Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2018-04-11 Docket: C64772
Judges: Pepall, Roberts and Miller JJ.A.
Between
Mahavir Oza Appellant
and
Prema Oza, Kisher Oza and Purnima Oza Respondents
Counsel
Matthew Todd, for the appellant
Iona Vacaru and Rodney Godard, for the respondent, Prema Oza
Heard and released orally: April 10, 2018
On appeal from: the order of Justice George W. King of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 4, 2017.
Reasons for Decision
[1] The appellant appeals from the order declaring that life insurance proceeds from his deceased father's life insurance policy are payable to his father's estate.
[2] The appellant's father died on November 13, 2013. The appellant is the sole trustee of his father's estate. He and his three siblings (who are respondents in the application) are the sole beneficiaries under their father's will.
[3] The life insurance policy in issue was originally issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in the names of the appellant's mother and father.
[4] The appellant's mother passed away on August 14, 1998. On August 31, 1998, his father changed the beneficiary designation under the insurance policy to the appellant. The form indicates that the father made the appellant a revocable beneficiary.
[5] Metropolitan Life was subsequently acquired by Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, and a new Sun Life policy number was assigned to the policy issued to the appellant's parents. On January 30, 2006, the appellant's father signed a Sun Life Assignment Policy Absolute in the presence of Alan Berger, his insurance agent. The Assignment provides that it has the effect of cancelling all previous beneficiary designations.
[6] The appellant was not present and was unaware of the meeting or the Assignment until after his father's death when Mr. Berger advised him that the effect of the Assignment was that the proceeds under the life insurance policy would go to his father's estate.
[7] The appellant submits that the motion judge erred in failing to declare that the appellant is entitled to the proceeds under his father's life insurance policy.
[8] We do not accept this submission.
[9] The motion judge properly concluded that by executing the Assignment on January 30, 2006, the deceased father intended that the estate be the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. The Assignment was signed by the deceased in the presence of Mr. Berger, his insurance agent, and it provided that by signing, the deceased confirmed that "all previous revocable beneficiary … appointments are cancelled."
[10] The appellant failed to put his best foot forward in response to his sister's motion for summary judgment. He neglected to file evidence that would corroborate his entitlement, specifically any evidence that would corroborate any continuing intention by his father that the appellant be the beneficiary under the life insurance policy. In fact the evidence was to the contrary: for example, the policy statement sent to the deceased for the year ending October 17, 2012 showed the estate as the beneficiary of the policy. Moreover, the appellant failed to adduce evidence from Mr. Berger, including about what transpired at the meeting when the appellant's father executed the Assignment.
[11] Further, we do not agree that the Assignment was a nullity. The life insurance policy contemplated changes of ownership and beneficiaries in the manner effected by the deceased.
[12] As a result, the motion judge correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
[13] The issue of the life insurance policy under appeal is readily bifurcated from the other issues ordered to be tried and was therefore properly the subject-matter of a partial summary judgment.
[14] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to her partial indemnity costs in the agreed upon amount of $7,500, including disbursements and applicable taxes, to be paid by the appellant.
"S.E. Pepall J.A."
"L.B. Roberts J.A."
"B.W. Miller J.A."
