UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Testamentary freedom against provisions for families : the evolution of dependents' relief legislation,… Amighetti, Leopold 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A6_4 A44.pdf [ 9.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077707.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077707-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077707-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077707-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077707-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077707-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077707-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077707-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077707.ris

Full Text

TESTAMENTARY FREEDOM AGAINST PROVISIONS FOR FAMILIES; THE EVOLUTION OF DEPENDENTS' RELIEF LEGISLATION, WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, AS A FLEXIBLE RESTRAINT ON TESTAMENTARY FREEDOM  By LEOPOLD AMIGHETTI B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1957 LL.B., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1960 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAW in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (The  We a c c e p t  Faculty  t h i s .thesis as c o n f i r m i n g  to the required  THE  o f Law)  standard.  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA O c t o b e r 1988 © L e o p o l d A m i g h e t t i , 1988.  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his  and  scholarly  or  thesis  study.  for  her  of  L  a  financial  w  The University of British C o l u m b i a 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  12th  I  further  purposes  October, 1988.  gain  the  shall  requirements  agree  that  agree  may  representatives.  permission.  Department  I  of  be  It not  is be  that  the  for  Library  an shall  permission for  granted  by  understood allowed  advanced  the that  without  make  it  extensive  head  of  copying my  my or  written  ABSTRACT  The  concept of t e s t a m e n t a r y freedom  been  associated  with  legal  cept  became s u b j e c t  tors  were  their  regimes  abuse  on  left  of  in  jurisdictions  succession  t h e common-law s y s t e m .  t o abuse  Z e a l a n d was by  and  to  dependents  the  tional  which,  mercy  sixty-four  This  of deceased  of  the  contesta-  community  freedom.  In Many  years  have  for  law,  acted  as  concept  yet,  the  of such  adopted  to  counteract  dependents' a flexible retained  courts  relief  restraint  the  were  tradi-  given  the  freedom.  through a p e r i o d  legislation  similar  to  of  that  Zealand.  Canada, Canadian  their  contemporary  its  This  freedom,  jurisdiction  C a n a d i a n common-law p r o v i n c e s  i n New  adjusted  in  t o remedy any a b u s e s  The  enacted  first  essentially,  testamentary  authority  the  introducing  testamentary  well.  law  traditionally  support.  legislation on  the  based  sometimes  New this  with  has  the  has  jurisdications  original  norms.  concept  legislation  worked,  have,  on  through  the  whole,  the  years,  t o meet what a p p e a r s  t o be  The reform, the  province  and  to  a  provisions rights.  achieved  some  has  extent,  succession The  -  Ontario  certain  of  property  of  iii  has  law  province  undertaken attempted  with  of  that  Ontario  extensive  to  of  reconcile matrimonial  appears  degree  of  harmony  between  the  province  of  British  Columbia  on  two  to  have  legal  con-  cepts .  The although Report  the  of  retained  issue  the the  Law  legislation has,  inconsistency  that  This  has  nor  the  tinuing U.K.  been  by  This with  the  one with  statute.  porary  from  thesis i n New  of  are considered.  also  the  enacted  gone  supported  The  have  study  and  Columbia,  The  s t a t u t e with its  forced  the  a has  i n 1920.  beyond  by  hand,  such  remedial heirship.  wording  of  the  intent.  the v a r i o u s enactments the  is also a  progenitor  general  jurisprudence of  the  undertaken  s t a t u t e , and and  in British  the  and  past  con-  finally,  comparison  legislation over  commencing  of  contem-  Columbia the  the  is  shifts  sixty-eight  In a d d i t i o n t o t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l d e f e c t  legislation,  considered.  has  other  a  British  Canadian p r o v i n c e s  enactment  years  B.C.  be  Zealand,  the  the  courts  of  i n t e r p r e t e d the  surveys  There  the  of  originally  statute  cannot  that  of  as  its historical  those  subject  i n t e r p r e t e d as a f o r m o f  legislations.  analysed  the  Commission  however,  interpretation  statute,  been  Reform  jurisprudence  p u r p o s e and  has  the  certain  technical  deficiencies  are  The ject  of  present  extensive  previous  province  British  The the  British  that  as  it  requires general cedent  entitled  an as  of  Columbia stands,  i s analysed  and  to  the  as  present  legislation it  has  has  been  compared  well  as  for  in  the  sub-  with  that  of  the  that  event,  law  that  its  interpreting  i t can  social  social  d e p e n d e n c y be relief,  any  of  i s such  contemporary  i s that  right,  state  outlived  meet  application of  which  Columbia.  recommendation to  Ontario,  legislation  effect  review  of  reform,  Province's of  law  iv -  be  utility  that  to  half  and  norms.  The  a condition  and  said  the of  pre-  spouse the  be  family  assets.  The arily,  of:  statutes statutes.  Supervisor  Date  and  investigation analysis the  of  for  the  applicable  this  thesis  legislative  consisted,  debates,  jurisprudence  prim-  appropriate  interpreting  such  - v -  TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CASES PART I :  ix  THE EVOLUTION OF DEPENDENTS' R E L I E F LEGISLATION IN NEW ZEALAND, CANADA AND ENGLAND  1  CHAPTER 1.  H i s t o r i c a l Background o f T e s t a m e n t a r y Freedom  2  2.  New  3.  British  4.  The O t h e r C a n a d i a n P r o v i n c e s and T e r r i t o r i e s England  31 38  Contemporary Legislation,  44  5. 6.  Zealand  10  Columbia  22  Dependents' an O v e r v i e w  Relief  APPENDICES "A"  Comparison o f Contemporary Dependents' R e l i e f L e g i s l a t i o n i n Canada  49  Statute or Ordinance Persons E n t i t l e d "B"  to Apply  Comparison o f Contemporary Dependents' R e l i e f L e g i s l a t i o n i n Canada S t a t u s o f the Deceased T h r e s h o l d Q u e s t i o n and Prescribed Relief  54  - vi -  PAGE "C"  Comparison o f Contemporary Dependents' R e l i e f L e g i s l a t i o n i n Canada Limitation Property  PART I I :  58  Period  Subject  to Act  THE NATURE OF R E L I E F UNDER THE COLUMBIA WILLS VARIATION ACT  BRITISH 62  CHAPTER 1.  Introduction  2.  The P e r t i n e n t C l a u s e and  3. 4.  63 of the Act  the E a r l y Cases  Walker  65  v . McDermott  74  The A f t e r m a t h o f W a l k e r v . McDermott  82  A.  Need a s C o n d i t i o n  B.  Equitable  C.  P r i c e v . Lypchuk  Precedent  Distribution  Theory  84 87  Estate  ..102  of Action  109  5.  S u r v i v a l of Right  6.  Guidelines for Equitable Distribution  118  A s s e t s S u b j e c t t o t h e A c t and the A v o i d a n c e o f I t s A p p l i c a t i o n  125  Conclusion  137  7.  8.  - v i i-  PAGE PART I I I :  PERSONS  ENTITLED TO APPLY UNDER THE  B R I T I S H COLUMBIA  WILLS VARIATION ACT  145  CHAPTER 1.  W i f e and Husband  147  2.  Children  153  3.  P u b l i c T r u s t e e on B e h a l f o f Children  159  Recommendations o f t h e Law R e f o r m Commission o f B r i t i s h Columbia  165  4.  5.  P e r s o n s Under Receiving  Disability  and  Support from the S t a t e  A.  New  Zealand Cases  B.  Australian  C.  English  D.  Canadian Cases  E.  Summary  169 171  Cases  174  Cases  177 180  of B r i t i s h  Columbia  Decisions  190  F.  Nature of State  G.  Law R e f o r m  Support  Commissions  191 198  (a)  Ontario  198  (b)  The A l b e r t a I n s t i t u t e o f Law R e s e a r c h and Reform B r i t i s h Columbia  199 200  (c)  - viii  -  PAGE PART I V :  AN ANALYSIS OF THE SUCCESSION LAW REFORM ACT OF ONTARIO; A CONTRAST OF I T WITH THE NOW REPEALED DEPENDANTS' R E L I E F ACT OF ONTARIO AND THE PRESENT BRITISH COLUMBIA WILLS VARIATION ACT  202  1.  Introduction  203  2.  A n a l y s i s o f t h e S u c c e s s i o n Law R e f o r m A c t o f O n t a r i o and a C o n t r a s t w i t h the Dependants' Relief Act of Ontario  205  C o n t r a s t Between t h e S u c c e s s i o n Law R e f o r m A c t o f O n t a r i o and t h e W i l l s V a r i a t i o n Act of B r i t i s h Columbia  218  The F a m i l y Law A c t o f O n t a r i o and C o n c l u s i o n  223  CONCLUSION  2 27  A.  Technical Deficiencies  228  B.  Philosophical Inconsistency  231  C.  Recommended R e s t r u c t u r e  237  CHAPTER  3.  4.  PART V:  BIBLIOGRAPHY  240  -  ix -  TABLE OF CASES  PAGE Adams v . I r v i n e and Adams Allardice Bailey  148  v. A l l a r d i c e  66, 67, 68, 69, 81, 82  v . P u b l i c T r u s t e e and O t h e r s  148  Banks v . G o o d f e l l o w Barclay Barker  Estate,  5, 6, 7, 8  In r e  v. Westminster  195 Trust  Co  65, 74, 87, 88, 89 110, 111, 112, 113 114,  Bates v. Bates  and Froom  Bates v. Bates  et a l  115, 116, 119, 120 118, 121, 123 118  Berezowsky v . B e r e z o w s k y Boughton and M a r s t o n  135  v . K n i g h t and O t h e r s  Bowe, Re Brauer  4 117, 228, 229  v. H i l t o n  94, 95, 116  B r i g h t e n v. Smith Brousseau  70, 72  E s t a t e , Re (1952)  182, 183, 184, 189, 190 , 191, 197, 198  Brosseau  Estate,  Buchanan E s t a t e , Calladine  Estate,  Re (1975)  153, 154  Re  157  Re  Co-op. T r u s t Co. o f C a n . v . A d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r Sask C o l l i e r v. Yonkers e t a l  115, 229 of Estates 208 133, 134  - x PAGE Compton-Lundie  Estate,  Corlet  o f Man Bank L t d  v. I s l e  Cousins Estate,  157 127, 132  In re  Curtis  v . Adams  Dalton  & M a c D o n a l d , Re  Dalziel  Re  181, 183, 188, 189, 193 172, 173, 175, 181, 182 135  v. B r a d f o r d  96  Dawson, Re  84, 85, 100  Deis,  Re; D e i s  v. Deis  Deis,  Re; S p i c e r  Denton E s t a t e , Dillon Dower  187, 188, 189  v. D e i s  187  In re  159, 160, 161  v. P u b l i c T r u s t e e v. P u b l i c T r u s t e e  o f New  Zealand  117  et a l  125, 126, 127 130,  Downton v . R o y a l T r u s t W.S.  Duff,  Co. e t a l  Re  131, 132, 135 149, 150, 151  175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 191  Dun v . Dun  117  D u p a u l , Re  121  Emele E s t a t e , Esplin  Re  Estate,  133  In re  Gaynor, deceased, Gilbert  Estate,  Granfield  157, 158  In the W i l l  of  Re  212 135  v. W i l l i a m s  95, 96  Greenwood v . Greenwood  99  Hall,  69  Deceased, In r e  H a r d i n g , Re Hartman, Hawker  Re; M e r n i c k l e  86 v . Westaway  e t a l . v . Hawker E s t a t e  155, 208 186, 187, 188, 189  - xi PAGE Hirsch, Holt,  Re  230  Re  90  H o r n e t t , Re Hull,  85, 116  Re  228  J a n k e , Re  92  Jones E s t a t e ,  Re  (1959)  (B.C.S.C.)  121  J o n e s , Re  (1974)  (O.H.C.)  151  J o n e s , Re  (1934)  (B.C.S.C.)  229  J o n e s , Re; J o n e s v . Fox e t a l . (1961) ( B . C . C . A . ) . . 8 5 , 86, 89 Kaetler  v. K a e t l e r  Kensington  232, 233, 235  (deceased),  I n r e ; K e n s i n g t o n and a n o t h e r v .  K e n s i n g t o n and o t h e r s  127  Kent e t a l . v . McKay e t a l  212  Kerby E s t a t e , Kerslake Kinloch  Re  ....110  Estate, Estate,  In r e ; Kerslake Re  164  Lakha S i n g h E s t a t e ,  Re  154  Re  230  L a u r , Re  148  Lawther E s t a t e ,  In re  210  L e w i s , Re Livingston, Lukie,  126, 135 192, 195, 196  Kuseta v. Kuseta  Larsen Estate,  v. Gray  119, 137, 138, 212 Deceased,  In r e  Re  Malat, In the Matter Infants Marusyn v. P r i l l  68, 69 91, 92, 93, 94, 97  of Cynthia  J a n e and D i n n i s e Ann, 161, 162, 163 99, 100  -  XIi -  PAGE M a x w e l l E s t a t e , Re  128, 129  McAdam, (Mrs.) Mary Ann, Re  156, 157  McCarthy,  In r e ; P u b l i c T r u s t e e  McCoy v . P a t e r s o n  v. P u b l i c T r u s t e e . .  et a l  171, 172 173 98  McDermott v . W a l k e r  75, 76, 77, 78  M c M a s t e r , Re  110  McNamara,  Re  212  Mernickle  v . Westaway  155  Michalson, Millar,  90  Re  Millward Morris  Re  194, 195  v. Shenton  178, 179  v. M o r r i s  Naples v. M a r t i n Novikoff, Osland,  95, 97, 233 E s t a t e and M a r t i n  156  Re  229  Re  O'Connell,  90, 117 Re  147  Page E s t a t e , Re  192, 193, 194  P a r k s E s t a t e , Re Patterson  v . L a u r i t s e n , C r o w t h e r , McKay and  Pattison's Trustees Paulin,  74, 93, 94  v. U n i v e r s i t y o f E d i n b u r g h  In re  Pfrimmer  231 127, 134  P e n n i n g t o n v. Boucher Penty v. Mott  Lauritsen....100  83, 84  et a l  188, 189, 190, 191, 197  E s t a t e , Re  Plummer, Re; M i n c k l e r  184, 188, 189 v. P i n d e r  P r i c e v . Lypchuk E s t a t e  98, 99 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107  - xiii  PAGE  Public  Trustee  v. Buchholz  160, 162, 163  Quon, Re  148  Radcliffe, Richards  Re  92  v. P e r s o n e t a l  Richardson, deceased, Robins v. N a t i o n a l Sleno,  122, 123  In re  Trust  Company,  129, 130 Limited  231  Re  93, 94  Stigings,  In re  St. Catharines  70  G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l v. S v i e r g u l a  164  Swain v . D e n n i s o n Taylor  Estate,  Thomson  101  Re  180, 190, 191, 197, 198  (deceased),  Re; Thomson and a n o t h e r  v . Thomson 129,  Tornroos Estate,  Re  82  Tweney v . Tweney  148  U r q u h a r t , Re  228, 229  W a l k e r v . McDermott  Watkins Others  (deceased),  Wetzel v. N a t i o n a l Whiting, Willan,  In re Re  Williams,  73, 74, 78, 79, 80, 81 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89 97, 102, 104, 117 Re; Hayward v . C h a t t e r t o n and 177, 178, 180, 185, 186 192, 195  Trust  Company  Ltd  110 174, 175 .121  In r e  Young E s t a t e , Zajac  130, 133  Re  v . Zwaryz  174, 175 127, 135 195  - 1 -  PART I :  THE EVOLUTION OF  DEPENDENTS'  R E L I E F LEGISLATION ZEALAND, CANADA AND  IN NEW ENGLAND  -  2  -  CHAPTER  1.  HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF TESTAMENTARY FREEDOM  Few l e g a l agencies are, in fact, the f r u i t o f more complex h i s t o r i c a l a g e n c i e s t h a n t h a t by w h i c h a man's w r i t t e n i n t e n t i o n s c o n t r o l t h e posthumous d i s p o s i t i o n o f h i s goods.1  It  i s f a r beyond  lution  of  testamentary  sent purposes  to  tion  i s divided  mits  the  cretion sions  into  of  the  of  that  two  the  broad  t h i s paper  the  evo-  S u f f i c i e n t for  the  pre-  concept  on  the  trace  of  death  other  to  posthumous  positions.  property  testator;  The at  first  the  imposes  disposione  per-  absolute  dis-  overriding  provi-  certain relatives.  Generally, English  of  scope of  dispositions.  state  transfer  for  the  law  of  testamentary succession  jurisprudence,  more  freedom  and  forced  notably  is  attributed  heirship  those  systems  to  to other based  the  systems on  Roman  law.  We nized  are  told  2  in ancient  however, t h a t Roman law,  1  S i r Henry Maine, 1 9 1 7 ) , a t p. 103.  2  A. Nussbaum, 183.  but  Ancient  "Liberty  liberty  of  of  eliminated Law,  t e s t a t i o n was l a t e r as  (edited  Testation",  by  (1937),  the  Ernest 23  recogRoman Rhys  A.B.A.J.  Empire  developed  tance. sory" the  As heirs  a  various  basic  result,  and  deceased's  "legitime".  a  The  certain  as  observed  Nussbaum,  in  of  close  absolutely  estate.  qualifications,  Arthur  doctrine  generally  rule  3 -  This to by  civil  his  entitled  absolute has  a l l civil  article  as  to  r e l a t i v e s became  "legitime" nearly  law  to  inheri"compul-  a portion  interest  is  called  been  adopted,  law  countries.  "Liberty  of  of  with  Testation",  that:  The p e c u l i a r i t y o f the e a r l y Roman and the AngloSaxon law has a r o u s e d t h e i n t e r e s t o f s o c i o l o g i s t s . S a y s Max Weber, (1864-1920) t h e most i m p o r t a n t German sociologist, in his posthumous 'Sozialoeconomik' [Social Economy] p u b l i s h e d i n 1921: 'Complete, or nearly complete, l i b e r t y of t e s t a t i o n i s only rec o r d e d t w i c e : as t o R e p u b l i c a n Rome and as t o E n g l i s h Law; i n b o t h c a s e s f o r e x p a n d i n g n a t i o n s r u l e d by a landed gentry. Today t h e most important territory r e c o g n i z i n g l i b e r t y of. t e s t a t i o n , i s t h e t e r r i t o r y o f g r e a t e s t economic o p p o r t u n i t i e s : the U n i t e d States. In Rome, l i b e r t y o f t e s t a t i o n grew up under a b e l l i c o s e expansion p o l i c y which promised a l i v i n g on conquered land for the d i s i n h e r i t e d ; i t vanished through the l e g i t i m e r u l e borrowed from Greek law when Rome's c o l o n i a l p e r i o d was coming t o an end. In E n g l i s h law l i b e r t y o f t e s t a t i o n a i m e d a t m a i n t e n a n c e of f o r t u n e s w i t h i n the g r e a t f a m i l i e s , a g o a l which c a n be r e a c h e d a l s o by m e a s u r e s o f a l e g a l l y o p p o s i t e , e.g., f e u d a l , n a t u r e . ' 4  3  Ibid.  4  I b i d . , a t pp. 183 and 184. I t c o u l d be a r g u e d t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e t o s u c h l i b e r t y o f testation i n E n g l i s h law i s not necessarily consistent with the concept of m a i n t a i n i n g f o r t u n e s w i t h i n the g r e a t families. L i b e r t y o f t e s t a t i o n c o u l d have p e r m i t t e d the d e c e a s e d t o d e s t r o y t h e i n t e g r i t y o f the f a m i l y f o r t u n e by dividing i t amongst many. However, what the author p r o b a b l y meant was that without f o r c e d h e i r s h i p , which would out of n e c e s s i t y cause a d i v i s i o n of the fortune, the testator could pass the entire fortune to an i n d i v i d u a l without having to sever i t .  Complete acteristic  freedom  It nized the a  by  averments of  necessary  relatively So  Act the  At  as  t o go  the  were  of  and  This  books o f  refer-  the  a s s e r t i o n s of  recog-  Act  that  t e s t a t i o n i n England equally  i s concerned  1724  until  the  1938. the  Military  As  relative  testa-  passing to  Tenures  1660,  1938.  freedom, v a r i o u s  of  realty the  was  short  complete  date of  Provision) Act  testamentary  char-  succession.  standard  of  freedom from  (Family  a  w r i t e r s , to demonstrate  freedom  A b o l i t i o n of  Inheritance  the prime of  other  Provision)  testamentary for  beyond  from  of  is  judiciary.  personalty  existed  by  the  phenomenon  (Family  i t s support  Sir  far  freedom  complete the  recent  disposition  E n g l i s h law  recognized  so-called traditional  until  5  been  h i s t o r i a n s , and  Inheritance  in  the  legal  mentary  of  has  i s not  duration.  was  testamentary  a t t r i b u t a b l e to the  characteristic e n c e ^ and  of  4 -  the there  passing again  6  philosophies  advanced.  Henry J . Hannen^ made t h e  following  observation:  T h e o b a l d , W i l l s , ( 1 3 t h ed. 1971) a t pp. 6 and H a l s b u r y ' s Laws o f E n g l a n d , F o u r t h ed. V. 17.  114. a t p.  673.  6  A. R. M e l l o w s , The Law o f S u c c e s s i o n ( 3 r d ed. Butterworth, London, 1977) a t p. 237. (A b r i e f and understandable h i s t o r i c a l b a c k g r o u n d i s f o u n d i n M e l l o w s a t page 237.) I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t e s t a m e n t a r y f r e e d o m d i d c o - e x i s t w i t h t h e r i g h t s o f dower and c u r t e s y w h i c h i n E n g l a n d were a b o l i s h e d o n l y by t h e enactment o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f E s t a t e s A c t , 1925 15 Geo. V. c.23.  7  Boughton and P. & D. 64.  Marston  v.  Knight  and  Others,  (1873),  L.R.  3  - 5 A c c o r d i n g l y , by t h e law o f E n g l a n d e v e r y one i s l e f t f r e e t o c h o o s e t h e p e r s o n upon whom he w i l l bestow h i s p r o p e r t y a f t e r death e n t i r e l y u n f e t t e r e d i n the s e l e c t i o n he may t h i n k p r o p e r t o make. He may disi n h e r i t , e i t h e r w h o l l y or p a r t i a l l y , h i s c h i l d r e n , and l e a v e h i s p r o p e r t y t o s t r a n g e r s t o g r a t i f y h i s s p i t e , o r t o c h a r i t i e s t o g r a t i f y h i s p r i d e , and we must g i v e e f f e c t t o h i s w i l l , however much we may condemn t h e c o u r s e he has p u r s u e d . In t h i s r e s p e c t t h e law o f E n g l a n d d i f f e r s f r o m t h a t o f o t h e r c o u n tries. I t i s t h o u g h t b e t t e r t o r i s k t h e c h a n c e o f an a b u s e o f t h e power a r i s i n g f r o m s u c h l i b e r t y t h a n t o d e p r i v e men o f t h e r i g h t t o make s u c h a s e l e c t i o n as t h e i r knowledge o f t h e c h a r a c t e r s , o f t h e p a s t h i s t o r y , and f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n o r o t h e r r e l a t i v e s may demand.8  The  reason  very  well  that  the  f o r the p h i l o s o p h y of  have  been  testator  obligations  than  that  was the  advanced  better State  able  through  testamentary by  to  freedom  S i r Henry judge  some  his  rigid  J.  may  Hannen,^  testamentary predetermined  scheme o f s u c c e s s i o n .  The by  concept  the  thesis  Goodfellow  1 0  of  testamentary  advanced  by  i n favour of such  freedom Cockburn  may  also  C.J.  be in  justified Banks  v.  freedom:  F r i e n d s h i p and t r i e d a t t a c h m e n t , o r f a i t h f u l s e r v i c e , may have c l a i m s t h a t ought not t o be d i s r e g a r d e d . In t h e power o f r e w a r d i n g d u t i f u l and m e r i t o r i o u s c o n duct, paternal authority finds a useful auxiliary; age s e c u r e s t h e r e s p e c t and a t t e n t i o n s w h i c h a r e one of i t s chief c o n s o l a t i o n s . As was truly said by C h a n c e l l o r K e n t , i n Van A l s t v. H u n t e r ( 1 ) , [5 J o h n s o n N.Y. Ch. Rep. a t p.159.] ' I t i s one o f t h e p a i n f u l consequences o f e x t r e m e o l d age t h a t i t c e a s e s t o  8  Ibid.,  a t p.  66.  9  Ibid.,  a t p.  66.  10  ( 1 8 7 0 ) , L.R.  5 Q.B.  549.  -  6 -  e x c i t e i n t e r e s t , and i s a p t t o be l e f t s o l i t a r y and neglected. The c o n t r o l w h i c h t h e law s t i l l g i v e s t o a man o v e r t h e d i s p o s a l o f h i s p r o p e r t y i s one o f t h e most e f f i c i e n t means w h i c h he has i n p r o t r a c t e d l i f e to command t h e a t t e n t i o n s due t o h i s i n f i r m i t i e s . ' For t h e s e r e a s o n s t h e power o f d i s p o s i n g o f p r o p e r t y i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f d e a t h has e v e r been r e g a r d e d as one o f t h e most v a l u a b l e o f t h e r i g h t s i n c i d e n t a l t o p r o p e r t y . . . 11  Regardless mentary part  of  quote  of  freedom, the  the the  English  A n t h o n y R.  philosophical belief law  that  of  theory  the  supporting  concept  succession  is  was  not  an  testa-  inherent  correct.  To  Mellows:  In much t h e same s p i r i t as p e o p l e r e f e r , q u i t e i n a c c u r a t e l y , t o an E n g l i s h m a n ' s home b e i n g h i s c a s t l e , p e o p l e a l s o seem c o n v i n c e d t h a t a p e r s o n has an i n a l i e n a b l e r i g h t t o l e a v e h i s p r o p e r t y t o whomsoever he w i s h e s . B o t h n o t i o n s were d e r i v e d f r o m t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , b u t a r e commonly t h o u g h t t o r e p r e s e n t immutable p r i n c i p l e s o f E n g l i s h law. In n e i t h e r c a s e i s t h i s so.12  The for  a  concept period  tence of such a  of  dealing  11  Ibid.,  12  Op.  13  Supra,  freedom  approximately  two  hundred  however, c o u l d be  identified  by  did  Cockburn  exist years.  supported C.J.  in The  England exis-  only against in  Banks  v.  1 3  Although case  testamentary  freedom  background  Goodfellow.  of  Banks with  a t p.  cit.,  v.  Goodfellow  testamentary  was  capacity,  564.  f o o t n o t e 6 a t p.  footnote  10.  essentially  235.  in  his  the  first  quest  to  - 7rationalize explained part, the  the  requirements  the nature  of the r i g h t  of a person's assets  English  concept  for  by W i l l .  against  capacity,  Cockburn  C.J.  to dispose,  i n whole  or i n  A f t e r examining,  t h e c o n t i n e n t a l one, he  briefly, concluded  that:  The law o f e v e r y c o u n t r y h a s t h e r e f o r e c o n c e d e d t o t h e owner o f p r o p e r t y t h e r i g h t o f d i s p o s i n g by w i l l e i t h e r o f t h e whole, o r , a t a l l e v e n t s , o f a p o r t i o n , o f t h a t w h i c h he p o s s e s s e s . The Roman l a w , a n d t h a t o f t h e C o n t i n e n t a l n a t i o n s w h i c h have f o l l o w e d i t , have s e c u r e d t o t h e r e l a t i o n s o f a d e c e a s e d p e r s o n i n the a s c e n d i n g a n d d e s c e n d i n g l i n e a f i x e d p o r t i o n o f the i n h e r i t a n c e . The E n g l i s h law l e a v e s everything t o t h e u n f e t t e r e d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t e s t a t o r , on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t , t h o u g h i n some i n s t a n c e s , c a p r i c e , or p a s s i o n , o r t h e power o f new t i e s , o r a r t f u l c o n t r i v a n c e , o r s i n i s t e r i n f l u e n c e , may l e a d t o t h e n e g l e c t o f c l a i m s t h a t o u g h t t o be a t t e n d e d to, yet, t h e i n s t i n c t s , a f f e c t i o n s , a n d common s e n t i m e n t s o f mankind may be s a f e l y t r u s t e d t o s e c u r e , on t h e whole, a b e t t e r d i s p o s i t i o n o f the p r o p e r t y o f t h e d e a d , a n d one more a c c u r a t e l y a d j u s t e d to the r e quirements o f each p a r t i c u l a r case, t h a n c o u l d be obtained through a d i s t r i b u t i o n p r e s c r i b e d by t h e s t e r e o t y p e d and i n f l e x i b l e r u l e s o f a g e n e r a l law.14  A in  clear  Cockburn  rationalization C.J.'s  continued  of testamentary analysis  freedom  of the notion  i s found of the  power o f t e s t a t i o n :  [I]t i s c l e a r t h a t , t h o u g h t h e law l e a v e s t o t h e owner o f p r o p e r t y a b s o l u t e f r e e d o m i n t h i s u l t i m a t e d i s p o s a l o f t h a t o f w h i c h he i s t h u s e n a b l e d t o d i s p o s e , a m o r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f no o r d i n a r y importance attaches to the e x e r c i s e of the r i g h t thus given. The i n s t i n c t s and a f f e c t i o n s o f m a n k i n d , i n t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f i n s t a n c e s , w i l l l e a d men t o make p r o v i s i o n f o r t h o s e who a r e t h e n e a r e s t t o them i n k i n d r e d a n d who i n l i f e have been t h e o b j e c t s o f  14  I b i d . , a t p . 564.  -  8 -  their affection. I n d e p e n d e n t l y o f any law, a man on t h e p o i n t o f l e a v i n g t h e w o r l d would n a t u r a l l y d i s t r i b u t e among h i s c h i l d r e n o r n e a r e s t r e l a t i v e s the property which he possessed.... Hence a r i s e s a r e a s o n a b l e and w e l l w a r r a n t e d e x p e c t a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f a man's k i n d r e d s u r v i v i n g him, t h a t on h i s d e a t h his effects s h a l l become t h e i r s , i n s t e a d of being given to s t r a n g e r s . To d i s a p p o i n t t h e expectation t h u s c r e a t e d and t o d i s r e g a r d t h e c l a i m s o f k i n d r e d t o t h e i n h e r i t a n c e i s t o shock t h e common s e n t i m e n t s o f m a n k i n d , and t o v i o l a t e what a l l men concur i n deeming an o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e m o r a l law. I t c a n n o t be s u p p o s e d t h a t , i n g i v i n g t h e power o f testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n , t h e law has been f r a m e d i n d i s r e g a r d o f these considerations. On the contrary, had they s t o o d a l o n e , i t i s p r o b a b l e t h a t the power o f t e s t a mentary d i s p o s i t i o n would have been w i t h h e l d , and t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r o p e r t y a f t e r t h e owner's d e a t h w o u l d have been u n i f o r m l y r e g u l a t e d by t h e law itself.15  Testamentary could  act  either  a  It  responsibly legal  has  maintenance that  in  freedom  been  said  of  be  those  that  supported  persons  "liberty  aristocracy..." the  restricted  by  vations  Cockburn  conclusion  towards  only  i f testators  to  whom t h e y  owe  testation... favors  the  or moral o b l i g a t i o n .  England  of  could  effect  customary  that  C.J.  of  well-defined  "kindred".  It i s u n l i k e l y that  I b i d . , a t p.  16  Op.  17  I b i d . , a t p.  18  Supra, footnote  any  184. 10.  2 a t p.  184.  been  was  Goodfellow ^ 1  can  exist  one  of  the  observed  considerably  1  responsibility  563.  c i t . , footnote  also  settlements. ^  freedom  of  has  doctrine  i n Banks v.  background  15  It  the  marriage  testamentary a  1 6  of  The  produce  only to  obser-  a  the  against  a  person's  r e a s o n s were  by  themselves English  sufficient  to  were  the  such  freedom  "kindred" of  would  a  assure  maintenance  of  was  the wealth  probably  owner.  to  freedom  in  d i d not c o n s i d e r  such  realty  when  in relationship norms  a t a time  which  included  testator when most  had been  t h e g e n e r a t i o n s and realty  time  t o whom t h e  i t a l l existed  through  a  and o t h e r s e t t l e m e n t s  o f those  r e p r e s e n t e d by  family  at  These  as t h e making o f m a r r i a g e  In a d d i t i o n ,  family  existed  norms o f c o n d u c t  property  owed a d u t y .  from  testamentary  i n England  some w e l l - d e f i n e d  concepts  which  sustain  law.  Testamentary there  to  9 -  as a n y t h i n g  passed  testators else  other  than f a m i l y p r o p e r t y .  However,  the  dynamics  absent  which  England  were  i n other  English  law o f s u c c e s s i o n had been  sustained  parts  of  the  adopted.  the  system  in  world  where  the  -  10  -  CHAPTER NEW Testamentary English  law  of  freedom  measure,  nized  obligations  sibility  of  the  State  was  first  on  their  the  blow - and  lowing  dead  hand",  survival  left  at  inadequacy  the in  recog-  the  pos-  t h e mercy  of  the  a  of  concept  Zealand.  reading debates approving  finishing the  depended,  protections against  The  of  s t r u c t u r e with  "kindred" being  i n New  after  I hope a  characteristic  its  built-in  support.  second  Maintenance B i l l ,  the  and  a deceased's  for  and  a  well-defined social  documented  During  of  a  ZEALAND  became  succession  large  2.  of  the T e s t a t o r ' s F a m i l y  the b i l l  blow - a t  Honourable  Mr.  "because i t d e a l s a  the m i s c h i e v o u s Scotland  made  power  the  fol-  observation:  T h e r e i s no d o u b t , i n a new c o u n t r y e s p e c i a l l y , men who become s u d d e n l y r i c h - n o t h i n g t o - d a y and e v e r y t h i n g to-morrow - a r e t o o a p t t o become u n d u l y i n f l a t e d w i t h t h e i r own i m p o r t a n c e . They s a y t o thems e l v e s , 'We have made t h e money, and we have a r i g h t t o do what we p l e a s e w i t h i t , and no one has a r i g h t t o s a y nay.'.19  His  observation  which the b i l l  19  113  N.  Z.  casts  was  a  being  light  upon  the  social  background  debated.  Parliamentary  Debates,  (1900),  a t p.  617.  in  A well-defined, not  exist  i n new  succession. only  be  pioneer did  or recognized,  jurisdictions  The r e a s o n  subject nature  New modern  social  subject  for this  lack  to speculation, o f such  n o t have t h e t i m e  England.  11 likely did  to the E n g l i s h of s o c i a l  b u t was  jurisdictions,  to evolve  structure  s t r u c t u r e can  likely  due  and t h e f a c t  a tradition  law o f  to the  that  they  such as e x i s t e d i n  2 0  Zealand times  was  which  concept  of  mentary  Debates  the  first  brought  into  testamentary  question  freedom.  o f 1895 d i s c l o s e  which c h a l l e n g e d  such freedom.  a  a  question  from  Mr.  common-law  J . W.  The  jurisdiction  the v a l i d i t y New  the genesis  Zealand  in  of the Parlia-  of the process  The i s s u e was r a i s e d by way o f Kelly  t o the then  Minister  of  Justice.  The  following  i s the e n t i r e extract  of the debate a t that  point:  Mr. J . W. KELLY a s k e d t h e M i n i s t e r o f J u s t i c e , I f [ s i c ] he w i l l d u r i n g t h e p r e s e n t s e s s i o n i n t r o d u c e a B i l l t o a l t e r t h e law r e l a t i n g t o t h e s u c c e s s i o n o f property, so as t o p r o v i d e t h a t no widow s h a l l be left e n t i r e l y d e s t i t u t e , b u t s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o some p o r t i o n , s a y o n e - t h i r d , o f t h e p r o p e r t y o f h e r deceased husband. I f not, w i l l the M i n i s t e r a f f o r d e v e r y f a c i l i t y f o r a p r i v a t e member t o do s o ? He had been i n d u c e d t o p u t t h i s q u e s t i o n on t h e O r d e r P a p e r t h r o u g h a c a s e w h i c h had been b r o u g h t under h i s  20  O. K. McMurray, " L i b e r t y o f T e s t a t i o n and Some Modern T e s t a t i o n s T h e r e o n " , ( 1 9 1 9 ) , 14 111. L. Rev. 96. Professor McMurray s t a t e s a t p a g e s 116 and 117 " S o c i a l o p i n i o n has u s u a l l y p r e v e n t e d t e s t a t o r s from employing a t o o a r b i t r a r y e x e r c i s e o f t h e i r power."  -  12  -  notice lately. It was a case that arose in I n v e r c a r g i l l , and i n i t v e r y g r e a t h a r d s h i p had been done t o t h e widow and o t h e r members o f t h e f a m i l y , as t h e widow had been l e f t d e s t i t u t e under t h e w i l l o f the deceased husband. Mr. REEVES s a i d i t had, he b e l i e v e d , a l w a y s been a p r i n c i p l e o f t h e E n g l i s h law t h a t a man s h o u l d have almost u n r e s t r i c t e d r i g h t to devise personal property by w i l l , and, f o r a long time p a s t , real property t o o . In f a c t , i t had been t h e b o a s t o f modern l e g i s l a t i o n that i t had g i v e n more c o m p l e t e f r e e d o m i n t h i s r e s p e c t t h a n had been p o s s e s s e d p r e v i o u s l y . It was quite true that in certain countries, like F r a n c e , where t h e law was b a s e d upon t h e o l d Roman law, a f a t h e r had n o t the r i g h t t o d e p r i v e h i s widow and orphans of a l l the p r o p e r t y ; and, speaking for h i m s e l f p e r s o n a l l y , he t h o u g h t t h a t was a very just and p r o p e r p r o v i s i o n . A t t h e same t i m e , i t would be a c h a n g e i n our law o f s u c h v a s t i m p o r t a n c e t h a t i t w o u l d have t o be v e r y c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d b e f o r e i t was e v e n s u g g e s t e d i n C a b i n e t . He was s o r r y t h a t on t h e s h o r t n o t i c e he had r e c e i v e d on t h e m a t t e r he c o u l d not promise the h o n o u r a b l e gentleman t h a t i t s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as he d e s i r e d . 2 1  In  the  in  the  by  Will  civil  following  House  Bill.  law  his  The  will,  vived  by  vived  by  The  2  a  The  2  proposed  bill,  generally,  recommendation  was  to  only and  of  ceived  enthusiastic  21  87  N.Z.  22  92  Ibid.,  one  third  children, or  and  permit  introduced Disposition adopted  portion a man  his  estate  one  half  to  i f he  when  he  in a  the suc-  dispose, was  sur-  was  sur-  child.  protecting support,  Parliamentary  of  Stout  L i m i t a t i o n of  disposable  a wife  concept  the  Robert  the  wife  of  Sir  limiting  of  only  1896,  Representatives  concept  cession. by  of  year,  the yet  the  Debates,  ( 1 8 9 6 ) , a t pp.  386  widow idea  and of  the  interfering  ( 1 8 9 5 ) , a t p.  and  585.  children  587.  rewith  a man's a b s o l u t e be  an immutable  was r e p u g n a n t  The  right  of ownership,  principle  of the E n g l i s h  t o t h e House and t h e b i l l  t e s t a t o r would  and  t o impose some i n f l e x i b l e  of  following  those  always  know  comments  2 4  members who o p p o s e d  best  was  how  to  law o f s u c c e s s i o n ) ,  u n a r t i c u l a t e d r a t i o n a l e f o r opposing  the  The  ( w h i c h some c o n s i d e r e d  discharged. -^ 2  the b i l l  to leave  r u l e m i g h t do  was  that  h i s estate,  injustice.  are i l l u s t r a t i v e  of the a t t i t u d e  the b i l l :  Suppose a man had a l i b e r t i n e o f a s o n , t h a t s o n would o n l y have t o l i e a b o u t and l o a f until his f a t h e r d i e d , knowing t h a t he was s u r e t o g e t a t h i r d of h i s f a t h e r ' s property. In t h e n e a r f u t u r e t h e y would f i n d t h a t men who had any p r o p e r t y a t a l l would be e x c e e d i n g l y diffident about m a r r y i n g . The c h a n c e s a r e t h a t , i f she [ t h e w i f e ] g o t t h e bulk, some m o n e y - h u n t i n g s c o u n d r e l would m a r r y h e r and s p e n d t h e c o i n , l e a v i n g h e r p e n n i l e s s .  Sir bill  Robert  and  i n 1897  Disposition the to  Stout  was n o t d i s c o u r a g e d  introduced  by W i l l  Bill.  testator could dispose receive  attempt  a  fourth,  2  5  by t h e d e f e a t  of h i s  t h e L i m i t a t i o n o f The Powers o f The b i l l  by W i l l  increased  t o one h a l f .  and t h e c h i l d r e n a  was e q u a l l y a s u n s u c c e s s f u l  the f r a c t i o n  like  The widow was amount.  as the f i r s t .  23  96 I b i d . , ( 1 8 9 6 ) , a t p . 32.  24  92 I b i d . , ( 1 8 9 6 ) , a t pp. 586 and 587.  25  98 I b i d . , ( 1 8 9 7 ) , a t p. 546.  This  A modified lowing  year,  measure was i n t r o d u c e d 1898, under  out  of Estate B i l l .  any  kind,  dom  and y e t gave  make In  thereby  provisions  essence,  the  2  The  the court  ally  was  freedom  introduced  type  by W i l l  session.  Bill  cumstances dren  were  tator  wealthier  was c o m p e l l e d  Mr.  McNab  also  their  and  although  amounts their  those  26  families  Will  near  discretion,  had  to  family. on  heretofore  i n England.  was  reviewed  gener-  essentially, great  i n the pre-  that  a  hardship  fixed  in cir-  h e r husband o r when t h e c h i l -  the t e s t a t o r a fixed  himself,  that  a l l members  l e a v i n g large wealth  he had no o b j e c t i o n  to others  of comparative t o any p e r s o n  institution, but only  and t h e t e s -  p o r t i o n t o them.  the f a c t  i n positions  to others,  free-  t o superimpose  norms w h i c h  work a v e r y  emphasized  t o some o u t s i d e  portion of  t o The L i m i t a t i o n o f t h e Powers o f  to leave  aware o f men who h a d d i e d ing  at i t s  the a b i l i t y  had l e f t  than  Provision  of testamentary  w h i c h had been i n t r o d u c e d  might  when a w i f e  no f i x e d  by Mr. McNab who  The o b j e c t i o n  of d i s t r i b u t i o n  Family  f o r the t e s t a t o r ' s  a l l the s o c i a l  t h e House's o b j e c t i o n s  vious  in  t h e power,  the court  testamentary  Disposition  contained  out o f the e s t a t e  i t gave  bill  bill  r e t a i n i n g the concept  testator's Will  moderated  t h e name T e s t a t o r ' s  This  6  t o t h e House i n t h e f o l -  they  after  leav-  destitution, leaving  should  they  were  be  large  generous  had been  just  to  themselves.  101 I b i d . , 418.  (1898),  a t p.  563,  102  Ibid.,  (1898),  a t p.  - 15 Mr. met by  McNab  a l l of not  but  concluded  the  providing to  limit  that  having  relief  by  regard  making  on  either  have been  tution  the  o b j e c t i o n s of  p l a c i n g any  claimed  that  to  an  the the  a  left  bill  he  House t o power o f  wife  or  station  application  introducing  the  previous  disposition  husband  in a position their  was  to  of  or  any  a  bills,  by  judge  could of  Will,  child  comparative  in life,  the  had  who  destiask  for  Supreme  Court.  He court,  c h a r a c t e r i z e d the  effect  of  the  bill  having  itself  of  the  merits  cation,  w o u l d make an  property  The  satisfied  to provide  members  were many c a s e s which the fore  did  mercy  not of  of  to secure  the  provide the  that  a certain  one of  where the  the  appli-  p o r t i o n of  the  f o r the a p p l i c a n t .  House  generally  where g r e a t wrongs had  a measure o f  recognized  order  as  f o r wives  s t a t e or this  or  was  that  there  been done t h r o u g h  Wills  children,  charitable  nature  recognized  l e a v i n g them  institutions  essential.  and  to  there-  Members f u r t h e r  there e x i s t e d :  [A] most f l a g r a n t anomaly t h a t a man, t h e head o f a f a m i l y , s h o u l d be c o m p e l l e d to provide f o r h i s wife and f a m i l y w h i l e he was a l i v e , but d y i n g and l e a v i n g p l e n t y o f p r o p e r t y b e h i n d him i t was l e f t t o h i m s e l f to d e t e r m i n e whether t h a t p r o v i s i o n s h o u l d be continued? D i r e c t l y he d i e d h i s w i f e and f a m i l y were cast upon c h a r i t y , and t h u s became a b u r d e n upon society. T h e r e was no doubt i t was an a b u s e t h a t s h o u l d no l o n g e r be t o l e r a t e d . 2 7  27  102  Ibid.,  (1898),  a t pp.  422  and  423.  They a l s o tected".  recognized that  the be  members,  n o t go  fixed  bill  although  f a r enough  portion  allocated wrong  a greater  wrong  than  their  cism.  than  duced  by a  that  t o compel  the b i l l , have  Others  that  t o see a felt  "[njothing people  By way o f r e s p o n s e the " B i l l  that i t  preferred  view,  o u r young  felt  that could  by  leaving  i t was  brought  d i d not i n t e n d  t h e widow and c h i l d r e n  t o go any s h o u l d be  3 0  member, He  to s p o i l 2  maintained."  One  had a r i g h t t o be p r o -  members.  as, i n their  to squander." ^  attention  would  to family  quite  further  family  endorsing  as they  was  them money to  "[t]he  2 8  Some did  16 -  Mr.  R.  characterized lawyer."  McKenzie, the b i l l  was  extreme  in his  a s "a l a w y e r ' s  Bill,  critiintro-  3 1  I t s i m p l y made f o o d f o r l a w y e r s , and a f f o r d e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r l a w y e r s t o go and c o n t e s t w i l l s . This B i l l ought t o be c a l l e d a L a w y e r s ' Employment Bill. I t was n o t a. B i l l i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e community a t a l l . I t was a B i l l t o r o b t h e community - t o r o b widows and o r p h a n s - and he hoped t h e House w o u l d never permit a v i c i o u s B i l l l i k e t h i s t o pass t o the statute-book.32  28  Ibid.,  ( 1 8 9 8 ) , a t p . 423.  29  Ibid.,  ( 1 8 9 8 ) , a t p . 424.  30  Ibid.,  ( 1 8 9 8 ) , a t p . 425.  31  Ibid.,  ( 1 8 9 8 ) , a t pp. 424 and 425  32  Ibid.,  ( 1 8 9 8 ) , a t p . 425.  He  concluded  with  the  hope  17  -  that:  [ T j h i s House w o u l d n e v e r go and book w i t h a measure o f t h e k i n d  The  bill  mittee.  did  It did  discharged  The  on  bill  receive not,  however,  October  was  second  12th,  reading  go  to  1899.  reintroduced  d i s g r a c e the s t a t u t e now b e f o r e them.33  and  third  was  sent  reading  to  and  com-  it  was  3 4  i n 1900  as  the  Testator's  Family  3 S  Maintenance was  that  sure".  Bill.  the  bill  The  3 6  obviously  The  3  was  House  unjust,  and  underlying a  theme o f  "humanising  recognized  that  and  House  debate  Christianising  "[t]he  undoubtedly c a l l e d  the  present  f o r an  mea-  law  was  alteration." ^ 3  [I]t was an i m p r o p e r t h i n g t h a t any law s h o u l d a l l o w a man, i n l e a v i n g an e s t a t e , t o n e g l e c t t o p r o v i d e f o r h i s w i f e and c h i l d r e n a f t e r h i s d e a t h . 3 8  One ishment by  the  of  the  that  members, Mr.  such a  government and  bill  A.  had  viewed  L.  not the  D.  Fraser,  I b i d . , ( 1 8 9 8 ) , a t p.  34  110  I b i d . , ( 1 8 9 9 ) , a t p.  503.  35  111  I b i d . , ( 1 9 0 0 ) , a t pp.  128  36  111  I b i d . , ( 1 9 0 0 ) , a t p.  504.  37  111  I b i d . , ( 1 9 0 0 ) , a t p.  505.  38  111  I b i d . , ( 1 9 0 0 ) , a t p.  504.  aston-  been p r e v i o u s l y b r o u g h t bill  not  but 33  expressed  425.  and  503.  only  as  down  humanitarian  -  18 -  [ R ] e a l l y a l o u d c r y f o r j u s t i c e f r o m w i v e s and c h i l dren of deceased persons who had been v e r y w r o n g l y treated.39  Mr.  McNab,  clear any  that  by  any r i g h t  Rather  posing  the b i l l  i t was n o t t h e i n t e n t  person  Will.  i n moving  to dispose  i t was  intended  f o r second  reading,  of the b i l l  t o take  made i t away f r o m  o f any p a r t o f h i s p r o p e r t y by t o " s u p e r v i s e " such  disposition  the f o l l o w i n g question:  [ B ] e f o r e you d i s p o s e o f your p r o p e r t y , f i r s t carry o u t y o u r o b l i g a t i o n s ; f i r s t s e e t h a t y o u do n o t l e a v e any p e r s o n d e s t i t u t e ; f i r s t s e e t h a t any p e r s o n who i s a t p r e s e n t d e p e n d e n t on y o u f o r h i s o r h e r s u p p o r t and maintenance i s not l e f t on the State f o r support.40  Mr. cided of His  McNab  identified  the p h i l o s o p h i c a l question  a s f o l l o w s "[w]as t h e S t a t e  the wife  and c h i l d r e n  unequivocal  should  be l i a b l e  Thus, ceived  answer  second  was  f o r such  i n an o u t c r y  o r was  t o be l i a b l e the estate  that  the  f o r the support  t o be  estate  t o be d e -  of  liable?". the  4 1  person  support.  of justice  reading.  39  111  Ibid.,  (1900),  a t p . 506.  40  Ill  Ibid.,  (1900),  a t p . 504.  41  Ill  Ibid.,  (1900),  a t p . 504.  and f a i r n e s s  the b i l l  re-  - 19 The  bill  its  debates  as  follows:  was  debated  i n the L e g i s l a t i v e  Council enunciated  Council  the p r i n c i p l e  behind  4 2  and i n  the  bill  [T]he p r i n c i p l e o f the B i l l i s t w o f o l d : F i r s t o f a l l , t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r s h a l l do j u s t i c e t o t h o s e d e p e n d e n t upon him - h i s n e a r e s t r e l a t i v e s , w i f e and c h i l d r e n and a l s o t h a t t h o s e p e r s o n s s h a l l n o t , t h r o u g h t h e t e s t a t o r l e a v i n g h i s p r o p e r t y away f r o m them, be l e f t p e r h a p s a b u r d e n upon t h e S t a t e . 4 3  One member, the with  bill  The H o n o u r a b l e S i r G. S. Whitmore, o b j e c t e d t o  because  the r i g h t s  i t went  o f p r o p e r t y , and i n t h e f a c t  mium upon t h e d i s o b e d i e n t  Other cern  "too f a r a l t o g e t h e r  child."  members, a l t h o u g h  to the court's  in  that  interfering i t i s a pre-  4 4  endorsing  the b i l l ,  expressed  con-  discretion:  [ T j h e r e s h o u l d be some d i s t i n c t g u i d a n c e g i v e n t o t h e C o u r t a s t o what p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e e s t a t e s h o u l d be allocated t o the wife or c h i l d r e n . As t h e c a s e s t a n d s now, one C o u r t w i l l t a k e one v i e w and a n o t h e r Court probably another v i e w , and t h e r e w i l l be no s y s t e m a t i c d e a l i n g with the matter.45  New  Zealand  thus  enacted  on t h e 9 t h day o f O c t o b e r ,  The  T e s t a t o r ' s Family  Maintenance  42  113 I b i d . ,  (1900),  a t pp. 613 t o 619.  43  113 I b i d . ,  (1900),  a t p . 614.  44  113 I b i d . ,  (1900),  a t p . 615.  45  113 I b i d . ,  (1900),  a t p . 617.  46  N.Z. S t a t . ,  1900, No. 20.  Act, 1900.  4 6  The  1900  charging  clause of  the Act  read  20  -  as f o l l o w s :  2. S h o u l d any p e r s o n d i e , l e a v i n g a w i l l , and w i t h o u t making t h e r e i n a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t o f h i s or her w i f e , h u s b a n d , or c h i l d r e n , the Court may at i t s d i s c r e t i o n , on a p p l i c a t i o n by or on b e h a l f o f t h e s a i d w i f e , h u s band, o r c h i l d r e n , o r d e r t h a t s u c h p r o v i s i o n a s t o t h e s a i d C o u r t s h a l l seem f i t s h a l l be made o u t o f the e s t a t e of the s a i d deceased person f o r such w i f e , husband, or c h i l d r e n : P r o v i d e d t h a t the Court may a t t a c h s u c h c o n d i t i o n s t o t h e o r d e r made as i t s h a l l t h i n k f i t , or may r e f u s e t o make an o r d e r i n f a v o u r o f any p e r s o n whose c h a r a c t e r or c o n d u c t i s s u c h as i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t t o d i s e n t i t l e him or her to the b e n e f i t of an order under this section. ' C o u r t ' means t h e Supreme C o u r t or any J u d g e t h e r e o f , and, i n t h e c a s e o f d e c e a s e d M a o r i s , t h e N a t i v e L a n d Court.47  By  such  English are  enactment  New  testamentary  spouses  provisions  or  have  freedom  children, been  making  subject  to  the  traditional  testations, court  when  there  discretion.  The  "flexible  restraints  on  Q  testamentary  freedom"^  ation  Zealand's  s.  by  moderated  c h a r a c t e r i z e d as A  o f New  Zealand  0  and  considered  legislative  as  "an  independent  cre-  genius". ^ 4  47  Ibid.,  2.  48  J . L a u f e r , " F l e x i b l e R e s t r a i n t s on T e s t a m e n t a r y Freedom a Report on D e c e d e n t s ' F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e Legislation", ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 69 H a r v . L. Rev. 277 a t p. 282.  49  I b i d . , a t p. 282. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t New Z e a l a n d a l r e a d y had a s i m i l a r s t a t u t e , l i m i t e d however t o d e c e a s e d M a o r i s . R e f e r t o t h e comments o f t h e H o n o u r a b l e C o l o n e l P i t t i n 113 N.Z. P a r l i a m e n t a r y D e b a t e s , ( 1 9 0 0 ) , a t p. 614, where he s t a t e s : " I am q u i t e c e r t a i n t h e r e can be no g r e a t o b j e c t i o n t o t h e B i l l , b e c a u s e t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e measure has a l r e a d y been r e c o g n i s e d by law and r e c o g n i s e d by t h e New Zealand Parliament, and e s t a b l i s h e d as law i n r e f e r e n c e t o the N a t i v e r a c e . Under 'The N a t i v e Land C o u r t A c t , 1894' s e c t i o n 46, i t i s p r o v i d e d , -  By found  the a  system  disinherit unjust  creation  his  father  of  the  Act  New  sufficiently  elastic  undeserving  family,  o r an  unfaithful  Zealand to  appeared  enable  while  husband from  yet  a  to  have  testator  to  preventing  an  leaving  h i s depen-  dents p e n n i l e s s .  'On every application for the appointment of a s u c c e s s o r where t h e d e c e a s e d has l e f t a w i l l , and on every application for probate or letters of administration with w i l l annexed, t h e C o u r t shall i n q u i r e i f the t e s t a t o r has d e v i s e d l a n d t o a p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n h i s s u c c e s s o r ; and, i f t h e t e s t a t o r has so d e v i s e d l a n d , the C o u r t , i f i t s h a l l f u r t h e r appear on i n q u i r y t h a t s u c h s u c c e s s o r has n o t , w i t h o u t the l a n d so d e v i s e d , s u f f i c i e n t land for h i s support, shall award to such successor a part, or, if n e c e s s a r y f o r h i s s u p p o r t , b u t not o t h e r w i s e , the whole o f t h e l a n d s o d e v i s e d ; and t h e p r o b a t e or l e t t e r s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s h a l l be e x p r e s s l y l i m i t e d t o t h e e s t a t e and e f f e c t s o f t h e d e c e a s e d o t h e r t h a n t h e l a n d so awarded t o t h e s u c c e s s o r . ' "  -  22 -  CHAPTER 3. BRITISH  The  province  of B r i t i s h  Canada  to  social  c o n d i t i o n s a s New  Zealand in  adopt  solution  such  COLUMBIA  Columbia  legislation) Zealand  t o the abuses  ( t h e second found  and c h o s e  itself  province i n in  t o adopt  of testamentary  similar t h e New  freedom  found  the Province.  The Family section  province  of B r i t i s h  Maintenance  Columbia  A c t on A p r i l  i s S e c t i o n 3 which  reads  enacted  1 7 t h , 1920.