Recent amendments to the Occupiers' Liability Amendment Act 2020 have changed the notice period relating to injuries from slip and falls on snow and ice. A claimant seeking damages for such personal injuries must provide written notice to the property owner of their claim within 60 days of the incident, or lose the right to sue.
The written notice must include the date, time and location of the incident.
The claim may be brought against an owner, occupier, or independent contractor removing snow or ice on the premises.
There is an exception to the 60-day notice requirement if the slip and fall resulted in death or if the claimant can provide a reasonable justification for their failure to provide notice.
A Condo Corporation, as an occupier, is liable for slip and falls in the common areas of the condo. Common elements generally include the corridors, lobbies, garages, garbage rooms, roof terraces, walkways, and so on.
The drawback of the 60-day notice requirement is that it obliges an injured claimant to act immediately at a time when they may still be suffering from their injuries.
|Posted in: Condominium Condominium Law Occupier's Liability Slip and falls|
In Ontario, the Will of a person who later marries is revoked by the marriage and is no longer valid, with a few exceptions (s.15 of the Succession Law Reform Act.
The most common exception is when the Will includes a declaration that it is being made in contemplation of the marriage (s.16(a) of the Succession Law Reform Act.)
A Will including a declaration that it is made in contemplation of the marriage remains valid even after the marriage has been solemnized.
At the time of writing this Article, a subsequent common-law relationship does not revoke the Will.
|Posted in: Wills Estate Planning Common-Law Relationship Succession Law Reform Act|
Elderly father cuts out three of his children
- What happens when an elderly widowed father gives his house to one of his four children (the one who lives with him)? Can the other three siblings set aside the transfer? In a recent case (Kozusko v Kozusko) the Superior Court held that parents are free to dispose of their property as they see fit, and to prefer one child over the others provided the parents understand clearly the consequences of their actions.
- Courts today will not interfere with a person's exercise of free will so long as the person is fully aware of what their rights are and of the consequences of their actions. The dissenting children will have an uphill battle to overturn their father's wishes.
Contact us below for more information on how to set up your will to avoid such disputes.Please Contact Us for Further Details
|Posted in: Wills Estate Planning|
- The Court of Appeal in B.C. has upheld an order requiring Google a foreign entity who was not a party to the original proceedings to remove a company's website from all of its worldwide search results. The Court has sent a message that the Canadian judiciary is "willing to ignore provincial and national borders in order to uphold justice in the business world". Ren Bucholz, a Toronto lawyer, deems this decision 'disastrous' because of its implications on Canadian businesses abroad or for the way countries will regulate what Canadians do here.
- In making the decision, the Court referred to a European decision of a case involving the right to be forgotten. It was noted that the courts of other jurisdictions have found it necessary to make orders that have international effects. The concern is that Canada took jurisdiction over Google solely because it advertised in B.C., and this can be problematic if this becomes an accepted standard for jurisdiction. Bucholz alludes to a scenario where the Egyptian judiciary decides that it wants certain Google content off the web how is this to be decided? How should local decisions affect the global internet?
Please Contact Us for Further Details
|Posted in: Business Law Corporate Law|
The recent B.C. case of Tang v Zhang reaffirmed a traditional principle which allowed a seller to keep a $100,000 deposit on a residential property after the purchaser defaulted. The Court allowed the seller to keep the money after a breach of contract, despite the fact that the seller was able to sell the property for an even higher price. The Court relied entirely on an English case from 1884. This is not only problematic because of its obsolescence, but also because the Supreme Court of Canada has not clearly decided the issue. A real estate transaction is the largest contract that most Canadians will enter into and if something unforeseen interrupts the transaction, the vendor may be able to keep the deposit. Until the Supreme Court of Canada decides the issue, Canadians should be cautious.Please Contact Us for Further Details
|Posted in: Real Estate Law|