Tag: court

30 Oct

Appointing, Changing or Removing Trustees – Hull on Estates #83

Hull & Hull LLP Hull on Estates, Hull on Estates, Passing of Accounts, Podcasts, PODCASTS / TRANSCRIBED, Trustees Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Listen to Appointing, Changing or Removing Trustees.

This week on Hull on Estates, Craig Vander Zee and Paul Trudelle discuss the issues surrounding trustee appointments and changes.

READ MORE

23 Oct

Court Order Compliance – Hull on Estates #82

Hull & Hull LLP Hull on Estates, Hull on Estates, Podcasts, PODCASTS / TRANSCRIBED Tags: , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Listen to Court Order Compliance

This week on Hull on Estates, Sean Graham and Justin deVries talk about court order compliance, contempt and enforcement of court orders in general.

READ MORE

16 Oct

Court Approval – Hull on Estates #81

Hull & Hull LLP Hull on Estates, Hull on Estates, Podcasts, PODCASTS / TRANSCRIBED Tags: , , , , , , 0 Comments

Listen to Court Approval

In this week’s episode of Hull on Estates, Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag discuss court approvals. They talk about the court approval application process and the global impact of court approvals in every area of law.

READ MORE

15 May

Joint Accounts – Hull on Estates #59

Hull & Hull LLP Hull on Estates, Hull on Estates, Litigation Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Listen to "Joint Accounts"

Read the transcribed version of  "Joint Accounts"

In Hull on Estates Podcast episode #59, David Smith and Jason Allan discuss the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions on joint accounts in Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, and Madsen Estate v. Saylor 2007 SCC 18.

These two decisions concern joint bank accounts and the decision of right of survivorship, as well as the question of presumptions resulting trust and advancement.

30 Jun

IS THERE SUPPORT AFTER DEATH? – Who Can Make a Claim and Powers of the Court – Part V

Suzana Popovic-Montag Support After Death Tags: , , , , , , 0 Comments

No review of the area of dependant’s relief is complete without considering the leading Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Cummings v. Cummings (on the application for support, see (2004), 5 E.T.R. (3d) (81) (Ont. S.C) (Cullity, J.); on the appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, see (2004) 5 E.T.R. (3d) (97) (Ont. C.A.).

 As a result of Cummings v. Cummings, the Court has forced the Estate’s Bar to reconsider matters of support under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act ("SLRA").

Historically, claims relating to support of dependants under Part V of the SLRA were a fundamental restriction on testamentary power.

As to the question of the power of the Court itself, section 58 (1) of the SLRA confers on the Court the ability to make an order for support where a deceased has not made adequate provision for the proper support of his/her dependants. In McSween v. McSween ((1985), 21 E.T.R. 195 (Surr.Ct.)), Justice Carnwarth sets out the appropriate guidelines in considering "adequate provision for the proper support of a dependant".

The case of Cummings v. Cummings was a most difficult one for the judges to determine as the facts were somewhat unusual and were as follows:

    Bruce Norman Cummings (the "deceased") died on June 22 1998, survived by his first wife, Mary Anne, whom he married in 1968, and from whom he was separated in 1986 and from whom he was divorced in 1992.
    They had two adult children, Paul, 28, and Elizabeth, 22, both of whom were dependants. Paul was 24 years of age at his father’s death and was seriously and permanently disabled to the extent that it would take many times the value of all of the assets of the estate, both real and notional (as clawed back pursuant to section 72(1)(d) of the SLRA), to properly support him for the rest of his life. The deceased was under an obligation to provide support by Court order to Paul.
    His daughter, Elizabeth, was eighteen years of age at her father’s death and was attending university and was entitled to support under the Court order as well.
    The deceased and his second wife, Ruta, commenced living together in 1988 and were married in 1997.
    At the time of the divorce from his first wife, the deceased was earning approximately $300,000 per year and his employment was terminated in 1994.

READ MORE

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET