In Re Jones, McCarville v. Jones et al.

In Re Jones, McCarville v. Jones et al.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's exercise of discretion: s.3 authorizes provision as is adequate, just and equitable and in applying it the court must consider the magnitude of the estate and the situation of other claimants; on the facts the award of $25,000 and $1,000 per month income tax free was adequate, and no sound reason existed to disturb the Court of Appeal's award.

Citation
[1962] SCR 273
Parties
Appellant Residuary Legatee (daughter): Beverley Louise McCarvill; Respondent Widow/petitioner: Catherine Louise Jones; Respondents Executors: Mildred Clements Fox and Norman Robert McCarvill; Testator/deceased: Harold Alfred Jones (deceased)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 1962
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal and cross‑appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Testator's Family Maintenance Act S.3, Maintenance and Support, Adequacy of Testamentary Provision, Lump Sum Vs Periodic Payments
Source Language
English
Estates Family Law Succession Trusts and Administration of Estates Testator's Family Maintenance Act S.3 Maintenance and Support Adequacy of Testamentary Provision Lump Sum Vs Periodic Payments

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beverley Louise McCarvill

Appellant Residuary Legatee (daughter)

Catherine Louise Jones

Respondent Widow/petitioner

Mildred Clements Fox and Norman Robert McCarvill

Respondents Executors

Harold Alfred Jones (deceased)

Testator/deceased

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will made adequate provision for the widow under s.3 of the Testator's Family Maintenance Act
  2. 2 What factors the court must consider in determining what is "adequate, just and equitable"
  3. 3 Whether the award by the Court of Appeal should be increased to a one‑third interest or otherwise varied

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's exercise of discretion: s.3 authorizes provision as is adequate, just and equitable and in applying it the court must consider the magnitude of the estate and the situation of other claimants; on the facts the award of $25,000 and $1,000 per month income tax free was adequate, and no sound reason existed to disturb the Court of Appeal's award.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross‑appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal and cross‑appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order of the Court of Appeal awarding $25,000 lump sum and $1,000 per month income tax free to respondent upheld