Tag: Rules of Civil Procedure
A common question encountered by estate practitioners is what happens if an estate trustee dies before completing the administration of an estate. In today’s blog, instead of focusing on the devolution of executorship, I look at procedural steps that can be taken to confirm the authority of surviving estate trustees, where one of multiple appointed estate trustees dies, during the administration of the estate.
In such an instance, the surviving estate trustees may experience difficulty in completing the administration of the estate, if third-party institutions require the consent and approval of each jointly appointed estate trustee listed in the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will.
If this occurs, there is a fairly straightforward procedure for “confirming” the authority of the surviving estate trustees. This process is governed by Rule 74.14.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule applies if:
- there has been a change of estate trustees as a result of: (a) a devolution of executorship on the death of an estate trustee with a will, (b) the death of an estate trustee, if one or more surviving estate trustees continue to be authorized to act, (c) a court order, or
- there has been no change of estate trustees.
The Rules set out that the confirmation of the status of a person as an estate trustee may be obtained by making a written request to the registrar of the court that issued the applicable certificate of appointment for a court status certificate providing confirmation.
In the example provided above, where the request for the status certificate results from the death of another estate trustee appointed by the same certificate of appointment, the request must be accompanied by an affidavit confirming the death of the estate trustee and the circumstances under which the surviving estate trustee(s) continues to be authorized to act, including proof of death of the deceased estate trustee.
Thanks for reading!
Effective January 1, 2019, new rules apply to a motion by a lawyer for removal as lawyer of record.
Under Rule 15.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a lawyer may bring a motion to have him or herself removed as lawyer of record. The old Rule was silent on whether other parties to the litigation, other than the client, had to be served. Under the recent amendments, it is now clear that such a motion must be brought on notice to every other party. However, a motion record need not be served on every other party: just the notice of motion.
The new Rule goes on to provide that the lawyer making the motion shall ensure that any information in the notice of motion or motion record that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, or that may be prejudicial to the client, including the grounds for the motion, is redacted or omitted from the notice of motion that is served on the other parties, and from the motion record that is filed with the court. At the hearing, the lawyer is to provide the presiding judge with a complete and unredacted version of the notice of motion and motion record. This is to be returned to the lawyer after the hearing, and does not form part of the court file.
Under the new Rule, it is likely that the court will require greater detail as to the precise reason for the removal, rather than a general statement such as “breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship”. The new Rule allows the lawyer to set out the precise reason for the removal, without disclosing those reasons, at least to the other parties to the litigation.
A question, however, remains as to whether the lawyer can disclose solicitor-client communications, if only to the judge. Arguably, information subject to solicitor-client privilege should not be divulged to a judge, even in the context of a motion by a lawyer for removal
The amendment was the subject of comment in the decision of Solutions Construction Management v. 1971538 Ontario Inc., 2019 ONSC 503 (CanLII). There, the plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment. The defendant’s lawyer had recently brought a motion to remove him or herself as lawyer of record, and the defendant therefore sought an adjournment. The adjournment was granted. The plaintiff had been served with the defendant’s lawyer’s motion. However, they did not attend at that motion or advise the court of the pending motion for summary judgment. The summary judgment judge, in adjourning the motion, stated that:
This matter is a cautionary tale as to the significance of the recent amendment to r. 15.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It may, in some circumstances, be necessary for litigants to respond to or, at a minimum, attend on the return of a motion by an opposing party’s lawyer for an order for removal from the record. That step may be necessary to ensure that the court is (a) fully informed of the status of the litigation, and (b) given an opportunity to consider the potential prejudice to other parties if counsel for one party is removed as lawyer of record.
Thank you for reading.
Hull on Estates #558 – Fica v Dmytryshyn: Costs Consequences of Failing to Comply with Rules of Civil Procedure
On today’s podcast, Jonathon Kappy and Rebecca Rauws discuss the Ontario Superior Court decision in Fica v Dmytryshyn, 2018 ONSC 2034, which addresses a fiduciary’s duty to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure in accounting matters.
Should you have any questions, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.org or leave a comment on our blog.
When is it appropriate to bring a motion in the Estates Court without notice? The answer requires consideration of both the statute and common law.
