Month: June 2017

Curious Case: It may be cheesy but it’s worth a read!

Posted on by

Note: The following is centered on a case for which the decision was already made and has now been appealed by one of those convicted. Thus, the below description refers only to the case and relevant parties thereof in context of the appeal.

Background: The appellant, Scott Heron, was a police officer with Niagara Regional Police in Ontario. In February, 2012, Mr. Heron was caught in a three year-long heist: smuggling cheese across the border from the U.S. to Canada! The appellant was sentenced to four months in prison for conspiracy involved with smuggling approximately $133,000 worth of cheese, evading approximately $325,000 worth of duty, and breach of trust as a public official (three months for the smuggling conviction and one month for breach of trust). Shortly thereafter, Mr. Heron appealed the decision.

Details: Mr. Heron appealed the trial judge’s decision, not in regard to the smuggling conviction, but only the finding of breach of trust by a public official. The breach of trust conviction was determined, in particular, based on one key factor: the appellant having performed a Canadian Police Information Centre (“CPIC”) check on the license plate of his accomplice, another police officer (the smuggler) on the same day after having been informed that his accomplice thought he was being followed during one of his deliveries.

The appellant argued on appeal that the original verdict was flawed because it assumed there would be only one reason for Mr. Heron to have performed the CIPC check: being to find out whether the smuggling scheme had been compromised and how he may be able to cover his tracks.

Outcome: The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and confirmed the appellant’s sentences. The Court found that the timing of the CPIC check was simply too significant, especially given that the Applicant put forth no other plausible explanation for the CPIC check. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge on this matter by acknowledging that it would send a discouraging message to the public (that police officers are able to get away with profiting from abuse of their credentials) to decide otherwise.

Curious about the Case? See for yourself:

 

Share the post "Curious Case: It may be cheesy but it’s worth a read!"

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

5 tips for preparing for your first meeting with your lawyer about your will

Posted on by

It’s difficult to think about passing away. Many people find it almost as difficult to plan for their eventual demise prior to their first meeting with their estate lawyer. Therefore, here are some useful tips (in no particular order) for preparing for your first meeting with your lawyer about your will:

1.Primary Executor:  Think about who you want to be the executor of your estate. For couples, each person usually chooses his or her spouse. However, if your spouse is struggling with dementia or poor health, it may be more prudent to name someone else as executor of your estate. This will be the person who is responsible for paying your liabilities and distributing your remaining estate assets according to your wishes. This is a very personal decision. Your executor is the “trustee” of your estate, which requires that person to act only in your estate’s best interests.

2.  Alternate Executor: Plan for an alternate executor, should your first choice predecease you or for some other reason become unwilling or unable to act. I often recommend someone who lives reasonably close to you, making it easier for that person to administer your estate.

3. Inventory: Prepare a basic list of your estate. In other words, think about “what is my stuff?” and write down your major assets, including your properties, most prized possessions, cash, banking information, RRSPs, etc. and have an estimated value of these properties. This process makes it easier for your executor to distribute your estate after your passing. This does not need to be (nor should it be) a detailed list of everything you own, but rather a basic outline of your most important assets. Oh, and don’t forget your debts!

4. Detailed Lists?: Most estate lawyers recommend that the will not be too detailed regarding every asset you own (i.e. my grandmother’s teacups to x, my collection of table and chairs to y). However, it is sometimes helpful to create a more detailed list or memo to leave with your will for your executor. This is not necessarily legally binding on your executor, but will certainly assist your executor in giving effect to your wishes

5. Communicate with your executor: It’s important to have a discussion with the person you plan on naming as your executor. I was once approached by an executor that expressed that he had no idea that he was named as his friend’s executor. Unfortunately, relationships can become strained; it can be awkward if the person you have chosen to be your executor has not seen you for many years and did not know that s/he was going to be named as your executor. There is nothing wrong with speaking with your executor in private and saying “I am thinking about naming you as my executor. Are you okay with this? Do you have any questions or concerns?”

Share the post "5 tips for preparing for your first meeting with your lawyer about your will"

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Curious Case of The Week: Warring Neighbours and a Manure Pile

Posted on by

Background: In 2001, David and Joan Gallant bought a piece of property in Indian Mountain (Moncton area) from Lee and Shirley Murray. The property is located next-door to the Murrays themselves. The neighbors got along well until November, 2013.

Details: November, 2013 is when the Murrays reportedly dumped an enormous mountain of cow manure—so large, in fact, that at one point it could be spotted by Google Earth—directly beside (and partially on) the Gallants’ property, ending the friendly relationship between the neighbors. The Gallants claim to have asked, on multiple occasions, to have the Murrays remove the heavily odorous heap, only to have their requests ignored for nearly a year and to be met with additional passive-aggressive acts; for example, the couple also used a snow blower to blow snow and rocks onto the Gallants’ property on occasion and let their cattle loose to trample the Gallants’ lawn.

Outcome: In response to the unwelcomed gestures, the Gallants filed a lawsuit against the Murrays, claiming damages for having committed nuisance, trespass, and harassment. On January 19, 2017, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice, George Rideout, ruled in the Gallants’ favor, awarding $15,000 in damages, as well as ordering the Murrays to keep their animals off the Gallants’ property, to refrain from blowing snow, rocks, manure or anything else into their neighbors’ yard, and to keep manure piles 300 meters away from the Gallants’ home. The judge stated, “In my opinion, based on the evidence before the court, the manure was placed where it was for only one purpose, to make Mr. and Mrs. Gallant’s lives miserable.”

Now: The Murrays, unhappy with the verdict, have “vowed to appeal” the decision, but there is no sign of an official appeal to date.

Curious about the Case? See for yourself:

Share the post "Curious Case of The Week: Warring Neighbours and a Manure Pile"

  • Facebook
  • Twitter