It is a well-known and accepted legal principle that a person should not profit from his or her misdeeds. When it comes to homicide, it’s irrefutable – or is it?
As any first year law student will tell you, a crime is a combination of the act of transgression and the intention to cause the harm. This latter component is often referred to as the ‘criminal mind’. And while the act is the outwardly visible component, our criminal system is designed to punish only intentional criminal activity (with the exception of strict liability offences such as highway traffic matters).
Accordingly, state of mind is a necessary requirement in finding culpable homicide. In turn once that has been proven, the Criminal Code gives effect to the public policy by barring the convicted person from receiving any insurance proceeds or share of the deceased’s estate.
On the other hand, where the accused is the named beneficiary on the deceased’s life insurance policy, and is proven to have caused the death – but with a finding of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder” (NCR) – the outcome is not so clear.
A tragic set of facts
Ved Dhingra had been separated from his wife Kamlesh for about six years when he named her as beneficiary under a $50,000 group accidental death policy taken out in 1998. Her life was also insured under the policy, for which he was the beneficiary.
In 2006, Mr. Dhingra was diagnosed with a serious mental disorder that tracked back many years. As it happened, Mrs. Dhingra agreed to take him into her Richmond Hill, Ontario home. Unfortunately, Mr. Dhingra attacked his ex-wife just days later, rendering her unconscious with a blunt object and stabbing her numerous times. She died of her wounds.
Mr. Dhingra was tried for second degree murder in 2008, and was found “not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder”. He was ordered to be held at a mental health facility, and was subsequently granted a conditional discharge to return to live in the community.
Claim for insurance proceeds
Acting under Power of Attorney, Mr. Dhingra’s son submitted a claim on his father’s behalf in 2007 to obtain payment from the insurance company. The insurer approved the claim, but did not immediately issue payment. Subsequent to the criminal trial, and now in his capacity as administrator of his mother’s estate, the son requested that the proceeds be paid to the estate.
Facing conflicting claims, the insurer paid the money into court, following which Mr. Dhingra applied to have the proceeds released to him.
At court in 2011, Mr. Dhingra advanced the argument successfully applied in a number of American decisions that the public policy rule only applies in the case of intentional killings. Guided by an earlier Ontario decision, the judge did not find this to be the law in Canada. In the judge’s words, despite that “he was found not criminally responsible, he still physically committed the crime.”
Application dismissed. Mr. Dhingra appealed.
Appeal, success … and back to court
In 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) considered the predecessor Criminal Code provision to NCR, being the insanity defence. Two cases from the Supreme Court of Canada were reviewed. In one, the wife was never tried for the death of her husband in a fire she set, but was allowed to share in the estate after being ruled insane during an estate application. In the other, descendants of a perpetrator in a murder/suicide might have been entitled to an estate share if they could show the man was insane at the time he killed his wife, but the evidence was insufficient.
Applying these authorities in the present case, the OCA ruled that a finding of NCR did not prevent a person from claiming under a life insurance policy.
However, the Court now turned to the provincial Civil Remedies Act, the purpose of which includes “preventing persons who engage in unlawful activities and others from keeping property that was acquired as a result of unlawful activities.” Under this law, a forfeiture order may be granted even in cases where there has been finding of NCR, though a court is not to make such an order “where it would clearly not be in the interests of justice”.
Thus, the OCA allowed Mr. Dhingra’s appeal, but stayed the payment of the insurance proceeds for 30 days to allow the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) to consider whether to apply for a forfeiture order.
A final determination
The AGO did indeed bring a forfeiture application, prior to which there was a procedural hearing to discuss preservation of the insurance funds, the most interesting part of which is the case title: Ontario (Attorney General) v. $51,000 CDN.
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013, the matter concluded with a judge ruling against the AGO and awarding the insurance to Mr. Dhingra.