information about Paul Trudelle.

Details of the hearing cannot be released due to a publication ban. One wonders whether the sex-chat calls were isolated incidents or part of a pattern of unusual behaviour that convinced the Tribunal (and the Supreme Court) that the elderly gentleman’s capacity to manage his own finances was impaired. It is also unclear whether the man had family and/or whether any of his family supported his fight to regain control of his money. 

I note that the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal of Queensland has similar duties and responsibilities to Ontario’s Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee of Ontario (OPGT) and the Consent and Capacity Board. The Tribunal of Queensland can determine whether or not a person has impaired decision-making capacity and, if necessary, make an order appointing a guardian and/or an administrator. In Ontario, it is the courts that primarily make determinations of incapacity. 

Thanks for reading,

Bianca La Neve

In Church v. Gerlach, the ETDL was appealing the trial judge's fixing of compensation at $13,000 inclusive of GST.  The ETDL asked for $23,203,54 plus costs.  The ETDL had originally claimed $35,805.30 plus $2,973.30 for the costs of the application. 

The general provision authorizing compensation to ETDLs is s. 28 of the Estates Act: the ETDL "shall receive out of the property of the deceased such reasonable compensation as the court considers proper".  Section 61 of the Trustees Act authorizes "such fair and reasonable allowance for the care, pains and trouble, and the time expended in and about the estate, as may be allowed by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice." 

According to Ontario's Court of Appeal in Liang Estate v. Hines (1998) CanLII 6867 (ON C.A.), 41 O.R. (3d) 571, the proper approach is to start by applying percentages to the estate (customarily 2.5% of capital receipts and disbursements, 2.5% of income receipts and disbursements, and an annual care and management fee of 0.4% of gross value of the estate).  Then, each percentage is considered against five factors enumerated in Re Toronto General Trusts Corporation and Central Ontario Railway (1905), 6 O.W.N. 350 (H.C.):   

1.  the magnitude of the trust;

2.  the care and responsibility springing therefrom;

3.  the time occupied in performing its duties;

4.  the skill and ability diplayed; and

5.  the success which has attended its administration.

Applying this approach, the ETDL was awarded half of the usual percentages: he ought not to be fully compensated as if he was required to perform all of the functions of an Estate Trustee, and the reduction also took into account the complexity of the estate. 

As a general practice note on costs of appeals, while the ETDL had paid his lawyer more than $15,000 to prepare the appeal, given the amount in dispute, the relatively simple issues on appeal and the reasonable expectation of the appellant ETDL, costs were fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.  

The Divisional Court also noted that the standard of review for appeals under s. 10 of the Estates Act on a question of law is correctness.

Have a great day,

Chris Graham

For a quick recap of the interplay between provincial and federal jurisdiction regarding estate matters and First Nations people living on reserves, I refer to David Smith’s 2007 blog: The Administration of Estates under the Indian Act. 

Albas v. Gabriel involved an action by the plaintiff, as executor of the estate, for a declaration proving the deceased's Will in solemn form.  The defendant beneficiaries appealed to the Minister of Northern and Indian Affairs because the Minister has jurisdiction to approve a Will made by an Indian and to confirm the appointment of an executor to administer the estate. Specificially, the Minister’s authority is provided by section 43 of the Indian Act.

A member of an Indian Band and a resident of a reserve, the deceased operated a trailer park and he was a “locatee” of the land because he owned “certificates of possession”: valuable assets that he left equally to his daughter and two step-children. This was just one of the businesses with which the deceased was involved.

The daughter challenged both the validity of the Will and the administration of the estate. The judge determined that the daughter believed that if the Will was declared invalid, she would inherit the entire estate.

Because of the Will challenge, the Minister transferred jurisdiction over the estate to the Supreme Court of British Columbia pursuant to s. 44(1).

Ultimately, the Court found that the Will was valid because it was not forged and the testator had capacity as well as knowledge of the Will which he approved.

Enjoy your day.

