The “Slayer Rule”: Disentitlement to an Inheritance

It is a well-established Canadian public policy principle that wrongdoers should not benefit from their crimes. This foundational idea applies broadly across various areas of law, including tort and contract law. However, it also plays a crucial role in estate litigation, particularly in cases involving the unsettling question of whether an individual who has intentionally caused a deceased person’s death should be allowed to inherit from their estate.

This concept is encapsulated in what is commonly referred to as the “Slayer Rule”. Under this rule, in most cases, an individual who has caused another person’s death – whether through an intentional act or criminal negligence – will be barred from receiving any benefits from the deceased’s estate. The prohibition reflects a clear and consistent stance against the concept of “unjust enrichment” (unfair benefit) derived from unlawful actions. However, there are rare and exceptional circumstances in which inheritance has been allowed despite the involvement of a wrongful act. These situations are typically highly fact-specific and may involve nuanced interpretations of both legal principles and the unique circumstances surrounding the deceased’s death.

What is the Slayer Rule?

The “Forfeiture Rule”, also known as the “Slayer Rule” (the “Rule”), has been established through Canadian common law. In Lundy v. Lundy, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that if a beneficiary murders a testator, they cannot benefit from the estate. In most cases where the Rule applies, the killing must have been intentional, felonious and lacking legal justification.

The Rule itself is based on the idea that a person who has intentionally caused another person’s death will not be entitled to directly benefit from a share of the deceased’s estate either through the deceased’s will or pursuant to the rules of intestacy.

In order for the Rule to come into effect, a criminal trial and conviction do not need to occur. Further, an acquittal does not prevent a civil court from applying the Rule and barring an inheritance or benefit from the estate.

Innocent Beneficiaries Not Disentitled From Inheritance

The Rule also applies to assets which may flow from the deceased’s estate, such as insurance policies and accounts with designated beneficiaries. Given the extent of this prohibition, malfeasance is not incentivized.

In Oldfield v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada was tasked with determining whether an innocent beneficiary was allowed to claim indemnity when an insured died during the commission of a crime. In this case, the insured named his ex-wife as the beneficiary on his life insurance policy. The insured accidentally died while engaging in criminal activity related to drug trafficking. Writing for the majority of the Court, Justice Major stated that innocent beneficiaries should not be disentitled to benefit from insurance proceeds on the basis that the insured died while committing a criminal act.

Does the Slayer Rule Apply to Negligence?

A common question arises when considering the scope of the Rule: does negligence leading to someone’s death disqualify them from inheriting under the deceased’s will? Imagine a scenario where an adult woman is caring for her elderly parent, who has named her as a beneficiary in their will. While providing care, the daughter acts negligently, and this negligence results in the parent’s death.

Would the daughter still be entitled to inherit from the estate?

In most cases, the answer is yes. This is because the Rule typically does not apply in situations involving mere negligence that does not involve any actual criminal wrongdoing. In the absence of intentional harm or criminal behaviour, courts are unlikely to invoke the rule to disinherit a beneficiary. This principle was highlighted in the Alberta Court of Appeal decision O’Meara v Hall, where the Court emphasized that negligence alone does not meet the threshold to trigger the Rule.

Exceptions to the Slayer Rule

While the Rule is well established and generally straightforward, an exception may be made when the wrongdoer acts under the influence of a mental disorder and is found not criminally responsible for their action. Section 16 of the Criminal Code outlines the defence of a mental disorder, which is based on the wrongdoer not understanding that their act was wrong.

Example of Defence of a Mental Disorder

In Dhingra v. Dhingra, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed that a beneficiary who killed an individual will not be entitled to benefit from their crime, with the exception of certain circumstances where the wrongdoer is found not criminally responsible for the murder. While this decision was made in Ontario and is not technically considered “binding” in Alberta, it is still considered to be a prominent and persuasive case.

In this instance, the applicant was a beneficiary on his wife’s insurance policy and was charged with second-degree murder in the killing of his wife. The applicant was found not criminally responsible for the killing; therefore, the Court found that the Rule did not apply, and nothing prohibited the husband from recovering the insurance proceeds.

While the application of the Rule is relatively straightforward, there are some instances where it is less clear whether the Rule will still apply, such as:

• when the deceased’s death is caused unintentionally;
• the wrongdoer is found to have a lesser degree of fault, for example, vehicular manslaughter; or
• if the wrongdoer indirectly benefits from the deceased’s death.

Wrongfully Benefiting from Someone’s Death

The Rule remains a critical safeguard in Canadian estate law, ensuring that individuals cannot benefit from their wrongful actions, particularly when those actions involve intentionally causing the death of another. This principle reflects a broader public policy commitment to fairness and justice, deterring wrongdoing while protecting the integrity of inheritance laws.

While the Rule is generally straightforward, its application can become nuanced in exceptional cases. For example, circumstances involving negligence, mental disorders, or indirect benefits may require deeper legal analysis and interpretation. These complexities highlight the importance of seeking legal advice when navigating situations where the Rule might come into play.

Ultimately, the Rule is a testament to the law’s balance between deterring malfeasance and addressing the unique facts of each case. Whether applied to disinherit a wrongdoer or carve out exceptions for special circumstances, the Slayer Rule remains an essential tool in maintaining the ethical administration of estates.

The Wills and Estates Lawyers at DBB Law Guide Clients Through Complex Estate Matters

The wills and estates lawyers at DBB Law in Alberta have extensive experience helping clients navigate the unknown and unique circumstances which can arise in estate administration. From our office in downtown Calgary, we represent clients throughout Alberta. We work closely with our clients to understand their needs and provide them with practical legal advice and the knowledge to help them make informed decisions in pursuit of dispute resolution. If you have questions about estate administration, will drafting, or selling estate assets, contact us by phone at 403-265-7777 or online to learn how we can assist you.