Category: Podcasts

21 Sep

Hull on Estates #622 – To Be a Trustee or Not to Be?

76admin Podcasts Tags: , , , 0 Comments

On today’s podcast, Paul Trudelle and Juanita Valencia discuss the issue of when a person receiving funds becomes a trustee, as analyzed in Green Light Solutions Corp. v Baker 2021 BCCA 287.

Should you have any questions, please email us at info@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Paul Trudelle

Click here for more information on Juanita Valencia

07 Sep

Hull on Estates #621 – What is a Limited Grant and when should you Consider Using it?

76admin Podcasts Tags: , , 0 Comments

On today’s podcast, Stuart Clark and Rebecca Rauws discuss the limited grant under s. 29(3) of the Estates Act as a tool to consider when probate may be delayed, but there is an urgent need to deal with an estate asset. For more information, please check out Stuart’s recent blog on this topic here.

Should you have any questions, please email us at info@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Stuart Clark

Click here for more information on Rebecca Rauws

24 Aug

Hull on Estates #620 – Can the Court Cure an Unexecuted Will?

76admin Podcasts Tags: , , 0 Comments

In today’s podcast, Natalia Angelini and Arielle Di Iulio discuss the recent decision of Bishop Estate v Sheardown2021 BCSC 1571 which involves the Court’s discretion to validate an unexecuted Will under s.58 of British Columbia’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13. For more information on this topic, you can also check out Sanaya Mistry’s recent blog.

Should you have any questions, please email us at info@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Natalia R. Angelini

Click here for more information on Arielle Di Iulio

16 Aug

Are Audio Recordings Admissible?

Sanaya Mistry Guardianship, Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Hull on Estates, Litigation, Podcasts Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

In the recent decision of Rudin-Brown et al v. Brown, 2021 ONSC 3366, Justice H. J. Williams discusses the admissibility of audio recordings.

This case involves Carolyn Brown, who is 91 years old, Gordon Brown (Carolyn’s son who lives with her), Christina (“Missy”) Rudin-Brown (Carolyn’s daughter) and Jeanne Brown (Carolyn’s sister-in-law). Around 2008, Missy noticed Carolyn was having some memory problems which became more obvious around 2012. Gordon maintains that other than occasional memory lapses, Carolyn was fine until June 2017 when her memory declined suddenly and noticeably.

In September 2016, Carolyn signed powers of attorney appointing Gordon as her attorney for property and personal care. The 2016 powers of attorney replaced her 2009 powers of attorney which appointed Jeanne as her attorney for property, and Missy and Gordon as her attorneys for personal care. Carolyn also signed a new will in September 2016 appointing Gordon as the executor and the beneficiary of the residue of her estate, replacing her 2009 Will which appointed Jeanne as the executor and divided the residue of her estate equally among Gordon, Missy and Zachary Brown (the son of Carolyn’s late daughter, Sandra).

There were two competing applications before the court for the guardianship of Carolyn – one was brought by Missy and Jeanne and the other by Gordon. These applications were consolidated by Justice Kershman and a trial was ordered.

Although there were a few issues dealt with in this trial, for the purposes of this blog, I will focus on the court’s decision on the issue of whether the recordings of Carolyn’s conversations made by Gordon were admissible and if so, how they may be used as evidence.

Gordon sought to introduce into evidence 15 recordings of Carolyn’s telephone conversations he made in 2017. Also, Missy and Jeanne tendered one of Gordon’s recordings and an excerpt from another. In deciding whether these recordings were admissible, the court considered many factors including the origin of the recordings, whether Carolyn knew and fully approved of these recordings, as well as the probative value and prejudicial effect of admitting these recordings into evidence.

Among other things, Justice H. J. Williams clearly noted that “the manner in which evidence is obtained, no matter how improper or illegal, is not an impediment to its admission at common law”. It was important for the court to consider and weigh the prejudicial effect of the evidence against the probative value. Specially, the court noted that:

“The court nonetheless maintains a general exclusionary discretion to exclude otherwise admissible evidence if the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value. Evidence may be excluded under this cost-benefit analysis if its probative value is overborne by its prejudicial effect, if it involves an inordinate amount of time to present the evidence that is not commensurate with its value, or if it is misleading in that its effect on the trier of fact is out of proportion to its reliability as probative material.”

The court found Missy’s side of the recorded conversations to be more probative than prejudicial and the conversations between Gordon and Carolyn to be highly probative and therefore admitted. The court had concerns regarding Carolyn’s side of the recorded conversations, particularly because Carolyn was not able to testify. The court discussed the fact that Gordon only produced the recordings he thought were relevant as well as considered whether Carolyn’s side of the conversations truly represented Carolyn’s views and state of mind.

Importantly, the court did not accept Gordon’s evidence that Carolyn knew he was recording her and that she had authorized him to do so. The court noted that during a conversation, Carolyn did not want to speak about something with “you know who around”, referring to Gordon. If she had known that all her conversations were being recorded, Gordon being around would have been irrelevant. As a result, the court found that “Carolyn did not agree to have her conversations recorded, or, if she did, she did not appreciate what she was agreeing to.”

Interestingly, the court noted that although “surreptitious audio and video recordings should be strongly discouraged by the courts” because they foster distrust and have a toxic effect on future relationships, if the recordings and the evidence that flowed from them were excluded in this case, the court would be “left to decide the case based on a record [the court knows] to be incomplete.”

On the issue of the audio recordings, Justice H. J. Williams “with some reluctance, concluded that the recordings are admissible” and the court “will place little weight on Carolyn’s side of the conversations.”

For a more in-depth discussion on this case and admissibility of audio recordings, please listen to last week’s podcast on Hull on Estates.

Thank you for reading.

Sanaya Mistry

10 Aug

Hull on Estates #619 – A Discussion on the Admissibility of Recordings

76admin Podcasts Tags: , 0 Comments

In today’s podcast, Doreen So and Sanaya Mistry discuss the recent decision in Rudin-Brown et al. v. Brown and Brown v. Rudin-Brown et al., 2021 ONSC 336, which examines the admissibility of audio recordings and how they may be used as evidence.

Should you have any questions, please email us at info@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Doreen So

Click here for more information on Sanaya Mistry

27 Jul

Hull on Estates #618 – Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary: Can you contract out of Dependant Support Obligations?

76admin Podcasts Tags: , 0 Comments

In today’s podcast, Jonathon Kappy and Sydney Osmar discuss the recent decision Virey v. Virey, 2021 ONSC 2893 which examines the Court’s broad discretion to order an award for support even in cases where the parties may have entered into an agreement to the contrary.

Should you have any questions, please email us at info@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Jonathon Kappy

Click here for more information on Sydney Osmar

13 Jul

Hull on Estates #617 – Crossing the Threshold for a Will Challenge

76admin Podcasts Tags: , , , , 0 Comments

This week on Hull on Estates, Paul Trudelle and Fred Tonelli discuss the decision and corresponding order in Morrish v Katona ONSC 3805, and review the threshold to challenge a will and compensation due to an examined drafting solicitor and his or her lawyer.

Should you have any questions, please email us at info@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Paul Trudelle

Click here for more information on Fred Tonelli

29 Jun

Hull on Estates #616 – Objectors Beware: Costs in Passings of Accounts

76admin Passing of Accounts, Podcasts Tags: , , 0 Comments

This week on Hull on Estates, Stuart Clark and Nick Esterbauer discuss the costs decision in Toller James Montague Cranston (Estate of), 2021 ONSC 3704, and review factors that may result in an elevated costs award in passings of accounts.

Should you have any questions, please email us at info@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Stuart Clark

Click here for more information on Nick Esterbauer

15 Jun

Hull on Estates #615 – The Role of the Medical Expert in Determining Undue Influence

76admin Estate & Trust, Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Hull on Estates, Podcasts Tags: , , 0 Comments

On today’s podcast, Natalia Angelini and Rebecca Rauws discuss a recent article from The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry entitled “Susceptibility to Undue Influence: The Role of the Medical Expert in Estate Litigation”. The paper can be accessed online here.

Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Natalia Angelini

Click here for more information on Rebecca Rauws

01 Jun

Hull on Estates #614 – Validity of a Handwritten Will and Appointment of an Estate Trustee in Conflict

76admin Estate & Trust, Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Hull on Estates, Podcasts, Wills Tags: , , , 0 Comments

This week on Hull on Estates, Doreen So and Arielle Di Iulio discuss the recent decision of Langrandeur Estate (Re), 2021 ONSC 3447, where the court addresses the validity of a will containing both typewritten and handwritten instructions, and the appointment of an estate trustee in conflict with the estate’s potential beneficiaries.

Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Doreen So

Click here for more information on Arielle Di Iulio

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