Law Times

Page 6 May 2, 2016 • Law TiMes www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT ©2016 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, com - pleteness or currency of the contents of this pub- lication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $199.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at ........... 416-649-9585 or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Kimberlee Pascoe ...............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So .............................................416-609-5838 grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Joseph Galea .......................................416-649-9919 joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe ................................416-298-5077 steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Editor in Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabrielle Giroday Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yamri Taddese Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adela Rodriguez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . & Jennifer Wright Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steve Maver Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . .Sharlane Burgess Electronic Production Specialist . . . Derek Welford Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes u EDITORIAL OBITER By Gabrielle Giroday Estate lists under pressure of 'archaic laws' A s every lawyer practicing in the courts at any level knows, while judiciary decisions provide the occasional update to applications of the law, there's no substitute for going back to the root of the legislation to clean out the cobwebs and bring things into modern-day context. For example, family law hasn't kept pace with the way it is being played out in the courts, with more and more self- litigants who are jamming the dockets and slowing the process to a crawl. Over on the wills and estates lists, things aren't exactly rocketing along ei- ther. Combine an aging population with larger estates — often just the value of the homes in the GTA involved alone is enough to push them over $1 million — and increasingly combative parties and it's another recipe for trouble. A BMO study last year found the aver- age inheritance in Canada is just less than $100,000, with 55 per cent saying they have received an inheritance and 63 per cent expecting one. All told, says BMO, some $1 trillion is expected to change hands between gen- erations over the next 20 years. Estate wars, of course, are nothing new, but recently, the Toronto Star ran a series of stories highlighting some of the inherent issues stemming from legisla- tion that hasn't been reformed in years and is clearly behind the times. The stories highlight a key issue, that of predatory marriage. It's when a person inserts themselves into a vul- nerable senior's life, offering care and companionship, and then takes advantage of their declining memory and capac- ity to manipulate them into marriage, often promising to care for them at home for the rest of their life. Once married, however, the "spouse" is entitled to the estate be- cause in Ontario marriage voids a will. And then the fighting starts. "We've had this problem for 15 years, but the government won't engage in meaningful legislative review," says estates practitioner Ian Hull, of Hull and Hull LLP. "Both B.C. and Alberta changed their rules so that a will isn't negated on marriage." The root cause is Ontario's "archaic estate laws," as Hull puts it, and a singu- lar lack of urgency on the part of gov- ernment in pursuing reform. Indeed, as estate lawyer Charles Ticker also points out, it's easier to get a marriage licence than a driver's licence in Ontario and it makes elderly people vulnerable to pred- ators chasing their estates, and it prob- ably calls for a capacity test for those over 80 before mar- riage, Ticker argues. Ticker, who has been prac- ticing for 35 years and spe- cializes in estate litigation, mediation, and estate admin- istration, says that while the Ontario Marriage Act notes intoxicants such as booze or drugs are a bar to marriage, dementia isn't specified. "You have to be inter- viewed once a year for your driver's licence in Ontario; why wouldn't we consider a similar test or at least a letter from your doctor?" he said. The Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990 and the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990 provide other remedies for the surviving spouse, said Ticker, which bring into question why revocation on marriage is still on the books. Of course, simply striking down that section of legislation would be the sim- plest course of action, given the con- sensus of opinions both in Ontario and across Canada. When it comes to action by the gov- ernment of the day, however, it remains the squeaky wheel that gets the review. Predatory marriages are but one is- sue in estates. There are a few others that could use a streamlined process. Last fall, the Law Commission of On- tario's "Simplified Procedures for Small Estates" suggested a separate and faster process for estates less than $50,000. It envisaged legal support in line with that level of asset, much like some propon- ents have argued that the Family Law Act could use a process where the matrimon- ial assets are so sparse inviting legal com- bat would deplete them completely and still not resolve most of the issues. The LCO also recommended an edu- cation campaign on the importance of wills and the issues that can arise. Hull was a contributor to the report and points to two others. One is "Legal Capacity, De- cision-making and Guardianship," the interim report released last year. Submis- sions wrapped up March 4 and the final report is due this year. The other report is "Persons with Disabilities: Final Report — September 2012." Perhaps if this government had to spend less time putting out the fires it started, it would have more time to show leadership in the administration of the law — being wasted in the administra- tion of justice at the courts. LT uIan Harvey has been a journalist for more than 35 years writing about a diverse range of issues including legal and political affairs. His e-mail ad- dress is ianharvey@rogers.com. Queen's Park Ian Harvey Not a knee-jerk reaction There's a familiar lament about the havoc the Internet is wreaking on both traditional business structures of law and traditional business structures of journalism. The lament centres on the disintegration of an old-guard structure, and the Wild West atmosphere of a confined landscape broken open. The knee-jerk refrain of journalists when it comes to access to in- formation? Free press, at all costs. And in an Internet age, more than ever, the expectation — no, demand — is that information be avail- able immediately. (Insert foot stamp here.) However, I don't buy this party line. Journalism, at its best, is thoughtful, considered, and in the public interest. The law can be slow. And in cases where issues around media access to information swirl, judges have a crucial role in measuring the potential harmful effects of letting information loose before a trial has begun or is underway. Take the ongoing prosecution of three Toronto police officers ac- cused of sexually assaulting a colleague, an unnerving and deeply disturbing matter. This week, Law Times reports about how lawyers representing the three officers and various media outlets will argue about a defence request for a publication ban, and whether details in an information to obtain should be subject to a publication ban until the end of trial. There is no silver bullet for how to handle publica- tion bans. However, in cases that are particularly high profile, there are legitimate concerns to holding back on the release of information — particularly in sexual assault trials where allegations alone are life ruiners and carry heavy stigmatization for every- one involved. Social media traffic containing alleg- ations and plastering detailed information on the Internet can undo a case before facts are presented in a court of law. In some instances, publication bans have their place. There is a distinction between intelligence and wisdom. There is a distinction be- tween information, for information's sake, and informed coverage. Spraying details of a sensitive matter far and wide can be deeply short-sighted and undercut the legitimate process to bring offenders to justice. LT

• Cover