This article intends to analyze how to determine the actual intention of the ageing parent who opens a joint bank account with his or her child in Ontario by summarizing the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17. These types of joint accounts are used by many Canadians for a variety of purposes, including estate-planning and financial management. As joint bank accounts are widely used among the family members in Canada, the courts are often requested to determine the intention of the parent who opens the joint bank account in order to decide who has legal right for the balance remaining in the account at the date of death of the parent. The common question is whether the parent intended to make a gift of the beneficial interest in the accounts upon his or her death to the child who holds the joint account or whether the parent intended that this child holds the assets in the accounts in trust for the benefit of his or her estate to be distributed according to the will.Continue reading “Law of Trusts in Ontario: The Creation of Joint Account Represents an Inter vivos Gift of the Right of Survivorship? – #52”
This post aims at summarizing the Supreme Court of Canada’s majority reasoning on Yared c. Karam, 2019 CSC 62.
In October 2011, Mr. K established a trust to protect their family’s assets for the benefits of his wife, Mrs. Y and their four children. The trustees are Mr. K and his mother. The initial beneficiaries were Mrs. Y and their four children. The trust conferred extensive powers of “Appointer” on Mr. K: 1) the power to appoint new beneficiaries, including himself; 2) the power to destitute any beneficiaries; and 3) the power to decide to which beneficiaries and in what proportion the revenues and capital of the trust would be paid.
In June 2012, the trust acquired a residence with funds transferred by the spouses. Then the family moved in the new residence. Mr. K stated that the house would serve both as the family residence and as an investment protected under the trust for the benefit of his children.Continue reading “Family Patrimony and Trusts in Quebec: Whether Family Residence Acquired by Trust is Included in Family Patrimony – #50”
En matière de responsabilité civile, la victime a droit à des dommages-intérêts en réparation du préjudice futur lorsqu’il est certain et qu’il est susceptible d’être évalué (Art. 1607 et Art. 1611 C.c.Q.). Or, il est souvent difficile de quantifier la perte de revenus futurs subie par la victime. Il convient de rappeler que l’évaluation de la perte de revenus futurs doit être fonction de la preuve et non consister en un système basé sur une valeur définie par le pourcentage d’incapacité partielle permanente (Maison Simons inc. c. Lizotte, 2010 QCCA 2126). L’existence d’une incapacité partielle permanente ne se traduit pas nécessairement par une perte de capacité de gains futurs. Cet article vise à introduire brièvement l’évaluation de la perte de revenus futurs en matière de responsabilité civile. Il est important de noter que les faits suivants sont fictifs et ont été créés par l’auteur afin d’établir un contexte propice à l’analyse.Continue reading “L’évaluation de la perte de revenus futurs en matière de responsabilité civile : Le calcul au point d’incapacité est incompatible avec les méthodes approuvées par la jurisprudence à la suite de la trilogie de 1978 – #49”
Bankruptcy and insolvency can trigger catastrophic consequences. Often, large claims of unsecured creditors are left unpaid (Para. 1 of Sun Indalex Finance v. United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6). The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) is one of the three principal insolvency statutes in Canada. The CCAA pursues an array of overarching remedial objectives. These legislative objectives include: “providing for timely, efficient and impartial resolution of a debtor’s insolvency; preserving and maximizing the value of a debtor’s assets; ensuring fair and equitable treatment of the claims against a debtor; protecting the public interest; and, in the context of a commercial insolvency, balancing the costs and benefits of restructuring or liquidating the company.” (Para. 40 of Callidus, 2020 SCC 10)Continue reading “The Supreme Court of Canada (7:0) allowed the appeal and reinstated the supervising judge’s order under the CCAA”