Lawyer Duty Taking Will Instructions: Suspicious Circumstances

Lawyer Duty Taking Will Instructions: Suspicious Circumstances

The duty of a lawyer/solicitor  in taking will instructions when suspicious circumstances are present was discussed in Shroff v Schroff 2017 MBQB 51.

Suspicious Circumstances

Suspicious circumstances have been found to exist in a wide array of situations and are not necessarily sinister in nature. There is no checklist of circumstantial factors that will invariably fit the classification.

Commonly occurring themes include where a beneficiary is instrumental in the preparation of the will (especially where the beneficiary stands in a fiduciary position to the testator), or where the will favours “someone who has not previously been the object of [the testator’s] bounty and does not fall within the class of persons testators usually remember in their wills, that is to say their next of kin”: Longmuir v. Holland, 2000 BCCA 53, at para. 69 [Longmuir]; Heron Estate v. Lennox, 2000 BCSC 1553 at para. 67 [Heron Estate]. In Moore, N. Smith J. found the fact that the testatrix’s doctor had described her as no longer capable of managing her affairs and as suffering dementia around the time she made her will constituted a suspicious circumstance.

The suspicious circumstances may be raised by

(1) circumstances surrounding the preparation of the will,

(2) circumstances tending to call into question the capacity of the testator, or

(3) circumstances tending to show that the free will of the testator was overborne by acts of coercion or fraud.

Duty of the Solicitor When taking Will Instructions When Suspicious Circumstances Present:

[28] As to the role of a solicitor taking instructions from an elderly testator, he quoted with approval the following passage from Murphy v. Lamphier (1914), 31 O.L.R. 287 (H.C.) at 318 (at para. 81):

A solicitor is usually called in to prepare a will because he is a skilled professional man. He has duties to perform which vary with the situation and condition of the testator. In the case of a person greatly enfeebled by old age or with faculties impaired by disease, and particularly in the case of one labouring under both disabilities, the solicitor does not discharge his duty by simply taking down and giving legal expression to the words of the client, without being satisfied by all available means that testable capacity exists and is being freely and intelligently exercised in the disposition of the property. The solicitor is brought in for the very purpose of ascertaining the mind and will of the testator touching his worldly substance and his comprehension of its extent and character and of those who may be considered proper and natural objects of his bounty. The Court reprobates the conduct of a solicitor who needlessly draws a will without getting personal instructions from the testator, and, for one reason, that the business of the solicitor is to see that the will represents the intelligent act of a free and competent person.

[29] Guided by these principles, Hunter, J., concluded that the solicitor (at para. 93):

… did not go far enough, given the suspicious circumstances … to substantiate testamentary capacity. Further inquiries needed to be made to ascertain Ms. Peter’s capacity. Perhaps those inquiries were made, but if so, they were not documented and [the solicitor] has a very limited recollection of their conversations. If a solicitor has good reason to be concerned about testamentary capacity – and such seemed clearly to be the case here – then a systematic assessment of the testator’s capacity should take place, and if doubts remain then there should be an assessment by a physician or a psychologist.

[30] In Cousins Estate, Re, another will case where suspicious circumstances existed, Cullity, J., observed (at para. 70):

The obligations of solicitors when taking instructions for wills have been repeatedly emphasised in cases of this nature. At the very least, the solicitor must make a serious attempt to determine whether the testator or testatrix has capacity and, if there is any possible doubt – or other reason to suspect that the will may be challenged – a memorandum, or note, of the solicitor’s observations and conclusions should be retained in the file: see, for example, Maw v. Dickey (1974), 6 O.R.(2d) 146 (Ont. Surr. Ct.), at pages 158-59; Eady v. Waring [(1974), 2 O.R.(2d) 627 (Ont. C.A.)] …, at page 635; Murphy v. Lamphier … at pages 318-21. Some of the authorities go further and state that the solicitor should not allow a will to be executed unless, after diligent questioning, testing or probing he or she is satisfied that the testator has testamentary capacity. This, I think, may be a counsel of perfection and impose too heavy a responsibility. In my experience, careful solicitors who are in doubt on the question of capacity, will not play God – or even judge – and will supervise the execution of the will while taking, and retaining, comprehensive notes of their observations on the question.

Notice to Dispute: Understanding the Rules

Notice to Dispute: Understanding the Rules

A party wishing to contest the issuance of a grant of probate or administration may file a Notice to Dispute under Rule 25 (10) of the Supreme Court Rules.

While a notice to dispute is in effect, the registrar must not issue an estate grant. The court may, on application, remove the notice of dispute if the court determines that the filing is not in the best interests of the estate. A notice of dispute is in effect for one year after the date of filing unless renewed or removed by order of the court or the will is proved in solemn form. 

Re: Dow Estate 2015 BCSC 292 stated:

[14]         A person who is interested in an estate including an applicant for the estate grant could apply to set aside the notice of dispute pursuant to Rule 25-10(10). The court may remove the notice of dispute if the court determines that the filing is not in the best interests of the estate (Rule 25-10(11)).

Rule 25-10 — Notices to Dispute

(1)To oppose the issuance of an estate grant, an authorization to obtain estate information or an authorization to obtain resealing information or to oppose the resealing of a foreign grant, a person to whom documents have been or are to be delivered under Rule 25-2 (2) must file a notice of dispute that accords with subrule (3) of this rule before the earlier of:

(a) the issuance of an authorization to obtain estate information or an authorization to obtain resealing information, and

(b) the issuance of an estate grant or the resealing of a foreign grant.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8.]

Only one notice of dispute to be filed

(2)A person must not file more than one notice of dispute in relation to any one estate.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8.]

