Siegel v. Siegel Estate et al., (1995) 177 A.R. 282 (QB)

• Judge: Moreau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 1995
• Citations: (1995), 177 A.R. 282 (QB)

Siegel v. Siegel Estate (1995), 177 A.R. 282 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of the Estate of Nathan Siegel, also known as Nate Siegel, late of the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta, Deceased;

And In The Matter Of the Family Relief Act, being Chapter F-2 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta, 1980, and amendments thereto.

Lillian Siegel (applicant) v. Leo Morris Siegel, as Executor of the Estate of Nathan Siegel, also known as Nate Siegel, Deceased; Brenda Nahornick, Lisa Miller, Sandra Miller and Leo Morris Siegel as Beneficiaries of the Estate of Nathan Siegel, also known as Nate Siegel, Deceased (respondents)

(Action No. 9503-07568)

Indexed As: Siegel v. Siegel Estate et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moreau, J.

December 13, 1995.

Summary:

A widow applied under the Alberta Family Relief Act for adequate provision to be made out of her deceased husband's estate for her proper maintenance and support. At issue was the applicability in Alberta of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Tataryn v. Tataryn (1994), 169 N.R. 60; 46 B.C.A.C. 255; 75 W.A.C. 255.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench con­cluded that Tataryn applied in Alberta and allowed the application.

Family Law - Topic 6604

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - What constitutes "proper maintenance and support" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the principles in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Tataryn v. Tataryn respecting dependent's relief legislation applied in Alberta to applications under the Family Relief Act - See paragraphs 15 to 33 - The court stated that "... the words 'proper maintenance and support' in s. 3(1) of the Act permit the court to determine what is adequate in light of the standard of living to which the spouse is entitled, and proper in light of the obligations which the law would impose on the deceased in his life if the question of the claim were to arise. The use of the word proper also requires a reflection on society's reasonable expecta­tions of what a judicious person would do in the circumstances, by reference to con­temporary community standards." - See paragraph 30.

Family Law - Topic 6604

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - What constitutes "proper maintenance and support" - An 83 year old widow applied under the Alberta Fam­ily Relief Act for adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support - In determining the support to which the widow was entitled, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that home and se­niors' lodgings were foreseeable and the widow was entitled to provide for these eventualities without encroaching on her capital - Such would not result in a redis­tribution of the capital of the deceased's estate beyond what the circumstances required for the "proper maintenance and support" of the widow pursuant to s. 3(1) of the Family Relief Act - See paragraphs 38 to 41.

Family Law - Topic 6604

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - What constitutes "proper maintenance and support" - An 83 year old widow applied under the Alberta Fam­ily Relief Act for adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support from her deceased husband's estate - Through-out the 21 year marriage their assets and bank accounts were kept separate - Each contributed to the household, travel and living expenses - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a proper allow­ance would place the widow in a position to enjoy the lifestyle she enjoyed during her marriage with the estate assisting in a meaningful way in defraying the cost of her future care - See paragraph 44.

Family Law - Topic 6604

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - What constitutes "proper maintenance and support" - In 1973, a retired couple married and moved into his home - The husband died in 1994 with an estate valued at $800,000 to $900,000 and an annual income of $50,000 - His will provided the wife with a $1,000 monthly allowance - The wife applied under the Family Relief Act (the Act) for adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support - Her estate totalled $724,000 - Her projected after tax income was $45,000 ($3,750 per month) - Foreseeable need for home care or seniors' lodgings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench applied the principles in Tataryn (169 N.R. 60; 46 B.C.A.C. 255; 75 W.A.C. 255 (S.C.C.)) respecting dependent's relief legislation, referred to the Divorce Act principles and increased the monthly allowance to $1,400 - Should Tataryn not apply, the court would have granted the same relief.

Family Law - Topic 6610

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - Moral obligation of testator - A widow applied under the Alberta Family Relief Act for adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support - The executor and other beneficiaries opposed the application, referring to the principle that family relief legislations should not be used as an instrument to build up an estate for the surviving spouse - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the principle should be taken into account when examining the testator's moral obli­gation - See paragraphs 31, 32.

Family Law - Topic 6610

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - Moral obligation of testator - In 1973, a retired couple married - They maintained separate assets and bank accounts - The wife had substantial capital which would provide for her future and her children upon her death - In 1994, the husband died leaving her a life estate in the home and a monthly allowance of $1,000 - The wife, age 83, applied under the Alberta Family Relief Act for adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench concluded that there was a high moral claim that the wife be provided for - However, to redistribute the capital of the husband's estate in her favour would result in the build-up of her estate - The moral claim was properly addressed by a more generous monthly allowance ($1,400/month) - See paragraphs 52 to 54.

