Darlene died on January 25, 2018, in British Columbia. She was survived by her three children: Ian, Andrea, and Bryce. However, Ian died later the same day.
In her will, Darlene provided that her estate was to pass to her three children. Darlene’s will also provided that “Any beneficiary who dies within a period of 30 days following my death is deemed not to have survived me, and their gift will then become part of the residue of my estate.”
Ian’s estate asserted that it was entitled to Ian’s share of Darlene’s estate. The Estate Trustee then applied for directions from the court.[1]
The court found that under the terms of the will, Ian and his estate was not entitled to receive a share of Darlene’s estate. Under the terms of the will, Ian predeceased Darlene, and therefore can take no interest in Darlene’s estate.
The court considered the “substitutional gift” provisions of the B.C. Wills, Estates and Succession Act. Under these provisions, if a gift fails because the beneficiary predeceased the deceased, then, subject to a contrary intention in the will, if the named beneficiary was a brother, sister or descendant of the testator, the gift would go to the beneficiary’s issue. In the matter before the court, Ian had no issue. Therefore, the bequest to him could not pass under these provisions.
(Ontario has similar provisions: see s. 31 of the Succession Law Reform Act. However, in Ontario, the substitutional gift recipients would include a spouse. As Ian had a spouse, the outcome may have been different in Ontario.)
Ian and his estate and heirs were therefore not entitled to benefit from Darlene’s estate.
Oh, and the court also found a second reason for denying Ian’s estate from benefitting from Darlene’s estate. On January 25, 2018, Ian shot Darlene to death. He then started a fire in her home to attempt to destroy evidence, and then took his own life.
The court applied the “Slayer Rule”. This rule of public policy excludes the person responsible for another person’s death from taking any benefit because of their criminal act. The rule extends to those claiming through the slayer’s estate.
Thank you for reading.
[1] Stacey v. Martinello, 2022 BCSC 681 (CanLII)