Banton v. Banton (Part 3)

By | Sabey Rule Blog | No Comments

In my two previous posts, I’ve written about Mr. Justice Cullity’s decision in Bantonv. Banton,1998 CanLII 1496, a case involving Muna Yassin who married George Banton when she was 31 and he, 88. The dispute was between Ms. Yassin in George Banton’s five children. I described in my first post Mr. Justice Cullity’s finding that two wills Mr. Banton made leaving his estate to Ms. Yassin were invalid on the grounds that he did not have the requisite mental capacity to make the wills, and that she exercised undue influence over him. In my second post, I outlined Mr. Justice Cullity’s finding that Mr. Banton’s marriage to Ms. Yassin was nevertheless valid, which had the effect of revoking the will Mr. Banton made before the marriage in which he left the residue of his estate to his five children. Because Mr. Banton died without a valid will, Ms. Yassin was entitled to a large portion of his estate. Continue reading “Banton v. Banton (Part 3)” »

Smoking in Stratas

By | Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

Smoking is a polarizing issue, typically smoker vs non-smoker. This debate can become heated in the strata complex when people live close together and it is a question of who has the greater right: the person who wants to live in a smoke-free home or the smoker who has been smoking for many years and is most likely addicted.

This has come up twice now in reported CRT decisions: The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2900 v. Mathew Hardy, 2016 BCCRT 1; and Mundel et al v. Hastings-Evans et al, 2017 BCCRT 108. Continue reading “Smoking in Stratas” »

Banton v. Banton (Part 2)

By | Sabey Rule Blog | No Comments

In my post last week, I wrote about Mr. Justice Cullity’s decision in Banton v. Banton, 1998 CanLII 1496 finding that two wills made by George Banton, one dated December 21, 1994 and the other dated May 4, 1995 were invalid. In both wills, Mr. Banton had left his estate to Muna Yassin, whom he met after he moved into a retirement home, disinheriting his five children, who were his beneficiaries under his previous will. He and Ms. Yassin were married on a few days before he made the December 21, 1994 will, when he was 88 years of age, and she, 31. Mr. Justice Cullity found that Mr. Banton was suffering from delusions about his children when he made the wills, and he did not have the requisite capacity to make them, and that Ms. Yassin exercised undue influence to obtain the benefit of the wills. Accordingly, she did not benefit under the wills.

But I indicated that there were some twists. Today I will write about one. Continue reading “Banton v. Banton (Part 2)” »

Are There Regulations Governing Short Term Rental of my House or Apartment?

By | Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

The answer is: there might be. Currently, the zoning of your house will govern whether you can legally offer short term rentals as far as your City regulations are concerned. If you live in a strata, there are bylaws that may prevent you from renting your strata out on a short term basis. Continue reading “Are There Regulations Governing Short Term Rental of my House or Apartment?” »

Banton v. Banton (Part 1)

By | Sabey Rule Blog | No Comments

I have recently reread the case of Banton v. Banton, 1998 CanLII 14926, a decision of Mr. Justice Cullity of the Ontario Supreme Court. This case may be referred to as a predatory-marriage case. What interests me most, though, is the interplay of legal issues. Mr. Justice Cullity considers in his decision the capacity to make a will, and the impact of delusions on capacity, undue influence, the capacity to marry, the validity of a residence trust, and the use of a power of attorney to settle a trust. I think this case is well worth a few blog posts. I will start with the challenges to the validity of two wills. Continue reading “Banton v. Banton (Part 1)” »

5 Essential Tips for Buying into a Strata

By | Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

Buying into a strata corporation can be a scary thing for many owners because they have heard horror stories about stratas: the stratas enforceable large special levies against the owners,  restrictions on what owners can do with their own strata lot, etc. The question of whether you should buy into a strata more often depends on your budget and what you can afford. If your budget points you towards strata living, there are at least 5 things that you should review carefully before you decide to buy a strata lot in that strata. Continue reading “5 Essential Tips for Buying into a Strata” »

Owners’ Hot Tub Request Denied

By | Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

It can come as a shock to some owners that they don’t have a right to a hot tub in their strata lot. Hot tubs can be restricted or outright banned by a strata corporation’s bylaws. As a result, it is very important to review a strata’s bylaws when considering buying a strata lot.

In the case of Doig v The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1712, 2017 BCCRT 36, the owners had installed a hot tub and the strata demanded its removal. Continue reading “Owners’ Hot Tub Request Denied” »

Forced Interim Distribution

By | Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

There is not a wealth of case law on forcing interim distributions from an estate, that is paying out part of the inheritance before all of the estate administration is complete, or before litigation involving the estate has been concluded. In situations where there is ongoing litigation involving an estate, the estate cannot payout funds for any purpose other than estate debts. Therefore, some beneficiaries of estates cannot receive their inheritance for years as they wait for litigation to be concluded.

Kimberly Rule applied successfully to Court to have an interim payment made to her clients as the litigation tying up the estate for more than 2 years. Continue reading “Forced Interim Distribution” »

Creating Enforceable Rental Restrictions

By | Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

Enacting rental restriction bylaws can be trickier than originally contemplated for several reasons: the original state of the bylaws, the delaying provisions in the Strata Property Act, situations that prevent rental restriction bylaws from applying to some or all of the strata lots, and the requirements that must be met for rental restriction bylaws to be valid. Continue reading “Creating Enforceable Rental Restrictions” »

AirBnB’s in Stratas

By | Sabey Rule Blog, Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

Like all rental topics on stratas, AirBnB’s have been a hot topic for all involved in stratas. The main issue noted with AirBnB’s in stratas, is the short term rentals of the strata lots and the concern regarding security, wear and tear of the common property, noise, etc.

For some living in stratas, the question is whether using their strata lot as an AirBnB is permitted. For most owners, they only look to their bylaws as to whether AirBnB’s are permitted. Continue reading “AirBnB’s in Stratas” »

B.C. Supreme Court Rules Committee Inviting Comments on Proposed Changes to Probate Rules

By | Sabey Rule Blog, Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

The Attorney General’s B.C. Supreme Court Rules Committee is requesting comments on proposed changes to the probate rules. You can read the proposed changes here.

A couple of the proposed changes caught my eye. One proposed changes to broaden the class of persons who may file a notice of dispute to oppose an estate grant. As I previously wrote the current Rule 25-10 (1) is too restrictive. Continue reading “B.C. Supreme Court Rules Committee Inviting Comments on Proposed Changes to Probate Rules” »

Roommates and Rental Restrictions

By | Sabey Rule Blog, Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

There has been confusion in the industry whether a strata’s rental restriction bylaw can also prevent an owner from having a roommate in their strata lot. In the industry one view has always been that the Strata Property Act only allows a strata to prevent the rental of an entire strata lot and has no effect on roommates. Continue reading “Roommates and Rental Restrictions” »

Strata Parking Disputes

By | Sabey Rule Blog, Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

In an interesting dispute, an owner sued her strata in the CRT for changing which stall was the designated handicapped parking space: Ehrne v The Owners, Strata Plan VR 2601, 2017 CRTBC 2.

On the strata plan the strata originally had a common property stall designated as a handicapped stall, the other stalls were designated as limited common property by special resolution and had been that way since 1990. In 2014, the strata painted over the common property handicapped parking sign and it was assigned to a new owner. Continue reading “Strata Parking Disputes” »

Undue Influence by Inducing False Beliefs: Re: Patterson Estate

By | Sabey Rule Blog, Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

Undue influence usually implies coercion. Someone may challenge a will or a benefit in a will on the basis that another procured the will or benefit by applying pressure to the will maker. The pressure may be overt threats of violence, or perhaps subtler forms of pressure such as an implied threat by the will maker’s caregiver to withdraw care.

A recent decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Re: Patterson Estate, 2017 NSSC 221, identifies as undue influence a child procuring a will by inducing her mother to believe that her other children did not care about her.

Joan Patterson had four children, Reed Patterson, Randall Patterson, Darlene Marriott, and Marlene Patterson. She died on June 13, 2016, the age of 70, and her husband had died four months before. Marlene Patterson had been estranged from both of her parents for about 20 years, but reconciled in 2012. On March 4, 2016, Joan Patterson moved from her home into Marlene Patterson’s home. On May 13, 2016, she made a new will, leaving her estate to Marlene Patterson, disinheriting her other three children.

Mr. Justice Wright found that Joan Patterson’s will was properly signed and witnessed in accordance with Nova Scotia law. She knew and approved of the contents of the will, and she had testamentary capacity.

