This is page numbers 6699 – 6756 of the Hansard for the 17th Assembly, 5th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was going.

Topics

The Chair

The Chair Jane Groenewegen

Thank you, Minister Ramsay. At this time I’ll ask the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Programs that reviewed the bill to offer their comments. Mr. Moses.

Alfred Moses

Alfred Moses Inuvik Boot Lake

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its review of Bill 59, Estate Administration Law Amendment Act, on September 15, 2015. A clause-by-clause review was conducted the same day. The committee would like to thank the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.

Bill 59 is an omnibus bill that amends four separate statutes related to estate administration: the Children’s Law Act, the Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, the Intestate Succession Act and the Public Trustee Act.

A primary intent of the proposed amendments is to coordinate provisions of these acts with the new Estate Administration Rules of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.

During the course of the review, the Minister agreed to consider the committee’s request for a motion to be drafted to amend the bill. The intent of the motion is to repeal and replace Section 50 of the Children’s Law Act to clarify the intent of this section and to make some modest wording revisions to improve the text.

It was agreed that this motion will be moved later today during our Committee of the Whole consideration of the bill. This was done to exponentially allow the standing committee clause-by-clause review to proceed at the September 15thmeeting without causing any undue delays.

Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 59, Estate Administration Law Amendment Act, to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 59. Additional Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Jane Groenewegen

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister Ramsay, would you like to bring witnesses into the Chamber?

David Ramsay

David Ramsay Kam Lake

Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Jane Groenewegen

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Does committee agree?

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

The Chair

The Chair Jane Groenewegen

Agreed. Thank you. I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses to the table.

Minister Ramsay, for the record of our proceedings today, could you please introduce your witnesses.

David Ramsay

David Ramsay Kam Lake

Thank you, Madam Chair. To my right is Mr. Mark Aitken, assistant deputy minister, Attorney General’s office. To my left is Brian Asmundson, public trustee, Northwest Territories.

The Chair

The Chair Jane Groenewegen

Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Are there any general comments on Bill 59? Mr. Dolynny.

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to welcome the Minister here today, and the witnesses. Just some points of clarification here so I can understand fully about the ramifications of the changes that we have before us on estate administration.

In the Minister’s opening comments, he claims that these will replace current probate rules and then there’s much reference to the new probate rules that are in the bill. It’s an issue of cost.

Is there going to be a huge cost to the court system to administer these new rules in terms of finding judgment, or person power, investigative powers, use of people and lawyers’ times to rectify estates that have no wills? Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Jane Groenewegen

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Ramsay.

David Ramsay

David Ramsay Kam Lake

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re looking at modernizing the rules that do date back to the 1970s. We’re not anticipating any additional costs or court time with this in our efforts to modernize. Thanks.

The Chair

The Chair Jane Groenewegen

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Dolynny.

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

Thank you, Madam Chair. When committee was first brought forward this bill, committee did write, at that time, to the Government House Leader to indicate in terms of the type of information and consultation that went on behind the scenes in preparation for this. The committee was led to believe that there was very little consultation with the Law Society or the Supreme Court of Canada or the Seniors’ Society. Since then, I know there has been some communication back and forth, but maybe the Minister can give us an update to make sure those three entities have had some input and we have a clear conscience that we have the blessing of, again, the Law Society, the Supreme Court and the Seniors’ Society. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Jane Groenewegen

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Aitken.

Aitken

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We did undertake consultation with the Law Society. There was consultation on several occasions in different contexts with the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. As well, the public guardian was consulted both with respect to the original proposal for the bill and with respect to the bill itself. We did not go out to the seniors’ societies. It had not been contemplated at the time.

One thing I would note is that there’s nothing in this bill that does not bring the Northwest Territories either up to standards of elsewhere in Canada or that could otherwise have an adverse effect in any way on seniors. So that was part of the reason we kept the consultation to the entities that we did. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Jane Groenewegen

Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Mr. Dolynny.

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

Thank you, Madam Chair. The reason why I brought up the Seniors’ Society is committee has been well versed and has indicated also to the department that we have a number of seniors out there that, for whatever reason, whether it’s cost or not understanding, whether it’s language barriers, a lot of our seniors and elders do not have wills in place. So, some of these changes could have an impact to them. Again, the more we talk about this when we look at legislation, it brings the overarching question of will preparation and preparation for estate planning.

Again, we felt that the Seniors’ Society would have been a great opportunity for the department to consult in preparation for this bill and hence my question.

We know that within the confines of this legislation it proposes different actions between two different types of estates, and these estates are put in values. One value, estates under $35,000 where there is no will, and estates under $75,000 where there is no will.

How are these two sections, as amended in the act, how are they going to work together and is it going to be difficult to establish evaluation of estates given very small thresholds here between $75,000 and $35,000?

The Chair

The Chair Jane Groenewegen

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Asmundson.

Asmundson

Thank you, Madam Chair. What we anticipate is with respect to the estates under $35,000, if the public trustee is handling them, we will not be required to do an accounting to the court, but we will do an accounting to the court for estates between $35,000 to $75,000. As well, there will be, in the estate administration rules, a small estate rule that will allow people to simply get a court order for estates under $35,000, so it should be a little bit easier for somebody to administer an estate under $35,000 when the new estate administration rules are passed by the judges.

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

In the event of a family dispute over an estate, how does this act change the perspective of the public trustee gaining a higher priority in the administration of that said estate?

Asmundson

If there is a public dispute or a dispute between the beneficiaries before we start administering, that would be a factor in deciding whether or not we would be in a position to administer an estate. Normally, the public trustee has been quite successful in administering estates where there are family disputes because we are usually dealing with smaller estates and can usually reason with the parties. I don’t think things will really change under the new set of rules. It will probably be much the same as normal.

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

When we reviewed the estate administration rules, within the legislative proposal there was a component where exercise of that power could be subject to court supervision. The question is: How does this act empower the court to exercise that supervisory role where the public trustee has to intervene with their authority?

Asmundson

That’s a bit of a difficult question to answer in the abstract without knowing what the dispute is, but basically there is provision for the court to intervene and there’s also provision in here that the court can revoke the public trustee’s appointment if it’s requested. Those are both possibilities that the court might do if it’s satisfied that somebody else should be eligible to receive the grant.

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

Finally, any time we change laws with respect if there’s controversy, the issue of dispute resolution is always something I look at. Where are the powers in here for someone who has a problem with a public trustee in terms of their power or the management of an estate? What is the dispute resolution that is being offered to family members who may feel that the estate is not being managed in the appropriate manner?