Moral Obligations: Ontario is not BC
In the case of Verch v. Weckwerth1 the Court of Appeal was asked to grant an appeal on the sole grounds that the deceased had a moral obligation to provide for his adult children in a just and equitable manner.
The deceased, Albert Verch had left a will that left his entire estate to his son’s estranged wife. The deceased’s children brought an application that challenged the will on the basis of undue influence, incapacity and conspiracy. A trial was held addresses the three issues in the will challenge. In final submissions at the trial, the deceased’s children raised the issue of a moral obligation on the part of the deceased to provide for his children in his will. They were ultimately unsuccessful on all grounds at trial and brought an appeal resting on the single issue of the deceased’s moral obligation toward his children.
The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, finding that the appellants had not pled or otherwise brought that claim forward other than at final submissions at trial. Nor, the Court noted, had the appellants attempted to amend the order for directions which set out the issues to be tried to try to include the issue of the deceased’s moral obligation.
Apart from the procedural matters, though, the Court took issue with the assertion of the claim itself. The Court noted that the only case law cited was from British Columbia and referred to legislation that exists only in that province and for which there is no analogous legislation in Ontario. The appellants attempted to extrapolate a deceased’s moral obligation in Ontario based on dependant’s relief under the Succession Law Reform Act, however, the Court soundly rejected that argument on the basis that the appellants did not qualify as dependants. The Court also noted that the appellants had not brought any equity-based claims that could assist them.
The Court clearly rejected the appellants’ argument that in Ontario a moral obligation to independent adult children or other family members could supplant a capable testator’s intentions as set out in a properly executed will.
The appellants then were left with their father’s will that could not be successfully challenged, and an estate that would not pass to them.
—
1. 2014 CarswellOnt5660, 2014 ONCA 338
Menu
Written by: WEL Partners
Posted on: May 15, 2014
Categories: Commentary
In the case of Verch v. Weckwerth1 the Court of Appeal was asked to grant an appeal on the sole grounds that the deceased had a moral obligation to provide for his adult children in a just and equitable manner.
The deceased, Albert Verch had left a will that left his entire estate to his son’s estranged wife. The deceased’s children brought an application that challenged the will on the basis of undue influence, incapacity and conspiracy. A trial was held addresses the three issues in the will challenge. In final submissions at the trial, the deceased’s children raised the issue of a moral obligation on the part of the deceased to provide for his children in his will. They were ultimately unsuccessful on all grounds at trial and brought an appeal resting on the single issue of the deceased’s moral obligation toward his children.
The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, finding that the appellants had not pled or otherwise brought that claim forward other than at final submissions at trial. Nor, the Court noted, had the appellants attempted to amend the order for directions which set out the issues to be tried to try to include the issue of the deceased’s moral obligation.
Apart from the procedural matters, though, the Court took issue with the assertion of the claim itself. The Court noted that the only case law cited was from British Columbia and referred to legislation that exists only in that province and for which there is no analogous legislation in Ontario. The appellants attempted to extrapolate a deceased’s moral obligation in Ontario based on dependant’s relief under the Succession Law Reform Act, however, the Court soundly rejected that argument on the basis that the appellants did not qualify as dependants. The Court also noted that the appellants had not brought any equity-based claims that could assist them.
The Court clearly rejected the appellants’ argument that in Ontario a moral obligation to independent adult children or other family members could supplant a capable testator’s intentions as set out in a properly executed will.
The appellants then were left with their father’s will that could not be successfully challenged, and an estate that would not pass to them.
—
1. 2014 CarswellOnt5660, 2014 ONCA 338
Author
View all posts