Tag: power of attorney
I hope that everyone had a wonderful long weekend and has been able to check a couple of items off their summer “bucket list”. If the summer has been passing you by a little too quickly, and you feel that you are missing out—don’t worry! A recent essay in the Wall Street Journal makes the case for, at the least, scaling back on bucket lists:
Nobody really needs to go falconing in Mongolia or ride on the back of a nurse shark in Alaska for their life to be complete. They need to raise kids who won’t grow up to hate them. Or take care of their aging mother and make sure she gets a nice send-off.
That being said, there are a couple of things that we at Hull & Hull would recommend adding to your “bucket list”:
- Have a Will and Powers of Attorney: If you don’t take the time to set out what your wishes are, you risk those wishes being either unknown, or not respected.
- Review your Will and Powers of Attorney & Know what they say: You should be confident that you not only know exactly what your Will and Powers of Attorney say, but that they continue to represent your wishes. Particularly if your estate planning documents were prepared a number of years ago, it is important to review these documents and ensure that you recall their contents, so as to avoid any unexpected outcomes. If you are familiar with the contents of your Will and Powers of Attorney, you are more likely to be triggered by changes in circumstances that may affect you, and to take steps to adjust your estate planning documents accordingly.
- Revisit your estate plan: It is important to review your estate plan and consult with your lawyer regularly. There are a number of life events that can impact the effect of your Will, including marriage, divorce, the birth of a child, the death of an estate trustee, the death of a beneficiary, a beneficiary developing a disability, changes in the law, and the list goes on. If you aren’t revisiting and updating your Will regularly, based on changes in circumstances, the way in which your estate is ultimately distributed on your death could be vastly different than what you originally envisioned.
Thanks for reading,
You may also find these other posts to be of interest:
Being a Power of Attorney for Property can often be a difficult and thankless job. It is not unforeseeable that, after originally accepting the job, circumstances may arise which leads the Attorney for Property to want to resign. But how do you go about actually resigning as Attorney for Property? Is it enough to simply stop acting as Attorney for Property, or to loudly scream “I quit!” to those that have caused you the frustration, or are additional steps required for the resignation to become effective?
The resignation process for an Attorney for Property is governed by section 11(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act, which provides:
“An attorney under a continuing power of attorney may resign but, if the attorney has acted under the power of attorney, the resignation is not effective until the attorney delivers a copy of the resignation to,
(a) the grantor;
(b) any other attorneys under the power of attorney;
(c) the person named by the power of attorney as a substitute for the attorney who is resigning, if the power of attorney provides for the substitution of another person; and
(d) unless the power of attorney provides otherwise, the grantor’s spouse or partner and the relatives of the grantor who are known to the attorney and reside in Ontario, if,
(i) the attorney is of the opinion that the grantor is incapable of managing property, and
(ii) the power of attorney does not provide for the substitution of another person or the substitute is not able and willing to act.”
As a result of section 11(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act, if an Attorney for Property wishes to resign from their position they must put such resignation in writing, which must then be delivered to the certain individuals, including the grantor, any other Attorneys for Property named in the document, as well as the grantor’s spouse and next-of-kin if the grantor is incapable and the Power of Attorney does not provide for a substitute Attorney for Property or the substitute is not willing or able to act. Once the resignation has been received by all of such individuals, the resignation is effective, and the individual is no longer the grantor’s Attorney for Property.
It should of course be noted that resigning as Attorney for Property would not release the individual of any liability for their historic administration of the grantor’s property. To do so, the resigning Attorney for Property would likely have to commence an Application to Pass Accounts regarding their management of the grantor’s property, or seek a release from the grantor if the grantor was still capable. This, however, is a topic for a further blog on a different day.
Thank you for reading.
When concerns are raised about the conduct of an Attorney for Property, those raising the concerns often seek an Order compelling the Attorney for Property to commence an Application to Pass Accounts pursuant to section 42 of the Substitute Decisions Act. Should such an Application to Pass Accounts be commenced, the objecting party will often make allegations against the Attorney for Property that the incapable person and/or estate has suffered damages as a result of the Attorney for Property’s conduct, often seeking monetary damages against the Attorney for Property in relation to such objections.
