Moore v. Royal Trust Co.

Moore v. Royal Trust Co.

Clauses 6 and 7 create a personal licence permitting the named beneficiaries to occupy and have use and enjoyment of the specified properties during such times as they or either of them personally occupy the premises, but do not confer any entitlement to rents or profits when they are not in personal occupation; the beneficiaries may occupy upon reasonable notice to trustees.

Citation
[1956] SCR 880
Parties
Appellants/defendants: Charles James Moore and Janet Moore; Respondent/plaintiff: The Royal Trust Company; Respondents/defendants: Gordon B. Moore, Charles George Moore and The Unascertained Issue of George Moore; Respondent/defendant: Frances Moore
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 1956
Procedural Posture
Will Construction / Trusts / Estates Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment of Court of Appeal varied to construe clauses as creating a personal licence to occupy during periods of personal occupation and not as creating a life estate or entitlement to rents when not occupying
Legal Topics
Construction of Will, Licence to Occupy, Determinable Limitation Vs Condition, Occupation Rights, Trustees' Duties
Source Language
English
Wills Trusts Estates Property Construction of Will Licence to Occupy Determinable Limitation Vs Condition Occupation Rights +1 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles James Moore and Janet Moore

Appellants/defendants

The Royal Trust Company

Respondent/plaintiff

Gordon B. Moore, Charles George Moore and The Unascertained Issue of George Moore

Respondents/defendants

Frances Moore

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Will Construction / Trusts / Estates Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clauses 6 and 7 of the will were void for uncertainty
  2. 2 Whether the phrase "as long as either of them shall occupy the same" is void for uncertainty
  3. 3 If valid, what is the meaning and legal effect of Clauses 6 and 7

Ratio Decidendi

Clauses 6 and 7 create a personal licence permitting the named beneficiaries to occupy and have use and enjoyment of the specified properties during such times as they or either of them personally occupy the premises, but do not confer any entitlement to rents or profits when they are not in personal occupation; the beneficiaries may occupy upon reasonable notice to trustees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment of Court of Appeal varied to construe clauses as creating a personal licence to occupy during periods of personal occupation and not as creating a life estate or entitlement to rents when not occupying

Orders

  • Answers to question 3 varied so that: (a) Under clauses 6 and 7 the named beneficiaries are entitled to use and enjoyment of the described premises during such time or times as they or either of them occupy such premises personally, but are not otherwise entitled to the rents or profits thereof.
  • (b) Insofar as clause 7 is concerned, Charles James Moore and Janet Moore or either of them are entitled to occupy the premises described in the said clause in the manner set out in clause (a) upon giving the trustees reasonable notice of their desire so to do.