Day: November 7, 2019

Kevin O’Leary, Wife Sued For Deadly Ontario Boat Crash

TORONTO — A fatal boat crash on an Ontario lake this summer has prompted a wrongful death lawsuit against celebrity businessman Kevin O’Leary and his wife Linda O’Leary, who was driving their vessel.

In an untested and unproven statement of claim, relatives of a Susanne Brito _ one of two people who died in the collision _ seek $2 million in damages from the O’Learys as well as from the driver and owner of the second boat.

The crash occurred on Lake Joseph in Seguin, Ont., late one night in August when the O’Learys’ boat, with Brito aboard, collided with one driven by Richard Ruh, 57, of Orchard Park, N.Y.

A Florida accountant, Gary Poltash, 64, who was on Ruh’s boat, died at the scene. Brito, 48, a woman from Uxbridge, Ont., was critically injured and died in hospital.

“Suddenly and without warning, the O’Leary power boat violently struck the Ruh power boat, causing Susanne Brito to suffer serious personal injuries, resulting in her death,” the claim states.

The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court in Oshawa, Ont., argues Brito’s death was the result of negligence.

Among other things, it argues Kevin O’Leary, 65, of Toronto, knew or should have known that his 56-year-old wife was “incapable of operating the power boat with due care and attention″ but let her drive anyway even though she had a propensity for speeding and had no licence.

“He negligently entrusted his power boat to the defendant, Linda O’Leary, when he knew, or ought to have known, that she was an inexperienced and unsafe driver,” the claim states.

The claim also asserts Linda O’Leary failed to keep a proper lookout, was driving too fast, and failed to heed the horn of the Ruh boat, owned by Irv Edwards, of Manhattan Beach, Calif., who is also a defendant.

“She suddenly and without warning drove the O’Leary power boat directly into the path of the Ruh power boat,” the claim asserts.

Linda O'Leary and Kevin O'Leary are seen here attending the American Music Awards in Los Angeles on Nov. 19, 2017.

Police charged Linda O’Leary, who broke her foot in the crash, with careless operation of a vessel. She could not immediately be reached for comment. Her lawyer, Brian Greenspan, has previously said she was driving at a reasonable speed.

The lawsuit similarly argues Kevin O’Leary failed to keep a proper lookout, didn’t have proper training or a boat-operator licence, and failed to give the other boat the right of way. It also asserts he had a history of poor vision, and that health professionals had advised him against operating a power boat or only under limited circumstances.

Kevin O’Leary is not facing any charges in the incident.

The suit seeks punitive and aggravated damages as well as general damages from the O’Learys.

“Our family has lost a beautiful, loving person,” Brito’s mother Rosa Ragone said in a statement on Wednesday. “We are devastated. We sincerely hope that through this process, that justice is served.”

The Canadian Press first published this article on Nov. 6, 2019.

@repost Property Valuation for Divorce Settlement

Via A Domestic Partnership Agreement

source https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/kevin-oleary-lawsuit_ca_5dc311bee4b005513881d38e

By The Wall of Law November 7, 2019 Off

Kevin and Linda O’Leary sued for wrongful death by boating crash victim’s family

TORONTO – Kevin and Linda O’Leary are being sued for wrongful death by the family of an Uxbridge woman who died in a boating crash on an Ontario lake this summer.

Susanne Brito, 48, and Florida man Gary Poltash, 64, were killed when two boats collided on Lake Joseph near Emerald Island in Seguin Township, Ont. at around 11:30 p.m. on Aug. 24.

Kevin O’Leary and his wife, who own a luxury cottage on the lake, were on one of the boats involved in the collision. 

On Wednesday, the parents of Brito, Rosa and Antonio Ragone, as well as her sister, Paula Brito, announced they are suing the O’Learys.

In the Statement of Claim, the family alledges the O’Learys “failed to keep a proper lookout” and “drove at too high a rate of speed for that time of night.” It goes on to allege their “faculties of observation, perception, judgment and self-control were impaired due to alcohol and drugs.”

At the time of the crash Kevin O’Leary put out a statement saying his wife Linda was at the wheel of the boat.

Linda O’Leary has since been charged under the Canada Shipping Act with careless operation of a vessel, which is not a criminal charge. The maximum penalty is a $10,000 fine.

TMZ has previously reported that a representative for O’Leary stated that Linda O’Leary passed a breathalyzer test.

Kevin and Linda O'Leary

The Brito family is also suing New York men Richard Ruh and Irv Edwards. Ruh, 57, was charged with failing to exhibit navigation lights in connection with the boating crash and Edwards is the owner of the boat that Ruh was driving.

Patrick Brown, of law firm McLeish Orlando LLP, who is representing the claimants, said they are seeking damages for wrongful death as well as punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages. The family is seeking $2 million.

“For this grieving family, it is about obtaining civil justice so as to prevent these types of deaths and curtailing reckless and dangerous behaviour from continuing on our lakes,” Brown said.

Brown released a statement on behalf of the family, saying they are “devastated” by the crash. 

“Our family has lost a beautiful, loving person,” Rosa Ragone said.

“We sincerely hope that through this process, that justice is served and that steps are taken so that innocent victims like Suzie, are not seriously injured and killed and that other families do not have to go through such pain and loss.” 

Brito

“Operating pleasure crafts comes with great responsibility. We hope that from this process, that water safety is taken more seriously.”

In September, Brian Greenspan, Linda O’Leary’s lawyer, said the crash was “tragic” and “traumatic” but went on to say his client was an experienced boater.

“She was simply proceeding home and we think this charge is inappropriate,” he said. “Anyone involved in an incident, an accident, in which lives are lost, there is a great deal of unhappiness about it, a great deal of grief about it.”

The two boats involved in the crash were a 13-occupant wakeboard pleasure craft and a small ski boat.

CTV News has contacted the O’Leary’s lawyer for comment but has not yet received a response.

@repost Legal Separation Papers

Via Separation Advice

source https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/kevin-and-linda-o-leary-sued-for-wrongful-death-by-boating-crash-victim-s-family-1.4672780

By The Wall of Law November 7, 2019 Off

A Contract Is Awkward But Necessary When Couples Move In With Parents

Find a partner, buy a house, get married, live happily ever after. That narrative has become less relevant to Canadians, especially with an astronomically high cost of housing. We all need a place to live, but the reality is not everyone can afford to buy their own place. Consequently, more couples are choosing to live together in the home of one of their parents.  

When adult children bring a romantic partner into a parent’s home, this dynamic living arrangement provides benefits to all. The adult kids may get some additional help from grandparents if they have children of their own, and the parents may be able to put more away for their retirement if the kids are paying for some of the mortgage. But it can also be a major source of conflict — and I’m not referring to fights about whose turn it is to do the dishes or clean the bathroom.

Families fight. Couples fight. That’s normal. Some couples end up separating or getting divorced. This, too, is not uncommon. However, if a separation occurs while the pair is living in one of their parents’ home, legal troubles may follow. 

To give you a clearer idea of how common multigenerational households are becoming, 6.3 per cent of Canada’s population living in private households lived in a multigenerational household in 2016. That’s about 2.2 million people. 

Ontario has the highest rate of adult children still living with parents, and Statistics Canada noted in 2016 that the GTA saw between half and three quarters of young adults still living at home, with multigenerational households being one of the fastest-growing demographics. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the number of adults living with their parents is higher in the GTA than in any census metropolitan area in Canada, with the exception of Vancouver.

In our practice, we have seen an increasing trend of multigenerational disputes as a result of breakdown of an adult child’s relationship. 

These cases can be some of the most difficult to resolve.

In one such example, a common-law couple was living together in the basement of one of their parents’ homes. The couple thought that they should contribute something towards household expenses, and so they renovated the basement and helped pay for general upkeep. The couple separated, and the woman, who was not biologically related to the parents, left the home. She calculated that she and her partner contributed about $50,000 towards the home and upgrades during the time they were both living with the parents.

The woman believed that she has an interest in the house, but the parents maintained that the contributions were no more than rent. No agreement was made to clarify what the contributions were for, or if they were even required. 

The woman does have a potential claim against the home. Even though she did not own the home, she can claim that through the contribution of her labour, time and money, the parents (and perhaps the other partner) were enriched at her expense. This is called an unjust enrichment claim. 

In another example, the parties were married. In this case, the woman refused to leave the home because that was the matrimonial home (the home ordinarily occupied by a person and their spouse as their family residence). In Ontario, the matrimonial home affords certain legislatively prescribed protections, including one that gives each spouse the equal legal right to have possession of the matrimonial home they formerly shared, no matter which of them holds legal title.

Without a rental agreement that allows for eviction, the case will likely have to be resolved in court. Property division may also factor into the complexities of this case, as property and assets are also shared between married couples when they separate.    

Though both of these examples are rife with family conflict, no one is being malicious. In fact, problems usually occur in these types of cases because everyone assumed that they would live peacefully as one happy family. No plans or expectations were verbalized by the kids or the parents and, unfortunately, that led to a genuine disconnect of expectations.

Don’t assume that everyone is on the same page.

These cases can be some of the most difficult to resolve. Not only are these parties who thought they would be saving money by living together now responsible for hiring legal representation and paying legal fees, but they’re now having to fight with the people they care for most. Parents never want to make a case against their children, especially when they are already dealing with a separation or divorce, but the house might be their only valuable asset. They can’t afford to lose it. Similarly, the kids might feel that they cannot afford to walk away from all of the money they have invested in someone else’s home. 

The good news is that the parties can protect themselves by setting clear and transparent expectations of each other, and documenting these expectations in an appropriate agreement, such as a rental agreement and/or marriage or cohabitation agreement. Speaking to a lawyer in a transparent manner early on would definitely assist in setting up a structure which puts in to effect what all parties expect of each other.

Finally, it is highly recommended that parties keep all receipts and payment records if they are planning to invest in the parents’ home. Figuring out who is entitled to what can be very challenging without some sort of domestic contract, but it’s so much more challenging without that proof.

When parents agree to let their child move in along with their partner, all parties can benefit from the arrangement. But it’s important to remember that problems between family members can arise. Don’t assume that everyone is on the same page, talk about expectations and have a plan in place should something go wrong.

Have an opinion you’d like to share on HuffPost Canada? You can find more information here on how to pitch and contact us.

Also on HuffPost:

@repost Child Custody Agreement

Via Children of Divorce

source https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/living-together-legal_ca_5dc2fb6ae4b03ddc02edf40b

By The Wall of Law November 7, 2019 Off

A Contract Is Awkward But Necessary When Couples Move In With Parents

Find a partner, buy a house, get married, live happily ever after. That narrative has become less relevant to Canadians, especially with an astronomically high cost of housing. We all need a place to live, but the reality is not everyone can afford to buy their own place. Consequently, more couples are choosing to live together in the home of one of their parents.  

When adult children bring a romantic partner into a parent’s home, this dynamic living arrangement provides benefits to all. The adult kids may get some additional help from grandparents if they have children of their own, and the parents may be able to put more away for their retirement if the kids are paying for some of the mortgage. But it can also be a major source of conflict — and I’m not referring to fights about whose turn it is to do the dishes or clean the bathroom.

Families fight. Couples fight. That’s normal. Some couples end up separating or getting divorced. This, too, is not uncommon. However, if a separation occurs while the pair is living in one of their parents’ home, legal troubles may follow. 

To give you a clearer idea of how common multigenerational households are becoming, 6.3 per cent of Canada’s population living in private households lived in a multigenerational household in 2016. That’s about 2.2 million people. 

Ontario has the highest rate of adult children still living with parents, and Statistics Canada noted in 2016 that the GTA saw between half and three quarters of young adults still living at home, with multigenerational households being one of the fastest-growing demographics. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the number of adults living with their parents is higher in the GTA than in any census metropolitan area in Canada, with the exception of Vancouver.

In our practice, we have seen an increasing trend of multigenerational disputes as a result of breakdown of an adult child’s relationship. 

These cases can be some of the most difficult to resolve.

In one such example, a common-law couple was living together in the basement of one of their parents’ homes. The couple thought that they should contribute something towards household expenses, and so they renovated the basement and helped pay for general upkeep. The couple separated, and the woman, who was not biologically related to the parents, left the home. She calculated that she and her partner contributed about $50,000 towards the home and upgrades during the time they were both living with the parents.

The woman believed that she has an interest in the house, but the parents maintained that the contributions were no more than rent. No agreement was made to clarify what the contributions were for, or if they were even required. 

The woman does have a potential claim against the home. Even though she did not own the home, she can claim that through the contribution of her labour, time and money, the parents (and perhaps the other partner) were enriched at her expense. This is called an unjust enrichment claim. 

In another example, the parties were married. In this case, the woman refused to leave the home because that was the matrimonial home (the home ordinarily occupied by a person and their spouse as their family residence). In Ontario, the matrimonial home affords certain legislatively prescribed protections, including one that gives each spouse the equal legal right to have possession of the matrimonial home they formerly shared, no matter which of them holds legal title.

Without a rental agreement that allows for eviction, the case will likely have to be resolved in court. Property division may also factor into the complexities of this case, as property and assets are also shared between married couples when they separate.    

Though both of these examples are rife with family conflict, no one is being malicious. In fact, problems usually occur in these types of cases because everyone assumed that they would live peacefully as one happy family. No plans or expectations were verbalized by the kids or the parents and, unfortunately, that led to a genuine disconnect of expectations.

Don’t assume that everyone is on the same page.

These cases can be some of the most difficult to resolve. Not only are these parties who thought they would be saving money by living together now responsible for hiring legal representation and paying legal fees, but they’re now having to fight with the people they care for most. Parents never want to make a case against their children, especially when they are already dealing with a separation or divorce, but the house might be their only valuable asset. They can’t afford to lose it. Similarly, the kids might feel that they cannot afford to walk away from all of the money they have invested in someone else’s home. 

The good news is that the parties can protect themselves by setting clear and transparent expectations of each other, and documenting these expectations in an appropriate agreement, such as a rental agreement and/or marriage or cohabitation agreement. Speaking to a lawyer in a transparent manner early on would definitely assist in setting up a structure which puts in to effect what all parties expect of each other.

Finally, it is highly recommended that parties keep all receipts and payment records if they are planning to invest in the parents’ home. Figuring out who is entitled to what can be very challenging without some sort of domestic contract, but it’s so much more challenging without that proof.

When parents agree to let their child move in along with their partner, all parties can benefit from the arrangement. But it’s important to remember that problems between family members can arise. Don’t assume that everyone is on the same page, talk about expectations and have a plan in place should something go wrong.

Have an opinion you’d like to share on HuffPost Canada? You can find more information here on how to pitch and contact us.

Also on HuffPost:

@repost Determining Spousal Support

Via Child Custody Mediation

source https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/living-together-legal_ca_5dc2fb6ae4b03ddc02edf40b

By The Wall of Law November 7, 2019 Off

Ontario PCs To Spend $778 Million Reversing Their Own Cuts, Controversies

Ontario Premier Doug Ford sits at the Ontario legislature ahead of the fall economic statement in Toronto on Nov. 6, 2019.

TORONTO — The Ontario government is spending at least $778 million this year to make up for programs it cut in its 2019 budget and to invest in an autism plan after sparking outrage.

Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government said it would spend $163.8 billion this year in its fall economic statement, introduced by Finance Minister Rod Phillips at Queen’s Park on Wednesday. 

That’s up $400 million from the $163.4 billion the government said it would spend in its April budget. The government, however, says it’s adding $1.3 billion in new spending because some of it came from a contingency fund that had already been accounted for in the total.

These are the reinstated expenses the PCs previously said they’d eliminate:

  • $41 million for public health units,
  • $26 million for land ambulance operations,
  • $122 million for municipalities to use for child care,
  • $310 million to fund the Transition Child Benefit and for people on social assistance, now that some of the PCs’ changes to Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program have been abandoned.

The government is also spending an additional $279 million on the Ontario Autism Program after its plan to cap funding for families was widely panned.

Some cuts to public health and child-care funding are still going ahead next year, but the provincial government decided against its original plan to force retroactive cuts through this year as well. Those cuts drew the ire of mayors and former Ontario health ministers, including one former Ontario PC health minister, who called the move “downloading by stealth” and “drastic.” 

The other cuts that the PCs later reversed also caused outrage. Parents of children with autism chanted “Doug Ford’s a liar” outside the legislature in March and hurled insults at the minister inside the legislative chamber. Anti-poverty advocates said the elimination of the Transition Child Benefit, a monthly payment for low-income families who don’t receive other benefits, would leave children in “extreme poverty.”

Ontario Finance Minister Rod Phillips prepares to deliver the fall economic statement at the Ontario legislature in Toronto on Nov. 6, 2019.

Philips told journalists at Queen’s Park Wednesday that the economic statement shows his government is paying attention. 

“We listened to Ontarians. We listened to what they thought was working well in the plan that we had and we listened, as well, to the concerns that they had,” he said. 

“As I say, governing is complicated.”

Watch: Insults return to Ontario legislature after promises of a new tone. Story continues after video.

 

He said the PCs will still be able to eliminate the deficit by the 2023-24 fiscal year by finding “efficiencies” and collecting higher tax revenues as the economy grows.

“I think you can count on this government to be prudent,” he added.

The economic statement pegged Ontario’s deficit at $9 billion for this year, down from $10.3 billion in the April budget. The government’s own public accounts most recently said the deficit is only $7.4 billion.

‘There is no $9-billion deficit’

Opposition MPPs accused the government of artificially inflating the deficit to justify spending cuts and to look good when the deficit is reduced.

“There is no $9-billion deficit, just like there was no $15-billion deficit,” NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said at a press conference at Queen’s Park, referencing the government’s previous figure that was debunked by Ontario’s independent financial watchdog.

She also slammed the government for calling its $1.3 billion in additional expenses “new spending,” even though most of it was previous spending that it cut and reinstated months later.

“Delaying, backtracking or softening $1.3 billion in cuts is not new spending,” Horwath said.

She said the PCs are refusing to listen to Ontarians who are concerned about other cuts to health care, education and legal aid.

“Doug Ford is plowing ahead … Not a single fired nurse is going back to work … This budget doesn’t put a single teacher or education worker back in schools. No mom trying to get child support will get the legal aid she needs now,” she said.

Horwath rejected any suggestion that this statement represented a new chapter for the PCs.

“I don’t think there is a new era of the Ford government.”

CORRECTION:A previous version of this story listed the government’s $279 million autism plan investment as funding that had been cut. That funding was new, announced after the Progressive Conservatives backtracked on their previous plan for the program.

Earlier On HuffPost:

@repost Divorce Child Custody

Via How Does a Legal Separation Work

source https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/ontario-pcs-spend-778-million-reverse-cuts_ca_5dc3323ae4b0d8eb3c8f1d10

By The Wall of Law November 7, 2019 Off