Executors/Trustees Must Care For Estate Assets

Executors/Trustees Must Care For Estate Assets

The law is clear that a personal representative (executors, trustees, and administrators)  has a duty to care for the assets of the estate: Stanger v. Royal Trust Co., [1947] 1 W.W.R. 538, [1947] 2 D.L.R. 534 (Sask. C.A.).

Personal representatives undertake their duties in furtherance of their fiduciary relationship to the beneficiaries of the estate: Montreal Trust Co. v. Sproule, [1979] 6 W.W.R. 372, 103 D.L.R. (3d) 368 (Alta. Q.B.); Gibson Estate, Re, [1930] 2 W.W.R. 400 (Man. C.A.); Low v. Gemley (1890), 18 S.C.R. 685 (S.C.C.) held that persons who accept the office of executors or trustees must be supposed to accept it with the responsibility at all events for the possession of ordinary care and prudence.

Executors or trustees must undertake their responsibilities with ordinary care and prudence:

Low v Gemley was cited in Melito Estate v. Melanson, 2012 ONSC 2584 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para 81, 2012 CarswellOnt 5318 (Ont. S.C.J.)

All About Executors and Administrators

All About Executors and Administrators

INTRODUCTION

It is perhaps trite to state that the role of the drafting notary or solicitor is simply not to fill in the blanks and record the testator’s instructions, including his or her choice of executor, but instead to actively advise and draw to the testator’s attention all of the considerations relevant to his or her decision. Frequently the amount of discussion pertaining to the choice of the executor or administrator, is simply a discussion as to “who do you want your executor to be”? Prudent practice would dictate that any discussions pertaining as to who the appropriate executor or administrator might be, should perhaps be left to the end of the consultation, so that the drafting solicitor or notary is aware of all of the necessary personal and financial information relating to the testator’s intentions, or alternatively, to the estate. There is a huge responsibility to be undertaken on the part of the personal representative. Where so far as possible, the potential complexity and responsibility of the executor or administrator’s role should be impressed upon all concerned.

2. IN GENERAL – THE OFFICE OF EXECUTOR/ADMINISTRATOR

An executor derives the title from the will of the deceased, and does not have to wait for a grant of probate from the court before acting on behalf of the estate. An administrator on the other hand, derives his or her power by appointment from the court. The administrator may be appointed in the situation where the deceased dies intestate (without a will) or alternatively, dies with a will but there is no living named executor. In such instance, it is incumbent on someone to come forth and apply to the court to be appointed administrator.

The executor/administrator is the legal representative of the deceased and is often referred to as the personal representative. The office of the personal representative continues for life, so that if after completing the administration with regard to the assets discovered on the death of the testator, other assets fall into the estate, then the personal representative must reopen the administration and proceed with the distribution of the new assets in accordance with the terms of the will or intestacy.

An executor may be appointed expressly in a will or by implication. Sometimes the deceased fails to expressly name an executor, and upon a reasonable construction of the will being conducted, the court may conclude that the deceased did in fact grant to a named person, the essential duties of an executor. In such a case that person is said to be appointed “according to the tenor of the will”.

3. SHOULD THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREE TO ACT?

No one can be forced to be a personal representative, and an executor always has the option of renouncing, but this must be done before the executor “intermeddles with assets of the estate”. Any prospective personal representative should give serious consideration as to whether or not he or she is prepared to act as the personal representative. Under no circumstances should the prospective personal representative deal with the assets or otherwise intermeddle in the estate, until he or she has in fact decided to act as the personal representative.

Some of the preliminary considerations for the prospective personal representative to consider are:

(a) the potential for personal liability which may arise under many circumstances;
(b) the possibility for conflict of interest, such as where the executor is also a business partner of the deceased;
(c) the nature of the deceased’s assets, including the complexity of the estate;
(d) the personal relationship of the prospective personal representative with the beneficiaries or intestate successors;
(e) the time, stress and hassle of being an executor and dealing with lawyers, beneficiaries and the like;
(f) the time involved versus the potential remuneration available;
(g) the actual terms of the will and such factors as whether there will be ongoing lengthy trusts.

Once a personal representative accepts an appointment, he or she becomes a trustee for the estate, and he or she must exercise the powers bestowed upon the office, with diligence and care. A personal representative may become personally liable if their office is carried out in a negligent or improvident manner.

