Tag: Nova Scotia
Nova Scotia is proposing legislation that will make it the first jurisdiction in North America to adopt “presumed consent” around organ donation.
Under the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act, all people in Nova Scotia will be presumed to agree to organ donation upon their death, unless they opt out. The Act does not apply to those under 19, or those without decision-making capacity. In those cases, a parent, guardian or alternate decision maker may consent on their behalf.
The Act will not be proclaimed immediately: it is to take effect in 12 to 18 months, so as to allow for public education and support for health care workers.
Under previous Nova Scotia legislation, the right of a family member to veto an organ donation decision made by a deceased was removed. See our blog on the topic, here.
Several European countries already have presumed consent laws for organ donation.
In Ontario, the current system is an “opt-in” system, rather than an “opt-out” system. Under the Trillium Gift of Life Act, consent must be given prior to the removal of organs after death. The person must be at least 16 years of age. In addition to the person, other persons are entitled to consent on the person’s behalf. These include,
- a spouse, either married or common-law;
- if there is no spouse or the spouse is not readily available, the person’s children;
- if there are no children, or if none are readily available, either of the person’s parents;
- if there are no parents, or none are readily available, any of the person’s siblings;
- if there are no siblings, or none are readily available, any of the person’s next of kin;
- if there are no next of kin, or none are readily available, the person lawfully in possession of the body, other than the administrative head of the hospital, where the person dies in a hospital. Further, the coroner, Public Guardian and Trustee, embalmer or funeral director are not authorized to consent.
Consent cannot be given if the person has reason to believe that the person who died or whose death is imminent would have objected.
Organ donation has helped so many. Please consider opting in to Ontario’s organ donation program.
Have a great weekend.
A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia considers the issue of which individuals may qualify as persons having an interest in an estate.
Kenny v. Kenny Estate, 2016 NSSC 214 (CanLII), featured a situation in which the deceased, a father of two, had executed a new will after his wife and son had died. The deceased’s last will and testament named his daughter as sole residuary beneficiary. His prior will named both children (or their surviving issue) as alternate beneficiaries in the event that his wife predeceased him. The granddaughter of the testator, being the daughter of the predeceasing son, sought to have the will proved in solemn form as a “person interested in the estate”.
The application was heard within the context of Nova Scotia’s Probate Act and the related procedure and regulations. The Probate Act refers to the requirement to prove a will in solemn form on application by an interested person seeking this relief.
In determining that the granddaughter qualified as an interested person and had standing to bring such an application, the Court considered the following facts:
- The granddaughter would have benefitted as an alternate residuary beneficiary under a prior will (as a result of her grandmother’s death and her father’s death before that of her grandfather);
- The inclusion of grandchildren as issue is consistent with the jurisprudence and
the definition of the word used in Nova Scotia’s Intestate Succession Act;
- The granddaughter was a lineal descendant of the testator, and, accordingly, qualified as his “issue”.
In Ontario, an “interested person” who objects to a will and seeks to have it proven in solemn form can, similarly, request this relief pursuant to Rule 75.01 of our Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently confirmed that the right of an interested person to have a will proved in solemn form is not absolute. An interested person may request proof in solemn form but cannot require it, as it is in the discretion of the Court alone to determine whether the testamentary instrument ought to be proved and, if so, the manner in which this is to be done.
Thank you for reading.
In Nova Scotia, the Personal Directive Act SNS 2008, c8, came into force on April 1, 2010. Approximately 5 years later, the court in that province heard and decided the first case involving an interpretation of the Act.
B.M. v. K.S., 2015 NSSC 105 centered around “Mrs. L” and the documents she executed on March 1, 2012, which included a Power of Attorney and a Personal Directive, providing instructions for her future care. Under the Power of Attorney, Mrs. L appointed K.S. as co-attorney with BMO Trust Company, whereas she appointed her son, B.M. as delegate under the Personal Directive.
Mrs. L’s Personal Directive included a clause which specified her express wish to live at home as long as possible:
I express the wish that my delegate (in conjunction with my attorney) ensure that I am able to live in my house for the remainder of my life, with appropriate care arranged, including the assistance of a full-time caregiver to allow me to remain in my house, no matter what my physical or mental condition might be.
After Mrs. L’s husband passed away, she began to deteriorate mentally and physically, and eventually lost the ability to make personal care decisions independently. Her condition required costly home caregiving (approximately $240,000-$250,000 per year). Although Mrs. L had set up a trust fund for the purposes of home care, by the date of the hearing, the funds would only be sufficient to cover approximately two more years of the arrangement.
The litigation arose over a difference in opinion as to whether Mrs. L should remain in her home as long as the finances permitted or be moved to a nursing home in Halifax, closer to B.M. and B.M. argued would provide her with a better quality of life.
One important analysis undertaken by the court in this case was the lack of clear differentiation between a wish and an instruction within the Personal Directives Act. In these specific circumstances, the judge noted that the personal directive was to take precedence, and clearly set out Mrs. L`s wishes. The court ruled that Mrs. L`s Personal Directive should be followed, and therefore she was to stay at home with caregiving services for as long as possible.
Thank you for reading.