What to do with your remains when you die

I have no desire for a conventional funeral.

But I have Catholic roots, so if anyone in my family feels it’s important I have a proper send-off to the great hereafter then it is my wish they be free to do that. After they’re done with my body, I want to be cremated.

The form of funeral I would like is for my closest family members and friends to go on a week-long resort holiday, accompanied by a grief counsellor, the purpose being to gather, reflect upon and share their experiences and memories of my life. I want my estate to pay for the full expenses of the holiday, just like my estate would pay for a conventional funeral.

I want my ashes divided among whoever wants a piece of me with any leftovers spread in a ravine on a farm where I grew up in Saskatchewan.

Have you thought about what you would want done with your remains and what you might want in the way of a funeral or celebration of your life? A common sentiment is: “What would I care? I won’t be here!”

True. You won’t be there but someone will have to make those decisions, and at a time of immense grief when they are the least equipped to do so.

There could be conflict between what the decision-maker decides and the wishes of others who love and care about you. Surely you care about allowing your loved ones to grieve without the stress and potential conflicts about your funeral arrangements?

I’ll give you two real life examples of conflicts that have been so significant they required a court to resolve them.

One has to do with a young fellow who died suddenly at the age of 24 without a will.

A woman asserted she was his common-law spouse. The young fellow’s father contested that assertion. The woman’s status was important because a spouse is second only to an executor in a default priority list contained within the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act for who gets control over a deceased’s remains.

It was a critical determination. If she won, there would be an Islamic funeral. If the father won, it would be Sikh. There are significant differences between the two and I suspect each believed they were fighting in the best interests of the young man’s soul.

The judge decided there had, indeed, been a common-law relationship and the young man’s common-law partner was given control over the remains.

The other example was a dispute between a deceased’s adult children, who he appointed executors in one will, and his niece, who he appointed in a later will.

The children wanted their father buried in accordance with Greek Orthodox religion. The niece asserted the deceased was an atheist and wouldn’t have wanted that. The default priority list in the act would give priority to the niece if the second will, which was being contested, was valid, because she would be the executrix.

But the act provides for a process where a judge can grant authority to deal with remains to someone outside the default priority list.

It gives a judge the following factors to consider when being asked to make that decision.

According to section 5(5) of the act:

(a) the feelings of those related to, or associated with, the deceased, giving particular regard to the spouse of the deceased,

(b) the rules, practice and beliefs respecting disposition of human remains and cremated remains followed or held by people of the religious faith of the deceased,

(c) any reasonable directions given by the deceased respecting the disposition of his or her human remains or cremated remains, and

(d) whether the dispute that is the subject of the application involves family hostility or a capricious change of mind respecting the disposition of the human remains or cremated remains.

The judge decided to give control over the deceased’s remains to the family members who wanted the religious funeral.

Those conflicts would not have occurred if the deceased had, while alive, given binding instructions about what they wanted done with their remains after their deaths.

Consider what a beautiful gift it would be to those you leave behind if you gave them clear instructions they could blindly follow in their time of grief, comforted by knowing your wishes are being followed.

The act provides that for your instructions to be binding, they must be in writing and contained in a will or preneed cemetery or funeral services contract. It says it must not be “unreasonable or impracticable or cause hardship” to comply with your wishes.

Do you think my wishes, set out at the beginning of this column, would be “unreasonable, impracticable or cause hardship?” Expensive, yes. My beneficiaries might prefer those dollars go to them instead of being spent on an expensive group holiday.

I haven’t found any court cases considering that particular issue but I would wager that if push came to shove, my wishes would be binding. But, of course, I must get off my butt and redo my will to include those wishes.

Unless I am distracted by another column topic, I intend, this coming week, to meet with funeral home representatives to discuss the nuts and bolts of pre-arranging and pre-paying for a funeral so I can write about that topic as well.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.