An interesting question was recently posed to me in the context of such an Application to Pass Accounts for an Attorney for Property. Can the objecting party pursue damages against the Attorney for Property within the actual Application to Pass Accounts itself, or do they need to commence a separate claim against the Attorney for Property for the recovery of such damages?
The ability to pursue damages against an Estate Trustee within the Application to Pass Accounts process is well established by statute, with section 49(3) of the Estates Act providing:
“The judge, on passing any accounts under this section, has power to inquire into any complaint or claim by any person interested in the taking of the accounts of misconduct, neglect, or default on the part of the executor, administrator or trustee occasioning financial loss to the estate or trust fund, and the judge, on proof of such claim, may order the executor, administrator or trustee, to pay such sum by way of damages or otherwise as the judge considers proper and just to the estate or trust fund, but any order made under this subsection is subject to appeal.” [emphasis added]
Section 49(3) of the Estates Act makes it clear that a separate claim against an Estate Trustee is not necessary to pursue damages for breach of trust when an Application to Pass Accounts has been commenced, and that the Judge may order damages against the Estate Trustee within the actual Application to Pass Accounts itself. Perhaps importantly however, the Estates Act appears to suggest that section 49 only applies to a passing of accounts for an “executor, administrator or trustee under a will“, making no reference to an Attorney for Property. Sections 42(7) and 42(8) of the Substitute Decisions Act also set out the “powers of the court” in an Application to Pass Accounts for an Attorney for Property, with such provisions notably containing no reference to the ability to order damages against the Attorney for Property for any wrongdoing.
As there appears to be no statutory equivalent to section 49(3) of the Estates Act which specifically contemplates that it applies to Attorneys for Property, and the ability to pursue damages within the Application to Pass Accounts itself in other circumstances appears to be derived from statute, the question of whether there is a “legislative gap” as it relates to the ability to pursue damages against an Attorney for Property within an Application to Pass Accounts can at least appear to be raised. If such a “legislative gap” does exist, would this mean that a separate claim would have to be commenced by the objector to pursue such damages even when an Application to Pass Accounts was currently before the court?
When I have raised the question to other estate practitioners, some have suggested that while there may be no statutory authority to order such damages against the Attorney for Property within the Application to Pass Accounts, the court may have inherent jurisdiction to order such damages by way of a “surcharge order” in the Application to Pass Accounts. Some have also suggested that as section 42(6) of the Substitute Decisions Act contemplates that the procedure to be utilized on passing an Attorney’s accounts is to be the same as that as an executor’s accounts, that this should be read as evidence to show that section 49(3) of the Estates Act would apply to the passing of an Attorney for Property’s accounts. In response to this, I would suggest that it is at least questionable if section 49(3) of the Estates Act is “procedural” in nature, and, even if it is found to be procedural, whether the “powers of the court” provisions of sections 42(7) and 42(8) of the Substitute Decisions Act, which notably does not include the power to award damages against the Attorney for Property for wrongdoing, would trump section 49(3) of the Estates Act in any event.
I am aware of no decision which specifically addresses the issue of whether there is a “legislative gap” when it comes to whether damages can be sought against an Attorney for Property within the Application to Pass Accounts itself. While the issue may simply be academic at this time, it is not unforeseeable that someone could attempt to argue that an objector cannot seek damages against the Attorney for Property within the Application to Pass Accounts itself, and that a separate claim is required. If such an argument is successfully raised, and the length of time between the alleged wrong and the separate claim being commenced was such that the limitation period may have expired, it is not unforeseeable that the Attorney for Property may attempt to argue that the separate claim must now be dismissed as a result of the expiry of the limitation period.
Thank you for reading.
There is a great scene in the movie, The Post, where the Washington Post has to decide whether to publish the Pentagon Papers. If the posting ‘damages national security’, they will be faced with a lawsuit. The subjectivity of what may damage national security, and the discussion that ensued between the lawyers, board members, and journalists at the Post got me thinking about end of life wishes and the use of boilerplate clauses.
Almost all powers of attorney for personal care include language addressing end of life decisions. Common is the boilerplate ‘no heroic measures’ clause, which often reads as follows, “…if there is no reasonable expectation of my recovery…I be allowed to die and not be kept alive by artificial or heroic measures”.
But what does ‘heroic measures’ actually mean? For some, such as in Bonnie Grover’s 1995 article in the Journal of Law & Policy: “heroic measures conjures up visions of brilliant and daring doctors, enormously skilled nurses and technicians, high-tech machines, masses of tubing and bottles, and perhaps even a patient lying somewhere amongst it all…”. For others, “…medical practice recommends use of heroic measures if there is a scintilla of a chance that the patient will recover, on the assumption that the measures will be discontinued should the patient improve”. Differing interpretations go on and on. So what should be done about it?
To ensure that end of life wishes are carried out as intended, grantors, in addition to making a power of attorney, should consider making a living will/advance directive, and discuss their wishes with their attorney. Clear instructions and wishes should also be conveyed to the drafting solicitor.
Drafting solicitors should review end of life clauses in detail with their client, make sure they are understood, and ensure that detailed notes are taken.
Find this blog interesting, please consider these other related blogs:
While digital assets constitute “property” in the sense appearing within provincial legislation, the rights of fiduciaries in respect of these assets are less clear than those relating to tangible assets. For example, in Ontario, the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, and Estates Administration Act provide that attorneys or guardians of property and estate trustees, respectively, are authorized to manage the property of an incapable person or estate, but these pieces of legislation do not explicitly refer to digital assets.
As we have previously reported, although the Uniform Law Conference of Canada introduced the Uniform Access to Digital Assets by Fiduciaries Act in August 2016, the uniform legislation has yet to be adopted by the provinces of Canada. However, recent legislative amendment in one of Ontario’s neighbours to the west has recently enhanced the ability of estate trustees to access and administer digital assets.
In Alberta, legislation has been updated to clarify that the authority of an estate trustee extends to digital assets. Alberta’s Estate Administration Act makes specific reference to “online accounts” within the context of an estate trustee’s duty to identify estate assets and liabilities, providing clarification that digital assets are intended to be included within the scope of estate assets that a trustee is authorized to administer.
In other Canadian provinces, fiduciaries continue to face barriers in attempting to access digital assets. Until the law is updated to reflect the prevalence of technology and value, whether financial or sentimental, of information stored electronically, it may be prudent for drafting solicitors whose clients possess such assets to include specific provisions within Powers of Attorney for Property and Wills to clarify the authority of fiduciaries to deal with digital assets.
Thank you for reading.
Other blog posts that may be of interest:
When considering the commencement of an application for guardianship, either guardianship of property or the person, keep in mind the extensive notice requirements under the Substitute Decisions Act (“the Act”) contain extensive notice requirements.
An application for guardianship of property must be served on:
- the alleged incapable person;
- the person’s attorney for property under a Power of Attorney, if known;
- the person’s guardian of the person, if known;
- the person’s attorney for personal care under a Power of Attorney, if known;
- the person’s guardian of the person, if known;
- the Public Guardian and Trustee;
- the proposed guardian of property.
The above listed people are the parties to the Application.
In addition, application must be served by regular mail on:
- the alleged incapable person’s spouse or partner;
- the alleged incapable person’s children who are at least 18 (16 in the case of an application for guardianship of the person);
- the alleged incapable person’s parents; and
- the alleged incapable person’s brothers and sisters who are at least 18 (16 in the case of an application for guardianship of the person).
Similar service requirements apply to an application to terminate a statutory guardianship of property, a motion to terminate a guardianship of property, an application to appoint a guardian of the person, and a motion to terminate a guardianship of the person.
An exemption to the service requirements on family members is provided if the person’s existence or address cannot be ascertained by the use of reasonable diligence.
In addition to the Notice of Application, the applicant must serve the proposed guardian’s consent, a Management Plan, and a statement signed by the applicant indicating that the alleged incapable person has been informed of the nature of the application and their right to oppose the application, and describing the manner in which the person was informed. If it is not possible to so advise, reasons for not advising must be provided.
Failure to provide proper notice under the Act may lead to an adjournment of the proceeding in order to allow for service, causing further expense and delay.
In J.R.B. v. T.M.T., the court addressed the requirement that family members be served. There, the applicant was applying for guardianship of property for his wife, who was severely injured in a car accident. The applicant did not want to have to reveal his financial circumstances and those of his wife to her family members. The family members agreed that this was not necessary, and consented to a waiver of the service requirements. The Public Guardian and Trustee argued that service on family members was mandatory, and for the benefit of the incapable person, and could not be waived. The court held that the right to service was a right of the family members, and they could therefore agree to waive service.
