Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Five different legal challenges to COVID-19 restrictions are all dismissed on the same day. Several of the people who launched legal challenges failed to avail themselves of internal legislative review mechanisms before commencing challenges in court.

Before commencing a judicial review, it’s a requirement that someone exhaust legislative avenues to appeal an administrative decision.

Also, on the show, an indigenous man who was sentenced to jail after he plead guilty to burning down a house he owned before he was evicted for failing to pay his mortgage was successful in an application for the appointment of counsel in the Court of Appeal.

In the Court of Appeal, unlike at trial, there is legal authority to appoint a lawyer to help if someone can’t afford to hire a lawyer on their own. Before appointing a lawyer, however, a Court of Appeal judge needs to conclude that the issue being raised has some merit.

In the case discussed, the indigenous appellant had been banished from the reserve he lived on for six months prior to being convicted. The banishment was pursuant to authority delegated by the federal government that permitted the band council to banish someone charged with a criminal offence.

The man is arguing that sentencing him to jail following the banishment amounted to double jeopardy.

Section 11 (h) of the Charter says that “if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again”

Not every corollary consequence of a criminal offence will constitute punishment for the purpose of 11 (h) of the Charter. For example, being fired from your job would not amount to a punishment for the purpose of this section.

The Court of Appeal judge hearing the application for the appointment of counsel found that banishment was a punishment that had traditionally been used for criminal offences. As a result, they concluded that the ground of appeal had merit and ordered that a lawyer be appointed to argue the appeal for the man.

Finally, on the show, the process for requesting a jury in a civil case and applying to cancel a request for a jury is discussed.

Where either the plaintiff or defendant files a notice to have a jury trial, the other party can oppose it on various grounds, including the complexity or length of a case.

In the case discussed, the issue was whether an insurance policy covered damage to the engine of a fishing boat. The insurance company wanted a jury trial, while the boat owner opposed it. The judge concluded that the case concluded that there was no reason a jury couldn’t decide the case.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that can protect a claimant’s reasonable reliance on another person’s word. It is intended to avoid unfairness by enforcing promises.

In a case discussed on the show, a judge needed to determine if either promissory estoppel or another equitable doctrine called unjust enrichment should result in a farm being given to a man who had worked on it for many years with the expectation that he would receive it when the owner passed away.

Starting in the 1970s, the farm owner made various remarks that caused the man who worked on the farm without formal pay to believe he would inherit it when the owner passed away. The remarks included things such as anyone who worked on the farm would get a piece one day and that he hoped the man who worked on the farm would be ready to fight for it one day.

Ultimately, the owner of the farm, who never married and had no children, decided to leave it to a neighbour with whom he had a long-term friendship.

To succeed with a claim of promissory estoppel, there are three starting requirements:

1. a representation or assurance is made to the claimant, on the basis of which the claimant expects to enjoy some right or benefit over property;

2. the claimant relies on that expectation by doing something or not doing something, and that reliance is reasonable in all the circumstances; and

3. the claimant suffers a detriment from this reliance, such that it would be unfair or unjust for the party responsible for the representation or assurance to go back on their word.

While the representation or assurance can be express or implied, the judge hearing the case concluded that the remarks made by the farm owner over the years were too ambiguous to make out the claim.

The judge also dismissed the claim based on unjust enrichment. This kind of claim also has three initial requirements:

1. the respondent was enriched;

2. the claimant suffered a corresponding deprivation; and

3. the respondent’s enrichment and the claimant’s corresponding deprivation occurred in the absence of a juristic reason.

The judge concluded that the man who worked on the farm did so based on an informal arrangement whereby the man would provide labour, and the farm owner would reciprocate with occasional gifts or payments without any expectation that the value of the work or gifts would be commensurate.

Also, on the show, a successful claim for defamation based on Google and Yelp reviews is discussed.

The case involved a customer who had a dispute with a small cedar products company concerning the purchase of some building material. 

The unhappy customer posted negative reviews on Google and Yelp, making false allegations that the company had defrauded and scammed him when this was not true.

The judge concluded that all the elements of defamation had been proven and awarded that cedar products company $90,000 in damages.


Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

When someone trespasses on property by building or installing something on it without permission, damages can be awarded. The amount of such an award will depend on the circumstances:

a)nominal damages if the owner had not proven any actual loss
b)actual damages suffered by the owner; or
c)damages equal to a sum that should reasonably be paid by the trespasser for the use of the land.

In the appeal discussed on the show, a neighbour was building a new home and excavated all the way up to their property line to build a basement. The property line and excavation were very close to the adjacent house, necessitating a fence being installed to prevent people from accidentally falling into the hole.

Because the excavation was right to the property line, the fence constituted a trespass onto the adjacent property. It was in place for several months and prevented the neighbours from accessing their backyard from the outside.

While a trial judge had awarded $15,000 for the trespass, this was reduced on appeal to $1,000. The small area of land occupied by the fence had no commercial rental value and the neighbour had already been compensated for the nuisance caused, some flowers that died because they couldn’t be watered and damage to a retaining wall.

Often nominal damages for trespass of this kind will only be $1, but $1,000 was permitted by the judge on appeal.

Also, on the show, the doctrine of Caveat Emptor is applied to a claim based on alleged problems with a house.

The judge deciding the case referred to a law professor’s description of the doctrine: Absent fraud, mistake, or representation, a purchase takes existing property as he finds it, whether it be dilapidated, bug-infested or otherwise uninhabitable or deficient in expected amenities unless he protects himself by contract terms.

While real-estate contracts often include a property disclosure statement, these only reference problems known to sellers and don’t result in a general warranty with respect to the quality of a property.

The plaintiff in the case was described by the judge as a sophisticated real estate investor and a professional engineer who operated a consulting firm specializing in construction defects. His evidence was found by the judge to be unbelievable. This conclusion was, in part, based on the judge’s finding that his claim that the home sellers improperly removed a washer and dryer and replaced them with mould-infested appliances was undermined by photographs taken after the sale was completed depicting the washer and dryer still in place.

Finally, on the show, a case involving the remedy for a finding that police improperly searched a person’s wallet, locating some drugs.

In Canada, when police are found to have breached someone’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure, a judge then needs to determine what the remedy should be.

If a judge concludes that permitting the Crown to use evidence obtained in an unconstitutional way would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, they can exclude the evidence from consideration in a trial.

There is also authority for a judge to grant “such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”

In the case discussed, the accused pleaded guilty after the judge declined to exclude the evidence of the drugs located in the wallet. The judge did, however, take the Charter breach into consideration on sentencing and imposed a conditional discharge rather than a seven-day jail sentence the Crown asked for. 

Follow this link for links to the cases discussed. 

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

The British Columbia General Employee Union is picketing government liquor distribution centers. The explanation for this strategic choice can be found in the Liquor Distribution Act, which is the legal basis for how alcohol is sold in British Columbia.

The Liquor Distribution Act creates a government monopoly over alcohol distribution in the province. The legal scheme in the act starts from the proposition that the government acquires ownership of any liquor imported into or created in the province.

By picketing government-owned liquor warehouses, the BCGUE is leveraging the artificial legal monopoly over liquor distribution in BC.

The origin of the Liquor Distribution Branch in British Columbia is prohibition, which existed in the province from 1917 until 1920. The first government liquor store opened on June 15, 1921.

More than 100 years later, we still have a government-owned monopoly distributing all alcohol in British Columbia.

The Liquor Distribution Branch now employs nearly 5,000 people.

The provincial government has recently modelled a system for marijuana distribution after the system of liquor distribution.

Even other highly regulated and taxed products are not distributed and retailed through an entirely separate government-owned system.

Everything from orange juice to cigarettes are distributed and sold without thousands of government employees, separate warehouses, and retail stores.

The 100-year-old model of a government-owned model of liquor distribution creates significant and unnecessary expenses for the government and means that the thousands of people employed in this system are not available to do other work. In a time of acute labour shortages, it would be desirable for these employees could be made available to undertake work in many areas where there are shortages of employees.

Also, on the show, a case dealing with wrongful dismissal and the test for termination vs abandoning a job is discussed.

The case involved a 68-year-old commercial truck driver who had worked for a logging contracting company for more than 15 years when he suffered a medical emergency and required heart surgery.

After being off work for nearly a year, the truck driver recovered, contacted his employer about returning to work, and provided a letter from his doctor confirming he was fit to do so.

The employer indicated they would contact the truck driver about work but never did so.

After four months of waiting, the truck driver took another job which he held for a short time.

The issue for the judge was whether the truck driver was dismissed or voluntarily resigned.

If an employee is dismissed without sufficient notice, they can be entitled to severance pay.

While, in this case, both the employee and employer may have been operating on mistaken assumptions about what the other party intended because of a failure to communicate, the legal test for dismissal is different from the test for voluntary resignation.

For there to be a dismissal, the assessment is objective: did the employer's actions, objectively viewed, amount to a dismissal? For there to be a resignation, there needs to be an objective basis for concluding the employee resigned as well as a subjective intention to resign.

