Considering unduly prolonging a court action and rejecting reasonable offers to settle? It could cost you. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently upheld the lower court's decision in Villa v. Villa, 2014 ONCA 2987. The parties to the case were brothers Enzo and Renzo Villa, whose mother had recently passed away. Enzo had held a Continuing Power of Attorney for her property prior to her death and brought an application for passing of the accounts and compensation for his services. Renzo opposed his brother receiving compensation, claiming Enzo had improperly handled his mother's property. The matter was set down to be heard by a judge.
Lately, with Canada's new anti-spam legislation being such a relevant topic, I find myself contemplating the different ways it can be interpreted and how it may impact me and others, both personally and professionally. This includes asking questions such as "could this text message qualify as a commercial electronic message?" and "would this person fall under the personal relationship exemption?"
Considering my practice is primarily focused on business law and estates law, it also includes taking a moment to consider how estates law is captured by the scope of the legislation.
Looking for a reason to take Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation ("CASL") seriously? Well, look no further. According to an article published by CBC today, "[m]ore than 1,000 complaints have been filed since the new anti-spam law took effect on Tuesday, says Manon Bombardier, the CRTC's chief compliance and enforcement officer."
In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that a competent testator may distribute his or her property under the terms of his or her Will as he or she sees fit, even if this means excluding independent, adult children of the testator.
July 1, 2014. This date has been on many business owners' minds over the last months. Not because it marks a day off to celebrate Canada Day with friends and family, but because it is the day Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation ("CASL") comes into force, marking significant changes in the way electronic messages are sent.
If there was any doubt about the limited right of disappointed adult children to make claim against their parents' estate in Ontario, it has been removed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Verch Estate 2014 ONCA 338 (CanLII).
The Superior Court of Justice demonstrated in Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. B. (C.D.) that unfair behaviour in child protection proceedings does not go unpunished.
An award of $1,400,000 was made against the Children's Aid Society ("the Society") because it had acted unreasonably during the entire proceeding. Justice Harper found that the Society prematurely agreed to advocate for the mother's claim without doing a thorough and proper investigation of the issues.
Canada's Anti-Spam Law ("CASL"), which comes into force on July 1, 2014, prescribes certain requirements for the content and form of commercial electronic messages ("CEM"s) that are sent with the consent of the recipient.
There are three main requirements in order for a CEM to comply with CASL. The message must include:
(i) Information that identifies the person that sent the message, and the person on whose behalf the message is sent (if different);
(ii) Contact information for the person who sent the message or the person on whose behalf the message is sent (if different); and,
(iii) An unsubscribe mechanism.
The CEM must include the name by which the person sending the message carries on business and their name (if different). If the message is sent on behalf of another person, the CEM must identify the name of the person on whose behalf it is sent.
In this series of blogs, I have been reviewing the new anti-spam regime that will come into effect on July 1, 2014 under "Canada's Anti-Spam Law" (CASL). As I have previously discussed, the hallmark feature of CASL is that it is an opt-in regime; senders of commercial electronic messages ("CEM"s) require the express or implied consent of the recipients of the messages.
In our last blog post on Canada's Anti-Spam Law ("CASL"), we provided an overview of CASL's consent-based regime. CASL prohibits the sending of commercial electronic messages unless the recipient has consented to receive them. Consent can be either express or implied. For many businesses, obtaining the express consent of recipients will be safest way to ensure compliance with CASL. But how should express consent be obtained?