I previously wrote about a case in which the B.C Supreme Court found that there was no binding agreement by an aunt to leave her estate to her niece.  The case was Angelis v. Siermy 2022 BCSC 31, and the post can be found here.  The B.C. Court of Appeal has now dismissed an appeal of that decision.

A person may enter into a contract, whereby they agree to leave their estate to another person in exchange for some consideration.  However, the court in Angelis found that no such agreement existed in that case.  The case was unusual because the aunt (the will-maker) was still alive, denied the existence of any agreement, and defended against the claim.

At summary trial in the court below, the niece claimed that in exchange for providing services to her aunt, her aunt agreed to leave the bulk of her estate to the niece.  The agreement was allegedly formalized in 2002 when the aunt executed estate documents to this effect.  The niece said that the aunt also confirmed the agreement in three letters written by the aunt which explained her wills.  The judge had found that the second and third letters were prepared by the niece, and she had either forged her aunt’s signature or obtained the signature surreptitiously.

Then, in 2011, the aunt changed her will to leave most of her estate to the niece’s cousin (unbeknownst to the niece plaintiff/appellant).

The judge dismissed the claim that there was a testamentary contract requiring the aunt to leave the estate to her niece.  The judge also dismissed a claim by the niece in unjust enrichment on the basis that (1) the niece did not come to court with clean hands (because she forged the letters), and (2) there was juristic reason for the services that she provided (she was compensated and received benefit, and also had donative intent).

The plaintiff niece appealed the judgment, which perhaps is not surprising because the claim was that her aunt was bound to leave the bulk of her $30 million estate to her.  The appellant argued that the judge erred in failing to find a binding testamentary agreement.  She also argued that the judge erred in dismissing her unjust enrichment claim.

The appeal was dismissed.  The reasons of the B.C. Court of Appeal can be found at Angelis v. Siermy 2022 BCCA 401.

The Court of Appeal concluded that it was open to the judge in the court below to find that the two letters were not authentic.   The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no error in the judge’s reasoning or his conclusion that the parties had not entered into a testamentary contract.

The Court of Appeal did hold that the judge erred in his application of the “clean hands doctrine.”  A person who seeks an equitable remedy (such as compensation for unjust enrichment) must come to court with clean hands.  However, the clean hands doctrine is limited, and applies only in respect of misconduct “which has immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for.”  The doctrine does not apply to all aspects of the party’s behavior known to the court.

In Angelis, the niece did not technically need to rely upon her misconduct (the forged letters) to establish a claim in unjust enrichment.  The letters related to a separate issue (whether there was a testamentary contract).  Accordingly, the clean hands doctrine did not apply as a defence to the unjust enrichment claim.

However, the claim in unjust enrichment still failed.

There are three elements to establish unjust enrichment:

1. An enrichment;
2. A corresponding deprivation; and
3. The absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The judge had concluded that there was a juristic reason for the services that the niece provided.  The Court of Appeal had some issues with the analysis of the juristic reason element by the judge in the court below, but ultimately refused to interfere with the judge’s finding that the niece provided services on the basis that “everyone contributes and everyone gains” from the family enterprise.

When making a will, you must take care to make sure that your intentions are clearly expressed and not left open for interpretation.  When a will is unclear or uncertain, this provides an opportunity for a disappointed beneficiary to (1) argue an interpretation which favors them over another party, or (2) argue that the will or some part of it is fatally uncertain and therefore void.

The more complicated that you make a will, the more likely these issues may arise.  These arguments tend to occur more in certain circumstances including:

1. When a deceased decides to include a power of appointment – a power given to a person to select who shall receive an interest in property (instead of deciding who will receive the property and simply making a bequest to that person in your will); or
2. When there is uncertainty with respect to a charitable bequest.

Both of these circumstances were present in the recent B.C. Supreme Court decision in Royal Trust Corporation Of Canada v. The Welfare Institution Of The Jews Of Athens 2022 BCSC 1454.

In her 1985 will, the deceased set up a trust for her daughter, to pay her the interest “as long as she shall live.”  The deceased further provided in her will:

If my daughter shall by her Last Will and Testament appoint sum [sic] reasonable charity within the country of Greece for such funds they shall be delivered in accordance with the directions made in such Last Will and Testament of my said daughter.

