Is it appropriate for a court order to permit an Estate Trustee During Litigation (“ETDL”) to distribute the Estate? Possibly. The statutory authority to appoint the ETDL is found in Section 28 of the Estates Act, which provides that an ETDL has all the rights and powers of a general administrator, other than the right […]
This cheat sheet is intended as a quick reference guide for estate litigators dealing with limitation periods. For a comprehensive review of this topic I refer the reader to articles written by senior members of the bar listed in the end notes. Generally, a limitation period sets a red line which a claimant can no […]
For an Orthodox Jewish lawyer who is representing Jewish parties who are suing one another in a secular court, an ethical question arises. It gets further complicated where the client’s rights under secular law far exceed the rights they may have under Orthodox Jewish law. And this may very well be the case in the laws of inheritance.
It seems self evident and almost trite to say that a will must reflect the intention of the testator. Accordingly, those parties who come to court and submit that the will in question is authentic and valid must prove, among other things that the Testator knew and approved of the content of the will. Mistakes […]
Imagine that Johnny is dying. The doctors tell him to get his affairs in order. The patient’s only living relative is an elderly aunt whom he despises. Johnny wants to give all his money to his Church but, without a Will, by virtue of Ontario’s laws of intestacy that aunt will inherit everything. A lawyer […]
Excluding the Orthodox community, some estimate that 72% of North American Jews intermarry. As chair of B’nai Brith Canada’s Trusts & Estates Group I oversee the committee that chooses the subject matter and format of the continuing legal educational programs offered every year to the lawyers and accountants of our community. We choose topics that […]
B'nai Brith, disinherited, public policy
The doctors argued that, in this context, “treatment” as defined in the Act does not include the withholding or withdrawal of treatment that had no medical value to the patient. Hence, the withdrawal of such treatment could be done without the patient’s consent. The doctors argued that the Act merely enshrined the common law which recognized a doctor’s right to withhold or withdraw treatment. The doctors further argued that according to the common law they were not permitted to continue “inhumane” treatment even if the patient or his substitute decision-maker demanded it.
In Canada, the law balances the idea of testamentary independence against public policy concerns. Two British Columbia courts have ruled that in today’s society, homosexuality is not a factor that would justify a judicious parent disinheriting or limiting benefits to a child. To date, this issue has not been addressed in Ontario’s courts.
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.