Intention to Gift: The Legal Requirements

Intention to Gift: The Legal Requirements

A gift requires three elements  to be legally effected, namely an intention to donate, an acceptance of the gift, and delivery of the gift. All three elements must be present for the gift to be complete, and it is then irrevocable.

The gift is the voluntary transfer of property from one person to another without full consideration.
It is well settled law, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Pecore v Pecore  2007 SCC 17 that the courts look to the intention of the donor at the time of the transfer in order to determine if a gift was actually intended.
Anyone who intends to make a gift of property for little or no consideration must ensure that the intention of the donor is well documented. A Deed of gift given under seal, along with the statutory declaration of the intention to gift is probably the best evidence that the courts will rely upon.
The problem however is that a minority of purported gifts are not substantiated at all as to the intention of the donor, which then forces, the court to assess the reliability of the evidence, if any of intention to gift.
Probably the most common form of contentious gifts are the use of joint tenancy in both real property and investments. By reason of the nature of the joint tenancy, upon the death of a joint tenant, the surviving joint tenant automatically becomes the registered owner of the property by right of survivorship. This happens immediately upon death, and does not form part of the estate of the deceased or attract probate fees.
Common reasons for putting property in joint tenancy is to avoid probate fees or avoid a claim under the wills variation statutes, which are inconsistent with an intention to gift and will typically result in a claim of resulting trust being made against the surviving joint tenant.
Accordingly, a mere transfer of the legal title into joint tenancy is not conclusive as to the transfers intention as the beneficial interest may belong to the estate of the deceased and not the surviving joint tenant unless there was a clear indication of the transfers intention to gift.
While the courts will primarily look at the time of the transfer as to  the intention of the deceased as to whether a gift was intended, the courts may also consider the donors subsequent actions to the extent that those actions are relevant to the donors intention of the time of transfer.

Accordingly, a transfer of title into joint tenancy has three potential legal consequences:

A) an immediate gift of both legal and beneficial title;
B) a transfer of the legal title only, so that the transferee holds the property on a resulting trust for the transferor’s estate;
C) as recognized in the Pecore decision, a transfer of the legal title with a right of survivorship in the asset, but a transfer of beneficial title only upon the death of the transferor.

McKendry v McKendry  2015 BCSC 2433 followed the Pecore case and stated inter alia:

[109]   The legal principles applicable when considering a gratuitous transfer into joint tenancy are not in dispute. The basic question is whether the transferor intended to make a gift, or whether the transferee holds the property transferred on a resulting trust.

[110]   Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, is the leading case.

[111]   It is the actual intention of the transferor at the time of the transfer that is relevant: Pecore, at paras. 5,44 and 59. The presumption of resulting trust is a rebuttable presumption of law and general rule that applies to gratuitous transfers.

When a transfer is challenged, the presumption allocates the legal burden of proof.

Thus, where a transfer is made for no consideration, the onus is placed on the transferee to demonstrate that a gift was intended. See Pecore, at paras. 24 and 43.

Rothstein J. also noted (Pecore, at para.44):

[44]   As in other civil cases, regardless of the legal burden,

both sides to the dispute will normally bring evidence to support their position. The trial judge will commence his or her inquiry with the applicable presumption and will weigh all of the evidence in an attempt to ascertain, on a balance of probabilities, the transferor’s actual intention. Thus, as discussed by Sopinka et al, in The Law of Evidence in Canada, at p. 116, the presumption will only determine the result where there is insufficient evidence to rebut it on a balance of probabilities.

[112]   Accordingly, where a gratuitous transfer is being challenged, the trial judge must begin the inquiry by determining the proper presumption to apply and then weigh all the evidence relating to the actual intention of the transferor to determine whether the presumption has been rebutted: Pecore, at para. 55. In general, evidence of the transferor’s intention at the time of the transfer ought to be contemporaneous, or nearly so to the transaction: Pecore, at para. 56.

Nevertheless, evidence of intention that arises subsequent to a transfer should not automatically be excluded. However, such evidence “must be relevant to the intention of the transferor at the time of the transfer

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.

Removal of Executor/Trustee For Conflict of Interest

Removal of Executor/Trustee For Conflict of Interest

As a BC estate lawyer, I am often asked to remove an executor/trustee. Re Ching 2016 BCSC 1111 is one of several cases where the courts have indicated their reluctance to remove an executor for a perceived conflict of interest. The executor/trustee was however removed and replaced as the conflict of interest was “disabling” to her performance as trustee as opposed to the interests of others.

[22]        The authorities indicate that even a “perceived” conflict of interest between an executor’s personal interests and her obligation to administer the trusts in the will in the interests of the beneficiaries may cause this court to intervene to appoint a new executor or an administrator to avoid even the appearance of conflict. In para. 53 of her response to civil claim filed in the asset recovery action Gini alleges that:

[24]        The executor makes several arguments to support her continuation in that role. She submits, firstly, that the estate is complex and that she has “the most knowledge” of its assets among the three sisters. In my view, this consideration cannot outweigh the conflict between her obligation as executor to call in the assets of the estate and her own interest in asserting that significant assets, that are alleged in the asset recovery action to belong to the estate, actually belong to her.

[25]        Secondly, she submits the testator’s choice of executor ought to be respected. I accept that is a compelling factor and this court has often expressed its reluctance to remove an executor when a conflict of interest is alleged.

[26]        In Parker v. Thompson (Trustee), 2014 BCSC 1916, Hinkson C.J.S.C. at para. 37 wrote the following:

[37]         I accept the principles pertaining to the removal of an estate trustee set out by Madam Justice Nolan in Haines v. Haines, 2012 ONSC 1816 at para. 10 as equally applicable to the removal of the trustee:

In Johnson v. Lanka, 2010 ONSC 4124, (2010), 103 O.R. (3d) 258 at para. 15, Pattillo J. summarized the principles that should guide the court’s discretion in deciding whether to remove estate trustees:

(1) the court will not lightly interfere with the testator’s choice of estate trustee;

(2) clear evidence of necessity is required;

(3) the court’s main consideration is the welfare of the beneficiaries; and

(4) the estate trustee’s acts or omissions must be of such a nature as to endanger the administration of the trust.

[27]         The outcome of each application for the removal of an estate trustee will depend on its own facts. The evidence satisfies me that the administration of the estate is endangered if the executor continues to be faced with the conflict of interest inherent in that role.

[28]        Thirdly, the executor submits she has not been guilty of any misconduct in her duties as executor. I make no finding on evidence before me that there has been misconduct but, in my view, even without misconduct the conflict is egregious.

[29]        The executor, lastly, submits that she had little opportunity to administer the trusts before she was prevented from doing so by the notice of dispute. The evidence is that the executor had taken a number of steps to administer the trusts and again those steps illustrate the conflict which has arisen.

[30]        I conclude that Gini, so long as the asset recovery action continues, cannot perform her role as executor without inevitably suffering from a disabling conflict between her own personal interests, as she sees them, and the interests of others.  

[31]        There will be an order that Solus Trust Company Ltd. be appointed administrator of the estate of the testator pending the outcome of the asset recovery action; an order vesting the assets of the testator in Solus Trust for that purpose; an order that Solus Trust is entitled to be paid its fees and disbursements for its administration services in accordance with Schedule A attached to these reasons; and, an order that Pamela and Gini are each entitled to be paid their respective costs of the present application on a full indemnity basis from the estate.

Release of Claims and Different Claim

Release of Claims and Different Claim

Bykerk v Kappalka Estate 2017 BCSC 655 discussed a previous Release of Claims signed by the parties to a second court action under the Wills Variation act (Section 60 WESA) and found that the Release was not binding to prevent the latter claim. The court found that there was no res judicata or issue estoppel  present.

A father had sued a daughter and her spouse for the alleged removal of chattels from his farm. The daughter and her spouse counter claimed for unpaid wages.

After the  father died, the daughter brought an action against  her father’s estate and its sole beneficiary for relief for father’s failure to made adequate provision for daughter in will. The estate and beneficiary brought an application for  an order dismissing action based on the signed release of  the prior action, but the application for dismissal was dismissed and the Wills Variation claim was allowed to proceed.

The Court reason that the potential claim under the wills variation claim could not have arisen against estate until father died leaving a will, so release was not bar to a claim under section 60 of WESA.

For the same reason, the doctrines of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel did not bar claim under S. 60 WESA, nor could the  consent dismissal order for the prior action  bar the subsequent  action.

The signed Release of Claims  was a contract that was  not ambiguous.

That first action was resolved by a Release of Claims that stated in part:

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that in consideration of the total payment by or on behalf of BERNARD KAPALKA and BERNIES LTD. (collectively the “Releasees”), of the sum of $125,344.89 plus 50% of accrued interest plus the sum of $25,000.00 as a contribution to costs and disbursements and the interest of Bernard Kapalka in 2950 Sallenback Road and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, BERNADINE BYKERK and WILLIAM BYKERK (the “Releasors”), DOE_ [sic] HEREBY REMISE, RELEASE AND FOREVER DISCHARGE the Releasees, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of and from any and all manner of actions, causes of action, suits, debts, contracts, claims, demands and damages of any nature or kind whatsoever, which as against the Releasees, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns the Releasors and their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns now have or at any time hereafter can, shall or may have for or by reason of or arising out of or relating to the issues which are the subject of an action brought by the Releasees in the Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, Action No. 43038 (the “Action”) and a Counterclaim by the Releasors in the same action.

 

 

 

Hearsay Evidence In Vancouver Estate Disputes

Hearsay Evidence In Vancouver Estate Disputes

Hearsay evidence is very common in Vancouver estate disputes and generally speaking is allowed by the courts subject to a few principled rules so long as it is not relied upon for “the truth of its contents”.

Hearsay evidence was discussed in Horton v Bruce 2017 BCSC 712 which adopted the principled approach set out at para. 30 in Harshenin v. Khadikin, 2015 BCSC 1213 (B.C. S.C.), citing R. v. P. (R.) (1990), 58 C.C.C. (3d) 334 (Ont. H.C.).

Justice Dardi stated that, on the “principled approach” to hearsay exception, hearsay evidence is presumably inadmissible when relied upon for the truth of its contents, however, if the statement is not proffered for its truth but rather offered pursuant to a well-established exception such as the deceased person’s state of mind, the hearsay evidence is then admissible.

4 rules of hearsay evidence in Vancouver estate disputes:

[33] The onus is on the party tendering the hearsay evidence to establish the necessity and reliability on a balance of probabilities. The court in this case must assess both the threshold reliability of the statement at issue and the statement’s ultimate reliability having regard to the entirety of the evidence…

[34] In this case, because the declarant is deceased, necessity is clearly established. That leaves for determination the issue of the reliability of the various statements attributed to the Deceased.

[35] A court is required to assess the reliability of a statement sought to be adduced by way of hearsay evidence by examining the circumstances under which that statement was made. A circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness is established if the statement was made in circumstances which “substantially negate” the possibility that the declarant was untruthful or mistaken…

[36] As a preliminary threshold issue, the court must first find on a balance of probabilities that the statement was made by the Deceased before it goes on to determine the treatment and weight of such evidence: Creutz v. Estate of Kristian Winther, 2007 BCSC 1463 at para. 99. In essence, this assessment turns on the credibility of the various witnesses…

 

Use of Multiple Wills Approved

Use of Multiple Wills Approved

In re: Berkner Estate 2017 BCSC 619 the Court approved the use  of Multiple Wills in estate planning. 

The applicant submits that a person is entitled to have more than one valid will. As an example, multiple wills may be used when a will maker has assets in multiple jurisdictions. Rather than preparing a single will and then seeking a resealing in all other jurisdictions where the deceased holds property, multiple wills may be utilized. The Canadian Estate Planning Guide (Toronto: Wolters Kluwer, 1995) (loose-leaf revision 233), ch. 10, at p. 216 states:

In a world in which individuals frequently maintain assets in different jurisdictions, the convenience of using multiple wills has long been recognized. The testator simply prepares an original will for each jurisdiction in which he or she has assets. The principal advantage is that each will can be submitted to the proper court or put into effect without any dependence on the other will(s). Where there are assets in several jurisdictions, there is no need to limit oneself to two wills. But in each case, care should be taken to ensure that the will satisfies the formalities of execution of the relevant jurisdiction. Likewise, it is necessary to ensure that one will does not accidentally deal with assets that are also dealt with under another will and thereby create a situation of conflict, presumably resulting in the provisions of the later-dated will having priority with respect to the disposition of such assets.

10      There is no evidence that the deceased prepared two wills to address jurisdictional issues. A more likely motivation for the two wills is found in the following paragraph from the Canadian Estate Planning Guide:

Multiple wills are also used in some provinces as a means of reducing probate tax. Simply put, the basic strategy is to sequester assets that do not require probate in one will, while dealing with the remaining assets that do require probate in a second will. Of course, only the second will is probated, thereby saving probate tax on the assets covered by the primary will. . . .

11      The estate planning strategy of preparing two wills but only applying for probate of one of them was permitted in two Ontario cases, Granovsky Estate v. Ontario, 1998 CanLII 14912, 156 DLR (4th) 557, which I will refer to later, and also in Kaptyn v. Kaptyn (2010), 2010 ONSC 4293.

12      Authority for permitting two wills can be found in Astor, In the Goods of, [1876] P.D. 150, at p. 152:

. . . The question of incorporation in the probate of separate documents has frequently been a subject of consideration, and, I may say, a troublesome matter both to myself and my predecessors, in carrying out the jurisdiction I have now to exercise. I endeavoured to lay down the principles which should guide me in these cases In the Goods of Lord Howden (4), in which I held that where an English will ratifies and confirms a foreign will, it is right that the latter should be incorporated in the probate. In the present case, however, the testator has carefully used the clearest and strongest language to indicate his intention of keeping the English property separate from the American, and for that purpose has made the English will, which does not purport to ratify or confirm the American will, but merely expresses his desire that, if the two cannot be kept totally distinct, the English will shall be treated as a codicil to the American one. I have come to the conclusion that his wishes need not be disappointed, and that there is no reason why I should insist on the incorporation of the American will in the English probate.

13      The Astor case was referred to by the Ontario Court in each of Granovsky Estate and Kaptyn, and I am satisfied that it remains good law in the absence of any rule or legislation to the contrary 

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.

Pleading the Tort of Conspiracy

Pleading the Tort of Conspiracy

It occasionally occurs in estate litigation that parties conspire with others to defeat the claims of a party that give rise to a court  pleading of the tort of conspiracy.

For example, I recently had a situation where the executor attempted to sell the property to a third party for about 2/3 of the fair market price and in effect cheat the beneficiary of the rightful amount of the sale.

It was clear that the executor conspired with the phony purchaser to buy the property and then resell it at it’s fair market value then spit the substantial ill gained  “profit”.

Norkum v Fletcher 2017 BCSC 382 involved the requirements of pleading the tort of conspiracy. the plaintiff sought leave of the court to amend his claim that:

The plaintiff  alleged he was deceived by Ms. Fletcher throughout their relationship. He alleged he was induced by Ms. Fletcher to believe that their relationship was exclusive; and that he intended, and understood Ms. Fletcher to have intended, that they would make a life together as a couple.  He further  alleged that he was led to believe by Ms. Fletcher that the two of them would ultimately occupy Lot 9 together, and  that he provided her with expensive gifts, loans, and other forms of support; and, that he caused MAN to hire her as a human resources manager, paying her a salary, in respect of which he seeks to add MAN as a plaintiff.

18      As a matter of general pleading, R. 3-1(2)(a) clearly states that a notice of civil claim must “set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim”.

19      Further, the requirements at common law for the particularization of all material facts said to underlie a claim for conspiracy are as summarized by Saunders J.A. in Watson v. Bank of America Corporation, 2015 BCCA 362[Watson]:

[125] The elements of [the] tort of conspiracy to injure identified in LaFarge [Ltd. v. B.C. Lightweight Aggregate, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452]; Can-Dive Services Ltd. v. Pacific Coast Energy Corp. (1993), 96 B.C.L.R. (2d) 156, 26 C.P.C. (3d) 395 (C.A.); and Harris v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2010 ONCA 872, 106 O.R. (3d) 661, are:

(i) an agreement or concerted action between two or more persons;

(ii) with the predominant purpose of causing injury to the plaintiff; and

(iii) overt acts committed that cause damage to the plaintiff.

[126] The standard for pleading a conspiracy is well-recognized as strict. In Can-Dive, Chief Justice McEachern adopted the meticulous judgment of Mr. Justice Esson in Thompson v. Coquitlam (District) (1979), 15 B.C.L.R. 59 at 63 (C.A.):

It is well settled that the gist of the tort of conspiracy is not the conspiratorial agreement alone, but that agreement plus the overt acts causing damage.

