Scott v. Seier Estate, (2016) 480 Sask.R. 217 (CA)

• Judge: Jackson, Caldwell and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: February 09, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2016), 480 Sask.R. 217 (CA);2016 SKCA 76

Scott v. Seier Estate (2016), 480 Sask.R. 217 (CA);

    669 W.A.C. 217

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.042

Marion Scott (appellant/applicant) v. The Estate of Kenneth Seier and Elaine Seier as Executor of the Estate of Kenneth Seier (respondents/respondents)

(CACV2772; 2016 SKCA 76)

Indexed As: Scott v. Seier Estate

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Jackson, Caldwell and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.

June 15, 2016.

Summary:

In his will, the deceased appointed his sister, Seier, and his common law spouse of nine years, Scott, the co-executors of his will. In the will he left the residue of his estate to Seier ($495,607). Scott, as co-executor, declined to agree to payment out of that sum to Seier. Seier applied to have Scott removed as co-executor of the estate and for an order of payment out of the residue to her. Scott applied to extend the time to bring a dependent relief application pursuant to s. 4(2) of the Dependents' Relief Act and for an order pursuant to s. 6 of the Act for her reasonable maintenance.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported (2015), 479 Sask.R. 31, granted the extension of time and allowed Scott's dependents' relief application to proceed; however, the application was dismissed. The court found it unnecessary to deal with the application to dismiss Scott as a co-executor. Rather, the court ordered the executors to distribute the residue of the estate to Seier as provided for in the will. Scott appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Family Law - Topic 6628

Dependents' relief legislation - Persons entitled to relief - Common law spouse - In his will, the deceased appointed his sister, Seier, and his common law spouse of nine years, Scott, the co-executors of his will - He left his residential property to Scott and $250,000 - The residue of his estate went to Seier ($495,607) - Scott disagreed with the payment to Seier - Scott applied under s. 6 of the Dependents' Relief Act for an order for her reasonable maintenance - An applications judge dismissed the application - The will satisfied the deceased's legal obligation to Scott under the Family Property Act - There was no basis on which she was entitled to compensatory or non-compensatory spousal support - As to his moral obligation, the court was not able to say that Scott receiving 40% of the assets available on the deceased's death was inadequate to the point that it fell below the norm the community would consider reasonable in the circumstances - The court concluded that the deceased made reasonable provision for Scott in his will - Scott appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - There was no basis to interfere with the applications judge's decision - See paragraphs 2 and 19 to 44.

Family Law - Topic 6682

Dependents' relief legislation - Considerations in making awards - Moral duty of deceased - [See Family Law - Topic 6628 ].

Family Law - Topic 6682.1

Dependents' relief legislation - Considerations in making awards - Legal obligations of deceased - [See Family Law - Topic 6628 ].

Family Law - Topic 6727

Dependants' relief legislation - Evidence - Discretion of court to determine application in summary manner on basis of affidavit evidence - In his will, the deceased, appointed his sister, Seier, and his common law spouse, Scott, the co-executors of his will - He left the residue of his estate to Seier - Scott, as co-executor, declined to agree to payment out of the money to Seier - Seier applied to have Scott removed as co-executor - Scott applied to extend time to bring a dependents' relief application - The applications judge determined that he could decide the dependents' relief matter on the basis of the evidence before him (i.e., in a summary manner) - The judge granted the extension of time, but dismissed Scott's dependents' relief application on the merits - Scott appealed, arguing that the applications judge erred in proceeding in a summary manner - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejected Scott's argument and dismissed the appeal - It was open to the judge to determined the dependents' relief application in a summary manner - See paragraphs 5 to 18.

Family Law - Topic 6760

Dependents' relief legislation - Practice - Costs - In his will, the deceased, appointed his sister, Seier, and his common law spouse, Scott, the co-executors of his will - He left the residue of his estate to Seier - Scott as co-executor disagreed with the payment to Seier - Seier applied to have Scott removed as co-executor - Scott applied to extend the time to bring a dependents' relief application - An applications judge granted the extension of time, but dismissed Scott's dependents' relief application on the merits - The judge found it unnecessary to deal with Seier's application and ordered the residue paid to Seier in accordance with the will - Scott appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed Scott's appeal - The court rejected a claim by Scott for an award of solicitor and client costs out of the estate - The court noted that the appeal had been unsuccessful - The court stated that while the cost of litigation ought not to be a barrier to dependents' relief applications, the estate ought not to be frittered away on unfounded litigation - Interests of the dependents and beneficiaries had to be balanced in the pursuit of fairness in the circumstances - See paragraphs 46 to 54.

Practice - Topic 7455

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to solicitor and client costs - Estates and estate matters - [See Family Law - Topic 6760 ].

Counsel:

Jordan P. Hardy, for the appellant;

Jared D. Epp, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 9, 2016, before Jackson, Caldwell and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Caldwell, J.A., on June 15, 2016.