Pursuant to section 2 of Part I of the Succession Law Reform Act,
“A person may by will devise, bequeath or dispose of all property (whether acquired before or after making his or her will) to which at the time of his or her death he or she is entitled either at law or in equity…”
The interpretation of the term “will” is defined under section 1 of the Act to include,
“(a) a testament,
(b) a codicil,
(c) an appointment by will or by writing in the nature of a will in exercise of a power, and
(d) any other testamentary disposition.”
The question of what constitutes a will was a topic of the recent Law Society of Upper Canada Practice Gems: Probate Essentials 2016 program on September 20, 2016 (click here if you are interested in a copy of the program’s agenda).
As an example from the program materials, Canada Permanent Trust Co v Bowman,  SCR 711 was a case in which the Supreme Court of Canada found a handwritten document in a cardboard box of the deceased’s home to be valid where, “read as a whole”, the document showed the implicit intention of a testator who wished for certain dispositions of her property following her death. The document in question listed certain people with dollar amounts or items beside each name, such as, “Ena $1,000.00 in National Trust” and “Laura—fur coat”.
An even more famous example may be found in Ian Hull’s prior blog on the testamentary disposition that was carved on the bumper of a tractor by an unfortunate farmer while he was trapped under its weight. The farmer did not survive and following engraving can be discerned from the bumper, “In case I die in this mess, I leave all to the wife. Cecil Geo Harris.”
Thanks for reading!
When dealing with the administration of an estate, there is the possibility that a bequest will be left to a minor, resulting in the need for it to be held in trust until the minor reaches the age of majority. It is also possible to have a situation where the executor named in a will is a minor at the date of death of the testator, pursuant to section 26 of the Estates Act. This will result in a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee being issued to the guardian of the named executor, until he or she turns 18. The guardian acting as executor is called durante minore aetate, which translates to “during the minority”.
Pursuant to section 26 of the Estates Act:
(1) Where a minor is sole executor, administration with the will annexed shall be granted to the guardian of the minor or to such other person as the court thinks fit, until the minor has attained the full age of eighteen years, at which time, and not before, probate of the will may be granted to the minor
(2) The person to whom such administration is granted has the same powers as an administrator has by virtue of an administration granted to an administrator during minority of the next of kin.
The powers of durante minore aetate to act in the place of a minor are not limited. As per Re Cope, (1880), 16 Ch. D. 49 (Eng Ch Div) at 52:
The limit to his administration is no doubt the minority of the person, but there is no other limit. He is an ordinary administrator: he is appointed for the very purpose of getting in the estate, paying the debts, and selling the estate in the usual way; and the property vests in him.
In Monsell v Armstrong, (1872) LR 14 Eq 423 at 426, the court held there is “no distinction between a common administrator durante minore aetate as regards the exercise of a power of sale.” Along with the power of sale, it seems too that an administrator for the use and benefit of a minor may also assent to a legacy and may be sued for the debts of the deceased.
An application for a certificate of appointment for the use and benefit of a minor should be in Form 74.4, 74.4.1, 74.5, or 74.5.1 (forms can be found here) and should include an explanation stating that the executor named in the will is not the applicant due to the minority of the named executor. Once the application is filed, the matter will be referred to a judge. If the judge orders a certificate of appointment of estate trustee with a will, it will include the phrase “Right of (name of minor executor) to be appointed estate trustee on attaining 18 years of age is reserved.”
Thanks for reading,
A recent story in the news featuring a fraudulent wedding officiant, raises some interesting estate planning issues. Mr. Cogan, who held himself out as an authorized wedding officiant, was charged with performing unauthorized marriages. Cogan had been licensed to perform marriages in the past, but it is reported that his license was revoked before he performed at least 48 marriages between August 2013 and July 2016.
Fortunately, pursuant to section 31 of the Marriage Act, if the couple married in good faith the marriage may be deemed valid despite the revoked licence. Indicia of good faith include: the intention to have a legally binding wedding, no disqualifications due to capacity and impairment, and proof that the couple lived together after the wedding ceremony.
Notwithstanding this statutory remedy, larger consequences for estate planning arise if the couple do not satisfy the prerequisites for the remedy provided in the Marriage Act.
Firstly, an invalid marriage may present an issue for individuals who created a will after the fact, leaving bequests to their “spouses” in their wills. Due to the fact the individuals are not “spouses” as defined pursuant to the intestacy provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act (excluding Part V) or Divorce Act, it would be interesting to see how the court would treat the inheritance should the spouse who made the will die.
Pursuant to Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, if the couple has been cohabiting continuously for a period of not less than three years, or are in a relationship of some permanence, or if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child, they may be considered a dependant spouse (within the meaning of Part V). This may entitle the individual a fair share of the estate in this case, but being recognized as an unmarried spouse is not always certain. In any case, it would be necessary to litigate the issue, adding an unnecessary expense to the estate.
Secondly, an invalid marriage would create issues for individuals who die intestate. Pursuant to the intestacy provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act, the spouse is first entitled to the preferential share ($200,000) of an estate. If an individual dies and their marriage was not valid, the spouse that would normally be entitled may be disinherited. The result of this is that the preferential share may go to somebody who was not meant to inherit such a large portion of the estate.
Thirdly, a will is automatically revoked upon marriage. Because he did not have the authority to perform marriages, if a person was “married” by Cogan but had a pre-existing will, that will might not be found to have actually been revoked. This uncertainty creates the potential for litigation.
Thanks for reading,
On June 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decisions in applications for leave to appeal two recent cases that have been closely watched by the estates bar.
The Supreme Court has dismissed both applications for leave to appeal the recent appellate decisions, which considered a court’s ability to intervene and set aside a Will or a bequest under a Will for violating public policy.
In Spence v BMO Trust Company, 2016 ONCA 196, the Deceased made a Will that disinherited one of his daughters, Verolin. Although the Will was not discriminatory on its face, Verolin sought a declaration from the lower court that the Will was void and relied on extrinsic affidavit evidence to argue that the Deceased had disinherited Verolin for racist reasons.
The lower court accepted the extrinsic evidence and held that the Will was invalid on the basis of public policy. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the BMO Trust Company, holding that the Will was clear on its face and did not offend public policy. You can read and hear more about the Court of Appeal’s decision, which now stands as the final judgment in this case, on our blog and podcast.
The Supreme Court has also denied leave to appeal the New Brunswick Court of Appeal’s decision in Canadian Association for Free Expression v Streed et al, 2015 NBCA 50 (more commonly referred to as the McCorkill decision).
In McCorkill, the testator left the residue of his Estate to the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization based out of the United States. Much like Spence, there was no discriminatory language on the face of the Will. However, the lower court set aside the bequest to the National Alliance because the purposes and activities of the beneficiary organization were contrary to public policy. The lower court’s decision was upheld on appeal to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. We have previously written about the McCorkill decision here, here and here.
Spence and the McCorkill are not the only two recent cases where a Will has been challenged for being discriminatory. My colleague Noah Weisberg has reported on a claim in British Columbia where a testator is alleged to have disinherited his daughter on the basis of her sexual orientation.
Thank you for reading,
Umair Abdul Qadir
I recently came across an article published in the Toronto Star with a headline sure to catch the attention of any estates lawyer: How Ontario disinherits children in second marriages.
In the article, the author details what they believe to be the lack of awareness that many people have regarding the legal effect that a second marriage may have upon their estate plan. In outlining such concerns, the author provides the following eye-catching statement:
“Here’s a little-known fact: A second marriage invalidates your will – automatically disinheriting your children”.
While the first part of this sentence is true (subject to certain exceptions, a Will is automatically revoked upon marriage by section 16 of the Succession Law Reform Act), the second part is not necessarily true, insofar as, just because a Will is revoked upon marriage, it does not necessarily follow that the Deceased’s children would be “disinherited” by such an action. It should also be noted that the automatic revocation of a Will upon marriage by section 16 of the Succession Law Reform Act does not only apply to second marriages, but any marriage which the testator may enter into after the Will was executed.
With respect to the statement that the second marriage has the effect of “disinheriting” your children, if the Deceased should not have executed a further Last Will and Testament following their marriage, they will have died intestate. In Ontario, intestate estates are governed by Part II of the Succession Law Reform Act, which provides that, should the Deceased have died leaving a surviving married spouse and children, the first $200,000.00 of their estate is to go to the surviving spouse as a “preferential share”, with whatever remains after the payment of the preferential share being distributed to the spouse and children in accordance with specified allotments. If the Deceased should only have had one child, whatever remains after the preferential share would be distributed 50% to the spouse and 50% to the child. If the Deceased should have had two or more children, 1/3 would be distributed to the surviving spouse, with the remaining 2/3 being equally distributed to the Deceased’s children. To this effect, so long as the Deceased’s estate is valued at greater than $200,000.00, the Deceased’s children would not be “disinherited” by the marriage per se, although they could of course have stood to inherit a greater amount had the Deceased executed a new Will.
Thank you for reading.
The nature of a will is that it is revocable, meaning that testators can change their mind, cause their will to no longer be in effect, and make a new will at any time. However, just as there are requirements for executing a will, there are specific rules in place that govern how a will may be revoked.
In Ontario, a will can only be revoked in certain ways. Under section 15 of the Succession Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c S.26 (SLRA), a will or part of a will is revoked only by (a) marriage; (b) another will; (c) a writing declaring an intention to revoke, and made in accordance with the requirements of making a will; or (d) burning, tearing or otherwise destroying the will by the testator with the intention of revoking it. Accordingly, testators cannot simply decide that they no longer wish their will to govern their estate without any further action. They must take the step of executing a later will, destroying the will, or putting it in writing in the correct format that they wish to revoke. Many people are not aware that marriage revokes a will, so clients should always be advised of this in order to prevent any possible inadvertent revocation.
However, revocation of a will may not be the final word. Revival and republication exist to bring a revoked will back into effect. Revival is the restoring of a revoked will. Pursuant to section 19 of the SLRA, a revoked will can only be revived by a will or codicil that shows intention to give effect to the will or part that was revoked, or by re-execution of the revoked will with the required formalities, if any. The intention to revive a revoked will must appear on the face of the instrument purporting to revive it, and simply describing a later codicil as being a codicil to an existing will is not sufficient. If a will has been destroyed, it can only be revived by re-execution of a draft or copy or by a codicil referring to a draft or copy.
As opposed to revival, which restores a revoked will, republication, on the other hand, confirms a valid will. Republication occurs when a testator re-executes a will for the express purpose of republishing it or by making a codicil to the will. Essentially, republishing a will shifts the date of the will, so it is as if the testator had made a new will, with the exact same dispositions, at a later date. Republication must be in the form of a codicil to an existing will, or a document that makes specific reference to the will being republished as an existing testamentary document.
These may seem like simple concepts, but it is important to keep the basic rules in mind, as well as the sources of such rules, in order to properly advise clients and pre-empt easily avoidable issues as much as possible.
Thanks for reading.
Cornelius Gurlitt passed away in May 2014, aged 81, and is well known amongst the art community for his vast collection of famous works of art ranging from Chagall to Picasso. A recent article in the Guardian highlights the storied controversy surrounding Gurlitt’s estate and the steps taken to comply with his Will.
Much of Gurlitt’s famed art collection was passed down to him by his parents and grandparents who allegedly obtained much of the artwork by Nazi theft during World War II. In 2012, during a tax investigation, German customs officials discovered over 1,000 pieces of art worth an estimated 1 billion euros.
According to the Wall Street Journal, while on his deathbed, Gurlitt apparently signed a Will bequeathing his estate (including the artwork) to a small museum in Bern, Switzerland, the Kunstmuseum Bern, on the condition that the museum take steps to determine which works had been stolen by the Nazis and to return those pieces of art to their rightful heirs. Apparently the choice of a foreign institution was made on the basis that Gurlitt felt the German government had treated him unjustly.
It appears that in the event the museum declined the collection, it would pass to Gurlitt’s distant relatives. Concern arose that in the event these relatives beneficially received the artwork, it would be difficult to ensure they complied with Gurlitt’s instructions for restitution. As such, pundits urged the museum to take on the task to ensure that the research into the artwork was done professionally and responsibly.
The museum has since accepted the artwork, with sorrow, and is showcasing Gurlitt’s pieces in conjunction with a second museum in Bonn, Germany, the Budeskunsthalle. Although the showcasing in Bonn seems contrary to Gurlitt’s request for a foreign museum, the museum is nonetheless following Gurlitt’s most prominent wish to ensure stolen artwork is returned.
Proceedings were commenced by the distant relatives to challenge the Last Will on the basis that Gurlitt was not of sound mind when drafting the Will. A successful Will challenge would result in the artwork passing to them. The proceeding was dismissed by a German Judge, while an appeal remains pending.
I find Estates intertwined with famed art to be an enjoyable topic to research and read, as per my prior blog about the 2015 movie, Woman in Gold. Perhaps though, it’s just an excuse to admire such beautiful artwork, with Gurlitt’s collection being one of the best.
Earlier this week, I blogged about the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Neuberger v. York, 2016 ONCA 191, and the first lesson from this case. The second lesson from this case is that the doctrine of estoppel is not permitted to bar challenges to the validity of wills.
As a short recap of the facts from my prior blog, the late Chaim Neuberger was Edie’s father. Edie and, her sister, Myra, were the named Estate Trustees of the 2010 Wills. Between the death of Edie’s father on September 25, 2012, and the commencement of Edie’s challenge of the validity of the 2010 Wills on December 19, 2013, Edie was found by the lower court to have taken steps as an Estate Trustee. Such steps were, for example, the payment of taxes and the redemption of preference shares. This led the lower court to apply the doctrine of estoppel by representation to stop Edie from challenging the 2010 Wills (see Neuberger v. York, 2014 ONSC 6706).
On this point, the Court of Appeal disagreed. The Court of Appeal unanimously took the view that estoppel by representation and estoppel by convention do not lie to bar a challenge to the validity of a will (at paragraph 103).
The Hon. Justice Gillese found that the test for estoppel, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. v. Paddon-Hughes Development Co.,  S.C.R. 932, is not applicable in probate matters. Canadian Superior Oil was found to deal with promissory estoppel in the context of a private lease agreement between two individuals, which is “fundamentally different than is the question of the validity of a will” (at paragraphs 104 to 108).
As a matter of public policy, the Hon. Justice Gillese stated as follows (at paragraph 118):
“estoppel is animated by the goal of creating transactional certainty between private parties in civil disputes. A will, however, is more than a private document. As explained above, a dispute about a will’s validity engages interests that go beyond those of the parties to the dispute and extend to the testator and the public. Once a testamentary instrument is probated, it speaks to society at large. Probate is an in rem pronouncement that the instrument represents the testator’s true testamentary intentions and that the estate trustee has lawful authority to administer the estate. Because of this, the court has a responsibility to ensure that only wills that meet the hallmarks of validity are probated. It owes that duty to the testators, whose deaths preclude them from protecting their own interests, to those with a legitimate interest in the estate, and to the public at large. If the doctrine of estoppel were available to bar a party from having the validity of a will determined, the court’s ability to discharge that responsibility would be in jeopardy.”
Thanks for reading!
According to the News Release, the Finding Your Way program is a “multicultural safety campaign that helps people with dementia stay safe and active, while helping to prevent the risk of wandering and going missing.” It notes that the program’s training services will be enhanced this year to include both first-responders as well as supportive housing and retirement home staff.
The Finding Your Way program is specifically focused on addressing and preventing individuals with dementia from going missing and states that 60% of people with dementia related memory problems become lost at some point. Their website provides some resources, including checklists for What to do when a person with dementia goes missing and What to do when reuniting after a missing incident. They also provide some suggestions of ways to reduce the risks associated with dementia. The first suggestion is to stay safe at home, by considering the best living arrangements for someone with dementia and ensuring that individuals with dementia maintain their health. The second suggestion is to be a part of the community while reducing the risk of becoming lost by carrying identification at all times, ensuring that someone knows where the senior with dementia is going, and dressing appropriately for the weather. The third suggestion encourages getting around in the community by urging seniors with dementia to get to know their neighbours and professionals in the neighbourhood (i.e. pharmacists, grocers, bankers), as well as participating in social activities.
The Alzheimer Society of Ontario’s website provides some “Dementia numbers in Canada” stating that in 2011, 14.9 per cent of Canadians 65 and older were living with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, with the figure expecting to increase. It also notes that one in five Canadians aged 45 and older provides some form of care to seniors living with long-term health problems. In 2011, family caregivers spent over 444 million unpaid hours looking after someone with cognitive impairment, including dementia. It is clear that dementia affects a great deal of people in Canada and in Ontario.
The Minister Responsible for Seniors Affairs stated in the News Release that “[o]ur communities have an important role to play in helping keep people with dementia safe, and this funding will help the Alzheimer Society of Ontario to deliver these resources to even more Ontarians.”
Thanks for reading.
David Bowie’s Last Will and Testament was filed last Friday in Manhattan’s Surrogate’s Court.
The Bowie Estate is purported to be worth $100 million. Bowie’s wife, Iman, will receive one-half of the Estate, in addition to their SoHo apartment, in a trust managed by a “pair of New York lawyers” according to Vanity Fair. As reported by Page Six, the executors of the Bowie Estate, William Zysblat and Patrick “Paddy” Grafton Green, will pay Iman income from the trust four times a year. Iman will also have the right to seek additional funds paid to her in support of her “health, education and maintenance”.
Bowie’s son, Duncan Bowie, will receive one-quarter of the assets of the Estate outright.
Bowie’s daughter, Lexi Bowie, who is presently 15 years old, will receive the remaining quarter of the Bowie Estate when she turns 25 years of age. Lexi will also inherit Bowie’s vacation home in up-state New York at that time.
Various members of Bowie’s staff were also provided with sizeable cash bequests.
In addition to carrying out Bowie’s estate plan, the executors of the Bowie Estate were directed to transport Bowie’s remains to Bali so that he may be cremated in Bali in accordance with the Buddhist rituals of the country. While recognizing the potential difficulties in carrying out this task, Bowie’s Will also allows for his cremation to take place elsewhere, and for his ashes to be scattered in Bali.
In Ontario, there is no legal requirement for an estate trustee to follow the directions of the testator as it relates to manner and place of the burial. Such wishes are merely precatory.
Thanks for reading,