There is a technical difference between the personal representative and the trustee, and that is why in most wills, the personal representative is appointed as the executor and trustee. One important difference is that a trustee can appoint other trustees and can also retire from the trust. An executor however cannot appoint someone to act as co-executor, and nor can he or she retire from the office once the will has been proved.

4. INTERMEDDLING

An executor may also be appointed other than by a will, where the executor intermeddles in the assets of the estate, to the extent that the intermeddling makes that person an executor de son tort. This arises where the intermeddler has assumed the authority and office of the personal representative, and has dealt with the assets of the estate. It has arisen in such instances where the executor de son tort has arranged the burial of the deceased, gathered in assets and paid the debts. Once an executor has in fact intermeddled, he or she loses the right to renounce executorship, and may incur personal liability for any loss or damage that has resulted from any improper administration of the estate. However slight acts of intermeddling are not enough to make a person an executor de son tort.

5. WHO MAY BE APPOINTED?

Almost anyone can act as an executor, and generally speaking a testator may appoint whoever he or she likes to be his or her executor. Generally speaking the courts are very hesitant to interfere with the appointment of the executor as chosen by the testator.

However, persons of unsound mind are incapable of acting as personal representatives, and when the personal representative is or becomes insane, the court will grant administration to someone else. An infant may be appointed to be a personal representative, but the infant cannot act as personal representative during his or her minority. Accordingly if an infant is named sole executor, administration is granted with the will annexed to the guardian of the infant or to such other person as the court shall think fit, until the infant attains the age of majority.

In many instances, the court will refuse a grant of probate and will pass over an executor, where the court considers it inappropriate that such an appointment be made. These situations are typically where the proposed personal representative has been convicted of a fraudulent offence or has become bankrupt after the date of the will, or in situations where it has been established that a marked hostility existed between the proposed personal representative and the sole beneficiary. However, as previously stated, the court will not likely interfere with the discretion exercised by a testator in naming his or her personal representative.

Before any application can be made for the removal of an executor and the appointment of someone else as administrator, probate must first have been granted to the executor whose removal is sought.

6. QUALIFIED APPOINTMENT

The appointment of a personal representative may be either absolute or qualified. Where the appointment is qualified, it may be either as to time, place or as to purpose or subject matter. When the personal representative is appointed for a fixed period or until a specified event occurs, the authority ceases automatically when the period expires or when the event takes place. When the appointment is subject to a condition precedent, then that condition must be performed and the court has no power to relieve against an inadvertent failure to comply with it. A will may for example appoint one person as the personal representative for certain purposes or property, and another personal representative for general purposes. In that situation, probate will be granted to each personal representative, but will distinguish between their powers.

7. CHOOSING THE EXECUTOR/ADMINISTRATOR

It is extremely important that the testator’s choice of his or her executor be given serious consideration. The attending notary or solicitor must remember that most clients have very little understanding as to the tasks and requirements that a personal representative must perform and the responsibilities that must be assumed. The appointment of the wrong person can be a costly and emotionally draining experience for all concerned. Accordingly it is important that the will’s draftsperson investigate the desired appointment and provide prudent legal advice as to who should be chosen to be the executor and trustee. Very often that choice cannot properly be made, until the attending notary or solicitor firstly enquires as to the nature of the assets, and the intentions to be carried out in the will.

There are many questions that the testator should consider prior to naming his or her executor, some of which are:

(i) will the executor be willing to act;
(ii) is the executor sufficiently sophisticated to carry out the job;
(iii) is the person trustworthy;
(iv) is the person young enough or healthy enough to carry out the job;
(v) will the executor be biased;
(vi) will the executor be able to work well with the beneficiaries;
(vii) does the executor have the time to do the job;
(viii) can the executor afford to do the job;
(ix) is there any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest;
(x) should there be more than one executor;
(xi) the distance between where the testator and the executor reside.

The nature of the client’s affairs must be thoroughly examined to determine the like of active business interests, assets in foreign jurisdictions, loans or gifts to beneficiaries and the complexity of the various personal property and investments in the estate.

Generally speaking the choice for the testator usually comes down to choosing between:
(i) family members;
(ii) friends or acquaintances;
(iii) a corporate trustee.

Testators are often reluctant to talk frankly about the respective capabilities of their family members in choosing an executor. Often it is the notary or the solicitor’s job to tactfully ask the appropriate questions as to each of the respective family member’s strengths and weaknesses. It should be stressed that it should be the most appropriate person in terms of temperament, sophistication and personality that should be selected, rather than for example the oldest child. Certainly the testator should be prodded to speculate as to how the dynamics between his or her children will be after they are no longer alive.

Testators often wish to co-appoint one or more family members and I personally am of the view that this should be discouraged. If the client is adamant that there be a multiple number of family members as executors, then a majority rule clause should be inserted in the Will. If there is a handicapped child or children and discretionary trusts are being established, then careful consideration must be given as to who will be the executor and trustee, particularly as it relates to the possibility of a conflict of interest with respect to any residual funds after the death of the handicapped child.

If there are no appropriate family members, then consideration will then most likely turn to friends or acquaintances Friends or acquaintances are often of the same generation as the testator, and if so may be a bit too old.

The corporate trustee is certainly an appropriate alternative in many instances, particularly where there is a dysfunctional family and/or a complex estate with sizeable assets. The corporate fiduciary is impartial and will have the necessary sophistication and means to handle a sophisticated estate and/or difficult beneficiaries. The corporate trustee will also have a good understanding of the concept of even handedness and the potential for conflict of interest. Certainly the corporate trustee has a wealth of special knowledge and expertise, and this must be weighed against the negative considerations of choosing a corporate trustee, which are typically the expense, and its relative inflexibility and relative lack of personal touch.

8. DUTIES OF A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

A personal representative has a duty to act solely and exclusively for the benefit of the beneficiaries. This duty is construed strictly, and forbids a personal representative from making a profit that is not authorized, or occupying a position where the personal representative’s self interests would conflict with the duty to the beneficiaries. The Courts of Equity have required personal representatives to ensure that each beneficiary receives exactly what he or she is entitled to receive under the will or the estate. The personal representative must maintain an “even hand” when dealing with all beneficiaries.

The personal representative has a duty in exercising all of his or her powers, whether discretionary or administrative, to maintain the standard of care of a reasonably prudent businessperson managing someone else’s property. Generally speaking, the personal representative cannot delegate his or her duties. The Courts in recent years however have permitted delegation of administrative duties that a reasonable and prudent businessperson would delegate in the management of his or her own business affairs. This would include the use of brokers, real estate agents, accountants, lawyers, appraisers and so forth.

The personal representative’s general duties are as follows:

(1) To dispose of the deceased’s body.

It is the executor and not the testator’s spouse or family, who has the right to determine the place and manner of burial. The Cemetery and Funeral Services Act sets up a priority structure as to who has the right to control the disposition of human remains. First priority is given to the executor, then to the spouse, and then to various categories of relatives. If the person who has the right to control disposition is unavailable or unwilling, the right passes to the next person of the priority list. Proper funeral expenses incurred are payable out of the estate. Generally, the person who instructs the funeral director will be personally liable to pay all expenses incurred, but is entitled to indemnity as a first priority against the estate for the reasonable expenses of a suitable funeral. There are some cases where the executor has been denied reimbursement of the full funeral costs, where the costs have been found to be excessive under the circumstances.

(2) Take possession or control of the deceased’s assets.

The personal representative must take steps to search for any cash, jewelry, valuables and the like, and arrange for their safekeeping. Any personal property must be locked up and properly insured. Other assets that may require insurance coverage must also be checked into. Financial institutions and government agencies must be notified of the death. Mail must be re-directed and the bills, including mortgages, must be paid. Rents must be either collected or paid and businesses must be managed for the interim until distribution of the estate or until the sale of the business. A personal representative must enquire as to whether they have sufficient legal authority to carry on the business, and must also be cognizant of the potential for personal liability for carrying on the business.

(3) Complete a schedule of all of the deceased’s assets and ascertain their value.

After the executor has taken charge of the assets of the estate, and has made a full inventory of the assets and a valuation of same, the personal representative should then arrange to have an application made to the court for the issue of a grant of probate. In the case where the deceased dies intestate or without a named beneficiary, there is often a delay experienced in finding some appropriate person to step forward and apply for letters of administration. Rule 61(20) of the Rules of Court, seems to assume that in practice, in the absence of special circumstances, the court will usually give priority to appointing as administrator of the estate, the person or persons who have the greatest interest in the estate. In practice consents will be required from any person entitled to share in the estate who has a greater or equal right to apply. Thus, if two or more persons are equally entitled to apply, they must either apply jointly, consent to the appointment of one of them, or be served with notice under Rule 61(20). There is no limitation on the number of administrators who may be appointment.

(4) Advertise for creditors.

Before any debts of the estate are paid, the executor or administrator should see to the publication of the proper advertisement for creditors, claims and other claims against the estate. From my experience, common sense should prevail in deciding whether or not to advertise for creditors, as the costs can be considerable. In the case of a little old lady with simple assets and a history of paying her bills on time, it may not be necessary to publish such an advertisement. However if the personal representative is to protect him or herself from liability, then serious consideration should be given to the placement of such an advertisement, as Provincial Legislation states that the personal representative shall not be personally liable to creditors, where notice has been properly given and the assets of the estate have already been distributed.

(5) To notify beneficiaries, and persons who would take on an intestacy with respect to an application for probate or letters of administration;

(6) To act personally, although as aforesaid, delegation may be allowed in certain administrative circumstances;

(7) To ensure that investments are authorized.

There is a duty to examine the assets and investments of the estate, and in general, to convert in a reasonable and timely manner, the assets that do not qualify as authorized investments for the estate. The executor must be concerned with assets that may waste (ie, an unheated greenhouse) or that are to speculative (penny stocks), or reversionary assets;

(8) To complete and file income tax returns and where necessary obtain a Clearance Certificate from Revenue Canada;

(9) To pay the debts, including funeral, legal, testamentary expenses, succession duties and probate fees;

(10) To claim all debts due to the deceased and generally collect all of the assets;

(11) To keep accounts:

The personal representative has a duty to be prepared to account to creditors and to persons who have a beneficial interest in the estate. The personal representative must give to anyone to whom he or she owes a duty such information as that person reasonably requires. The type and amount of information varies, but the duty to account is owed to beneficiaries, unpaid legatees, unpaid creditors, successors, trustees, others who may have an interest in the deceased’s assets, and others provided for by statutes such as the Public Guardian or Revenue Canada.

(12) To continue or bring and maintain court actions on behalf of the estate:

Under Section 59 of the Estate Administration Act, a personal representative of a deceased claimant may continue or bring and maintain an action for a loss or damage to the person or property of the deceased in the same manner and with the same rights and remedies as the deceased, except for certain actions such liable and slander, pain and suffering, and loss of expectancy of earnings. A personal representative may continue or bring and maintain an action under the Wills Variation Act, or an action for constructing or resulting trust on behalf of the deceased.

(13) To distribute the assets in accordance with the will or the laws of intestacy.

8. THE EXECUTOR’S YEAR

Generally speaking the personal representative must not unreasonably delay in calling in the assets and settling the affairs of the estate, and distributing the assets in accordance with the will or the rules of Intestate Succession. There is no hard and fast rule as to what constitutes undue or unreasonable delay, but as a general rule of thumb, there is an executor’s or administrator’s one year to do so. The general rule is that the executor has one year from the testator’s date of death, and in the case of an administration, the administrator has one year from the date of the grant, to settle the affairs of the estate. There is case law to the effect that in the case of a legacy, the executor is entitled to withhold payment during the one year, even though the will indicates that the testator wishes payment to be made as soon as possible.

9. RENUNCIATION

Where the proposed personal representative has not intermeddled in a substantial way, then he or she can renounce the appointment as executor. Any renunciation must be unconditional and be in writing and properly witnessed. The renunciation takes effect as of the date of execution, but it may be withdrawn prior to filing it with the court. The renunciation is usually filed at the same time that the application for the grant of probate is made.

There are many reasons why an executor may wish to renounce, and this should be canvassed with the proposed personal representative at the initial meeting, and as soon as possible after the death of the deceased. For example I recently had a Provincial Court Judge renounce as executor, when it was likely that he would be named as a defendant as personal representative, in an action brought for an alleged sexual assault. This would be embarrassing to the executor given his job as a Judge.

If the proposed personal representative is one of two or more executors appointed under a will, then he or she may choose not to participate in the administration of the estate initially, and leave it up to the remaining executors to do so. In these circumstances, the remaining executors would apply for probate, and would reserve the right of the prospective personal representative to apply at a later date if he or she should choose to do so. Reserving the right to apply for probate may be appropriate where the prospective personal representative prefers not to act for reasons such as distance, lack of time, age, illness, or other such reasons.

The fact that an executor has not obtained a grant of probate does not mean that person is no longer an executor. Renunciation is generally preferable to a reservation of the right to apply for probate, unless the non-proving executor seriously wishes to reserve the right to apply for probate in the future.

10. THE CHAIN OF EXECUTORSHIP

If two or more executors have proved a will, and one of them dies after the grant, and no alternative executor has been named, then the surviving executor will continue, unless the will requires a minimum number of executors greater than the number of surviving executors.

However if a grant has issued and the sole executor or the survivor of several executors have proved the will, but dies before completing the administration of the estate, and no alternate was named in the will, then the executor of the deceased’s executor will become the executor of the original testator once he or she obtains probate of the deceased executor’s will. The replacement executor will stand in the shoes of the original executor in all respects.

This rule is referred to as the chain of executorship and it applies only in the circumstances where the executor named in the will has taken probate of the will before death, and each will in the chain must have been proved or probated.

11. REMUNERATION

Unless the will provides otherwise, all executors whether lay or professional, whether experienced or not, are entitled to be paid remuneration in accordance with the provisions of Section 88 of the Trustee Act, R.S.B.C. This section allows the executor to be paid, in the discretion of the court, up to a maximum of 5% of the gross aggregate value of the estate, including capital and income, together with an annual care and management fee of up to .4% of the average market value of the estate.

In most circumstances, the beneficiaries may well approve a 5% fee to the executor. In many instances however the courts will not allow the executor be paid the maximum 5% of the gross aggregate value of the estate. The courts will enquire into a number of factors, including the complexity of the estate, the experience of the executor, the time spent by the executor, the value of the estate, the amount of time spent administering the estate, and the like. However from a perusal of the somewhat limited number of cases on point, it would appear that the court very often will award fees more in the range of 2 1/2% to 3 1/2% rather than the maximum.

12. CONCLUSION

It is very important that the testator’s choice of an executor or executors be given sufficient scrutiny and discussion. As previously stated, most clients have little or no understanding of the onerous responsibility that an executor or alternatively an administrator, must perform. An inappropriate or improvident appointment can often complicate the administration of the estate unduly, and in certain cases, unnecessarily result in litigation. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon the drafting notary or solicitor to thoroughly investigate the desired appointment and to provide suitable legal advice.

Trustees For Infants versus Guardians

Trustees for Infants Versus Guardians

Leniuk Estate 2016 BCSC 159 held that a guardian for an infant is not permitted to be appointed the trustee to receive and hold in trust on the infant’s behalf all of the property to which the child is entitled to receive in place of the appointed executor and trustee. The application was brought under part 8 of the Family Law act and was opposed by the Public Guardians who successfully argued that the will is paramount and that Part 8 of the Family Law act did not apply.

Guardians not automatically entitled to receive property.

Section 176  FLA–  Except as set out in section 178 [delivery of small property], a child’s guardian is not, by reason only of being a guardian,

(a) a trustee of the child’s property, or
(b) entitled to give a valid discharge on receiving property on behalf of the child.

[13] Section 176 provides that a guardian, simply because they are a guardian, is not a trustee of a child’s property. As a result someone else can be trustee of the child’s property. Hence, a trust instrument, such as a will, that states a guardian is to receive a child’s property and is empowered to grant a discharge is not contrary to the section. Indeed s. 176 by its very wording recognizes this as it provides “by reason only of being a guardian”. (Emphasis added)

[14] In my opinion the FLA provisions were not intended to, nor do they, override trust instruments. For public policy reasons, the Legislature saw fit to provide that the FLA address the situation where there is property to which a child is entitled but the child only has a guardian and there is no existing trustee. In circumstances where the property exceeds the prescribed amount in the small property exception the child’s guardian is not deemed to be the child’s trustee simply because they are a guardian. An application to the Court is required in order to determine who the appropriate trustee should be. Section 179 provides the factors the Court should consider when appointing a child’s trustee. Similar to other provisions in the FLA, the best interests of the child are paramount. An example of a situation when this might occur would be if a child received property from a relative who died intestate.

[17] Part 8 also recognizes in s. 175 that a trust instrument includes a will and that trustees are authorized under such an instrument to receive or hold property in trust for a child. In other words, such a trustee is included in the definition of trustee just as is a trustee appointed under the FLA.

[21] To assert that children’s property advanced to a guardian by anyone is caught by these sections extends the FLA provisions beyond their purpose and the problem they were intended to address. The purpose of these sections is to ensure that there is a trustee to protect the interests of the child, whether that is the guardian as trustee or another person does not matter. The point is to have someone responsible for the infant’s funds and to address the fact, that often for various practical reasons, it is desirable for the guardians to have the funds. Where there is no trustee and where the property exceeds a certain value, the guardian can be appointed as trustee.

[22] This is not a situation where there is uncertainty over who is the infant’s trustee. It is the trust instrument (the Will) that establishes the trust and names the trustees. It is the terms of that instrument that govern the trust. As long as the trustees comply with the terms of the trust they are protected. In accepting a receipt from the guardian they would be acting in accordance with the terms of the will and the trust and as a result that would be a valid discharge.

[23] The trustees are in this instance attempting to delegate their duties as trustees to a third party. In effect they are seeking an order that amounts to a variation of the Will.

Executor Personally Liable for Court Costs

Executor Personally Liable for Court Costs

Craven v Osdacz 2017 ONSC 4396 held an executor of an estate personally liable for costs totalling about $150,000 for reckless and unreasonable behaviour that amounted to reprehensible for opposing a plaintiff’s court action for no valid reason other than to frustrate and delay the court proceeding.

The executor was acting not as estate trustee but personally in carrying out vendetta against plaintiff to limit any compensation she received from estate where liability was clear virtually from start. The groundless defences raised by the executor were designed to ensure that plaintiff would see little or no estate benefits.

The executor occupied a position of fiduciary as estate trustee and used that position and estate assets to conduct litigation in way amounting to harassment of plaintiff to protect his own position. The plaintiff was successful on every major issue raised at trial including issue of trustees’ improper payment of legal fees from estate assets . The only area where the plaintiff was not wholly successful was concerning quantum of repayment of dissipated legal fees to estate, but she was substantially successful on this issue.

The executor’s reckless, totally irrational and totally unreasonable conduct rose to level of reprehensible conduct and personal confrontations with plaintiff rose to level of reprehensible conduct worthy of sanction in form of imposition of solicitor and client costs.

19 Michael Osidacz was acting not as estate trustee but personally in carrying out a vendetta against Julie Craven in order to limit any compensation she received from the estate where liability was clear, virtually from the start and it was obvious that she was entitled to substantial damages that would exceed the value of the estate.

20 I have found that Michael Osidacz advanced “speculative and groundless defences” and acted in a manner that was “anything but reasonable, prudent or appropriate”. I have found that Michael Osidacz raised the estate’s defence on “virtually no evidence” and was totally irrational and reckless in his conduct as Estate Trustee amounting to a dissipation of assets of an overall modest sized estate. I have also found that the groundless and frivolous defences raised by Michael Osidacz were designs to ensure that Julie Craven would see little or no benefits from the estate.

22 Michael Osidacz resisted Julie Craven’s obvious and lawful claims for 10 years until shortly before trial. His actions went far beyond “mis-guided litigation” and amounted to harassment of another party by pursuit of “fruitless litigation”. In the end, the plaintiff was successful on every major issue raised at trial including the issue of the trustees’ improper payment of legal fees from the assets of the estate. The only area where the plaintiff was not 100 percent successful is concerning the quantum of repayment of dissipated legal fees to the estate. Even on this issue, the plaintiff was substantially successful.

23 Based on the foregoing, reckless and egregious conduct on the part of Michael Osidacz, the plaintiff’s position is that “the loser pays” should apply in this case against Michael Osidacz and he should be required to pay her costs personally on an elevated basis, in this case, complete indemnity, except as set out below. I find that his reckless, totally irrational and totally unreasonable conduct and personal confrontations with the plaintiff rise to the level of “reprehensible” conduct in accordance with the case law and is worthy of sanctions as a form of chastisement justifying the imposition of solicitor and client costs.

24 If elevated costs are not awarded to the plaintiff, she would have to spend a substantial amount of her damages judgment on elevated legal fees caused by the conduct of Michael Osidacz, thereby allowing him to achieve his objective of seeing to it that she obtains as little of the assets of the estate as possible.

Trustee Cannot Be in Conflict With Duty

Trustee Cannot Be in Conflict With Duty

Equity will not allow a person who is in a position of trust to carry out a transaction where there is a conflict between his or her duty and his or her interest.

It is a rule of universal application that no trustee shall be allowed to enter into engagements in which he or she has, or can have, a personal interest, conflicting, or which may possibly conflict, with the interests of those whom he or she is bound by fiduciary duty to protect. So strictly is this principle adhered to, that no question is allowed to be raised as to the fairness, or unfairness, of the transaction; it is enough that the interested parties object. It may be that the terms on which a trustee has attempted to deal with the trust estate are as good as could have been obtained from any other quarter or better, but so inflexible is the rule that no inquiry into that matter is permitted. It makes no difference whether the contract refers to real estate, personalty, or mercantile transactions, as the disability arises not from the subject matter of the contract, but from the fiduciary character of the contracting party. Broadly speaking, the reason for the rule is that the trustee should not be placed in a position in which his or her interests are liable to conflict with his or her duty to the cestui que trust. This reason applies equally to a person acting as an agent of the trustee.

For example in Butcher Estate v Hamilton 1997 CarswellBC 1917 (B.C. S.C.) a mother transferred substantial sums of money to her daughter. The transfers were not an  outright gift to the daughter, but were intended to be held in trust by her to use for care of mother and father. The mother and father lacked mental capacity at time of transfers. The daughter breached her  duty as trustee by dealing with funds as though her own.

Removal of an Executor Summarized

Removal of an Executor Summarized

I am frequently asked about the removal of an Executor that beneficiaries complain about and the following briefly summarizes when and if the court will act to remove and replace an executor.

Lord Blackburn stated in Letterstedt v. Broers (1884), [1881-85] All E.R. Rep. 882 (South Africa P.C.), at 887 (a case cited consistently by courts in this province) that the court’s “main guide must be the welfare of the beneficiaries”. At paragraphs 10-16 of Fleming v. Fleming, 2006 NLTD 112 (N.L. T.D.), Green, J. discussed the legal principles relating to removal of an executor:

(a) the removal of a trustee or executor will not be lightly undertaken;

(b) the court has to be satisfied that it is in the interests of the beneficiaries generally that removal should occur;

(c) if it is clear that the continuance of the trustee or executor in office would be detrimental to the execution of the trusts or the administration of the Estate, the court may remove him or her;

(d) positive misconduct amounting to abuse of trust; endangerment of the Estate or trust property; want of honesty or reasonable fidelity; lack of proper capacity or ability to execute the duties of office; and conflict of interest can justify removal;

(e) friction or hostility between the executor and one or more of the beneficiaries will not normally be enough, in itself, to ground the removal, nor will mere suspicions that the executor will favour one beneficiary over another;

(f) an isolated mistake or a technical breach of trust may not be enough, if done in good faith with the best interests of the beneficiaries in mind; and

(g) consistent administration of the Estate in a manner than does not maintain an even hand between beneficiaries will often be enough to justify removal.

9      The court has an inherent power to effect removal if the executor is in a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest occurs whenever the personal interest of the personal representative conflicts with the interests of others for whom he or she has a duty to act. This is a potential issue here because the executor is a creditor to the Estate relating to legal services rendered prior to the testator’s death. To address whether the conflict is such as to disqualify the executor, one must examine if the executor has placed himself in a position where his personal interest and his duty conflicted conflict, such that he could no longer be impartial vis-a -vis the beneficiaries

Executors: Specific Bequests and Fees

Executors: Specific Bequests and Fees

Janke, Re 1985 CarswellBC 2298 dealt with the presumption that when an executor is left a specific bequest it is in lieu of fees. This presumption applies only where the bequest is made to the executor in his capacity as executor and yields to very slight indications of a contrary intention on the part of the testator.

Macdonnell, Sheard and Hull on Probate Practice, 2d Ed, at p.329. This quotation was also quoted by Mr. Justice McKay in Re Ross, [1976] 3 W.W.R. 465 at page 466:

In addition to those cases in which the will contains an express provision for the executor in lieu of compensation, there is a presumption that when a legacy or annuity is left to an executor, it is intended to be in lieu of the compensation to which he would otherwise be entitled. But this presumption, like the presumption that such a provision is conditional upon the executor’s proving the will, applies only when the bequest is made to the executor in his capacity as executor and yields to very slight indications of a contrary intention.

In Canada Permanent Trust Co. v. Guinn 1981 CarswellBC 327, the respondent co-executor had been given a substantial legacy under the will, and had had minimal duties, as the bulk of administration was done by the trust company.

The questions submitted were whether the legacy was intended to be in lieu of executor’s compensation to the respondent, and, if not, how to divide the compensation.

The Court held that the Respondent was entitled to share of compensation.

The presumption that a legacy was intended to be in lieu of an executor’s compensation was not a strong one, and would yield to very slight evidence of contrary intention. The indications in the will were that the testator intended the respondent to take beneficially.

Extrinsic evidence was allowable to rebut or support a bare legal presumption. The extrinsic evidence allowed indicated that the respondent was to take beneficially, not as executor.

Executor Liable For Lost Rents

Executor Found Liable For Lost Rents

Executors sometimes let friends or relatives live in estate property and not collect fair rent. The executor can be personally liable for lost rent.

Where an executor permits tenants to live rent-free in estate property and the court is satisfied that the property was capable of earning rent money for the estate during that period of time, the executor can be held responsible to the estate for the rental income that was lost as a result.

Sowa Estate, Re, 2003 ABQB 761 (Alta. Q.B.) per Veit J., at para. 3. stated

“I have concluded that Mr. Sowa should repay a total of $28,047 to the estate in relation to rent. The evidence before the Court is that, while he controlled the estate property, Michael Sowa granted tenants rent-free periods and rent reduction periods. While a private owner of property can dispose of that property however he chooses, a trustee holds for the benefit of others and must make prudent decisions concerning the property. In other words, if the property was capable of earning money for the estate, it should have been doing so. I am satisfied with the calculations which indicate that a total of $9,951.00 represents rent available, but lost, during the period. In the result, Mr. Sowa must repay a total of $28,047 representing rent received plus rent lost.”

Trustees Breach of Trust Excused

Trustee Act: Trustees Breach of Trust Excused

Section 96 of the Trustee Act allows the court to excuse a trustee for negligence or breach of trust when handling estate assets if the trustee acted honestly and reasonably.

Section 96 states as follows:

96. If it appears to the court that a trustee, however appointed, is or may be personally liable for a breach of trust, whenever the transaction alleged to be a breach of trust occurred, but has acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust and for omitting to obtain the directions of the court in the matter in which the trustee committed the breach, then the court may relieve the trustee either wholly or partly from that personal liability.

 


 

Like trustees, pursuant to section 96, executors may be excused of liability in appropriate circumstances: see Brown v. Brown, 2011 BCSC 649.

To be excused, a trustee must satisfy all three elements in section 96:

  1. he or she must have acted honestly;
  2. must have acted reasonably;
  3. and the court must find that, in the circumstances, it would be fair to excuse the trustee for the breach and for failing to obtain directions from the court: Langley v. Brownjohn, 2007 BCSC 156 at para. 61.

The burden rests with the trustee who is seeking the protection of section 96 to prove that his or her actions are worthy of the exercise of the court’s discretion to excuse the trustee for the breach: Langley, supra, at para. 63.

In exercising its discretion pursuant to section 96, the court will consider factors including {Langley, supra at para. 66):

In Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 302 (“.Fales”), the Court discussed the duties of trustees. The principles in Fales apply to executors: see Madock v. Greater, 2010 BCSC 567 at para. 61 and Re Ili/lis Estate, 2015 BCSC 208 at paras. 76- 77.

As set out in Fales, it in large part it reflects the longstanding principles regarding the duties of a trustee:

Traditionally, the standard of care and diligence required of a trustee in administering a trust is that of a man of ordinary prudence in managing his own affairs (Learoyd v. Whiteley [(1887), 12 App. Cas. 727.], at p. 733; Underhill’s Law of Trusts and Trustees, 12th ed., art. 49; Restatement of the Law on Trusts, 2nd ed., para. 174)

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.