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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In our fast paced and busy lives, we can often overlook the basics, getting bogged down in the details and not seeing the forest for the trees. Seeing as this is the case, I thought it might be a good exercise to have a quick review of one of the basic tenants of trust law; the three certainties.
 

Most people are fairly comfortable with a basic understanding of what constitutes a trust. The loose idea that a trust is created when a person transfers property to another person under the instructions and understanding that the property is to be used for the benefit of a third party is fairly universally understood. But what may not be as universally understood are the basic criteria that must be met in order to have the transfer of property constitute a valid trust.  In order for the property transfer to constitute a valid trust, it must meet what are known as the three certainties: (i) The Certainty of Intention; (ii) The Certainty of Subject Matter; and (iii) The Certainty of Objects.
 

The Certainty of Intention refers to the intention on the part of the person transferring the property (more correctly referred to as the "Settlor") to create a trust. The expression of the intention to create a trust can be oral or written, and should be supported by some expression of the intent to create a trust. Put simply, when the Settlor transferred the property, they had to do so with the intention that the property be held in trust for a third party.
 

The Certainty of Subject Matter has two aspects to it, being: (i) the certainty of the property that is subject to the obligation that it be held in trust; and (ii) the certainty of the amount, or share, of the trust property that each beneficiary is to receive. At the time that the property is transferred, it must be certain what property is to form the subject of the trust, and you must know how much each beneficiary of the trust is entitled to receive. 
 

The Certainty of Objects refers to the fact that you must be certain who the beneficiaries of the trust are. For a trust to be valid, the trustee must know who they are to direct the benefits of the trust property towards, and who can hold the trustee to account in the event of anything going wrong. As such, a group so large or so vague that the trustee would unable to identify who the beneficiaries are would not be valid. The Objects have to be easily ascertainable and identified in order to be a valid trust.
 

If an alleged trust lacks any one of the three certainties it will fail as a trust. As such, when approaching a trust for the first time, a good practice tip is to quickly run through the three certainties to make sure that the trust is valid in its most basic form. Why waste hours on a more minute detail, only to realize that the trust was not valid from the start as a result of its objects being too vague. I hope this review of one of the basic tenants of trust law has provided you with a valuable refresher. Sometimes a review of the basics does us all a little good
 

Ian Hull - Click here for more information on Ian Hull. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Lawyers frequently take funds into their trust accounts on behalf of clients and others. Usually, it is not difficult to determine to whom those funds belong. However, what happens when the beneficial owner of funds held in trust cannot be identified or located?  

In Ontario, section 59.6 of the Law Society Act permits a lawyer (or licensed paralegal) who has held money in trust for or on account of a person for at least two years to apply for permission to transfer the money to the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) if,

1. The lawyer has been unable to locate the person entitled to the money despite having made reasonable efforts throughout a period of at least two years; or
2. The lawyer is unable to determine who is entitled to the money.

The application procedure for transferring the money to LSUC is set out in By-Law 10.

You must complete and file the licensee application form, which will be reviewed by LSUC. Upon completion of the review, LSUC will notify you whether permission to transfer the money to it has or has not been granted.

If permission is granted, you must,

1. Send a trust cheque, made payable to "The Law Society of Upper Canada, in Trust", in an amount equal to the amount of money for which you have received permission to transfer; and
2. Send copies of your financial records relating to the money which you have been permitted to transfer.

Permission to transfer money will typically be subject to the condition that you inform LSUC immediately if you obtain any new information relating to any person entitled to the money that was transferred.

Once the money has been transferred, your liability as trustee or fiduciary with respect to the amount transferred is extinguished.

See the LSUC website for more information.

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many of us give to charities by handing out pocket change at the door or by giving monthly gifts by automatic deposit. Some may leave bequests to their favourite charities in their Wills. For those who have a little more to give during their lifetime and beyond, there are additional ways to provide for planned giving to charitable organizations.

For example, the Charitable Remainder Trust (“CRT”) allows the capital of a gift to be given to a charity while the income earned is retained by the donor or some other person for their lifetime. The CRT can be an inter vivos trust given during the donor's lifetime, or testamentary trust that comes into effect upon the donor's death. 

With a CRT, the donor establishes an irrevocable gift to a charity in return for a discounted tax receipt. The cash flow from income generated by the gift is fully taxable. The charity receives an irrevocable gift and upon the termination of the trust, will receive the remainder.

There are many advantages to a inter vivos CRT including:

• Lifetime income to the donor.

• An immediate tax receipt.

• Avoidance of probate, saving probate fees and allowing the existence of the trust to remain private (unlike a Will, which is a public document).

The advantages of a testamentary CRT are:

• Lifetime income to a loved one.

• A tax receipt to the estate.

• The trust is revocable and takes effect on death of the donor/testator.

The most important advantage of a CRT for the charity itself, especially for those created during the lifetime of the donor, is that it allows the charity to project the resources available to it and better plan for achieving its charitable objectives.

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending and presenting at the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Six Minute Estates Lawyer Program. 

The Program was the morning in length and was Chaired by Hilary Laidlaw and Timothy Youdan. 

The papers provided, together with the presentations, were very informative and intriguing. The topics included an update on Family Law Act Amendments, Predatory Marriages, a Charities Update, Trust Residence Post-Garron, Inter-vivos Trust Audits, Pet Trusts, Common Issues for Applications on Certificates for Appointment, Administration of Multiple Wills, US Estate Tax Update, Estates and Trusts Hotspots, CPD Requirements, Cy-pres - Section 13 Orders and when to Serve the OPGT, Life Insurance and RSP Beneficiary Designations for Minor Children, Habeas Corpus and the Substitute Decisions Act, Evolution of Orders Appointing Estate Trustee During Litigation, Increasing the Odds of a Successful Mediation, Estates and Privilege, Costs and Impact of Proportionality Considerations, and Conflicts Involving the Role of Estate Trustee and Estate Solicitor. If you are interested in these materials, I understand that they can be ordered from the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The Ontario Bar Association (OBA) also has two half day programs coming up on May 10, 2011. One half day program (from 9:00 a.m. to noon) is entitled “Will and Estate Planning Essentials”, while the other half day program (1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) is entitled “Beyond Will and Estate Planning Essentials”. The first program is being Chaired by Susannah Roth, while the second program is being Chaired by Joanna Ringrose and Edward Olkovich.

If you are interested in attending the upcoming OBA programs, please contact Blossom Pangowish, OBA Sections Co-ordinator, at (416) 869-1047, ext 399, or by email at blossom@oba.org.

Thanks for reading,

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Ontario Bar Association (OBA), Trusts and Estates Section, year end dinner is taking place on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 at the Archeo (Distillery District), 55 Mill Street, Building 45, Toronto. The Reception begins at 5:30 p.m. with Dinner at 6:30 p.m. As Chair of the Section, I will have the pleasure of bringing the past year to a close. As well, the Section Executive for 2011/2012 year will be announced. The Section will also pay tribute to this year’s recipient of the OBA Award for Excellence in Trusts and Estates, Mary MacGregor.

The Award for Excellence was created to recognize exceptional contributions and achievements by members of the OBA to the area of trusts and estates.

The criteria for the award is demonstrated leadership in the trusts and estates bar through knowledge, experience, skill, commitment, passion and strength of character, plus all or some of the following:

·         academic excellence through teaching at the Bar Admission Course, lecturing at a law school, participating in Continuing Legal Education and/or academic writing;

·         participation in the OBA Trusts and Estates Section Executive or the Law Society of Upper Canada on wills, trusts and estate matters; and

·         contribution to the development of wills, trusts and estate law.

Mary’s distinguished and esteemed career has included her unwavering commitment to, as well as the achievement of, excellence in these areas.   

In addition to the Award for Excellence, the Widdifield Award and the Hoffstein Book Prize will be presented.

For more information, please contact Blossom Pangowish, OBA Sections Co-ordinator, at (416) 869-1047, ext 399, or by email at blossom@oba.org.

Enjoy.

