Montreal Trust Co. v. Krisman

Montreal Trust Co. v. Krisman

Under s.110(1) of the British Columbia Insurance Act the designation of the wife as preferred beneficiary created an immediate absolute vested beneficial interest in the insurance trust fund; the direction to pay $15,000 per year did not constitute a contingency or limitation under s.110(3) and therefore did not limit the vested interest; the appeal is dismissed and the beneficiary (through her executors) is entitled to the proceeds.

Citation
[1960] SCR 659
Parties
Appellants (executors and Trustees): Montreal Trust Company and Tillie V. Lechtzier; Respondents (plaintiffs, Executors and Trustees of Widow's Estate): Clara Krisman, Jessie Gurevich and G. Sydney Halter; Deceased Testator: Isidor Jacob Klein (deceased)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 1960
Procedural Posture
Appeal (trusts and Estate; Insurance Proceeds) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Insurance Trust Declaration, Preferred Beneficiary, Vested Vs Life Interest, Construction of Wills, Saunders V. Vautier Rule
Source Language
English
Trusts Estate Law Insurance Law Insurance Trust Declaration Preferred Beneficiary Vested Vs Life Interest Construction of Wills Saunders V. Vautier Rule

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montreal Trust Company and Tillie V. Lechtzier

Appellants (executors and Trustees)

Clara Krisman, Jessie Gurevich and G. Sydney Halter

Respondents (plaintiffs, Executors and Trustees of Widow's Estate)

Isidor Jacob Klein (deceased)

Deceased Testator

Procedural Posture

Appeal (trusts and Estate; Insurance Proceeds) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurance trust declaration in the will created a vested absolute interest in the preferred beneficiary or only a life/periodic annuity interest
  2. 2 Whether the declaration and the will must be read together for construction and whether other will provisions create a contingency or limitation under s.110(3) of the Insurance Act
  3. 3 Whether the rule in Saunders v. Vautier permitted immediate demand of the entire fund by a vested beneficiary

Ratio Decidendi

Under s.110(1) of the British Columbia Insurance Act the designation of the wife as preferred beneficiary created an immediate absolute vested beneficial interest in the insurance trust fund; the direction to pay $15,000 per year did not constitute a contingency or limitation under s.110(3) and therefore did not limit the vested interest; the appeal is dismissed and the beneficiary (through her executors) is entitled to the proceeds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment affirming that the preferred beneficiary acquired an immediate vested interest in the insurance trust fund and that proceeds are payable to the plaintiffs (executors/trustees of the widow)