Monday’s Mix

Each Monday we present brief excerpts of recent posts from five of Canada’s award-winning legal blogs chosen at random* from sixty recent Clawbie winners. In this way we hope to promote their work, with their permission, to as wide an audience as possible.

This week the randomly selected blogs are 1. Susan On The Soapbox  2. Wise Law Blog  3. Slater Vecchio Connected  4. Canadian Appeals Monitor  5. Toronto Estates and Trusts Monitor

Susan On The Soapbox
The Edelman Trust Barometer: Who do you trust?
The 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer is here and it’s good news—unless you work in government or business in which case you’re facing what Edelman delicately calls “a significant trust deficit”. Edelman is a global public relations company that surveys trust levels across 27 countries by asking the public who they trust and how much they trust them. It surveys four sectors—non-governmental organizations (NGOs), business, media and government—and assigns each a trust rating. . . .

Wise Law Blog
140 Law – Legal Headlines for Friday, March 7, 2014
Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Friday, March 7, 2014: · Sperm Donors – The “Seed” of Legal Liability Has Been Planted In Kansas · Laws Required to Swat Employers Hands from Tip Jar · New BC Family Law Act – No More Palm Tree Justice for Unmarried Couples · Poor Baby, Poor Mommy – The Rights of Incarcerated Mothers · Canadian regulator CRTC: Not enough locally-made porn on television . . .

Slater Vecchio Connected
UBC Opens its ‘World Leading’ Centre for Brain Health
Canada’s largest integrated centre for brain health is now open, bringing together research and patient care to improve the way brain disorders are treated and studied. The University of British Columbia’s Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health (DMCBH) puts neuroscience, psychiatry, and neurology under one roof. It houses clinics for Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and depression. It also includes research labs focused on concussion, stroke, addiction, and healthy aging. . . .

Canadian Appeals Monitor
The Second Opinion: Who needs Lawyers? When Laypeople draft Contracts that are Uncertain, Ambiguous and Incomplete, the Courts must strive for a “Sensible and Businesslike” Interpretation, says the ABCA
When complex commercial contracts have been drafted entirely by laypeople — without any input or advice from legal counsel — issues of interpretation can be a challenge. This is particularly true in circumstances where, years later, the parties themselves disagree as to specific elements of their agreement. In a recent ruling, Schmidt v. Wood, 2014 ABCA 80, the Alberta Court of Appeal demonstrates the efforts expected of a court in order to find a satisfactory construction of such agreements. At issue were two interlocking contracts addressing the marketing of current and future products invented by one of the parties. As acknowledged by the Court, the agreements were not models of perfect drafting: . . .

Toronto Estates and Trusts Monitor
A Faulty Settlement and Some Buyer’s Remorse
The recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice in the Murphy Estate considers what happens when parties to a proceeding settle a matter on the basis of faulty facts and one of the parties suffers from “buyer’s remorse”. Murphy Estate involved a dispute between the Deceased’s step-children and biological children after she died leaving in a will preferring her own children and leaving her step children with only nominal gifts. Rather than litigating, the children and step-children reached an agreement that they would all split the estate equally and signed minutes of settlement to this effect. When the settlement was reached, it was assumed the value of the estate was approximately $270,000 (and included a RRIF of $150,000). This was based on a schedule prepared by the estate solicitor which listed the RRIF as an estate asset. However, the minutes of settlement themselves did not include any reference to the assets of the estate but instead simply contemplated the division of the residue. . . .

*Randomness here is created by and its list randomizing function.

Comments are closed.