Easingwood v. Easingwood Estate et al., (2013) 337 B.C.A.C. 66 (CA)

• Judge: Saunders, Levine and Bennett, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: October 03, 2013
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2013), 337 B.C.A.C. 66 (CA);2013 BCCA 182

Easingwood v. Easingwood Estate (2013), 337 B.C.A.C. 66 (CA);

    576 W.A.C. 66

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.054

Kathleen Lillian Easingwood (appellant/plaintiff) v. Lauren Elizabeth Cockroft, Executor and Trustee of the Last Will and Testament of Reginald Henry Easingwood, Deceased, and the said Lauren Elizabeth Cockroft, Elizabeth Janice Paterson, Executor and Trustee of the Last Will and Testament of Reginald Henry Easingwood, also known as R. Henry Easingwood, Deceased, Vicki Teresa Marie Easingwood, David Easingwood, Gizeh Shrine, Kayla Theresa Easingwood, Edward James Easingwood, Marion Brand, Kathleen Menzies, Erin Easingwood, Karla Easingwood, Grant Easingwood, Salt Lane Investments Ltd., and Lauren Elizabeth Cockroft and Elizabeth Janice Paterson, as Trustees of the Reg Easingwood Alter Ego Trust (respondents/defendants)

(CA039360; 2013 BCCA 182)

Indexed As: Easingwood v. Easingwood Estate et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Saunders, Levine and Bennett, JJ.A.

April 22, 2013.

Summary:

At issue in an action was the validity of estate planning steps taken by attorneys under a valid enduring power of attorney made by Reginald Henry (Reg) Easingwood, now deceased. As a result of those steps taken in anticipation of Reg's death, most of his assets were placed in an inter vivos trust mimicking the terms of his will, thereby to protect the value of the assets from probate fees and tax consequences that would flow upon his death. As a result of the creation of that trust, Reg's estate was much diminished from its pre-trust value. Reg's widow, Kay, challenged the creation of the trust, and sought an order under the Wills Variation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 490, in her favour.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, on a summary trial application pursuant to rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, dismissed the trust action. The court found that the power of attorney gave two of Reg's children, Reginald Henry (Hank) Easingwood and Lauren Cockroft, the power to create the trust, that Hank and Lauren were not in breach of their fiduciary duty in creating the trust, and that the transfers of assets to the trust were not a fraudulent conveyance. The Wills Variation Act claim was not determined. See [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1154. Kay appealed. The appeal raised the following issues: (1) did the power of attorney authorize Hank and Lauren to create an inter vivos trust in circumstances of the settlor's mental incapacity; 2. if so, was the trust testamentary in nature and beyond the capacity of the attorneys, and 3. if conceptually within the capacity of the attorneys, were the terms of this inter vivos trust consistent with their fiduciary duties under the power of attorney?

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Agency - Topic 1065

Authority of agent - Express authority - Power of attorney - Scope of authority - See paragraphs 33 to 79.

Agency - Topic 1078

Authority of agent - Express authority - Power of attorney - Fiduciary duty - See paragraphs 71 to 79.

Agency - Topic 1080

Authority of agent - Express authority - Power of attorney - Enduring power of attorney (incl. termination) - See paragraphs 33 to 44.

Persons of Unsound Mind - Topic 724

Committees (incl. substitute decision maker) - Appointment - Effect on enduring power of attorney - See paragraphs 33 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

Mawdsley v. Meshen Estate (2012), 317 B.C.A.C. 247; 540 W.A.C. 247; 28 B.C.L.R.(5th) 12; 2012 BCCA 91, refd to. [para. 5].

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. 30].

Dowling (Greg) Architects Inc. et al. v. Griffin (J. Raymond) Architect Inc. et al. (2012), 327 B.C.A.C. 155; 556 W.A.C. 155; 36 B.C.L.R.(5th) 269; 2012 BCCA 366, refd to. [para. 30].

JEL Investments Ltd. v. Boxer Capital Corp. et al. (2011), 303 B.C.A.C. 79; 512 W.A.C. 79; 18 B.C.L.R.(5th) 75; 2011 BCCA 142, refd to. [para. 31].

Olympic Industries Inc. v. McNeill (1993), 38 B.C.A.C. 254; 62 W.A.C. 254; 86 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Petty v. Telus Corp. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 152; 268 W.A.C. 152; 2002 BCCA 135, refd to. [para. 31].

MacDougall v. MacDougall (2005), 205 O.A.C. 216; 262 D.L.R.(4th) 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co. v. Lawson et al., [2005] O.T.C. 1063; 22 E.T.R.(3d) 198, refd to. [para. 39].

Zimmerman v. Fenwick - see Zimmerman v. McMichael Estate et al.

Zimmerman v. McMichael Estate et al., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 2947; 57 E.T.R.(3d) 101; 2010 ONSC 2947, refd to. [para. 39].

Banton v. Baton et al. (1998), 66 O.T.C. 161; 164 D.L.R.(4th) 176 (Gen. Div.), affd. (2001), 142 O.A.C. 389; 53 O.R.(3d) 567 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Chichester Diocesan Fund v. Simpson, [1944] A.C. 341, refd to. [para. 45].

Nicholls Estate, Re (1987), 18 O.A.C. 254; 34 D.L.R.(4th) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Desharnais v. Toronto-Dominion Bank et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 1695; 42 E.T.R.(2d) 192; 2001 BCSC 1695, revd. (2002), 175 B.C.A.C. 32; 289 W.A.C. 32; 2002 BCCA 640, refd to. [para. 48].

Wonnacott v. Loewan (1990), 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 23; 37 E.T.R. 244 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Anderson (Administration of Costello Estate) v. Patton, [1948] 2 D.L.R. 202 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

O'Hagan v. O'Hagan (2000), 134 B.C.A.C. 104; 219 W.A.C. 104; 183 D.L.R.(4th) 30; 2000 BCCA 79, refd to. [para. 55].

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. 60].

Saunders v. Vautier (1841), Cr. & Ph 240, 41 E.R. 482, refd to. [para. 65].

A.B. v. C.D. (2009), 270 B.C.A.C. 238; 454 W.A.C. 238; 94 B.C.L.R.(4th) 38; 2009 BCCA 200, refd to. [para. 66].

Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v. Gulliver, [1942] 1 All E.R. 378, refd to. [para. 71].

Canadian Aero Service Ltd. v. O'Malley, [1974] S.C.R. 592, refd to. [para. 71].

Egli v. Egli, [2004] B.C.T.C. 529; 2004 BCSC 529, refd to. [para. 71].

Madden v. Dimond; Rudolph v. Molly (1906), 12 B.C.R. 80, refd to. [para. 71].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ellis, M.V., Fiduciary Duties in Canada (2011), vol. 1 [para. 71].

Gordon, D.M., Delegation of Will-Making Power (1953), 69 L.Q. Rev. 334, generally [para. 47].

Hardingham, I.J., The Rule Against Delegation of Will-Making Power (1974), 9 Melb. U.L. Rev. 650, generally [para. 47].

Waters' Law of Trusts in Canada (3rd Ed. 2005), p. 208 [para. 51].

Counsel:

T. Todd and C. Cho, for the appellant;

J.D. Buchan, for the respondent beneficiaries, Lauren Cockroft, Erin Easingwood, Kayla Easingwood, Karla Easingwood, Grant Easingwood, and Edward Easingwood;

D.J. Manson and J. Zaitsoff, for the respondents, Lauren Cockroft and Elizabeth Paterson as Trustees of the Reg Easingwood Alter Ego Trust.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on October 3, 2013, by Saunders, Levine and Bennett, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Saunders, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on April 22, 2013.