And further:

If my said daughter shall fail to so designate and appoint by her Last Will and Testament then such money shall be paid to the President for the time being of Estia of Constaninopolis, Artistiduu 7, Kolonike, Ahtens, Greece.

“Estia of Constantinipolis” is a non-profit association in Greece that operates nursing homes near Athens, Greece.

In other words, the deceased’s daughter could decide what charity she wanted to receive the rest of her trust fund after she died (the power of appointment), or the default would be Estia of Constantinipolis.

The daughter made a will in Greece in 2017, in which she explicitly exercised the power of appointment, by appointing The Welfare Institution of the Jews of Athens, dab Reston Elderly Care Centre as the beneficiary.  Then, the daughter made a will in Switzerland in 2018, in which she revoked the 2017 will, and left her entire estate to one person.  She failed to appoint a charity in Greece as the beneficiary of the trust property (i.e. she failed to exercise the power of appointment).

The trust property was approximately $500,000, and the issue was who receives it.

First, it was argued that the power of appointment was invalid.  The Court held that it was valid.  The Court then held that the 2017 will (which appointed a charity) was revoked by the 2018 Will (which didn’t appoint a charity).  As a result, the power of appointment had not been exercised, and so the default “Estia of Constantinipolis” would, on its face, receive the monies.

Next, it was argued that the Estia charity could not receive the gift because:

1. The gift is to the President of Estia personally, or to his office on behalf of Estia;
2. If the gift is to the President personally, it was unclear whether it was to the President in office at the time of the 1985 will (who was now dead – so the gift would have failed), or the president currently in office; or
3. If the gift is to the current President by virtue of his office, and such is held in trust on behalf of the charity, the gift also fails because Greek law does not recognize trusts.

The Court did not accept any of these arguments.  The Court had “no hesitation” concluding that the deceased intended to make the gift to the charity.  There was no evidence that she had any relationship with the individual who was the president of Estia.  It logically followed that it was the charity, not the person, who was the intended beneficiary.

While the Court did not appear to have any difficulty interpreting the will, it is likely that the proceedings could have been avoided had the will and the power of appointment been more clearly drafted (or perhaps if no power of appointment had been included at all, and the deceased had simply named the charitable beneficiary in her will).

By drafting the will in the manner that she did, it permitted a disappointed beneficiary the opportunity to argue for an interpretation that would benefit them.  While the arguments were ultimately unsuccessful in this particular case, in some cases this may result in an interpretation that is not consistent with the deceased’s intentions, and in all cases will result in unnecessary expense to the estate.

What if you expect to inherit something from someone’s estate, and when they die you discover that you were mistaken? What if you have acted to your detriment based on this expectation?

This seems to occur frequently in the case of farm properties. Someone works on a farm for little or no compensation, with an expectation that they will inherit the farm upon the owner’s death. Then, the owner leaves the farm to someone else.

It is always risky to provide services based upon an expectation, without setting the terms of the agreement or arrangement out in writing.  However, if the parties do not have a written agreement, the party who has provided services based upon an expectation to inherit, but has not ended up receiving the farm, may have potential remedies. A person in this situation may bring certain claims, including claims in:

1. Proprietary estoppel;
2. Unjust enrichment; and
3. Breach of contract.

Proprietary Estoppel:

Proprietary estoppel is an equitable doctrine which enforces a promise that would not otherwise be enforced under the law. In order for proprietary estoppel to be available, the following three conditions must be present:

1. A representation or assurance is made to the claimant, on the basis of which the claimant expects to enjoy some right or benefit over property;
2. The claimant relies on that expectation by doing something, and that reliance is reasonable in all the circumstances; and
3. The claimant suffers a detriment as a result of this reasonable reliance, such that it would be unfair or unjust for the party responsible for the representation or assurance to go back on their word.

There must be a promise one might reasonably expect to be replied upon by the person to whom it was made.

If these conditions are met and there is an equity which needs to be recognized, then the court must craft a remedy to do justice between the parties.

Unjust Enrichment:

Unjust enrichment is another equitable doctrine. A claimant must establish three elements:

1. The respondent was enriched;
2. The claimant suffered a corresponding deprivation; and
3. The respondent’s enrichment and the claimant’s corresponding deprivation occurred in the absence of a juristic reason.

