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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I am currently attending Osgoode Professional Development’s Fifth Annual Intensive Wills and Estates Workshop which has considered, among other things, common drafting errors and how to avoid them.

When it comes to charitable gifts, a solicitor should confirm the information the testator provides to them. A testator may misname a charity or not know that the charity is no longer in existence. The solicitor drafting the clause should ensure that the correct and exact name of the charity is used.

They may want to refer to a directory, such as the Canadian Donor’s Guide or the searchable charities database available on Canada Revenue Agency’s website, http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/online_listings/canreg_interim-e.html. It is also important to note for tax purposes, the differences between not-for-profit organizations and registered charities.

For lesser known charities, a solicitor may want to include the registry number of the charity or contact the organization directly to determine how the charity should be named in the testamentary gift. 

The solicitor may also want to discuss with the testator what will happen if the named charity is no longer in existence at the time of the testator’s death. Will the charitable gift lapse or will there be a gift-over to an alternate charity? Including these types of instructions in the clause may prevent the need to later on seek directions from the court and attempt to have the gift applied in accordance with the cy-pres doctrine.

Thanks for reading,

Diane Vieira 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent decision out of Québec, Broodney v. Herzog [2006] Q.J. No. 14933, testamentary intent trumped the literal wording of a Will.

The testator had been involved in a loving relationship with Harry Broodney. They had lived together for twelve years. In a 1995 Will, the testator left Harry $25,000.00. In a 1998 Codicil, the gift was increased to $35,000.00, payable in monthly instalments of $600.00. In 1999, the testator executed a further Codicil, increasing the monthly payments to $1,000.00 but not changing the capital amount of the gift. Both the 1995 Will and the 1998 Codicil stated that the gift to Harry would lapse and be null and void, if he and the testator were “not living together” at the time of the latter’s death.

The issue for the Court of Québec was the meaning of the phrase “not living together”. At the time of the testator’s death, she had been living in a nursing home due to her deteriorating health. Her family consequently claimed that Harry was not entitled to the $35,000.00 gift.

The Court focused on the testator’s intentions. Her intent to benefit Harry was clear and uncontested. The Court held that the testator intended the phrase “not living together” to mean a “break up” with Harry. The evidence was clear that their loving relationship did not end when the testator involuntarily left Harry to reside in the nursing home. The evidence was also clear that the testator’s family was aware of the loving relationship. For the Court, the inability to physically live together could not be a reason for disinheriting Harry.

Not surprisingly, Harry asked for and received punitive damages as a result of the family’s refusal to honour the testator’s last wishes. The Court deemed the family’s refusal to be malicious and reckless.

The litigation could have been avoided by better wording in the Will. Drafting issues aside, the case is a good illustration of a Court employing common sense and testamentary intent to avoid an unjust result.

Have a great day!
Bianca