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Each year the Ontario Bar Association (OBA), Trusts and Estates Section, considers candidates for its Award of Excellence. Last year, the Section paid tribute to Hilary Laidlaw as the recipient.  The Award for Excellence was created to recognize exceptional contributions and achievements by members of the OBA to the area of trusts and estates.

Any Trusts and Estates Section member of the OBA in good standing, as well as former members of the section who have retired or been appointed to the bench, but not including current officers of the Executive of the Trusts and Estates Section or the Executive of the OBA, are eligible to be nominated.

The criteria for the award is demonstrated leadership in the trusts and estates bar through knowledge, experience, skill, commitment, passion and strength of character, plus all or some of the following:

·         academic excellence through teaching at the Bar Admission Course, lecturing at a law school, participating in Continuing Legal Education and/or academic writing;

·         participation in the OBA Trusts and Estates Section Executive or the Law Society of Upper Canada on wills, trusts and estate matters; and

·         contribution to the development of wills, trusts and estate law.

Any member of the Trusts and Estates Section of the OBA in good standing is eligible to nominate a candidate by submission in writing, together with a curriculum vitae outlining the nominee's qualifications. The nominator must indicate that the candidate has been advised of the nomination prior to the nomination deadline and has consented thereto. The Award is typically presented at the Section’s Annual Awards dinner in late Spring.  

This is a reminder that nominations must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 14, 2011 to:

Blossom Pangowish, Sections Coordinator

Ontario Bar Association,

20 Toronto Street,

Suite 300,

Toronto, Ontario

M5C 2B8

Fax: 416-869-1390

For more information, and/or to obtain a Nomination Form, please contact Blossom Pangowish at (416) 869-0513, ext 399, or email at blossom@oba.org or by visiting on line at http://www.oba.org/en/admin/awards_en/tru_award.aspx.

Health and happiness in 2011.

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 In this our very last blog of the year,
we thank all our readers the far and the near.
The privilege of writing our blogs for you all,
has been all of ours and we hope that you call
or email or write so that we may hear
what you wish us to cover for the coming new year.

It is a great way to get knowledge to you,
and to tell you a little about all that we do.
We have blogged about wills and estates and trustees,
on guardians, attorneys, their duties and fees.
We want to assist the entire year through,
to inform and amuse, cause a chuckle or two.

So keep tuning in and follow along,
we will highlight the law, what's gone right and gone wrong.
We will tell you the things our courts are construing,
and you can tell us how we have been doing.

Best wishes for a promising and prosperous 2011.

 

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The case of Antle v The Queen, 2009 TCC 465, 2010 FCA 280 (Can LII) (“Antle”) has been a much talked about decision. The appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed just recently, on October 21, 2010. 

Antle deals with the legality of a “capital property step-up strategy” whereby capital property with an accumulated gain (shares in a company) was shifted from the husband to a Barbados spousal trust. The trust sold the property to the beneficiary wife in exchange for a promissory note. The wife then sold the property to a third party purchaser and used the proceeds to pay off the promissory note. The trust distributed the funds to the wife as beneficiary, after which the trust was dissolved.

This scheme was apparently designed to result in no tax because there was no capital gain taxable in Canada, as there would have been had the husband sold the capital property directly to the third party. The capital gain arose in the trust in Barbados where there was no tax on capital gains.

While one might say that the case deals with the residency of the trust, the penultimate issue was whether a trust was created at all in the circumstances.

In order for a trust to be valid, there must be three certainties, namely, certainty of intention to create a trust, certainty in the subject matter of the trust, and certainty in the objects of the trust. 

In this case, the Minister focused on the lack of certainty of intention to create the trust and the lack of certainty in the subject matter of the trust. The decision of the Minister was appealed to the Tax Court of Canada (“Tax Court Judge”). The decision of the Tax Court Judge was then appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Tax Court Judge found that there was no certainty of intention. The husband never intended to lose control of the shares or the money resulting from the sale and never intended to create a trust. The Tax Court Judge found that the husband’s actions and the surrounding circumstances could not support a conclusion that signing the Trust Deed reflected any true intention to settle shares in a discretionary trust, no matter how clear the language in the Trust Deed itself.  It simply did not reflect his intentions.

