The Top Estate & Trust Cases from 2018

December 31, 2018 Noah Weisberg General Interest, New Media Observations, News & Events, Trustees, Wills Tags: , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

It is nearly a new year.  It is during this time that we reflect on the past year, make goals for the upcoming year, and come across all sorts of ‘best of’ and ‘most popular’ rankings.

As such, I herewith present the most popular estate and trust cases from 2018, as decided solely by me (and without regard to any actual data):

  • Moore v Sweet – the Supreme Court of Canada provided clarification regarding the juristic reason competent of the test for unjust enrichment, as well as confirmed the circumstances in which a constructive trust remedy is appropriate in the context of unjust enrichment.
  • Re Milne Estate & Re Panda – In Re Milne (currently under appeal), the Superior Court of Justice found that multiple Wills were invalid where so-called ‘allocation clauses’ (also referred to as basket clauses) in the Wills provided the Estate Trustees with the discretion to determine which estate assets fell under which Will. Conversely, in Re Panda, the Superior Court of Justice declined to follow Re Milne and probated the Will notwithstanding the presence of an allocation clause.  The Superior Court of Justice also addressed the roles of the court as either the ‘court of probate’ or ‘court of construction’ and whether a Will is a trust that is subject to the three certainties.
  • Wall v Shaw – the Court of Appeal (sitting as the Divisional Court) held that there is no limitation period to objecting to accounts in an Application to Pass Accounts. The Court reasoned that a notice of objection does not commence a ‘proceeding’ for the purposes of section 4 of the Limitations Act.
  • Seguin v Pearson – the Ontario Court of Appeal reiterated the different tests for undue influence that apply in the inter vivos and the testamentary context.
  • Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction Co. – the Supreme Court of Canada found that a trustee had a fiduciary duty to disclose the terms of a trust (here, it was a bond) to the beneficiary, notwithstanding the fact that the express terms of the trust did not stipulate this requirement.

 

 

Thanks for reading!
Noah Weisberg

Find this blog interesting, please consider these other related blogs:

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET