Tag: Conflict of Laws
Remember travel? Remember getting on an airplane and going somewhere (anywhere) else? Although you would be forgiven for thinking of these activities as science fiction due to recent world events, with the COVID-19 pandemic hopefully on its downward trend the idea of travel could again be creeping back into the collective consciousness.
Although the more common souvenirs to bring back from a vacation are likely a sunburn and some tacky items with the name of the destination emblazoned across it, as this is an estate blog it got me thinking of whether there may be any estate related souvenirs that you could bring back. Could you, for example, sign a new Last Will and Testament while on vacation, potentially adding a Will with an exotic destination name at the top to the list of items you bring back? Could such a Will later be admitted to probate in Ontario? Like any good legal question the answer is “maybe”.
In Ontario the potential admittance of a foreign Last Will and Testament is governed by section 37(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act, which provides:
“As regards the manner and formalities of making a will of an interest in movables or in land, a will is valid and admissible to probate if at the time of its making it complied with the internal law of the place where,
(a) the will was made;
(b) the testator was then domiciled;
(c) the testator then had his or her habitual residence; or
(d) the testator then was a national if there was in that place one body of law governing the wills of nationals.” [emphasis added]
In accordance section 37(1)(a) of the Succession Law Reform Act, a foreign Will can be admitted for probate in Ontario so long as it complied with the internal law of the place where it was made at the time it was signed. As you would presumably be presently located in the destination on which you were on vacation, so long as the Will complied with the laws of the jurisdiction where you were on vacation at the time it was signed it could theoretically later be admitted to probate in Ontario making your vacation Will a valid Will in Ontario.
In considering your potential vacation Will it would be wise to remember that just because you “can” do something doesn’t mean you “should”, with a vacation Will likely being in the same category as a vacation tattoo as something that should be very seriously considered and thought through before it is done.
Thank you for reading.
Die-hard Raptors fans, band-wagon followers, and even sport-neutral citizens alike could not deny the energy in the Toronto air this past Friday, June 14. This day followed the Raptors’ historic four-point defeat of the Golden State Warriors in game six of the 2019 NBA playoffs the night prior, as well as the raucous, joyful celebrations which rang through the city until the early hours of the morning. The Raptor’s win marks the first time in their 24-season history that the Raptors will be graced with the title of NBA Champion.
In my view, one of the most interesting parts of the Raptors’ championship is the sense of community, togetherness and connectedness to Toronto which the team’s journey has inspired. On Friday morning, the CBC broadcasted clips of fans who had tuned in to cheer the Raptors to victory during game six, both in Toronto, across Canada and internationally. While some of the interviewed members of the Raptors’ diverse group of fans and followers were born in Toronto, many had since moved to reside permanently in other cities in Canada and across the world. Despite this, these fans still felt a strong patriotism to Toronto inspired by the team’s fight to the top. The diversity in the team’s fan network is also reflected in the Raptors’ own varied makeup: the team itself is comprised of players from several different countries, including Canada, the United States, England, Spain and Cameroon.
The diversity both in the team’s fans and in its members brought my mind to the legal concept of domicile. In an Estates context, there are two types of domicile: one’s “domicile of origin” is where they are born, whereas one’s “domicile of choice” connotes a new place where a party takes residence, with the definitive intention of residing there permanently. One may also abandon their domicile of choice. In Canada, domicile is determined on a province-to-province basis.
One’s domicile will determine which jurisdiction’s laws will be applicable in particular situations, such as in a dependant’s support claim circumstance, or when one seeks a grant of probate to administrate an Estate, for example. As my colleague Stuart Clark wrote about previously, however, two Canadian cases – Tyrell v Tyrell 2017 ONSC 4063 and Re: Foote Estate 2011 ABCA 1 – seem to suggest conflicting rules surrounding how domicile impacts the administration of one’s Estate. While the Alberta Court of Appeal in Re: Foote Estate stated that the domicile of the Deceased “determines the applicable law for estate administration purposes” – suggesting that it is the testator’s domicile that determines which jurisdiction’s laws are to govern the administration of an estate – the Ontario Court in Tyrell v. Tyrell stated that “for the purpose of administering the Will, the most significant connecting factor is the residence of the estate trustee.” In Tyrell, notwithstanding that the testator died domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, the laws of Ontario governed the administration of the estate as the Estate Trustee was located in Ontario. Currently, there are no reported cases which cite Tyrell v. Tyrell has been cited to support this rationale. It will be interesting to see how the legal concept of domicile develops in this respect going forward.
