Author: Hull & Hull LLP
There have been a number of recent decisions discussing the threshold to be met before a court will allow a will challenge to proceed. These decisions flow from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Neuberger Estate v. York, 2016 ONCA 191 (CanLII). We have discussed this case in a number of our blogs. See here, for example.
Today, Rebecca Rauws and I recorded a podcast on the decision of Naismith v. Clarke, 2019 ONSC 5280. In that decision, the court held that the threshold for challenging a will on the basis of testamentary capacity was not met, while it was with respect to the issue of undue influence. The podcast should be posted soon.
More recently, the decision of Maloney v. Maloney, 2019 ONSC 5632 (CanLII) was released. There, the estate trustees brought a motion to remove a Notice of Objection filed by a child of the deceased.
The court ordered the removal of the Notice of Objection. The court noted that there was no basis for setting aside the will. An affidavit from the lawyer who prepared the will set out the circumstances under which the will was prepared. The lawyer had no concerns about the deceased’s capacity. Although the challenger suggested that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the creation of the will, there was no evidence to support the suspicions. Further, there was no evidence of undue influence. The challenger “has not provided any evidentiary basis to support a further investigation into the validity off this will.” At best, the challenger’s position was that her father would not have drafted his will in such a way. This was not enough to support a challenge.
Of note is the fact that the court had the evidence of the drafting solicitor. In many will challenges, the challenger or the propounder is not able to put this evidence before the court at this early stage due to issues of privilege. Often, the first step in a will challenge proceeding is to obtain an order to allow the evidence of the drafting solicitor to be obtained, along with medical notes and records.
Another important factor noted by the judge was the effect of the will challenge. The challenge stalled the administration of the estate. The court noted that even if the will challenge was successful, it would have no real effect on the distribution of the estate. The will provided that the estate was to be distributed to the three children of the deceased. On an intestacy, the distribution scheme would be the same, except for the specific disposition of an oak china cabinet.
In such cases, the court’s gatekeeping role is a tough one. The court must ensure that frivolous challenges do not proceed, while ensuring that it is able to ascertain and pronounce what documents constitute the testator’s valid will. The threshold should not be too high. As stated succinctly by Justice Myers in Seepa v. Seepa, 2017 ONSC 5368 (CanLII), “At this preliminary stage, the issue is not whether the applicant has proven his or her case but whether he or she ought to be given the tools, such as documentary discovery, that are ordinarily available to a litigant before he or she is subjected to a requirement to put a best foot forward on the merits.”
Have a great weekend.
Previously, Hull and Hull LLP blogged on the decision of Tarantino v. Galvano, 2017 ONSC 3535 (CanLII). After a ten day trial, the court set aside a transaction whereby the deceased’s daughter, acting as attorney under a Power of Attorney, transferred the deceased’s interest in her home to the daughter. The court also allowed a claim by the daughter for services provided to the deceased. The court disallowed a claim for occupation rent against the daughter.
We also blogged on the costs decision, reported at Tarantino v. Galvano, 2017 ONSC 6635 (CanLII). The collective legal fees of the parties on a substantial indemnity basis (ie., the actual legal fees were higher) were $621,660. The main asset of the estate was 80% of a house valued at $680,000 in 2012. Neither party was awarded costs, other than a reimbursement for the cost of an expert report.
The matter was before the courts once again. On September 6, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by the grandchildren of the deceased (the daughter’s nieces): Tarantino v. Galvano, 2019 ONCA 699 (CanLII).
The Court of Appeal held that with respect to the dismissal of the claim for occupation rent, the trial judge did not err. The daughter remained in the house (of which she owned 20%) after death. However, the granddaughters had sought and obtained an undertaking from the daughter not to sell the house while the litigation was pending. Of note is the fact that the daughter, under the deceased’s will, had a first option to purchase the house. As the daughter was prevented from selling the house by reason of the undertaking sought by the granddaughters, it would be “unfair” to charge the daughter rent when she was unable to deal with the house.
With respect to a second ground of appeal, the Court agreed with the trial judge that the costs of maintaining the home during the deceased’s lifetime, and while she was in poor health, should fall on the deceased. As the trial judge concluded, “Having accepted that [the deceased’s] wish was to be looked after at home, and having accepted that in her capacity as attorney for personal care it was appropriate for [the daughter] to make arrangements for [the deceased] to be looked after in the home, those expenses are properly attributable to the care of [the deceased].”
The appeal was dismissed, with costs of $15,000 payable by the granddaughters to the daughter.
I expect that this is the last chapter in this unfortunate, expensive saga.
Thank you for reading.
In September 2016, Elizabeth Wettlaufer quit her nursing job and checked herself into the Centre for Addiction and Mental health in Toronto where she subsequently confessed to harming and killing a number of people during the last nine years of her nursing practice. Wettlaufer’s choice method of harm was injecting her victims with insulin overdoses. The majority of these incidents took place in licenced, regulated long-term care homes in southwestern Ontario. Wettlaufer is, by all accounts, a healthcare serial killer.
In June 2017, Wettlaufer was convicted of eight counts of first-degree murder, four counts of attempted murder, and two counts of aggravated assault. She was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.
But the story did not end there. Wettlaufer’s crimes spurred public outrage and debate over the quality of Ontario’s long-term care system and the safety of those who rely on it. One of the many troubling questions that arose was: how could a registered nurse commit such serious crimes in regulated healthcare facilities for years without getting caught? To find answers and figure out how to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future, the Long-Term Care Homes Public Inquiry was launched (the “Public Inquiry”).
The Public Inquiry concluded on July 31, 2019 when the Honourable Eileen E. Gillese, Commissioner of the Public Inquiry, released her four-volume final Report of the Public Inquiry into the Safety and Security of Residents in the Long-Term Care Homes System (the “Report”).
The Report makes three chief findings. First, the harmful acts committed by Elizabeth Wettlaufer would not have been discovered if not for her confession. Second, systemic vulnerabilities in the long-term care system are to blame for the harms that took place, rather than any individual or organization operating within the system. Third, the long-term care system is strained but has the robust regulatory regime and workforce needed to address existing systemic issues that have been exposed by the Public Inquiry.
Though I write at the risk of fear-mongering, that is by no means my intent. Indeed, I firmly believe that the large majority of healthcare providers uphold the ideals of patient or resident-centred care. The Report, in my view, is noteworthy for the bright light it shines on the potential for a nurse or other healthcare professional to intentionally harm those under their care. As astutely stated in the Report, “We can prevent, deter, and detect only matters of which we are aware” (volume 1, page 18).
It is prudent for residents or their substitute decision-makers to be on high alert for signs of abuse by staff in long-term care homes and issue complaints where appropriate. The Long-Term Care Homes Act , the statute which governs Ontario’s long-term care homes, contains several provisions concerning residents’ rights and the complaints process that can be of assistance. The takeaway is that anyone can be a potential advocate for a vulnerable resident of a long-term care home.
Arielle Di Iulio
In Marsden Estate (Re),  N.B.J. No. 295, upheld on appeal at  N.B.J. No. 304, the deceased was seen by a solicitor and gave instructions for the preparation of a will on September 19, 2016. She died the next day, before the will could be signed.
The estate trustee under the impugned will brought an application to prove the will. She relied on s. 35.1 of New Brunswick’s Wills Act. This section provides:
35.1 Where a court of competent jurisdiction is satisfied that a document or any writing on a document embodies
(a) the testamentary intentions of the deceased, or
(b) the intention of the deceased to revoke, alter or revive a will of the deceased or the testamentary intentions of the deceased embodied in a document other than a will,
the court may, notwithstanding that the document or writing was not executed in compliance with the formal requirements imposed by this Act, order that the document or writing is valid and fully effective as if it had been executed in compliance with the formal requirements imposed by this Act.
The matter was contentious, as two of the testator’s children were essentially excluded from the will. The testator told the solicitor that she had been estranged from them for some time.
The court relied on affidavit evidence, including the affidavit of the drafting solicitor. The court concluded that the unsigned will reflected the testator’s “deliberate, fixed and final expression as to the disposal of her property upon her death”. Further, the court was satisfied that the testator had testamentary capacity, and was not being unduly influenced.
In earlier blogs, we reported on similar applications under similar “substantial compliance” legislation. An Alberta court considered the legislation but declined to apply it where there was an absence of clear and convincing evidence that the deceased failed to execute the will by inadvertence or mistake. An Australian court went as far as admitting an unsent text message to probate.
In Ontario, the doctrine of strict compliance continues to apply. As stated by Nick Esterbauer in his blog of December 11, 2017, it will be interesting to see if Ontario legislation opens the door to substantial compliance in the future. To date, it has not.
Thanks for reading.
Nova Scotia is proposing legislation that will make it the first jurisdiction in North America to adopt “presumed consent” around organ donation.
Under the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act, all people in Nova Scotia will be presumed to agree to organ donation upon their death, unless they opt out. The Act does not apply to those under 19, or those without decision-making capacity. In those cases, a parent, guardian or alternate decision maker may consent on their behalf.
The Act will not be proclaimed immediately: it is to take effect in 12 to 18 months, so as to allow for public education and support for health care workers.
Under previous Nova Scotia legislation, the right of a family member to veto an organ donation decision made by a deceased was removed. See our blog on the topic, here.
Several European countries already have presumed consent laws for organ donation.
In Ontario, the current system is an “opt-in” system, rather than an “opt-out” system. Under the Trillium Gift of Life Act, consent must be given prior to the removal of organs after death. The person must be at least 16 years of age. In addition to the person, other persons are entitled to consent on the person’s behalf. These include,
- a spouse, either married or common-law;
- if there is no spouse or the spouse is not readily available, the person’s children;
- if there are no children, or if none are readily available, either of the person’s parents;
- if there are no parents, or none are readily available, any of the person’s siblings;
- if there are no siblings, or none are readily available, any of the person’s next of kin;
- if there are no next of kin, or none are readily available, the person lawfully in possession of the body, other than the administrative head of the hospital, where the person dies in a hospital. Further, the coroner, Public Guardian and Trustee, embalmer or funeral director are not authorized to consent.
Consent cannot be given if the person has reason to believe that the person who died or whose death is imminent would have objected.
Organ donation has helped so many. Please consider opting in to Ontario’s organ donation program.
Have a great weekend.
We have previously blogged on the various ways that an estate trustee may be removed and/or replaced. Examples include scenarios where an estate trustee dies in the midst of administering an estate, or renounces from his or her position, or where an estate trustee is removed by court order.
Ontario legislation provides guidance for beneficiaries and estate trustees in the aforesaid circumstances. Ontario legislation does not, however, specifically address what to do if an estate trustee is deemed mentally incapable to administer an estate, either before or after probate is granted. For more information on what mental incapacity is, and how to address mental incapacity, click here.
If an estate trustee is deemed mentally incapable, the first question to consider is how far along they were in the administration of the estate.
If the estate trustee has not yet applied for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee with a will (hereinafter referred to as the certificate of appointment of estate trustee), then another person may apply for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee in their place. A person acting under a valid continuing power of attorney for property for the mentally incapable estate trustee may renounce and consent (as appropriate) for the estate trustee. If the incapable individual has not appointed an attorney for property, then their statutory or court appointed guardian assumes this responsibility. Where the will names an alternate estate trustee in the event the estate trustee is unable to act, the alternate should be contacted to discuss whether they are willing and able to assume this role.
In circumstances where an estate trustee has been declared mentally incapable of administering an estate after the certificate of appointment of estate trustee has been issued, any person appearing to have a financial interest in the estate may bring a notice of application for the removal and replacement of the estate trustee. Again, the incapable estate trustee’s power of attorney or statutory or court appointed guardian would likely be involved in this process. Once a court order for removal and replacement is obtained, the replacement estate trustee may apply for a Court Status Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will pursuant to Rule 74 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Thank you for reading!
Rule 2.1 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure is a powerful provision that allows a court to stay or a dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding “appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court”.
In Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801 (CanLLI), Justice Myers gave direction with respect to what should be contained in the request for a stay. The court suggested that a one or two line letter making the request for the referral of the matter to a judge is all that is required. No narrative or background facts or information should be provided. This is because:
- The abusive nature of the proceedings should be apparent on the face of the pleading itself;
- No evidence is admissible on the motion;
- Submissions of the requestor (defendant) are of little use;
- There will be less likelihood for the plaintiff to “see conspiracies”. The process will be more efficient and fairer in fact and in appearance.
If the defendant wishes to put in evidence or background information, then the preferred procedure might be to move for summary judgment under Rule 20, or to strike out a pleading under Rule 25.11.
However, in The Estate of Lois Jean Davey v. Craig, 2018 ONSC 7367 (CanLII), the Rule was applied to an application where a claim of constructive trust was brought by the Estate Trustee against the Estate Trustee and his former spouse related to an addition paid for by the Deceased. (The Estate Trustee, who was the Deceased’s son, and the former spouse were involved in family law litigation.) The Deceased’s will was filed as part of the application record. The will specifically provided that the addition shall be the sole property of the son, and that “the estate shall have no claim on said addition”. The court also appeared to rely on submissions suggesting that the issue was previously raised by the son, unsuccessfully, in the family law proceedings. The court found that the estate was estopped from making the claim in light of the express wording of the will. Further, the court held that the claim had no basis in fact or law. “One cannot give the gift, make clear evidence of that gift, and then recover the property using the law of unjust enrichment.” The application was dismissed with costs.
The decision demonstrates the powerful nature of the Rule. The application was dismissed with no formal motion being brought by the respondent, no apparent reply materials, no cross-examinations and no attendance by the parties.
Thank you for reading.
Many of our readers will be aware that on an application for dependant’s support under Part V of Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act, certain property that may not be considered an asset of the deceased’s estate can be “clawed back” into the estate for the purposes of considering and funding an award of dependant’s support. Subsection 72(1)(d) provides that “a disposition of property made by a deceased whereby property is held at the date of his or her death by the deceased and another as joint tenants” shall be deemed to be part of the estate.
Whether jointly-held property is caught by s.72(1)(d) depends on whether there was a “disposition” into that joint tenancy. When a property is initially purchased by a deceased person and another in joint tenancy and remains as such at the time of death, it can not be said that there was a disposition into joint tenancy: s. 72(1)(d) would not appear to apply.
However, when the ownership arrangement of a property is more intricate, whether or not jointly-held property will be deemed to be an asset of the estate within the context of a dependant’s support application becomes less clear.
Consider the following scenario:
- At first instance, title to a property is taken as follows:
- 50% held solely by A; and
- 50% held jointly by A and B, who are common law spouses.
- Years later, A conveys the 50% held by her alone to herself and her common law spouse jointly.
- Therefore, immediately preceding A’s death, 100% of the property is held in joint tenancy by A and B.
Now, after A’s death, A’s minor children assert a dependant’s support claim. Does section 72(1)(d) apply, such that the property can be made available to fund a payment of dependant’s support?
The decision in Modopoulos v Breen Estate,  O.J. No. 2738 interpreted section 72(1)(d) of the Succession Law Reform Act to mean that, only if the property was owned solely by the deceased and later transferred into joint tenancy prior to death, would there be a “disposition” into joint tenancy.
In the unique set of circumstances described above, it could be argued that A never solely owned the property and, therefore, the later disposition is not captured by section 72(1)(d). However, another perspective is that the 50% interest held initially by A as a tenant in common (with A and B jointly as to the other 50%) would have formed part of her estate if the subsequent disposition to B as a joint tenant did not take place. This interpretation strongly supports that section 72(1)(d) of the Succession Law Reform Act would in fact apply to make the 50% interest in the property available in satisfaction of a dependant’s support claim. Certainly such an argument is consistent with the remedial intent of the legislation.
To our knowledge, there has yet to be a decision in Ontario that addresses whether section 72 would apply to a disposition out of a tenancy in common and into a joint tenancy, such as that featured in our hypothetical example. It will be interesting to see how a court would interpret similar transactions if encountered in the future.
Thank you for reading.
Other blog entries that you may enjoy reading:
- SLRA Dependant Awarded Entirety of Estate
- Priority of Claims for Dependant’s Support Over Other Claims Against an Estate
- The Risks of Joint Tenancy
- Joint Accounts Between Spouses
Earlier this year, we argued the appeal in Moore v Sweet before the Supreme Court of Canada. On Friday, the Court released its decision, which has provided what, in our view, was necessary clarification of the juristic reason component of the test for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court has also confirmed the circumstances in which a constructive trust remedy is appropriate within the context of unjust enrichment. Our firm was pleased to argue the appeal at the Supreme Court in February 2018 and to learn on Friday of our client’s success in the reversal of the split decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The facts of the case were relatively straightforward: The appellant had previously been married to the deceased. Around the time of their separation, the appellant and the deceased entered into an oral agreement whereby the appellant would remain the designated beneficiary for the life insurance policy on the deceased’s life on the basis that she would continue to pay the related premiums. The appellant paid the premiums on the life insurance policy until the deceased’s death approximately 13 years later, while, unbeknownst to the appellant, the deceased named his new common law spouse (the respondent), as irrevocable beneficiary of the policy soon after the oral agreement was made. At the time of his death, the deceased’s estate was insolvent.
At the application hearing, Justice Wilton-Siegel awarded the appellant the proceeds of the life insurance policy on the basis of unjust enrichment. The respondent was successful in arguing before the Ontario Court of Appeal that the designation of an irrevocable beneficiary under the Insurance Act was a “juristic reason” that permitted what was otherwise considered the unjust enrichment of the respondent at the appellant’s expense. The appellant was subsequently granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Justice Coté, writing for the Majority, agreed that the test for unjust enrichment was flexible and permits courts to use it in the promotion of justice and fairness where required by good conscience. The Court clarified that the juristic reason permitting an unjust enrichment needs to justify not only the enrichment of one party but also the corresponding deprivation of the other party. While the irrevocable beneficiary designation may have required the payment of proceeds for the policy to the respondent, it could not be considered as also requiring the appellant’s deprivation of the proceeds to which she was entitled under the oral agreement. The Court found that a designation of an irrevocable beneficiary under the Insurance Act precludes claims by creditors of an estate, but it does not state “with irresistible clearness” that it also precludes a claim in unjust enrichment by a party who has a contractual or equitable interest in the proceeds.
While reaching the opposite result, the dissent acknowledged that this was a difficult appeal, in which both parties were innocent and had strong moral claims to the proceeds of the life insurance policy.
We thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to argue this case before the Supreme Court of Canada earlier this year and look forward to following the role of this decision in further developments in the Canadian law of unjust enrichment.
Thank you for reading.
Hull and Hull LLP is proud to, once again, act as co-host to a fundraiser in support of the Toronto Feed the Hungry Program.
The event is to be held at The Rivoli, 334 Queen Street West, 2nd floor, Toronto, on Thursday October 18, 2018 commencing at 6:30 pm.
The Toronto Lawyers Feed the Hungry Program is now in its 20th year. The Program serves up to 3,500 meals per week to Toronto’s needy out of the Osgoode Hall cafeteria. Meals are served 4 times a week.
The cost of running this wonderful program is $350,000 a year. Public support is needed.
Please join us on Thursday October 18, 2018 for a fun evening of billiards, comradery, and to raise funds for this wonderful program.
If you are not able to attend, please consider supporting this program through a donation.
For further information on the event or to make a donation, click here.
For more information on the Toronto Lawyers Feed the Hungry Program, click here.
Have a great weekend.