Will Conditions Against Drinking, Smoking, and Gambling
As the 21st century progresses, societies across the world have moved towards legalization and decriminalization of drugs and, in general, a narrower definition of what constitutes a “vice”. At the same time, there have been increasing efforts, both legally and culturally, to safeguard people from falling into dependence. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission prohibits alcohol advertising that depicts the consumption of alcohol. In contrast to decades wherein Santa Claus and doctors were advertised smoking, cigarette packaging is decidedly less festive – indeed, its gore is more characteristic of a horror film than a consumer product. So wary have some of us become that there have been studies published in Australia and Britain that have analyzed James Bond’s drinking habits and stated that he would be “at high risk of multiple alcohol-related diseases and an early death” (as though Bond blanches at risk!).
In previous centuries, there was far less legal regulation (except under Prohibition, a marked exception) of the aforementioned indulgences, but there was no less apprehension with respect to their widespread usage. In the 1887 case of Jordan v. Dunn,  W.L. 9876 (Ont. Q.B.), a testator devised his lands to his son on the condition, in part, that he abstain from intoxicants and card-playing. The Court decided that the gift did not vest until the beneficiary adhered to the testator’s rules:
“If a devise be only on the performance of some particular duty or upon some particular event; that is, if it be a condition precedent, there is no gift unless the condition is fulfilled; and it makes no difference that the event is impossible, impolitic or illegal.”
In Quay, Re,  CarswellOnt 706, a testator’s gift to his son came with the condition that he was not “engaged in malt or spirituous liquor traffic or in any form of gambling or games of chance”. The son, perhaps a little piqued at the testator’s implication, sought a determination of the condition’s validity. The Court upheld the condition, not construing it as an in terrorem clause but as a “competent direction in furtherance of public interests”. A distinction was also drawn between “playing games by way of diversion or amusement” and gambling as a daily occupation.
The testatrix in Kennedy Estate, Re,  CarswellMan 72, was yet more prohibitive, giving her daughter farmland rental proceeds only as long as her daughter did not “smoke or drink intoxicating liquor”. The Court approved of this provision:
“Conditions that a person must not drink intoxicating liquor, or play cards, or must ‘continue steady’ are valid conditions and although there is no specific authority I hold that a condition against smoking comes within the same category and is a valid condition.”
Ostensibly, these “continue steady” conditions are still legally valid, but we cannot say with great certainty, for it seems that these days testators are less inclined to make such conditions for their testamentary gifts. This is unfortunate for students of the law eager for test cases, although it is fortunate for fun loving beneficiaries, whose smiles might otherwise dampen from the constant accompaniment of a sober-faced condition precedent.
Thank you for reading … Have a great day,
Suzana Popovic-Montag & Devin McMurtry.