The Tax Court Judge also found that there was no certainty of subject matter. The shares purportedly settled on the trust were in the possession of an unrelated party who claimed a beneficial interest in them. The unrelated party was paid out an amount of money on the final sale to the third party purchaser. The husband later successfully sued the unrelated party and recouped $1.38 million. The husband thereby retained an interest in the shares purportedly settled on the trust. If the husband transferred anything to the trustee, the Court found that it was not his full interest in the shares because there was an element of his ownership in the shares that did not pass. This created a lack of certainty of subject matter.

The Tax Court Judge also found that the trust was never constituted. It never came into existence because the shares were never transferred to the trust and were never in possession of the trustee. The shares remained in Canada throughout and no money ever reached the trustee. The timing and execution were such that the intended steps were not carried out sequentially so as to properly constitute the trust.

Notwithstanding the above findings, the Tax Court Judge determined that the above circumstance was not a sham, as also alleged by the Minister, as the transactions themselves were not disguised.

In an interesting twist, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded “that the Tax Court judge was bound to hold that the Trust was a sham based on the findings that he made”, and dismissed the appeal.

Enjoy the weekend,

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Those wishing to vary a trust in Ontario, can look to the Variation of Trusts Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. V.1) (Act) for the authority to do so. Although the Act is surprisingly only one section in length, do not let the length fool you.

Essentially, the Act permits the Court to approve a variation of a trust under a will, settlement or other disposition on behalf of minor, unascertained, unborn or contingent beneficiaries if the variation, in the words of the Act, “appears to be for the benefit” of those persons.

While relying on the Act for jurisdiction to make a variation, there are many things to consider in pursuing a variation such as the procedure to follow and the criteria to meet in order to have the variation approved. 

In the well-known case of R v. Irving, (1975), 11 O.R. (2d) 442 (H.C.), the Court set out three criteria to consider in determining whether to approve a variation, namely:

(i) does the variation keep alive the basic intention of the testator or settler?, (ii) does the variation benefit those for whom the Court is asked to consent?, and (iii) whether a prudent adult motivated by intelligent self-interest and sustained consideration of the expectancies and risks of the variation, would likely accept it?

There are a number of cases that have considered these criteria; too many to go into in this blog. Suffice it to say that the Act does provide an answer to the question as to whether one can vary a trust, but the answer is only a partial one as the Court will also consider criteria needed to be met in determining whether to approve a variation.

Thanks for reading,

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today’s blog looks at the case of Videchak v. Giarratano, 2009 CanLII 29914 (Ont. S.C.), which deals with, amongst other things, the common situation of an adult child holding assets jointly with a parent. Pecore v. Pecore, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795 (S.C.C.) would tell us that in such situations, after the death of the parent, it is up to an adult child, who is not a dependant, to rebut the presumption that a resulting trust arises such that the asset, received for no consideration, is held for the benefit of the estate (that is, where the transfer into joint ownership is made for no consideration, the onus is placed on the adult child to demonstrate that a gift was intended).

In this case, the Ontario Superior Court held that the presumption applied to a joint bank account held by the Deceased together with one of her children, Anna. While Anna and two of her siblings, Joe and Nina, gave evidence that they were all aware that the joint account was to go to Anna on their mother’s death, there were no bank or other documents and no independent persons to provide evidence upon which a court could make a finding that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted.  The Judge found that it is well known that elderly people have a joint bank account in order to make sure that debts are paid on time, and to ease the pain of probate. The account was found to be an asset of the estate.

However, in this case the Court came to the opposite conclusion with respect to a GIC jointly held by the Deceased with Joe and Nina. According to the Judge, the GIC clearly stated the three names on it and was different than the bank account “because it is basically a savings item and not to be used to pay ongoing debts.” The Judge held that the GIC document spoke for itself and the two owners of it at the death of the Deceased were Nina and Joe. One might argue that this case seems to exempt jointly held GIC’s from the application of Pecore.

