The Slayer Rule: The Reiner Hypothetical
Note: the following is a fictional case study based on unconfirmed media reports intended solely for educational purposes.
A Tragic Loss
On December 14, 2025, legendary Hollywood director, producer, and actor Rob Reiner and photographer and producer Michele Reiner, were found dead in their Los Angeles home. The couple was found with multiple sharp force injuries caused by a knife.
Rob and Michele are survived by their three children: Jake, Nick, and Romy. Rob is also survived by an adopted daughter, Tracy, from a prior relationship.
Shortly after Michele and Rob were found deceased in their home, their middle son, Nick, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder.
For the purposes of this analysis, let’s imagine that this tragic event occurred in Alberta. Would Nick inherit from his parents’ estates if he caused their death? The answer may not be straightforward.
The Slayer Rule: Public Policy Disentitles a Beneficiary from Receiving the Testator’s Gift if the Beneficiary Caused the Testator’s Death
“One cannot profit from one’s crime.”[1] This public policy principle has been established through the common law in Canada and is commonly referred to as the “Slayer Rule” in estate matters. The Slayer Rule disentitles a person who is responsible for the testator’s death from taking any benefit out of that victim’s estate. The purpose of the Slayer Rule is to prevent a wrongdoer from profiting from their wrong.[2] As estate matters are heard in civil Court, the civil standard of proof, being a balance of probabilities, is applied by the Court rather than a criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, a criminal conviction is not necessary for the Slayer Rule to be applied, nor does an acquittal prevent a civil court from applying the Slayer Rule. Similarly, mere negligence causing or contributing to the testator’s death, in the absence of criminal misconduct, is not likely to engage the Slayer Rule.[3]
The Slayer Rule disentitles a person who is responsible for the testator’s death from taking any benefit out of that individual’s estate. The purpose of the Slayer Rule is to prevent a wrongdoer from profiting from their wrongdoing.
Exceptions to the Slayer Rule
An exception to the Slayer Rule arises where a person is found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder. This defence arises from section 16 of the Criminal Code which recognizes that there may be exceptional circumstances where a person may be suffering from a disorder that renders them incapable of understanding and appreciating the nature of their actions or knowing that their actions were morally wrong such that they cannot be held criminally responsible. However, this does not include self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs. This is a nuanced and fact specific analysis.
Application to Nick Reiner
The media has reported that Nick Reiner had a decades long battle with drug abuse and addiction leading to several unsuccessful stints in rehab. Other media reports have identified that Nick suffered from schizophrenia. It is not known whether the schizophrenia pre-existed the drug abuse or vice versa. Ultimately, if Nick killed his parents, Rob and Michele Reiner, the Slayer Rule would prevent Nick from inheriting from his parents’ estates. However, in such a scenario, if Nick suffered from schizophrenia, Nick may raise the defence of not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder in order prevent the application of the Slayer Rule such that Nick could inherit from his parents’ estates if found not criminally responsible.
Estate Litigation Expertise
The Slayer Rule is a longstanding public policy safeguard in estate matters to ensure that an individual cannot benefit from their wrongful actions. If you are facing issues involving the Slayer Rule or other contested estate matters in Alberta, the lawyers at Vogel LLP have the experience and expertise to guide you through these challenges. Contact the experienced Wills and Estate lawyers at Vogel LLP to assist you.
[1] Oilfield v Transamerica Life Insurance Co of Canada, 2002 SCC 22 at paras 11 and 14.
[2] Magnuson Estate, 2023 ABKB 305 at paras 10 and 11.
[3] Ibid at para 19.