Tag: Life Insurance
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice revisits the issue of whether a presumption of resulting trust should be imposed in the case of a beneficiary designation.
As our readers will know, the leading case on presumptions of resulting trust remains Pecore v Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, in which the Supreme Court summarized the state of the law relating to property that had been gratuitously transferred into joint tenancy with a non-dependent adult child: the asset becomes subject to a presumption that it is impressed with a resulting trust in favour of the parent’s estate. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that it was, in fact, the parent’s intention to gift the jointly-held property to the adult child by right of survivorship.
Last year, we saw a couple of decisions apply the principles of Pecore to novel situations, potentially expanding the applicability of presumptions of resulting trust. For example, in Calmusky v Calmusky, 2020 ONSC 1506, the doctrine of resulting trust was applied to a RIF for which an adult child had been designated as beneficiary.
In Mak Estate v Mak, 2021 ONSC 4415, Justice McKelvey reviewed the issue of whether an asset for which a beneficiary designation was in place should be subject to the presumption of resulting trust. The plaintiff residuary beneficiaries of their mother’s estate sought an order setting aside the 2007 beneficiary designation for the mother’s RRIF, under which the defendant, their brother and another residuary beneficiary of the estate, was named. The evidence suggested that the deceased had relied upon the defendant, who lived with her and drove her to appointments after the death of the parties’ father in 2002.
After addressing the issue of whether a presumption of undue influence applied to the RRIF beneficiary designation (and finding that it did not because a beneficiary designation is not an inter vivos gift), Justice McKelvey turned to the issue of the principle of resulting trust, writing (at paras 44, 46):
In my view…there is good reason to doubt the conclusion that the doctrine of resulting trust applies to a beneficiary designation. First, the presumption in Pecore applies to inter vivos gifts. This was a significant factor for the Court of Appeal in Seguin, and similarly is a significant difference in the context of a resulting trust. Further, the decision of this Court in Calmusky has been the subject of some critical comment. As noted by Demetre Vasilounis in an article entitled ‘A Presumptive Peril: The Law of Beneficiary Designations is Now in Flux’, the decision in Calmusky is, ‘ruffling some features among banks, financial advisors and estate planning lawyers in Ontario’. In his article, the author comments that there is usually no need to determine ‘intent’ behind this designation, as this kind of beneficiary designation is supported by legislation including in Part III of the Succession Law Reform Act (the “SLRA”). Subsection 51(1) of the SLRA states that an individual may designate a beneficiary of a ‘plan’ (including a RIF, pursuant to subsection 54.1(1) of the SLRA.)
It is also important that the presumption of resulting trust with respect to adult children evolved from the formerly recognized presumption of advancement, a sometimes erroneous assumption for a parent that arranges for joint ownership of an asset with their child is merely ‘advancing’ the asset to such adult child as such adult child will eventually be entitled to such asset upon such parent’s death. The whole point of a beneficiary designation, however, is to specifically state what is to happen to an asset upon death.
As a result, the defendant was entitled to retain the proceeds of his mother’s RRIF, as the plaintiffs unable to establish any intention of their mother to benefit her estate with the asset without the benefit of a presumption of resulting trust.
In light of the conflicting applications of Pecore under the Calmusky and Mak Estate decisions, it will be interesting to see how this issue may be further developed in the case law. For the time being, however, it may be prudent to take care in documenting a client’s wishes to benefit an adult child by way of beneficiary designation in the same manner as we typically would in situations of jointly-held property.
Thank you for reading.
The answer is no in Ontario. Currently, only a limited number of Canadian provinces (Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan) will allow a policy holder to sell his/her insurance policy to a third party.
Life insurance policies are commonplace in Canada. A life insurance policy is a contract with the insurance company and it is a contract to pay out a sum of money upon the death of the life insured. While most people may be content to maintain their life insurance policy, as is, until their death, those who are in need of cash during their lives may wish to sell the policy for a present-day payout while the purchaser maintains the premiums (and any other obligations to the insurance company) in exchange for the payout on the death. The sale of a life insurance policy by the policy holder is also known in the industry as a “life settlement”.
According to Tyler Wade’s article on ratehub.ca, the practice of selling one’s own insurance policy was popularized in the U.S. when investors saw the AIDS epidemic in the 1908’s as an opportunity where they could offer those suffering from AIDS a payout during their lifetime in exchange for the death benefit in their policies believing, then, that this group of individuals had a shorter life span. The vulnerability of the individuals within this market group and the potential for financial abuse are often cited as the reasons why life settlements ought to be prohibited for public policy reasons.
In Ontario, life settlements are prohibited under section 115 of the Insurance Act, as follows:
“Trafficking in life insurance policies prohibited
115 Any person, other than an insurer or its duly authorized agent, who advertises or holds himself, herself or itself out as a purchaser of life insurance policies or of benefits thereunder, or who trafficks or trades in life insurance policies for the purpose of procuring the sale, surrender, transfer, assignment, pledge or hypothecation thereof to himself, herself or itself or any other person, is guilty of an offence.”
In 2017 and 2018, there was an attempt to legalize life settlements by amending section 115 (through Bill 162) and by amending the Act to allow third-party lenders to use life insurance policies as collateral (through Bill 20). Both Bills received opposition from non-profit groups like the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association due to the potential for financial abuse and section 115 of the Act has remained as is in Ontario.
While it is difficult to comment on how the potential for financial abuse can be mitigated by implementing countermeasures, it is unfortunate that Ontarians have limited options once the policy is in place.
Thanks for reading!
Life insurance can be an important part of an estate plan, be it taken out to fund payment of anticipated tax liabilities triggered by death, to assist in supporting surviving family members, or to equalize the distribution of an estate within the context of the gift of an asset of significant value (such as a family business) to one child to the exclusion of another, who can be designated as beneficiary of the policy.
In a time when many Canadians are facing their mortality and taking the pause from normal life as an opportunity to review and update estate plans, many Canadians are turning their minds to other aspects of estate planning, including supplementing an estate plan with life insurance. A recent Financial Post article suggests that life insurance applications have doubled during the pandemic, as more Canadians take steps to plan for the unexpected during this period of uncertainty.
At the same time, premiums for new permanent life insurance policies have increased by as much as 27%. While term life insurance policies may remain a more affordable option, they too are anticipated to become more expensive, with upcoming premium increases of up to 20%. The increase in premiums has been linked to lowering interest rates and restrictions to the investment options available to insurance companies.
Other changes to life insurance during the pandemic include the exclusion of the standard medical examination required in order to obtain some types of coverage. The maximum coverage offered by many providers without a medical exam has increased to reflect limitations to the ability for applicants to safely attend an in-person examinations. For other providers and types of plans, medical examinations are simply on hold.
Lastly, insurance companies have updated intake questionnaires to include COVID-screening questions. If an applicant is experiencing potential symptoms, they may be required to wait two weeks before taking out the policy, but are not typically ineligible from coverage altogether. Some insurers, however, are no longer offering new coverage to seniors or others who are at a higher risk of complications during the period of the pandemic.
One life insurance provider has already doubled its projected COVID-19-related payouts during 2020 from the figures it had released earlier this year. While there may have been changes to certain eligibility requirements and the cost of life insurance, it remains a suitable estate planning tool for many Canadians.
Thank you for reading,
Other blog posts that you may enjoy reading:
Today on Hull on Estates, Natalia Angelini and Doreen So discuss life insurance policies, separation agreements, and the limits to section 72 of the Succession Law Reform Act in Birnie v Birnie, 2019 ONSC 2152.
Should you have any questions, please email us at email@example.com or leave a comment on our blog.
Earlier this year, we argued the appeal in Moore v Sweet before the Supreme Court of Canada. On Friday, the Court released its decision, which has provided what, in our view, was necessary clarification of the juristic reason component of the test for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court has also confirmed the circumstances in which a constructive trust remedy is appropriate within the context of unjust enrichment. Our firm was pleased to argue the appeal at the Supreme Court in February 2018 and to learn on Friday of our client’s success in the reversal of the split decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The facts of the case were relatively straightforward: The appellant had previously been married to the deceased. Around the time of their separation, the appellant and the deceased entered into an oral agreement whereby the appellant would remain the designated beneficiary for the life insurance policy on the deceased’s life on the basis that she would continue to pay the related premiums. The appellant paid the premiums on the life insurance policy until the deceased’s death approximately 13 years later, while, unbeknownst to the appellant, the deceased named his new common law spouse (the respondent), as irrevocable beneficiary of the policy soon after the oral agreement was made. At the time of his death, the deceased’s estate was insolvent.
