We expect over 200 people for the May 30, 2018 seminar. I wanted to publicly say thank you to our Title Sponsors Scotia Wealth Management and B’nai Brith as well as all our other sponsors. As well, I would be remiss if I forgot to thank all the committee members,…
In the recent case of Lee v. Ponte, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a novel argument about limitation periods. Others have written about the decision, but what piqued our interest was the Court of Appeal’s comment at the end of its short decision.
Choosing an executor is a critical decision. Before choosing who should manage your estate when you die the most important task is to ask if the person contemplated is up to the job. The ideal executor will follow your wishes, know how to administer the estate, be honest and fair, and be prepared to do the job in a timely and proper fashion.
Section 5 of the Estates Act (the “Act”) states “Letters of Administration shall not be granted to a person not residing in Ontario”. The statute appears to be a definite and full answer to our question. But, when answering a legal question, a thorough reading of the statutes and secondary sources dealing with the question together with a full review of how judges interpret the statute is necessary. As the Armstrong case demonstrates, reading only one section of the Act could lead to an erroneous conclusion.
We have written two other case reviews concerning the decision in Rubner v. Bistricer. The first addressed the determination of the validity of a testamentary document while the testator was still alive and the second addressed with whether a letter was sufficient to create a trust. In this blog we are focusing on what appears to have been Brenda Bistricer’s driving motivation in taking certain positions.
In Rubner v. Bistricer, Justice Myers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that a simple letter created from the settlor was sufficient to create a trust.
The Rubner case is instructive for those dealing with elder issues, will drafting and the creation of trusts. Accordingly, we decided to write several blogs with a focus on how Justice Myers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with these separate issues. This particular blog reviews how and why His Honour went about determining the validity of a will while the testator is still alive.
There is a world of a difference between a fiduciary’s duty to maintain his accounts and whether a time limit exists for the beneficiary to request an accounting or to object to the accounts presented. In the context of an attorney for property’s obligation to disclose his accounts and produce his records, the regulations impose a duty on the attorney to give a copy of the accounts and records to specific people. Those regulations do not place a time limit on the people entitled to demand production.
What is a child? In everyday life, this is an innocuous question with a simple answer – you kind of know one when you see one. Whether you’re going to the movies, dining at a buffet, or riding the subway, what most people consider to be a “child” is clear, give or take a couple of years.
The bond described by s. 35 of the Estates Act is meant to secure the protection of both the beneficiaries and creditors of the estate.
This case deals with an application where the executors sought advice from the court about a painting that was alleged to be part of the estate.
We only litigate. In our collective experience, the lawyers at our firm have witnessed a great deal of conduct by lawyers toward other lawyers that falls far short of what the Rules of Professional Conduct require. We have also witnessed individuals representing themselves who appear to feel licensed to insult and verbally abuse opposing counsel and even the court.