At The Non-Profit Bar
Hockey Fans Put Trust In Canadian Law
May 31, 2005 at 08:00 PM
8 minute read
It is May. The ice is long melted, and the 2004?? 1/2 2005 NHL hockey season never happened. The Stanley Cup was never awarded. And Lord Stanley, the Earl of Derby and the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada, is turning over in his grave.
His soul rests uneasily because the silver cup he purchased in 1892 wasn't awarded to the winning team of a hockey championship game in 2005. Ordinarily this would be merely sad, but because he established a trust to carry out his wishes, this sad result also is illegal. Or so claim hockey-mad fans in Canada. They have a point.
If the Law of Trusts protects anything, it protects the wishes of a trust's creator. Even if a creator wants his trust to carry out silly or outrageous things, his trustees must honor his wishes. The power of a trust–such as the one Lord Stanley established–is so strong it will even overcome the Rule Against Perpetuities. That is why a fan-organized movement called Free Stanley (www.freestanley.com) commissioned a legal opinion to support their claim that the NHL lost its right to award the Stanley Cup when the league canceled the 2005 season. Based on the legal opinion (available on the Free Stanley Web site), the fans called for the trustees to “free” the Stanley Cup from the NHL so it could be awarded to a non-NHL championship team as Lord Stanley so clearly provided in his trust documents.
The Free Stanley fans rely on an important limitation on the powers of trustees–that trustees may not delegate their discretion to administer the trust, nor may they release their powers to others. But Lord Stanley's trustees did exactly that in 1947 when they reached an agreement with the NHL giving the professional American-based league custody of the cup and the power to determine who could compete for it.
The legal result is that the NHL agreement is now void, and in fact, was unenforceable from the moment it was made. It's on that basis Free Stanley claims the current trustees are free to award the cup to any eligible championship team, preferably a Canadian team. It says Canadian trust law requires the trustees to restore the original terms of the trust, including the requirement that the trust award the cup to a “champion hockey team in the Dominion.”
But even if Free Stanley is wrong about the validity of the NHL agreement (and it doesn't think it is) it points out that the NHL lost its rights under that agreement when it cancelled the 2005 season. According to the agreement, the NHL had rights to the cup until it ceased to be “the World's leading professional hockey league.” The fans say a league that locks out its players isn't a league worthy of the name, much less the world's most prominent.
Lord Stanley's current trustees are two in number. One is a former executive vice president of the NHL; the other the league's former head referee. Both have publicly supported the NHL's position.
Unfortunately for them, the Law of Trusts has very exacting standards they must meet, and it appears they may not measure up. For one thing, they must act exclusively in the interests of the trust. For another, their past employment may create a conflict with the trust's intent. And they are both under a general duty to maintain equality between the trust's beneficiaries; in this case any hockey team that might be eligible to be awarded the cup.
Clearly, as former NHL employees the current trustees have at least a perceived conflict of interest. That conflict could easily invite a court's intervention if they refuse to consider awarding the Stanley Cup to a team in another league. They could either be ordered to consider that option, or new trustees could replace them and make more careful use of the power granted to them.
Even if the NHL gets its act together and plays a full season, these issues will not go away. Whatever the hockey equivalent of Pandora's box is, it has been opened. The Canadian fans and maybe even the Canadian legal system has been energized. The NHL should break out its treatise on the Law of Trusts (Canadian) and read up during the off-season.
It is May. The ice is long melted, and the 2004?? 1/2 2005 NHL hockey season never happened. The Stanley Cup was never awarded. And Lord Stanley, the Earl of Derby and the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada, is turning over in his grave.
His soul rests uneasily because the silver cup he purchased in 1892 wasn't awarded to the winning team of a hockey championship game in 2005. Ordinarily this would be merely sad, but because he established a trust to carry out his wishes, this sad result also is illegal. Or so claim hockey-mad fans in Canada. They have a point.
If the Law of Trusts protects anything, it protects the wishes of a trust's creator. Even if a creator wants his trust to carry out silly or outrageous things, his trustees must honor his wishes. The power of a trust–such as the one Lord Stanley established–is so strong it will even overcome the Rule Against Perpetuities. That is why a fan-organized movement called Free Stanley (www.freestanley.com) commissioned a legal opinion to support their claim that the NHL lost its right to award the Stanley Cup when the league canceled the 2005 season. Based on the legal opinion (available on the Free Stanley Web site), the fans called for the trustees to “free” the Stanley Cup from the NHL so it could be awarded to a non-NHL championship team as Lord Stanley so clearly provided in his trust documents.
The Free Stanley fans rely on an important limitation on the powers of trustees–that trustees may not delegate their discretion to administer the trust, nor may they release their powers to others. But Lord Stanley's trustees did exactly that in 1947 when they reached an agreement with the NHL giving the professional American-based league custody of the cup and the power to determine who could compete for it.
The legal result is that the NHL agreement is now void, and in fact, was unenforceable from the moment it was made. It's on that basis Free Stanley claims the current trustees are free to award the cup to any eligible championship team, preferably a Canadian team. It says Canadian trust law requires the trustees to restore the original terms of the trust, including the requirement that the trust award the cup to a “champion hockey team in the Dominion.”
But even if Free Stanley is wrong about the validity of the NHL agreement (and it doesn't think it is) it points out that the NHL lost its rights under that agreement when it cancelled the 2005 season. According to the agreement, the NHL had rights to the cup until it ceased to be “the World's leading professional hockey league.” The fans say a league that locks out its players isn't a league worthy of the name, much less the world's most prominent.
Lord Stanley's current trustees are two in number. One is a former executive vice president of the NHL; the other the league's former head referee. Both have publicly supported the NHL's position.
Unfortunately for them, the Law of Trusts has very exacting standards they must meet, and it appears they may not measure up. For one thing, they must act exclusively in the interests of the trust. For another, their past employment may create a conflict with the trust's intent. And they are both under a general duty to maintain equality between the trust's beneficiaries; in this case any hockey team that might be eligible to be awarded the cup.
Clearly, as former NHL employees the current trustees have at least a perceived conflict of interest. That conflict could easily invite a court's intervention if they refuse to consider awarding the Stanley Cup to a team in another league. They could either be ordered to consider that option, or new trustees could replace them and make more careful use of the power granted to them.
Even if the NHL gets its act together and plays a full season, these issues will not go away. Whatever the hockey equivalent of Pandora's box is, it has been opened. The Canadian fans and maybe even the Canadian legal system has been energized. The NHL should break out its treatise on the Law of Trusts (Canadian) and read up during the off-season.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Compliance With EU AI Act Lags Behind as First Provisions Take Effect Compliance With EU AI Act Lags Behind as First Provisions Take Effect](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/25/7d/54707a6b409ca288c02206e94940/eu-artificial-intelligence-act-767x633.jpg)
Compliance With EU AI Act Lags Behind as First Provisions Take Effect
![State AG Hammers Homebuilder That Put $2,000-Per-Day Non-Disparagement Penalty in Buyer Contracts State AG Hammers Homebuilder That Put $2,000-Per-Day Non-Disparagement Penalty in Buyer Contracts](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/corpcounsel/contrib/content/uploads/sites/296/2020/08/lumber-construction-resized.jpg)
State AG Hammers Homebuilder That Put $2,000-Per-Day Non-Disparagement Penalty in Buyer Contracts
3 minute read![Fired NLRB Member Seeks Reinstatement, Challenges President's Removal Power Fired NLRB Member Seeks Reinstatement, Challenges President's Removal Power](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/bd/6e/a784bcf54b9d940dfa4f2802d343/gwynne-wilcox-767x633.jpg)
Fired NLRB Member Seeks Reinstatement, Challenges President's Removal Power
![GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2024/08/securities-and-exchange-commission-building-sec-2014-10_358719-767x633-1.jpg)
GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say
Trending Stories
- 1CFPB Labor Union Files Twin Lawsuits Seeking to Prevent Agency's Closure
- 2Crypto Crime Down, Hacks Up: Lawyers Warned of 2025 Security Shake-Up
- 3Atlanta Calling: National Law Firms Flock to a ‘Hotbed for Talented Lawyers’
- 4Privacy Suit Targets Education Department Over Disclosure of Student Financial Data to DOGE
- 5Colwell Law Group Founder Has Died in Skiing Accident
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250