Contents of notice to dispute

(3)A notice of dispute referred to in subrule (1) must be in Form P29, must provide an address for service of the disputant, which address for service must be an accessible address that complies with Rule 4-1 (1), and must disclose

(a) that the disputant is a person to whom documents have been or are to be delivered under Rule 25-2 (2), and

(b) the grounds on which the notice of dispute is filed.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8.]

Amendment of notice to dispute

(4)A notice of dispute may be amended once without leave of the court, and after that only with leave of the court.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8.]

(5)Rule 6-1 (2) and (3) applies to an amendment of a notice of dispute without leave of the court and, for that purpose, a reference in that rule to a pleading is deemed to be a reference to the notice of dispute.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8; am. B.C. Reg. 44/2014, Sch. 1, s. 8 (a).]

Renewal of notice of dispute

(6)The court may renew a notice of dispute, for any period the court considers appropriate, as follows:

(a) if the application for renewal is brought before the notice of dispute ceases to be in effect, if the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order for renewal;

(b) if the application for renewal is brought after the notice of dispute ceases to be in effect, if the court is satisfied that

(i) there were good reasons that the application for renewal could not be brought before the notice of dispute ceases to be in effect,

(ii) substantial prejudice would be suffered by the person seeking renewal of the notice of dispute if the order for renewal is not made, and

(iii) no other person interested in the estate would suffer substantial prejudice if the order for renewal is made.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8.]

Application for renewal of notice of dispute

(7)Subject to Rule 8-5 (6), an application to renew a notice of dispute filed in relation to an estate must be made on notice to

(a) each person who has submitted for filing a submission for estate grant, or a submission for resealing, in relation to the estate,

(b) each person who has filed a notice of dispute in relation to the estate, and

(c) any other interested person to whom the court directs notice be given.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8.]

No grant while notice to dispute in effect

(8)While a notice of dispute is in effect in relation to the estate of a deceased, the registrar must not, with respect to that estate,

(a) issue an estate grant, an authorization to obtain estate information or an authorization to obtain resealing information, or

(b) reseal a foreign grant.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8.]

Withdrawal of notice of dispute

(9)A disputant may withdraw a notice of dispute by filing a withdrawal of notice of dispute in Form P30.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8.]

Application to remove notice of dispute

(10)A person who is interested in an estate in relation to which a notice of dispute has been filed, including, without limitation, an applicant for an estate grant or for the resealing of a foreign grant, may apply on notice to the disputant for an order removing the notice of dispute.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8.]

Grounds on which notice to dispute may be removed

(11)On an application under subrule (10), the court may, by order in Form P31, remove a notice of dispute if the court determines that the filing is not in the best interests of the estate.

[en. B.C. Reg. 149/2013, s. 8.]

When notice of dispute ceases to be in effect

(12)A notice of dispute in relation to an estate ceases to be in effect as follows:

(a) subject to paragraph (b), on the date that is one year after the date on which the notice of dispute was filed;

(b) if the notice of dispute has been renewed under subrule (6), at the end of the renewal period;

(c) if the notice of dispute is withdrawn by the disputant under subrule (9);

(d) if the will in relation to which the notice of dispute relates is proved in solemn form;

(e) if the court orders, under subrule (11) or otherwise, that the notice to dispute is removed.

Court Directions

Court Directions

Biely Estate v CNIB 2017 BCSC 788 involved an application for Court directions to be followed with respect to three competing wills of a deceased.

The application was brought pursuant to Supreme Court Civil Rule 25-14(8)(a) and sought directions that the litigation only deal with the proof in solemn form of Geraldine Biely’s will dated September 25, 2014  and not the counterclaim dealing with two previous wills of the deceased.

Supreme Court Civil Rule 25-14(8)(a) provides as follows:

(8) Without limiting any other power of the court under this or any other Part of these Supreme Court Civil Rules, the court may, on its own motion or application, give directions concerning the procedure to be followed in any matter under this Part and, without limiting this, may give directions respecting any of the following:

(a) the issues to be decided;

(16) The directions sought by the plaintiffs are, essentially, an application to have the subject matter of the counterclaim of the Litzky Defendants dealt with separately from the plaintiffs’ proof of will in solemn form proceeding with respect to the 2014 Will. Pursuant to Rule 3-4, a counterclaim is to be heard at the same time as the main action, unless the court orders to the contrary (Pacheco v. Degife, 2014 BCSC 1570, at para. 200). Under Rule 3-4(7.1) the court may order that the counterclaim be struck out or tried separately or may make any other order it considers will further the object of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

The Court ordered that the counter claim be severed and that the trial proceed firstly on the proff of solemn form action only.

[69] Guidelines that focused attention more keenly on the efficacy of the trial process were helpfully laid out in O’Mara v. Son, Kim et al., 2007 BCSC 871[O’Mara] at para. 23:

1. whether the order sought will create a saving in pre-trial procedures;

2. whether there will be a real reduction in the number of trial days taken up by the trial being heard at the same trial;

3. whether a party may be seriously inconvenienced by being required to attend a trial in which the party may have a marginal interest;

4. whether there will be a real saving in expert’s time and witness fees;

5. whether one of the actions is at a more advanced stage than the other;

6. whether the order sought will result in delay of the trial of any one of the actions and, if so, whether any prejudice which a party might suffer as a result of that delay outweighs the potential benefits which a consolidated trial might otherwise have;

7. the possibility of inconsistent findings and common issues resulting from separate trials.

[70] Severance may well be appropriate where the determination of one issue will render another one moot: Lawrence v. ICBC, 2001 BCSC 1530[Lawrence].

[71] The judicial discretion to sever trials or hearings is to be exercised sparingly: Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, 1972 CarswellBC 62, 24 D.L.R. (3d) 579 (S.C.); Lawrence at para. 43. The test for severance is not applied in a vacuum; it is to be considered against the backdrop of the nature of the particular case at hand: Wirtz v. Constantini, 137 D.L.R. (3d) 393, 1982 CarswellBC 588 (S.C.). Because the determination involves an individualized assessment of the unique case before the Court, there is no closed list of uniformly applied considerations that inform the exercise of the Court’s discretion.

22      The court went on to provide the following comments about Clark v. Nash, [1986] B.C.J. No. 1655 (S.C.) aff’d [1987] B.C.J. No. 304 (C.A.) [Clark]:

[83] . . . there is case authority that has placed some limitation on the nature of claims that can properly be included in a counterclaim to a proof of will in solemn form proceeding. In Clark v. Nash, [1986] B.C.J. No. 1655 (S.C.) aff’d [1987] B.C.J. No. 304 (C.A.) [Clark], the Court held that the procedure and hearing involved in a proof of will in solemn form proceeding should be limited to the aspects of the will execution, testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and fraud. The Court reasoned that a counterclaim to vary a will that is alleged to be invalid is therefore premature, and hearing it at the same time or before the action involving the proof of the challenged will is neither just nor convenient.

Fraudulent Wills: Vancouver Sun Article

Fraudulent Wills

The Vancouver Sun published an article I wrote on the increased risk of fraudulent wills that may occur under WESA.

The B.C. inheritance-and-estate law brought in two years ago has increased the risk of forged and fraudulent wills, says a lawyer involved in the debate about its creation.

Trevor Todd, who runs disinherited.com, said the situation is worrying given that in his 40-year practice he previously saw only one forged will — in the late-1970s. That case involved a nightclub doorman and his legal-secretary girlfriend taking advantage of the chronically drunk bar owner with a will that left everything to the bouncer. The club owner’s widow hired a handwriting expert and the case was settled out-of-court when the will was unveiled as a fake.

The old rules required that a will be in writing, signed by the testator and two witnesses, all in the presence of each other, and neither of whom nor their spouses could inherit as a beneficiary.
(The doorman used two bar flies as witnesses — the girlfriend having alerted him to the perils of signing the phoney document.)
Most forged-wills cases involve handwritten documents, known as holographs, putatively signed by the deceased with no witnesses.

Several decisions since the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA) came into effect March 31, 2014, however, have allowed wills that previously would have been ruled invalid to be probated despite irregularities such as the lack of witnesses.

In one of the first post-WESA cases, (Re the Estate of Woolrich, V140043, unreported, Jan. 21, 2015), the B.C. Supreme Court found a suicide note to be a valid will.

In Re Smith Estate 2016 BCSC 350, the court granted probate to three clipped and stapled-together documents — two handwritten and the other an original funeral-arrangements brochure, all unsigned and unwitnessed.

In Re Yaremkewich Estate 2015 BCSC 1124, the witnesses signed a blank template that didn’t have attached the lists of bequests found with the will after death.

Also, they couldn’t recall if the deceased had signed the will template at the same time as they did. The judge still approved the will, including the lists of bequests. “To date the courts have not set any limit on what type of documentation is necessary to prove a will-maker’s true intentions with respect to his or her last will,” Todd said. “It is possible, for example, that an email message might be admitted to probate as a will. Such a thought immediately conjures up the prospect of an increase in faked wills.”

The previous legislation took a very strict approach to wills, Todd explained, so any deviation caused a will to be deemed wholly or partly invalid. For policy reasons, the government decided far greater court discretion was required to “cure” previously “defective” wills.

Passed in 2009, WESA included provisions that allowed probate as long as the intention of the testator was clear.

At the time, litigators including Todd, predicted more, not fewer lawsuits with the adoption of a significantly different conception of what could be considered a valid will.

With the public now increasingly preparing their own wills, Todd maintained, the self-help process has exacerbated the problem providing even greater opportunity for deathbed legerdemain.
“As the public increasingly prepare their own wills, all without the ‘screen’ of a lawyer testing for capacity and undue influence, it appears inevitable that there will be more forged or faked testamentary documents,” he said.

Combating a counterfeit will, he added, is difficult because bringing a charge of forgery is tantamount to alleging fraud, requires expensive handwriting experts and, if unproven, results in a heavy, special-costs award against the accuser. “Handwriting experts require 20 to 30 handwritten signatures of the deceased, preferably originals only, which they analyze through microscopes,” he said. “Their job is often complicated by the effect of tremors, arthritis or other related afflictions that a frail or elderly will-maker may have.”

And lawyer-prepared wills aren’t a palatable solution.

“There is a great price barrier as to what people will pay professionals to prepare wills, given the availability of will kits and such on the Internet,” Todd noted.

Gift to Witness to Will Cured By S 43 WESA

Gift to Witness to Will Cured By S 43 WESA

Bach Estate 2017 BCSC 548  cured a gift to witness to will to be valid   when prior to WESA  on March 31, 2014 it would  have been invalid.

One of the witnesses to the will was the husband of the deceased and a beneficiary under her will.

The Court followed the reasoning of previous decisions made under S 58 WESA to cure defective wills  and allowed extrinsic evidence to be introduced to show the true testamentary intention of the testator.

Validity

(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 section 43 [gifts to witnesses].

(3) A will is not invalid only because a witness was, at the time the will was signed by the will-maker, or afterwards became, legally incapable of proving the will, unless the witness was not 19 years of age or older at the time the will was signed by the will-maker.

47      The document signed by Mr. Bach on September 9 meets the requirements of ss. 37(1) and 40 and is therefore a valid will under the WESA. This act revoked all prior wills created by Mr. Bach: s.55 WESA.

48      The difficulty arises from s. 43(1):

43(1)  WESA states:

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,

(b) a person signing the will by the will-maker’s direction, or the spouse of the person signing, or

(c) a person claiming under a person, other than the will-maker, referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

49      One of the witnesses to this will was Mr. Thibodeau, the husband of the beneficiary under the will.

50      Prior to 2014, the law was clear: the court had no discretion to allow for such gifts: see Estate of Jason M. Bird, 2002 BCSC 1584. This rule operated as a safeguard against fraud and undue influence, however, the rigid application often defeat the genuine intention of the testator. Under the rule, the gift to Ms. Thibodeau would have failed.

51      However, on March 31, 2014, WESA came into force. Under this new legislation, gifts made in these circumstances are still presumptively void however, the court now has the discretion to declare them valid under s. 43(4):

(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.

52      I am not aware of any case in British Columbia in which this provision has been applied. I find however, that recent jurisprudence under s. 58 of the WESA (concerning court-ordered curing of formally deficient wills) that relates to testamentary intent instructive.

53      For example, in Yaremkewich Estate (Re), 2015 BCSC 1124, Watchuk J. considered s. 58 and the concept of testamentary intent. She stated:

[29] WESA, which came into effect on March 31, 2014, contains a new provision in s. 58 that even if a document fails to comply with the formalities of the statute, a court may nonetheless order that the document is fully effective as if it had complied with the statute.

The provision reads as follows:

Court order curing deficiencies

58(1) In this section, “record” includes data that

(a) is recorded or stored electronically,

(b) can be read by a person, and

(c) is capable of reproduction in a visible form.

(2) On application, the court may make an order under subsection (3) if the court determines that a record, document or writing or marking on a will or document represents

(a) the testamentary intentions of a deceased person,

(b) the intention of a deceased person to revoke, alter or revive a will or testamentary disposition of the deceased person, or

(c) the intention of a deceased person to revoke, alter or revive a testamentary disposition contained in a document other than a will.

(3) Even though the making, revocation, alteration or revival of a will does not comply with this Act, the court may, as the circumstances require, order that a record or document or writing or marking on a will or document be fully effective as though it had been made

(a) as the will or part of the will of the deceased person,

(b) as a revocation, alteration or revival of a will of the deceased person, or

(c) as the testamentary intention of the deceased person.

(4) If an alteration to a will makes a word or provision illegible and the court is satisfied that the alteration was not made in accordance with this Act, the court may reinstate the original word or provision if there is evidence to establish what the original word or provision was.

[30] Accordingly, s. 58(3)(a) 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.

[Emphasis added.]

54      The same inquiry is relevant under s. 43(4). Watchuk J. continued:

Evidence

[31] As a preliminary matter, the statements that Ms. Yaremkewich made to the various affiants and the other evidence of her intention in the affidavits are admissible evidence in this case.

[32] The approach to evidence under Manitoba’s Wills Act, R.S.M. 1988, c. W-150 was summarized by Philp, J.A. in Langseth Estate v. Gardiner (1990), 75 D.L.R. (4th) 25 at 33 (Man. C.A.)

The general rule that extrinsic evidence is not admissible in construing a will (the function of a court of construction) does not apply to the probate court whose duty is to determine whether a document is a valid will. Extrinsic evidence is admissible on the question of testamentary intent, and the Court is not limited to the evidence that an inspection of the document provides.

Testamentary Intent

[33] The s. 58 curative provision was well summarized in Estate of Young, 2015 BCSC 182 [Young]. This provision is one of WESA‘s “most far-reaching remedial provisions”, and it represents a marked departure from the traditional, formalistic approach to the creation of wills (at para. 16). It confers the court with a broad discretion to treat a testamentary record as valid even if it does not comply with the formalities of the statute. However, this provision can only be used to cure errors concerning formalities, and cannot cure substantive errors such as testamentary incapacity or undue influence (at para. 17).

[34] To apply s. 58, the applicant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the record at issue is authentic and that it represents the testamentary intentions of the will-maker: Young at paras. 19, 36; and Bunn Estate (Re) (1992) 100 Sask. R. 231 at 237 (C.A.) [Bunn Estate]. This analysis asks whether the court is satisfied that the document records the will-maker’s deliberate or fixed and final expression of intention as to the disposal of her property upon death. This was summarized in Young as follows:

[34] As is apparent from the foregoing, a determination of whether to exercise the court’s curative power with respect to a non-compliant document is inevitably and intensely fact-sensitive. Two principal issues for consideration emerge from the post-1995 Manitoba authorities. The first in an obvious threshold issue: is the document authentic? The second, and core, issue is whether the non-compliant document represents the deceased’s testamentary intentions, as that concept was explained in George.

[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.

[Emphasis added.]

55      The question, then, is whether the gift expresses the testamentary intentions of Mr. Bach, despite the fact that the will was witnessed by the spouse of Sharon Thibodeau. Extrinsic evidence is admissible.

56      Here, there is the evidence from Ms. Veres: she deposed that when she visited Mr. Bach in August, 2014, he made no mention of intending to change his will. He was frustrated in his efforts to sell the house and said to her in this regard: “you would just have to deal with selling the house yourself”.

57      I note that if a person chooses to exclude a relative from her or his will, it is human not to mention it. The statement he apparently made, however, implies that he was not intending to change his will.

58      But the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. First, Ms. Thibodeau deposed that on July 17, 2014 the deceased told her that he intended to change his will.

59      Her affidavit goes on:

  1. We were sitting in Terry’s house, and Terry started a conversation with me and said he was going to change his Will, and that he wanted to leave everything to me, including his house. He said that I had always been there for him, and I had been so good to him all his life. He said that he did not know what he would have done without me. Terry said, “why should Jamie have my house?”, and that he had worked hard for it.
  2. Terry stated that Jamie [Veres] has a farm and all that land, she doesn’t need it. He further stated that Jamie had always told him that she did not want the house.
  3. Terry told me he was going to call Jamie and let her let her know that he was going to change his Will. I have no knowledge as to whether Terry told Jamie that he intended to change his Will or not; I never questioned him about that at any time.

60      Furthermore, as outlined above, Mr. Bach advised his friend Wendy Boyes that he was leaving all of his estate to his sister Sharon. He told her that on August 9, 2014. On September 2, 2014 he told his sister, Diane Vanderburg, that he wished to leave all of his estate to Ms. Thibodeau.

61      Dr. Willms’ evidence in this regard is significant as well. She deposed that a document expressing Mr. Bach’s intention to leave his estate to his sister was signed. She said that it was read aloud to him and that he stated that he agreed with the contents of the document and that he understood that the document was intended to indicate his wishes for the estate.

62      Finally, there is the evidence of the last 24 hours of Mr. Bach’s life. The deceased had asked Ms. Thibodeau and her husband to take him to a notary for the purpose of making a new will and making other final arrangements. That included signing a power of attorney appointing Ms. Thibodeau as his attorney.

63      On all the evidence, I am satisfied that the document executed on September 9, 2014 amounts to a will and represents Mr. Bach’s testamentary intent. The gift is not void.

64      The application is therefore allowed.

Conflict of Law: “Ordinarily Resident”

Conflict of Law: "Ordinarily Resident"

Cresswell v Cresswell Estate 2017 BCSC 178 dealt with a conflict of law situation and held that the jurisdiction of the BC court should be denied for a wills variation action and held that it should properly be filed under Alberta court jurisdiction as the deceased was found to be “ordinarily resident ” there.

The plaintiff was the surviving spouse who after marrying the deceased in Alberta in 1994 lived together there until buying a house in BC in 2014 that was registered in joint tenancy and which went to the surviving plaintiff after her death.

The deceased returned to Alberta in 2015 for cancer treatments and to live with family and remained there until her death in late 2016.

Her will provided that it would be interpreted as per the laws of Alberta.

Her will left everything to her three children who were all Alberta residents.

The court interpreted the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer act and held that the deceased had a settled intention to ordinarily reside in Alberta when she moved there in November 2015, and that at the time of her death she had no real or substantial connection to BC.

The Court determined that Alberta was the proper jurisdiction for the case having regard to the interests of the parties and the ends justice, and declined to exercise BC jurisdiction in favour of Alberta.

Section 10(b) of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, S.B.C. 2003 c. 28 states as follows:

10  Without limiting the right of the plaintiff to prove other circumstances that constitute a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the facts on which a proceeding is based, a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and those facts is presumed to exist if the proceeding

…

(b)  concerns the administration of the estate of a deceased person in relation to

(i)  immovable property in British Columbia of the deceased person, or

(ii)  movable property anywhere of the deceased person if at the time of death he or she was ordinarily resident in British Columbia

Section 11(1) states:

11  (1) After considering the interests of the parties to a proceeding and the ends of justice, a court may decline to exercise its territorial competence in the proceeding on the ground that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum in which to hear the proceeding.

(2)  A court, in deciding the question of whether it or a court outside British Columbia is the more appropriate forum in which to hear a proceeding, must consider the circumstances relevant to the proceeding, including

(a)  the comparative convenience and expense for the parties to the proceeding and for their witnesses, in litigating in the court or in any alternative forum,

(b)  the law to be applied to issues in the proceeding,

(c)  the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of legal proceedings,

(d)  the desirability of avoiding conflicting decisions in different courts,

(e)  the enforcement of an eventual judgment, and

(f)  the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole.

The term “ordinarily resident” has been interpreted by the Court in Blazek v. Blazek, 2009 BCSC 1693, at paras. 31-35:

[31]      Section 3 of the Act provides that the court has territorial competence in a proceeding if the person is “ordinarily resident in British Columbia at the time of the commencement of the proceedings.” Although the evidence is somewhat conflicting, it appears that at the time this action was commenced in 2007, the defendant split his time between the Czech Republic and Kelowna, British Columbia. There is a dispute between the parties regarding whether the amount of time the defendant spent in British Columbia was more or less than 150 days.

[32]      The meaning of “ordinarily resident” has been considered by the courts on many occasions. The authority often referred to is Thomson v. Minister of National Revenue, [1946] S.C.R. 209, [1946] C.T.C. 51, where Mr. Justice Estey stated:

A reference to the dictionary and judicial comments upon the meaning of these terms indicates that one is “ordinarily resident” in the place where in the settled routine of his life he regularly, normally or customarily lives. One “sojourns” at a place where he unusually, casually or intermittently visits or stays. In the former the element of permanence; in the latter that of the temporary predominates. The difference cannot be stated in precise and definite terms, but each case must be determined after all of the relevant factors are taken into consideration, but the foregoing indicates in a general way the essential difference. It is not the length of the visit or stay that determines the question. …

…

It is well established that a person may have more than one residence…

[33]      I am satisfied that the defendant resided in both places in 2007. I agree with the plaintiff’s position that “ordinarily resident” should be given a broad and liberal interpretation, in accordance with the provisions of the Act regarding corporations ordinarily resident in the province; “ordinarily resident” does not require a counting of days in which a party may spend in this jurisdiction. One can be ordinarily resident in more than one jurisdiction.

[34]      I am satisfied that the defendant was ordinarily resident in British Columbia. He was served with the writ of summons and statement of claim in this action at the Kelowna address and he was a director and officer of a company which listed the Kelowna address as the defendant’s address at the time the action was commenced. Further, the defendant files his income tax in Canada and receives a pension in Canada.

[35]      On this test, the court has territorial competence to hear the matter.

