Reopening a Trial

Reopen a Trial

Shen v Chan BCSC 2514 is an example where a plaintiff lost at trial and attempted to reargue and reopen the case before the same judge rather than appealing the decision.

The application was dismissed and the court referred to the main principles set out below.

In Mayer v. Mayer Estate, 2020 BCCA 282, our Court of Appeal stated:

I would summarize the main principles applicable to such an application in the following way:

  • it is generally speaking in the interests of justice to consider that a trial is complete when each side has closed their case and the judge has delivered his or her judgment;
  • a judge’s … discretion to reopen a trial should be exercised with restraint;
  • a party may not use the rule to re-argue, re-cast, or re-state his or her case, rather the rule is available to remedy what might otherwise be a substantial injustice;
  • it is not intended that a party should be able to lead substantial new evidence, nor does the rule generally permit the leading of new expert evidence;
  • the reasons that the evidence was not led or submissions not made in the first place may be relevant to the exercise of the judge’s discretion, particularly where the failure to do so in the first place was a considered or pragmatic decision; and
  • the discretion should only be exercised if the reception of the new evidence would probably change the result of the trial.

I would add to this list that a judge may reasonably exercise such discretion where a relatively discreet error in math or some mechanical consideration of the evidence is clearly in error.

Finally, the overarching consideration is whether it is in the interests of justice that the court reopen the case. (See also Brown v. Douglas, 2011 BCCA 521, 314 B.C.A.C. 143.)

Admissibility of Medical Records

Admissibility of Medical Records

Many types of estate litigation cases such as testamentary capacity, undue influence, committee applications and others rely on medical evidence, which is typically initially obtained from medical records that are subsequently admitted into evidence at trial provided they meet the legal requirements set out below.

Re Gibb Estate 2021 BCSC 2461 quoted Re Singh Estate 2019 BCSC 272, which reviewed the law relating to the admissibility of medical records as an exception to the rule against hearsay pursuant to the standard business records exception.

The court summarize the applicable law:

[48] While clinical records are hearsay, they are admissible under the business records exception both at common law and under s. 42 of the Evidence Act. The requirements for the admission of medical records as business records are set out in Aresv Venner 1970 SCR 608

The Supreme Court of Canada held at 626:

Hospital records, including nurses’ notes, made contemporaneously by someone having a personal knowledge of the matters then being recorded and under a duty to make the entry or record should be received in evidence as prima facie proof of the facts stated therein.

[49] Justice Burnyeat in McTavish summarized the principles from Ares at 311-12:

1. The notes taken must be made contemporaneously.

2. The notes must be made by someone having a personal knowledge of the matters being recorded.

3. The notes must be made by someone who has a duty himself or herself to record the notes or to communicate the notes to someone else to record as part of the usual and ordinary course of their business.

4.The matters which are being recorded must be of the kind that would ordinarily be recorded in the usual and ordinary course of that business.

5. A statement in the records of the fact that a certain diagnosis was made will be admissible.

6. Recorded observations, diagnosis and opinions will be admissible providing they are recorded in accordance with points 1 through 4.

7. The fact that the referring doctor relied upon another doctor’s opinion to assist in coming to his or her own diagnosis and opinion is only evidence of that fact so that the other opinion does not become evidence unless it is otherwise admissible. Accordingly, it is only evidence of the fact that the referring doctor wished or required that opinion to be received before forming his or her own opinion.

8. Statements made by parties or by experts which are recorded in the usual and ordinary course of business but which lie outside the exception to the hearsay rule are hearsay and will not be admitted into evidence unless they can be brought within Section 14 of the Evidence Act which allows for the admissibility of such statements if it can be shown that they are proof of a prior inconsistent statement.

[50] The issue of third party statements was addressed in Cambie Surgeries. Justice Steeves provides:

…any statement by the patient or any third party that is not within the observation of the doctor or person who has a duty to record such observations in the ordinary course of business is not admissible for any purpose and will be ignored by the trier of fact…
…

Marriage Like Relationships: Mutual Intent Not Necessary

Marriage Like Relationships: Mutual Intent Not Necessary

The BC Court of Appeal in Mother 1 vs Solus Trust et al 2021 BCCA  held that the mutual intent of both parties is not a prerequisite to finding that a marriage like relationship existed at law.

The wealthy deceased died intestate leaving five children born of five women. He did not marry any of them and spent time with all of them and provided financial support and gifts.

Mother 1 did not know of the existence of the other four women. The judge described the deceased as a “playboy”.

After reviewing a number of criteria necessary to qualify as a spouse and S2 WESA the appeal court confirmed that Mother 1 never lived in a marriage like relationship with the deceased for two years as is required.

In Robledano v. Queano, 2019 BCCA 150 it held that the requisite two years of a marriage like relationship need not immediately precede the intestate’s death:

[40] Paragraph 2(1)(b) of the statute uses the past perfect tense (“had lived together”) rather than the past continuous tense (“were living together”). The ordinary grammatical meaning of paragraph 2(1)(b) is that in order for a person who was not married to the deceased to be their spouse, the two must have lived together in a marriage like relationship for two years, but not necessarily for the two years immediately preceding the deceased’s death. In contrast to paragraph 2(1)(b), paragraph 2(1)(a) uses the past continuous tense (“were married”) rather than the past perfect tense (“had been married”). The statute is professionally drafted and the use of these different tenses should be presumed to be deliberate.

However, a WESA claimant and the intestate must remain spouses at the time of the death in order to advance a claim: Robledano at para. 43.

If the parties ceased to be spouses before the intestate’s death because their marriage like relationship was “terminated” by one of them, there will be no legal entitlement to advance a claim against the estate as a spouse (s. 2(2)(b)).

According to Robledano, in deciding whether a party has terminated the marriage like relationship, a judge must:

[55] … consider the expressed and implicit intentions of each spouse, as well as the objective evidence concerning the subsistence of the relationship. The determination is a “judgment call” for the trial judge – the application of a broad legal standard to the factual circumstances of an individual case. It is a question of mixed fact and law. Where a trial judge has correctly identified the standard, and has not made any palpable and overriding error in applying it, deference to the trial judge’s decision is required: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33.

A finding of mutual intent is not a prerequisite to finding that a marriage like relationship existed at law.

It was explained this way in Weber v. Leclerc 2015 BCCA 492

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage like”.

The determination of a marriage like relationship is a “question of mixed fact and law that requires a broad approach”: Weber at para. 22.

The appeal Court will not interfere with it “absent a material error, a serious misapprehension of the evidence, or an error of law”: Boyd v. Foster, 2020 BCCA 177 at para. 48, citing Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518 at para. 12, 1999 CanLII 691;

Removal of Executor for Conflict of Interest

Removal of Executor for Conflict of Interest

In Jury v Rodogzinski 2021 BCSC 2241 the court removed the executor for a perceived conflict of interest where the executor had received the bulk of the estate by way of an inter vivos transfer prior to death, and then was to also receive an equal share of the residue.

The beneficiaries successfully argued that the executor was in a conflict of interest as they asserted that the true intention of the deceased was that all of the beneficiaries would share equally and that under that false impression transferred the real property to the executor two weeks after the will was signed.

The Law

It has been held in a number of cases that an executor may be removed when involved or potentially involved in litigation against the estate in a personal capacity.

In Weisstock v. Weisstock, 2019 BCSC 517

It has repeatedly been held that a conflict of interest may disqualify an executor from acting in that capacity: Re Becker (1986), 57 O.R. (2d) 495 (Ont. Surr. Ct.); Thomasson Estate (Re), 2011 BCSC 481; Stevens v. Whittaker, 2012 BCSC 1188; Ching Estate (Re), 2016 BCSC 1111. Such a conflict may arise if the executor has or may have a claim against the estate or if the estate has or may have a claim against him or her.

In particular, courts have exercised the authority to remove or pass over an executor where there was a dispute over an inter vivos gift made by the deceased to the executor before death.
In Re Becker, 1986 CanLII 2596, 57 O.R. (2d) 495 (Surr. Ct.) the deceased named four persons as executors. One of them, the respondent, purportedly received an inter vivos gift of $107,000 in guaranteed investment certificates shortly before the testator’s death.

The three other named executors brought an application seeking to have the respondent passed over as an executor on the basis that the estate had a claim against him to set aside the gift.

The court granted the order, stating at pp. 6 and 8 (CanLII):
In. It is self-evident that the respondent, in his capacity as executor, cannot conscientiously (as a plaintiff) attack the gift and the transfers of securities to himself while at the same time maintaining in his personal capacity that the gifts and transfers were proper. That will not be a potential conflict; it will be actual…

In Thomasson Estate (Re), 2011 BCSC 481 it was ordered that one of the executors named in a will should be passed over as trustee because he had received an inter vivos transfer of property from the testator, his father.

