Does the rule in Saunders v. Vautier apply in a situation like that at issue?

Counsel have not referred me to any case, nor have I been able to find one, in which the rule in Saunders v. Vautier was held to apply in a situation like that at issue here, that is, where there is an absolute discretionary trust over the income and capital to a beneficiary for life, with a gift over of the remainder. That gift over is clearly intended to support the testator’s intent to prevent the interest in the income and capital from vesting in the beneficiary. However, as a result of the failure of the gift over of the residue, the beneficiary applies to have the intestacy determined immediately, before the expiration of the life interest, thereby making him the sole potential beneficiary of any trust property.

Even if I were convinced that the intestacy of the residue should take effect immediately, such that Paul is the next of kin entitled, as per section 47 of the Succession Law Reform Act, to the residue, I am not convinced, in light of all the circumstances of this case, that this is an appropriate situation in which to extend the application of the rule in Saunders v. Vautier. (b) Requirement of capacity

The more contentious issue between the parties in this case relates to the first requirement under Saunders v. Vautier, that the beneficiary be an adult of full legal capacity.