Tough Letter of the Law

In a recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, it was held that the former common-law partner of a deceased individual was entitled to the pension benefits of his plan because the deceased never changed the beneficiary designation.

For the Court, it was a simple case of applying the legislation, which it did so correctly, but the results of the decision seem objectively unfair.

Wilson v. Wyoski (2014) BCSC 675

The plaintiff in Wilson v. Wyoski was the brother of the deceased, the sole beneficiary under his Will, and the executor of his estate. The defendant and the deceased had been in a common-law relationship from 1995-2010, when she returned to a previous lover. She also started legal action against the deceased shortly after leaving him, claiming an interest in all real and personal property of his.

In 2011, shortly after settling the lawsuit with the defendant, the deceased committed suicide.

The deceased had changed the bulk of his estate planning prior to taking his own life, and the defendant admitted that she knew she was the beneficiary under his pension. She told the Court that she had reminded the deceased about this fact subsequent to their breakup, but the deceased intimated that he did not want to talk about it and words to the effect: “It’s all done, I’m happy with it”.

The Court heard that on June 28th, 2010, the deceased attended at the office of his employer and signed a “Benefit Application and Change” form.  That form could change the named beneficiary under the pension plan, but the change that the deceased effected that day was merely to name his brother as an alternate for the defendant and not a replacement.

Counsel for the estate of the deceased argued that the change that the deceased made differed from his intentions and that the defendant had been unjustly enriched as a result. The defendant argued that the failure of the deceased to change the designated beneficiary reflected his intention that the defendant should remain entitled to those benefits, perhaps in recognition of her assistance to him respecting his health problems during the relationship.

To establish that the defendant was unjustly enriched, the plaintiff had to prove that the defendant was enriched, the estate was deprived, and all was done without a juristic reason; unfortunately this is quite a plain and sterile analysis that is not affected by the colour of circumstantial and obvious evidence. If there is a juristic reason (contract disposition of law, etc.) then the analysis ends there, as the enrichment is not “unjust”.

The Court decided that the settlement of 2011 did not apply to the pension benefits and the fact that the defendant was still named as the beneficiary thereunder inhibited a claim for unjust enrichment. At paragraph 44 of his reasons for judgment the Honourable Mr. Justice Bracken stated: “Although perhaps an unfortunate outcome, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the enrichment is “unjust” as defined in law.”

Interested in becoming a Master Financial Advisor? Go down the path to become a Succession and Estate Planning Specialist today!