New Articles
Law of Intestacy in Ontario
Ontario has statutory provisions that detail who inherits an estate when the deceased did not have a valid Will.
[read more]
Dangers of A Younger Wife
The romantic entanglement of an elderly parent in failing physical and mental health can be a nightmare for children. [read more]
Testimonials
"I wanted to thank you again for your help and effort in handling my recent litigation, and moreover, for achieving results beyond what I anticipated to be my best case scenario".
[read more]
"No one cares more about the personal welfare of their clients than Charles B. Wagner. Not only are you an attorney of outstanding legal mind, but one who is considerate of the personal concerns of the client".
[read more]
"Your out of the box approach and resolve proved cost efficient and effective in our avoiding expensive litigation".
[read more]
Quantum Meruit Claim
If the courts rule that John’s new Will is valid then Mary may still have a claim against the estate. In contract law, a person may sue for damages when he/she does not receive payment in exchange for services provided. In estate litigation, in the absence of such a contract, the courts sometimes impose a constructive trust on real or personal property of the estate for failure to provide for that person in the Will in order to prevent the estate from taking advantage and being unjustly enriched. Alternatively, the courts attempts to prevent the unjust enrichment of the estate by putting the claimant back in the position he would have been had he not provided the services by making the estate pay the claimant the value of those services.
The defining case in this area is Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada.. The court adopted a previous judge’s statement explaining “ …It is clear that any civilized system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is to prevent a man from retaining the money of or some benefit derived from another which is against conscience that he should keep.” The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the doctrine of unjust enrichment in Becker v. Pettkus. Mr. Justice Dickson explained that there is a three pronged test before an enrichment can be viewed as unjust.
- Firstly there has to be an enrichment. In our case John was enriched by not having to pay for the services Mary provided to him. Had he had to hire someone to provide those services it would have cost him some money.
- The second prong of the test is that there must be a corresponding deprivation. Mary would argue that had she not provided these services to John she could have used that time to earn money elsewhere.
- Finally, there must be an absence of any juristic (legal) reason for the enrichment. Mary would argue that what she did was far and above what is normally expected of a child and that she thereby prejudiced herself in the reasonable expectation of receiving an interest in property. John freely accepted the services and he knew or ought to have known about the reasonable expectation and it would be unjust to allow John and his estate to be the recipient of the benefit.
We would issue a claim against the estate that set out the services Mary provided to her father, the cost of his hiring someone to provide such services, the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment, and why Mary reasonably expected to be reimbursed for the benefit that was provided to the estate. This is not an easy claim to prove because children are expected to help out parents without the expectation of compensation. We would have to demonstrate that the efforts exerted and services provided by Mary went far and above the norm and it would have been unreasonable to not expect compensation.
Going to court in circumstances like these may or may not be the right thing to do. The purpose of this review is to provide the reader with some insight into the nature of the legal steps taken to protect one’s legal interest in an estate dispute. Despite the temptation to jump to conclusions, it would be a mistake to substitute this cursory discussion for substantive legal advice. For those considering this option, there is no replacement for hiring a competent solicitor whose own research, analysis and judgment should be canvassed prior to going to court.