The question addressed by this article is whether someone can avail himself of an equitable remedy to assert an beneficial ownership interest if the creation of the equitable claim was as a result of an intentional effort to defeat creditors.
Ontario courts order security for costs to protect local defendants from foreign litigants who launch frivolous or vexatious claims and do not have the money to cover a potential cost award against them. Foreign plaintiffs may have assets outside of Ontario and possibly defeat a security for costs motion if his assets are accessible to satisfy a judgment because of reciprocal enforcement legislation.
But I incorporated..... that is what Darren Convery must have thought when the judge found him personally liable for a company debt. Why do people incorporate companies? One of the main ones is that generally, if a company does business, no employee or officer of the corporation is personally liable for any act done within the scope of their duties on behalf of the corporation. Now there are some exceptions to that general rule that could result in personal liability even if the business is incorporated. Let’s take one example where a careless mistake may prove very costly
In British Columbia disinherited adult children have a strong claim against a parent's estate based on their moral entitlement to an inheritance. Tataryn was the seminal case in British Columbia which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. The importance of adult children dependent's moral claim in Tataryn was adopted by the Ontario Court of Appeal. But there is no clear court decision in Ontario suggesting that the moral claims of non dependent children are legally enforcable in Ontario.
After Marsha agreed to marry him, Marc gave her a $20,000.00 diamond engagement ring. Soon after Marc caught Marsha on a date with another man. He demanded that she give back the engagement ring. She refused. In her mind the engagement ring was a gift. Marc sued. Who do you think should get the ring? Let’s see what the courts say.
The author reviews Ontario’s laws of inheritance in the context of second marriages. He addresses the risk to implementing a person's testamentary intentions. For example, in Ontario, under certain circumstances a new marriage revokes previous wills, the failure to provide full and frank disclosure may invalidate a domestic contract and a court may still order a deceased’s estate to pay support to a dependant regardless of any agreement made to the contrary.
Courts use the equitable remedy of Rectification to fix certain errors in a Will. Exactly what evidence will be considered and the types of mistakes fixed gives rise to uncertainty and litigation. The author reviews some of these issues and recent case law on the topic.
Can you imagine burying a spouse and then being sued for support by his mistress? For those who believe in primacy on marriage and that marriage obligates its partners to fidelity, the idea of rewarding a mistress to a portion of the family’s an inheritance is unjust. Others argue that financial obligations should flow from the intensity and duration of life partner relationships regardless of the partners' marital status. What do the courts think?
The Illinois Supreme Court held that the testamentary clause disinherting a potential beneficiary for marrying outside the faith was valid. The test was whether the provision was capable of producing harm that its enforcement would be contrary to the public interest. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the Will because they placed a premium on the right of individuals to decide what happens to their assets after they die. They disagreed with the lower courts who suggested that the clause in question was a restraint of marriage
Very often a parent appoints the favourite child to manage the parent’s property (“power of attorney”) or be the executor under the parent’s will. Perhaps the child is honest but has no idea what obligations are involved with being an attorney for property or as an executor and fails to keep proper records. Perhaps that child is very dishonest and the lack of records is simply his way to hide the improper use of his parent’s money. So what typically happens?