Unborn Beneficiaries: Who Acts on their Behalf?

November 16, 2020 Garrett Horrocks Elder Law, Estate & Trust, Litigation, Wills Tags: , , , , 0 Comments

Prudent estate planning techniques frequently lead a testator or settlor to contemplate gifts or distributions to alternative beneficiaries to whom they do not necessarily intend to convey an express interest.

Often, these gifts-over are made in contemplation of a particular condition coming to pass – for example, where the intended beneficiary predeceases the testator.  Failing to account for such instances could result in a lapsed gift (subject to the applicability of the anti-lapse provisions at section 31 of the Succession Law Reform Act), a partial intestacy, or, more generally, the conveyance of an interest to a person that the testator did not intend to benefit.

Although gifts-over are generally granted in favour of individuals of the testator’s choice, to maximize their control over their estate, that need not be the case.  Gifts-over may be made in favour of individuals who may not yet have been born, such as the issue or lineal descendants of a testator’s young grandchildren.  When litigation that impacts the interests of these unborn or unascertained beneficiaries arises, the first questions that ought to come to a litigator’s mind are who should be appointed to act on their behalf, and how should that appointment be achieved?

One’s mind might immediately jump to the appointment of a litigation guardian.  In the case of a beneficiary who is a minor, that would be correct.  Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party under disability (which would include a minor) must be represented by a litigation guardian.  Furthermore, the Children’s Lawyer is the presumptive litigation guardian for all minors unless and until another individual files an affidavit following specific criteria set out at Rule 7.02.

However, where the interests of an unborn or unascertained person or class of persons is concerned, recent direction from the Children’s Lawyer suggests it is Rule 10, not Rule 7, that guides us.  Rule 10.01 empowers a judge to appoint a person to represent “any person or class of persons who are unborn or unascertained” who have a present, future, contingent, or unascertained interest in the subject matter.  Strictly speaking, an unborn or unascertained individual is not a person under disability or a minor as defined under the Rules, and so a litigation guardian, although filling a similar role as a representative, should not be appointed.

As a point of practice, a party seeking a representation order would be well advised to serve the Children’s Lawyer whether or not the applicant is seeking to have the Children’s Lawyer act as representative, or whether another individual is seeking that appointment.  Although Rule 10 differs from Rule 7 in that the latter requires the Children’s Lawyer to have notice of any motion to appoint a litigation guardian while the former does not in the context of a representation order, it is nonetheless recommended that the Children’s Lawyer be given notice to ensure the interests of the unborn beneficiaries are appropriately represented.

Thanks for reading.

Garrett Horrocks

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

TRY HULL E-STATE PLANNER SOFTWARE

Hull e-State Planner is a comprehensive estate planning software designed to make the estate planning process simple, efficient and client friendly.

Try it here!

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET