The Zimmerman v. McMichael Estate 2010 CarswellOnt 3481, 2010 ONSC 2947, 57 E.T.R. (3d) 101, 103 O.R. (3d) 25 is instructive for those reviewing the Ontario law regarding the duty of an attorney for property to account, the extent of that fiduciary duty and the consequences for failing to account.
Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader's recent dispute with a hospital over the fate of their terminally ill child highlights a debate over end of life issues. The author reviews an Ontario case to highlight how Ontario has death with the tension of a patient’s right to consent to treatment and a doctor's right to advocate for what he/she feels are in the best interests of the patient.
A recent case in Ontario Canada, Proulx v. Kelly, addresses how DNA testing is relevant to estate litigation disputes. When the deceased has not made a will Ontario's laws of intestacy govern and if there is no spouse the next of kin inherit. With respect to receiving an inheritance under an intestacy, the law of Ontario is that a person is the child of his or her natural parents with the only exception being adopted children.
Izzie Schwartz hired Selila Ness to work for his travel agency doing business in Israel and the United States called “Izzie Travels”. Soon, Izzie recognized Selila’s talent and delegated complete control of his business to her. He trusted her with his client lists, introduced her to his contacts and Selila managed the business Izzie built. After ten years Selila quit. She moved to Ontario and created her own Travel Agency. Selila used all of Izzie’s contacts, made use of his client lists and was a complete success. That success came at Izzie’s expense. Selila’s contract with Izzie provided that she would not complete with Izzie Travels in any similar activity for a period of three years. Since Selila was in Ontario he sued her in that jurisdiction.
In my last column we canvassed a fictional scenario of Izzie v. Selila. Izzie hired Selila Ness to work for his travel agency located in Israel and the United States called “Izzie Travels”. Soon, Izzie recognized her talent and took complete control of the business. Izzie trusted her with his client lists, introduced her to his contacts and Selila managed the business Izzie built. After ten years Selila quit. She moved to Ontario and created her own Travel Agency. Selila used all of Izzie’s contacts, made use of his client lists and was a complete success. That success came at Izzie’s expense. Selila’s contract with Izzie provided that she would not compete with Izzie Travels in any similar activity for a period of three years. Since Selila was in Ontario he sued her in that jurisdiction.
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.