[127] Chief Justice McEachern added:

[8] Esson J. also cited Bullen, Leake & Jacob’s Precedents of Pleadings, 12th ed. (1975), p. 341. The current edition of Bullen, Leake & Jacob’s Precedents of Pleadings, 13th ed. (1990), states at p. 221-22:

The statement of claim should describe who the several parties to the conspiracy are and their relationship with each other. It should allege the conspiracy between the defendants giving the best particulars it can of the dates when or dates between which the unlawful conspiracy was entered into or continued, and the intent to injure . . . It should state precisely the objects and means of the alleged conspiracy to injure and the overt acts which are alleged to have been done by each of the alleged conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy, and lastly, the injury and damage occasioned to the plaintiff . . .

[Emphasis added.]

20      Saunders J.A. went on to state:

[132] I agree with the defendants that the import of Can-Dive, based as it is in Thompson and Bullen, Leake & Jacob, extends beyond a stay to the requirements for pleading conspiracy to injure. I also agree that Can-Dive does more than describe an aspirational standard, it addresses the requirements of a valid pleading of conspiracy to injure. The standard, at the end, is the one stated by Chief Justice McEachern: “pleadings alleging conspiracy must be as specific as possible”.

Joint Tenancy Severed By Conduct

Joint Tenancy Severed By Conduct

Lescano v Unlu 2016 BCSC 1535 is a case exemplifying how conduct of joint tenants that is inconsistent with joint tenancy can have the legal effect of severing the joint tenancy into a tenancy in common.

The court found that if the joint tenants ever were a couple that it long ago ended and that at least one of the parties, if not both, did not understand the legal effect of a joint tenancy and did not want it from the outset. A hand written will prepared by one of the joint owners indicated that she wished her share of the property to go to her three children equally in the event of her death.

Was the joint tenancy severed?

[6]             There is no dispute that any discussion of severance of a joint tenancy must begin with the decision of Vice-Chancellor Wood in Williams v. Hensman (1861), 70 E.R. 862, at p. 867.  Vice-Chancellor Wood set out the three ways in which a joint tenancy may be severed.

These ways − often referred to subsequently as “Rules” − were summarized by Chief Justice Winkler, for the Ontario Court of Appeal, in the last sentence of para. 34 of Hansen Estate v. Hansen, 2012 ONCA 112, as follows:

Rule 1:  unilaterally acting on one’s own share, such as selling or encumbering it.

Rule 2:  a mutual agreement between the co-owners to sever the joint tenancy, and,

Rule 3:  any course of dealing sufficient to intimate that the interests of all were mutually treated as constituting a tenancy in common.

[7]             In Hansen Estate, the Ontario Court of Appeal expressly declined to follow or adopt what may be described as an added pre-requisite enunciated by Justice Southin, writing on behalf of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Tompkins Estate v. Tompkins, [1993] B.C.J. No. 445 (C.A.).  In Tompkins Estate, Justice Southin stated that Vice-Chancellor Wood’s “Rules” were a species of estoppel.  At para. 17 of her Reasons she wrote:

In my opinion, the Vice-Chancellor was postulating a species of estoppel which might be put thus:  if joint tenants conduct themselves in their legal dealings with one another on a footing consonant only with their interests being several and not joint, one of them may not later resile and assert the interest was joint if a right of survivorship in him would be unjust to his fellow co-tenants who have themselves proceeded on the footing the interests were several.

[8]             Based on this conclusion, Justice Southin stated that the party seeking to assert severance must show that it relied on the acts of a co-tenant, to its detriment.

[9]             In Hansen Estate, Chief Justice Winkler provided cogent and compelling reasons for rejection of these added elements.  In paras. 47 and 49 through 51, Chief Justice Winkler explained the basis of his rejection of Justice Southin’s requirements for proof of reliance and detriment.

[10]         Having carefully considered both the decision in Hansen Estate and the cases cited to me that have applied it; and the decision in Tompkins Estate and the cases cited to me that have applied it: I prefer the reasoning in Hansen Estate.  I am satisfied, however, that even if I am bound to follow Tompkins Estate, the plaintiffs in the case at bar have established that a severance of the joint tenancy between Delma B and Mr. Unlu occurred before Delma B’s death in 2015.

[11]         As discussed in Hansen Estate, and in Tompkins Estate, the primary characteristic distinguishing joint tenancy from tenancy in common is the right of survivorship − that is, that upon the death of one joint tenant, his or her interest passes by operation of law to the other joint tenant or tenants.

 I am satisfied that the facts referred to in the Statement of Agreed Facts, supplemented by the facts set out in these Reasons, establish a course of dealing indicating that Mr. Unlu and Delma B considered themselves to have become tenants in common.

[52]         I have already referred to Mr. Unlu’s testimony indicating that he never wanted joint tenancy and from the outset did not understand or agree that on his death the entire property (the 99% interest he and Delma B held) would become the property of Delma B.  The handwritten “will” prepared by Delma B in December 2000 indicates that she also did not intend that her interest in the property pass to Mr. Unlu by right of survivorship.  She intended her “share” of the property to go to her three children in the event of her death.

[53]         If there was a spousal relationship between Mr. Unlu and Delma B, it ended soon after the purchase of the Richmond home.  Thereafter, the two lived separate and apart in the same home and conducted separate lives.  They did not maintain joint bank accounts or intermingle their finances in any way.  The parties did not maintain any other joint assets.  Delma B moved out of the home temporarily in 2004 and later Mr. Unlu permanently vacated the premises, leaving Delma B in sole possession.

[54]         In 2004, Mr. Unlu attempted to make a will leaving his share of the property to his daughter.  Mr. Unlu’s lawyer, Mr. Ash, wrote to Delma B and asserted on behalf of Mr. Ash that the joint tenancy had been severed at the time the parties separated.  Delma B did not, so far as the evidence indicates, dispute that assertion.  I am of the view that Delma B, who apparently had no legal representation at that time, relied on the representation made by Mr. Ash on behalf of Mr. Unlu, to her detriment.  After December 2005, she paid all of the expenses associated with the home, including the entirety of the mortgage and taxes, without demanding a contribution from Mr. Unlu.  Even after the fire occurred and she could no longer reside in the property, Delma B continued to bear all of the costs of preserving the property.  I conclude she would not have done so had she believed that in the event of her death, the entire benefit of payments made solely by her would go to Mr. Unlu.

[55]         I conclude that the joint tenancy between Mr. Unlu and Delma B was severed prior to the death of Delma B and that at the time of her death, the parties were tenants in common.

Tenancy in Common – 3 Ways to Sever Joint Tenancy

ConvertingJoint Tenancy into Tenancy in Common

Zeligs Estate v Janes 2016 BCCA 280 contains an excellent review of the law relating to severance of a joint tenancy, thus converting it into a tenancy in common:

[45]        Like any owner, a joint tenant is entitled to deal freely with his or her interest in property.  Accordingly, a joint tenant may sever a joint tenancy, with or without the consent or knowledge of the other joint tenant(s) and subject to contrary statutory provision.  After a joint tenant dies, however, severance is no longer possible because death extinguishes the joint interest.  For this reason, a testamentary disposition cannot sever a joint tenancy:  Bergen v. Bergen, 2013 BCCA 492 (CanLII) at para. 40; Hansen Estate at para. 63; A.J. McClean, “Severance of Joint Tenancies” (1979) 57 Can. Bar Rev 1 at 2, 38-41.

[46]        When a joint tenancy is severed, the joint tenancy is converted into a tenancy in common and the right of survivorship is extinguished.  In consequence, each affected co-owner becomes entitled to a distinct share rather than an undivided interest in the whole: Bergen at para. 40; Flannigan v. Wotherspoon (1952), 7 W.W.R. (N.S.) 660 at 665 (B.C.S.C.).  In joint tenancies composed of more than two persons, a blend of interests may be present.  For example, if A, B and C are joint tenants a severance of A’s interest will convert it into a tenancy in common, however, B and C will continue to be joint tenants with rights of survivorship between themselves: McClean at 6; Law Reform Commission of British Columbia at 5.

[47]        Severance is typically effected in one of three ways: by one person’s acting unilaterally upon his or her own share so as to destroy the four unities (for example, by selling it); by mutual agreement (for example, by written contract); or by “any course of dealing sufficient to intimate that the interests of all were mutually treated as constituting a tenancy in common” (for example, by conduct which demonstrates all tenants mutually dealt with their interests as several).  Other possible modes of severance include bankruptcy, partition or an order made under matrimonial property legislation: Williams v. Hensman (1861), 70 E.R. 862 (Eng. Ch.); Tessier Estate v. Tessier, 2001 SKQB 399 (CanLII) at para. 8.

[48]        Vice-Chancellor Wood described the three primary modes of severance, now known as the “three rules”, in Williams at 867:

3 Ways to Sever Joint Tenancy:

  1. In the first place, an act of any one of the persons interested operating upon his own share may create a severance as to that share.  The right of each joint-tenant is a right by survivorship only in the event of no severance having taken place of the share which is claimed under the jus accrescendi.  Each one is at liberty to dispose of his own interest in such a manner as to sever it from the joint fund – losing, of course, at the same time, his own right to survivorship. 
  2. Secondly, a joint-tenancy may be severed by mutual agreement. 
  3. And, in the third place, there may be a severance by any course of dealing sufficient to intimate that the interests of all were mutually treated as constituting a tenancy in common.  When the severance depends on an inference of this kind without any express act of severance, it will not suffice to rely on an intention, with respect to the particular share, declared only behind the backs of the persons interested. You must find in this class of cases a course of dealing by which the shares of all the parties to the contest have been effected, as happened in the cases of Wilson v. Bell [(1843), 5 IR. Eq. 501 (Eng. Eq. Exch.)] and Jackson v. Jackson [(1804), 9 Ves. 591 (Eng. Ch.)]   

[49]        Rule 1 concerns the destruction of an essential unity by a joint tenant’s unilateral action.  As a matter of law, any such act automatically severs a joint tenancy: Bergen at para. 40.  Rules 2 and 3 concern the joint tenants’ common intention and operate in equity.  Where it would be unjust to permit parties to assert survivorship rights because of their conduct, equity intervenes to prevent them from doing so: Hansen Estate at para. 39; Ziff at 345.

[50]        Vice-Chancellor Wood’s judgment in Williams is the usual starting point in a severance analysis, although some jurists and commentators disagree on its meaning.  In particular, the extent to which rule 2 and rule 3 differ is controversial, as is the role, if any, that estoppel doctrine plays.  For example, in Tompkins Estate v. Tompkins (1993), 1993 CanLII 1119 (BC CA), 99 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (B.C.C.A.) Southin J.A. opined that Vice-Chancellor Wood was postulating a species of estoppel in rule 3 and disagreed with the trial judge’s view that severance requires either alienation or agreement, preferring to say it requires “… either alienation or agreement or facts which preclude one of the parties from asserting that there was no agreement” (199).  However, to the extent she interpreted rule 3 as a species of estoppel requiring proof of detrimental reliance, Winkler C.J.O disagreed in Hansen Estate, observing that a course of dealing sufficient to sever requires only that the co-owners knew of the other’s position and mutually treated their interests as several (at paras. 46-51).  In addition, some commentators question whether rules 2 and 3 are truly distinguishable: McClean at 16; Ziff at 345-347.

[51]        This case is primarily concerned with rule 1, the unilateral destruction of an essential unity.  As in Farley v. Pearlson, 2003 BCCA 37 (CanLII), it is thus unnecessary to analyse the full reach and meaning of Williams with respect to rules 2 and 3.  Nevertheless, at trial Mr. Zeligs argued that there was a rule 3 severance based on the parties’ course of conduct and the judge considered both rules 1 and 3, noting the diverging authorities.  In these circumstances, I think it prudent to comment on certain factors that may contribute to the controversy and suggest a possible route to its resolution.

[52]        The leading English authorities on severance are Williams and Burgess v. Rawnsley [1975] Ch. 429 (Eng. C.A.).  The reasons for judgment in both state that rules 2 and 3 cover separate methods of severing a joint tenancy, with severance by mutual agreement covered by rule 2.  However, in undertaking a rule 3 analysis courts sometimes focus on whether there was an implied agreement between the parties.  In other words, the parties’ course of dealings is sometimes analysed under rule 3 as evidence of facts from which an agreement to sever is inferred rather than as a separate method of severance: see, for example, Flannigan.  In my view, this approach blurs the line between rules 2 and 3.

[53]        I agree with Winkler C.J.O. in Hansen Estate that rule 3 is a conceptually distinct method of severance which does not encompass implied agreement.  I also agree with Wright J. in Tessier that the parties’ conduct may provide an evidentiary basis from which agreement can be inferred (at para. 12).  Nevertheless, mutual agreement, express or implied, is captured by rule 2 and should be analysed accordingly. The question under rule 3 is whether, in the absence of agreement, it would be unjust to permit a party to assert survivorship rights because of the parties’ mutual treatment of their interests.

[54]        Further, I see no reason to limit Southin J.A.’s rule 3 requirement of “facts which preclude one of the parties from asserting that there was no agreement” to cases involving detrimental reliance, nor do I think she necessarily did so.  Rather, in my view, on the facts of Tompkins Estate Southin J.A. considered it just to permit the respondent to assert survivorship rights, given the matrimonial context and the parties’ conduct, which, unlike the conduct at issue in Williams, included no element of reliance.  However, on different facts it might well be unjust to do so where co-owners have mutually demonstrated a common intention to treat their interests as several.  Depending on the circumstances, this may be true regardless of whether detrimental reliance can be shown: Hansen Estate at paras. 35-51.

[55]        Ascertaining whether a joint tenancy has been severed is a factual question, often determined on the basis of reasonable inference(s).  It requires the application of a legal standard to the facts as found by the trial judge.  Accordingly, on appeal the standard of palpable and overriding error applies to the judge’s finding that a severance has been effected:  Fuller at paras. 36-38; Flannigan at 666; Tessier at para. 12.

Rule 1 – Severance by Unilateral Action

[56]        When a joint tenant transfers his or her property interest the unity of title is broken and severance follows, subject to contrary statutory provision. For example, in some systems of title registration a transfer must be registered or the co-owner’s consent obtained before a severance takes effect: see, Land Titles Act, 2000, S.S. 2000, c. L-5.1, s. 156.  In British Columbia, however, s. 18(3) of the Property Law Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 377 provides that a joint tenant may sever a joint tenancy by transferring property to himself or herself without requiring that the co-owner(s) be notified and s. 30 of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253 allows for severance by transfer of personal property to oneself and another.  In addition, s. 20 of the LTA provides that an instrument purporting to transfer an interest in land does not pass a legal or equitable interest unless the instrument is registered, except as against the person making the instrument.

[57]        In Stonehouse v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1961 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1962] S.C.R. 103 the Supreme Court of Canada considered a predecessor provision similar to s. 20 of the LTA.  Based on the exception for the maker of the instrument, the court held an unregistered transfer deed executed by a joint tenant severed the joint tenancy.  This result followed because, without purporting to pass the other tenant’s interest, by dealing with her own, the transferring joint tenant changed the character of the other into a tenancy in common by operation of law.  In effect, the exception embedded within the statutory provision preserved the common law rule. 

[58]        Unlike transfers, mortgages do not usually take effect by way of conveyance; they operate by way of security as a charge against title.  In British Columbia, s. 231 of the LTA provides that a mortgage operates to charge the mortgagor’s estate or interest in land.  In consequence, the four unities are not broken when a mortgage is granted and a joint tenancy is not severed: Ziff at 344.  Nor does a unilateral statement of intention to sever effect a severance.  Some form of action or mutual agreement is required to sever a joint tenancy: Walker v. Dubord (1992), 1992 CanLII 2095 (BC CA), 67 B.C.L.R. (2d) 302 (C.A.) at para. 23.

[59]        Property can be converted from one form to another without effecting a severance, but not by unilateral action.  For example, it is possible to convert land into money or vice versa without necessarily severing the joint tenancy.  The law permits joint tenancy in personal property no less than in realty, thus a joint tenancy may carry on following a land sale by all joint owners because joint ownership may continue in relation to the sale proceeds: Allingham v. Allingham, [1932] VLR 469; Walker at para. 41.  However, if the sale proceeds are divided the four unities are destroyed and, in consequence, the joint tenancy is severed: Flannigan at 665-666; Tessier at paras. 11-12; Ziff at 345.

Further reading on tenancy in common

Joint Tenancy vs. Tenancy in Common

Joint Tenancy, Tenancy in Common and the Right of Survivorship

The Nature of a Joint Tenancy