Trevor Todd to Chair and Speak at WESA Conference June 6

The WESA conference: Everything a trial lawyer needs to know about the Wills, Estates and Succession Act.

Opening Comments
R. TREVOR TODD, disinherited.com, Vancouver

View From a Very Knowledgeable Bench

THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE SANDRA BALLANCE, Supreme Court of BC, Vancouver THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JANE DARDI, Supreme Court of BC, Vancouver

Solicitor’s View: WESA-Wise Planning – The Highs and the Lows
ANDREA E. FRISBY, Legacy Tax & Trust Lawyers, Vancouver

Litigator’s View: The Floodgates Have Opened
TARA R. BRITNELL, Hamilton Duncan Armstrong & Stewart, Surrey

Where There is No Will, There May be a Way:
Do Sections 58 and 59 now Unleash a Litigation Tsunami?
MARK WEINTRAUB, Clark Wilson LLP, Vancouver

Intestacy: Update on the Major Changes to the Parentelic Distribution Scheme, Changes for Spouses & the Spousal Home
EDWARD F. MACAU LAY, Edward F. Macaulay Law Corporation, Vancouver

Family Meets WESA: What You Don’t Know Will Hurt You
CAN DACE CHO, Onyx Law Group, Vancouver JUDITH A. JANZEN, Onyx Law Group, Vancouver

Beneficiary Designations:
Which Designated Assets are now Subject to WESA Redistribution?
JOHN W. BILAWICH, Holmes & King, Vancouver

Rule on Rules and Procedure
STANLEY RULE, Sabey Rule LLP, Kelowna

Undue Influence: Shift In Burden of Proof Means More Plaintiffs Wins
R. TREVOR TODD, disinherited.com, Vancouver
Closing Remarks

Dysfunctional Families-The Estrangement Epidemic

 

EstrangementThere is a noted estrangement epidemic amongst dysfunctional families

“Family quarrels are bitter things. They’re not like aches or wounds; they’re more like splits in the skin that won’t heal because there is not enough material.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

 

Estrangement is the turning away from a previously held state of affection, comradeship, or allegiance by one party to another or, alternatively, the parties to each other. The meaning has not changed much from its Latin root extraneare, to treat as a stranger.

 

The phenomenon of children being estranged from one or both parents has risen dramatically in recent years.

 

Anecdotally, after 40 years of estate litigation practice, I have witnessed the gradual erosion of the family, starting with the divorce laws of 1968 and moving through the social acceptance of common law relationships, children out of wedlock, “blended but lumpy families,” same sex marriage, and so forth. Legally speaking, the times are achanging.

 

In recent years, I have noted what I consider a silent epidemic of estrangement between parents and one or more of their adult children. In fact estrangement among individuals in families is far more common than most people believe.

 

We follow the estrangements of movie stars with glee and interest—Lindsay Lohan got a restraining order against her father; Jennifer Anniston stopped talking to her mother in 1996 when her mother wrote a tell-all book; the Tori-Spelling-of-the-week is not talking to a parent or vice versa. All those behaviours foster irreparable estrangement among various family members.

 

Family estrangement is found everywhere in society, from the wealthiest to the poorest. Although there is a shocking lack of statistics available on family estrangement, contemporaries in other fields, such as family counsellors, report a tremendous increase in the number of family members who no longer communicate with each other.

 

I believe that estrangement is so painful for the parties involved that often, they do not wish to talk about it.

 

Family estrangement occurs when certain family members come to an impasse in their relationship. The subject cause or causes of the estrangement, whatever they may be, are so strong, certain family members separate for a long period of time—possibly even for the rest of their lives.

 

There may be very valid reasons for such estrangement, such as when sexual abuse has occurred upon a child who is then not believed by either parent. A child frequently flees from the family simply to get away from one nightmare that often leads to another on the street.

 

Family estrangement is never easy for anyone, both within and outside the family.

 

In my experience as a lawyer, when estrangement occurs, the reasons are usually very understandable, troubling, and valid. The departing family member often has been very badly emotionally damaged in the relationship.

 

The reasons for estrangement are as diverse as the parties involved. Sometimes there was a very close relationship in the past and something happened that created distance. It may have happened slowly over time or rather suddenly, but once that distance was created, it solidified into estrangement. Alternatively, the relationship was never as close as it could or should have been and the gap just kept getting wider, until there was no relationship at all.

 

I couldn’t possibly list all the causes for family estrangement. Here are a few significant ones.

 

    1.        Intolerance

Intolerance usually manifests in the sense of disapproval of lifestyle choices such as homosexuality; marrying outside a person’s religion, race, nationality, or ethnicity; or another perceived disrespect. Intolerance can lead to stubbornness and small-mindedness when it comes to giving up a grudge or to pettiness and nastiness when it comes to forgiveness.

 

    2.        Divorce

Divorce arguably may be the single-most-common cause of family alienation. However amicable the divorce seemed to the parents, resentments can run deep and some children never get over it. Children may wish to live with one parent as opposed to the other. The malice of one parent turning children against the opposite parent can lead to unwarranted estrangement between the child and the “bad” parent or even both parents.

 

    3.        Remarriage

Remarriage, especially by the custodial parent, that creates a “blended family” has certainly caused a great number of estrangements. Distance among “first family” members and “second family” members or even a third is quite common, even when people are not cohabiting as a family unit.

 

    4.        Personality Disorders

Some parents never intended to be parents; they resented their children and thus were toxic parents. Living with a parent with a narcissistic personality disorder is exceedingly difficult for a child, who invariably fails to win the parent’s approval, let alone love.

 

    5.        Illness and Negative Behaviour

They include mental illness, drug and alcoholic addiction, and household violence.

 

    6.        Erosion of Self-Esteem

They include neglect, unconcern, and constant humiliations, disappointments, and putdowns.

 

    7.        Priorities and Time

Both parents are working and have little time for the children.

 

    8.        Unresolved Encounters

They include a long series of rather minor but escalating misunderstandings and overreactions and general stubbornness on both parties to make amends. While the cutting of ties between family members can be surprisingly easy, reconnecting them can be difficult if not impossible to restore.

 

    9.        Recurring Family Arguments

Arguments during significant holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas can lead to repeated hostilities, further family division, and avoidance of the special occasion in future.

 

 10.        The Unaccepted Spouse

When the marital partner has not been accepted by the family, it becomes awkward for everyone and easier for the estranged party to stay away.

 

 11.        An Estrangement Syndrome

Psychologists note that estrangement may be passed from generation to generation, due to the negative role models of the parents. In other words, if you are estranged from your parents, odds are your children will become estranged from you once they become adults.

 

In a dysfunctional family, the children typically do not receive enough love and care and often end up by default in competition with each other for those necessities of life.

Later, when the parents die, the competition for love may convert into one or more children taking the parents’ money to the exclusion of other siblings, out of a distorted belief they deserve the money. In the mind of the perpetrator(s), the money-grab becomes the substitute for the lost parental love.

As children, we don’t get to choose our family but, as adults, we can decide whom we wish or don’t wish to have in our lives. Even in the best of circumstances, being a member of a family is often a challenge.

 

To those readers who are estranged from their families, I would encourage group counselling and chat forums to deal with the pain and hopeful reconciliation and healing. That is often easier said than done as it takes a willingness on at least two sides to complete a successful reconciliation.

“Right to Die” Case Going to Supreme Court of Canada

As reported by the ,Vancouver Province today, The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to review the country’s assisted suicide laws more than two decades after it rejected doctor-assisted dying for people who are terminally ill.

The high court announced Thursday it will hear an appeal in a case that briefly overturned the ban on assisted suicide and offered a British Columbia woman a constitutional exemption to get help in ending her life.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which has argued on behalf of several ill people who claimed they wanted to die with dignity, hailed the decision.

In 2012, Justice Lynn Smith of the B.C. Supreme Court ruled the existing law was unconstitutional, but delayed her ruling for a year to allow the federal government to rewrite the statute.

Smith also granted Gloria Taylor an exemption that would have allowed her to seek an assisted death. Taylor was terminally ill with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

The federal government appealed the B.C. Supreme Court decision, and the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned the ruling last October, concluding that the 1993 case that upheld the law was binding and that the lower court didn’t have the ability to overturn the decision.

The 20-year-old case that ruled against assisted suicide involved Victoria resident Sue Rodriguez.

Taylor didn’t use the constitutional exemption. She died of an infection in October 2012.

But the family of another woman, 89-year-old Kay Carter who went to Switzerland in January 2010 to end her life, is continuing the court fight with the help of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

“Today we are savouring the knowledge that seriously ill Canadians are going to have the opportunity to make their plea to the court,” said lawyer Grace Pastine, who has argued the case for the association.

“There are few rights more fundamental or more deeply personal than the right to decide how much suffering to endure at the end of life and whether to seek a doctor’s assistance to hasten that, if living becomes unbearable,” she said.

Pastine said a woman named Elayne Shapray, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and is seeking the right to die, has joined the challenge to the existing law.

“She would like to be able to choose a peaceful death surrounded by her loved ones and by her family,” Pastine said. “She filed an affidavit in support of our application and explained to the court that she was tormented by the knowledge that she might become trapped in an unbearable dying process and would forfeit the ability to take her own life.”

The association applied to have the appeal process expedited, saying the case is of extreme urgency for some very ill Canadians, but the high court rejected that application, giving no reasons as is customary.

The original case included the association, Lee Carter and Hollis Johnson, the two who took Lee’s mother to Switzerland.

The trial judge skirted the Rodriguez decision by saying the Supreme Court charter rulings in recent years on the guarantees to “life, liberty, and security of the person” allowed for assisted suicide in some cases.

The judge ruled the law must allow physician-assisted suicide in cases involving patients who are diagnosed with a serious illness or disability and who are experiencing “intolerable” physical or psychological suffering with no chance of improvement.

Proponents of assisted suicide argue that the Rodriguez ruling is outdated and that society’s view of the issue has changed significantly.

However, the federal government argues that Rodriguez is the final word on the subject.

NDP Opposition NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said Prime Minister Stephen Harper should not use assisted suicide as a political wedge issue.

Mulcair said the Supreme Court of Canada will probably send the matter back to Parliament to decide, just as it did with prostitution and Vancouver’s safe-injection site, and if that happens there’s a lot of work to be done.

“These are complex issues because people who work in health care are dealing with these issues every day of the week,” he said.

Dr. Will Johnston, chairman of the he Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC, which intervened in the case last fall, said he was disappointed in the top court’s decision to hear the appeal.

“The court rejected assisted suicide and euthanasia in 1993 and prevented Canada from taking a wrong turn,” he said.

“Let us hope that by clarifying the issues, the Supreme Court once again confirms the Canadian rejection of suicide and direct killing of the sick, and that we stay the course in providing great symptom control to all who need it.”

The Estate Fight Over Who Owns Sherlock Holmes Is Just the Beginning

The Estate Fight Over Who Owns Sherlock Holmes Is Just the Beginning

Sherlock Holmes? Estate fights to maintain control of famous character as copyright protections expire.

Jason Keyser, Associated Press | January 3, 2014 | Last Updated: Jan 3 6:29 PM ET
More from Associated Press

FotoliaWriter Leslie Klinger is challenging the Conan Doyle Estate, LTD over the right to use the Sherlock Holmes character in new outlets
Are writers free to depict Sherlock Holmes in new mysteries without seeking permission or paying licence fees now that copyright protections have expired on nearly all of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s tales about the pipe-puffing detective?

A federal judge in Chicago says yes — so long as they don’t stray into territory covered in the 10 stories still protected by copyright.

Not so fast, says the Doyle estate, which is considering an appeal this month against the ruling. Descendants of the Scottish physician and author argue he continued to develop the characters of Holmes and Dr. Watson in the later works so they should remain off-limits until the remaining copyrights run out at the end of 2022.

It means you can reprint Conan Doyle’s own stories freely but you can’t make up a new story? It doesn’t make logical sense

“It’s a bogus argument. It means you can reprint Conan Doyle’s own stories freely but you can’t make up a new story? It doesn’t make logical sense,” said author Leslie Klinger, who brought the case against the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. to settle the matter.

With last week’s ruling in hand, Mr. Klinger plans to finish work on In the Company of Sherlock Holmes, a book of original short stories featuring characters and other elements from Conan Doyle’s work. He is co-editing the book with plans to publish this fall.

AP Photo/FileSir Arthur Conan Doyle, the author and creator of Sherlock Holmes, in 1930. Writer Leslie Klinger is challenging the Conan Doyle Estate, LTD over the right to use the Sherlock Holmes character in new tales.
If appeal judges hold it up, the ruling could lift the threat of legal action for the untold scores of writers churning out pastiches and fan fiction without permission. Most of them fly under the radar. In Mr. Klinger’s case, the estate demanded $5,000, he said.

“Whatever decision they make will essentially determine the fate of many characters, not just Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, but very intricate characters such as James Bond. … What happens as copyrights expire on Ian Fleming’s original stories?” said Doyle estate attorney William Zieske.

The ruling could also weaken the value of the Sherlock franchise to the point that major publishers and movie producers could also decide to move ahead with projects without licensing deals, said Paul Supnik, a Beverly Hills, California attorney specializing in copyright and entertainment law who was not connected with the case.

“At the very least it’s going to affect the bargaining power as to what the estate can do in trying to sell it to the studio,” Mr. Supnik said.

At the heart of the dispute is whether a character can be copyright protected over an entire series of works. The Doyle estate argues that a basic element of copyright law allows for that if the character is highly delineated, as opposed to a two-dimensional cartoon-like character who doesn’t change much over time.

FileThe Adventures of Sherlock Holmes with Basil Rathbone, left.
In ruling against the estate, Judge Ruben Castillo called that a “novel legal argument” that was “counter to the goals of the Copyright Act.” The lawsuit was filed in Chicago because a literary agent for the Doyle estate is based in Illinois.

There’s no question that Holmes and Watson are highly complex characters. Conan Doyle produced a total of four Sherlock Holmes novels and 56 stories between 1887 and 1927.

Related
Photos: Pages from a real-life Sherlock Holmes’ diary
Review: Robert Downey Jr. shines in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Why Sherlock Holmes is an unclassifiable character
Mr. Klinger argues that everything you really need to know about Holmes and Watson is in the novels and stories published before 1923 that are in the public domain in the U.S. That includes their family backgrounds, education and a slew of character traits: Holmes’ Bohemian nature and cocaine use, erratic eating habits, his Baker Street lodgings, his methods of reasoning, his clever use of disguise, his skill in chemistry and even his weapon of choice, a loaded hunting crop.

“Everything that the lay person would think of as being a characteristic of Holmes or Watson is in those pre-1923 stories,” said Mr. Klinger, who is also an attorney and lives in Malibu, California. “In fact, some would say you could pick up almost everything you need from the very first story.”

James Cowan/National PosThe Toronto Public Library displays Sir Arthur Conan Doyle collectables.
The other 10 stories have new biographical footnotes, including a mention that Watson had a second wife and played rugby in his youth.

But the Doyle estate says there are other significant elements in those later stories, such as Holmes’ “mellowing” personality and the shift in Holmes’ and Watson’s relationship from flatmates and collaborators to closest friends.

Thus, to depict Holmes and Watson based only on parts of the canon that pre-date 1923 would be something of an artistic crime and ignore the extent to which the characters continued to evolve, said Doyle attorney Mr. Zieske.

“That’s the essence of literature, how people change through different experiences,” Mr. Zieske said. “And to reduce true literary characters to a cardboard cutout, parts of which can be carved off, I think does literature a great disservice.”

Celebrities Estates Earn MIllions

Dead celebrityForbes Magazine’s Top earning Dead Celebrities  2012 have now been reported, once again showing that many people are worth considerably more dead than they could have ever imagined.

It is not just artists and celebrities who have this earning ability,as  almost anyone who has the potential for either fame or residual earnings can create such incredible wealth post death.

Topping the list this year is newly dead Elizabeth Taylor at $210 million, beating out the previous years top earner, Michael Jackson, whose estate income fell to a mere $145 million.

I hope his $40 billion estate claim succeeds, so as  to put him back in top earning spot hereafter.

Third spot Fat Elvis is consistent at $55 million, as is 6th spot Bob Marley at $17 million.

Marilyn has been dead for 51 years and her estate still made $10 million last year, which is about 10 million more than she ever made while alive.

Albert Einstein died 7 years before Marilyn and he also brought in $10 million for his estate.

Steve McQueen died in 1980, and his star appeal then, presently  translates into $8 million per year.

The “Downside” of Presumption of Death Orders – The Fake

Police arrest ‘dead’ banker accused of losing millions of investor dollars. A south Georgia bank director accused of losing millions of investor dollars before vanishing was homeless and worked odd jobs before his arrest earlier this week, a U.S. marshal told a federal judge Thursday.

U.S. District Judge James Graham in Brunswick formally notified Aubrey Lee Price of the charges against him. The 47-year-old was arrested Tuesday during a traffic stop on Interstate 95 in the coastal Georgia city. The judge set a bond hearing for Monday in Savannah.

Price had disappeared in June 2012 after sending a rambling letter to his family and acquaintances that investigators described as a confession. The letter said he had lost millions in investors’ dollars and planned to kill himself by jumping from a ferry in Florida.

A Florida judge declared him dead a year ago, but FBI authorities had said they didn’t believe Price was dead and continued to search for him.

The U.S. marshal said at the hearing Thursday that Price told authorities he’d been working as a migrant worker, accepting cash for odd jobs, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

An FBI spokesman said Wednesday that Price told authorities his family didn’t know he was still alive and that he had returned to Georgia to renew the tag on his truck. It wasn’t clear where he’d been for the previous 18 months.

Price was indicted in federal court in Savannah in July 2012 on charges of taking $21 million from a small south Georgia bank where he was director. He was also accused of taking many millions more from investors in his money management business. He faces federal wire fraud charges in New York.

My depression and discouragement have driven me to deep anxiety, fear and shame
Price left his home in south Georgia on June 16, 2012, telling his family he was headed to Guatemala for business, authorities have said. Two days later, Price’s family and acquaintances received letters saying he was going to Key West to board a ferry headed to Fort Meyers and planned to jump off somewhere along the way to end his life.

“My depression and discouragement have driven me to deep anxiety, fear and shame. I am emotionally overwhelmed and incapable of continuing in this life,” said a rambling confession letter investigators believe was written by Price.

AP Photo/FBIIn this June 2012 photo released by the FBI, Aubrey Lee Price is seen in Key West, Fla.
“I created false statements, covered up my losses and deceived and hurt the very people I was trying to help,” the letter said.

Credit card records showed he purchased dive weights and a ferry ticket. The ferry ticket was scanned at the boarding point, and security camera footage released by the FBI about six weeks after his disappearance showed Price at the Key West, Fla., airport and ferry terminal on the day he disappeared.

He was arrested Tuesday when Glynn County sheriff’s deputies pulled over a 2001 Dodge on the interstate because they thought its window tint was too dark, Sheriff E. Neal Jump was quoted by the Journal-Constitution as saying. Deputies arrested Price after finding fake IDs in the vehicle.

