Estate Planning & Litigation Update: Promises Do Keep! Equity Prevails Where Strict Legal Rights Fail

• Uncategorized

Whether now or later, your word will be your bond.

In the opening words of the Supreme Court of Canada’s December 14, 2017 decision in Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, Chief Justice McLachlan wrote some of her final words to the Canadian judiciary, lawyers, and the public, before her retirement on December 15.

In her final chapter as Chief Justice of Canada, she turned her mind to what should happen when a someone makes a promise to give someone else rights in specified property — is a promise enough? Can you promise something you do not yet legally own? Does it take a contract or written agreement, to become enforceable? 

Well, according to the Chief Justice, the short answer is: “Equity enforces promises that the law does not.” So, what does that mean?

Bleak House? — What this estate fight was all about.

Let me explain what this important new decision in Cowper-Smith is all about. This decision considers a smattering of several Court of Appeal decisions across Canada that had confirmed proprietary estoppel as a principle of Canadian law, but applied it without a consistent legal test for general guidance.

This new top-court case consolidates the principles of proprietary estoppel and defines what must be proven, to establish a solid claim. It also expressly reduced the requirements to prove such a claim. While this particular fight in Cowper-Smith involved siblings, the equitable claims addressed apply to any sufficient promise, such as often occurs between romantic partners, business partners, or even friends.

A history of sibling discord.

The situation that caused the fight in Cower-Smith was this history:

• Elizabeth was a mother of three, living in Victoria, British Columbia. Her daughter, Gloria, became a potter and settled in Victoria. Her son, Max, moved to England and practiced law. Nathan moved to Edmonton and worked for the Alberta government’s child services branch.
• When their father died in 1992, he told the children that he and Elizabeth wanted everything evenly divided between the children, for family harmony.
• Gloria had a dispute with Nathan. In 2000, Nathan moved back home with Elizabeth after a relationship failed in Alberta. Nathan did some house work, which Elizabeth liked. However, Gloria would visit Elizabeth and she became agitated and concerned that Nathan would take her house from her. She was troubled by some alleged plans by Nathan to throw “gay parties” in her house.
• In 2001, Gloria penned a letter to Nathan, demanding that he not shout or raise his voice in Elizabeth’s home, or “entertain Gay Males” at home, amongst other grievances. A further letter demanded that he leave the house and not return. He returned from a trip to discover the locks were changed and his belongings removed. Nathan moved back to Edmonton.
• Also in 2001, Elizabeth transferred title to her home and all investments into joint names of herself and Gloria. In a “Declaration of Trust” document, Elizabeth confirmed that Gloria held those assets as bare trustee for Elizabeth, but that Gloria would be “entitled absolutely” to them upon Elizabeth’s death. She also signed a new Will appointing Gloria as executor.
• In 2002, Elizabeth revoked the 2001 Will and appointed Gloria as executor. In this final Will (2002), she decided that all three children would share evenly in her estate. Yet, all property remained in joint title with Gloria (which, without the court claims by Max, would mean the others would receive their even share of nothing).

No good deed goes unpunished — how the dust-up began.

• After their father’s death in 1992, Max suffered financial and mental health and substance use difficulties. His marriage concluded. After 2000, his situation improved.
• In 2003 and 2005, Max visited Victoria. He had some discussions with Gloria. Elizabeth was reaching a stage of life where she needed more assistance in her daily tasks. Gloria asked Max to return home to live with Elizabeth and care for her.
• In 2005, Elizabeth also asked Nathan to forgive her for what occurred earlier when she evicted him. Nathan confirmed he knew it was Gloria’s doing. That same year, he discovered that Gloria’s name was jointly on title with Elizabeth. Gloria assured him that he would still get his 1/3 share of Elizabeth’s estate upon her death.
• The three siblings all eventually came to an agreement that Gloria, would sell her share of the family home to Max, if Max would move from England (where he had an established life and successful law practice) back to British Columbia and care for their mother. Max would also have expenses covered by Elizabeth, and have use of her car, and be permitted to live in her house permanently.
• In 2009, Gloria later disputed this agreement. Max then also discovered the change of title from Elizabeth’s sole name to Elizabeth and Gloria jointly, which had occurred in 2001. Like Nathan, she assured Max he would share evenly in their mother’s estate.
• When Elizabeth died in 2011, Gloria became Elizabeth’s executor. She refused to sell Max her share of the estate house, arguing that she could not have reached a legally enforceable contract to sell something she did not own at the time (note: in strict legal senses, as opposed to in equity, this argument may have succeeded, as the Court of Appeal in British Columbia found before the Supreme Court of Canada heard this appeal).
• Gloria attempted, as executor, to sell the house while Max was still living in it. He then discovered the “Declaration of Trust” document from 2001, and commenced legal proceedings to enforce the promise by Gloria to sell him her 1/3 interest in the house.
• Nathan confirmed that Gloria’s earlier agreement occurred, and supported Max’s claim in court.

