Newsletters

692

The Impact of the EU Succession Regulation on Canadians

Do you own assets in Europe — even mere joint ownership in an apartment? Are you likely to be transferred there by your employer for a few years? In either case, a new European Union Regulation could have sweeping impact on your estate, triggering the need to amend your will.

The EU Succession Regulation (also known as Brussels IV), which came into force on August 17, 2015, in all EU member states (except for Denmark, the UK and Ireland, which did not “opt in”), marks a major upheaval in international estate planning. It would be sheer folly to consider the EU Succession Regulation as simply an “EU thing”, confined to the participating member states. It will have worldwide repercussions due to the increased mobility of people with widespread cross-border connections, whether they be family members or assets.

What is the new rule?

The general rule under the EU Succession Regulation is that the person’s last habitual residence will determine what jurisdiction’s law will be applicable to the deceased’s succession [art 21(1)].

The habitual residence rule is subject to two exceptions:

  • The law of the last habitual residence of the deceased will not apply where it is clear that the deceased was “manifestly more closely connected” with some other state at the time of death [art 21(2)]. In that case, the law of the more closely connected state will apply to the succession of the deceased. The “manifestly more closely connected” concept includes factors like personal presence, family, business and economic interests [Preliminary comments, par 23–24]. This exception can arise where, for instance, the deceased had moved to the state of his habitual residence fairly recently before his death, but was still more closely connected to another state given all the circumstances.
  • There is also the “choice of law” exception to the habitual residence rule: a person may choose the law of a state whose nationality he possesses to govern his succession [art 22]. Note that the choice will apply to the succession as a whole; it is not possible to choose different laws for different assets [art. 23(1)].

The EU Succession Regulation may therefore apply to Canadians in the following situations:

  • Canadian citizen habitually residing in a EU member state that opted in the EU Succession Regulation;
  • Canadian citizen with assets in such a EU member state.

What could be the concrete consequences of the rule?

Consider the scenario where a Canadian citizen domiciled in Quebec owns a villa located in Tuscany. Prior to August 17, 2015, Italian law would have applied to the Italian immovable. Italy’s internal laws recognize “forced heirship”: rules, known in a number of EU member states which are civil law jurisdictions, which impose a mandatory scheme of distribution among spouse and children. The Quebec resident may wish to elude these rules with respect to her Italian property. Under the EU Succession Regulation, she can now designate in her will that Quebec law is to apply to her entire succession: Quebec rules will apply to the Italian immovable on her death.

Consider also the scenario where a Canadian citizen domiciled in Quebec works and habitually resides in France at the time of his death, and has not designated Quebec as the governing law of his succession. French law will apply to his worldwide assets, including assets outside of France. If he owns an immovable in Quebec, under our private international law, the succession to the immovable is governed by the law of its situation [art 3098 of the Civil Code of Quebec]. However, the applicable law determined by habitual residence brings into play France’s forced heirship rules, which may be an unintended or unanticipated result and may give rise to litigation. To set aside those consequences, under the EU Succession Regulation, the testator could choose the law of his nationality or domicile prior to death, which would be Quebec’s internal law.

These new EU rules are a welcome development in international estate planning, especially for those Canadians who are dual citizens or have connections such as assets or beneficiaries situated in more than one jurisdiction.

Commission Regulation (EC) 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, <eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32012R0650>

692

Authors

Marilyn Piccini Roy, Ad. E., TEP

Lawyer, Partner and Head of the Estates, Wills and Trusts Group

Articles in the same category

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]

Public Contracts: When Does a Penalty Clause Cross the Line?

Penalty clauses are a practical tool for owners: instead of having to prove actual losses when a contractor falls short, they can rely on a pre-agreed sum. For contractors, however, the stakes are equally significant — a lump-sum penalty can consume a substantial portion of the contract’s value. Still, the mechanism has its limits. Courts […]