Part 4, Division 6 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act
allows a spouse or child of a deceased will maker to apply to court to vary a
will if the will maker did not make adequate provision for them. If the Court
finds that the will-maker did not make adequate provision for his or her spouse
or children, as the case may be, the Court may vary the will to make such
provision as the Court thinks “adequate, just and equitable in the
circumstances.”
Subject to the right of an appeal, once the Supreme Court of
British Columbia makes an order varying a will (or refusing to vary the will),
then that is usually the end of the matter. The will-maker’s personal
representative carries out the will as varied.
But there are limited circumstances where a Court could vary
the Court’s variation of the will. Section 71 of the Wills, Estates and
Succession Act provides:
Court may cancel or vary order
71
If the court has ordered periodic payments, or that a lump sum be
invested for the benefit of a person, the court may
(a) inquire whether, at any
subsequent date, changes in the circumstances of the person in whose favour the
order was made have resulted, in whole or in part, in the person's entitlement
to adequate provision separate from the order, and
(b) cancel, vary
or suspend its order, or make another order.
Despite some changes in the wording, this provision is
substantially similar to section 14 in the Wills Variation Act, which it
replaced when the Wills, Estates and Succession Act came into place.
The section would not apply to a variation in which the
person on whose behalf the will is varied is awarded a specific sum of money,
or an asset, or a percentage of the estate, which are the more common types of
awards made nowadays. It would apply in more limited circumstances, such as an order
setting aside a sum of money or percentage of the estate, out of which payments
are to be made to the claimant, with giving the claimant an entitlement to the
whole of the fund. For example, the court could set aside $200,000 to be
invested, with $2000 per month paid out of that fund to the claimant, and with
anything left in the fund on the claimant’s death divided among the other
beneficiaries.
I have not found any court cases that have applied section
71 (or the earlier similar provisions in the Wills Variation Act, and Testator's
Family Maintenance Act).
I have difficulty conceiving when it would be applied under
the modern principles applied to wills variation cases. The provision strikes
me as a holdover from the days when the legislation was seen more as a vehicle
for ensuring that a husband and father (in the 1920s, it was usually a husband
and father) did not leave his wife and children destitute. It was more common
for the courts to make orders that provided for monthly payments to meet a
spouse’s or child’s needs. The current section 71 appears to be intended to
cover a situation where those needs are met by a different source, perhaps
through employment, recovery from an illness, or another inheritance.
Under the more modern approach, as articulated by the
Supreme Court of Canada in Tataryn v. Tataryn [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807, the court
considers whether the will maker satisfied his or her legal and moral
obligations to the claimant. If not, then the court varies the will to satisfy
those legal and moral obligations. The awards will often be greater than that
required to satisfy the claimant's basic financial needs, sometimes
significantly so including awards in the millions.
The court considers whether adequate provision has been made
to the spouse and children at the time of death the will-maker’s death,
although the Court may consider a substantial change in circumstances between
the date of death and trial when making the variation (Landy v. Landy Estate,
(1991) 60 B.C.L.R (2d) 282 (CA)).
The variation satisfies the will-maker’s obligations to the
claimant, and logically the successful claimant has established a corresponding
entitlement.
If the court finds that the will-maker did not make adequate
provision for a spouse or children, and the court varies the will, then I have
difficulty conceiving how a change in the claimant’s circumstances after the
trial judgment should affect his or her entitlement, irrespective of the structure
of the variation ordered by the court (outright share of an estate, or periodic
payments). Either the will-maker met his or her legal and moral obligations at
the time of death, or he or she did not. If not, why should an improvement in
his or her spouse or children’s circumstances after trial change that?
No comments:
Post a Comment