Laczova Estate, Re, (2001) 152 O.A.C. 351 (CA)

• Judge: Catzman, Abella and Moldaver, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 31, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2001), 152 O.A.C. 351 (CA)

Laczova Estate, Re (2001), 152 O.A.C. 351 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.037

Anne Davis, Executrix of the Estate of Olga Laczova (applicant/appellant) v. Madonna House, Slovenske Misijne Hnutie, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders Canada), The Leprosy Mission Canada, Christian Children's Fund of Canada, Help the Aged, Aid to the Martyr Church, Little Sisters of the Poor, Ave Maria Centre of Peace, Father Jozo Jafko, Posol Doke Rusika, Religious Orders in Peru, Ukraijne Seminar - Jurij Drulja, Ukrajne Seminar - Elena Arek Ceebhe, Society of St. Peter the Apostle, Covenant House, Maria Hricova, Peter Lacza, Milan Lacza, Rober Laca and Martina Laczova (respondents/respondents in appeal)

(C35928)

Indexed As: Laczova Estate, Re

Ontario Court of Appeal

Catzman, Abella and Moldaver, JJ.A.

December 19, 2001.

Summary:

Laczova purchased two retirement savings plans from separate banks before she died. In her holograph will, she listed the plans among her assets, and made various bequests. Her estate trustee applied for directions, arguing that the will revoked the earlier beneficiary designations in the plans. The plan beneficiaries argued that the original designations remained unaffected by the will.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2001] O.T.C. 76, held that the original beneficiary designations remained in full force and effect and were not affected by the will. The estate trustee appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Wills - Topic 99

Testamentary instruments - Designation of beneficiary of specific assets - Revocation of designation - Laczova purchased two retirement savings plans before she died - In her holograph will, she listed the plans among her assets, and made various bequests - Her estate trustee contended that the will revoked the earlier beneficiary designations in the plans - The plan beneficiaries argued to the contrary - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the beneficiary designations in the plans were unaffected by the will - While Laczova's intention appeared to be reflected by the will, the requirements of the Succession Law Reform Act for making an effective designation or revocation of a beneficiary in a will were not met - The court noted that "the laudable objective of discerning and implementing the deceased's intention cannot be achieved by ignoring the language of the statute" - See paragraphs 16 to 32.

Wills - Topic 100

Testamentary instruments - Designation of beneficiary of specific assets - Registered retirement savings plans - [See Wills - Topic 99 ].

Cases Noticed:

Burgess v. Burgess Estate et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 159; 52 O.R.(3d) 61 (C.A.), dist. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-26, sect. 51 [para. 16]; sect. 52(1) [para. 28]; sect. 52(2) [para. 16].

Counsel:

Adriana Carnevale, for the appellant;

Lubomir Poliacik, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on October 31, 2001, by Catzman, Abella and Moldaver, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Catzman, J.A., released the following decision for the court on December 19, 2001.