Carrigan v. Quinn, (2014) 326 O.A.C. 105 (DC)

• Judge: Kiteley, Corbett and Harvison Young, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: February 27, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2014), 326 O.A.C. 105 (DC);2014 ONSC 5682

Carrigan v. Quinn (2014), 326 O.A.C. 105 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.019

Jennifer Margaret Quinn (appellant/applicant) v. Melodee Carrigan in her personal capacity and in her capacity as Executrix and Trustee of the Estate of Ronald Leo Anthony Carrigan, deceased, Carli Rae Carrigan and Crystal Breeanne Meloche (respondents/respondents)

(13/551; 2014 ONSC 5682)

Indexed As: Carrigan v. Quinn

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Kiteley, Corbett and Harvison Young, JJ.

September 30, 2014.

Summary:

The Carrigans married in 1973 and separated sometime between 1996 and 2000, by which time Mr. Carrigan was living with Ms. Quinn. The Carrigans never formalized their separation nor divorced. In 2002, Mr. Carrigan designated Mrs. Carrigan and their two daughters as the beneficiaries of the death benefit in his pension plan. After Mr. Carrigan's unexpected death in 2008, both Mrs. Carrigan and Quinn claimed his preretirement death benefit under s. 48 of the Pension Benefits Act. Quinn also asserted a support claim under s. 72 of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 585, held that Quinn was entitled to the benefit (the first trial). Having awarded the preretirement death benefit to Quinn, the court found that Quinn had no need for further support payments under the SLRA. Accordingly, the SLRA application was dismissed. Mrs. Carrigan appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at (2012), 298 O.A.C. 281, allowed the appeal, finding that Mrs. Carrigan and her two daughters were entitled to the benefit. In an addendum (see [2012] O.A.C. Uned. 694), the court set aside the dismissal of the SLRA application and referred that matter to the Superior Court. Quinn's application for leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at 2013 ONSC 4033, awarded Quinn $350,000 in dependents' relief from Mr. Carrigan's estate (the second trial). In a subsequent costs endorsement, reported at 2013 ONSC 6689, Quinn was ordered to pay costs of $109,126.45 for the first trial, $55,606.57 for the second trial and $13,054.17 to each of the Carrigans' two daughters. After costs of $20,000 ordered by the Court of Appeal (see [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 68) and $1,500 by the Supreme Court of Canada were added to the other costs and adjustments were made for periodic support payments already made to Quinn, prepayments of costs and occupancy rent for the condominium that Quinn and Mr. Carrigan had occupied, Quinn was left owing Mrs. Carrigan and the two daughters a total of $85,887.19. Quinn appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal. The trial judgment was set aside. Judgment was granted in favour of Quinn for $605,436, including costs, subject to certain adjustments.

Executors and Administrators - Topic 5548

Actions by and against representatives - Costs - Where payable out of estate - [See Family Law - Topic 6760 ].

Executors and Administrators - Topic 5550

Actions by and against representatives - Costs - Where payable by claimant - [See Family Law - Topic 6760 ].

Family Law - Topic 6601

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - General (incl. interpretation of legislation) - The Ontario Divisional Court set out the general principles for the determination of "adequate" financial provision for a dependent under dependents' relief legislation - See paragraphs 78 to 83.

Family Law - Topic 6604

Dependents' relief legislation - What constitutes "proper maintenance and support" - The Carrigans married in 1973 and separated sometime between 1996 and 2000, by which time Mr. Carrigan was living with Quinn - The Carrigans never formalized their separation nor divorced - Mr. Carrigan died unexpectedly in 2008 - Quinn was awarded $350,000 in dependents' relief under the Succession Law Reform Act - Quinn appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal - The trial court's application of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) significantly understated the entitlement that Quinn would have had to support from Mr. Carrigan had this issue been raised immediately before Mr. Carrigan's death - After outlining several errors in principle from which the understatement arose, the court concluded, "The trial judge was correct in finding that Mr. Carrigan's support obligations to Ms. Quinn were a relevant consideration. He erred in finding that those obligations amounted to $266,400. They were much higher. I would find that these support obligations were at the high end of the SSAG range at the time of Mr. Carrigan's death, and I would fix them at $550,000. The miscalculation of Mr. Carrigan's support obligations by more than a factor of two is an error in principle and should not stand." - See paragraphs 118 to 130.

Family Law - Topic 6610

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - Moral obligation of testator - General - [See second Family Law - Topic 6695 ].

Family Law - Topic 6616

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - Valuation of estate (incl. what constitutes estate assets) - The Carrigans married in 1973 and separated sometime between 1996 and 2000, by which time Mr. Carrigan was living with Quinn - The Carrigans never formalized their separation nor divorced - Mr. Carrigan died unexpectedly in 2008 - Quinn was awarded $350,000 in dependents' relief under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA) - Quinn appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal - The trial court had erred in the calculation of the value of Mr. Carrigan's estate for SLRA purposes - The parties had agreed that the gross value of the assets available to satisfy Quinn's claim under s. 72 of the SLRA was $2.94 million - The trial judge found that the value of net estate assets was $1.9 million after deductions including $93,000 in miscellaneous expenses; $130,000 for Mrs. Carrigan's credit card debt; $80,000 for a capital payment toward a mortgage owed by one of the Carrigans' daughters; $463,915 for taxes payable on the distribution of a pension death benefit to Mrs. Carrigan and the two daughters; and $300,000 for legal costs incurred by the estate in this litigation - The court disallowed the deductions for Mrs. Carrigan's credit card debt, the mortgage payment and the litigation expenses - Regarding the litigation expenses, the court noted that the trial judge had also awarded substantial costs against Quinn, payable to the estate - This was a form of double counting and was an error in principle - Total deductions were $538,083, leaving a net estate of $2.4 million - See paragraphs 84 to 108.

Family Law - Topic 6628

Dependents' relief legislation - Persons entitled to relief - Person cohabiting with deceased - The Carrigans married in 1973 and separated sometime between 1996 and 2000, by which time Mr. Carrigan was living with Quinn - The Carrigans never formalized their separation nor divorced - Mr. Carrigan died unexpectedly in 2008 - Mr. Carrigan's will left everything to Mrs. Carrigan and the Carrigans' two daughters - He provided nothing for Quinn - Quinn was awarded $350,000 in dependents' relief under the Succession Law Reform Act - On Quinn's appeal, the Ontario Divisional Court stated, "Ms. Quinn is a 'dependent' and is entitled to 'relief' from Mr. Carrigan's failure to make 'adequate provision for [her] proper support' from his net estate assets" - See paragraphs 8 to 10.

Family Law - Topic 6670

Dependents' relief legislation - Entitlement - Property subject to distribution - [See Family Law - Topic 6616 ].

Family Law - Topic 6673

Dependents' relief legislation - Entitlement - Where adequate provision for dependent not made in will - [See Family Law - Topic 6628 ].

Family Law - Topic 6680

Dependents' relief legislation - Considerations in making awards - General - The Carrigans married in 1973 and separated sometime between 1996 and 2000, by which time Mr. Carrigan was living with Quinn - The Carrigans never formalized their separation nor divorced - Mr. Carrigan died unexpectedly in 2008 - Quinn was awarded $350,000 in dependents' relief under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA) - Quinn appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal - The trial court erred in principle in apportioning Mrs. Carrigan's estate assets between Mrs. Carrigan and Quinn in proportion to their times as spouses of Mr. Carrigan - The court outlined the appropriate analysis - Here, Quinn's needs were understated and the "balancing of claims" was reduced to a simple ratio - This was not the "balancing" that was required and it overemphasized one of many pertinent factors under s. 62(1) of the SLRA - See paragraphs 131 to 137.

Family Law - Topic 6682.1

Dependents' relief legislation - Considerations in making awards - Legal obligations of testator - [See both Family Law - Topic 6695 ].

Family Law - Topic 6691

Dependents' relief legislation - Considerations in making awards - Other dependents - [See Family Law - Topic 6680 ].

Family Law - Topic 6695

Dependents' relief legislation - Considerations in making awards - Intention of testator - The Carrigans married in 1973 and separated sometime between 1996 and 2000, by which time Mr. Carrigan was living with Quinn - The Carrigans never formalized their separation nor divorced - Mr. Carrigan died unexpectedly in 2008 - Quinn was awarded $350,000 in dependents' relief under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA) - Quinn appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal - The trial court had erred by improperly relying on Mr. Carrigan's unimplemented intentions regarding provisions for Quinn to determine the quantum of support that was payable to Quinn - The trial court found that Mr. Carrigan's unfulfilled intentions were to transfer a condominium to Quinn (worth about $140,000) and to give her $100,000 - He had discussed this proposal with his lawyers - A contract was drafted that provided for no support and no claims under the Family Law Act, the Divorce Act or the SLRA - However, Mr. Carrigan had not proceeded because he did not want to make the financial disclosure to Quinn that was necessary for a valid contract - As it was clear that Mr. Carrigan's intentions would not have been enforceable against Quinn had he imposed them unilaterally, the trial court had erred by placing weight on the unimplemented intentions - See paragraphs 109 to 117.

Family Law - Topic 6695

Dependents' relief legislation - Considerations in making awards - Intention of testator - The Carrigans married in 1973 and separated sometime between 1996 and 2000, by which time Mr. Carrigan was living with Quinn - The Carrigans never formalized their separation nor divorced - Mr. Carrigan died unexpectedly in 2008 - Quinn was awarded $350,000 in dependents' relief under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA) - Quinn appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal - The trial judgment was set aside - Judgment was granted in favour of Quinn for $605,436, including costs, subject to certain adjustments - The court conducted the four step analysis required under the SLRA, including (1) identifying the dependents; (2) valuing the dependent's claims; (3) identifying and valuing the claims of non-dependents; and (4) balancing the competing claims, taking into account the estate's size, the claims' strength and Mr. Carrigan's intentions, in order to come to "a judicious distribution of the estate" - While it was clear that Mr. Carrigan had intended to leave the bulk of his estate to Mrs. Carrigan, this was not a basis for reducing Quinn's legal entitlement - There was more than enough in the estate to provide for Mrs. Carrigan and Quinn - After those needs were addressed, the estate was distributed in a manner that generally reflected Mr. Carrigan's intentions - Quinn's need was fixed at $550,000, the highest end of the range suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines - An additional $200,000 was a proper recognition of her moral claim against the estate - In the result, Quinn received roughly 30% of the net estate, while Mrs. Carrigan and the Carrigans' two daughters received 70% in addition to pre-death wealth transfers and the transfer of real estate to Mrs. Carrigan on Mr. Carrigan's death - See paragraphs 138 to 163.

Family Law - Topic 6700

Dependents' relief legislation - Awards - General principles - [See Family Law - Topic 6601 ].

Family Law - Topic 6705

Dependents' relief legislation - Awards - Lump sum payment - Widow or common law wife - [See second Family Law - Topic 6695 ].

Family Law - Topic 6712

Dependents' relief legislation - Awards - Variation - [See second Family Law - Topic 6695 ].

Family Law - Topic 6760

Dependents' relief legislation - Practice - Costs - The Carrigans married in 1973 and separated sometime between 1996 and 2000, by which time Mr. Carrigan was living with Quinn - The Carrigans never formalized their separation nor divorced - Mr. Carrigan died unexpectedly in 2008 - Quinn was awarded $350,000 in dependents' relief under the Succession Law Reform Act - Quinn was ordered to pay costs for two trials - After costs ordered by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada were added to the other costs and adjustments were made, Quinn was left owing Mrs. Carrigan and the Carrigans' two daughters a total of $85,887.19 - Quinn appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal - The trial judgment was set aside and the court considered the issue of costs afresh - The trial court had correctly observed that the modern approach to costs in estate cases did not presume that the estate would pay everyone's costs - However, the litigation here was a direct result of Mr. Carrigan's failure to arrange his affairs properly - An award of costs against the estate was not foreclosed - The trial judge erred in principle in proceeding otherwise - However, the parties should not have all of their costs paid from the estate, even on a rateable basis - The court awarded all of the parties their partial indemnity costs throughout, payable from the estate, the cost of which was to be borne by the parties on the basis of their proportionate share of the estate - This reflected Mr. Carrigan's responsibility for the dispute - The parties were to bear their own costs to the extent that they exceeded partial indemnity costs - This reflected Mrs. Carrigan's and Quinn's responsibility for prolonging the proceedings - In the result, Quinn was awarded $750,000, plus $61,136 for net costs, for a total of $811,136 - See paragraphs 164 to 187.

Family Law - Topic 6763

Dependent's relief legislation - Practice - Appeals - The trial judge awarded Quinn $350,000 in dependents' relief under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA) - Quinn appealed - Regarding the standard of review, the Ontario Divisional Court stated, "The question is whether the trial judge reasonably exercised his discretion under Part V of the SLRA. In the absence of an error in principle, a failure to consider material evidence, or the giving of too much weight to one relevant consideration over others, this court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion.... The deference owed to a trial judge is high, similar to the deference accorded a trial court deciding issues of child and spousal support..." - Here, there were fundamental errors in principle that led to the conclusion that the judgment below had to be set aside - While a costs decision was entitled to deference, here, the court performed a costs analysis based on the final result and history of the case - No deference was owed to the trial court's costs analysis in these circumstances - See paragraphs 68 to 77.

Cases Noticed:

Cummings Estate, Re (2004), 181 O.A.C. 98; 69 O.R.(3d) 398; 235 D.L.R.(4th) 474; 5 E.T.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 2].

Tataryn et al. v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807; 169 N.R. 60; 46 B.C.A.C. 255; 75 W.A.C. 255, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 32].

Perilli v. Foley Estate, [2006] O.T.C. 109; 23 E.T.R.(3d) 245; 24 R.F.L.(6th) 99 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 34].

Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518; 240 N.R. 312; 138 Man.R.(2d) 40; 202 W.A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 51].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 70, footnote 52].

Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd. et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 303; 316 N.R. 265; 184 O.A.C. 209, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 53].

McNaughton Automotive Ltd. v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co. (2008), 250 O.A.C. 352; 2008 ONCA 597, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 53].

Duong v. NN Life Insurance Co. of Canada (2001), 141 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 53].

Juffs v. Investors Group Financial Services Inc. et al., [2005] O.T.C. 787 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 56].

Madore-Ogilvie v. Ogilvie Estate et al. (2006), 218 O.A.C. 185 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 62].

Le Van v. Le Van (2008), 239 O.A.C. 1; 90 O.R.(3d) 1; 2008 ONCA 388, leave to appeal dismissed (2008), 391 N.R. 391 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 112, footnote 77].

McDougald Estate, Re (2005), 199 O.A.C. 203; 255 D.L.R.(4th) 435; 2005 CanLII 21091 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 164, footnote 91].

McDougald Estate v. Gooderham - see McDougald Estate, Re.

Sawdon Estate v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada et al. (2014), 315 O.A.C. 129; 2014 ONCA 101, refd to. [para. 164, footnote 91].

Sawdon Estate v. Sawdon - see Sawdon Estate v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada et al.

Salter Estate, Re, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. D35 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 164, footnote 91].

Bilek v. Salter Estate - see Salter Estate, Re.

Pytka et al. v. Pytka Estate, [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 6406 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 164, footnote 91].

Smith Estate v. Rotstein et al, [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 4487; 2010 ONSC 4487, refd to. [para. 164, footnote 91].

Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ont.) et al. (2004), 188 O.A.C. 201; 71 O.R.(3d) 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 164, footnote 91].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Kaplan, Ari N., Pension Law (2006), p. 288 [para. 33, footnote 11].

Counsel:

Kathleen M. Montello and R.G. Colautti, for Jennifer Margaret Quinn;

Rodney M. Goddard and Daniel S. Ableser, for Melodee Carrigan and the Estate.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 27, 2014, by Kiteley, Corbett and Harvison Young, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. On September 30, 2014, Corbett, J., delivered the following judgment for the court.