The U.S. Coast Guard says the 47-year-old’s disappearance prompted a search by aircraft. The agency says the search put rescuers in harm’s way unnecessarily and cost the agency more than $173,000.

Creating a hoax or making a false distress call is a felony. The maximum penalty for making a false distress call is six years in prison, a $5,000 fine, a $250,000 criminal fine and reimbursement to

National Post Newsletters

Evolving Attitudes Towards Death

death attitudes

Evolving  Attitudes Towards Death

Death renders all equal,” wrote Claudian. How each one of us relates to death, however, is individual, and always changing — as we mature; as we contemplate life, and death, around us; and as society changes. In this special edition of the National Post, we present stories and columns looking at the different ways we see, and prepare for, the Great Equalizer.

Like life, death never stops changing. Every generation faces new facts about the end of life. Every generation thinks about it in a different way.

Fifty years ago, a Canadian who lived to 100 was a news item and the recipient of a letter from the Queen. Today Canada has about 6,000 centenarians and their number increases by roughly 1,000 a year. A century ago, the death of a child was an expected part of family life; today we are appalled and outraged when it happens. Fifty years ago, suicide was universally abhorred and treated as a crime, if not a sin. Today the right to die, which means suicide for a good reason, is legal in several countries and American states; it may soon be a part of Canadian life.

Our attitude to death might strike our grandparents as inconsistent. We may or may not be terrified by it, but in choosing our entertainment we embrace it with delight. Each night of the week a small army of actors is gunned down in our living rooms. That’s one way the present moment is unique in the history of the human race. People once defended violence in TV by citing the killings in the Bible, Shakespeare and ancient Greek drama. But earlier forms of fictional death usually carried a heavy charge of meaning and often illuminated moral issues. The casual, often motiveless slaughter we watch now on TV is different. And in quantity it dwarfs the literature and drama of previous millennia.

It is not too much to say that death has become the core of popular culture. It appears that broadcasters and audiences agree that this is how it should be. We regret the reality of death, we do all we can to put it off, but clearly we find it satisfying to contemplate, often.

The young 21st century has expanded another death-related phenomenon: Huge audiences are attracted to narratives based on the notion that vampires live among us, bringing with them the exotic desires of their kind. These elaborate, often brilliantly composed stories echo superstitions of the past. In a science-dominated world they cling to the Gothic imagination of our ancestors.

As our view of death changes — and this special edition of the National Post will look at how our relationship with death continues to change — we alter our formal responses to it. A few decades ago, every funeral was solemn. Men wore black ties and long faces, women cried, unsmiling clergy delivered deadly serious eulogies. Spouses never took part: They were assumed to be so deep in mourning that they couldn’t speak.

Today, funerals can be a time for telling jokes and for light-hearted accounts of the dead individual’s eccentricities. Widows and widowers speak their own tributes if they care to. Sometimes we change the name of the event and call it “a celebration of the life” of the deceased, as if we had all decided not to let ourselves be too downcast. We work hard to keep death in perspective.

We talk more freely about death than we did a few generations ago but there remain certain aspects of it that we find hard to face. One that has always confused me is death by accident. While we profoundly believe in the value of human life, more than 2,000 Canadians a year die in motor vehicle accidents. Each death devastates people close to the victim, diminishing their lives forever. Yet the numbers register with most of us as no more than statistics. What if eight Canadian passenger planes fell to the ground annually, each killing 250 humans? If that happened, flying would soon be suspended until we found a way to make it safer.

Related

So, then, how can we tolerate the cruelty of road traffic? Because we are used to it. Unknowingly, we have built that cause of death into our moral system. It has become what historians call an unspoken assumption. We now consider those numbers normal.

As an 81-year-old, I naturally think more about death than young people do. It can’t be too far in the future. But contemplating what is to come makes me also think about all that has happened. You gain a lot by living eight decades, but you can also lose a lot.

You outlive nearly all of your elders, most of your contemporaries and even some of your younger friends. I find this far more painful than the failings of my body. Attending a funeral often means carrying home a sense of loss, of absence, that never disappears.

In an old man, a good memory like mine (though it’s weakening on the short-term side) can lead to melancholy thoughts. Memory makes you realize how much you miss certain people: Their wisdom, their laughter, their quirks, the well of affection you shared. Luis Buñuel, the great film director, kept a small pad on which he listed all the people he liked who had died. I couldn’t bear that and, in any case, don’t need it: One of my most cherished mentors died four decades ago and when I write on a favourite subject of his, I wonder what he would think of my piece. Sometimes I even work out his reactions in detail.

What I miss is the chance to talk to him and many others. I can recall the details of conversations I had with them but I want more: To revisit arguments, trade gossip, work over the great and small events of the world.

There are whole platoons of people among the missing. For instance, I can remember the reaction of my fellow sports writers when I wrote my first (also my last) story on the caber toss, the event in which Scots athletes throw giant wooden poles into the distance. I informed sports-page readers that this event had strong “cultural connotations,” a phrase my co-workers rightly found pretentious.

As an 81-year-old, I naturally think more about death than young people do

This was 60 years ago and I remember in detail all those people, nine men and one woman, each of them 10 or 15 years older than I and therefore unlikely to be reachable by phone at this time.

I remember where we all sat in our sports department, what they looked like, the advice they gave me. An assistant sports editor, a man of infinite gentleness, told me it was a crime to spell names incorrectly, especially names of people rarely mentioned in print; they would be hurt and would never forget it. Those journalists were my first colleagues and my teachers; a certain part of me loves them still.

A dear friend died just recently and, at least twice a week since, I have thought of something I wanted to tell him or ask him; a second later I remember the truth. That’s a certain kind of loneliness. It accrues and deepens.

But none of this is to be considered a complaint. Breathing and thinking, and still able to operate this miraculous instrument invented for my use in Silicon Valley — I find that, all things considered, there’s a great deal of pleasure in being old.

Many of us say that we don’t fear death. Our time in history is predominantly secular, which means that it’s relatively easy to consider dying simply a last page. We like to think of death visiting us in a relaxed, generous mood. Or we could settle for its appearance during sleep: The father of a friend of mine was reading in bed, felt sleepy, put his glasses on the bedside table, fell asleep and did not wake up. Ideal, in its way.