The decision turned on whether Marlene Patterson procured the will by fraudulently inducing her to disinherit her other children. Mr. Justice Wright quoted from John Poyser’s book Capacity and Undue Influence (which I have reviewed here) in setting out the legal issue:

[17] In pressing their grounds of fraud as a subspecies of undue influence, the applicants rely on the following passage from the text book Capacity and Undue Influence (Carswell 2014) authored by John E.S. Poyser (at pg. 318):

Testamentary undue influence is typically thought of in terms of coercion. There is good reason for that. Dozens of cases have stated that conduct must amount to coercion if it is to amount to testamentary undue influence. Yet there are also abundant comments in the same cases and others that open the door to characterize testamentary fraud as a second type of conduct that can amount to undue influence. Coercion forces a person to do something against his or her will. Fraud operates differently. Testamentary fraud is an effort to fool a person into believing a false state of affairs that is then instrumental in causing that person to make a testamentary gift that otherwise would not have been made. As indicated earlier, persuasion is permitted, but persuasion is not permitted when it is mounted on a foundation of deliberate lies. Testamentary undue influence by coercion is difficult to establish. It is often pled but rarely proved as the facts rarely sustain it. Undue influence by fraud will be more easily sustained. Isolation, falsehood, and ingratiation are a common recipe employed by predatory family and peers in a bid to subvert a vulnerable person’s property at death.

[18] In the pages that follow, the author traces the development of fraud as a subspecies of undue influence in the case law. He refers to the decisions in Anderson v. Walkey, 1961 CarswellOnt 91 and in Timlick v. Crawford, 1965 CarswellBC 86 as instances where Canadian courts have invalidated a Will on the grounds of undue influence, not as the result of coercion, but as the result of manipulation and deceit.

[19] It is also noted (at pg. 324) that the party alleging undue influence has to prove not only the impugned conduct but that it in fact caused the Will-maker to sign the Will.

Marlene Patterson’s sister and brothers alleged that she had manipulated her mother into making the will isolating them from their mother and making false statements about them. Darlene Marriott testified that Marlene Patterson had asked her to assist her in persuading their mother’s disinherit their brothers. It was also evident that Marlene Patterson assisted her mother and making notes for her meeting with the lawyer who drew the will.

Mr. Justice Wright found that Marlene Patterson did in fact induce her mother into making the will she did by manipulation.

[87] It is not only from these suspicious circumstances but rather from the evidence as a whole, including Marlene’s lack of credibility, that the Court is prepared to draw the inference that Joan was induced to form the false beliefs she held about her other childrens’ lack of caring, through manipulation and deceit on the part of Marlene under whose control she remained after the move. Joan then acted on those false beliefs in changing her Will as she did. I therefore find that the actions of Marlene, on a balance of probabilities, crossed the line into the sphere of undue influence. As noted earlier, while persuasion is permitted without legal consequence, persuasion of a testator is not permitted when it is mounted on a foundation of untruths induced by the proponent of a Will.

In the result, the May 13, 2016 will is invalid.

Sato v. Sato

By | Sabey Rule Blog | No Comments

Things would be simpler, but not nearly as interesting, if everyone remained in the same place.

Hiroyuki Rex Sato, often referred to as Rex, immigrated with his family to British Columbia in 1969. He became a Canadian citizen in 1975. Following his graduation from university, Mr. Sato lived and worked in several different cities, first in Toronto, then back in Vancouver, followed by the Cayman Islands, Tokyo, Guernsey, and then Luxembourg. He died on March 7, 2015 in Japan where he was being treated for cancer. For Canadian income tax purposes, the Canada Revenue Agency agreed that he became a non-resident of Canada in 1999.

Mr. Sato made a will in Vancouver on May 19, 2011, while visiting. In his will, Mr. Sato appointed his sister Helen Sato as his executor, and divided most of his estate equally between his two sisters. This will was his last.

Makiko Sato and Rex Sato were married in April 2013. At that time, he was living in Luxembourg. He had moved there in 2009, and remained a resident of Luxembourg until his death.

The issue Mr. Justice Funt was asked to decide in Sato v. Sato, 2017 BCSC 1394, was whether Mr. Sato was domiciled in Luxembourg at the time of his marriage or still in British Columbia. Why is that important?

The law in British Columbia in April 2013 was that a marriage revoked a will unless the will was made in contemplation of marriage. (The law has since changed in British Columbia, and a marriage occurring on or after March 31, 2014, no longer revokes a prior will.) If the court found that Mr. Sato was domiciled in British Columbia, then British Columbia law would apply. The result would then be that Mr. Sato’s will was revoked, and his wife would inherit estate on the basis that he died without a valid will.

But the law in Luxembourg was different. Under Luxembourg law at the time marriage did not revoke a will. If Mr. Sato were domiciled in Luxembourg, then his marriage did not revoke his 2011 Will, and his sisters would inherit the residue of his estate.