Family Law - Topic 6670

Dependents' relief legislation - Entitlement - Property subject to distribution - In 1973, a retired couple married and moved into his home - Kept separate assets and bank accounts - Income was commingled - He died in 1994, leaving her a life estate in the home - The wife applied under the Family Relief Act for adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support - The matrimonial estate consisted of the income produced from exempt property under the Matrimonial Property Act and the increase in value of that property since the marriage - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered the factors under s. 8 of the Matrimonial Property Act and concluded that a redistribution of property in the wife's favour would be contrary to their type of marriage - Given the post marriage growth of her capital and their respective roles during the marriage, the wife was not entitled to share in the increase in value of his assets - See para­graphs 45 to 50.

Family Law - Topic 6682

Dependents' relief legislation - Consider­ations on making awards - Moral duty of testator - [See both Family Law - Topic 6610 ].

Family Law - Topic 6683

Dependents' relief legislation - Consider­ations on making awards - Events after testator's death - [See second Family Law - Topic 6604 ].

Family Law - Topic 6696

Dependents' relief legislation - Consider­ations on making awards - Unjust enrich­ment - In 1973, a retired couple married - Kept separate assets and bank accounts - No new assets acquired - Income was commingled - Maintenance of the home was shared - He died in 1994, leaving her a life estate in the home and a monthly allowance of $1,000 - The wife applied under the Alberta Family Relief Act for adequate provision for her proper mainten­ance and support - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench noted that unjust enrich­ment was a factor to be examined, but concluded that there was neither enrich­ment nor a deprivation and it was not an appropriate case for redistribution of the estate on the basis of a claim for quantum meruit or of contribution by the wife to the deceased's property - See paragraph 51.

Family Law - Topic 6701

Dependents' relief legislation - Awards - Revision of will re disposition of property - [See Family Law - Topic 6670 and Family Law - Topic 6696 ].

Family Law - Topic 6704

Dependents' relief legislation - Awards - Periodic payments - Widow - [See fourth Family Law - Topic 6604 ].

Cases Noticed:

Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 7 W.W.R. 609; 169 N.R. 60; 46 B.C.A.C. 255; 75 W.A.C. 255 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 1].

Walker v. McDermott, [1931] S.C.R. 94, consd. [para. 24].

Alberta (Official Guardian) v. LeMasurier, [1949] 4 D.L.R. 654 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Gray, Re, [1950] 2 W.W.R. 854 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Willan, Re (1951), 4 W.W.R.(N.S.) 114 (Alta. T.D.), consd. [para. 25].

Koziol v. Zoltenko and Wasiluk (1978), 20 A.R. 89 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Foulon v. Foulon Estate (1981), 29 A.R. 120 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Adams v. Broughton (1982), 20 Alta. L.R.(2d) 390 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Alberts Estate, Re (1982), 46 A.R. 144 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Stepaniuk v. Koziol Estate (1985), 60 A.R. 47 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Pauliuk v. Pauliuk Estate (1986), 73 A.R. 314 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Public Trustee (Alta.) v. Jacobson Estate (1987), 58 Alta. L.R.(2d) 355 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Protopappas Estate, Re (1987), 78 A.R. 60; 25 E.T.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Maitland, Re, [1954] 1 D.L.R. 657 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

Public Trustee (Alta.) v. Maitland - see Maitland, Re.

Bosch v. Perpetual Trustee Co., [1938] A.C. 463 (Aust. P.C.), consd. [para. 26].

Shaw v. Regina (City)(No. 3), [1944] 1 W.W.R. 433 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Lawther Estate, Re, [1947] 1 W.W.R. 577 (Man. K.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Woods Estate, Re (1965), 54 W.W.R.(N.S.) 606 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Smigelski Estate, Re (1968), 64 W.W.R.(N.S.) 456 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Louis v. Louis (1970), 75 W.W.R.(N.S.) 1 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Seerey v. Seerey Estate (1979), 20 A.R. 442 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 456, consd. [para. 43].

Mazurenko v. Mazurenko (1981), 30 A.R. 34; 15 Alta. L.R.(2d) 357; 23 R.F.L.(2d) 113; 124 D.L.R.(3d) 406 (C.A.), consd. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 15(5) [para. 35]; sect. 15(7) [para. 35].

Family Relief Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. F-2, sect. 1(d) [para. 23]; sect. 3(1) [para. 30].

Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-9, sect. 8 [para. 46].

Counsel:

Jack Agrios, Q.C., and Mary Henderson, for the applicant, Lillian Siegel;

Donald G. Ingram, Q.C., for the respon­dent, Leo Morris Siegel as Executor of the Estate of Nathan Siegel;

D. Spitz, Q.C., for Leo Siegel;

A. Goldsman, for Brenda Nahornick.

This application was heard before Moreau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on December 13, 1995.