The beneficiaries of the estate, the testator’s other children, brought the application to have him passed over as trustee on the basis the beneficiaries claimed the property he received in the inter vivos transfer belonged to the estate.

The court noted that courts are hesitant to interfere with the testator’s right to nominate an executor but held that the potential for conflict on the part of the proposed executor was sufficiently disabling that he ought to be passed over.

In Ching Estate (Re), 2016 BCSC 1111, Justice Affleck ordered that an executor be passed over due to a conflict of interest where the named executor, one of the testator’s daughters, applied to prove the will in solemn form and confirm her appointment as trustee. Her sister, a beneficiary, opposed the application on the basis she had commenced an action against the executor to recover an asset the sister claimed was part of the estate. The executor had received the asset from the testator through an inter vivos transfer before her death.

The executor claimed the property was a gift in recognition of continuing assistance she had given to her parents for their medical care.

Without commenting on the merits of the asset recovery action, Justice Affleck found the circumstances placed the executor in a “disabling conflict of interest”.

He said at para. 23 the executor is put in difficult circumstance “when she defends her right to retain assets as her own when there is a dispute over whether they belong to the estate. She cannot perform her duty to claim assets for the estate while asserting the same assets belong to her.”

S. 43 WESA: Gifts to Will Witnesses or Their Spouses

S. 43 WESA: Gifts to Will Witnesses or Their Spouses

Prior to the introduction of WESA on March 31, 2014 the law was clear that the court had no discretion to allow for gifts to a will witnesses or to his or her spouse. Estate of Jason M. Bird 2002 BCSC 1584.

The purpose of that rule was to prevent fraud and undue influence, but its rigid application often defeated the genuine intention of the testator.
As a result of s. 43 WESA, gifts made in such circumstances where a beneficiary or his or her spouse witnesses the will is still presumptively void, but the courts now have the discretion to declare them valid.

The factual circumstances of where s.43 will usually apply is the home made will, and not that prepared by a solicitor.

This is largely due to the effects of s. 58 WESA which empowers the court to order that a document or other record is fully effective as the will of a deceased person if the court is satisfied that the document represents the testamentary intentions of that deceased person.

After verifying the authenticity of the testamentary document, the courts will the focus in on what was the intention of the testator in exercising its discretion pursuant to s. 43 (4) WESA.

At this time there have been three cases decided by the court relating to s.43 WESA, and the court has allowed the validity of each bequest under s. 43 in each case after closely examining the facts and probable intention of the deceased.

1. Bach Estate (Re), 2017 BCSC 548

The testator was predeceased by his wife and was survived by one natural child and two stepchildren. in September 2014, the testator’s sister (the “applicant”) and her husband accompanied the testator to a notary public’s office for the purpose of creating a new will, in which he named the applicant as the sole beneficiary of his estate.
The notary public advised the testator to come back the next day to execute this new will. After that appointment, the testator had to be hospitalized the same day.

That same evening the testator signed a document in which he left his entire estate to the applicant. A physician and the applicant’s husband witnessed the document. The next day the testator passed away.

The applicant brought an application for an order that the document be declared a valid will pursuant to s. 37(1) and s. 58 WESA and that the gift under the will be declared valid pursuant to s. 43 (4) and the application was allowed.

The testator had informed his friend that he wanted to leave his estate to his sister and he had an appointment with a notary public for this purpose. Additionally, the physician who witnessed the document stated that the contents of the document were read aloud to him, that the testator agreed with the contents, and that he understood the document was intended to indicate his wishes for the estate.

Based upon all of the evidence the Court was satisfied that the document executed on September 9, 2014 amounted to a will and represented the testator’s testamentary intent. The gift was not void.

The document was handwritten and read:

SEPT. 9, 2014

I TERRENCE ARTHUR BACH

LEAVE ALL MY ASSETS

In full to my sister

Sharon Rose Thibodeau

“T. Bach”

Witness: “E. Willms”

SEPT 9/14

Witness: “R. Thibodeau”

September 9, 2014

The court’s analysis relied heavily on the s. 58 WESA case law that focused on the intention of the testator .

The court specifically relied upon Yaremkewich Estate (Re), 2015 BCSC 1124, that considered s. 58 and the concept of testamentary intent when considering curing deficiencies in a purported will, stating:

[35] In George the court confirmed that testamentary intention means much more than the expression of how a person would like his or her property to be disposed of after death. The key question is whether the document records a deliberate or fixed and final expression of intention as to the disposal of the deceased’s property on death. A deliberate or fixed and final intention is not the equivalent of an irrevocable intention, given that a will, by its nature, is revocable until the death of its maker. Rather, the intention must be fixed and final at the material time, which will vary depending on the circumstances.