[27]         I am satisfied that the deceased had a settled intention to ordinarily reside in Alberta when she moved there on November 14, 2015 and took up residence at her sister’s home. It is clear from the evidence that she intended to remain in Alberta to be around her family and although some of her comments that were transcribed by the plaintiff are inconsistent where she said, on November 19, 2015:  “[t]hat’s sad hopefully I will be back there in a few months”, referring to Westbank, and on January 14, 2016: “One last thing I love you please remember that”. Those comments must be taken in context to her impending death. It is clear that she was applying for Alberta medical coverage, she changed her mailing address on her Edmonton Royal Bank chequing account to that of her sister, she had a will drawn up in Edmonton to be governed by the laws in Alberta, and it is clear from the telephone messages that she wished to sell the home in Westbank. Her contacting a lawyer and attempting to commence divorce proceedings shows her intention to separate from the plaintiff as was the January 9, 2016 text:  “You said you were here for me and you are a liar. I want you out.”

[28]         I am satisfied, based on all the evidence, that at the time of her death, the deceased was ordinarily resident in Alberta.

[29]         I am also satisfied that at the time of her death she did not have any real and substantial connections to British Columbia (s. 10 of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act).

[30]         The defendants also say that this court should decline to exercise its territorial competence in accordance with s. 11 of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

[31]         Section 11(1) states:

11  (1) After considering the interests of the parties to a proceeding and the ends of justice, a court may decline to exercise its territorial competence in the proceeding on the ground that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum in which to hear the proceeding.

(2)  A court, in deciding the question of whether it or a court outside British Columbia is the more appropriate forum in which to hear a proceeding, must consider the circumstances relevant to the proceeding, including

(a)  the comparative convenience and expense for the parties to the proceeding and for their witnesses, in litigating in the court or in any alternative forum,

(b)  the law to be applied to issues in the proceeding,

(c)  the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of legal proceedings,

(d)  the desirability of avoiding conflicting decisions in different courts,

(e)  the enforcement of an eventual judgment, and

(f)  the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole.

[32]         Here, I am satisfied that the evidence is overwhelming, that all of the defendants and all the evidence concerning the execution of the will, and deceased’s assets, are in Alberta, as are the witnesses. I am satisfied after considering the interests of the parties to this proceeding and the ends of justice that this court should decline to exercise its territorial competence as Alberta is the more appropriate forum in which to hear these proceedings.

Anti-Ademption Under S 48 WESA

Anti-Ademption Under S 48 WESA

Forbes v Millard Estate 2017 BCSC 361 discusses and gives effect to S. 48 WESA , known as the anti-ademption provision, when property is disposed of by a nominee such as a power of attorney prior to death that under common law the bequest would have failed.

In McDougald Estate v. Gooderham (2005), 255 D.L.R. (4th) 435, 17 E.T.R. (3d) 36 (Ont. C.A.) [McDougald Estate], the Ontario Court of Appeal explained the concept of ademption: ” [1] Wills often contain bequests, which are directions that specific items of property are to be given to named recipients upon the testator’s death.  Sometimes the specified item cannot be found among the testator’s assets at the time of death.  This can happen because the item is lost, destroyed, sold or given away before the testator dies.  At common law, in such a situation, the bequest is held to have adeemed and the gift fails.  If there are proceeds from the disposition of the item of property, the proceeds fall into residue and are distributed accordingly.  The proceeds are not given to the named beneficiary.”

Section 48 WESA was enacted to deal with ademption and applies to a will, whenever it was executed, if the will maker dies on or after March 31, 2014 when WESA came into effect.

S. 48 WESA states:

48 (1) In this section, “proceeds” means the gross proceeds at the time of disposition, and includes

(a) non-monetary consideration, and

(b) in the case of a gift, the fair market value of the gift.

(2) If property that is the subject of a gift in a will is disposed of by a nominee, the beneficiary of the gift is entitled to receive from the will-maker’s estate an amount equivalent to the proceeds of the gift as if the will had contained a specific gift to the beneficiary of that amount.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if

(a) the disposition is made to carry out instructions given by the will-maker at a time when the will-maker was legally capable of giving instructions, or

(b) a contrary intention appears in the will.

THE FACTS:

The deceased executed a will in September 2000 where she left her daughter “any property which I may own and be using as a home at the date of my death”.
The deceased became mentally incompetent and five years later, her attorneys appointed under an enduring power of attorney sold her only property for $185,000″
The deceased died In February 2015.
Accordingly, the deceased did not own property at the time of her death, and that common-law such a bequest would have adeemed since it no longer existed.
The petitioner successfully argued that because the property was sold by a nominee, namely an attorney under a power of attorney, S 48 ( 2) of WESA applied and that her daughter  should accordingly  receive the sale proceeds of the property, just as if the will had contained a specific gift of the proceeds of the sale.
The court also relied on S.  186, of WESA stating that the transitional provisions of WESA contained in Section 4 applied to a will, whenever executed, if the will maker dies on or after the date of March 31, 2014 which was the case.
The court concluded that S 48 is not retrospective in its general nature and that it did not operate retrospectively in this particular case.
Moreover, even if section 48 is retrospective in nature it does not interfere with vested rights. There were no vested rights in this fact pattern because the respondent’s rights were only vested on the death of the deceased.
The deceased had expressed clear intentions in her will as to the reasons that she wished her daughter  to receive the bequest of the property, and it was only because she was incapable that the attorneys sold the property after she went into a rest home.
To fail to give effect to the anti-ademption provision in such circumstances would in the courts view inappropriately frustrate the deceased’s clear intentions.

Wills Variation: Disinherited Adult Children vs. Second Spouse

Wills Variation: Court Criteria Between Disinherited Adult Children and Second Spouses

R. (J.) v M. (JD) 2016 BCSC 2265 summarized the court criteria will consider when deciding the competing moral claim of a disinherited  adult independent child  and a second spouse who inherited  the entire estate.