At the application hearing, Justice Wilton-Siegel awarded the appellant the proceeds of the life insurance policy on the basis of unjust enrichment. The respondent was successful in arguing before the Ontario Court of Appeal that the designation of an irrevocable beneficiary under the Insurance Act was a “juristic reason” that permitted what was otherwise considered the unjust enrichment of the respondent at the appellant’s expense. The appellant was subsequently granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Justice Coté, writing for the Majority, agreed that the test for unjust enrichment was flexible and permits courts to use it in the promotion of justice and fairness where required by good conscience. The Court clarified that the juristic reason permitting an unjust enrichment needs to justify not only the enrichment of one party but also the corresponding deprivation of the other party. While the irrevocable beneficiary designation may have required the payment of proceeds for the policy to the respondent, it could not be considered as also requiring the appellant’s deprivation of the proceeds to which she was entitled under the oral agreement. The Court found that a designation of an irrevocable beneficiary under the Insurance Act precludes claims by creditors of an estate, but it does not state “with irresistible clearness” that it also precludes a claim in unjust enrichment by a party who has a contractual or equitable interest in the proceeds.
While reaching the opposite result, the dissent acknowledged that this was a difficult appeal, in which both parties were innocent and had strong moral claims to the proceeds of the life insurance policy.
We thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to argue this case before the Supreme Court of Canada earlier this year and look forward to following the role of this decision in further developments in the Canadian law of unjust enrichment.
Thank you for reading.
As most of our readers know, when a person dies without leaving adequate support for their dependants, the courts may intervene to ensure that such dependants receive a fair share of the estate. Furthermore, pursuant to subsections 63(2) and 68(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA), the Court has flexibility in the form of support ordered and against what portion of the Estate such support will be charged against.
Although the SLRA provides the Court with flexibility in the types of orders it can make, case law in Ontario also provides some guidance as to the priority of assets to be used in making support orders.
Priority of Support from “Traditional Estate Assets”
In Matthews v Matthews Estate, the Superior Court considered the issue of which assets should be used in making an order for dependant’s support. The assets available were both assets falling inside the estate (being mainly a ½ interest in a matrimonial home) and assets falling outside the estate, but subject to the clawback provision of section 72 of the SLRA (being a $1,000,000.00 life insurance policy). In that case, the Court made it clear that:
“where property not normally part of the Estate is brought into the Estate by virtue of the provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act to the detriment of those designated beneficiaries, care must be taken to insure that the burden of any support order in favour of the Applicant be borne by the traditional assets of the Respondent’s estate before any encroachment is made on the life insurance policy proceeds.”
No Priority Among Section 72 Assets
While the Court has set out that traditional estate assets should be used to satisfy dependant support claims before section 72 assets, there is no priority among section 72 assets, or even any requirement that an applicant seek to obtain support from all section 72 assets.
In Stevens v Fisher Estate, the estate itself was insolvent due to the debts of the Deceased. The Deceased, however, had three life insurance policies: a $84,000.00 group life insurance policy naming a lifelong friend/former common law spouse as beneficiary, a $50,000.00 insurance policy naming his 32 year old daughter as beneficiary, and a $250,000.00 life insurance policy to be held in trust for his two younger (but still adult) children. The common-law spouse of the Deceased commenced a claim but sought support only from the $84,000.00 group life insurance policy. While the beneficiary of the $84,000.00 group life insurance policy argued that the Applicant should look to the other life insurance policies before resorting to the group life insurance policy, the Court found that there was no priority of estate assets for the Applicant to look to before turning to the $84,000.00 policy.
While Stevens v Fisher Estate indicates that there is no requirement that an applicant for support look to all section 72 assets, it’s important to consider the implications of seeking support from only some, as opposed to all, section 72 assets.
Thanks for reading!
For many Canadians, one or more life insurance policies represent an important component of an estate plan. If a policy cannot be honoured as a result of the cause of the insured’s death, this may completely frustrate his or her testamentary wishes.
The terms of life insurance policies typically address the issue of whether a beneficiary will be entitled to the insurance proceeds in the event that an individual commits suicide. Policy terms typically include a restriction as to the payout of the policy if the insured dies by his or her own hands within a certain of number of years from the date on which the policy is taken out (most often two years).
With the decriminalization of physician-assisted death, there was initially some concern regarding whether medical assistance in dying would be distinguished from suicide for the purposes of life insurance. The preamble to the related federal legislation, however, distinguishes between the act of suicide and obtaining medical assistance in dying.
As mentioned by Suzana Popovic-Montag in a recent blog entry, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association suggested in 2016 that, if a Canadian follows the legislated process for obtaining medial assistance in dying, life insurance providers will pay out on policies that are less than two years old. Since then, the Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017 has come into force to provide protection and clarity for Ontario patients and their families. This legislation has resulted in amendments to various provincial legislation, including the Excellent Care for All Act, 2010, a new section of which now reads as follows:
…the fact that a person received medical assistance in dying may not be invoked as a reason to deny a right or refuse a benefit or any other sum which would otherwise be provided under a contract or statute…unless an express contrary intention appears in the statute.
The amendments provided for within the legislation introduced by the Ontario government represent an important step in the recognition of physician-assisted death as a right that is distinguishable from the act of suicide. They also confirm the right of individuals who access medical assistance in dying to benefit their survivors with life insurance policies or other benefits.
Thank you for reading,
Other blog posts that may be of interest:
Beneficiary designations for a life insurance policy can be an important estate planning tool. However, as with any testamentary document or disposition, questions can arise about the insured’s actual intentions after death.
In the recent decision of Sun Life v Nelson Estate et al., 2017 ONSC 4987, the Court was asked to resolve such an ambiguity by considering the validity of an insurance declaration under the deceased’s Will and the validity of a change of beneficiary designation on file with the insurer.
Juanita (the “Deceased”) died in December 2009. The Deceased was entitled to group life insurance coverage with Sun Life in the amount of $148,500.00. Following the Deceased’s death, Sun Life deposited the proceeds of the policy into Court. The Deceased’s two children (the “Respondents”) brought a Motion for a declaration that they were solely entitled to the proceeds.
The Deceased had been married to the respondent, Justin Nelson (“Justin”), since 2006. Following the Deceased’s death, Justin signed an acknowledgment that the Respondents were entitled to the proceeds of the policy. He had made no claim to the proceeds since the Deceased’s death, and his whereabouts were unknown as of the hearing of the Motion.
Beneficiary Declarations Under the Insurance Act
Pursuant to section 190 of the Ontario Insurance Act, an insurance may designate the insured, the insured’s personal representative or a specific beneficiary pursuant to the insurance contract or a declaration, including a declaration under the insured’s Will.
Section 171(1) of the Act sets out the criteria for a valid declaration. The declaration must be made by way of an instrument signed by the insured. The declaration must also be an instrument with respect to which an endorsement is made on the policy, that identifies the contract, or that describes the insurance or insurance fund (or a part thereof).
The Issue in Sun Life v Nelson Estate
In 2007, the Deceased’s employer’s group policy with Sun Life was terminated and transferred to Desjardins Financial Security (“Desjardins”). The Deceased completed an application for enrolment and an irrevocable beneficiary designation in favour of the Respondents. She also advised her financial advisor that she had changed the beneficiary for the policy from Justin to the Respondents.
However, after the Deceased’s death, it was discovered that her coverage had remained with Sun Life instead of being transferred to Desjardins because she was disabled at the time of the transfer. As a result, there were two beneficiary designations in the Deceased’s file.
The Deceased’s Last Will and Testament also included a beneficiary declaration that directed the “proceeds of the insurance policy” to be held in trust for the benefit of the Respondents. The term “insurance policy” was not defined in the Will, and the Deceased was insured under two policies at the time of her death.
Thus, the Court was asked to consider the validity of the declaration under the Will and the validity of the change of beneficiary designation in 2007.
Justice Brown’s Decision
After reviewing the facts, the Honourable Justice Carole Brown concluded that the declaration under the Will was ambiguous and did not refer to a specific insurance policy. Accordingly, the declaration under the Will failed.
However, with respect to the change of beneficiary designation form, the Court was satisfied that the Deceased clearly intended for the Respondents to be the beneficiaries of the policy. The evidence before the Court included the Deceased’s statements to the Respondents, the change of beneficiary designation form and the fact that Justin had signed an acknowledgment that the Respondents were the beneficiaries of the policy.
In the result, the Court held that the change of beneficiary designation form was valid within the meaning of section 171(1), and ordered that the proceeds be paid out to the Respondents equally.
Thank you for reading,
Umair Abdul Qadir
While direct donations of cash or securities are still king when it comes to charitable giving in Canada, there are many other ways to donate. If you’re considering a larger gift, it pays to look at some alternatives.
A little bit of planning and a look at different options ensures that charitable gifts are made in the most tax- effective manner possible, are directed to the charities you most want to support, and are best suited to your financial situation and needs.
Here are some options to consider.
A charitable gift made in your will can be claimed against up to 100% of your net income on your final two lifetime tax returns. If the bequest is too large to claim on the final return, the surplus can be carried back to the previous tax year. There are several types of bequests possible:
- Specific bequests: an amount or specific piece of property paid out before any residual gifts
- Residual bequests: a share or percentage of the residue of estate
- Contingent bequest: the naming of an alternate charitable beneficiary in case the terms of an original bequest can’t be met
- Bequest subject to a trust: a trust established at death that typically provides lifetime income to one or more named beneficiaries, and a future gift to one or more charities.
Bequests can be tricky if not executed properly. This article provides details on the key pitfalls to avoid:
There are several ways that you can make a substantial but affordable gift using life insurance.
- Buy a new life insurance policy and name your charity as the owner and beneficiary. The premiums you pay qualify for a charitable tax receipt.
- Donate an existing policy to a charity. You’ll receive a charitable tax receipt for the fair market value of your life insurance policy.
- Name a charity as the beneficiary of an existing policy. Your estate will receive a charitable tax receipt when the proceeds are paid to the charity.
Private charitable foundation
A private charitable foundation is a trust or corporation that you establish and operate for charitable purposes. It’s a permanent institution – carrying your name or legacy, or that of a loved one – through which charitable work may be funded. Because of the costs of establishing and operating a foundation, you likely need initial funding of several hundred thousand dollars to make the structure worthwhile.
Private charitable foundations can be complex structures to establish and administer, so make sure you rely on professional advice for your foundation’s creation and operation.
Donor-advised funds are a flexible and cost-effective alternative to establishing a private charitable foundation.
You start by donating a lump sum amount – typically $10,000 or more – to a charitable gift fund administered by either a charity or a financial institution. Like a private charitable foundation, you receive a tax credit for the full amount donated, up to 75% of your net income for the year. Any excess amounts can be carried forward for up to five years to generate tax credits in those years. Each year, you direct to what charities you want grant money given and in what amounts.
Here’s a detailed comparison of private charitable foundations versus donor-advised funds:
There are a number of other planned giving options as well, from beneficiary designations of an RRSP or RRIF, to charitable remainder trusts, to charitable gift annuities.
But if you weigh all your options, and decide to make a simple direct gift, the Canada Revenue Agency’s charitable donation tax credit calculator is a great way to get an estimate of the tax impact of your donation:
Thanks for reading,
Life insurance is a common estate planning tool, whether it may be engaged to increase the assets available to beneficiaries, to assist in equalizing inheritances received by multiple beneficiaries (for instance, when one child will receive an interest in a family business and other assets are not available to leave an equal benefit for other children), or to fund specific types of expenses that will become payable upon death. While the owner of a life insurance policy is more often than not the person whose life is insured, this is not always the case. In Canada, in order to purchase a life insurance policy on another person’s life, the policy owner must have an “insurable interest” in the policy subject’s life. Canada’s Insurance Act defines an insurable interest as follows:
Without restricting the meaning of “insurable interest”, a person, in this section called the “primary person”, has an insurable interest,
(a) in the case of a primary person who is a natural person, in his or her own life and in the lives of,
(i) the primary person’s child or grandchild,
(ii) the primary person’s spouse,
(iii) a person on whom the primary person is wholly or partly
dependent for, or from whom the primary person is receiving, support or education,
(iv) the primary person’s employee, and
(v) a person in the duration of whose life the primary person has a pecuniary interest; and
(b) in the case of a primary person that is not a natural person, in the lives of,
(i) a director, officer or employee of the primary person, and
(ii) a person in the duration of whose life the primary person has a pecuniary interest.
Other jurisdictions similarly allow individuals or companies to take out life insurance policies on the life of another on the basis of an insurable interest in certain circumstances. As David Freedman mentioned in his recent blog post, Disney had a life insurance policy worth $50 million in American funds on the life of Carrie Fisher as one of the stars of the Star Wars franchise, which Disney purchased in 2012 for $4 billion. This is reported to be the largest ever payout of a life insurance policy of this kind.
There is much speculation with respect to how Disney will fill the void left by Fisher’s death in the final entry in the current Star Wars trilogy (Fisher had apparently finished filming for Episode VIII prior to her passing). Some suggest that the script for the following installment will be drastically re-written as a result of Fisher’s absence. Others have referred to the posthumous appearance of Peter Cushing in Star Wars: Rogue One (I personally had no idea that it was not the original actor himself until I read Suzana’s blog on the topic) in support of the potential to use CGI technology to allow Princess-turned-General Leia Organa to appear again in Episode IX. As done with Cushing in Rogue One, Disney could, in theory, digitally impose Fisher’s face onto another actor’s body. In any event, the life insurance proceeds payable to Disney will no doubt assist in offsetting any loss that it will suffer as a result of Carrie Fisher’s untimely passing.
Have a nice weekend.
Other articles that you may enjoy reading: