Whaley Estate Litigation

Whaley Litigation Newsletter Vol. 2 No. 1 April 2012




Happy Easter and Happy Passover!


We continue to invite feedback, comments, enquiries and even contributions you wish to share.

Whaley Estate Litigation provides litigation, mediation and dispute resolution services to you, or your clients in the following practice areas: 

  • Will, Estate, Trust Challenges/Interpretations
  • Dependant Support Claims
  • Passing of Estate, Attorney, Guardian and Fiduciary Accounts
  • Capacity Proceedings
  • Guardianships
  • Power of Attorney Disputes
  • Consent and Capacity Board Hearings
  • End of Life Decision Making
  • Treatment Decision Disputes
  • Elder Law
  • Solicitor's Negligence
  • Opinions
  • Agency Services
  • Counsel to Estate Trustee(s) and Estate Trustee(s) During Litigation and other Fiduciaries
Please enjoy,


Kimberly A. Whaley
Whaley Estate Litigation

National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys Conference


National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), in the United States of America, are hosting an international conference in Seattle, Washington, April 26-28, 2012. Kimberly A. Whaley has worked closely with NAELA in order to facilitate NAELA's initiative to provide Canadian content to their programming. NAELA are looking to benefit from increased Canadian membership.  I invite you to access the NAELA website to find out more about membership and how you can join.


I have been a member of NAELA for many years and consider membership beneficial from many perspectives.  First, it gives me an opportunity to network with US attorneys who practice in a like practice area.  NAELA offer excellent international conferences on relevant issues to aging, guardianship and capacity.  NAELA publishes a regular newsletter to members and ebulletins to the public, which I find of assistance to my practice. A journal is also produced annually.


Link to NAELA e-bulletins


NAELA membership provides me with an opportunity to meet with and learn more about US attorneys for the purposes of referrals for my own clients and receiving referrals from US attorneys. It also facilitates consultation on cross-border issues.


This month, some of our Canadian colleagues will be speaking at the NAELA conference in Seattle on the below listed topics. Click here for registration information.




(a)  Panel Discussion: Legal and Medical Issues Concerning Capacity and Substitute Decision-making

  • What is Capacity vs. Incapacity?
  • What type of decisional capacity concerns prevail and are relevant?
  • Ascertaining capacity:
    • When is it necessary?
    • What are the implications, both for the person and process of the findings of Assessors?
    • Qualifications of Assessors
    • Policy concerns
    • Common International difficulties and models of resolution
    • What works and what does not?
    • What happens in Canadian Provinces regarding capacity and substitute decision-making

Speaker: Kimberly A. Whaley, Whaley Estate Litigation

Speaker: Ian Hull, Hull & Hull LLP,

Speaker: Jasmine Sweatman, Sweatman Law


(b)  Panel Discussion: Jurisdictional Issues Related to Incapable Persons Residing/Visiting in Both the USA and Canada

  • Identifying legislative differences
  • Guardians,  Attorneys and Cross-border Issues
  • Conflicts of Law
  • Addressing issues where an incapable person has assets-both in the US and in Canada
  • What happens when powers are abused and the incapable person is at risk?
  • In what forum does resolution take place? [ie. US resident (who is a Canadian Citizen) taken to Canada and not returned to jurisdiction of residency.]

Speaker: Archie Rabinowitz, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP

Speaker: Kimberly A. Whaley, Whaley Estate Litigation


(c)  Cross Border Planning: US Citizens in Canada and Americans with Family Members in Canada: Opportunities and Risks. Canadians with Property and/or Kids in the US, and Canadian Family Estate Planning with US Family Members: Tips and Traps


Speaker: Rachel Blumenfeld, Miller Thomson LLP


(d)  Panel Discussion: Introduction to International Elder Law


Focusing on Canada, this session will address: 

  • The Canadian elder law landscape
  • Practical tips and planning traps
  • Emerging international elder law issues

Speaker: Jan Goddard, Jan Goddard & Associates

Speaker: Laura Watts, Elder Concepts


(e)  Panel Discussion:  Following the Money: A Cross Border Case of Fraud and Recovery

  • How counsel from different jurisdictions can assist each other in the pursuit of remedies on behalf of mutual cognitively impaired clients;
  • Issues arising in the enforcement of a foreign judgment in Canada; and  
  • A case study of Henry v. Zawierucha et al. -- an example of the legal remedies available to protect cognitively impaired adults from exploitation in Illinois, and the legal remedies utilized in Ontario to enforce the Illinois judgment

Speaker: Peter Schmiedel, Fischel & Kahn, Ltd.; and

Speaker: Heather Mountford, Jan Goddard and Associates

What Wishes Should a Power of Attorney for Personal Care Express?


by Mark Handelman, Firm Counsel


April 16th is National Advance Care Planning Day


One of the most vexing problems a person can face is making an "end of life" decision for a loved one with no information about that person's values, beliefs or wishes. 


In Ontario, the law requires a substitute decision-maker ("SDM") to make those decisions in accordance with the incapable patient's previously expressed capable wishes applicable to the circumstances (unless those wishes are impossible to comply with).  If no such wishes are known, then the decision must be made in accordance with the person's values, beliefs and best interests. 


However, whether or not the person has a Power of Attorney for Personal Care, SDMs frequently have no idea what the patient's wishes, values or beliefs are -- and the patient can no longer express them.  Or, the POA expresses wishes, but they've never been discussed between the patient and the Attorney.  The result, not infrequently, is the torment of having to make an irreversible decision with inadequate information, frequently with the consequence that the SDMs demand that treatment continue far beyond the point in time at which the patient would have preferred to be allowed to die with his or her remaining dignity.


There are at least four fulcrums at which these sad stories can be avoided: in a lawyer's office; in discussions between patient and doctor; at the instance of the patient, and; at the instance of the patients loved ones.




Lawyers frequently fail to encourage their clients to consider a POA for Personal Care when discussing other matters.  They should at least be planting the seeds for thought, for example, when acting for a client on a real estate transaction.


Many lawyers, when instructed to prepare POAs and Wills for clients, spend considerable time talking about estate planning, bequests and POAs for property.  The POA for personal care is almost an afterthought.  In my view, the "best practice" is to canvass end of life wishes, values and beliefs with the client, then insist the client discuss same with the proposed Attorney, first to ensure the Attorney knows what the client's values, beliefs and wishes are and second to "empower" the Attorney to act in accordance with them.




In his report recently released to the Ontario government, Don Drummond said the province should encourage physicians to have "end of life" discussions with patients as early as when the patient is in his/her early forties.  Why not, we're all going to die some time...


Doctors tell me they simply don't have time to do that.  However, those discussions frequently do not happen even when a person is admitted to hospital with a life-threatening condition or for surgery.  I think it is vital to the concepts of "patient-centered care" and "respecting patient's dignity" that hospitalists canvass these issues with their patients and thoroughly chart the discussions.  One case in which I was involved, involved a man in his late eighties with end stage dementia.  At a Hearing before Ontario's Consent and Capacity Board to determine appropriate treatment for him, the attending physician conceded that no health practitioner of whom he was aware had ever, over the progression of the illness, canvassed the man's wishes, values or beliefs.  Nor did the hospital have, in this patient's chart, a copy of his Power of Attorney.


The Person


It's your life, how do you want it to end?  You do have some say in the matter, even if you are unable to express your views when the time comes.  But, the people who love you will be making your decision in that case and you therefore have a responsibility to yourself to ensure they have some idea of what you want.  And, expressing your wishes does not have to be done in medical or scientific terms. 


When my mother was in her early eighties, she raised the issue with me as I was taking her home after a funeral.  So, I asked her what she wanted.  Her reply: "When there's nobody home, you turn out the lights."  I understood.


Loved Ones


You may end up as SDM for a loved one by operation of law: Ontario's Health Care Consent Act contains a hierarchy of decision-makers.  You will not be ready for this responsibility if you don't know what he or she considers important at end of life and the results can be devastating for you, your family as a whole and the loved one whose decision must be made.  No, it isn't an easy conversation to have, but it is an important one for all involved.  So, raise the topic, even if only to alert a spouse or ageing parent that April 16th is National Advance Care Planning day.  There's even a website -- Google it!


Two Sample Provisions


Below are two sample provisions setting out end of life wishes.  I actually use one if it reflects the client's perspective.  The other one, well, at least it gets the discussion started....


Sample 1:

Death is as much a reality as birth, growth, maturity and old age.  It is the one certainty of life.  I recognize this.  


Therefore, while I am incapable, should a situation arise where my attending physician determines that I will not recover from a disability and that my death is imminent, I DIRECT MY ATTORNEY to permit me the dignity of a peaceful passing.  I do not wish to be kept alive by artificial or heroic measures that would only serve to prolong my dying process, but I rather wish to die with dignity and in comfort.  In that situation, I wish for treatments that will allow me to die peacefully even though they may abbreviate the dying process, resulting in a hastening of my death.


Sample 2:

Under no circumstances do I wish my fate to be put in the hands of pinhead partisan politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it or lawyers/doctors/hospitals interested in simply racking up big bills.
If more than 3 days pass, and I fail to ask for at least two of the following:
____ Vodka and Tonic  ____a Margarita  ____a Beer  ____a Bloody Mary  ____Single Malt Whiskey ____a glass of wine  ____Sex   ____T-bone Steak ____Lobster or crab legs ____Barbequed Ribs and mashed potatoes with gravy ____pizza  ____Sex  ____the remote control  ____a bowl of ice cream  ____the sports page ____Cheesecake  ____Sex  or ____Chocolate, it should be obvious that I won't ever get any better and that it's time for me to go.

When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my appointed person and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes, turn off the lights, and call it a day. At this point, it is time to call the New Orleans Blues Funeral Band to come do their thing at my funeral, and ask all of my friends to raise their glasses to toast the good times we have had.

Case Law Update: 1. Laframboise v. Laframboise, 2. Zandersons Estate (Re), 3. Calderaro v. Meyer


1. Laframboise v. Laframboise <1>


This case concerned the deceased, Mr. Laframboise, who died on July 24, 2011. Prior to his death, he prepared a document which was called "the informal Will and Last Requests of Adam Laframboise."  The document contained instructions for the disposition of many of the deceased's assets.  However, it only provided that his wife, Mrs. Laframboise, be left with his wedding ring and pictures. Mrs. Laframboise challenged the validity of the document, asserting that it did not meet the formal requirement of a holograph Will, as set out in the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 26, sections 6 and 7, which are:


Holograph wills


6. A testator may make a valid will wholly by his or her own handwriting and signature, without formality, and without the presence, attestation or signature of a witness.


Position of signature


7.(1) In so far as the position of the signature is concerned, a will, whether holograph or not, is valid if the signature of the testator made either by him or her or the person signing for him or her is placed at, after, following, under or beside or opposite to the end of the will so that it is apparent on the face of the will that the testator intended to give effect by the signature to the writing signed as his or her will.




(2) A will is not rendered invalid by the circumstance that,

(a) the signature does not follow or is not immediately after the end of the will;

(b) a blank space intervenes between the concluding words of the will and the signature;

(c) the signature,

(i) is placed among the words of a testimonial clause or of a clause of attestation,

(ii) follows or is after or under a clause of attestation either with or without a blank space intervening, or

(iii) follows or is after, under or beside the name of a subscribing witness;

(d) the signature is on a side, page or other portion of the paper or papers containing the will on which no clause, paragraph or disposing part of the will is written above the signature; or

(e) there appears to be sufficient space on or at the bottom of the preceding side, page or other portion of the same paper on which the will is written to contain the signature.




(3) The generality of subsection (1) is not restricted by the enumeration of circumstances set out in subsection (2), but a signature in conformity with section 4, 5 or 6 or this section does not give effect to,

(a) a disposition or direction that is underneath the signature or that follows the signature; or

(b) a disposition or direction inserted after the signature was made.


Moreover, Mrs. Laframboise challenged the validity of the document on the basis that Mr. Laframboise did not have testamentary capacity when he signed it.


The Court found that contrary to the assertions of Mrs. Laframboise, that the document created a clear intention with respect to the deceased's testamentary disposition.  The Court stated: "his words are a clear indication of a deliberate, fixed and final expression of his intention."<2>  The Court went on to state at paragraph 16: "the use of the word "informal" does not act to negate the clear intention contained in the balance of the document. Read as a whole, the use of this word is more consistent with the Will being informal in the sense of not being typed, witnessed and undertaken with the assistance of a lawyer."<3>


On the issue of testamentary capacity, the Court referred to the fact that there was no medical evidence adduced to establish that Mr. Laframboise was suffering from a mental disorder that would affect his testamentary capacity.


As part of the argument of incapacity, Mrs. Laframboise also asserted that the deceased was delusional in that he wrongly believed that she had been unfaithful to him. The Court on the review of evidence before it did not accept the argument of a delusion.


As to the allegation of suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation of the testamentary document, the Court found that the propounder of his Will met the burden of establishing capacity on a balance of probabilities. 


The Court concluded that the document is a valid holograph Will to be given full effect according to its terms.


On the issue of costs, the Court found that there were no reasonable grounds upon which to question the execution of the Will, or the deceased's capacity to make the Will. The Court therefore concluded there is no public policy reason to support an order that costs be paid by the estate.  The Court therefore found that this case was an appropriate one such that the unsuccessful party, the Applicant, pay the costs of the Respondents. Moreover, the Court had not been advised of any offers to settle.  The Court found that the partial indemnity costs claimed by the Respondents were reasonable and ordered that the costs be paid by the Applicants.


2. Zandersons Estate (Re):<4>


This matter involved an Application brought for directions to have the Applicant appointed as the Estate Trustee of her deceased brother's estate. The two Respondents were the deceased's common law spouse and the deceased's maternal grandmother.


The deceased died intestate.  The Applicant would be the beneficiary of the estate together with her sister.


The Respondent common law spouse however made it clear that she intended to proceed with a Succession Law Reform Act dependant's support claim.  She alleged that the Applicant was in a conflict of interest position in her request to be appointed as the Estate Trustee of the deceased's estate.  The Respondent maternal grandmother, did not have a financial interest in the estate and she took the position that she would agree to be appointed as the Estate Trustee, or agree to a third party neutral to act as an Estate Trustee. 


The Honourable Justice W.L. MacPherson stated at paragraph 5 as follows:


"In my reasons, I stated that it was clear that the Applicant had a financial interest in the estate, which placed her in a conflict in being able to administer the estate fairly and impartially. While the Motion for Directions initially may have been properly brought, once the conflict became obvious and alternatives were presented (either to have Luise Klotsch or a solicitor, Mr. Melville appointed as Estate Trustee) then the Motion should have resolved."<5>


It is interesting that the Court determined that the Applicant was in a conflict in being able to administer the estate.  It is often the case where there are conflicting interests in the estate, that in spite of those conflicting interests, an applicant is appointed even where contested as the Estate Trustee. In this case however, the reason probably has much to do with the fact that this is an intestate estate and the deceased did not leave any wishes or direction in a Will which would otherwise have a particular person appointed in spite of what may have always been a potential conflict of interest situation.


The Court further held in this instance, that the Applicant, not having been successful on the motion, entitled the Respondents to their costs. The Court fixed the costs payable to each of the Respondents, and ordered that they be paid personally by the Applicant. The reasons given for this order were as follows:


[12]  In estate matters, emotions can run high and can often cloud one's judgment when initially assessing positions that are taken. Once it became clear that the Respondent, Melissa Weiland, would be proceeding with a dependent's relief claim and that the Applicant would be in a conflict of interest position by virtue of her financial interest in the estate, the Applicant should not have maintained her position that she should be appointed as an Estate Trustee. While the Applicant might have been entitled to oppose the appointment of the Respondent, Luise Klotsch, based on a perceived bias in favour of the other Respondent, once a neutral third party had consented to act, that should have been the end of the opposition by the Applicant."<6>


Moreover, the Court stated at paragraph 14:


"The necessity of this motion being argued arose from the unreasonable position taken by the Applicant. As stated by Justice Brown in Bilek v. Salter Estate [2009] O.J. No. 2328 (ON SC)


Given the charged emotional dynamics of most pieces of estate litigation, an even greater need exists to impose the discipline of the general costs principle of "loser pays" in order to inject some modicum of reasonableness into decisions about whether to litigate estate-related disputes."<7>


3. Calderaro v. Meyer <8>


In this case the Plaintiff sought the following Orders:


(a) A declaration that the Last Will and Testament of Clark Ross Meyer, since deceased, is a valid subsisting Last Will and Testament;


(b) A declaration that she is the owner-at-law of the property known municipally as 1975 Rosefield Road, Unit #13, Pickering, Ontario under the provisions of that Will.


In the alternative:


(c) A declaration that pursuant to an instrument dated July 14, 2007, between herself and Clark Ross Meyer, as amended by an amending instrument dated July 15, 2009, that she is the owner-at-law of 1975 Rosefield Road, Unit #13, Pickering, Ontario.


(d) A declaration that the agreements of July 14, 2007 and July 15, 2007, are binding on the estate of Clark Ross Meyer.


The defendant however, being the wife of the deceased, argued that the Will and instruments relied on by the Plaintiff are invalid and have no binding authority.


In this case, prior to the deceased's death, he had been hospitalized.  The deceased had filled out a Will Questionnaire, and instructed the Applicant to forward it to a solicitor to have a Last Will and Testament prepared. The deceased also met with his financial advisor to review his financial affairs.


The Will Questionnaire was faxed to the deceased's solicitor with instructions to prepare a Will in accordance with the instructions in the Will Questionnaire. The solicitor had never previously met the deceased, nor the Applicant.


During the period of hospitalization preceding death, the medical condition of the deceased deteriorated further, and involved his being moved to a critical care unit. By the date that the Plaintiff asked the solicitor to attend the hospital to have the Will executed, the deceased was unable to speak. The deceased was physically unable to sign the Will.


The drafting solicitor confirmed that the instructions were those provided by the Applicant.  The drafting solicitor also testified that he relied on section 4(1)(a) of the Succession Law Reform Act, which states:




4.(1)Subject to sections 5 and 6, a Will is not valid unless,


(a)at its end it is signed by the testator or by some other person in his or her presence and by his or her direction.<9>


In this case, however, the Court found that there was no evidence that the deceased communicated instructions to a surrogate to sign his Will, and therefore that given the deceased was unable to communicate, the requirements of the Act were not met, and accordingly the Will was not duly execution.


On the question of knowledge and approval of the contents of the Will, the Court determined that the deceased was unable to speak and that there was no evidence that any communication was established with the deceased. The Court therefore found that there was no evidence of communication consisting of approval of the provisions of the Will, and therefore that the propounder of the Will did not establish that the deceased approved of the contents of the Will.


On the question of testamentary capacity, the Court found that the Applicant did not provide evidence of capacity. Moreover, the Court found that the medical evidence negated any finding that when the Will was executed, the deceased had a 'sound disposing mind'.


The Court at paragraphs 63 - 65 interestingly comments as follows, in respect of the obligations of the attending drafting solicitor:


[63] Further, as set out in the Bennett case, the attending solicitor has an obligation to take steps to determine whether the testator has a "sound disposing mind" where there is any doubt. That obligation requires the solicitor, amongst other things, to:


(a) To obtain a medical status examination of the testator.


[64] As previously reviewed, although Kaplan had expressed concerns that a medical report regarding Clark's competency be obtained, there is no evidence that such a report was sought or requested. Further, Kaplan failed to speak with Clark's doctors, and failed to review Clark's medical records in lieu of obtaining a medical report.


(b) To interview the testator if there is any question of testamentary capacity


[65] Kaplan did not interview Clark in any sufficient depth prior to or on April 21, 2009. Prior to April 21, 2009, Kaplan had never met Clark or communicated with him. His only contact with Clark was the 45 minutes required to execute the will. There is no evidence that Kaplan interviewed Clark, to inquire whether Clark understood the nature and effect of the proposed will, whether Clark recollected the nature and extent of his property, whether Clark understood the extent of what he would give under the will, and whether Clark remembered the persons he might be expected to benefit under the will."


At paragraph 67, the Court noted that the legal requirement of testamentary capacity often overlaps with the issue of knowledge. The Court found that the deceased did not have knowledge of the contents of the Will. The Court found that the evidence or lack of evidence did not establish that the deceased had testamentary capacity to make a Will.


Accordingly, the Court found that the Last Will and Testament of the deceased was invalid as a testamentary instrument, and therefore of no force and effect.


On the issue of the transfer of real property to the Applicant, the Court on the evidence reviewed, found that firstly, there was no corroborative evidence provided as required, pursuant to Section 13 of the Evidence Act, (Ontario) to secure a judgment on her testimony, since it was not supported by corroborative evidence.  The Court reviewed the emails as between the deceased and Applicant with respect to the property ownership, and that paragraphs 141 and 142 stated as follows:


[141] Evidence of consideration is pivotal in binding parties to a contract.


While other features are of great relevance, consideration is the hallmark of a contract. It is consideration which functions as a major test of contract;...In order words, a promise to pay, give, etc. , is nothing more than a bare undertaking, nudum pactum, which may bind a party's conscience and affect him morally, religiously, or otherwise, but never legally...Only if that promise is made for, or supported by consideration is a "serious promise" of which the law will take official cognizance...


[142] Additionally:


...Only if that promise is made for or supported by consideration, that is something which is regarded by the law as consideration will it amount to a contractual promise and the agreement that results therefrom will be a contract.


Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action of the Applicant in its entirety.


There is no indication as yet with respect to the cost treatment of this matter.

1. Laframboise v.Laframboise, 2011 CarswellOnt 15490, 2011 ONSC 7673

2. Laframboise v.Laframboise, 2011 CarswellOnt 15490, 2011 ONSC 7673, para 15

3. Laframboise v. Laframboise, 2011 CarswellOnt 15490, 2011 ONSC 7673, para 16

4. Zandersons Estate (Re), 2011 ONSC 6755 (CanLII)

5. Zandersons Estate (Re), 2011 ONSC 6755 (CanLII), para 5

6. Zandersons Estate (Re), 2011 ONSC 6755 (CanLII), para 12

7. Zandersons Estate (Re), 2011 ONSC 6755 (CanLII), para 14

8. Calderaro v. Meyer, 2011 CarswellOnt 15508, 2011 ONSC 5395

9. Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 26, section 4(1)(a)

Recommendation: ToGo Catering


Having a meeting or a Special Event? 


ToGo Foodbar has been catering for over 25 years, and has been catering WEL events including our Open House, business meetings and retreats.


Their Manager, Liza Hardoon, would be happy to discuss any of your specific needs and draw up a suitable menu. They will send staff and chefs if needed to set up buffets using your dishes or theirs. Alternatively, you can set up the food yourself, using detailed instructions which they will provide.


They will also arrange equipment rental, assist in buying drinks, setting up a bar and more.


For information, contact Liza at liza@togofoodbar.com or check out their website at www.togofoodbar.com/catering

Upcoming Programs


LSUC, Six-Minute Lawyer: 

Disputes over what REMAINS: Burial, fights over the ashes, liquification of remains

April 24, 2012

Kimberly A. Whaley, Speaker

Info: http://ecom.lsuc.on.ca/cpd/product.jsp?id=CLE12-0040601#Program


NAELA: Seattle Elder Law Conference: Topics - TBA

April 26-28, 2012

Kimberly A. Whaley, Speaker



Panel Discussion: Legal and Medical Issues concerning Capacity and Substitute Decision-making

Speaker: Kimberly A. Whaley, Whaley Estate Litigation,  

Speaker: Ian Hull, Hull & Hull LLP, and

Speaker: Jasmine Sweatman, Sweatman Law


Panel Discussion: Jurisdictional issues related to incapable persons residing/visiting in both the USA and Canada 

Speaker: Archie Rabinowitz, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP

Speaker: Kimberly A. Whaley, Whaley Estate Litigation


Cross Border Planning: US Citizens in Canada and Americans with family members in Canada - opportunities and risks. Canadians with property and/or kids in the US, and Canadian Family Estate Planning with US Family Members - Tips and Traps

Speaker - Rachel Blumenfeld, Miller Thomson LLP


Panel Discussion: Introduction to Elder Law

Speaker: Jan Goddard, Jan Goddard & Associates.

Speaker: Laura Watts, Elder Caring Inc.


Panel Discussion:  Following the Money: A Cross Border Case of Fraud and Recovery

Speaker: Peter Schmiedel, Fischel & Kahn, Ltd.; and

Speaker: Heather Mountford, Jan Goddard and Associates


B'Nai Brith - Public Policy: Tataryn Ontario , Summary Trial

June 5, 2012 

Kimberly A. Whaley, Speaker

Info: http://www.bnaibrith.ca/index.html 


CLC CBA Vancouver, Blended Family Presentation: When Once is not Enough: Predatory Marriages

August 12-14, 2012

Kimberly A. Whaley, Speaker

Info:  http://www.cba.org/CBA/sections_elder/main/


LSUC: The Administration of Estates 2012

September 13, 2012, Web repeat October 23, 2012

Chair, Kimberly A. Whaley

Newsletter Archive

Past issues of our Newsletter can be viewed on-line by following this link to our Newsletter Archive:


Our Marketing Services Partner


rubbermustard communications provides marketing, strategy and design services to brands and businesses. Whaley Estate Litigation has worked closely with rubbermustard over the last year on our website redesign, email newsletter, staff photography, and trade advertising initiatives.

Contact Ken Raymond:  (416) 576-3650 kraymond@rubbermustard.com

Follow Our Blog via RSS Feed 

We continually add articles and posts to our blog and will post update notices via Twitter and on LinkedIn.  If you would like to follow our blog via our RSS feeds here is the link: 


Follow Us

 Follow us on Twitter


View our profile on LinkedIn


This newsletter is intended for the purposes of providing information only and is to be used only for the purposes of guidance.  This newsletter is not intended to be relied upon as the giving of legal advice and does not purport to be exhaustive.


Newsletter Contents
NAELA Conference
What Wishes Should a Power of Attorney for Personal Care Express?
Case Law Update: Laframboise v. Laframboise, Zandersons Estate (Re), Calderaro v. Meyer
Recommendation: ToGo Catering
Upcoming Programs
Newsletter Archive

Quick Links


Contact Info

10 Alcorn Avenue, 

Suite 301
Toronto, ON, M4V 3A9
Tel: (416) 925-7400 
Fax: (416) 925-7464

Kimberly A. Whaley
C.S., TEP.
(416) 355-3250

Mark Handelman
(416) 355-3254

Ameena Sultan
(416) 355-3258


Amy Cull
(416) 355-3256

Deborah Stade
(416) 355-3252

Bibi Minoo
(416) 355-3251

Join Our Mailing List

If you were forwarded this newsletter and would like to receive future editions please join our mailing list by simply clicking the link above and completing the form.  Thank you. 

Whaley Estate Litigation