Jonathan

Perhaps the best way for an outgoing trustee (and/or new trustee) to limit any liability that may be visited upon him/her/them as a result of the administration of the trust (or to the date of his or her retirement, removal and replacement) is for the trustee and his or her co-trustees, if any, to pass their accounts.   Assuming the accounts are passed, not only will the trustee know the “starting numbers” and the assets/liabilities for the future administration of the trust (that is start with a clean slate), but the trustee will have been afforded the proper protection of the Court order. 

Requiring an accounting may also be the only way that the beneficiaries can review the administration of the trust and determine whether the administration has been proper or whether misconduct has occurred, negligent or otherwise.

In addition to a passing of accounts, applying to and obtaining a tax clearance certificate from all applicable tax authorities in respect of the trust will release the trustee from tax liability in respect of the trust to the date of the clearance certificate (absent fraud, willful concealment or misrepresentation).

Thanks for reading, Craig.

Apart from the provisions of the trust document itself, a trustee’s potential liability may be protected, limited or exonerated in a number of ways by statute.   Some examples are sections 18(1), 20(3), 28 and 29 of the Trustee Act (“Act”). 

Section 28 of the Act provides that a trustee is not liable for a loss to the trust arising from the investment of trust property if the conduct of the trustee that led to the loss 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. Section 29 of the Act provides that if a trustee is liable for a loss to the trust arising from the investment of trust property, a court assessing the damages payable by the trustee may take into account the overall performance of the investments.

The application of the Limitations Act should also be considered.

Also, in considering a trustee’s potential liability in respect of his or her administration of the trust, a trustee ought to consider his or her conduct and whether that conduct may be exonerated, if necessary, by the Court under section 35 of the Act. As a way of balancing the rights of beneficiaries with the interest to not overburden trustees, s.35 of the Act holds that when a breach occurs, the Court has the discretion to relieve the trustee of liability in cases where it believes that the trustee acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused.

With some exception, the Court therefore has a statutory discretion to grant trustees relief from liability if they have acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused.  

Thanks for reading,

Craig

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 first responsibility is to tend to funeral arrangements and then to gather up all the information relevant to the Estate. This information includes the ownership and value of assets, as well as the nature of all Estate liabilities. These responsibilities need to be taken seriously. 

Some other duties include: make provisions for dependants; notify various government agencies of the deceased's death; collect income from assets; decide about investments; seek advice as required.  The executor’s role is similar to that of a trustee: both owe a duty to the beneficiaries. 

When one plans his or her Estate and prepares a Will, it is useful to consider the attributes of a successful executor.  Some questions might be:

• Is the person organized?
• Does the person have financial skills? 
• What is the demeanour of the person who is being considered as an executor?

A recent British article asks more questions. One point, among many, is that “Honesty and conscientiousness are important, but if you are appointing more than one executor - and often that's a good idea - they also need to be team players.” 

Each situation is different but the hard and soft skills of a potential executor are likely useful considerations.

Examples abound to illustrate what might go awry. Take the Estate of the renowned violinist, Isaac Stern. In 2004, the beneficiaries of the Estate were disappointed when the executor failed to include the value of the deceased's  New York apartment in the calculation of the Estate's value. This decision resulted in a shortfall of funds to meet the Estate’s liabilities. Legacy items, including musical instruments, were apparently sold at auction to the beneficiaries' collective dismay.

Choose your executor(s) wisely.

Enjoy your Thursday.

Jonathan Morse

"35. (1)  If in any proceeding affecting a trustee or trust property it appears to the court that a trustee, or that any person who may be held to be fiduciarily responsible as a trustee, is or may be personally liable for any breach of trust whenever the transaction alleged or found to be a breach of trust occurred, but has acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust, and for omitting to obtain the directions of the court in the matter in which the trustee committed the breach, the court may relieve the trustee either wholly or partly from personal liability for the same."

This helpful section can eliminate Gotcha! claims and provides a ready response to frivolous accusations that often arise in the course of litigation.  By eliminating nuisance claims for minor breaches, section 35 gives solicitors acting for trustees a very quick answer to the minor types of claims that add little substance to already complex litigation.   

However, this provision does not apply to liability for a loss to the trust arising from the investment of trust property (Trustee Act, s.35(2)).

