Sawchuk Estate v. Evans et al., 2012 MBQB 82

• Judge: Dewar, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: March 21, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2012 MBQB 82;(2012), 279 Man.R.(2d) 293 (QB)

Sawchuk Estate v. Evans (2012), 279 Man.R.(2d) 293 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.043

Marilyn Mallin, as Administratrix of the Estate of the late Sophie Sawchuk (plaintiff) v. Lorraine Rae Evans and Renee Rae Gagnon (defendants)

(CI 09-01-62454; 2012 MBQB 82)

Indexed As: Sawchuk Estate v. Evans et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Dewar, J.

March 21, 2012.

Summary:

Sophie Sawchuk died at the age of 87. Her younger daughter (Marilyn), as administratrix of the estate, claimed against the elder daughter (Lorraine) and her granddaughter (Renee). At the date of Sawchuk's death, there were monies situated in joint accounts bearing the names of Sophie and Lorraine, or Sophie, Lorraine and Renee. Marilyn claimed that all of those monies should accrue to the estate of Sawchuk.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the monies were held on a resulting trust and were to be repaid to the estate for distribution according to the Intestate Succession Act.

Banks and Banking - Topic 2733

Bank accounts - Joint accounts - Title to account - Resulting trust in favour of original owner of funds - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the leading jurisprudence regarding the use of a joint account as a method of devising property upon a donor's death - "Essentially, the basic principles are that where the other joint holder is an adult child of the person who is providing the monies, the opening of the account is to be characterized as a gift made at the time that the monies are placed into the account. Since they are a gift, prima facie, the monies are deemed to be the subject of a resulting trust back to the donor unless the donee can demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the donor intended the monies to be a gift. It essentially boils down to a question of the donor's intent and whether the donee has overcome the onus of proof. The proof of intent would need to include the existence of a desire on the part of the donor that the monies are to accrue to the donee upon the donor's death, rather than simply a desire that the donee only administer the funds during the donor's life." - See paragraph 28.

Banks and Banking - Topic 2733

Bank accounts - Joint accounts - Title to account - Resulting trust in favour of original owner of funds - Sophie died at the age of 87 - Her younger daughter (Marilyn), as administratrix of the estate, claimed against the elder daughter (Lorraine) and her granddaughter (Renee) - At the date of Sophie's death, there were monies situated in joint accounts bearing the names of Sophie and Lorraine, or Sophie, Lorraine and Renee - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the monies were held on a resulting trust and were to be repaid to the estate for distribution according to the Intestate Succession Act - When the monies were deposited to the joint accounts, Sophie was dependent upon Lorraine - "[T]he presence of an elderly woman with physical disabilities and depression who lives in the home of a daughter, however well intentioned the daughter may be, is sufficient to raise the presumption of undue influence such that the daughter then has the onus to prove the legitimacy of any gifts given by her mother" - The presumption of undue influence had not been rebutted: Sophie and Marilyn were not estranged; Lorraine had ill feelings towards Marilyn; Lorraine was not financially well off; "the presence of Lorraine's hand in every transaction with no independent evidence of Sophie's intention"; and Sophie had treated her daughters equally until Sophie went to live with Lorraine - See paragraphs 39 to 54.

Devolution of Estates - Topic 501

Devolution - General - Intestacy - [See second Banks and Banking - Topic 2733 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 824

Undue influence - Presumed undue influence from special relationships - Adult child and elderly parent - The issue was whether monies left in joint accounts bearing the names of the 87 year old deceased and the defendants (the deceased's elder daughter and granddaughter) were beneficially owned by the defendants, or whether they were held on a resulting trust in favour of the administratrix of the deceased's estate, to be distributed pursuant to the Intestate Succession Act - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench considered the presumption applicable to gifts made in circumstances where a donee had the opportunity to unduly influence the mind of the donor - "The reasoning for such a presumption is to ensure that people in dependent circumstances are not taken advantage of by those upon whom they are dependent. Not every case of an elderly person making a gift to an adult child will occur in circumstances of dependency. However, where such circumstances of dependency do occur, placing the onus upon a donee is the law's way of protecting against unfair transactions." - See paragraphs 29 to 31.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 824

Undue influence - Presumed undue influence from special relationships - Adult child and elderly parent - [See second Banks and Banking - Topic 2733 ].

Gifts - Topic 724

Gifts inter vivos - Transfers in joint tenancy - Transfers to joint bank accounts - [See second Banks and Banking - Topic 2733 ].

Gifts - Topic 773

Gifts inter vivos - Grounds for invalidity - Undue influence - [See first Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 824 ].

Trusts - Topic 1906

Resulting trusts - General principles - Gifts - [See first Banks and Banking - Topic 2733 ].

Trusts - Topic 2001

Resulting trusts - Joint undertakings - General - [See both Banks and Banking - Topic 2733 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pecore v. Pecore, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795; 361 N.R. 1; 224 O.A.C. 330; 2007 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 28].

Madsen Estate v. Saylor - see Saylor et al. v. Brooks.

Saylor et al. v. Brooks, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 838; 360 N.R. 327; 224 O.A.C. 382; 2007 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 28].

Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 29].

Madden v. Rhodes (1993), 626 So.2d 608 (Miss. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Plishka et al. v. Wiebe (2011), 261 Man.R.(2d) 137; 2011 MBQB 23, refd to. [para. 32].

Johnson Estate v. Wiebe - see Plishka et al. v. Wiebe.

Vout v. Hay - see Hay Estate, Re.

Hay Estate, Re, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876; 183 N.R. 1; 82 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 53].

Counsel:

J. Edward Crane and Ian B. Scarth, for the plaintiff;

Paul V. Walsh, Q.C., for the defendants.

This case was heard before Dewar, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment, dated March 21, 2012.