S.46 WESA: When Gifts Cannot Take Effect
S.46 WESA applied to the following simple fact pattern that I recently met: A will left everything to my children in equal shares, share and
S.46 WESA applied to the following simple fact pattern that I recently met: A will left everything to my children in equal shares, share and
Bergen v Bergen 2013 BCCA 492 at paragraph 42 states that when a property is purchased by one party, but held in joint tenancy, there
Zellweger v Zellweger 2018 BCSC 1227 discussed inter alia the criteria for determining if monies advanced within the family context are a loan or a
Terezakis Estate 2018 BCSC 805 discusses section 46 of WESA relating to an interpretation of the residue of a will that dealt with its interpretation
Re Wood Estate 2004 BCCA 556 at para. 1 describes the doctrine of ademption as “ a rule of the law of wills, whereby a
“Fraudulent beneficiaries” has arisen in a claim that I am aware of currently before the courts, where it is alleged that the deceased was fooled
Burkett v Burkett Estate 2018 BCSC 320 held that the presumption of undue influence in gifts arises in circumstances where the relationship between the parties
HCF v DTF 2017 BCSC 1226, a divorce case, traces the historical roots of the presumption of advancement and finds that it is an outmoded
The BC Appeal Court in Winstanley v Winstanley 2017 BCCA 265 ordered a new trial on the basis that the trial Judge erred in his
ABP v KGW 2017 BCSC 977 provides a template of the criteria a court will examine in determining if a gratuitous advance of monies or property within