The Slayer Rule in Ontario: Ensuring Justice in Estate Law
Imagine a scenario where a person stands to inherit from someone they’ve harmed or even killed. In Ontario, as in many jurisdictions, a rule known as the “Slayer Rule” exists to prevent such an unjust outcome. This legal principle, also called the “criminal forfeiture rule,” is a common law doctrine aimed at ensuring that no one benefits from their own crime. The Slayer Rule has evolved over time, drawing on both historical and modern cases, to protect the integrity of inheritance law and reflect our society’s commitment to justice.
Understanding the Slayer Rule: A Matter of Public Policy
The Slayer Rule is rooted in a foundational principle: it’s against public policy for a person to benefit from their own wrongdoing. This idea was established in the English case Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assn. (1891), where the court determined that anyone who commits murder — or those claiming through that person — should be barred from inheritance. This case set the stage for the application of the Slayer Rule by emphasizing that public policy shouldn’t allow criminal acts to result in financial gain. The rule was later reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Oldfield v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada (2002), where the court ruled that public policy operates independently of contract terms, meaning that even a life insurance policy won’t pay out if a beneficiary is responsible for the insured’s death.
Murder, Manslaughter, and Inheritance Disqualification
The Slayer Rule applies not only to cases of murder but also to manslaughter, as both offenses meet the threshold of “intentionally causing death.” In McKinnon v. Lundy (1895), it was clarified that both murder and manslaughter disqualify a person from inheriting under the deceased’s will or through intestate succession. Manslaughter, while often involving unintentional or reckless behavior, is still considered sufficiently criminal for the Slayer Rule to apply. The rule recognizes that allowing inheritance under either crime would go against the principles of justice and public policy.
When Mental Disorder Affects Criminal Responsibility
An important exception to the Slayer Rule exists for individuals found “not criminally responsible” due to mental disorder. In cases where a person lacks the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of their actions, they may still inherit under certain circumstances. For instance, in Dhingra v. Dhingra Estate (2012), Ontario’s Court of Appeal held that a person who causes another’s death but is deemed legally insane at the time may be excused from forfeiting inheritance rights. The rationale here is that those who cannot appreciate their actions in a meaningful way cannot be held to the same standard of accountability.
Complex Scenarios and the Slayer Rule in Action
The Slayer Rule has been applied in unique circumstances that test the boundaries of moral and legal responsibility. One such case, Whitelaw v. Wilson (1934), involved a husband and wife who entered into a suicide pact, drinking poison together. The husband survived, but the wife did not. Though no evidence showed he administered the poison to her, the husband was found legally responsible for counseling and assisting in the act, thereby barring him from benefiting under her will. The court concluded that, despite his mental fragility and belief he was terminally ill, he was aware of his actions and thus disqualified from inheriting his late wife’s estate.
In another notable case, Brissette Estate v. Brissette (1991), a husband was convicted of murdering his wife. Her will stipulated that if he predeceased her, the estate would be divided among friends and relatives. Given that his criminal act prevented him from inheriting, the court redirected the inheritance according to the will’s alternate provisions, emphasizing the principle that his criminal act forfeited his right to any benefit.
A Recent Example: Intentions and the Armchair Rule
One of the most recent applications of the Slayer Rule is found in The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company v. Rogers (2021), a case involving a son who murdered both his parents. With no chance of parole for 20 years, the son would not inherit under his parents’ wills. However, the court was asked whether to delay the estate distribution in case the son might eventually have children who could claim as beneficiaries. Applying the “armchair rule,” the court considered what the parents would have intended had they known their son’s crimes and imprisonment would prevent him from inheriting. The court ultimately ruled that holding the estate for future descendants would contradict public policy and the likely intentions of the deceased, ordering instead that the estate be distributed to the mother’s brothers.
The Role of Civil vs. Criminal Standards in Applying the Slayer Rule
What happens if a person hasn’t been criminally convicted? Surprisingly, a criminal conviction isn’t always required for the Slayer Rule to apply. Civil courts can apply the rule if they determine, on a “balance of probabilities,” that the person likely would have been convicted if charged. This civil standard allows courts to act on evidence without waiting for a criminal conviction, preventing wrongful inheritance based on the public policy principles of fairness and justice.
Conclusion: Safeguarding Integrity in Estate Law
The Slayer Rule serves as a critical guardrail in Ontario’s inheritance law, ensuring that justice prevails by disqualifying individuals from benefitting from a wrongful death. Rooted in public policy and reinforced through historical and modern cases, the rule reflects our collective commitment to fairness in matters of inheritance. Whether through murder, manslaughter, or assisted suicide, those responsible for a death are held accountable, preventing an unjust windfall and preserving the integrity of estate law in Ontario.
Blog written by articling student, Darien Ekblad
