The Ultimate Disinheritance: How the Slayer Rule Slashes Estate Entitlements

The slayer rule (or criminal forfeiture rule) is a long-standing legal principle in Canada rooted in public policy to prevent someone who unlawfully kills another person from benefiting from their acts. This would include inheriting from the victim’s estate or receiving related financial benefits (such as insurance funds or the survivor’s interest as a joint tenant with the victim). The slayer rule operates independently of the contract's rules – the murderer will be denied the benefits of an insurance policy regardless of the policy's wording. 

In order for the slayer rule to apply, a criminal conviction is not required. A civil court may apply the slayer rule based on the civil standard of proof (balance of probability) as opposed to the higher criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt) when determining entitlement to an estate. The slayer rule, therefore, prevents individuals from benefiting even where criminal proceedings were unavailable, unsuccessful, or unresolved.  

The rule does not apply if the attacker is not found criminally responsible due to a mental disorder that renders them incapable of appreciating the nature of their acts.  

The most recent reported case dealing with the slayer rule in Ontario is The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company v. Rogers (2021 ONSC 1747). In that case, the son pleaded guilty to the murder of both his parents. The parents had mirror wills that effectively left everything to the survivor of them, and then a life interest to the son, with a gift over to the son’s children when he died. If the son had no children upon his death, the residue was to be paid to the brothers of the parents. The Court noted that it needed to enforce the slayer rule to distance itself as far as possible from the murderer receiving any benefit from his crime. The Court did not hesitate in denying the son his life interest so that he could not benefit from his misconduct. This included a return of funds that had been paid from the Estate to his registered disability plan.  

The real issue for the Court to decide was whether the parents’ estates should be held in abeyance until the son died, to see if he had any children who would inherit pursuant to the terms of the parents’ wills. Ultimately, the Court held that the parents’ estates should not be held pending the son’s death. The son’s interest crystallized at the time of his parents’ death. At that time, he had no children. The parents’ brothers, therefore, inherited the Estate.   

In some jurisdictions, the application of the slayer rule is being expanded. For example, in some U.S. states, the slayer rule has been extended to prevent a party convicted of elder abuse from benefiting from their conduct. We shall see if this expansion comes to Canada. 

In the event you find yourself involved in an estate where the deceased was murdered, a lawyer will be able to help you navigate the legal system to ensure the estate is properly administered.