Ryan v. Smith

Ryan v. Smith

Where subsequent specific dispositions in a will are inconsistent with an initial general bequest, the general words do not carry specific corporate shares; a gift conditioned on survivorship and employment is contingent and does not vest until those conditions are met; a power of appointment conditioned on a contingency does not exist until the contingency occurs, and where conditions for disposition cannot be met and no valid gift over exists the property results in intestacy; personal corporations’ assets can be disposed inter vivos or by executors, so a gift of a fraction of corporate assets is effective.

Citation
[1972] SCR 332
Parties
Appellant; Widow: Kathleen Ryan; Respondent; Appellant by Cross Appeal: Margaret Smith; Executors and Trustees; Respondents: Kathleen Ryan and Duncan A. McIlraith; Respondent: Terrence Kielty; Infants Represented by Official Guardian; Respondents and Appellants by Cross Appeal: Maureen Ryan and Gary Ryan
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 1971
Procedural Posture
Wills and Estates — Construction and Administration; Application for Advice and Direction / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario)
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Will Construction, Power of Appointment, Contingent Remainder, Intestacy, Disposition of Corporate Shares, Life Estate and Life Tenant
Source Language
English
Wills and Estates Trusts Succession Company Law Will Construction Power of Appointment Contingent Remainder Intestacy +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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen Ryan

Appellant; Widow

Margaret Smith

Respondent; Appellant by Cross Appeal

Kathleen Ryan and Duncan A. McIlraith

Executors and Trustees; Respondents

Terrence Kielty

Respondent

Maureen Ryan and Gary Ryan

Infants Represented by Official Guardian; Respondents and Appellants by Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Wills and Estates — Construction and Administration; Application for Advice and Direction / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether opening bequest of "any stocks and bonds registered in my name personally" included shares of the testator’s wholly owned personal corporation (Kilreen Company Ltd.)
  2. 2 Whether the bequest of 15% of Kilreen's assets to the widow was effective
  3. 3 Whether Terrence Kielty acquired a vested remainder in CFRA preference shares on testator's death or only a contingent interest dependent on survivorship of the widow and employment

Ratio Decidendi

Where subsequent specific dispositions in a will are inconsistent with an initial general bequest, the general words do not carry specific corporate shares; a gift conditioned on survivorship and employment is contingent and does not vest until those conditions are met; a power of appointment conditioned on a contingency does not exist until the contingency occurs, and where conditions for disposition cannot be met and no valid gift over exists the property results in intestacy; personal corporations’ assets can be disposed inter vivos or by executors, so a gift of a fraction of corporate assets is effective.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Allow appeal and enter judgment answering the posed questions as set out by Judson J.
  • Declare that the opening bequest does not include Kilreen Company Limited shares.