But it can be horrible. I don’t fear death but I’m terrified of painful and boring months (or even years) in palliative care. What if joy and wonder disappear, but a version of life endures? People can lose the ability to hear or talk. Their decline severs connections with spouses, children and friends. What if I can’t exchange words with anyone? What if I can’t read? If I can’t watch my grandchildren grow, and laugh with them, I won’t truly be alive. If able, I will earnestly request medical help to end to my life.

I don’t fear death but I’m terrified of painful and boring months (or even years) in palliative care

In 1970, I contributed a piece called “The Future of Death” to a book of essays that Stephen Clarkson edited, Vision 2020: Fifty Canadians in Search of a Future. I predicted that by the year 2020, death would be far better managed: “One imagines people openly discussing their deaths, deciding reasonably and honestly the point at which their lives should finish.” In 1970, no one objected to those sentiments, but 20 years later a man in Kamloops, B.C., discovered my essay reprinted in a school reader. He spent two years petitioning federal and provincial ministers to have me prosecuted for counselling suicide, to no avail. He argued that students would read it and kill themselves.

I thought of him earlier this month and wondered if the B.C Court of Appeal gladdened his heart when it upheld the ban on medically assisted suicide. Still, I’m guessing that the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Lance Finch is closer to the emerging national consensus: “The point at which the meaning of life is lost, when life’s positive attributes are so diminished as to render life valueless” is a personal decision we should all have the right to make for ourselves.

The Quebec legislature has on the order paper a bill allowing medical assistance for suicide. The Manitoba health minister, Theresa Oswald, says “This is a conversation whose time has come.” Other health ministers are moving in the same direction. Perhaps I wasn’t overly optimistic when I suggested that it might be resolved by 2020.

There was a time when most politicians found euthanasia far too controversial even to mention. But recent decades have eliminated many once-banned topics and this one has finally made its way to the surface. It appears that generations of free speech and anxious argument have actually led to improvements in certain crucial aspects of life, including even, notably, death.

Death renders all equal,” wrote Claudian. How each one of us relates to death, however, is individual, and always changing — as we mature; as we contemplate life, and death, around us; and as society changes. In this special edition of the 

National Post, we present stories and columns looking at the different ways we see, and prepare for, the Great Equalizer. To read the complete series, click here. 

Like life, death never stops changing. Every generation faces new facts about the end of life. Every generation thinks about it in a different way.

Fifty years ago, a Canadian who lived to 100 was a news item and the recipient of a letter from the Queen. Today Canada has about 6,000 centenarians and their number increases by roughly 1,000 a year. A century ago, the death of a child was an expected part of family life; today we are appalled and outraged when it happens. Fifty years ago, suicide was universally abhorred and treated as a crime, if not a sin. Today the right to die, which means suicide for a good reason, is legal in several countries and American states; it may soon be a part of Canadian life.

Our attitude to death might strike our grandparents as inconsistent. We may or may not be terrified by it, but in choosing our entertainment we embrace it with delight. Each night of the week a small army of actors is gunned down in our living rooms. That’s one way the present moment is unique in the history of the human race. People once defended violence in TV by citing the killings in the Bible, Shakespeare and ancient Greek drama. But earlier forms of fictional death usually carried a heavy charge of meaning and often illuminated moral issues. The casual, often motiveless slaughter we watch now on TV is different. And in quantity it dwarfs the literature and drama of previous millennia.

It is not too much to say that death has become the core of popular culture. It appears that broadcasters and audiences agree that this is how it should be. We regret the reality of death, we do all we can to put it off, but clearly we find it satisfying to contemplate, often.

The young 21st century has expanded another death-related phenomenon: Huge audiences are attracted to narratives based on the notion that vampires live among us, bringing with them the exotic desires of their kind. These elaborate, often brilliantly composed stories echo superstitions of the past. In a science-dominated world they cling to the Gothic imagination of our ancestors.

As our view of death changes — and this special edition of the National Post will look at how our relationship with death continues to change — we alter our formal responses to it. A few decades ago, every funeral was solemn. Men wore black ties and long faces, women cried, unsmiling clergy delivered deadly serious eulogies. Spouses never took part: They were assumed to be so deep in mourning that they couldn’t speak.

Today, funerals can be a time for telling jokes and for light-hearted accounts of the dead individual’s eccentricities. Widows and widowers speak their own tributes if they care to. Sometimes we change the name of the event and call it “a celebration of the life” of the deceased, as if we had all decided not to let ourselves be too downcast. We work hard to keep death in perspective.

We talk more freely about death than we did a few generations ago but there remain certain aspects of it that we find hard to face. One that has always confused me is death by accident. While we profoundly believe in the value of human life, more than 2,000 Canadians a year die in motor vehicle accidents. Each death devastates people close to the victim, diminishing their lives forever. Yet the numbers register with most of us as no more than statistics. What if eight Canadian passenger planes fell to the ground annually, each killing 250 humans? If that happened, flying would soon be suspended until we found a way to make it safer.

Related

So, then, how can we tolerate the cruelty of road traffic? Because we are used to it. Unknowingly, we have built that cause of death into our moral system. It has become what historians call an unspoken assumption. We now consider those numbers normal.

As an 81-year-old, I naturally think more about death than young people do. It can’t be too far in the future. But contemplating what is to come makes me also think about all that has happened. You gain a lot by living eight decades, but you can also lose a lot.

You outlive nearly all of your elders, most of your contemporaries and even some of your younger friends. I find this far more painful than the failings of my body. Attending a funeral often means carrying home a sense of loss, of absence, that never disappears.

In an old man, a good memory like mine (though it’s weakening on the short-term side) can lead to melancholy thoughts. Memory makes you realize how much you miss certain people: Their wisdom, their laughter, their quirks, the well of affection you shared. Luis Buñuel, the great film director, kept a small pad on which he listed all the people he liked who had died. I couldn’t bear that and, in any case, don’t need it: One of my most cherished mentors died four decades ago and when I write on a favourite subject of his, I wonder what he would think of my piece. Sometimes I even work out his reactions in detail.

What I miss is the chance to talk to him and many others. I can recall the details of conversations I had with them but I want more: To revisit arguments, trade gossip, work over the great and small events of the world.

There are whole platoons of people among the missing. For instance, I can remember the reaction of my fellow sports writers when I wrote my first (also my last) story on the caber toss, the event in which Scots athletes throw giant wooden poles into the distance. I informed sports-page readers that this event had strong “cultural connotations,” a phrase my co-workers rightly found pretentious.

As an 81-year-old, I naturally think more about death than young people do

This was 60 years ago and I remember in detail all those people, nine men and one woman, each of them 10 or 15 years older than I and therefore unlikely to be reachable by phone at this time.

I remember where we all sat in our sports department, what they looked like, the advice they gave me. An assistant sports editor, a man of infinite gentleness, told me it was a crime to spell names incorrectly, especially names of people rarely mentioned in print; they would be hurt and would never forget it. Those journalists were my first colleagues and my teachers; a certain part of me loves them still.

A dear friend died just recently and, at least twice a week since, I have thought of something I wanted to tell him or ask him; a second later I remember the truth. That’s a certain kind of loneliness. It accrues and deepens.

But none of this is to be considered a complaint. Breathing and thinking, and still able to operate this miraculous instrument invented for my use in Silicon Valley — I find that, all things considered, there’s a great deal of pleasure in being old.

Many of us say that we don’t fear death. Our time in history is predominantly secular, which means that it’s relatively easy to consider dying simply a last page. We like to think of death visiting us in a relaxed, generous mood. Or we could settle for its appearance during sleep: The father of a friend of mine was reading in bed, felt sleepy, put his glasses on the bedside table, fell asleep and did not wake up. Ideal, in its way.

But it can be horrible. I don’t fear death but I’m terrified of painful and boring months (or even years) in palliative care. What if joy and wonder disappear, but a version of life endures? People can lose the ability to hear or talk. Their decline severs connections with spouses, children and friends. What if I can’t exchange words with anyone? What if I can’t read? If I can’t watch my grandchildren grow, and laugh with them, I won’t truly be alive. If able, I will earnestly request medical help to end to my life.

I don’t fear death but I’m terrified of painful and boring months (or even years) in palliative care

In 1970, I contributed a piece called “The Future of Death” to a book of essays that Stephen Clarkson edited, Vision 2020: Fifty Canadians in Search of a Future. I predicted that by the year 2020, death would be far better managed: “One imagines people openly discussing their deaths, deciding reasonably and honestly the point at which their lives should finish.” In 1970, no one objected to those sentiments, but 20 years later a man in Kamloops, B.C., discovered my essay reprinted in a school reader. He spent two years petitioning federal and provincial ministers to have me prosecuted for counselling suicide, to no avail. He argued that students would read it and kill themselves.

I thought of him earlier this month and wondered if the B.C Court of Appeal gladdened his heart when it upheld the ban on medically assisted suicide. Still, I’m guessing that the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Lance Finch is closer to the emerging national consensus: “The point at which the meaning of life is lost, when life’s positive attributes are so diminished as to render life valueless” is a personal decision we should all have the right to make for ourselves.

The Quebec legislature has on the order paper a bill allowing medical assistance for suicide. The Manitoba health minister, Theresa Oswald, says “This is a conversation whose time has come.” Other health ministers are moving in the same direction. Perhaps I wasn’t overly optimistic when I suggested that it might be resolved by 2020.

There was a time when most politicians found euthanasia far too controversial even to mention. But recent decades have eliminated many once-banned topics and this one has finally made its way to the surface. It appears that generations of free speech and anxious argument have actually led to improvements in certain crucial aspects of life, including even, notably, death.

Death renders all equal,” wrote Claudian. How each one of us relates to death, however, is individual, and always changing — as we mature; as we contemplate life, and death, around us; and as society changes. In this special edition of the 

National Post, we present stories and columns looking at the different ways we see, and prepare for, the Great Equalizer. To read the complete series, click here. 

Like life, death never stops changing. Every generation faces new facts about the end of life. Every generation thinks about it in a different way.

Fifty years ago, a Canadian who lived to 100 was a news item and the recipient of a letter from the Queen. Today Canada has about 6,000 centenarians and their number increases by roughly 1,000 a year. A century ago, the death of a child was an expected part of family life; today we are appalled and outraged when it happens. Fifty years ago, suicide was universally abhorred and treated as a crime, if not a sin. Today the right to die, which means suicide for a good reason, is legal in several countries and American states; it may soon be a part of Canadian life.

Our attitude to death might strike our grandparents as inconsistent. We may or may not be terrified by it, but in choosing our entertainment we embrace it with delight. Each night of the week a small army of actors is gunned down in our living rooms. That’s one way the present moment is unique in the history of the human race. People once defended violence in TV by citing the killings in the Bible, Shakespeare and ancient Greek drama. But earlier forms of fictional death usually carried a heavy charge of meaning and often illuminated moral issues. The casual, often motiveless slaughter we watch now on TV is different. And in quantity it dwarfs the literature and drama of previous millennia.

It is not too much to say that death has become the core of popular culture. It appears that broadcasters and audiences agree that this is how it should be. We regret the reality of death, we do all we can to put it off, but clearly we find it satisfying to contemplate, often.

The young 21st century has expanded another death-related phenomenon: Huge audiences are attracted to narratives based on the notion that vampires live among us, bringing with them the exotic desires of their kind. These elaborate, often brilliantly composed stories echo superstitions of the past. In a science-dominated world they cling to the Gothic imagination of our ancestors.

As our view of death changes — and this special edition of the National Post will look at how our relationship with death continues to change — we alter our formal responses to it. A few decades ago, every funeral was solemn. Men wore black ties and long faces, women cried, unsmiling clergy delivered deadly serious eulogies. Spouses never took part: They were assumed to be so deep in mourning that they couldn’t speak.

Today, funerals can be a time for telling jokes and for light-hearted accounts of the dead individual’s eccentricities. Widows and widowers speak their own tributes if they care to. Sometimes we change the name of the event and call it “a celebration of the life” of the deceased, as if we had all decided not to let ourselves be too downcast. We work hard to keep death in perspective.

We talk more freely about death than we did a few generations ago but there remain certain aspects of it that we find hard to face. One that has always confused me is death by accident. While we profoundly believe in the value of human life, more than 2,000 Canadians a year die in motor vehicle accidents. Each death devastates people close to the victim, diminishing their lives forever. Yet the numbers register with most of us as no more than statistics. What if eight Canadian passenger planes fell to the ground annually, each killing 250 humans? If that happened, flying would soon be suspended until we found a way to make it safer.

Related

So, then, how can we tolerate the cruelty of road traffic? Because we are used to it. Unknowingly, we have built that cause of death into our moral system. It has become what historians call an unspoken assumption. We now consider those numbers normal.

As an 81-year-old, I naturally think more about death than young people do. It can’t be too far in the future. But contemplating what is to come makes me also think about all that has happened. You gain a lot by living eight decades, but you can also lose a lot.

You outlive nearly all of your elders, most of your contemporaries and even some of your younger friends. I find this far more painful than the failings of my body. Attending a funeral often means carrying home a sense of loss, of absence, that never disappears.

In an old man, a good memory like mine (though it’s weakening on the short-term side) can lead to melancholy thoughts. Memory makes you realize how much you miss certain people: Their wisdom, their laughter, their quirks, the well of affection you shared. Luis Buñuel, the great film director, kept a small pad on which he listed all the people he liked who had died. I couldn’t bear that and, in any case, don’t need it: One of my most cherished mentors died four decades ago and when I write on a favourite subject of his, I wonder what he would think of my piece. Sometimes I even work out his reactions in detail.

What I miss is the chance to talk to him and many others. I can recall the details of conversations I had with them but I want more: To revisit arguments, trade gossip, work over the great and small events of the world.

There are whole platoons of people among the missing. For instance, I can remember the reaction of my fellow sports writers when I wrote my first (also my last) story on the caber toss, the event in which Scots athletes throw giant wooden poles into the distance. I informed sports-page readers that this event had strong “cultural connotations,” a phrase my co-workers rightly found pretentious.

As an 81-year-old, I naturally think more about death than young people do

This was 60 years ago and I remember in detail all those people, nine men and one woman, each of them 10 or 15 years older than I and therefore unlikely to be reachable by phone at this time.

I remember where we all sat in our sports department, what they looked like, the advice they gave me. An assistant sports editor, a man of infinite gentleness, told me it was a crime to spell names incorrectly, especially names of people rarely mentioned in print; they would be hurt and would never forget it. Those journalists were my first colleagues and my teachers; a certain part of me loves them still.

A dear friend died just recently and, at least twice a week since, I have thought of something I wanted to tell him or ask him; a second later I remember the truth. That’s a certain kind of loneliness. It accrues and deepens.

But none of this is to be considered a complaint. Breathing and thinking, and still able to operate this miraculous instrument invented for my use in Silicon Valley — I find that, all things considered, there’s a great deal of pleasure in being old.

Many of us say that we don’t fear death. Our time in history is predominantly secular, which means that it’s relatively easy to consider dying simply a last page. We like to think of death visiting us in a relaxed, generous mood. Or we could settle for its appearance during sleep: The father of a friend of mine was reading in bed, felt sleepy, put his glasses on the bedside table, fell asleep and did not wake up. Ideal, in its way.

But it can be horrible. I don’t fear death but I’m terrified of painful and boring months (or even years) in palliative care. What if joy and wonder disappear, but a version of life endures? People can lose the ability to hear or talk. Their decline severs connections with spouses, children and friends. What if I can’t exchange words with anyone? What if I can’t read? If I can’t watch my grandchildren grow, and laugh with them, I won’t truly be alive. If able, I will earnestly request medical help to end to my life.

I don’t fear death but I’m terrified of painful and boring months (or even years) in palliative care

In 1970, I contributed a piece called “The Future of Death” to a book of essays that Stephen Clarkson edited, Vision 2020: Fifty Canadians in Search of a Future. I predicted that by the year 2020, death would be far better managed: “One imagines people openly discussing their deaths, deciding reasonably and honestly the point at which their lives should finish.” In 1970, no one objected to those sentiments, but 20 years later a man in Kamloops, B.C., discovered my essay reprinted in a school reader. He spent two years petitioning federal and provincial ministers to have me prosecuted for counselling suicide, to no avail. He argued that students would read it and kill themselves.

I thought of him earlier this month and wondered if the B.C Court of Appeal gladdened his heart when it upheld the ban on medically assisted suicide. Still, I’m guessing that the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Lance Finch is closer to the emerging national consensus: “The point at which the meaning of life is lost, when life’s positive attributes are so diminished as to render life valueless” is a personal decision we should all have the right to make for ourselves.

The Quebec legislature has on the order paper a bill allowing medical assistance for suicide. The Manitoba health minister, Theresa Oswald, says “This is a conversation whose time has come.” Other health ministers are moving in the same direction. Perhaps I wasn’t overly optimistic when I suggested that it might be resolved by 2020.

There was a time when most politicians found euthanasia far too controversial even to mention. But recent decades have eliminated many once-banned topics and this one has finally made its way to the surface. It appears that generations of free speech and anxious argument have actually led to improvements in certain crucial aspects of life, including even, notably, death.

 

Reprinted from the National Post

Robert Fulford: Death, like life, never stops changing, nor do our attitudes toward it

Longevity Contributes to Increased Estate Litigation

LongevityIncreased Estate Litigation Due to Increased Longevity

In 1998 I did a seminar on mental capacity with a geriatric specialist who told the crowd that historically people only live to be 40 years of age. He mentioned that medical science has made such quantum leaps and advancement that people’s bodies, and in particular their minds, have not adjusted to the current longevity of the life expectancy well into the 80s or 90s. The following brief article was excerpted from the Atlantic:

Why We Live 40 Years Longer Today Than We Did in 1880

Joe PinskerOct 23 2013, 7:08 PM ET

The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a golden era of American health innovation. Breakthroughs like germ theory, antibiotics, and widespread vaccination, as well as major public-health advances in sanitation and regulation, neutralized many long-leading causes of death. Life expectancy skyrocketed as a result, but brought with it new demons. For the past 50 years, medical innovation has focused less on eradicating disease and more on managing chronic conditions. Does this indicate a slowdown in medical progress and a coming plateau in life expectancy? Or have we merely hit a lull before the next wave of major fixes?

Sibling Rivalry – Mom Always Loved YOU Best

mom loved you bestSibling rivalry is rife in estate litigation

and often comes to the fore with

the death of the parents—

particularly the last parent.

Although some fortunate siblings

may be the best of friends, that

situation is obviously rare in our

practices.

One of our favourite sibling stories

happened in the case of “Robert.” He

was the youngest child, born many

years after his four older siblings.

Robert and his mother “had been

very close” and when she died, he

ended up with her entire estate. The

That story serves as an allegory

for sibling rivalry. Seemingly minor

childhood conflicts can result in

underlying resentments that may last

a lifetime. Such resentments often

emerge during the emotional upheaval

following the death of parents.

Sibling rivalry exists among most

animal species where competition

begins at birth. The rivalry may be

extreme—take for example, the black

eagle who lays two eggs. Mother looks

on while the first hatchling pecks the

second to death.

Among humans, sibling rivalry dates

back to the Bible. The Book of Genesis

tells of the jealousy between Adam and

Eve’s sons Cain and Abel. When Cain

kills Abel, the first murder occurs. That

story has inspired much Western art and

literature over the centuries.

Sibling rivalry remains a common

theme in our culture and is found in

television shows from Leave It to Beaver

to Family Guy, from Friends to The

Smothers Brothers with Tommy’s

frequent refrain, “Mom always loved

you best.” Social media loves to report

on the “friendly” tennis competition

of Venus and Serena Williams.

Our clients often include those

who adopted traits that their parents

approved of, those who rebelled, and

those who simply withdrew from the

competition altogether. It seems many

of us grew up with internal labels

such as “I’m the smart one,” “I’m the

athletic one,” or “I’m the black sheep.”

disinherited siblings sued. At the

examinations for discovery, the siblings

were extremely hostile, glaring at

Robert. During questioning, Trevor

asked Robert’s older sister about her

obvious hatred toward her youngest

brother. He fully expected to hear

how Robert was selfish, greedy,

and dishonest. Instead, the sister

responded, “He was allowed to have

cheese sandwiches before bed and

we weren’t!” The others nodded in

agreement.

Sibling Rivalry:

Mom Always

Loved You Best

Seemingly minor childhood

conflicts can result

in underlying resentments

that may last a lifetime.

Wills & Estates

Trevor Todd

Judith Milliken, QC

©iStockphoto.com/Fertnig Photography

72 The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia V olume 22 N umber 3 Fall 2013

Unfortunately, it seems some

parents more or less openly favour

a preferred child. Others needlessly

criticize a less-favoured child. Such

treatment inevitably creates resentment

between and among the siblings.

Psychologists report that from age

18 months, siblings can understand

family rules and know how to comfort

and be kind to each other. By age 3,

children have a sophisticated

grasp of the social rules within the

household and know how to adapt

to circumstances within the family.

One school of thought suggests

that fighting among siblings may

actually increase in adolescence, with

early teens reaching the highest level

of competition.

Some say that sibling bullying and

abuse are largely underreported. Recent

studies have indicated that bullying

and aggressive behaviour by a sibling

can be just as damaging as bullying

by a classmate, neighbour, or peer.

Most disturbing in our practice are

the surprising number of female clients

who have apparently suffered sexual

abuse by a teenage brother, usually

a few years older. They include serious

sexual assaults leaving lasting scars.

The Role Played by Parents

While it is natural for siblings

to compete, parents can certainly have

a positive or a detrimental effect in

reducing the potential to cause great

damage. Starting early to reduce such

rivalry is key. It is beyond the scope

of this article to provide parenting

advice but there are many useful

self-help books available, for example

Siblings Without Rivalry by Adele Faber

and Elaine Mazlich.

By the time most clients reach

a lawyer’s office, the horse is out of the

barn. It often seems parents have

contributed to rivalry by encouraging

competition, snitching, teasing, or

displaying overt favouritism. We

also unfortunately see the results

of highly dysfunctional families where

a parent with a personality disorder

has deliberately played one sibling off

against the others for most of their lives.

Sibling rivalry is inherent in human

nature. Most of us grew up competing

for an equal share of limited family

For example, if one child has

a disability, it is important that the

memorandum accompanying the Will

explain that fact clearly. Such an

explanation will often be better received

if also delivered to the family in person,

while the parent is still alive.

Clarity is also extremely important.

Even matters such as funeral

arrangements can cause great conflict

between and among siblings after

death when emotions of grief can

easily turn to anger. Long-standing

resentments by siblings can manifest

in pettiness—basically the need

to control . . . to flex their muscles and

withhold control from others.

Minimizing the opportunity for

conflict is important. Clear, written

directions by the parent are often

persuasive, for example, directions

for any funeral or celebration of life,

clear directions as to who specifically

should receive which items of personal

property. In these days of ubiquitous

technology, for further clarification it

is easy to take photographs and attach

them to any list.

Thoughtful legal practitioners will

have many more practical suggestions

for addressing this age-old problem. s

Trevor Todd restricts his practice

to estate litigation and has practised

law for 38 years. He is a past President

of the Trial Lawyers Association of BC,

a past chair of the Wills and Trusts

(Vancouver) Subsection, and a past

president of the New Westminster Bar

association. He frequently lectures

to CLE, TLAB C, the BC Notaries, and

various law, business, or general

public sessions on estate law issues.

disinherited.com is 17 years old.

It has hundreds of blogs and articles

and currently over 5600 visitors per

month on average.

Judith Milliken, QC, hails from

Saskatchewan. She has practised law

in BC since 1976. A former commercial

lawyer then senior Crown Counsel, she

is a highly experienced litigator who

practises exclusively estate litigation,

Wills, and trusts with Stewart Aulinger,

Vancouver.

judithmilliken@telus.net

resources, whether that be parental

attention, time in the bathroom, or

a share of dessert.

Other complicating factors

include the so-called “blended family”

involving step-siblings Many cultures

also significantly favour males, which

can lead to “societal sibling rivalries”

between men and women.

Significant life issues such as

care giving for elderly parents or

unequal treatment in inheritances can

inflame old grievances and perceived

slights. Even making funeral

arrangements can bring out the worst

in the surviving children.

While siblings display an intense

need to share equally in their

inheritances, unfortunately some

parents continue to play favourites

until the end, leaving some children

much larger or lesser shares of the

estate. That usually causes incredible

bitterness and resentment. On a basic

level, survivors equate inheritance

with parental love and cannot bear

being loved less by a parent than their

siblings were loved.

Lesser shares also invite litigation

under British Columbia’s Wills Variation

Act for it defies the moral claims

of the children to share equally in their

parents’ estates.

The societal expectation that

children will receive equal shares was

recognized by Madame J. Daphne

Smith, now of the Court of Appeal, in

Ryan vs. Delahaye 2003 BCSC 1081.

In paragraph [67] she said, “In the

absence of express reasons for an

unequal distribution, contemporary

standards create a reasonable

expectation of children sharing equally

in a parent’s estate.”

Reducing Sibling Rivalry after Death

Parents are strongly encouraged

to divide their estates in equal shares

among their children. If there is

a compelling reason to do otherwise,

it is crucial for parents to address

their communications thoughtfully.

Parents are strongly

encouraged to divide their

estates in equal shares

among their children.

Volume 22 N umber 3 Fall 2013 The Scrivener 73