Category: Hull on Estate and Succession Planning
Hull on Estates #589 – “Cottage Planning”?
In today’s podcast, Stuart Clark and Doreen So discuss the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Donaldson v. Braybrook, 2020 ONCA 66, and what to consider when the ownership of a family cottage was changed to include the children.
Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.
Policy and Estate Planning in Film
This blog is the second and final blog in my series discussing estates-related topics in the film The Grand Budapest Hotel. While the first part focused on the application of forfeiture rules in the context of a testator’s murder, this blog specifically discusses the policy considerations that arise as a result of the further Last Will and Testament executed by one of the film’s characters, Madame D.
As a brief refresher, late in the film, a further Last Will and Testament executed by Madame D is discovered, the operation of which is only to be given effect in the event of Madame D’s death by murder. While the concept makes for an interesting twist in the film, in reality the purported condition precedent that the Will takes effect only upon death by murder likely means nothing in the context of Madame D’s estate planning.
Part I of Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act specifically contemplates that a Will is revoked
by, among other actions, the execution of a subsequent Will made in accordance with the provisions of that section. It is not made clear in the film which of Madame D’s two Wills were executed last. If the further Will was executed most recently and complied with all of the requirements of due execution, the prior Will would have been revoked and the second Will would likely prevail irrespective of the condition precedent.
Alternatively, a Will may also be revoked by a written direction of the testator to do so. Failure to expressly revoke a prior Will can potentially create problematic administration scenarios in which a testator may have believed, albeit mistakenly, that a prior Will had been revoked when in fact it had not.
While executing a Will in accordance with the provisions at Part I of the Succession Law Reform Act is sufficient in and of itself to revoke prior Wills, it is nonetheless prudent from an estate planning perspective to include a written intention to revoke prior Wills (provided, of course, the testator intends to do so).
Separately, even if we were to disregard the provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act, there would be a number of practical policy concerns if a Will whose effects were subject to a condition precedent. Notably, a reasonable debate could arise between beneficiaries in scenarios in which the cause of death is ultimately unclear.
The film suggests Madame D’s reason for executing a further Will to take effect on her murder is to ensure her nephew could not benefit from her demise at his hand. However, as discussed in Tuesday’s blog, that goal is accomplished by the operation of the slayer rule. Alternatively, Madame D could have relied on a common estate planning technique by making her nephew’s interest in her estate, rather than the Will in its entirety, subject to a condition precedent.
While Ontario prohibits conditions precedent that are deemed to be contrary to public policy, such as restraining marriage or promoting discriminatory behaviour, other conditions precedent are recognized at law. For example, Madame D could have simply made Dmitri’s interest contingent on his reaching a certain age, or reaching a certain milestone in his life, such as graduating from university. Instead, the purported condition precedent that the further Will was to take effect on her murder likely has no effect at all, provided the evidence shows it was executed after the initial Will and in compliance with the provisions of Part I of the Succession Law Reform Act.
Thanks for reading.
Hull on Estates #588 – Rights and Limitation on an Attorney under a Power of Attorney
In today’s podcast, Natalia Angelini and Sydney Osmar discuss the OBA’s Institute Elder Law program recently chaired by Natalia and Kimberly Whaley. Natalia and Sydney delve into the debated issue of whether or not beneficiary designations are testamentary. Tune in to learn how the crowd voted.
Please note that, as a result of technical difficulties, the introduction of this podcast has been cut off. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.
Hull on Estates #587 – Re Vaudrey: The Importance of Properly Providing for a Gift of Residue
On today’s podcast, Noah Weisberg and Rebecca Rauws discuss the recent decision of Re Vaudrey, 2019 ONSC 7551. In that case, the testator tried to disinherit one of his daughters, but failed to make provision in his Will for the disposition of the residue of his estate in the event that the residuary beneficiaries predeceased him (which they did). Without this, the residue of the testator’s estate was distributed on an intestacy—entirely to the daughter that he had wished to disinherit.
Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.
Hull on Estates #585 – Applications and Actions: What’s the Difference?
In today’s podcast, Stuart Clark and Garrett Horrocks review some of the main procedural differences between the two primary types of legal proceeding in Ontario: the application, and the action.
Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.
Hull on Estates #584 – Retroactive Effect of Proof of Death
This week on Hull on Estates, Natalia R. Angelini and Kira Domratchev discuss a recent decision on the retroactive effect of proof of death in Threlfall v Carleton University, 2019 SCC 50 that dealt with a pension case from Quebec.
A helpful Canadian Lawyer magazine article by Elizabeth Raymer summarizing this decision can be found here.
Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.
Hull on Estates #583 – Oppression Remedies
This week on Hull on Estates, Noah Weisberg and Doreen So discuss a recent decision on oppression remedies in Corber v. Henry and how corporate issues may arise in estate matters.
Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.
Hull on Estates #582 – Informal Trust Arrangements
This week on Hull on Estates, Jonathon Kappy and Nick Esterbauer discuss the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Rubner v Bistricer, and the law regarding informal trust arrangements.
Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.
Hull on Estates #581 – Minimal Evidentiary Threshold in Will Challenges
On today’s podcast, Paul Trudelle and Rebecca Rauws discuss the recent decision of Naismith v Clarke, 2019 ONSC 5280, and the minimal evidentiary threshold test for will challenges.
Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.
Hull on Estates #580 – Elder Law Issues
On today’s podcast, Natalia Angelini and Rebecca Rauws discuss elder law issues, including the increasing prevalence of such issues in our practice, the different viewpoints on damages, and the need for more case law in this area.
Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.