Nordstrom v. Baumann

Nordstrom v. Baumann

The Court held that provincial civil courts have jurisdiction to determine, in civil proceedings (including by originating summons with consent), whether conduct amounts to a crime for the purpose of disqualifying a beneficiary under public policy; the trial judge was properly clothed with jurisdiction, the procedural choice was within judicial discretion, and the trial judge's factual finding that the appellant was insane under s.16(2) was a supported finding of fact and must be restored, entitling the appellant to inherit.

Citation
[1962] SCR 147
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Kathleen M. Nordstrom; Plaintiff Respondent (administratrix): Jean Baumann
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Judgment at Trial Restored
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; trial judgment restored.
Legal Topics
Intestacy, Beneficiary Disqualification, Originating Summons Procedure, Insanity Defence, Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to Decide Issues With Potential Criminal Character
Source Language
English
Estates Civil Procedure Criminal Law Mental Health Law Public Policy Intestacy Beneficiary Disqualification Originating Summons Procedure +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen M. Nordstrom

Defendant Appellant

Jean Baumann

Plaintiff Respondent (administratrix)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Judgment at Trial Restored

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an originating summons was a proper procedure to determine a widow's entitlement to share in an intestate estate
  2. 2 Whether a provincial civil court has jurisdiction in civil proceedings to determine whether conduct amounts to a crime for the purpose of disqualifying a beneficiary
  3. 3 Whether the defendant met the onus to prove insanity under s.16(2) of the Criminal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that provincial civil courts have jurisdiction to determine, in civil proceedings (including by originating summons with consent), whether conduct amounts to a crime for the purpose of disqualifying a beneficiary under public policy; the trial judge was properly clothed with jurisdiction, the procedural choice was within judicial discretion, and the trial judge's factual finding that the appellant was insane under s.16(2) was a supported finding of fact and must be restored, entitling the appellant to inherit.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; trial judgment restored.

Orders

  • Trial judgment restored and answers to originating summons as determined by trial judge are to stand
  • Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed