Spivak Estate (Re), 2021 ABQB 396

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Spivak Estate (Re), 2021 ABQB 396 Date: 20210519 Docket: ES14 05365 Registry: St. Paul Court File Number ES14 05365 Court Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Surrogate Matter) Judicial Centre St. Paul Estate Name Thomas Spivak Applicant and Personal Representative Geraldine Dick Respondents Braden Chase and Alberta (Minister of Justice) Beneficiaries (Residuary) Hale Canfield, Lorenda Canfield, Mildred Dick (deceased), William Spiwak (deceased) and Victor Spivak _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Mr.

Justice Peter Michalyshyn _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The decision in Spivak Estate (Re) , 2021 ABQB 197 granted the applicant a fiat to file an application to have the respondent Braden Chase declared a vexatious litigant and to apply for a restraining order against him. The decision also appointed me the Case Management Justice for this action. [ 2 ] As a threshold matter, at a case management conference on April 13, 2021 I invited all concerned to make written submissions with regard to Mr.

Chase’s ability to appear, as a non-lawyer, for the Estate of William Spiwak. (At the same case management conference, I indicated it was clear in law that Mr. Chase, as a non-lawyer, could not represent the respondents Hale

Canfield and Lorenda Canfield.) [ 3 ] I have received a letter dated April 19, 2021 from Mr. Mol for the Executor of the Estate of Thomas Spivak. Mr. Mol traces the numerous litigation steps Mr. Chase has undertaken for himself, and for Hale and Lorenda Canfield. Mr. Mol also argues that the law runs contrary to Mr. Chase’s involvement in these proceedings as a non-lawyer. He cites in particular the decision in Chapman Estate by Ramjohn , 2015 ABCA 34 , aff’d 2015 ABCA 58 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36382 (13 August 2015).

I will deal with the law more fully below. [ 4 ] I received correspondence from Marion Dick on April 26, 2021. Ms. Dick is sympathetic to Mr. Chase’s ongoing involvement particularly to the benefit of Hale and Lorenda Canfield. Ms. Dick, however, is represented by counsel. As such, and as indicated in my letter to Ms. Dick of April 28, 2021, I have given Ms. Dick’s letter no further consideration. [ 5 ] Other than from Mr. Chase himself, I have received no further submissions in writing from others properly interested in the application before me. [ 6 ] Turning then to Mr.

Chase’s submissions, I have his letter dated April 30, 2021 in which Mr. Chase makes a substantial number of factual and legal assertions in support of his ongoing involvement in these proceedings. I will deal with what I find of particular relevance in what follows. [ 7 ] On April 27, 2021, Madam Justice Francis of the British Columbia Supreme Court declared Mr. Chase Executor of the William Spiwak Estate. It is evident that in the matters before Justice Francis, Mr. Chase also sought a finding that by way of an inter vivos gift he took William Spiwak’s interest in the Estate of Thomas Spivak.

However, no order was made in that regard. At paragraph 54 of his letter to me Mr. Chase describes how the BC court dealt with the issue: 54. Justice Francis’ decision on the validity of the 2020 Will rendered the issue of the Deceased inter vivos gift moot because if the inter vivos transaction was invalidated, the disputed funds would fall into Mr. Spiwak’s Estate (all of which goes to Mr. Chase). [ 8 ] After recognizing the point was moot, Mr.

Chase goes on to argue the relevance in the within proceeding of the “Gift Deed” in terms of him “step[ping] into William Spiwak’s shoes as the Beneficiary of Thomas Spivak’s Estate as the sole Beneficiary of William Spiwak’s Estate”. He concludes his written submission by arguing he has standing in the Thomas Spivak estate “as a substitute Beneficiary and to make representations in respect of the Estate of Thomas Spivak”. [ 9 ] In my view what is most relevant coming out of Mr. Chase’s written submission is the fact no court has confirmed an inter vivos gift by William Spiwak to Mr. Chase.

Madame Justice Francis did not decide that point in the BC litigation. It is not a question that I can decide in the proceedings currently under case management in Alberta. As such, on a factual basis Mr. Chase, while the Executor of the William Spiwak estate, is not himself a beneficiary of the Thomas Spivak estate. [ 10 ] As alluded to above, the law in Alberta is clear that a non-lawyer may not appear for an estate in court proceedings: Chapman Estate .

This binding decision was recently considered in Royal Bank of Canada v Godbout , 2021 ABQB 321 , at paras 28-34 . [ 11 ] As also noted above, the law in Alberta is equally clear that only a lawyer may represent individuals who may be beneficiaries of an estate, such as Hale Canfield and Lorenda Canfield, named beneficiaries of the Thomas Spivak Estate. [ 12 ] I agree with Mr. Mol’s further observations that Mr. Chase does not qualify as a “person interested in the estate” as that expression is used in Surrogate Rule 57.

Nor is he a family member within the meaning of s 72 of the Wills and Succession Act , SA 2010, c W-12.2 . [ 13 ] It is true that earlier in these proceedings Mr. Chase appeared and was heard, at least to some extent. Be that as it may, the question of Mr. Chase’s standing was not determined, one way or the other. Further, those earlier proceedings are at an end. [ 14 ] In conclusion, the threshold question raised above is answered as follows: Mr. Chase has no status to appear for Hale Canfield or Lorenda Canfield. Nor does Mr.

Chase personally have status to appear for the Estate of William Spiwak, whether as the Executor or as a beneficiary of that estate. Other than arguably through the William Spiwak estate, Mr. Chase has identified no other interest in the Thomas Spivak estate that would give him status personally to appear in the within proceedings. [ 15 ] This threshold question decided, other aspects of the applicant’s application filed April 8, 2021 remain to be addressed, including prospective litigation gatekeeping management vis-à-vis Hale and Lorenda Canfield, and the sought-after restraining order against Mr.

Chase limiting his communication with Geraldine Dick or her counsel. [ 16 ] I will rely on the applicant, through her counsel Mr. Mol, to be in contact with me, and with the other parties with status – whether or not represented by counsel – regarding next steps in the case management of these proceedings. Dated at the Town of St. Paul, Alberta this 19 th day of May, 2021. Peter Michalyshyn J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Daniel J. Mol Daniel J. Mol Professional Corporation for the Estate of Thomas Spivak Joel N. McClarty Sirrs LLP for Marion Dick Andrew Geisterfer Masuch Law for Victor Spivak Hale Canfield Self-Represented Litigant Lorenda Canfield Self-Represented Litigant Braden Chase Self-Represented Litigant