Section 46 WESA deals with the lapsed gifts in wills often caused by poor will drafting , failure by the parties to properly consider what the future may bring , or the beneficiary predeceasing, any of which results in disappointed beneficiaries not receiving the intended gift.
Instead of wording the will’s bequest of “any real property that I own at the time of my death” , many will- drafters instead incorrectly state a particular address of a particular property, owned at the time of the will making, but long sold before death.
The gift of real property in that situation has lapsed simply because it ceased to exist.
Almost by definition, a lapsed gift results when a substantial change in circumstances occurs between the execution of the will and death, so that the gift has either failed or ceased to exist.
The lapsed gift often results from both poor drafting together with the simple fact that many people do not realistically ponder their aging and succession and just resort to avoidance.
Very often the beneficiary predeceases the will- maker at which time the “anti-lapse rule of S 46 of WESA (Wills, Estates and Succession Act) ” establishes a default scheme for determining alternative beneficiaries of a lapsed gift.
The Default Scheme of Section 46 WESA (Replacing and altering the previous S. 29 Wills Act)
Section 46 applies to all gifts of any nature, whether specific in nature or residual but only if there is no contrary intention stated in the will.
If the will- maker has named an alternate beneficiary for a gift that has lapsed, then in that event the alternate beneficiary has the first priority to inherit the gift, no mater what the reason for the failure of the gift.
If there was no alternative beneficiary of the gift , and the named beneficiary is either a sibling, or as descendant of the will- maker, then the named beneficiary’s descendants will be entitled to the failed gift.
If there was no descendant of the will- maker , then the gift will go to the residual beneficiaries in proportion to their named interests in the will.
When gifts cannot take effect
46 (I) If a gift in a will cannot take effect for any reason, including because a beneficiary dies before the will-maker, the property that is the subject of the gift must, subject to a contrary intention appearing in the will, be distributed according to the following priorities:
(a) to the alternative beneficiary of the gift, if any, named or described by the will-maker, whether the gift fails for a reason specifically contemplated by the will-maker or for any other reason;
(b) if the beneficiary was the brother, sister or a descendant of the will-maker, to their descendants, determined at the date of the will-maker’s death, in accordance with section 42(4) [meaning of particular words in a will];
(c) to the surviving residuary beneficiaries, if any, named in the will, in proportion to their interests.
(2) If a gift cannot take effect because a beneficiary dies before the will-maker, subsection (I) applies whether the beneficiary’s death occurs before or after the will is made
Becker v Becker 2016 BCSC 487 nicely summarizes much of the law relating to mental capacity aka testamentary capacity including the law re the burden of proof in mental capacity cases.
THE LAW
51 The burden of proving testamentary capacity is on the party propounding the Will, but there is a presumption of capacity where the Will has been duly executed, with the requisite formalities, after having been read by or to a testator who appeared to understand it. That presumption may be rebutted by evidence of suspicious circumstances, in which case the burden reverts to the propounder to prove testamentary capacity on the balance of probabilities: Vout v. Hay, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876 (S.C.C.).
52 The “suspicious circumstances” must do more than create “a general miasma of suspicion”; they must create “a specific and focused suspicion that the testator may not have known and approved of the contents of the will: Clark v. Nash (1989), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 409 (B.C. C.A.) at 425.
53 Suspicion may relate to circumstances:
i) surrounding the preparation of the will;
ii) tending to call into question the capacity of the testator; or
iii) tending to show that the free will of the testator was overborne by acts of coercion or fraud: Laszlo v. Lawton, 2013 BCSC 305 (B.C. S.C.) at para. 202.
54 The usual civil standard of proof — namely, proof on a balance of probabilities — applies, but as a practical matter the extent of the proof required will be proportionate to the gravity of the suspicion, which will vary with the circumstances peculiar to each case: Vout at para. 24; Laszlo at para. 205.
55 In Laszlo at para. 207, Justice Ballance said there is no fixed checklist of circumstances that will be considered suspicious, but:
[207] … [c]ommonly 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].
56 Ballance J. also discussed, at paras. 189 and 190, the question of timing:
[189] Timing is key. In general, the first relevant time that testators must have testamentary capacity is when they give will instructions; the second is when the will is executed. In recognition of the fact that faltering mental capacity is prone to fluctuate, the authorities permit variation of the degree of capacity required at these pivotal times. For example, the will of a testator who is competent to give instructions, but has lost capacity when the will is executed, may be valid so long as, at the time of execution, the testator was capable of comprehending that she was executing a will drawn in accordance with her previous instructions: Parker v. Felgate (1883), 8 P.D. 171; Brownhill Estate (1986), 72 N.S.R. (2d) 181 (Co. Ct).
Positions of dependence or domination are frequently involved in estate litigation and typically relate to caregiving or predator type behavior that ultimately takes advantage of feeble mind.
Elder Estate v Bradshaw 2015 BCSC 1266 involved a contested court action re the validity of the deceased’s will as a result of allegations of lack of mental capacity and undue influence.
The deceased left his entire estate to a 26 year younger housekeeper who gradually became his caregiver. The will was challenged by his three nephews who were his next of kin on an intestacy.
The decision is a good source of law relating to both the legal framework for proving the validity of a will in solemn form, as well as a review of undue influence, both with respect to a bequest left in the will and monies advanced to a joint bank account.
The court examined the evidence of several witnesses and concluded that there was no undue influence on the part of the caregiver with either the will or the joint bank account.
The deceased was elderly, had no next of kin and was almost reclusive. The relationship between the parties was over several years and the witnesses testified that their relationship was not suspicious in any manner. The evidence supported the caregiver’s position that she was his main source of emotional and physical support for many years, and he stated that he did not know what he would do without her.
It is somewhat surprising that the court does not adopt s. 52 WESA in its reasons for judgment relating to the issue of the shifting onus of proof re undue influence other than to say that the legal framework to prove the will in solemn form is still the law relating to the shifting burden of proof, despite the wording of s. 52.
It is almost impossible to separate the two issues of lack of mental capacity and undue influence as they are invariably intertwined in the facts. Probably the only undue influence case that might occur without there being lack of mental capacity is the situation of a cult were on person controls the minds of many.
THE LAW
[10] In Leung v. Chang, 2013 BCSC 976, Dardi J. summarized the pertinent authorities and legal framework for analyzing a proof in solemn form claim where issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence are raised:
Legal Framework of Proving a Will Valid In Solemn Form
[25] The Supreme Court of Canada in Vout v. Hay, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876 clarified the principles with respect to the burden of proof in litigation regarding contested wills. The Court articulated the considerations which govern the interrelation of the doctrine of suspicious circumstances and the issues of testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, undue influence and fraud.
[26] In an action for proof of will in solemn form, the party propounding the will must prove on a balance of probabilities that the will was executed in compliance with the statutory formalities, that the will-maker knew and approved of the contents of the will and that the will-maker had testamentary capacity: Vout at paras. 19-20.
[27] In order to make a valid will, the will-maker must have a “baseline level of mental acuity” or a “disposing mind and memory”, sufficient to appreciate and comprehend the nature and effect of the essential elements of the testamentary act. This encompasses an appreciation of the claims of the persons who are the natural objects of her estate and the extent of her property of which she is disposing: Laszlo v. Lawton, 2013 BCSC 305 at para. 185; Banks v. Goodfellow (1870), L.R. 5 Q.B. 549; Leger v. Poirier, [1944] S.C.R. 152 at 161. The assessment of whether a will-maker possesses testamentary capacity is a highly individualized inquiry and is a question of fact to be determined in all the circumstances: James v. Field, 2001 BCCA 267 at para. 51; Laszlo at para. 197.
[28] In certain circumstances, the propounder of the will, in discharging the burden of proof, is aided by a rebuttable presumption of validity. If the will was duly executed in accordance with the requisite statutory formalities after being read over to or by a testator who appeared to understand it, it is presumed the testator possessed the requisite testamentary capacity and knew and approved of its contents: Vout at para. 26.
[29] This presumption may be rebutted by evidence of “well-grounded suspicions”, referred to in the jurisprudence as “suspicious circumstances”, relating to one or more of the following circumstances:
(i) surrounding the preparation of the will;
(ii) tending to call into question the capacity of the will-maker; or
(iii) tending to show that the free will of the will-maker was overborne by acts of coercion or fraud: Vout at para. 25.
[30] If suspicious circumstances are established, then the presumption is spent and the legal burden of proof reverts to the propounder of the will. The propounder of the will then reassumes the legal burden of proving knowledge and approval, as well as proving testamentary capacity, if the suspicious circumstances reflect on the mental capacity of the will-maker to make a will: Woodward v. Grant, 2007 BCSC 1192 at para. 108. In order to discharge the burden, the propounder of the will is required to dispel the suspicious circumstances that have been raised: Ostrander v. Black (1996), 12 E.T.R. (2d) 219 at para. 30 (Gen. Div.).
[31] In Vout, the Court affirmed that if a court determines that suspicious circumstances exist, the applicable standard of proof is a balance of probabilities. However, the evidence must be scrutinized in accordance with the gravity of the suspicion raised in any particular case.
[32] In order to rebut the presumption of validity, those attacking the will must meet the threshold of demonstrating that there is some evidence “which, if accepted, would tend to negative knowledge and approval or testamentary capacity”: Vout at para. 27; Maddess v. Racz, 2009 BCCA 539 at para. 31. The court in Scott v. Cousins (2001), 37 E.T.R. (2d) 113 (Ont. S.C.J.) describes the requisite evidence as that which “excites the suspicion of the court”. A “general miasma of suspicion that something unsavoury may have occurred” is insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity; the evidence must raise a “specific and focused suspicion”: Clark v. Nash (1989), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 409 at 425 (B.C.C.A.).
[33] The court in Laszlo provides the following instructive observations regarding the doctrine of suspicious circumstances at para. 207:
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.
Undue Influence
[34] When undue influence or fraud is alleged, the party opposing probate always bears the legal burden of proving on a balance of probabilities the affirmative defence of undue influence: Vout at para. 28. It is important to appreciate that in these circumstances, the doctrine of suspicious circumstances and the shifting of the burden of proof has no application.
[35] In order to invalidate a will on the grounds of undue influence, the asserting party must prove that the influence exerted against the will-maker amounted to coercion, such that the will did not reflect the true intentions of a free will-maker and was not the product of the will-maker’s own act. The undue influence must constitute coercion which could not be resisted by the will-maker and which destroyed his or her free agency. It is well-established on the authorities that if the will-maker remains able to act freely, the exercise of significant advice or persuasion on the will-maker or an attempt to appeal to the will-maker or the mere desire of the will-maker to gratify the wishes of another, will not amount to undue influence: Maddess v. Racz, 2008 BCSC 1550 at para. 324 aff’d 2009 BCCA 539; Freeman v. Freeman (1889), 19 O.R. 141 at 155 (C.A.); Scott at para. 112.
[11] I adopt this summary as accurate and applicable in respect of the issues regarding the validity of the 2011 Will in the present case. Paragraphs 34-35 of the quoted passage are no longer applicable to wills to which s. 52 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 [WESA] applies, that is, where the will-maker died after March 31, 2014.
The BC Centre For Elder Advocacy and Support (BC CEAS) website contains a Wealth of Free Legal Information on Elder Law Issues.
I have taken the liberty of copying their excellent article on basic Power of Attorney information as an example of the quality of the legal information provided .
Power of Attorney Wednesday, July 28th, 2010 By the legal staff of the BC CEAS Elder Law Clinic
What is a Power of Attorney?
A power of attorney is a legal document that gives another person the power to take care of your financial and legal matters for you. The person you give this power to is called the “attorney,” and you are called the “donor.” (Here, “attorney” does not mean lawyer.)
A power of attorney gives your attorney the authority to take care of only your financial and legal affairs. This could include paying bills, doing banking, or selling real estate on your behalf. It does not allow him or her to make decisions about your personal or health care.
What are Powers of Attorney Used For?
There are many reasons why a person might choose to make a power of attorney.
One reason is that they may need temporary help taking care of their financial matters if they will be away for a while. For example, if you are going on vacation and will need some banking done while you are gone, you can have a power of attorney drawn up giving a family member or other person the power to take care of this while you are away. You could also have a power of attorney drawn up if an illness or injury makes it difficult for you to handle your own financial affairs.
People also commonly make a power of attorney as a form of advance planning, to ensure that a family member or other person of their choice is legally able to take care of their financial affairs if they become “mentally incapable” of managing their own finances in the future.
This kind of power of attorney is often called an “enduring” power of attorney. It continues in effect – or “endures” – even if you become mentally incapable. It is important to know that, if you should become mentally incapable of making a power of attorney, it is “too late” to do so if you don’t already have one in place. You have to plan ahead and do it in advance. If you do not have a legal power of attorney appointing someone to act for you in place when you become mentally incapable, then your loved ones will need to go to court to get “committeeship” (the legal authority to handle your affairs). Going to court is an expensive and time consuming process, and there is no guarantee that the court would decide to grant the legal powers asked for.
An enduring power of attorney is a simple tool that ensures that the person of your choice is able to easily step into your shoes and manage your finances when you become incapable of doing so, without having to go through the court process. To create an enduring power of attorney, you should ensure that the following sentence is included in your power of attorney document: “In accordance with the Power of Attorney Act, I declare that this power of attorney may be exercised during any subsequent mental infirmity on my part.”
Who Should I Name as My Attorney?
You can choose any capable person to act as your attorney, so long as he or she is 19 years of age or older and willing to act as your attorney. It is very important that you give careful consideration to who you choose to act as your attorney. He or she will have significant power over your financial affairs, and significant responsibilities.
Choose someone who you absolutely trust, and who is good at handling money. While most people choose their spouse, child or other loved one to be their attorney, careful thought should always be given to the appropriateness of the appointment.
In addition to the skills and trustworthiness of the person, you might consider whether the responsibility of acting as your attorney could cause undue stress or strain on the person or on your relationship. If you wish, you can choose more than one attorney. If you do this, you need to write in the document whether you want them to have to act together, or whether they can act independently.
You can also name one or more alternate attorneys who can take over if your first attorney becomes unable or unwilling to act. If you have no relatives or friends who are willing and able to serve as your attorney, you can choose a trust company, or the Public Guardian and Trustee (a government official), to act as your attorney.
In either case, you will be charged fees for their services. Your Attorney’s Powers The breadth of your attorney’s powers depend on what powers you give them. For example, if you create a limited power of attorney giving your son only the power to deposit your pension cheques, then your son will have the legal power to do only that – deposit your pension cheques.
However, if you create a general power of attorney that does not have any limits in it, then your attorney will generally have the power to do anything financial or legal that you can do for yourself. This could include, for example, cashing your cheques, withdrawing money from your bank account, dealing with your income taxes or buying or selling property on your behalf. (However, there are special requirements that apply if you want your attorney to be able to deal with real estate property – see Powers of Attorney for Real Estate below.)
Your Attorney’s Responsibilities
Your attorney is legally required to act honestly and in good faith, in your best interests. Your attorney must keep careful records of the financial activities done on your behalf and give the records to you upon your request, and must keep your affairs separate from his or her own.
When Powers of Attorney Start and End
A power of attorney comes into effect as soon as it is signed, however it does not have to be used right away if you do not need help yet.
Make sure your attorney knows when you want him or her to start acting on your behalf. If you prepare a limited power of attorney for a specific purpose or a specified period of time (for example, to handle your banking while you are out of town), your power of attorney will expire when the stated tasks have been completed and/or on the end date noted in the document. If you instead prepare a general attorney, subject to some exceptions your power of attorney will normally continue in effect indefinitely until you revoke it or until you or your attorney die (unless you have named more than one attorney or an alternate to act in the event an attorney dies).
Also, unless you have created an “enduring” power of attorney by including an enduring clause as discussed above, your power of attorney will end if you become mentally incapable.
Revoking a Power of Attorney
As long as you are still mentally capable of doing so, you can normally revoke (cancel) your power of attorney at any time.
To revoke a power of attorney, you should notify your attorney in writing that the power of attorney is revoked effective immediately. Also notify in writing all banks, businesses, organizations and individuals that your attorney deals with, advising them that the power of attorney has been revoked and asking them to destroy all copies of the document they have.
Making a new power of attorney does not automatically cancel an old one. It is possible to have more than one power of attorney in effect at the same time. If you want to make sure you have only one power of attorney in effect, when you make a new power of attorney ensure that you write at the beginning “I revoke any and all powers of attorney I have previously made.”
Banks’ Power of Attorney Forms
Banks often have their own power of attorney forms they want their customers to use. If you have your own power of attorney that covers banking matters, they have no right to require you to use their form. You could ask to speak with the bank manager or, if necessary, call a lawyer. Powers of Attorney for Real Estate If you want your attorney to have the power to sell your real estate property or deal with mortgages or easements for you, there are special requirements. You must sign the power of attorney in the presence of a lawyer or notary (and the lawyer or notary must also sign), and you must register the power of attorney at the land title office and comply with other legal requirements. If you want your power of attorney to include these powers, consult with a lawyer for advice.
Preparing a Power of Attorney Document
There are power of attorney forms in the Schedule to the British Columbia Power of Attorney Act, available online on the Internet. There are also sample BC power of attorney forms and kits available online and in legal publications you can find in the library and in bookstores. However, it is best to get some professional help, especially if you have a complicated or unusual situation.
As noted above, if your power of attorney is to deal with real estate, you must go to a lawyer or notary public.
Pre-planning for Health Care Decisions
A power of attorney covers financial and legal matters only. If you want to plan ahead and choose who will make health care and treatment decisions for you when you no longer can, you can make what is called a “Representation Agreement” naming whoever you want to make those decisions. Nidus Registry for Enduring Powers of Attorney and Representation Agreements The Representation Agreement Resource Centre has an online registry called the Nidus Registry where you can register your enduring power of attorney or representation agreement, if you wish.
The fees are $25.00 for set-up and the first registration, and $10.00 for each additional registration. You can register yourself by going to www.nidus.ca on the Internet, or ask family or friends to help.
You can also phone the Nidus Registry and Resource Centre for help with registering. Their phone number is (604) 408-7414(604) 408-7414. This BC Centre for Elder Advocacy and Support public legal education article was written in 2009. It contains general information only and is not a substitute for getting legal advice about your particular situation.
Section(s): Legal Research Articles, Resources Tags: Power of Attorney, Research – See more at: http://bcceas.ca/power-of-attorney/#sthash.qYASRVHg.dpuf
It is very old fashioned thinking that court costs come out of the estate , win or lose, as costs are now an important factor in settlement considerations.
The decision Deuschmann Estate v Fallis 2011 BCSC 1009 at paragraph 95 sets out the general principles of costs in estate litigation as pronounced by the BC Court of Appeal in Re Collett Estate 2005 BCCA 291.
The relevant principles as they relate to costs in estate proceedings are set out in Collett Estate, Re, 2005 BCCA 291 (B.C. C.A.) by Smith J.A. who, for the court, said:
[7] The general principles that guide the exercise of the discretion to award costs in proceedings in the Supreme Court involving executors and trustees are set out in Turner v. Andrews (1999), 23 C.C.P.B. 84, 30 E.T.R. (2d) 126 (B.C.S.C.), aff’d 85 B.C.L.R. (3d) 53, 2001 BCCA 76. That case concerned an application by a plaintiff for an order that his reasonable legal costs be paid prospectively out of the trust fund in issue in his representative action against the trustees of his pension fund. In dismissing the application, Allan J. summarized the relevant principles as follows:
[8] Section 86 of the Trustee Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 464, reflects the historic statutory authority which permits a trustee to seek the opinion, advice or direction of the Court on a question respecting the management or administration of trust property. In such circumstances, the Court may order the costs of the parties to be paid out of the estate. That principle was expanded in Re Buckton, [1907] Ch. 406 (Eng. Ch. Div.) which held that, in litigation against a trustee, the legal fees of a plaintiff beneficiary may be paid out of the trust fund on an indemnity basis where the issue concerns the interpretation of the trustee’s powers.
Buckton considered the beneficiary’s entitlement to costs in three classes of cases:
(1) An application made by trustees of a will or settlement, asking the Court to construe the trust instrument for their guidance; to ascertain the interests of the beneficiaries; or to answer a question which arises in the administration of the trusts. In such instances, the costs of all parties, which are necessarily incurred for the benefit of the estate, should be taxed as between solicitor and client and paid out of the estate.
(2) An application made by the beneficiaries as a result of difficulty of construction or administration of the trust which would have justified an application by the trustees. Again the application is necessary for the administration of the trust and the costs of all parties, which are necessarily incurred for the benefit of the estate, are paid out of the estate.
(3) An application made by the beneficiaries who make claims adverse to other beneficiaries. Such litigation is adversarial in nature and, subject to the Court’s discretion, the unsuccessful party bears the costs of those whom he or she brings to Court.
[9] The Court stated at p. 415:
It is often difficult to discriminate between cases of the second and third classes, but when once convinced that I am determining rights between adverse litigants I apply the rule which ought, I think, to be rigidly enforced in adverse litigation, and order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.
96 The facts of this case bear the greatest similarities to the third category of action. Thus, I am satisfied that it is the plaintiffs in this case, rather than the estate, who should bear the costs of this action.
97 Furthermore, an order of special costs against the plaintiffs is warranted. In Starko Estate v. Harbour Cove Investment Corp., 2009 BCSC 1473 (B.C. S.C.), District Registrar Sainty set out how special costs in estate litigation differ from special costs in other types of litigation:
In general executors are entitled to full indemnification for their legal costs, provided such executor has not pursued unnecessary or wasteful litigation. …
Re Fenotti Estate 2014 BCSC 1533 reviewed the law and held that a murderer of the deceased, his mother, son may not inherit from her as a result of public policy that prevents a wrong doer from benefiting from his or her own crime.
The personal representative of the deceased’s estate applied to the court for various directions, including whether a surviving son who murdered his mother can inherit from her estate on an intestacy.
The Court held a clear NO.
THE LAW
“As to the first question, the petitioner referred me to the decision of Mr. Justice LoVecchio of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Re Bowlen (Estate), 2001 ABQB 1014, 207 D.L.R. (4th) 175. In that case, a woman had murdered her parents. Both parents left wills under which the daughter would receive bequests. The personal representative of the estates of the parents applied for advice and directions as to who was entitled to receive the interest that the culpable daughter would have received from the estates.
[10] In obiter dicta at para. 17 of his reasons, Mr. Justice LoVecchio, relying on earlier decisions in Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, [1892] 1 Q.B. 147, 56 J.P. 180 (C.A.), and Garbe v. Alberta (Public Trustee), [1999] 5 W.W.R. 696, 64 Alta. L.R. (3d) 103 (Surr. Ct.), held:
[17] The rule of public policy which excludes the criminal has also been applied to exclude all claiming under the criminal, unless they have alternative or independent rights. In order to take under these independent or alternative rights, the person exercising the right must have clean hands. [Footnote omitted.]
[11] His statement as to the existence of a rule of public policy preventing a criminal from benefitting from his or her crime is supported by a line of authority in this province, to which LoVecchio J. did not refer.
[12] In In re Medaini Estate, [1927] 2 W.W.R. 38, 38 B.C.R. 319 (S.C.), Mr. Justice Murphy heard an application, brought by the administrator de bonis non of the estate of Mary P. Medaini, for directions as to whether, in the case of an intestacy, a murderer is entitled to share in the distribution of the estate of the murdered person.
[13] Murphy J. held, at 39:
The English Courts have decided that a murderer can take nothing under the will of his victim. The decisions are based upon public policy. I can see no reason why the principle is not applicable to cases of intestacy. The reason assigned in some American decisions for refusing to deprive a murderer of benefits accruing to him under the intestacy of his victim is that to do so would be to contravene the express provisions of the Statutes of Distribution. This reason would be equally valid in the case of a will which also depends upon a statute for its validity. The Wills Act, R.S.B.C., 1924, ch. 274, declares that the will speaks from the death of the testator. The English decisions binding on me have overridden this provision in the case of a murderer. There is nothing which makes the Statutes of Distribution more sacrosanct than the Wills Act. If public policy is a good ground for overriding the latter, it is equally so for acting likewise in regard to the former. I, therefore, hold the murderer takes nothing under the intestacy.
[14] In Baumann v. Nordstrom (1959), 30 W.W.R. 385,[1959] B.C.J. No. 42 (S.C.), Mr. Justice Wilson, as he then was, considered a case where a man was killed by a fire which destroyed his dwelling. He left no will. His widow, an inmate of the provincial mental hospital, had set the fire that killed him. Acting through her committee, she attempted to claim her statutory share of his estate. Her claim was opposed by a daughter of the man from a previous marriage.
[15] At 386, Wilson J. adverted to two propositions that were accepted by both counsel before him:
1. That if her crime, whether murder or arson, killed her husband she cannot inherit and the rule is the same on an intestacy as it would be if the property had been willed to her. See In re Sigsworth; Bedford v. Bedford [1935] 1 Ch 89, 104 LJ Ch 46.
2. That if at the time she set the fire she was insane within the meaning of the M’Naghten rules there was no crime and she may inherit. See In re Pitts; Cox v. Kilsby [1931] 1 Ch 546, 100 LJ Ch 284; and In re Houghton [1915] 2 Ch 173, 84 LJ Ch 726.
[16] Wilson J. held, at 396, that the defendant wife, when she set the fire, “did not then appreciate the nature and quality of her act or know that it was wrong.” Accordingly, she was entitled to inherit.
[17] A majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, in reasons for judgment reported at 34 W.W.R. 556 and 27 D.L.R. (2d) 634, did not find it necessary to review the finding as to the defendant’s insanity, but allowed the appeal of the matter on the ground that the trial judge was without jurisdiction to determine by way of originating summons, or other civil proceeding, whether or not a person had committed a crime.
[18] In reasons for judgment reported at [1962] S.C.R. 147 and 37 W.W.R. 16, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross appeal, thereby restoring the decision of the trial judge. Mr. Justice Ritchie, for the majority on the issue, stated at 156 that:
The rule of public policy which precludes a person from benefiting from his or her own crime is an integral part of our system of law, and although some doubts have been raised as to whether this rule overrides the statute law as to the distribution of the estate of an intestate (see In re Houghton, Houghton, v. Houghton [[1915] 2 Ch. 173 at 176]), the better view appears to me to be that it applies to such cases (see In re Pitts, Cox v. Kilsby [[1931] 1 Ch. 546 at 550], Whitelaw v. Wilson [(1934), 62 C.C.C. 172 at 177], and Re Estate of Maud Mason [[1917] 1 W.W.R. 329, 31 D.L.R. 305]). As Fry L.J. in Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association [[1892] 1 Q.B. 147, 61 L.J.Q.B. 128]… at p. 156 said:
It appears to me that no system of jurisprudence can with reason include amongst the rights which it enforces rights directly resulting to the person asserting them from the crime of that person.
Plaintiff’s often allege that a purported trust is a sham trust that the courts should ignore.
The following is the criteria that the courts utilize when dealing with such an assertion as was discussed in
M. Dhaliwal Holdings Inc. v. Pacific Blue Farms Ltd. , 2014 BCSC 1482
Sham Trusts
45 The petitioner argues that, should a trust be found in this case, the Registrar should have gone on to find that the trust was a sham, quoting the test for a “sham” transaction given by Lord Diplock in Snook v. London and West Riding Investments Ltd., [1967] 2 Q.B. 786 at 802:
…. it means acts done or documents executed by the parties to the “sham” which are intended by them to give to third parties or to the court the appearance of creating between the parties legal rights and obligations different from the actual rights and obligations (if any) which the parties intend to create. But one thing, I think, is clear in legal principle, morality and the authorities … that for acts or documents to be a “sham”, with whatever legal consequences follow from this, all the parties thereto must have a common intention that the acts or documents are not to create the legal rights and obligations which they give the appearance of creating.
[205] As can be seen from the above statement, the essence of a sham transaction arises from the intention of all parties to the instrument. As stated in Waters at 146, this concept is different than the requirement of certainty of intention and is more concerned with the intention of the settlor to perpetrate an “illegality” or “illusory trust”, as a result of which the trust is void.
[206] This principle from Snook has been applied in Canada generally: Minister of National Revenue v. Cameron, [1974] S.C.R. 1062 at 1068; Trident Foreshore Lands Ltd. v. Brown, 2004 BCSC 1365at para. 39.
[207] In addition, the principle has been applied in Canada in respect of alleged “sham trusts”, often in cases involving bankruptcies and fraudulent transactions affecting creditors. In Hirji v. Scavetta (1993), 15 O.R. (3d) 371, [1993] O.J. No. 2546 (Gen. Div.) at para. 32, the court found that a transfer in trust was designed to avoid creditors. In Biggar (Re), 2005 BCSC 1657, the court, after reviewing other examples of “sham trust” (para. 23), concluded that the bankrupt had dealt with the subject property as his alone and had never intended to divest any beneficial interest in the shares.
[208] In Forsyth (Re), 2010 BCSC 1720, and following Biggar and Hirji, the court found a declaration of trust to be void as an attempt by a bankrupt to shield his assets from his creditors. At para. 24, the court accepted that post “trust” conduct was relevant to a consideration and determination of the true intention of the settlor.
A prospective client called yesterday inquiring whether three siblings who had joint tenancy with a fourth sibling, can force a sale so as to buy out the troublemaking fourth sibling.
I answered yes, as the Partition of Property act allows for a severance of the co owned joint tenancy, subject to the court’s discretion, in some situations such as economic oppression.
To sever the joint tenancy and convert it into a tenancy in common where there is no right of survivorship, the co owner can simply file a transfer from oneself to oneself for the sole purpose of severing the joint tenancy.
45 If the parties to a marriage, solemnized in good faith and intended to be in compliance with the legislation, are not under a legal disqualification to contract such marriage and have lived together and cohabited as a married couple after such solemnization, such marriage shall be deemed a valid marriage, although the person who solemnized the marriage was not authorized to solemnize marriage, and despite the absence of or any irregularity or insufficiency in the publication of banns or the issue of the licence.[FN1] Where neither party has the requisite good faith, no defect will be overlooked and the marriage will be regarded as invalid.[FN2]
§46 The mere irregularity of failing to wait for the expiration of the time set for the issuing of the licence before getting married will not make the marriage a nullity.[FN3] If a marriage does not formally comply with the legal requirements, the party who wishes to prove the validity of the marriage has the burden to prove the marriage was valid on a balance of probabilities.[FN4]
§47 Being under age at the time of obtaining a licence does not invalidate the subsequent marriage, unless the provincial statute expressly states that the marriage is void.[FN5]
§48 The validity of a marriage and its formal requirements are determined according to the law where the marriage took place.[FN6] If a marriage has been entered into in a country by the law of which no formalities are required other than an agreement to marry followed by cohabitation, such marriage will be regarded as formally valid in Ontario.[FN7]
§49 Whether a religious ceremony is required depends entirely upon the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated; a marriage valid under such law cannot be questioned on the ground that it violates religious principles binding on one or both parties to the marriage.[FN8] On the other hand, a religious marriage is treated as void if it does not receive recognition under the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated.[FN9]
§50 If a marriage has taken place in another country and all that is known is that it was publicly solemnized by a minister or other person who usually solemnizes marriages in that country, and that the parties ever after were treated and reputed there as man and wife, the court should, in the absence of express proof of some law of that country rendering such a marriage illegal, presume the marriage to have been duly contracted according to the law of the country in which it took place.[FN10] In respect of the formal validity of the marriage, that is, the validity of the ceremony, once the ceremony and subsequent cohabitation have been proven, the law will presume that everything necessary to the validity of the ceremony occurred or was performed.[FN11] Retroactive legislation of foreign countries validating informal marriages contracted within the foreign jurisdiction is recognized as binding.[FN12] Consent must be considered as part of the form of marriage, and the forms of entering into a contract of marriage are to be regulated by the lex loci contractus.[FN13]
FN1. Marriage Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-5, s. 23(1); Marriage Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 282, s. 11 [am. 2002, c. 74, s. 45; 2011, c. 25, s. 403]; Marriage Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. M50, C.C.S.M., c. M50, s. 29 [am. 2008, c. 42, s. 62(5)]; Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.3, s. 31 [am. 2005, c. 5, s. 39(5)]; Marriage Act, S.S. 1995, c. M-4.1, s. 21; Luu v. Ma (1999), 1999 CarswellOnt 493 (Ont. Gen. Div.) (parties married in Vietnam; if marriage not valid according to Vietnamese law, marriage validated pursuant to Marriage Act, s. 31; parties intending to marry, living together as husband and wife and having child together); Upadyhaha v. Sehgal (2000), 2000 CarswellOnt 3306 (Ont. S.C.J.) (saving provision not operating to create valid marriage as parties not living together or cohabiting as man and wife after ceremony); McKenzie v. Singh (1972), 1972 CarswellBC 163 (B.C. S.C.) (marriage for immigration purposes; marriage not entered into in good faith); Alspector v. Alspector (1957), 1957 CarswellOnt 39 (Ont. C.A.) (lack of marriage licence not invalidating marriage); Czuba v. Hassan (1977), 1977 CarswellOnt 172 (Ont. H.C.) (parties intending compliance); Alspector v. Alspector (1957), 1957 CarswellOnt 38 (Ont. H.C.); affirmed (1957), 1957 CarswellOnt 39 (Ont. C.A.) (position under Act being unclear when only one party acting in good faith); Friedman v. Smookler (1963), 1963 CarswellOnt 48 (Ont. H.C.); Birinyi v. Lindstrom (2009), 2009 CarswellBC 180 (B.C. S.C.).
FN6.Cao v. Le (2007), 2007 CarswellBC 737 (B.C. S.C.) (parties having no ceremony to mark marriage but marriage registered in appropriate government office in Vietnam; numerous people in Vietnam satisfied that parties validly married under Vietnamese law; accordingly, parties’ relationship meeting requirements of marriage under Vietnamese law; parties therefore spouses for purposes of Canadian legislation in question).
FN10.Doe d. Breakey v. Breakey (1846), 2 U.C.Q.B. 349 (U.C. Q.B.) at 355; Robb v. Robb (1891), 20 O.R. 591 (Ont. H.C.) at 597 (well known principle of law and morality asserting, where doubt existing as to legality of marriage, that courts of justice are bound to decide in favour of marriage); Sottomayer v. De Barros (1877), 3 P.D. 1 (Eng. C.A.); McColm v. McColm (1969), 1969 CarswellOnt 222 (Ont. H.C.) (Scottish marriage irregular in form but valid under Scottish law); see alsoHarris v. Cooper (1871), 1871 CarswellOnt 177 (Ont. Q.B.) (marriage of slaves).
FN12.Starkowski v. Attorney-General (1953), [1954] A.C. 155 (U.K. H.L.) (prior religious marriage validated by retroactive legislation before celebration of subsequent marriage).
I have seen many seniors financially abused by setting up a joint bank account with a child/caregiver/neighbour/friend who takes advantage to the point where I advise seniors to avoid their use.
I recently came across a Maclean’s magazine article dated April 4, 2011 entitled “Signing Away Your Savings”, and went on into some details as to how joint bank accounts have recently blossomed in use, and are more and more being used to defraud seniors.
The joint turviror gets the funds irresepctive of what the will says, subject to claims such as resulting trusts.
Investment dealers and bankers generate much of the ongoing problems as easy Business /estate planning.
Inexperienced bank tellers for example make it dangerously easy for their senior clients to add others as joint owners to their bank accounts, wihtout really testing the mental faculties and why and what is going on firstly, and in detail..
In fact many financial advisors go so far as to encourage JTROS, so as to “avoid probate fees and even worse legal fees to probate the estate.
The accounts that I am talking about in this article are those called joint accounts with a right of survivorship ( JTROS)
Based on the wording of the actual bank form,if one of the account holder dies, the other automatically obtains ownership of the account irrespective of whether the deceased’s will said otherwise.
Not surprisingly in the rougue” surviving joint bank older often keeps such financial details to him or herself and to the exclusion of other siblings for years.
In general I think it is just not a good idea for seniors to mix their personal funds with a personal funds of strangers, relatives or even children.
A limited form of power of attorney specifically spelling out your intentions and limiting the attorney to certain duties and limits of expenditures I think is a far safer estate planning tool than the overused and now frequently litigated joint bank account with right of survivorship
A prospective client called yesterday inquiring whether three siblings who had joint tenancy with a fourth sibling, can force a sale so as to buy out the troublemaking fourth sibling.
I have seen many seniors financially abused by setting up a joint bank account with a child/caregiver/neighbour/friend who takes advantage to the point where I advise seniors to avoid their use.