LSUC Estate Litigation Practice Essentials: Removal of Executors October 30, 2012
|
|
- Aileen Baker
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 LSUC Estate Litigation Practice Essentials: Removal of Executors October 30, 2012 Kimberly A. Whaley/ Erin C. Cowling Whaley Estate Litigation PART I - OVERVIEW While Courts are reluctant to interfere with a testator s intentions and desires as to whom they appoint as their trustees, sometimes situations arise where a trustee must be removed either at their own volition or by another trustee or beneficiary. In addition to the legislated authority in sections 5 and 37 of the Trustee Act R.S.O. 1990, c.t.37 (the Trustee Act ) to remove and appoint trustees and executors, the Court also has inherent jurisdiction to do so. This paper will address a brief overview of grounds for removal of a Trustee, recent case law, procedural references and application materials. The Trustee Act: Removal Provisions Sections 5 and 37 of the Trustee Act apply with respect to the removal of executors/trustees and personal representatives by way of court application. Those provisions are as follows: 5(1) The Superior Court of Justice may make an order for the appointment of a new trustee or new trustees, either in substitution for or in addition to any existing trustee or trustees, or although there is no existing trustee. C:\Users\Ken\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\TZUGLRDI\ LSUC Estate Litigation Practice Essentials - Removal of Executors.doc
2 (2) An order under this section and any consequential vesting order or conveyance does not operate as a discharge from liability for the acts or omissions of the former or continuing trustees (1) The Superior Court of Justice may remove a personal representative upon any ground upon which the court may remove any trustee, and may appoint some other proper person or persons to act in the place of the executor or administrator so removed. Additionally, section 37(3) of the Trustee Act provides that, any person interested in the estate of the deceased can bring an application for the removal of a personal representative/executor. In addition to these statutory provisions, the court has an inherent jurisdiction to remove and appoint executors. 1 The principles that guide the court s discretion to remove estate trustees are set out in Radford v. Radford Estate, [2008] O.J. No (S.C.J.) (para. 97) and St. Joseph s Health Centre v. Dzwiekowski, [2007] O.J. No (S.C.J.) (para. 25) and are summarized as follows: 1. The court will not lightly interfere with the testator s choice of estate trustee; 2. Clear evidence of necessity is required; 3. The courts main consideration is the welfare of the beneficiaries; and 1 St. Joseph s Health Centre v. Dziekowski, [2007] O.J. No (Ont.S.C.J.) at para.25: The court has an inherent jurisdiction to remove trustees. The extension of the jurisdiction to personal representatives is confirmed by section 37(1) of the Trustee Act R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23. As the section indicates, the principles that should govern the exercise of the jurisdiction are essentially the same. Counsel were in agreement that, despite the great variety of factual differences in the cases decided since Letterstedt v. Borers (1884), 9 App. Cas. 371, the principles stated by Lord Blackburn (at pages ) have consistently been followed. In delivering the opinion of the Privy Council, his Lordship quoted with approval the following passage from s of Story's Equity Jurisprudence: But in cases of positive misconduct, Courts of Equity have no difficulty in interposing to remove trustees who have abused their trust; it is not indeed every mistake or neglect of duty, or inaccuracy of conduct of trustees, which will induce Courts of Equity to adopt such a course. But the acts or omissions must be such as to endanger the trust property or to she a want of honesty or a want of proper capacity to execute the duties, or a want of reasonable fidelity. 2
3 4. The estate trustee s acts or omissions must be of such a nature as to endanger the administration of the trust. PART II - GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL Renunciation Firstly, if a trustee chooses not to act and a Certificate of Appointment has not been issued, nor, has the trustee taken any steps to administer the estate then the trustee can simply renounce his or her role as trustee. To achieve this, the trustee simply needs to file a Form with the court. Importantly, renunciation is only available where no steps have been taken in an administration. Removal If, however, a co-trustee or beneficiary or any person interested in the estate of the deceased wishes to remove a trustee they must bring an application before the court for that removal. The burden is on the applicant to persuade the court as to why the trustee should be removed. Misconduct Grounds Historically, trustees have often been removed for misconduct. In Rose v. Rose 2, the Court set out other actions, inactions and conditions that may render a trustee subject to removal: Misconduct; Lack of bona fides; An inability or unwillingness to carry out the terms of the trust; 2 (2006), 24 E.T.R. (3d) 217 (Ont.S.C.J.) at para
4 Incapacity; Personally benefitting from the trust; Acting to the detriment of the beneficiaries; or any other ground that shows that the trustee is not fit to control another s property. Grounds Generally bankruptcy of the Trustee (see Foster s Trusts, Re (1886), 55 L.T. 479, Hiebert, Re, [1934] 4 D.L.R. 799 (Sask.K.B.); the trustee being convicted of a criminal offence (see Danson, Re (1899), 48. W.R. 73; Re Drawmer (1913) 108 L.T. 732); the trustee permanently moved out of the jurisdiction (see Somerset Estate, Re, [1928] 2 W.W.R. 697 (Man. K.B.)); incapacity through illness or age or inclination (see Martin s Trusts, Re (1887), 56 L.J. Ch. 229, Galbrait, Re, [1951] 2 All E.R. 470); substantial breach of trust (see Phelps, Ex parte (1742), 9 Mod. 357, McLaren, Re (1922), 69 D.L.R. 599 (Ont.C.A.), Smith, Re (1971), 18 D.L.R. (3d) 405 (Ont. C.A.), Ballentine v. Ballentine (2000), 35 E.T.R. (2d) 165 (Ont.S.C.J.), affirmed (2001), 38 E.T.R. (2d) 165 (Ont.C.A.)); a trustee s lack of appreciation of his or her duties (see Derrick, Re, [1936] O.W.N. 223 (Ont. H.C.), Seaton Estate, Re (2003), 3 E.T.R. (3d) 287 (B.C.C.A.), Waese v. Bojman (2002), 50 E.T.R. (2d) 139(Ont.S.C.J.)); 4
5 a trustee s inability to agree with a co-trustee (see Shepard v. Shepard (1911), 20 O.W.R. 810 (Ont. C.A.), Curran, Re (1920), 18 O.W.N. 98, Owen Family Trust, Re (1989), 33 E.T.R. 213 (B.C.S.C.), Consiglio, Re (No.1), [1973] 3 O.R. 326 (Ont.C.A.)); dissension with beneficiaries (see Letterstedt v. Broers (1884), 9 App. Cas.371 (South Africa P.C.), Hunter v. Hunter, [1938] N.Z.L.R. 520, Orenstein v. Feldman (1978), 2 E.T.R. 133 (Ont.H.C.), Rose v. Rose (2006) 2006 CarswellOnt 3776 (Ont.S.C.J.) 24 E.T.R. (3d) 217 (Ont.S.C.J.), Radford v. Radford Estate (2008), 2008 CarswellOnt 5297 (Ont.S.C.J.)); undue delays (see Alexander v. Royal Trust Co., [1949] 1 W.W.R. 867 (Alta. C.A.), Derrick Re, [1936] O.W.N. 223 (Ont. H.C.), Martin Re, (1978), 3 E.T.R. 134 (Sask.Surr.Ct.), St. Joseph s Health Centre v. Dzwiekowski (2007), 2007 Carswell Ont 7642 (Ont.S.C.J.)); conflict of interest (see Ingraham v. Hill (1920), 53 N.S.R. 442 (N.S.C.A.), Anderson, Re (1928), 35 O.W.N. 7 (Ont.H.C.), Gronnerud (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gronnerud Estate, 2002 SCC 38, Rufenack v. Hope Mission (2005) 2005 CarswellAlta 379 (Alta.C.A.), Forbes v. Gauthier Estate (2008), 2008 CarswellOnt 4912 (Ont.S.C.J.)); improper behaviour or misconduct or acting in a manner that endangered the estate (see Conroy v. Stokes, [1952] 4 D.L.R. 124 (B.C.C.A), Crawford v. Jardine, [1997] O.J. No (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.), Burns v. Burns (2002), 46 E.T.R. (2d) 51 (N.S.S.C.) Bartel v. Bartel (2005), 2005 CarswellMan 5
6 (Man.Q.B.), Mohammed v. Heera (2008) 2008 CarswellOnt 6247 (Ont.S.C.J.)); pre-taking of compensation (see Zucker v. Zucker Estate, 2011 ONSC 7165 (discussed below)). While these are a list of non-exhaustive examples of some grounds upon which a trustee may be removed, it must be remembered that there is no certain rule to each ground. Each removal case will turn on its own facts. While there is no general rule, the key consideration in all removal cases is the welfare of the beneficiaries. This key consideration comes with considerable tradition and precedent and can be relied upon as succinctly state in the case of Letterstedt v. Broers (1884), 9 App. Cas.371 (South Africa P.C.) where Lord Blackburn stated: In exercising so delicate a jurisdiction as that of removing trustees, their Lordships do not venture to lay down any general rule beyond the very broad principle above enunciated, that their main guide must be the welfare of the beneficiaries. Probably it is not possible to lay down any more definite rule in a matter so essentially dependent on details often of great nicety. But they proceed to look carefully into the circumstances of the case. 3 Moreover, in Rose v. Rose the court stated that: Although misconduct of the trustee is not a prerequisite to removal, something more than mere friction is normally necessary. For example, before making an order for removal of a trustee because of friction with co-trustees, the court must be satisfied that the continued administration of the trust is impossible or improbable. 4 Courts are more reluctant to interfere where there is a dispute between the trustee and a beneficiary as opposed to a dispute between two trustees, where the 3 (1884) 9 APP.CAS. 371 at 387 ( Letterstedt ),see also Anderson Re (1928), 35 O.W.N. 7 (Ont.H.C.)at 8 4 Rose at para. 70 6
7 courts are more likely to rule in favour of a removal. See Venables v. Gordon Estate, 5 discussed in more detail below. A beneficiary may therefore have considerable challenge before the court to prove sufficient grounds justifying removal. Remember that the trustee does not have to perform to a standard of perfection. Section 35 of the Trustee Act permits the court to excuse the trustee if the trustee was acting reasonably and honestly even if in breach of the trust. WHAT APPROACH ARE THE COURTS TAKING? Overview of Recent Caselaw Zucker v. Zucker Estate 6 In this case the son and daughter of the deceased, Irving Zucker, and beneficiaries of the Estate, brought a motion for, among other things, to remove the sole executor of their father`s Estate. A co-executor had already been removed by a previous court order although no explanation for his removal was provided in the reason. The beneficiaries argued that the sole remaining Executor should be removed for a host of reasons, but, mainly because it was in the best interests of the beneficiaries to do so, so as to ensure an even hand in the administration; additionally, the executor was impecunious, and most importantly, he had helped himself to $1.2 million in Executor compensation before passing accounts and without consent of the beneficiaries ONSC ONSC
8 The Executor argued that he should not be removed as he had already taken out an appointment to pass his accounts and the pre-taking therefore still a live issue. While the fiduciary admitted he was impecunious he advised that he was now in counselling and seeing a psychiatrist. Justice Greer opined that: While not all would agree that an Executor/Trustee or personal representative should be removed when the issue is pre-taking of compensation, Jenkins & Scott in Compensation & Duties of Estate Trustees, Guardians & Attorneys, at 10-9, note that impecuniosity of an Executor can be taken into account. In my view, this Estate cries out for the removal of [the] Executor, given that he is now impecunious. He did pre-take compensation of over $2.8 million with [his previous co-executor]... without good explanation. The Court ordered that the Executor be removed and a lawyer was appointed as his replacement. The Executor was also ordered to explain where the money went into his bank account and where it was spent. Scime v. Murphy 7 A dispute arose between the late Mrs. Mildred Murphy s natural children and her step-children as to the disposition of her estate. Mildred preferred two of her natural children to her step-children in her Will. Her natural son Michael Fines was appointed as estate trustee. One of Mildred s step-children, Kelly Scime, brought an application for, among other things, the removal of Michael as the estate trustee pursuant to section 37(1) of the Trustee Act. The Applicants argued that there were many reasons why Michael ONSC 974 8
9 should be removed as the estate trustee, including failing to complete proper appraisals and failing to account for a credit card bill in excess of $5, However, the main objection was that shortly after his mother passed away Michael personally spent over $20, from the estate and never paid it back. Michael had no explanation for his behaviour and did not defend his actions. The Court observed that one of the main considerations when deciding whether to remove an Estate Trustee was the welfare of the beneficiaries and went on to hold that as Michael had not repaid the Estate... this demonstrates his indifference to the interests of the beneficiaries and warrants him being removed as estate trustee. Michael was ordered to pay the money back with interest. Interestingly, Michael did not contest his removal, nor deny the allegations. His step-sister Kelly was appointed as Estate Trustee. Venables v. Gordon Estate 8 In this case two sons were in conflict over the administration of their grandfather s trust. Their 100 year old mother, Mrs. Venables, was the original trustee, but, her son Peter took over as trustee, as per their grandfather s Will, when she had a stroke and moved into an assisted-living facility. A conflict arose between Peter and Mrs. Venable s second son, Michael over the trust administration. Michael was not a Trustee but he had power of attorney over Mrs. Venables person and her property and was a beneficiary of the trust. The hostility between Peter and Michael was palpable. A successful mediation was held whereby ONSC 956 9
10 Minutes of Settlement were executed that provided Michael with co-management powers over the assets of the trust. Shortly thereafter the relationship fell apart and the hostility returned. Michael brought this application to have Peter removed as trustee pursuant to s.37 of the Trustee Act which allows a Court to remove a trustee or executor and appoint someone else to take his or her place. In deciding the application, Justice Beaudoin analysed the case law and commentary including Limebeer Estate (Re) [2005] O.J. No. 375 and The Law of Trusts by D.W.M. Waters on the principles governing removal which the court summarized as: (1) the welfare of the beneficiaries; (2) whether there is any danger to trust property; and (3) whether the trustee continuing to act is likely to prevent the trust from being properly administered. The Court added that it will be more likely to interfere where the dispute is as between co-trustees as opposed to a trustee and beneficiary. Justice Beaudoin held however that there was ample evidence that the continued conflict between Michael as beneficiary and Peter as trustee interfered with Peter s proper exercise of his discretion under the Will. This resulted in an interruption in income payments to Mrs. Venables without a legitimate reason. Peter was removed as trustee and a trust company was appointed in his place. An interesting aspect of this case is that Justice Beaudoin observed that the Minutes of Settlement (which gave Michael co-management powers over the assets of the trust) elevated Michael s position so he was more than a mere beneficiary and was effectively a co-trustee of Michael s even though he was not appointed as one under the trust. The Court was therefore also prepared to have removed Peter based on a conflict between co-trustees. 10
11 Insufficient Grounds The following recent cases are illustrative of instances where a court has decided not to remove a trustee: Johnston v. Lanka 9 In this case the Court refused to remove a trustee. Two beneficiaries brought an application for, among other things, the removal of estate trustees for conflict of interest, hostilities between themselves and the trustees, and failure to fulfill the duties of estate trustees. The conflict of interest argument was based on the fact that one of the trustees purchased certain shares owned by the Estate. However, the Court found that as the share purchase was pursuant to a shareholder s agreement which was entered into with the deceased and as the trustee hired her own counsel to complete the transaction and did not participate in any decisions regarding the Estate s sale of the shares there were not sufficient grounds to warrant removal. On the second allegation of hostility, the Court looked at the evidence before it and stated that while there existed a degree of hostility between the trustees and the beneficiary, it was not to the extent that it would interfere with the trustees proper administration of the Estate or their exercise of their duties. And finally the Court held that the evidence did not establish that the trustees failed to carry out their duties as estate trustees properly or exercised them in a completely impartial or objective manner. The Court found that the trustees spent 9 [2010] O.J. No (S.C.J.) 11
12 significant hours on behalf of the estate; retained the deceased s solicitor and accountant to act for the estate; collected all of the deceased s records and organized them; dealt with tenants and arranged for repair and maintenance to estate property; and, collected the data necessary for the income tax returns. The evidence before the court did not support the removal of the estate trustees. Sentineal v. Sentineal 10 In this case, Frederick Sentineal Senior started a family-run horse drawn carriage business in Niagara-on-the-Lake with his three sons, Fred Jr., Jack and Jeff. In what could be seen as a sign of things to come, Fred Jr. quickly became estranged from his family as a result of disputes arising out of the business. Fred Sr. died in 2004 and his son Jack was appointed the executor of his estate. Jack and Jeff continued to run the family business. In 2005, Jack in his personal capacity and as executor and on behalf of the family business commenced an action against his brother Jeff, and his wife alleging that they were misappropriating funds from the business. After eight days of trial in 2009 the parties entered into minutes of settlement which required Jack to sell certain estate property and to divide the proceeds equally between himself and Jeff. While Jack listed the properties for sale, they had not been sold as of December Jeff brought this application to have Jack removed as executor for his father s Estate for failing to sell the estate properties as required ONSC
13 In rendering the decision, Justice Hambly observed that while it had been over 7 years since the death of Fred Sr. and the estate property had still not been sold, the removal of an estate trustee should only occur on the clearest of evidence that there is no other course to follow. Instead of removing Jack as executor, Justice Hambly set a strict timetable that the property should be sold by June 30, 2012, otherwise there will be a heavy onus on Jack to explain why he should not be removed. Gonder v. Evans 11 In Gonder, the two executors had brought a motion for their own removal as they were no longer able to act as executors due to their age, poor health and financial constraints. They also stated that they were in a conflict of interest as they had spent a lot of money defending an action commenced by a beneficiary (claiming a beneficial interest in the only asset of the estate), and therefore were creditors of the estate. The beneficiary who started the action opposed the removal motion. The Court held that s.37 of the Trustee Act did not require a trustee to provide a replacement before applying to be removed and granted the motion for removal. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that while it is open to the Court to not appoint a replacement, the Court at first instance erred by not making alternative provisions for administration of the estate and sent the matter back down to the Superior Court: The motion judge erred not because he removed the respondents as trustees without appointing a replacement. Rather, the error was to remove them without making alternate provisions for the proper administration of the estate. It is for ONCA 172 ( Gonder ) 13
