Saylor et al. v. Brooks, (2007) 224 O.A.C. 382 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 07, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 224 O.A.C. 382 (SCC);2007 SCC 18;[2007] ACS no 18;360 NR 327;224 OAC 382;[2007] SCJ No 18 (QL);279 DLR (4th) 547;[2007] 1 SCR 838

Saylor v. Brooks (2007), 224 O.A.C. 382 (SCC)

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: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.048

Patricia Ann Brooks, Estate Trustee (appellant) v. Mary Elizabeth Saylor and William Anthony Madsen (respondents)

(31262; 2007 SCC 18; 2007 CSC 18)

Indexed As: Saylor et al. v. Brooks

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

May 3, 2007.

Summary:

Brooks was named executor of her deceased father's estate. The respondents (Brooks' brother and sister) applied for an order requiring Brooks to account for the property of the deceased, for division of the property in accordance with the will and for an injunction requiring Brooks to pay all estate monies into court. Brooks claimed that the deceased had transferred all of his bank accounts and his investments into the joint names of the deceased and Brooks and that the transfers were gifts. She also claimed that the respondents owed the estate monies. Mid trial, the respondents moved for an order requiring Ackerman (Brooks' counsel) to pay into court funds taken by Ackerman from estate funds he was holding in trust.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the respondents' claim that the funds held in the joint accounts and investments were part of the estate. The court dismissed Brooks' claim for monies owed by the respondents where the claim was statute barred. The court ordered Brooks in her personal capacity to pay the respondents' costs fixed at $120,000. The court found that Ackerman had improperly taken funds from the estate funds and ordered Ackerman to pay $175,216.73 into court. The court ordered Ackerman to pay costs of certain motions and awarded him $25,000 for his estate representation. Brooks and Ackerman appealed. The appeals were heard together.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Feldman, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 203 O.A.C. 295, dismissed Brooks' appeal. The court allowed Ackerman's appeal in part. The court set aside the order that Ackerman pay costs of the motions. Ackerman was ordered to pay only the costs of the motion regarding payment into court of estate funds. The court also set aside the order fixing Ackerman's entitlement for estate expenses at $25,000. The court ordered an assessment of Ackerman's fees. Brooks appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Abella, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Banks and Banking - Topic 2721

Bank accounts - Joint accounts - General - Brooks was named executor of her deceased father's estate - The respondents (Brooks' brother and sister) applied for an order requiring Brooks to account for the property of the deceased, for division of the property in accordance with the will and for an injunction requiring Brooks to pay all estate monies into court - Brooks claimed that the deceased had transferred all of his bank accounts and his investments into the joint names of the deceased and Brooks and that the transfers were gifts - The trial judge held that there was no evidence to support Brooks' position that her father intended to gift the contents of his joint accounts to her and concluded that that the funds contained in the bank accounts and investments were held jointly by Brooks and the deceased and were part of the estate - Brooks appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - A presumption of a resulting trust applied to the gratuitous transfer of assets by the father into the joint accounts - The presumption of advancement had no application because Brooks was not a minor child of her father - The trial judge erred in finding that there was no evidence - On the relevant financial institution documents, the father elected to have the joint accounts carry a right of survivorship - However, even having regard to the financial institution documents and Brooks' testimony in relation to them, such evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption of resulting trust.

Gifts - Topic 527

Gifts inter vivos - Presumption against gift - Resulting trust - Rebuttal of presumption - [See Banks and Banking - Topic 2721 ].

Gifts - Topic 554

Gifts inter vivos - Presumption of gift - Advancement - Transfers from parent or grandparent to children - [See Banks and Banking - Topic 2721 ].

Gifts - Topic 578

Gifts inter vivos - Transfer by donor to donee and donor jointly - Intention - [See Banks and Banking - Topic 2721 ].

Gifts - Topic 724

Gifts inter vivos - Transfers in joint tenancy - Transfers to joint bank accounts - [See Banks and Banking - Topic 2721 ].

Trusts - Topic 1906

Resulting trusts - General principles - Gifts - [See Banks and Banking - Topic 2721 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pecore v. Pecore et al. (2007), 361 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp. et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634; 190 N.R. 241; 67 B.C.A.C. 1; 111 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Prudential Trust Co. v. Forseth, [1960] S.C.R. 210, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Joel Skapinker and Jagjit S. Bhathal, for the appellant;

Lorne S. Silver, Robert B. Cohen and Margaret Hoy, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Skapinker & Shapiro, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Cassels, Brock & Blackwell, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on December 7, 2006, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered on May 3, 2007, in both official languages and included the following opinions:

Rothstein, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 32;

Abella, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 33 to 44.