Thanks for reading,

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Each year the Ontario Bar Association (OBA), Trusts and Estates Section, considers candidates for its Award of Excellence. Last year, the Section paid tribute to Hilary Laidlaw as the recipient.

The Award for Excellence was created to recognize exceptional contributions and achievements by members of the OBA to the area of trusts and estates.

Any Trusts and Estates Section member of the OBA in good standing, as well as former members of the section who have retired or been appointed to the bench, but not including current officers of the Executive of the Trusts and Estates Section or the Executive of the OBA, are eligible to be nominated.

The criteria for the award is demonstrated leadership in the trusts and estates bar through knowledge, experience, skill, commitment, passion and strength of character, plus all or some of the following:

·         academic excellence through teaching at the Bar Admission Course, lecturing at a law school, participating in Continuing Legal Education and/or academic writing;

·         participation in the OBA Trusts and Estates Section Executive or the Law Society of Upper Canada on wills, trusts and estate matters; and

·         contribution to the development of wills, trusts and estate law.

Any member of the Trusts and Estates Section of the OBA in good standing is eligible to nominate a candidate by submission in writing, together with a curriculum vitae outlining the nominee's qualifications. The nominator must indicate that the candidate has been advised of the nomination prior to the nomination deadline and has consented thereto. The Award is typically presented at the Section’s Annual Awards dinner in late Spring.  

Nominations must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 14, 2011 to:

Blossom Pangowish, Sections Coordinator

Ontario Bar Association,

20 Toronto Street,

Suite 300,

Toronto, Ontario

M5C 2B8

Fax: 416-869-1390

For more information, and/or to obtain a Nomination Form, please contact Blossom Pangowish at (416) 869-0513, ext 399, or email at blossom@oba.org or by visiting on line at http://www.oba.org/en/admin/awards_en/tru_award.aspx.

Thanks for reading.

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the last of my series this week on recent trust cases of interest, today’s blog looks at the case of Nolan v. Kerry (Canada) Inc., 2009 SCC 39, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 678. This case provides guidance as to when costs, arising from litigation regarding a pension trust fund, are payable out of the pension trust fund. Though Nolan v. Kerry (Canada) Inc. is a pension case, the analysis might apply to a context where there is a proceeding involving a legitimate uncertainty as to how to properly administer a trust, and/or where there is a trust dispute (whether or not the proceeding is brought by trustees or by beneficiaries).

The issues in Nolan v. Kerry were related to the obligations of an employer under a pension plan for its employees.   

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in favour of the respondents, the employer and the Superintendent of Financial Services. The Court of Appeal had declined to award costs to the Employees Pension Committee (the “Committee”) from the trust fund as the unsuccessful party in the litigation. 

The Supreme Court of Canada held: “In the end, of course, costs awards are quintessentially discretionary.” The key question on that point was, however, whether the litigation was adversarial or whether it was aimed at the due administration of the pension trust fund. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the rules in both Buckton v. Buckton [1907] 2 Ch.406.and Sutherland v. Hudson’s Bay Co. (2006) would allow a court to award costs out of the fund where there is a legitimate uncertainty as to how to properly administer the trust and where the dispute is not adversarial. Adversarial claims in the context of the Nolan case did not qualify for a costs award from the trust fund. Here, the litigation was adversarial in nature because it was ultimately about the propriety of the employer’s actions and because the Committee sought to have funds paid into the trust fund to the benefit of its members.  

Thanks for reading and enjoy the weekend.

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 1, 2010 the Ontario Bar Association had a Continuing Legal Education Program entitled Trusts, Trustees, Trusteeship 2010. The Chair of the Program was Kimberly Whaley. This was a half day program.

I had the pleasure of presenting on the last topic of the morning being a Review and Analysis of Recent Trust Case Law. 

The program topics and presenters are set out below: 

• The Drafting of Trusts – paper prepared by Hilary Laidlaw and presented by M. Elena Hoffstein
• Considerations When Drafting Restricted Charitable Purpose Trusts – presented by Terrance S. Carter
• Remedies for Breach of Trust – presented by Archie J. Rabinowitz
• Drafting Trusts in Contemplation and Consideration of New Reproductive Technology – presented by Clare E. Burns
• Trust and Insolvency – presented by Frank Bennett
• Review and Analysis of Recent Trust Case Law – presented by Craig Vander Zee

I thought that the papers and presentations where very comprehensive, insightful and interesting and are to my understanding available to be ordered from the Ontario Bar Association.

For the balance of this week, my blogs will focus on a selection of interesting recent trust cases.

Thanks for reading.

Craig Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The August 13, 2010 edition of Lawyers Weekly featured an article by Kimberly Whaley with the above-captioned title. The article dealt with the relationship between marriage, property, and estates and the resulting risk of predatory marriages.

I think it’s safe to presume that the majority of people believe that once they have executed a Will, their carefully considered estate plans are locked in. However, the provisions people make for their loved ones upon their death are not exactly locked in. According to Ontario law, marriage automatically revokes a Will.

While shocking for many people, there are ways to avoid this unwanted consequence of marriage. For instance, where a person executes a Will in contemplation of marriage, his or her testamentary plans will survive the marriage.

The automatic revocation of a Will can lead to unfortunate and unintended results, particularly when individuals have capacity to marry, but lack the capacity to manage property and/or execute a Will. In such circumstances, a person who lacks testamentary capacity may end up the target of a greedy opportunist looking to marry for money.

In Ontario, where a person’s Will is revoked upon her marriage and she dies, her estate is distributed under succession law as if she died without a Will. According to the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”), when the deceased, who dies intestate, is survived by a spouse and there are no issue, the surviving spouse takes all property of the deceased’s absolutely. Where the deceased dies with a net value of more than the “preferential share” and with a surviving spouse and issue, the surviving spouse is entitled to the preferential share, being $200,000, absolutely. After the preferential share is distributed to the surviving spouse, the surviving spouse is entitled to a distributive share, which varies with the number of children or issue surviving. If, for example, there is a surviving spouse and one child, the excess above and beyond the $200,000 is allocated equally between the spouse and the child. Where there is a surviving spouse and more than one child, the spouse is entitled to a third of the excess and the remainder is divided equally between the children. 

The scenario that immediately comes to mind is one where an elderly and frail individual is preyed upon by a younger person who sees the marriage as an opportunity to abscond with the property of the elderly spouse who lacks capacity to manage property during his/her life or execute a Will.

In my next blog, on September 6, 2010, I discuss this topic in more detail, focusing on why predatory marriages are, perhaps, too easily accomplished.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those who take an interest in music or pop culture, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, not to be aware of Michael Jackson’s demise on June 25, 2009. 

At the time of his death, there were reports that his estate was indebted and/or had pending liabilities in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is interesting to note that his “empire” is now said to have earned an amount approaching $1 billion since his date of death. Whether these reports are true will have I suppose to be seen. However, if they are true, these astronomical revenue figures would apparently elevate Michael Jackson’s estate to within the top five top earning dead celebrities. 

With such alleged earnings, it is not surprising that the dispute apparently continues regarding his estate and the appointment of the trustees to his estate (apparently litigation continues as between the family and those appointed as executors (administrators) of his estate). Other disputes regarding issues over copyright belonging to Michael Jackson and his estate and his assets and his death would seem not to have an end in the near future. What does appear not to be in dispute though is that his estate will continue to generate incredible revenues.

Thanks for reading,

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In yesterday’s blog, I mentioned that the election of the Ontario Bar Association (OBA), Trusts and Estates Section Executive for the year 2010-2011 was confirmed at the Section’s year end dinner on June 1, 2010. 

I am very pleased to be the incoming Chair of the Executive. The Vice-Chair will be Ed Esposto. The balance of the slate is as follows:

Past-Chair:                                          Suzana Popovic-Montag

Secretary:                                             Melanie Yach

Newletter Editors:                               Dina Stigas/John O’Sullivan

Continuing Legal Education

Liaison:                                                Joanna Ringrose/Eric Hoffstein

Regional Programming:                   Ed Upenieks/Mitchell Leitman

Members-at-Large:                           Ann Elise Alexander, Vincent De Angelis, Shael Eisen,                  Danielle Joel, Sean Lawler, Mitchell Leitman, Jane Martin, Deborah Petch, Wendela Roberts, Susannah Roth, Susan Stamm, Ameena Sultan, Sender Tator, Diane Vieira and Laura West.