14 this reason alone that the matter must return to the Superior Court to be reconsidered. 12 The Court of Appeal found in the specific circumstances of this case there were three objectives that ought to have been considered and addressed by the motion judge: (1) ensuring the orderly administration of the estate in the interests of the beneficiaries; (2) recognizing the plight of the respondents; and (3) providing for the timely resolution of the disputes concerning the estate. The Court also held that: The removal of a sole trustee without appointment of a replacement is an extreme remedy, and will be inappropriate in most cases. It will only be available when no other option is realistically available. In our view, given the limited value of the estate, the conflict of interest that the respondents are now in as creditors of the estate, and the lack of viable replacement trustees, this is one such exceptional case. That said, the motion judge was wrong to remove the respondents as trustees without also crafting a mechanism by which the estate could continue to be administered. This is a case that cries out for a practical solution. It is in that spirit that the judge hearing this matter should approach the task. 13 PART III - PROCEDURE To remove an executor or trustee you must bring an application in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario under Rule 14.05(3)(a) and (c) and rule of the Rules of Civil Procedure and sections 5 and 37 of the Trustee Act. If in Toronto, the Application will also be brought pursuant to the Practice Direction Concerning the Estates List of the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto. 12 Gonder at para Gonder at paras
15 Rule 9.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure obliges an applicant in removing or replacing an executor or trustee, to name all of the beneficiaries as parties to the application. The application will include a Notice of Application and must be supported by affidavit evidence. As stated above, each removal case turns on the facts of the case as there is no hard and fast rule. Therefore, evidence with supporting documentation showing good reason that the trustee should be removed is best placed before the court in order to enhance your chances of success in the application. Simply bringing an application and alleging misconduct is insufficient. The trustee resisting the removal will serve and file his or her responding affidavit evidence and cross-examinations on the affidavits may or may not take place. If a trustee wishes to appeal an order of removal in Ontario the appeal route is to the Court of Appeal. The time for service of a notice of appeal under Rule 61.04(1) is thirty (30) days after the making of the order appealed from. PART IV - APPLICATION MATERIALS In the Notice of Application, relief which may be relevant and you may wish to consider is listed below: Removal of the Trustee in both capacities, as an executor and as a trustee of a testamentary trust (if applicable). If there already is another co-trustee that is not being removed and order that a substitute trustee is not required to replace the one being removed and an order that all assets of the estate vest in the sole trustee. If a substitute trustee is being appointed include the consent of that trustee in your material. 15
16 An order that the trustee being removed must pass accounts up to the date of his or her removal. Provide in your application details of or approval of any compensation for new trustee An Order waiving or requiring the posting of a bond for the new trustee Any other specific directions you are seeking from the court. 16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. RACHAEL JOAN DUBOULA Y DAWN FRANCIS KRONE (nee DuBOULAY) -and
SAINT LUCIA Civil Suit No.1 045 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE RACHAEL JOAN DUBOULA Y DAWN FRANCIS KRONE (nee DuBOULAY) -and MICHAEL DuBOULA Y NATHALBERTHUSBANDS TRUSTEES of the Trust of MARGUERITE
More informationIs section 28 of the Estates Act the sole authority for the appointment of an ETDL? A case comment on Mayer v. Rubin 257
Is section 28 of the Estates Act the sole authority for the appointment of an ETDL? A case comment on Mayer v. Rubin 257 Is section 28 of the Estates Act the sole authority for the appointment of an ETDL?
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 CLAIM NO. 560 of 2006 (DENISE HYDE CARD ( BETWEEN( AND ( (FREDRICK GEORGE HYDE JR. (RUSSEL DANE HYDE APPLICANT 1 ST RESPONDENT 2 ND RESPONDENT Coram: Hon. Justice
More informationA PRACTICAL LOOK AT TRUSTEE RETIREMENT AND APPOINTMENT WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COURT
A PRACTICAL LOOK AT TRUSTEE RETIREMENT AND APPOINTMENT WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COURT 1 CCH Trusts and Estates Conference 2016 A PRACTICAL LOOK AT TRUSTEE RETIREMENT AND APPOINTMENT WITH THE ASSISTANCE
More informationCAPACITY CHECKLIST: THE ESTATE PLANNING CONTEXT
CAPACITY CAPACITY CHECKLIST: THE ESTATE PLANNING CONTEXT Capacity is decision-specific, time-specific and situation-specific in every instance, in that legal capacity can fluctuate. There is a legal presumption
More informationHoulden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter
2012 37 Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter Date: September 10, 2012 Headlines The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of how to distribute commingled funds to the victims of a fraudulent
More informationCitation: Powell Estate Date: PESCTD 81 Docket: ES-1339(P) & ES-1342(P) Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Powell Estate Date: 20021202 2002 PESCTD 81 Docket: ES-1339(P) & ES-1342(P) Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION IN THE MATTER of the
More informationSECURITY FOR COSTS MOTIONS
SECURITY FOR COSTS MOTIONS Introduction Motions for security for costs provide a means for a defendant to ensure, before litigation proceeds too far, that there is a fund of money in place to pay the defendant's
More informationCharities Accounting Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.10 Last amendment: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 6, s. 44. Notice of donation to be given to Public Guardian
Charities Accounting Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.10 Last amendment: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 6, s. 44. Notice of donation to be given to Public Guardian and Trustee 1. (1) Where, under the terms of a will or
More informationE N D O R S E M E N T (corrected)
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-334666PD2 DATE: 20070620 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: State Farm Insurance Company v. v. Jean Brijlal and Roy Brijlal BEFORE: Justice D. Brown COUNSEL: Pamela Pengelley,
More informationTURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS THE TRUSTS ORDINANCE 1990 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Part 1 - Preliminary
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS THE TRUSTS ORDINANCE 1990 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Citation and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Existence of a trust 4. Applicable law of a trust 5. Jurisdiction of the Court
More informationTURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS TRUSTS BILL 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS TRUSTS BILL 2015 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART I PRELIMINARY CLAUSE 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Meaning of insolvent 4. Meaning of personal relationship
More informationTRUSTS (JERSEY) LAW 1984
TRUSTS (JERSEY) LAW 1984 Revised Edition Showing the law as at 1 January 2014 This is a revised edition of the law Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 Arrangement TRUSTS (JERSEY) LAW 1984 Arrangement Article PART
More informationCase Name: Enescu v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co.
Page 1 Case Name: Enescu v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. Between Cornel Enescu and 1380470 Ontario Inc., and The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, Maskell Insurance Brokers Ltd. and William Maskell [2005]
More informationTRUSTS (JERSEY) LAW 1984
TRUSTS (JERSEY) LAW 1984 Revised Edition Showing the law as at 1 January 2007 This is a revised edition of the law Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 Arrangement TRUSTS (JERSEY) LAW 1984 Arrangement Article PART
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Atlantic Jewish Foundation v. Leventhal Estate, 2019 NSSC 30
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Atlantic Jewish Foundation v. Leventhal Estate, 2019 NSSC 30 Date: 20190124 Docket: Hfx No. 470775 (H-63083) Registry: Halifax Between: Atlantic Jewish Foundation
More informationBalancing Privacy Interests of an Incapable Person with the Responsibilities of Attorneys, Guardians and Section 3 Counsel. By Justin W.
Balancing Privacy Interests of an Incapable Person with the Responsibilities of Attorneys, Guardians and Section 3 Counsel By Justin W. de Vries 1 INTRODUCTION Everyone has a fundamental right of privacy.
More informationJersey. Trusts Law, 1984 (as amended, 2006)
Jersey Trusts Law, 1984 (as amended, 2006) Arrangement of Articles PART 1 - General 1. Interpretation. 2. Existence of a trust. 3. Recognition of a trust by the law of Jersey. 4. Proper law of a trust.
More informationLAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO SIX-MINUTE ESTATES LAWYER MAY 3, 2018 HOTCHPOT CLAUSES. Debra L. Stephens.
LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO SIX-MINUTE ESTATES LAWYER MAY 3, 2018 HOTCHPOT CLAUSES Debra L. Stephens www.welpartners.com HOTCHPOT CLAUSES* Hotchpot clauses have existed for hundreds of years. The concept is
More informationTHE WHY, WHEN AND HOW OF THE MOTION FOR DIRECTION AND ORDER GIVING DIRECTIONS
THE WHY, WHEN AND HOW OF THE MOTION FOR DIRECTION AND ORDER GIVING DIRECTIONS Recommended Best Practices for Passing of Accounts Applications by Fiduciaries The Law Society of Upper Canada Chair: the Honourable
More informationDisposition before Trial
Disposition before Trial Presented By Andrew J. Heal January 13, 2011 Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A: A bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good
More informationPage 2 [2] The action arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, The plaintiff Anthony Okafor claimed two million dollars and the plainti
CITATION: OKAFOR v. MARKEL INSURANCE & KROPKA, 2010 ONSC 2093 COURT FILE NO.: C42087/97 DATE: 2010-06-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: JUNE OKAFOR AND ANTHONY OKAFOR Plaintiffs - and
More informationRECENT ISSUES AND COURT DECISIONS AFFECTING ESTATE PLANNING KIMBERLY A. WHALEY ESTATE LITIGATION COUNSEL WHALEY ESTATE LITIGATION JUNE 7, 2007
PRACTITIONERS UPDATE: STEP CANADA 9 TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE RECENT ISSUES AND COURT DECISIONS AFFECTING ESTATE PLANNING BY KIMBERLY A. WHALEY ESTATE LITIGATION COUNSEL WHALEY ESTATE LITIGATION JUNE 7, 2007
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY) [COMMERCIAL LIST]
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY) [COMMERCIAL LIST] Court File No.31-2016058 Estate No. 31-2016058 IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3,
More informationTWENTY-SECOND REPORT LAW REFORM COMMITTEE THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
SOUTH AUSTRALIA TWENTY-SECOND REPORT of the LAW REFORM COMMITTEE SOUTH AUSTRALIA THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION BONDS AND TO THE RIGHTS OF RETAINER AND PREFERENCE OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP 1 SECTION 69 OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT ( BIA ) 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BIA STAY PROVISIONS 1 Since
More informationWills and Estates Information for Administrators
Community Legal Information Association of Prince Edward Island, Inc. Wills and Estates Information for Administrators An administrator is a person appointed by the court to deal with the estate of someone
More informationMULTIPLE-PARTY ACCOUNTS UNDER THE NEBRASKA PROBATE CODE
MULTIPLE-PARTY ACCOUNTS UNDER THE NEBRASKA PROBATE CODE RONALD R. VOLKMER* INTRODUCTION The drafters of the Probate Code evidently thought that it would be advisable to clarify the law relating not only
More informationSubstitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30
Français Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 S.O. 1992, CHAPTER 30 Consolidation Period: From July 1, 2010 to the e-laws currency date. Note: January 1, 2011 has been named by proclamation as the day on which
More informationWills Variation Act ESTATE LITIGATION BASICS FOR LAWYERS PAPER 1.1
ESTATE LITIGATION BASICS FOR LAWYERS PAPER 1.1 Wills Variation Act These materials were prepared by Stanley T. Rule of Tinker, Churchill, Rule, Kelowna, BC, for the Continuing Legal Education Society of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355 Date: 20150917 Docket: Hfx No. 412751 Registry: Halifax Between: James Robert Fawson, James Robert Fawson, as the personal
More informationPRIMER ON STANDARDIZED COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING TESTING
20 th Annual Estates and Trusts Summit PRIMER ON STANDARDIZED COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING TESTING Ian M. Hull Hull & Hull LLP 141 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1700 Toronto, Ontario M5H 3L5 Tel: (416) 369-7826
More informationPASSING OF ACCOUNTS / FIDUCIARY ACCOUNTS Osgoode PD February 9, Kimberly A. Whaley
PASSING OF ACCOUNTS / FIDUCIARY ACCOUNTS Osgoode PD February 9, 2017 Kimberly A. Whaley Overview! Duty to Account! Process, Procedure & Format! Compensation and Costs! Trends in Case Law - Common Objections!
More informationCOURT APPLICATIONS. *Chapter 4 of the Probate Handbook deals with these applications in detail * Tim Bracken BL 4 November 2013
COURT APPLICATIONS *Chapter 4 of the Probate Handbook deals with these applications in detail * Tim Bracken BL 4 November 2013 NON CONTENTIOUS PROBATE APPLICATIONS Non contentious Probate applications
More informationTHE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. By H. A. J. FORD, LL.M., Senior Lecturer in Law in the University of Melbourne.
THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. By H. A. J. FORD, LL.M., Senior Lecturer in Law in the University of Melbourne. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Manners; Public Trustee v. M anners
More informationTHE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA INTERNATIONAL EXEMPT TRUST ACT, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 PRELIMINARY
THE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA INTERNATIONAL EXEMPT TRUST ACT, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1. Short title 2. Definition and Interpretation 3. Validity of international trust 4. Proper law of international
More informationTo Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay
To Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay Paul D. Guy and Scott McGrath; WeirFoulds LLP Is seeking a stay of foreign proceedings a prerequisite to obtaining an anti-suit injunction in Canada? An anti-suit injunction
More informationSang Yee Joy v BPTC Limited (In Liquidation) [1994] FJHC 173; Hbc0029d.92s (17 November 1994)
Sang Yee Joy v BPTC Limited (In Liquidation) [1994] FJHC 173; Hbc0029d.92s (17 November 1994) IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA PROBATE ACTION NO. 29 OF 1992 IN THE MATTER of the Trusts of the Will dated
More informationST CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS NEVIS ORDINANCES CHAPTER 7.03 (N) NEVIS INTERNATIONAL EXEMPT TRUST ORDINANCE
Laws of Saint Christopher Cap 7.03 1 ST CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS NEVIS ORDINANCES CHAPTER 7.03 NEVIS INTERNATIONAL EXEMPT TRUST ORDINANCE and subsidiary legislation Revised Edition showing the law as at 31
More informationHALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON
CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS
More informationPROCEDURE UNDER THE NEBRASKA PROBATE CODE
PROCEDURE UNDER THE NEBRASKA PROBATE CODE ROBERT C. McGowAN* INTRODUCTION The new system introduced by the Nebraska Probate Code will be of great value and utility to the practitioner. In order to help
More informationHerring et al. v. Worobel et al. Indexed as: Worobel Estate v. Worobel (H.C.J.) 67 O.R. (2d) 151 [1988] O.J. No Action No.
Herring et al. v. Worobel et al. Indexed as: Worobel Estate v. Worobel (H.C.J.) 67 O.R. (2d) 151 [1988] O.J. No. 2066 Action No. 14/85 ONTARIO High Court of Justice Yates J. December 22, 1988. Restitution
More informationDuncan W. Glaholt. Markus Rotterdam *
1 6 CONSTRUCTION LAW REPORTS 3 C.L.R. (3d) Case Comment: Toro Aluminum Ltd. v. Revah Duncan W. Glaholt Markus Rotterdam * Does a person liable for breach of trust as an accessory under s. 13(1) of the
More informationGowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Mark Siegel and Rosanne Dawson, Defendants. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP, Third Party
CITATION: Ozerdinc Family Trust et al v Gowling et al, 2017 ONSC 6 COURT FILE NO.: 13-57421 A1 DATE: 2017/01/03 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: Ozerdinc Family Trust, Muharrem Ersin Ozerdinc,
More informationCBA LEGAL CONFERENCE (CLC) AUGUST 20, 2013 SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN UNDUE INFLUENCE CHECKLIST: ESTATES AND RELATED MATTERS
CBA LEGAL CONFERENCE (CLC) ELDER LAW AND WILLS, ESTATES & TRUSTS SECTIONS JOINT SESSION ELDER FINANCIAL ABUSE AUGUST 20, 2013 SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN UNDUE INFLUENCE CHECKLIST: ESTATES AND RELATED MATTERS
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COURT FILE NO.: DC06-0065ML DATE: 20070209 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT B E T W E E N: NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION Appellant - and - PALETTA REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON CITY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor
More informationFACTUM OF THE APPLICANT
Court File No. 12821-15 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N : TANNER CURRIE -and- Applicant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, and CHRISTOPHER LABRECHE Respondents FACTUM
More information- 2-4, 2003 advising of Adelaide s involvement and of the outstanding balance (which was then $18,013.55) and presenting settlement options. This was
COURT FILE NO.: 92-CQ-24637 DATE HEARD: October 11, 2006 ENDORSEMENT RELEASED: October 18, 2006 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: ADELAIDE CAPITAL CORPORATION v. 412259 ONTARIO LIMITED, FRANK
More informationGuide to Wills and Estates Section I 1 OVERVIEW
Guide to Wills and Estates Section I 1 OVERVIEW This Guide covers two areas of practice which are closely related: Wills and Estates. Section II Wills covers: what a Will is; the purpose and, therefore,
More informationThe Public Guardian and Trustee Act
Consolidated to September 23, 2011 1 The Public Guardian and Trustee Act being Chapter P-36.3* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1983 (effective April 1, 1984) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan,
More informationPRESENTATION FOR PUBLIC FORUM ON DEMENTIA. 21 September 2010
PRESENTATION FOR PUBLIC FORUM ON DEMENTIA 21 September 2010 Recap on last year Types of Power of Attorney General Power of Attorney Enduring Power of Attorney Financial Matters Personal Matters Advance
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO ESTATE OF : O P I N I O N MARION C. RYAN, DECEASED : CASE NO.
[Cite as In re Estate of Ryan, 2011-Ohio-3891.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO ESTATE OF : O P I N I O N MARION C. RYAN, DECEASED : CASE NO. 2010-L-075 : Civil Appeal
More informationA PRACTITIONER Practitioner
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2015] NZLCDT 44 LCDT 003/15 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN THE CANTERBURY STANDARDS COMMITTEE (No 1) Applicant
More informationARE CLAIMS UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT DISCHARGED BY BANKRUPTCY? By Samuel S. Marr 1
ARE CLAIMS UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT DISCHARGED BY BANKRUPTCY? By Samuel S. Marr 1 INTRODUCTION The Construction Lien Act creates a trust regime for construction projects. To protect construction
More informationTrusts Law 463 Fall Term Lecture Notes No. 3. Bailment is difficult because it bridges property, tort and contract.
Trusts Law 463 Fall Term 2013 Lecture Notes No. 3 TRUST AND BAILMENT Bailment is difficult because it bridges property, tort and contract. Bailment exists where one person (the bailee) is voluntarily possessed
More informationPROBATE COURT OF THE TOWN OF LITTLE COMPTON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
PROBATE COURT OF THE TOWN OF LITTLE COMPTON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws 33-22-29 the Probate Court of the Town of Little Compton hereby establishes and adopts the following
More information2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP
2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP 2013 CarswellOnt 12254, 2013 ONSC 5288, 232 A.C.W.S. (3d) 95, 31 C.L.R. (4th) 89 S&R Flooring Concepts Inc.,
More informationThe Adult Guardianship and Co decision making Act
ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND 1 The Adult Guardianship and Co decision making Act being Chapter A-5.3* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2000 (effective July 15, 2001) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan,
More informationCase Name: Manley v. Manley
Page 1 Case Name: Manley v. Manley IN THE MATTER OF a motion to set aside a default order made against a corporate garnishee for its failure to obey a notice of garnishment Between Marie Marlene Manley,
More informationCHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Fox v. Narine, 2016 ONSC 6499 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526934 DATE: 20161020 RE: CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE
More informationMissouri Revised Statutes
Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 404 Transfers to Minors--Personal Custodian and Durable Power of Attorney August 28, 2013 Law, how cited. 404.005. Sections 404.005 to 404.094 may be cited as the "Missouri
More informationTHE NEVIS INTERNATIONAL EXEMPT TRUST ORDINANCE, 1994 (as Amended, 2011) TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 PRELIMINARY
THE NEVIS INTERNATIONAL EXEMPT TRUST ORDINANCE, 1994 (as Amended, 2011) TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1. Short title 2. Interpretation 3. Validity of international trust 4. Proper law of international
More informationUpdate on contentious probate and trust cases
Update on contentious probate and trust cases Richard Gold, St John s Chambers Published on 27 th October [References in square brackets are to paragraph numbers in the judgments.] Hutchinson v Grant [2016]
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY) [COMMERCIAL LIST]
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY) [COMMERCIAL LIST] Court File No.31-2016058 Estate No. 31-2016058 IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3,
More informationSection 2(1) of the Testators' Family Maintenance Act provides that:
The subject of an address I once listened to at the Canadian Bar Convention was entitled "Post Mortem Estate Planning". This was described as being related to the change or repairs which can be made to
More informationHarry Stathis H.C. STATHIS & CO. 1, 262 Macquarie Street LIVERPOOL 2170
Harry Stathis H.C. STATHIS & CO. 1, 262 Macquarie Street LIVERPOOL 2170 WILLS 1. Introduction to Wills, what constitutes an effective will? 2. Why do I need to make a will? 3. When do I need to make a
More informationSenate Bill No. 207 Committee on Judiciary CHAPTER...
Senate Bill No. 207 Committee on Judiciary CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to distribution of estates; authorizing a person to convey his interest in real property in a deed which becomes effective upon his
More informationSUPERIOR COURT FILE NO.: /08 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO (DIVISIONAL COURT) RE: BEFORE: ST
SUPERIOR COURT FILE NO.: 03-003/08 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO. 635-08 DATE: 20090325 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO (DIVISIONAL COURT) RE: BEFORE: STEPHEN ABRAMS v. IDA ABRAMS, JUDITH ABRAMS, PHILIP ABRAMS
More informationRemoval of an Arbitrator for Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Removal of an Arbitrator for Reasonable Apprehension of Bias By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C., Rosalia Nastasi and Bottom Line Research Summary Section 13 of Alberta s Arbitration Act, R.S.A. 200, c. A-43,
More informationA SHIFT IN WHO BEARS THE BURDEN IN A CLAIM OF UNDUE INFLUENCE. Heather L. Jones and Sidney Koshul
A SHIFT IN WHO BEARS THE BURDEN IN A CLAIM OF UNDUE INFLUENCE Heather L. Jones and Sidney Koshul One of the most significant changes to the law under British Columbia s new Wills, Estates and Succession
More informationLouisiana Last Will and Testament of
Louisiana Last Will and Testament of I,, resident in the City of, County of, State of Louisiana, being of sound mind, not acting under duress or undue influence, and fully understanding the nature and
More informationRULE 64 ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES (NON-CONTENTIOUS)
RULE 64 ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES (NON-CONTENTIOUS) Interpretation and application (1) (a) The Estate Administration Act, the Wills Act and the Trustee Act apply to this rule. (b) This rule applies to
More informationThe Public Guardian and Trustee Act
1 The Public Guardian and Trustee Act being Chapter P-36.3* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1983 (effective April 1, 1984) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1984-85-86, c.34 and 105; 1988-89,
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c.
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST Court File No. CV-15-10832-00CL IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN
More informationTHE USE OF PEDIATRIC LIFE CARE PLANS PRIOR TO TRIAL AND BEYOND
BACK TO SCHOOL with Thomson, Rogers in collaboration with Toronto ABI Network THE USE OF PEDIATRIC LIFE CARE PLANS PRIOR TO TRIAL AND BEYOND SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 STACEY L. STEVENS, Partner Thomson, Rogers
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2015 01702 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MEGAN ROBERTS ALSO CALLED EMMANUEL MEGAN ROBERTS OF NO. 37 SAPPHIRE CRESCENT DIAMOND VALE,
More informationNorth Carolina Uniform Power of Attorney Act Judicial Relief and Procedure
North Carolina Uniform Power of Attorney Act Judicial Relief and Procedure By Elizabeth K. Arias and James E. Hickmon The inclusion of a judicial relief mechanism under the newly enacted North Carolina
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY January 13, 2006 In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Ascent Ltd., of the City of Mississauga, in the Province of Ontario Estate No.: 32-149265 Counsel:
More informationCase Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co.
Page 1 Case Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co. Counsel: RE: CEJ Poultry Inc., and Intact Insurance Company and The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company [2012] O.J. No. 3005 2012 ONSC
More informationContentious Probate Update. Is want of knowledge and approval effectively a. dead duck following Gill v. Woodall?
Contentious Probate Update Is want of knowledge and approval effectively a dead duck following Gill v. Woodall? The Liberal View by Guy Adams, St John s Chambers (Delivered as one side of a debate on the
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180110 Docket: PR 16-01-03410 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: McGregor et al. v. Krall Cited as: 2018 MBQB 7 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: SARAH JEAN McGREGOR, CHRISTINE NOEL TAYLOR,
More informationTrusts Law 463 Fall Term 2013 INTRODUCTORY NOTES
Trusts Law 463 Fall Term 2013 INTRODUCTORY NOTES LAW & EQUITY Trusts are a part of the law known as Equity. Equity in this context does not mean social fairness, its contemporary meaning. Rather, equity
More informationReport on the Variation and Termination of Trusts
Report on the Variation and Termination of Trusts A Report prepared for the British Columbia Law Institute by its Committee on the Modernization of the Trustee Act The members of the Trustee Act Modernization
More informationBILL WILLS, ESTATES AND SUCCESSION ACT
BILL 4 2009 WILLS, ESTATES AND SUCCESSION ACT November 2009 Andrew S. MacKay and Ingrid M. Tsui, Alexander holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP What is Bill 4? Bill 4, 2009 Wills, Estates and Succession Act consolidates
More informationI Will You Will He/She Will We Will They Will
FEBRUARY 2015 Staying Connected For the Alumni of the: ECCB Savings and Investments Course ECCB Entrepreneurship Course ECCB Small Business Workshops YOUR FINANCIAL I Will You Will He/She Will We Will
More informationStatutory Notice Provisions to Beneficiaries Under Estates
Statutory Notice Provisions to Beneficiaries Under Estates by Nafeesa Valli-Hasham Clark Wilson LLP tel. 604.643.3147 nvh@cwilson.com www.cwilson.com Statutory Notice Provisions to Beneficiaries Under
More informationCHAPTER INTERNATIONAL TRUST ACT
SAINT LUCIA CHAPTER 12.19 INTERNATIONAL TRUST ACT Revised Edition Showing the law as at 31 December 2008 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority
More informationMediating trust disputes practical guidance for trustees or personal representatives and beneficiaries
Mediating trust disputes practical guidance for trustees or personal representatives and beneficiaries Disputes covered This guidance is primarily concerned with disputes internal to the trust or estate,
More informationCase Name: Vespra Country Estates Ltd. v Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Pine Hill Estates)
Page 1 Case Name: Vespra Country Estates Ltd. v. 1522491 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Pine Hill Estates) Between Vespra Country Estates Limited, Plaintiff, and 1522491 Ontario Inc. o/a Pine Hill Estates, Bravakis
More informationTHE COLLEGE OF LAW THE IMPORTANCE OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2007
THE COLLEGE OF LAW THE IMPORTANCE OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 2007 David Blackah Watson & Watson Level 9, 300 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) 9221 6011
More informationv No Macomb Probate Court KAREN MAHER, EDWARD SADORSKI, JR., LC No DE KENNETH SADORSKI, AND ESTELLE SADORSKI,
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S In re Estate of EDWARD SADORSKI, SR., Deceased. ANN SADORSKI, Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 20, 2017 v No. 332416 Macomb Probate Court KAREN MAHER,
More informationEXECUTOR TRUSTEE AND AGENCY COMPANY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA, LIMITED, ACT.
EXECUTOR TRUSTEE AND AGENCY COMPANY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA, LIMITED, ACT. An Act to confer powers upon Executor Trustee and Agency Company of South Australia, Limited. [Assented to, 29th October, 1925.J WHEREAS
More informationFlorida Last Will and Testament of
Florida Last Will and Testament of Pursuant to Title XLII, Estates and Trusts I,, resident in the City of, County of, State of Florida, being of sound mind and disposing memory and not acting under duress
More informationConflict of Interest Guidelines
When in doubt ask your personal legal advisor whether a conflict of interest exists. Introduction Section 4.3 for Members of Councils and Local Boards At some point, a question may arise as to whether
More informationSherani v Jagroop [1973] FJSC 3; [1973] 19 FLR 85 (24 October 1973)
Sherani v Jagroop [1973] FJSC 3; [1973] 19 FLR 85 (24 October 1973) (1973) 19 FLR 85 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI SHER MOHAMMED KHAN SHERANl v. MANOHAR JAGROOP AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT, 1973 (Tuivaga
More informationCAPACITY AND SELF-DETERMINATION (JERSEY) LAW 2016
Capacity and Self-Determination (Jersey) Law 2016 Arrangement CAPACITY AND SELF-DETERMINATION (JERSEY) LAW 2016 Arrangement Article PART 1 5 INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES 5 1 Interpretation...
More informationThe Voice of the Legal Profession. Modernizing Requirements for Bonding of Estate Trustees
The Voice of the Legal Profession Modernizing Requirements for ing of Estate Trustees Date: April 2012 Submitted to: Ministry of the Attorney General Submitted by: the Ontario Bar Association Table of
More informationOntario Court Declines to Impose a Duty on a Bank to Protect Third-Party Victims of a Fraud based on Constructive Knowledge
Ontario Court Declines to Impose a Duty on a Bank to Protect Third-Party Victims of a Fraud based on Constructive Knowledge I. Overview Mark Evans and Ara Basmadjian Dentons Canada LLP In 1169822 Ontario
More informationThe Incompetent Principal: Restraining the Attorney-In-Fact
THE LAW FIRM OF BOVE & LANGA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TEN TREMONT STREET, SUITE 600 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 Telephone: 617.720.6040 Facsimile: 617.720.1919 www.bovelanga.com Trusts & Estates Forum
More information