In the meantime, we will see how sports, diversity, and the law intersect when the Raptors parade passes by the Hull & Hull offices this Monday.
Thanks for reading!
The Court of Appeal of British Columbia (the “BCCA”) recently dealt with an appeal from an Order of the British Columbia Supreme Court which declined to exercise jurisdiction by staying a petition for guardianship of an incapable person. This Order also included various terms relating to the person’s care and property.
This appeal dealt with the guardianship of Ms. Dingwall, the mother of both the Appellant and the Respondent.
At all material times, Ms. Dingwall and the Appellant lived in Alberta and the Respondent resided in British Columbia. Between 2010 and 2014, Ms. Dingwall resided for various periods in both Alberta and British Columbia. At the time of this appeal, Ms. Dingwall lived in a care home in British Columbia. She suffered from advanced dementia.
The Alberta Proceedings
On February 5, 2015, the Appellant sought an Order from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench appointing him as Ms. Dingwall’s guardian and trustee. The Respondent opposed this Order and in September, 2015 filed an Application to move the proceedings to British Columbia. This Application was never heard and the matter continued to be heard in Alberta.
On July 7, 2016, the Court granted the Order sought by the Appellant which appointed him as Ms. Dingwall’s guardian and provided him with the authority to make decisions with respect to Ms. Dingwall’s health care, the carrying on of any legal proceeding not related primarily to Ms. Dingwall’s financial matters and Ms. Dingwall’s personal and real property in Alberta.
The British Columbia Proceedings
A few weeks prior to the Alberta hearing, the Respondent filed a petition with the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking a declaration that Ms. Dingwall was incapable of managing herself or her affairs due to mental infirmity and an Order appointing her as committee of Ms. Dingwall’s person and Estate. The Appellant opposed the Respondent’s petition by arguing that the Supreme Court of British Columbia lacked jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia asserted jurisdiction because Ms. Dingwall was at the time of the decision, ordinarily resident in British Columbia and because there was a “real and substantial” connection to British Columbia. The Court found that, in this case, both Alberta and British Columbia had jurisdiction.
Despite British Columbia having jurisdiction in this case, the Court found that the Alberta forum was nonetheless more appropriate and cited the following factors in favour of its decision:
- The similarity of the proceedings;
- Alberta having issued a final order; and
- The Respondent having attorned to Alberta’s jurisdiction by opposing the Appellant’s petition.
As a result, the Court stayed the Respondent’s petition but also made several Orders respecting Ms. Dingwall’s care and property. The parties’ costs on a “solicitor client basis” were to be payable by Ms. Dingwall’s Estate.
The Appellant appealed the following Orders made by the Court, other than the stay of the Respondent’s proceedings:
- issuing an Order on the matter after declining to exercise jurisdiction respecting it;
- finding the Court had territorial competence over the matter; and
- awarding solicitor-client costs payable from Ms. Dingwall’s Estate.
The BCCA Decision
The BCCA allowed the appeal and found that the lower Court erred in making Orders concerning the very matter over which it had declined to exercise jurisdiction. The Court noted that a decision to decline jurisdiction over a particular matter renders a judge incapable of deciding issues or making orders as to the substance of that matter.
As a result, the Court set aside the Orders respecting Ms. Dingwall’s care and property. In light of that finding, the Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to deal with the issue of whether British Columbia had territorial competence over this matter, given that the lower Court declined to exercise jurisdiction, in any event.
The Court of Appeal found that the Appellant was entitled to special costs payable by Ms. Dingwall’s Estate and that the Respondent was not entitled to costs.
The full decision can be found here: Pellerin v. Dingwall, 2018 BCCA 110
Thanks for reading.