The adult child had been disinherited and had been estranged from her deceased father due to the actions of the father throughout the plaintiff’s life, which included sexual and emotional abuse, as well as a lack of financial or emotional support in her formative years.
There was no explanation for the disinheritance of the adult child in the will or any memorandum to the will.
The second spouse of eight years marriage received assets worth $1 million outside of the will and a lifetime pension of $36,360 per year.
The second spouse was also the residual beneficiary of an estate worth $775,000.
The court varied the will to give the adult child, a bequest of $250,000.
The court set out the criteria to be considered when both considering the moral obligation owed to an adult child as well is the criteria to be considered when dealing with a second spouse.

THE  LAW

[82]         Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807, is the governing authority in British Columbia on the WVA. McLachlin J., as she then was, writing for the Court, articulated the relevant considerations and principles that animate the application of the WVA. The fundamental approach is anchored in her observation that “[t]he search is for contemporary justice”: Tataryn, at 815. The courts must read the WVA “in light of modern values and expectations” and “are not necessarily bound by the views and awards made in earlier times”: Tataryn, at 814-815.

[83]         The Court in Tataryn stated that the determination of whether a will makes adequate provision and, if not, what provision would be adequate, just and equitable, are “two sides of the same coin”: Tataryn, at 814.

[84]         The primary statutory objective of the WVA is the adequate, just, and equitable provision for a testator’s spouse and children. As identified in Tataryn, the other protected interest is testamentary autonomy. However, testamentary freedom must yield to the extent required to achieve adequate, just, and equitable provision for the applicant spouse and/or children. In that sense and to that degree only, testamentary autonomy will be curtailed by the application of the WVA: McBride v. Voth, 2010 BCSC 443 at para. 125. The Court of Appeal in Chan v. Lee (Estate), 2004 BCCA 644 at para. 43 affirmed that courts should not approach the WVA as a means “to right all the perceived wrongs of the past” or “to improve upon the degree of fairness of a will” if the testator has met his obligations under the WVA.

[85]         In addressing the adequacy of the testamentary provision, Madam Justice McLachlin clarified that the question of whether a testator has acted as a judicious parent or spouse is measured by an objective standard, assessed in light of current societal legal norms and moral norms. As outlined in Tataryn, legal norms are the obligations that the law would impose upon the testator during his or her life if the question of provision for a claimant’s spouse or child were to arise. A testator’s moral duties are grounded in “society’s reasonable expectations of what a judicious person would do in the circumstances, by reference to contemporary community standards”: Tataryn, at 820-821.

[86]         The concept of adequate provision is a flexible notion which turns on the particular circumstances of the case: Dunsdon v. Dunsdon, 2012 BCSC 1274, at para. 131. Tataryn expressly acknowledged that moral duties are more susceptible to being viewed differently by different people because there is no clear legal standard by which to judge such duties: Tataryn, at 822. However, the analysis in Tataryn underscores that the court must apply an approach that accords with a contemporary view of marital and parental obligations.

[87]         The Court in Tataryn recognized that the foregoing assessment necessarily involved the balancing of competing claims, and held that where the size of the estate permits, all moral and legal claims should be satisfied. Where prioritization is necessary, generally, claims that would have been recognized as legal obligations during a testator’s lifetime take precedence over moral claims. The court must also weigh the competing moral claims and assign each its priority according to their relative strength: Tataryn, at 823. The Court recognized that such an analysis would produce a range of options for the distribution of assets which might be considered appropriate in the circumstances. The court should only make an order to vary a will where the testator’s chosen distribution falls outside of this range.

[88]         The jurisprudence also establishes that in determining whether the will-maker has fulfilled his or her obligations, the court may consider gifts made outside the will. If a will-maker has made inter vivos gifts to individuals other than the claimant or has arranged his affairs to facilitate a passing of assets to such individuals outside the framework of the will, the moral duty to a claimant may be intensified: Wong v. Soo, 2015 BCSC 1741. Conversely and depending on the circumstances, a will-maker’s moral duty may be diminished or negated entirely where he or she has made gifts to a claimant either before death or in consequence of it: Dundson at para. 185; Doucette at para. 84.

[89]         The legislated scheme of intestate succession does not serve as a guidepost in determining whether adequate provision has been made under the WVA: Wilson at para. 379; Hall v. Korejwo, 2011 BCCA 355 at para. 46.

[90]         In reference to the moral claim of independent adult children, the Court in Tataryn observed that while they “may be more tenuous” than that of a spouse or dependent child, some provision for adult independent children should be made if the size of the estate permits and in the absence of circumstances that would negate the existence of such an obligation: Tataryn, at 822-823.

[91]         In Dunsdon Madam Justice Ballance conveniently summarized the considerations that inform the existence and strength of a testator’s moral duty to independent children:

[134]   

  • relationship between the testator and claimant, including abandonment, neglect and estrangement by one or the other;
  • size of the estate;
  • contributions by the claimant;
  • reasonably held expectations of the claimant;
  • standard of living of the testator and claimant;
  • gifts and benefits made by the testator outside the will;
  • testator’s reasons for disinheriting;
  • financial need and other personal circumstances, including disability, of the claimant;
  • misconduct or poor character of the claimant;
  • competing claimants and other beneficiaries:

(See Clucas v. Clucas Estate, [1999] B.C.J. No. 436; McBride v. McBride Estate, 2010 BCSC 443; Yee v. Yu, 2010 BCSC 1464; Wilson v. Lougheed, 2010 BCSC 1868)

[92]         In assessing the strength of the legal and moral obligations owed by a testator to a second spouse, the court will consider factors such as:

(a)            The length of the marriage;

(b)            When and how the testator’s assets were acquired;

(c)            The contribution of the second spouse;

(d)            How family assets would be divided under the applicable family legislation upon marriage breakdown;

(e)            Competing obligations with the children from the first marriage;

(f)              Financial circumstances of the spouse;

(g)            The size of the estate; and

(h)            The magnitude of assets passing to the spouse outside of the estate in consequence of other pre-death transactions undertaken by the testator.

[See Wong v. Soo, 2015 BCSC 1741 at paras. 73-82; Saugestad v. Saugestad, 2006 BCSC 1839, varied on different grounds 2008 BCCA 38; Mawdsley v. Meshen, 2010 BCSC 1099, affirmed 2012 BCCA 91; Ciarniello v. James 2016 BCSC 1699]

Will In “Contemplation of Marriage” Not Revoked

Will In "Contemplation of Marriage" Not Revoked

Pace Estate 2016 BCSC 2306 held that a 2001 will left to “my common law spouse  of four years ” was not revoked by their subsequent marriage under what was then S 15 Wills Act that provided that marriage revoked a will. The parties married over a year  after the execution of the will.

The will did not expressly state that the will was being signed in ” contemplation ” of their marriage.

The parties signed mirror wills at the time leaving the residue of each of their estates to the other.

The parties separated a few years later and divorced in 2009. The effect of S. 16 of the Wills act invalidated the appointment of that spouse as executrix and as the recipient of the residue of his estate when he subsequently died in 2015. In fact he had been living with another spouse for about 2 years prior to his death and there was a dispute as to whether she was his spouse.

Since the introduction of WESA on March 31, 2014 marriage no longer does revoke a previous will.

It is not clear why the first spouse sought an order that the 2002 will had not been revoked by their subsequent marriage, but in any event the court held that it had not been revoked.

Extrinsic evidence was allowed and indicated to the court that the deceased clearly intended his will to be made in contemplation of his marriage even though it did not expressly state so.

The court followed the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in MacLean estate v Christianson 2010 BCCA 374 at paras 30-31 where the court held that it had the right to ascertain all the facts that were known to the testator at the time the will was signed so as to determine the intention.

They had arranged their affairs so that they were the named beneficiaries of each others pensions and insurance.

The court further held that the will could not have been rectified under the provisions of  59 WESA  as his death occurred after the coming into force of WESA  and new statutes are presumed to not have retrospective application where such statutes affect the substantive  rights of others R. Dineley ( 2012) SCJ #58.

The court declared to have held other wise would have frustrated the clear intent of the parties and have run afoul of the presumption against an interpretation that resulted in an intestacy.

The court held that under S 18 of the Wills act the will had been “revived” by showing a contrary intention  that the will had not been revoked by the  subsequent marriage.

Statute Barred Debt to Estate Deducted From Beneficiary

Statute Barred Debt to Estate Deducted From Beneficiary

Re Johnston Estate 2017 BCSC 272 upheld the rule in Cherry v. Boultbee  which provides that where a legatee of a share of the residue is a debtor of the estate, he or she is not entitled to receive his or her legacy without bringing his or her debt into account, even though the debt owed by the beneficiary in that case was 43 years old and was statute barred.

The rule derives from the case of Cherry v. Boultbee (1839), 4 My. & Cr. 442. It is an equitable principle designed to ensure fairness.

The purpose of the rule was to prevent a beneficiary who owed money to an estate from receiving more than his or her fair share of the estate.

In the case of Re: Akerman, Akerman v. Akerman, [1891] 3 Ch. 212, Kekewich J. stated:

A person who owes an estate money, that is to say, who is bound to increase the general mass of the estate by contribution of his own, cannot claim an aliquot share given to him out of that mass without first making the contribution which completes it. Nothing is in truth retained by the representative of the estate; nothing is in strict language set off; but the contributor is paid by holding in his own hand a part of the mass, which, if the mass were completed, he would receive back.

29      The rule has been held to apply even where the debt is statute-barred: see Re: Akerman.

30      The applicant submits that the rule continues to apply in Canada and relies on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada Trust Company v. Lloyd et al, [1968] S.C.R. 300.

In that case, the Supreme Court applied the rule in Cherry v. Boultbee in finding that the contribution of three directors who had improperly withdrawn funds from the company some 43 years earlier, had to be taken into account in the distribution of the residue by the receiver. The court noted that the situation was analogous to that of a “legatee who must bring into account even a statute barred debt before he can claim a legacy left to him in the testator’s will”.

31      The applicant also relies on a more recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Olympia & York Developments Ltd. v. Royal Trust Co. (1993), 103 D.L.R. (4th) 129, where the court confirmed that the rule in Cherry v. Boultbee has been accepted in Canadian decisions and, where appropriate, applied.

The rule in Cherry v. Boultbee does not confer on the estate any right to recoup the amount owing but rather operates to ensure fairness in the distribution of an estate, recognizing that the relationship between a testator and his or her beneficiaries is typically not at arm’s length. The fundamental purpose of the rule is to ensure that beneficiaries are treated fairly and it embodies the principal that he who seeks equity must do equity. As the court noted in Re: Akerman, nothing is being retained by the representative and nothing is being set off but rather, the contributor is paid by what he is holding in his own hand.

The court in Re: Goy & Co Ltd., [1900] 2 Ch. 149, also noted that the claimant has in his own hands that which is applicable to the payment and should pay himself out of that. The question of whether the testator or the estate can recover the debt or whether the debt is statute barred is therefore largely irrelevant to the application of the rule. In my view, the change in approach to limitation provisions by the Supreme Court of Canada in Tolofson does not affect the application of the rule in Cherry v. Boultbee.

37      The decision of the Yukon Territory Court of Appeal in Leeper Estate makes it clear that the rule in Cherry v. Boultbee continues to apply in Canada.

39      The Estate of William Leonide Johnston is, however, entitled to retain and deduct from the share of the estate otherwise payable to the respondent an amount on account of the debt owed to the Estate of William Johnston by the respondent that was outstanding and owing on his death.