It is implicit, however, that without such a waiver, service on known family members will be required.
Any person who is required to be served with the application materials is entitled to be added as a party to the application: s. 69(9) of the Act.
Have a great weekend.
Elder financial abuse is a growing concern. What is being done in Ontario to prevent it?
I recently came across a new service called Estate Protect which acts as a registry and fraud monitoring service for important estate documents, including powers of attorney.
Lawyers (on behalf of their clients) are able to register estate planning documents with Estate Protect being a secure and accessible place. The idea is that the most recent documents, and a record of any changes, are available to the appropriate person when necessary to ensure that valid estate planning documents are used (and relied upon).
Using a power of attorney document as an example, through Estate Protect’s notification service, designated parties are made aware when someone tries to rely on a power of attorney document. If the document is the valid power of attorney, the notified individual need not take any steps. However, should the power of attorney be, for example, a fake or previously revoked power of attorney, or should the transaction seem suspicious, the notified individual has the opportunity to intervene to avoid misuse.
The service also allows people accepting instructions, such as banks, to determine whether the power of attorney is valid before acting on instructions.
It makes sense that Estate Protect relies on tackling financial elder abuse through preventative measures, as opposed to remedial options.
Find this blog interesting? Please consider these other related blogs:
Let’s say that you are an estate trustee of a trust, or a beneficiary of a trust. The trust consists of investments. How can you be sure that the investments are performing adequately?
A new product from Asset Risk Consultants will allow you to make a quick check of the performance of the investment portfolio.
“Performance QuickCheck” allows you to enter information about the portfolio, and will immediately compare its performance to 130,000 portfolios having similar risk across five major currencies.
To conduct the check, users pick their currency (currently, British Pounds, US dollars, Euros, Swiss Francs or Canadian dollars), and the percentage of the fund invested in equities (allowing the comparison to be made based on the risk assumed by the trust: either cautious, balanced, steady growth or equity risk). The program then asks for the period over which the portfolio was held, and the percentage return over the period.
The program will then compare your investment return to other portfolios having similar risk.
For example, a Canadian portfolio holding 30% equities producing a 7% return for the period from June, 2016 to July 2017 will result in a smiley green face, indicating above average performance. However, a Canadian portfolio holding 80% equities producing a 7% return for the same period will result in a sad red face, indicating below average performance. As suggested by the website, trustees may want to ask their investment manager for a comment, or consider another investment manager. Beneficiaries may want to speak to the trustee, or legal counsel.
A more comprehensive report is also available, for a fee of £25.
Performance QuickCheck from Asset Risk Consultants is a great, easy to use, free tool to allow you to quickly ask and answer, “How am I doing?”.
Have a great weekend.
We all know that bad people can do some very bad things. So, if your estate plan includes a continuing power of attorney for property (as it likely should), and you name someone to manage your affairs in the event you can’t, you’ll undoubtedly be choosing a “good person” to be your attorney, not the bad apple nephew with a spotted past.
But here’s the unfortunate thing: when it comes to a power of attorney, and access to money, some otherwise good people have been known to do some very bad things.
There are usually three reasons for this:
- First, there is opportunity, with a perception that there is little chance of detection, penalty, or consequences.
- Second, there is often rationalization, which can involve a sense that the attorney is “entitled to some financial help anyway” or that they “are the only ones looking after mom” so deserve more than the others.
- Third, there is often a financial need – children in post secondary school, mounting credit card debt, or other emerging financial stress.
A power of attorney is an extremely powerful document – in many cases, the objective of the grantor is to allow someone else to completely take over management of their property, due to age, potential incapacity, or other reasons. And while the law holds attorneys to a high standard to protect grantors (the attorney has a duty of utmost good faith to act in the grantor’s best interests), the potential for abuse is immense.
If someone suspects an attorney for property is abusing the granted legal authority to commit a financial crime, there are options available to protect the vulnerable person. Theft, fraud and forgery conducted under the guise of a power of attorney can be reported to the police and prosecuted under the Criminal Code. In addition, in Ontario, the Public Guardian and Trustee can be contacted to protect an incapable person being victimized by financial abuse.