The starting point is Rule 74.15(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Here, a person who has a financial interest in an estate is permitted to seek an order for assistance. Some of the more ‘popular’ orders for assistance include: requiring a person to accept/refuse an appointment as estate trustee; requiring an estate trustee to file with the court a statement of the nature and value of the estate assets at the date of death; and, requiring an estate trustee to pass accounts.
Subject to narrow exceptions, Rule 74.15(2) allows these motion to be made without notice (in latin, ex parte).
Notwithstanding this, the Court has not necessarily embraced ex-parte orders with open arms.
For instance, Corbett J. in Robert Half Canada Inc. v. Jeewan found that, before ordering an ex parte injunction, a party needed to demonstrate some element of ‘extraordinary urgency’.
Moreover, and specifically in relation to estates orders for assistance, Justice DM Brown in Ignagni Estate (Re), noted that orders for assistance are not mere administrative devices, and that the consequences of failing to abide by such an order is significant. He went on to say that, “[m]embers of the Estates Bar may regard the requirement to give notice of a motion for an order for assistance unless “extraordinary urgency” exists as imposing undue costs on the administration of the estate. Against that must be weighed the fundamental principle that a court should not issue an order against a person without affording that person an opportunity to explain the other side of the story. Many estate disputes arise in the context of strained family relationships, or out-and-out family battles. Courts should exercise great caution before granting an order that imposes obligations on one side in a family dispute. Unless some extraordinary urgency exists, prudence and the principles of natural justice require a moving party to give notice of the order requested so that the respondent enjoys the opportunity of placing the rest of the story before the court.”
Given this, although permissible, parties who intend to seek orders for assistance without notice, must ensure there is ‘extraordinary urgency’ in doing so.
Find this blog interesting, please consider these related blogs:
Litigation surrounding the estate of a deceased person can be protracted and emotional for the parties involved. Unfortunately, given the high costs of litigation, it can also be incredibly costly and onerous for the parties to litigate their dispute all the way to a trial.
Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure offers one procedural mechanism by which a party can bring an expeditious end to a litigation matter. Pursuant to Rule 20.04, the Court shall grant summary judgment where it is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence, or the parties have agreed to have all or part of the claim determined by a summary judgment and the Court is satisfied that it is appropriate to grant same.
Rule 20 was amended in 2010 in order to improve access to justice, providing the Court with broader evidentiary powers on a motion for summary judgment. However, as demonstrated by a recent decision, the Court may still conclude that it is not appropriate to grant summary judgment in view of the litigation as a whole.
The Facts in Bazinet v CompuCom Canada Co., e al.
In Bazinet v CompuCom Canada Co., et al., 2017 ONSC 5194, Robert (the “Deceased”) died without a Will. There was a dispute over life insurance proceeds that were available to the Deceased as part of an employee benefits package. The parties had not produced a designation form naming a beneficiary to the insurance proceeds.
The plaintiff, the Deceased’s common-law spouse, claimed that she was entitled to the life insurance proceeds. She asserted that she had witnessed the Deceased signing a beneficiary designation in her favour, and that the Deceased had confirmed that she was the beneficiary of the policy after their separation. The plaintiff’s claim sought declaratory relief against all of the defendants, punitive damages and general damages against the Deceased’s employer CompuCom Canada Co. (“CompuCom”).
The Deceased’s Estate Trustees denied the plaintiff’s claims and advanced a counterclaim on behalf of the Estate, seeking a declaration that there was no designated beneficiary and that the proceeds were thus payable to the Estate. As the plaintiff was the Deceased’s common-law spouse, she was not entitled to a share of the Deceased’s Estate on an intestacy.
The Estate Trustees moved for summary judgment, seeking an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against the Estate and granting the declaratory relief sought on their counterclaim. The plaintiff, in turn, requested that partial summary judgment be granted in her favour.
Justice Corthorn’s Decision
In response to the motion for summary judgment, CompuCom argued that the matter was not an appropriate case for summary judgment in the context of the litigation as a whole. CompuCom asserted that findings of credibility were necessary for the determination of the issues, that summary judgment would not be dispositive of the entire proceeding and that a trial was required for the fair and efficient determination of all of the issues.
