Tag: ontario funeral

18 Jun

Regulating Funeral Service Providers

Paul Emile Trudelle Funerals Tags: , , , , 0 Comments

Funeral services providers are heavily regulated in Ontario. They must follow the provisions of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act (“the Act”). Under the Act, a service provider’s licence may not be renewed if “the past conduct of the applicant or of an interested person in respect of the applicant affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty”.

The Act is administered by the Bereavement Authority of Ontario. The Registrar of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario can make the decision of whether to revoke a licence or not. A licencee who disagrees with the Registrar’s decision can request a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“the LAT”). LAT decisions can be appealed to the Divisional Court. In considering an appeal, the standard of review applied by the Divisional Court on a question of law is “correctness”, and on a question of fact or mixed fact and law, is on a “palpable and overriding error” standard.

Registrar, Funeral Burial, and Cremation Services Act v. Thomas was an appeal by the Registrar to the Divisional Court. The licencee’s funeral preplanner licence was revoked by the Registrar. The Registrar’s decision was reversed by the LAT. The Registrar appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Registrar alleged that the past conduct of the licencee in question demonstrated that she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. On an agreed statement of facts, it was agreed that the licencee misappropriated funds from consumers in two separate instances. In one instance, the licencee suggested that in order to facilitate a transaction, the consumer transfer payments to the licencee’s personal account, which she would later transfer to her employer. Unfortunately, not all of the funds were transferred by the licencee to the employer. $1,000 was not transferred, apparently by inadvertence: the licencee claimed that she was not aware that she had received the transfer. In a second instance, the consumer preplanned his interment space and a monument. However, he could not make full payment, and died before full payment was made. $1,652 remained outstanding on his contract before he died. The licencee made the payment from the trust account of another family, and billed the deceased’s family after the deceased died. The payment made by the deceased’s family went, unbeknownst to them, to the account of the other family.

The LAT considered the fact that the licencee did not misappropriate funds for her own benefit, and there was, ultimately, no harm to her consumer clients. While the licencee’s actions may have been “deficient and could have been more professional”, the transactions did not lead to a concern that she would act without integrity and honesty. The LAT stated “Given this experience, I expect that [the licencee] has learned that she must do a better job separating her personal relationships with her clients from her professional role.”

The Divisional Court upheld the licence reinstatement decision made by the LAT. It found that the LAT properly focused its analysis on the nature and severity of the misconduct in determining whether it gave rise to reason to believe that the licencee cannot perform her functions in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity. The LAT made no error of law, and no palpable and overriding error in the application of the test.

Although the licencee in that case was allowed to keep her licence, it is comforting to know that the actions of funeral professionals are closely scrutinized, and that those who will not follow the law or carry on business with integrity and honesty will not be allowed to carry on business.

Thank you for reading. Have a great weekend.

Paul Trudelle

17 Feb

A Funeral for the Ages?

Hull & Hull LLP Estate Planning, Funerals, General Interest, In the News Tags: , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Celebrities and Explosions.

Now that I have your attention, yes today’s estate blog is actually about celebrities and explosions.

Johnny Depp, the famed actor.

Now I really have your attention.

I recently came across this article in The Guardian, which highlighted the efforts made by Depp to plan Hunter S. Thompson’s funeral after his passing in February 2005.

Thompson, well known for authoring Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas had made requests prior to his passing to Depp, a close friend, as to how he wanted his ashes to be scattered.  Depp stuck to his word and took steps to ensure that Thompson’s last wishes came true and made sure that “his pal was sent out the way he wanted to go out”.

As such, Thompson’s ashes were fired from a cannon that was placed atop a 153-foot tower shaped like a double-thumbed fist, clutching a peyote button, on Thompson’s Colorado farm.  Yes, apparently Thompson loved explosions.

The total cost of the funeral was $3 million, which apparently, was funded entirely by Depp.

The surviving spouse, Anita, Thompson, supported Depp’s decision and even went on to state that the grounds where the cannon stood, remains a meditation labyrinth that is used every day at Thompson’s Colorado farm.

In Ontario, an estate trustee has the paramount legal authority to determine the place and manner of burial.  There is no legal requirement for the estate trustee to follow the wishes expressed by the deceased (or the family of the deceased).  Where a Will includes burial instructions, such instructions are precatory and not binding on the estate trustee.

Find this topic interesting?  Please consider these related Hull & Hull LLP Blogs:

Noah Weisberg


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



Hull e-State Planner is a comprehensive estate planning software designed to make the estate planning process simple, efficient and client friendly.

Try it here!




  • Costs in SDA Proceedings: A Lesson from Rudin-Brown Today's article delves into the costs decision of Rudin-Brown… https://t.co/xoakfVgo4n
  • The Intersection of Family and Estate Issues – Does an estate have to pay retroactive child support? Last Monday's… https://t.co/Q1gCHnS6xY
  • Hundreds affected by IVF doctor’s alleged improper actions. Read today's article here: https://t.co/dDxepM30Ci… https://t.co/D0il5nbkuI
  • Today's article highlights some key take aways from the paper: “The Annotated Guardianship Application – The View F… https://t.co/WaEM4anqQv
  • Today's review of session 2 of the @Advocates_Soc's Examinations for Discovery: Building Block Series, highlights s… https://t.co/VzZiNUHQuI
  • Changes to Probate Coming January 1, 2022 Today's article outlines the upcoming changes to estate law in Ontario.… https://t.co/PPFNrLSI2H