Burgess v. Burgess Estate et al., (2000) 139 O.A.C. 159 (CA)

• Judge: McMurtry, C.J.O., Catzman and Feldman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 22, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 139 O.A.C. 159 (CA)

Burgess v. Burgess Estate (2000), 139 O.A.C. 159 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.006

June Burgess (applicant/respondent in appeal) v. Maureen Mendonca, named Estate Trustee of the Estate of the late Desmond Errol Burgess, Bernadette Burgess and Canadian Tire Corporation Limited (respondents/appellant in appeal)

(C33966)

Indexed As: Burgess v. Burgess Estate et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

McMurtry, C.J.O., Catzman and Feldman, JJ.A.

December 22, 2000.

Summary:

Burgess designated his wife June as benefi­ciary under his employer's deferred profit sharing plan. They separated in 1990 and a 1994 separation agreement provided that June was entitled to one-half the plan pro­ceeds. June released all other claims. Burgess married Bernadette in 1996 and died in 1999. June claimed the entire proceeds of the profit sharing plan pursuant to the benefi­ciary designation.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a judgment reported [2000] O.T.C. 4, held that June was entitled to the entire profit sharing plan proceeds. Bernadette appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. June's entitlement was limited to one-half the plan proceeds, as per the separa­tion agreement. The remaining one-half was payable to Burgess's estate, to be distributed according to his will.

Family Law - Topic 3266

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Enforcement - Distribution of property - Burgess desig­nated his wife June as beneficiary under his employer's deferred profit sharing plan - They separated in 1990 and a 1994 sepa­ration agreement provided that June was entitled to one-half the plan proceeds - June released all other claims - Burgess married Bernadette in 1996 and died in 1999 - June claimed the entire proceeds of the profit sharing plan pursuant to the beneficiary designation - The trial judge held that June was entitled to the entire profit sharing plan proceeds - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that June's enti­tlement was limited to one-half the plan proceeds - Burgess and June intended to limit her entitlement to one-half of the plan proceeds - The separation agreement revoked the 1987 beneficiary designation in accordance with s. 51(1) of the Succes­sion Law Reform Act - The remaining one-half of the proceeds went to Burgess's estate, to be distributed equally to Ber­nadette and his children according to his will.

Releases - Topic 4124

Operation - Interests released - Wife's claim against husband's estate - Effect of - [See Family Law - Topic 3266 ].

Wills - Topic 98

Testamentary instruments - Designation of beneficiary of specific assets - Power to designate a beneficiary outside a will - [See Family Law - Topic 3266 ].

Wills - Topic 99

Testamentary instruments - Designation of beneficiary of specific assets - Revocation of designation - [See Family Law - Topic 3266 ].

Cases Noticed:

Goldfield v. Koslovsky (1975), 22 R.F.L. 133 (Man. Q.B.), dist. [para. 11, footnote 2].

Pearson v. Pearson (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 404; 7 E.T.R. 12 (C.A.), dist. [para. 11, footnote 2].

Kindl, Re (1982), 13 E.T.R. 101 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 2].

Dimma v. Algoma Steel Corp. (1979), 4 E.T.R. 186 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 2].

Statutes Noticed:

Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-26, sect. 50, sect. 51(1), sect. 51(2) [para. 13].

Counsel:

Arleen Huggins, for the respon­dent/appellant in appeal, Bernadette Burgess;

Sandra R. Schnurr, for the ap­plicant/respondent in appeal.

This appeal was heard on November 29, 2000, before McMurtry, C.J.O., Catzman and Feldman, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Catzman, J.A., and released on December 22, 2000.