Lottman and Teichberg v. Stanford, Ungerman, Lottman, (1980) 31 N.R. 1 (SCC)
Judge | Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Estey and McIntyre, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | January 29, 1980 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1980), 31 N.R. 1 (SCC);31 NR 1;6 ETR 34;107 DLR (3d) 28;[1980] 1 SCR 1065;1980 CanLII 32 (SCC) |
Lottman v. Stanford (1980), 31 N.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Lottman and Teichberg v. Stanford, Ungerman and Lottman
Indexed As: Lottman and Teichberg v. Stanford, Ungerman, Lottman
Supreme Court of Canada
Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Estey and McIntyre, JJ.
January 29, 1980.
Summary:
This case arose out of an application by a life tenant of the residue of an estate claiming entitlement to a payment of a percentage of the value of unconverted real estate, which was not providing her with sufficient income, in effect requesting that the Rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth be extended to apply to real property as well as personalty. The trial judge dismissed the application and refused to extend the Rule to real property to order the conversion of unproductive real property. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the life tenant's appeal and extended the Rule to include non-productive real property. The remaindermen appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the trial judge. The Supreme Court of Canada set out the Rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth and refused to extend it to real property.
Executors and Administrators - Topic 2312
Duties and powers of executors and administrators - Power or duty to convert non- income producing assets - Duty to convert wasting personalty - Rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth - Application of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated the Rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth: where residuary personalty is settled on death for the benefit of persons who are to enjoy it in succession, the duty of the trustees is to convert all such parts of it as are of a wasting or future or reversionary nature, or consist of unauthorized securities, into property of a permanent and income-bearing character - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Rule was applicable only to personalty and refused to extend it to real property.
Cases Noticed:
Howe v. Lord Dartmouth (1802), 7 Ves. Jr. 137; 32 E.R. 56, dist. [para. 1].
Royal Trust Company v. McMurray and Crawford, [1955] S.C.R. 184, appld. [para. 1].
In re Earl of Chesterfield's Trusts (1883), 24 Ch. D. 643, dist. [para. 10].
In re Lauer and Stekl (1974), 47 D.L.R.(3d) 286 (B.C.C.A.), affirmed (1975), 54 D.L.R.(3d) 159 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 11].
In re Cameron (1901), 2 O.L.R. 756, dist. [para. 11].
Clark, Re (1903), 6 O.L.R. 551, dist. [para. 11].
Prime, Re (1924), 25 O.W.N. 522, dist. [para. 11].
Pears (No. 1), Re (1926), 31 O.W.N. 235, dist. [para. 11].
Rutherford, Re, [1933] O.R. 707, dist. [para. 11].
Bingham, Re (1930), 66 O.L.R. 121, dist. [para. 11].
In re Woodhouse, Public Trustee v. Woodhouse, [1941] Ch. D. 332, refd to. [para. 11].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Hanbury's Modern Equity (4th Ed.), p. 241 [para. 1].
Counsel:
D.K. Laidlaw, Q.C., for the appellants;
P.D. Isbister, Q.C., and D. Hager, for the respondent Emma Lottman;
Martin R. Kaplan, for the respondents, Sam Stanford, Harry Ungerman and the executor Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada.
This case was heard on March 21 and 22, 1979, at Ottawa, Ontario, before MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, ESTEY and McINTYRE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On January 29, 1980, McINTYRE, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 20 - Bill 154
...in accordance with the regulations; (b) exempting any class or classes of corporations from filing returns or notices under section 2, 3, 3.1 or 6; (c) respecting and governing the content, form, format and filing of returns, notices and other documents and information filed or issued under......
-
Table of cases
...58, 45 ER 800 (Ch) ............................................................................................ 192 Lottman v Stanford, [1980] 1 SCR 1065, 107 DLR (3d) 28, [1980] SCJ No 28 ......................................................................................... 164 Madsen E......
-
Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc., 2022 FC 507
...structure of the annular wall. [193] In light of the above, Generation 4 Munchkin cassettes do not possess a clearance as defined in Claims 1 or 6 of the 384 Patents. As a result, it is missing an essential element of these claims and therefore does not infringe them. (2) Dependent Claims 2......
-
Duties of Trustees
...capital; in this way, the life tenant indirectly shares the burden. 16 (1802), 7 Ves Jun 137, 32 ER 56 (Ch). 17 Lottman v Stanford , [1980] 1 SCR 1065. 18 Re Gough , [1957] Ch 323. Duties of Trustees 165 F. DUTY TO ACCOUNT Trustees must keep proper accounts of how they deal with the trust p......
-
Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc., 2022 FC 507
...structure of the annular wall. [193] In light of the above, Generation 4 Munchkin cassettes do not possess a clearance as defined in Claims 1 or 6 of the 384 Patents. As a result, it is missing an essential element of these claims and therefore does not infringe them. (2) Dependent Claims 2......
-
Ontario Securities Commission v. Greymac Credit Corp. et al., (1986) 17 O.A.C. 88 (CA)
...107; 16 E.T.R. 200 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58]. Wolf v. R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 107; 2 N.R. 415, refd to. [para. 61]. Lottman v. Stanford, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1065; 31 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. Murdoch v. Murdoch, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 423, refd to. [para. 74]. Rathwell v. Rathwell, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436; 19......
-
TimberWest Forest Corp. et al. v. Campbell River (City), (2016) 382 B.C.A.C. 199 (CA)
...of the Community Charter, the regulation prevails. (6) If a tax rate limit is established under subsection (1) (b) for property class 1 or 6, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must, by letters patent, specify the time period during which the tax rate limit applies. (7) The time period spec......
-
R. v. Lavergne, 2018 ONCJ 901
...Mr. Lavergne as follows: • 15 January 2016 Drive prohibited contrary to section 259 6 Months Jail (credit for 4 months PSC credited at 1.5:1 or 6 Months) plus 1 day Conditional sentence • 15 January 2016 Possession Under s. 354(b) – licence plate (30 Days Concurrent Conditional sentence) • ......
-
Table of cases
...58, 45 ER 800 (Ch) ............................................................................................ 192 Lottman v Stanford, [1980] 1 SCR 1065, 107 DLR (3d) 28, [1980] SCJ No 28 ......................................................................................... 164 Madsen E......
-
Table of cases
...179 Lottman v. Stanford, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1065, 107 D.L.R. (3d) 28, 6 E.T.R. 34 ..... 152 Markle v. Toronto (City) (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 321, 223 D.L.R. (4th) 459, 48 E.T.R. (2d) 243 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed [2003] S.C.C.A. No. 138 ..........................................................
-
Duties of Trustees
...capital; in this way, the life tenant indirectly shares the burden. 16 (1802), 7 Ves Jun 137, 32 ER 56 (Ch). 17 Lottman v Stanford , [1980] 1 SCR 1065. 18 Re Gough , [1957] Ch 323. Duties of Trustees 165 F. DUTY TO ACCOUNT Trustees must keep proper accounts of how they deal with the trust p......
-
Duties of Trustees
...in this way, the life tenant indirectly shares the burden. 15 (1802), 7 Ves. Jun. 137, 32 E.R. 56 (Ch.). 16 Lottman v. Stanford , [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1065. 17 Re Gough , [1957] Ch. 323. Duties of Trustees 153 F. DUTY TO ACCOUNT Trustees must keep proper accounts of how they deal with the trust ......