There have recently been many proposed changes to estate laws in Ontario under the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021. The Bill passed Second Reading on March 2, 2021, and was referred to a Standing Committee.
We have blogged on many of these proposed changes. See “Modernizing the Succession Law Reform Act”, and “Ontario Raises Small Estate Limit to $150,000 – Now What?”.
One of the proposed changes is an increase in the amount of money that can be paid to a parent of a child when money is owed to the child.
As a starting point, it must be kept in mind that a parent of a minor is not the guardian of the child’s property unless specifically appointed as such by the court. A parent is not authorized to deal with a child’s property.
However, if a person is under a duty to pay money or deliver personal property to a minor (such as an Estate Trustee where there is a bequest to the minor), the person may pay the amount owing or deliver the property to a parent with whom the child resides, per s. 51(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (“CLRA”). However, s. 51(1.1) of the CLRA presently limits the amount payable to the parent to $10,000. If the amount payable is more than $10,000, other steps will have to be taken, such as the appointment of a guardian for the child, or the payment of the funds into court.
Under the proposed revisions to the CLRA and its regulations, this amount is to be increased to $35,000. Further, the provision will specifically apply to money payable under a judgment or court order or on an intestacy. Currently, amounts payable under a judgment or court order were specifically excluded.
Under the CLRA, a parent who receives funds on behalf of a minor has all of the responsibilities of a guardian for the care and management of the money or property. The parent may be required to account, and must transfer the money or property to the minor when they turn 18.
Thank you for reading. Have a great weekend.
I recently blogged about the growing use of home DNA tests and what impact an unexpected result could have upon your rights as a beneficiary of an estate. While such a blog was from the perspective of an individual who discovered through a home DNA test that their biological father was not in fact the individual they previously believed it to be, and the potential impact such a finding could have upon their status as a beneficiary of their “father’s” estate if their interest was based on their status as a “child”, questions would also emerge in such a scenario if you were the Estate Trustee of such an estate regarding what you should do.
If you are the Estate Trustee of an estate in which a bequest is based on parentage (i.e. an intestacy or a bequest to a testator’s “issue” or “children”), and you discover that one of the beneficiaries has voluntarily taken a home DNA test which revealed that they were not in fact related to the deceased, could you still make a distribution to such a beneficiary? If you have already made a distribution to such a beneficiary, is there a risk that the other beneficiaries could now make a claim against you as Estate Trustee, alleging that you distributed the estate to the incorrect individuals and that they have suffered damages as a result?
In response to whether an Estate Trustee could potentially be liable to the other beneficiaries for historically paying out amounts to a beneficiary who it is later discovered was not actually related to the deceased, it would appear that the Estate Trustee likely would not be liable under such a scenario. In my previous blog I discussed the provisions of the Children’s Law Reform Act (the “CLRA“) which establish a person’s legal parentage in Ontario, and the various presumptions establishing an individual’s father. While sections 13(1) and 14(1) of the CLRA allow the court to make a subsequent different declaration as to a person’s parentage, section 14(2) of the CLRA provides that such an Order “does not affect rights and duties that were exercised or performed, or interests in property that were distributed, before the order was set aside“. As a result, it would appear, arguably, that if an Estate Trustee historically made a payment to an individual based off of parentage, and a subsequent declaration is made by the court that the individual in question was not actually the parent of the beneficiary, the historic payment to the beneficiary could not be put in issue or reclaimed provided that at the time the payment was made the beneficiary was still presumed and/or declared to be the child of the deceased.
The issue of what an Estate Trustee is to do if a payment has not yet been made and they discover that an individual who they previously believed to be a beneficiary is not in fact related to the deceased could be more complicated. In the event that the other beneficiaries who could be affected by the distribution do not unanimously consent to continue to allow the distribution to the individual notwithstanding the results of the DNA test, it is possible that one or all of the other beneficiaries may later bring a claim against the Estate Trustee for negligence, alleging that the Estate Trustee knew about the results of the DNA test before making the distribution and that they have suffered damages as a result of the distribution. To offset such a risk, it may be wise for the Estate Trustee in such a scenario to bring an Application for the opinion, advice and direction of the court pursuant to section 60(1) of the Trustee Act and/or rule 14.05, asking the court to determine whether the distribution may still be made to the potential beneficiary in light of the results of the home DNA test.
Thank you for reading.
One of the most gifted items this past holiday season were apparently the home DNA tests which can reveal your genetic ancestry or even if you are predisposed to certain health conditions. As anyone who has taken one of these tests (myself included) can tell you, the test results also contain a long list of other individuals who have also taken the test who you are related to, allowing you to reconnect with long lost relatives.
While my own test results did not reveal any family secrets, the same cannot be said for other individuals who have taken the test, as there have been a growing number of articles recently about how home DNA tests have revealed family secrets which otherwise may never have come to light. Although not all of these secrets are necessarily negative, such as finding a long-lost sibling, others, such as finding out that the individual who you believed to be your father was not in fact your biological father, could be life changing. For the latter, the phenomena is apparently common enough that the Atlantic has reported that self-help groups have formed around the issue, such as the Facebook group “DNA NPE Friends”, with “NPE” standing for “Not Parent Expected”.
