On June 15, 2025, Darell “Plant” Thomas passed away at the age of 58 years old. Mr. Thomas was a beloved grandfather, professional racecar driver, and successful entrepreneur who owned a chain of car wash locations across the Detroit area. He was beloved by his community, and that feeling was clearly reciprocated, as following his death, his Will directed that his estate trustees hire a helicopter, and release a visibly enormous quantity of money and rose petals above the area where his funeral was being held. The video of Mr. Thomas’ aerial generosity is spectacular, and should bring comfort to any who fear that their own funeral planning is becoming too elaborate.
But Is That Allowed?
In Canada, the principle of testamentary freedom is well-established, and gives very broad discretion to testators with regard to how they wish for their assets to be distributed following their passing. If anything, restrictions on how a testator may choose to distribute their assets are very much the exception – and are usually based on fairly narrow categories of gifts that would be contrary to public policy. David Smith has previously addressed this in a 2024 blog post, identifying the case of McCorkill v. Streed, Executor of the Estate of Harry Robert McCorkill (aka McCorkill), Deceased, 2014 NBQB 148 (“McCorkill“) in which the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick blocked a bequest to an organized hate group.
The prevention of support for organizations which seek to advance racism is plainly in the public interest, and so the jurisprudence in Canada explaining the public policy reasons for invalidating such bequests speaks for itself. More broadly, Ian Hull and Jordan Atin have discussed the issue of public policy restrictions on testamentary gifts in their web seminar “You Can’t Do That! Restrictions in Will Planning”, which is worth watching for any Wills and Estates practitioner.
Are There Restrictions on How Gifts Can Be Made?
Generally speaking, the law in Ontario would not prevent a similarly generous testator from mirroring Mr. Thomas’ last gift to his community. Though doing so is not without risk. In the circumstances at hand, the gift appears to have been made without much forewarning. However, it is possible that, if a similar gift from on high were anticipated by the public, that it could result in a public disturbance, and one can foresee how money falling from the sky could result in a few injuries in the scramble to recover it.
In either of these scenarios, it is conceivable that a Court could hold this type of provision to be invalid on the basis of its potential to lead to a disruption of public order. In a related vein, it is possible that were a person to be injured as a consequence of the mechanism of the gift, that the injured individual could make a claim against the Estate. However, to date, no precedent exists for such a scenario, and it seems that this type of generous last gift would remain permissible on this side of the border, as well.
Thanks for Reading!