What the Court decided: What sort of promise is promising for your claim?

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that oral promises can indeed be sufficient to grant rights in property. No contract or legal formality is necessary. Certain requirements must be met.

Once the following 3 principles align in a particular case, a proprietary estoppel arises to confirm that the claimant’s right exists (and can create a new right and claim).

• A promise for rights about specific property: “A representation or assurance is made to the claimant, on the basis of which the claimant expects that he will enjoy some right or benefit over property.” This promise can be express or implied from words or conduct. The property over which rights are promised need not actually be owned or held by the person making the promise. It is sufficient that they hold an interest “sufficient to fulfil the claimant’s expectation.” The equity will become enforceable when that interest is later held by the person making the promise.
• Relied on the promise: “The claimant relies on that expectation by doing or refraining from doing something, and his reliance is reasonable in all the circumstances.”
• Detriment / inconvenience from relying on promise: “The claimant suffers a detriment as a result of his reasonable reliance, such that it would be unfair or unjust for the party responsible for the representation or assurance to go back on her word.”

Once all 3 factors are advanced with sufficient proof, the courts will confirm that a proprietary estoppel exists which prevents the responding party from denying the claimant’s rights. They are enforceable. The court then issues a remedy which can take various forms, depending on the needs of the particular case.

In Cowper-Smith, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the claimant (Max) had shown that the responding party (Gloria) made a promise to him that was specific enough, and that it was intended to be relied upon by him, and that he relied upon it, in moving away from his established life in England to Victoria, British Columbia, to care for their mother.

It did not matter that Gloria did not yet own the legal rights she promised to Max (her 1/3 interest in the estate house). That promise became binding the moment Gloria’s interest in the property (as a beneficiary) arose when Elizabeth died.

The Court ordered that Gloria must acknowledge Max’s right to purchase her 1/3 interest in their mother’s home. The Court also directed that Gloria, wearing her executor hat, must accept this fact within the Estate also, and give effect to it.

Background on equitable claims in Canadian courts: bridging the gap between strict legal rights and what is “fair.”

Why do the courts possess such powers to enforce promises? It’s simple: it’s about fairness. A serious promise is enough; it’s about keeping one’s word and avoiding unfair results based on strict legal rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed:

“proprietary estoppel avoids the unfairness or injustice that would result to one party if the other were permitted to break her word and insist on her strict legal rights.”

Equitable claims can include proprietary estoppel (like in this Cowper-Smith case) or unjust enrichment, or other equitable complaints. Such claims grant Canadian courts very broad discretion to enforce such rights, in contrast to legal claims which must follow a much narrower and sometimes more onerous path to victory.

Equity is often said to grant the power to ‘do what ought to be done’, where narrow legal rights are often too strict.  This new case from our top court certainly reinforces that principle in Canadian law.

We hope you have enjoyed reading this summary! Have other estate litigation or estate planning questions?

Walsh LLP’s Trust, Wills, & Estate Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group and our Wills & Estate Planning Group are here to help.

Contact us and read more! We are here to guide you on your journey!

Construction Lien Rights Won For The Oil & Gas Industry

• Uncategorized

If you or your company have not been paid for the services or materials provided to a construction or oil or gas project, the Alberta Builders’ Lien Act (“BLA”) can be utilized to protect your rights to repayment.

Under the BLA, contractors and sub-contractors on a construction project usually have 45 days from the last day worked (or the day the contract was abandoned) or the last date rented equipment was on site to file a lien. However, if the services or materials provided were with respect to improvements to an oil or gas well or an oil or gas well site, a longer 90 day registration period may apply.

The recent Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision of Davidson Well Drilling Limited (Re), 2016 ABQB 416, considered a number of builders’ liens filed against a Syncrude oil sands project near Wood Buffalo, Alberta. The general contractor on the project, Davidson Well Drilling (“Davidson”), went into receivership, leaving numerous sub-trades unpaid for the work they had provided. 

The Receiver acting on behalf of Davidson had to determine which liens were valid. The Receiver argued that five liens were invalid due to, among other things, the fact that they were not filed within 45 days. The primary issue for the court to consider was whether the Syncrude Oil Sands project was “an oil or gas well or oil or gas well site,” entitling its sub-trades to the longer 90 day registration period under the BLA.

Walsh LLP represented lien claimants who had provided services as sub-trades on the project and successfully argued that, in fact, the longer 90 day registration period applied in the circumstances.

Although the Alberta Energy Regulator had designated the sites as “mines,” the story did not end there. The court instead adopted a liberal interpretation of the term “oil or gas well or well site,” consistent with the remedial purpose of the legislation, and ruled that this included exploratory wells, evaluation holes, or test wells.

In the case at hand, Davidson was involved in the drilling of exploratory wells in order to locate bitumen from which oil would be processed. Their services, as well as those providing services or materials to them, were therefore entitled to the 90 day lien period.

The oil and gas service companies represented by Walsh LLP were assisting with these drilling endeavours. The court agreed with Walsh LLP that their liens were valid and they were entitled to payment for same.

However, simply doing work on an oil or gas site does not necessarily entitle you to a longer lien registration period. If the work provided is totally unrelated to the drilling of wells, the shorter 45 day lien period may apply. Therefore, it is best to err on the side of caution and file all liens within 45 days.  Each case is determined on its own facts.

For any questions or comments regarding builders’ liens or construction law disputes, contact one of Walsh LLP’s Construction Litigation lawyers.

In Memory Of Tom Walsh

• Uncategorized

It is with sadness that the members of the Firm of Walsh LLP learned of the passing of its founder, Tom Walsh, on June 30, 2016. Since establishing the Firm in 1959 and long after his retirement, Tom was an integral part of the Firm and the values that he instilled will live on. Tom loved his Firm and in many respects, the members of the Firm were his second family. The qualities on which Tom built the Firm include loyalty, leadership and comradery. All of which have contributed to the success that we enjoy today.  Loyalty was always a very important quality to Tom and it is evidenced by members who have been at the Firm for over 40 years, by past members who continue to return and consider the Firm their own and by those new members who are bring the Firm to new heights.

Tom’s example of leadership is evident not only with his legacy to the Firm, but through his accomplishments in the community, including the Law Society of Alberta, Canadian Bar Association, Calgary Bar Association, Calgary Chamber of Commerce, The Rotary Club of Calgary, Calgary Parks Foundation, Calgary Stampede and Calgary Airport Authority.  He was officially recognized by the Order of Canada and the Alberta Order of Excellence and received both a Diamond Jubilee Medal and Queen’s Golden medal.  He inspired each of us.

Comradery was important to Tom and is still foremost for the Firm today. We continue to honour and guard the culture of the Firm that has evolved through Tom’s example.  As Tom continued to visit the Firm after his retirement from law, his booming voice never failed to bring a smile to us all when we heard him coming through the door.  His family has said that he “brightened the corner where he was” and all of us at the Firm can attest to that.  We were very happy to be one of the corners where he spent time and we will miss him in the halls of Walsh LLP but his memory and his work will be carried on.

Reconstructing Your Wishes: What Happens When Your Will Is Lost

• Uncategorized

What do you do when, along with your belongings and home, your careful financial and estate plan for your family and loved ones is also lost?

In Alberta, it is easy to spot examples of where this can happen. Whether it is the Fort McMurray fire, a one-in a-hundred year flood, or a case of misplaced, lost, or stolen property, replacing or retrieving important property and documents can be an onerous task. If this occurs together with loss of life, the consequences can compound the already-difficult situation for surviving family members.

What happens when you lose your Will? (in a fire, flood, or otherwise)

The Alberta Courts have recently considered two cases of lost Wills. In both cases, the Court found that the contents of the Will were proven with sufficient clarity to admit those documents to probate (so that the plan is not lost).

Two Case Studies

A. Cordell v. Shiels Estate

In Cordell v. Shiels Estate, the issue was whether it was possible to prove a promise made by the deceased (Shiels) to allow her long-time friend (Nipshank to live in Shiels’ house after Shiels’ death, for the duration of Nipshank’s life (a life estate). It was contained in a hand-written codicil made by Shiels after she signed her Will, which was subsequently lost. Was this promise binding on Shiels estate, where its other beneficiaries under the main Will contested this claim?

Shiels’ hand-written codicil to her Will could not be located after her death. Nipshank claimed that it contained the promise, but could not produce a copy of the codicil for the Court. The main Will gave the entire estate, including the house, to her nieces, the Cordells.

Nipshank had some good evidence of what was contained in the codicil, partly based on a review of Shiels’ former (but revoked) Wills and partly based on her evidence as to what the codicil said.

In the former Wills, prepared by an estate lawyer, Shiels gave significant gifts (including the entire residue) to Nipshank, and also addressed constructing (with Estate funds) a “mother-in-law suite” for Nipshank with a life estate (rent-free) for Nipshank in the house. Although one version of the former Will did not contain any provision for that life estate to Nipshank, the residue was given to her.

The estate lawyer also testified. He said the reason why the life estate was removed in the current Will was that Shiels was (at that time) expecting a large inheritance; the extra value would go to Nipshank in the residue, so she required less. Around this time, Ellen Cordell was given mortgage financing by Shiels, and permitted to build a home on the property.

Nipshank testified that she was given express promises by Shiels that she could continue to live in the house after Shiels’ death. She also testified that Shiels showed her a hand-written codicil in 2008 (after the current Will was drawn up), giving her a life estate. Another friend of Shiels, Ms. Fraser, testified that, in 2008, Shiels asked her how to prepare a holograph Will, and subsequently showed Ms. Fraser a document she purported to be a hand-written Will (which Ms. Fraser confirms promised Nipshank could live in the house rent-free for life), and asked Ms. Fraser if she could store it in her hope chest (and put that document in the chest, in front of Ms. Fraser).

Nipshank confirmed that Shiels also showed this codicil to her niece, Ellen Cordell, which was confirmed by Ellen Cordell, after Shiels’ death when the Will was read by that part was missing, and that she herself had seen the paper in Shiels’ car (and which several neutral parties at that meeting confirmed Ellen said in the presence of all).

Some of the group also searched Shiels’ residence for the papers, looking in likely places (a hope chest) where Shiels kept important documents. The hope chest was gone from its usual place, and her residence had evidently been searched already when that witness arrived. Ellen Cordell later told Nipshank that Ellen had received the hope chest from Ellen’s mother, but that it didn’t contain a codicil.

Ellen’s mother admitted taking the chest, to look for ‘other’ mementos, but that it didn’t contain a codicil. The Court found that Shiels’ personal documents were accessible to the Cordells after Shiels’ death, and that the Cordells removed them.

Subsequently, Ellen Cordell’s evidence changed. She alleged that she remembered that the document she saw gave no interest in the lands to Nipshank.

Meanwhile, after Shiels’ death, the Cordells acted, in some ways, as though Nipshank had a right to be in the house (including renovating it, but taking care to note that the renovations were being done with Nipshank’s requirements in mind), although without acknowledging her life estate in the alleged codicil.

Ms. Shiels’ brother testified that Ms. Shiels discussed with him her desire that Ms. Nipshank live rent free in her house as long as she wished after her death, many times before Ms. Shiels’ death including a few months prior to her death. His evidence was that Ms. Shiels never did tell him about a codicil or documentation of this wish, though. And yet, he was named executor of her Will but also did not know that fact until Ms. Shiels’ death (he renounced that position due to health reasons, and Nipshank received a Grant of Administration, claiming status as an Adult Interdependent Partner of Shiels in that application, although absent any reference to a codicil or the life estate).