^0  the T e s t a t o r ' s The  charging  as f o l l o w s :  N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f any law o r S t a t u t e t o t h e c o n t r a r y , i f any p e r s o n (hereinafter called t h e " t e s t a t o r " ) d i e s l e a v i n g a w i l l and w i t h o u t maki n g t h e r e i n , i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e J u d g e b e f o r e whom t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s made, a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e proper maintenance and s u p p o r t of the t e s t a t o r ' s w i f e , h u s b a n d , o r c h i l d r e n , t h e C o u r t may, a t i t s d i s c r e t i o n , on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n by o r on b e h a l f o f t h e s a i d w i f e , o r o f t h e s a i d husband, o r o f a c h i l d o r children, order that such provision as the Court t h i n k s adequate, j u s t , and e q u i t a b l e i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h a l l be made o u t o f t h e e s t a t e o f t h e t e s t a t o r f o r s u c h w i f e , husband o r c h i l d r e n . 5 1  50  S.B.C. 1920, c . 94.  51  Ibid.,  s. 3.  The  section  equivalent ute.  i s , for  in  purposes,  i t s progenitor,  identical  the  New  to  Zealand  the  stat-  5 2  the  New  duction not  -  a l l practical  section  Unfortunately, of  23  u n l i k e the  Zealand  of  the  statute,  bill  which  w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d by  comment  to  its  " H i s Honour following  events  official  enactment  the  the  to the  leading  is  the  found  Province  in  The  the  enactment the  intro-  statute, only  of  Columbia  pleased  are  official  Journals  of B r i t i s h was  to  the  source.  Lieutenant-Governor  gracious  leading  u l t i m a t e l y became  any  L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly of  process  the where  to d e l i v e r  the  Speech:-"  The ' M o t h e r s ' P e n s i o n s A c t ' and 'Testator's Family Maintenance A c t ' are S t a t u t e s which I f e e l c o n f i d e n t w i l l tend towards the a m e l i o r a t i o n o f s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the Province.53  It  is  analysis  far of  Province.  beyond the  It  came i n t o b e i n g told  5 4  that  motivated,  social  can  scope  be  this  work  which  said,  enacted  by  concerns  The  social  for  a  after  the  that  the  Act  reform.  We  are  I  was  World  War  stability impact  of of  the  society.  52  Supra,  footnote  53  Jan.  54  M. J . D a v i e s , " S e r v i c e s R e n d e r e d , R e a r i n g C h i l d r e n f o r t h e S t a t e : M o t h e r s ' P e n s i o n s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 1919 - 1931", a t pp. 256 and 257.  - April  economic  minute in  however,  the  do  Province's  29  and  to  prevailed  a time of a c t i v e s o c i a l  legislation  part,  of  conditions  generally  during  social in  the  World  47. 17  Session  1920,  V o l . XLIX a t p.  255.  War  I, the loss  quent  Spanish  24 -  o f human l i f e  f l u epidemic,  during  t h e same war, t h e s u b s e -  working-class  militancy,  umph o f t h e B o l s h e v i k s i n R u s s i a a n d t h e f e a r politicians bined  of a p r o l e t a r i a n  to influence  society's  a need f o r g u a r a n t e e s  Social for  a  families. lation, was with  through  Although  i t was  by t h e r e f o r m e r s  fertile  j u s t i c e and  and s t a b i l i t y .  the s t a b i l i t y  a  com-  as t h e base  of working-class  era for social  legis-  t h e enactment o f t h e T e s t a t o r ' s F a m i l y Maintenance A c t  the d i r e c t the f i n a l  result  century  through  i n 1916.  concerned  with  o f reforms  best  t o them  women's o r g a n i z a t i o n s  V a n c o u v e r women i n t h e e a r l y p a r t o f t h e t w e n t i e t h  variety  given  by  enfran-  were  power  of lobbying  women's  chisement  The  conception of s o c i a l  was s e e n  society  by r e f o r m e r s a n d  were f o r c e s t h a t  forpredictability  legislation  stable  revolution,  the t r i -  way  maternal concerning  to achieve  these  feminist  goals  themselves reforms  and d e s i r e d  a  and t h e i r  children.  was t o g a i n  the vote.  Between 1910 a n d 1928 f i v e V a n c o u v e r women's o r g a n i z a t i o n s , i n particular,  An  promoted  examination  organizations,  55  female  citizenship.^  of the a v a i l a b l e  minutes  t h e U n i v e r s i t y Women's C l u b  o f two o f  these  (UWC) a n d t h e New  G. W e i s s , The B r i g h t e s t Women o f Our Clubwomen 1910 - 1928 a t p . 200 f f .  Land:  Vancouver  Era  League  support  (NEL),  of l e g i s l a t i o n  children.  Their  w i t h any g r e a t  One for  indicates  a  efforts,  however,  success u n t i l  change  thrust  for the greater  of the p u b l i c a t i o n s  legislative  25 towards  p r o m o t i o n and  protection  do n o t a p p e a r  o f women a n d t o have met  enfranchisement.  5 6  dealing  with  the quest  o f women  reports:  During t h e same y e a r [1911] the Vancouver Local C o u n c i l r e p o r t e d t h a t when i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a n d one from the U n i v e r s i t y Club met w i t h the Attorney G e n e r a l a t V i c t o r i a t o r e q u e s t amendments i n t h e laws o f i n h e r i t a n c e and those r e l a t i n g t o t h e c u s t o d y o f c h i l d r e n , t h e y r e c e i v e d an a t t e n t i v e h e a r i n g . 5 7  M i n u t e s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y Women's C l u b  report  Mrs. M c G i l l , [ s i c ] c o n v e n o r o f t h e Committee on Laws, r e p o r t e d h a v i n g i n t e r v i e w e d Mr. Bowser, t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a t V i c t o r i a , p r e s e n t i n g t o h i m t h e amendments t o e x i s t i n g laws c o n c e r n i n g women and c h i l d r e n d e s i r e d by t h e C l u b . 5 8  However, l a t e r  minutes d i s c l o s e  that:  Mrs. M c G i l l [ s i c ] a l s o r e p o r t e d f o r t h e Committee on Laws a f f e c t i n g women and c h i l d r e n t h a t t h i s s e s s i o n o f P a r l i a m e n t h a d n o t made any improvements i n e x i s t i n g laws.59 56  M. L . H a s t i n g s , & L . K. E l l e n w o o d , B l u e Bows & t h e G o l d e n Rule Provincial Council o f Women o f B.C. ( P r i v a t e l y p u b l i s h e d , 1984).  57  I b i d . , a t p . 26.  58  J a n . 13, 1912, C i t y A r c h i v e s ,  59  U n i v e r s i t y Women's C l u b M i n u t e s , Nov. 25, 1911, t o May 13, 1916, a t p p . 42 and 43 - C i t y A r c h i v e s , V a n c o u v e r , B.C.  V a n c o u v e r , B.C.  - 26 Later 13th,  minutes  show  1915, m i n u t e s  p e r s e v e r a n c e and hope.  The F e b r u a r y  state:  Mrs. M c G i l l [ s i c ] p r e s e n t e d t h e r e p o r t o f t h e laws committee. The amendments had been l a i d b e f o r e Mr. Bowser, Mr. MacGowan a n d Mr. Watson and were f a v o r ably received.60  Subsequent  m i n u t e s were even more  positive:  Mrs M c G i l l [ s i c ] e x p l a i n e d t h a t now woman s u f f r a g e was a practical certainty i n B.C., i n t h e n e a r future, t h e s e c t i o n on laws bade fair t o be v e r y important. A l s o t h a t s h e hoped t o be a b l e t o u s e what i n f l u e n c e t h e C l u b m i g h t have i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f better laws f o r women a n d c h i l d r e n . Mrs. M c G i l l [ s i c ] moved a n d M r s . M c i n t o s h s e c . t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g measures be g i v e n t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e C l u b . . . . T h a t p r o v i s i o n be made f o r a widow, whether h e r h u s b a n d l e a v e s a w i l l o r not.61  The Smith  prediction  was e l e c t e d  headed  6 2  Columbia. that  the  o f Mrs. M a c G i l l to the p r o v i n c i a l  long  I t was d u r i n g  the Testator's  with other  overdue  social  true  house  social  t h e decade  Family  came  Ellen  i n 1918 a n d s p e a r -  reforms  that  Maintenance  when Mary  in  she s e r v e d  British  a s a n MLA  A c t was p a s s e d ,  along  legislation.  60  U n i v e r s i t y Women's C l u b M i n u t e s , F e b r u a r y 13, 1915, a t p . 212 - C i t y A r c h i v e s , V a n c o u v e r , B.C.  61  U n i v e r s i t y Women's C l u b M i n u t e s , S e p t . 9, 1916, t o J a n . 30, 1924, a t p p . 13 a n d 14 - C i t y A r c h i v e s , V a n c o u v e r , B.C.  62  E. B. Norcross, 1918-1928: The Decade of Social L e g i s l a t i o n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a H i s t o r i c a l News, V o l . 17, No. 1, 1983, a t p p . 13 t o 16.  The receive by  advent  27 -  o f the T e s t a t o r ' s  some p u b l i c i t y .  Social  t h e announcement o f Mary E l l e n  Family  Maintenance  legislation Smith  was  Actd i d  foreshadowed  that:  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ' s u r g e n t need o f human l e g i s l a t i o n , r a t h e r than a d d i t i o n s t o t h e c o l d m a t e r i a l laws a l ready i n abundance on the s t a t u t e books o f t h e Province, c o n s t i t u t e d the corner stone of the address d e l i v e r e d i n the L e g i s l a t u r e t h i s afternoon by M r s . R a l p h S m i t h , j u n i o r member f o r V a n c o u v e r . In the speaker's opinion t h e p e o p l e a s a whole were l e s s concerned about the doings o f the f a r m e r s ' p a r t y , t h e s o l d i e r s ' p a r t y , t h e l a b o r p a r t y , o r e v e n t h e womans' [ s i c ] p a r t y t h a n t h e y were a b o u t t h e p a r t y t h a t w o u l d r a n g e i t s e l f on t h e s i d e o f human considerations.63  The  i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e A c t was n o t e d a s f o l l o w s :  An A c t t o s e c u r e a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e w i f e a n d c h i l d r e n o f a t e s t a t o r was introduced t h i s m o r n i n g i n t o t h e L e g i s l a t u r e by t h e Hon. J . W. de B. F a r r i s , A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l a n d M i n i s t e r o f Labor. P r o v i s i o n i s made whereby t h e c o u r t s may p r o v i d e for maintenance f o r the wife or c h i l d r e n , or both, out o f t h e e s t a t e . T h i s means t h a t e v e n i f a p e r s o n dies leaving a w i l l , but without p r o v i d i n g f o r the c a r e o f d e p e n d e n t s , ample p r o v i s i o n may be made by law.64  The  Attorney  General  was  further  reported  as h a v i n g  com-  mented a s f o l l o w s : Attorney-General F a r r i s this afternoon outlined the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e a c t t o s e c u r e adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e maintenance o f the w i f e and c h i l d r e n o f a testator. 63  B.C. L e g i s l a t i v e C l i p p i n g s  64  Ibid., April  15, 1920.  Book, F e b . 7, 1920.  -  28  -  In a d d i t i o n t o e x p l a i n i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e b i l l , o u t l i n e [ s i c ] i n t h e s e c o l u m n s t o d a y , Mr. F a r r i s s a i d t h e measure was one o f t h e l i n k s i n t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s chain of s o c i a l welfare l e g i s l a t i o n . . . I t d i d p r o v i d e , he c o n t i n u e d , v e r y n e c e s s a r y a s s i s t a n c e t o d e p e n d e n t w i v e s and c h i l d r e n who were n o t p r o p e r l y p r o v i d e d for.65  The  Colonist  d u c t i o n of  was  the b i l l  Maintenance A c t ) .  equivocal  (which  was  in  i t s report  on  the  t o become t h e T e s t a t o r ' s  introFamily  It stated:  The b i l l now b e f o r e t h e L e g i s l a t u r e t o s e c u r e a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e w i f e and c h i l d r e n of a t e s t a t o r , while designed with a k i n d l y p u r p o s e and a t t h e same t i m e w i t h a v i e w t o r e d u c i n g t h e number o f m o t h e r s ' p e n s i o n s w h i c h t h e Government w i l l be c a l l e d upon t o pay t h r o u g h new s o c i a l l e g i s lation, opens up a v i s t a of c o u r t proceedings in w h i c h l e g a c i e s may be s q u a n d e r e d i n l e g a l f e e s . I t i s t r u e no o t h e r power c o u l d d e c i d e i n a m a t t e r o f t h i s k i n d s a v e t h e c o u r t s , but t h e r e i s a p o s s i b i l i t y , i n some c a s e s a t l e a s t , t h a t s u c h a power w i l l have t h e e f f e c t o f d e s t r o y i n g the v e r y s a f e g u a r d which the Government i n t e n d s t o i n s t i t u t e . Incidentally, the new l e g i s l a t i o n i s a n o t h e r blow a t i n d i v i d u a l f r e e d o m of a c t i o n , a l t h o u g h i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e t h a t may not make i t t h e mark o f c r i t i c i s m . The m a j o r i t y o f p e o p l e a r e aware t h a t t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f f r e e d o m o f d i s p o s i t i o n by w i l l i s f a m i l i a r i n E n g l a n d , a l t h o u g h i n some o t h e r c o u n t r i e s a l i e n a t i o n i s o n l y p e r m i t t e d where t h e d e c e a s e d l e a v e s no widow or near relatives. Legal systems which are b a s e d on t h e Roman law p r o v i d e r e s t r i c t i o n s s u c h as a r e now p r o p o s e d i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , but i n F r a n c e , w h i c h f o l l o w s t h i s c o u r s e , t h e r e s t r i c t i o n has met w i t h c o n d e m n a t i o n f r o m eminent l e g a l and economical a u t h o r i t i e s . . . . In most i f not a l l o f i t s l e g i s l a t i o n d u r i n g recent years B r i t i s h Columbia i s a c o p y i s t , and t h e r e i s n o t h i n g new o r r a d i c a l i n t h e b i l l i n troduced yesterday. In l e g i s l a t i n g i n t h e m a t t e r o f wills, however, to the extent contemplated the Government i s p r o p o s i n g t o throw t h e q u e s t i o n into the thickest hedge o f legal e n t a n g l e m e n t s and is c l a i m i n g the r i g h t to d i s p o s e of p r o p e r t y , s u b j e c t to t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e c o u r t s , t h e t i t l e t o w h i c h i s not  65  Ibid., April  16,  1920.  -  29  -  v e s t e d i n t h e crown. So f a r as t h e new legislation w i l l s a f e g u a r d the r i g h t s o f the immediate r e l a t i v e s o f a d e c e a s e d p e r s o n i t i s g o o d . So f a r a s i t s q u a n ders e s t a t e s i n l e g a l fees there are at l e a s t doubts about the complete e f f i c a c y of the b i l l . 6 6  Helen  Gregory  MacGill  D /  commented as f o l l o w s :  The w i f e ' s s h a r e i n t h e f a m i l y e s t a t e r e c e i v e s r e c o g n i t i o n i n the T e s t a t o r ' s Family Maintenance A c t , pass e d 1920 [sic]. T h i s A c t , b r o u g h t down by A t t o r n e y General F a r r i s , belongs t o t h a t new f i n e school of law-making t h a t i s c o n t e n t t o e n u n c i a t e an e q u i t a b l e principle, leaving cases to be decided on their merits. I t e s t a b l i s h e s the r i g h t f u l c l a i m of the w i f e ( o r husband) and c h i l d r e n t o p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e b e f o r e e f f e c t i s g i v e n t o o t h e r g i f t s or b e q u e s t s . 6 8  Her  comment was,  the Act  than  While of the  the  however, more r e f l e c t i v e  that expressed  there  is little  legislature  result  pathetic  of  views of 16,  i n The  Colonist.  concrete  evidence  i n passing  lobbying the  1920  of  the A c t ,  the a c c e p t a n c e  of  the  i t i s clear  that i t the  was sym-  General. ^ 6  66  April  67  H. G. M a c G i l l , Women and C h i l d r e n under B r i t i s h Laws, V a n c o u v e r , ( P r i v a t e l y P u b l i s h e d , 1 9 3 5 ) .  68  Ibid.,  69  H. G. M a c G i l l , i n her p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t e d a t pp. 20 and 21:  a t p.  of  intentions  women's o r g a n i z a t i o n s and  then A t t o r n e y  a t p.  of  4. Columbia  38. (see  footnote  67  supra)  "The Hon. J . W. deB. F a r r i s , when i n London upon invitation addressed the House o f L o r d s upon the British Columbia Equal G u a r d i a n s h i p and Testator's Family Maintenance Acts he having sponsored the l a t t e r and a d m i n i s t e r e d b o t h w h i l e A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l . " By  letter  dated  March 10,  1987,  an  inquiry  was  made t o  the  It comment the  New  is  regretful,  either  however,  endorsing  Zealand  spouse  and  ceased  r a t h e r than  or  Parliament  children  30  should  upon t h e identical.  that  there  rejecting that fall State.  the upon  the  the  motivations  were  unequivocal  e n u n c i a t i o n of the p h i l o s o p h y  no  legislative  thesis  burden  I t can  However,  is  put  of  there  by  maintaining  estate be  forth  of  the  de-  assumed  that  the  is  behind  no  clear  the  Act.  and  Clerk of the Records, Record Office, House o f Lords, r e q u e s t i n g c o n f i r m a t i o n o f s u c h an a d d r e s s , and particulars thereof. By letter d a t e d March 23, 1987, S. K. E l l i s o n , Esq., A s s i s t a n t C l e r k of the Records a d v i s e d t h a t he c o u l d f i n d no r e c o r d o f any s u c h a d d r e s s . He s t a t e d f u r t h e r t h a t t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l "... w o u l d not have been a b l e t o a d d r e s s a s i t t i n g o f t h e House o f L o r d s b u t v e r y l i k e l y he would have been i n v i t e d t o a d d r e s s a g r o u p o f Lords interested specifically in the subject of the l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t he s p o n s o r e d as A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . . . " .  -  31 -  CHAPTER THE OTHER CANADIAN The  other  testamentary legislation  Canadian freedom  4.-  PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES  provinces unacceptable  permitting  court  also  found  and  the concept  sequentially  interference  with  of  enacted  testamentary  freedom.  Alberta  was  dependents ment  relief  the f i r s t provisions  o f The M a r r i e d  provided  province  i n Canada  i n i t s statute  Women's R e l i e f A c t . ^  u  to  incorporate  law, by t h e e n a c t Section  2  thereof  as f o l l o w s :  The widow o f a man who d i e s l e a v i n g a w i l l by t h e t e r m s o f w h i c h h i s s a i d widow would i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e j u d g e b e f o r e whom t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s made r e c e i v e l e s s t h a n i f he had d i e d i n t e s t a t e may a p p l y t o t h e Supreme C o u r t f o r r e l i e f . 7 1  It lation, a  i s worthy  of note  the A l b e r t a  testator,  addition,  limiting  i t imposed  provisions  unlike  t h e New  limited relief  i t s application  to w i l l s  a minimum e n t i t l e m e n t  sum o f no l e s s t h a n t h a t to r e c e i v e  that  Zealand  t o t h e widow o f o f males.  70  R.S.A. 1910, c.18 ( A s s e n t e d  71  I b i d . , s . 2.  In  f o r t h e widow t o a  t o w h i c h she would have been  h a d t h e d e c e a s e d husband d i e d  legis-  intestate.  t o December 16, 1 9 1 0 ) .  entitled  The  Edmonton  Daily  32  Bulletin  published  the  following  re-  port:  To  Protect  Widows.  Hon. Mr. M a r s h a l l , i n moving t h e s e c o n d r e a d i n g o f a bill r e s p e c t i n g t h e r i g h t s o f m a r r i e d women i n t h e estate of t h e i r deceased husbands s t a t e d that the bill m i g h t p e r h a p s have been b e t t e r h a n d l e d by a l e g a l member o f t h e House, and he a s k e d t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f t h e members i n p e r f e c t i n g the legislation. The b i l l was e s p e c i a l l y a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s f a s t growi n g c o u n t r y and p r o v i d e d t h a t where a w i f e had h e l p e d her h u s b a n d i n b u i l d i n g up a b u s i n e s s he s h o u l d not have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f d e p r i v i n g her o f h e r share. The o p e r a t i o n o f t h e A c t , he t h o u g h t , w o u l d be exc e p t i o n a l f o r few husbands w o u l d be so u n g e n e r o u s as t h e b i l l assumes, but p r o v i s i o n had t o be made f o r t h e e x c e p t i o n s . . . .Mr. M a r s h a l l e x p l a i n e d a number o f c l a u s e s o f the b i l l , the e n t i r e o b j e c t o f which was t o p r e v e n t widows f r o m b e i n g u n j u s t l y d e p r i v e d o f an e q u i t a b l e s h a r e of t h e i r husband's p r o p e r t y . Provisions  of  Bill.  The Supreme C o u r t i s t h e c o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r the e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e A c t . Any widow l e f t w i t h o u t an e q u i t a b l e s h a r e o f t h e e s t a t e o f her d e c e a s e d h u s band by h i s w i l l may a p p l y f o r r e l i e f t o t h e Supreme Court, which, a f t e r t a k i n g a l l necessary evidence, may make an award o f a r e a s o n a b l e amount, e q u a l t o her s h a r e i f her husband had d i e d i n t e s t a t e . 7 2  In that  a  the  subsequent Hon.  lation  as  than a  dower  Mr.  Marshall  follows: law  publication  "In  for  commented  some ways t h i s  such  could  not  to s t o c k s ,  72  Feb.  73  Edmonton D a i l y B u l l e t i n ,  23  etc."^  the  same on  the  proposed  [legislation]  only  apply  26  1910.  3  1910. Nov.  newspaper  to  real  was  reported legisbetter  estate  and  It ale  i s obvious  expressed  newspapers,  by  of  fairness the  that  the  Its intent  t h e amount died  first,  intestate  of  portion  forced  than  the sequence  Act.  The O n t a r i o  7 6  Zealand one,  statute  perhaps  of  beyond  to provide  t h e widow  as  would  I t accepted  that  fair  with  the y a r d s t i c k have  received  therefore,  existed  portion.  7 7  had  t o the dephilosophy  of not  less  7 4  of Ontario  were m o d e l l e d two  of  as the  was  i n 1929, t h e D e p e n d a n t s '  provisions  a  by i m p l i -  the  t o an amount  the province  7 5  enacting,  major  entitlement  there  f o r t h e widow  y e t i t ^contained no  something  t h e widow's  Columbia by  intended  t h e widow  and s e c o n d ,  British  by t h e  using  as  what t h e l e g i s l a t u r e had p r e s c r i b e d  was  succession  and t h e r a t i o n reported  estate,  the i n t e s t a t e succession  After in  was  intestate.  that  ceased's e s t a t e ;  which  itself  of the b i l l ,  legislation  the t e s t a t o r ' s  deceased  cation,  the l e g i s l a t i o n  the sponsor  "maintenance". portion  from  33 -  after  variations.  consequence,  was  a  next  Relief the  The  New  first  reference  to  74  T h i s b r i e f a n a l y s i s o f t h e A l b e r t a l e g i s l a t i o n o f 1910 and the journalistic- reports, supports certain hypothesis (elsewhere expressed) that testamentary freedom can o n l y o p e r a t e i n a s o c i e t y w i t h w e l l - d e f i n e d and a c c e p t e d s o c i a l norms. I t a l s o supports the concept that the i n t e s t a t e succession portion is a fair basis to determine the widow's p o r t i o n , a c o n c e p t w h i c h has been r e j e c t e d by t h e B r i t i s h Columbia Courts. L a s t l y , i t makes a l l u s i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t s i n c e t h e p r o p o s e d law was i n i t i a t e d by p e r s o n s w i t h no l e g a l t r a i n i n g , t h e y were u n a b l e t o i d e n t i f y t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t any s u c h new law may b r i n g w i t h i t .  75  See c . 3 , s u p r a .  76  S.O.  77  I b i d . , s . 3.  1929, c . 47  (assented  t o 28th March,  1929).  "future  maintenance".  t a n c e as a  i t l i m i t e d the  defined  t e r m and  the  testator  age  "who  through By  did,  from  the  adult  children.  indicative Relief  Act,  in  The  "Widows  of  age  the  only of  or  to  was  or  infirmity  Globe^  of  greater  or  a  is  unable  such  although  over to  limitations being  The  of  that  earn  a  Ontario made  r e f e r r i n g to  behind  was  "child  child  Maintenance  forces  impor-  which  8  husband",  applications  Orphans'  motivating  of  "dependants"^  sixteen",  preclude  and  one  "wife  introduction  offset,  bill  applicants  illness the  comments  decessor  the  -  second  included  under  livelihood".  The  The  34  Bill",  a  by  prewere  Dependants  1929:  Idea of  Bill.  The b i l l was drawn w i t h the i d e a o f o f f s e t t i n g , i n e f f e c t , a r b i t r a r y a t t e m p t s by d i s g r u n t l e d heads o f f a m i l i e s to p r e v e n t t h e i r immediate h e i r s from rec e i v i n g any p o r t i o n o f t h e i r e s t a t e s . A few years ago, as t h e P r i m e M i n i s t e r [ s i c ] e x p l a i n e d yesterday, widows were w e l l p r o t e c t e d under t h e Dower A c t , s i n c e most e s t a t e s c o n s i s t e d l a r g e l y o f r e a l e s t a t e . Of r e c e n t y e a r s , he p o i n t e d o u t , t h e r e had been a t r e n d t o w a r d s t o c k s , b o n d s , and s i m i l a r p e r s o n a l property, w h i c h do not come w i t h i n the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Dower Act. The c o n s e q u e n c e has been t h a t many widows and o r p h a n s have been s t r i p p e d o f some o f t h e p r o t e c t i o n w h i c h f o r m e r l y was theirs.80  78  I b i d . , s.  79  The  80  I b i d . , a t p.  Globe,  2(b). (now 15.  The  G l o b e and  Mail)  M a r c h 29,  1928.  Saskatchewan  entered  Dependants' R e l i e f in  common  with  dependents. age  to  amended of  i n 1940 w i t h  its  The  The S a s k a t c h e w a n p r o v i s i o n s  8 1  i n Ontario,  limited  8 2  the a p p l i c a n t s t o  from  that  of  i t slegislation  i t s provisions  sixteen . in i n 1949  t o both  8 3  testate  Ontario.  to extend and  the  intestate  8 4  Manitoba, field  those  next  However, t h e r e was an e x t e n s i o n o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s  Saskatchewan  deaths.  the f i e l d  Act, 1940.  twenty-one  application  35 -  8 5  Nova S c o t i a ,  i n 1946, 1956  8 6  and 1959  and New  Brunswick  respectively.  8 7  entered the  The  legislative  81  R.S.S. 1940, c . 3 6 , ( a s s e n t e d  t o M a r c h 16, 1 9 4 0 ) .  82  Ibid.,  83  R.S.S., 1949, ( a s s e n t e d  84  Although the Province o f Saskatchewan was a relative latecomer i n the f i e l d (30 y e a r s a f t e r A l b e r t a and 20 years after British Columbia), i n 1911 the p r o v i n c e i n t r o d u c e d , by v i r t u e o f an A c t t o amend The D e v o l u t i o n o f Estates A c t , R.S.S. 1910-11, c . 1 3 , s . 1 1 ( a ) i n The Devolution of E s t a t e s Act the f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n :  s . 3 and 8. t o March 31, 1 9 4 9 ) .  "11a. The widow o f a man who d i e s l e a v i n g a w i l l by the terms o f which h i s s a i d widow w o u l d i n the o p i n i o n o f t h e judge b e f o r e whom t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s made r e c e i v e l e s s than i f he had d i e d intestate l e a v i n g a widow and c h i l d r e n may a p p l y t o t h e supreme court f o r r e l i e f . " I t w i l l be n o t e d t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same as that contained i n The M a r r i e d Women's R e l i e f A c t , R.S.A. 1910, c . 18, s . 2. 85  The T e s t a t o r s ' F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.M. 1946, c . 64 ( a s s e n t e d t o A p r i l 1 3 t h , 1946).  86  Testators' Family (assented to A p r i l  M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.N.S. 1 1 t h , 1956).  1956, c .  8,  87  T e s t a t o r s ' F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.N.B. ( a s s e n t e d t o March 1 3 t h , 1959).  1959, c .  14  provisions closer  i n effect  Ontario made  i n these  ones.  Provinces  areidentical,  to the B r i t i s h  Although  reference  36 -  Columbia  the appropriate  t o "dependent",  of  statutes  section  t h e term  spouse o r c h i l d r e n o f t h e t e s t a t o r ,  and they  a r e much than t h e  i n each A c t  was d e f i n e d  but with  t o mean  no a g e l i m i t a t i o n  the c h i l d r e n .  Newfoundland, Territories, dents'  relief  spectively. was  9 0  and P r i n c e  The common  Territories,  Edward  legislation  available  There  t h e Yukon  8 8  Island  t h e Northwest  introduced  depen-  i n 1962, 1962, 1971 a n d 1974  theme o f t h e i r  f o r both  9 1  8 9  re-  legislation  i s that i t  intestate  succession.  as t o the persons  entitled to  spouses and c h i l d r e n ,  w i t h o u t age  testate  was no u n i f o r m i t y however  and  apply.  Newfoundland limitations,  9 2  permitted  t o apply.  Yukon -' l i m i t e d 3  the a p p l i c a n t s t o de-  p e n d e n t s who were d e f i n e d a s s p o u s e a n d c h i l d r e n b u t t h e c h i l dren  were  infirm.  limited However,  t o a maximum  age o f twenty-one y e a r s  the d e f i n i t i o n  of children included  88  The F a m i l y R e l i e f A c t , R.S.N. March 2 0 t h , 1962) .  89  Dependant's Relief Ordinance, ( a s s e n t e d t o May 1 1 t h , 1 9 6 2 ) .  90  Dependants R e l i e f  91  T e s t a t o r ' s D e p e n d a n t s R e l i e f A c t , R.S.P.E.I., ( a s s e n t e d t o June 12th, 1974).  92  Supra, footnote  88, s .  2(a).  93  Supra,  89, s.  2(1).  footnote  unless natural  1962, c . 56, ( a s s e n t e d t o R.O.Y.T.,  1962,  O r d i n a n c e , R.O.N.W.T., 1971, c .  c.  9  D-44.  1974, c . 47  - 37 children, to  a de  Ordinance  children yet  s t e p c h i l d r e n or c h i l d r e n  f a c t o b u t n o t a de  The  i t extended  included  finition  of  divorced  for  basically  circumstances Act  -  juris  the  i n the  dependents,  to  been  Territories^ as  include  Prince  children  those of  subject  Edward  defined  4  the  certain  Yukon,  persons  Island^  as c h i l d r e n  i t included  p e r s o n s and c e r t a i n  have  adoption.  same manner  cohabitation.  illegitimate  might  Northwest  "dependents"  of  who  and  5  in  in i t s  i n i t s de-  grandparents,  dependent  persons i n circumstances of coha-  bitation .  Dependents' over  a  relief  sixty-four  complexity  as  to  legislation  year the  span.  persons  As  was  introduced  anticipated,  entitled  the  d a t e o f enactment  94  Supra, f o o t n o t e  90,  s. 2 ( a ) .  95  Supra, footnote  91,  s. 1 ( a ) and ( d ) .  to  apply  became a more c o n t e m p o r a r y  into  the  Canada  degree  of  increased  as  one.  -  38 -  CHAPTER 5. ENGLAND !  Although  England  was p e r c e i v e d t o v e n e r a t e  testamentary  freedom  t h e House  1928  manifestation that  9 6  show  of Lords  the concept of  debates  the concept  was  satisfactory.  On t h a t  d a t e V i s c o u n t A s t o r gave  House  wished  to  that  Select law  he  Committee  governing  introduce  t o s e e whether  testamentary  a  motion  o f May 1 6 t h , not  totally  notice  to establish  a change was n e c e s s a r y  provisions  to the  f o r wives,  a  i n the  husbands and  children.  After  citing  dren  had been  that  they  injustice  He of  occur  also  under  suggested  their  o f i n c i d e n t s where s p o u s e s  disinherited,  [the incidents  sufficient  prevent  a series  Viscount  cited]  Astor  show  Pari.  97  Ibid.,  real  chil-  "I  claim  h a r d s h i p and  t h e law as i t s t a n d s . . .  t o t h e House  frequency  to j u s t i f y  that  these  t h e House  incidents  taking  were  action to  o c c u r r e n c e as he was  [C]onvinced that they [were] w i t h and c o n t r a r y t o t h e b r o a d  96  that  affirmed  and  Deb. H.L., a t p. 40.  [16 May 1928],  entirely inconsistent s e n s e o f f a i r n e s s and  a t pp. 38 t o 62.  -  39 -  fair play associated with this c o u n t r y , and t h e y [were] a l s o o p p o s e d t o t h e t r e n d o f modern p u b l i c opinion.98  In Wales  h i s speech were  world  New of  the only  where  occur.99  this  After  Zealand  to  two sort  legislation  and t h a t  and  he  countries of  reviewing,  the Dominions;  Scotland  t h e House  stated  hardship  and 1  of the various  o f A m e r i c a , he c o n c l u d e d  could  the p e r t i n e n t  0  i t s a d o p t i o n by most  reference  States  and  speaking  injustice  form, ^  and a c k n o w l e d g i n g making  England  i n the E n g l i s h  i n a general  after  that  t o t h e law o f  i n the United  States  that:  [ I ] n most o f t h e E n g l i s h s p e a k i n g c o u n t r i e s t h e law makes i t i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e t y p e o f h a r d s h i p a n d i n j u s t i c e t o a r i s e w h i c h i s p o s s i b l e h e r e u n d e r o u r own law.101  The  response  responded was  that  "very  Judges," matters  l u 2  although  much  was r e v e a l i n g .  he was  averse  from  a s he d i d n o t t h i n k  relating  procedure  to this plea  which  to W i l l s I,  98  I b i d . , a t p . 41.  99  Ibid.  100  I b i d . , a t p . 42.  101  I b i d . , a t p . 44.  102  I b i d . , a t p . 47.  103  Ibid.  f o r my  sympathetic putting that  very  Haldane  t o the concept  that  duty  judges c o u l d  w i s e l y . H e part,  Viscount  stated much  upon  he the  intervene i n "[t]hat  deprecate  is a being  thrust  on  the Judges,  are very apt  Lord called  for  by  1  was  charge,  and  discharge  d i d not  the  the  proposed  "kind  [he was]  at  of  a  they cannot  know and  they  the d i s c r e t i o n a r y  duty  4  think that legislation  duty  that  akin  the  method  He  5  where  would  to  Courts  not a t a l l s u r e t h a t  a l l well."-^  practical  -  s i m p l y because  injustice." ^  Buckmaster  Zealand  more  t o do  40  like  i t [was]  have  defined  that  of  New  to  dis-  a duty  they  favoured  portions  as  much  were  pre-  scribed.  The concept ute,  Lord of  such  Chancellor i n addition  testamentary as  that  freedom, suggested  i m p l e m e n t e d w h i c h would r e s t r i c t be o f no  effect  to  f a v o u r i n g the  concluded by  that  Viscount  testamentary  English  i f any  stat-  Astor,  were  freedom  i t would  because:  He [ t h e t e s t a t o r ] t h e r e f o r e w i l l u n d o u b t e d l y t a k e t h e b e s t means he c a n t o evade any law w h i c h i s p a s s e d , and I do not t h i n k i t would be b e y o n d t h e i n g e n u i t y o f t h e c o n v e y a n c e r s o f t h e day t o d e v i s e a number o f ways i n w h i c h he m i g h t a c h i e v e t h i s end.106  The  Lord C h a n c e l l o r a l s o brought  to Viscount Astor's  the  fact  that  expressed  that  Parliament  t h e hope t h a t  104  Ibid.,  a t pp.  47 and  105  Ibid.,  a t p.  52.  106  Ibid.,  a t p.  54.  107  Ibid.,  a t p.  57.  was  at  time  extremely  he would not p r e s s t h e  48.  attention  issue.  busy l u 7  and  Viscount  Astor  agreed  not to press  i t and commented  as  follows:  I fully r e a l i s e t h a t , w i t h t h e amount o f b u s i n e s s t h a t h a s t o be d e a l t w i t h and w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t a y e a r h e n c e t h e r e w i l l be a G e n e r a l E l e c t i o n , this w o u l d be an u n s u i t a b l e o c c a s i o n f o r what w o u l d be perhaps a prolonged Inquiry.108  Eleven providing  years  later  for judicial  England  finally  adopted  interference with  legislation  testamentary  disposi-  t i o n s w h i c h d i d n o t make r e a s o n a b l e p r o v i s i o n s f o r t h e m a i n t e nance  of a  Provision)  testator's Act, 1938  dependents. was e n a c t e d  1 0 9  imposed upon t h e E n g l i s h similar  in principle  The  Inheritance  on J u l y  13th, 1 9 3 9 .  law o f s u c c e s s i o n f l e x i b l e  t o those  contained  (Family 1 1 0  It  restraints  i n t h e New  Zealand  statute.  It the  i s worthy  New  Zealand  legislation viding  It  o f note  that  statute,  i n England  for specific  took  the e a r l y t h e form  108 I b i d . ,  where t h e c o n c e p t  version  s.  111 248 P a r i .  the g e s t a t i o n of of the  of "forced  that  proposed  heirship"  pro1 1 1  the o p p o s i t i o n expressed i n  was mooted, b o t h  a t p . 61.  109 1 & 2 Geo. V I , 110 I b i d . ,  with  p o r t i o n s f o r t h e s p o u s e and c h i l d r e n .  i s a l s o worthy o f note  the debates  i n common  c.45.  6(2). Deb. H.C., 1931, 1642 - 1700.  as t o the o r i g -  inal  bill  those ing  and  voiced  subsequent  were  by t h e members o f P a r l i a m e n t  the debate which l e a d  Act,  refinements,  including  reminiscent  i n New  Zealand  t o t h e e n a c t m e n t s o f t h e New  of dur-  Zealand  that:  [T]he p e o p l e who would g a i n most f r o m t h i s B i l l w o u l d be t h e l a w y e r s , and t h a t l a r g e p o r t i o n s of estates would be s w a l l o w e d up i n s o l i c i t o r s ' c o s t s and c o u n s e l ' s fees.112  the  The  English  l e g i s l a t i o n , although  New  Zealand  statute,  seems  testamentary  freedom  gations  the t e s t a t o r .  courts  upon were  avoid  at least  the p o t e n t i a l  critics  should  revise  testators'  The  1 1 3  testator  other  some  given  Act limited  result,  thus  attempting  articulated  and e l s e w h e r e , discretionary  the persons  the to  by t h e that the  power  to  entitled  to apply to  infant  sons  No a p p l i c a t i o n  could,  i n any e v e n t , be made i f  had  bequeathed  no  to a  d e p e n d e n t s were c h i l d r e n  112 328 P a r i . Deb. H.C., 113 S u p r a , f o o t n o t e s.  obli-  daughters,  of the net estate  114 I b i d . ,  maintenance  the o b l i g a t i o n s ,  guidance,  the t o t a l  to retain  Wills.  unmarried  disability.  income  defined  By d e f i n i n g  undesirable  n o t be  English  spouses,  the  and y e t impose  given  i n p r i n c i p l e to  t o be a m a j o r a t t e m p t  of the l e g i s l a t i o n , i n England  courts  similar  than  surviving  two-thirds  spouse  of the s u r v i v i n g  1937, 1294.  109, s .  1(1).  less  and c h i l d r e n  1(1).  under  of the  and t h e o n l y spouse.  1 1 4  The only.  court  43 -  was l i m i t e d t o p r o v i d i n g  If the.testator  left  relief  by way o f income  a s p o u s e and one o r more c h i l d r e n ,  t h e n t h e maximum award, i n c l u d i n g what was a l r e a d y Will,  could  not  exceed  two-thirds  of  estate.  I f t h e t e s t a t o r had no s p o u s e  pendents  then  the r e l i e f  was  limited  the  left  income  i n the of  the  o r a s p o u s e and no d e to one-half  of the i n -  115 come.  The nated  Act also  upon  ceased  The  the remarriage  that  the r e l i e f  o f the spouse  t o be d e p e n d e n t s , a s d e f i n e d  English  ensure  that  spouse  and  subject  provided  a  statute testator  dependent  t o such  left  fulfilled  children  restraint,  chose w i t h h i s e s t a t e .  115  I b i d . , s . 1(3) .  116  I b i d . , s. 1 ( 2 ) .  o r when  i n the  no d o u b t  provisions  Act.  that  termi-  the c h i l d r e n  1 1 6  i t s intent  was t o  h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to h i s  to a prescribed  the t e s t a t o r  was  standard  free  but,  t o do a s he  -  44 -  CHAPTER 6. CONTEMPORARY DEPENDENTS' R E L I E F LEGISLATION, AN OVERVIEW  Dependents' ference has  with  relief  legislation  testamentary  undergone  i t s inadequacies  stances  molded  social  by  court  f r e e d o m has n o t r e m a i n e d  substantial  correct  permitting  changes and  economic  to  presumably adapt  to  considerations  inter-  static.  to  adjust  changing and  It and  circum-  contemporary  norms.  The  progenitor  radical statute  changes 1 1  ^  statute from  extends  o f New  Zealand  i t s original  i t s application  h a s been s u b j e c t t o  state.  to  The  intestate  as  present well  as  I 1o  testate to  succession.  the o r i g i n a l  now  include:  children sent  Persons e n t i t l e d  o  ones,  also  the personal  the e s t a t e .  117  The F a m i l y  118  I b i d . , s . 4.  119  I b i d . , s. 3.  120  I b i d . , s.  spouses  to apply,  certain  children,  assets  i n addition  and l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d r e n , grandchildren,  c e r t a i n circumstances,  deems  of  lawful  illegitimate  1 1 3  a n d , under  Act  through  x  parents.  which  do  The  not  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the deceased  step-  devolve  t o be p a r t  1 2 0  P r o t e c t i o n A c t , 1955 N.Z.S. 1955, No. 88.  2(5).  pre-  The  English  preservation available  statute,  of  t o dependents  limited  has  a l s o been s u b j e c t  the  other  treated to  by  unmarried  than a c h i l d  the deceased  estate,  the present  dying,  "reasonable  financial  financial  would  be  statute testate  provision"  provision"  reasonable  who  have  Inheritance (Provision 1975, c . 63, ( U . K . ) .  122  I b i d . , s . 1.  123  I b i d . , s . 1(1) .  124  I b i d . , s.  1(2)(a).  and  dependent  expanded  who was a t some  or  in relation time  been  means  t o income  for relief  intestate,  a  who  from  when t h e  does  f o r the a p p l i c a n t .  1 2 4  time  before h i s death.  relief  provides  by  not r e m a r r i e d ; a  had a t some  not  make  1 2 3  the e x p r e s s i o n "reason-  such  financial  i n a l l circumstances  121  income,  1 2 1  of the family  limited  Where t h e a p p l i c a n t . i s a s p o u s e able  and  has been  immediately  statute  either  dependents,  i n the previous categories,  by t h e d e c e a s e d  the e a r l y  was  spouses  o f the deceased  not f a l l i n g  remedy  o f the e s t a t e ' s  daughters,  spouses  the greatest  the  were  change.  the deceased  Whereas  deceased  they  as a c h i l d  t o which  a person,  was m a i n t a i n e d  the  when  to offer since  of applicants,  o f : former  1 2 2  a marriage  party;  only  freedom  to substantial  class  including  addition  person  appeared  to a s p e c i f i e d percentage  original  children  which  testamentary  was  The  45 -  f o r Family  provision  of the case and  as  f o r the  Dependants)  Act  spouse for  to receive,  award  cases  as would  intent  that  the provisions  generally  the  deceased's  estate.  To  avoidance  tains  certain  devolve  rizing  legislation.  All  through  with  provide  beyond  ;  a p p l i c a n t s , the  support  f o r the spouse  spouse  with  a part of  of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n , the statute  anti-avoidance  the  and o t h e r  provisions  ° the value  personal  the - i n t e n t  by  which  do  a n d by a u t h o -  or contracts  of avoiding  con-  including,  of assets  representative  to upset.dispositions  made  the e f f e c t  made by of the  1 2 7  the Canadian  dependents'  object  to  o f the d i s t i n c t i o n  the s u r v i v i n g  circumstances,  the court  deceased  goes  to provide  comprehensive  under  i n the l i g h t  of the l e g i s l a t i o n  prevent  i s l i m i t e d t o s u c h an  i n the circumstances  f o r spouses  but  have  i s required  maintenance.  seems o b v i o u s  between  the  provision  the expression  J  be r e a s o n a b l e  the a p p l i c a n t ' s  It  not  or not that  the maintenance o f the a p p l i c a n t .  In a l l o t h e r  for  whether  o f such  common  relief  legislation,  legislation  125  I b i d . , s. 1 ( 2 ) ( b ) .  126  I b i d . , s . 8 and 9.  127  I b i d . , s . 10.  law p r o v i n c e s ,  and  and a l t h o u g h  i s t o impose  territories t h e common  r e s t r a i n t s on t e s t a -  - 47 mentary  freedom,  provisions  As  o f such  the l i m i t e d  dren  under  brothers persons  two  sion  spouse  children,  parents  and  sex w i t h  of  more  to apply  to l i m i t  the e s t a t e ,  obligation  class  children, as  to intestate  extended  well  was  as  cohab-  The l i m i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s ,  s i x months  at  from  date  the d i s c r e t i o n  the a p p l i c a t i o n  others  joint  extend  tenancies  of issuance  of  f o r an  exten-  Some  to assets that  insurance  of  the c o u r t , i n  the a p p l i c a t i o n  and  t o pay m a i n t e n a n c e  i n a l l but  s u c c e s s i o n as w e l l as  t o a s s e t s t h a t have n o t been d i s t r i b u t e d .  as  chil-  extended  illegitimate  o f t h e A c t has been  the l i m i t a t i o n ,  such  moves  and l e g i t i m a t e  whom t h e d e c e a s e d  o u t s i d e the a s t a t e , i n c l u d i n g  assets  the spectrum  of representation, generally provide  continue  remedial  of death.  a l l specifying  grant  of the  grandparents,  w h i c h a r e g o v e r n e d by W i l l s .  assets  the  sisters,  jurisdictions  through  pass  to apply,  of lawful  adult  application  relation utes  include  and  although the  entitled  class  as o f date  those  divergence  legislation.  of the opposite  The  wide  t h e age o f s i x t e e n t o a much  would  iting  is a  t o the persons  from  that  there  devolve  to  proceeds  charging certain  stat-  gifts  other which with  i f t h e r e a r e not s u f f i c i e n t  i n t h e e s t a t e t o do s o .  Some  provinces  the a p p l i c a t i o n  have  specified  of the s t a t u t e w i l l  that  agreements  be v o i d .  Others  excluding have im-  - 48 posed  a  share  equivalent  to  the  as a minimum e n t i t l e m e n t f o r  Although court and  most  the  some  are adequate,  The  just  attached  of Comparison of  and  will  parison same,  f o r the  court  to  be  Appendices  "A"  the p r i n c i p a l  readily  that,  and  seen  although  the  purpose  "legitimate"  tion  to  apply  the  have,  original  proper  make  ,"B"  and  "C"  p r o v i s i o n s of  from  the of  a glance  source  the  courts.  In  in certain  of  the  provide  a  Table  the v a r i o u s  stat-  legislation  others  addition,  cases,  of  gone  concern  to  continues  still  leave  the  persons  f a r beyond the  others  contemporary  to  to  is  the  be  the  legislate  total  discre-  entitled  those  who  legislators.  as  included  o f Com-  legislation  provinces  t o comply w i t h  maintenance  at the T a b l e  traditional  sumably  the  territories.  some p r o v i n c e s have r e t a i n e d t h e have  for  p r o v i s i o n s that  some p r o v i n c e s have c h o s e n  p o r t i o n while  sources  provide  equitable.  same, p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y ,  the  the  clauses  i n f o r c e i n t h e C a n a d i a n p r o v i n c e s and  It  a  charging  direct  succession portion  a widow a p p l i c a n t .  t o make p r o v i s i o n s " a d e q u a t e  support",  utes  of  intestate  potential social  personages, claimants,  norms.  to were  Again, other pre-  - 49 APPENDIX  "A"  COMPARISON OF CONTEMPORARY DEPENDENTS' R E L I E F LEGISLATION IN CANADA STATUTE OR ORDINANCE  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY  PERSONS ENTITLED TO APPLY  ALBERTA  Family R e l i e f A c t , R . S . A . 1980, c . F - 2 as amended.  (i) (ii) (iii)  BRITISH COLUMBIA  Wills Variation A c t , R . S . B . C . 1979,  w i f e , husband or c h i l d r e n (by v i r t u e o f t h e C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s Amendment A c t S . B . C . 1985, c.68, a s s e n t e d to December 2, 1985 and e f f e c t i v e r e t r o a c t i v e to A p r i l 17, 1985 the r e f e r e n c e t o c h i l d i s to i n c l u d e both c h i l d r e n born w i t h i n or without wedlock). (s.2.)  MANITOBA  The T e s t a t o r s Family Maintenance A c t , R . S . M . 1970, c . T 50 o f t h e Continuing C o n s o l i d a t i o n a s amended.  w i f e , husband or c h i l d , common-law s p o u s e , as d e f i n e d by t h e s t a t u t e . (s.2.)  NEW BRUNSWICK  Testators Family Maintenance A c t , R . S . N . B . 1973, c . T - 4 , a s amended.  w i f e , husband or (s.l.)  NEWFOUNDLAND  The F a m i l y R e l i e f A c t , R . S . N . 1970, c . 1 2 4 , as amended.  spouse or (s.2.)  c.435.  spouse; c h i l d under 18; c h i l d o v e r 18 u n a b l e by m e n t a l o r p h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t y to earn a l i v e l i h o o d (n.b. child i n c l u d e s acknowledged i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d of d e c e a s e d man o r i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d of d e c e a s e d woman). (s.l(d).)  child.  child,  and  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY NORTHWEST TERRITORIES  50 -  STATUTE OR ORDINANCE  The D e p e n d a n t s Relief Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1974. c.D-4, a s amended,  PERSONS ENTITLED TO APPLY  (i) (ii) (iii)  (iv)  (v)  (vi)  NOVA SCOTIA  T e s t a t o r s ' Family Maintenance A c t R.S.N.S. 1967, c . 303, a s amended  (i)  (ii) (iii)  ONTARIO  S u c c e s s i o n Law Reform A c t , R.S.O. 1980, c.488, P a r t V.  (i) (i i) (iii) (iv)  widow/widower; c h i l d under 19 y e a r s of age; c h i l d o v e r 19 y e a r s o f age b u t u n a b l e t o earn a l i v e l i h o o d because o f p h y s i c a l or mental d i s a b i l i t y ; a p e r s o n who c o h a b i t e d with the deceased f o r one y e a r p r i o r t o d a t e o f d e a t h , a n d was d e p e n d e n t on t h e deceased; p e r s o n s who c o h a b i t e d w i t h t h e deceased and w i t h whom t h e d e c e a s e d had one o r more children; p e r s o n s who were a c t i n g as f o s t e r parents to the c h i l d r e n of the deceased and dependent on t h e d e c e a s e d f o r maintenance and support; (s.2. ) widow, widower o r c h i l d (which i n c l u d e s a c h i l d o f whom t h e testator i s the natural parent; (s.l.) R i g h t t o a p p l y does not s u r v i v e d e a t h o f dependent; ( s . l 6 . ) Court not t o r e c o g n i z e the c o n t r a c t i n g o u t o f the S t a t u t e . ( s . 1 5 ( 2 ) . )  s p o u s e o r "common-law spouse", parent, child, brothers or s i s t e r s ,  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY  51 -  STATUTE OR ORDINANCE  PERSONS ENTITLED TO APPLY  t o whom t h e d e c e a s e d was p r o v i d i n g s u p p o r t o r was under a l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n to p r o v i d e s u p p o r t ; (s.57.) - c h i l d includes a grandchild and a p e r s o n t o whom t h e deceased demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a c h i l d o f h i s f a m i l y ; -"common-law s p o u s e " means a man o r woman who h a s been c o h a b i t i n g immediately before the d e a t h o f t h e d e c e a s e d f o r a p e r i o d o f not l e s s than three years, or i na r e l a t i o n s h i p o f some permanence where t h e r e i s a c h i l d b o r n o f whom t h e y a r e the n a t u r a l p a r e n t s ; -parents include grandparents; -by v i r t u e o f t h e C h i l d r e n ' s Law R e f o r m A c t , R.S.p. 1980, c.68, a s amended, specifically s . l , for a l l p u r p o s e s o f t h e law o f O n t a r i o , t h e r e i s no d i s t i n c t i o n between c h i l d r e n born i n or o u t o f wedlock; -Waiver o f t h e A c t n o t binding. (s.63(4).)  PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND  Dependants o f Deceased Person Relief Act R.S.P.E.I., 1974 c.D-6.  (i) (ii) (iii)  (iv)  Widow o r widower; c h i l d under 18; c h i l d o v e r 18 who by reason o f mental or physical d i s a b i l i t y cannot e a r n a l i v e l i hood ; grandparent, parent or d e s c e n d e n t o f t h e d e c e a s e d who, f o r a period of at least 3 years p r i o r t o the d a t e o f d e a t h was dependent upon t h e  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY  STATUTE OR ORDINANCE  PERSONS ENTITLED TO APPLY  (v)  (vi)  -child child;  deceased f o r maint e n a n c e and s u p p o r t ; a person d i v o r c e d from the d e c e a s e d who f o r a period of at least 3 years immediately p r i o r t o date o f death was dependent upon t h e deceased f o r maint e n a n c e and s u p p o r t ; a person of the o p p o s i t e sex t o t h e d e c e a s e d who, a l t h o u g h not m a r r i e d , c o h a b i t e d with the deceased as a s p o u s e f o r a p e r i o d o f no l e s s than 3 years p r i o r t o the d a t e o f d e a t h and was dependent upon the d e c e a s e d f o r m a i n t e n a n c e and support; includes (s.l.)  illegitimate  -Agreement t o w a i v e t h e p r o v i s i o n s of the Act invalid; (s.16.) SASKATCHEWAN  YUKON TERRITORY  The D e p e n d a n t s ' R e l i e f A c t , R.S.S. 1978 c . D-25, a s amended.  Dependants' R e l i e f O r d i n a n c e , O.Y.T. 1980 ( 2 d ) , c . 6 .  (i) (ii) (iii)  w i f e o r husband; c h i l d under 18; c h i l d o v e r 18 who by reason o f mental or physical disability is incapable of earning a l i v e l i h o o d ;  -child child,  includes (s.2.)  illegitimate  (i) widow o r widower; ( i i ) c h i l d under 16; ( i i i ) c h i l d o v e r 16 who by reason o f mental or physical disability i s unable t o earn a livelihood;  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY  STATUTE OR ORDINANCE  PERSONS ENTITLED TO APPLY  (iv)  (v)  (vi)  a grandparent, parent or d e s c e n d e n t o f t h e d e c e a s e d who f o r a period of at least 3 years immediately p r i o r t o d e a t h was d e p e n d e n t upon t h e deceased f o r maintenance and support; a person d i v o r c e d from the d e c e a s e d who f o r a period of 3 years p r i o r t o d e a t h , was d e p e n d e n t upon t h e deceased f o r maintenance and s u p p o r t ; a person of the o p p o s i t e s e x who f o r 3 years p r i o r t o date of d e a t h had l i v e d a n d cohabited with the deceased as a spouse of the deceased and was d e p e n d e n t upon t h e deceased f o r maintenance and s u p p o r t ; -a c h i l d i n c l u d e s an illegitimate c h i l d of the d e c e a s e d ; (s.l.) -Agreements t o waive the p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e ordinance i n v a l i d . (s.17.)  APPENDIX  "B"  COMPARISON OF CONTEMPORARY DEPENDENTS' R E L I E F IN CANADA PROVINCE OR TERRITORY ALBERTA  STATUS OF THE DECEASED testate/intestate (s.3.)  LEGISLATION  THRESHOLD QUESTION AND PRESCRIBED R E L I E F " D i e s t e s t a t e w i t h o u t making i n h i s W i l l adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e and support of h i s dependents or any o f them"; o r " D i e s i n t e s t a t e and t h e s h a r e under the I n t e s t a t e S u c c e s s i o n A c t of the i n t e s t a t e ' s dependents o r any o f them i n t h e e s t a t e i s inadequate f o r t h e i r proper m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t . " R e l i e f p r o v i s i o n : adequate f o r " t h e p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e and support". (s.3.)  BRITISH COLUMBIA  testate  (s.2. )  "Dies l e a v i n g a W i l l which does n o t , i n t h e c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n , make a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r the proper m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t o f t h e t e s t a t o r ' s w i f e , husband or c h i l d r e n . " R e l i e f p r o v i s i o n : "adequate, j u s t and e q u i t a b l e " . ( s . 2 . )  MANITOBA  testate/intestate, (s.3(l)(5).)  " D i e s l e a v i n g a w i l l and w i t h o u t making t h e r e i n adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r the proper maintenance and s u p p o r t o f h i s d e p e n d e n t s o r any o f them." The g e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n s a l s o on an i n t e s t a c y .  apply  R e l i e f p r o v i s i o n : "proper m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t " . (s.3(l).)  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY  NEW BRUNSWICK  STATUS OF THE DECEASED  testate  (s.2(l).)  55 THRESHOLD QUESTION AND PRESCRIBED R E L I E F  "Dies l e a v i n g a w i l l , and w i t h o u t making t h e r e i n adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r proper maintenance and s u p p o r t o f h i s d e p e n d e n t s , o r any o f them." R e l i e f p r o v i s i o n : "proper m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t " . (s.2(l) . )  NEWFOUNDLAND  testate/intestate (s.3(1).)  "Dies t e s t a t e without having made i n h i s w i l l a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r the proper m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t o f h i s dependents or any o f them"; o r " D i e s i n t e s t a t e and t h e s h a r e under t h e Intestate Succession Act of the i n t e s t a t e ' s dependents o r any o f them i n t h e e s t a t e i s inadequate f o r t h e i r or h i s proper maintenance and support." R e l i e f p r o v i s i o n : "proper maintenance and s u p p o r t " . (s.3(l).)  NORTHWEST TERRITORIES  testate/intestate (s.3(l).)  " D i e s t e s t a t e w i t h o u t making i n h i s w i l l adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e proper maintenance and s u p p o r t o f h i s d e p e n d e n t s o r any o f them"; or "Dies i n t e s t a t e and t h e s h a r e under I n t e s t a t e Succession Ordinance of the deceased's dependents o r any o f them i n t h e e s t a t e i s i n adequate f o r the proper maintenance and s u p p o r t . " R e l i e f p r o v i s i o n : "proper maintenance and s u p p o r t " . (s.3.)  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY  NOVA SCOTIA  STATUS OF THE DECEASED  testate (s.2(1) . )  56 THRESHOLD QUESTION AND PRESCRIBED R E L I E F  " D i e s w i t h o u t h a v i n g made adequate p r o v i s i o n i n h i s w i l l f o r the proper maint e n a n c e and s u p p o r t o f a dependent." R e l i e f p r o v i s i o n : "proper maintenance and s u p p o r t " . ( s . 2 ( l ) .)  ONTARIO  testate/intestate. (s.58.)  "Where a d e c e a s e d , whether t e s t a t e o r i n t e s t a t e , has n o t made a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r the proper support o f h i s d e p e n d e n t s o r any o f them." Relief provision: support". (s.58. )  PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND  testate/intestate. (s.1(b).)  "proper  "Deceased has n o t made adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r proper maintenance and s u p p o r t o f h i s d e p e n d e n t s o r any o f them." R e l i e f p r o v i s i o n : "proper m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t " . (s.2.)  SASKATCHEWAN  testate/intestate. (s.4.)  "Dies l e a v i n g a dependent o r d e p e n d e n t s , an a p p l i c a t i o n may be made t o t h e c o u r t by o r on b e h a l f o f any d e p e n d e n t f o r an o r d e r making r e a s o n a b l e p r o v i s i o n f o r h i s or her maintenance." (s.4.) Relief provision: (i) "sufficient to provide such maintenance as t h e Court thinks reasonable j u s t and e q u i t a b l e i n the c i r c u m s t a n c e s " . (s.9(l).)  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY  STATUS OF THE DECEASED  57 THRESHOLD QUESTION AND PRESCRIBED R E L I E F  (ii)  YUKON TERRITORY  testate/intestate. (s.l)  " F o r s p o u s e s , a sum equal to the intestate succession portion w i l l be t h e minimum award. (s.9(2).)  "Where a d e c e a s e d h a s n o t made a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r the proper maintenance and s u p p o r t o f h i s d e p e n d e n t s o r any o f them." Relief provision: "proper maintenance and s u p p o r t " . (s.2.)  -  58 -  APPENDIX  "C"  COMPARISON OF CONTEMPORARY DEPENDENTS' R E L I E F LEGISLATION IN CANADA PROVINCE OR TERRITORY ALBERTA  6 months f r o m G r a n t (i) of P r o b a t e or administration (ii) (judicial discretion in respect of assets u n d i s t r i b u t e d at date of a p p l i c a t i o n ) . ( s . 1 5 . )  BRITISH COLUMBIA  6 months f r o m G r a n t o f Probate or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i t h no extensions. (s.10.)  MANITOBA  6 months f r o m G r a n t of Probate or administration (judicial discretion in respect of assets u n d i s t r i b u t e d a t date of a p p l i c a t i o n ) . (s.15.)  NEW BRUNSWICK  NEWFOUNDLAND  PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ACT  LIMITATION PERIOD  Estate Assets. Property devised p u r s u a n t t o a bona fide contract excluded. (s.12.) Estate Assets (s.2. )  (i)  Estate Assets.  (ii)  P r o p e r t y d e v i s e d under the W i l l p u r s u a n t t o a bona f i d e c o n t r a c t excluded. (s.18.)  6 months f r o m G r a n t (i) of Probate or administration (ii) (judicial discretion in respect of assets u n d i s t r i b u t e d at date of a p p l i c a t i o n ) . (s.14.) 6 months f r o m G r a n t (i) of Probate or administration, (ii) (judicial discretion in respect of assets u n d i s t r i b u t e d a t date of a p p l i c a t i o n ) . (s.14.)  Estate Assets. P r o p e r t y d e v i s e d under the W i l l p u r s u a n t t o a bona f i d e c o n t r a c t excluded. (s.16.) Estate Assets. P r o p e r t y d e v i s e d under the W i l l p u r s u a n t t o a bona f i d e c o n t r a c t excluded. (s.16.)  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY  NORTHWEST TERRITORIES  NOVA SCOTIA  ONTARIO  59 PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ACT  LIMITATION PERIOD  6 months f r o m G r a n t of Probate or administration, (judicial discretion in respect of assets u n d i s t r i b u t e d at date of a p p l i c a t i o n ) . (s.14.)  (i)  Estate  (ii)  P r o p e r t y d e v i s e d under the W i l l pursuant to a bona f i d e c o n t r a c t excluded.  (iii)  Value of c e r t a i n t r a n s a c t i o n s deemed t o be p a r t o f t h e e s t a t e such as D.M.C.s, money h e l d i n trust, joint property, proceeds of insurance p o l i c i e s t o the extent t h e y were owned by t h e deceased. (s.20.)  (iv)  Certain transfers within three years from date o f death s u b j e c t t o an o r d e r t o make t h e t r a n s feree contribute to the maintenance i f t h e r e a r e no s u f f i c i e n t estate assets. (s.21.)  6 months from G r a n t (i) of Probate or administration, (ii) (judicial discretion in respect of assets u n d i s t r i b u t e d a t date of a p p l i c a t i o n ) . (s.13.)  Estate  6 months from G r a n t (i) of Probate or administration, (ii) (judicial discretion in respect of assets u n d i s t r i b u t e d a t date of a p p l i c a t i o n ) . (s.61.)  Estate  Assets.  Assets.  P r o p e r t y d e v i s e d under the W i l l p u r s u a n t t o a bona f i d e c o n t r a c t excluded. (S.15(1).)  Assets.  P r o p e r t y d e v i s e d under the W i l l pursuant to a bona f i d e c o n t r a c t excluded. (s.71.)  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY  PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND  SASKATCHEWAN  60 PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ACT  LIMITATION PERIOD  6 months f r o m G r a n t o f Probate or administration (judicial discretion in respect of assets u n d i s t r i b u t e d a t date of a p p l i c a t i o n ) . (s.13.)  6 months f r o m G r a n t o f Probate or administration, (judicial discretion in respect of assets u n d i s t r i b u t e d a t date of a p p l i c a t i o n ) . (s.15.)  (iii)  Value of c e r t a i n t r a n s a c t i o n s deemed t o be p a r t o f t h e e s t a t e , e . g . , D.M.C.s, j o i n t tenancy and i n s u r a n c e and s u c h assets subject to being charged f o r payment o f a n y award. (s.72.)  (1)  Estate Assets.  (ii)  P r o p e r t y d e v i s e d under the W i l l p u r s u a n t t o a bona f i d e c o n t r a c t excluded. (s.14.)  (iii)  Value of c e r t a i n t r a n s a c t i o n s deemed t o be p a r t o f t h e e s t a t e , e . g . , D.M.C.s, j o i n t tenancy and insurance. (s.19.)  (iv)  Donee o f g i f t may be r e q u i r e d t o pay maintenance and s u p p o r t t o the e x t e n t t h a t t h e e s t a t e a s s e t s a r e not sufficient. (s.20. )  (i)  Estate Assets.  (ii)  P r o p e r t y d e v i s e d under the W i l l p u r s u a n t t o a bona f i d e c o n t r a c t excluded (s.10. )  PROVINCE OR TERRITORY  YUKON TERRITORY  61 PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ACT  LIMITATION PERIOD  6 months f r o m G r a n t of Probate or administration, (judicial discretion in respect of assets u n d i s t r i b u t e d at date of a p p l i c a t i o n ) . (s.14.)  (i)  Estate  Assets.  (ii)  Value of c e r t a i n t r a n s a c t i o n s deemed t o be p a r t o f t h e e s t a t e , e . g . D.M.C.s, j o i n t t e n a n c y and insurance. (s.20.)  (iii)  Donee o f g i f t may be r e q u i r e d t o pay m a i n tenance and s u p p o r t i f there are i n s u f f i c i e n t assets i n the e s t a t e . (s.21.)  - 62 -  PART I I :  THE NATURE OF R E L I E F UNDER THE  BRITISH  COLUMBIA WILLS  VARIATION ACT  - 63 -  CHAPTER  1.  INTRODUCTION  The p r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h of  succession,  to  dom.  To p r e v e n t  vided  the c o u r t s  distribution his  Unlike  its  to  Adequate Children relief  authority  to interfere  legislative  for  legislation). which  1  under  the B r i t i s h  the  f r o m what  legislation  the t i t l e ,  referred  Columbia,  enacted p r o t e c t i v e  S.B.C. 1920, c . 94.  since  d i s p e n s e d and t h e p h i l o s o p h y  (commonly  freedom.  Columbia  p u r p o s e s , changed  the Maintenance  British  of testamentary  i n the  appeared  intent.  of  i n 1920  of a T e s t a t o r ,  pro-  i f he d i d n o t d i s c h a r g e  have moved r a d i c a l l y  Provision  free-  to h i s family.  enactment  occurred  testamentary  the l e g i s l a t u r e  estate  Yet the remedies  first  o f i t s law  freedom  has n o t , f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l  jurisdictions abuses  deceased's  of  s o many o f i t s c o u n t e r p a r t s ,  be t h e o r i g i n a l  Columbia  1  with statutory  by t h e c o u r t s  The  c h o s e , as p a r t  the concept  of such  obligation  enactment.  applied  abuse  of a  financial  legislation  retain  Columbia  in  An A c t To of  Secure  the Wife  t o as  thus,  British  dependents'  joined  legislation  and  other  to prevent  The  Alberta  Institute  ments on d e p e n d e n t s '  of  relief  Law  Research  legislation  and R e f o r m /  com-  g e n e r a l l y as f o l l o w s :  The success of t h i s b o l d l e g i s l a t i v e experiment by New Z e a l a n d i s due t o t h e s a t i s f a c t o r y r e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f two b a s i c s o c i a l i n t e r e s t s o f t h e law o f s u c c e s sion. One i s t e s t a m e n t a r y f r e e d o m and t h e o t h e r i s that dependents o f the deceased should r e c e i v e proper maintenance. P r o p e r maintenance f o r dependents has two a s p e c t s . One r e c o g n i z e s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e d e c e a s e d t o h i s d e p e n d e n t s w h i c h i s o f an i n d i v i dual nature. The d e c e a s e d s h o u l d n o t be p e r m i t t e d t o l e a v e , w i t h o u t p r o p e r s u p p o r t , p e r s o n s who s t o o d i n a c e r t a i n f a m i l i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o him a t h i s d e a t h . The other i s the s o c i a l responsibility of the deceased t o the s t a t e . The d e c e a s e d s h o u l d p r o v i d e proper maintenance t o h i s dependents i n order that t h e y w i l l n o t have t o be s u p p o r t e d f r o m p u b l i c f u n d s .  An  analysis  British least  Columbia  as  dicates  of  questions  i t applies that  the j u r i s p r u d e n c e which the v a l i d i t y  to that  the purpose  Province.  i n another  terpretation spectacle The  of  result  degree  of  branch  the Act  of certainty  vide  proper  sort  of d i l u t e d  resulted  indulging  whether  today  A l b e r t a I n s t i t u t e o f Law R e s e a r c h 29, F a m i l y R e l i e f , ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 7.  3  Op. c i t . ,  4  Ibid.,  P a r t I , f o o t n o t e 6.  a t pp. 70 and 71.  to state  in-  ..."  with  4  any  remedial  "to pro-  o r whether  i t is a  of forced  2  In  undignified  i n schizophrenia,  f o r dependents", form  at  o f the j u r i s -  [ i n ] the  the Act i s t r u l y  and w h i m s i c a l  in  The j u r i s p r u d e n c e i n -  i n his analysis  i t is difficult  maintenance  statement,  o f t h e law o f s u c c e s s i o n , t h e  "has  the court's  i s that  of this  o f t h e A c t h a s become n e b u l o u s .  t h e words o f A n t h o n y R. M e l l o w s prudence  has d e v e l o p e d  heirship.  and R e f o r m ,  Report  No.  - 65 -  CHAPTER 2. THE PERTINENT CLAUSE OF THE ACT AND THE EARLY CASES  The  pertinent  clause  "Act") i s subsection  of  the W i l l s  Variation  Act  3  (the  2(1) which s t a t e s as f o l l o w s :  2.(1) Notwithstanding any law o r s t a t u t e t o t h e contrary, i f a testator dies leaving a w i l l which does n o t , i n t h e c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n , make a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e proper maintenance and s u p p o r t o f t h e t e s t a t o r ' s w i f e , h u s b a n d o r c h i l d r e n , t h e c o u r t may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , i n an a c t i o n by o r on b e h a l f o f the w i f e , husband o r c h i l d r e n , o r d e r t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n t h a t i t t h i n k s adequate, j u s t and e q u i t a b l e i n the c i r c u m s t a n c e s be made o u t o f t h e e s t a t e o f t h e t e s t a t o r f o r t h e w i f e , husband o r c h i l d r e n .  To a n a l y s e sect  the purpose o f the A c t , i t i s necessary  the subsection.  c o n d i t i o n precedent failed  that  then  its  wording,  p r o v i s i o n f o r the proper  And, i f i n t h e c o u r t ' s the court  i t thinks  i t seems  clear  that  t o i t s a p p l i c a t i o n must be t h a t a t e s t a t o r  t o "make a d e q u a t e  and s u p p o r t " . failed  From  to dis-  i s authorized  adequate,  just  maintenance  opinion,  the t e s t a t o r so  t o make  "the p r o v i s i o n  and e q u i t a b l e  i n the  circum-  stances" .  The  words  synonymous  6  "maintenance  and t h e i r  and  support"  d i c t i o n a r y meaning  are  i s simple:  essentially t o bear  5  R.S.B.C. 1979, c . 435.  6  See i n f r a , f o o t n o t e 27, D.L.R. a t p . 524, W.W.R. a t p . 483, B.C.R. a t p . 35, s e e a l s o t e x t , i n f r a , a t p . 87.  -  the expense o f s u s t e n a n c e . fore  to  ensure  obligation and  to  that  provide  support"  are  that  life  of  the person  In  this  Court  of  tenance  In for  married  of  the  and  although  as  or,  upon  in  their  the  case  of  they  female  the  case  adult These  two  The  v. A l l a r d i c e ,  the s t a t i o n  in  decision  had  made no  children  judge  of t h e i r  children,  [1911] A.C.  the  main-  730.  preof  a l l between  concluded,  essen-  o f f , they  father  been  a  consisted  supported  had  provisions from  sons,  were n o t w e l l  either  of  "proper  children  unmarried  trial  Council in  to case.  husbands.  Allardice  be  the P r i v y  the deceased  the c h i l d r e n  h i s e s t a t e as  with  1911  from  were f i v e  "maintenance i t must  recognized that  differ  38.  words  statutory  sustenance.  affirming  and  his  "proper",  consistent  deceased.  daughters 30  that  who  the  word  s i n c e been out of the dominion  claim  7  of  by  7  fulfilled  As  t o such  v. A l l a r d i c e  Petitioners,  three  long  has  the  Zealand,  support" w i l l  marriage  tially,  entitled  o f New  Allardice  ages  by  must be  Allardice,  vious  the  testator  c o n n e c t i o n , as e a r l y  Appeal  the  mandate o f t h e c o u r t i s t h e r e -  sustenance.  sustenance  v.  and  -  The  prefaced  assumed  Allardice  the  66  and  had  had no  themselves  supported  by  - 67 Q The the  Court  three  of Appeal  daughters  disagreed with  0  on  the b a s i s  means o f s u p p o r t  and t h a t  their  support  well  they  them  death. judge and  as  The C o u r t  of Appeal  as t o the sons,  per"  may  Appeal  impose,  decision  award  made  a  identified  when  the Privy  in Allardice  i t s purpose  they  adequate  to date  with both  of  the t r i a l had t r a d e s  employment. which  v. A l l a r d i c e ,  t h e word  t h e award  that  the wording  "pro-  the Court  of  by s u p p o r t i n g t h e  no award  behind  as being  as t o  not, i n future,  C o u n c i l upheld  and making  statement  had no  supported  that  to find  judge  t o the sons  and  f o r the daughters, i t of  the Act  one o f p r o v i d i n g  clearly  "maintenance  support".  Once  t h e c o u r t has d e t e r m i n e d  "make  adequate  port"  then  quate, plain  f o r the proper  i t can order  "the p r o v i s i o n  just  and  meaning  equitable  vide  f o r the "proper had  seem  i s t o remedy t h e f a i l u r e  failed  there  i s a failure  maintenance that  maintenance to provide  sustenance.  (1910), 29 N.Z.L.R. 959.  that  sup-  i t thinks  ade-  From  the purpose  by t h e t e s t a t o r  and s u p p o r t " ,  to  and  i n the circumstances".  o f t h e A c t , i t would  an o r d e r  ferently,  that  provision  such  8  had been  the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  the r a t i o n a l e  clear  they  husbands might  on t h e b a s i s  to the daughters  endorsing  that  d i d , however, a g r e e  s h o u l d be a b l e t o c o n t i n u e Notwithstanding  and  as  the t r i a l  of  of  to pro-  or s t a t e d  f o r the expenses  the  dif-  proper  The visions  early  was  the t e s t a t o r scanty  In  history  re L i v i n g s t o n ,  the A c t .  The  Testator's  case  widow  i s supported  his Will,  when  by t h e  to  the  Allardice  Zealand  v. A l l a r d i c e  legislation  was  Thus,  1 1  that  had  m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t  t o be  the then  newly  sought  and  that  enacted  recognized  the  that  provide  reasoning  o f such  the W i l l  inquiry  former  t h e A c t by r e f e r e n c e  adopted  with  an  a  d i d not a d e q u a t e l y  the i n t e n t i o n  as  in  remedial  of the t e s t a -  t o t h e need f o r available.  b e a r i n g i n mind t h e f a c t s and  t o be o b t a i n e d  m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t  The c o u r t  and as t o t h e p r o p e r t y  judgment c o n c l u d e d  purpose  under Act.  case  his estate  from  not t o i n t e r f e r e  there  divided  children  to interpret  statute  reported  seven  the t e s t a t o r  h i s w i f e , and p r o c e e d e d New  and  Maintenance  i s the f i r s t  1 0  the t e s t a t o r  applied  for  the  and t h a t i t s  on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t and e n a c t m e n t o f  h i s widow  Family  making  The  the pro-  t o p r o v i d e maintenance  This intent  Deceased  In t h i s  between  marriage.  tor.  of i t s intent  the court  t o do s o .  interpreting  9  equally  in  failed  Columbia  no d o u b t  to permit  legislative  Act.  under  in British  of the Act l e f t  enactment  the  cases  68 -  by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ,  proper  c o u l d be a c h i e v e d by i n v e s t i n g s u f -  9  See t e x t ,  s u p r a , P a r t I , c . 3.  10  [1923] 1 D.L.R. 1167, B.C.R. 468 ( S . C . ) .  11  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 7.  [1923]  1  W.W.R. 628,  (1922),  31  ficient  funds  to  provide  a  69  -  specified  income  to  the  widow  for  life.  The v.  court,  Allardice- -^  dial  t o be  In Hall,  an  the  the  the  Will,  the  court  than  Deceased.  in  case  to  to  did  say  Allardice  v.  12  Supra,  footnote  13  (1923),  with  what  British  award  so,  the  14  I b i d . , a t p.  15  Supra,  footnote  7.  16  Supra,  footnote  10.  243.  unfortu-  i t s purpose Act  as  clearly the  in  "remelimited  court  not  that  setting a  the  con-  i t was  (S.C.).  on  aside  and  of the  In  a  the  re  hus-  amount  of  such  statute".  purpose of the  re  portion  stated that  applying 1 5  In  from her  determined court  amplify  Allardice  Columbia,  excluded  purpose  7.  B.C.R. 241  not,  to the was  provide  In d o i n g  court  to  awarded  in  1 6  33  as  did  Allardice  needs.  "effectuate  statute  down  principle  made an  widow.  the  laid  Act,  i n w h i c h a widow was  Unfortunately other  r a t i o n a l e of  the  consistent  sufficient  would  of  relief  reported  J  estate  order  the  widow's  next  income f o r t h e an  and  annuity  Deceased,  band's  clear  the  I t d i d , however, r e f e r  legislation"  provide  adopting  purpose  a  Columbia.  sidered  of  the  articulate  British  to  as  1  nately,  although  1 4  the  principles Livingston,  In  re  Stigings,  widower, t h e c o u r t , the  Act, directed  predetermined time  and  according  upon  Court  v. S m i t h ,  application  reference  t o t h e widower  the estate  was  by  a  t o the purpose o f  o f income,  not t o exceed during  a  his life-  t o be d i s t r i b u t e d  early  t o t h e whole  estate  estate  the d e c i s i o n , with However,  a s i t was  to provide  amounted  o f t h e law t o t h e f a c t s  dissenting  upon t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f  t h e t h e n W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t i t was  The  J.A. d i s s e n t i n g .  The  at t r i a l ,  1 8  the e n t i r e estate  upheld  b a s i c approach  C.J.A.  under  f o r her.  o f Appeal  application  of  h i s death  f o r h e r t o have  Macdonald  the  an amount  s h e was e n t i t l e d  maintenance  the  that  an  t o t h e terms o f t h e W i l l .  that  essary  on  1 7  w i t h o u t making  widow f o r r e l i e f  held  Deceased  amount, be p a i d  In B r i g h t e n the  70 -  nec-  adequate  t o $8,000.  The  M a c D o n a l d C.J.A. a n d  the court  divided  of the case,  on t h e  and n o t on  to the A c t .  judgments  understanding  i n h i s judgment  a r e o f i n t e r e s t as they  o f the purpose o f the Act. obviously  considered  the e n t i r e e s t a t e , notwithstanding  scope o f the s t a t u t e .  that  i t s size,  reflect  MacDonald  the t r a n s f e r  was beyond t h e  He commented:  With respect, I think the order was made u n d e r a m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n o f t h e o b j e c t and s c o p e o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i n question: i t was made upon a wrong  17  (1924),  34 B.C.R. 347  (S.C.).  18  (1926),  37 B.C.R. 518  (C.A.).  - 71 principle. The o b j e c t nance, not g i f t . 1 9  Macdonald judge,  J.A., commenting  the order  made  i s mainte-  by  the  trial  stated:  [ I t ] i s not maintenance; whole e s t a t e w i l l , to the contemplated  The not  on  of the l e g i s l a t i o n  majority  the court  tioner.  There  an o r d e r making a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r i t i s r e a l l y an o r d e r t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e from the b e n e f i c i a r i e s named i n t h e w i f e ; s o m e t h i n g w h i c h i n my v i e w was n o t by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e . 2 0  o f the court  could  transfer  does  n o t seem  differed  only  the e n t i r e  a s t o whether  estate  or  to the p e t i -  t o be any d i f f e r e n c e  of opinion  as t o t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e A c t .  The  difficulty  encountered  by t h e c o u r t s  t h e s e m a t t e r s was made o b v i o u s by M a r t i n J.A.  i n dealing  with  He o b s e r v e d :  [W]e a r e d e a l i n g w i t h a m a t t e r w h i c h i s s o m e t h i n g w h o l l y unknown t o o u r f o r m e r law, and t h e whole o b j e c t o f t h e new s t a t u t e i s t o d e f e a t t h e w i s h e s o f the t e s t a t o r . T h i s n o v e l c i r c u m s t a n c e must be c o n sidered by t h i s Court, i n r e l a t i o n to the object w h i c h i s s o u g h t t o be m a i n t a i n e d . 2 1  The  object  o f the Act, at l e a s t  was  a n a l y s e d by M c P h i l l i p s  19  Ibid.,  a t p . 520, ( e m p h a s i s  20  Ibid.,  a t p . 524.  21  Ibid.,  a t p . 520.  as i t r e l a t e d  J.A. a s f o l l o w s :  added).  t o spouses,  -  72 -  Now t h e L e g i s l a t u r e h a s u n d e r t a k e n t o s a y , a n d we c a n n o t q u e s t i o n i t s wisdom - and i n t h i s r e s p e c t I am a t one w i t h t h e L e g i s l a t u r e - t h a t a h u s b a n d o r w i f e s h o u l d make p r o p e r p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e s u r v i v i n g consort. The L e g i s l a t u r e has enacted that there i s c r e a t e d by m a r r i a g e a r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h c a l l s f o r a p r o v i s i o n b e i n g made o u t o f t h e e s t a t e . 2 2 [M]y v i e w [ i s ] t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e h a s e n a c t e d t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t e x i s t s between h u s b a n d and w i f e i s s u c h t h a t t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p has t o be r e c o g nized, and r e g a r d e d when t h e r e i s a testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n of the e s t a t e . I f , f o r i n s t a n c e , the h u s b a n d o r t h e w i f e s h o u l d be i n n e e d , t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t e x i s t s c a l l s upon t h e h u s b a n d o r t h e w i f e t o remember i t and make p r o v i s i o n , o t h e r w i s e we s h o u l d have t h e h u s b a n d o r t h e w i f e , a s t h e c a s e may be, becoming a p u b l i c c h a r g e upon t h e c o u n t r y . And why s h o u l d t h e husband o r t h e w i f e be a p u b l i c c h a r g e upon t h e c o u n t r y i f t h e r e i s an e s t a t e w h i c h p r i m a r i l y o u g h t t o pay f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h a t husband o r wife?23  It  will  prevention country.  be of  noted  that  t h e spouse  McPhillips  t h e emphasis becoming  a  J.A. c o n c l u d e d  i s on  public  need  charge  t h a t t h e lower  v i d e d an award t h a t "would e n u r e t o h e r permanent thereby  A  p r e v e n t i n g her becoming a charge  review  o f the e a r l y  ments o f t h e j u d g e s dissenting, Act  was  spouse,  leave  remedial  cases,  no d o u b t  that  to provide  and p r e s u m a b l y  22  I b i d . , a t p . 522.  23  I b i d . , a t p . 523.  24  I b i d . , at  25  Ibid.  p . 524.  upon t h e court  pro-  maintenance,  upon t h e c o u n t r y . "  and s p e c i f i c a l l y  i n B r i g h t e n v. Smith  and t h e  3  2 4  t h e cora-  whether m a j o r i t y o r  i n t h e mind o f t h e j u d g e s t h e maintenance  a child,  from  being  and  to  prevent  a burden  a  upon t h e  - 73 country. tions are  T h e r e i s no s u g g e s t i o n  beyond  indeed  those  that  t h e t e s t a t o r had o b l i g a -  o f maintenance and s u p p o r t .  consistent  with  t h e p l a i n meaning  The d e c i s i o n s o f t h e words o f  the A c t .  The early  clarity  cases  McDermott.  26  o f purposes which  did  not  survive  c a n be e x t r a c t e d  the  decision  of  from the  Walker  v.  2 6  [1931] S.C.R. 94, [1931] 1 D.L.R. 662 r e v e r s i n g D.L.R. 945, [1930] 1 W.W.R. 332, 42 B.C.R. 184.  [1930] 1  -  74 -  CHAPTER 3 WALKER V. McDERMOTT  It  h a s been  relief  s t a t e d / ' that  legislation  McDermott.  Wilson  2 8  in  the l e a d i n g case  British  Columbia  on dependents' i s Walker  C.J.S.C. s t a t e d i n Re P a r k s  Estate:  v.  2 9  P r a c t i c a l l y a l l judgments under t h i s A c t commence w i t h q u o t a t i o n s f r o m W a l k e r v . McDermott [1931] SCR 94, r e v e r s i n g [1930] I WWR 330, 845, 42 BCR 184, 354, and I s h a l l c o n f o r m by q u o t i n g t h i s o f t - c i t e d p a s s a g e f r o m t h e judgment o f D u f f , J . ( a s he t h e n was) a t p . 96: What c o n s t i t u t e s ' p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d s u p p o r t ' i s a q u e s t i o n t o be d e t e r m i n e d with reference t o a v a r i e t y o f circumstances. I t c a n n o t be l i m i t e d t o the bare n e c e s s i t i e s o f e x i s t e n c e . For the purpose o f a r r i v i n g a t a c o n c l u s i o n , t h e c o u r t on whom d e volves the responsibility o f giving effect to the s t a t u t e , would n a t u r a l l y p r o c e e d f r o m t h e p o i n t o f view o f t h e j u d i c i o u s f a t h e r o f a f a m i l y s e e k i n g t o d i s c h a r g e both h i s m a r i t a l and h i s p a r e n t a l duty; and would o f c o u r s e ( l o o k i n g a t the matter from that point o f view), consider the s i t u a t i o n o f the c h i l d , w i f e o r h u s b a n d , and t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g t o w h i c h , having regard t o t h i s and the other circumstances, r e f e r e n c e o u g h t t o be h a d .  The vived  facts  o f t h e case  by h i s s e c o n d  are simple.  w i f e , aged  The d e c e a s e d  fifty-four,  was s u r -  t o whom he had been  27  B a r k e r v . W e s t m i n s t e r T r u s t Co. [1941] 4 D.L.R. 514 a t p . 525, [1941] 3 W.W.R. 473 a t p . 485, ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 57 B.C.R. 21 a t p . 36 ( C . A . ) , p e r O ' H a l l o r a n J . A .  28  Supra,  29  (1968),  f o o t n o t e 26. 64 W.W.R. (N.S.) 586 a t p . 590 ( B . C . S . C ) .  - 75 married  for  previous estate dence ment of  fourteen  marriage,  was  a  and  running  the  daughter  and  the  testator. the  estate under  the to  $25,000.  the  widow.  sum  At  her  was  The  of  assisted large  not  both  understanding  the  daughter  interpreting  t h e down p a y of  the  burden  father's  death,  steady  employment  dependent  only  be  testator  from  Appeal,  a  net  with  subsequent  an  McPhillips  development  the  to  entire  application she  was  approximately J.A.  The  i s of of  the  sufficient  e s t a t e of  dissenting  upon  circumstances  left  brought  court.  evi-  dissent-  reasoning of assistance  in  the j u r i s p r u d e n c e  the A c t .  McPhillips allowed  had  a the  the  i n an u n r e p o r t e d d e c i s i o n ,  m a j o r i t y and  the  her  been  would  s e t a s i d e the o r d e r o f the lower judges,  of  and  with  portion  from  asset of  in necessitous  his Will,  $6,000  Court  not  main  Columbia,  husband  had  daughter,  The  time  estate  at t r i a l , of  the  and  the  widow. By  The  w i f e had  not  from  adult  British  assumed a  daughter  his  the  had  was  t h e A c t and  awarded  ing,  The income  maintain  the  married,  daughter  an  twenty-three.  business.  was  and  in Trail,  that  thereafter  the  and  aged  hotel  indicated  years,  -  J.A.,  the  dissenting  t h e award t o t h e d a u g h t e r ,  Judge,  observed  who  would  have  that:  The l e g i s l a t i o n w h i c h has t o be c o n s t r u e d and a p p l i e d is legislation first i n t r o d u c e d i n the Dominion of New Z e a l a n d , a s i s t e r n a t i o n i n t h e B r i t i s h Commonwealth. I t i s l e g i s l a t i o n o f somewhat r e v o l u t i o n a r y n a t u r e as a g a i n s t t h e l o n g m a i n t a i n e d law o f E n g l a n d , t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r was a t f u l l l i b e r t y t o d i s p o s e o f h i s e s t a t e as he t h o u g h t f i t , t o even  - 76 d i s i n h e r i t h i s c h i l d r e n and o t h e r s h a v i n g him a n d g i v e h i s e s t a t e t o s t r a n g e r s . 3 0  He c o n c l u d e d  with  c l a i m s upon  t h e f o l l o w i n g comment:  The a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s i n the teeth of the s t a t u t e and makes b o l d t o s a y t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t the sole c h i l d o f the t e s t a t o r should r e c e i v e nothing out o f her f a t h e r ' s e s t a t e . C e r t a i n l y , t h e r e i s no l a c k o f h a r d i h o o d i n t h e a p p e l l a n t , b u t t h e law i s p o s i t i v e and t h e C o u r t i s n o t a t l i b e r t y t o l e g i s l a t e by way of the r e p e a l o f a remedial s t a t u t e , i n t r u t h , o f course, i t i s not w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e o f the Court t o l e g i s l a t e - a l t h o u g h we s e e a t t i m e s a s i n t h i s c a s e , s u b m i s s i o n s made t o t h e C o u r t i f a c c e d e d t o would mean t h a t . A p r o v i s i o n must be made f o r t h e r e s p o n dent the s o l e c h i l d o f the t e s t a t o r . 3 1  McPhillips made  f o r the respondent  interpreted tenance  and  obligation child  the A c t as support, t o make  the sole requiring  and as  child  of  the  something  imposing  provision  " p r o v i s i o n must be  for a  upon  testator"  more  than  3 2  main-  the t e s t a t o r  the  even  though  such  followed a line  more  child  was n o t i n need o f m a i n t e n a n c e .  The in  J.A. by h i s o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t  m a j o r i t y of the Court  keeping  cases.  with  the  of Appeal  principles  enunciated  M a r t i n J.A., f o r example, o b s e r v e d  1 D.L.R.  in  the  early  that:  30  McDermott v . W a l k e r , B.C.R. 184 a t p . 194.  [1930]  945 a t p. 954, 42  31  I b i d . , D.L.R. added).  at  p.  955,  B.C.R.  at  p.  195,  (emphasis  32  I b i d . , D.L.R. added) .  at  p.  955,  B.C.R.  at  p.  195,  (emphasis  - 77 [I]t c l e a r l y a p p e a r s t h a t he [ t h e t r i a l j u d g e ] h a s , w i t h e v e r y r e s p e c t , p r o c e e d e d upon a wrong p r i n c i p l e i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e A c t a s , i n e f f e c t , one w h i c h g i v e s a c h i l d a s h a r e o f t h e e s t a t e a s a g a i n s t t h e widow where t h e c h i l d h a s n o t d i s c h a r g e d t h e onus upon i t of p r o v i n g t h a t i t i s , i n t h e t r u e and p r o p e r sense, i n need o f ' m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t ' h a v i n g r e g a r d t o her walk i n l i f e a n d a l l t h e o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f the case.33  Macdonald  J.A. was e v e n more a r t i c u l a t e  views o f the p h i l o s o p h y  i n expressing h i s  o f t h e A c t , when he s t a t e d :  Under t h e o r d e r a p p e a l e d f r o m t h e sum o f $5,000 i s transferred from a p p e l l a n t t o respondent (not f o r 'maintenance' because respondent i s not i n s t r a i t e n e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s ) . . . . I do n o t t h i n k t h e A c t was i n t e n d e d to a p p l y t o such a c a s e . I f i t does few t e s t a t o r s can regard their testamentary dispositions as final.34 T h i s l e g i s l a t i o n was e n a c t e d , a s we may g a t h e r f r o m i t s p r o v i s i o n s , b e c a u s e i n many i n s t a n c e s h a r d s h i p and i n j u s t i c e a r o s e . A husband m i g h t d i s i n h e r i t a w i f e who s h a r e d w i t h him t h e l a b o u r o f a c c u m u l a t i n g p r o p e r t y , and l e a v e i t , e . g . t o a woman w i t h whom he m a i n t a i n e d immoral r e l a t i o n s . 3 5 I t i s a ' F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e A c t ; ' n o t an A c t t o d e s t r o y t h e f r e e d i s p o s i t i o n o f p r o p e r t y by w i l l . It i s always a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t i n each case whether or not i t was c o n t e m p l a t e d t h a t an o r d e r s h o u l d be made, subject t o t h i s general c o n s i d e r a t i o n that the Court must be s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r has been g u i l t y of a b r e a c h o f t h a t m o r a l d u t y w h i c h p a r e n t s owe t o the surviving parent and t o c h i l d r e n a n d i t o n l y r e f e r s t o t h o s e f o r whose m a i n t e n a n c e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t e s t a t o r ' s d e a t h no a d e q u a t e means o f s u p p o r t a r e available. D i s c r e t i o n i s g i v e n t o a p p l y i t where t h e C o u r t t h i n k s i t i s j u s t and e q u i t a b l e i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o e x e r c i s e t h e powers c o n f e r r e d . That  33  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t pp. 952 and 953, B.C.R. a t p p . 192 and 193.  34  Ibid.,  D.L.R. a t p. 958, B.C.R. a t pp. 198 a n d 199.  35  Ibid.,  D.L.R. a t pp. 958 and 959, B.C.R. a t p . 199.  - 78 discretion i s not j u d i c i a l l y e x e r c i s e d unless the o b j e c t , i n t e n t and s p i r i t o f t h e A c t i s o b s e r v e d . A l t h o u g h s.3 o f t h e A c t may n o t be h a p p i l y worded i t would n o t be s u g g e s t e d t h a t an o r d e r must be made i n a l l c a s e s where members o f a f a m i l y , a d u l t s o r m i n o r s , a r e n o t l e f t a n y t h i n g by a p a r e n t ' s w i l l . 3 6  The  Supreme  reversed  the  Court  decision  of  Canada,  of  the  ' Rinfret  Court  of  J.  Appeal  dissenting, of  British  Columbia.  Rinfret  J., i n his dissenting  judgment, h e l d  that:  I c a n n o t c o n s t r u e t h e A c t t o mean t h a t i n e v e r y c a s e where no p r o v i s i o n i s made, t h e s e c t i o n [ t h e p r e s e n t s u b s e c t i o n 2 ( 1 ) o f t h e A c t ] above q u o t e d i s m a n d a t o r y and t h e C o u r t must make an o r d e r . 3 8  In  h i s view:  The f i r s t i n q u i r y t h e r e f o r e must be w h e t h e r , a t t h e death o f the t e s t a t o r , the p e t i t i o n e r l a c k e d those means o f m a i n t e n a n c e a n d s u p p o r t w h i c h w o u l d be p r o per, having regard to her o r d i n a r y circumstances i n life. For that purpose, the Court should c o n s i d e r how s h e has been m a i n t a i n e d i n t h e p a s t a n d what were, when t h e t e s t a t o r d i e d , t h e means o f s u p p o r t a v a i l a b l e t o her.39  36  Ibid.,  D.L.R. a t p . 959, B.C.R. a t pp. 199 a n d 200.  37  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 26.  38  Ibid.,  S.C.R. a t p . 99, D.L.R. a t p . 666.  39  Ibid. , 667.  S.C.R.  a t pp.  99 and 100, D.L.R.  a t pp. 666 a n d  He c o n c l u d e d the  application  purview did  not  The his  ment  4 0  having  due  by  stating  that  t o come this  regard  proceeded  the a u t h o r i t y  and s u p p o r t "  to identify  and s u p p o r t " and c o n c l u d e d  was b e c a u s e s h e t o her  by D u f f  i f i n the o p i n i o n o f the judge, maintenance  within the  circum-  of the e s t a t e .  m a j o r i t y judgment was d e l i v e r e d  the "proper  nance  t o make o u t a c a s e f o r  Presumably  and t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s  into being,  then  need  failed  She f a i l e d  of the Act.  demonstrate  reasons  for  the p e t i t i o n e r of the A c t .  or intent  stances,  He  that  t h e meaning  i n the o f t e n quoted  J . who o p e n e d  o f the court adequate  provision  had n o t been o f "proper  passage  came  made. mainte-  of h i s judg-  that:  If the Court comes t o t h e d e c i s i o n t h a t adequate provision has n o t been made, t h e n t h e C o u r t must c o n s i d e r what p r o v i s i o n would be n o t o n l y adequate, b u t j u s t and e q u i t a b l e a l s o ; a n d i n e x e r c i s i n g i t s judgment upon t h i s , t h e p e c u n i a r y m a g n i t u d e o f t h e e s t a t e , and the s i t u a t i o n o f o t h e r s h a v i n g c l a i m s upon t h e t e s t a t o r , must be t a k e n i n t o account.41  Duff J . ' s statement  i s no more t h a n a r e s t a t e m e n t  a t i v e words o f t h e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n o f t h e A c t ,  of the oper-  namely:  2(1) ... i f a t e s t a t o r d i e s l e a v i n g a w i l l w h i c h does n o t , i n t h e c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n , make a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r the p r o p e r maintenance and s u p p o r t o f t h e t e s t a t o r ' s w i f e , husband o r c h i l d r e n , t h e c o u r t may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , ... o r d e r t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n t h a t i t  40  See f o o t n o t e 29.  41  S u p r a , f o o t n o t e 26, S.C.R. (emphasis added).  a t p.  96, D.L.R.  a t p . 663,  -  80 -  t h i n k s a d e q u a t e , j u s t and e q u i t a b l e i n t h e s t a n c e s be made o u t o f t h e e s t a t e ....42  Duff  J . concluded  h i s judgment  with  circum-  the f o l l o w i n g  state-  ment :  I can see nothing i n a l l t h i s t o l e a d t o the conc l u s i o n that the t e s t a t o r , i f p r o p e r l y a l i v e to h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , a s f a t h e r no l e s s t h a n a s h u s b a n d , ought t o have f e l t h i m s e l f under an o b l i g a t i o n t o hand o v e r a l l h i s e s t a t e t o h i s w i f e and l e a v e h i s only c h i l d without provision.43  With  this  vested able  statement,  upon  intentionally  or  t h e A c t an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  under  argument c o u l d be made t h a t a p a r e n t  leave a p o r t i o n of h i s estate to a c h i l d or  t h e need o f t h a t  In  any  event,  approximately sidering been  husband  the  award  her circumstances,  had a  justified  generous support  a  support-  h a s an o b l i g a t i o n t o r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e age  to  percent  the daughter of  Con-  t h a t s h e was n o t i n n e e d , h a d n o t had r e a s o n a b l e  good  t h e lump  position,  the  represented  the net e s t a t e .  by h e r f a t h e r ,  under  which  Duff J . ,  child.  twenty-five  supported  otherwise,  "support"  theory  sum  assets award  and h e r  cannot  regardless  of  m i g h t be c o n s t r u e d .  42  Supra,  footnote  5, ( e m p h a s i s  added).  43  Supra,  footnote  26, S.C.R. a t p . 98, D.L.R. a t p . 665.  be how  The in  court  port  and  them. the  on  the  court  because,  v.  that  i n Walker  of  the  the  they  h u s b a n d s may,  rationale  Allardice  A l l a r d i c e where basis  their  The  -  m i g h t have made a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h  A l l a r d i c e v.  annuity  81  had  other  no  v.  not  McDermott  Court  of  that  reasons,  the  be  the  means o f able  chose  Appeal  rationale  were awarded  personal  in future,  Allardice stating  amongst  daughters  the  not  of  to  New  case  to  of  f a c t s were so  sup-  support consider  Zealand  was  an  in  no  help  vastly  dif-  ferent .  From only  be  a l l aspects,  supported  on  the  purpose  of  the  Act  capital  of  the  estate  attributed  to  contemplated defined beyond  by the  the by  the  the  as  Act  the  award  basis  that  a  vehicle  and  thus  a  capabilities  British of  the  Walker the  for  the  meaning  legislation  early  in  and and  court  McDermott  can  interpreted  the  r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of  Supreme a  Court  function  clearly  Columbia Act.  v.  cases  of  Canada  beyond  beyond and,  the  that  that as  clearly,  - 82 -  CHAPTER THE AFTERMATH  4.  OF WALKER V. MCDERMOTT  I n t h e a f t e r m a t h o f W a l k e r v . McDermott of  cases  developed:  precedent  those which  t o an award and t h o s e  more i n t h e t e r m s o f e t h i c s  There meaning  by  referred thing  i s no doubt  economics.  Stout  than  a  statute  t o extend  Destitute  Persons  templated  s u p p o r t d i d " n o t mean m e r e l y  and both  clothing"  4 6  a s t o widow  maintained  The  Act...."  and  that  Supreme  4 5  the matter  Court  i s how  the Act  4 4  v.  Zealand  extended Allardice  as  the p r o v i s i o n s  He f u r t h e r  and c h i l d r e n ,  i n the p a s t . "  interpret  C.J. i n A l l a r d i c e i n New  lines  condition  "need" h a s been g i v e n an  t o the e q u i v a l e n t s t a t u t e  more  "need" a  which would  than  that  the c o u r t s .  w o u l d make  two d i s t i n c t  stated  that  "somei n the  the con-  having a supply of food "should  be  considered,  she o r t h e y  have  been  4 7  o f Canada  took  t h e same  position  in  Walker v . McDermott when D u f f J . s a i d :  44  Re: T o r n r o o s E s t a t e , 3 S e p t . p. 5, u n r e p o r t e d (B.C.S.C.).  45  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 8 a t p . 969.  46  Ibid.,  a t p . 969.  47  Ibid.,  a t p . 969.  1976, V a n c o u v e r ,  X6695/74 a t  - 83 What c o n s t i t u t e s 'proper m a i n t e n a n c e a n d s u p p o r t ' i s a q u e s t i o n t o be d e t e r m i n e d with reference to a variety of circumstances. I t c a n n o t be l i m i t e d t o the bare n e c e s s i t i e s o f e x i s t e n c e . 4 8  Any  r e f e r e n c e t o need  limited  t o "the bare  according involve goes  even  extent  than  beyond  o f "adequate  Pennington  of circumstances  the extended  two d i f f e r e n t  approaches  5 0  vary  and w i l l f r e q u e n t l y  The o t h e r  meaning  but w i l l  4 9  of  interpretation  need  t o such  an  disinheritance.  provision"  v. B o u c h e r .  c a n n o t , t h e r e f o r e , be  of e x i s t e n c e "  mere m a i n t e n a n c e .  so as t o p r o h i b i t  The meaning  necessities  to a multitude  more  i n the cases  He  to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n were  summarized  of the  by Wood J . i n  said:  Plaintiffs' counsel, i n h i s able submissions, u r g e s me t o c o n c l u d e , on t h e b a s i s o f a number o f a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t have been d e c i d e d b o t h b e f o r e a n d s i n c e W a l k e r v . McDermott, t h a t t h e c o n c e p t o f a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t i n c l u d e s a m o r a l o r an e t h i c a l component, a s w e l l a s the economic consideration. Indeed, Mr. Justice D i c k s o n , a s he t h e n was, i n B a r r v . B a r r , [1972] 2 W.W.R. 346, a f t e r r e v i e w i n g a number o f s u c h a u t h o r i t i e s , c o n c l u d e d a t page 350 o f t h e r e p o r t a s f o l l o w s : "The d o m i n a n t theme r u n n i n g t h r o u g h t h e c a s e s , a n d they a r e myriad, i s one o f e t h i c s , even more t h a n economics. A l t h o u g h The T e s t a t o r s F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e Act i s c o u c h e d i n terms w h i c h a t f i r s t impression a p p e a r t o be p r a g m a t i c and e c o n o m i c , 'adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r . . . p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t ' , i t s o o n becomes a p p a r e n t on a r e v i e w o f t h e a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t heavy e m p h a s i s i s p l a c e d upon t h e m o r a l a s p e c t s  48  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 26, S.C.R. a t p . 96, D.L.R. a t p . 663.  49  See  50  18 A p r i l ,  f o o t n o t e 48. 1984, V a n c o u v e r A82339, u n r e p o r t e d  (B.C.S.C).  -  84  -  of the problem. The c o u r t was never i n t e n d e d to r e w r i t e t h e w i l l o f a t e s t a t o r and i n d i s c h a r g i n g i t s d i f f i c u l t t a s k o f c o r r e c t i n g a b r e a c h o f m o r a l i t y on a t e s t a t o r ' s p a r t t h e c o u r t must n o t , e x c e p t i n p l a i n and d e f i n i t e c a s e s , r e t r a i n [ s i c ] a man's r i g h t t o d i s p o s e o f h i s e s t a t e as he p l e a s e s . But, e q u a l l y , i t i s f a i r t o s t a y [ s i c ] t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i o n has by and l a r g e received a very liberal interpretation. The a t t i t u d e o f t h e c o u r t s has been one of great flexibility. E v e r y c a s e must, o f c o u r s e , be d e c i d e d upon i t s own f a c t s and circumstances." I have c o n c l u d e d , a f t e r r e a d i n g a l l o f t h e a u t h o r i t i e s p r o v i d e d t o me by c o u n s e l , t h a t t h e r e a r e two competing l i n e s of a u t h o r i t y i n t h i s c o u n t r y . One, e x e m p l i f i e d by Mr. J u s t i c e D i c k s o n ' s comment i n B a r r v. B a r r , t a k e s a l i b e r a l a p p r o a c h t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o be f o u n d i n S e c t i o n 2 of the W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t and g e n e r a l l y r a t i o n a l i z e s the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f t h e c o u r t i n t o t h e t e s t a t o r ' s exp r e s s e d d e s i r e on t h e b a s i s o f what i s s a i d t o be t h e moral or e t h i c a l duty of a parent to p r o v i d e f a i r l y and g e n e r o u s l y f o r a l l c h i l d r e n i n t h e a b s e n c e o f any direct evidence of justification for disinheritance. The o t h e r l i n e o f a u t h o r i t y , more analylitical [ s i c ] i n i t s a p p r o a c h , t e n d s t o r e l y on t h e p l a i n meaning o f t h e l a n g u a g e t o be f o u n d in Section 2 and b a s e s any such i n t e r v e n t i o n on the answer t o t h e t h r e s h o l d q u e s t i o n whether o r not t h e r e has been a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e e c o n o m i c s e n s e a l o n e , r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t adequate p r o v i s i o n i n such sense w i l l vary a c c o r d i n g to a v a r i e t y of circums t a n c e s and w i l l o f t e n i n v o l v e more t h a n mere m a i n t e nance . 51  A.  NEED AS  Coady Act  in  the  children. operate,...  CONDITION PRECEDENT  J.  i n Re  light He  of  Dawson "* c o n s i d e r e d an  observed  [ f o r ] an  51  Ibid.,  a t pp.  52  [1945] 3 D.L.R. and 485 (S.C.).  the  3  application that  order  5 and 532  "the [to  for  Act  be]  relief  was  made  p r o v i s i o n s of by  [not] in  two  the  adult  intended  a l l cases  to  where  6. at  p.  534,  61  B.C.R.  481  at  pp.  484  members  of a family,  by a p a r e n t ' s W i l l . to  failure  tenance  refusing  applicants hesitation  need  with  regardless  ment  they  that  supported  o f h e r needs  ,.."  5 6  of DesBrisay  refers  f o r the proper  main-  thep r i n c i p l e  t h e view  means  For t h i s  that  e n u n c i a t e d by  " [ i ] f there  f o r proper  i s no  maintenance and  5 4  an a d u l t  daughter  of  o f h e r own, s u b m i t t e d  she had  provision  of the adult  had no need, Coady J . h a d no  the applicant,  reasonable  t o 'adequate  support'  that  o f the claimant  5 5  The s t a t u t e  f o r the b e n e f i t  t h e A c t does n o t a p p l y . "  deceased,  right  provisions  anything  5 3  i n concluding  Re H o r n e t t  a r e not l e f t  i s not the t e s t .  'adequate  on t h e b a s i s  v . McDermott  support,  o r minors,  t o make a n award  on t h e p a r t  In  That  and s u p p o r t . ' " .  In  Walker  t o make  adults  85 -  an " u n d e n i a b l e  f o r her proper  position  she r e l i e d  C.J.B.C. i n Re J o n e s ;  Jones  the  that  and a b s o l u t e  maintenance and upon  the judg-  v . Fox e t  al.  5  7  where he s t a t e d :  53  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t p . 534, B.C.R. a t pp. 484 and 485.  54  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t p p . 534 and 535, B.C.R. a t p . 485.  55  (1962), 33 (B«C«S»C«)•  56  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t p. 292, W.W.R. a t p . 388.  57  ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 30 D.L.R. (2d) 316 a t p . 319, 36 W.W.R. (N.S.) 337 at p . 341 (B.C.C.A.); a f f i r m e d [1962] S.C.R. 273, 32 D.L.R. (2d) 433, 37 W.W.R. (N.S.) 597. The q u o t e f r o m t h e judgment o f D e s B r i s a y C.J.B.C. i s n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e a f f i r m i n g judgment o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada.  D.L.R.  ( 2 d ) 289, 38  W.W.R.  (N.S.)  385  -  86 -  It i s a l s o t o be o b s e r v e d t h a t i n Walker v . McDermott, supra, need was n o t shown by t h e p e t i t i o n e r and the v i e w t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y t h a t i t be shown was r e j e c t e d by t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e Supreme C o u r t of Canada. The l e a r n e d j u d g e i n my v i e w f a i l e d t o g i v e due consideration t o the question o f awarding to the a p p e l l a n t an e q u i t a b l e share o f the e s t a t e which i n my o p i n i o n t h e c a s e s c l e a r l y r e q u i r e d him t o do.  Lett  C.J.S.C.  i n response  to this  submission  simply  stated  that:  I c a n n o t i n t e r p r e t t h e s e words o f t h e l e a r n e d Chief Justice as counsel f o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r a s k s me t o construe them, - namely t h a t a p e t i t i o n e r i s n o t r e q u i r e d i n any e v e n t t o show need ....58  More r e c e n t l y , Re the  Harding ^ 5  the  where,  same p o s i t i o n was  in refusing  t a k e n by A i k e n s J .  t o make a n award  in  on b e h a l f o f  p e t i t i o n e r , he s t a t e d :  I do, however, r e f u s e t o make a n o r d e r i n her favour for t h e reasons explained earlier, which, p u t shortly, a r e these: t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s n o t shown need, s o she has not shown t h a t t h e r e was any duty owing b y her f a t h e r t o h e r , s o he was f r e e t o g i v e s u c h b e n e f i t s a s he saw f i t t o h i s o t h e r children. The C o u r t s h o u l d not i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e way he h a s disposed of h i s e s t a t e .  A almost  consideration thirty  years,  o f these leaves  58  Supra, footnote p. 389.  55,  59  [1973] 6 W.W.R. 229  cases  decided  no d o u b t  D.L.R. a t pp. a t p.  that,  over  at least,  292 and  242 ( B . C . S . C . ) .  a period of  293,  i n the  W.W.R.  at  minds  of  t h ep r e s i d i n g  to the c o u r t e x e r c i s i n g  B.  judges, its  need  discretion  i s a condition under  precedent  the s t a t u t e .  EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION THEORY  Almost  contemporaneously,  oped commencing w i t h  O'Halloran  J.A.  Barker  noted  the second  v. Westminster  that  award was made t o t h e d a u g h t e r  line  of cases  Trust  i n Walker  devel-  Company.  60  v . McDermott a n  notwithstanding:  (1) t h e f a t h e r h a d n o t s u p p o r t e d h i s daughter f o r f i v e y e a r s b e f o r e h i s d e a t h ; a n d (2) t h a t s h e h a d been m a r r i e d one y e a r p r i o r t o h i s d e a t h t o a young man i n a r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n w i t h a l a r g e company, who was i n r e c e i p t o f a r e a s o n a b l y good s a l a r y a n d w i t h good p r o s p e c t s f o r t h e f u t u r e ; a n d (3) t h e s t e p mother h a d c o n t r i b u t e d l a r g e l y t o t h e u p b u i l d i n g a n d p r e s e r v a t i o n o f the e s t a t e both i n o r i g i n a l capital a d v a n c e d a n d i n work a n d management up t o t h e t i m e o f the f a t h e r ' s death.61  He t h e r e f o r e  concluded:  [ S ] u c h a judgment c o u l d n o t be f o u n d e d upon a mere d u t y t o s u p p o r t ; i t must be m a n i f e s t t h a t t h e t e r m ' m a i n t e n a n c e ' was r e a d t o mean s o m e t h i n g more t h a n ' s u p p o r t ' i n i t s o r d i n a r y and a c c e p t e d s e n s e , and was g i v e n a meaning c o n s i s t e n t o n l y w i t h a w i d e r conception o f t h e e q u i t a b l e powers c o n f e r r e d by t h e statute.62  60  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 27.  61  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t p . 524, W.W.R. a t p . 484, B.C.R. a t p p . 35 a n d 36.  62  I b i d , D.L.R. a t pp. 524 and 525, W.W.R. a t p . 484, B.C.R. a t p . 36.  - 88 O'Halloran  J.A. a l s o p o i n t e d o u t :  On t h e f a c t s s t a t e d t h e f a t h e r ' s 'responsibilities' to which the Court p o i n t e d , c o u l d not r e f e r t o a duty to ' s u p p o r t ' , f o r he had n o t s u p p o r t e d h i s d a u g h t e r f o r f i v e y e a r s and s h e was d o i n g v e r y w e l l . Nor was t h e r e a n y room f o r d u t y on h i s p a r t t o ' m a i n t a i n ' h e r , s i n c e he h a d n o t m a i n t a i n e d h e r f o r f i v e y e a r s and s h e h a d b e t t e r e d h e r p o s i t i o n o n m a r r i a g e . T h e o n l y ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ' l e f t was n o t t o d i s i n h e r i t h e r , but r a t h e r t o 'advance' h e r , v i z . , t o g i v e h e r a s u b s t a n t i a l share o f h i s estate....63  After  reviewing  O'Halloran  both  J.A. viewed  the jurisprudence  the r e l i e f  and the  statute  a f f o r d e d by t h e A c t a s f o l -  lows :  [ T ] h e r e a r e , g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , a t l e a s t two k i n d s of r e l i e f i n t e n d e d by t h e T e s t a t o r ' s F a m i l y M a i n t e nance A c t . F i r s t , t h e r e i s a f o r m o f ' m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t ' w h i c h i s a p u r e l y p e r s o n a l a l l o w a n c e t o t h e a p p l i c a n t w i f e , husband o r c h i l d . Relief of this nature i s analogous t o alimony.... Secondly, there i s a form o f 'proper maintenance' which i s a s e f f e c t i v e l y a s h a r e o f t h e e s t a t e a s i f i t were s o b e queathed i n the w i l l i t s e l f . . . .Relief o f t h i s kind a r i s e s most f r e q u e n t l y i n c a s e s o f d i s i n h e r i t a n c e s u c h a s t h i s c a s e a n d W a l k e r v . McDermott.64  Sloan  J.A., M c D o n a l d  presiding McDonald  judges  i n Barker  J.A. d i s s e n t i n g ,  basis  that  sons,  made  J.A. a n d O ' H a l l o r a n v. Westminster  would  not a l l o w  t h e a p p e l l a n t had d i e d . t h e award  Sloan  J.A. were t h e Trust  Company.  the appeal  on t h e  J.A., w i t h o u t  t o the a p p e l l a n t ' s personal  rea-  represen-  63  Ibid,  D.L.R. a t p . 525, W.W.R. a t p . 484, B.C.R. a t p . 3 6 .  64  I b i d , D.L.R. a t pp. 526 and 527, W.W.R. a t p . 486, B.C.R. a t p . 38.  tatives.  Therefore,  are  those  o f O'Halloran  two  judges.  Nevertheless, Supreme  Court  interpretation equitable  the opinions  was  expressed  J.A. o n l y  when  adopted  concept  i n scope f a r beyond  f u r t h e r developed  by D e s B r i s a y  that the  v . McDermott ) a n  and p r a c t i c e a c c e p t s  o f the estate  o f an " e q u i t a b l e  analysis  o f the other  J.A. s t a t e d  ( i n Walker  "which i n p r i n c i p l e  distribution  i n this  and n o t t h o s e  O'Halloran  o f Canada  s t a t u t e was e x t e n d e d  The  89 -  6  5  the purpose o f  its original  distribution" C.J.B.C.  6 6  a more  intent.  o f the estate  when he s t a t e d :  The l e a r n e d j u d g e i n my v i e w f a i l e d t o g i v e due c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o the q u e s t i o n o f awarding t o the a p p e l l a n t a n e q u i t a b l e s h a r e o f t h e e s t a t e w h i c h i n my o p i n i o n t h e c a s e s c l e a r l y r e q u i r e d him t o d o .  Subsequent of DesBrisay a  judge,  eration estate  decisions  have  C.J.B.C. t h a t  i n dependents' t o the q u e s t i o n  regardless  taken  s e r i o u s l y the observation  he p e r c e i v e d  relief  matters,  o f awarding  that  the o b l i g a t i o n o f  i s to give  an equitable  due c o n s i d share o f the  o f need.  65  I b i d , D.L.R. a t p . 525, W.W.R. a t p . 485, B.C.R. a t p . (emphasis added).  66  Supra,  footnote  57, D.L.R. a t p . 319, W.W.R. a t p . 341.  36,  In as  Re M i c h a l s o n  her f a t h e r .  nation  the a p p l i c a n t  6 7  Moreover,  in his Will  90 -  the father  daughter  was a s a f f l u e n t  gave t h e f o l l o w i n g  expla-  f o r d i s i n h e r i t i n gher:  This recognition o f my daughter i n this my will should n o t be interpreted to r e f l e c t a lack of p a r e n t a l r e g a r d b u t r a t h e r , a s I have o v e r t h e y e a r s d u r i n g my l i f e t i m e p r o v i d e d f o r h e r g e n e r o u s l y , and i n v i e w o f h e r s t a t i o n i n l i f e , I f e e l no o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e f o r h e r f u r t h e r i n t h i s my w i l l . 6 8  Nonetheless, there  was  testator to  the court  "a m a n i f e s t to h i s only  breach  sum."  Similar Holt.  7 1  mission failed  to  stances under  award  o f the moral  have  on  duty  and t h a t been  the basis  fulfilled  owed  that  by t h e  t h e "moral by l e a v i n g  duty her a  69  findings  In the l a t t e r by  an  daughter  t h e p e t i t i o n e r would  reasonable  made  counsel  were case,  made  the court  f o r the  demonstrate  and t h e r e f o r e ,  i n Re  that  Osland  failing  was  that  [1973] 1 W.W.R. 560  68  I b i d . , a t p . 565.  69  I b i d . , a t p. 567.  70  ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 E.T.R. 128  71  (1978),  t o show  entitlement  (B.C.S.C).  (B.C.S.C).  85 D.L.R. (3d) 543  in  (B.C.S.C).  Re  sub-  the p e t i t i o n e r  i n necessitous  the A c t .  67  and  rejected a specific  respondent she  7 0  circumto  relief  - 91 The tion  solidification  precedent  for relief  r u p t e d by what a p p e a r e d of  the d e c i s i o n  In same  conclusion,  and  the three but each  estate  died  and so  members  leaving  h i s judgment  fifty  7 3  directed  children  would  share  different  nature, the f a c t s  held  there  that  children  surviving  the t e s t a t o r  gave a  t o t h e o t h e r two  commenced  an a c t i o n  o f the estate  equally.  i n the proceedings.  maintained  i n h i s view,  equitable  on a  a redistribution  t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l  and,  reached the  percent of the residue of  children  reversed  J.A.  adult  and n o t h i n g  d i d not j o i n  properly  ofthis  By h i s W i l l  daughter  and  of the e f f e c t  o f the court  five  o f two s o n s  judge  a l l four  Robertson  inter-  7 2  T h e two d i s i n h e r i t e d  the t r i a l that  t h e A c t , was b r i e f l y  based  o f $40,000.  t o each  children.  was n o t a c o n d i -  simple.  deceased  an e s t a t e  need  t o be a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g  $1,000 l e g a c y t o one d a u g h t e r , the  that  I n common w i t h most c a s e s  were r e l a t i v e l y  The  under  i n Re L u k i e .  Re L u k i e  premise.  o f the view  The  legatee  The C o u r t o f A p p e a l  judge.  each  applicant  a t the date was no room  was a d e q u a t e l y  o f the t e s t a t o r ' s  death  f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n o f  principles.  72  72 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 395, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 3 9 5 , ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 B.C.L.R. 1, 26 R.F.L. 164, r e v e r s i n g [1975] W.W.D. 44, 20 R.F.L. 73 ( C A . ) -  73  (1976),  20 R.F.L. 73 ( B . C . S . C . ) .  Taggart  J.A.  not  have  to  the  fact  that  testator (i.e.  the  or the  for  not  J.A. the  those  need o f  not  children)  for  estate  admitting  applicants  could  Carrothers provision  -  e s t a b l i s h necessitous  and  being  although  92  to  nor  their  of and  that  family  did  relied  independent  upon  of  the  relationship  a  testator  ought  claimants  i n need o f  dependent  upon  l i m i t e d value  assistance,  totally  upon  admitted  support  of  applicant  succeed.  accustomed  was  the  circumstances,  were  rely  that  and  the  to  make  assistance,  i t .  However,  as  claimants  were not  in  were t h e y a c c u s t o m e d  to  i t , they  could  succeed.  It judges  was on  perhaps the  assistance which  fact  that  led  the  emphasis  that to  the the  placed  by  applicants  a l l three  were  misunderstanding  not of  in the  appeal need  of  decision  followed.  I n b o t h Re had  the  Radcliffe  Re  Lukie  in  i t s extended m e a n i n g ,  7 4  and  Re  e f f e c t t o make a 7 6  Janke  c o n d i t i o n precedent  Act.  74  (1977),  2 B.C.L.R. 220  (S.C.).  75  (1977),  2 B.C.L.R. 378,  3 C.P.C. 249  76  See  s u p r a , a t p.  counsel  f i n d i n g of  the  text,  7 5  87.  argued  need, to  (S.C.).  that  presumably  relief  under  The  B.C.  Helgason, was  an  Mr.  Law  -  Commission  J u s t i c e Robertson  absolute  discretion."  Reform  93  held  p r e r e q u i s i t e to  Professor  Gordon  the  Bale  7 8  stated:  7 7  that  the  exercise was  led  "In showing of  the  to  Lukie of  v.  need  court's  comment  as  follows:  The c a s e o f Re L u k i e , [1975] W.W.D. 44, 20 R.F.L. 73 (B.C.S.C.) may, however, represent a significant change i n the way i n which the British Columbia s t a t u t e i s a p p l i e d i n the f u t u r e .  The  misunderstanding  clarified  and  Professor  that Bale's  might hope  have was  e x i s t e d was soon  quickly  shattered.  The  same e x t r a c t o f  Duff  7Q court J.'s  i n R e _ S l e n o ^ made r e f e r e n c e /  judgment  as  d i d Wilson  to the  C.J.S.C.  i n Re  Parks  Estate " 8  and  stated: T h a t s t a t e m e n t has become t h e c o r n e r s t o n e o f most o f t h e judgments g i v e n under t h i s s e c t i o n s i n c e 1931, and c o n t i n u e s t o be t h e b a s i s upon w h i c h t h e s t a t u t e is interpreted.81  77  Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, S t a t u t o r y S u c c e s s i o n R i g h t s , ( 1 9 8 3 ) , a t p. 54.  78  G. Bale, "Testator's Family Maintenance in British Columbia Fair share of the Estate or Equitable M a i n t e n a n c e and t h e Dilemma s t i l l C o n f r o n t i n g t h e Courts by t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada D e c i s i o n o f 1930 i n W a l k e r v. McDermott" ( 1 9 7 7 - 7 8 ) , 1 E.T.R. 129 a t p. 132.  79  ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 78  80  Supra,  footnote  81  Supra,  footnote  D.L.R. (3d)  155  (B.C.S.C).  29. 79  a t p.  160.  Report  on  It  unequivocally  concluded  94 -  that:  In c o n t e n d i n g t h a t p r o o f o f need i s a c o n d i t i o n p r e cedent t o recovery counsel f o r the respondent r e l i e s upon t h e judgment o f R o b e r t s o n , J.A., i n Re L u k i e e t a l . and H e l g a s o n e t a l . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 72 D.L.R. (3d) 395, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 395, 26 R.F.L. 164. A careful r e a d i n g o f t h a t judgment, however, i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e learned J u s t i c e of Appeal d i d not say t h a t , i n p r i n c i p l e , t h e f i n d i n g o f need was a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t .... 8 2  Indeed, ment  does  even  with  a careful consideration not d i s c l o s e  the extended  any  meaning  t o be a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t  Up  t o the time  basis  of Robertson  J.A.'s  judg-  that  need,  f o r the theory  given  t o i t by t h e c o u r t s ,  f o r r e l i e f under  of the d e c i s i o n  was  the A c t .  o f Re L u k i e ,  there  might  have been some d o u b t a s t o whether o r n o t need was a c o n d i t i o n precedent. that  The d e c i s i o n s  there  In  i s no s u c h  Brauer  0  to h i s three  ity,  and  not w e l l  n o r were  they  that  Re S l e n o make i t c l e a r  the deceased  left  nothing  inhis  c h i l d r e n , who were a l l o f t h e age o f m a j o r -  although  considered  followed  requirement.  v. H i l t o n - *  Will  testator,  that  o f f , were  i n actual  need.  t h e d e c e a s e d had " l o s t  82  I b i d , a t p . 160, (emphasis  83  (1980),  15 B.C.L.R. 116  added).  (C.A.).  not dependent The C o u r t  on t h e  of Appeal  sight of h i s parental  duty..." be  and  8 4  accepted  the  95  -  concept  that  need d i d n o t  have  to  established.  In wife, of  Granfleld  with  Williams  substantial  $100,000  from  C a r r o t h e r s J.A. need n o t  v.  be  wealth  her  an  0  o f her  husband's  bluntly  e s t r a n g e d and  stated  own,  was  estate.  "that  disinherited  awarded In  his  the  sum  judgment  necessitous circumstances  shown."  Qc In M o r r i s v. M o r r i s of  testator  $270,000, p l u s $170,000 p a s s i n g by  widow,  and  nothing  thirty-nine of  the  0 0  both  $75,000 J.A.,  to  in  breach will  Court  his  to  i t was  their  Appeal  daughter  share  own  children way  concluded  duty  his  $50,000  in  "his  legitimate capital  aged  in life,  and  awarding  to  the  that  the  failure  law  to h i s  forty  and  indeed  one  to  lump  son.  ...  to  some  f o r the Court  sums  of  Macfarlane  testator  expectation of assets  "an a p p r o p r i a t e c a s e  a t p.  operation of  i n t e r v e n e d by and  judgment, moral  adult  his entire estate  lawyer.  r e c o g n i z e the  children that  his  of  to  of  the  his  making  them a p r a c t i s i n g The  to  left  was  in  revise  his  h i s other  two  degree"  and  8 7  to e x e r c i s e i t s  84  Ibid.,  123.  85  ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 29 B.C.L.R. 150 p. 130 ( C . A . ) .  86  ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 41 B.C.L.R. 239, 14 E.T.R. 44 ( C A . ) a p p e a l t o S.C.C. d i s m i s s e d March 1, 1 9 8 3 ) .  87  Ibid.,  B.C.L.R. a t p.  at  254,  p.  153,  23  E.T.R. a t p.  R.F.L.  60.  (2d)  127  at  (leave  to  discretion  by making  96 -  the p r o v i s i o n which  t h e t e s t a t o r ought t o  have made  f o r t h e two c h i l d r e n who have been d i s i n h e r i t e d .  In  i t s award,  making  tion  that  the court  the t e s t a t o r  children  equally,  children  should  was  and t h a t  have  been  seems  under  taken  an o b l i g a t i o n  equality reached  t o have  with  either  the  1 , 8 8  the p o s i -  to treat h i s  non-petitioning  inter  vivos  or  post-  humously.  Perhaps courts of  the  most  are presently  McEachern  acknowledging chart."  the Chief  8 9  viewing  C.J.S.C. that  contemporary  t h e A c t c a n be f o u n d  in Dalziel  "[t]he  expression  v.  law on t h i s  Justice stated  Bradford  question  of  how  the  i n t h e words where  after  i s d i f f i c u l t to  that:  What I t h i n k t h e a u t h o r i t i e s a r e s a y i n g i s t h a t t h e f i r s t i n q u i r y i s t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e t e s t a t o r made a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r a q u a l i f i e d claimant in h i s w i l l . I f he d i d n o t , t h e n t h e C o u r t may l o o k a t a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and d e c i d e i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n what a j u d i c i o u s father seeking to discharge h i s p a r e n t a l d u t y would d o . F o r good c a u s e s u c h a p a r e n t c o u l d d i s i n h e r i t a c h i l d , a n d he m i g h t n o t b e n e f i t a c h i l d who i s a l r e a d y adequately maintained; but a j u d i c i o u s f a t h e r would n o t l o o k j u s t a t t h e p r e s e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f a c h i l d , e v e n an a d u l t c h i l d , a n d p r o b a b l e f u t u r e d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r t h e c h i l d and h i s f a m i l y must be r e c o g n i z e d , subject of course to the s i z e o f t h e e s t a t e and o t h e r l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m s . The a p p r o a c h , i t seems t o me, must n o t be s i v e l y e c o n o m i c f o r t h a t i s n o t how p a r e n t a l are u s u a l l y discharged.90  excesduties  88  Ibid.,  B.C.L.R. a t p . 254, E.T.R. a t p . 61.  89  ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 62 B.C.L.R. 215 a t p. 227, 18 E.T.R. 261 a t p . 273 (S.C.).  90  I b i d . , B.C.L.R. a t p. (emphasis added).  230, E.T.R.  a t pp.  276  and 277,  The  Chief  McDermott,  J u s t i c e thought  authorized  difficulties but  Morris  based  upon  the s i z e  could  be  reached  third  bequests.  It  the  British  reached  Lukie  that  Lukie,  equality  legitimate  f o r awarding onechild  on t h e f a c t  disturbing  specific  that  t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e has t a k e n  the view  of a concept  t o need.  must  is  leave  concept  a r e not a f f e c t e d , the c o u r t  the c h i l d r e n .  of equitable  I t should  Columbia  The  ] Re  o f Re  other  t o each  without  as l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m s  that,  h i s estate  manifestation  courts  endangering  t r y f o r e q u a l i t y amongst  reference  clear  be  would appear  adoption  parent  and t h e f a c t  of the e s t a t e  could  a n c  t o some  9 3  as l o n g  should  v. M o r r i ^ s ^ l  a s an e x c e p t i o n  of the estate without  He a d m i t t e d  He, l i k e w i s e , b a s e d h i s r e a s o n i n g  equality  that  an a p p r o a c h .  v. M o r r i s  of the residue  that  t h e l a w , b a s e d on W a l k e r v .  i n r e c o n c i l i n g Morris  explained  claims.  such  that  Clearly this i s  distribution,  p e r h a p s be t a k e n absent  special  equally  amongst  that  without  t h e law i n  circumstances,  a  his children, a  of forced heirship.  that  the Act i s being  interpreted  by  some  a s a " f o r c e d h e i r s h i p " s t a t u t e i s f u r t h e r e m p h a s i z e d by  two  recent  cases  that  s t a t e as a p r i n c i p l e  that:  "no p r o v i -  91  Supra,  footnote  86.  92  Supra,  footnote  89, B.C.L.R. a t p . 230, E.T.R. a t p . 276.  93  I b i d , B.C.L.R. a t p . 230, E.T.R. a t p . 276.  - 98 sion  a t a l l must  necessarily  be r e g a r d e d  as inadequate  provi-  sion" .  The found  i n McCoy  modest sons  most  estate  unequivocal  endorsement  v. P a t e r s o n to charity  et a l .  9  of  such  The t e s t a t r i x  4  and made no p r o v i s i o n  e x p r e s s i n g her reasons  statement  f o r so d o i n g as  left  f o r two  is her  adult  follows:  A f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n I have n o t made any p r o v i s i o n f o r any o f my c h i l d r e n b e c a u s e t h e y have n o t e x p r e s s e d any k i n d n e s s a n d c a r i n g . I have made t h i s d e c i s i o n with t h e knowledge of the W i l l s Variation Act R.S.B.C. 1979, C h a p t e r 435, a n d amendments t h e r e t o . 9 5  In h i s judgment, D r o s t L . J . S . C . s t a t e d  that:  [N]o p r o v i s i o n a t a l l must n e c e s s a r i l y inadequate p r o v i s i o n f o r the purposes W i l l s V a r i a t i o n Act.96  In Re Plummer; M i n c k l e r v. P i n d e r estate ter.  9 7  the t e s t a t r i x  t o her g r a n d c h i l d r e n t o the e x c l u s i o n I n h i s judgment, T y r w h i t t - D r a k e  be r e g a r d e d a s o f S.2 o f t h e  L.J.S.C.  l e f t her  o f her daughstated:  A non-disposition, b e i n g i n s o many words no p r o v i s i o n a t a l l , must n e c e s s a r i l y be r e g a r d e d a s ' i n a d e quate p r o v i s i o n ' f o r t h e purposes o f a c t i o n s such as this.98 94  (1987),  E.T.R. 6.  95  I b i d . , a t p . 8.  96  I b i d . , a t p . 12.  97  (1985),  98  I b i d . , a t p . 302.  18 E.T.R. 297  (B.C.S.C).  Drost  L.J.S.C.  sion  at  a l l must  sion  regarded  in  99  reaching  necessarily  h i m s e l f bound  the  be  conclusion  regarded  as  that  no  provi-  inadequate  provi-  by  T y r w h i t t - D r a k e , L . J . S . C . i n Re Plummer; M i n c k l e r v . P i n d e r , . . . by t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f M c E a c h e r n , C . J . i n Greenwood v. Greenwood (1979), 11 B.C.L.R. 218 (B.C.S.C.) and o f T a g g a r t J.A. i n M a r u s y n v. Prill, B.C.C.A., Vancouver No. CA820243, 1983 [unreported].99  Tyrwhitt-Drake decisions  considered ^ 1  i n Greenwood v. Greenwood and  However, show  also  that  a  either  a principle  close  analysis  of  himself  M a r u s y n v.  these  two  M c E a c h e r n C.J.S.C. o r T a g g a r t  o f law  that  no p r o v i s i o n  bound  by  Prill.  cases  does  J.A.  stated  i s necessarily  the  not as  inadequate  provision.  In sions  Greenwood  i n her  Will  v.  Greenwood " 1  f o r her  1  the deceased  husband.  h u s b a n d , M c E a c h e r n C.J.S.C.  On  made no  the a p p l i c a t i o n  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 94  a t p.  100  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 97 a t p.  101  (1979),  102  I b i d . , a t p.  11 B.C.L.R. 218 221.  by  the  stated:  It i s apparent that the t e s t a t r i x d i e d l e a v i n g and w i t h o u t making a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t o f her husband.102  99  provi-  12. 302. (B.C.S.C.).  a will proper  - 100 His based  conclusion  that  there  on h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  merely  because  was  no a d e q u a t e  of the f a c t s  the deceased  h a d made  provision  o f the case  no  provisions  was  and not i n the  Will.  i no  In  Marusyn  testator's court  v. P r i l l " - ' 1  Will.  Taggart  a widow  was  J.A. d e l i v e r e d  left  nothing  i n the  t h e judgment  of the  and s t a t e d : I t i s c l e a r enough t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r d i d n o t make adequate provision f o r t h e p r o p e r maintenance and support o f h i s wife. I n d e e d , he made none a t a l l . T h u s , i n my o p i n i o n , t h a t p a r t o f S e c t i o n 2 o f t h e W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t i s met.104  When T a g g a r t J.A. s t a t e d was  merely  no  adequate  fact  that  It Drost  making  a statement  provision  no p r o v i s i o n  c a n be s a i d  L.J.S.C.  of fact  made  was  he made none a t a l l . " and h i s c o n c l u s i o n not based  solely  he  that  on t h e  was made i n t h e W i l l .  therefore  that  the p r i n c i p l e  and T y r w h i t t - D r a k e L.J.S.C.  t h e c a s e s upon w h i c h dation  was  "Indeed,  they  relied.  on t h e j u r i s p r u d e n c e  i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by  Nor does  produced  e n u n c i a t e d by  i t have any f o u n -  by t h e A c t .  CA820243, u n r e p o r t e d  1 0 5  Never-  103  24 May 1983, V a n c o u v e r  (B.C.C.A.).  104  Ibid.,  105  S e e : Coady J . i n Re Dawson, s u p r a , a t p p . 22 and 23; more recently the statement o f Spencer J . i n P a t t e r s o n v. Lauritsen, Crowther, McKay and L a u r i t s e n (1985), 58 B.C.L.R. 182 (S.C.) a t p . 185, " [ C o u n s e l ] , f o r the defendants argued that i n proper cases an adequate p r o v i s i o n may be no p r o v i s i o n a t a l l . T h a t seems t o f o l l o w from s . 2 ( 3 ) ( a ) o f t h e A c t . "  a t p . 7.  theless tation  i t i s another the courts  The clearly  Maitland  i n d i c a t i o n as t o the p o s s i b l e  are prepared  jurisdiction stated  101 -  to place  of the court  J . , speaking  upon t h e A c t .  i n administering  i n Swain v . D e n n i s o n .  interpre-  the Act i s  1 0 6  f o r the court  said:  The e n t i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e under t h i s statute i s discretionary i ncharacter. The r e l i e f w h i c h may be g r a n t e d under i t i s c o m p l e t e l y d e p e n d e n t on h i s o p i n i o n : (1) A s t o whether a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t has been p r o v i d e d for t h e s p o u s e and c h i l d r e n under t h e w i l l ; a n d ( 2 ) I f a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n i s n o t t h o u g h t t o be made, a s t o what p r o v i s i o n s h o u l d be made.107  The  process  adequate  f o r the court  provision  i s twofold,  h a s been  made  firstly  a n d i f n o t , t o remedy  omission.  I t c a n be s e e n , a s a s t a t e m e n t  tion,  that  i n the cases  table  D i s t r i b u t i o n Theory" very  any,  t odetermining  provision) deal  with  made.  referred  to determine i f  o fgeneral  t o under  almost  automatically  t h e quantum t o be awarded, w h i c h  "Equi-  was g i v e n , i f  the adequacy o f the p r o v i s i o n  The c o u r t ,  applica-  the heading  l i t t l e attention  such  (or lack o f proceeded t o  i n most c a s e s was a  lump sum award f r o m t h e c a p i t a l o f t h e e s t a t e .  106  [1967] 232.  S.C.R.  7, 59 D.L.R.  (2d) 357 ( S . C . C . ) ,  107  Ibid. , 237.  S.C.R.  a t p . 12, D.L.R.  58 W.W.R.  a t p . 361, W.W.R. a t  p.  The  development  rejects  need  as  distribution" doubt far  that  as  the  and  the  condition the  basis  freedom of  beyond  support  of  PRICE V.  The  illustration  the  of  purporting  to  the  first  time  riage. happy the wife  Mr. in  war.  and  forced  adopts  under  to  the  regime  "equitable  Act,  Columbia  provide in  leaves  no  is limited  maintenance the  and  province  has  heirship.  not  Lypchuk E s t a t e that  the  to  the  Act  1 0  "  i s the  most  recent  and  urgent  needs s e r i o u s and  principle  opposite  the  case are  Lypchuk, 1939  and II  the  Upon h i s  would  and  basically  dissenting  enunciated  conclusions  in  judgments, Walker  i t is clear  v.  the  law  clarification.  W o r l d War one,  fact  apply  f a c t s of  deceased,  relief  When b o t h m a j o r i t y  came  1 0 9  i n need o f  The  for  succession  P r i c e v.  reconsideration.  is  precedent  which  LYPCHUK ESTATE  case of  McDermott  jurisprudence  authority  become a f o r m o f m o d i f i e d  C.  -  testation in British  court's  that  102  who  died  two  return with  in  1983,  daughters  interrupted  deceased  live  characteristically  the  served  t o Canada him,  his  had  simple.  married  resulted  from  for  that  m a r r i a g e , w h i c h was i n Europe u n t i l i n 1945, two  he  the  found  children  The  marnot  end  that  were  the  a of  his  being  108  P r i c e v. Lypchuk E s t a t e , 26 E.T.R. 259 [also reported at 37 D.L.R. ( 4 t h ) , [1987] 4 W.W.R. 128, 11 B.C.L.R. (2d) 371, 6 (sub nom P r i c e v. K n u t s o n ) ( B . C . C . A . ) ] .  109  Supra,  footnote  26.  cared The  f o r by  spouses  second The  h i s in-laws were  wife  marriage  second  was  wife  children  in  of  a  his  was  the  happy  not  allowed  The  deceased  d i v o r c e and  one  The  first  he  i n 1950.  after  1980.  -  and  divorced  shortly  103  and  ended  deceased  marriage  for  see  two  death  no  contact of  his  children.  the  period  them.  married  on  had the  had  to  of  the  with  the  thirty-five  years before h i s death.  The of  deceased's  which  was  marriage. second  left The  equally  deceased  to had  riage,  plaintiff,  applied  visions  of  not  of  for provision  the  have  one  Act.  good  The  for  value  the  two  the out  of  judge  therefore,  share  i n the  The second  of  his  second  totality  of  his  the  plaintiff  of  the  first  found  that the  and  had  pro-  deceased  plaintiff The  not  awarded  the  the  i n so d o i n g .  deceased  mar-  and trial  made  her  an  adeequal  estate.  marriage,  the  that  the  beneficiaries  Lambert because  for  the  disinheriting  judge,  provision  children  $81,000, a l l  t h e e s t a t e under  to d i s c h a r g e h i s p a t e r n a l duty  quate  about  daughters  failed  found  of  died.  trial  cause  a  inherited  w i f e ' s e s t a t e when she  The  did  e s t a t e had  named  appealed  J.A.,  Taggart  the  i n the W i l l ,  the  children  of  the  decision.  J.A.  concurring, allowed  long separation e f f e c t i v e l y  eradicated  the any  appeal moral  - 104 duty  which  first  the  might  have  owed  the  children  of  his  marriage.  By  contrast,  separation  by  In  his  passage  judgment,  from  valid  today  were  binding so  was  J.A. not  the c h i l d r e n  the  concluded  ciples  Esson  itself  to d i s i n h e r i t  and  deceased  -  as on  the  when  the  the  sufficient  from  Lambert  judgment  that  dissenting,  J.A.  quoted  Duff  J.  decision of  referring  the  to  He  the  long  deceased  often  cited  v.  McDermott  enunciated  handed  Appeal.  the  marriage.  i n Walker  therein was  that  to permit  the f i r s t  principles  Court  e n u n c i a t e d by  of  stated  down  i n 1931  modified  changing  were  the  social  as and  prin-  circum-  stances :  Women now have a v a l u e d p o s i t i o n i n t h e w o r k p l a c e ; e v e r y o n e i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l y on a w i d e s p r e a d network of s t a t e f i n a n c i a l support; the n u c l e a r f a m i l y i s f a r from universal; and family relations legislation c o n t e m p l a t e s and p r o m o t e s t h e f i n a n c i a l independence o f s p o u s e s f r o m e a c h o t h e r and c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e i r parents. The judicious father of Walker v. McDermott, s e e k i n g t o d i s c h a r g e b o t h h i s m a r i t a l and h i s p a r e n t a l d u t y , must be c o n s i d e r e d as d o i n g so i n accordance w i t h a contemporary view o f m a r i t a l and p a r e n t a l o b l i g a t i o n s and i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a c o n t e m p o r a r y view o f t e s t a m e n t a r y i n d e p e n d e n c e . I l l  Lambert ations are the  Act  110  See  111  Supra,  J.A.  also  relevant  makes text,  emphasiz ed  and  i t clear  in his opinion, that  s u p r a , a t p.  f o o t n o t e 108  the f a c t  at  the  that moral_consider-  "the very s t r u c t u r e  legislative  scheme  74. pp. 268  and  269  E.T.R.  of  contem-  plates in  that  the  concept  the working of  However, the  estate  he  had  a  moral  from  because  was  been m a r r i e d duty  was  of  the  up,  be  long  that  children  dismissed.  J.A.,  his  status  of  in  the  by  years,  therefore  Esson  i s an  essential  s e p a r a t i o n and  in part,  found  the  duty  element  1 1 2  for thirty  could  -  of moral  Act."  built  disinheriting  appeal  the  the  105  the  of  second  i t was  would the  He  first  fact  wife  t o whom  a case the  that  where  testator  marriage.  best  recognizes  identifies that  in i t s  intent,  Act  been g e n e r a l l y s u c c e s s f u l i n a c h i e v i n g i t s o b j e c t .  However, he  dependent  The  primary has  t o p r o t e c t s p o u s e s and  not  prevent  d i s s e n t i n g judgment,  jurisprudence.  the  children,  the  states:  The same cannot be said of claims by adult children. The m a j o r i t y o f t h e d e c i d e d c a s e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e w h i c h have been t h e s u b j e c t o f a p p e a l s , d e a l w i t h such c l a i m s . The law d e v e l o p e d i n those cases i s i n a s t a t e of d i s a r r a y such t h a t i t i s a l l but i m p o s s i b l e t o p r e d i c t w i t h any c o n f i d e n c e what r e s u l t w i l l f l o w f r o m any g i v e n s t a t e o f f a c t s , and unduly difficult t o d e c i d e what t h a t r e s u l t should be.113  He Section  identifies 2(1)  of  the  court's  t h e A c t , as  112  Ibid.,  a t p.  270  E.T.R.  113  Ibid.,  a t p.  273  E.T.R.  jurisdiction,  coming  into  being  as after  provided it  by  reaches  the  conclusion  vision ing  the t e s t a t o r  f o r the proper  spouse  tion  that  h a s n o t made  m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t "  or c h i l d r e n ,  precedent  106 -  such  to the court  negative making  "adequate  for his surviv-  finding  an award  pro-  being  a  i n favour  condio f the  applicant.  E s s o n J.A. f u r t h e r tion  could  have  make p r o v i s i o n s ing  as r e q u i r i n g  visions  interpreted  basis  the language of the sec-  as  lifetime.  requiring  I t could  the a p p l i c a n t  Esson  whether  which e x i s t e d  also  have  i n the W i l l .  J.A. s t a t e s ,  for deciding  the court  been  t o d e m o n s t r a t e need  i n excess of those contained  interpreted,  tive  that  r e l a t i v e to the o b l i g a t i o n s  the t e s t a t o r ' s  preted  so  been  comments  "there  an  to dur-  inter-  f o r pro-  Had i t been  would  be an  objec-  able-bodied  child  could  II 114 recover. - - * ,,  L  L  However, trary, concept  a  long of  condition "need opinion almost  i t has line  "moral  been  whether entirely  individual  of binding duty"  precedent  having  n o t been  interpreted.  decisions  to children,  to the c l a i m . excluded  adequate subjective;  as  have  and  Esson an  provision i t must  I b i d . , a t p . 274 E.T.R.  that  has be  On  the  enunciated need  been  based  element, made largely  things."  conthe  i s not a  J.A. c o n c l u d e s  essential  Judge's sense o f the f i t n e s s o f  114 I b i d . , a t p . 274 E.T.R. 115  so  1 1 5  must  that the be  on t h e  - 107 In Esson  a  comment,  J.A.  -  reminiscent of  that  of O'Halloran  J.A.,  concluded:  T h a t s e n s e may v a r y w i d e l y from p e r s o n t o p e r s o n , d e p e n d i n g upon s u c h t h i n g s as r e l i g i o u s and c u l t u r a l background, family history and attitudes, and personal experiences.117  He of  concludes  the  tion  to  less  of  whether  further  judiciary,  i s that  provide,  (in their  age. most  He  the  direct  that  with  be  own  view of those  succeed.  words  found  Esson  that  view".  from  "It  is  are  "there  i s no  expressed will,  result  of  a p p r o p r i a t e i n any  concluded  infra  cases,  totally way  See  a t p.  117  Ibid.,  a t p.  274  E.T.R.  118  Ibid.,  a t p.  274  E.T.R.  119  Ibid.,  a t pp.  274  and  120.  275  open of  regard-  to  question  1920  or  1983,  the p o p u l a r  view;  as  Esson  E.T.R.  well  as  i n h i s judgment i s with  o f any  some d e g r e e case  knowing given  of  i s uncer-  discretionary.  his dissenting  116  obliga-  1 1 8  child  However, t h e  presumably  children  Columbia  the  c a s e s as  remedies  t o be  J.A.  text,  for their  British  that  conclusion  because the  J.A.'s will  i n the  view,  have g e n e r a l l y some  Will,)  a c l a i m by a d i s i n h e r i t e d  certainty, tain  parents  prevailing  c o n t r a s t to h i s p e r c e p t i o n of  inevitable  J . A . ' s own  the  recognized  people,  w o u l d have a g r e e d  In  that  In  Esson  what p r o v i s i o n s case."  judgment  1 1 9  by  adopting  the  principle  duty  generally  not t o d i s i n h e r i t  one-fifth  moral  i s under  h i s c h i l d r e n and awarded  the m a j o r i t y  duty  tion.  the t e s t a t o r  a  moral  the P l a i n t i f f  of the e s t a t e .  Thus  on  the f a c t s  owed, i t h a v i n g  The d i s s e n t i n g  been d i s p l a c e d his  that  108 -  been  judge  and t h e r e f o r e  found  displaced  found  that  that  there  by t h e l o n g  the moral  the t e s t a t o r could  duty  was  no  separahad n o t  not d i s i n h e r i t  children.  The being  decision  utilized  is a  by  further  where  i s considered  be  the p r e v a i l i n g philosophy  necessity, ceivable  legislative estates  nor  testamentary  with  are inherent  that  the Act i s  heirship  an e n v i r o n m e n t  heirship  that  the j u d i c i a r y as a f o r c e d  in  forced  manifestation  the court  directions  and w i t h o u t  adequate i n any  could  freedom  adopt  on what  which,  statute.  It i s  out of incon-  such a stance without  portion  to  the understanding of  safeguards  such  statute  of their  disinherited children are entitled.  some  progenitors'  -  109 -  CHAPTER  5.  SURVIVAL OF RIGHT OF ACTION  The forced the  thesis heirship  treatment  after  are  the s t a t u t e  concept  than  i n t h e B.C.  the death  British an  that  claimants  The  (1)  that  as  into  claimant  all  appeal  "final"  to a  who  have  died  i s no c a s e i n  t h e commencement o f  i n favour  of  there  the estate  of  commencement o f an a c t i o n .  or  not the r i g h t  the death  of a claimant  of a c t i o n should  be  categories:  but d i e s  with-  the a c t i o n .  who  but before  The  there  who s u r v i v e s t h e t e s t a t o r  commencing  The c l a i m a n t  of claimants  deals with  t o whether  three d i s t i n c t  The c l a i m a n t  closer  one i s r e i n f o r c e d by  Although  awards  the Act survives  action  (3)  make  as  representatives of a claimant,  who have d i e d a f t e r  out  (2)  do  question  by  divided  courts  Columbia, as y e t , t h a t  cases  remedial  of the t e s t a t o r .  a c t i o n by t h e p e r s o n a l  given  a  i s treated  who  has d i e d a f t e r the h e a r i n g .  dies  procedures  judgment  he h a s commenced t h e  after are  the h e a r i n g exhausted,  i sdelivered.  but  before  i . e . before  As any  to the f i r s t  other  dealing  For be  of  this  point.  purposes  of this  combined  Appeal  category,  jurisdiction  with  110 -  as one.  with  there  i s no c a s e  dependents'  under  relief  legislation  1 2 0  analysis,  Although  c a t e g o r i e s (2) a n d (3) may  the B r i t i s h  c o n s i d e r e d i n v a r y i n g degrees  actions  i n Canada, o r  Columbia  Court o f  the question of s u r v i v a l  the A c t i n Barker  v.  Westminster  Trust  "191  Company, ity  the case  on t h e i s s u e  ratio  cannot  f o r two b a s i c  i s d i s c e r n a b l e from  editorial  note  1 2 2  be c o n s i d e r e d a s d e c i s i v e  of that  that  author-  reasons.  Firstly,  no  clear  decision.  To q u o t e  from t h e  report:  In result this judgment d e c i d e s n o t h i n g more t h a n t h a t t h e t r i a l Judge wrongly e x e r c i s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n in refusing the applicant maintenance out o f h i s wife's estate. On none o f t h e o t h e r i m p o r t a n t q u e s tions raised i s there a majority opinion.  120  I t c o u l d p r o b a b l y be s a f e t o assume f r o m t h e d i c t u m i n t h e various cases that i n j u r i s d i c t i o n s o t h e r than British Columbia, the Courts would not e n t e r t a i n an action commenced by t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f a d e c e a s e d c l a i m a n t . See f o r example Re McMaster ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 10 D.L.R. (2d) 436 a t p. 442, 21 W.W.R.(N.S.) 603 a t p . 609 ( A l t a S.C.) where Egbert J . , stated: " I a c c o r d i n g l y f i n d t h a t t h e widow's r i g h t t o r e l i e f and t o a p p l y f o r r e l i e f t e r m i n a t e d upon h e r d e a t h , and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e l i e f by h e r e x e c u t o r s is dismissed."; See a l s o : Wetzel v. N a t i o n a l Trust Company L t d . ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 4 D.L.R. (2d) 171, 18 W.W.R.(N.S.) 556 ( S a s k . C . A . ) , Re K e r b y E s t a t e , [1949] O.W.N. 187 ( C o . Ct. ) .  121  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 27.  122  Ibid.,  D.L.R. a t p . 514.  - I l l Secondly, it  the wording  o f t h e s t a t u t e i s no l o n g e r  t h e same a s  was when t h e i s s u e was c o n s i d e r e d by t h e C o u r t .  As sidered  t o the wording the then  o f the s t a t u t e ,  S e c t i o n 13 w h i c h  O'Halloran  J.A.  con-  read:  The a p p l i c a t i o n may be made by a n e x e c u t o r o n b e h a l f o f a n y p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o a p p l y o r by any g u a r d i a n o r next f r i e n d o f an i n f a n t .  He d e c i d e d executor"  that the phrase o f the t e s t a t o r  "an e x e c u t o r "  d i d not r e f e r  but that o f the c l a i m a n t .  t o "the  1 2 3  t  M c D o n a l d J.A., o n t h e o t h e r 13  as contemplating  person. the  or children,  children of  (or) applying  the s e c t i o n  on b e h a l f  t h e A c t might  bring  the matter  the executor  well  t o a head  wish  the executor o f  o f her husband ( h i s  o f t h e husband  His rationale  was t h a t  under  of  contemplated  not the executor  applying. "  Section  a p p l y i n g on b e h a l f o f a l i v i n g  In h i s view, t h e s e c t i o n  testatrix  wife)  an e x e c u t o r  hand, would have r e a d  for this  interpretation  anticipating  to originate  (wife) o r  them  proceedings himself t o  and a c c e l e r a t e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  the e s t a t e .  123  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t pp. 519 a n d 479, B.C.R. a t p . 30.  520, W.W.R. a t p p . 478  and  124  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t p . 535, W.W;R. a t pp. 495 a n d 496, B.C.R. a t pp. 47 and 48.  - 112 The  diverging  no l o n g e r  tion  interpretations  of relevance  as S e c t i o n  Nevertheless  the case  of survival  o f an a c t i o n  discussed was,  given  despite  Judgment  simply,  whether  the death  were handed  Act d i d survive  representatives  continue  the a c t i o n  hand, d i s a g r e e d  not  contemplate  the  applicant.  O'Halloran the  He f u r t h e r  of the Court on  on  of  that  1 2 5  the ques-  extensively  of Appeal.  before  The  should  be  Reasons f o r  the r i g h t of a c t i o n given  of the a p p l i c a n t ,  the applicant  h i s behalf.  with  this  J.A. s t a t e d  stated  since  the appeal  v i e w and h e l d  "In t h i s  so t h a t  were  Macdonald  t h e s u r v i v a l o f an a c t i o n  r i g h t vested  repealed.  t h e A c t was  the claimant  the death  personal  other  relevant  the s e c t i o n are  down.  O ' H a l l o r a n J.A. d e c i d e d the  under  judgment  of  on  13 has been  i s highly  by two o f t h e j u d g e s  issue  placed  entitled  the to  J.A., on t h e  that  after  by  the Act d i d the death of  c a s e . . . i t must  be  held  on t h e d e a t h o f t h e t e s t a t r i x " . 1 2 6  that:  [T]he statute itself plainly indicates, and a s a p p l i e d i n Walker v . M c D e r m o t t . . . t h e p r o v i s i o n i n a  125  S.B.C. 1971, c . 64, s . 4.  126  Supra, footnote 27, D.L.R. B.C.R. a t p . 29.  a t p.  518, W.W.R. a t p . 477,  -  113 -  p r o p e r case...may e x t e n d e s t a t e . . . . 127  On at  the b a s i s o f such  least  chose  i n h i s view,  i n action,  sentative if  having  enforceable claimant. survived  a property  right,  by t h e p e r s o n a l  died  a  repre-  I t was e n f o r c e a b l e  the t e s t a t o r ,  that  even  before  the a c t i o n .  McDonald  J.A.  disagreed  interpretation  fundamentally  o f the o b j e c t s  view the A c t d i d not c r e a t e a v e s t e d share  i n the  i t must be c o n c l u d e d ,  the A c t provided  o f the deceased  commencing  J.A.'s  statements  and thus  the claimant,  t o an e q u i t a b l e share  o f the deceased's  estate.  with  O'Halloran  o f the s t a t u t e . right  In h i s  i n a dependent  In h i s dissenting  to a  judgment,  McDonald J . A . s t a t e d :  The C o u r t i s t o be g o v e r n e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s needs and m o r a l c l a i m s a n d n o t by a n y t h i n g r e s e m b l i n g l e g a l rights. So, c l e a r l y i t s powers u n d e r t h e A c t a r e no o r d i n a r y j u d i c i a l powers. The q u e s t i o n s naturally arise: How c a n t h e C o u r t be a s k e d t o meet t h e needs o f a p e r s o n who no l o n g e r needs a n y t h i n g ? How c a n the Court properly provide f o r maintenance of a p e r s o n who c a n no l o n g e r be m a i n t a i n e d ? 1 2 8  Concluding belonged  that  solely  the right  t o invoke  the court's  jurisdiction  t o t h e d e p e n d e n t and s i n c e he was no l o n g e r  127  I b i d . , D.L.R. 31.  a t p . 520, W.W.R. a t p . 479, B.C.R. a t  p.  128  I b i d . , D.L.R. 48.  a t p . 536, W.W.R. a t p . 496, B.C.R. a t  p.  alive,  he s t a t e d  award under  there  could  be no b a s i s  for obtaining  an  the A c t .  O'Halloran the  that  114 -  J.A. a l s o  found  language of the s t a t u t e  vided  that  wife,  husband  vided  that:  support  itself.  the a p p l i c a t i o n could or c h i l d r e n  f o r h i s reasoning  Section  be made  in  3 of the Act pro-  "by o r on b e h a l f o f "  of the t e s t a t o r .  Section  13  pro-  The a p p l i c a t i o n may be made by an e x e c u t o r on b e h a l f o f any p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o a p p l y o r by any g u a r d i a n o r n e x t f r i e n d o f an i n f a n t .  In  O'Halloran  statute die  itself  before  event, claim  provision  these  the p o s s i b i l i t y  established was  sections  made  indicated  that  h i s claim  a claimant  and  f o r h i s executor  that the  that,  in  might that  to continue the  on h i s b e h a l f .  tation  129  view  envisaged  having  McDonald  right  J.A.'s  J.A. d i s a g r e e d  of Sections  with  O'Halloran  3 and 13, h o l d i n g  of a c t i o n being  brought  that  on b e h a l f  J.A.'s  interpre-  they contemplated  of a l i v i n g  person.  a 1 2 9  M c D o n a l d J . A . ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 13: (D.L.R. a t p. 535, W.W.R. a t p . 496, B.C.R. a t pp. 47 and 48.) "I have no doubt t h a t s. 13 c o n t e m p l a t e s t h e e x e c u t o r o f t h e t e s t a t r i x a p p l y i n g on b e h a l f o f h e r h u s b a n d o r c h i l d r e n , n o t t h e e x e c u t o r o f t h e husband o r c h i l d r e n applying. T h i s i s c o n f i r m e d by t h e w o r d i n g o f s . 3, which c l e a r l y contemplates a l i v i n g person's a p p l y i n g (by h i m s e l f o r t h r o u g h a n o t h e r ) . " is plausible. However, i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o f o r m a c o n c l u d e d o p i n i o n on t h i s p o i n t s i n c e O ' H a l l o r a n J.A., d i d not r e s t h i s d e c i s i o n e x c l u s i v e l y on t h i s p o i n t a n d t h e S e c t i o n was r e p e a l e d i n 1971, (S.B.C. c . 6 4 , s . 4 . ) .  The  result  metrically the  opposed  statute.  vested  ever,  the right  on  any v e s t e d  on  the part  tation  made r e a s o n a b l e  and s u c h  the death  representative.  discretion  of action  o f a dependent  having  in his Will,  i t survives  personal  i s t o produce  as t o the r i g h t  on t h e p a r t  dies without  dependents that  views  therefore,  two d i a g i v e n by  I n t h e v i e w o f O ' H a l l o r a n J.A. t h e A c t c r e a t e s a  right  testator  o f Barker,  115 -  right  t h e moment a  p r o v i s i o n f o r the  i s the nature  o f t h e dependent In t h e view  t o make a c l a i m  from  under  of this  and p a s s e s  o f McDonald  i n h i s favour  that  a court  will  i f he makes a c l a i m .  can, o f i t s nature,  only  to h i s  J.A., how-  t h e A c t does n o t depend  but r e s t s i n s t e a d on a s o r t o f  o f t h e dependent  right  expectation  exercise i t s  Such a n e x p e c -  be a v a i l a b l e t o a l i v i n g  de-  pendent.  The  next  o f a n award of  British  Columbia  case d e a l i n g  f o r a d e c e a s e d a p p l i c a n t , who d i e d  t h e t e s t a t o r and a f t e r f i l i n g  hearing, ruling  with  i s Re C a l l a d i n e E s t a t e  o f O'Halloran  1 3 0  the p e t i t i o n ,  the question  a f t e r the death but b e f o r e the  where W i l s o n J . a d o p t e d t h e  J.A. i n B a r k e r  v. Westminster  T r u s t Co.  [1941] 3 W.W.R. 473, a t 482:  The c o u r t s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r t h e m e r i t s o f t h e a p p e a l a s t h e y e x i s t e d when t h e h u s b a n d was a l i v e . . . . the r i g h t s o f t h ep a r t i e s i n t e r s e s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a s t h e y e x i s t e d a t t h e commencement o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n : Vide In re Keystone K n i t t i n g M i l l s Trade  130  (1958), 25 (5«C*S«C*)•  W.W.R.  (N.S.)  175 a t p p . 176 a n d  177  - 116 Mark [1929] 1 Ch 92, 97 L J Ch 316. The c o u r t i n coming t o i t s c o n c l u s i o n s s h o u l d be g o v e r n e d b y t h e circumstances a s t h e y e x i s t e d when t h e s t a t u t e was invoked.  Wilson  J . concluded  deceased  claimant  claimant  i f living,  of  Hilton  next,  thus  of  the  t o what  he w o u l d  have g i v e n t h e  transferring  one-half  o f the c a p i t a l  and l a s t ,  the appeal,  visions  case  on t h e s u b j e c t  where one o f t h e c l a i m a n t s  1 3 1  before  and an o r d e r  i s Brauer v.  died after  the t r i a l , but  was made p u r s u a n t  o f S e c t i o n 11 o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A c t ,  1 3 2  widow t o a c t a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f h i s e s t a t e  poses  o f the appeal.  without  reference  argument the  a sum e q u a l  t o t h e executor  the e s t a t e t o the e s t a t e of the deceased a p p l i c a n t .  The  his  by a w a r d i n g  J.A., w i t h o u t  t o any j u r i s p r u d e n c e ,  by c o u n s e l ,  claimants,  Hinkson  as t o the q u e s t i o n  made  a n award  t o the proappointing  f o r the pur-  h e s i t a t i o n and  and w i t h  no a p p a r e n t  of the entitlement o f  t o the estate  o f the deceased  applicant.  When share inherit  statements  o f the estate ...";  1 3 4  such .";  1 3 3  as: "should  receive  "responsibility  ... n o t t o d i s -  "would a j u d i c i o u s f a t h e r have  131  Supra,  132  R.S.B.C. 1960, c .  133  Supra,  134  S u p r a , f o o t n o t e 27, D.L.R. B.C.R. a t p . 36.  an e q u i t a b l e  disinherited  f o o t n o t e 83.  footnote  3.  55, D.L.R. a t p . 296, W.W.R. a t p. 393. a t p . 525, W.W.R. a t p .  484,  -  117 -  •joe his  only  daughter?"- --  the  awards made t o d e c e a s e d  1  expressed stances  by W i l s o n  t o be t a k e n  reasonably ..." right)  of  would  purpose  dependents  t h e cases  the i m p l i c a t i o n o f  and t h e p r e s e n t  i n Re B o w e  1 3 6  "that  c o n s i d e r a t i o n are those  a t the date  presumably  the i n e v i t a b l e  articulated assure  into  with  claimants  C.J.C.A.  foreseeable  (which  a r e combined  33  give  conclusion  o f proper  i s t o assure  the circume x i s t i n g and  o f the t e s t a t r i x ' s the applicant  i s that,  of thestatute  view as  that  maintenance, claimants  a  regardless  death vested of  the  i t i s intended t o 1 3 7  a  the a c t u a l fair  share  result of  the  estate. It  c a n be s a i d ,  therefore, that:  In B r i t i s h Columbia, testamentary f r e e d o m h a s been eroded t o a c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r extent than i n o t h e r p r o v i n c e s b e c a u s e i t s C o u r t s have t o o f r e e l y exerc i s e d a wide d i s c r e t i o n w h i c h , i t i s s u b m i t t e d , i s not t o be f o u n d w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t e . The B.C. C o u r t s have n o t s i m p l y l i m i t e d t e s t a m e n t a r y f r e e d o m i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e m a i n t e n a n c e w h i c h i s c l e a r l y mandated by the s t a t u t e but a l s o t o p r o v i d e a f a i r distribution of the estate which i s n o t mandated by t h e statute.138  135  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 70 a t p . 140.  136  ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 19 D.L.R. (3d) 338 a t p . 341, [1971] 4 W.W.R. a t p . 237 ( B . C . S . C . ) .  137  S e e : Dun v . Dun, [1959] A.C. 272 a t p . 290; D i l l o n v . P u b l i c T r u s t e e o f New Z e a l a n d , [1941] A.C. 294 a t p p . 303 and 304, [1941] 2 A l l E.R. 284 a t p . 289, [1941] 3 W.W.R. 865 a t p. 871, r e v e r s i n g (1939), N.Z.L.R. 550 w h i c h reversed ( 1 9 3 8 ) , N.Z.L.R. 693 (P.C.) p e r V i s c o u n t Simon L.C.; Walker v . McDermott, ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 42 B.C.R. 184 a t p p . 198 a n d 199, [1930] 1 D.L.R. 945 a t p . 958, [1930] 1 W.W.R. 332 a t p p . 344 a n d 345 (B.C.C.A.) p e r M a c d o n a l d J.A. r e v e r s e d by [1931] S.C.R. 94, [1931] 1 D.L.R. 662.  138  G. B a l e , "Duty Owed t o A b l e b o d i e d A d u l t C h i l d r e n Under T e s t a t o r s ' F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e L e g i s l a t i o n and t h e Need t o A d o p t a n O b j e c t i v e A p p r o a c h " , ( 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 ) , 14 E.T.R. 35 a t p. 42.  234  -  118 -  CHAPTER  6.  GUIDELINES FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION The cases So  origin  leave  o f t h e A c t was  no d o u b t  that  long as the r e m e d i a l  workable court  and t h e e a r l y  the courts  concept cases,  had j u r i s d i c t i o n ,  cant without  clearly  disturbing  remedial  and t h e e a r l y  so i n t e r p r e t e d  the A c t .  i s followed, the Act i s q u i t e  once h a v i n g  determined  that the  d i d p r o v i d e maintenance f o r the a p p l i the concept  of testamentary  freedom.  A c o n t e m p o r a r y example o f a most n o v e l , y e t t o t a l l y tical the  and  realistic,  remedial  he  then  to  approach,  that  i n Bates  he o r d e r e d  provide  remedy  philosophy  was)  evidence,  guide  income  the judge  post  was  that  v. Bates  that  i n making used  by L a n d e r  et a l .  1  decision  3  t o the deceased's  widow.  t r e a t e d the A c t as remedial  of A p p e a l  1 4 0  although  d i d n o t s e e f i t t o comment  ing  t h e award.  139  (1981),  140  B a t e s v . B a t e s and Froom 310 ( B . C . C . A . ) .  9 E.T.R. 235  based  on  L.J.S.C. (as  Using  9  a sum be s e t a s i d e  f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e widow.  the Court  an award  prac-  from In  actuarial the e s t a t e using  this  and p r o v i d e d a  I t i s unfortunate  upholding  Judge  Lander's  upon h i s method o f r e a c h -  (B.C.S.C). [1982]  4 W.W.R. 193, 11 E.T.R.  - 119 As case The  f a r a s c a n be d e t e r m i n e d ,  that  has used  concept  assessment", of  the  J.A., to  i s clearly  as  i t avoids  "intuitive  on t h e " d i s c r e t i o n  the s t a t u t e  philosophy.  estate,  either  serve  t o augment  as  c o u r t s have s t r u g g l e d  problem  i t .  Without  must  have  recognized  however,  this  "forced  identified was made  articulating that  v. Bates  the  heirship  i s not and t h e  or standard.  Macdonald  by O ' H a l l o r a n  were  Act  statute"  a guideline  by  the courts  a l r e a d y made o r t o  point,  the t h e s i s  i f he  when  an " e q u i t a b l e s h a r e " o f  a provision  to identify  was  with  At a  a n d an a t t e m p t  "Bates  1 4 3  of allocating  disinheritance. to  described  are encountered,  the  1 4 4  t h e award.  I t would go a l o n g way t o w a r d s r e s t o r i n g  the A c t f o r purposes  This  to quantify  of relying  graphically  use  equipped  as  reported  O'Halloran  Difficulties  Lewis  desirable  i s the only  by  i t s original  prevent  evidence  and t h e dangers  1 4 1  Judge"  1 4 2  actuarial  this  J.A.  i n Re  J.A. t o d e a l  O'Halloran  J.A.  1 4 5  t o use t h e A c t as a  141  G. B a l e , p. 237.  142  S u p r a , f o o t n o t e 27, D.L.R. B.C.R. a t p . 45.  143  A l t h o u g h t h e m e t h o d o l o g y u s e d by L a n d e r L . J . S . C . i s n o v e l and more scientific the concept and r e s u l t were no d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h o s e u s e d by t h e e a r l y B.C. c a s e s d e c i d e d i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e enactment o f t h e A c t . (See t e x t , s u p r a , a t pp. 3 t o 10.)  144  See i n f r a ,  145  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 195.  f o o t n o t e 27.  e t a l . " Op. c i t . , a t p.  f o o t n o t e 139 a t  533, W.W.R. a t p . 493,  vehicle find  to prevent  d i s i n h e r i t a n c e , i t was e s s e n t i a l  g u i d e l i n e s o r norms  itself.  120 -  In g r a s p i n g  which  were  f o r standards  f o r him t o  not o u t l i n e d i n the Act  he s t a t e d t h a t :  What i s t h e s t a n d a r d o r t h e y a r d s t i c k by w h i c h t h e Court s h a l l determine i f a p r o v i s i o n i s adequate, j u s t and e q u i t a b l e ? The words o f t h e s t a t u t e ' i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e J u d g e b e f o r e whom t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s made' s h o u l d n o t be r e a d t o o l i t e r a l l y , f o r t h e n we would r e v e r t t o t h e t i m e when E q u i t y was i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e l e n g t h o f t h e ' C h a n c e l l o r ' s f o o t ' and o f w h i c h L o r d Camden was p r o m p t e d t o w r i t e : 'The discretion o f t h e Judge i s t h e law o f t y r a n t s ; i t i s a l w a y s unknown; i t i s d i f f e r e n t i n d i f f e r e n t men; i t i s c a s u a l and depends upon c o n s t i t u t i o n temper and p a s s i o n . In the best i t i s o f t e n times c a p r i c e ; i n the worst i t i s every v i c e folly and p a s s i o n t o w h i c h human n a t u r e i s l i a b l e . ' However, t h e r e i s a s t a n d a r d f o r t h e g u i d a n c e o f the Judge. I t i s t h e s t a n d a r d s e t up b y law f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n t e s t a t e estates.146  He  concluded  stration for  that  A c t ... p r o v i d e  determining  made..."  a convenient  whether  adequate  o f the  and r e c o g n i z e d provision  Administandard  has  been  1 4 7  During O'Halloran Courts  the"intestacy provisions  the next  forty  J.A. ( s u p r a )  of B r i t i s h  years,  the p r i n c i p l e  was t r e a t e d w i t h  p r o p o u n d e d by  indifference  C o l u m b i a , and was n e i t h e r  by t h e  enthusiastically  146  I b i d . , D.L.R. 45.  a t p . 533, W.W.R. a t p . 493, B.C.R.  at  p.  147  I b i d . , D.L.R. 46.  a t p . 534, W.W.R. a t p . 494, B.C.R.  at  p.  adopted  nor  reference the  violently  to i t .  argument  1  4  -  rejected, I n 1982,  9  that  121  the  proper  although  1 4 8  however, standard  a few  Seaton  J.A.  t o apply  would have r e c e i v e d  i n a n i n t e s t a c y under  stration  Act  "that  Wills  Variation  lative  In applied  will,  the  Act  ..."  the  i ssufficient  test  rejected the  the  Admini-  down  i n the  o f the  legis-  laid  expression  made  was what  claimant  and concluded  cases  1 5 0  ongoing  search  for a reasonable  i n a n a p p l i c a t i o n under  the  Act,  standard  Taylor  J.  t o be introduced  148  Re W i l l a n , [1951] 4 W.W.R. 114 a t p . 132 ( A l t a . S . C . ) , Egbert, J . stated "[W]ith a l l respect, I think there i s nothing i n the s t a t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia which j u s t i f i e s s u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b e i n g p l a c e d upon i t . . . " .  149  I n Re D u p a u l ( 1 9 4 1 ) , [1941] 4 D.L.R. 246 a t p . 247, 56 B.C.R. 532 a t p p . 534 a n d 535 ( C A . ) O'Halloran J.A. commented: "The combined sum so n e a r l y a p p r o x i m a t e s t h e s h a r e o f the e s t a t e t h e h u s b a n d would have r e c e i v e d i f the wife had d i e d intestate (vide s . 112(2) o f the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A c t , R.S.B.C. 1936, c . 5 ) , i t i s not difficult to believe, that i n his search for a standard o f p u b l i c p o l i c y to guide h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n the d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n he h a d t o make, t h e learned Judge turned to the intestacy provision as a g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d i n d i c a t i o n o f what was 'adequate j u s t and e q u i t a b l e i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' " I n Re J o n e s E s t a t e ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 30 W.W.R. (N.S.) 498 ( B . C . S . C ) R u t t a n J . o b s e r v e d a t pp. 507 and 508 that: "there i s some a u t h o r i t y i n t h i s p r o v i n c e for the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i s r e s t r i c t e d by t h e same r u l e w h i c h g o v e r n s t h e a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f e s t a t e s t o widows and c h i l d r e n upon i n t e s t a c i e s u n d e r the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f E s t a t e s A c t , R.S.B.C. 1948, ch. 6. " However, i t was not a r u l e t h a t must be r i g i d l y followed a l t h o u g h i t m e r i t e d t h e most c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  150  Supra, footnote  140,  W.W.R. a t p.  196,  E.T.R. a t  p.  314.  a  reasonable,  that  although  of O'Halloran  intestate  l  j  l  s h o r t - l i v e d concept  J.A. when he [ O ' H a l l o r a n  succession  Person e t a l .  122 -  provision  Taylor  not d i s s i m i l a r  to  J.A.] a d o p t e d t h e  as a s t a n d a r d .  In R i c h a r d s  J . commenced h i s judgment  v.  by s t a t i n g :  T h i s a c t i o n . . . r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n whether a s u r v i v i n g spouse can today r e a s o n a b l y be h e l d e n t i t l e d t o l e s s u n d e r t h e W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 453, t h a n w o u l d have been awarded under t h e F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c . 121, on a s e p a r a t i o n during their l i v e s .  He c o n c l u d e d :  [T]hat where ... t h e c o u r t i s vested with broad d i s c r e t i o n and r e q u i r e d t o do t h a t w h i c h a p p e a r s j u s t it o u g h t a l w a y s t o seek g u i d a n c e by r e f e r e n c e t o c o n t e m p o r a r y c u s t o m , and p a r t i c u l a r l y t o t h o s e r u l e s which t h e community has adopted as p a r t of the s t a t u t e law. Where t h e community h a s d e c l a r e d that spouses should, prima f a c i e , share c e r t a i n assets e q u a l l y on a d i v o r c e o r v o l u n t a r y s e p a r a t i o n , t h a t i s something which a c o u r t can h a r d l y ignore i n d e c i d i n g what a l l o c a t i o n o f s u c h a s s e t s w o u l d be ' a d e q u a t e , j u s t and e q u i t a b l e ' upon d e a t h . 1 5 2  Given have  that been  Act.  conclusion, applied  he  in a  applied, claim  the standard  under  the  1 5 3  151  [1982] 2 W.W.R. 668 a t p . 669  152  I b i d . , a t p. 671.  153  R.S.B.C. 1979, c . 121.  (B.C.S.C).  Family  that  would  Relations  An  appeal  although ciple  was t a k e n  from  Taylor  J.'s d e c i s i o n  and  1 5 4  t h e quantum o f t h e award was n o t d i s t u r b e d , t h e p r i n -  ofreferring  totally  123 -  t o the Family  rejected.  R e l a t i o n s A c t a s a g u i d e was  C a r r o t h e r s J.A. s t a t e d  i n h i s judgment:  I a p p r e c i a t e t h e t e m p t a t i o n t o a d o p t t h i s ... [ t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s A c t ] ... a s a measure o f community s t a n d a r d when d e t e r m i n i n g 'adequate provision' under the Wills Variation Act. However, t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and e q u i t a b l e f o r c e s o p e r a t i n g on a d i v i s i o n o f a s s e t s f o l l o w i n g an i n t e r vivos marriage breakdown a r e v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t from and i r r e l e v a n t t o t h o s e w h i c h come i n t o p l a y upon t h e death o f a spouse, and a r e , w i t h r e s p e c t , improper c o n s i d e r a t i o n s under t h e W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t . 1 5 5  Hinkson  J.A. a g r e e d  with  the d i s p o s i t i o n  indicated  by C a r r o t h e r s J.A..  rejection  i n Bates  the  theory  forth  v. B a t e s  o f the Family  by T a y l o r J . ,  The sions either  combined  i s that  1  5  7  He a l s o  1 5 6  adopted  o f counsel's  Seaton  J.A.'s  submission  Relations Act as a guide,  that  as put  s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d .  result  o f these  i t i s n o t proper  two C o u r t  A c t i n making  an award  o f Appeal  f o r the c o u r t  the p r o v i s i o n s o f i n t e s t a t e  Relations  of the appeal as  succession  deci-  t o consider  or the Family  i n an a p p l i c a t i o n  under t h e  154  146 D.L.R. (3d) 565, [1984] 1 W.W.R. B.C.L.R. 43, 15 E.T.R. 193 ( C . A . ) .  573, ( 1 9 8 4 ) ,  155  Ibid.,D.L.R. a t p p . 567 a n d 568, W.W.R. B.C.L.R. a t p . 45, E.T.R. a t pp. 195 and 196.  156  See s u p r a ,  157  S u p r a , f o o t n o t e 154, D.L.R. a t p . 568, W.W.R. a t pp. 575 and 576, B.C.L.R. a t pp. 45 and 46, E.T.R. a t p . 196.  a t p.  49 575,  f o o t n o t e 150.  - 124 Act,  forcing  t h e c o u r t s t o be i n c r e a s i n g l y  subjective  i n their  awards.  A scope lack  treatment of t h i s  equal  i s , i n general  Taylor  of marital  J.  there  is in British  an  feel  i t could  property,  by d e a t h  attempted  endorse  the  Columbia  obligation  event  a  b e f o r e and  such  which  triggers  i t i s logical  s h o u l d be an e q u a l  to bring  t h e F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s A c t and t h e A c t . not  A c t i s beyond  breakdown d u r i n g t h e t e s t a t o r ' s  terms,  breakdown c a u s e d  event.  Relations  the t e s t a t o r ' s  I f marriage  distribution  marriage  however,  between  h i s death.  lifetime  the Family  paper;  o f symmetry  after  ing  of  the  that  a  trigger-  some harmony  between  The C o u r t o f A p p e a l d i d  concept  and i n f a c t  rejected  it.  In of  this  Ontario  context,  by  i t s newly  makes p r o v i s i o n spouses  that  during their  is  t o be s h a r e d  is  extended  spouse. the  158  enacted  o f note  Family  that  Law  If a  the p r o v i n c e  Act  1  5  8  generally  the value of a l l p r o p e r t y accumulated marriage,  equally  when  including  the matrimonial  the marriage  ends.  to the termination of marriage  net f a m i l y  spouse  i t i s worthy  deceased property  would be e n t i t l e d  spouse's  property  then  the  home,  concept  by t h e d e a t h  net f a m i l y  of the s u r v i v o r ,  The  by  of a  exceeds  surviving  t o one-half the d i f f e r e n c e .  S.O. 1986, c . 4 , w h i c h r e c e i v e d R o y a l A s s e n t on 1 7 t h , 1986, and p r o c l a i m e d i n f o r c e on March 1 s t ,  January 1986.  CHAPTER 7. ASSETS SUBJECT TO THE ACT AND THE AVOIDANCE OF ITS APPLICATION The  p r o v i s i o n s o f the A c t can only  which  devolve  tive.  Those  estate,  and t h e r e f o r e  presentative,  This  assets  t h e deceased's which outside  devolve  t o those  personal  outside  assets  representa-  t h e deceased's  the c o n t r o l o f the personal r e -  a r e immune f r o m p o s s i b l e c h a r g e by t h e A c t .  principle  Supreme C o u r t J.  through  apply  was c l e a r l y  identified  i n Dower v . P u b l i c T r u s t e e  i n h i s judgment  by t h e A l b e r t a  et a l .  1  5  9  where  Riley  stated:  No p a r t o f any p r o p e r t y w i t h w h i c h he h a s p a r t e d d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e c a n be a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h e c o u r t under The F a m i l y R e l i e f A c t a n d t h e s t a t u t e d o e s n o t regulate or refer t o d i s p o s i t i o n s made d u r i n g t h e deceased's l i f e - t i m e . The c o u r t , t h e r e f o r e , h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t a d e p e n d e n t a s h a r e o f any p r o p e r t y w h i c h was n o t owned by t h e d e c e a s e d a t t h e d a t e of h i s death and i s not comprised i n h i s e s t a t e . G i f t s made i n t e r v i v o s w i t h a n i n t e n t t o r e d u c e t h e s i z e o f a man's e s t a t e do n o t h i n d e r , d e l a y o r d e f e a t his dependents' claims under the statute as the statute does not authorize any i n t e r f e r e n c e with i n t e r vivos d i s p o s i t i o n s of h i s property.160  He t h e n  159  concluded  (1962),  160 I b i d ,  with  the f o l l o w i n g observation:  35 D.L.R. (2d) 29, 38 W.W.R. 129 ( A l t a .  D.L.R. a t p. 39, W.W.R. a t p. 141.  S.C.).  -  126 -  I t may w e l l be s o c i a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e t o a l l o w a h u s band t o d e l i b e r a t e l y i m p o v e r i s h h i m s e l f by d e n u d i n g himself of well nigh a l l h i s assets during h i s l i f e time, t o t h e p o i n t t h a t an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e l i e f under The F a m i l y R e l i e f A c t w o u l d be a b o r t i v e , and I quite concede that the s t a t e may well have an interest t o s e e i n g t h a t a husband c a r r i e s o u t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f h i s w i f e and h i s d e p e n d e n t s , b o t h d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e and f o l l o w i n g h i s d e a t h — a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e a v o i d a n c e o f p e n u r y , an i n t e r e s t i n a workable Family R e l i e f A c t . That, o f c o u r s e , i s a m a t t e r f o r t h e L e g i s l a t u r e and n o t f o r the Courts.161  The J.,  1  6  principle in  2  similar  the  goes  Supreme  legislation,  beyond Court  inter of  vivos  Canada  gifts.  when  Kellock  dealing  with  stated:  T h i s s e c t i o n would seem i n t h e c l e a r e s t t e r m s t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s o l e s o u r c e f r o m w h i c h any a l l o w a n c e granted under t h e A c t i s t o be s a t i s f i e d i s the a s s e t s t o which c r e d i t o r s a r e e n t i t l e d t o l o o k . The a s s e t s t o which c r e d i t o r s a r e e n t i t l e d t o look a r e the a s s e t s which t h e p e r s o n a l representative of a testator i s e n t i t l e d to administer. Instead o f cont a i n i n g any p r o v i s i o n t h a t a d e p e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a h i g h e r r i g h t than c r e d i t o r s , as i s here contended by t h e a p p e l l a n t , t h e s t a t u t e i s e x p r e s s i n p l a c i n g the dependant i n a l e s s f a v o u r a b l e p o s i t i o n . 1 6 3  A no  close  doubt  olate. lation  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the cases,  that  established  The c o u r t s  have  as a c o n t r o l over  limitation  on  property  considered testamentary  t h e freedom  of  161  Ibid,  162  I n Re 516.  Kerslake  163  Ibid.,  a t pp. 519 and 520.  i n this  concepts  area,  have  dependents'  leaves  been  relief  invilegis-  f r e e d o m and t h e r e f o r e "a  the i n d i v i d u a l  t o do  what  he  D.L.R. a t p . 40, W.W.R. a t p . 142. Estate;  Kerslake  v.  Gray,  [1957]  S.C.R.  likes  with h i s own."  courts "it  were  would  course  The  undesirable himself  their 1 6 8  used  a  that  i f the  o f the "estate" 1 6 5  which " o f  and n o t f o r  y e t appear with  the  be s o c i a l l y  to deliberately  o f ...  be a b o r t i v e t o make  t o have  established  " i t may w e l l  impoverish  h i s assets  during  an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e l i e f  A c t would inability  that  husband  himself  concluded  purpose  provisions  ...  allowances  property  f o r the s p e c i f i c  o f the remedial  lation.  as part  that  and n o t i n t e r p r e t i n g " ,  recognized  t o allow  Relief  interfere  tion  assets  for the Legislature  t o the point  lamented  being  have  by d e n u d i n g  lifetime  assets,  matter  have c o n c l u d e d  1 6 6  courts  Family  outside  be l e g i s l a t i n g ,  i s a  Courts".  The c o u r t s  1 6 4  toinclude  127 -  concepts  under t h e They  1 , 1 6 7  his  have  out o f excluded  that  they  even  o f avoiding  o f dependents'  cannot  i f they a r e the a p p l i c a -  relief  legis-  1 6 9  164  In re Kensington (deceased), Kensington and another v. K e n s i n g t o n a n d o t h e r s , [1949] N.Z.L.R. 382 a t p . 397.  165  I b i d . , a t p . 398.  166  Supra, footnote  167  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t p . 40, W.W.R. a t p . 142.  168  Re Young E s t a t e ,  169  See I n r e P a u l i n [1950] V.L.R. 462 a t p . 464; Dower v . P u b l i c T r u s t e e s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 159 D.L.R. a t p . 40, W.W.R. a t p . 142; C o r l e t v . I s l e o f Man Bank L t d . , [1937] 3 D.L.R. 163 a t p. 166 ( A l t a . S.C. App. D i v . ) .  159, D.L.R. a t p . 40, W.W.R. a t p . 142.  [1955] O.W.N. 789.  The that  following  Joint  Theoretically dents'  relief  of asset  tenure  o f dependents'  Tenancies  a person  may a v o i d by  the t e s t a t o r  therefore  ensures  i s unable  relief  There  provisions legislation  t r a n s f e r r i n g property  into h i s  name  that  i n joint  tenancy.  the property  t o be c h a r g e d  with  By s o  so t r a n s f e r r e d  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and  an o r d e r  under  depen-  legislation.  I n Re  Dependents'  o f depen-  to the personal  seems t o be o n l y  subject.  the p r o v i s i o n s  beneficiary's  does n o t p a s s on h i s d e a t h  dents'  types  n e u t r a l i z e the p r o v i s i o n s  legislation  h i s selected  doing  common  legislation:  (i)  and  a r e t h e most  can e f f e c t i v e l y  relief  128 -  Maxwell  Relief  one d e c i s i v e c a s e Estate  A c t , R.S.S.  s i m i l a r t o those i n the country,  1 7 0  i n Canada on t h e  i n proceedings  under  The  1953, c h . 121, i n t e r p r e t i n g  common t o most d e p e n d e n t s ' the court  relief  concluded:  [ T ] h e h u s b a n d ' s one h a l f s h a r e o f t h e j o i n t p r o p e r t y shown a s p a r t o f h i s e s t a t e by t h e e x e c u t o r s was n o t i n law p a r t o f h i s e s t a t e a s t h e t e r m i s d e f i n e d i n s e c . 2 (1) o f t h e A c t : . . . I t seems c l e a r t h a t he no l o n g e r had power t o d i s p o s e o f h i s s h a r e o f t h e j o i n t p r o p e r t y by w i l l , so i t f o l l o w s t h a t i t i s n o t p a r t o f h i s e s t a t e f o r the purposes o f t h e Act.171  170  Re M a x w e l l E s t a t e  (1962),  171  I b i d . , a t pp. 24 and 25.  38 W.W.R. 23 ( S a s k . Q . B . ) .  Although it  may  be  visions  the  Gifts  both  relief  Inter  of  the courts  relief  In  the g i f t  attempt  found  that  the  to avoid  the p r o -  relief  jurispru-  legislation.  developments  the p r i n c i p l e  the court  Vivos  that  was  of dependents'  of A u s t r a l i a  c o u r t s had no power  sult  because  were n o t a d e l i b e r a t e  the e a r l y  dence, lated  i n scope  of dependents'  (ii)  In  the Maxwell E s t a t e i s the o n l y r e l e v a n t precedent  limited  circumstances  129 -  and  i f a valid gift to i n t e r f e r e  to avoid  New  Zealand  articu-  was made i n t e r  with  i t even  the p r o v i s i o n s of  vivos,  i f the r e dependents'  legislation.  re Richardson,  alienation  deceased  of assets the court  i n considering inter  1 7 2  vivos  stated:  I f a person d i s p o s e s o f h i s p r o p e r t y o t h e r w i s e than by w i l l , a l t h o u g h t h e r e s u l t may be t h a t t h e p e r s o n s mentioned a r e l e f t a t h i s death without adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r the purposes s e t out, t h i s Court cannot interfere with his disposition made during h i s life.173  The Thomson  Supreme C o u r t and  circumstances 172  adopted  v.  Zealand  Thomson,  the views  [1920] S.A.L.R. 24.  173 I b i d . , 174  another  o f New  a t p . 40.  [1933] N.Z.L.R. 59.  1 7 4  i n Re Thomson i n dealing  expressed  by  (deceased),  with  Poole  similar  J . i n the  Richardson  case  attempts  to  "The  then  Act  exercise  and  1 7 5  of  is  an  vivos  ex  testamentary  important  allegation  was  gift  made  dependents' was  no  ing  unanswered  to  note the  r e s u l t of  The inter a l .  1  7  most  vivos  certain  inter  impressed made  an  with  a plan  the  Alberta  Family  175  Supra,  footnote  176  Supra,  footnote  177  I b i d . , a t p.  63.  178  I b i d . , a t p.  62.  179  Supra,  footnote  not  7  no  way  and  6  that:  with  further  had  Thomson  completed of  court  the  inter-  of  statute.  dealing  was  the  of  Act.  172. a t p.  62.  vivos  the  v.  Public  made,  inter  void  avoiding Although  1 7 8  the  gift  with  grounds that  purpose  Relief  Dower  declared  that  what w o u l d  the  of  the  such a l l e g a t i o n ,  to avoid  that  case  an  inter  defeating  concluded  inter  gifts  159.  the  the  is  174  in  question  application  express  1  in  interference  that  w i t h a t r u s t , on the  life.",  purpose  The  decision  vivos  statute  does  that  i t to s a t i s f y  alienation  where  9  but  testator  pertinent  cogent  in  facto  express  have done i f i t were p r o v e n direct  post  statute.  evidence before the  "The  1 7 7  the  relief  that:  powers,  that  with  -  dispositions  fere with a l i e n a t i o n . "  It  held  regulate makes  130  the there leavcourt  was  as  a  question  of  Trustee  et  alia,  to  have  or  alternatively,  the  gifts  the the  had  been  provisions transfers  of  were  substantial rendering rejected effect  they  Riley  were made g r a t u i t o u s l y and had t h e e f f e c t o f  the estate the claim  of inter  J.,  131 -  virtually  and i n s o d o i n g  vivos  impecunious. considered,  The c o u r t i n d e t a i l , the  a l i e n a t i o n on t h e A c t .  stated:  I am o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t no a c t i o n l i e s under 13 E l i z . , c . 5 [ F r a u d u l e n t C o n v e y a n c e s A c t ] by a w i f e o r widow t o s e t a s i d e t r a n s f e r s o r g i f t s o f p r o p e r t y made b y h e r h u s b a n d d u r i n g his lifetime with an a l l e g e d i n t e n t t o defeat her c l a i m t o a " f a i r " o r " p r o p e r " s h a r e o f h i s e s t a t e under t h e F a m i l y R e l i e f A c t , R.S.A. 1955, c . 109. W h i l e t h e words ' C r e d i t o r s and others' i n 13 E l i z . , c . 5 s h o u l d be g i v e n a b r o a d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e y i n c l u d e o n l y s u c h p e r s o n s who have ' l e g a l o r equitable' claims against the grantor or s e t t l o r . In May o n F r a u d u l e n t a n d V o l u n t a r y D i s p o s i t i o n s o f P r o p e r t y , 3 r d e d . , i t i s s a i d , p . 102: 'The words ' c r e d i t o r s and o t h e r s ' a r e wide enough t o i n c l u d e any p e r s o n who h a s a l e g a l o r equitable right or claim against the grantor or s e t t l o r , by v i r t u e o f w h i c h he i s , o r may b e come, e n t i t l e d t o rank a s a c r e d i t o r o f t h e l a t t e r . ' 180  His  conclusion  therefore  was  that:  No p a r t o f any p r o p e r t y w i t h w h i c h he h a s p a r t e d d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e c a n be a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h e C o u r t under t h e F a m i l y R e l i e f A c t and t h e s t a t u t e d o e s n o t r e g u l a t e o r r e f e r t o d i s p o s i t i o n s made d u r i n g t h e deceased's l i f e t i m e . 1 8 1  180  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t pp. 33 and 34, W.W.R. a t p . 134.  181  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t p . 39, W.W.R. a t p. 141.  It  is  o f note  that  132 -  Riley  J . articulated  the  principle  that:  A t common law a w i f e had no r i g h t t o a s h a r e o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e a n d t h e r e was no l i m i t on a h u s band's power t o d i s p o s e o f h i s own p r o p e r t y b y g i f t or by w i l l . 1 8 2  He  then  v.  Isle  adopted  part  o f the reasoning  o f Man Bank L t d .  1 8 3  o f Ford  J.A. i n C o r l e t  which s t a t e d :  Counsel f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t makes t h e c o n c e s s i o n , i n the soundness o f which I agree, t h a t t h e s e t t l o r ' s i n t e n t i o n t o a v o i d , e s c a p e o r evade t h e payment o f s u c c e s s i o n duty i n A l b e r t a o r i n O n t a r i o and t o p r e v e n t r e c o u r s e b e i n g h a d by h i s widow t o t h e Widows R e l i e f A c t , R.S.A. 1922, c . 145, i s o f no s i g n i f i cance except a s a s s i s t i n g i n f i n d i n g whether o r n o t t h e t r u s t i n s t r u m e n t was o r was n o t o f a t e s t a m e n t a r y character.184  On  the basis of h i s a r t i c u l a t e d  Ford  J.A., R i l e y  although himself the  J . made t h e s t a t e m e n t  socially  undesirable  of h i s assets  during  i n the legislation  and t h e r e a s o n i n g o f  ofpublic policy  t o permit  a spouse  his lifetime  p r o t e c t i o n o f dependents'  nothing  principle  relief  that,  to divest  so as t o n e u t r a l i z e  legislation,  t o prevent  such  t h e r e was course  action.185  182  Ibid,  D.L.R. a t p . 34, W.W.R. a t p . 135.  183  [1937] 3 D.L.R. 163 ( A l t a .  184  Ibid.,  a t p . 166.  185  Supra,  footnote  S.C. App. D i v . ) .  159 D.L.R. a t p . 4 0 , W.W.R. a t p . 142.  of  Such  statement  deliberate  course  Supreme C o u r t the  answered  o f c o n d u c t , w h i c h was  that  plans  In  Inter Vivos  keeping  l e g i s l a t i o n would n o t  leads t o  words  o f t h e remedies  of  the  available  be s e t a s i d e b y  j u r i s d i c t i o n to grant  a share  o f any  by the  the  In  have t h e  relief  Re Emele  that  were  not  a t the  effect  Estate  1 8 6  passing  o f a s s e t s under  dependent's  death,  date  that  the  property  of his  w h i c h was  death,  removing a s s e t s  them f r o m b e i n g  court has  inter  from  the  charged  not  vivos estate  under  de-  legislation.  t o be c o n s i d e r e d  Similarly,  of  preventing  assets  allocation  her  deceased  testator,  held  the  with  Trusts  principle  pendents'  to  and  by the  general  settlements  of  of  u n a n s w e r e d by t h e  Thomson c a s e ,  prohibited  avoidance  relief  left  the  owned  of  the  of the effect  court.  (iii)  no  i n the  unless  for  under dependents' the  the question,  o f New Z e a l a n d  conclusion  statute,  133 -  relief  in Collier settled  186  [1941] 2 W.W.R.  187  (1967),  the  the  Saskatchewan King's  by v i r t u e part  o f an i n t e r  o f the  estate  the a p p r o p r i a t e  Bench  Court  vivos  trust  for purposes o f  remedial  provisions  legislation.  v . Yonkers  et a l .  1  8  7  a wife,  sum o f One H u n d r e d T h o u s a n d  566.  61 W.W.R. 761 ( A l t a .  S.C.  App.  Div.).  prior  Dollars  upon  a  corporate  life  and,  upon  children assets,  the  and  The  and  the  of  pay  to  the  trial  The  the  the  were  trust  to  her  upon  her  amongst  her  of  Appeal  The  of  fund  provisions  Court  judge h e l d  income  fund,  that  to  the  representation.  trust  subject  -  d i s t r i b u t e corpus  by  argued  legislation.  sions  to  death,  than  husband  estate  relief  her  134  grandchildren  other  value.  trustee  -  of  estate  insignificant formed  the  part  of  appropriate  upholding  the  deci-  that:  The t r u s t f u n d i s not p a r t o f t h e e s t a t e o f t h e w i f e and t h e c o u r t has no power under t h e A c t t o o r d e r t h a t p r o v i s i o n be made t h e r e o u t f o r t h e husband.188  IRQ In ated  re P a u l i n  trust  passed  to  "estate"  funds the  for  legislation. doubt  that  x o : 7  the  court  which,  deceased's purposes In  i t was  by  refused virtue  c h i l d r e n on  of  reaching excluding  the  to of  include the  his  trust  death  appropriate  trust  as  duly  the  cre-  provisions, part  dependents'  i t s conclusion, the  two  court  of  the  relief left  no  funds:  N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the p o s s i b i l i t i e s which t h i s interp r e t a t i o n o f t h e A c t i n v o l v e s f o r t h o s e who may seek by n o n - t e s t a m e n t a r y d i s p o s i t i o n s t o d e f e a t t h e c l a i m s o f a p a r t i c u l a r d e p e n d a n t or d e p e n d a n t s , i t seems t o me no o t h e r v i e w i s p o s s i b l e 1 9 0  188  I b i d . , a t p.  189  [1950] V.L.R.  190  I b i d . , a t p.  763. 462. 464.  (iv)  O t h e r A s s e t s E x c l u d e d From t h e P r o v i s i o n s of Dependents' R e l i e f L e g i s l a t i o n  The  general  Trustee fact,  testator's  to  estate;  and  1 9 2  may  tion the cate  Dower  v.  assets  Public  which, i n  independent  of the  beneficiary that  under  o r whether be  do  pension  such  really  insurance  not form funds  footnote  to avoid  would matter  void  policies  part  and  of the  annuities  o f dependent's r e -  by  the p r o v i s i o n s of any  o f such  transfer, socially the court,  inter  relief  legislation to extended  vivos  transfer  undesirable i s really  i s the p o t e n t i a l to avoid  of a claimant  on t h e e f f e c t  intent  the subject  attached  o f dependents' exposure  life  the p r o v i s i o n s  legislation  or impress  The i s s u e  that:  1 9 3  relief  be, c a n n o t  issue.  therefore,  or not a proven  dependents'  trust,  t o other  beneficiaries  similarly  legislation.  Whether  a  held  to a designated  transfer,  in  Will.  n o t be c h a r g e d  lief  enunciated  applicable  designated  h a s been  payable  could  principle  i s equally  1 9 1  pass  It  135 -  as i t  not the  the protec-  and a t t h e v e r y litigation  with  least,  to adjudi-  o f such t r a n s f e r .  191  Supra,  159.  192  Re D a l t o n & M a c D o n a l d , [1938] 2 D.L.R. 798 ( B . C . C . A . ) ; K e r s l a k e v . G r a y , [1957] S.C.R. 516 ; Re G i l b e r t E s t a t e , ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 51 W.W.R. 701 ( S a s k . Q.B.).  193  Re Young E s t a t e , [1955] O.W.N. 789 ( S u r . C t . ) ; Berezowsky v. B e r e z o w s k y (1975), 23 R.F.L. Q.B. ) .  26  (Sask.  Therefore, as  a remedial  otherwise  136  -  f o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s , i f the device,  i t does n o t  should achieve  s t a t u t e i s t o be  contain anti-avoidance i t s objective.  used  procedures  -  137 -  CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSION  The  courts  approached emphasis  in British  the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  by t h e t e s t a t o r  such  duty  is a  and, o f t e n ,  redistribution  that  The A c t s h o u l d  tation  so as t o a c h i e v e  pretation  which  the estate  and  t h e remedy  interpretation definite size  a fair  dangerous leaves  criteria  as  justified  both  t o when an award  inten-  interpre-  However, any  inter-  redistribution  by t h e w o r d i n g  testators  such  and l i b e r a l  uncertainties.  of the Act  In a d d i t i o n ,  and will  duty  of the e s t a t e .  reflects  i t s objectives.  Great  f o r a breach of  o f the c a p i t a l  receive  be  extent,  i s a moral  supports a concept o f e q u i t a b l e cannot  introduces  to a great  there  Act i s remedial, i t s genesis c l e a r l y  tions.  of  have,  of the Act s u b j e c t i v e l y .  i s p l a c e d on t h e c o n c e p t  owed  The  Columbia  such  claimants  without  be made  and t h e  o f any award.  O'Halloran identifiable Estate  1 9 5  J.A. r e c o g n i z e d  criteria.  observed  1 9 4  t h e need  Macdonald  for a definite J.A.  in  Re  and Lewis  that:  194  See t e x t ,  s u p r a , a t p . 120.  195  [1935] 2 D.L.R. 45 a t p . 47, [1935] 1 W.W.R. 747 a t p p . 748 a n d 749 ( C . A . ) , ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 49 B.C.R. 386 a t pp. 390 a n d 391 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .  - 138  -  In v i e w o f t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada i n W a l k e r v. McDermott, [1931] 1 D.L.R. 662, [ s i c ] we a r e c o m p e l l e d t o go t o u n e x p e c t e d l e n g t h s i n i n t e r f e r i n g with w i l l s , . . . . The d e c i s i o n s u g g e s t s t h e need o f an amendment t o disclose the intention of Parliament beyond the possibility of misunderstanding because as the s t a t u t e now s t a n d s w i t h t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n p u t upon i t t h e r e i s an i n v i t a t i o n (now f r e q u e n t l y a c t e d upon) t o attack w i l l s without just cause thereby promoting d o m e s t i c d i s c o r d and i n j u s t i c e .  Unfortunately been the  rejected  O'Halloran and  1 9 6  intention  of  the  J.A.'s  suggested  legislative  Parliament"  sought  criteria  amendment by  "to  Macdonald  has  disclose  J.A.  never  materialized.  The and  treatment  the  giving under  awards  i t .  unlike  The  quantify  true  pose of  196  rights  awards  "forced it  British  the B r i t i s h  i t s purpose to  made  the  reflect  heirship" does  not  a  Columbia  from  persons  t h e A c t was  Columbia  u n c e r t a i n t y , the t h e A c t and  to c o n f i r m the forced  See  shift  by  remedial  entitled  tendency  not  to  to  to  a  one  apply "forced  i n t e n d e d as s u c h ,  statutes contain  courts,  prevalent defined  in  and  other  criteria  to  t h e amount o f t h e award.  Unless amentary  the Act  p h i l o s o p h y but  jurisdictions,  true  made,  proprietory  heirship"  are  of  text  heirship  i s prepared  legislation  to  with  pur-  e n a c t a p p r o p r i a t e amendments, w h e t h e r  they  nature  of  clarify  test-  the  remedial  should  live  the Act  or  concept.  s u p r a , a t pp.  120,  121,  122  and  123.  to c o d i f y  a  - 139 The sion")  Law  Reform  rejected  1 9 7  clarification recognized  involving  the  purpose  "[the]  chief  rests court  of  on  the  the  criticism fact  the Commission  Columbia  t o recommend  of  application".  recognition  British  the o p p o r t u n i t y  of  that  legislation  this  Commission  -  that  Act.  reform The  i t  is  concluded  f o r the  Commission  of dependant's  However,  1 9 8  ("Commis-  relief  discretionary, notwithstanding  that:  The d i s c r e t i o n a r y n a t u r e o f t h e r e l i e f i s also i t s strongest and most a p p e a l i n g f e a t u r e , s i n c e i t p e r mits the greatest flexibility i n handling these m a t t e r s on a c a s e by c a s e b a s i s . 1 9 9  The C o m m i s s i o n giving the  the  court  ceased sion  courts to  other "these  relief ture."  further a  stated  great  consider  the  deal  the spouse.  are  compelling and  not  of  interest  than  legislation  that  flexibility,  reasons to  also  of dependents  In the o p i n i o n to  tinker  of  retain  with  of the  to  permits the  de-  Commis-  dependant's  i t s basic  struc-  2 0 0  As t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o u r t ' s recognized  197 Op.  the A c t , i n a d d i t i o n  and a c k n o w l e d g e d  c i t . , footnote  198  I b i d , a t p.  74.  199  I b i d , a t p.  74.  200  I b i d , a t p.  74.  77.  that  the  d i s c r e t i o n the courts  Commission  -  140 -  [W]aver between a p p l y i n g t e s t s o f need a n d o f m o r a l obligation, and make awards that appear to vary between p r o t e c t i n g dependants from d e s t i t u t i o n t o e q u i t a b l y reapportioning the t e s t a t o r ' s estate.201  In view for  spite  that a  was  under  recognition,  current  successful  factors broad  of this  l a w need  application  t o be c o n s i d e r e d  An  such  under  a  precedent  t h e A c t b u t one o f many  broad  when e x e r c i s i n g  their  d i s c r e t i o n t o the court  2 0 2  alarming misunderstanding  manifested  expressed  i s not a c o n d i t i o n  by t h e c o u r t s  d i s c r e t i o n and t h a t  desirable.  t h e Commission  i n the following  of the purpose o f the A c t i s  comments made by t h e C o m m i s s i o n :  When, t h e r e f o r e , a t e s t a t o r by w i l l p r e f e r s one o r more members o f h i s f a m i l y over others equally deserving, t h e c o u r t s h o u l d be p e r m i t t e d to inquire i n t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e making o f t h e will i n order t o determine the t e s t a t o r ' s motivations. One f u n c t i o n s e r v e d by t h e W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t , t h e r e f o r e , i s t o guard the t e s t a t o r from b e i n g v i c t i m i z e d by g r a s p i n g r e l a t i v e s and o t h e r s . This i s a f u n c t i o n the W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t c o u l d not serve i f an a p p l i c a n t ' s s u c c e s s was b a s e d upon n e e d . It i s important, therefore, f o r the c o u r t s ' discretion under t h e W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t t o r e m a i n a s b r o a d a s possible.203  There is  i s no l e g a l  to function  such l i k e  basis  f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n  as a s a f e g u a r d  unlawful  201  I b i d , a t p . 75.  202  I b i d , a t p . 75.  203  I b i d , a t p . 76.  pressures  against  undue  that  influence  upon t h e t e s t a t o r .  theA c t o r any  - 141 The  Commission  does  -  recognize that  for  a great deal of l i t i g a t i o n .  of  practitioners  which  the Act  i s responsible  I t a l s o a c c e p t s the  collectively  reflect  criticism  the  following  view:  F i r s t , t h e y were c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e c u r r e n t A c t p r o v i d e s l i t t l e c e r t a i n t y t o whether an a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l be s u c c e s s f u l , and what p o r t i o n an a p p l i c a n t may be entitled to. S e c o n d , t h e y were c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e current Act i s b e i n g abused. Many u n m e r i t o r i o u s a p p l i c a t i o n s are being brought. Rather than incur the expense of a t r i a l , s e t t l e m e n t s of t h e s e n u i s a n c e c l a i m s a r e o f t e n made.204  Yet, the  the  Act  Commission  i s capable  which  i t has  court  i s largely  that  the  terms,  without  a  the  broad  i t s own find  narrow  the  language  interpretation  making.  a broad  as  jurisdiction The  than  enjoyed  useful  jurisdiction  of that  by  Commission  jurisdiction  t h e r e f o r e the c o u r t s '  comments  equivocal as  and  precise  ing,  of  a more  that  2 0 5  the  observed to avoid  under  the Act  n o t be c o n f i n e d .  The in  received  j u d g e s must  injustice should  of  concluded  of  safeguard  Commission,  make i t c l e a r  fully  forced  the  that  understanding  although  i t s implications,  more  when  members o f  his family  over  or  sumably  not  s u p p o r t a b l e under  Ibid,  a t p.  78.  205  Ibid,  a t p.  78.  a proper  i s endorsa  form  also viewing  influence,  one  204  By  undue  favours  articulated  the Commission  heirship philosophy. against  not  the  the  of Act  testator  others,  undue i n f l u e n c e  (preclaim)  the  Commission  would  an  obligation  to  equality. broad  These  court  sion.  ious  treat  discretion  the  fact  testators  concept  a  concept  however,  i s also  broad  views  beneficiaries  some  and  vary no  widely  on  a  Commis-  i n "forced  i s not  as  of  with  the  that results  discretion,  is  degree  by  of c l a i m a n t s  may  there  inconsistent  endorsed  theory  treatment  of  with  that  harmon-  any  parti-  amongst  judges,  c o n s i s t e n c y of  result  recognize  i t is  could  anticipated.  The sible  Commission  to  dent's  impose  relief  whole,  used  tradiction  a  has  regime  the  past  the  Act  with  the  as  the  have  that  restricted  The  not  the  solution  Commission  that  "forced heirship"  years  the  endorses  such  jurisdiction  of  courts  use  the  have,  on  the  vehicle  in  con-  legislation.  of the A c t ,  satisfactory,  of  the  depen-  remedial.  antidisinheritance concept  impos-  through  is essentially  been e n t i r e l y  court  The  although  and  chose  should  not  to be  changed.  Commission's  appointing.  either:  or  an  to  which  original  essentially  recommend  of  sixty  Commission, results  failed  legislation  During  a  are,  t h a t any  situation, and  endorse  which  of  -  claimants  concepts  or e q u a l i t y  with  cular  be  further  I t i s suggested  heirship"  142  I t had to  what  should  recommendation  w i t h i n i t s grasp is a have  most been  i s both the  alarming  ability  unsatisfactory unequivocal  to  and  recommend  condition. in  dis-  The  recommending  1.  A  truly  meaning  2.  a true tor  remedial  system  where,  need  i n i t s extended  i s the c o n d i t i o n precedent; or  regime  of forced  i s compelled  estate  143 -  h e i r s h i p , whereby  to leave  to certain  a  members  certain  the t e s t a -  portion  of h i s family,  of h i s  presumably  s p o u s e and c h i l d r e n .  Yet  i t chose  tainties  to maintain  quo w i t h  a l l i t s uncer-  and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s .  The  reservations  Commission's reflective  was  remedial,  He  [ a s he  recognizes  that  and t h a t  i t was  that  a  circumstances p u b l i c purse;  testator  and  Arthur  then  those  may  dependent  standard  to that  intended leave  persons  a r e much  ought  the more  to place  on  of the A c t  to s a t i s f y  the p u b l i c  h i s dependents a  charge  i n needy upon  the  i t was inhumane t o r e q u i r e  t o eke o u t an provided  Close,  purpose  becoming  that  L.  was]  the o r i g i n a l  o r i n any e v e n t ,  testator's  inferior  by  2 0 6  of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n the courts  Act.  concern  expressed  Vice-Chairman  the  the  the status  existence  at a  much  by t h e t e s t a t o r d u r i n g h i s  lifetime.  In  the Vice-Chairman's  gone b e y o n d created  206  the s o c i a l  an e n v i r o n m e n t  view,  the c o u r t s '  decisions  have  p o l i c y o f t h e A c t and i n s o d o i n g  have  of uncertainty  I b i d , a t p p . 152 t o 157.  and f e r t i l e  ground f o r  - 144 litigation be  adult  by  disappointed  enjoying  a  -  b e n e f i c i a r i e s , even  comfortable  lifestyle  those  and  not  who  may  dependent  upon t h e t e s t a t o r .  His the  recommendation  A c t be  would  be  children  restricted a  class,  under  a  would  limited  recommendation,  there  long  as  relief  but  "maintenance" the  such  that  claims  o r under  the  disability.  legislation  t o what  would  exists be  i s an  which  2 0 7  spouse In  i s a l s o an acknowledgement  uncertainty  opposed  to  under  there  limited  equitable  and  making that  so  will  be  t o what i s portion  of  estate.  The  recommendation  purpose  of  intent,  and  testamentary  207  as  generally,  c e r t a i n age  dependents'  be  to the t e s t a t o r ' s " d e p e n d e n t s "  this  uncertainty,  therefore  the  Act,  would  would  would  restore  freedom.  I b i d , a t pp.  157  and  158.  be  go  a  long  consistent  harmony  with  way  to  with the  clarify  the  i t s original philosophy  of  - 145 -  PART I I I :  PERSONS ENTITLED TO APPLY UNDER THE BRITISH COLUMBIA WILLS VARIATION ACT  - 146 -  PERSONS ENTITLED TO APPLY UNDER THE BRITISH COLUMBIA WILLS VARIATION ACT Section wife,  husband  application. which  2 of the Act i d e n t i f i e s or c h i l d r e n " There  has i n t e r p r e t e d  a p p l y a n d , i n most  is a  and l i m i t s  as t h e p e r s o n s reasonable  t h e meaning  circumstances,  "the t e s t a t o r ' s  who may  body  of  jurisprudence  of the persons t h e law i s w e l l  invoke i t s  entitled settled.  to  - 147 -  CHAPTER 1. WIFE AND HUSBAND  There band"  i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t  can only  marriage.  The  dismissed  the  mean  a  Nova  Scotia  a r e f e r e n c e t o " w i f e " and  relationship  application  Supreme C o u r t of  a  the equivalent statute  considered  the  of  i n that  "widow"  from  i n Re  common-law  y e a r s under  definition  resulting  a  "huslawful  O'Connell,  spouse  of  1  seven  Province.  Grant J .  i n Stroud's  Judicial  Dictionary:  A widow i s a woman who has s u r v i v e d a man t o whom s h e was l a w f u l l y m a r r i e d , and who was h i s w i f e a t t h e time o f h i s death.2  He  than  tory  concluded  provision  deceased  The union  that  the  or  i n order  relationship.  of  of a lawful  o f t h e A c t does  i s brought  to q u a l i f y  relationship  had t o be t h a t  wording  marriage  3  the  applicant  where  any o t h e r  the v a l i d i t y  i n t o question the c o u r t s w i l l  1  (1979),  109 D.L.R.  2  Ibid.,  a t p . 585.  3  Ibid.,  a t p. 585.  (3d) 584  the s t a t u and  the  marriage.  not admit  However,  under  (N.S.T.D.).  type of of the  presume i n  favour  of i t s v a l i d i t y  the marriage  The death  isa  status of  until  nullity.  of  148 evidence  and  i s determined  the f a c t  that  d i v o r c e was i s s u e d  t o the p a r t i e s p r i o r  the  not  spouses  does  Similarly,  a  not a f f e c t  the a b i l i t y  under  the A c t .  interpreting where  lowing  i n fact  status  the death  v. P u b l i c of  t o the h e a r i n g ,  a  the date  decree  nisi  of  the  of of  applicant.  o f the t e s t a t o r spouse  to claim  Trustee  t h e words  remarried after  at  t o t h e d e a t h o f one o f  of the s u r v i v i n g  t h e meaning  but p r i o r  the  after  In B a i l e y  the a p p l i c a n t  testator  alter  remarriage  that  4  t h e spouse  the t e s t a t o r  i s adduced  the date the court  does relief  and O t h e r s  "husband"  5  6  in  or  "wife"  of death  o f the  made  the  fol-  statement:  [ T ] h e s t a t u s o f a w i f e i s f i x e d by h e r p o s i t i o n a t t h e moment i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e t h e d e a t h o f t h e h u s band, a n d t h a t , b e i n g a w i f e t h e n , she i s a q u a l i f i e d a p p l i c a n t a t any t i m e s u b s e q u e n t l y .  It  s h o u l d be n o t e d  band".  The New  Bailey  case a l s o  that  Zealand used  like  the Act r e f e r s  statute words.  under  t o " w i f e " and  interpretation  A contrary  view  "hus-  by t h e  could  4  Tweney v. Tweney ( 1 9 4 6 ) , P. 180, [1946] 1 A l l E.R. 564; Re Quon ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 4 D.L.R. (3d) 702 ( A l t a . S . C ) .  5  Adams v. I r v i n e and Adams ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 4 R.F.L. (2d) 295 ( S a s k . Q.B.); Re L a u r ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 55 D.L.R. (3d) 321, 7 O.R. (2d) 385, 21 R.F.L. 159 ( S u r r . C t . ) .  6  [1960] N.Z.L.R. 741 a t p. 744 ( C A . ) .  easily red  be t a k e n  in jurisdictions  position  submitted  o f such  settled.  Prima  British  Columbia  meaning  certain  In  i s refer-  facie,  such  jurisdiction  and t h e  a spouse  would  i s not  i n t h e eyes  c o u r t c o n t i n u e t o be a h u s b a n d o r w i f e  v. Royal  Trust  to the j u r i s d i c t i o n  that  who h a s o b t a i n e d , o r  d i v o r c e i s not r e c o g n i z e d i n Canada,  o f t h e A c t . However,  Downton  husband  found  spouse,  the f o r e i g n  c i r c u m s t a n c e s be a b a r t o r e l i e f  submitted her  of a surviving  to, a divorce i n a foreign  validity  the  where t h e a p p l i c a n t  t o a s "widow" o r "widower".  The has  149 -  decree  under  was  within  c a n under  the A c t .  Co. e t a l . , i n w h i c h 7  the wife  o f t h e C o u r t o f Nevada t o p e r m i t  t o o b t a i n a d i v o r c e ( a l t h o u g h i t was the d i v o r c e  of a  not v a l i d  subsequently  i n Canada),  Laskin J .  commented a s f o l l o w s :  My canvass of typical cases which have reached Canadian Courts i n d i c a t e s that the o n l y c l a i m t o cons i s t e n c y that they e x h i b i t i s the a p p l i c a t i o n o f a p r e c l u s i o n d o c t r i n e a g a i n s t a s p o u s e who, h a v i n g o b t a i n e d a decree o f d i v o r c e or n u l l i t y from a f o r e i g n Court incompetent t o g i v e i t , seeks thereafter to a s s e r t t h a t incompetence i n o r d e r t o g a i n a p e c u n i a r y advantage a g a i n s t h i s or her spouse or t h e e s t a t e o f the spouse. The d o c t r i n e h a s an e t h i c a l b a s i s : a r e f u s a l to permit a person t o i n s i s t , t o h i s or her p e c u n i a r y advantage, on a r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h that p e r s o n has p r e v i o u s l y d e l i b e r a t e l y sought t o t e r m i nate . 8  7  [1973] S.C.R. 437, 34 D.L.R. (3d) 403, 3 N. & P.E.I.R. 576, r e v e r s i n g I N . & P.E.I.R. 528, w h i c h r e v e r s e d I N . & P.E.I.R. 203.  8  I b i d . , S.C.R. a t p. 450, D.L.R. P.E.I.R. a t pp. 587 and 588.  at  p.  412  and  N.  &  The  court  thus c l e a r l y  preclusion has  doctrine  submitted  incompetent  recognized,  that  to, a  to give  150 as a g e n e r a l  p r i n c i p l e , the  a s p o u s e who h a s e i t h e r o b t a i n e d ,  decree  of divorce  i t , can not r e l y  from  a  foreign  on t h e i n v a l i d i t y  or  court of the  decree t o gain a b e n e f i t .  The  court,  stances take  however, r e c o g n i z e d  the doctrine  into  stances  consideration  reach  under  be q u a l i f i e d  the reasons,  foreign  t h e Downton the conclusion  case that  from t h e f o r e i g n d e c r e e . ted  from  its  invalidity  The  court".  the  case  was  allowed  The  court  and  should circum-  to the " j u r i s d i c t i o n  permitted  the court  to  d i d n o t d e r i v e any b e n e f i t s  I t was n o t a c a s e where s h e b e n e f i t -  i t and on t h e d e a t h  court  and t h e c o u r t  circum-  9  the evidence the wife  certain  conditions  under w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d  o f an i n c o m p e t e n t  In  should  that  o f h e r husband  chose  t o r e l y on  to obtain additional benefits.  therefore concluded  that  the p r e c l u s i o n d o c t r i n e should to rely  on t h e i n v a l i d i t y  i n the circumstances not apply  of  and t h e w i f e  of the f o r e i g n  decree.  observed: The p r e s e n t c a s e s t a n d s , t h e r e f o r e , a s one where t h e w i f e ' s f o r m a l s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e f o r e i g n C o u r t was n o t f o l l o w e d by any a c t o r c o n d u c t i n r e l i a n c e upon i t  9  I b i d . , S.C.R. a t p. 450, N. D.L.R. a t pp. 412 and 413.  & P.E.I.R.  a t p.  588, a n d  nor was t h e r e it.10  The case  reasoning  was a d o p t e d  substantially  151 -  any a c c e p t a n c e by h e r o f b e n e f i t s  o f t h e Downton i n Re J o n e s  v. Royal  where  s i m i l a r f a c t s the court  Trust  under  Co. e t a l .  i n circumstances  1  1  offering  stated:  According to that [Downton v . R o y a l T r u s t Co. e t . a l • ] judgment 'a b r o a d a n d f l e x i b l e a p p r o a c h b a s e d on e q u i t y i s t o be a d o p t e d i n w e i g h i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the p r e c l u s i o n d o c t r i n e ' . Disqualifying inequity may e x i s t , f o r i n s t a n c e , . w h e r e ' a c t i o n has been t a k e n i n r e l i a n c e on t h e ( f o r e i g n ) d i v o r c e o r e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e b a s e d on i t o r when t h e a t t a c k on t h e d i v o r c e i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with the e a r l i e r conduct o f the a t t a c k i n g p a r t y ' : r e p o r t a t p . 452 S.C.R., p . 413 D.L.R.12  The  court  concluded:  Applying these g u i d e l i n e s t o the i n s t a n t case I f i n d t h a t A l i c e [ t h e w i f e ] r e c e i v e d no p e c u n i a r y b e n e f i t f r o m t h e d i v o r c e and i s n o t p r e c l u d e d f r o m d e n y i n g i t on t h a t g r o u n d . 1 3  Therefore, court  based  on e t h i c a l  chose not t o apply  and e q u i t a b l e  the d o c t r i n e  &  consideration,  the  of preclusion.  10  I b i d . , S.C.R. a t p. 453, N. D.L.R. a t pp. 414 and 415.  P.E.I.R.  a t p.  11  Supra, footnote  12  ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 51 D.L.R. (3d) 655 a t p. 661, 6 O.R. 17, 19 R.F.L. 289 a t p . 295 ( H . C . ) .  13  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t p . 662, O.R.  591, a n d  7. (2d) 11 a t p .  a t p . 18, R.F.L. a t p . 292.  Notwithstanding the  two  cases  the  applicant  divorce fies  as  relied in  he  may  a  upon t h e  be  divorce  give has  a had  attack  spouse.  s u c h manner  would  the  strong no  that  On  benefit  the  other  foreign divorce that  i n the  court  will  for not  the  issue  d i r e c t i o n to  its validity  inequitable the  fact  as  a  allow  not  hand,  if  plead him  the  that  of  foreign  the  the  t o do  he  as  has  has acted  a whole, i t  invalidity so.  if  quali-  applicant  b e n e f i t s , or taken  settled,  effect  to e s t a b l i s h that  to gain  to  the  result  circumstances him  is  of  the  -  153 -  CHAPTER 2. CHILDREN  The Act,  recent  1985  enactment  has t o t a l l y  1 4  c o u r t s had p l a c e d  Until 1985  "children" children Section  was  no  could were  2(2)  1 5  the Charter  altered  of Rights  Amendment  the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  which the  upon t h e meaning o f t h e word  the advent  there  of  of the Charter  question only  claiming  mean  that  a  of Rights  Amendment A c t ,  reference  i n the Act to  legitimate  through  their  of the A c t a p p l i e d .  "children".  children mother's  The S e c t i o n  unless estate  reads  the when  as  fol-  lows :  (2) F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s A c t , an i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d s h a l l be t r e a t e d a s i f he were a l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d o f h i s mother.  The  question  Re B r o s s e a u  was  Estate  1 6  unequivocally where  settled  by M e r e d i t h  the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t  J. in  o f law was p u t  14  S.B.C. 1985, c . 68 ( r e c e i v e d R o y a l A s s e n t on Dec. 2, 1985 and came into force by B.C. Reg. No. 392/85. The p e r t i n e n t s e c t i o n s f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s r e v i e w , s . 80 and s . 119, were, by t h e R e g u l a t i o n b r o u g h t i n t o f o r c e w i t h r e t r o a c t i v e e f f e c t as a t A p r i l 17, 1 9 8 5 ) .  15  Added i n 1960 a s s. 3 ( 2 ) . T e s t a t o r ' s A c t , 1960. R.S.B.C. 1960, c . 378. M a r c h , I960.]  16  ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 19 R.F.L. 255, [1975] W.W.D. 34  Family Maintenance [Assented t o 18th (B.C.S.C).  t o him  for  154  -  determination:  Are i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d r e n e n t i t l e d to a p p l y f o r p r o v i s i o n from the e s t a t e of t h e i r f a t h e r pursuant to t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f The T e s t a t o r ' s F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e Act?  After  reviewing  addition  an  earlier  of S e c t i o n 2 ( 2 )  1 8  decision he  on  concluded  the  point ' 1  and  the  that:  I can o n l y c o n c l u d e t h a t the a d d i t i o n of the subs e c t i o n was r e m e d i a l : to b r i n g i n t o the purview of t h e A c t not o n l y l e g i t i m a t e i s s u e but i l l e g i t i m a t e as well. I l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d r e n now have r e c o u r s e under t h e A c t but i n r e s p e c t o f t h e e s t a t e o f a d e c e a s e d mother not f a t h e r . As t h e L e g i s l a t u r e , i n e x t e n d i n g the c a t e g o r y of persons e n t i t l e d to c l a i m , l i m i t e d t h e e x t e n s i o n i n t h e way t h a t i t d i d , I must answer t h e q u e s t i o n p a s s e d [ s i c ] on t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i n t h e negative.19  The inter  new alia,  between child, for  Charter any  o f R i g h t s Amendment A c t ,  distinction,  l e g i t i m a t e and  brings  the  Canada  and  from Act  either  17  Re Lakha Singh (6.C.S.C.).  18  See  19  Supra, f o o t n o t e  16  20  Supra, f o o t n o t e  14,  21  Ibid.,  supra,  s.  parent's  Estate  footnote  119  adopts  most o t h e r  x  similar  recommendation  (1955),  14  s.  W.W.R.  256.  80.  ( r e p e a l s s.  2(2)  of  the  the A c t ) .  Act  Therefore,  This  15. a t p.  of  removed,  o f w e d l o c k , may  estate.  the  has  purposes  children.  i n or o u t  i n harmony w i t h  essentially  the  illegitimate  r e g a r d l e s s whether b o r n  relief  for  2 0  1985  a  apply  development statutes in of  the  (N.S.)  Law 617  Reform  Commission  should  be  made  of  155  British  between  -  Columbia  children  of  that  no  married  distinction or  unmarried  p a r e n t s . 22  By 11(1)  virtue which  of  the  Adoption  Act^  and  3  reference  child  so  served. tor,  long  to as  "child" the  in  the  with  t o c l a i m under  who  c h i l d becomes on a d o p t i o n p a r e n t , and t h e a d o p t i n g of t h e c h i l d , as i f t h e parent i n l a w f u l wedlock.  Act  formalities  Therefore, a c h i l d  i n accordance  entitled  Section  states:  F o r a l l p u r p o s e s an a d o p t e d the c h i l d of the a d o p t i n g p a r e n t becomes t h e parent c h i l d had been b o r n t o t h a t  the  specifically  has  of  will  i n c l u d e an  adoption  been a d o p t e d  have by  the  Act.  been  the  the p r o v i s i o n s of the A d o p t i o n the p r o v i s i o n s of  adopted ob-  testaAct,  is  2 4  22  Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, Report S t a t u t o r y S u c c e s s i o n R i g h t s , (1983) a t p. 88 and 89.  23  R.S.B.C. 1979,  24  A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e no c a s e s d e c i d e d under t h e A c t d e a l i n g w i t h a c l a i m by a n a t u r a l c h i l d o f t h e d e c e a s e d who has been a d o p t e d , t h e d e c i s i o n o f Hyde L . J . S . C . i n Re Hartman; M e r n i c k l e v. Westaway (1985) 19 E.T.R. 304, was c a u s e f o r alarm. Hyde L . J . S . C . would have a l l o w e d an a d o p t e d child to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the i n t e s t a t e s u c c e s s i o n o f the e s t a t e of h i s n a t u r a l parent, F o r t u n a t e l y , the C o u r t o f Appeal of British Columbia, Mernickle v. Westaway (1986) 1 B.C.L.R. (2d) 267, 22 E.T.R. 213, r e v e r s e d Hyde L . J . S . C . on t h e b a s i s t h a t an a d o p t e d c h i l d c e a s e s , on a d o p t i o n , t o be t h e c h i l d o f h i s e x i s t i n g p a r e n t s . Had t h e l o w e r c o u r t d e c i s i o n been u p h e l d , a d o p t e d c h i l d r e n c o u l d , c o n c e i v a b l y , have c l a i m e d , under t h e A c t , a g a i n s t the e s t a t e s o f t h e i r natural parents.  c.  on  4.  It born  i s immaterial  f o r the purposes of the A c t i f a c h i l d i s  i n o r out o f wedlock  child  o r adopted  ever,  be t h e c h i l d  whom  the parent  "children"  However, the  child  o f the parent. i n loco  the A c t .  Columbia,  has taken  where  place  the c h i l d ' s  the c h i l d  i s the natural  The c h i l d  must,  how-  Stepchildren orchildren t o  parentis  c a nnot q u a l i f y a s  2 5  as the v a l i d i t y  law o f the p l a c e  adoption  o r whether  o f the parents.  stood  under  156 -  o f an adoption that  child  outside  status  i s d e t e r m i n e d by  was a d o p t e d ,  the province  must  be d e t e r m i n e d  i f  the  of British by r e f e r e n c e  to the p l a c e o f a d o p t i o n .  In child  Re (Mrs.)  who h a d been  California, did  Mary  child  California.  adopted  t h e argument  not a f f o r d  adopted  Ann M c A d a m ,  relief  under  i n an a p p l i c a t i o n by a  26  t h e laws  was made,  inter  t o the p e t i t i o n e r ,  o f t h e deceased,  The c o u r t ' s  response  o f the State o f  alia,  the A c t  a s s h e was o n l y a n  and an a l i e n to this  that  residing i n  argument was:  In order to effect proper legal adoption, there s h o u l d be, a t l e a s t , a s u b s t a n t i a l c o m p l i a n c e with all the essential requirements o f any s t a t u t e i n f o r c e i n t h e c o u n t r y where a d o p t i o n t a k e s p l a c e . T h e burden o f p r o v i n g such compliance r e s t s upon t h e p a r t y a s s e r t i n g i t , even t h o u g h t h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e C o u r t s may be, n o t t o i n s i s t upon a s t r i c t c o m p l i a n c e with such f u r t h e r s t a t u t o r y requirements. I find t h a t t h i s b u r d e n h a s been f u l l y s a t i s f i e d . ... I  25  Naples v. M a r t i n  E s t a t e and M a r t i n ,  26  [1925] 4 D.L.R. 138, [ 1 9 2 5 ] , 35 B.C.R. 547.  [1987] 1 W.W.R.  2 W.W.R. 593 ( S . C ) ,  52. (1924 ),  - 157 t h i n k t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f an a d o p t i o n a r e based upon t h e law o f t h e l o c a l i t y i n which i t occurs. Once l e g a l a d o p t i o n t a k e s p l a c e , i t c a n n o t be l i g h t l y d e s t r o y e d . I t i s b i n d i n g upon a l l p a r t i e s concerned. So, i f , a s I have f o u n d , t h e a d o p t i o n o f Mrs. S e y b o l d was l e g a l i n C a l i f o r n i a , i t t h e r e b y gave her t h e same s t a n d i n g a n d r i g h t s , a s i f s h e were t h e n a t u r a l b o r n c h i l d o f h e r a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s , no m a t t e r where t h e y m i g h t r e s i d e i n t h e f u t u r e . She d i d n o t lose such rights through M r s . McAdam leaving C a l i f o r n i a a n d t a k i n g up h e r r e s i d e n c e i n B r i t i s h Columbia.27  The Estate  a d o p t i o n must, however, be a l e g a l the p e t i t i o n e r  2 8  adoption cient  there  to bring  Variation Act. tion  Act,  child."  The the  him w i t h i n  applies  under only  t h e r e was no de j u r e that  such  was s u f f i -  the p r o v i s i o n s o f the then that  n o t have  absent  "acquired  a de j u r e  to a  surviving  Wills adop-  any s t a t u s  the T e s t a t o r ' s Family wife,  wording  o f the Act c l e a r l y children,  Nevertheless  limits  en-  Maintenance husband o r  i t s application to  and makes no r e f e r e n c e t o g r a n d c h i l -  the issue  came b e f o r e t h e B r i t i s h -3  Court  In r e E s p l i n  2 9  deceased's  dren.  could  while  one, and  Coady J . c o n c l u d e d  him t o a p p l y  which  that  was a de f a c t o  the p e t i t i o n e r  titling  argued  one.  o f Appeal  i n Re Compton-Lundie  Columbia  n  E s t a t e ^ " where  the court  27  I b i d . , D.L.R. a t p . 139, W.W.R. a t p p . 594 a n d 595, B.C.R. a t p . 549,  28  [1946] 2 D.L.R. 404, [1946] 1 W.W.R. 679 (B.C.S.C. ) ; s e e a l s o Re Buchanan E s t a t e ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 16 N.S.R. (2d) 262, 24 R.F.L. 255 ( C o . C t . ) .  29  Ibid.,  30  (1958),  Esplin,  D.L.R. a t p . 406, W.W.R. a t p . 682.  26 W.W.R. 229.  in  t h e judgment  judge the  a s t o h i s award  Act, stated  making  provision  children. .."  31  delivered  3  158 -  by B i r d  J.A., r e v e r s i n g  to grandchildren  " t h e A c t does  who  petitioned  n o t , i n our view,  out of h i s estate  for a  the  trial under  extend  testator's  to  grand-  1  I b i d . , a t p . 230. The C h i e f J u s t i c e o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a seems t o have made an O r d e r on J a n u a r y 2 9 t h , 1958, i n f a v o u r o f g r a n d c h i l d r e n . B i r d J . A . made r e f e r e n c e , a t page 230, t o " r e a s o n s f o r judgment o f t h e learned t r i a l judge". An a t t e m p t was made t o o b t a i n t h o s e r e a s o n s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r a t i o n a l e o f t h e c o u r t i n making an award f o r g r a n d c h i l d r e n . Regrettably the records of t h e t r i a l a n d t h e a p p e a l a r e no l o n g e r a v a i l a b l e a t t h e Vancouver R e g i s t r y .  -  159  -  CHAPTER PUBLIC TRUSTEE ON  The  issue  Trustee ceived  to  rule  on  fants.  an  facts  by  his  testator the  a caring, J.  judicial  of A l b e r t a  concluded  on  behalf  of  the  of  infants  In  re D e n t o n  Estate  Public  the  case  were  and  five  infant  children.  entire  estate  to  his  widow was  dedicated  obligation  the  of  wife  left  and  CHILDREN  Public has  re-  consideration.  a p p l i c a t i o n by  The  dence o f  right  BEHALF OF  proceedings  Supreme C o u r t  survived the  the  commence  little  The  of  3.  most  and  Trustee simple.  favourable  responsible  behalf  The  the as  on  had  3 2  3 3  of  in-  testator  was  By  his  widow.  The  i t showed her  mother.  to  Will, evito  Nevertheless  be  Ford  that:  [ A j f t e r g i v i n g the q u e s t i o n some a n x i o u s t h o u g h t , I have r e a c h e d t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a s e n s e o f p r u d e n c e must i n d i c a t e t h a t i t [ t h e W i l l ] does not e n s u r e s u c h adequate provision.34  He  therefore  aside  for  the  provided  that  m a i n t e n a n c e and  a  portion support of  of the  32  [1950] 2 W.W.R.  33  A l l o f whom q u a l i f i e d as " d e p e n d a n t s " of the A l b e r t a L e g i s l a t i o n .  34  Supra,  footnote  the  estate  be  set  children.  848.  32,  a t p.  851.  within  the  meaning  - 160 The  logical  conclusion  regardless of the s u r v i v i n g gation  to maintain,  made i n t h e W i l l  This  issue  Trustee estate on  v.  behalf  The  Court  provisions court  was  again  considered  where  3 5  two  infant  of A p p e a l  the court that  The  court,  the  testator  children.  The  3 6  perceived  left brought  entire  an a c t i o n once  more,  f o r the main-  Trustee  a "test  case"  for  i n a l l e s t a t e s when a t e s t a t o r  fails  t o make  order  an award  of infant  chooses  f o r m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t .  i n the circumstances  of the case,  As t o t h e P u b l i c T r u s t e e ' s  reliance  the c o u r t ' s  the  children,  i f the P u b l i c Trustee  any s u c h  Denton s h o u l d  his  the P u b l i c  for setting  3 7  i n Public  court,  that  t o make t h e a p p e a l  i t appropriate  dent.  obli-  that p r o v i s i o n s are  i n Alberta  f o r t h e maintenance and s u p p o r t should  or l e g a l  that  of the c h i l d r e n .  make an a p p l i c a t i o n  Estate  ensure  t h a t a p o r t i o n o f t h e e s t a t e be r e s e r v e d  asking  sider  must  ability,  is  for infants.  Buchholz  of  proposition  to  J.'s findings  guardian's  the court  tenance and s u p p o r t  the  Ford  t o h i s widow and t h e P u b l i c T r u s t e e  ordered  was  of  response  be r e c o n s i d e r e d  35  [1981] 1 W.W.R. 500 ( A l t a .  36  Ibid.,  a t p. 506.  37  Supra,  footnote  32.  38  Supra,  footnote  35,  was  that  d i d not con-  policy upon  a t p. 509.  prece-  In r e Denton  "the d e c i s i o n  i n the a p p r o p r i a t e case C.A.).  or  i n Re 1 , 3 8  The  Court  principle Re  of Appeal,  that  might  - 161  -  the  very  at  cast  have been e x t r a c t e d f r o m  doubt  on  the  the d e c i s i o n  of  Denton.  The once,  130,  issue  and  "Equal  then  has  been  o n l y by  Guardianship  As  Dinnise  Amended Ann  and  Malat,  dealt obiter  with  in  dicta.  years  application Testators'  on  on  The  Cynthia  3 9  for  the  behalf  the t e c h n i c a l  to o b t a i n the  the  Of  Public  consent  under Act. point of  application ment as  the  lack  to f a i l ,  of consent  4 0  of  two  the P u b l i c daughters  sufficient  The  Chapter  Malat  and  provisions  Infants A c t .  was  of  and  to  be  seventeen  launching of  the  Meredith J . dismissed  that  the  twelve  purpose  the  Jane  only  Trustee applied  aged  limited  the then Equal G u a r d i a n s h i p of  Although  1960,  In  Family Maintenance  application failed  their  Matter  R.S.B.C.  Matter  Columbia  In In The  Infants Act",  Infants  respectively,  British  of  a p p o i n t e d g u a r d i a n of the daughters,  by  least,  Trustee as  an  then the had  required  4 1  ground  f o r the  M e r e d i t h J . i n h i s judgment c h o s e  t o com-  follows:  In any e v e n t I do not t h i n k i t has been shown, nor s h o u l d i t be assumed, t h a t , even i f p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r t h e T e s t a t o r ' s F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e A c t were t o r e s u l t i n some s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e two c h i l d r e n o u t o f  39  18  August  1975,  Vancouver,  (B«C«S«0«)• 40  R.S.B.C. 1960,  c.  378.  41  R.S.B.C. 1960,  c. 130,  s.  14(1).  X8945/75,  unreported  -  162  -  the e s t a t e , such p r o v i s i o n would i n net advance the w e l f a r e of the c h i l d r e n . P r o c e e d i n g s under the Act would effectively pit the children against their m o t h e r , t h r u s t upon t h e e s t a t e unwanted c o s t s , occ a s i o n a n x i e t y , p r e - o c c u p a t i o n and o t h e r s t r a i n s on a l l s i d e s , t o say n o t h i n g o f t h e r i s k o f f a m i l y d i s cord. The p o s s i b l e d i s r u p t i o n m i g h t w e l l be much more h a r m f u l t o t h e c h i l d r e n t h a n any b e n e f i t t h e y might p o s s i b l y r e c e i v e from the e s t a t e . I have not t h e s l i g h t e s t r e a s o n t o s u p p o s e t h a t Mrs. M a l a t w i l l do o t h e r t h a n t h e b e s t f o r a l l her c h i l d r e n d u r i n g her l i f e t i m e . Nor s h o u l d I s p e c u l a t e t h a t she w i l l do o t h e r t h a n make a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n for her children out of what may remain of her a s s e t s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e i n h e r i t e d f r o m her husband, on her d e a t h . A c c o r d i n g l y , as I am i n c l i n e d t o the v i e w t h a t t h e o r d e r sought would d e t r a c t from r a t h e r than advance t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e two c h i l d r e n , the o r d e r i s r e f u s e d . 42  In  the  T r u s t e e v. for  the  concept the  same  Buchholz  welfare of  right  light  the of  of  the  and  parent  support  L i e b e r m a n J.A.  conflict  dependent  privacy  one  m a i n t e n a n c e and  4 3  Lieberman  J.A.  r a i s e d by  children  depend  "our  of  the  family  upon  the  other  in a l l facets  further  to  commented as  in  society's  and  sanctity  to  recognized  their  Public concern  traditional unit, to  and  provide  children..."  4 4  follows:  I am, however, c o g n i z a n t o f t h e deep r e s e n t m e n t t h a t people in our society feel towards governmental interference into essentially private family areas, p a r t i c u l a r l y where a l l t h e evidence leads to only these conclusions, namely: that the children are  42  Supra,  footnote  39 at  43  Supra,  footnote  35.  44  Ibid.,  at  pp.  5 0 6 and  p.  2.  507.  -  163 -  b e i n g t r e a t e d w i t h l o v e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; t h a t t h e y are being brought up i n an e x c e l l e n t environment; t h a t t h e i r e d u c a t i o n i s b e i n g e n c o u r a g e d ; and t h a t t h e r e i s ample p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e i r m a i n t e n a n c e and support.45  A the to  great  deal  o f sympathy  concept  that  one p a r e n t  rely  upon  children. with  B u t , what  circumstances  discussed  At ute  the other  i n this  least  by t h e s p o u s e s  therefore always  46  Family 1,  does  not  death,  o f dependent  t o do when  faced  and o t h e r  cases  the p e r t i n e n t  stat-  o f Re M a l a t ,  of death  are l i v i n g o f them,  the spouses a r e  with or being there  i s no  t o make an a p p l i c a t i o n Trustee  i s satisfied  sup-  obliga-  on b e h a l f o f  that the c h i l d  be  not  have  similar  said  that  the P u b l i c  his discretion  t o determine  Ibid.,  support  on  of  r e c e i v e a d e q u a t e m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t .  i t can  45  c.  Trustee  Columbia  exercise  guardian  or either  i f the P u b l i c will  the r i g h t ,  Trustee  of Alberta  and t h e c h i l d r e n  on t h e P u b l i c  British  t o those  t h a t when a t t h e d a t e  ported  or c h i l d r e n  i s the P u b l i c  i n support  section?  together  the c h i l d r e n  have  f o r the continued  akin  living  tion  should  i n the province  provides  4 6  c a n be c h a n n e l l e d  by  examining  whether o r n o t an a c t i o n  legislation Trustee  the  and can  surviving  i s indicated.  a t p . 506. Relief s.  A c t , R.S.A. 1970, c . 134, s. 15 [am.  21(2)}.  1971,  Unless entitled  i t c a n be  to rely  of parents  British  Columbia  Public  that  on t h e common  gations  withstanding  said  164 -  t o support  may  lead  i n order  law  4 7  children,  i n each  to f u l f i l l  c h o i c e b u t t o b r i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n visions of  have  been  made  t h e outcome o f s u c h  This  condition  for infants  should  whether  or  be p e r m i t t e d  Columbia  statute should  n o t an  action  Trustee  the d i s c r e t i o n  province  of A l b e r t a .  then  result  that  not-  case,  the  his responsibility,  under  obli-  4 8  the p o s i t i o n i n  individual  i n every  be  case  has no  where no p r o -  the W i l l  regardless  application.  i s clearly  Trustee  should  and t h e s t a t u t o r y  to the i n e v i t a b l e  the circumstances  Trustee,  the Public Trustee  unsatisfactory.  The  to exercise h i s discretion should  be  brought.  be amended t o a t l e a s t given  to the P u b l i c  The give  Public as t o British  the P u b l i c  Trustee  i n the  4 9  47  See K u s e t a v . K u s e t a ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 7 R.F.L. 89 ( O n t . C . A . ) ; S t . C a t h a r i n e s G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l v . S v i e r g u l a ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 26 D.L.R. (2d) 455 ( O n t . S . C ) .  48  Family  49  See s u p r a ,  R e l a t i o n s A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c . 121, s . 5 6 ( 1 ) . f o o t n o t e 46.  -  165  -  CHAPTER  4.  RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  The  Law  considering family  Reform Reports  rights  under  Commission from  other  of  British  like  other statutes  Columbia " 3  commissions 5  1  made t h e  and  after  analysing  following  rec-  ommendation :  (10)  (1) T h a t t h e W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t be amended t o p e r m i t t h e f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n s who s u r v i v e t h e d e c e a s e d t o apply: (a)  spouse;  (b)  a person whose m a r r i a g e to the deceased was t e r m i n a t e d or d e c l a r e d a n u l l i t y i f r e c e i v i n g or entitled t o r e c e i v e maintenance from the deceased;  (c)  common law s p o u s e who, i m m e d i a t e l y death o f the deceased, (i) (ii)  (d)  the and  was c o h a b i t i n g with the l e s s t h a n two y e a r s , o r was r e c e i v i n g o r e n t i t l e d tenance, pursuant to the A c t , from the deceased; deceased's children, stepchildren;  p r e c e d i n g the  deceased  for  not  to r e c e i v e mainFamily Relations  posthumous  children,  (2) T h a t t h e W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t be amended t o p e r m i t t h e f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n s t o a p p l y i f t h e y were d e pendent on the deceased immediately prior to h i s death:  5  0  51  9S.-  c  i  t  •' f o o t n o t e 22,  a t pp.  78  to  89  Such as t h e F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s A c t R.S.B.C. 1979, c . t h e E s t a t e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A c t R.S.B.C. 1979, c . 114.  121;  - 166 (a) (b) (c) (d)  grandchildren; grandparents; parents; brothers, sisters, sisters.  half-brothers  and  half-  (3) F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f p a r a g r a p h s (1) and ( 2 ) , when determining r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o the deceased, no d i s t i n c t i o n s h o u l d be made between c h i l d r e n o f m a r r i e d or unmarried parents.52  Although presently tions to  i s , i t i s much more l i m i t e d  made  apply  by o t h e r beyond  friends.  The  basically that his  t h e recommendation extends  a  the family rationale  i s under  i n scope  which  members  behind  r e c o g n i t i o n , by  a person family,  commissions  the c l a s s  would  and  extend  b u t n o t t h e needs  include  of  to consider  of close  the r i g h t close  the extension  t h e Commission,  an o b l i g a t i o n  what i t  t o recommenda-  would  limiting  from  the  was  concept  t h e needs o f  friends  who  survive  intended  to pro-  him.  Yet vide of  the A c t , i n i t s i n i t i a l  p r o t e c t i o n f o r the deceased's  t h e main  lation, that  stages,  both  such  burden  reasons  put f o r t h  in British  spouse  Columbia  law  where  his  family during  Commission  and t h a t  the deceased  5 3  and o t h e r  52  Op. c i t . , f o o t n o t e  53  Ibid.  jurisdictions,  n o t become a  t h e r e was c o n f u s i o n  owed an o b l i g a t i o n  his lifetime,  justifies  and c h i l d r e n .  One  by t h e p r o p o u n d e r s o f t h e l e g i s -  members o f t h e f a m i l y s h o u l d  on s o c i e t y  was  extending  the persons  22, a t pp. 88 and 89.  financial  i n a system o f  to such  y e t not a f t e r  was  members o f  h i s death.  entitled  The  to apply  on  the  basis that a testator  needs  of  though may  his  the  have  The result by  importance  Commission of  such  increased  humane to  should  be  nance  by and  by  in  to consider  and  children,  contemporary  that  would o n l y add  Supra.,  behind the  and  extension  the  different  the even  society  sought  harmony  with  in  their relief  was  vivos  recommended  footnote  48,  a  of  The  part,  by  the  done  s s . 56,  57  parent  the  voiced  which  and  58.  a  An  introof  extension  i s regressive the  by  harmony  and  Act.  the persons a  to  testator  achieve  m a l f u n c t i o n i n g of  after  mainte-  introduction  to  Commission  only  achieved  the o b l i g a t i o n s  jurisdictions  in  dif-  statutes.  the c o m p l a i n t s  d e s i r a b l e to extend be  by  lifetime  of  be  other  posthumous o b l i g a t i o n s .  to the p r e s e n t  i t should  the  to  should  legislation.  intended, and  Why  various  the  action  are  to provide  5 4  spouse;  one  that  recommendations  other  T h i s was  have  occur.  result  during  may  i t concludes  the  to a parent.  i t is socially  apply,  yet  a child  legislation  such  such  statutory o b l i g a t i o n  h i s death?  inter  54  spouse  would s e l d o m  logic,  dependents'  If  family  the  to  legislators  as  of  spouse  be  between  to  of  one  after  such  his  However,  present  maintain  duced  obligation  beyond  motives  one  i s at  the  an  litigation,  attack.  There  child;  has  theorizes that  extended c l a s s  ficult  and  family,  -  diminished.  The  to  167  restatement  entitled of  the  philosophy Other  of  the Act  jurisdictions  plicable,  have  (supra).  In  which relief,  and  have  been  the  i s analysed  other done  the  most  collateral  so.  tabulated  addition  reflects  168  in  province  legislation.  The  extensions,  the  Schedules  of  contemporary  in detail  social  i n Part  Ontario's review  IV  of  (infra).  where to  Part  apI  legislation, dependents'  CHAPTER 5. PERSONS UNDER D I S A B I L I T Y AND RECEIVING SUPPORT FROM THE STATE  Generally, persons nent  entitled  to apply.  any d i s t i n c t i o n  wedlock  are also  questions,  There general would,  difficulty  or should,  i s being  titled because  The  that  support  from  very  born that  guidance.  or  to  not a  of the fact  either  a r e any  exception  whether  by v i r t u e  i n or out o f there  adequate  important  A c t , 1985  this  claimant that  such  mental or p h y s i c a l ,  by t h e s t a t e .  is:  under  person  cases,  a  some d i s a b i l i t y ,  really  to apply  suffering  the extent  those  and t h e p e r t i -  Amendment  children  specifically:  maintained  issue  social  To  be e x c l u d e d  i s under  The  of Rights  the jurisprudence provides  i s , however,  i n determining  The A c t i s c l e a r ,  between  clear.  statement,  claimant  its  islittle  p r o v i s i o n s of the Charter  removing  and  there  i s a person  who  t h e A c t not e n t i t l e d  i s maintained  i s otherwise  en-  to r e l i e f  merely  by t h e s t a t e t h r o u g h  one o f  schemes?  with  very  mental  few e x c e p t i o n s ,  disabilities.  discussion  will  therefore  applicants.  Yet the p r i n c i p l e  be should  deal  The on  with  emphasis  mentally  be o f e q u a l  persons in  this  disabled  application  to persons their  are c o n f l i c t i n g  the t e s t a t o r ' s duty  abled law  s t a t e support  regardless of the nature of  disability.  There of  receiving  170 -  dependent  who  in British  in British  tions  a brief  dictions  The  o f a u t h o r i t y as t o t h e e x t e n t  t o make p r o v i s i o n s f o r a m e n t a l l y  i s being  Columbia  dence  lines  maintained  i s f a r from  Columbia  refers  by t h e s t a t e ,  clear.  to that  As t h e j u r i s p r u of other  a n a l y s i s of the p e r t i n e n t cases  province  of British  supplies  incapacitated.  care,  Columbia,  at public  Testators  whose  like  many  expense,  families  other  include  provisions  The q u e s t i o n  f o r him.  the P u b l i c  Trustee  an o r d e r  some o r , i n d e e d ,  Underlying  it  under  this  able,  the A c t r e q u i r i n g  administered  that  once t h e p e r s o n  mentally  i s whether or person  the estate  to defray  of the  On t h e one hand  c o n t r i b u t e t o f i n a n c i n g such  On t h e o t h e r  care  can  care.  i s t h e r e f o r e an a b s o l u t e  although  juris-  testamentary  o f such  by t h e s t a t e .  that a l l taxpayers there  a  i s the issue of the nature  further contribution.  argument  cases  as t h e " g u a r d i a n "  question  programmes and t h a t  the  i n such  pay a l l o f the c o s t s o f such  programmes  c a n be s a i d  without  juris-  to the mentally  sometimes c h o o s e n o t t o make  benefit  jurisdic-  of those  i n c a p a c i t a t e d member  obtain  and t h e  i s essential.  dictions,  not  dis-  itself  f o r whom t h e c a r e  entitlement  hand, t h e r e  exists  i s universally  avail-  i s being  s u p p l i e d has,  or  i s entitled  tribute  to the cost  Courts issue, their  have  treatment  large  strongly other  o f such  leaving  o f such  positions.  however  needs o f o t h e r in  Canada  to  contribute.  not  only  for  provisions  stitutionalized  persons.  A.  Cases  New Z e a l a n d  Zealand,  enact  dependents'  first  to deal  the  had  been  Columbia  amenities  the issue  philoso-  no  testator,  view  i s found  Wales.  Some  the idea  of the estate  and t h e  view  i s also size  Courts  predominant  have  appear  Commonwealth  been  made  to require  care,  f o r the b e n e f i t  but a l s o  of the  jurisdiction  in-  to  n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y was t h e  of testamentary  contribution i n  dependents.  T r u s t e e v. P u b l i c  f o r some t i m e b e f o r e a patient  South  of the s t a t e  legislation,  re McCarthy; P u b l i c  that  This  policy  favour  o f even moderate  the f i r s t  relief  with  and New  The l a t t e r  case o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d  In were  as  that  contribute.  to the cost  of extra  said  to the s i z e  The B r i t i s h  contribution  con-  However,  extreme  t h o s e o f New Z e a l a n d  claimants. estates  the underlying  indicates  have  i n England  subject  where  with  t o the l e g i s l a t o r s .  courts  h i s means, need  contribution,  New  dealt  questions  specifically  he o r s h e s h o u l d  care.  such  Some  articulated  courts  o f h i s own,  not d i r e c t l y  presumably  phical  of  t o , funds  171 -  i n a mental  Trustee  the t e s t a t o r ' s hospital  death,  and t h e r e  the f a c t s h i s wife  was a nom-  - 172 inal  charge  only to the t e s t a t o r  the t e s t a t o r  made no p r o v i s i o n  Edwards J . s t a t e d  f o r such  care.  On h i s d e a t h ,  f o r her i n h i s W i l l .  that:  [The t e s t a t o r ] h a v i n g s u c c e e d e d i n c a s t i n g t h e b u r d e n of n e a r l y f i v e - s i x t h s o f the c o s t o f h i s w i f e ' s maint e n a n c e upon t h e community d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e , has endeavoured t o impose t h e whole o f t h a t liability upon t h e community a f t e r h i s d e a t h . Obviously i t would be i m p o s s i b l e t o i m a g i n e a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e salutary provisions of the Family Protection Act c o u l d more p r o p e r l y be i n v o k e d t h a n i n t h i s . 5 5  The ing  r e m a r k s o f Edwards J . have o f t e n  variance of Wills  The  issue  the  case  the  provision  patient,  came b e f o r e  of Curtis  for a child  a t the cost the e x i s t i n g  sidered  the case  little  t h e New  v. A d a m s  viewing  "of  t o reimburse  5 6  been c i t e d  the s t a t e .  Zealand  Court  where t h e t r i a l  of the t e s t a t o r ,  of h i s other  o f Appeal i n  judge  who  children's  o f In r e M c C a r t h y 5 8  5 7  a  share.  and o t h e r  However, t h e C o u r t  augmented  was  jurisprudence the appellate  assistance".  as f a v o u r -  mental In r e -  judges  decided  stated  concases  unequiv-  ocably:  55  [1919] N.Z.L.R. 461 ( S . C . ) .  807  a t p.  808,  [1919],  G.L.R.  461 a t p .  56  [1933] N.Z.L.R. 385, [1933] G.L.R. 392.  57  Supra,  58  S u p r a , f o o t n o t e 56, N.Z.L.R. a t p p . 391 and 392, G.L.R. a t p. 395.  f o o t n o t e 55.  -  173 -  The P u b l i c T r u s t e e was e n t i t l e d t o make a p p l i c a t i o n under t h e s e c t i o n , b u t we t h i n k that in a small estate the Court, i n considering the various moral c l a i m s o f t h e c h i l d r e n o f a t e s t a t o r , must t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t an a l l o w a n c e made i n f a v o u r o f a c h i l d c o n f i n e d i n a mental h o s p i t a l i s not i n p o i n t of f a c t f o r i t s p e r s o n a l b e n e f i t , but i s i n r e l i e f o f the g e n e r a l t a x p a y e r .  The  Court  stated  further  that:  I f t h i s were a s u b s t a n t i a l e s t a t e i t m i g h t have been t h e c a s e t h a t t h e m o r a l d u t y o f t h e t e s t a t o r would have r e q u i r e d him t o make p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e payment of t h e mental h o s p i t a l f e e s o f h i s a f f l i c t e d s o n , and that the Court should have made an o r d e r repairing any f a i l u r e i n h i s d u t y i n t h a t r e s p e c t ...59  Obviously, Trustee, the  application,  The Adams  59  position  the Court  the Court  fees  the personal  capacity,  the Court  by  the Court  as i n f l e x i b l e where  that  the  had a r i g h t  before  making  as that  imposes  t o make p r o v i s i o n s that  benefit  of Appeal  contributions  o f Appeal  recognizing  was  Public  to bring an  award  of the e s t a t e .  taken  of the e s t a t e ,  pital  in  the s i z e  In r e McCarthy  size  for  however,  i s not q u i t e  theless  of  i n h i s representative  would c o n s i d e r  J.  the view  expressed  were a  i n Curtis  by Edwards  required.  duty,  v.  subject  Neverto the  f o r t h e payment o f h o s -  s u c h payments a r e n o t , g e n e r a l l y ,  o f the p a t i e n t ,  but f o r the taxpayer  general.  Op. c i t . , f o o t n o t e 394.  56, N.Z.L.R. a t p . 390, G.L.R. a t p .  B.  A u s t r a l i a n Cases  The  philosophy  totally that  free  could  an i n m a t e not take  reality,  Some In  from  a husband's  widow,  in  174 -  basis  ficiary  estate  years 6 1  decision  the A u s t r a l i a n  I n Re W i l l i a m s  Napier  i s not  J . ordered  hospital,  t h a t an o r d e r  stating  ofh i s t h a t he  i n her favour  would,  the state.  later,  He  6 0  cases  c o n t r i b u t e t o the maintenance  o f a s t a t e mental  benefit only  five  that  doubt.  i n t o account  re W h i t i n g .  dicting  underlining  Napier  recognized  i n re Williams  J . modified his earlier  his position i n apparent  contra-  and d i s t i n g u i s h e d i t on t h e  t h e a s s e t s were g r e a t e r  and t h e t e s t a m e n t a r y  bene-  h a d no m o r a l c l a i m upon t h e e s t a t e .  Nevertheless,  he c l e a r l y  identified  the i s s u e as f o l l o w s :  The q u e s t i o n w h i c h h a s been p r i n c i p a l l y d e b a t e d i n t h i s c a s e i s whether t h e C o u r t , i n t h e d i s c h a r g e o f t h i s duty, should take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the f a c t t h a t any a l l o w a n c e , w h i c h may be made t o t h e a p p l i c a n t , w i l l not r e a l l y enure f o r her b e n e f i t but w i l l go i n r e l i e f o f t h e c o s t o f h e r s u p p o r t i n t h e S t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n i n w h i c h s h e now i s , o r i n o t h e r words, i n r e l i e f o f the general taxpayer.62  In r e a c h i n g  h i s c o n c l u s i o n he s t a t e d :  60  [1933] S.A.S.R. 107 a t p . I l l ( S . C . ) .  61  [1938] S.A.S.R. 188 (S.A. Sup. C t . ) .  62  Ibid.,  a t p . 192.  -  175 -  I c a n n o t s h u t my e y e s t o t h e f a c t has no r e a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e l i e f  He  therefore  that that  the applicant i s claimed.63  decided:  In t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e , where t h e r e l i e f , i f g r a n t e d , would not enure t o t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e a p p l i c a n t h e r s e l f , but to the b e n e f i t of the general t a x p a y e r , I have no h e s i t a t i o n i n r e f u s i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . 64  Perhaps behalf Duff.  of 6 5  the strongest an  the  incapacitated  rejecting  claimant  On an a p p l i c a t i o n on b e h a l f  institution, such  view  Sugerman J . r e j e c t e d  as C u r t i s  6 6  and W h i t i n g  s i z e of the estate.  6 7  an  application  i s found  i n Re  of a survivor  His analysis  the matter  S.  i n a mental  the views expressed  that  W.  on  i n cases  may t u r n  upon  was b a s i c a l l y t h a t :  The S t a t e u n d e r t a k e s t h e b u r d e n o f t h e m a i n t e n a n c e i n h o s p i t a l s o f m e n t a l l y a f f l i c t e d members o f t h e community. The c o s t o f such maintenance i s d i s charged out o f revenue.68 The d u t y o f t h e e s t a t e o f a d e c e a s e d f a t h e r t o r e imburse t o t h e S t a t e the c o s t o f m a i n t a i n i n g a ment a l l y a f f l i c t e d c h i l d must, I t h i n k , be s o u g h t e l s e where t h a n i n t h e T e s t a t o r ' s F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , 63  I b i d . , a t p . 193.  64  I b i d . , a t p . 194.  65  (1948), Ct. ) .  66  Supra,  footnote  56.  67  Supra,  footnote  61.  68  Supra, 283.  footnote  48  S.R.  (N.S.W.)  65, S.R.  510, 65 W.N.  282  (N.S.W. Sup.  (N.S.W.) a t p . 511, W.N.  a t p.  -  176 -  and t h a t , a s i t seems large or small.69  t o me,  whether  the estate i s  The p r o p e r a p p r o a c h , t h e n , a p p e a r s t o me t o be t h a t p r o v i s i o n s h o u l d n o t be made w h i c h would m e r e l y have t h e e f f e c t o f r e l i e v i n g t h e r e v e n u e o f a c h a r g e w i t h o u t c o n f e r r i n g any b e n e f i t upon t h e a p p l i c a n t . A p r o v i s i o n may o f c o u r s e be made where t h e a p p l i c a n t is benefited, even though i n bringing about this result there i s o r may be some relief o f the revenue.70  An cate  analysis  that  (1)  o f t h e judgment  Sugerman J . ' s v i e w s  Under p r e s e n t s o c i a l  i n Re W.  c a n be summarized  legislation  to m a i n t a i n m e n t a l l y i n f i r m  (2)  I f such estate  duty of a  statutory  (3)  The d u t y equal  S. D u f f  indi-  as f o l l o w s :  the state  has a duty  individuals.  i s t o be s h i f t e d deceased  would  parent,  from  the s t a t e  there  should  be  to the clear  language.  imposed  duty  incompetent  upon  the s t a t e  does  o f a p a r e n t o r a spouse  not negate  an  t o p r o v i d e f o r an  dependent  [ I ] n s o f a r a s p r o v i s i o n may be made f o r b e n e f i t s t o the c h i l d [or spouse] o t h e r than or a d d i t i o n a l t o mere m a i n t e n a n c e d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f c o n f i n e m e n t i n a S t a t e mental h o s p i t a l , such p r o v i s i o n ought, subject of course to a l l other relevant circumstances, t o be made, and i n t h i s r e s p e c t t h e s i z e o f t h e  69  Supra, 283.  f o o t n o t e 65, S.R.  70  Ibid.,  S.R.  (N.S.W.)  a t p . 512, W.N.  (N.S.W.) a t pp. 512 and 513, W.N.  a t p.  a t p . 284.  - 177 e s t a t e and s t a n c e s . 71  However, hard  C.  i n the absence  t o s a y whether  the Duff  i s only  mentally  (deceased), refused part  one  incapacitated Hayward  to vary  v.  a  case  i t are  High  relevant  Court  reflects  State  circum-  decision  i tis  t h e A u s t r a l i a n law.  had m a i n t a i n e d  responsibility The  testator  state  expressed  was  involving  and  In Others  who  Re  Shortly before  Watkins  the  plaintiff,  the death  such,  in  and i t was  his intention  to leave  court  the l a t t e r  S e r v i c e A c t , 1946 p l a c e d persons  claims  the  7 2  during  h i s daughter,  to maintain  evidence  case  dependents.  of a testator  the N a t i o n a l Health  position.  English  Chatterton  the W i l l  of h i s l i f e  testator  the  of the  upon t h e daughter's  accepted, her c a r e  that  to the  a s s o o n a s t h e A c t came t o e f f e c t .  The testator that  of  reported  i n a p r i v a t e mental h o s p i t a l .  the  upon  E n g l i s h Cases  There by  the c l a i m  court  considered  t o make  Supra, 284.  72  [1949] 1 (Ch.D.).  i t was  reasonable  p r o v i s i o n f o r the p l a i n t i f f  she c o u l d a n d s h o u l d  71  "whether  footnote  65,  A l l E.R.  be m a i n t a i n e d  S.R. 695,  on  f o r the  the  f r e e of charge  (N.S.W.) a t p . 513, W.N. 65  T.L.R.  410,  [1949]  footing under  a t p.  W.N.  125  the  National  hesitation  Health  Service  in giving  Through  the  an  plaintiff benefit  would  of  The  the  the  new  care  therefore  Although Millward relates is  v. to  not  no  fact be  Roxburgh  7 3  J.  had  no  reply.  makes  the  theme  of  reference  that  for  the  her  the  the  to  order  the  testa-  sought  benefit  judgment  scheme was  their  but  families testator  reflects  meant  of had  the no  to  by  the  for  the  not  dealing  the  because  mentally  provides  7 4  general  from  with  concept  an as  burden such  that  dependent  is  of  supplying  incapacitated  under  persons,  p a r a l l e l as  provide  receiving  just  to.  interesting  to  philo-  obligation  t o whether o r  responsibility  the  r e l i e v e not  Commonwealth c a s e s were r e f e r r e d  Shenton  relieved  merely  also  No  to  health  but  his W i l l .  1946".  state.  patients and  Act,  he  really  underlined  sophy t h a t  -  affirmative  judgment  t o r ' s m o r a l d u t y , nor  178  not  for  a a  it  testator dependent  support  from  the  state.  In estate  this to  rationale  case,  the  testatrix,  charity  and  nothing  that  a  to  t h e y were, i n t e r a l i a ,  73  I b i d . , A l l E.R. 126.  74  [1972] 2 A l l E.R.  at  p.  1025,  699,  widow, her  six  left  her  children  self-supporting.  T.L.R. a t  p.  [1972] 1 W.L.R. 711  412,  W.N.  (C.A.).  entire on  the  The  at  p.  fact  was,  however,  capacitated  for  trial  the  testatrix  state. the  judge  because Lord basis  anything  179  -  one  of  her  sons  d e p e n d e n t on  state  that  totally  The  sumably  on  and  -  took  the  t o make no of  the  merely  there  provision  support  D e n n i n g M.R. that  position  he  rejected was  no  he  was  because  the  reason  was  physically  assistance.  that  i t was  f o r the was  reasonable  applicant,  receiving  view of  the  state  pre-  from  trial  for depriving  receiving  in-  the  the judge  son  assistance  of and  stated:  So f a r f r o m s t a t e a s s i s t a n c e b e i n g a g r o u n d f o r g i v ing him l e s s , i t i s a g r o u n d f o r g i v i n g him more by d o i n g something to a l l e v i a t e the d i s t r e s s under which he s u f f e r s . I t may not n e c e s s a r i l y be by i n c r e a s i n g h i s income. I t may be b e t t e r by p r o v i d i n g a lump sum so as t o e n a b l e him t o have a t e l e v i s i o n s e t , o r a c a r , or even a b e t t e r house. A lump sum would be best here.75  The for  making  citated its  Millward  case  provisions  but  welfare  does for  i t does d e a l scheme,  is  with a  have  i s t o make p r o v i s i o n s  75  I b i d . , A l l E.R.  after  76  Ibid.  1028.  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  are  support  himself.  mentally  to  What  from  "above t h e  a t p.  with  c a s e where t h e  providing  of  beyond mere s u b s t e n a n c e  deal  d e p e n d e n t s who  incapable done  looking  not  the  state,  a  through  person  the  court  estate  for  breadline".  incapa-  7 6  who  seems  is to  something  In the  Re  Watkins  Will  on  the  relying  on  the  1946 •  Although  recognized  the  court  basis  that  estate  would,  D.  Canadian  issue  of  could  the  testator National it  the  provisions  had  made  Health  may  be  been p r o v i d e d course  of  his  Will  Service  Act,  that  state provided  the  court  support,  with a portion time,  in  provide  of  her  the the with  i n Re  position  W.S.  Duff.  be New  no  different  than  said  have p r o d u c e d numerous c a s e s on  support  that  for from  Canadian  Zealand philosophy i t can  be  said  mentally the  and  have  rejected  that  incapacitated  state,  courts  there  the  and  although  unequivocably the  Australian  is clear  prefer-  former.  Columbia  Estate  7 8  where  offers the  who  was  77  See  78  [1950] 1 W.W.R. 1055  supra, at  pp.  the  testator  institutionalized.  text  really  7 7  provisions  receiving  ones,  the  British  is  Cases  not the  ence f o r  to  due  English  are  English  Taylor  in  testamentary  who  adopted and  had  Canadian provinces  people it  the  expressed  The  the  disturb  "comforts".  Perhaps that  not  the  of  in addition  daughter  additional  -  articulated,  incapacitated which  did  that  provisions not  180  Cody  175,  first left J.  176  (B.C.S.C).  and  reported nothing  varied  177.  the  case for  his  Will  in  Re  widow of  the  - 181 testator  t o p r o v i d e f o r a m e n i t i e s , a s and  those s u p p l i e d concept  that  by t h e i n s t i t u t i o n . the  from the s t a t e  The which most  next  to the e s t a t e  Canadian  subsequent  ciated  8 2  was  made o f t h e  s h o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d  i s In r e Cousins  on t h e  beyond  deceased.  c a s e and  specifically  i n Re W. S. D u f f  i n Re W a t k i n s ]  of the  decision  decisions  C.J.K.B.  No m e n t i o n  o f maintenance  has become a l e a d i n g  Williams  of  burden  when needed,  i s generally subject.  rejected  (Deceased)  judgment,  the p r i n c i p l e  8 0  enun-  inferentially  and made t h e p r o n o u n c e m e n t  7 9  considered i n  In h i s  [and  8 1  Estate,  that  that:  [ T ] h e r e i s i n M a n i t o b a a m o r a l d u t y on a t e s t a t o r , who i s a b l e t o do s o , t o make p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t o f a n a f f l i c t e d c h i l d , o f whate v e r age, who i s c o n f i n e d i n a m e n t a l h o s p i t a l . I h o l d t h a t t h a t m o r a l d u t y i s t o t h e c h i l d and n o t t o the s t a t e . 8 3 Williams tance given his  C.J.K.B. in Curtis  comment  that  chose  t o minimize  v. A d a m s  "but  8 4  the  only  a c i r c u m s t a n c e t o be c o n s i d e r e d  any,  a l l o w a n c e s h o u l d be m a d e . "  ( 1 9 5 1 ) , 5 W.W.R. (N.S.) 289 (Man.  80  I b i d . , W.W.R. a t p .  81  Supra, footnote  65.  82  Supra,  72.  8  Supra, footnote  3  84  Supra,  85  Supra, footnote  size  impor-  o f t h e e s t a t e by  o f the  estate i s  i n d e t e r m i n i n g what, i f  83  79  footnote  apparent  t o the s i z e  i n my view  296,  the  Man.  K.B.),  R. a t p .  79, W.W.R. a t p.  59 Man.  R. 372.  381.  299,  Man.  R. a t p .  383.  296,  Man.  R. a t p.  380.  f o o t n o t e 56. 79, W.W.R. a t p.  He d i d r e c o g n i z e  182 -  that:  [ W ] h i l e t h e m o r a l d u t y e x i s t s , and i t i s a t l a r g e a s i t were, i t w i l l , o f c o u r s e , o n l y be e n f o r c e d with due r e g a r d t o t h e e s t a t e o f t h e t e s t a t o r , t h e n e c e s s i t i e s o f t h e o b j e c t s o f h i s b o u n t y , and a l l t h e c i r cumstances o f t h e case.86  The  next  decision  case  o f Re B r o u s s e a u  made p r o v i s i o n s a  i n the chronology Estate.  f o r t h e payment  provincial institution.  of mit  t h e widow f o r a l a r g e r her being  argument  made  application hospitals tenance  was t h a t  Columbia  in his Will  o f h i s widow's m a i n t e n a n c e i n  An a p p l i c a t i o n was made o n b e h a l f portion  of the estate  so as to per-  facility.  Part  of  the  f o r the b e n e f i c i a r i e s opposing the  the various  statutes  incompetents  f o r such persons o f such  The t e s t a t o r  8 7  to a private  by c o u n s e l  and m e n t a l l y  ponsibility the  admitted  i s the B r i t i s h  with  made p r o v i s i o n s  by t h e s t a t e  maintenance  dealing  fell  and t h e r e f o r e , upon  the s t a t e  mental  f o r mainthe resand  not  testator.  To  this  argument C l y n e J . r e s p o n d e d :  W i t h o u t d e c i d i n g whether t h e r e l a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s o f these Acts would e n a b l e t h e p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s t o recover t h e c o s t of Mrs. Brousseau's maintenance from her h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e i f he h a d n o t p r o v i d e d f o r p a y ment by h i s w i l l , I am o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e a r g u ment o f l e a r n e d c o u n s e l f o r t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s b e g s  86  I b i d . , W.W.R. a t p . 299, Man. R. a t p . 384.  87  [1952] 4 D.L.R. 664, 7 W.W.R. (N.S.) 262 ( S . C ) .  -  183 -  the q u e s t i o n . We a r e not c o n s i d e r i n g t h e method o f r e c o v e r y o f the c o s t o f h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n o f a l u n a t i c i n t h i s c a s e but whether a l u n a t i c w i f e i s e n t i t l e d to s h a r e i n her husband's bounty.88  He  adopted  the p o s i t i o n  taken  i n I n re C o u s i n s :  [ T ] h e r e a r e c a s e s s u c h a s I n r e C o u s i n s (1952) 5 WWR (NS) 289, where W i l l i a m s , C.J.Q.B. i n a l e a r n e d and c o m p r e h e n s i v e judgment r e v i e w s a l l t h e a u t h o r i t i e s o n t h e p o i n t and comes t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t : 'Whatever may be t h e p o l i c y o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e r e c o v e r y o f m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s , I am o f o p i n i o n t h a t t h e p o l i c y o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a s shown by t h a t A c t i s t h a t i t i s t h e m o r a l d u t y o f a t e s t a t o r t o make a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d s u p p o r t o f h i s d e p e n d a n t c h i l d who, b y r e a s o n o f m e n t a l i n f i r m i t y , i s u n a b l e t o m a i n t a i n and support himself.'89  C l y n e J . c o n c l u d e d as  follows:  To my mind i t i s c l e a r t h a t a man has a m o r a l d u t y t o support h i s w i f e i n s i c k n e s s and i n h e a l t h and the d u t y e x t e n d s d u r i n g t h e i r j o i n t l i v e s and a f t e r h i s d e a t h , i n s o f a r a s h i s means p e r m i t . I n my v i e w , t h a t m o r a l d u t y i s not d i s c h a r g e d by r e a s o n o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t a t e w i l l l o o k a f t e r h i s f a m i l y i f he d o e s n o t a n d I have no h e s i t a t i o n i n f o l l o w i n g t h e judgment i n t h e C o u s i n s c a s e i n p r e f e r e n c e t o o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d t o me by c o u n s e l . 9 0  Counsel testator  88  for  the  i n fact  Ibid.,  made  D.L.R.  explanatory  residuary beneficiaries  note  adequate  a t p.  provision  667, W.W.R.  i n f o o t n o t e 120,  argued  that the  for his wife  a t p.  265.  infra.  89  Ibid.,  D.L.R. a t p.  671,  W.W.R. a t p.  90  Ibid.,  D.L.R. a t p.  671,  W.W.R. a t pp.  269. 269  and  a s the  270.  See  public vate  institution  one i n B r i t i s h  Clyne ceding  J . , relying the p a r i t y  facilities,  184 -  provided  a s good  Columbia.  In responding  on the m e d i c a l o f medical  a private  medical  institution  ness and a degree o f p r i v a c y " ,  9 1  between would  a s any  to this  evidence  care  care  that,  pri-  argument,  while  con-  p u b l i c and p r i v a t e  provide  more  "quiet-  stated as follows:  I am o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t p r o v i s i o n s h o u l d a l s o be made t o e n s u r e t h a t s h e s h o u l d have t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e treatment w h i l e she remains i l l , having r e g a r d t o t h e s i z e of the estate.92  Clyne  J . d i d not, therefore, l i m i t  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o  t h e minimum c a r e w h i c h w o u l d be p r o v i d e d but  related  the c a r e  such  attempted  deceased,  one  o f whom  and  later,  a different  the  Welfare  Deniset  o f t h e e s t a t e and  J . o f t h e M a n i t o b a Queen's B e n c h  approach  a widower,  i n Re P f r i m m e r  was s u r v i v e d  of a provincial  to receive financial  a s s i s t a n c e from  o f the province  o f Manitoba  In h i s W i l l ,  Estate  by two a d u l t  was a n i n m a t e  maintenance.  estate  t o the s i z e  facilities,  i t c o u l d buy.  Some y e a r s  titled  responsibility  by p u b l i c  9 3  where  children,  hospital  and  en-  the Department o f  f o r the cost  the deceased  left  o f h i s care his entire  t o h i s other son.  91  Ibid.,  D.L.R. a t p . 672, W.W.R. a t p . 270.  92  Ibid.,  D.L.R. a t p . 672, W.W.R. a t p p . 270 and 271.  93  (1968),  69 D.L.R. (2d) 71, 64 W.W.R. (N.S.) 762.  - 185 Deniset capable  a testator  dependent unable of  o f Welfare.  legislature  that  that  any b e n e f a c t i o n  s o n w o u l d end up i n t h e p r o v i n c i a l  Department the  J . recognized  recognized that  in-  through the  the p o l i c y o f  a s t o t h e T e s t a t o r s F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e A c t was owed a d u t y  children  t o maintain  who,  o f maintenance and s u p p o r t  by r e a s o n  themselves,  the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s  maintained  He a l s o  coffers  to the  intent  o f mental  to his  infirmity,  were  and y e t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e  as t o dependents  who were  being  by t h e s t a t e .  Relying  on t h e r a t i o n a l e  o f Re W a t k i n s  9 4  he c o n c l u d e d :  In my v i e w i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o d a y f o r a t e s t a t o r , f u l l y aware o f h i s m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n s t o w a r d s h i s w i f e and c h i l d r e n , t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t when m a k i n g h i s w i l l t h a t t h e S t a t e does t a k e c a r e o f t h e needy, a n d , i n the absence o f express l e g i s l a t i o n t o the cont r a r y , he does n o t f a i l i n h i s m o r a l d u t y i f he c o n s i d e r s t h a t one o f t h e ' r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' r e garding h i s dependants' means i s help from t h e State.95  On  appeal,  9 6  the  Court  may  persist,  stated,  however,  o f Appeal  Deniset reiterated  notwithstanding  i n delivering  J.'s decision that state  was r e v e r s e d a n d  a testator's support.  moral  duty  Dickson J.A.  h i s judgment:  94  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 72.  95  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 93, D.L.R. a t p . 76, W.W.R. a t p . 767.  96  ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 2 D.L.R. (3d) 525, 66 W.W.R. (N.S.) 574; l e a v e t o a p p e a l r e f u s e d 2 D.L.R. (3d) 720.  - 186 We share t h e view implicit i n t h e judgment o f W i l l i a m s , C.J.Q.B. i n t h e C o u s i n s c a s e , s u p r a , t h a t a t e s t a t o r may owe a m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n t o a d i s a b l e d dependant notwithstanding that such dependant i s b e i n g m a i n t a i n e d by t h e s t a t e . A testator exercising t h e d u t y imposed upon him by t h e A c t would have t o c o n s i d e r , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e f o l l o w i n g : (a) T h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e c o v e r y by t h e d i s a b l e d p e r s o n ; ( b ) The m i n i m a l n a t u r e o f s t a t e s u p p o r t w h i c h i n most c a s e s i s u n a b l e t o be much above s u b s i s t e n c e l e v e l ; and ( c ) The p o s i t i o n o f t h o s e f o r whom t h e d i s a b l e d p e r s o n i s h i m s e l f r e s p o n s i b l e , s u c h as w i f e and c h i l d r e n . 97  In  1980 i n Hawker  Saskatchewan the  Court  testator  nothing  left  et a l .  o f Queen's everything  v.  Bench  Hawker i nvarying  t o a mentally  to h i s three mentally handicapped  the f o l l o w i n g  statement  of the  Estate a Will  sound  adult  3 0  the where  c h i l d , and  children,  made  law:  It i s now s e t t l e d law i n t h i s p r o v i n c e that t h e Dependants' R e l i e f A c t recognizes that i ti s the m o r a l d u t y o f t h e t e s t a t o r t o make a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t o f a d e p e n d e n t c h i l d o f w h a t e v e r a g e who, by r e a s o n o f mental i n f i r m i t y , i s u n a b l e t o m a i n t a i n and s u p p o r t h i m s e l f , e v e n t h o u g h h i s needs have t o be p r o v i d e d by t h e s t a t e o r he i s a p a t i e n t i n a p r o v i n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n m a i n t a i n e d by t h e p r o v i n c e . T h e s e p r i n c i p l e s were e n u n c i a t e d by t h e M a n i t o b a Court o f Appeal i n Re Pfrimmer Estate (1969), 66 W.W.R. 574, a n d by W i l l i a m s , C.J.K.B., i n Re C o u s i n s E s t a t e , [1952] 5 W.W.R. 289, and were a p p r o v e d by C u l l i t o n C . J . S . , i n Spicer v. Fawell, an oral decision of the S a s k a t c h e w a n C o u r t o f A p p e a l d e l i v e r e d on A p r i l 26, 1971.99  97  Ibid.,  98  (1980),  99  Ibid.,  D.L.R. a t p.  526,  W.W.R. a t p.  8 S a s k . R. 433 ( Q . B . ) . a t p.  435.  575.  In J.  less  of  took  the a  same  (sub  The  nom  case  involved  brought being  by  Re  after  -  the  decision  (Saskatchewan  position Deis;  i n Re  Spicer  v.  an  intestate  Deis;  the  widow w i t h a  the  required  son  the  and  incapable  having  to  be  the the  ;  re-  view  that  1 0 0  of  was  application  was  opposed  the  are  no  son  had  i f the  Deis  Bench)  application  as  originated  considered  v.  point  son  p r i n c i p l e s considered  Queen's  1 0 1  r e s u l t that  mentally  incapable  Nevertheless  the  of  Deis  Deis).  succession  i n Hawker, Cameron  Court  i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t f r o m  r e s i s t e d by  mentally  those  Court  conflicting  versed  it  than a year  187  to  the  application. different  than  commenced  the  needs were f u l l y  met  proceedings.  Cameron by  certain  province be  able  will.  of to  He  J.  considered  provisions  on  the  contained  Saskatchewan rely  that  such  commented as  and  son's in  that  the  statute  therefore  statutory  a  provisions  law  of  testator in  the  should  settling  his  follows:  I do not t h i n k t h e y s h o u l d be v i e w e d as c h a r i t a b l e o r gratuitous. They a r e p r o v i s i o n s w h i c h he and the r e s t o f us have c r e a t e d and make p o s s i b l e . We cont r i b u t e t o them. They amount t o good s e n s e and good planning by a l l o f us f o r w h i c h we, including this t e s t a t o r , pay a p p r o p r i a t e l y . In t h a t s e n s e he has a l r e a d y made p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e r e t a r d e d son.102  100  ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 9 S a s k . R.  101  (1983),  102  Supra,  21  257,  S a s k . R.  footnote  100,  328,  11 13  E.T.R. 68  (Q.B.).  E.T.R. 88  S a s k . R.  a t p.  (C.A.).  262,  E.T.R. a t p.  73.  - 188 Cameron obligation of  J.  from  the theory  t o p r o v i d e reimbursement  maintenance  lem  rejected  i n an i n s t i t u t i o n ,  the f o l l o w i n g  that  a  testator  to the state  preferring  had no  f o r the cost  t o view  the prob-  perspective:  Ample p r o v i s i o n h a s been made f o r t h e r e t a r d e d s o n o f t h i s deceased. In a v e r y r e a l sense, t h e deceased, as a t a x p a y e r , h a s p r o v i d e d f o r t h i s a s s i s t a n c e . As a member o f s o c i e t y a s a whole he t o o i s e n t i t l e d t o the b e n e f i t s o f the f i n a n c i a l resources o f the prov i n c e and h a s , a l o n g w i t h a l l o f us, seen t o i t t h a t t h o s e r e s o u r c e s a r e d i r e c t e d t o t h i s and o t h e r p u r poses. He has t h u s met h i s o b l i g a t i o n s . 1 0 3  The  Saskatchewan  Court  confirming  the l i n e  decision the the  decisions  such  reversed  of a u t h o r i t i e s  o f I n r e C o u s i n s , Re P f r i m m e r  statement  that  of Appeal  o f Maher  statement  J . i n Hawker  "correctly  Cameron J . ' s  running  through  E s t a t e and q u o t i n g  v. H a w k e r  and s u c c i n c t l y  1 0 4  concluded  stated"  1 0 5  the  law.  In Mott and  t h e most  et a l . made  1  0  6  recent  a testatrix  no p r o v i s i o n s  seven year o l d son. behalf  of the son.  charities  British  that  left  Columbia her e n t i r e  f o r her m e n t a l l y  decision, estate  no p r o v i s i o n  should  was made be made  103  Ibid.,  Sask.  104  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 98.  105  Supra,  f o o t n o t e 101 Sask.  106  ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 6 D.L.R. ( 4 t h ) 444, 16 E.T.R. 175  v.  to charities  handicapped  The P u b l i c T r u s t e e b r o u g h t The argument  Penty  twenty-  p r o c e e d i n g s on  on b e h a l f  of the  f o r the claimant  R. a t p p . 262 and 263, E.T.R. a t p . 73.  R. a t p . 334, E.T.R. a t p . 93. (B.C.S.C).  - 189 unless  i t c o u l d be shown t h a t  provide a "better  MacKinnon  such  p r o v i s i o n s would  assist  to  life".  J . rejected  t h e argument  taking  the  following  position:  Counsel have p r o d u c e d no a u t h o r i t y to support the p r o p o s i t i o n submitted that a 'better life' i s the p r o p e r c r i t e r i o n o r t e s t by w h i c h t h e C o u r t s h o u l d determine i f t h e t e s t a t r i x made a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n for t h e c a r e and maintenance o f Donald. I am o f t h e v i e w t h e i s s u e h e r e i s w h e t h e r o r n o t an award s h o u l d be made when D o n a l d ' s needs a r e now b e i n g p r o v i d e d by the p u b l i c purse. I m p l i c i t i n the submission of the defendants i s the p r o p o s i t i o n that, i f a l l of D o n a l d ' s needs a r e p r o p e r l y met by t h e p u b l i c p u r s e , t h e n no award s h o u l d be made. The a u t h o r i t i e s do n o t support such a p r o p o s i t i o n . 1 0 7  After  reviewing  the  decisions  of  P f r i m m e r , Hawker a n d D e i s , he c o n c l u d e d  Cousins,  as  follows:  Brousseau, 1 0 8  I adopt t h e p r i n c i p l e s e n u n c i a t e d i n t h e c a s e s r e f e r red t o a b o v e l 0 9 and c o n c l u d e t h e t e s t a t r i x f a i l e d i n her moral o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e f o r her s o n .  The  court  then  directed  that  the e n t i r e  and  that  and  maintenance o f the c l a i m a n t .  107  Ibid. , added).  108  Ibid.,  109  Cousins,  e s t a t e be s e t a s i d e  some o r a l l o f t h e income be u s e d  D.L.R.  at  p.  448,  E.T.R.  at  f o r the proper  p.  179  D.L.R. a t p . 449, E.T.R. a t p . 181. Brousseau,  P f r i m m e r , Hawker, and D e i s .  care  (emphasis  - 190 Of  note  Columbia  for  that  whereas  d e c i s i o n s on t h e s u b j e c t ,  Brousseau to  i s the f a c t  Estate,  the court  t h e two o r i g i n a l  namely,  was r e a d y  an i m p r o v e d  would  indicate  level that  of care,  i n Re T a y l o r  to vary  p r o v i d e f o r amenities not provided  estate  a n d Re  the W i l l  by t h e s t a t e  the d e c i s i o n  the t e s t a t o r ' s  British  so as  care, or  o f the Penty  case  may be c a l l e d  upon  as t h e p r i m a r y s o u r c e o f f i n a n c i n g .  E.  Summary o f B r i t i s h  Columbia  Decisions  The  Columbia  appears  (a)  law i n B r i t i s h  A  testator's  tally  incompetent  provisions testator for,  (b)  moral  costs.  t o p r o v i d e f o r a meni s not negated  state  schemes.  by t h e  In e f f e c t ,  a  1 1 0  obligation  incompetent  regardless  tion.  dependent  o f c a r e under  The t e s t a t o r ' s  benefit  obligation  has a d u t y t o a b s o r b , o r r e i m b u r s e t h e s t a t e  such  tally  t o be a s f o l l o w s :  of  dependent's  whether  personally  to contribute  from  or  not  any  t o t h e men-  maintenance  exists  t h e dependent  part  of  1 1 1  110  Penty v. Mott  e t a l , s u p r a . , f o o t n o t e 106.  111  Penty v. Mott  e t a l , s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 106.  the  would  contribu-  (c)  Even  where  reimburse  the the  may  vary  not  supplied  able the  the  to  testator state  Will by  has  for  v o l u n t a r i l y arranged  the  to p r o v i d e  maintenance,  but  appreciate.  This  will  and  courts  are  which  large,  p r o v i s i o n of p r i v a t e  not  reluctant  to  F.  Nature of  It cases  is  the  view  tain  State  with  state that  had  priate  statute, beyond  any  the  extract  applications In  Re  state  they  be  by  used  basic  112  Re  Brousseau E s t a t e ,  113  Re T a y l o r E s t a t e , s u p r a , a l . , supra, footnote 106.  114  Supra, footnote  65.  or  court  of may  1 1 2  estate  ad-  dependent's  schemes.  of  principle  on  W.S.  could,  the  state  clear  Duff  legal  members  assets,  a by,  s t a t e had. the  afflicted  person  costs  to  support.  the  mentally  development of  the  size  is  1 1 3  Support  difficult  dealing  receiving  needs o r  the  the  of  court  dependent  the  to  amenities  care.  delay  m i n i s t r a t i o n pending c l a r i f i c a t i o n future  the  depend on  i f sufficiently  the  the  for additional  state  estate  The  -  the  even r e q u i r e  (d)  191  behalf 1 1 4  from  of,  the  the by  state  to  persons  court  responsibility  to  community. virtue defray  of  took main-  If the  that  the  such  appro-  person's  support.  supra,  footnote footnote  87. 78;  Penty  v.  Mott  et  Similarly, was e n t i t l e d the  i n Re W a t k i n s  to rely,  appropriate  192 the court  1 1 5  held  i n making h i s W i l l ,  legislation  which  that  a testator  on t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f  provided  f o r free  medical  care.  In  Re K i n l o c h  daughter mental  daughter  receive  The the  British  support.  was p a r t i a l l y receipt direct estate.  was a b o u t  those  to  a  in a  o f the d i s a b l e d  i n Re W a t k i n s o n t h e  applicable  which  nothing  t o introduce  a  to a l l residents  requiring hospital  care  i t a t no e x p e n s e t o t h e m s e l v e s and t h e r e f o r e t h e torely  f o r a mentally  applicant  state  of Alberta  under  was e n t i t l e d  provision  left  and p e r m a n e n t l y  the reasoning  h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n plan  the Province  deceased  adopted  the province  universal  would  the t e s t a t o r  On a n a p p l i c a t i o n o n b e h a l f  the court  that  within  1 1 6  s u f f e r i n g from a mental d i s o r d e r  hospital.  basis  Estate  sick  Columbia  case  upon  disabled  o f Re Page  Estate,  incapable, the elder  1 1 7  pension.  t o any b e n e f i t  Gould J . dismissed  although  he was r e c e i v i n g  son o f the t e s t a t o r ,  a s a r e s u l t o f war s e r v i c e  o f a government proportion  knowledge a n d make no  dependent.  was n o t m e n t a l l y The a p p l i c a n t ,  this  The p e n s i o n  a n d was  would  he may d e r i v e  in  abate i n from t h e  the p e t i t i o n :  115  S u p r a , f o o t n o t e 72.  116  (1972), S.C. ) .  23 D.L.R.  117  (1969),  67 W.W.R. 407 ( S . C ) .  (3d) 465, [1972]  2 W.W.R. 445,  (Alta.  - 193  -  B e c a u s e he i s e n t i t l e d t o a p e n s i o n , and b e c a u s e t h a t p e n s i o n would a b a t e v i r t u a l l y p r o t a n t o as any i n creased p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e e s t a t e I m i g h t award ...118  Gould  J.  also  sider  the  rejected  petitioner's  distinguishing  the  Brousseau  and  concerned  with  patients  Re  i n mental  between  of  should  not  con-  i t s p r o s p e c t i v e abatement,  given  in  the b a s i s t h a t  maintenance  for  its the  support,  two  cases  Re were  a p p l i c a n t s who  were  institutions.  he  concluded  that:  might  question  in  pension a  pension  mental as  By  the  distinction  in this  one  as a c o r p o r a t e p e n s i o n  hospital  he  v i e w , i t would have been an a t t i t u d e n o t h i n g o f b l i n d s t u p i d i t y had t h i s t e s t a t o r not,... testamentar i l y upon t h e f a c t that the petiwas i n r e c e i p t o f a p e n s i o n ... t h a t ... w o u l d to the extent of i n h e r i t a n c e . 1 1 9  patients  ment.  on  that  I n my short acted tioner abate  the  ability  and  cases  Cousins, costs  argument  pension  two  In h i s r e j e c t i o n ,  One  the  case  hospital. that  had  payable  and He  been t o an  the  118  Ibid.,  a t p.  414.  119  Ibid.,  a t p.  415.  that  of  cost  by of  earned  Gould  i n the  the same  employee upon h i s o f payment  "the eleemosynary  J.  maintaining  characterized  contrast, his characterization p a t i e n t s was  drawn  to  dissense  retiremental  m o t i v a t i o n of  the  state  in  lunatics".  A  in  equally  ance  the  the  received  for  its  destitute  and  The  1 2 1  ten  adult  after  provisions would  of  from the  a  children.  One  of  such  estate  or  this  left  and  was  welfare  terminate  of  testatrix  himself  appropriate  treatment  greater  small  assistance  reduced  in-  assist-  legislation.  entitlement  to  sum  to  be  portion provided  by  if a  than that  is  estate  them was  i n r e c e i p t of  legislation,  be  issue  were  testatrix.  The  court,  were not which,  state  although  entirely  in  stances,  for  her  looking  assistance  the  Millar.  between  under  Under  institutions  identification  Re  capable of  -  1 2 0  better  found  providing  194  the  the  similar,  court's  the  provided  entitled  adopted  view,  t e s t a t o r has  assistance  persons  recognizing  to  by  apply  that  the  to  statute under  circumstances  r a t i o n a l e i n Re  established right  the  that  in  take i n t o when  some  circum-  consideration  making  dependents'  Watkins  provisions  relief  legis-  lation. 120  I b i d . , at p. 415. The reference i n the judgment to " l u n a t i c s " r e s u l t s from the f a c t t h a t p e r s o n s under m e n t a l i n c a p a c i t y came under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e L u n a c y A c t , R.S.B.C., 1948 c. 194. The L u n a c y A c t was repealed on July 1st, 1962, by An Act Respecting the Estates of Mentally I n c o m p e t e n t P e r s o n s , S.B.C. 1962, c. 44. The title An Act Respecting the Estates of Mentally I n c o m p e t e n t P e r s o n s was r e p e a l e d on November 7 t h , 1973 and t h e s h o r t t i t l e , The P a t i e n t s ' E s t a t e s A c t was substituted for i t . The name change was made by s. 24 o f An A c t t o Amend the M e n t a l H e a l t h A c t , 1964, S.B.C. 1973, c. 127, s. 24. The P a t i e n t s ' E s t a t e A c t became the P a t i e n t s Property A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 313 a t t h e t i m e t h a t many o f the B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a s t a t u t e s were changed i n 1979.  121  71 D.L.R. 440.  (3d)  120  (P.E.I.S.C.),  (1976),  12  N.  &  P.E.I.R.  The money  evidence  i n t h e Re  the p e t i t i o n e r might  allowance.  195 -  The c o u r t  Millar  case  g e t would  adopted  indicated  go t o r e d u c e  the dictum  that  any  h i s welfare  of the Ontario  Court  199  of  Appeal  relief must  i n Zajac  statutes  result  v. Zwaryz  t o serve  in a  that  x  their  substantial  i n order  purpose, benefit  f o r dependent  any award  accruing  under  them  to the r e c i p -  ient . On  the basis  application would  Estate  a s i t was u n a b l e  analysis may  cases.  of  provide  The  responded  for  the evidence,  the court  to find  result i n a substantial benefit  An  with  of  In  Re  some  judgment  Barclay  insight  of  Ford  to the submission  the o b l i g a t i o n persons  i n state  of t e s t a t o r s maintained  an award,  the  i f made,  to the a p p l i c a n t .  Estate  a n d Re  Kinloch  i n the inconsistency  of the  J.  that  that  dismissed  1 2 3  i n I n Re  Barclay  t h e law, i n c a s e s to provide  Estate dealing  f o r maintenance  h o s p i t a l s , was t h a t  expressed  i n Re W a t k i n s , a s f o l l o w s :  I am u n a b l e t o a p p r e c i a t e how t h e d e c i s i o n i n I n r e W a t k i n s ; Hayward v . C h a t t e r t o n , 65 L J Ch 410, [1949] 1 A l l ER 695, i n w h i c h i t was h e l d t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r was e n t i t l e d t o d i s t r i b u t e h i s e s t a t e on t h e f o o t i n g that h i s mentally i l l daughter i n a p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n should take advantage o f the p r o v i s i o n s o f the N a t i o n a l H e a l t h S e r v i c e A c t , 1946, o f E n g l a n d , a b o u t t o be p u t i n t o e f f e c t , c a n be a p p l i e d t o t h e f a c t s here. We have no s i m i l a r A c t i n A l b e r t a . 1 2 4  122  ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 49 D.L.R. (2d) 52, 1 O.R. 575; a f f i r m i n g 39 D.L.R. (2d) 6, 2 O.R. 209, ( C . A . ) .  123  (1952),  124  I b i d . , a t p . 313.  5 W.W.R. (N.S.) 308 ( A l t a .  S.C.).  (1963),  Cullen the  basis  J . i n Re K i n l o c h  196 -  Estate  distinguished  Re B a r c l a y  on  that:  T h e r e has been a change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e t h a t d e c i s i o n ; t h e change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s t h a t w i t h e f f e c t 1 s t J u l y 1969 t h e r e i s a u n i v e r s a l h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n plan a p p l i c a b l e to a l l residents within the Province o f A l b e r t a and w h i l e t h e r e is still some modicum w h i c h must be p a i d by p e r s o n s i n r e c e i p t o f h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n b e n e f i t s , the p r i n c i p l e enunciated i n Re W a t k i n s ; Hayward v . C h a t t e r t o n , supra, i s now e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e i n the Province of Alberta.125  The the  existence  National  versal  of a u n i v e r s a l  Health  Service  The  question,  replace  In  1 2 7  however,  Columbia  [GAIN]  Estate  be t a k e n  i s should  the support provided  British  Need A c t  for residents  r e f e r r e d t o i n Re K i n l o c h  c i r c u m s t a n c e s which should  to  A c t , 1946 o f E n g l a n d ,  h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n plan  Alberta,  h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n law s u c h  into  or the u n i -  of the province 1 2 6  should  as  clearly  of be  account.  t h e t e s t a t o r be  expected  by t h e s t a t e .  the Guaranteed  Available  Income f o r  provides:  2.(1) Subject t o t h i s A c t and t h e r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e m i n i s t e r may p a y , o u t o f money a u t h o r i z e d by an A c t o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e , money n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f income a s s i s t a n c e and s o c i a l s e r v i c e  125  Supra, footnote  116 D.L.R. a t p. 473, W.W.R. a t p . 453.  126  Ibid.  127  R.S.B.C. 1979, c . 158.  -  197 -  p r o g r a m s a n d t h e p r o v i s i o n o f income a s s i s t a n c e a n d s o c i a l s e r v i c e s i n t h e amounts a s i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n he c o n s i d e r s a d v i s a b l e t o a s s i s t i n whole o r i n p a r t , i n d i v i d u a l s , whether a d u l t o r m i n o r , o r f a m i l i e s . 1 2 8  The  regulations provide  i n Section  22.(1) a s f o l l o w s :  22.(1) The Director, in his discretion, may authorize an administering authority to provide a s s i s t a n c e t o pay c o s t s o f s e r v i c e s d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s S e c t i o n i f an i n d i v i d u a l i s u n a b l e t o p r o v i d e adeq u a t e l y o u t o f h i s o r h e r own r e s o u r c e s f o r s u c h s e r vices .  The the  regulations  p e r diem  British  charge  Columbia.  to  the i n d i v i d u a l . award  per  diem  made  would  and  therefore  by t h e c o u r t which  secondly  to  provide  by t h e p r o v i n c e personal  of  estate  t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f GAIN w i l l n o t  As an example,  charges,  Province;  the D i r e c t o r  i f the p a t i e n t ' s  amount, t h e n  The b u r d e n  the  permit  i n h o s p i t a l s operated However,  exceeds a c e r t a i n apply.  therefore  be s h i f t e d i n Penty  would  had  v. M o t t  go f i r s t l y  been  from  better  et  a l .  1  2  9  to s a t i s f y the  previously  to provide  the state  paid  assistance  by t h e to the  patient.  Much as  and  earlier when  Re T a y l o r  needed,  Estate  beyond  those  1 3 0  provided  supplied  f o r amenities, by  the  institu-  i 31  tion.  Re B r o u s s e a u E s t a t e  128  Ibid.,  s.  2(1).  129  S u p r a , f o o t n o t e 106.  130  Supra, footnote  78.  131  Supra. footnote  87.  J  a l s o made p r o v i s i o n s  so that the  patient the  could  obtain  circumstances, Estate  and  J . i n Re  deal  the best  including  Re T a y l o r Clyne  198 -  ignored  possible  moving  into  the q u e s t i o n  Brousseau  care  available  private  of state  Estate  under  facilities.  responsibility  specifically  refused  to  a valid  supportable  with i t .  It  would  argument patient life.  be d i f f i c u l t  that  a  i f such  testator  need  provisions  would  It i s also,  ally,  i n favour  would  merely  to present  equally  not  improve  difficult  of the concept  replace  make  hospital  and  provisions  the p a t i e n t ' s  to argue,  that  any award  costs  for a  previously  lot  in  enthusiasticunder  the Act  paid  by t h e  state.  This by  i s another  the l e g i s l a t u r e  area  that  requires  to determine  what  serious  consideration  i s , exactly,  expected  from the A c t .  G.  Law R e f o r m The  an  Commissions  question  touching  on t h e o b l i g a t i o n o f m a i n t e n a n c e o f  i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n has n o t r e c e i v e d much c o n s i d e r a t i o n by  the  various  (a)  Ontario  law r e f o r m  commissions  i n Canada,  TOO  The  Ontario  subject.  132  Law Reform  Furthermore  Commission- -°^ d i d n o t c o n s i d e r 1  i t i s t o be n o t e d  that  the  none o f t h e  O n t a r i o Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , R e p o r t On F a m i l y IV, F a m i l y P r o p e r t y Law" ( 1 9 7 4 ) .  Law;  "Part  cases  involving  Ontario. arise Act a  in  Will  the  future  unlikely as  under  that the  t o have s t a n d i n g  a p p l i c a n t must  Alberta Institute  The  Alberta  the  case  the  apparently  time  of  financial very  the  report  law  on  the  1 3 4  this  was  any  decided  such  a  test  in  case  Succession  to apply  satisfy  Law  will Reform  for variation  of  of  on  severe  to  "there  subject."  and  situation  generally  i n regard  m e n t a l or  of d i s a b l e d  R e s e a r c h and  states  parents,  liability  response  o f Law  anomalous  Public Trustee  half  In  also  dependents  dependency  testator.  (b) The  a  is  the  -  incompetent  i n order  1 3 3  the  It  199  Reform  i s no  consistency  there where  i s no during  speaking,  to c h i l d r e n  regards  i t as  h i s duty  the  there  who  physical disability,  logic  is  on  to apply  to  life-  suffer but  in  no from  death on  be-  children.  the  inconsistency in  the  cases  the  Insti-  t u t e comments a s f o l l o w s :  It i s e x c e e d i n g l y d i f f i c u l t to d e f i n e the boundary between p u b l i c and private responsibility for the s u p p o r t o f a p e r s o n who q u a l i f i e s as a d e p e n d a n t  133  R.S.O. 1980,  c.  488.  134  A l b e r t a I n s t i t u t e o f Law R e s e a r c h and 29, F a m i l y R e l i e f , (1978) a t p. 42.  Reform,  Report  No.  -  200  -  under t h e s t a t u t e . Where t h e e s t a t e i s l a r g e , we see no r e a s o n why p r o v i s i o n s h o u l d n o t be made o u t o f a parent's estate for the support of a disabled child. I t may be somewhat anomalous t h a t d u r i n g t h e parent's l i f e t i m e t h e P r o v i n c e d i d not e n f o r c e the parent's obligation for support but does so at death. However, t h e d e c e a s e d no l o n g e r has a need f o r h i s a s s e t s and, i f h i s e s t a t e i s l a r g e , t h e comp e t i n g c l a i m s f o r a s h a r e o f h i s e s t a t e may a l l be satisfied. Where t h e e s t a t e i s s m a l l and t h e r e a r e c o m p e t i n g c l a i m s w h i c h c a n n o t be s a t i s f i e d , we feel t h a t a j u d g e may p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n on b e h a l f o f a d i s a b l e d p e r s o n who i s r e c e i v i n g s u p p o r t from the P r o v i n c e . We t h e r e f o r e recommend t h a t t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y assumed by a g o v e r n m e n t f o r a m e n t a l l y o r p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d d e p e n d a n t s h o u l d be one o f t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h i s t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t in d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r an o r d e r s h o u l d be made.135  The  Institute  cific  concluded  i t s report with  the  following  spe-  recommendation:  That  the proposed Act  should provide  that:  Upon t h e h e a r i n g o f an a p p l i c a t i o n under t h i s A c t , t h e j u d g e s h a l l c o n s i d e r a l l m a t t e r s t h a t s h o u l d be taken i n t o account, i n c l u d i n g the f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i bility assumed by a government f o r a m e n t a l l y or p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d dependant.136  (c) B r i t i s h  Columbia  The  Reform  Law  sidered not  the  Commission  observations  c o n s i d e r any  135  Ibid.,  a t p.  44.  136  Ibid.,  a t p.  44.  137  Op.  of  of  22,  a t p.  Columbia "  the A l b e r t a I n s t i t u t e  recommendation  c i t . , footnote  British  58.  necessary.  1  5 1  but  condid  The  British  Alberta  Columbia  Institute's  201  -  Commission,  recommendation  commented  upon  the  as f o l l o w s :  It i s arguable that this i s a factor the c o u r t s a l r e a d y take i n t o account. T h e r e i s no need f o r a specific direction to consider whether there is p u b l i c funding f o r a dependant. In the u s u a l case, i f t h e e s t a t e i s l a r g e , o r t h e r e i s no o t h e r c l a i m a n t , p u b l i c f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e s h o u l d be irrelevant. The c o u r t s seem t o t a k e t h e s e f a c t o r s i n t o consideration only i n circumstances where it is r e a s o n a b l e t o do so.138  Unfortunately, supportive  of  uniformity  and  have  a  made  the  British  the Commission's clarity  Columbia conclusion  the B r i t i s h  recommendation  similar  Institute.  138 Op.  c i t . , footnote  22, a t p.  58.  jurisprudence and  f o r the sake o f  Columbia Commission to  that  i s not  of  the  should Alberta  - 202 -  PART IV:  AN ANALYSIS OF THE SUCCESSION LAW REFORM ACT OF ONTARIO; A CONTRAST OF IT WITH THE NOW REPEALED DEPENDANTS' R E L I E F ACT OF ONTARIO AND THE PRESENT BRITISH COLUMBIA WILLS VARIATION ACT  - 203 -  CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION  The S u c c e s s i o n came  into  duced  The  been  intro-  provide  85  Law R e f o r m A c t 1976.  objective articulated a  by t h e E x p l a n a t o r y  comprehensive  reform  and i n t e s t a t e s u c c e s s i o n a s p a r t  SLRA  i s essentially  The D e v o l u t i o n Dependants' except  of  Note  to the  t h e law o f  of the general  years  Relief  Act,  4  2  review  Act.  of investigation  o f The W i l l s A c t ,  The S u r v i v o r s h i p A c t ,  a l l of  administration  of Estates  the Family  a combination  of Estates Act,  f o r the  Devolution  in  first  f a m i l y law.  The  ten  3 1 s t , 1978, h a v i n g  L e g i s l a t u r e on May 1 1 t h , 1976 a s B i l l  The S u c c e s s i o n  i s to  testate of  f o r c e on M a r c h  i n the Ontario  entitled  Bill  Law R e f o r m A c t , R.S.O. 1980, c . 488, (SLRA)  which  of  have  estates  The SLRA m a t u r e d and r e s e a r c h .  Law P r o j e c t o f t h e O n t a r i o  been  3  1  a n d The repealed  portion after  of  more  The than  I t had i t s g e n e s i s Law R e f o r m  1  R.S.O. 1970, c . 499.  2  R.S.O. 1970, c . 129.  3  R.S.O. 1970, c . 454, am. S.O. 1972, c . 43,  4  R.S.O. 1970, c . 126.  Commission  s . l .  and  culminated  in  Family Property  Law  The  SLRA  reconcile  the  in  the  it  relates  It the the  British  the  most  except  is  of of  dependents'  departure  from  they  repealed  of  the  Commission's  contemporary posthumous family relief,  Edward  appropriate  apply  law  to  Report  on  attempt  to  Act.  the by  most any  as  radical Canadian  5  examine  Relief  property  i t s application  freedom  Island.  to  Columbia W i l l s V a r i a t i o n  d i s p o s i t i o n of  reflects  dependents'  Dependants'  Canadian  and,  testamentary  for Prince  therefore  13  -  1976.  treatment  to  SLRA, as now  in  o v e r a l l context  statutory province  is  Chapter  204  the  relief, Act  (DRA)  provisions  of  in relation  to  and  to  the  6  5  The Dependents Relief Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. D-6 provides by Section 19 that the value of certain transactions (e.g. DMC, Joint Tenancy, Insurance) are deemed p a r t o f the e s t a t e ; and by S e c t i o n 20 that the donee o f a g i f t may be r e q u i r e d t o pay m a i n t e n a n c e and support.  6  R.S.B.C. 1979,  c.  435.  -  205 -  CHAPTER 2. ANALYSIS OF THE SUCCESSION LAW REFORM ACT OF ONTARIO AND A CONTRAST WITH THE DEPENDANTS' R E L I E F ACT OF ONTARIO  1.  Testate,  Under be  t h e DRA,  invoked  2(1),  charging  ..."  intestate  By  section,  where  extending  succession,  provinces  must  have  died  simply  of the s t a t u t e testate.  made  Subsection  reference  the corresponding  could  to "the  section  of the  58(1), extends the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the s t a t u t e  circumstances  intestate.  the provisions  By c o n t r a s t ,  SLRA, s u b s e c t i o n to  before  the deceased  the  testator  Intestate  not  a  deceased  the a p p l i c a t i o n  Ontario  limiting  has  has j o i n e d  dependents'  died of  testate  the statute  the growing relief  to  or to  number o f testate  succession.'  2.  Applicants  A that of 7  further  condition  the t e s t a t o r  h i s dependents.  precedent  f o r invoking  had n o t made  provision  Subsection  1(a) d e f i n e d  t h e DRA  was  f o r the maintenance "dependent" as the  R e l i e f l i m i t e d to testamentary succession i s found only i n : B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 435; New B r u n s w i c k , T e s t a t o r s ' F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.N.B. 1973, C.T.-4; Nova S c o t i a , Testators' Family M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.N.S. 1967, c . 303, a s amended.  - 206 spouse,  children  sixteen  but through  livelihood. under  under  illness  The c l a s s  o f t h e more  widened  range  elaborate  of persons  qualifications  Subsection  spouse  deceased; ceased; under  a  t o whom a  death.  legal  class,  b u t must  receive,  57(d)  t h e deceased  obligation be a  a  relief  is  the  and  the  must  apply  the basic  definition relief.  was  t o do  or a  so  of persons  i s n o t enough. not only  a parent  h a s been  ofthe  of the de-  support  immediately  o r was  before h i s  extended, the  A dependent,  be a member  be i n r e c e i p t ,  These a r e :  sibling  providing  and s e t s  to qualify  of the s p e c i f i e d  o r be l e g a l l y  entitled to  support a t the date of death of the deceased.  Subsection  may  also  the court  of the deceased;  the class  must  forrelief,  which  o f the deceased;  obligation  t h e SLRA,  to claim  o f t h e SLRA  who may seek  spouse  by i t s e l f  t o earn  category can q u a l i f y .  the deceased  Although  relationship under  child  over  limited.  who may q u a l i f y  of persons  o r common-law  very  and t e s t s  unable  entitled  developments  57(d) c o n t a i n s  t h e groups  or c h i l d r e n  infirmity  o f persons  notable  b e f o r e members o f e a c h  whom  or  t h e s t a t u t e was t h e r e f o r e  One  out  t h e age o f s i x t e e n ,  clearly  provides that  was p r o v i d i n g  to provide "dependent".  support  support  only  a person " t o  o r was under  immediately  before  a  legal  h i s death"  As  each  individual  class  i s subject  207 t o extended  meanings they  require  examination:  Spouses:  Paragraph spouses" dents The  five  have  cohabited  or her death years.  year  provision  period  A  children  declared within  under  i s defined either  the deceased  are children  condition  been  made  f o r unions  but t h e r e i s a c h i l d after  the d e f i n i t i o n  statute.  male  or  female,  o f not l e s s  involved  is  parents,  replaced  living where  than  o f whom t h e  Subsection a  before  then by  a  57(b)(ii), child.  there  No  a r e no  en v e n t r e s a mere and  the e x p i r a t i o n  of the l i m i t a t i o n  i n s e c t i o n 61.  whose m a r r i a g e nullity  the  immediately  precedent  only  as depen-  i n subsection  were t h e n a t u r a l  contemplates  i s born  a  relief  t o "common-law  status  f o r a continuous period  as p r e s c r i b e d  person  class  o f some permanence".  has  child  to  person,  with  I f there  i t s wording,  such  a  and t h e a p p l i c a n t  five  living  recognition  spouse"  to qualify  "relationship by  right  "common-law  and  deceased the  therefore  term  must  gives legal  and g i v e s members o f t h a t  and  57(b),  his  57(d)(i)  t o the deceased  i s , by  subsection  of spouse.  was t e r m i n a t e d o r 57(g),  included  -  208 -  Children; Subsection "child"  to include  deceased  By  the  SLRA  dent  t h e meaning  and p e r s o n s  a settled  of  t o whom t h e  i n t e n t i o n t o t r e a t as  o f h i s f a m i l y , b u t does n o t i n c l u d e a f o s t e r  child  i n a home f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  v i r t u e of the d e f i n i t i o n  and  extends  grandchildren  had demonstrated  a child placed  57(a) o f  (d), i t i s conceivable of  support  both  a  natural  h i m , and a  contained that  i n s u b s e c t i o n 57(a)  a child  parent,  "step-parent"  could  legally  be a d e p e n -  obligated  who v o l u n t a r i l y  to  supports  him.  Subsection 1(1)(a) born  57(a) i n c o r p o r a t e s  which  within  removes any d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  or without  births.  Clause  sections  86  clarify their  the  adopted  marriages,  1(1)(a)  and  87  the l e g a l  and  the p r o v i s i o n s  of  also  incorporates Welfare  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  n a t u r a l and a d o p t i v e  parents,  clause  between c h i l d r e n  and i n c l u d e s  the C h i l d  of  posthumous  the e f f e c t Act,  adopted  8  of  which  children  essentially  making  c h i l d r e n the n a t u r a l c h i l d r e n o f the adoptive  q parents  but not o f the n a t u r a l  parents.  8  R.S.O. 1980, c . 66.  9  Thus r e m o v i n g any d o u b t as t o t h e l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between a d o p t i v e parents and a d o p t e d c h i l d r e n a n d t h e former ( o r n a t u r a l ) p a r e n t s . F o r some r e c e n t c a s e s t h a t have c a s t doubt i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s e e : Co-op. T r u s t Co. o f Can, v . A d m i n i s t r a t o r o f E s t a t e s f o r S a s k . , [1984] 1 W.W.R. 47, 27 S a s k . R. 65, 16 E.T.R. 142 (sub.nom. Re Kowbel; Co-op. T r u s t Co. o f Can, v . A d m i n i s t r a t o r of E s t a t e s f o r S a s k . ) , 36 R.F.L. (2d) 391 (Q.B.); Re Hartman; Mernickle v . Westaway ( 1 9 8 6 ) , 19 E.T.R. 304 (B.C.S.C.) ( r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l , s e e ( s u p r a ) P a r t I I I , f o o t n o t e 2 4 ) .  -  209 -  Parents:  Subsection to  5 7 ( f ) o f t h e SLRA e x t e n d s  include a grandparent  a  settled  his  intention  t h e meaning o f p a r e n t  and a p e r s o n who has  to treat  the deceased  f a m i l y but e x c l u d e s a " f o s t e r  demonstrated  as a c h i l d  of  parent".  Siblings:  Paragraph deceased  57(d)(iv) as  includes  persons  b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s  entitled  to  seek  relief  of the  under  the  statute.  Even person  though who  condition support,  the  may  seek  precedent either  obligation,  relief  truly  dependent under  on  considered contained  of  extended  those  or  as  i s , therefore, the deceased,  in  is a  the c l a s s the  the  DRA,  the  provision  result  of  a  therefore  t o t h o s e who making  of  legal  to provide support. limited  of  the  The were  relief  t h e SLRA s t r i c t l y r e m e d i a l .  the  for  over  obligation  area of d e f i c i e n c y  fication  greatly  for qualification  or the l e g a l  of applicants  One  has  voluntarily  class  available  SLRA  time  o f t h e DRA  at  determining  i n the deceased's  which the Will.  was  the lack  circumstances  adequacy  of  the  The SLRA removes  of  identi-  should  be  provisions this  uncertainty shall  be  by  specifying  determined  as  210 -  i n subsection  of  the  date  58(3) t h a t  of  adequacy  the hearing  o f the  application.  3.  Factors  i n A i d o f D e t e r m i n i n g Quantum o f  B o t h s t a t u t e s , DRA the  court's  application. sections while  7  other  1 0  8,  in  list  legislature  intends  that  account".  of matters f o r  hearing  i n nature  factors.  that  but  seven  and  (c)  may  less  attention will  7(g), to  judge  the greater  list  In a d d i t i o n ,  i n the s t a t u t e the  an  b u t t h e DRA, i n  to only  62(1) (a)  of  items,  refers  to  to consider  i t sees f i t .  t h e SLRA  i n subsection  enumerated matter  paragraphs  the  court  i s exhaustive,  of  enumerated  the  a list  B o t h s t a t u t e s a l s o empower t h e c o u r t  specificity  court,  directed  circumstances  Neither  upon  The l i s t s a r e s i m i l a r  SLRA,  seventeen. any  consideration  and  the  and SLRA, c o n t a i n  Entitlement  used  thinks  The SLRA, p a r a g r a p h  be  an  indication  t h e DRA  look  at  62(1)(a)  be p a i d  be  that  and the  t o non-  i n a u t h o r i z i n g the  factors  t h e words should  length  beyond  "generally fairly  simply  those  [ t o ] any  taken  into  refers to " a l l  the  circumstances  i n the a p p l i c a t i o n " .  10  As e a r l y a s 1947 W i l l i a m s C.J.K.B. I n r e L a w t h e r E s t a t e , [1947] 1 W.W.R. 577 a t pp. 586 and 587 (Man. K.B.) enumerated 15 m a t t e r s w h i c h i n h i s v i e w was a summary o f what t h e c o u r t s would n o r m a l l y c o n s i d e r . The 15 i t e m s I n re Lawther E s t a t e a r e v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h o s e e n u m e r a t e d i n the SLRA and a r e , i n any e v e n t , t h o s e commonly c o n s i d e r e d by c o u r t s d e a l i n g w i t h m a t t e r s o f d e p e n d e n t s ' r e l i e f .  The  DRA  whereby tion  contained,  a dependent  advance  the  provision  existed  does  not segregate  relief.  is  directed to  virtue  apart  the estate,  business  or  seeking  relief  there  was  t o , and  independently  under  assistance  section  a s an  62(1)(a)(vii)  spouses  as  absolute factors  under  a wife  similar  relevant  refers  o b v i o u s and g r o s s  The  DRA  is  implicit  or  factor, the  makes  the court  in  reason  exclusion, includes and  course  be  than  of conduct  that to  of  both  imposing  i s one  a  an  of  the  Subparagraph  amounting  t o "an  o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p " .  provisions  for h i s actions  i n paragraph  from  noted  applicable  conduct  as t o the wishes the  circum-  the conduct  rather  living  under  i s directed to consider.  to a  was  was b a r r e d  I t should  resulting  repudiation  i s silent  the court,  bar  t h e SLRA  which the c o u r t  deceased's  SLRA  head o f  merely  "who  her t o alimony"  the s t a t u t e .  prohibition,  62(1)(a)(xii)  The  independent  o f t h e SLRA  9 o f t h e DRA  disentitle  contrast  a  o f , the  7.  one o f t h e numerous f a c t o r s w h i c h  would  By  This  consider.  no  husband.  compensa-  occupation.  f r o m h e r husband a t t h e t i m e o f h i s d e a t h that  gives  such  of section  stances  it  a  enumerated  Subparagraph  contribution  By  in  circumstances  from  i n t h e f o r m o f money o r s e r v i c e s , t o  i n addition  of  8, an i n t e r e s t i n g p r o v i s i o n  receive,  given  deceased  list  such  i n section  might  for assistance  211 -  of are  of the deceased the  SLRA  relevant.  6 2 ( 1 ) ( c ) and s u b s e c t i o n  while  that  the  The  SLRA  62(2)  - 212 wide  d i s c r e t i o n to evaluate  related  evidence  Section applicant plus to  o f the  underlying  takes  actions  the  been  the  be  waiving  matter  from the b e n e f i t s  o f the  SLRA  i s  claimant.  the p r o s p e c t i v e  1 1  dependents of judicial  that  the c o u r t s  the p r o t e c t i o n  clauses  limitation.  the  The  claimant's  o r not a b e n e f i c i a r y can c o n t r a c t  o f the  taken as equally  forfeiture  features  such  had  as those of the deceased.  taken as s e t t l e d l a w contract  the a l l o w a n c e  i f the t e s t a t o r  of the prospective  whether  subject  an  n o t e x c e e d t h e amount  be e n t i t l e d  important  allowance t o  so that  would  into consideration  protection  any  SLRA does n o t c o n t a i n  most  aswell  The q u e s t i o n  the W i l l  would  protection  protection  of  The  that  t o a maximum l i m i t  under  consider  a n award.  DRA p r o v i d e d  the a p p l i c a n t  intestate.  One  own  10 o f t h e  provision  which  died  i n making  was s u b j e c t  any  t h e d e c e a s e d ' s w i s h e s and  relief  o f such  s e t t l e d law '' t h a t 1  which  would  deprive  otherwise provided  l e g i s l a t i o n has  debate, will  but i t can  n o t be bound  legislation.  the courts a  out  named  i n the W i l l  will  be  by a  I t can ignore  beneficiary  i f the  11  See f o r example: Re L e w i s , [1935] 2 D.L.R. 45, [1935] 1 W.W.R. 747, 49 B.C.R. 386, ( B . C . C . A . ) ; Re McNamara, [1943] 3 D.L.R. 396 ( B . C . C . A . ) .  12  See f o r example: I n t h e W i l l o f G a y n o r , d e c e a s e d , [1960] V.R. 640; Kent e t a l . v . McKay e t a l . , [1982] 6 W.W.R. 165 ( B . C . S . C . ) .  beneficiary  commenced  legislation,  inter  The  order  proceedings  alia,  a  statutory  under  agreement  the  section  or waiver  rationale  4.  give  them  dependents' public  t h e common  i n subsection  "may  be  made  relief  policy.  law by i n t r o -  6 2 ( 4 ) whereby  notwithstanding The w o r d i n g  an any  does n o t  p r o h i b i t i o n b u t i t seems t o a d o p t t h e  namely t h a t  t h e c o u r t may c o n s i d e r  the necessary  weight,  such  b u t n o t be bound  them.  Avoidance  It  was  Zealand, (which  evasion  Schemes  recognized  was  destined  t o be  relief),  that  I t was  loopholes  that  such  that  Essentially,  horses"  inter  a  testator  trusts  or  of a l l statutes of was s u s c e p t i b l e t o  v i v o s and o t h e r  the l e g i s l a t i o n  through  simple  contained  f o r a person  the l e g i s l a t i o n .  by t h e u t i l i z a t i o n  designations  New Z e a l a n d , P a r l i a m e n t a r y 507, ( P e r . Mr. J . A l l e n ) . Part I I , supra.  o f New  of i n t r o d u c t i o n of the B i l l ,  legislation  i t was r e l a t i v e l y  a c o a c h and f o u r  vivos  said  of Representatives  the p r o g e n i t o r  by t r a n s f e r o f p r o p e r t y  tions.  inter  i n t h e House  as e a r l y as a t the time  dependents'  13  against  to the contrary".  of the cases  agreements,  under  codified  provision  a p p e a r t o be an a b s o l u t e  by  as being  SLRA h a s e s s e n t i a l l y  ducing  213 -  of  transacs o many "to drive  1 3  of j o i n t u r e s ,  beneficiaries in  D e b a t e s ( 1 9 0 0 ) , V o l . 3, a t p . See a l s o a n a l y s i s i n C h a p t e r 7,  insurance such  a  or annuity  fashion  designated, estate, relief  The by  so as  or  predetermined,  SLRA  has implemented Section  deceased  dispositions  deceased,  the  h i s assets  beneficiaries  outside  to his  by d e p e n d e n t s '  capital  and d i r e c t s  The generally  value  that  of  certain  that  their  such  plans,  i n the net e s t a t e of  his lifetime  inter  various shall  capital  the net value  the assets  vivos  transactions  be t e s t a m e n t a r y  value  be i n c l u d e d  of the estate of the  be made a v a i l a b l e t o be c h a r g e d  towards the dependents'  transactions  to avoid  includes  The s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s  and t h a t  payment  (ii)  h i s death,  safeguards  72 w h i c h  purposes of determining  (i)  his affairs in  the p r o t e c t i o n a f f o r d e d  made by t h e d e c e a s e d d u r i n g  for  on  arrange  legislation.  transactions.  for  could  t o pass,  and t h u s d e f e a t  introducing  the  contracts,  support.  a r e enumerated  i n Section  72  and a r e  the f o l l o w i n g :  gifts  mortis  causa,  bank  accounts  held  by  the deceased  in  trust  for  deceased  and  others,  (iii)  joint others,  accounts subject  in  the  name  t o the r i g h t  of  the  of survivorship,  (iv)  property  held  in  215  -  joint  tenancy  by  the  deceased  and  others,  (v)  disposition retains power of  (vi)  (vii)  at h i s death,  to  of  owned by  him,  Part  SLRA c e r t a i n l y  that  go  expressed at be may  be  Subsection to  deceased  either  creates 72(1),  a  bank  where  compliance  the  with  consideration.  the  a  on  SLRA,  Zealand  the  still  others or  the  dispose  deceased, which  g e n e r a l l y proceeds and  other  the  capital  House  is  limited the  accounts  or  or  fide  to  of  of  is  other  to  the  i s being inter  from  plans.  of  to the  t o be such  concern  severe, i t  transactions transfers.  interests  property  of  held  other  by  In a d d i t i o n , S e c t i o n provision devised  the  Representatives.  gratuitous  legitimate  jointly.  exception property  value  like  i n S e c t i o n 72  the measures appear  protects  bona  t o use  towards responding  New  in trust  general  or w i t h  or  measures c o n t a i n e d  included  parties  disposition  retirement, welfare  glance  72(2)  alone  deceased  under a d e s i g n a t i o n o f b e n e f i c i a r y  III of  that  the  and  i n the  noted  either  insurance  a l o n g way  first  whereby  of i t ,  life  anti-avoidance  Although  the  amount p a y a b l e  pensions,  should  revoke  proceeds  under  first  property  the p r i n c i p a l  any  The  of  or  of  the 71  subsection  bequeathed  vivos contract for  in  valuable  The  burden  impugning upon  proof,  On t h e o t h e r  beneficiary of a  72(1),  Subsection  proof  An  72(4) s h i f t s  of proving  additional  protection  charge,  or assignment"  As  granting  a final  by  avoid the  t o such  72(3) i n  72(1) f a l l s  where a d e p e n d e n t i s by  Subsection  b e n e f i c i a r y the burden  t o the b e n e f i c i a r y i s found  which given  renders  invalid  by a d e p e n d e n t  any  in  "mortgage,  i n expectation of  relief.  measure o f p r o t e c t i o n t o t h e d e p e n d e n t  to intestate  successors.  the c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n  rules  Subsection  hand,  the a c t s o f t h e deceased, S u b s e c t i o n relief  Subsection  h i s or her c o n t r i b u t i o n s .  73 o f t h e SLRA  order  by  t r a n s a c t i o n contemplated  section  an  provided  transaction protected  the dependent.  the  of  a  of  216 -  of intestate  5 8 ( 1 ) o f t h e SLRA  Thus a d e c e a s e d  by d y i n g  succession  intestate  against extends  c a n no l o n g e r and r e l y i n g on  f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n  of h i s  property.  5.  Limitation  The period  DRA  provided,  so t h a t  f o r probate  being  by  guardian action death  Subsection  4(2), for a  an a c t i o n was t o be b r o u g h t  application made  by  or  on  when  on b e h a l f o f an i n f a n t  was t o be b r o u g h t of the t e s t a t o r ,  a t the time  the a p p l i c a t i o n  behalf  of  the wife  child.  of the  f o r probate or  husband  In a l l o t h e r  w i t h i n t h r e e months f r o m  always with  limitation  discretion  was or  a  cases the  the date o f  t o the court to  extend  the  remaining  The sions  to  the  limited  undistributed  s i x months  of  to  or the  of the estate  application.  to  any  portion  of  the  estate  a t the time o f the a p p l i c a t i o n .  61, has a l t e r e d  from  the W i l l  discretion  portion  but  SLRA, by S e c t i o n  Probate with  time,  217 -  the date  of Letters court  of  the Grant  provi-  of  Letters  of Administration,  always  to extend  remaining  the l i m i t a t i o n  the  undistributed  time  as  t o any  a t the date of  -  218  -  CHAPTER  3.  CONTRAST BETWEEN THE SUCCESSION LAW REFORM ACT OF ONTARIO AND THE WILLS VARIATION ACT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  There are British  Columbia  significant  differences  Wills  ones can  be  Variation identified  1.  Jurisdiction  2.  Persons e n t i t l e d  3.  Relevant  4.  Factors  5.  Limitation  period;  6.  Protection  of  For be  a number o f  to  collectively  going  quote  2.(1) if a  as  (WVA)  but  the  the most  follows:  statute;  to claim  to  under  the  statute;  entitlement;  dependents.  analyzing  some o f  Subsections  represent  persons e n t i t l e d  the  Act  SLRA and  date;  purposes of  useful  of  between t h e  the  to apply.  2(1)  charging The  the and  differences, (2)  clause  subsections  of and  the  i t will  WVA  identify  r e a d as  which the  follows:  N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any law or s t a t u t e t o the contrary, t e s t a t o r d i e s l e a v i n g a w i l l w h i c h does n o t , i n t h e  -  219 -  court's opinion, make a d e q u a t e p r o v i s i o n f o r the proper m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p o r t o f t h e t e s t a t o r ' s w i f e , h u s b a n d o r c h i l d r e n , t h e c o u r t may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , i n a n a c t i o n by o r on b e h a l f o f t h e w i f e , husband o r c h i l d r e n , o r d e r that the p r o v i s i o n that i t thinks adequate, j u s t and equitable i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s be made o u t o f t h e e s t a t e o f t h e t e s t a t o r f o r t h e w i f e , husband or c h i l d r e n . (2) F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s A c t , an i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d s h a l l be t r e a t e d a s i f he were a l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d o f h i s mother.  1.  J u r i s d i c t i o n of the Statute  It into the  will  be n o t e d  effect WVA  only  has no  contrast,  the  that  when  Subsection  the deceased  application SLRA  i n an  applies  to  2(1) b r i n g s  the  i s a testator. intestate  both  statute  Therefore  succession.  testate  and  By  intestate  successions.  2.  Persons E n t i t l e d to Claim R e l i e f Under t h e S t a t u t e  It the  will  only  receive and to  be n o t e d  of person  an award under  include  Charter  of  that,  by v i r t u e  entitled  of Rights  mother. Amendment  a r e removed.  S.B.C. 1985, c . 68.  an a p p l i c a t i o n wife,  and  husband  2 ( 2 ) e x t e n d s t h e meaning o f c h i l d r e n  illegitimate children the  t o make  of Subsection 2(1),  the Act i s the t e s t a t o r ' s  Subsection  a l l distinctions  children  14  class  children.  children  WVA,  again  By  i f they  virtue  Act,  between Thus  as  1 4  of  were  the  legitimate  newly  f o r the purposes  legitimate  the c l a s s  and  enacted of the  illegitimate  of applicants,  as i t  relates  to  children,  220  is  -  extended  to  remove  any  such  difference.  The  SLRA  potentially children, ing  and  apply  support,  or  hearing  1 5  in by  the  other  that  a  time  British the  than  legal  may  spouses  the deceased  or d a t e  was  obligation  and  provid-  to  do  so  to determine e n t i t l e m e n t  been a q u e s t i o n of c o n s i d e r a b l e  Columbia,  Law  Nevertheless  SLRA,  by  Reform  the  F a c t o r s Going  logue  of  Subsection  of the a p p l i c a t i o n  the p r o v i s i o n  The  15  under  o f p e r s o n who  WVA  and  the  subject  Commission  continues  of  to  be  of  a  British silent  on  point.  The  4.  persons  t h e e s t a t e has  debate  recommendation  of  the c l a s s  Date  for valuing  Columbia.  include  was  q u e s t i o n of  judicial  the  to  extended  before h i s death.  Relevant  The  greatly  but w i t h the c o n d i t i o n  immediately  3.  has  SLRA  has  identified  the  t h e t i m e t o measure t h e  date  of  adequacy  made.  to Entitlement  contains  factors  as  58(3)  which  in the  paragraph court  62(1)(a)  must  take  a  into  lengthy  cata-  consideration  Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, S t a t u t o r y S u c c e s s i o n R i g h t s , ( 1 9 8 3 ) , a t p. 91.  Report  on  in  making  an  discretion  The  Courts  does  although  consider  SLRA.  5.  the  as  a matter  both  court  routine  similar  WVA  i s given  consider  catalogue  statutes  2(3),  deceased's  a  of  circumstances  the  e l s e i t may  contain  Subsection  and  to  analogous  British  those  contain  relevant.  with  the  further  Columbia  enumerated  almost  paragraph  identical  62(1)(e)  reasons f o r h i s arrangements  in  SLRA,  relevant.  Limitation Period  Although  both  months f r o m t h e Grant of  in  respect  the  property  6.  statutes  SLRA  gives  t o an  within  the  adequate  2(1)  "out  only  those  net  tive  are  See  the W i l l  unlike Section  the  court  10  discretion  or of to  there  period the  of  six  date of  the  t h e WVA,  Section  extend  the  time  is undistributed  estate.  of  of  the for  the  assets  available  footnote  limitation  Dependents  provision  dependents  a  a p p l i c a t i o n i n s o f a r as  P r o t e c t i o n of  Section  impose  date of probate of  of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,  61  16  not  -  addition,  anything  However  1 6  provisions, making  In  to consider  WVA  factors,  the  award.  221  10.  to  WVA the  provides proper  e s t a t e of i n the  the  an  the  maintenance  hands o f  satisfy  that  testator".  court and The  the p e r s o n a l  order  represents  may  make  support fact  of that  representaa  serious  defect  in  testator order  may  under  The appears  legislation  render  continues  that of  there the  i t should  In  this  Commission  his  Act  by  judicious  totally  planning  untouchable  a  by  any  Yet  it  Act.  this  original  recognition proper  asset  by  the  defect.  legislature  planning  that  is a  problem  Law  Reform  address.  connection of  with  assets  with  i s no  -  as,  the W i l l s V a r i a t i o n  WVA  avoidance which  the  222  British  the  conclusion  Columbia  1 7  is  of  of note.  the  It  concluded  that:  I f i n t e n t to a v o i d the W i l l s V a r i a t i o n Act i s r e q u i r e d , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y v e r y few t r a n s a c t i o n s w i l l be s u s c e p t i b l e to a t t a c k . In t h e W o r k i n g P a p e r we c o n c l u d e d t h a t a n t i avoidance legislation i s not n e c e s s a r y .... We see no reason t o d e p a r t from t h a t c o n c l u s i o n . 1 8  17  Op.  cit.,  18  Ibid.,  footnote  a t p.  97.  15.  CHAPTER THE  The of  SLRA  has  FAMILY LAW ACT OF ONTARIO AND CONCLUSION  recognized  i t s p r o v i s i o n s by  estate  t o be  It to  has  apply  legally under  (all  need  to prevent  assets  passing  only  the  to  SLRA.  and  those  who  receive Outside  children  the  were  of  under  age  o f whom have a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t  c l a i m a n t s must  Notwithstanding the  testamentary fulfill or de  the  juris  The  emphasized adding  the  SLRA  freedom  dependent  by  the  and  extension  has only  deceased's  remedial  entitlement  eighteen  upon  entitled  to  or  claim  common-law  years  of  age,  to maintenance,) a l l other time  of death  of  to i t .  in  scope with  extent  o b l i g a t i o n s to  of  the  that  those  prospective integrity  of  i s necessary  to  who  were de  facto  of  the  Act  of  a p p l i c a n t s and  him.  p r o t e c t i v e measure  extension  anti-avoidance  the  the  support  including  of  interfered to  of  qualify  show a c t u a l m a i n t e n a n c e a t t h e  the deceased or a l e g a l  applicants,  actually  of  claimant.  receipt  spouses,  the  avoidance  c l a s s of persons in  i t can  the  outside  f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of the  a l s o g r e a t l y extended  entitled  spouses,  the  enabling  charged  but  4.  of  the  provisions.  class Yet  has  t h e d e c e a s e d has  been  been  by  left  with  will  not  a  be  Any  certainty  arbitrarily  beyond  of  this  enactment  the  statute.  reflects  t h e O n t a r i o Law  the  effect  regime they  of  are  family  the  scope  SLRA  that;  of  must  this  However,  be  intent  spouses  property  entitled  to  during  the  an  should the  (FLA).  thesis  i t must by  supplemented  Act,  the p h i l o s o p h i c a l  although  "be  posthumous  to be  by  1 9  analyse  the  observed  legislature  principle  Reform Commission's Report  separate to  his  F a m i l y Law  the a d o p t i o n  province of O n t a r i o , of by  that  altered.  t o t h e newly e n a c t e d  is  effects its  of  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of  reference  It  degree  that  of  the  enunciated  on F a m i l y Law  enjoy  a  currency  to  matrimonial of  appropriate equal  a s s e t s upon t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g e  marriage, sharing  by  death  in or  9n divorce  The  e x p l a n a t o r y p r e a m b l e o f t h e FLA  states,  in part:  Whereas i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o e n c o u r a g e and s t r e n g t h e n t h e r o l e o f t h e f a m i l y ; and whereas f o r t h a t p u r p o s e it i s n e c e s s a r y to r e c o g n i z e the e q u a l p o s i t i o n of spouses as individuals within marriage and to r e c o g n i z e m a r r i a g e as a f o r m o f p a r t n e r s h i p ;  In  keeping  with  the  policy  FLA  generally provides that,  19  S.O.  20  Ontario IV,  1986, Law  (1974)  c.  i n i t s preamble  upon t h e d e a t h ,  either  the  testate  or  4.  Reform at  disclosed  p.  Commission,  55.  Report  on  Family  Law,  Part  intestate, property to  be  the  deceased  the  into  certain or  The spouse  "net  the  then  the  FLA  marriage  does  to  succession the  take  under  is  the the  spouse's  net  their  than  such  an  as  as  Will,  or  case  may  of  property property  matrimonial  property  home)  acquired  by  41  election  estate  estate  is  2 1  defined  the  family  marriage  liabilities,  the m a r r i a g e .  p r o v i s i o n s , as  deceased  (other  for  the  e q u a l l y between t h e  debts,  property  provide  of  during  property"  less:  inheritance after  value  surviving spouse.  family  excluded  the  spouses  shared  spouses the  -  spouse,  by  s p o u s e and  term by  brought  in  first  d e t e r m i n e d and  owned  gift  the  accumulated  The  and  of  225  for  under be,  the  surviving  the  or  through  intestate  to  participate  the  equalizing  O -J  formula."  By  J  enacting  the  matrimonial  regime  crystallizes  upon  In  so  doing,  entitlement  FLA, of  the  Ontario deferred  termination  Ontario  has  also  of a s u r v i v i n g spouse.  21  Supra, f o o t n o t e  22  Op.  c i t . , s.  4.  23  Op.  c i t . , s.  6.  19,  has,  s.  5.  in  fact,  community of  recognized  property  marriage legislated  by  any  the  a  which means. minimum  226  -  It  is  too  dependent  relief  dependents' courts  early  entitlement  should  provisions deceased to  them w i t h having  24  continue  to  consider  the  therefore,  diminish of  the  as  FLA,  effect  theory to  the be  the  t o the net f a m i l y p r o p e r t y  spouse's e s t a t e .  improve  In  will  have  Presumably, SLRA  examine  claims.  relief  will  to  -  surviving  receive The  a  net e f f e c t  an  Part will,  o f t h e FLA  share  to r e s o r t to  Support of  Dependants.  for the  award.  V  2 4  of  under of  should  the the the be  providing  of the deceased spouse's e s t a t e  litigation.  on  spouse's  proportion  t h e p o s i t i o n o f many s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e s by a fair  but  surviving  spouse  FLA  provisions  i n making  fair  the  available  a p p l i c a t i o n s under  a  of  without  PART V:  CONCLUSION  -  228 -  CONCLUSION  A.  Technical Deficiencies  The most  Act i s subject  important  to various  t e c h n i c a l d e f i c i e n c i e s , the  o f w h i c h , f r o m an a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p o i n t  o f view,  are:  1.  Statutory  The is  to  Definition  Act i s s i l e n t consider  deceased's  benefaction  any  proposed  The to the  a  1  under  of  a s t o what d a t e  the claimants  of determining  the court  and  of the  the adequacy o f  the W i l l ,  and t h e r e f o r e  in British  Columbia  t h e quantum o f  award.  or l e s s e r  appropriate  within  f o r purposes  jurisprudence  greater  on t h e s u b j e c t  circumstances  estate  the  o f Date o f S u f f i c i e n c y  time  extent,  for three  to determine  whether  provides  authority,  possible  1  times  as  adequate p r o v i s i o n ,  t h e meaning o f t h e A c t h a s been made.  These d a t e s a r e :  Re H u l l , [1941] 1 D.L.R. 14, [1943] O.R. 778 ( C A . ) concluded that the date o f making the W i l l was t h e p e r t i n e n t date. The c o u r t s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a c o n s i d e r e d t h i s d e c i s i o n but chose not t o f o l l o w i t . See Re Bowe, i n f r a , f o o t n o t e 2 and Re U r q u h a r t , i n f r a , f o o t n o t e 4. This date cannot, therefore, be considered as a p o s s i b i l i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  -  2.  (a)  the date  o f the t e s t a t o r ' s death;  (b)  the date  when d e p e n d e n t  (c)  the date  of the hearing.  Opportunity  The ning  intended  t o render  through  available should,  f o r Inter Vivos  A c t h a s no mechanism  devolve  i f intended  proceedings  commence;  Evasion  f o r preventing  t h e deceased's  to the court  relief  i t impotent.  Only  personal  inter those  vivos  plan-  assets  which  representative  t o make a n a p p r o p r i a t e a w a r d .  as a preventative  anti-avoidance p r o v i s i o n s .  3.  229 -  against  5  abuse,  are  The A c t contain  6  Limitation Period  Section  10 o f t h e A c t r e q u i r e s t h a t a n a c t i o n be commenced  2  Re N o v i k o f f (1968), ( B . C . S . C ) ; Re Bowe, 234 (B.C.S.C).  1 D.L.R. 19 D.L.R.  (3d) 484, 66 W.W.R. 164 (3d) 388, [1971] 4 W.W.R.  3  Re C a l l a d i n e ( 1 9 5 8 ) ,  4  Re J o n e s , [1934] 3 W.W.R. 726, 49 B.C.R. 216 ( B . C . S . C ) , Re Urquhart (1956), 5 D.L.R. (2d) 235, 20 W.W.R. 177 (B«C«S«C«)•  5  F o r a more e x t e n s i v e P a r t I I , c . 7.  6  F o r examples of provinces adopting p r o v i s i o n s s e e s u p r a , P a r t I , A p p e n d i x "C".  25 W.W.R. 185 ( B . C . S . C ) .  a n a l y s i s o f the subject  see  supra,  anti-avoidance  within date to  s i x months  of  the  from  resealing meaning  question  is  defined  as  of  now the  in  the  The that  rationale  date  grant. tive  not it  relates  to matters  However, probate in  i n common  common  Columbia,  form, without  application contrast, nounced  in  plaintiffs  in open  persons or  that  problem, of  date  of W i l l s ) ,  and  probate  of  the  executor.  form  of  a  term  the  to  from the  representa-  Supreme  the  after  form.  Probate  of  i n solemn  a  (as  specifically;  Court  decree,  does  Will.  British  i n c o u r t on an ex  Probate  the  the A c t "probate"  probate,  i n solemn  final  usually  parties  in  perfect  i s that  The  formal procedure  court, are  in  to  personal  means t o p r o v e  form,  the  been  authority.  however,  kinds  the  the  or  two  any  required  "probate".  i s granted  has  entered  as the  conclusion i s that  is  are  made by  is  affected  7  there  logical  his position  t h e meaning  that  "issue"  was  the  arisen  appears  term  grant  have  or  7  further  until  It  the  the  this  nothing  significant  specify  which  of probate",  Questions  that  Registry.  c o u l d not prove  issue  "issue".  and  on  Conversely,  A more  term  behind  onward  of  province.  settled  records of the Court  -  "the date the  date  230  or  form,  order,  trial,  proceeding,  parte  when either  defendants.  Re L a r s e n E s t a t e , [1974] 5 W.W.R. 670 (B.C.S.C.); Re H i r s c h , [1977] 2 B.C.L.R. 216 (B.C.S.C).  by  proa l l as  The is  principal  that  solemn  probate form  sequent  be  difference of effect  i n common f o r m  i s irrevocable,  valid  The  231 -  Will  i s found.  between  i s revocable,  unless  there  that  and  that  for  solemn  a reference  the l i m i t a t i o n form  should  obtained.  p r o b a t e must mean an o r d e r  Trustees  If there  the  judgment  the A c t i s subject i s no c e r t a i n t y  immune f r o m  defects  of  Lord  until  i s no  some  sub-  an  form order  contemporary  support  f o r the  i n s o l e m n f o r m c a n be McLaren  in  Pattison's  9  to this  to a personal  possible  interpretation,  representative  f o r t h e s i x month p e r i o d  that  that  even  he i s t h e r e a f t e r  attack.  Philosophical  All  However  v. U n i v e r s i t y o f E d i n b u r g h .  t h o u g h he w a i t s  B.  the s u b j e c t .  There  position  from  or a  i s meant and i t may  not apply  on  obtained  probate i n  t o p r o b a t e must mean i n s o l e m n  jurisprudence that  grants  8  period  has been  while  i s fraud,  A c t does not s p e c i f y which p r o b a t e  argued  t h e two  Inconsistency  o f t h e above d e f i c i e n c i e s a r e , which  can  be  on t h e w h o l e , t e c h n i c a l  easily  remedied  Trust  Company,  by  simple  statutory  amendments.  8  Robins 515.  9  (1889),  v.  National  16 C o u r t  Limited,  S e s s . C a . 73 a t p . 75.  [19 27]  A.C.  Of  g r e a t e r importance  definition  232 -  and c o n c e r n ,  and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  however, i s t h e l a c k o f  of the p h i l o s o p h y u n d e r l y i n g the  n a t u r e o f t h e remedy t o be p r o v i d e d by t h e A c t .  The other  province  of  dependents'  freedom, g i v i n g  The  intent  historical ments  of  that  The  counterattack  of the l e g i s l a t u r e supports  judges  who  common  adopted  freedom  such  was  was  position  abused  and  introduced on t h e  abuses.  remedial.  the  many  English  restraint  The  sketchy  and s o do t h e a v e r -  early  cases  the  courts  in  purpose  the Court  of  British  Columbia  in  o f the s t a t u t e .  Appeal  level  have  have The  British  left  most  recent  i s found  application  brought  manifestation  of  the  an  10  See s u p r a ,  P a r t I I . c . 2.  11  See s u p r a , P a r t I I , c . 4.  12  (1988),  27 E.T.R.  93  (B.C.S.C).  adult  1 2  deci-  impression device.  adoption  i n K a e t l e r v. K a e t l e r E s t a t e by d i s i n h e r i t e d  gone f a r  recent  t h e A c t i s i n t e n d e d a s an a n t i - d i s i n h e r i t a n c e  The  the  t o remedy s u c h  this position  decided  with  abuses,  as a f l e x i b l e  t h e c o u r t t h e power  the o r i g i n a l at  in  1 0  However, beyond  freedom.  legislation  evidence the  Columbia.  to  relief  Columbia,  i n t h e Commonwealth,  testamentary  legislature,  sions  British  jurisdictions  concept the  of  of  where  children,  1 1  this i n an  Bouck J . ,  -  233 1 o  referring  to Morris  v. M o r r i s  stated:  J  [ I ] n a r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t judgment f r o m o u r C o u r t o f A p p e a l a w i l l was v a r i e d where t h e t e s t a t o r f a i l e d t o treat h i s four c h i l d r e n equally i n respect t o the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the c a p i t a l o f the e s t a t e . T h i s was f o u n d t o be a b r e a c h o f p a r e n t a l d u t y . . . . 1 4  The other of  province  Commonwealth  succession,  curtailed  by  abuses.  testamentary  succession,  law.  that  well  defined  that  rules  i s t o go  There rules  adopted  develop  h a s been  remedy a  law  against  regime o f  h e i r s h i p , such as i s found i n  systems  have  person  with  of i t s  freedom  to create  of  adopted  i d e n t i f y i n g the exact  a r e no a m b i g u i t i e s  as p a r t  Such  intended  or forced  t o each  i n common  o f the A c t as a  never  J u r i s d i c t i o n s that  again  freedom.  the imposition  jurisdictions  Columbia,  jurisdictions,  The A c t was  compulsory  law  forced  i s no  on  heirship  portion  benefiting  and t h e r e  based  from  Roman have  of the estate such  regimes.  flexibility.  The  a r e c e r t a i n and p r e c i s e .  Yet, or  of B r i t i s h  the recent  inadvertently,  decisions  in British  are purporting  the b e n e f i t  Columbia,  to apply  of the r u l e s  a  forced  system  without  system  t o f u n c t i o n w i t h c e r t a i n t y and f a i r n e s s .  13  See s u p r a , P a r t  I I , footnote  86.  14  Supra, footnote  12, a t p . 105.  advertently  necessary  heirship  f o r such a  It for  is sufficiently  purposes  failed be,  a  of  judge  guidelines applicant  Yet,  faced  1 5  ,  concern that of  i s not  including  the  standard  the  of  legislators  the  task  handled  further  the  of  by  extended  a  equitable upon  not  meaning  making  bution  with  determining sion  1 7  even  of  task less  maintenance  by  i f the  a  child,  of  to  testator  that task a  living  of  may  multitude  enjoyed  by  identifiable  judiciary  and  have  courts  award  have  of the  guide-  expressed  awards  lamented  have  the  is  the  one lack  guidelines  an  than  support.  dependent  child  makes a  or  but  equitable  how  to  testator  not,  can  claim,  the  an  taken  distri-  available  inevitable  foreseeable future, a  whether  step  They have  those  The  one  (no m a t t e r  term)  estate assets. determining  and  gone  to support  attribute  the of  disinherited  the  Act  1 6  could  i s t h a t , f o r the  survived that  the  refer  discretionary  judges  their  one  distribution  themselves  the  Columbia  limiting  which  the  testator.  and  w e l l by  British  may  the  to apply  difficult  availability  legislative guidelines.  Yet,  how  task  the  that  no m a t t e r  the death  judge  maintenance  the  before  both  the  for a  with  Notwithstanding lines,  -  difficult  providing  to p r o v i d e .  234  in  concluwho  is  anticipate child  will  15  Some o f w h i c h , a p p a r e n t l y l o g i c a l and i n keeping with c o n t e m p o r a r y s o c i a l norms, have been r e j e c t e d . See s u p r a , P a r t I I , c . 5.  16  See  supra,  Part  I , c.5,  17  See  supra,  Part  I I , c.  Part  I I , c.  4 A and  B.  7.  likely able  succeed. as  most  The quantum of  the cases  proper  rationalization,  breach  o f the moral duty  In could Act  other  235 o f t h e award make  should  that  than  to state  of the t e s t a t o r .  the persons  be e n l a r g e d  award  that  without  there  was a  1 8  of the A c t i s remedial i t  entitled  i n keeping  be u n p r e d i c t -  t h e quantum  a d d i t i o n , i f the philosophy be a r g u e d  will  with  to apply  revisions  under t h e  u n d e r t a k e n by  1q other  provinces.  policy way  *  and t h e r e  or another.  appear  to  persons  other  relief  be  under  The  Such  general  Act  have 2 1  compelling  Indeed,  Columbia,  any than  in British  other  philosophical  spouses and c h i l d r e n  legislature  cohabited  may  matter  arguments there  one  does not  manifestations should  of  that  be e n t i t l e d t o  the A c t .  provides  cations,  is a  a r e no p a r t i c u l a r  h a s , however,  nouncement by r e c o g n i z i n g r i g h t s yet  extension  as  spouses.  t h a t such  be e n t i t l e d  person,  made  a  p h i l o s o p h i c a l pro-  of persons,  who a r e u n m a r r i e d  The E s t a t e  2 0  Administration  subject to statutory  t o a share  qualifi-  i n the deceased's  i n Kaetler  v. K a e t l e r  estate  18  See f o r example r a t i o n a l e s u p r a , f o o t n o t e 12.  19  F o r examples o f e x t e n d e d c l a s s a p p l y see supra, P a r t I , Appendix  20  The t e r m "common-law s p o u s e " has been d e l i b e r a t e l y a v o i d e d as i t i s t h e w r i t e r ' s v i e w t h a t i t h a s no l e g a l meaning i n British Columbia (unless specifically defined by t h e particular s t a t u t e ) a n d h a s been s u b j e c t t o m i s u s e i n common p a r l a n c e a s w e l l a s i n t h e j u r i s p r u d e n c e a n d t h e s t a t u t e s , a l l l e a d i n g t o unnecessary confusion.  21  R.S. c . 114, s . 85 and 86.  of persons "A".  Estate,  entitled  to  on  an  such  i n t e s t a t e death, i n d i v i d u a l s do  when t h e tion  by  It  and  under  a  relates  to  remedial relief  litigation  scarce  judicial  legislators  with  bringing Indeed, not  a  duty  not  actions  on  would  advise  could  not  the  they  their be  anticipation  it  be  status  is  given  and  to  not  create  absorbing  be  success  F o r a more e x t e n s i v e P a r t I I I , c. 1.  23  See  in  law,  that  what  or  an  is  already  for  are  their  guilty  of  such  analysis  an  of  But  they  not  malpractice the  could action?  the  a  a the are  there  is  justified  in  clients?  i f they  issue be  as  what  says that  a the  depleting  disinherited  although there  of  2 3  avenue  reality.  it  dependent  legislation  a  as  Unless  relief  of  that  the  prognostications  to d i s i n h e r i t ,  not  appear  jurisprudence  behalf  of  intolerable.  would  become  I f the  I.  relief  be  adjusted  The  will  clients  Part  individuals  should  dependents'  22  supra,  Yet  admits a p p l i c a -  succession  relief,  prognosticated, for  only  intestate  present  lawyers  t o do?  discretionary  Act  such  escalate  litigation  advisors  Act  resource.  for  estate  generally  will  pension  of  the  an  taken,  viewed  to  discretion.  statutes.  that  who  source  legal  The  two  are  right  that  under  dependents'  steps  court's  2 2  one.  i s suggested  a  t e s t a t e as  protection  harmony between t h e  -  to the  have  inconsistent  testate  It  not  spouses.  seems  rights  subject  deceased d i e s lawful  236  of  did  quantum  reasonable  Notwithstanding  subject  see  supra,  -  the  recent  Court  of  Appeal  the  Act  itself,  do  not  -  237  cases,  justify  the the  h i s t o r y of present  the  Act,  and  p o s i t i o n of  the  jurisprudence.  A c o n s i d e r a t i o n of interpretation, whole,  of  perty,  should  the A c t ,  C.  Recommended  replaced  well  r i g h t s to  f o r m , has at  the  f r o m two  or  Columbia,  dent  the  clude  British (akin the  Columbia  underlying provide  l o n g way  of  system,  least  as  a  family  pro-  safe conclusion  that  outlived i t s social  utility,  restructured.  dependency  the  Act  should  be  the  freedom  i s to continue  in  should  Act.  If  be the  condition legislators  f o r c e d h e i r s h i p i s what t h e  should  have,  in jurisdictions philosophy)  c e r t a i n t y and to reduce  of  Heirship  testamentary  then  regime of  to those  t o the  the  i t s present  premises:  a p p l i c a t i o n of  that a  as  restructuring  major  principle  British to  and  of  legislators  or  Act,  context  T e s t a m e n t a r y Freedom o r F o r c e d  If  a  the  the  Restructure  replacement  considered  to  in  i n i t s present be  h i s t o r y of  r i g h t s as  l e a d our  should  1.  viewed  succession  and  The  the  then  where c o m p u l s o r y  should  be  consistency.  litigation.  well-defined  included  prececon-  citizens  of  guidelines  succession  i n the Act  is  so  as  E i t h e r approach w i l l  go  Whether should  or  be e x t e n d e d  entitlement juris,  vivos.  of  On  class  on  extension  does  he  hand  but l i m i t e d  sions  to  apply  and s o l o n g a s  their  either more  had assumed regime  entitled  t o spouses  to  de  than  obligations  i f a  i s an u n a c c e p t a b l e  for division  facto to  or  make  which  he  of forced benefit  de the  had  voluntarily,  by  inter  heirship i s  should  not  be  and c h i l d r e n .  breakdown  during  the spouses  lifetime  attempt  to  rejected  by t h e B r i t i s h  property during tions  i s , however, should  life and  reconcile  be  or  Columbia  different  the d i s t r i b u t i o n  on  why a  o f such  I I , c . 6.  result  the  of death.  principle.  spouses,  two  - as a  marriage  of death.  An  provisions  was  Court of A p p e a l .  reason  the p r o v i -  termination of a  and - as a  than as a r e s u l t  See s u p r a , P a r t  or a  integrate  no  between  p r o p e r t y between  of marriage  There  inconsistency  of family  result  24  no  entitled  Family Property  There  same  of p o l i c y  posthumously  persons  persons  dependency,  law o r w h i c h  the  of  i s a matter  the other  choice  extended,  2.  an  recognize  operation  the  i s based  such  testator  the  not  238 -  2 4  distribution  of  family  termination of  marriage  They a r e b o t h  termina-  assets  should  follow  the  The  Act  should  ciple.  The  province  British  Columbia  of  the  be  of  of  would  clearly  Ontario  reduce  receive,  by  deceased  spouse's  be  a v a i l a b l e on  Roscoe stand  Pound  still."  The  2  law,  estate.  And  said  "Law  evolution not  of  the  the  courts misunderstanding subject  legislators stability  stood  has  give  they  supra,  a  that  reflect This  the  a  type  a  prin-  recently  legislation  akin more of  2 5  to  relief  that  legislation  s u r v i v i n g spouse  dependent's  and  realistic  substantial portion  would  of  would  the still  need.  must  be  s t a b l e , and  jurisprudence  certainly  the  as  such  yet  i t cannot  6  has  on  done  thus  litigation  b a s i s of  recognize  norms.  of  the  has  adopt  and  social  operation  to  Ontario easily  r e c o g n i t i o n of present  -  adjusted  could  province  239  still.  not the  of  been people  Yet, the  partially  purpose of  stable. of  i n t e r p r e t i n g the  this  It  as  a  result  the A c t ,  is  time  province  Act  the that  the  of law the  legal  deserve.  25  See  Part  IV,  c.  4.  26  R. Pound, I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f L e g a l H i s t o r y , a t p. 1, as q u o t e d i n B e n j a m i n N. C a r d o z o , The Growth o f t h e Law, (New Haven: Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1924) a t p.2.  -  240  -  BIBLIOGRAPHY A.  BOOKS  A t k i n s o n , Thomas E. Handbook o f t h e Law P a u l , M i n n . : West P u b l i s h i n g Co.,  of W i l l s . 1953.  2nd  ed.  St.  C o n f e r e n c e on S o c i a l M e a n i n g o f L e g a l C o n c e p t s - I n h e r i t a n c e o f P r o p e r t y and t h e power o f T e s t a m e n t a r y D i s p o s i t i o n . New Y o r k : New York U n i v e r s i t y S c h o o l o f Law, 1948. H a r d i n g h a m , I . J . e t a l . W i l l s and I n t e s t a c y i n A u s t r a l i a & New Z e a l a n d . M e l b o u r n e : The Law Book Company L i m i t e d , 1983. M a i n e , S i r H e n r y . A n c i e n t Law. Dent & Sons L t d . , 1917. M a c d o n a l d , W.D. University  Ed.  Ernest  Rhys, L o n d o n : J .  F r a u d on t h e Widow's S h a r e . Ann o f M i c h i g a n Law S c h o o l , 1960.  Arbor:  M a c G i l l , E.G. My M o t h e r t h e J u d g e . T o r o n t o : . P e t e r Associates Limited, 1981.  Martin  M a c G i l l , H.G. Women and C h i l d r e n under B r i t i s h Vancouver: P r i v a t e l y p u b l i s h e d , 1935.  Columbia  M e l l o w s , A n t h o n y R. Butterworths,  ed.  R a t h b o n e , E.F. The & Co., 1924.  The Law 1977.  of  Succession.  D i s i n h e r i t e d Family.  3rd  Ed.  R h e i n s t e i n , M. N.Y.: The  e t a l . The Law o f D e c e d e n t s ' E s t a t e s . Foundation Press, 1971.  Shepherd, J.C. 1981.  The  Law  of F i d u c i a r i e s .  W a t e r s , D.W.M. Law o f T r u s t s Carswell, 1984. W r i g h t , R.J.D. T e s t a t o r ' s New Z e a l a n d . 2nd ed. Limited, 1966.  Toronto:  i n Canada. 2nd  ed.  Laws.  London:  London: Edward  , e t a l . Our Freedom and i t s R e s u l t s . S t r a c h e y . London: Hogarth P r e s s , 1936.  M.  Arnold  Ray Mineola,  Carswell, Toronto:  Family Maintenance i n A u s t r a l i a Sydney: The Law Book Company  and  B.  ARTICLES  AND  241  -  ANNOTATIONS  A s h l e y , A. "A N o t e on t h e C l a i m s o f S p o u s e s and C h i l d r e n t o a P a r t o f P e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a s I l l u s t r a t e d by t h e T r a d i t i o n a l S y s t e m s o f t h e C h a n n e l I s l a n d s and I s l e o f Man R e s p e c t i v e l y , and t h e i r P o s i t i o n Today T h e r e and i n S c o t l a n d " , (1953) 2 I n t . & Comp C. L.Q. 274. . "Property i n Relation (1953) 65 J u r i d . Rev. 37. B a l e , G.  " B a t e s v. B a t e s " ,  t o M a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y " ,  (1981) 9 E.T.R.  236.  . " D e p e n d a n t s ' R e l i e f L e g i s l a t i o n and t h e Changed E m p h a s i s E f f e c t e d by P a r t V o f The S u c c e s s i o n Law R e f o r m A c t ( O n t a r i o ) " , (1982) 10 E.T.R. 7. . "Duty Owed t o A b i e - B o d i e d A d u l t C h i l d r e n Under T e s t a t o r s ' F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e L e g i s l a t i o n and t h e Need A d o p t an O b j e c t i v e A p p r o a c h " , (1983-84) 14 E.T.R. 35.  to  . " L i m i t a t i o n on T e s t a m e n t a r y D i s p o s i t i o n i n C a n a d a " , (1964) 42 Can. B a r . Rev. 367. . "Palm T r e e J u s t i c e and T e s t a t o r ' s F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e - The C o n t i n u i n g Saga o f C o n f u s i o n and U n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e B.C. C o u r t s " , (1987) 26 E.T.R. 295. ; . "Power t o V a r y O r d e r s Under T e s t a t o r s ' F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e L e g i s l a t i o n and t h e R e l e v a n t D a t e t o D e t e r m i n e A d e q u a c y on an I n i t i a l A p p l i c a t i o n " , (1982-83) 12 E.T.R. 231. . " T e s t a t o r s ' Family Maintenance i n B r i t i s h Columbia - F a i r s h a r e o f t h e E s t a t e o r E q u i t a b l e M a i n t e n a n c e and The Dilemma s t i l l C o n f r o n t i n g t h e C o u r t s by t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada D e c i s i o n o f 1930 i n W a l k e r v. McDermott", (1977-78) 1 E.T.R. 129. Brown, M. " D e p e n d a n t s ' R e l i e f 261, 449. Dainow, J . " F o r c e d H e i r s h i p Rev. 669.  Acts",  (1940) 18 Can. B a r . Rev.  i n F r e n c h Law",  . " I n h e r i t a n c e by P r e t e r m i t t e d 111. L. Rev. 1.  (1940) 2 L a . L.  Children",  , " L i m i t a t i o n s on T e s t a m e n t a r y Freedom (1940) 25 C o r n e l l L.Q. 337. . " R e s t r i c t e d T e s t a t i o n i n New Z e a l a n d , and Canada", (1938) 36 M i c h . L. Rev. 1107.  (1937)  32  i n England", Australia  . "The E a r l y S o u r c e s o f F o r c e d H e i r s h i p ; I t ' s H i s t o r y i n T e x a s and L o u i s i a n a " , (1941) 4 L a . L. Rev.  42.  -  L.  . "Unrestricted Rev. 401.  242  -  Testation  i n Quebec",  (1936) 10 T u l .  Dewar, J o h n L . "The D e v e l o p m e n t o f The R e m e d i a l T r u s t " , (1982) 60 Can. B a r . Rev. 265.  Constructive  G o l d , J . "Freedom o f T e s t a t i o n , t h e I n h e r i t a n c e P r o v i s i o n ) B i l l " , (1938) 1 M.L.R. 296.  (Family  K e e t o n , G.W. & Gower, L.C.B. "Freedom o f T e s t a t i o n Law", (1935). 20 Iowa L. Rev. 326.  in English  K i r a l f y , A.K.R. "Freedom o f T e s t a t i o n Under The E n g l i s h I n h e r i t a n c e A c t o f 1938", (1949) 61 J u r i d . Rev. 186. Kohn, A.C. " L i m i t a t i o n s on T e s t a m e n t a r y Power i n M i s s o u r i : P r o t e c t i o n o f t h e Spouse and C h i l d r e n o f t h e T e s t a t o r " , (1954) 1954 Wash. U.L.Q. 354. L a s k i n , B. " D e p e n d a n t s ' R e l i e f L e g i s l a t i o n " , (1939) 17 C a n . B a r . Rev. 181. L a u f e r , J . " F l e x i b l e R e s t r a i n t s on T e s t a m e n t a r y Freedom - a R e p o r t on D e c e d e n t s ' F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e L e g i s l a t i o n " , (1955) 69:1 H a r v . L. Rev. 277. L i f t m a n , M.N. " R e l e v a n t D a t e f o r D e t e r m i n i n g A d e q u a c y o f P r o v i s i o n made by T e s t a t o r f o r P u r p o s e s o f D e f e n d a n t ' s R e l i e f L e g i s l a t i o n " , (1977-78) 1 E.T.R. 41. McMurray, O.K. " L i b e r t y o f T e s t a t i o n and Some Modern L i m i t a t i o n s T h e r e o n " , (1919) 14 111. L. Rev. 96. M u l l e r - F r e i e n f e l s , W. " F a m i l y Law and t h e Law o f S u c c e s s i o n Germany", (1967) 16 I n t . & Comp. L.Q. 409. Nussbaum, A.  "Liberty of Testation",  (1937) 23 A.B.A.J.  in  183.  O o s t e r h o f f , A.H. " R e m e d i a l C o n s t r u c t i v e T r u s t s - M a t r i m o n i a l P r o p e r t y D i s p u t e s - J u s t i c e and E q u i t y o r " P a l m - T r e e " J u s t i c e ? " , (1979) 57 Can. B a r . Rev. 356. Y i a n n o p o u l o s , A.N. " T e s t a m e n t a r y D i s p o s i t i o n i n F a v o r o f t h e S u r v i v i n g Spouse and t h e L e g i t i m e o f D e c e d e n t s " , (1968) 28 L a . L. Rev. 509.  C.  REPORTS OF LAW REFORM  243 -  COMMISSIONS  A l b e r t a I n s t i t u t e o f Law R e s e a r c h a n d R e f o r m , Family R e l i e f , (1978). Law C o m m i s s i o n Death, (1974).  (England),  Report  Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n o f B r i t i s h S u c c e s s i o n R i g h t s , (1983).  R e p o r t No. 29,  No. 61, F a m i l y  P r o v i s i o n on  C o l u m b i a , R e p o r t on S t a t u t o r y  Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n o f New S o u t h W a l e s , R e p o r t No. 28, T e s t a t o r ' s F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e and G u a r d i a n s h i p o f I n f a n t s A c t , 1916, ( 1 9 7 7 ) . O n t a r i o Law R e f o r m (1974) .  D.  Commission,  R e p o r t on F a m i l y  Law, P a r t I V ,  STATUTES  An A c t R e s p e c t i n g t h e E s t a t e s S.B.C. 1962, c . 44.  of Mentally  Incompetent P e r s o n s ,  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A c t , R.S.B.C. 1960, c . 3. Administration  o f E s t a t e s A c t , 1925, 15 Geo. V. c . 23.  A d o p t i o n A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, Charter Child  o f R i g h t s Amendment  c . 4.  A c t , 1985,  S.B.C. 1985,  c . 68.  W e l f a r e A c t , R.S.O. 1980, c . 66.  Dependants D-6.  o f Deceased  Person R e l i e f  A c t , R.S.P.E.I.  Dependants'  Relief  A c t , S.O. 1929,  Dependents'  Relief  A c t , R . S . P . E . I . 1974, c . D-6.  c . 47.  The D e p e n d a n t s '  Relief  A c t , R.S.O. 1970, c .  The  Dependants'  Relief  A c t , 1940, R.S.S. 1940, c . 36.  The D e p e n d a n t s '  Relief  A c t , R.S.S. 1978, c .  The D e p e n d a n t s  Relief  The D e p e n d e n t s ' R e l i e f Dependants Dependants'  Relief Relief  1974,  126.  D-25.  A c t , R.S.N.W.T. 1974, c . D-4. A c t , R.S.S. 1953, c .  121.  O r d i n a n c e , R.O.N.W.T. 1971, c . O r d i n a n c e , R.O.Y.T.  D-44.  1962, c . 9.  c.  Dependants' R e l i e f  Ordinance,  244 O.Y.T. 1980, ( 2 d ) , c . 6.  The  D e v o l u t i o n o f E s t a t e s A c t , R.S.O. 1970, c . 129.  The  D e v o l u t i o n o f E s t a t e s A c t , R.S.S. 1910-11, c . 13.  Equal  Guardianship  o f I n f a n t s A c t , R.S.B.C. 1960, c . 130.  E s t a t e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c . 114. Family The  Law A c t ,  Family  S.O. 1986, c . 4.  Protection Act,  1955, N.Z.S. 1955, No. 88.  Family  R e l a t i o n s A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c . 121.  Family  Relief  A c t , R.S.A. 1970, c . 134.  Family  Relief  A c t , R.S.A. 1980, c . F - 2 .  The  Family  Relief  A c t , R.S.N. 1962, c . 56.  The  Family  Relief  A c t , R.S.N. 1970, c . 124.  Guaranteed 158.  Available  The I n h e r i t a n c e c. 45.  Income  (Family  Inheritance (Provision c. 63 ( U . K . ) .  f o r Need  A c t , R.S.B.C.  1979, c .  P r o v i s i o n ) A c t , 1938, 1 & 2 Geo. V I , f o r Family  and D e p e n d a n t s )  A c t , 1975,  L u n a c y A c t , R.S.B.C. 1948, c . 194. The  M a r r i e d Women's R e l i e f  Patients  A c t , R.S.A. 1910, c . 18.  P r o p e r t y A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979, c . 313.  S u c c e s s i o n Law R e f o r m A c t , R.S.O. 1980, c . 488. The  S u r v i v o r s h i p A c t , R.S.O. 1970, c . 454.  Testators'  Dependants R e l i e f  Testator's  Family Maintenance Act,  Testator's  F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.B.C. 1960, c . 378.  Testators'  F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.N.B. 1959, c . 14.  Testators'  Family  Testator's  F a m i l y M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.N.S. 1967, c . 303.  Testators Family  A c t , R . S . P . E . I . 1974, c . 47. S.B.C. 1920, c . 94.  M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.N.S. 1956, c . 8.  M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.N.B. 1973, c . T-4.  - 245 The No.  Testator's 20.  Family  The T e s t a t o r s '  Family  The  Testators  Family  -  Maintenance  A c t , 1900  N.Z.  Stat.,  M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.M. 1946, M a i n t e n a n c e A c t , R.S.M  The W i l l s A c t , R.S.O. 1970,  c.  499.  W i l l s V a r i a t i o n A c t , R.S.B.C. 1979,  c.  435.  1970,  1900,  c.  64.  c. T  50.  PUBLICATIONS G o s s e , R. and A m i g h e t t i , L. S u c c e s s i o n - A S o u r c e Book on t h e Law R e l a t i n g t o W i l l s and I n t e s t a c i e s . V a n c o u v e r , B.C.: Versatile P u b l i s h i n g Co. L t d . , 1975. A m i g h e t t i , L. W i l l s , E s t a t e s and Canada: B u t t e r w o r t h & Co., 1978.  Government  Amighetti, L. ( C o n t r i b u t i n g Author) Canada." P r e n t i c e H a l l o f Canada L t d . B i c e , W. C. and A m i g h e t t i , L. "Canadian Resident Decedent." (1978) 4 The A m e r i c a n C o u n s e l P r o b a t e N o t e s 9.  Benefits.  "Income  Western  Taxation  Taxation of College of  in  a NonProbate  A m i g h e t t i , L. "Income Tax E v e n t s T r i g g e r e d by D e a t h : An E x a m i n a t i o n of S e l e c t e d Problems." Report of Proceedings of the T h i r t y f i r s t Tax C o n f e r e n c e 26, 27, 28 November, 1979 ( T o r o n t o : C a n a d i a n Tax F o u n d a t i o n , 1979), 652. A m i g h e t t i , L. and C a r p h i n , J . G. "The New Canada-U.S. Tax Conv e n t i o n - S p e c i f i c a l l y as i t A f f e c t s S u c c e s s i o n . " P r o c . o f a Conf e r e n c e o f The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Academy o f E s t a t e and T r u s t Law 9 May, 1981. A m i g h e t t i , L. and C u l l i t y , M. C. " F o r e i g n W i l l S u b s t i t u t e s and L e g a l Regimes: Canada and B r i t i s h Commonwealth." i n C u r r e n t L e g a l Aspects of I n t e r n a t i o n a l E s t a t e Planning Ed. R. A. Hendrickson and W. K. S t e v e n s . C h i c a g o : A m e r i c a n Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , 1981, pp. 328-364. Amighetti, L. "Enduring E n g l a n d . " (1988) 14 The P r o b a t e N o t e s 46.  Powers o f Attorney American C o l l e g e of  i n Canada and Probate Counsel  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077707/manifest

Comment

Related Items