Breach of Contract:

Parties may enter into an agreement with a term requiring one party to make a will to the other party.  As long as the other elements of a contract are present (i.e. offer, acceptance, consideration, etc…), this type of agreement is enforceable in B.C. Further, the party expecting to benefit from such an agreement does not have to wait until the other party’s death before commencing an action, if the beneficiary becomes aware that the other party no longer intends to abide by the terms of the agreement. I previously wrote about a recent B.C. case on this issue, found here.

Recent B.C. Case – Party Expecting to Inherit Farm does not Receive it:

The B.C. Supreme Court recently considered a claim to a farm on the basis of proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment in Kennedy v Marcotte Estate 2022 BCSC 1486.

In Kennedy, the plaintiff thought he would inherit the deceased’s farm for much of his life. The plaintiff’s family had been friends with the deceased for many years (the deceased never married, and did not have any children of his own). The plaintiff was a commercial fisherman, but when he was not fishing he would assist the deceased at the farm.

The deceased made comments which the plaintiff understood to mean that the farm would be his after the deceased’s death. However, the deceased in fact left the will to a neighbour and close friend. The plaintiff found out about this while the deceased was still alive. He tried to convince the deceased to change his will, but this did not happen.

With respect to the claim in proprietary estoppel, the plaintiff relied upon various representations which he said gave him an expectation that he would inherit the farm:

• In the 1970s, the plaintiff’s mother told him that the deceased put the farm in the names of the plaintiff and his three siblings;
• From 1979-2004, annually, the deceased said that anybody who works on the deceased’s farm will get a piece one day;
• From 1980-2000 (every two years), the deceased mentioned a man who inherited a farm from a woman who willed the property to him as an expression of gratitude for the work he did on the farm;
• In 2004, the deceased said that he was changing his will to provide that one individual will inherit the farm (the plaintiff wrongly assumed that this person was him);
• 2004-2018 (yearly), the deceased says that he hopes that the plaintiff is ready “to fight for the farm one day”; and
• 2015 or 2018, Mr. Marcotte made a non-verbal gesture (pointing) with a friend which suggested that the plaintiff would inherit the farm.

The court accepted that the above representations were made, and that the plaintiff interpreted them to mean that the deceased would give the farm or part of it to the plaintiff in his will. The court also found that the plaintiff took action motivated partly upon his reliance on these representations, by working on the farm, and refraining from seeking formal paid employment when he was working on the farm.

However, the fundamental question was whether the plaintiff’s reliance on the representations was reasonable. The court held that his reliance was not reasonable. None of the representations were unambiguous or “clear enough” to communicate an assurance that if the plaintiff worked for the deceased while he was not fishing, he would inherit all or part of the farm. The court referred to several other cases of proprietary estoppel and inheriting farms, where the representations were much more unambiguous.

The claim in unjust enrichment also failed. The plaintiff established that his unpaid labor was a benefit to the deceased, and that the plaintiff suffered a corresponding deprivation. However, the claim failed on third element, in that the plaintiff failed to show a lack of juristic reason for the enrichment. The juristic reason was “[the plaintiff’s] donative intention to gift his labour to Mr. Marcotte as a long-time friend, just as his father and others had done over the years.” He did not expect to be paid, although he appreciated the payments and other benefits that were provided by the deceased to express his gratitude for the assistance.

This case is an important reminder of why you should always reduce agreements of this nature to writing. If you have expectations based on representations, the representations must be clear and unambiguous, and you must be reasonable in your reliance on them. The court in Kennedy accepted that from 1979 until 2018, during the months that the plaintiff was not away fishing, he was working on the farm approximately four to six days a week, for several hours each day. However, he was not entitled to anything for this.

Estate litigation issues do not just arise as between family members of the deceased (although that is most common).  A death may also result in disputes with respect to the deceased’s business dealings and partnership holdings.  This is why a fulsome estate plan that addresses all interests, personal and business, is key.

In a previous post found here, I discussed what happens when your business partner dies, in particular when the assets of the business are held jointly.  I considered this in the context of the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in Garland v. Newhouse 2021 BCSC 2021.

A fundamental characteristic of joint tenancy (i.e. registering assets in joint names) is the right of survivorship. When one joint tenant dies, their interest is extinguished, and the surviving joint tenant(s) take full ownership. For example, spouses often register title to their property in joint tenancy, so that the surviving spouse will receive the entirety of the property upon the other spouse’s death. This is accepted as a permissible estate planning tool.

However, where the property at issue is partnership property, there is a presumption that there is no right of survivorship as between partners. The death of a partner in a two-person partnership dissolves the partnership, and on dissolution each partner (including the estate of the deceased’s partner) is entitled to a proportionate share of the partnership assets after payment of debts.

In Garland, the deceased and the spouse of his close friend (“Ms. Newhouse”) purchased an apartment building together in 2003, with the intention of earning a profit from the rental income. They also opened an account to manage the finances associated with the apartment building. The building and the account were both registered in their joint names.

When the deceased died, Ms. Newhouse took the position that the deceased intended for her to receive the apartment building and account through right of survivorship. The deceased’s estate took the position that the deceased intended for the beneficiaries of his estate (his children) to receive his share of the business assets.

The matter proceeded to court by way of summary trial, in which there are no live witnesses, and the court determines the matter based only on affidavit evidence and argument by the parties.   The B.C. Supreme Court stated that in order for the right of survivorship to apply to partnership assets, “there must be evidence of a contrary agreement between the parties that is sufficiently clear and compelling to overcome the presumption that beneficial interest in partnership property does not transfer through the right of survivorship.”  The Court held that Ms. Newhouse was unable to provide this evidence.  The Court concluded that the parties did not intend and agree that on the death of one partner, the partnership property would transfer to the surviving partner for their personal benefit.

Ms. Newhouse failed to rebut the presumption against the right of survivorship in relation to the partnership property, and as a result she held legal title of the apartment building and the bank account in trust for herself and the deceased’s estate.

Ms. Newhouse appealed, and the B.C. Court of Appeal recently provided its decision, which can be found at Newhouse v. Garland 2022 BCCA 276.

A majority of the B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that:

1. The lower court judge did not apply an incorrect legal test.  Ms. Newhouse argued that the lower court judge applied a higher legal burden, but the Court of Appeal disagreed.  They held that the lower court judge properly assessed whether the presumption had been rebutted, on a balance of probabilities, which was the appropriate standard;
2. The lower court judge did not make a clear and overriding factual error, such as misapprehending the evidence, ignoring material evidence, or drawing inferences unsupported by primary facts.  While some judges may have made different findings, it is not the role of the Court of Appeal to reweigh the evidence and substitute their own findings; and
3. The lower court judge did not err in exercising her discretion to proceed by way of summary trial instead of requiring a full trial with live witnesses.

The result reflects the role of the Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal does not simply re-hear cases and substitute their own decision.  The Court of Appeal may only interfere if there is a legal error, a clear and material factual error, or an error in the exercise of discretion.

One of the three-judge panel would have allowed the appeal, and delivered lengthy dissent reasons.  The judge would have referred the matter back to the B.C. Supreme Court for a full trial.  In the dissenting reasons, the judge notes the difficulties in determining these claims.  The dispute arises after the death of one of the partners, and so one of the parties to the original agreement will always be unavailable to give first-hand evidence.  The surviving partner will have an interest in the result, and so their evidence must be viewed with some caution.

It remains the case (as I noted in my previous post) that it is important to keep in mind business and partnership interests when making your estate plan.  Again, this this dispute likely could have been avoided if there was a written agreement reflecting the terms of the arrangement between the parties.

When a person dies without a will and has no descendants, their spouse inherits their estate.  In order to benefit, a claimant must establish that they are indeed a “spouse.”  I continue to frequently see cases in which a person’s standing as a “spouse” is in dispute and is one of the key issues in the litigation.  This is relevant on an intestacy (dying with no will), and also for wills variation claims, which can only be brought by children and “spouses.”  This was one of the first issues that I wrote about when I started this blog, found here.  I have also wrote about it here.

The B.C. Court of Appeal recently considered this issue again in Coad v. Lariviere 2022 BCCA 222.

In Coad, the Court considered an appeal by a “spouse” from an order that the deceased died intestate and without a spouse, leaving her mother as the sole beneficiary.  The plaintiff was living in the same home as the deceased when she died, and he claimed to be in a marriage-like relationship with her at the time of her death.  The deceased’s ex-husband obtained a grant of administration with respect to a will dated August 11, 2011, while the plaintiff received a grant of administration based on an intestacy (on the assumption that he was a spouse).  The orders were in conflict.

The trial judge concluded that the deceased died intestate, but that the plaintiff was not in a marriage-like relationship with the deceased.  As a result, the deceased’s mother was the sole beneficiary of the deceased’s estate.  The plaintiff appealed the order.

A “spouse” is defined in s. 2 of the WIlls, Estates and Succession Act as follows:

2 (1) Unless subsection (2) applies, 2 persons are spouses of each other for the purposes of this Act if they were both alive immediately before a relevant time and

(a) they were married to each other, or

(b) they had lived with each other in a marriage-like relationship for at least 2 years.

(2) Two persons cease being spouses of each other for the purposes of this Act if,

(a) in the case of a marriage, an event occurs that causes an interest in family property, as defined in Part 5 [Property Division] of the Family Law Act, to arise, or

(b) in the case of a marriage-like relationship, one or both persons terminate the relationship.

(2.1) For the purposes of this Act, spouses are not considered to have separated if, within one year after separation,

(a) they begin to live together again and the primary purpose for doing so is to reconcile, and

(b) they continue to live together for one or more periods, totalling at least 90 days.

(3) A relevant time for the purposes of subsection (1) is the date of death of one of the persons unless this Act specifies another time as the relevant time.

There is no specific definition of when a marriage-like relationship exists.  The presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is “marriage-like.”  There is no checklist of characteristics that will invariably be found in all marriages .  While the parties’ intentions may be important, objective evidence will also provide guidance as to whether a relationship was “marriage-like”.  Spousal relationships are many and varied.

Whether people are in a marriage-like relationship is a question of mixed fact and law, and the decision of a trial judge is entitled to deference.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not take a contextual and holistic approach, and instead applied a “checklist.”  He also placed undue emphasis on the fact that the plaintiff and the deceased did not engage in sexual relations.  The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and made an order that the plaintiff was in a marriage-like relationship with the deceased (i.e. was a “spouse”) and therefore received the estate.

As these claims are so fact-specific, and the result is “all or nothing” depending upon whether the claimant is a “spouse”, we can expect to continue to see this issue making its way before the courts.

Often there is a concern that a defendant will dissipate assets or put them out of reach of the court if they become aware of a claim against them.   A person who intends to bring a claim wants to make sure that (1) the property that is the subject of the claim is protected until a determination of the claim, and/or (2) the defendant will still have sufficient assets to satisfy the claim.

A Mareva injunction is an order which freezes the defendant’s assets, so that they cannot be disposed of or removed to a place beyond the court’s reach while proceedings are ongoing.  Preservation orders are also available to freeze and preserve the property that is the subject of a claim.

A Mareva injunction is an extraordinary remedy, because it provides the plaintiff with enforcement rights and prejudices the defendant before the court has actually determined the merits of the claim.

These orders are usually obtained ex parte, or without notice to the other party.  Otherwise, there is the risk that the defendant will removal or deal with the assets after they are served and made aware of the application but before the order is made.

Once the party against whom the order is made is served with the order, they may apply to set it aside.

There is a two-part test for granting a Mareva injunction:

1. The existence of a strong prima facie case or a good arguable case.  This does not mean that the applicant must demonstrate that they are “bound to succeed” with their claim.  The test is satisfied if “either side might win”; and
2. Having regard to all relevant factors in the case, whether granting an injunction would be just and convenient (the balance of convenience).

For a restraining order over property at issue in the proceeding, there is a lower threshold for #1: whether there is a substantial question to be tried.

The B.C. Supreme Court in Shakeri-Salah (discussed further below) set out the relevant factors which may be considered on the balance of convenience analysis (which factors are relevant will depend upon the case, and this is not a closed list):

1. the residency of the defendant;
2. enforcement rights of judgment creditors in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s assets are located;
3. evidence showing the existence of assets within British Columbia or outside;
4. evidence showing a real risk of the disposal or dissipation of assets to render a judgment nugatory;
5. evidence of irreparable harm;
6. the strength of the plaintiff’s case;
7. the nature of the transaction giving rise to the action;
8. the risks inherent in the transaction;
9. the amount of the claim;
10. the defendant’s assets;
11. evidence that the injunction would have a material adverse effect on an innocent third party; and
12. the history of the defendant’s conduct.

The B.C. Supreme Court recently considered Mareva injunctions and preservation orders in in the context of estate and trust litigation in Shakeri-Salah v. Estate of Ahmadi-Niri 2022 BCSC 700.

In Shakeri-Salah, the defendants sought to set aside a Merva injunction and freezing order.  The plaintiff was the widow of the deceased.  She brought an action against her husband’s estate, the trustees of a trust, corporate entities relating to her husband’s business enterprises, her two older sons, and her husband’s personal advisors.  The plaintiff alleged that as the deceased’s spouse she was entitled to a share in the assets accumulated through a joint family venture.  In the five months prior to his death, the deceased took certain steps to purportedly put assets outside the reach of the plaintiff.  He transferred assets into a trust, the beneficiaries of which were his children but not his spouse (the plaintiff).  He severed joint tenancies, commenced a family claim seeking a divorce from the plaintiff, and made a will in which the plaintiff was not a beneficiary.  All of this was done while the deceased’s health was deteriorating and he had a reduced ability to communicate.

The deceased travelled to Dubai and then Iran, where he died several weeks later.  The plaintiff alleged that her sons took their father to these countries to remove him from her and to exercise undue influence over him.  The sons said they were helping their father “escape an unhappy marriage”, and did so at his request.

The plaintiff alleged there was an unwritten trust arrangement and unwritten agreement between her and the deceased.  She claimed a constructive trust over the assets that her husband amassed during the time that they were married.

The plaintiff applied ex parte and obtained a Mareva injunction and freezing order.  The Court ordered that the assets that were the subject of the claim be frozen.  There was also an order requiring the sons and the corporate defendants to set out their respective assets.

The defendants applied to set aside the order.

One of the grounds to set aside a Mareva injunction is material non-disclosure by the applicant.  If there has been material non-disclosure by the applicant, the court may set aide the order without regard to the merits of the application.  The standard is high when a litigant comes to court on an ex parte basis.  The applicant must disclose all important aspects of the evidence because the other side is not their to make their case.  However, not every omission necessarily results in the order being set aside.

The Court in Shakeri-Salah did not agree that there was material non-disclosure.

If there has not been material non-disclosure, the court proceeds with a new hearing (a “hearing de novo”) on the merits of the application.  The applicant must again meet the test for obtaining the injunction.

In Shakeri-Salah, the defendants argued that there was no evidence of dissipation of assets.  The plaintiff argued that while there was no evidence of active dissipation, there was evidence of pre-existing intentions and steps taken by the deceased to deprive her of assets that would have been received by her as spouse and joint tenant.  The court agreed – the deceased, with the defendants’ knowledge and sometimes with their “loyal support” structured his affairs to remove assets from the plaintiff’s reach.  The court relied upon the commencement of family law proceedings, the severance of the joint tenancies, and the will excluding the plaintiff as evidence of the deceased’s intention to put assets out of the reach of the plaintiff.

The Court varied the injunction to remove the sons from the freezing order.  “Considerations of fairness and justice” did not support continuing the interlocutory relief against them personally.  The order remained in place as against the other defendants, i.e. the trustee and the corporations.

The case also includes an interesting discussion of claims for unjust enrichment brought by one spouse against the other.  A spouse who claims unjust enrichment based on a family venture need not have played an active role in a business venture that is alleged to be the product of the family venture.  The deceased’s business efforts built the family’s wealth, but the plaintiff made that possible through her role in the family, entitling her to a remedy for a proportionate share of the wealth built.

In the recent decision of Unger Estate (Re) 2022 BCSC 189, the B.C. Supreme Court considered what happens to a beneficiary’s share of an estate when that beneficiary is convicted of murdering the deceased.  Fortunately, these are extremely rare circumstances (rare enough to be reported in the media).  However, the case did give the Court an opportunity to discuss what happens when a gift cannot take effect for any reason, which is not as rare (for example, a beneficiary dies before the will-maker).

In Unger, the deceased had two sons. She made a will leaving her estate to her sons in equal shares. The will further provided that if a child predeceased her but left children their own, then those children (i.e. the deceased’s grandchildren) shall receive their parent’s share. In the alternative, any part of the estate that did not pass to one of the deceased’s children or grandchildren was to be divided equally between two charities.  At the time of her death, the deceased’s estate was worth approximately $860,000.

One of the deceased’s sons entered a guilty plea to the charge of second degree murder of his mother. He admitted to his role in causing her death, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with eligibility for parole after ten years.

In Canada, there is a rule of public policy which excludes the person responsible for another person’s death of taking any benefit. The son presumably was aware of this and agreed to voluntarily disclaim any entitlement to his mother’s estate.  There are case authorities which suggest that this rule extends to those who claim through the criminal’s estate.

The son who could no longer inherit has a daughter, who was born eleven days after his mother’s death.

The issue for the court was who would receive the son’s share of the estate: his daughter, or the two charities who were named as alternate beneficiaries? The trustees sought advice and direction from the court.

There was some evidence that the Deceased’s relationships was both sons had “eroded”, and she was considering changing her will to provide for her grandchildren. However, this was irrelevant to the issue before the Court because she did not actually change her will.  The Court looked at the deceased’s intentions in making the will.

The Court concluded that the son’s portion of the residue passed to his daughter. The clear intent of the deceased in the will was that if one of the deceased’s children predecease her, any children of that child were to receive the deceased child’s share.  In this case, the son’s daughter was an “alternative beneficiary” of the gift to the son as contemplated by s. 46 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act which provides as follows:

When gifts cannot take effect

46   (1) 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 (1) applies whether the beneficiary’s death occurs before or after the will is made.

As a result, the granddaughter was first in priority for distribution of her father’s share.  The headline from the Vancouver Sun article summarizes a concern with this: “Court grants half of murdered Chilliwack woman’s estate to her killer son’s daughter.”

There were also accounts with direct beneficiary designations made in favor of the deceased’s two sons (i.e. which would pass outside of the estate and not be dealt with in the will). The benefits which otherwise would have been designated to the son who caused the deceased’s death were instead to be paid to the other son.

A person may enter into a testamentary contract, whereby they agree to leave their estate to another person in exchange for some consideration, for example services that the other person had provided or would subsequently provide.  This creates a binding agreement, and the party no longer has the ability to change the named beneficiary in their estate plan without breaching the agreement.

These agreements can be difficult to prove.  Testamentary autonomy is “a deeply entrenched common law principle,” and this type of agreement deprives a person of their testamentary autonomy (albeit for consideration).

The B.C. Supreme Court recently considered the existence of a testamentary contract in Angelis v. Siermy 2022 BCSC 31.  In Angelis, the court considered whether a childless aunt was obligated to leave her estate to one of her nieces.  In 2002, the aunt executed estate documents that would leave most of her substantial estate to the niece (the plaintiff).  In 2011, the aunt executed a subsequent will changing her main beneficiary to a different niece.

The plaintiff claimed that she had an oral contract with her aunt, whereby her aunt promised to leave the bulk of her estate to the plaintiff in exchange for the plaintiff providing years of unpaid service to the aunt and her company.  She alleged that the changes to the estate plan in 2011 resulted in a breach of that agreement.

The Court observed that this was an unusual case because the will-maker was still alive and in a position to defend the litigation.  She denied the existence of any agreement to leave her estate to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was the only person who claimed that the agreement existed.  There were no collateral witnesses to confirm her position.

The plaintiff relied upon three letters, allegedly written by the aunt, which allegedly explained the aunt’s reasons for her estate planning decisions.  The aunt admitted that she wrote the first letter (which does not mention any agreement), but denied drafting or signing the second and third letter.

The court found no evidence that supported the existence of a testamentary contract in this case.  Instead, the evidence suggested that no such agreement existed.

The court considered the three letters in great detail (including expert evidence on ink and handwriting analysis).  The court focused on the content of the letters, and concluded that the plaintiff forged the second and third letters.  The plaintiff’s claim in breach of contract was dismissed.

The plaintiff also brought a claim in unjust enrichment, in the event there was no contract.    However, unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy, and a party who seeks a equitable remedy must come to court with clean hands.  In this case, the plaintiff’s claim in unjust enrichment was barred as a result of her forgery of the two letters.  In the alternative, the plaintiff provided any services with donative intent, and further she was compensated for her services.