Have a great week, and remember, it's really Wednesday.

Chris Graham

This week on Hull on Estates, David Smith and Natalia Angelini talk about the duties an estate trustee he or she is charged with from the moment of a testator's passing. Duties include locating the will, making funeral arrangements and being responsible to see the intentions of the testator preserved.

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

Posted on November 4^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Natalia Angelini: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode #135 on Tuesday, November 4^th, 2008.

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

David Smith: Hi and welcome to another episode of Hull on Estates. I’m David Smith.

Natalia Angelini: And I’m Natalia Angelini.

David Smith: If you want to be heard on Hull on Estates, you can participate by leaving us a comment. E-mail us at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or you can visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com. Hello, Natalia.

Natalia Angelini: Hi David. How are you?

David Smith: You know I’m okay. I’ve got a bit of a cold so my voice is about an octave lower than usual, but we’ll do our best today. So today, Natalia, we thought we were going to talk about the issue of what duties an estate trustee is charged with from the minute the deceased passes away.

Natalia Angelini: Right. It’s a really interesting topic because it’s a time when I think the estate trustee has to act fairly quickly to do a number of things, and I think the first of those is locating a Will.

David Smith: That’s right and I suppose at the outset too, we should give a little plug to Paul Trudelle of our office who has given a paper.  And there’s a webcast available on the website dealing with this issue as well. We’re, in our podcast, going to try and explore in a little more detail some of the issues that Paul touched on in his discussion.  So we commend that webcast to you. So I guess, what’s the first issue that usually arises for the estate trustee?

Natalia Angelini: I think the first can definitely be finding the Will of the deceased, because the first thing the estate trustee wants to ascertain is what the deceased’s testamentary wishes were.  And so that’s definitely an important thing to look for.

David Smith: That’s right and of course, you know everybody keeps their stuff somewhere different. In some cases, it’s a safety deposit box. In other cases, it’s a filing cabinet, under the mattress. It will depend on the person.  So if the executor is charged with the responsibility to look for the Will, they’re going to look in the obvious locations, and hopefully be able to find the Will.  And of course, the lawyer plays a role, because if the lawyer is known, he or she might have a copy of the Will.

Natalia Angelini: Right, exactly, so it’s a good idea to make inquiries with the lawyer of the deceased if you know who that lawyer is, or perhaps looking through the deceased’s personal papers, you can determine who the lawyer is and contact him or her that way.

David Smith: Right and you know, if you get into a situation where there’s just no luck finding a Will, you can advertise in the Ontario Reports.  That happens on occasion, we all see lawyers do that on the odd occasion.

Natalia Angelini: Right.

David Smith: When someone says, yeah, I knew so and so had a Will but I didn’t know who drew it.

Natalia Angelini:  Um hm. So I think aside from finding the Will, and probably one of the next things that the estate trustee is going to definitely be thinking about is making funeral arrangements.

David Smith: That’s right. And in the cases of an unexpected death, obviously that’s going to probably be a situation where the executor’s got to take some action of their own accord. Of course, with older people and people who are contemplating their own death through illness or what-have-you, or some other really sad situation, we’re seeing more and more that people will prepay their funeral or have them organized ahead of time.  But in most instances, the estate trustee is going to have to deal with this, you know, obviously rather unpleasant task, and certainly it’s the foremost concern.

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely.  And with respect to payment of the funeral, I think it’s helpful to note that those costs are of priority payment and come out of the assets of the estate.  So if it’s not prepaid then at least the estate trustee hopefully has assets available to make that payment.

David Smith: Well that’s right and it’s probably worth just making the point at this stage too, that the government provides a death benefit of $2,500.  And really that’s there primarily to fund the cost of the funeral or to contribute towards the cost of the funeral.

Natalia Angelini: Right, that’s a good point. In dealing with the funeral, I think this is a real interesting one, especially if you’ve maybe got a dispute between family members as to how it should happen, and potentially that may even differ with what the deceased has set out in his or her Will, and you’ve got a really interesting situation about how this deceased person is going to be put to rest.

