Tag: waiver

05 Jun

Who can compel the release of a lawyer’s file after death?

Stuart Clark Litigation Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

The notes and records of the lawyer who assisted the deceased with their estate planning can play an important role in any estate litigation. As a result, it is not uncommon for a drafting lawyer to receive a request from individuals involved in estate litigation to provide them with a copy of their notes and files relating to the deceased’s estate planning. But can the lawyer comply with such a request?

The central concern involved for the lawyer is the duty of confidentiality which they owe to the deceased. This duty of confidentiality is codified by rule 3.3-1 of the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides:

“A lawyer at all times shall hold in strict confidence all information concerning the business and affairs of the client acquired in the course of the professional relationship and shall not divulge any such information unless expressly or impliedly authorized by the client or required by law to do so.

The duty of confidentiality and privilege which is owed to the deceased by the lawyer survives the deceased’s death. This was confirmed by the court in Hicks Estate v. Hicks, [1987] O.J. No. 1426, where, in citing the English authority of Bullivant v. A.G. Victoria, [1901] A.C. 196, it was confirmed that privilege and the duty of confidentiality survive death, and continues to be owed from the lawyer to the deceased. With respect to the question of who may waive privilege on behalf of the deceased following their death, Hicks Estate v. Hicks confirmed that such a power falls to the Estate Trustee under normal circumstances, stating:

“It is clear, therefore, that privilege reposes in the personal representative of the deceased client who in this case is the plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of Mildred Hicks. The plaintiff can waive the privilege and call for disclosure of any material that the client, if living, would have been entitled to from the two solicitors.”

Simply put, the Estate Trustee may step into the shoes of the deceased individual and compel the release of the lawyer’s file to the same extent that the deceased individual could have during their lifetime.

In circumstances in which the validity of the Will has been challenged, the authority of the Estate Trustee is also being challenged by implication, as their authority to act as Estate Trustee is derived from the Will itself. In such circumstances, the named Estate Trustee may arguably no longer waive privilege and/or the duty of confidentiality on behalf of the deceased individual. Should the notes and/or records of the drafting lawyer still be required, a court order is often required waiving privilege and/or the duty of confidentiality before they may be produced.

Whether or not a lawyer can release their file following the death of a client will depend on the nature of the dispute in which such a request is being made, and who is making the request. If there is a challenge to the validity of the Will or the Estate Trustee’s authority, it is likely that a court Order will be required before the lawyer may produce their file regardless of who is requesting the file. If the dispute does not question the Estate Trustee’s authority, such as an Application for support under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, the lawyer should comply with the request to release their file so long as the requesting party is the Estate Trustee. If the requesting party is not the Estate Trustee, and the Estate Trustee should refuse to provide the lawyer with their authorization to release the file, matters become more complicated, and may require a court Order before the lawyer may release their file.

Thank you for reading.

Stuart Clark

10 Apr

What is a Disclaimer?

Ian Hull Beneficiary Designations, Estate & Trust, Estate Planning, Executors and Trustees, General Interest, Trustees, Wills Tags: , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Receiving an inheritance under a will is a gift, and there is no obligation, as a beneficiary, to accept it. It is possible for a beneficiary to waive their right, or “disclaim” their interest, to a gift under a will.

As established in Biderman v Canada, 2000 CanLii 14987 (FCA):

A disclaimer is the act by which a person refuses to accept an estate which has been conveyed or an interest which has been bequeathed to him or her. Such disclaimer can be made at any time before the beneficiary has derived benefits from the assets. It requires no particular form and may even be evidenced by conduct.

Furthermore, Biderman v Canada establishes that “there is no entitlement to an estate until it is opened since a testamentary gift can always be revoked until death. Once made, the disclaimer is retroactive to the date of death of the deceased.”

There is no prescribed form for drafting or implementing a disclaimer of inheritance. Generally, the waiver should be a written agreement, acknowledging the waiver of inheritance (preferably drafted by a lawyer). The disclaiming agreement should be signed by the beneficiary, and witnessed.

It is also important to ensure that the beneficiary waiving their right to inheritance was not improperly or unduly influenced to do.

The disclaimer, once signed, does not need to be filed with the court. It is important that the lawyer who acts for the estate or the estate trustee keeps the waiver.

If an inheritance is disclaimed, the gift will be deemed void and fall into the residue of the estate, which will then be distributed according to the deceased’s will, or pursuant to the intestacy provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act. When disclaiming a gift, the beneficiary does not have any control over who receives their part of the inheritance.

A beneficiary can not disclaim part of a gift; once you disclaim part of your interest in an inheritance, you disclaim all of it. In Re Skinner, 1970 CanLii 360, the Ontario Supreme Court established that “the law is clear that, where there is a single undivided gift, the donee must take the whole or disclaim the whole: he cannot disclaim part.”

Thanks for reading,

Ian M. Hull

Other Articles You Might Be Interested In
I Don’t Want That Gift! 

Hull on Estates #379 – Disclaimers of gifts under will

Testamentary Gifts of Personal Property: Avoiding “Sticky” Situations

13 Oct

Waiver of Settlement Privilege

Hull & Hull LLP Estate & Trust Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

Settlement privilege excludes communications made in furtherance of settlement from the record.  Settlement is a fundamental component of our trial system for trite reasons.  Virtually every litigation proceeding has a parallel settlement component that the court does not and usually ought not to see, until after the main proceeding. 

In Re Hallman Estate, the applicant had filed an affidavit including a letter that was a settlement offer from respondent trustees.  The letter was marked "Without Prejudice".  The trustees brought a motion to expunge that part of the affidavit.  The applicant asserted that the trustees had impliedly waived settlement privilege by relying on the letter in exercising their discetion when, at a trustees’ meeting, they had discussed the letter then refused to pay trust income to the applicant, and later disclosed the minutes of the meeting to the applicant.  Also, the trustees sent a letter to the applicant’s counsel noting that the letter had been discussed and offering to provide redacted minutes.  The issue was whether this constituted implied waiver.

No waiver was found.  Settlement privilege can be waived expressly or by implication.  A clear intention is not always necessary.  The privilege can be waived by conduct (waiver by implication), even in the absence of intention, and one situation where this occurs is where fairness requires it (for instance, taking a position inconsistent with the maintenance of privilege).   

But here, it was the applicant asserting the waiver who first filed the Minutes referencing the letter, not the trustees relying on the privilege.  Second, the communication to the applicant’s lawyer of the reliance on the letter constituted confirmation of non-waiver, not the opposite.  Finally, there was no evidence the trustees actually did rely on the letter to exercise their discretion as trustees, only that they had discussed the applicant’s lack of reply to the letter during the meeting.  On this final point, the decision does not unequivocably state that such reliance would have been sufficient.        

The onus for proving waiver of the privilege rests with the party asserting the waiver, but that should not prevent litigants from fastidiously maintaining the privilege (as the trustees did in this case).

Have a great week,

Chris Graham

Christopher M.B. Graham – Click here for more information on Chris Graham.

 

 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

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

CONNECT WITH US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET