Every Court Worker Has Riotous Stories to Tell – Here Are a Few

Riotous Stories

These extracts from a book called ‘Disorder in the American Courts’ are things people actually said in court, word for word.

They were taken down and published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place.

 

ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS:      He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?’
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS:      My name is Susan!
_______________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS:      Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
___________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS:      July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS:      Every year.
_____________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS:      Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS:      Forty-five years.
__________________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS:      Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS:      I forget..
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
_________________________________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS:      Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________

ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS:      He’s 20, much like your IQ.
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS:      Are you shitting me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS:      Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS:      Getting laid
____________________________________________

ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?
WITNESS:      Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS:      None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS:      Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS:      By death..
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS:      Take a guess.
___________________________________________

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS:      He was about medium height and had a beard
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS:      Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS:      No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS:      All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS:      Oral…
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY:  Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS:      The autopsy started around 8:30 PM
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS:      If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS:      Are you qualified to ask that question?
______________________________________
And last:

ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a
pulse?
WITNESS:      No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS:      No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS:      No..
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you
began the autopsy?
WITNESS:      No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS:      Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS:      Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

– See more at: http://www.disinherited.com/blog/every-court-worker-has-riotous-stories-tell-here-are-few#sthash.LA5OpQ53.dpuf

Children Neglected When Young Held Not Liable To Support Mother

Children Neglected When Young Held Not Liable To Support Mother

Adult Children Who Were Neglected When Young Held Not Liable To Support Manipulative Mother

Anderson v Anderson, Doko and others 2013 BCSC 129 is sort of a “shoe on the other foot” vantage  from the usual case blogged by disinherited.com

Here an elderly mother brought court action against  three surviving grown children of her own, mostly in their 50’s, for monthly financial support based on her need.

The court found that two of the three children could not afford to pay support for their mother.

The third, while financially able to do do, was held not liable to do so by reason of the neglect and lack of proper parental leadership of the mother to her children when the children was in their formative years.

The Court follows the guidelines of Newson v Newson (1997) 35 BCLR (3d) (C.A.), as follows:

The claim is brought pursuant to s. 90 of the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128 (the “Act’), which provides:

(1) In this section:

“child” means an adult child of a parent;

“parent” means a father or mother dependent on a child because of age, illness, infirmity or economic circumstances.

(2) A child is liable to maintain and support a parent having regard to the other responsibilities and liabilities and the reasonable needs of the child.

[5]      This section was repealed on November 25, 2011, as a result of the operation of ss. 258 and 482 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25. The repeal of s. 90 followed the release of the White Paper on Family Relations Act Reform which was published by the Justice Services Branch on July 6, 2010. The white paper noted that s. 90 was rarely used and that it “creates more problems than it solves. The cost for an elderly parent to sue an adult child for parental support could often exceed the amount of support ordered, and such litigation is likely to damage the relationship between adult child and parent.” As a result of the repeal of s. 90, this decision is of interest to the litigants but has no precedential value.

[6]       There are few reported decisions considering s. 90 or its predecessor sections. In Hua v. Lam, [1985] B.C.J. No. 2706 (P.C.), the court considered the differences in the Act between the various obligations a person has to support his or her children, a spouse and parents. By analyzing the interplay of the provisions in the Act, Collings P.C.J, concluded at para. 29:

The result of my reading of s. 58(2) [now s. 90(2)] is that the obligations to support a child or a spouse rank ahead of the obligation to support a parent. To put that another way round, the funds available must be applied first to support the child and the spouse, and only after those obligations have been fulfilled should they be applied to support the parent.

[7]      The conclusion in Hua was implicitly approved in Newson v. Newson (1997), 35 B.C.L.R. (3d) 341 (C.A.), the leading case in British Columbia on the application of s. 90 of the Act. In Newson, the court considered an application for interim parental support by a father against his estranged children, none of whom were providing support to him at the time of the application. The court allowed the father’s appeal, overturned the dismissal of the father’s application and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for determination. In doing so, the court determined that the section does not require a parent to demonstrate an existing dependency upon an adult child before he or she can seek support. The word “dependent” in the definition of “parent” is to be given its primary meaning of financial dependence. However, the court also concluded as follows at para. 35:

S-s.(2) of s.58 [now s. 90] qualifies the adult child’s liability to maintain and support a parent in want for the reasons stated in s-s.(1) in these terms:”… having regard to the other responsibilities and liabilities and the reasonable needs of the child”. These are words broad enough to enable the court to consider nearly all, if not all, of the children’s objections to alleviating the parent’s need. Specifically, the period of and the reasons for the estrangement of parent and children are factors to be taken into account in the objective evaluation and consequent ranking of the needs of the adult child.

 

[8]       In Newson v. Newson (1998), 65 B.C.L.R. (3d) 22 (C.A.) [Newson 2], the court was again called upon to consider the dismissal of the father’s application for interim support. The father was homeless and in need of financial assistance. The court was critical of the approach taken by the chambers judge who made extensive findings of fact including a determination that the father had abused the children. The court found that it was not appropriate on an interim application to make findings of fact which could potentially embarrass the trial judge. The court found that the father had made out a prima facie case of entitlement and that two of the children had a financial surplus. The court ordered them to pay $200 per month. In doing so, the court stated at para. 15:

In the present case we are of the view the father has made out a prima facie case of entitlement. The circumstances of the children must be considered in a manner that avoids “thrashing out the merits of the case”. On an interim application these would include their financial circumstances and responsibilities and the long period of separation between them and the father. In our view, the unadorned facts of separation and estrangement would relieve the court from considering any moral claim on the part of the father to a lifestyle comparable to that of any one of the children. There would then remain for consideration whether relief is needed to relieve the more emergent consequences of indigence and of the financial circumstances and responsibilities of the children in this context.

[9]      In S.A.G. v. M.R.G., 2000 BCPC 45, a mother who was estranged from her son sought parental support from him sufficient to put her on similar economic terms. His annual income was approximately equal to his reasonable expenses including annual RRSP contributions. The court found that the applicant’s conduct, even though it led to the estrangement, did not disentitle her to support. After examining the income and expenses of both parties, Gillis P.C.J. concluded at para. 57:

The result is that the son, though liable to pay maintenance for his mother’s support, does not have sufficient funds to pay any amount.

[10]    The final decision commenting on s. 90 of the Act is Master Donaldson’s ruling on the interim application in this case: Anderson v. Anderson, [2000] B.C.J. No. 2694 (S.C.) [Anderson #1]. His review of the authorities led him, at para. 13:

… to several conclusions, not the least of which is that in determining the ability to pay maintenance for a parent the existing needs of the child’s present family must first be considered; and secondly, that one is required to take into account only the child’s own income and not that of his or her spouse.

[11]    The limited jurisprudence has established the following approach to claims for parental support:

a)      The first step is to examine the applicant’s financial circumstances as well as her health and personal circumstances to determine if she is financially dependent.

b)       After examining those circumstances if it is determined that the applicant is financially dependent – in other words her assets and ability to earn income are not sufficient to enable her to support herself- then she has an entitlement to support under s. 90.

c)     The next step is to examine the means of the children from whom support is sought as well as their responsibilities, liabilities and reasonable needs. If it is determined that a child has an excess of income over his or her reasonable expenses for responsibilities, liabilities and needs, an order for support may be made.

d)     At the final stage, the court should examine the other circumstances of the parent/child relationship to determine the level of support. At this stage of the analysis, the reasons for and the length of any estrangement between them “are factors to be taken into account in the objective evaluation and consequent ranking of the needs of the adult child”: Newson. Estrangement may lead the court to conclude that a parent has no moral claim to a lifestyle comparable to that of any of her children.

Billionaires Compete Re Huge Marriage Dowries For Daughters

DoweryMarriage dowries are largely unknown in Western societies, but still exist in  India and China.

The marriage dowries have a long history and tradition, and involves the payment of money, goods, or estate that a bride brings with her into the marriage.

The monies and such are invariably given to the bride by her parents, and the reasons for this are often opaque.

Many believe that is simply “seed money” to the new groom, while others regard it as insurance for the bride in the event she is not treated well by her husband, or he dies.

One other historical reasons is to achieve higher status, nobility and recognition for the families.

Today’s news from China that a billionaire in Jin-Jiang has given his daughter, and her childhood sweet heart in excess of $225 million as a wedding dowry.

Apparently this is the third enormous dowry given in the same city in the last year, and the public internet response in China is one of ” astonishment, jealousy and congratulations”.

It would appear that the concept of dowry amongst the Chinese billionaires has been reduced to bragging rights and widespread publicity of both the family, and perhaps more importantly, the wealth and business acumen of the industrialist father of the bride.

– See more at: http://www.disinherited.com/blog/chinese-billionaires-compete-re-huge-marriage-dowries-daughters#sthash.UskwyHUk.dpuf

Housekeeper and Staff of Aged Heiress Sued By Public Administrator For $44 Million In “Gifts” In NY

The lawsuit commenced in Manhattan this year concerning the estate of reclusive heiress Huguette Clark , has to be the years most sensational estate case, and thus appropriate for the last blog of the year.

The claim is brought by 19 distant family members concerning her estate which may be worth $400 million.

She married for a short time only and inherited the massive fortune from her late Senator father

She had no children or close family and lived the life of a reclusive- even one of her lawyers for 20 years never met her and spoke to her from behind a closed door.

The suit alleges that the two wills she did within a few months of each other at age 98 are invalid due to dementia and the undue influence of a Phillipino caregiver who was “very close” to the heiress, as her caregiver of 20 years.

The suit also claims back “gifts” totalling $44 million that were supposedly given as follows:

Caregiver- $26 million to her and another $6 million to her family, allowing her to buy 5 houses and drive a Bentley,

Nightmare Nurse- $1.1 million

Two doctors- $3.1 million

Lawyer- $2 million

Hospital- $12 million where she resided the last 20 years of her life in reasonably good health, in spartan conditions, before dying at 104

Accountant $375,000

A friend- $10 million

The decreased wrote all of the cheques herself until her eyes gave out at 102.

She often rebuffed advice not to give such substantial gifts, and incurred a huge tax bill for the gifts

All of the gifts were on top of substantial salaries- the caregiver was paid $131,000 per year, and the hospital $400,000

The lawsuit alleges that these individuals”bled” her estate and that the monies, including lawyer fees since 1997′ should be paid back to her estate

She was totally reclusive and saw no visitors except for “staff” in at least the last 20 years of her life.

The lawsuit alleges she was totally isolated and dependant on the aforesaid staff,especially the caregiver, Ms Peri.

The deceased left two wills, both done at age 98, and both within 6 weeks of the other

The first will left most of the estate to her intestate heirs, the plaintiffs in the court action, and $5 million more to Peri

The second will left out the intestate heirs and left most of the fortune to a museum to administer her art collection, and $31 million more to the housekeeper Peri

It is alleged that both wills are invalid due to lack of capacity and undue influence, and if the Court agrees, then the 19 relatives, all distant, would inherit the fortune

Much of the litigation concerning the two wills will focus on what occurred, if anything, during those 6 weeks to cause such a significant turn of events in the beneficiaries.

disinherited.com has seen a good deal of litigation concerning caregivers who benefit both during and after the life of the patient, but the Clark litigation takes it to a whole different level!

– See more at: http://www.disinherited.com/blog/housekeeper-and-staff-aged-heiress-sued-public-administrator-44-million-gifts-ny#sthash.B5DFGc2S.dpuf

Financial Institution Not Liable For Loss of Invested Inheritance

There have been many court decisions in recent years with the courts have found financial advisors to be negligent in the handling of the investors funds.

This was not the case in the recent decision from Ontario in Erst v. Royal Mutual Funds Inc. 2011 CarswellOnt 15933

 

The plaintiff investor had invested her inheritance with the defendant financial institution.

The investment advisor determined  the investors investment portfolio, which showed her objective was a combination of modest income and long-term growth, namely  a balanced investor.

The investor accepted the advisor’s recommendation as a twin mix of investments on fully informed basis.

The financial markets suffered a collapse and the investments declined to such an extent that the investor redeemed her investments, and crystallized  loss of $34,000

The investor brought court action for damages arising from these investment losses, and her action was dismissed

.

The court found that the financial institution was not responsible for her losses as it did not mischaracterize the investors investment profile.

 

There was no negligence or breach of contract in setting up her portfolio, nor in the time up to until hr redemption of the investments.

The court found that the institution had committed no actionable wrong in assessing the investor, advising her, and setting up her portfolio, which the Court found was all done  in accordance with her instructions

The investment advisor consistently gave the investor the correct advice, and specifically to hold on to the investments because the losses were likely to turnaround in the long run

The investor ignored this advice and was the one who made the decision to redeem her investments and crystallize her losses.

– See more at: http://www.disinherited.com/blog/financial-institution-not-liable-loss-invested-inheritance#sthash.axVd9Tta.dpuf

Crime Does Not Pay In Estate Inheritances Unless Criminally Insane

Estate Inheritances

Yesterday I blogged about who were nieces and nephews in the Re Holmes Estate.

One of the interesting side issues of the Holmes Estate case was that pursuant to the deceased’s will, if any of the 2 testator’s nieces or nephews predeceased the testator, that person share of his estate was to be paid to the predeceased person’s spouse.

In fact the spouse of one of the nieces of the deceased, had been convicted of her murder several years prior.

The court held that the convicted spouse of the deceased niece was not entitled to her share of the estate, because of the general rule of public policy precluding a person from benefiting from a crime.

Accordingly the Court held that the gift to the nieces and nephews was a class gift,  and when a class member was disqualified from taking a share, that share was to go to increase the shares of the surviving class members.

The Court followed the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Nordstrom v Baumann 37 WWR 16, ( 1962) SCR 147 which had clearly stated that the will of public policy which precludes a person from benefiting from his or her own crime overrides the statute law as to the distribution of the estate of an intestate.

The court easily held that it is permissible in civil actions to make findings of fact which you proven in criminal proceedings would be held criminal.

Accordingly Canadian civil courts have repeatedly determined the question of whether or not the conduct of an individual amounts to a crime, for the purpose of invoking the rule of public policy precluding a person from benefiting from his own crime.

In this case the will, the questionable beneficiary was found to be criminally insane at the time she said a fire which cause the death of her husband.

Accordingly the court allowed her to inherit, as the finding of insanity did not prevent her from inheriting due to public policy. Her share was thus placed with the Public Guardian.

Ending Life Support – The Ng Case

Ending Life Support

 

disinherited.com was initially consulted in this most interesting court case only days before a decision had been made to end Kenny Ng’s life.

 

I retained Candace Cho, my mentee, to act in the matter and shadowed her handling of the court action, including sitting at counsel table while she ably argued the case on behalf of the family, opposing the wife’s application to end Kenny’s life support.

 

The reporter, Ian Mulgrew sat in the court room for most of the legal submissions and wrote the following balanced view of this intriguing questions:

 

What is in the best interest of the patient, Kenny Ng- to live or to die, and who should make that decision?

 

Brain injured man at centre of legal battle over whether to remove feeding tubes

 

A car accident left former math whiz in a vegetative state, now his wife and family are at odds over his fate

 

BY IAN MULGREW, VANCOUVER SUN DECEMBER 5, 2012
http://www.vancouversun.com/images/socialbuttons/btn_comment_arrow.jpg); position: relative; width: 6px; font-family: arial, verdana, ‘lucida grande’, sans-serif; background-position: 0% 0%; float: left; height: 5px; font-size: 11px; top: 6px; left: 1px”>
0

 

 

 

 

 

A 57-year-old Vancouver man who has languished in a coma for seven years has become the focus of a tragic family tug-of-war in B.C. Supreme Court over whether he should live or die.

Photograph by: Steve Bosch , PNG files

A 57-year-old Vancouver man who has languished in a vegetative state for seven years has become the focus of a tragic family tug-of-war over whether he should live or die.

His wife Lora wants medical staff to remove Kenny Ng’s feeding tubes, which will cause him to starve to death over about two weeks.

His parents, siblings and relatives, however, have asked B.C. Supreme Court Justice Miriam Gropper to intervene and keep Ng alive in the hope he can benefit from recent neuroscience medical discoveries.

They argue Ng’s wife should be replaced as the person making decisions about his long-term care at the George Pearson Centre, since he may qualify for pioneering treatments by celebrated brain researcher Adrian Owen.

“They believe that Dr. Owen’s study is exactly what Kenny has been waiting for over the last seven years,” the family’s lawyer Candace Cho said. “And knowing Kenny’s belief in technology and progress, they believe that Kenny would jump at the chance at participating in the study.”

On Tuesday, she played for the judge a short, heart-rending video of the man in his hospital bed reflexively responding to visitors.

“The fact is, Kenny is very much alive,” Cho maintained.

“He is breathing on his own, able to move his head around, make noises, open his eyes, and the only thing that the hospital is doing to keep him alive is to feed him nutrition and fluids.”

Several members of Ng’s family sat stoically on one side of the courtroom, his wife inscrutable on the other.

Ng was described as a former math-whiz who graduated from Sir Charles Tupper secondary. He became an electrical engineer and started his own successful business, Phase Technology, involving the design, manufacture and sale of petroleum analysers.

His predicament is reminiscent of a recent Alberta case involving a young girl the courts ordered to be taken off life-support in spite of her parents’ wishes.

The judges in that province endorsed the view that life support should be terminated where medical specialists unanimously believe the patient was without awareness or hope of recovery and invasive treatment provided no potential benefit.

Lawyers for Ng’s wife say that’s the situation here, although the family insists otherwise.

“This is not the case of a brain-dead patient on ventilators and any type of machine imaginable to keep him alive, with absolutely no chance of recovery and a family that is holding onto his life for their own benefit and comfort,” Cho said.

Lawyers for Ng’s wife argued, though, that is exactly the case — loved ones who can’t say goodbye making “outrageous allegations” while hoping for a miracle.

“It’s an affront to (Ng’s) human dignity,” said lawyer David Dahlgren.

Ng suffered traumatic brain injuries on Sept. 9, 2005, during a car accident in Washington State that killed his eldest son, injured his two other children and left his wife badly hurt. Since then, he has been minimally conscious.

Over the last year, Ng’s family told the court his wife has become estranged from them and no longer committed to doing what is in his best interest.

“Kenny’s estate was worth approximately $3.3 million in 2006,” Cho said, arguing that financial gain was a factor.

Mrs. Ng’s lawyers dismissed such “offensive” claims as defying belief, given Mrs. Ng’s devotion to her husband’s care — she hired an expert acupuncturist and took Ng on outings to a mall and the local Home Depot to stimulate him.

She hoped he would recover but came to realize it was futile and decided to have the tubes providing food and fluid removed after Ng’s care team concluded such a decision was “medically appropriate.”

“We’re here today, my lady, because the [family] are regrettably or sadly unable to accept the reality of Mr. Ng’s condition,” lawyer Gary Fraser said.

“They cannot let go of Mr. Ng for their own personal reasons …. They simply can’t let go.”

Shortly after the horrific accident, Fraser explained, doctors said it would be appropriate to remove Ng’s feeding tubes.

Lora Ng didn’t’t act on that advice but waited to see if her husband improved. She made the decision to remove the tubes “after wrestling with it for almost seven years,” Fraser added.

“It wasn’t made in haste, it wasn’t rushed.”

But the family insisted letting Ng die would be wrong given the startling work in neuro-imaging by Dr. Owen, which proves some patients suffering from locked-in syndrome, or who have lain in vegetative states for years, may be more conscious than we realize.

In 2010, Owen, then at the University of Cambridge, UK, communicated with a man who had been in a coma for five years.

A year later, the University of Western Ontario lured him to Canada with $20 million in funding.

“Since arriving,” the doctor said in a report filed with the court, “we have seen 12 patients in Ontario (and one from Alberta) and, of these, two are able to communicate repeatedly using our (functional) MRI technique. In one case (a male traumatic brain injury patient who had been repeatedly diagnosed as vegetative for 12 years), we were able to ask the question ‘are you in any pain?’ and twice decoded the answer ‘no’ using our technique.”

The doctor continued: “I have not examined Mr. Ng, so I cannot judge whether he would be suitable for inclusion or not, but considering his clinical diagnosis (minimally conscious state), his age, and the nature of his injury I see no reason why he would not be an ideal candidate, subject to an assurance from his referring clinician that he would be safe to travel the distance.”

If the court intercedes, the family said it hopes to have Ng assessed by Owen’s team to see if he can be admitted into a new research study involving the groundbreaking techniques.

Lawyer Dahlgren said the court has no reason to step in: “Mr. Ng does not need protection in these circumstances.”

Justice Gropper reserved her decision.

imulgrew@vancouversun.com

Read more:http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Brain+injured+centre+legal+battle+over+whether+remove+feeding+tubes/7652011/story.html#ixzz2EEEiuErD

– See more at: http://www.disinherited.com/blog/ending-life-support-ng-case#sthash.SAHZHFNW.dpuf

More Women and Minorities Need to Be Appointed Judges

disinherited.com wholeheartedly endorses the recent article in the Vancouver Sun on October 22, 2012 co -written by Marjorie Griffin Cohen and retired former Justice Donna Martinson.

There simply needs to be more women and minorities appointed as Federal Court appointed Judges to the BC  Supreme Court.

The authors noted that in the past two years the federal appointments to the Supreme Court of British Columbia have been 10 in number, none of which have

been female and none of from an ethnic minority.

Shockingly, since 2009, of the 31 appointments, only five were women and only one was not Caucasian.

The authors note that these mostly white male appointments simply compound the already historical serious lack of female and minority representation on the Supreme Court bench.

For many years now our society has become increasingly multicultural with a diversity of backgrounds, ethnicities, experiences, and perspectives that must be matched by the equivalent diversity and skills on our bench.

The report was also critical of the very few appointed justices who have experience in family law, of which there is a great need to be filled by our courts.

Family law by its very nature grapples with societal problems that ultimately affect everyone.

With the high divorce rates, It is probably the one area of law that most people will come into contact with at some point during their lifetime, yet it is seemingly not taken seriously by the powers that be.

 

For example, BC is one of the few Provinces that does not have specialized family courts, another  seemingly egregious oversight.

Women and minorities have historically been vulnerable and marginalized, yet  still have suffered dramatic cutbacks to legal assistance such as legal aid in recent years.

It is simply fair and the hallmark of an advanced democracy that skilled women and minorities be chosen in appropriate more proportional representations as members of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

– See more at: http://www.disinherited.com/blog/more-women-and-minorities-need-be-appointed-judges#sthash.aeVoXURC.dpuf

Botswana Courts Grant Women Inheritance Rights For First Time

Periodically disinherited.com   republishes  an international  news story relating to inheritance laws.

While almost everywhere  in the world lacks the Wills Variation act that British Columbia and New Zealand enjoy, it is gratifying to  see the rights of  disinherited spouses anad children expanding throughout the world, slowly by slowly, where they replace previously   unjust laws.

In a landmark ruling Botswana’s High Court on Friday gave women inheritance rights for the first time, up-ending a male-dominated system that had prevailed in the thriving African nation.

Announcing the ruling, Justice Key Dingake said, “It seems to me that the time has now arisen for the justices of this court to assume the role of the judicial midwife and assist in the birth of a new world struggling to be born.”

The court ruled that a tribal law, giving the youngest-born son rights to inherit the family home was not in line with the country’s constitution, which guarantees gender equality.

The court had been hearing a case brought by three sisters aged over 65, whose claim to family property was being challenged by their nephew.

“This is a significant step forward for women’s rights not only in Botswana but in the southern Africa region, where many countries are addressing similar discriminatory laws,” said Priti Patel of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre.

 

Top Court Allows Plaintiff Teen In Defamation Suit To Remain Anonymous

Anonymous Witness

Early this week disinherited.com blogged about the willingness of the courts to protect the privacy of various litigants under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on such an important issue today in a land mark decision  A.B v Bragg Communications Inc 2012 SCC 46

The  Court Facts are as Follows:

A 15‑year old girl found out that someone had posted a fake Facebook profile using her picture, a slightly modified version of her name, and other particulars identifying her.  The picture was accompanied by unflattering commentary about the girl’s appearance along with sexually explicit references.  Through her father as guardian, the girl brought an application for an order requiring the Internet provider to disclose the identity of the person(s) who used the IP address to publish the profile so that she could identify potential defendants for an action in defamation suit.  As part of her application, she asked for permission to anonymously seek the identity of the creator of the profile and for a publication ban on the content of the profile.

Two media groups opposed the request for anonymity and the ban.  The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia granted the request that the Internet provider disclose the information about the publisher of the profile, but denied the request for anonymity and the publication ban because there was insufficient evidence of specific harm to the girl.  The judge stayed that part of his order requiring the Internet provider to disclose the publisher’s identity until either a successful appeal allowed the girl to proceed anonymously or until she filed a draft order which used her own and her father’s real names.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision primarily on the ground that the girl had not discharged the onus of showing that there was evidence of harm to her which justified restricting access to the media.

Held:  The appeal should be allowed in part.

The critical importance of the open court principle and a free press has been tenaciously embedded in the jurisprudence.  In this case, however, there are interests that are sufficiently compelling to justify restricting such access: privacy and the protection of children from cyberbullying.

Recognition of the inherent vulnerability of children has consistent and deep roots in Canadian law and results in the protection of young people’s privacy rights based on age, not the sensitivity of the particular child.  In an application involving cyberbullying, there is no need for a child to demonstrate that he or she personally conforms to this legal paradigm.  The law attributes the heightened vulnerability based on chronology, not temperament.

While evidence of a direct, harmful consequence to an individual applicant is relevant, courts may also conclude that there is objectively discernable harm.  It is logical to infer that children can suffer harm through cyberbullying, given the psychological toxicity of the phenomenon.  Since children are entitled to protect themselves from bullying, cyber or otherwise, there is inevitable harm to them — and to the administration of justice — if they decline to take steps to protect themselves because of the risk of further harm from public disclosure.  Since common sense and the evidence show that young victims of sexualized bullying are particularly vulnerable to the harms of revictimization upon publication, and since the right to protection will disappear for most children without the further protection of anonymity, the girl’s anonymous legal pursuit of the identity of her cyberbully should be allowed.

In Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122, prohibiting identity disclosure was found to represent only minimal harm to press freedom.  The serious harm in failing to protect young victims of bullying through anonymity, as a result, outweighs this minimal harm.  But once the girl’s identity is protected through her right to proceed anonymously, there is little justification for a publication ban on the non‑identifying content of the profile.  If the non‑identifying information is made public, there is no harmful impact on the girl since the information cannot be connected to her.  The public’s right to open courts –and press freedom – therefore prevail with respect to the non‑identifying Facebook content.

– See more at: http://www.disinherited.com/blog/top-court-allows-plaintiff-teen-defamation-suit-remain-anonymous#sthash.xLVthPCy.dpuf