David Smith: Well you’re right Natalia and we’ve seen situations where it’s potentially very emotionally volatile. You can have a situation where you have religion sometimes clash with the intentions of the testator. There’s one case where, the name escapes me, but Rick Bickhram of our office recently, I think a couple of weeks ago, blogged on a case where a deceased person named her boyfriend as executor. He was charged with acting as executor and intended to cremate her remains. The family, for religious reasons, opposed that and this matter ultimately went to Court and the Court decided that it was in the authority of the executor to make that decision.

Natalia Angelini: Right, and during Paul’s talk, he went through a few cases dealing with this issue and it seems to be that the consensus of the Court is that the duty of an estate trustee includes that duty to dispose of the body and that the estate trustee really has final say.

David Smith: Right, and you know that really seems to be a very settled law. Unfortunately, I think you’re still going to see cases go to litigation on this in the odd instance, not because the outcome is ever really going to be in question because the law seems so settled that the estate trustee can do what he or she wants.  But I suppose if I’m a bit cynical, for settlement purposes, someone might start that litigation in the hopes of arriving at some kind of compromise. So you know, certainly that’s an issue which regrettably can result in litigation on the odd situation.   But, you know, we keep repeating the same refrain which is that the executor has that responsibility.  And it’s worth also mentioning I think, Natalia, that you can say whatever you want in your Will about how you would like your remains to be disposed of; the reality is that the executor does not have to follow those, does he or she?

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely.  He or she does not, but interestingly though, his or her duty is to dispose of the body in a manner suitable with the estate of the deceased.  So even though the estate trustee may seem to be able to do whatever he or she wants, there’s definitely going to be criticism of a trustee who just, you know, goes ahead and, for instance, has an elaborate $50,000 funeral where the deceased has a fairly modest estate.

David Smith: Right. I think generally it’s expected that the funeral will be commensurate with the size of the estate, so I think that’s a really good point.  And also, there’s just a moral duty, I think, in this situation, where you’d expect the executor to do what the testator wanted.

Natalia Angelini: Right.

David Smith: It’s probably worth doing a little segway here, while we’re on this topic. I mean, this has to do now with the issue of donation of body parts.  And, of course, there’s legislation in Ontario that deals with that, right Natalia?

Natalia Angelini: There is. It’s the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act and it’s an interesting piece of legislation that allows a person to consent to the donation of their own body, or body parts, upon death.

David Smith: That’s right. So we’ve all sort of seen the situation where the consent card is kept quite often with someone’s driver’s license and this is an important priority.  And, of course, it plays an important role in given the success of transplant surgeries and what have you, that this is obviously an important legislative prerogative that this kind of intention can be preserved, even if it’s not contained in the Will.

Natalia Angelini: Right. And a spouse or other family members can also give their consent, even if the deceased hasn’t done so during his or her lifetime. So the difference here, I think, with the ability to dispose of the body, is that the family members seem to get priority over the wishes of the estate trustee.

David Smith: Right and it’s obviously a specific situation but it’s important to know because it’s the one significant departure from the common law rule that the executor’s decisions are paramount. 

Natalia Angelini: And frankly, it makes sense to me anyway.

David Smith: Oh, absolutely. I don’t see how we can quarrel with that. So you know, harking back to our topic for the day which is the executor’s duties, again it all boils down to fiduciary duty, doesn’t it Natalia? I mean really the executor’s got to make sure that he or she does what is necessary to see the intentions of the testator preserved.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right and I think it’s important to note particularly with this issue of disposing of the body, the estate trustee has to do so in a dignified way.  And so I think that’s in keeping with fulfilling his or her fiduciary duty. 

David Smith: Good point. Okay, so I guess we should move on to a couple of more issues, just given our limited amount of time that’s left.  And we were going to touch on children and pets, in that order. So let’s talk about children briefly speaking. It’s possible in your Will, isn’t it, to speak to guardianship?

Natalia Angelini: That’s right. Under the Children’s Law Reform Act, you can appoint someone to have custody of your child upon your death, and I think sometimes people do this, and they put this provision in their Will and I’m not sure that they’re always aware that this has some limited value.

David Smith: That’s right. The appointment is valid for 90 days but, of course, it’s important to note that if anybody else is entitled to custody and is not named in the Will, that that person obviously has a right to exercise custody and it might be pointed out that an application for custody can be commenced within that 90 day period.  And so, to some extent the wishes of the guardian, with respect to their children in their Will is somewhat precatory, isn’t it, in that it’s subject to other considerations.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right, but I think it may give some assistance to the family and to the children, really, so they know I guess who they’re going to be spending time with, at least in the short-term.

David Smith: True. And I guess the important point too is, in all likelihood, the custodial parent in their Will will say that if they die, in all likelihood, they’re going to appoint the other parent as the guardian of the children. I suppose you could have a situation where there are two parents, where one parent dies and provides in his or her Will that the guardian for the children is someone other than the other parent.  And obviously in that situation, the other parent is going to have something to say about that. 

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely, I’ve seen that type of case and I think, unsurprisingly, the other parent proceeded with an application in the Family Court for custody and that issue was resolved that way.

David Smith: Now the last point is in keeping with our concern about issues arising immediately upon death, of course, lots of people have pets.  And lots of Wills provide for pets as beneficiaries.  And pets need to be fed and watered, so obviously the executor’s got to look after that.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right and like you said, that’s definitely got to happen at the get go because we don’t want pets to be neglected.  And they’re usually, especially if they’re in a Will, very near and dear to the deceased’s heart.  So it’s important to make those arrangements.

David Smith: Right. And that’s going to also require the executor to act quickly as you pointed out. So good point as well, and Paul, in his paper, talks about crops and perishables. If you’ve got a business that’s running fresh produce for instance, and the business owner dies, any other perishable products, obviously it’s important to keep the electricity on, to keep things refrigerated and all of those sort of important things that have to do with ensuring that any inventory of the estate does not go to waste, because ultimately, the executor is going to be accountable to the beneficiaries, right, for what happens.

Natalia Angelini: Exactly. And I think, I guess the one thing to remember is, it’s so important for the estate trustee, I suppose to know, as far in advance as possible, whether he or she is a trustee and what the assets of the estate are and what the circumstances are so they can do their best to act as quickly as possible.

David Smith: Absolutely. That’s the biggest part of good estate planning, isn’t it? And it makes the job so much easier. And we should point out, too, that if it’s just an insurmountable job for the executor to take on, maybe you renounce.

Natalia Angelini: Right, or get a, if the estate assets can justify it, get a trust company in place or instead.

David Smith: Especially if there’s a business there, yeah, so I think that’s an important point to leave our listeners with is, you know, if you’re named as executor, you’re not duty bound to take on the job at all costs. If it’s not a realistic possibility for you to carry on the task, consider renouncing.

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely. Good point, David. So, I think that brings us to the end of this week’s discussion. Thanks for listening and thanks for joining me today, David.

David Smith: It was a pleasure, Natalia. I really look forward to podcasting with you again soon.

Natalia Angelini: 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 Natalia Angelini.

David Smith: I’m David Smith. 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

Most of us probably do not like to think about our funeral and final resting place. However, when it comes time to preparing a Will, many individuals will ask their lawyer to include burial instructions, such as a wish for cremation or to be buried in a particular cemetery. It may come as a surprise to learn that in Ontario, such instructions are not binding on the estate trustee. It is the estate trustee who has the right and obligation to bury a deceased person, even in the face of objections from family members. The authority for this comes from an English case decided over 100 years ago, Williams v. Williams (1882), 20 Ch. D. 659, where it was held that there is no property in a dead body, and so a person cannot by will dispose of their own dead body. An estate trustee, however, has the right to custody and possession of a deceased’s body until it is properly buried. 

Have a great day!

Bianca La Neve

This week on Hull on Estates, Paul Trudelle and Diane Vieira discuss compensation for work done by estate trustees and estate solicitors.

Case citation:

Rooney Estate v. Stewart Estate 2007 WL3019262 (Ont. S.C.J.), 2007 CarswellOnt 650

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.