B.R.A. et al. v. M.S. et al., 2005 ABQB 549

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 22, 2005
• Citations: 2005 ABQB 549;(2005), 383 A.R. 264 (QB)

B.R.A. v. M.S. (2005), 383 A.R. 264 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. JL.153

B.R.A. and D.J.F., Trustees and Guardians of the Person and Estate of S.A., a Dependent Adult (plaintiffs/respondents) v. M.S., S.S., M.M., M.B. and M.W. (defendants/applicants)

(0503 03784; 2005 ABQB 549)

Indexed As: B.R.A. et al. v. M.S. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

July 15, 2005.

Summary:

S.A. was a dependant adult. The plaintiffs were his court appointed trustees. The plaintiffs sued the defendants. The defendants applied under rule 129(1)(a) of the Rules of Court to strike out certain paragraphs of the statement of claim on the ground that those paragraphs disclosed no cause of action because an individual's last will and testament could not be adjudicated upon while that individual was alive.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and struck the impugned paragraphs.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - S.A. was a dependant adult - The plaintiffs were his court appointed trustees - The plaintiffs sued the defendants - The defendants applied under rule 129(1)(a) of the Rules of Court to strike out certain paragraphs of the statement of claim on the ground that those paragraphs disclosed no cause of action because an individual's last will and testament could not be adjudicated upon while that individual was alive - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and struck the impugned paragraphs - English common law had consistently held that during the life of a testator, a will was no more than a piece of waste paper - The portion of the plaintiffs' statement of claim asking for a ruling on a will while the testator was alive was doomed to fail - See paragraphs 23 to 29.

Wills - Topic 5002

Construction - General principles - Time that will speaks - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Wills - Topic 5201

Construction - Practice - General - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Cases Noticed:

Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada, [1954] 3 D.L.R. 785; [1954] S.C.R. 725, refd to. [para. 4].

Zeolkowski v. Malenchak Estate, [1983] 5 W.W.R. 504; 21 Man.R.(2d) 237 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Christensen and Nadon v. Martini, [1999] 10 W.W.R. 417; 232 A.R. 339; 195 W.A.C. 339; 48 R.F.L.(4th) 406; 27 E.T.R.(2d) 234; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 367; 70 Alta. L.R.(3d) 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Tottrup v. Lund et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 204; 220 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Temple v. Edmonton (City) and Schnablegger (1990), 105 A.R. 77 (Q.B. Master), dist. [para. 5].

Hirtz v. Public Trustee (Alta.) (1997), 221 A.R. 324 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Cerny v. Canadian Industries Ltd., [1972] 6 W.W.R. 88; 30 D.L.R.(3d) 462 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 6].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Bhadauria v. Seneca College, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181; 37 N.R. 455; 2 C.H.R.R. 468, refd to. [para. 6].

Richardson v. Hamilton (1859), 7 Gr. 281 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

McGill v. McGlashan (1857), 6 Gr. 324 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Marlborough (Duke of) v. Godolphin et al. (1750), 28 All E.R. 41; [1558-1774] All E.R. Rep. 264 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [para. 10].

Westminster's Deed of Appointment, Re, [1959] Ch. 265 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Schroeder, Re (1965), 8 C.B.R.(N.S.) 156 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Minister of National Revenue v. Colford (John) Contracting Co., [1960] Ex. C.R. 433, refd to. [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Feeney, Thomas G., The Canadian Law of Wills (4th Ed. 2000), generally [para. 8].

Hull, Ian F., Challenging the Validity of Wills (1996), generally [para. 8].

Odgers, W., Principles of Pleading and Practice, generally [para. 18].

Snell, E.H.T., Principles of Equity (28th Ed. 1982), generally [para. 8].

Stevenson, William A., and Côté, Jean E., Civil Procedure Encyclopedia (2003), p. 1-43 [para. 19].

Counsel:

Helen R. Ward, for the applicants/defendants;

Richard B. Hajduk (Hajduk & Gibbs), for the respondents/applicants.

This application was heard on June 22, 2005, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on July 15, 2005.