Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Campbell v. Cooper, 2017 Carswell Sask 334, 2017 SKCA 55

This article offers a case comment on a 2017 Saskatchewan decision, Campbell v. Cooper.

The decision reminds us that beneficiaries who have been wronged by an executor should remember to begin an action within 2 years of when they discover said wrong.

Facts:

  1. The plaintiffs in Campbell (the plaintiffs are hereafter Campbell”) were beneficiaries of farmland. Their father had died on March 17, 1990;
  2. Cooper, a Moose Jaw lawyer, was their father’s lawyer and also the executor of his will;
  3. Letters were granted on July 11, 1990 appointing Mr. Cooper as executor;
  4. The estate consisted in part of approximately nine quarters of farmland that were to be transferred to the plaintiffs;
  5. Cooper eventually transferred the approximate nine quarters to Messrs. Campbell on December 30, 2009, 19 years after death. This was far too long, and it is not clear why it took so long, nor why the beneficiaries did not apply in court to remove the executor for such a delay;
  6. On December 21, 2011, Messrs. Campbell issued a claim against Mr. Cooper in his personal capacity and in his capacity as executor;
  7. They alleged that his delay in transferring the farmland had caused them loss, because it forced them to deal with the land as if they were leasing it. They claimed, as a result, they could not use any of the farmland as security to expand their farm base and farm operation.
  8. Cooper died in September 2013 without ever accounting to Messrs. Campbell for his work as executor;
  9. Cooper submitted the lawsuit was statute barred. Mr. Cooper said that the cause of action arose on January 11, 1991. This January 11, 1991 date was clear from the plaintiffs’ own claim:

11  The January 11, 1991 date arises from the plaintiffs’ claim as follows:

  1. That our mother, Mary Catherine Campbell was named in the Will as Beneficiary and we understand that John Douglas Cooper as Executor, would have a responsibility under the Dependants Relief Act [sic] and/or under the Family Property Act [sic] to hold off and delay distribution of the Estate of our father, Russell James Campbell for at least six months after the issue of Letters Probate. He would be free to proceed with the distribution of the Estate after January 11, 1991.
  1. The Court outlined that there were three potential dates on which limitation period began to run, in this situation. However under any of these dates, the limitation period had still long since expired.
16  The above is based on the pleadings. However, looking beyond that, there are three possible dates from which the six-year limitation period could be calculated:

  1. From the testator’s date of death, being March 17, 1990 — six years later would have been March 17, 1996;
  2. From the granting of Letters Probate issued July 11, 1990 — six years later would have been July 10, 1996;
  3. From six months after Letters were granted (i.e. January 11, 1991) because of the necessity of the six month delay under the then s. 16(1) of The Dependants’ Relief Act, RSS 1978, c D-25 (since rep) and s. 30(2) of The Matrimonial Property Act, SS 1979, c M-6.1 (since rep) — six years thereafter would have been January 11, 1997. This appears to be the approach favoured by the plaintiffs.

17  In any event, the claim was issued on December 21, 2011, about 14 years after the last possible date of January 11, 1997. Nor have the plaintiffs advanced any pleading or argument that there was any recently discovered claim. They were clearly aware years before January 11, 1997 of their alleged cause of action.

  1. The Court outlined that there were three potential dates on which limitation period began to run, in this situation. However under any of these dates, the limitation period had still long since expired.

Lesson:

The lesson from Campbell is that beneficiaries should be diligent in suing to redress any wrong they have suffered. Here, the brothers should have realized back in or around 1991, that the executor was taking too long to transfer the land to them. If they felt they had suffered damages, they could have begun a lawsuit against the executor.

In reality, what the beneficiaries could also have done in 1991 was actually bring an application to force the executor to transfer the land. If the executor had failed to then abide by such an order, the beneficiaries could have removed him by obtaining a second court order. That would have placed someone new in the role, who would have properly transferred the land. If the above had occurred, there actually would have been minimal damages, as the land would have been transferred much earlier.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

James Steele’s preferred practise area is estate litigation, including will challenges, executor disputes, power of attorney issues, etc. Contact James Steele at 1-306-933-1338 or [email protected]. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations.

Read more on our blog.

The Saskatchewan Estate Law blog is dedicated to providing practical, real-world information on Estate Law issues that affect Saskatchewan residents. The blog is written by RS lawyer, James Steele, whose practice focuses on estate litigation.

Related News and Articles

James Steele’s Insurance Article Cited in BCCA Decision

A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision (West Van Holdings Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company) cited an article written by associate lawyer James Steele. "Deterrence not damages: the punitive rationale for solicitor-client costs" was published in...

read more

James Steele Presents to Saskatoon Estate Planning Council

James Steele was the featured speaker at a recent meeting of the Saskatoon Estate Council. James' presentation focused on Powers of Attorney, briefing the group on particular court decisions involving issues such as fiduciary duty, capacity concerns, and duty to...

read more

Steele and Parsonson Speak on Wills and Estates

On March 5, James Steele and Ben Parsonson volunteered their time to address wills and estates issues with the residents of the Palisades Retirement Residence. Together they spoke on the importance of having a Will, or Power of Attorney, or health care directive as...

read more

How to Avoid Challenges to your Will

How to Avoid Challenges to your Will by James Steele Robertson Stromberg LLP, Saskatoon   Having a Will is meant to provide comfort, and to make sure your family gets their inheritance when you pass on. Yet all too often Wills are challenged in court. This can...

read more

James Steele Contributes Article to Saskatoon Express

The Saskatoon Express newspaper has published an article by James Steele that offers practical advice on preparing wills.  He advises that with the right planning and communication up front, court battles over wills can be avoided. Read James's article in the January...

read more

James Steele offers help with Wills & Estates

Anyone with Wills & Estates questions is invited to a series of free drop in clinics at the Frances Morrison Central Branch of Saskatoon Public Library.   The evening clinics will run from 6:30-8:30 on: Thursday, February 14 Thursday, February 28 Thursday, March...

read more

Anderson and Steele Present to SUMA Members

Struggling with a complex tax enforcement issue? Want to avoid taking a property? The Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) is offering the webinar How to Make Tax Collection Less Taxing.  Robertson Stromberg's Kim Anderson, QC, and James Steele will...

read more

Carlson v. Carlson Estate case comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Carlson v. Carlson Estate, 2018 SKQB 196. Carlson reminds us of the importance of preserving evidence of just how “voluntary” a will is. If, in contrast, a particular beneficiary of the will is seen...

read more

Case Comment Klassen v. Wiers Estate

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Klassen v. Estate of John Arnold Wiers, 2018 SKQB 32, 288 A.C.W.S. (3d) 598. Klassen was a decision which turned on a careful assembling of the evidence. While there was no single piece of magic...

read more

Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate Case Comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate, 2018 SKCA 56. Karpinski offers helpful reminders to parties who wish to challenge a Will based on a concern that the testator was subjected to undue...

read more

Legal “Standing” to Challenge a Will

This articles offers an overview of the 2018 Court of Appeal decision in Olson v. Skarsgard Estate, 2018 SKCA 64. Olson offers an important reminder to parties involved in estate litigation. Namely, one should always check to make sure you have the legal “standing” to...

read more

Case comment on Figley v. Figley

This article provides a Saskatchewan estate litigation update, offering a brief synopsis of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Figley v. Figley, 2018 SKQB 102, 21 C.P.C. (8th) 149. Figley v. Figley reminds estate litigators of the important “wills exception” to...

read more

James Steele presents to STEP Canada

James Steele presented on February 23, 2022, to STEP Canada, an internationally recognized body of trust and estate practitioners.

James presented on the topic of contested estates, and how to navigate such disputes.

Related News and Articles

James Steele’s Insurance Article Cited in BCCA Decision

A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision (West Van Holdings Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company) cited an article written by associate lawyer James Steele. "Deterrence not damages: the punitive rationale for solicitor-client costs" was published in...

read more

James Steele Presents to Saskatoon Estate Planning Council

James Steele was the featured speaker at a recent meeting of the Saskatoon Estate Council. James' presentation focused on Powers of Attorney, briefing the group on particular court decisions involving issues such as fiduciary duty, capacity concerns, and duty to...

read more

Steele and Parsonson Speak on Wills and Estates

On March 5, James Steele and Ben Parsonson volunteered their time to address wills and estates issues with the residents of the Palisades Retirement Residence. Together they spoke on the importance of having a Will, or Power of Attorney, or health care directive as...

read more

How to Avoid Challenges to your Will

How to Avoid Challenges to your Will by James Steele Robertson Stromberg LLP, Saskatoon   Having a Will is meant to provide comfort, and to make sure your family gets their inheritance when you pass on. Yet all too often Wills are challenged in court. This can...

read more

James Steele Contributes Article to Saskatoon Express

The Saskatoon Express newspaper has published an article by James Steele that offers practical advice on preparing wills.  He advises that with the right planning and communication up front, court battles over wills can be avoided. Read James's article in the January...

read more

James Steele offers help with Wills & Estates

Anyone with Wills & Estates questions is invited to a series of free drop in clinics at the Frances Morrison Central Branch of Saskatoon Public Library.   The evening clinics will run from 6:30-8:30 on: Thursday, February 14 Thursday, February 28 Thursday, March...

read more

Anderson and Steele Present to SUMA Members

Struggling with a complex tax enforcement issue? Want to avoid taking a property? The Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) is offering the webinar How to Make Tax Collection Less Taxing.  Robertson Stromberg's Kim Anderson, QC, and James Steele will...

read more

Carlson v. Carlson Estate case comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Carlson v. Carlson Estate, 2018 SKQB 196. Carlson reminds us of the importance of preserving evidence of just how “voluntary” a will is. If, in contrast, a particular beneficiary of the will is seen...

read more

Case Comment Klassen v. Wiers Estate

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Klassen v. Estate of John Arnold Wiers, 2018 SKQB 32, 288 A.C.W.S. (3d) 598. Klassen was a decision which turned on a careful assembling of the evidence. While there was no single piece of magic...

read more

Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate Case Comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate, 2018 SKCA 56. Karpinski offers helpful reminders to parties who wish to challenge a Will based on a concern that the testator was subjected to undue...

read more

Legal “Standing” to Challenge a Will

This articles offers an overview of the 2018 Court of Appeal decision in Olson v. Skarsgard Estate, 2018 SKCA 64. Olson offers an important reminder to parties involved in estate litigation. Namely, one should always check to make sure you have the legal “standing” to...

read more

Case comment on Figley v. Figley

This article provides a Saskatchewan estate litigation update, offering a brief synopsis of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Figley v. Figley, 2018 SKQB 102, 21 C.P.C. (8th) 149. Figley v. Figley reminds estate litigators of the important “wills exception” to...

read more

James Steele featured in January 2022 edition of Canadian Lawyer Magazine

James Steele is featured in the January 2022 edition of Canadian Lawyer Magazine. In it, James discusses the reasons why an up-to-date Power of Attorney is more important than ever. Read the article here.

Related News and Articles

James Steele presents to STEP Canada

James Steele presented on February 23, 2022, to STEP Canada, an internationally recognized body of trust and estate practitioners. James presented on the topic of contested estates, and how to navigate such disputes. Related News and Articles

read more

Estate Litigation Update: Poole v Dailey, 2020 SKQB 226

I practise in the area of estate litigation and am often reminded of the importance of having a clearly drafted Will. A good recent example comes from the decision in Poole v Dailey, 2020 SKQB 226. The deceased had left his estate between his two children, Brian and...

read more

Estate Litigation Update: Poole v Dailey, 2020 SKQB 226

I practise in the area of estate litigation and am often reminded of the importance of having a clearly drafted Will.

A good recent example comes from the decision in Poole v Dailey, 2020 SKQB 226.
The deceased had left his estate between his two children, Brian and Patricia, on the below terms:

  1. Patricia was to receive the home at Regina Beach provided she met certain conditions. The clause read as follows:

    Further, provided that my said daughter takes physical possession of the said residential property within three months from the date of my death and occupies that property as her residence, then I direct that the said residential property and all contents shall be transferred to my said daughter, to be hers absolutely, subject only to any mortgage which may be registered against the property at the date of my death.

  2. the residue was then to be shared equally between Brian and Patricia.

The issue before the Court in Poole was thus: Had Patricia taken physical possession of the Regina Beach home, within 3 months of Earl’s death on August 1, 2015?

Regrettably, the Will did not define in black and white terms, what would trigger a finding of “occupancy” or “residency”.

A trial was held. The parties each called evidence to support their own position. Brian argued that Patricia had not resided in the home within 3 months. He relied on:

  1. the fact that he often drove by the home during the relevant period, and did not often note evidence of Patricia residing at the home;
  2. The water metre readings that Brian had recorded from the home. Brian suggested that an average person uses 100 gallons of water a day.

However, the Court did not find that Brian had qualified himself as an expert witness, for the purpose of introducing expert testimony.

Patricia in turn argued that she had in fact resided in the home within 3 months. She relied on the below:

  1. over the course of August and September 2015, she had moved her things out of the home in Regina, and into the home at Regina Beach;
  2. Patricia had reconnected with a girlfriend from high school, at Regina Beach and entertained her cousins in her home at Regina Beach. Patricia’s friend testified to this;
  3. There was nothing in the evidence that suggested that Patricia was not being truthful about her occupation of the Regina Beach home.

Ultimately, the Court, therefore, found that Patricia had in fact occupied the Regina Beach home, as prescribed by the will. As such, Patricia Dailey was entitled to absolute title of the property.

Poole offers a practical lesson on the importance of having a carefully defined Will. Here, the costly proceeding could perhaps have been avoided had the Will defined what exact criteria would constitute “occupancy” or “residency”.

The Court’s ruling on costs:

Interestingly, the Court in Poole did not award Patricia her legal costs out of the Estate. The Court held that the proceeding was intended to advance Patricia’s personal interests in the estate. As such, Patricia’s legal fees should not be borne by the estate.
This finding may attract comment. Traditionally, in estate matters, legal fees for successful parties have often been awarded out of the estate. Moreover, they are often paid on the “solicitor client” scale (meaning dollar for dollar costs). The reasoning has traditionally been that the estate should bear the cost of any proceeding aimed at determining the true intention of the deceased, or, of any proceeding caused by an ambiguity for which the deceased was responsible. Such traditional reasoning would have appeared to apply equally in Poole.
It is too early to tell if the costs aspect of Poole may be an outlier decision, or, if it signals a broader departure in Saskatchewan from the prior approach to legal costs in estate matters.

Read more on our blog.

The Saskatchewan Estate Law blog is dedicated to providing practical, real-world information on Estate Law issues that affect Saskatchewan residents. The blog is written by RS lawyer, James Steele, whose practice focuses on estate litigation.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

James Steele’s preferred practise area is estate litigation, including will challenges, executor disputes, power of attorney issues, etc. Contact James Steele at 1-306-933-1338 or [email protected]. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations.

Related News and Articles

James Steele’s Insurance Article Cited in BCCA Decision

A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision (West Van Holdings Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company) cited an article written by associate lawyer James Steele. "Deterrence not damages: the punitive rationale for solicitor-client costs" was published in...

read more

James Steele Presents to Saskatoon Estate Planning Council

James Steele was the featured speaker at a recent meeting of the Saskatoon Estate Council. James' presentation focused on Powers of Attorney, briefing the group on particular court decisions involving issues such as fiduciary duty, capacity concerns, and duty to...

read more

Steele and Parsonson Speak on Wills and Estates

On March 5, James Steele and Ben Parsonson volunteered their time to address wills and estates issues with the residents of the Palisades Retirement Residence. Together they spoke on the importance of having a Will, or Power of Attorney, or health care directive as...

read more

How to Avoid Challenges to your Will

How to Avoid Challenges to your Will by James Steele Robertson Stromberg LLP, Saskatoon   Having a Will is meant to provide comfort, and to make sure your family gets their inheritance when you pass on. Yet all too often Wills are challenged in court. This can...

read more

James Steele Contributes Article to Saskatoon Express

The Saskatoon Express newspaper has published an article by James Steele that offers practical advice on preparing wills.  He advises that with the right planning and communication up front, court battles over wills can be avoided. Read James's article in the January...

read more

James Steele offers help with Wills & Estates

Anyone with Wills & Estates questions is invited to a series of free drop in clinics at the Frances Morrison Central Branch of Saskatoon Public Library.   The evening clinics will run from 6:30-8:30 on: Thursday, February 14 Thursday, February 28 Thursday, March...

read more

Anderson and Steele Present to SUMA Members

Struggling with a complex tax enforcement issue? Want to avoid taking a property? The Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) is offering the webinar How to Make Tax Collection Less Taxing.  Robertson Stromberg's Kim Anderson, QC, and James Steele will...

read more

Carlson v. Carlson Estate case comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Carlson v. Carlson Estate, 2018 SKQB 196. Carlson reminds us of the importance of preserving evidence of just how “voluntary” a will is. If, in contrast, a particular beneficiary of the will is seen...

read more

Case Comment Klassen v. Wiers Estate

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Klassen v. Estate of John Arnold Wiers, 2018 SKQB 32, 288 A.C.W.S. (3d) 598. Klassen was a decision which turned on a careful assembling of the evidence. While there was no single piece of magic...

read more

Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate Case Comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate, 2018 SKCA 56. Karpinski offers helpful reminders to parties who wish to challenge a Will based on a concern that the testator was subjected to undue...

read more

Legal “Standing” to Challenge a Will

This articles offers an overview of the 2018 Court of Appeal decision in Olson v. Skarsgard Estate, 2018 SKCA 64. Olson offers an important reminder to parties involved in estate litigation. Namely, one should always check to make sure you have the legal “standing” to...

read more

Case comment on Figley v. Figley

This article provides a Saskatchewan estate litigation update, offering a brief synopsis of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Figley v. Figley, 2018 SKQB 102, 21 C.P.C. (8th) 149. Figley v. Figley reminds estate litigators of the important “wills exception” to...

read more

Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Hayes v Swift, 2021 SKQB 132

The recent decision in Hayes v Swift, 2021 SKQB 132 offers a reminder that beneficiaries should ensure they have real evidence of executor wrongdoing before they bring a court application against an executor.

Facts:

The testator, Bernard William Hayes, had passed away, and his will made specific gifts for his son and two grandchildren These parties were the applicants.
The testator was married to the executor, Ann Swift, when he died. The will provided that Ann received the residue of estate. Letters probate were issued, and the executor duly provided each beneficiary with their specific bequests under will. Ann had shipped the testator’s son several boxes of woodworking tools at a cost of $1,496.25 to the estate. However, the son maintained that there were more tools in the estate. Ann claimed that she had provided all that she had found.
The applicants, who had no lawyer to represent them, applied in court for relief, including for an order directing the executor to deliver woodworking tools. The applicants also sought an accounting from the executor.

Outcome:

The application was dismissed. The Court held that the executor had not wrongly withheld woodworking tools. The executor had identified a box of miscellaneous hand tools which may be considered woodworking tools, but the Court held that the obligation to arrange for and pay the cost of transporting items was on the son. The executor had already incurred $1,496.25 in shipping to send bequeathed woodworking tools to the son. Here, the appraised value of the remaining tools was $2,700, and the cost to ship those tools was approximately $2,000. In considering the shipping costs already incurred by the estate, and the value of the remaining tools, any further expense to the estate would be unduly high in the circumstances. The Court held that if there remained woodworking tools that the son claimed to be entitled to, the son was responsible for the cost of shipping and transportation.
The beneficiaries sought a more detailed inventory of any tools in the estate. However, the Court held that the applicants had not shown that the executor had deliberately withheld any tools from the beneficiaries. The Court refused to order a more detailed inventory;

[64]         There is no evidence presented by the applicants, beyond speculation, that the inventory provided by the executor prior to and through this application is incomplete as it relates to any tools, including woodworking tools.

Refusal by the Court to order an accounting:

The applicants had also sought an accounting from the executor.  The court dismissed this application. The Court held that the applicants had not shown cause as to why an accounting should be ordered. The Court held that the grandchildren had already received their specific bequests and thus had no further interest in the estate.

The Court held that the executor had properly established a $100,000 trust for the testator’s son, and had duly made all payments required by the will. Thus, the Court held there was no practical purpose for ordering an accounting, as the only remaining property in the estate went to the executor herself.

The Court held that it would be an exercise in futility to require the sole residual beneficiary, the executor, to provide an accounting in this circumstance:

[71]                In this case, the applicants have not shown cause as to why this Court should order an accounting. Each of Jeremy Hayes and Amanda Campbell have received their $10,000.00 bequest and they have no further interest in the estate. The executor has established the $100,000.00 trust for Mr. Hayes and made the payments required under the Will. I see no practical purpose for which the applicants seek an accounting when there is a sole residual beneficiary and the financial bequests have been satisfied.

[75]             It would be an exercise in futility to require the sole residual beneficiary, in her role as executor, to provide an inventory or accounting of an estate to which she now has sole entitlement. The applicants have no further interest in the estate.

Conclusion:

The decision in Hayes v Swift was critical of the unreasonable demands made by the self-represented beneficiaries.

It is not uncommon to see situations in which beneficiaries – some who are well-intentioned, some who are not – seem to wrongly believe that the executor is hiding things from them. In cases where the executor provides all reasonable information, but the beneficiaries are never satisfied, misguided court applications by beneficiaries can arise.

Hayes v Swift shows that courts will readily criticize beneficiaries who pursue meritless concerns all the way to court, incurring expense for all concerned. The Court in Hayes v Swift specifically suggested that the beneficiaries should have sought legal advice, which would have prevented them from acting in a misguided manner:

[85]          The applicants’ approach is entirely consistent with the concerns repeatedly identified by this Court when a party receives “legal advice” from a non-party who is completely unfamiliar with the practice of law and who seeks to intervene in a legal proceeding in an uninformed manner. For a party to choose to rely on the “legal advice” of a non-party is to risk incurring costs when this “representation” is misguided and unreasonable.

Moreover, the Court in Hayes awarded costs to the executor, payable personally by the applicants, in the amount of $2200. If the costs were not paid, the beneficiary would not have the opportunity to receive any further tools. This is a stern warning that the Court was not pleased with the behaviour of the beneficiaries.

Read more on our blog.

The Saskatchewan Estate Law blog is dedicated to providing practical, real-world information on Estate Law issues that affect Saskatchewan residents. The blog is written by RS lawyer, James Steele, whose practice focuses on estate litigation.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

James Steele’s preferred practise area is estate litigation, including will challenges, executor disputes, power of attorney issues, etc. Contact James Steele at 1-306-933-1338 or [email protected]. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations.

Related News and Articles

James Steele’s Insurance Article Cited in BCCA Decision

A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision (West Van Holdings Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company) cited an article written by associate lawyer James Steele. "Deterrence not damages: the punitive rationale for solicitor-client costs" was published in...

read more

James Steele Presents to Saskatoon Estate Planning Council

James Steele was the featured speaker at a recent meeting of the Saskatoon Estate Council. James' presentation focused on Powers of Attorney, briefing the group on particular court decisions involving issues such as fiduciary duty, capacity concerns, and duty to...

read more

Steele and Parsonson Speak on Wills and Estates

On March 5, James Steele and Ben Parsonson volunteered their time to address wills and estates issues with the residents of the Palisades Retirement Residence. Together they spoke on the importance of having a Will, or Power of Attorney, or health care directive as...

read more

How to Avoid Challenges to your Will

How to Avoid Challenges to your Will by James Steele Robertson Stromberg LLP, Saskatoon   Having a Will is meant to provide comfort, and to make sure your family gets their inheritance when you pass on. Yet all too often Wills are challenged in court. This can...

read more

James Steele Contributes Article to Saskatoon Express

The Saskatoon Express newspaper has published an article by James Steele that offers practical advice on preparing wills.  He advises that with the right planning and communication up front, court battles over wills can be avoided. Read James's article in the January...

read more

James Steele offers help with Wills & Estates

Anyone with Wills & Estates questions is invited to a series of free drop in clinics at the Frances Morrison Central Branch of Saskatoon Public Library.   The evening clinics will run from 6:30-8:30 on: Thursday, February 14 Thursday, February 28 Thursday, March...

read more

Anderson and Steele Present to SUMA Members

Struggling with a complex tax enforcement issue? Want to avoid taking a property? The Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) is offering the webinar How to Make Tax Collection Less Taxing.  Robertson Stromberg's Kim Anderson, QC, and James Steele will...

read more

Carlson v. Carlson Estate case comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Carlson v. Carlson Estate, 2018 SKQB 196. Carlson reminds us of the importance of preserving evidence of just how “voluntary” a will is. If, in contrast, a particular beneficiary of the will is seen...

read more

Case Comment Klassen v. Wiers Estate

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Klassen v. Estate of John Arnold Wiers, 2018 SKQB 32, 288 A.C.W.S. (3d) 598. Klassen was a decision which turned on a careful assembling of the evidence. While there was no single piece of magic...

read more

Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate Case Comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate, 2018 SKCA 56. Karpinski offers helpful reminders to parties who wish to challenge a Will based on a concern that the testator was subjected to undue...

read more

Legal “Standing” to Challenge a Will

This articles offers an overview of the 2018 Court of Appeal decision in Olson v. Skarsgard Estate, 2018 SKCA 64. Olson offers an important reminder to parties involved in estate litigation. Namely, one should always check to make sure you have the legal “standing” to...

read more

Case comment on Figley v. Figley

This article provides a Saskatchewan estate litigation update, offering a brief synopsis of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Figley v. Figley, 2018 SKQB 102, 21 C.P.C. (8th) 149. Figley v. Figley reminds estate litigators of the important “wills exception” to...

read more

Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Whelan v Chaszewski, 2021 SKQB 286

The recent decision in Whelan v Chaszewski, 2021 SKQB 286 offers guidance for a situation in which two competing parties want to be appointed to administer an estate. The lesson from Whelan is that a court will not generally appoint a party who has a potential conflict of interest in the Estate (that is, a conflict between their interest personally, and their interest as a neutral administrator)

Introduction:

Michelle Whelan and Peter Chaszewski applied to be appointed as administrators of the Estate of their father Michael Chaszewski. Michelle and Peter also sought an order against their adoptive brother, David Chaszewski, including an inquiry into David’s actions relating to the estate since 2015, and an order evicting David from the mobile home owned by the Estate.

David in turn applied for his own order appointing him as administrator of the Estate.

Background:

The facts may be summarized as follows:

  1. Michael Chaszewski had passed away on March 6, 2015;
  2. The deceased died without a will;
  3. Michelle and Peter are the deceased’s biological children and David was his adopted son;
  4. After Michael’s passing, David moved into the Residence with his family. He did not pay rent to the Estate;
  5. Shortly after David moved into the Residence, Peter asked David to pay $500 per month as rent for his use of the Residence until the Estate was settled. David refused unless it was part of a legal settlement of the Estate;
  6. David did what he describes as extensive renovations on the Residence. He paid all property taxes, fire insurance, utilities, and maintenance costs since moving in. David also began taking care of the Estate, albeit without any formal authority to do so. He dealt with Michael’s personal items, paid a small mortgage on the Residence and some outstanding utilities and looked after property taxes etc;
  7. In July of 2021, Michelle and Peter filed an application for letters of administration in SUR 134 of 2021, Judicial Centre of Estevan;
  8. There had never been a distribution from the Estate. David said that he hoped to obtain a loan to pay out Michelle and Peter’s share of the Residence once the Estate can be lawfully administered, and that he intended to continue to reside there.

Court’s decision:

The most important issue before the Court was who would be appointed as administrators of the Estate.

The Court first identified the test which governed the appointment of an administrator where there were competing applications. The Court adopted the following test:

  • The first duty of the court is to place the administration of an estate in the hands of the person who is likely best able or best suited to convert it;
  • An administrator must act with “detachment and even handedness” not be tainted by an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

The court recognized that there were some factors which favored David’s application to be appointed administrator. David had stepped in and began administering the estate when no one else was doing so. He had information about the Estate. In addition, David lived in the jurisdiction where the assets are located.

However, the court decided not to appoint David.  The Court held that the key consideration was the ability to convert the assets of the Estate to the advantage of the beneficiaries – including by making the appropriate necessary distributions.  The Residence is by far the largest asset of the Estate. It belonged to all those who are beneficially entitled to the Estate.

The Court held that David was not focused on the best interests of the Estate. The Court found the below facts:

  1. David’s resistance to paying occupation rent showed that David had not been focused on realizing the best value for the beneficiaries in a timely way;
  2. The biggest issue was that David was not taking any steps to realize the value of the Residence and to distribute it to the beneficiaries. Michelle and Peter were however motivated to do so;
  3. David was in a conflict of interest position which compromised his ability to be neutral and made it inappropriate for him to be appointed as administrator. He was conflicted in at least four particular ways:
  1. Michelle and Peter want to sell the Residence so its value can be realized and distributed, while David wants to continue to live there;
  2. It was in David’s interests that the purchase price or value of the Residence to be divided is as small as possible, as he intends to keep the property and may be able to keep the difference between the current market value of the Residence and the amount paid out to the other beneficiaries;
  3. Michelle and Peter want to receive occupation rent for the six years that David has been living in the Residence, which David does not want to pay; and
  4. If occupation rent is to be paid, it was in David’s interests for the amount of that rent to be as low as possible, while it was in Michelle and Peter’s interests for the rent to be as high as possible.

As such, David was in a conflict-of-interest position which compromised his ability to be neutral. He should therefore not be administrator.

Accounting:

The Court also ordered that David provide an accounting. It noted that David had had de facto control over the Estate since Michael’s death in March of 2015. His dealings with Estate property are entirely within his knowledge, and for this reason, it is appropriate that he provide a formal accounting of his actions.

Lesson:

Whelan reminds beneficiaries that they cannot take the law into their own hands. Here, David had no right to simply “move into” the home after the deceased died. David needed first to obtain the agreement of all beneficiaries. Because David unilaterally moved in and then became potentially indebted to the Estate for rent, David was in a conflicted position as a potential administrator.

 

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

James Steele’s preferred practise area is estate litigation, including will challenges, executor disputes, power of attorney issues, etc. Contact James Steele at 1-306-933-1338 or [email protected]. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations.

Read more on our blog.

The Saskatchewan Estate Law blog is dedicated to providing practical, real-world information on Estate Law issues that affect Saskatchewan residents. The blog is written by RS lawyer, James Steele, whose practice focuses on estate litigation.

Related News and Articles

James Steele’s Insurance Article Cited in BCCA Decision

A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision (West Van Holdings Ltd. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company) cited an article written by associate lawyer James Steele. "Deterrence not damages: the punitive rationale for solicitor-client costs" was published in...

read more

James Steele Presents to Saskatoon Estate Planning Council

James Steele was the featured speaker at a recent meeting of the Saskatoon Estate Council. James' presentation focused on Powers of Attorney, briefing the group on particular court decisions involving issues such as fiduciary duty, capacity concerns, and duty to...

read more

Steele and Parsonson Speak on Wills and Estates

On March 5, James Steele and Ben Parsonson volunteered their time to address wills and estates issues with the residents of the Palisades Retirement Residence. Together they spoke on the importance of having a Will, or Power of Attorney, or health care directive as...

read more

How to Avoid Challenges to your Will

How to Avoid Challenges to your Will by James Steele Robertson Stromberg LLP, Saskatoon   Having a Will is meant to provide comfort, and to make sure your family gets their inheritance when you pass on. Yet all too often Wills are challenged in court. This can...

read more

James Steele Contributes Article to Saskatoon Express

The Saskatoon Express newspaper has published an article by James Steele that offers practical advice on preparing wills.  He advises that with the right planning and communication up front, court battles over wills can be avoided. Read James's article in the January...

read more

James Steele offers help with Wills & Estates

Anyone with Wills & Estates questions is invited to a series of free drop in clinics at the Frances Morrison Central Branch of Saskatoon Public Library.   The evening clinics will run from 6:30-8:30 on: Thursday, February 14 Thursday, February 28 Thursday, March...

read more

Anderson and Steele Present to SUMA Members

Struggling with a complex tax enforcement issue? Want to avoid taking a property? The Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) is offering the webinar How to Make Tax Collection Less Taxing.  Robertson Stromberg's Kim Anderson, QC, and James Steele will...

read more

Carlson v. Carlson Estate case comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Carlson v. Carlson Estate, 2018 SKQB 196. Carlson reminds us of the importance of preserving evidence of just how “voluntary” a will is. If, in contrast, a particular beneficiary of the will is seen...

read more

Case Comment Klassen v. Wiers Estate

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Klassen v. Estate of John Arnold Wiers, 2018 SKQB 32, 288 A.C.W.S. (3d) 598. Klassen was a decision which turned on a careful assembling of the evidence. While there was no single piece of magic...

read more

Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate Case Comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate, 2018 SKCA 56. Karpinski offers helpful reminders to parties who wish to challenge a Will based on a concern that the testator was subjected to undue...

read more

Legal “Standing” to Challenge a Will

This articles offers an overview of the 2018 Court of Appeal decision in Olson v. Skarsgard Estate, 2018 SKCA 64. Olson offers an important reminder to parties involved in estate litigation. Namely, one should always check to make sure you have the legal “standing” to...

read more

Case comment on Figley v. Figley

This article provides a Saskatchewan estate litigation update, offering a brief synopsis of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Figley v. Figley, 2018 SKQB 102, 21 C.P.C. (8th) 149. Figley v. Figley reminds estate litigators of the important “wills exception” to...

read more

LawyersJames D Steele