A number of years ago the drafters of the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario (a committee of lawyers, judges and interested parties) decided to experiment with a new Rule 48.15.
The British Columbia Provincial Court decided a very unusual family law proceeding in M. (D.Z.) v. M. (S.). In this case, two teenage children were being cared for by their Uncle, Uncle D. Essentially, Uncle D, an unmarried man, was the primary provider for his entire extended family. Without being a formal caregiver to the children in early years, and having no legal obligation to provide for them, the children and their mother (Uncle D's sister) lived with Uncle D for many years. The children's father also lived in this house for some time, but left the home after a domestic conflict resulted in criminal charges and a subsequent separation from the mother. This separation was short lived - after this encounter, the parents reconciled and moved the children out of Uncle D's home. This reconciliation was kept secret from Uncle D, and the children were forced to keep this secret on their parents' behalf.
In a precedent-setting ruling, Justice Gilmore of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice invalidated a Will on the grounds that its racist intent violated public policy.
Federal charities and not-for-profit corporations which have transitioned to the new Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act must file all new bylaws, any changes to by-laws and any repeal of by-laws with Corporations Canada within 12 months of obtaining approval from the members.
On February 6, 2015, members of Mills & Mills LLP had the pleasure of attending Motionball for Special Olympics' annual gala. It was a night of Glitz & Graffiti (the theme of the event) at the Liberty Grand.
Over the last while, Grammy award winner Taylor Swift has been proving that she is not only a musician, but also a businesswoman. Most recently, she has made the news by applying for a number of trademarks with respect to various terms and song lyrics.
In Johnson v Mayer a mother and father, in the midst of a divorce, agreed to a joint custody Order for their only daughter. This Order was granted at a preliminary case conference in what ultimately became a lengthy litigation.
In complete disregard of the joint custody Order, the father took deliberate steps to alienate the child and deter her from having a relationship with the mother.
The father's emotionally manipulative conduct affected the child. After struggling to maintain a relationship with her daughter, the mother gave up her pursuit with the hope that her daughter would finish her high school years with some semblance of normalcy. The child stopped visiting her mother. And as a result the child was primarily in her father's care.
During this time, the mother was not paying child support - the father sought to recover the child support at trial.
One important issue for consideration upon the breakdown of a marriage, is what happens to the pension. Pensions are often one of the largest assets accumulated by the parties during marriage. They can be as, if not more valuable than matrimonial homes. When parties separate, their assets accumulated during the marriage are divided equitably through Equalization. Pensions are treated as property under Canadian Law, and form part of the Equalization calculation. Whether the pension is divided, or the parties come to alternative creative arrangements to meet the Equalization payment due (such as the husband keeps his pension and the wife keeps the matrimonial home), the value of the pension has still been taken into consideration in the division of the property, upon the breakdown of the marriage.
In my last blog post, I discussed how a testamentary gift can disentitle a beneficiary from continuing to receive ODSP benefits and even result in a debt owing to the government. In this installment I will discuss the Henson Trust, a relatively straightforward estate planning tool that can assist a testator (the person making/executing a Will) in avoiding these unintended negative consequences for his or her beneficiaries.
When a homeowner dies and there is no co-owner with a right of survivorship, then the ownership interests of the deceased will be determined by the laws dealing with Estates. If the deceased left a valid Will, then his interests would be dealt with in accordance with the instructions found in the Will. If the deceased did not leave a valid Will, then his interests would be dealt with in accordance with the laws dealing with intestacy.