Although Mr. Sato was resident in Luxembourg, and had not resided in British Columbia since 1999, domicile means something more than residence. To change domicile, it is necessary to both reside in a new place, and intend to permanently settle their. Mr. Justice Funt quoted from several cases, including the following at paragraph 9 of his decision:

[9]            In Osvath-Latkoczy v. Osvath-Latkoczy, [1959] S.C.R. 751, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the appellant’s domicile of choice was Ontario. Justice Judson writing for the Court stated at 753:

The principle to be applied is that stated in Lord v. Colvin, which was adopted in Wadsworth v. McCord, and followed in Gunn v. Gunn:

That place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and his family, not for a mere special and temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it his permanent home, unless and until something (which is unexpected or the happening of which is uncertain) shall occur to induce him to adopt [some] other permanent home.

Mr. Justice Funt found that Mr. Sato was not domiciled in Luxembourg. When Mr. Sato applied to Canada Revenue Agency to determine his residency status when he left Canada, Mr. Sato wrote in the form that he intended to return to Canada. He wrote that he had a strong desire to be involved in international business, and planned to retire in Canada.

Helen Sato had the burden of showing that Mr. Sato had changed his intention to eventually retire in Canada. She was unable to provide sufficient evidence to persuade the Court that Mr. Sato intended to make Luxembourg his permanent home. There was some evidence that Mr. Sato wished to retire in Japan, which Mr. Justice Funt noted “further supports the proposition that the deceased did not intend to reside in Luxembourg indefinitely.”

The result is that Mr. Sato’s marriage revoked the 2011 will, and his wife, Makiko Sato, is entitled to his entire estate as the intestate heir.

CRT Jurisdiction doesn’t Extend to Previous Owners

By | Sabey Rule Blog, Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

The Civil Resolution Tribunal is an online dispute resolution tribunal that handles many strata disputes as well as small claims matters under $5,000. Recently, the CRT was asked to resolve a dispute between a former owner of a strata lot and the strata corporation. Before the CRT could make a decision, it had to consider whether it had jurisdiction to resolve the claim. Continue reading “CRT Jurisdiction doesn’t Extend to Previous Owners” »

Capacity to Marry: Devore-Thompson v. Poulain

By | Sabey Rule Blog | No Comments

Marriage has significant legal implications on the succession of property. Yet, I don’t come across either in my practice or my reading, that many cases where a marriage is challenged on the basis that someone did not have the mental capacity to marry. I certainly don’t see as many cases challenging the validity of a marriage as I do challenging the validity of a will or transfer of property. Continue reading “Capacity to Marry: Devore-Thompson v. Poulain” »

Bach Estate

By | Sabey Rule Blog | No Comments

In British Columbia, if you make a gift to one of the two witnesses to your will, or to the spouse of one of the two witnesses to your will, the usual rule is that the gift is invalid. This rule can lead to very harsh results, invalidating significant gifts to close family or friends, thwarting the will maker’s intentions.

Fortunately, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act contains a new provision allowing the court to declare that a gift to a witness, or to the spousal witness, is valid and may take effect, if the court is satisfied that the will maker intended to make the gift.

Continue reading “Bach Estate” »

What is a Residential Strata Lot?

By | Sabey Rule Blog, Strata and Condo Law | No Comments

The issue of whether a strata lot is residential can have significant impact on how the strata corporation operates. Of significant concern (in many cases) is whether there are both residential and non-residential strata lots which means that any bylaw change requires 3/4 vote approval from the residential units and 3/4 vote approval from the non-residential units. But how does a strata corporation know whether some of the units are residential or not? Continue reading “What is a Residential Strata Lot?” »

Johnson v. North Shore Yacht Works Corp.

By | Sabey Rule Blog | No Comments

In British Columbia, a trustee acting in the administration of a trust is generally entitled to be reimbursed for his or her reasonable expenses out of the trust assets. But what if the trustee makes a contract in respect of the trust assets, and there are insufficient assets in the trust to pay the amount owing? Might the trustee have to pay the shortfall out of his or her own pocket? Continue reading “Johnson v. North Shore Yacht Works Corp.” »

If you would like further information or would like to meet with one of our lawyers please feel free to contact us.

1-250-762-6111

Telephone:
1-250-762-6111
Toll Free:
1-866-268-6383
Fax:
1-250-762-6480
Monday to Friday
9.00 am to 5.00 pm
#201-401 Glenmore Road, Kelowna