The court allowed extrinsic evidence to be admitted on the question of testamentary intent under s. 43(5) and stated that the court is not limited to the evidence that the inspection of a document provides.

2. Wolk v Wolk 2021 BCSC 1881 reviewed the law of will witnesses or their spouses receiving a gift to them under and the effect of s. 43 (4) of WESA .

The deceased left the following document:
“I leave to my parents, Michael Dawson Wolk and/or Lynda Ruth Wolk should they survive me all monies and properties of my estate with the proviso that they in turn provide a portion of the estate to my daughters, Jessica Berens and [E.H.] either in trust or in a protected format such that they will in turn receive a stipend when they reach the age of twenty-five (25) should they also survive me. This includes the repayment of monies to my parents for loans and assistance given me over the years including the overseeing of my daughter [E.H.].

My parents can decide if the money goes to education payments, RRSPs’, or a similar portfolio to protect my daughters for later in life.
This is as given by me on this 9th day of September 2016.”
The beneficiaries of the “ will” witnessed the document.

Under s. 40 of WESA, the fact that a signing witness is given a gift under the will does not affect the capacity to serve as a witness:

Will Witnesses

s. 40 …

(2) A person may witness a will even though he or she may receive a gift under it, but the gift may be void under s. 43

However a gift to a signatory witness is automatically void by statute, but the court may declare such a gift valid on application under s.43(4) WESA.

Section 43 of WESA includes the following:

(1) Unless a court otherwise declares under subsection (4), a gift in a will is void if it is to

(a) a witness to the will-maker’s signature or to the spouse of that witness,
. . .
(3) If a gift is void under subsection (1), the remainder of the will is not affected.

(4) On application, the court may declare that a gift to a person referred to in subsection (1) is not void and is to take effect, if the court is satisfied that the will-maker intended to make the gift to the person even though the person or his or her spouse was a witness to the will.

(5) Extrinsic evidence is admissible for the purposes of establishing the will-maker’s intention under subsection (4).

The court followed the Re Bach estate decision finding that s. 43(4) is centrally concerned with testamentary intent.

The court was further concerned that absent a declaration of the will’s validity under s. 43(4), there would be a partial intestacy under s. 25 of WESA which would not have been the intended result of the deceased.
The Court found that the deceased wanted the witnesses to receive the bequests as a gift and allowed such under Rule 43(4) WESA.

3. Re Le Gallais Estate 2017 BCSC 1699 dealt with the charging clause in a will that provided that if the lawyer who prepared and witnessed the will should act as the executrix and attend to the legal work of the estate, then she would be entitled to a fee for the usual and proper charge for such legal work.

A legal issue arose as to whether the charging clause in favour of the lawyer was valid due to the fact that the lawyer witnessed the will.

The drafting lawyer M. Isherwood had known the deceased professionally for over 40 years.

The charging clause stated:

“If the said Constance Dora Isherwood should act as Executrix of this my will and should also attend to the legal work of my estate, she shall be entitled to the usual and proper charge for such legal work.”

The court found that the deceased was an experienced business woman who would have known that legal work was required to finalize her estate after her passing.

The court invoked S. 43 ( 4) WESA that a gift to the lawyer was intended and that under the circumstances, the charging clause was not void by reason of her having witnessed the will and would take effect.

Conclusion

The courts have focused on the intention of the deceased when determining relief under s. 43 WESA when a bequest has been made to a witness of the will, or to his or her spouse.

Prior to the introduction of WESA there were strict execution requirements under the previous Wills Act that when not followed undoubtedly resulted in outcomes that were contrary to the intention of the deceased. While well intended these execution rules were strict and the court lacked discretion to in effect do justice.

To date the cases reported under s. 43 (4) have followed the rationale of the several cases reported under as the curative provisions s. 58 WESA and focused on the fixed and final intention of the deceased when signing a purported testamentary document him. Where the court is satisfied as to its validity, it will order curative provisions under both sections of WESA.

Determining the intention of the deceased when examining a document appearing to be a will together with extrinsic evidence from witnesses can be a daunting fact driven exercise for the trier of fact, but is a fact of estate litigation as seemingly more and more people attempt to save money and do their own will.