I am looking forward to working with the Executive and having a very successful year.

Before turning the page on this past year, though, I would like to sincerely thank Suzana Popovic-Montag for all of her efforts, hard work and counsel as the Chair of the Executive.

Have a nice day.

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Spring is a time for conferences and events.  Here are a few upcoming Estates and Trusts programs you might be interested in.

The Ontario Bar Association is having its annual Dinner with the Honourable Estates List Judges on Tuesday, April 27th at 6:00 p.m. at the OBA Conference Centre in Toronto. It is a great opportunity for estates practitioners to mingle with their own as well as with the Honourable Justices Brown, Conway and Strathy. It has been over a year since the Toronto Estates List Practice Direction so come on out and give some feedback! Last year's dinner was fun and informative so I expect more of the same this year.

Click here for details and registration.   
 
The OBA is also holding an event on Thursday, May 20th from 1:00 to 4:30 p.m. entitled "Solicitors as Attorneys, Trustees and Estate Trustees - What You Need to Know". If you are a lawyer who has taken on any of these roles, or intend to, this program is for you. "Learn how to get paid, how to avoid being sued, and how to manage disputes with family members or co-trustee". That pretty much says it all.

Click here for details and registration.

Osgoode's 7th Annual Intensive Wills & Estates Workshop, with Hull & Hull LLP's own Jordan Atin as Workshop Leader, takes place over three Thursday evenings, June 10, 17 & 24, and runs from 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. at the Osgoode Professional Development Centre, Toronto. Jordan has certainly enlightened me on many occasions so I'm sure he can do the same for you.  For a preview, check out this link to see Jordan on Canada AM.

Click here for details and registration.

That should be enough ongoing learning to keep you busy until summer vacation…enjoy!
 

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In today’s blog I will touch upon the rule in Re Hallet’s Estate*.  Tomorrow’s blog will touch upon the rule in Clayton’s Case. The rules stem from situations where a trustee mixes trust funds with their own funds or with a different trust’s funds. The rule in Re Hallett's Estate applies where trustees mix trust funds with their own funds.

The principle was enunciated by the court in the case of Re Hallett's Estate (1879), 13 Ch. D. 696 (CA) and is known as the rule in Re Hallett's Estate. The rule states that where a trustee mixes trust money with his or her own money in a bank account and then withdraws money from that account, it is assumed that the trustee first took out his or her own money rather than money belonging to a trust beneficiary. It may be seen that the rule in Re Hallett's Estate is based on the assumption that trustees are honest and act accordingly. Even if they do mix trust funds with their own money, it is not to be presumed that this mixture was intended to defraud the trusts of those funds.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Ontario Bar Association (OBA), Trusts and Estates Section, year end dinner is taking place on June 1, 2010 at Archeo in the Distillery District in Toronto. The Reception begins at 5:30 p.m. with Dinner at 6:30 p.m. Suzana Popovic-Montag, the Chair of the Section, will bring the past year to a close. The Section will also pay tribute to this year’s recipient of the Award for Excellence in Trusts and Estates, Hilary Laidlaw.

The Award for Excellence was created to recognize exceptional contributions and achievements by members of the OBA to the area of trusts and estates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Each year the Ontario Bar Association (OBA), Trusts and Estates Section, considers candidates for its Award of Excellence. Last year, the Section paid tribute to Barry Corbin as the recipient.

The Award for Excellence was created to recognize exceptional contributions and achievements by members of the OBA to the area of trusts and estates.

Any Trusts and Estates Section member of the OBA in good standing, as well as former members of the section who have retired or been appointed to the bench, but not including current officers of the Executive of the Trusts and Estates Section or the Executive of the OBA, are eligible to be nominated.