Forbes Estate, Re, (2003) 268 N.B.R.(2d) 201 (TD)

• Judge: Glennie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: August 22, 2003
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2003), 268 N.B.R.(2d) 201 (TD);2003 NBQB 430

Forbes Estate, Re (2003), 268 N.B.R.(2d) 201 (TD);

    268 R.N.-B.(2e) 201; 704 A.P.R. 201

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.039

In the Estate of Leo Robert Forbes, Deceased

And In The Matter Of An Application Pursuant to Rule 16.04 of the Rules of Court

Elizabeth Lecavalier and Thomas Madden (applicants) v. Town of Sussex, Sussex Area Community Foundation Steering Committee, Sussex Lions Club, J.D. O'Connell Preserve, Mr. Forbes' God Son, Sussex Wesleyan Church, Sussex Valley 8213 Knights of Columbus, Cemetery Committee of St. Francis Xavier Parish, Circle Square Ranch, Crisis Pregnancy Centre Inc., Sussex Christian School, Calvary Pentecostal Church, Sussex Vale Transition House Inc., Sussex Youth Outreach Foundation, St. Francis Xavier Roman Catholic Church (respondents)

(S/M/38/03; S/P/18/96; 2003 NBQB 430)

Indexed As: Forbes Estate, Re

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Glennie, J.

December 12, 2003.

Summary:

The applicants sought an interpretation of a residuary clause contained in a will. They argued that the trust created by the clause failed because of vagueness and in­definiteness of the objects intended and therefore, the residue of the estate devolved by intestacy.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the residuary clause created a valid charitable trust which did not fail for uncertainty.

Trusts - Topic 372

Creation of trust - Purpose or object - Certainty of objects - A residuary clause in a will directed the trustees to use any residue "for such purpose or purposes as they may deem to be advisable and ap­propriate, bearing in mind my family's connection with and involvement in the general community and organizations of the Sussex, New Brunswick area" - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the trust created by the clause did not fail because of vagueness and indefiniteness of the objects intended - The testator did not intend to die intestate - The courts were concerned with preventing an intestacy in the case of a charitable bequest - The residuary clause created a valid charitable trust - The testa­tor intended to benefit charity in the Sus­sex, New Brunswick area - Once es­tablished, a charitable trust could not fail for uncertainty of objects - See paragraphs 11 to 99.

Trusts - Topic 1102

Charitable trusts - General principles - What constitutes a charitable trust - [See Trusts - Topic 372 ].

Trusts - Topic 1148

Charitable trusts - Charitable purposes - Purposes beneficial to community - [See Trusts - Topic 372 ].

Wills - Topic 3504

Charitable gifts - General - What consti­tutes a charitable gift - [See Trusts - Topic 372 ].

Wills - Topic 4248

Failure of gifts - Uncertainty - What con­stitutes - [See Trusts - Topic 372 ].

Wills - Topic 5027

Construction - General - Presumption - Against intestacy - [See Trusts - Topic 372 ].

Cases Noticed:

Harrison, Re; Turner v. Hellard (1885), 30 Ch. D. 390 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Smith's Will Trusts, Re - see Smith, Re; Barclays Bank v. Mercantile Bank.

Smith, Re; Barclays Bank v. Mercantile, [1962] 2 All E.R. 563 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Kirk, Re, [1956] O.W.N. 418; 2 D.L.R.(2d) 527 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Parnell, Re; Ranks v. Holmes, [1944] 1 Ch. 107, refd to. [para. 17].

Gray Estate v. Yule, 1990 CarswellOnt 500, refd to. [para. 17].

Gott, Re; Glazebrook v. Leeds University, [1944] 1 Ch. 293; [1944] 1 All E.R. 293, refd to. [para. 18].

Robinson, Re (1976), 15 O.R.(2d) 286 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Rowland, Re, [1963] 1 Ch. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

National Trust Co. v. Fleury et al. - see Fleury Estate v. Fleury Estate.

Fleury Estate v. Fleury Estate, [1965] S.C.R. 817, refd to. [para. 22].

Lucas-Tooth v. Lucas-Tooth, [1921] 1 A.C. 594, refd to. [para. 23].

Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v. Pemsel, [1891] A.C. 531 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 28].

Alliance for Life v. Minister of National Revenue, [1999] 3 F.C. 504; 242 N.R. 106; 27 E.T.R.(2d) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Granfield Estate v. Jackson, 1999 Cars­wellBC 644, refd to. [para. 43].

Laidlaw Foundation, Re (1984), 6 O.A.C. 181; 48 O.R.(2d) 549 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

Smith, Re, [1932] 1 Ch. 153, refd to. [para. 51].

Williams, Re, [1947] A.C. 447 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 53].

Strakosch, Re; Temperley v. Attorney General, [1949] 1 Ch. 529; [1949] 2 All E.R. 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

LeBlanc Estate v. Belliveau and LeBlanc (1986), 68 N.B.R.(2d) 145; 175 A.P.R. 145 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 60].

Klassen Estate v. Klassen et al. (1986), 50 Sask.R. 64 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 69].

Connell v. Connell (1906), 37 S.C.R. 404, dist. [para. 69].

Gilkinson, Re, [1930] O.J. No. 164 (C.A.), dist. [para. 69].

Daniels v. Daniels Estate et al. (1991), 120 A.R. 17; 8 W.A.C. 17; 85 D.L.R.(4th) 116 (C.A.), dist. [para. 69].

Levy Estate, Re (1989), 68 O.R.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 74].

Conroy Estate, Re, [1973] 4 W.W.R. 537 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 75].

Daley Estate, Re (1987), 64 Sask.R. 175; 1987 CarswellSask 372 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 76].

Bethel, Re, [1971] 2 O.R. 316; 17 D.L.R.(3d) 652 (C.A.), affd. [1973] S.C.R. 635 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

Mills v. Farmer (1815), 19 Ves. 483 (L.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

Meikle Estate, Re, [1943] 2 W.W.R. 156 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 92].

McIntyre, Re, [1950] 2 W.W.R. 682 (Man. K.B.), refd to. [para. 92].

Canada Permanent Trust Co. v. MacFar­lane, [1972] 4 W.W.R. 593 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

Harris v. Alexandra Non-Sectarian Or­phanage, [1923] 1 W.W.R. 624 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 92].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al. (2003), 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 93].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Feeney, Canadian Law of Wills (4th Ed.), para. 10.75 [para. 13].

Gillese, The Law of Trusts (1997), p. 64 [para. 45].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1980), vol. 50, para. 423 [para. 15].

Oosterhoff, A.H., and Gillese, E.E., Com­mentary and Cases on Trusts (1998), pp. 855, 856 [para. 44].

Osterhoff on Wills and Sucession (5th Ed. 2001), pp. 27, 28 [para. 93].

Picarda, Hubert, The Law and Practice Relating to Charities, pp. 11, 12 [para. 45]; 95 [para. 55]; 166 [para. 20].

Warburton, Jean, and Morris, Debra, Tudor on Charities (8th Ed. 1995), pp. 105 [para. 50]; 108 [para. 52].

Waters, Donovan, W.M., Case Comment on Re Laidlaw Foundation (1985), 18 E.T.R. 120, generally [paras. 30, 43].

Waters, Donovan, W.M., The Law of Trusts in Canada (2nd Ed. 1984), pp. 107 [paras. 61, 64]; 513, 514 [para. 65]; 594 [paras. 34, 38]; 595 [para. 40]; 611 [para. 90].

Williams on Wills (3rd Ed.), vol. 1, c. 52, p. 353 [para. 17].

Counsel:

Raymond P. Gorman, Q.C., on behalf of Elizabeth Lecavalier;

Deno P. Pappas, Q.C., on behalf of Thom­as Madden;

D. James Gerrish, on behalf of the Town of Sussex;

Donald V. Keenan and Allison T. Gerrish, on behalf of the Sussex Area Community Foundation Steering Committee;

R. Andrew Palmer, on behalf of Brian Geldart;

Elizabeth S. Cotter, on behalf of the Cem­etery Committee of St. Francis Xavier Parish;

Murray Hayes, on behalf of the St. Francis Xavier Roman Catholic Church and Sussex Valley 8213 Knights of Colum­bus.

This application was heard on August 22, 2003, before Glennie, J., of the New Bruns­wick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Divi­sion, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following decision on Decem­ber 12, 2003.