After Shiels died, the Cordells did not pay the mortgage that was placed by Shiels for their benefit before her death. The bank foreclosed, and Ms. Nipshank was ultimately ordered out of the house, pending the decision on her claim to a life estate. Ms. Nipshank did not mention the codicil to the Cordells until shortly after the foreclosure issue arose.

What is the test the Court applies to determine whether to probate a lost Will (or codicil, as a form of Will)?

In Shiels, the Court decided that a lost Will (or codicil) can be proven and probated where these conditions are addressed:

• Firstly, there is initially a presumption that where there was a Will before death, and that it was last in the Testator’s (Deceased’s) possession but is missing at death, it was destroyed or revoked intentionally and no Will exists (but this does not apply where the Court is convinced it continued to exist after death — the burden is on the one trying to say it continues to exist, and it is a “heavy burden”).
• Then, to prove a lost will, the applicant must satisfy these requirements:
  1. Due execution of the Will (the Testator signed it, and knowingly approved its contents).
  2. Chain of possession of the Will to the date of death (and afterwards if lost after death).
  3. Rebut the presumption that the Testator destroyed it before death, with intent to revoke it.
  4. Prove the contents (intentions for property) contained in the lost Will. Parol evidence (witness testimony outside the 4 corners of the document) is admissible to prove the Will’s contents, if reliable and clear (and it must be corroborated for witnesses with a stake in the outcome). The entire material contents of the Will must be shown (not just part), because all parts must be given legal effect.

Based on the evidence outlined, the Court found, in relation to the requirements, that:

1. Due Execution: the hand-written document did exist, and was a valid Codicil. The Testator intended its contents, it was in her handwriting, and she signed it.
2. Chain of Possession: Possession remained with the Testator, either in her hope chest (which the Court found was removed from the Testator’s home after her death by either Ellen or Carolyn Cordell).
3. Rebuttal of Presumption of Intentional Destruction (pre-death): The Codicil’s terms were reasonable, and accorded with the known, consistent, pre-death intentions of Ms. Shiels in relation to Nipshank. There was no evidence that Shiels ever destroyed the Codicil.
4. Proof of the Codicil’s Contents: The Court gave significant weight to Shiels’ comments after she made the Codicil (which are admissible in such matters). And, based on the corroborated testimony by the witnesses and the circumstances of Shiels and Nipshank long relationship and Nipshank’s residence with Shiels, the Court found that the Codicil granted Nipshank a life estate of the suite in the house, on the same terms as before Shiels’ death (some cost-sharing involved).

Another issue considered by the Courts was: whether a prior Grant precludes proving a subsequently-alleged codicil or Will (can the Court set aside a prior Grant or otherwise give effect to the ‘found’ or proven lost document, after a Grant has issued on the first document(s))?

In Shiels, the Cordells argued that, because Nipshank did not reveal the codicil in her first Application for a Grant, she was precluded from doing so later under the ‘lost Will’ document argument. Court dismissed that argument, and found that Nipshank could receive an ‘amended’ Grant if a lost document is proved later where no intentional omission occurred.

Under Surrogate Rule 75, a Personal Representative can apply for a new Grant, or to set aside a prior Grant, whether or not a Grant has already issued, particularly where it issued under an application for proof in common (as opposed to solemn) form (i.e. where it was a ‘desk application’ without formal proof or challenge). Of course, the Court may consider the Personal Representative’s credibility in such cases, especially in relation to earlier non-disclosure. What must be proven is an “honest case for revocation” of the prior Grant due to new information.

The Court discusses the legal distinction between formal proof and the desk application process and concludes that if a Will is proven in solemn form, it is formally proven and not subject to later challenge (except if obtained by fraud, which is rarely alleged or proven). A Grant obtained by desk application, on the other hand, can be set aside much more readily, and proof in solemn form directed.

Although Ms. Nipshank knew of the existence of the codicil, and believed its contents were part of Shiels’ wishes, she did not disclose it in her application for the original Grant. The Court found that she was truthful, on a strictly technical interpretation of the forms submitted, in the original Grant even though she did not disclose the codicil in the forms. So, while it cannot be said she was overly transparent, neither did she deliberately evade her obligation to disclose.

The Court was also cognizant of its duty under s. 11 of the Evidence Act, to ensure that only corroborated evidence on behalf of Nipshank, as an adverse party to the Estate, would be useful in her application.

B. Re Goold Estate

In Re Goold Estate, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench applied the analysis from Shiels Estate, when a holograph Will was not found in original ink. Only a photocopy was available to the Court. The Court’s primary concern was with the presumption of intentional destruction/revocation by the Testator that arises when the original is not found in the Testator’s possession at death.

While many facts were reviewed, the Court looked to these key findings, to satisfy the Shiels Estate test for probating a lost Will:

• The Ms. Goold made a formal Will in 2004, but later revoked it and replaced it with a holograph Will in 2006 (when no capacity issue exited).
• In mid-2012, Goold was declared mentally incapable by her medical and social work caregivers in 2012, and 2013.
• Goold was always meticulous with records. She kept them in a locked box in her room. However, after death the documents were mould-damaged and fell apart when the box was opened and rendered illegible.
• Goold’s daughter, a lawyer, discussed Wills with her mother often, but was not sure that she discussed the holograph Will at issue. Her daughter testified that she had never seen the original holograph Will, but assumed her mother had it and that her mother never told her she had destroyed it.
• The photocopy of the holograph Will was otherwise technically valid (it was in Goold’s handwriting and signed by her).
• There was no evidence that Goold destroyed the Will or instructed anyone to do so for her.
• While there was no issue with Goold’s mental capacity in 2006 when she made the Will, the facts raised a question of whether Goold had sufficient capacity at her death, to revoke it intentionally (the Court confirmed that a personal without capacity cannot revoke their Will).
• There was no evidence of either precisely when Goold lost mental capacity nor exactly when her Will was destroyed (it just was not found in original at her death), so it is not possible to conclude it was done at a date when she lacked testamentary capacity.

This case raised a twist to the Shiels Estate test. Where the person trying to prove the lost Will says that Testator lacked capacity at the date of death, the onus shifts to the person opposing the Will to show that the Testator had sufficient testamentary mental capacity to revoke it, and that it was revoked or destroyed before the Testator lost that mental capacity.

The Court found that the parties opposing probate of the photocopy of the holograph Will had not proven that Goold destroyed her holograph Will before her death, and that she did so when she had sufficient mental capacity to do so.

The Court found sufficient evidence (summarized above) to probate the photocopy of the 2006 holograph Will.

Recommendations

These two cases highlight the importance of at least a few key considerations (among others):

• Maintain more than one safe storage place.
• Advise more than one neutral person (preferably) of the contents of the Will, if feasible and advisable in your Estate plan.
• Have a professional advise you on your estate plan, and request storage services, if your legal firm provides a Wills vault service. Maintain a copy in their vault, and retain several copies that note where the original is being stored.
• If you encounter difficulties proving a lost Will after the Testator’s death, take accurate accounts of the timeline and statements of those with information about the Testator’s plans and estate history, including their legal counsel and accounting advisors.
• Contact Estate counsel for advice, as soon as possible after death, to prepare a strategy to prepare a proper application to the Court that has the best chance of success in the circumstances.

Secure Peace of Mind For You and Your Children

• Uncategorized

Your family is not a math equation nor a gamble.  But if you die without a will, that is exactly what the law says they are. Discuss your needs with one of our estate planning lawyers.

To avoid rolling the dice, make a will.

In Alberta, the intestacy (no will) part of the Wills and Succession Act legislation applies an arbitrary set of formulas and rules. This decides how your property and hard earned money will be distributed.

For a typical family of two spouses and one to three children, the legislation would give the entire estate to your spouse first. Your children will not receive anything.

The default law assumes that your spouse will leave the property to your children or that the default rules when your spouse dies would do so. That assumes a lot. Plans can change, and there isn’t any guarantee your children will get their share in such a situation.

For two spouses without children, the entire estate goes to the surviving spouse. That is often what people want. But it might not be what you want, depending on your own family circumstances.

For a blended family, the distribution of your estate becomes much more complicated. The intestacy rules set out a formula for how the estate is to be divided between a current spouse and children of a prior marriage. While the formula is created to provide some certainty to beneficiaries of an estate, the intestacy rules do not take into consideration the present circumstances of your current spouse and/or your children. The formula may not leave adequate provision for your spouse, minor children, or Dependant Adults. If a member of your family is not adequately provided for, they are entitled to commence an action against your estate for further support – significantly increasing expenses to your estate, and also depleting estate assets before any beneficiaries receive their share.

Do not gamble with the future of your money! Create your own plan. Your plan will decide how your money and property gets shared with your family and children.

Contact us today to create your plan, your way.

Walsh LLP Celebrates Education Achievements Of Students At Ramacrisna School In Bétim, Brazil

• Uncategorized

Ramacrisna’s students would ordinarily have few opportunities for growth and independence, without significant charitable and caring efforts of others who strive to make a difference.

Rotary International, a global service organisation dedicated to “service above self,” is one of the champions for Ramacrisna’s young minds. With Rotary’s assistance, Ramacrisna is thriving and expanding their independence and opportunities for the future.

Walsh LLP’s partner, Benjamin Kormos, is also the President of the Rotary Club of Calgary West. Together with Rotarians in the neighbouring centre of Belo-Horizonte, Brazil, Benjamin leads a project to further advance the education level of students at Ramacrisna School. This Ramacrisna project presently educates the school’s young learners in robotics and automation technology.

Walsh LLP celebrates these efforts, which raise the quality of living for so many! See for yourself what a difference the efforts of those like Benjamin and Rotary is making, in these children’s lives!

Here is a short video on these achievements.  It features the Rotary Club of Belo Horizonte-Liberdade, Ramacrisna, and Rotary Club of Calgary West (Benjamin Kormos).

Walsh LLP Is Pleased To Welcome Kent Jesse And Logan Kachur

• Uncategorized

Kent Jesse joins Walsh LLP from another local established law firm.  Kent adds 20 years of experience to Walsh LLP’s team of litigators.  He is a civil litigator, acting for clients in small-to-medium size businesses, to large international businesses.  His practice has an emphasis on commercial litigation (including contractual and shareholder issues, and negligence, fraud, defamation, and other civil cases). Kent’s biography is available here.

=Logan Kachur joins our firm from an established family law firm in Saskatoon.  He brings to our firm a wealth of family law litigation experience, and has represented his clients before the courts with regularity.  Logan’s biography is available here.

Walsh LLP Is Pleased To Announce That Geeta Bharadia, Q.C. Has Joined Our Firm

• Uncategorized

Geeta is a senior lawyer with extensive quasi-judicial and mediation experience. Her practice is focused on resolution of all types of disputes through mediation, arbitration, and assisted negotiation. Geeta’s profile is available here.

Family Mediation And Parenting Coordination In Okotoks, Alberta

• Uncategorized

Walsh LLP is pleased to announce that Judy Bachmann is now offering her family mediation and parenting coordination services through both our offices in Okotoks and Calgary, Alberta .

Mediation is a positive dispute resolution process for families and separating couples whom are seeking an alternative to a contested and costly court process. In mediation, Judy aims to create a safe and respectful environment such that all involved parties can respectfully and calmly communicate with each other regarding the future of their children and their financial matters.

As both a lawyer and registered psychologist, Judy brings a unique perspective to her work as a mediator. Judy has also worked extensively with families whom are experiencing a high level of conflict where she utilizes a mediation-arbitration process to resolving disputes between parties regarding parenting issues in a process also known as Parenting Coordination.

Judy is both a Registered Family Mediator and Registered Parenting Coordinator and Arbitrator with the Alberta Family Mediation Society and has practiced mediation since 2000.

Walsh At The Supreme Court Of Canada

• Uncategorized

Walsh LLP partners (from left to right) Ken McLeod, Eugene Creighton, Q.C., and Gary Befus after appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada. Walsh lawyers were successful in a landmark ruling pertaining to solicitor-client privilege and the powers of the Privacy Commissioner.