Smith Estate, Re, 2003 SKQB 361

• Judge: Koch, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: August 12, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2003 SKQB 361;(2003), 240 Sask.R. 258 (QB)

Smith Estate, Re (2003), 240 Sask.R. 258 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.019

In The Matter Of the Estate of Nick Smith Late of the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan, Deceased

(2000 S.C. No. 40; 2003 SKQB 361)

Indexed As: Smith Estate, Re

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Koch, J.

August 12, 2003.

Summary:

The executors of an estate sought the assistance of the court respecting the order of priority of the devises and bequests to be applied for payment of the just creditors and claimants against the estate under a will.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench interpreted the will accordingly.

Wills - Topic 3183

Gifts - Demonstrative gifts - What constitutes - A testator's will provided that "My apartment block... [description], my properties... [description] are all to be sold and the proceeds thereof together with the balance of funds in the Prince Albert Credit Union and any other assets are all to be divided in three equal shares to..." - The executors argued that this clause should be interpreted as a residue clause on its face - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, after examining indirect extrinsic evidence, concluded that the "balance of funds in the Prince Albert Credit Union" was part of the residue of the estate - In the context of the entire will, the proceeds of the sale of the real properties were not part of the residue - The proceeds constituted a demonstrative bequest - See paragraphs 26 to 30.

Wills - Topic 7683

Construction - Quantity of interest taken - Residue - What constitutes residue - [See Wills - Topic 3183 ].

Wills - Topic 8544

Evidence and proof - Extrinsic evidence - Of surrounding circumstances to resolve ambiguity in will - Executors of an estate sought the court's assistance with the interpretation of a will - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Direct evidence can only be admitted if there is an equivocation where the words of the will either when read in light of the whole will, or more usually, when construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, applied equally well to two or more persons or things. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the testator's actual intention may be admitted to resolve the equivocation, and if it does not, the gift will fail for uncertainty." - The court held that the necessary equivocation did not arise in this case and declined to admit direct evidence - See paragraph 24.

Wills - Topic 8546

Evidence and proof - Extrinsic evidence - Of intention of testator - [See Wills - Topic 8544 ].

Cases Noticed:

Legge Estate, Re (2001), 203 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 635 A.P.R. 1 (Prob. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Culbertson, Re (1967), 62 D.L.R.(2d) 134 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Diocesan Synod of Fredericton v. Hughson Estate, [1955] S.C.R. 498, refd to. [para. 16].

Nakonieczny v. Kaminski - see Nakonieczny et al. v. Rymach Estate.

Nakonieczny et al. v. Rymach Estate (1989), 75 Sask.R. 135 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Barrett Estate, Re (1996), 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 202; 433 A.P.R. 202 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Cullen Estate v. Barnes - see Cullen Estate v. Cullen (Patricia L.) Composers' Trust et al.

Cullen Estate v. Cullen (Patricia L.) Composers' Trust et al. (1997), 40 O.T.C. 49 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 17].

Bethune v. Kennedy, [1835] 1 My. & Cr. 114; 40 E.R. 320, refd to. [para. 18].

Mills v. Brown (1855), 21 Beav. 3; 52 E.R. 758, refd to. [para. 18].

Clarke v. Butler, [1810] 1 Mer. 305; 35 E.R. 687, refd to. [para. 18].

National Trust Co. v. Fleury, [1965] S.C.R. 817, refd to. [para. 19].

Reishiska v. Cody (1967), 62 W.W.R.(N.S.) 581 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Kernahan v. Hanson et al. (1990), 87 Sask.R. 17; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

McMurdo Estate, Re; Gold v. Cameron (1982), 14 Sask.R. 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Perrin v. Morgan, [1943] A.C. 399 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Haidl et al. v. Sacher et al. (1979), 2 Sask.R. 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Rowland, Re, [1963] Ch. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Ratzlaff Estate, Re (2002), 217 Sask.R. 284; 265 W.A.C. 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Holland Estate, Re (1994), 122 Sask.R. 274 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

MacEachen v. McGregor - see Holland Estate, Re.

Counsel:

Lawrence J. Zatlyn, Q.C., for Executors, Stella Olexson, Agnes Kusior and Delbert Dynna;

Mitchell J. Holash, for beneficiaries, Agnes Kusior, Paul Zaparaniuk, Christina Lukasiewicz and Wanda Kozan;

Ajay Krishan, for beneficiaries, Victoria Hospital Foundation, Prince Albert Parkland Regional Health Authority and Prince Albert Cooperative Health Centre/Community Clinic;

The beneficiary, Peter Olexson, did not appear.

This application was heard before Koch, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following judgment on August 12, 2003.