Estate of Tanya Claudia Davies, 2022 ONSC 4017

Re: Estate of Tanya Claudia Davies, 2022 ONSC 4017

COURT FILE NO.: 22-44618ES

DATE: 2022/07/06

COURT OF ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

161 Elgin St., Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2K1

Title of Proceedings:

Estate of Tanya Claudia Davies

Counsel:

J. Robert Allan

Before:

Regional Senior Justice C. MacLeod

ENDORSEMENT

1In an endorsement dated March 31, 2022, (2022 ONSC 2009) I declined to grant letters of administration or to dispense with a bond. This was for two principal reasons. Firstly, information had come to the attention of the court indicating that Ms. Davies had married in Las Vegas prior to her death. Secondly, the statement of assets and liabilities for the estate contained no reference to assets and liabilities relating to Ms. Davies’ law practice. The court was also aware that the practice had been placed in trusteeship upon application by the Law Society of Ontario (Toronto Court file no. CV-21-671475-ES).

2I adjourned the matter to an oral hearing and directed counsel for the estate to contact my office for a date. On June 7, 2022. Mr. Allan wrote to the court with additional information. This consisted of a supplementary affidavit by the parents of the deceased and affidavits of Sarah-Jane Biggs, a law clerk in Mr. Allen’s office and Kimberley Listek, a wedding planner and officiant in Las Vegas.

3The affidavit evidence contains the following information:

a) There was a wedding in Las Vegas, but it was not a real wedding. There was no marriage licence and the ceremony was not carried out by a licenced officiant. The parties had no intention of being married. The wedding celebration was intended to be a media event with a view to promoting a possible Russian language reality video program.

b) Prokhor Shalyapin has contacted the parents of the deceased by text message to confirm that the wedding on July 31, 2021, was not a legal wedding. According to the text message (in English) he makes no claim against the estate and recognizes the applicant parents as the sole heirs.¹

c) The deceased had hired a law firm in Los Angeles to advise her how to go about establishing a divorce practice in Las Vegas. The law firm has a file which it will release to a duly appointed estate trustee.

d) The Law Society of Ontario advised Mr. Allen by email on May 22, 2022, that it took no position on the question of the bond, but also advised that despite the trusteeship order, the Law Society had been unable to locate Ms. Davies’ computer or the books and records of her law practice. The applicants may have to retain an accountant to recreate the books and records. They are prepared to do so.

e) The applicants have uncovered additional liabilities not listed in the original affidavit. The liabilities of the estate are now estimated to be $2.2 million, inclusive of mortgages and other secured debt. The applicants believe the estate remains solvent.

f) Counsel for the estate has advertised for anyone having knowledge of a last will of Tanya Claudia Davies. No will has come to light.

g) The applicants re-affirm that Tanya Davies was never married, had no children and they are her sole heirs. They have no knowledge of Ms. Davies ever making a will.

h) The applicants wish reimbursement for the sum of $22,590.27 for funeral expenses and to reimburse Allan Snelling LLP for $21,135.00 paid for Estate Administration Taxes when this application was filed.

4It is necessary for personal representatives to be appointed to administer the estate. It appears on the available evidence that this is an intestacy. It also appears on the available evidence that the applicants are the parents of the deceased and her sole heirs. At this point no one has come forward to challenge these assertions. It is appropriate that letters of administration should issue.

5Given the unusual circumstances surrounding this matter, the level of secured and unsecured debt, the ongoing possibility of claims arising from the law practice including amounts that may be owed to the Law Society and to LawPro as well as to former clients, it would not be appropriate to dispense with a bond.

6A performance bond pursuant to s. 35 of the Estates Act is required by law unless the court grants an exemption.² The main purpose of the bond is to ensure that an estate trustee pays the debts of the estate and distributes the property of the estate to those who are entitled to it. This protection appears necessary in the circumstances of this estate.

7The court set out the considerations in dispensing with a bond in Re: Henderson Estate.³ The necessary contents of the affidavit in support of such relief are described in paragraph 12 of that decision. For completeness, that list is as follows:

(i) The identity of all beneficiaries of the estate;

(ii) The identity of any beneficiary of the estate who is a minor or incapable person;

(iii) The value of the interest of any minor or incapable beneficiary in the estate;

(iv) Executed consents from all beneficiaries who are sui juris to the appointment of the applicant as estate trustee and to an order dispensing with an administration bond should be attached as exhibits to the affidavit. If consents cannot be obtained from all the beneficiaries, the applicant must explain how he or she intends to protect the interests of those beneficiaries by way of posting security or otherwise;

(v) The last occupation of the deceased;

(vi) Evidence as to whether all the debts of the deceased have been paid, including any obligations under support agreements or orders;

(vii) Evidence as to whether the deceased operated a business at the time of death and, if the deceased did, whether any debts of that business have been or may be claimed against the estate, and a description of each debt and its amount;

(viii) If all the debts of the estate have not been paid, evidence of the value of the assets of the estate, the particulars of each debt — amount and name of creditor — and an explanation of what arrangements have been made with those creditors to pay their debts and what security the applicant proposes to put in place in order to protect those creditors.

8While I now have some of that evidence, there is only limited information about debts and potential debts of the estate including the law practice. There is no proposal for alternative security. A bond is required for the protection of the known and potential creditors of the estate.

9The Act requires that the bond be twice the sworn value of the estate unless the court otherwise orders. It is routine to reduce the amount of the bond to the sworn value of the estate. In this case the value (net of mortgages) is said to be $1,458,264.58. A bond for $1.5 million would be appropriate.

10Subject to posting an Estate Administration Bond for $1.5 million, I have signed the order providing for the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee without a Will to issue as requested. The funeral costs and the Estate Administration Taxes may be paid out of the estate as requested.

11I will remain seized of this matter and Mr. Allen may seek a hearing if there is any issue about the form of the bond. The trustees may also move for direction under s. 60 of the Trustee Act should that be appropriate.⁴

12If the Law Society requires further orders or directions in the Toronto trusteeship application, it may be appropriate to have that matter heard together with the estate proceeding. At the request of the Law Society or the estate trustees or any creditor, I will entertain a request to transfer the trusteeship application to Ottawa.

13A copy of this endorsement is to be provided to the Law Society of Ontario, Trustee Services.

Footnotes

1. 1This is hearsay and subject to verification of authenticity but is corroborative of the other evidence.
2. 2RSO 1990, c. E.21 as amended
3. 32008 CarswellOnt 8065, [2008] O.J. No. 5407; 45 E.T.R. (3d) 189 (SCJ)
4. 4RSO 1990, c. T.23 as amended