Justice Corthorn agreed with CompuCom’s position, concluding that summary judgment would not dispose of the entire action, including the plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages. Justice Corthorn also held that there was a risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings.
Given the nature of the plaintiff’s claims, Justice Corthorn held that a majority of the claims would remain to be determined at trial even if summary judgment was granted in the Estate Trustees’ or the plaintiff’s favour. Justice Corthorn also noted that she was not confident that it would be possible to assess credibility and reliability without the benefit of a trial, with the risk that the trial judge would make different findings of credibility and fact or reach inconsistent conclusions upon hearing the oral evidence of the affiants.
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed. The Court also refused to grant the relief that the plaintiff was seeking in response to the motion.
Proceeding With Caution
Justice Corthorn’s recent decision reiterates the importance of carefully considering whether a motion for summary judgment is appropriate before proceeding. If unsuccessful, the parties incur the cost of an interim motion in addition to the costs of a trial.
In addition, motions for summary judgment can have significant cost consequences. Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides the Court with the ability to order payment of costs of motion for summary judgment on a substantial indemnity basis if a party acted unreasonably by making or responding to the motion or acted in bad faith for the purpose of delay.
Thank you for reading,
Umair Abdul Qadir
Where an incapable person is named as a party in a legal proceeding, the appointment of a representative is necessary to ensure that the person’s interests are adequately represented in the litigation.
Litigation Guardians in Civil Proceedings
Rule 7.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that, unless the Court orders or a statute provides otherwise, a litigation guardian shall commence, continue or defend a proceeding on behalf of a “party under disability.” The Rules define “disability” to include a person who is mentally incapable within the meaning of sections 6 or 45 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.
Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides additional guidance regarding litigation guardians in civil proceedings, including the powers and duties of a litigation guardian.
But what about parties who are under an incapacity and who are named as parties in a family law proceeding in Ontario?
“Special Parties” Under the Family Law Rules
In Ontario, the Family Law Rules apply to family law cases in the Superior Court of Justice’s Family Court, the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice. The Family Law Rules provide guidance on the appointment of representatives for incapable persons in family law matters.
Rule 2 of the Family Law Rules defines a “special party” as a party who is a child or who is or appears to be mentally incapable for the purposes of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 in respect of an issue in the proceeding.
Pursuant to Rule 4(2), the Court may authorize a person to represent a special party if the person is appropriate for the task and willing to act as representative. If there is no appropriate person willing to act, the Court may authorize the Children’s Lawyer or the Public Guardian and Trustee to act as the representative.
Mancino v Killoran – More Than One Potential Representative
A recent decision illustrates the conflicts that may arise when more than one person believes that they are the most appropriate person to act as an incapable person’s representative in a family law proceeding.
In Mancino v Killoran, 2017 ONSC 4515, the Applicant asserted a claim for spousal support and for an interest in a property against the Respondent (“Michael”). Michael had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, and was a resident at a long-term care home. Michael’s sister (“Colleen”) and his son (“Allan”) both sought to represent Michael’s interests in the litigation, and filed affidavits in support of their positions.
Justice Gareau considered Michael’s power of attorneys and testamentary documents, which were executed at a time when Michael was still capable. Allan was named as Michael’s attorney for property and co-attorney for personal care. Allan was also named as the sole Estate Trustee of Michael’s Estate.
Justice Gareau held that “[t]he fact that Michael…, at a time when he had capacity, placed Allan… in a position of trust over his personal property and the administration of his estate indicates that he had confidence in Allan…to represent his best interests.” Michael’s sister Colleen was not named in any of Michael’s testamentary documents, which Justice Gareau found to be a “powerful and persuasive fact.”
The Court concluded that there was nothing in the evidence that would persuade the Court to depart from Michael’s express wishes regarding the management of his property. In the result, Allan was appointed to represent Michael as a special party in the family law litigation.
Thank you for reading,
Umair Abdul Qadir
Time, according to a clever commercial by Samsung, is the most valuable thing there is. As an estates and trusts lawyer, I often deal with legal issues that arise as a result of death and am constantly reminded of just how precious time is. Having recently concluded the August long-weekend, I am further reminded of the value of spending time with loved ones.
The legal system also recognizes the value of time and the importance of stopping time momentarily. Section 3.01(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states,
In the computation of time under these rules or an order, except where a contrary intention appears,
(c) where the time for doing an act expires on a holiday, the act may be done on the next day that is not a holiday.
Section 1.03(1) defines a “holiday” as any Saturday or Sunday, along with a list of other significant days. This means that if the deadline for service of an Affidavit of Documents fell on July 30, 2016, then given the August 1st holiday on Monday, the deadline did not actually expire until Tuesday, August 2.
Time never really stops, but at least for purposes of court orders and proceedings under the Rules of Civil Procedure, it pauses.
Thank you for reading.
The hockey legend, Gordie Howe, died this past Friday. He leaves behind four children and nine grandchildren. The details of his estate are not yet known. The day before he died, the Michigan Court of Appeal upheld a verdict in his favour where he was awarded approximately $3,000,000 in damages. The defendants in that proceeding were found liable for destruction of some of Gordie Howe’s personal memorabilia. The timing of his passing favours his estate. While unusual, parties do die during litigation. If Mr. Howe had died during an ongoing proceeding, it could have been the cause of some confusion. It is important to remember that the Rules of Civil Procedure offer guidance on this issue.
Rule 11.01 provides that where a party has an interest or liability that is transferred by reason of death or other means, the proceeding is automatically stayed with respect to the party whose interest or liability is transmitted. This stay is in effect until an order to continue the proceeding is obtained.
Rule 11.02(1) governs the process by which one obtains an order to continue. This requires an affidavit from an interested party, which verifies the transmission of interest or liability. The party seeking an order to continue the proceeding should also file Form 11A. These materials can be filed with the registrar. Obtaining an order to continue a proceeding can be done without any notice to the parties in a proceeding. Once this order is obtained, Rule 11.02(2) requires that it be served upon every other party forthwith.
It is understandable that there will be some delay when a party dies. However, it should be remembered that Rule 11.03 allows a defendant to move to dismiss the lawsuit where a plaintiff fails to obtain an order to continue a proceeding after a reasonable period of time.
Thanks for reading.
This week on Hull on Estates, Natalia Angelini and Umair Abdul Qadir discuss the new Rule 75.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 75.2 provides the Court with the authority to order a mediation in certain estate litigation matters even when mandatory mediation under Rule 75.1 does not apply, and came into force on January 1, 2016.
Should you have any questions, please email us at email@example.com or leave a comment on our blog.
As of January 1, 2016, certain amendments to Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure have taken effect. These changes, amongst other things, make significant changes to the procedure by which an Application to Pass Accounts is to proceed before the court.
The changes which will likely have have the greatest immediate impact upon our daily practice are the changes to the service/filing deadlines contemplated for certain documentation. These changes include:
- 74.18(7) – Notice of Objection to Accounts must now be served and filed at least 35 days prior to the hearing date specified in the Notice of Application (and not 30 days prior to the hearing date as under the previous rules);
- 74.18(9) – Judgment Record on an unopposed passing of accounts must now be filed at least 5 days prior to the hearing date specified in the Notice of Application (and not 10 days prior to the hearing as under the previous rules); and
- 74.18(11.1) – Request for Increased Costs must now be served and filed at least 15 days prior to the hearing date specified in the Notice of Application (and not between the period commencing 10 days after the Notice of Application is served and ending 20 days prior to the hearing date as under the previous rules).
Notably, the changes to the deadline associated with the Notice of Objection to Accounts means that you now have five less days to prepare and file the Notice of Objection to Accounts than previously. As the service parameters for a beneficiary to be served with the Application to Pass Accounts remains unchanged by the updated rules (being 60 days prior to the hearing for those served in Ontario, and 75 days prior to the hearing for those served outside on Ontario), the net effect of this change appears to be that you will now likely have less time to prepare any Notice of Objection to Accounts upon being served with the Application to Pass Accounts.
The Rules of Civil Procedure often change, and to this effect it is always a good idea to double check the version of the rules upon which you are relying against an official up-to-date version of the Rules of Civil Procedure which can be found on the Ontario government’s website.
Thank you for reading.