Some stories that have recently caught our collective eye:
Costs in a Hague Application
- A recent blog by Toronto family lawyer Andrew Feldstein discusses the case Mitchell v. Mitchell where an Ontario judge awarded $35,000.00 in costs to a father who applied under the Hague Convention to have his son returned to Florida from Canada. The judge rejected the mother's argument that it would be inappropriate to award costs against her because she had initially been self-represented and believed that she had the right to relocate the child. The judge was also not convinced by the mother’s submission that she did not have the financial means to pay for costs. After all, noted the judge, she was able to retain Borden Ladner Gervais, and her legal fees to that firm totalled approximately $31,000.00.
- A 77-year-old Australian man stripped of his right to manage his money after making hundreds of calls to sex-chat lines has failed in his bid to the Supreme Court to regain control over his affairs. A blog by Bianca La Neve refers to a news item out of Queensland where the man was quoted as saying, "I just want to have my own life back again. You know I can't write out my own will. I can't even write out a cheque."
- Dancing in court to celebrate a divorce? Mitch Kowalski's LegalPost blog flags the divorce dance video which appears to be a response to the much-viewed wedding dance video. "It was only a matter of time," Kowalski notes.
- A caution to anyone involved in estate litigation – costs (even to the victor) are not guaranteed, according to a blog posted Teffer v. Schaefers.
- “The husband should not be able to profit by his violence,” ruled an
judge in Martek v. Martek, upholding an Arbitrator’s decision to divide the proceeds of a home equally. Andrew Feldstein’s blog notes that wife was essentially kicked out of the home as a result of the husband’s violent tendencies. Ontario
blog presents an argument as to why a liberal system of family law must recognize some autonomy within the family, and therefore cannot categorically reject religion-based family law arbitrations. Universityof Toronto
- These restraining devices, which are used to safeguard bison when they are being handled, are categorized as personal property, according to the Alberta Court in Olson v. Angermeier, 2009 ABQB 356. The decision is criticized on
law blog. Universityof Calgary
A good weekend to you all.
- Bill Rogers, Student-at-Law, Toronto