Deccan Law Practice

I am presenting "Estate Planning with Family Law Considerations" at the Edmonton Community Foundation's Wills Week this year: When: Tuesday, October 8th Time: 2:00-3:30 PM Location: West End Seniors Association, 9629 176 Street NW, Edmonton, AB (in the Games Room) If you (or anyone you know) has used, or is planning to use, assisted reproduction to build your family, there is some 2023 case law you need to know about. Please share the event link. You don't need to register. Just show up. (I am told there will be cookies!)

The colonial history of Britain, means that English Common Law had an exaggerated impact on the testamentary rights of women worldwide. Until the Married Women's Property Act of 1870, married women were not permitted to own property in their own name (minors are still not permitted to do so). Though laws have since changed in most jurisdictions, the moral residue of repealed legislation still motivates some parents to chronically deprive daughters of inherited wealth. Except in British Columbia, financially independent adult children cannot generally challenge the Will of their parents if they are left out. But if you are planning to retire to British Columbia, those are the laws that will apply to your estate. In all other jurisdictions, the daughter in this case would need to advance a trust claim for the expenses she incurred in caring for her mother. Review your planning documents with a lawyer to confirm what laws apply to your estate, and whether they need to be updated. You have big plans. Let us help with the paper work. https://lnkd.in/gfxxuEky

There is a bit of confusion out there about what is happening with the capital gains inclusion rates in the new budget. This post is correct that if you have more than $250K in capital gains, it would benefit you to crystallize those gains earlier rather than later. However, the tax rate is not 2/3. The inclusion rate is 2/3. That means that 1/3 of your capital gains over $250K are still tax-free. And your lifetime capital gains exemption limit is still available (if you have not already used it). Questions? Just ask. We are happy to help.

Nobody wants to think of their spouse moving on after their death, and that reluctance sometimes means they fail to plan for that possibility. The OP in this post did the responsible thing by ensuring that the inheritance from their grandparents went to his nieces and nephews, but another spouse might not have been so responsible. When the testator has a blended family, the asset can also be left in trust to the new spouse during their lifetime and then gifted-over to the nieces and nephews. If you know the destination you want, we can draft the documents to get you there. You have things to do. Let us do the paperwork. https://lnkd.in/g5kSrHt9

The application of AI in the practice of law is currently the hot new topic all over the place, but it such discussions should be peppered with warnings.   Sometimes lawyers blindly rely on digested course materials to argue that case XYZ stands for a certain proposition, and they do so without ever reading the actual case and digesting it for themselves. Occasionally that means they get it wrong. Now imagine AI using similarly digested materials to draft factums for the court.   Not only do they import existing simplification errors that are inherent in the original digestion, but they import existing biases of the digester. An unscrupulous case digester can wholly eliminate an innovative line of reasoning simply by digesting the line of cases wrongly.   For example, there is a push to eliminate "parental alienation" as an argument in family court. "Parental alienation" is often wielded against victims of Domestic Violence (DV) when children learn about the DV and then refuse to see the abuser. It argues that it is the visible suffering of the victim (and not the actions of the abuser) that the children are judging (🙄). The victim should therefore have been less obvious in her suffering to prevent the children judging the abuser.   Suppose a court case rejects that argument. A case digester could eliminate the precedent by: --> excluding the case entirely; --> digesting part of the argument, and not the whole; or --> applying an obscure distinguishing criteria, so the case never applies.   Right now, it is still possible to catch the error because the original case is still possible to read. Will anyone have the time or inclination to read the original cases (whether to determine their inclusion or exclusion) when opposing counsel is using AI to process hundreds of cases in the time it takes to read one?   Future generations of our profession may one day be tech-literate enough to challenge the flawed conclusions that AI sometimes produces. Right now, we are all like illiterate villagers gazing longingly as the town scribe magically reproduces word-sounds from scribbles on paper. We trust that the scribbles represent the word-sounds the scribe is making. We trust that the foreign words mean in our own language what the scribe tells us they mean. We invest intentionality, truthfulness, and trustworthiness in the making of the scribbles. We naively apply our inked thumbprints at the bottom of the page.   ...and we are thereby colonized by Redcoats who read and write in a language we do not speak.   Technology is a powerful tool for productivity. And in the hands of the powerful, it can become a powerful weapon against the powerless.   So given that the rule of commerce is to “Buy in your own language and sell in your customer’s language” here are a few rules to follow: -->˜ Insist that documents are written in a language you understand; -->˜ Always read the fine print; and ˜--> Always bring your own scribe.

Most entrepreneurs think choosing a business structure is a binary decision: either they are a proprietorship, or they are a corporation. That is not true. There are many more hybrid options than just those two. And the decision should not be driven solely by tax considerations. If you are concerned about business failures following you into your living room, we can put measures in place to protect you, but only before the potential for insolvency is on the horizon. After that, the same measures you could have safely taken in the beginning become bankruptcy fraud. We can reduce the risk of failure, so you can focus on what you do best. You build your business. Let us do the paperwork.

Families come in all different shapes and sizes, and there are now more blended families than ever before. If litigation is not avoidable in your divorce, we can refer you to our many colleagues and referral partners who do litigation. If you are able to cooperate in your separation, not only do you position yourselves for a less stressful co-parenting future, but you minimize depletion of your estate, through the cost of litigation and taxes. At the end of a relationship, you already know you need to update your Will, but you can also prepare your family, your business, and your estate for the possibility of blended families. Dream your happily ever after. Let us do the paperwork.

We encourage our clients to have difficult conversations at the beginning of all personal and professional relationships, and to document their agreements, because that is how you avoid problems further along in the relationship (i.e. divorce over disputes that didn't need to be contentious). We also believe that well-informed clients make better decisions than uninformed clients. In keeping with these philosophies, the single most important thing you can do to keep kids safe from pedophiles is to provide fact-based sex education to every kid. 1) Kids need to know the correct names for the parts of their bodies. It is extraordinarily hard to prosecute a child abuser if the key witness testifies that "Uncle Bob made me kiss Big Bird". 2) Kids need to know that they have the right to say "no". Consent is everything, not just in sex ed, but in every human interaction. Shying away from teaching consent in a sexual context implies that the bodies of children belong to adults, and not to the children themselves. That is not a safe mindset to teach. 3) Kids need to know that it is okay to talk to their safety people about things that make them feel icky. If you are squeamish talking about sex, kids will respect your boundaries and not tell you when they have been abused. Do you want to be kept in the dark about something this important? There is zero downside to every child receiving fact-based sex education: ● It makes them less likely to engage is sexual activity before they are ready. ● It makes them more likely to use contraceptives when they do have sex. ● It makes them less likely to become teen parents before they are ready. There is no reason to deprive children of fact-based sex education (other than parental squeamishness). SO CHOOSE: Do you love your kids? Or do you love their pedophiles? You can only protect one. So choose wisely.

As promised, here is the first session of "Ask Your Question"! We are keeping the cost low (but not free to ensure that the tickets are not wasted). Do you know someone who needs to attend? Pass on the link. https://lnkd.in/gsBWnJV4

Our work-in-progress website has been update to include: -- a description of our team; -- a description of our services; -- an explanation of our fees; and -- an explanation of our client policies. Are we missing anything that you like to see? www.deccan.ca