ALBERTA LAW REFORM INSTITU'TE EDMONTON, ALBERTA REFORM OF THE INTESTATE SUCCESSION ACT Report for Discussion No. 16 January 1996 ISSN 0834-9037 ISBN 0-8886-4198-2 Table of Contents PART I -- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................... 1 PART I1 -- REPORT ........................................................ 5 CHAPTER1. INTRODUCTION A . History and Scope of Project ............................................... 5 B. Terminology ............................................................ 6 C . Outline of Report ........................................................ 7 CHAPTER2 . HISTORICALSKETCH AND OVERVIEWOF CANADIAN INTESTACYLEGISLATION A . History of Intestate Succession ............................................. 9 1. England ........................................................... 9 2 . Canada .......................................................... 10 3 . Alberta ........................................................... 11 4 . Uniform Intestate Succession Act ...................................... 12 B. Corr~parisonof Canadian Legislation and the Uniform Acts ...................... 13 1. Overview of legislative models ......................................... 13 a . Category I: Canadian mainstream .................................. 13 b . Category 2 Manitoba ............................................ 15 c . Category 3: Uniform Intestate Succession Act ......................... 16 d . Category 4: Uniform Probate Code (U.S.) ............................ 16 CHAPTER 3. TRENDSIN CANADIANSOCIETY A . Introduction ...........................................................19 B. Lifespan .............................................................. 19 C . Family Size ........................................................... 20 D. Marriage and Divorce ................................................... 21 E. Cohabitants Outside Marriage ............................................. 24 1. Research Paper No . 15: Survey of Adult Living Arrangements. A Technical Report ................................................ 24 2 . Statistics Canada ................................................... 25 F. Conclusion ............................................................ 29 CHAP'~ER4 . WHAT DO WE KNOWABOUT ~NTESTATES AND THEIR ESTATES? A . Introduction ........................................................... 31 B. Extent of Intestacy ...................................................... 32 C . Rationale for Not Making a Will ............................................ 34 D. Knowledge of Current Law ............................................... 35 E. Profile of Estates Without Wills ............................................ 35 F. Public Opinion as to How Estates Should be Distributed in the Event of an Intestacy . 37 1. Spouse and parents ................................................. 37 2 . Spouse and issue .................................................. 37 a . Spouse and children of that relationship ............................. 38 b . Spouse and children of another relationship .......................... 4.1 3 . Issue ............................................................ 43 4 . Parents and siblings ................................................. 44 5 . Next of kin ........................................................ 45 CHAPTER5 . PROPOSALSFOR REFORM:PART 1 A . What Purpose Should the Intestate Succession Act Serve? ...................... 47 B. Spousal Share ......................................................... 50 1. Spouse and no issue of the intestate .................................... 50 2 . Spouse and issue of the intestate ...................................... 50 a . The need for reform .............................................50 b . Directions for reform ............................................. 55 I. REVISINGTHE EXISTING LEGISLATION ............................... 56 A) PREFERENTIALSHARE ..................................... 56 6) PORT~ONOF RESIDUE GIVEN TO SPOUSE ........................ 58 I1 . ALL-TO-THE-SPOUSERULE ...................................... 58 A) THEMANITOBA VERSION ................................... 58 B) THEENGLISH VERSION .................................... 59 c . Recommendations for reform ...................................... 60 3 . Partial intestacy .................................................... 73 a . The existing law ................................................ 73 b . Law reform trends .............................................. 74 c . Analysis ...................................................... 75 4 . Conduct disentitling the surviving spouse from sharing in the estate ............ 76 a . The existing law ................................................ 76 I . ADULTERY .................................................. 76 11 . MATRIMONIALPROPERTY SETTLEMENT ............................. 77 b . The law in other jurisdictions ...................................... 78 c . The need for reform ............................................. 79 d . Analysis ...................................................... 79 C . Cohabitants ........................................................... 83 1. Terminology ....................................................... 83 2 . Introduction ....................................................... 83 3 . Should the intestate succession legislation extend rights to cohabitants? ........ 84 4 . How should "cohabitant" be defined? ................................... 86 a . Introduction ................................................... 86 b . Statutory definitions ............................................. 86 c . Analysis ...................................................... 88 5 . How should the law deal with competing claims of a spouse and cohabitant? .... 92 6 . Will these proposals withstand a challenge under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? ..................................... 95 a . Miron v. Trudel .................................................95 I . THEFACTS .................................................. 96 11 . RELEVANTCHARTER PROVISIONS ................................. 97 111 . THEISSUES ................................................ 97 IV . THEDIFFERING APPROACHES TO SECTION 15(1) OF THE CHARTER......... 98 V . COMPARISONOF THE JUDGMENTS GIVEN IN THIS CASE .................. 99 A) MCLACHLIN,SOPINKA. CORY. IACOBUCCI JJ ..................... 99 B) L'HEUREUX-DUB€....................................... 103 c) GONTHIER.MAJOR. LA FOREST.LAMER JJ ..................... 107 b . Significance of this decision ...................................... 111 c . Analysis ..................................................... 116 I. ISTHE DISTINCTION DISCRIMINATORY?............................. 116 I1 . IFSO. IS IT JUSTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 1 OF CHARTER?............... 117 D. Same-Sex Couples .................................................... 119 CHAPTER6 . PROPOSALSFOR REFORM:PART 11 A . Issue of the Intestate ................................................... 121 1. Equal treatment of children .......................................... 121 a . Children born outside marriage ................................... 121 b . Effect of adoption .............................................. 123 c . Step-children ................................................. 125 2 . Inheritance by representation ........................................ 125 a . Canadian mainstream: per stirpes ................................. 127 b . American hybrid ............................................... 128 c . Ontario: per capita representation .................................129 d . Manitoba: per capita at each generation ............................ 130 e . Comparison of the four systems of representation ..................... 131 f . Analysis ...................................................... 132 B. Inheritance by Ancestors and Collaterals ................................... 135 1. The existing law ................................................... 135 a . Terminology .................................................. 135 b . Inheritance where there is no surviving spouse or issue ................ 135 c . Representation among collaterals ................................. 137 I . GENERALPRINCIPLES ......................................... 137 I1 . THECASE LAW .............................................. 139 Ill. TIMETO DE'~ERMINEWHO ARE THE NEXT OF KIN ..................... 141 IV . THEUCI-IMATE HEIR ACT: INHERITANCE WHEN THERE ARE NO NEXT OF KIN . 142 2 . The need for reform ................................................ 143 3 . Optionsfor reform ................................................. 144 a . What method should be used to determine the ancestors and collaterals who will inherit: degrees of consanguinity or a parentelic system? .............. 144 I . DEGREESOF CONSANGUINITY ................................... 144 11 . A PARENTELIC SYSTEM ........................................ 144 b . Should representation be admitted among descendants of remote heirs? . 147 c . Should limitations be placed on those who can inherit? ................. 147 4 . Recommendations of law reform bodies ................................ 148 5 . Recommendations for reform .........................................150 C . Advancement ........................................................ 154 1. The existing law ................................................... 154 a . What is an advancement? ....................................... 155 b . Doctrine ofadvancement