Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Employee or Contractor? Apply the Duck Test...

BY SIMRAN BAKSHI, ASSOCIATE LAWYER

How do Ontario Courts determine if someone is really a contractor or an employee?

It may surprise you to learn that the answer is actually quite simple and straightforward.

Just apply the duck test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then lo and behold, it probably is a duck. 

In other words, if the “contractor” works like an employee, is managed like an employee, and overall appears to be like an employee, chances are this “contractor” is actually an employee under Ontario employment law.

As the Supreme Court of Canada perhaps more eloquently summarized:
47      Although there is no universal test to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor, I agree with MacGuigan J.A. that a persuasive approach to the issue is that taken by Cooke J. in Market Investigations, supra.  The central question is whether the person who has been engaged to perform the services is performing them as a person in business on his own account.  In making this determination, the level of control the employer has over the worker’s activities will always be a factor.  However, other factors to consider include whether the worker provides his or her own equipment, whether the worker hires his or her own helpers, the degree of financial risk taken by the worker, the degree of responsibility for investment and management held by the worker, and the worker’s opportunity for profit in the performance of his or her tasks.
While an employer may have many cost incentives for prefering to work with a contractor rather than an employee (some being of dubious legality), denying a worker the protections and entitlements that come with employee status can be a very costly mistake for both employer and employee. 

We often hear our employer clients say, "but we agreed in writing that this person would work with us as a contractor", to which we just as often have to respond, "unfortunately given the nature of your working relationship, this contracting agreement is probably not legal or binding." 

It is not enough to simply call someone a contractor.  For the contracting relationship to be legally binding, the very essence of the working relationship itself needs to have the markings of independence and exclusivity. 

Perhaps our best advice to our employer clients is to start from within, by frankly considering how a worker is likely perceived within the company itself.  If there is a degree of control, dependency and answerability, it is quite possible that this individual is an employee, no matter what you call him or her, and has legal status as an employee that provides for numerous employment  entitlements, and entitlements upon termination of employment and wrongful dismissal

- Simran Bakshi, Associate Lawyer Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Employment Law

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Tuesday January 31, 2017. Today we are talking about Employment Law.

For more information on employment law, family law, and wills, estates and estates litigation, visit our website at www.wiselaw.net.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on

In 2015, an Ontario Court awarded 27 months’ of pay in lieu of reasonable notice to a 65-year-old civil engineer who had been employed for 40.66 years.

In exceptional circumstances involving extraordinarily long-service employees, it is within the discretion of Ontario Courts to award more than 24 months’ damages.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Monday, January 30, 2017

Top 10 Legal Headlines

Here are our Top 10 legal headlines for the week of January 30, 2017 from @wiselaw on Twitter. For links, visit 140Law at Wise Law Blog. For more information on employment law, family law, and wills, estates and estates litigation, visit our website at www.wiselaw.net.
A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on


- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

140Law: Legal Headlines for the week of January 30, 2017

Here are our leading legal headlines for the week of January 30, 2017 from Wise Law on Twitter:
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Thursday, January 26, 2017

The Executor's Roadmap - Part 1: Death and the Funeral

BY PAUL B. ADAM, ASSOCIATE LAWYER
This series of articles will cover the many stages that an executor (now also known as an "Estate Trustee") must pass through in managing the affairs of a deceased- from the immediate aftermath of death, to the final distribution of the Estate. Even if there are no legal challenges or disputes ahead, a "simple" Estate Administration can take hours of stressful work. This series of articles is designed to alleviate some of that stress, by providing a roadmap to what may lie ahead. This articles are general guides and are not a substitute for legal advice.
The process of administering an estate in Ontario has many phases that often stretch out over a year, or more. But when a loved one or friend dies, there are first things to tend to. The biggest and most immediate is usually the funeral.

There are many stages involved in becoming an Estate Trustee that are impractical or impossible to complete before arranging the funeral. Nevertheless, arranging and paying for the funeral is an important step in the proper administration of an Estate.

When an Estate Trustee has been named in a Last Will, arranging the funeral is often the Trustee's responsibility.

If the deceased has left a last will, and it is possible to see it before the funeral, it will indicate who is appointed as Estate Trustee, if that's not already known. Unfortunately, it's not always possible to view the Last Will in the commotion before the funeral. It may be in a safety deposit box. stored at a lawyer's office or be in some other hard-to-access location.

The deceased's next of kin may not be able to get access to the Last Will right away. In some cases, the deceased may not have written a Last Will at all, or a Will that is known may be missing and need to be located.

If there is no Last Will, section 29 of the Ontario Estates Act gives the Court the power to appoint the deceased's next-of-kin as a Trustee. If a dispute over the Estate has already begun, and there is no consensus as to who the Trustee should be, the Court has the power to appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation.

If the Last Will can be found, however, the Will may provide guidance as to how the funeral should be planned. First, the Will may give an idea as to how many assets the Estate and what legacies the Estate has to pay. If this information is available, it can guide you in setting a budget for the funeral.

The Will may also include the deceased's funeral instructions, or instructions about a prepaid funeral. These instructions are usually not legally binding. A Last Will, with a few exceptions, is legally binding only as far as property is concerned.

A funeral, strictly speaking, concerns the physical body of the deceased, and is outside the scope of the Will's authority over property. Nevertheless, it is generally wise to follow the instructions in the Will regarding funeral, if possible.

How is the funeral paid for? Many people now pre-arrange for the expense to be paid out of a small life insurance policy sold by the funeral home. Otherwise, it may be possible to pay for part of the expense through the Canada Pension Plan's death benefit.

It is often the case that the assets of the deceased are frozen when the funeral is being arranged, and the Trustees must pay the expenses out-of-pocket.


Some out-of-pocket funeral expenses can be paid out of the assets of the Estate, in priority to taxes and other debts. But not all expenses may be eligible. Determining the funeral arrangements and how they will be paid is often the first major duty the Trustee tends to.

It is important to understand that not every funeral expense can be charged to the estate, especially when the Estate has limited assets. A basic principle, that has existed in English law since before Confederation, is that there are costs of laying the dead to rest:
the undertaker’s and grave digger’s necessary services [...] in addition to those pertaining to religious exercises; also the cost of a plain coffin or casket, the conveyance of the remains to the grave, and the grave itself; all these being essential to giving the remains a decent funeral.
These costs can be charged to the Estate. (Widdifield on Executor's Accounts (5th ed., 1967)), pages 1-2). If an Estate, however, is bankrupt or in danger of not being able to pay all of its debts, and if there are funeral expenses that are primarily for the benefit of the mourners, such as:
pall-bearers in needless array; carriages for mourners, and especially carriages for casual strangers; floral decorations, refreshments, hired musical performers, and the processional accompaniments of a funeral [...]
These cannot be charged to the Estate.

Sometimes, family members may attend to funeral arrangments, long before the existence of a Will is on anyone's mind.  In such cases, it is prudent to ensure all family members and likely executors are on the same page as to the budget and level of extravagence in funeral arrangements. It is possible that disputes can arise as to the necessity of certain expenses.

Most importantly, anyone conttributing to payment of any funeral-related costs should ensure that copies of invoices, cheques. receipts and other proof of payment are maintained, in support of subsequent claims for reimbursement from the Estate.  

Before, during, and after the funeral, and still before the Estate Trustee is formally appointed by the Court, it is important to account for existing assets of the Estate, and secure them. More on this in Executor's Roadmap- Part 2
- Paul B. Adam, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday January 26, 2017. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on

A last will cannot have provisions that run contrary to public policy.

For instance, a will cannot discriminate against a family member because of religion, marital status, or sexual orientation and it cannot encourage people to do illegal acts.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

20 Years of Canada's Child Support Guidelines: Some Key Stats

BY PAUL B. ADAM, ASSOCIATE LAWYER 

Canada's Child Support Guidelines are 20 years young this year.

The guidelines were enacted in 1997 and created a single, comprehensive guideline for how child support payments are calculated. The Child Support Guideline tables can be looked up and used online by anyone a web browser.

Since being enacted, the guidelines have received both accolades and criticisms, as you would expect from a piece of legislation that has an impact on virtually every couple with children that separates in Canada.

But leaving all arguments aside, a survey of some key statistics involving children, women, and family law litigants show that transfer payments to divorced and single mother fill an important social need, and the current child support system works pretty well at getting those payments made.

It's worth re-examining what the goals of the Child Support Guidelines are, in order to understand why and how they fulfill those goals, however imperfectly:


 The objectives of these Guidelines are
  • (a) to establish a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation;
  • (b) to reduce conflict and tension between spouses by making the calculation of child support orders more objective;
  • (c) to improve the efficiency of the legal process by giving courts and spouses guidance in setting the levels of child support orders and encouraging settlement; and
  • (d) to ensure consistent treatment of spouses and children who are in similar circumstances.

A: Fair Standard of Support:

The Guidelines were formulated in answer to the deceptively complicated question "How much does it cost to raise a kid?"

The answer, according to the guidelines is "40% of the cost of providing for an adult for the first child, and 30% for each additional child".

When looking back at the process that led to the creation of the guidelines, a formula was selected that yielded a higher "cost" per child than other economic formulas that were considered by the government during the consultation process.


An argument  cited by the advocacy group Fathers Are Capable Too is that this was a piece of social engineering that was intended to increase the amount of money that support recipients (who were- and are- overwhelmingly female) receive. Another argument, cited by the Conservative thinktank the Fraser Institute is that the "40/30" formula was developed to measure childcare costs at the poverty line, and that as incomes increase above and beyond $150,000, the Guidelines tend to overestimate the cost of child support.

Let's say one or both of these arguments was true. Is this fair?

Whatever one thinks about the guideline as a solution, the problems it attacks are real. Most children live with the mother, and mothers earn less than their male counterparts, and are over-represented in poverty statistics:
  1. 85% of child support payers are men and 70% of children primarily reside with their mother [Divorce Fact Sheet, 2016]
  2. Women still earn 73.5 cents for every male dollar, as of 2016. [Statscan/Globe & Mail, 2016]
  3. Single mothers have the highest poverty rate in Canada of any family type and are more likely to fall into poverty than single fathers following a separation. [Gadalla, 2008]
  4. In 2013, the median income among single parent families was $51,800 for male-led families and $39,400 for female-led families [Statscan]
  5. "Women's median income for the year of their separation or divorce dropped by about 30%, whereas men's median income decreased by only 6%" [Department of Justice, 2016]
  6. Children are 11 times more likely to fall into poverty following a separation or divorce [Statscan]
At the time the guidelines were enacted, the income disparity between women and men was worse than it was today. The penalty to women was exacerbated by the fact that child support used to be taxed in the hands of the recipient parent, but not the payer, an issue that was litigated up to the Supreme Court in Thibaudeau v Canada (1995).

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms spells out that this is a country that believes in substantive equality, not just formal equality. That means it's possible, and appropriate, to create legislation that tries to proactively address social ills.

Legislation that addresses these problems was (and is still) necessary, especially when it minimizes the legal cost to parents of obtaining support for children.

Which brings us to Objectives B and C:

B+C: Reduce Conflict and Tension/Improve the Efficiency of the Legal Process:

Family Law is an incredibly expensive proposition. A huge portion of litigants are self-represented (estimates of this number are around 64%, but the real numbers may be higher), due in large part to unaffordable lawyer's fees. Yet despite the costs, family law cases are also extremely prevalent in Court. They make of 35% of all civil cases, far more than any other single type of litigation.

What the Child Support Guidelines help to do is take the issue of child support off the table, quickly.
Statscan published a valuable survey about our country's court system in 2012. It showed that while Child Support continues to be an issue, it is no longer a driving factor in most family law litigation, and it does not tend to tie family law cases in court for long.
  1. In separation cases that have gone to court, where the only issue relating to the children was child support, the issue is resolved in one third of cases after 6 months. Child support was resolved in just over half of cases after a year. In over 70% of cases, the issue is resolved after the two year mark.
  2. Cases where the only issue is child support make up only 8% of family law court cases. 
There used to be prevailing stereotypes about "deadbeat dads" in their legion who refused to pay child support. The reality is, though, child support is paid, at least in part, in the majority of cases where it is ordered.

In the provinces were data was collected from the government agency that was responsible for collecting child support (like Ontario's Family Responsibility Office), Statscan found in its most recent snapshot that around 70% of spouses enrolled in a program for collecting child support pay, and only about 10% of those enrolled don't pay regularly. Over the first few years of enrollment, most (80%) of child support owed gets paid. 

It's hard to know how many children of separated spouses are falling completely outside the legal system and are not being tracked by these numbers at all. But inside the legal system, there is some compelling evidence that child support gets paid most of the time, and that it happens without the issue being expensively litigated.

D: Consistency:

It's hard to argue that the Guidelines have not achieved consistency. Even if you do not agree with the scientific basis of the formula that the Guidelines have imposed, the rap on the Guidelines is that they sacrifice nuance and variability for the sake of achieving results, and certain socio/political objectives.

The biggest tribute to how well the Guidelines have worked is that the Court system has tried to replicate their success with the introduction of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. The SSAG's are the statistical engine that drive automated software such as Divorcemate and they are nearly as influential as their older sister, though not technically even part of the law.

Since the introduction of the Child Support Guidelines, there have also been calls, including by this blog, for the further streamlining of family law cases by imposing a doctrine that all family law cases start with a presumption that the parents are entitled to joint custody, and then requiring a dissenting parent to prove a departure from this presumption is justified in the best interests of a child.

This, if implemented, would not be a perfect solution to the issue of custody, but would likely further reduce the number of litigants in the family law system.

The Child Support Guidelines are far from a perfect or precise measuring instrument, but I think the numbers unequivocally show that twenty years on, this piece of legislation is still useful and necessary. 
- Paul B. Adam, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Family Law

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Wednesday January 25, 2017. Today we are talking about Family Law.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on

The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) assist Ontario Courts in determining the amount of spousal support payable by a spouse. Unlike the child support guidelines, the SSAG’s are not binding upon the Courts.

Ontario’s Courts, however, are required to consider the SSAG’s and to provide reasons for any decision that does not follow them.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

LawFact of the Day: Employment Law

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Tuesday January 24, 2017. Today we are talking about Employment Law.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on

Under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, where discrimination or harassment has been proven the Tribunal can award significant remedies to employees.

A Human Rights Tribunal has power to order reinstatement of employment, restitution, monetary compensation for wage loss, and damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Monday, January 23, 2017

Top 10 Legal Headlines

Here are your Top 10 legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter last week.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

140Law: Legal Headlines for the week of January 23, 2017

Here are this week's leading legal news stories from Wise Law on Twitter



- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Friday, January 20, 2017

Trustee Compensation: Small Numbers That Add Up

BY PAUL ADAM, ASSOCIATE LAWYER

Some might feel that being an Estate Trustee is an utterly thankless job. I'm here today to tell you that
isn't totally accurate.

Trustees are entitled to a small 'thank you' in the form of a tariff on the work they do. Unfortunately, calculating the size of the tariff and getting in paid out often means more work for the Trustee, and sometimes can lead to conflict between Trustees and beneficiaries.

Ontario law does not explicitly specify exactly how much compensation Estate Trustees are to be allowed for their work. Section 61 of the Trustee Act calls the amount "a fair and reasonable allowance", as determined by the Court.

A series of cases, however, have discussed what precisely the appropriate amount is for an estate trustee to be given for the work of managing the Estate. For some time, the accepted tariff has been:
2.5% on all property (of any kind) and income that is deposited into the estate 
2.5% on all property (of any kind) and income that is paid out of the estate, including payments to beneficiaries of their inheritances
During a year in which the estate is being managed by a trustee, 2/5 of 1% (0.4%) of what the value of the estate was, on average, over the whole year.
(See Denofrio Estate (Ont. Superior Court 2012) and Freeman Estate (Ont. Superior Court 2007) to cite just two recent rulings)

Those numbers might look miniscule, but they add up. Consider the following scenario:

1. An estate took in $1,000,000 in a year: it cashed in a RRIF worth $50,000, received the proceeds of a life insurance policy worth $250,000, and sold a house worth $700,000. 
2. The Estate paid $20,000 that year for professional fees, $20,000 for funeral expenses, $60,000 in various taxes that year. A total of $100,000 in expenses paid out. 
3. At the end of the year, the Estate was preparing to pay out legacies worth $900,000, minus whatever was to be paid in trustee compensation. 
4. The average value of the estate over the whole year was $850,000.
The trustee, for the trouble it went to, could feasibly present the following account to the Estate's beneficiaries:
Total receipts: $1,000,000 @ 2.5% : $25,000
Total distributions (including legacies to be paid): $1,000,000 @ 2.5%: $25,000
Average annual value: $850,000 @ 0.4%: $3,400
That's $53,400, to be paid to the trustee before the trustee pays out the balance of the money in the estate to the beneficiaries.


Bear in mind that a trustee might have brought in that $1,000,000 by signing all of three cheques, and delegated all its other work to white collar professionals, and may need to write all of two cheques to pay the beneficiaries. On the other hand, the Trustee might have spent 20-30 hours a week doing tax returns, renovating property, locating assets, selling investments and dealing with the family. (On top of his or her regular job.)

But, regardless how much effort that took on the trustee's part, if in the end an estate brought in $1,000,000 in a year, and disbursed out $1,000,000 that same year, the trustee compensation would, at least in theory, be level.

That means, relative to the actual effort put in to manage the Estate, that $53,400 or so might be absolute peanuts or an absolute mint.

If indeed someone thinks the number is "off", and the Trustee and beneficiaries can't come to a reasonable agreement about compensation, the Court may examine the Trustee's accounts, and revise that figure of trustee compensation as appropriate.

To come to its conclusion, the Court is certain to apply this formula: 


(a)               size of the Estate;
(b)               care, responsibility and risks assumed by the trustee;
(c)               time spent by the trustee in carrying out his/her responsibilities;
(d)               skill and ability required and displayed by the trustee;
(e)               results obtained and degree of success associated with the efforts of the trustee

This basic formula has been in existence since Toronto General Trusts and Central Ontario Railway (1905, Ontario High Court). Here is an excerpt from Pachaluk Estate (Ontario Superior Court, 2009) that gives a general idea of how the Court applies the formula in practice:

(63) In my view, a reduced percentage ought to be applied [...] insofar as the condominium transfer is concerned.  The administration of the Estate in respect of this primary asset was fairly straight forward.  I would reduce the applicable percentage  from 2.5percent to 1.5 percent regarding the capital receipt of the condominium unit valued at $184,500 by the Estate Trustee.  Regarding the balance of the capital receipts, [the Trustee] Mr. McManemy was involved in disposing of specific bequests to adult beneficiaries in specie [in the same form they were in when the deceased died].  This was straight forward.  More complex was the trust transactions involving the DiFebo children.  All of these transactions deserve compensation.  However, the rate applied should be two percent.  [...]  In respect of the compensation on final distribution, the applicable percentage should be 1.5 percent as two cheques need to be prepared on final distribution to Donna Roughley and Darlene DiFebo in equal amounts as residual beneficiaries.
The end result was the Court slashed the Trustee's account on an estate worth about $400,000 from $19,400 to $12,923.56. 

When the Courts apply this formula, the resulting figure for Trustee Compensation may well be a figure that will be "measly" in the eye of the Trustee, "exorbitant" in the eyes of the beneficiaries and, you guessed it: "fair and reasonable" in the eyes of the Court.

- Paul B. Adam, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Using Social Media To Build Your Online Reputation

BY GARRY J. WISE, SENIOR COUNSEL 

I was recently interviewed by Law Times correspondent Jim Middlemas on the role of social media in Canadian law practices.

It was a good opportunity to briefly discuss the history of Canada's legal blogosphere and to recall the early years of Wise Law Blog.

See the resulting article, Using social media to build a reputation, via Law Times, which includes quotes from me, among others.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Can Your Last Will and Testament Prevent Your Ex From Getting Child Custody After Your Death?

Paul B. AdamBY PAUL ADAM, ASSOCIATE LAWYER

After a marital separation, some parents will, for better or worse, go to unimaginable lengths to prevent their ex-partners from having
custody or access to the children of the marriage.

Can this fight continue after death?

Can a separated parent use a last will to prevent the child's other parent from obtaining custody after death of a custodial parent?

In Ontario, a sole custodial parent can name anyone as the temporary custodian of a child in a Last Will and Testament, under section 61 of the Children's Law Reform Act. The appointment is temporary for 90 days, after that, the parent with temporary custody must apply for court ordered permanent custody. The appointment is also only effective when the testator is the only person who had custody of the child at the time when he or she died, or if both people with custody died at the same time.

Of course, under Ontario law, any other person who wishes custody of the child, irrespective of the directions in a will, can make his or her own Application for custody of the child.

In my practice, I have been the asked at least twice "What should I do if I do not, in any circumstances, want my ex to get custody of our child?"

The Newfoundland and Labrador case of NW v KB (Unified Family Court, 1995) offers some interesting guidance.

MB was separated from KB. They had a daughter. MB was dying. An Ontario judge had granted her custody of the daughter and liberal access to KB. MB and daughter were permitted to move back to Labrador where their family lived, for the final stages of the cancer treatment. MB drew up plans for the care of her daughter in a Last Will.

MB wanted her daughter to live permanently with her sister NW in St. John's. Her Last Will aired out a litany of complaints about KB, and directed custody to the aunt, NW.:
"The most important things I want for (Sylvia) are caring, loving, affection, stability and strong family values. I know that her father K.B. cannot provide her with this. [...] Although K.B. is (Sylvia's) biological parent, he cannot provide her with the family values, stability, affection and loving that my sister N.W. and her family can. K.B. does not express feelings of love and affection. He has been married on three occasions and is only thirty-three years old. All marriages ended in divorce for no valid reasons. I do not believe that K.B. can provide (Sylvia) with a stable environment that I want for her. K.B. and his family have no sense of family values. His brothers and sisters have children from other marriages and/or relationships. Many do not pay child support and many have been divorced. [The laundry list of complaints goes on. You can read the entire provision here at paragraph 16.] These are not the family values that I wish for my daughter (Sylvia)"
NW brought an application to be given full custody of her niece, pursuant to the Last Will. Unlike in Ontario, under Newfoundland's Children's Law Act, a provision granting custody to a non-parent after death was null and void as long as there was a living parent with a right to custody or access (as was the case with KB).



It will come as no surprise that the Justice Halley determined that the paramount consideration in determining who would have custody of child was the child's best interests. The Court was not prepared to sever the Dad's relationship with his daughter, but it took the claim for custody in the Aunt's application seriously enough to investigate what was really in the best interests of the infant daughter of KB and the late MB.

The Court found KB and NW to be two equally devoted and capable parents, either of whom, could and would have been suitable to have full custody.

The Court granted custody to the father but in apparent recognition of the merit of the Application, gave the Aunt very generous access to be exercised for 60 days or more during the year at her own expense around holiday and vacation times.

NB v KW sets out a fairly common fact scenario, and illustrates a few important general principles to keep in mind when trying to make a testamentary appointment of a guardian for a child:
1. The Child's best interests are still the Court's primary concern
2. The Court will be very reluctant to strip custody from a parent or person, who otherwise be entitled, unless it's truly in the Child's best interests.
3. The person you name in your Will as guardian of your child may influence the Court's decision on who is granted custody or access, but it will not necessarily be followed or be binding on the court.
4. If you use your Last Will as a platform to attack a spouse or other family member's parenting ability, don't assume that the Court will accept your comments uncritically.
Most importantly, think about what you want to be remembered for.

Is it that you used your Last Will to sow conflict, rather than reconciliation, after you were gone?

- Paul B. Adam, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday January 19, 2017. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on

If a deceased person owed support to a spouse or child under the Family Law Act, they may also be entitled to dependant's relief from the deceased's estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

If the deceased's will doesn't provide for these obligations, the dependant can apply in court to receive the support they are owed.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

LawFact of the Day: Family Law

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Wednesday January 18, 2017. Today we are talking about Family Law.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on

Where all matrimonial issues have been resolved as at the one-year anniversary of a separation, an uncontested divorce can proceed by filing specified paperwork with the Court.

Where issues remain unresolved, a divorce judgement can still be issued, and remaining issues can then be continued in a “corollary relief proceeding.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

LawFact of the Day: Employment Law

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Tuesday January 17, 2017. Today we are talking about Employment Law.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on

Ontario employees are prohibited from discrimination and harassment against any employee.

Employers may not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, colour, citizenship, creed, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, record of offences, marital status or family status.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Monday, January 16, 2017

Top 10 Legal Headlines

Here are your Top 10 legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter last week.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on


- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

140Law: Legal Headlines for the week of January 16, 2017

Here are this week's leading legal news stories from Wise Law on Twitter


- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net