Exculpatory Clauses in Wills and Trusts: An Analysis of Validity, Drafting, and Judicial Scrutiny（Canada）
Part I: The Nature and Scope of Exculpatory Clauses in Wills and Trusts
第一部分：遗嘱与信托中免责条款的性质与适用范围
1. The Nature of Exculpatory Clauses in Wills and Trusts
1. 遗嘱与信托中免责条款的法律性质
Exculpatory clauses in nature are limited permissions within the framework of fiduciary duties. They are a powerful tool for embodying the principle of dispositional freedom, allowing settlors to tailor the rules governing their estate.
免责条款本质上是信义义务框架内的有限授权条款，是体现财产处分自由原则的核心法律工具，允许财产设立人定制规制自身遗产与信托财产的运行规则。
•An exculpation clause is a provision in a trust designed to relieve a trustee from liability for certain breaches of fiduciary duty that might otherwise give rise to surcharge (Weitberg, 2022).
免责条款是信托文件中的专项条款，旨在免除受托人因特定信义义务违反而产生的追责赔偿责任（Weitberg, 2022）。
•The exculpatory clause is, at bottom, a risk allocation device. Its purpose is to shift the risk of any loss flowing from a breach of trust from the trustee, who would ordinarily be liable, to the beneficiaries (British Columbia Law Institute [BCLI], 2002).
免责条款本质为风险分配机制，核心作用是将信托违约产生的损失风险，从法定承担责任的受托人转移至受益人承担（不列颠哥伦比亚法律研究所[BCLI], 2002）。
2. The Scope of Exculpatory Clauses in Wills and Trusts
2. 遗嘱与信托中免责条款的适用范围
The exculpatory clause must comply with the basic purpose of the trust and the rights of the beneficiaries. While fundamental legal principles provide that a settlor has full discretion in a will or trust, this shall not be interpreted as allowing the settlor to fundamentally alter the executor/trustee's responsibilities arising from his or her fiduciary status.
免责条款不得违背信托基本目的与受益人法定权利。尽管财产设立人对遗嘱、信托条款享有充分处分自由，但该自由不包含根本性变更执行人/受托人基于信义身份产生的法定核心义务。
2.1 Scope of Protection: What Exculpatory Clauses Can Cover
2.1 保护范围：免责条款可豁免的责任
Exculpatory clause protects executor/trustees:
免责条款可对遗嘱执行人/受托人产生以下责任豁免效力：
1.Ordinary negligence, judgement error beyond expected competence in management of trust property does not constitute fraud;
普通过失、信托财产管理中超出合理预期能力范围的判断错误（不构成欺诈）；
2.From liability if there is no proof of gross negligence, bad faith, or willful misconduct (Steven Thompson Family Trust v. Thompson, 2012).
在无重大过失、恶意或故意不当行为证据时，免除受托人责任（Steven Thompson Family Trust v. Thompson, 2012）；
3.Technical breaches of trust, according to section 35(1) of the Trustee Act, if the trustee acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust, and for omitting to obtain the directions of the court in the matter in which the trustee committed the breach.
依据《受托人法》第35(1)条，受托人诚实、合理行事，因未申请法院指令导致的技术性信托违约，可予以免责；
4.Poor investments, if they were done in good faith, as expressed by Professor Waters, "The trustee must show ordinary care, skill, and prudence, he must act as the prudent man of discretion and intelligence would act in his own affairs" (Waters, as cited in Figliomeni, 2019, p. 656);
善意作出的投资失误。Waters教授指出：受托人需尽到一般谨慎、专业与审慎义务，如同审慎理性人管理自身财产一般行事（Waters，引自Figliomeni, 2019, 第656页）；
5.Dissenting executor, In MacCulloch Estate (Trustee of) v. MacCulloch, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated: "[i]t is the duty of executors to watch over and, if necessary, to correct each other's conduct, and an executor who stands by and sees a breach of trust committed by his co-executor becomes himself responsible for that breach" (as cited in Figliomeni, 2019).
异议遗嘱执行人责任豁免。新斯科舍省上诉法院在MacCulloch Estate (Trustee of) v. MacCulloch案中判定：执行人负有互相监督、纠正同业行为的义务，放任共同执行人违约的执行人需承担连带责任（引自Figliomeni, 2019）。
2.2 Non-Excludable Liabilities: What Exculpatory Clauses Cannot Excuse
2.2 禁止豁免范围：免责条款无法免除的法定责任
Exculpatory clause cannot excuse executor/trustees from:
免责条款不得豁免遗嘱执行人/受托人以下责任：
1.Liability for acts that are dishonest, fraudulent, or involve reckless indifference to the beneficiaries' interests, which are inviolable core of the executor/trustee's obligations (Lee, 2020).
不诚实、欺诈行为，或漠视受益人利益的鲁莽行为责任，该类义务属于受托人不可剥夺的核心信义义务（Lee, 2020）；
2.Gross negligence, bad faith, or willful misconduct.
重大过失、恶意行为及故意不当行为责任；
3.Violation of public policy, if it is detrimental to the executor/trustee's fiduciary status.
违背公共政策、损害信义身份本质的行为责任。
Part II: Reasons, Effectiveness, Drafting Language, Improvement Suggestions and Common Pitfalls
第二部分：条款设立动因、法律效力、起草范本、优化建议与常见误区
1. Reasons for the Use of Exculpatory Clauses
1. 设立免责条款的核心动因
1.To make people willing to serve as executor/trustees: to protect trustees, executors from certain responsibilities, from being held responsible for actions taken in good faith, especially for non-professional executors/trustees such as relatives or friends.
激励人员担任执行人/受托人：保护亲友等非专业受托人，免除其善意履职行为的不必要追责，降低任职顾虑；
2.It is an indemnification of executor/trustee: Generally speaking, the fiduciary duties associated with being a trustee are so onerous. As a result, trust indentures typically have a series of provisions aimed at reducing the high standards. (Christian & Demner, 2013).
受托人责任补偿机制：法定信义义务标准严苛，免责条款用于调低严苛的法定履职标准，平衡受托人履职压力（Christian & Demner, 2013）；
3.To avoid the application of certain "implied obligations": Parties may exclude the application of these implied obligations by agreeing on an exculpatory clause.
排除默示义务适用：通过明确条款排除法律默认附加于受托人的默示信义义务；
4.Clauses that purport to bestow upon trustees an absolute and unfettered discretion constitute - for example, "My trustees shall exercise the following powers as they see fit in their absolute and unfettered discretion." (Hoffstein & Weigl, 2014).
赋予受托人绝对自由裁量权：通过条款约定受托人可不受外部干预行使职权（示例：本人受托人享有完全不受限制的自由裁量权行使下述权力）（Hoffstein & Weigl, 2014）；
5.Not against liability arising from their own conduct, but instead against liability arising from the conduct of their co-trustees (Hoffstein & Weigl, 2014).
隔离共同受托人连带责任：豁免受托人因其他共同受托人行为产生的关联责任，而非自身行为责任（Hoffstein & Weigl, 2014）；
6.Reduce potential disputes and legal proceedings due to unclear responsibilities.
厘清责任边界，减少权责不明引发的纠纷与诉讼；
7.Helps trustees and/or trustee institutions to predict risks and financial responsibilities they may bear in advance.
便于受托人及信托机构提前预判履职风险与经济赔偿责任。
2. Effectiveness of Exculpatory Clauses
2. 免责条款的法律效力
The exculpatory clauses are not effective in all circumstance. They may be recognized effective if not designed to excuse trustees from core obligations, such as fraud, gross negligence, or public policy. Their validity usually also depends on the appropriate wording of the clauses and the jurisdictions applied.
免责条款并非绝对有效。若条款未试图豁免欺诈、重大过失等核心义务、不违背公共政策，通常可认定有效；其效力同时取决于条款措辞与适用法域规则。
1.Waters has observed that "in England and Canada [exculpatory clauses] are valid almost without doubt" (Waters, 2005, as cited in BCLI, 2002). The strength of this observation should not, however, be interpreted as meaning that settlors have a carte blanche autonomy to exculpate their trustees from all liability flowing from their failure to discharge their duties.
Waters指出，英国与加拿大法域下免责条款原则上有效（Waters,2005，引自BCLI,2002），但该原则不代表设立人可无限制豁免受托人全部履职违约责任；
2.Common law principles and developed jurisprudence involving exculpatory clauses stand for the proposition that an exculpatory clause cannot excuse liability for acts of gross negligence, willful defaults or intentional wrongdoing and for acts of fraud or dishonesty (BCLI, 2002).
普通法判例确立核心规则：免责条款不得豁免重大过失、故意违约、欺诈及不诚实行为责任（BCLI,2002）；
3.Courts have upheld exculpatory clauses that release trustees from liability for failure to diversify trust assets, for breaches of trust arising from ordinary negligence or honest mistakes of judgment, for making excessive disbursements and for self-dealing under certain circumstances.
法院认可以下免责效力：善意未分散信托资产风险、普通过失/善意判断错误导致违约、合理超额支出、特定情形下的自我交易行为；
4.An imperative to inform the settlor in writing where the clause is used to protect a trustee, and make them aware of the tactical benefits of the clause when defending a trustee in litigation (Weitberg, 2022). The court may require the trustee to bear the burden of proof to prove.
法定告知义务：使用免责条款时需书面告知设立人条款诉讼抗辩价值，法院通常要求受托人承担免责事由的举证责任（Weitberg,2022）；
5.Different jurisdictions have different provisions on this clause, and the validity of this clause may be determined differently.
法域差异性：不同地区成文法与判例对免责条款效力认定标准不同；
6.If the exculpatory clause is designed to be conflict of public policy or to prevent the trustee from fulfilling the basic obligations of the trust, it will be determined void by the court.
公共政策无效规则：条款违背公共政策、阻碍受托人履行信托基本义务的，法院直接认定无效；
7.Courts often tend to interpret such clauses narrowly, since the relationship between trustee and beneficiary is fiduciary nor commercial, the bargaining power is not equal.
严格解释原则：基于信义关系、双方议价能力不对等，法院对免责条款采取限缩解释，禁止扩大适用范围。
3. Typical Language Used in Drafting Exculpatory Clauses
3. 免责条款标准起草措辞（原版+中文译版）
The exculpatory clauses are known by many names, including "exculpatory clauses," "exoneration clauses," "immunity clauses," "exemption clauses," and "excusing clauses (BCLI, 2002)."
免责条款别称：豁免条款、免责申明、责任免除条款、除责条款（BCLI,2002）
1.The Trustees shall not be held liable for any loss or damage not attributable to their own dishonesty or willful misconduct.
受托人不对非因自身不诚实行为或故意不当行为导致的信托损失承担责任；
2.Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the Trustee is specifically authorized and directed to retain, without liability for any loss resulting from lack of diversification, all interests in [Specific Asset/Stock/Business Name] held by the Settlor at the time of their death, and the Trustee shall not be liable for any decrease in value resulting from such retention.
无论现行法律如何规定，受托人有权保留设立人死亡时持有的【特定资产/股票/企业权益】，无需因资产未分散风险产生的贬值损失承担责任；
3.No Trustee acting in good faith shall be held liable for any loss occasioned to the trust fund except for loss caused by his or her own dishonesty, gross negligence or willful breach of trust (O'Brien's Encyclopedia of Forms, 11th Ed.).
善意履职的受托人，无需对信托基金损失承担责任，但自身不诚实、重大过失或故意违约造成的损失除外（《O'Brien法律文书百科全书》第11版）；
4.My trustees shall exercise the following powers as they see fit in their absolute and unfettered discretion (Hoffstein & Weigl, 2014).
本人受托人享有完全不受限制的自由裁量权，行使下述全部职权（Hoffstein & Weigl, 2014）；
5.The trustee shall be saved harmless from any liability for any action he or she may take, or for the failure of such trustee to take any action, if done in good faith and without gross negligence (Johnson, 2021).
受托人善意行事且无重大过失的，其作为或不作为产生的全部责任均予以豁免（Johnson, 2021）；
6.The Trustees shall not be responsible for any error in judgment or for any act of omission or commission not amounting to actual fraud in the management and administration of the Trust Property (Steele, 1995).
受托人管理信托财产时，不构成实际欺诈的判断失误、作为或不作为，均无需承担责任（Steele, 1995）；
7.Any trustee who acts in good faith and does not form part of any majority decision shall not be liable for any loss suffered by the trust by reason of the acts or omissions which result from such majority decision (Figliomeni, 2019).
善意履职且未参与多数决议的受托人，无需为多数决议产生的信托损失承担责任（Figliomeni, 2019）；
8.Trustees are not required to maintain an even-hand between the income and capital beneficiaries (Crawford v. Jardine, 1997).
受托人无需在收益受益人与本金受益人之间维持绝对公平（Crawford v. Jardine, 1997）；
9.A fiduciary shall not be liable for relying in good faith upon the opinion of counsel, accountant, or other professional.
信义义务人善意依赖律师、会计师等专业人士意见作出行为的，无需承担责任。
4. Suggestions for Clause Improvement
4. 免责条款起草优化建议
1.Avoid ambiguity and use plain language: As exculpatory clauses are often strictly construed against party benefiting from it, it is important to draft clearly and understandable to a higher standard to make sure it can protect that party.
杜绝模糊表述，使用平实语言：法院对免责条款采取不利于受益方的严格解释，需采用高标准清晰措辞，保障条款效力；
2.Draft exculpatory clause narrowly enough so that they are enforceable, for example, to exclude the exact liabilities
采用限缩式起草：明确列举可豁免的具体责任类型，避免宽泛表述导致条款无效；
3.Balance protection and statutory obligations: Since clauses excusing core obligations are void, balance trustee protection and mandatory fiduciary duties/public policy.
平衡保护与法定义务：不得豁免核心义务，在受托人保护、法定信义义务与公共政策之间建立平衡；
4.Comply with jurisdictional regulations and precedents: Take doctrines such as the In Terrorem Doctrine (Kent v. McKay) and Budai v. Milton precedent into consideration to avoid invalidation (Mann Lawyers, 2022).
贴合法域判例规则：纳入恐吓条款规则（Kent v. McKay案）、Budai v. Milton案裁判规则，规避条款无效风险（Mann Lawyers, 2022）；
5.Regular review and update: Amend clauses periodically to match new legislation and judicial trends.
定期复核更新：根据新法与司法趋势修订条款内容；
6.Distinguish lay trustees and professional trustees: Set lenient exemption for non-professional trustees and detailed restrictive terms for professional fiduciaries.
区分普通/专业受托人：非专业受托人可放宽免责范围，专业受托人设置精细化限制性条款；
7.Record testator’s intention in a memorandum: Attach a letter of intent to explain the purpose of the exculpatory clause (Russell, 2011).
留存设立人意图说明：配套意向书记录条款设立目的，强化司法认可度（Russell, 2011）；
8.Equip with trustee insurance: Adopt fiduciary liability insurance as supplementary risk protection (Woodruff Sawyer, 2024).
配套受托人责任险：通过商业保险补充覆盖免责条款外的风险（Woodruff Sawyer, 2024）。
5. Common Errors & Pitfalls in Drafting
5. 起草常见错误与风险提示
A properly drafted exculpatory clause can shield the executors or trustees from liabilities for actions taken in good faith. However, if it is intended to exempt core non-excludable liabilities, or if its wording is unclear, inconsistent with regulations or precedents, or does not fully express the original intention of the drafters, the court may not uphold it in whole or in part.
合规起草的免责条款可保护受托人善意履职行为，但条款试图豁免核心不可免责责任、措辞模糊、违反判例或偏离设立人意图的，法院将全部或部分否定其效力。
1.Purporting to shield gross negligence or willful misconduct: Such wording is statutorily void and may render the whole clause unenforceable.
试图豁免重大过失/故意行为：该类表述法定无效，且可能导致整条条款失效；
2.Overly broad or ambiguous wording: Generalized clauses will be strictly construed and easily deemed void for uncertainty.
措辞过宽或模糊：概括性表述会被法院限缩解释，因确定性不足被认定无效；
3.Ignoring jurisdictional differences: Neglecting provincial/state statutes and local public policy rules leads to invalidation.
忽略法域差异：未适配省级成文法与本地公共政策规则，引发条款无效；
4.Uninformed settlor: Failure to prove the settlor fully understood the clause may lead to judicial rejection. Independent legal advice is recommended.
设立人未充分知情：无法证明设立人理解条款内容将被法院否定效力，建议为设立人配置独立法律顾问；
5.Uniform clauses for lay and professional trustees: Courts impose higher duty standards on paid professional trustees, so universal clauses are risky.
统一适用于普通/专业受托人：法院对有偿专业受托人适用更高注意义务，通用条款存在效力风险；
6.Conflicts with other trust terms: Inconsistent provisions cause disputes and invalidate the exculpatory clause.
与信托其他条款冲突：条文矛盾引发争议，法院可认定免责条款无法适用；
7.Only limiting internal trust liability: A trust-indenture clause cannot restrict trustee’s liability to third parties (Thornton, 2013).
仅限制信托内部责任：信托文件中的免责条款无法约束受托人对第三方的外部责任（Thornton, 2013）。
Part III: Judicial Validity Criteria, Case Law and Doctrinal Analysis
第三部分：司法效力认定标准、判例与学理分析
1. Ambiguity Rule: Strict Construction against Vague Wording
1. 模糊条款规则：措辞不明导致条款不可执行
As stated by Waters, the more general an exculpatory clause is, the more likely the courts will conclude that the settlor did not intend to relieve the trustee from liability (Waters, 2005). Court will not extend wording by implication.
Waters（2005）指出：条款表述越宽泛，法院越倾向认定设立人无免责意图，且禁止通过默示扩大条款适用范围。
•Re Ballard Estate (1993): The clause excluded "any loss unless occasioned by trustee's own dishonesty". The court ruled that clauses must be strictly construed and cannot cover negligence unless drafted in the clearest terms.
Re Ballard Estate (1993)案：条款约定“除受托人不诚实行为外豁免全部损失”，法院判定免责条款必须严格解释，无明确文字不得涵盖过失责任；
•Re Poche (1991): A clause protecting against "any liability whatsoever" was held ambiguous and interpreted contra proferentem.
Re Poche (1991)案：“豁免全部责任”的宽泛表述被认定模糊，适用不利于受托人的反向解释规则；
•Bogg & Ors v. Raper & Ors (1998): Claims were upheld where the subject matter was not clearly covered by the will’s exculpatory clause.
Bogg & Ors v. Raper & Ors (1998)案：遗嘱免责条款未明确覆盖的标的，受托人仍需承担追责责任。
2. Inviolable Core: Fraud, Willful Misconduct and Bad Faith
2. 不可豁免核心：欺诈、故意不当行为与恶意
•Armitage v. Nurse (1998): Millett LJ held that exculpatory clauses can cover negligence but not fraud or bad faith.
Armitage v. Nurse (1998)案：Millett法官判定，免责条款可豁免过失责任，但不得豁免欺诈与恶意行为责任；
•Waters (2012, Law of Trusts in Canada, 4th ed.): Clauses valid for ordinary negligence, void for fraud, dishonesty, bad faith and willful misconduct. Fiduciary relationship triggers strict interpretation against trustees.
Waters《加拿大信托法》（第4版，2012）：条款可豁免普通过失，绝对不得豁免欺诈、不诚实、恶意及故意行为；信义关系下法院对受托人采取严格解释。
3. Gross Negligence: Non-Excludable by Contractual Provision
3. 重大过失：约定免责无效
•Poche v. Pihera (1983): The court confirmed that gross negligence could not be protected by will exculpatory provisions.
Poche v. Pihera (1983)案：法院确认遗嘱条款无法豁免重大过失责任；
•Poche v. Poche Estate (1983): Even without dishonesty or willful conduct, gross negligence triggers absolute liability regardless of trust instrument wording.
Poche v. Poche Estate (1983)案：即便无欺诈、故意行为，受托人重大过失仍需承担绝对责任，不受信托文件条款约束。
4. Public Policy Violation: Void Ab Initio
4. 违背公共政策：自始无效
•Canada Trust Co. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (1987): Trusts based on racism or religious superiority violate public policy.
Canada Trust Co. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (1987)案：基于种族主义、宗教优越论设立的信托违背公共政策；
•McCorkill v. Streed (2014): Bequests to neo-Nazi groups were void for violating Canadian criminal and human rights public policy.
McCorkill v. Streed (2014)案：向新纳粹组织的遗赠因违反加拿大刑法与人权公共政策被认定无效。
5. Higher Standard for Professional/Paid Trustees
5. 专业有偿受托人适用更高注意义务标准
•Underhill's Law of Trusts and Trustees (Art 49): Paid fiduciaries bear elevated diligence standards.
《Underhill信托与受托人法》第49条：有偿信义义务人承担更高的勤勉履职标准；
•Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 302: The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed corporate/professional trustees are subject to a higher duty of care than lay trustees.
Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co. (1977)案：加拿大最高法院判定，法人/专业受托人的注意义务标准高于普通自然人受托人。
References｜参考文献
Armitage v. Nurse, [1998] Ch. 241 (Eng. C.A.).
Bogg & Ors v. Raper & Ors, EWCA Civ 661 (1998).
British Columbia Law Institute, (2002). Exculpation clauses in trust instruments.
Canada Trust Co. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, [1987] CanLII 4135 (ON SC).
Christian, D., & Demner, A, (2013). Effective uses of trusts for tax planning purposes.
Crawford v. Jardine, [1997] O.J. No. 5041 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).
Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 302
Figliomeni, C., (2019). The effectiveness of exculpatory clauses. Estates, Trusts & Pensions Journal, Vol. 38.
Freedman, D., (2013). Trusts Fall Term 2013 Lecture Notes -- No. 15.
Hoffstein, M. E., & Weigl, C. S. (2014). Overview of the twenty one year rule a trust lawyer's perspective.
Johnson, D. F., (2021). The use of exculpatory clauses in trust documents.
Lee, R., (2020). Exclusion of duty and the irreducible core content of trusteeship: A re-assessment.
Mackinnon v. Knox and others, [1887] SLR 24_355.
Mann Lawyers, (2022). No-contest clauses in wills: When are they void?
McCorkill v. Streed, Executor of the Estate of Harry Robert McCorkill (aka McCorkell), deceased, 2014 NBQB 148 (CanLII).
National Trustees Co. of Australasia v. General Finance Co. of Australasia. [1905] AC 373.ca
O'Brien's Encyclopedia of Forms (11th ed.), (2019). Canada Law Book.
Ontario Law Reform Commission, (1984). Law of trusts.
Poche v. Poche Estate, (1983), 50 A.R. 264 (Alta. Q.B.).
Poche v. Pihera, (1983) CanLII 1152 (AB KB).
Re Ballard Estate, (1993), 20 O.R. (3d) 189 (Ont. Gen. Div.).
Re Poche, (1991), 50 A.R. 264 (Alta. Q.B.).
Russell, L. M., (2011). Creating a letter of intent.
Steele, D. A., (1995). Exculpatory clauses in trust instruments. Estates and Trusts Journal, 14, 216.
Steven Thompson Family Trust v. Thompson et al, 2012 ONSC 7138 (CanLII).
Thornton., (2013). Effective use of trusts.
Waters, D. W. M., (2005). Waters' law of trusts in Canada (3rd ed.). Carswell.
Weitberg, J. S. (2022). Making good use of exculpation clauses in wills and trusts.
Woodruff Sawyer, (2024). Frequently Asked Questions About Trustee Liability Insurance.