A designation, alteration, or revocation of a beneficiary can be made in a beneficiary designation document provided by the financial institution or in the will of the owner of a plan such as an RRSP or RRIF. Under subsection 51(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA), a designation in a will is effective if it relates expressly to a plan, either generally or specifically. A designation or revocation in a will is effective from the date that the will is signed (section 52(7)) and would revoke and replace an earlier revocable designation, to the extent of any inconsistency.

In Rehel Estate v Methot, 2017 ONSC 7259, the deceased’s spouse asserted that the deceased’s RRIF designation in his will was too vague, as it was not clear to which account he was referring. The court disagreed with this position. Instead, the Court held that there was no evidence that the deceased had more than one RRIF account and it was, therefore, sufficiently clear to which account he was referring in the will.

In some other decisions, including Laczova v House, 2001 CanLII  27939 (ON CA), subsection 51(2) of the SLRA has been interpreted more narrowly. In paragraph 14 of its decision, the Court held, “the legislative intent is clear. The section uses the word ‘expressly’, a word not often found in statutory language, but when it is present, its use is there to add emphasis and clarity of purpose.” 

In Alger v Crumb, 2023 ONCA 209, the Court of Appeal considered a clause revoking “all Wills and Testamentary dispositions of every nature and kind whatsoever made by me heretofore made.” Suzana Popovic-Montag’s blog from January 2022, in which she reviewed the lower court’s decision, is available here.  The Court of Appeal summarized the principles applied in the Laczova Estate decision as follows:

1. The SLRA sets out statutory requirements for the designation of a beneficiary by will and for the revocation of a beneficiary designation by will, that are not required for such a designation or revocation when done by instrument;
2. Specifically, a designation of a beneficiary by will must relate expressly, whether generally or specifically, to the plan, while a revocation by will of a beneficiary designation that was made by instrument must relate expressly, whether generally or specifically, to the designation.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge that the general revocation clause did not relate expressly to the beneficiary designations with respect to the testator’s RRIF and TFSA plans and, accordingly, that those pre-existing designations remained in effect.

Thank you for reading,

Nick Esterbauer