In reading through these stories I couldn’t help but wonder if having such a result could impact your potential entitlements as a beneficiary of an estate. What happens if, for example, the individual who you previously believed to be your biological father but the test reveals was not in fact your father should die intestate, or should leave a class gift to his “children” in his Will without specifically naming the children. Could finding out that you were not actually biologically related to your “father” result in you no longer being entitled to receive a benefit as a beneficiary? Could you potentially be disinherited as a beneficiary of an estate by voluntarily taking a home DNA test if your right to the gift is founded upon you being related to the deceased individual?
Who is legally considered an individual’s “parent” in Ontario is established by the Children’s Law Reform Act (the “CLRA“). Section 7(1) of the CLRA provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the person “whose sperm resulted in the conception of a child” is the parent of a child. Section 7(2) of the CLRA further provides for a series of presumptions regarding the identity of the individual’s “whose sperm resulted in the conception of a child“, including, for example, that there is a presumption that such an individual is the birth parent’s spouse at the time the child is born, or the individual in question certified the child’s birth as a parent of the child in accordance with the Vital Statistics Act (i.e. signed the birth certificate). To the extent that there are any questions about parentage, section 13(1) of the CLRA provides that any interested individual may apply to the court at any time after a child is born for a declaration that a person is or is not the legal parent of the child.
In applying these presumptions to our previous questions about the home DNA test, if, for example, the individual who you previously believed was your biological father was your birth mother’s “spouse” at the time you were born, or signed the birth certificate, it would appear that, subject to there being a declaration under section 13(1) of the CLRA to the contrary, there would continue to be a presumption at law that the individual who you previously believed to be your biological father would continue to be your legal “parent” in accordance with the CLRA. To this respect, in the absence of a formal declaration under section 13(1) of the CLRA that the individual was no longer your legal “parent”, there would appear to be an argument in favour of the position that the individual who you previously believed to be your biological father would continue to be your legal “parent”, and that you should continue to receive any benefits which may come to you as a “child” on the death of your “father”, whether on an intestacy or a class bequest to his “children” in his Will.
This presumption, of course, is subject to the ability of any interested person (i.e. the Estate Trustee or one of the other beneficiaries) to seek a formal declaration under section 13(1) of the CLRA that you were not in fact a “child” of the individual you believed to be your biological father. If such a formal declaration is ultimately made by the court, you would cease to be the legal “child” of the individual who you previously believed to be your biological father, and would likely lose any corresponding bequests which may have been made to you on an intestacy or as a member of the class “children” in the Will.
The use of DNA tests to establish the potential beneficiaries of an estate is not a new phenomenon (see: Proulx v. Kelly). What is new, however, are people voluntarily taking such tests en masse in a public forum, potentially voluntarily raising questions about their rights to receive an interest in an estate when such questions would not have existed otherwise.
Thank you for reading.
On December 10, 2015, private member Bill 137 (also referred to as Cy and Ruby’s Act) passed its second reading at Queen’s Park. Bill 137 seeks to amend various statutes that deal with parental recognition, most notably, the Children‘s Law Reform Act (“CLRA”).
As it currently stands in Ontario, same-sex parents who make use of third party genetic material to assist with their reproductive efforts or are involved in surrogacy arrangements, must navigate red-tape and incur legal costs to ensure that the non-biological parent becomes the parent of their child. Accordingly, the non-biological parent must go through the process of legally adopting the child after the birth in order to be recognized as the parent. Bill 137 would, among other things, allow for the parents to enter into a parentage agreement that would recognize the non-biological parent earlier on and without requiring adoption proceedings.
At least four other Canadian provinces have already adopted similar legislation to reflect the changing ways we recognize parentage. This includes Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia. For instance, in Quebec, article 538 of the Civil Code of Quebec recognizes the concept of the “parental project” and provides the following:
538. A parental project involving assisted procreation exists from the moment a person alone decides or spouses by mutual consent decide, in order to have a child, to resort to the genetic material of a person who is not party to the parental project.
538.1. As in the case of filiation by blood, the filiation of a child born of assisted procreation is established by the act of birth. In the absence of an act of birth, uninterrupted possession of status is sufficient; the latter is established by an adequate combination of facts which indicate the relationship of filiation between the child, the woman who gave birth to the child and, where applicable, the other party to the parental project. This filiation creates the same rights and obligations as filiation by blood.
Furthermore, article 538.2 of the CCQ adds that the donor of the genetic material is not considered to be the child’s parent merely as a result of the contribution (with some exceptions), language that is similar to the proposed amendments under Bill 137.
In a recent article published on this topic, the consequences of the proposed Bill are explored from an estates perspective. The author notes that Bill 137 does not contemplate any parallel amendments to the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”). The concern raised is that under the SLRA, intestate succession rights are bestowed upon the “issue” of the deceased. “Issue” is defined under section 1 as including “a descendant conceived before and born alive after the person’s death” which suggests that a genetic lineal relationship must be present.
In the event that changes are made to parental recognition under the CLRA, it is unclear what the effect would be on children born through the use of third party genetic material under the SLRA and, in particular, whether these children would meet the definition of “issue” under the SLRA.
Thank you for reading.