Source: http://ip34.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+14+-+New+Zealand+law+on+care+and+custody+of+the+body/Overview+of+the+landscape+in+other+common+law+countries
Timestamp: 2017-02-22 13:04:23
Document Index: 755459279

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 42', '§ 3', '§ 149', '§ 305', '§ 24']

General information Foreword Acknowledgements Call for submissions Glossary Summary and questions for public consultation Purpose and scope of the review Law and current practice Overview of Part 2 - Burial and cremation: the adequacy of the legal framework Overview of Part 3 - Funeral services: the adequacy of the regulatory environment Overview of Part 4 - Facilitating decision making and managing disagreement Part 1 Introduction Chapter 1 - What our review is about Scope of the review Our principles The policy questions The challenge Chapter 2 - How we approach death Introduction Approaches to death Implications for our review Part 2 Burial and cremation: the adequacy of the legal framework Chapter 3 - A brief history of our burial and cremation law Introduction Te oranga mutunga Early Pākehā burial practice and legal responses The Burial and Cremation Act 1964 The legal framework Information, registration and record-keeping Chapter 4 - Burial in New Zealand today: an overview of the current practice Introduction Local authority providers Denominational burial grounds Burial on Private Land Urupā A preliminary assessment of the issues Chapter 5 - The right to a decent burial in a modern, multicultural society Introduction Burial rights Burial outside of local authority cemeteries Meeting public expectations in the management of places for burial Summary and preliminary conclusions Chapter 6 - Management and protection of places of burial Introduction Maintenance Land classification - implications for management and control Preliminary conclusions Chapter 7 - Reform options: a modern approach to cemetery management Introduction Overview of key reforms Provision of places for burial Maintenance and long-term protection of land used for burial Other issues Conclusion Chapter 8 - Cremation: sector overview and policy issues Introduction Overview of the sector The regulatory framework Assessment of the framework Chapter 9 - Cremation: options for reform Guidance, standards and self-regulation Oversight Role of the Resource Management Act Part 3 Funeral services: the adequacy of the regulatory environment Chapter 10 - Funeral sector overview Introduction Funeral directing in New Zealand The regulatory framework Industry organisations Industry training Summary Chapter 11 - A unique market for services Introduction Public interests and policy objectives A market with unique characteristics Preliminary observations Chapter 12 - Improving consumer protection in the funeral sector Introduction Who would be subject to the proposed reforms? Detail of reform options Role of local authorities Conclusion Part 4 Facilitating decision-making and managing disagreement Chapter 13 - Overview of Part 4 Introduction Context and background Our approach Structure of part four Chapter 14 - New Zealand law on care and custody of the body Rights of the executor Tikanga Māori concerning care and custody of the body Takamore v Clarke Previous New Zealand case law Overview of the landscape in other common law countries Evolution of the executor rule at common law Litigation and court procedure Chapter 15 - Reviewing the executor rule Introduction Practical issues with the executor rule Legal questions Problems of principle with the executor rule The administrator framework as a decision-making tool The case for statutory reform Chapter 16 - Developing a new statutory framework Introduction Matters that are relevant in a burial decision A statutory right of decision? Questions for the design of a rights-based framework Conclusion and questions Chapter 17 - Court jurisdiction, procedure, and remedies Statutory guidance Jurisdiction Unauthorised removal of the body Chapter 18 - Decisions about ashes, memorialisation, additional interments, and disinterment Introduction Principles and key propositions Human ashes Memorialisation Additional interments Disinterment of individual graves Previous pageNext page Chapter 14 New Zealand law on care and custody of the bodyOverview of the landscape in other common law countriesAustralia England Canada United States 14.49In its basic form, the common law burial right of the executor is similar throughout a number of jurisdictions. The United States is an exception but provides an example of a different approach. Australia 14.50 In Australia the executor rule is firmly established.604 Moreover, if there is an executor who is ready, willing and able to arrange for disposal of the body, Australian courts have consistently treated their right of decision as being conclusive, rather than a priority right that can be displaced by the court.605 14.51 Australian courts have also heard a number of disputes where there was no executor. In Meier v Bell, it was held that the right to decide should vest in the person with the best claim to be appointed administrator of the deceased’s estate.606 Some courts have said, however, that approach is only a presumption and that it may be varied in appropriate circumstances.607 14.52No Australian state or territory has enacted statutory provisions in their burial legislation to deal with the rights and duties of people in the post-death period. An individual’s disposal instructions are not generally recognised as legally binding, although some states have made a statutory exception to this principle by recognising an individual’s preference for or against cremation.608 14.53The Queensland Law Reform Commission undertook a comprehensive review of Queensland burial legislation in 2011.609 One of its recommendations was to enact a “statutory hierarchy” ranking the rights of those close to the deceased to control burial of the body, which would replace existing common law. It also recommended making the funerary instructions of the deceased legally binding. Those recommendations have not yet been taken up. EnglandTop 14.54 The executor rule originated in English common law and continues today.610 English cases have limited discussion of the extent of the courts’ oversight of an executor’s decision. In Grandison v Nembhard Vinelott J held that, on ordinary principles, the Court would not interfere with the executor’s decision unless it was “wholly unreasonable”.611 In the case before the Court, the plaintiff had “not come anywhere near establishing a ground for interference” of the court. However, Vinelott J observed that it would be “surprising” if the court were limited to interfering with the decision only where the cost of carrying out the executor’s decision could not be covered by the deceased’s estate.612 Vinelott J’s comment suggests that the English courts might be more willing to examine the appropriateness of the substance of the executor’s decision to a greater degree than they have traditionally done so. 14.55 Where there is no executor, it has been said that the right devolves to the person with the best claim to administer the estate unless there are special circumstances that would justify the court conferring that right on a different person. That approach was confirmed by Cranston J in Burrows v HM Coroner for Preston.613 CanadaTop 14.56In Canada, the executor rule is also well-established in common law614 but has been replaced in some provinces by statutory provisions. Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan each have enacted a statutory hierarchy that prioritises the right of the personal representative named in the will to “control the disposition of human remains”.615 In British Columbia, that person (the executor) is bound by the written preference of the deceased.616 If there is no personal representative, next in the hierarchy is the spouse or partner, adult children, then parents and so on. 14.57Ontario recognises the common law executor rule.617 In Waldman v Melville (City) it was said that the executor had a right of possession that necessarily continued after burial, otherwise those opposed to the executor’s decision could disinter the body.618 The deceased cannot bind the executor to carry out their wishes.619 The Ontario Law Reform Commission recommended in 1991 that statutory provisions setting out the executor’s rights replace the common law, but those recommendations were not taken up.620 14.58Under Canadian common law the deceased’s instructions are not considered to bind the executor, but British Columbia and Quebec have both enacted legislation overriding the common law rule by recognising the right of the deceased to leave binding directions for the disposal of their body.621 United StatesTop 14.59 American courts recognise a person’s common law right to have their body disposed of in accordance with their testamentary wishes.622 A quasi-proprietary right in the body was first recognised in Pierce v Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery,623 followed by numerous judicial statements of the need to uphold the wishes of the deceased, such as in Coney v English:624 “[t]he law…gives great weight, if not controlling force, in such matters to the wishes of the deceased…[which are] paramount to all other considerations.” 14.60In addition, a number of states have passed legislation governing the effect of a deceased person’s directions and listing the categories of people who can make decisions about the disposal of the deceased’s body. Usually this is first the deceased person themselves, or an agent appointed on their behalf to carry out those wishes, and following that the surviving spouse or partner, and so on.625 The courts continue to play a prominent role, however, often weighing the wishes of the deceased against those of others who challenge them in court.626 604Smith v Tamworth City Council (1997) 41 NSWLR 680.
605Lynden Griggs and Ken Mackie “Burial Rights: The Contemporary Australian Position” (2000) 7 JLM 404 at 409–410.
606Meier v Bell Vic Sup Ct 4518/1997, 3 March 1997.
607Jones v Dodd [1999] SASC 125 at [37]; Dow v Hoskins [2003] VSC 206 at [43].
608Griggs and Mackie, above n 605, at 408.
609Queensland Law Reform Commission A Review of the Law in Relation to the Final Disposal of a Dead Body (QLRC R69, 2011).
610Williams v Williams (1882) 20 Ch D 659; Rees v Hughes [1946] KB 517; Dobson v North Tyneside Health Authority [1997] 1 FLR 598.
611Grandison v Nembhard (1989) 4 BMLR 140 (Ch) at 143.
612At 143.
613Burrows v HM Coroner for Preston [2008] EWHC 1387, [2008] 2 FLR 1125 (QB) at [13]–[14].
614See for example Hunter v Hunter (1930) 65 OLR 586; Abeziz v Harris Estate (1992) 34 ACWS (3d) 360, [1992] OJ No 1271 (QL); Waldman v Melville [1990] 2 WWR 54 (SKQB).
615General Regulation to Funeral Services Act 1998 (Alberta), reg 36; Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act SBC 2004 c 35, s 5; The Funeral and Cremation Services Act RRS 1999 c F-23.3, s 91.
616Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act SBC 2004 c 35, s 6.
617Hunter v Hunter (1930) 65 OLR 586 at 596.
618Waldman v Melville [1990] 2 WWR 54 (SKQB).
619Saleh v Reichert (1993) 104 DLR (4th) 384.
620Ontario Law Reform Commission Report on administration of estates of deceased persons (R39, 1991) at 40–42.
621Civil Code of Quebec LRQ c C-1991, art 42; Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act SBC 2004 c 35, s 6.
622See O’Donnell v Slack 55 P 906 (Cal 1899); Re Johnson’s Estate 7 NYS 2d 81 (NY 1938); Holland v Metalious 198 A 2d 654 (NH 1964); Re Estate of Moyer 577 P 2d 108 (Utah 1973); Kasmer v Guardianship of Limner 697 So 2d 220 (Fla 3d DCA 1997).
623Pierce v Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery 10 RI 227 (RISC 1872).
624Coney v English (1914) 86 Misc 292. See also Heather Conway “Burial Instructions and the Governance of Death” (2012) 12(1) OUCLJ 59 at 67–71.
625See DC Code, title 3 § 3-413(a); Minnesota Statutes 2012 § 149A.80; Pennsylvania Statutes, title 20 § 305; New Mexico Statute § 24-12A-2.
626See BC Ricketts “Validity and effect of testamentary direction as to disposition of testator’s body” 7 ALR 3d 747; Frank D Wagner “Enforcement of preference expressed by decedent as to disposition of his body after death” 54 ALR 3d 1037. Both have done a comprehensive review of how the deceased’s wishes have been treated by the court in a range of different scenarios.