Edwin Hughes, a retired miner from Timmins, Ontario.
Always be careful about his money.
When he went before Christmas at 1998, he had a bank account of more than a million dollars, which he had set up with his daughter Paula.
Twenty years later, in 18 years of December 20, Rachel Hannaberry of the romantic relationship between British Columbia resident Glenn Petersen closed.
These stories don't matter, except when the Supreme Court of Canada finally decided in 2007 who had Hughes's money correctly, it laid out rules governing the legal nature of Canadian gifts, guiding the spread of family wealth, regardless of size.
According to a new lawsuit by B. C.
The rules now require Hannaberry to return to her predecessor at her own expense.
Boyfriend Peterson put him on her two down pillows and a Hitachi wand because he didn't like synthetic materials, the cordless vibrator they used together, and he claims all of this belongs to him.
It was the decision of Trisha Apland, a member of the civil settlement tribunal in BC, who did not believe that she claimed that he had given them as gifts.
She also had to pay him $125 plus interest on the handling fee.
She cited the Hughes case in her ruling because it roughly affirmed the recipient's responsibility to prove that the disputed asset was a gift, not a trust.
After the marriage between Paula and Michael pescorey ended, their dispute over the intention of her late father went through a level 3 Court.
If the bank account is a gift, it's Paula's own.
If it's hosted and still part of his legacy, it's right to share it with Michael.
It took nearly a decade for the Supreme Court of Canada to finally decide in favor of Paula.
It is her duty to prove that it is a gift that she can do.
Usually, the person who brought the lawsuit has the burden of proof.
But in the case of Petersen and Hannaberry, it was clear that he bought the items and she received them, so "the responsibility was transferred to the person who claimed that the items were gifts, in this case, the defendant (Hannabberry) ", the court found.
This puts Hannabery in an unusual legal position and has to prove, in a balance of probabilities, that the item she has is a gift.
By law, this means proving that the transfer of assets is "inconsistent with any other intention ".
"At this point, the judge referred to a family dispute case involving whether the payment of $50,000 was contrary to the value of the House of the deceased woman, gave her daughter as a gift or loan.
Type of evidence about the so-called gift-
The Supreme Court said in the Pecore case that the intention of the giver would vary and that the emphasis on any one factor should be at the discretion of the trial judge.
Apland, a member of the tribunal, found that the fact that they were in a romantic relationship was "relevant, but not decisive" in the Petersen and Hannaberry cases ".
"In order to have a legally valid gift, three things are required: the intention, acceptance and adequate delivery of the donation," Apland wrote . ".
Hannaberry's evidence is that the couple "initially pretended that the wand was not a gift because she felt" strange "about the gift ".
"I find that this argument does not support her position.
Instead, I find this to indicate that she may not have accepted it as a gift even if she had the wand.
"Similarly, gifts that are legal and valid need to be accepted," the member wrote . ".
Hannaberry stated in the text that she thanked Pedersen for giving the vibrator as evidence of the gift he intended to give him, but the member said it was "not decisive.
In other texts, he called it "his", and she requested permission to use it, and the member accepted the role-play, which Peterson meant to "maintain control over the wand.
She also tried to claim that the vibrator was a woman-specific gender, which the Member declined.
The Hitachi wand was originally listed as a muscle relaxation agent and is more known as a sex toy.
Email: jbrean @ nationalpost.