It seems obvious that criminals should not profit from their own criminal activity but the ability to prevent such a consequence, whether intended or not, is not always straightforward.
This is particularly true in the realm of wills and estates, where the distribution plan set out in a Last Will and Testament might not anticipate that death could be caused by someone with a beneficial interest in the estate. In such a case, a court must intervene to overrule the distribution set out in the Will, to prevent an unjust outcome. The principle often relied upon to prevent this unjust outcome is known as the “Slayer Rule.”
The Slayer Rule is a common law principle applied in Canada to prevent individuals who have unlawfully caused the death of another person from benefiting from an estate, whether through a will or intestacy. If someone is found to have committed a criminal act that resulted in another person’s death, they are barred from receiving any inheritance or benefits from the victim’s estate. It is important to note that this rule is not limited to cases where the testator, the person who made the will, is the victim of the criminal act. The Slayer Rule will also apply where the death of another person results in the perpetrator gaining benefits from an estate. This means that if someone who was not directly connected to the creation of the will is killed, the person responsible for the death is still prohibited from profiting if their actions lead to financial gains through the estate.
The Slayer Rule was central to a decision made in a recent case handled by our office. In the matter of Michael Di Pinto, Estate Trustee of the Estate of Vito Di Pinto v. John Di Pinto Justice M. T. Doi determined that a beneficiary who unlawfully caused the death of another beneficiary could not benefit from that death by receiving an increased share of the estate.
In this case, a man convicted of the second-degree murder of his sister stood to profit from her death, through their father’s will. Their father passed away nearly a year after the murder although before the conviction. His will provided that if any of his children predeceased him, that child’s share of the inheritance would be divided among his surviving children. Under this provision, absent the application of the Slayer Rule, the murdered daughter’s share would be divided between her two surviving brothers,
This created a scenario in which the murderer stood to profit from his criminal actions as a result of the wording of the will. An Application for Directions was made, seeking a determination as to whether the brother who murdered his sister should be allowed to benefit from her death by receiving a share of the Estate intended for his sister. Justice Doi reviewed the law, considered the public policy which prohibits profiting from a crime and determined that the brother who murdered his sister ought not to receive the additional inheritance triggered through his criminal behavior. In other words, the Slayer Rule was applied to prevent the guilty brother from receiving half of what would have been his sister’s inheritance.
For the purposes of the Application and the distribution of the estate, the brother was deemed to have died before his father in respect of the share of the estate intended for his sister, and therefore he would not benefit as a successor beneficiary to his sister. This legal interpretation ensured that the brother could not benefit from his criminal actions.
The guilty brother still received his original share of the estate as the passing of his father was not the result of his criminal activity. The application of the Slayer Rule specifically targeted the portion of the estate that he stood to inherit as a successor beneficiary to his sister.
Without the Slayer Rule, individuals who commit murder could potentially profit both directly and indirectly from their criminal activity through inheritance from their victims.
The outcome of this case is consistent with the long-standing principle that a person ought not to be permitted to benefit from a criminal act. And while this case dealt specifically with the interpretation of a will in the circumstances of a murder amongst beneficiaries, the Slayer Rule would also apply in the case of an intestacy to prevent a person found guilty of the murder of a fellow beneficiary, from receiving an increased distribution by reason of the death.
Allowing a murderer to benefit through inheritance from a death they have caused goes against public policy and offends our sense of what is fair and just. The Slayer Rule is crucial in preventing such an unjust result.
The author would like to thank Abigail Smith, Summer Student-at-Law, for her assistance with this blog.