In terms of steps that you can take in advance to safeguard your assets from abuse, this article highlights a recent Ontario case of theft under a power of attorney, and outlines some protection steps that individuals can include in their power of attorney to help guard against theft or fraud:https://estatelawcanada.blogspot.ca/search/label/theft%20by%20attorney.
Thank you for reading!
Vanier v Vanier: Power of Attorney Disputes, Undue Influence, and Losing Sight of a Donor’s Best Interests
Often in power of attorney litigation, relationship issues between past or present attorneys may take centre stage, with the unfortunate consequence that the best interests of the donor of the power of attorney may get lost amid suspicions and accusations being thrown back and forth. This can often arise in situations where siblings are involved in a dispute regarding power of attorney for a parent, and, in fact, was the situation in the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Vanier v Vanier, 2017 ONCA 561.
At issue was the power of attorney for property of Rita, whose husband had predeceased her, leaving her his entire estate. She had three adult children: twin sons, Pierre and Raymond, and a daughter, Patricia. There was a power of attorney for property executed in 2011 naming Patricia. Unfortunately, Patricia allegedly took advantage of her role as Rita’s power of attorney for property, leading to litigation and a settlement. As a result, Rita executed a power of attorney for property in 2013 naming Pierre and Raymond, jointly and severally, as her attorneys for property (the “2013 POA”).
However, Pierre and Raymond became suspicious of each other, steps taken by each of them as Rita’s attorneys for property, and their relationship broke down. Issues arose in relation to Rita’s ability to access her money; in particular, Raymond had failed to cooperate in relation to unfreezing some corporate assets that had been frozen as part of the litigation with Patricia, and instructed Rita’s lawyer not to release settlement funds received from Patricia to Rita. Consequently Rita could not access funds to pay for basic living expenses, including rent at her retirement home. As a result, Pierre suggested that Rita take certain steps to facilitate access to her funds, including executing a power of attorney for property naming Pierre as her sole attorney for property, which Rita did in 2015 (the “2015 POA”).
Litigation and Appeal
Raymond brought an application seeking Pierre’s removal as attorney for property and a declaration that the 2015 POA was void. He also brought a motion seeking interim relief. The decision on the motion was appealed by Raymond, leading to this decision from the Court of Appeal. The Court considered 5 issues on appeal, but I will address only 1 of them for the purposes of this blog, being whether the motion judge erred in applying the wrong test for undue influence.
Proper Test for Undue Influence
Raymond argued that the proper test to be used was not the test for testamentary undue influence, but rather the test for inter vivos equitable undue influence, which would shift the onus of proving undue influence from Raymond, to Pierre, who would have to prove that Rita signed the 2015 POA willingly and without undue influence.
The Court of Appeal found that the application of the inter vivos test had not been argued before the motion judge, was a new issue raised on appeal, and, based on the general rule, the Appeal Court could not consider it. Moreover, there was no need for the Court to consider whether to grant leave to allow a new argument in this regard, as in any event, the inter vivos equitable undue influence test had no application on the facts.
In order to shift the burden of proof from the complainant (in this situation Raymond, arguing on behalf of Rita) to the other party (in this case, Pierre), two prerequisites must be met:
- The complainant reposed trust and confidence in the other party; and
- The transaction is not readily explicable by the parties’ relationship; the transaction is “immoderate and irrational”.
Pierre conceded that Rita did repose trust and confidence in him. However, the Court found that Rita’s decision to execute the 2015 POA was not “immoderate or irrational”. The Court noted that while the decision was emotionally difficult for Rita, it was totally rational. She knew that she was having issues accessing funds needed to pay her basic expenses. She also knew that some of Raymond’s actions had led to her inability to access those funds. The Court also found that the 2015 POA conferred little, if any, benefit on Pierre. Lastly, even if the inter vivos test applied, the Appeal Court held that the record did not support a finding of undue influence.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal commented that it endorsed the words of the motion judge who had expressed the view that Raymond and Pierre had “lost sight of the fact that it is Rita’s best interests that must be served here, not their own pride, suspicions, authority or desires”, stating also that it hoped that in light of this decision, Rita’s sons would honour her wishes and end the litigation.
Thanks for reading,
Other blog posts you may enjoy: