Estate Litigation Blog
Quinn v. Carrigan: "No litigation outcome is inevitable"
by Rob Levesque, Published: November 15, 2014
It can be comforting to think of the law as an objective system that produces consistent, predictable results. However, judges aren't computers, and different judges can interpret the same facts and the same law in different ways, producing totally different outcomes.
It can be particularly difficult to predict the outcome of a dependant support application brought under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act. Determining what constitutes "adequate support" of a dependant spouse or child is not an exact science, and raises questions that don't have easy answers. How do you place a value on a spouse's relationship with the deceased? How can you treat the deceased's dependants and other family members equitably, having regard to their legal and moral claims against the estate? While judges have developed various rules and principles that apply to dependant support claims, the fact remains that different judges will reach different conclusions based on the same facts and law.
The recent case of Quinn v. Carrigan 2014 ONSC 5682 is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
The late Mr. Carrigan left assets with a total value of approximately $2.4 million to his wife https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2014/2014onsc5682/2014onsc5682.pdfand two children, and nothing to his common law spouse of eight years, Ms. Quinn. Not surprisingly, Ms. Quinn retained a lawyer and made a claim against Mr. Carrigan's estate for dependant support. Ms. Quinn's claim went to trial, and the Court concluded that she was entitled to receive the deceased's pension death benefit, worth about $1.4 million.
The deceased's wife appealed the Court's judgment to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in concluding that Ms. Quinn was entitled to the death benefit, and accordingly ordered a second trial of her dependant support claim. At the end of the second trial, the Court concluded that Ms. Quinn was entitled to a lump sum payment of $350,000.00.
Ms. Quinn appealed the second judgment to the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court held that the judge in the second trial had erred in calculating Ms. Quinn's spousal support payment. However, rather than ordering a third trial, the Divisional Court conducted its own analysis of the dependant support claim, ultimately concluding that Ms. Quinn was entitled to a lump sum payment of $750,000.00.
In the end, Ms. Quinn had three separate hearings to determine her entitlement to a share of the deceased’s estate, and got three very different results. The lesson for potential litigants is clear. As expressed by Justice Corbett, who delivered the reasons of the Divisional Court in this case: "no litigation outcome is inevitable".
Do the claims of dependants have priority over the claims of other creditors?
by Rob Levesque, Published: October 15, 2014
In the administration of any estate, one of the estate trustee's first jobs is to identify potential creditors who might advance claims against the estate. The general wisdom has always been that an estate trustee should make sure that he or she has held back sufficent funds from the estate to satisfy the claims of all potential creditors before making distributions to the beneficiaries, heirs and dependants of the estate. It may therefore come as a surprise to many lawyers that in a recent case, Grieco v. Grieco Estate, 2013 ONSC 2465, the Court held that dependant support claims have priority over the claims of potential creditors with pending, but unproven claims.
In the Grieco case, the deceased’s ex-wife had an outstanding equalization claim against the deceased’s estate which pre-dated his death. The deceased’s common law spouse and two of the deceased’s adult children bought dependant support claims against the estate. The parties settled their claims at mediation, and obtained a consent judgment providing for the distribution of lump sum equalization and dependant support payments.
The estate trustee was wary of making the payments pursuant to the consent judgment because a number of potential creditors had come forward with claims against the estate. While the claims of the creditors had yet to be proven, if the estate trustee proceeded with the distribution of the dependant support and equalization payments pursuant to the consent judgment, there would be no money left in the estate to satisfy a possible judgment against the estate by the creditors. Accordingly, the estate trustee sought the direction of the Court.
The Court held that the lump sum equalization payment to the ex-wife and the lump sum dependant support payment to the common law spouse took priority over the claims of the potential creditors. In doing so, the Court referred to section 4(1) of the Creditor’s Relief Act, 1990 and Section 2(3) of its successor legislation the the Creditor’s Relief Act, 2010. The Court held that both the 1990 Act and the current Act, “maintain the priority of support claims over virtually all other claims”, and that this priority extended to dependant support orders made pursuant to the Succession Law Reform Act. Accordingly the common law spouse was entitled to recieve her lump sum payment from the estate in priority to the potential creditors.
Furthermore, given that orders made for the support of dependants have priority over debts owing to creditors under section 2(3) of the Creditors' Relief Act; and given that a spouses’ equalization entitlement has priority over orders for the support of dependants other than children of the deceased under subsection 6(12) of the Family Law Act; the Court concluded that the ex-wife’s equalization payment also had priority over the claims of the potential creditors. The Court found that the wife was also a dependant of the estate and was entitled to receive her lump sum payment in priority to the creditors on that basis as well.
The Grieco case raises difficult issues for trustees facing competing claims by surviving spouses, dependants of the estate, and other potential creditors of the estate. While the case appears to stand for the proposition that the claims of dependants have priority over the claims of other potential creditors of the estate pursuant to the Creditor’s Relief Act, lawyers who are advising estate trustees should treat the decision with caution. There are currently no other reported cases dealing with the interaction between the Creditors' Relief Act and equalization and support claims in the estates context.
Recent Posts
- Felice Kirsh and Mitchell Rattner speak about Section 3 Counsel at OBA Conference
- Further Suspension of Limitation Periods and Statutory Deadlines
- Estate Litigation: Using Technology to Adapt
- Suspension of Limitation Periods and Statutory Deadlines Amid COVID-19 Pandemic
- The Courts and COVID-19
- Virtual Witnessing of Wills
- We are open during COVID 19 pandemic
- Felice Kirsh: Not every issue is worthy of a passing of accounts
- Felice Kirsh discusses the importance of record-keeping by estate trustees
- Sender Tator on Dependant Support cases and "Egregious Conduct"
- Improper Conduct and Dependant Support
- Felice Kirsh on why DIY wills are a recipe for disaster
- Felice Kirsh, Jordan Oelbaum, and Sender Tator named to Best Lawyers 2020
- Felice Kirsh discusses how lawyers should prepare their clients for mediation
- Felice Kirsh discusses the benefits of evaluative mediators
- Felice Kirsh on "Is my estate dispute suited for mediation?"
- Felice Kirsh discusses the benefits of mediating estate disputes
- Presentation at the MCBNA
- Top 10 Wills, Trusts and Estates Boutique
- No Two-Year Limitation Period for Passing of Accounts
- Limitation Period on a Will Challenge: Shannon v. Hrabovsky
- Make a Will Month
- Felice Kirsh discusses the perils of finding heirs
- The partners at SKOT LLP are Lexpert-ranked
- Probate and Privacy
- Buzz Aldrin Guardianship Dispute & the Importance of Planning for Incapacity
- The expensive consequences of being unreasonable in estate litigation
- Legally Valid Gifts
- Powers of Attorney - Common Myths
- Costs in Estate Litigation
- Capacity to reconcile or divorce
- What’s the “issue” with not updating your will?
- Top 5 Wills, Trusts and Estates Boutiques in Canada
- Mutual Wills v. Mirror Wills
- Costs in Will Challenge Litigation
- Estate Planning - Digital Assets
- 2016 Amendments to the Income Tax Act – Graduated Rate Estates and Qualified Disability Trusts
- Capacity to Enter into Contracts
- Court of Appeal overturns "racist will" decision
- Best Lawyers
- Costs Award Against Power of Attorney Personally
- Applications and Actions: dismissal for delay
- Schnurr Kirsh Oelbaum Tator LLP is heading east!
- Spence v. BMO Trust Company: the case of the racist father
- Top 5 Wills, Trusts and Estates Firms in Canada
- Quinn v. Carrigan: "No litigation outcome is inevitable"
- What you need to know before starting a will challenge: Leibel v. Leibel
- Do the claims of dependants have priority over the claims of other creditors?
- Estate Administration and Automatic Vesting
- Elizabeth Bozek to Chair OBA program "Complex Passing of Accounts"
- Jordan Oelbaum speaks about the discovery process at Osgoode Hall Law School
- Felice Kirsh speaks to financial advisors about best practices
- Best Lawyers for 2015
- Felice Kirsh to chair conference at Osgoode Hall Law School
- Parents have testamentary freedom
- Pro Bono Students Canada's Wills Project
- Leading practitioners
- Choose a power of attorney you trust
- Elizabeth Bozek chairs seminar on the Consent and Capacity Board
- Consider whether a passing of accounts is worth it
- Best Lawyers for 2014
- When estate litigation gets tense, lawyers must stay cool
- Bar Admissions Fall 2013
- Brian Schnurr, Felice Kirsh and Jordan Oelbaum named to Best Lawyers 2013
- OBA Estates and Trusts Dinner
- Trust Company Best Practices
- Brian Schnurr and Felice Kirsh named to Best Lawyers 2012
- Best Lawyers Awards Brian A. Schnurr 2011 Lawyer of the Year, Trust and Estates - Toronto
Tags
- "issue"
- 2017 onsc 2704
- 2018 onsc 6593
- accounts
- advocatedaily
- application for orders and directions
- armitage v. the salvation army
- as estate trustee of the estate of jadwiga koziarski v jesse sullivan
- as estate trustee of the estate of jadwiga koziarski v jesse sullivan 2017 onsc 2704
- attorney
- automatic vesting
- bad faith
- beneficiaries
- best lawyers
- best lawyers award
- boutique law firm
- bowmanville
- brian schnurr
- c. c.12
- c. s.26
- canada lawyer magazine
- canadian lawyer
- canadian lawyer magazine
- capacity
- case comment
- cheque
- children born outside of marriage
- children's law reform act
- children’s law reform act
- community engagement
- compensation
- conference
- conferences
- consent and capacity board
- contract law
- corona
- coronavirus
- corporate trustee
- costs
- court
- courts
- covid
- covid 19
- covid-19
- creditors
- creditors' relief act
- depandant
- dependant support
- dependants
- digital assets
- discoverability
- discovery
- dishonesty
- donee
- doner
- elizabeth bozek
- emergency
- emergency order
- equalization
- estate
- estate administration
- estate litigation
- estate planning
- estate trustee
- estate trustees
- estates
- estates administration act
- estates and trusts summit
- estates and trusts toronto
- estates boutique
- estates list
- executor
- executors
- felice kirsh
- fiduciary
- fiduciary duty
- financial advisors
- fraud
- gifts
- graduated rate estate
- guardianship
- heirs
- henry koziarski
- husband
- incapable
- incapacity
- income tax act
- inheritance
- inter vivos
- intestacy
- issue
- jordan oelbaum
- leading lawyers
- leibel v. leibel
- lexpert
- limitation
- limitation period
- limitations act
- litigation
- make a will month
- mcbna; presentation; estates
- mediation
- mirror wills
- misappropriation
- misconduct
- mortgage
- mutual wills
- ontario bar association
- osgoode hall
- pandemic
- passing of accounts
- poa
- power of attorney
- powers of attorney
- privacy
- probate
- public policy
- qualified disability trust
- r.s.o. 1990
- rob levesque
- sandra schnurr
- sender tator
- shannon v. hrabovsky
- shnurr kirsh oelbaum tator
- shnurr kirsh oelbaum tator llp
- slra
- spouses
- substitute decisions act
- succession law reform act
- superior court
- superior court of justice of ontario
- support
- suspension
- tax
- tax planning
- testamentary capacity
- testator
- top 10
- top 5
- toronto
- trial
- trust and estates toronto
- trustee
- trusts
- trusts and estate toronto
- trusts and estates
- trusts and estates toronto
- virtual
- wall v. shaw
- wife
- will challenge
- will drafting
- will litigation
- wills
- wills and estates
- wills trusts and estates
- witnessing