Because of this distinction, the truck driver was found to have been dismissed and was awarded 15 months of severance pay.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

The week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

When children are believed to be at risk of harm in British Columbia, they can be apprehended by the director of the Ministry of Children and Families and placed with another family member or into foster care.

Pursuant to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, a judge would then need to determine what was in the best interest of the child. This act sets out a list of factors a judge must consider when deciding what’s in the best interest of the child. The first listed factor is the child’s safety.

In 2019 federal government enacted legislation pursuant to the federal government’s constitutional authority with respect to aboriginal people in Canada that also deals with protecting children. The legislation is called An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

The federal legislation takes priority over the provincial legation. It sets out different criteria that judges must consider when determining what’s in the best interests of an Indigenous child. The first criteria are not safety but rather “the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage”.

In a court case discussed on the show, a judge needed to determine what was in the best interest of four children of a mother who self-identified as indigenous. The woman believed she was indigenous, though her mother, even though the first nation she believed she belonged to, did not recognize either her or her late mother as being a member.

The mother of the apprehended children had experienced a tragic and traumatic childhood. Her father died in a car accident when she was very young and her mother, who was a severe drug addict, died a few years later. She then spent some time in a home described as “unstable and abusive” before she dropped out of school in grade 10 and began abusing drugs and alcohol. She never had a job and survived on social assistance.

The fathers of her four children were not actively involved in their lives, and one of the fathers has a lengthily criminal record with convictions for violence and sexual offences.

One of the apprehended children has physical and cognitive disabilities. That child was born prematurely after its father assaulted the mother while she was pregnant and then refused to bring the mother to the hospital for two days after she when into premature labour.

The children were apprehended due to what the judge described as reasonable grounds to believe the children had been or were like to be physically harmed because of neglect and immediate danger to their health and safety.

Despite these concerns, the judge hearing the case applied the criteria applicable to indigenous children and ordered the children to be returned to the mother with the hope that sufficient social services intervention could keep them safe.

The judge references the harm from the “sixties scoop” and concerns about placing indigenous children with non-indigenous foster families.

 A SCC case involving “public interest standing” is also discussed. This concept permits a person or organization to bring a court challenge dealing with an issue that doesn’t directly impact them. In this case, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities will be permitted to challenge BC legislation that permits involuntary psychological treatment.

Finally, a case involving a $2,000 award for nuisance caused by a neighbour who planted “running bamboo” along their property line. The bamboo invaded the property next door and required an underground barrier to be installed to stop it from proliferating.

Follow this link for links to the cases discussed. 

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Section 273.1(1) of the Criminal Code specifies that a person’s voluntary agreement to “engage in the sexual activity in question” is required.

Even where there is consent to sexual activity, it can be legally ineffective in various circumstances, including where the consent is obtained by force, the exercise of authority or fraud.

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada decided on a case where an accused secretly sabotaged condoms by poking holes in them. In that case, the sexual activity with the sabotaged condoms was found to have been consented to, however, the consent was ineffective because of fraud.

The Supreme Court of Canada has also found a failure to disclose an HIV infection can amount to fraud when engaging in sexual activity that creates a significant risk of bodily harm.

In the case discussed on the show, the complainant met the accused on a dating app. She indicated in text messages that she only wanted to engage in sexual activity with a condom. After a short meeting, the complaint and accused had sexual intercourse on two occasions.

On the first occasion, the accused used a condom, on the second he did not. The complaint was a willing participant on both occasions; however, she did not realize the accused was not wearing a condom on the second occasion.

The accused didn’t do anything to deceive the complaint on the second occasion: he just didn’t put on a condom.

At trial, the judge applied the earlier Supreme Court of Canada case involving the sabotaged condoms and concluded there was no evidence of fraud.

On appeal, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the “sexual activity in question” which had been consented to was intercourse with a condom and there had been no consent to intercourse without a condom. As a result, a new trial was ordered.

Also on the show, a case dealing with the circumstances a lawyer may not be permitted to quit representing a client is discussed.

There are some circumstances in which a lawyer may quit representing a client, even in the middle of a trial. These would include where a client advises a lawyer that they wish to testify a lie about what happened, or where a lawyer is no longer able to obtain instructions from their client.

Where a lawyer indicates that they wish to quit for ethical reasons a judge is not permitted to make inquiries about this because it might reveal privileged solicitor-client communications.

Where, however, a lawyer wishes to quit representing a client for financial reasons, shortly before a criminal trial, in limited circumstances a judge might require the lawyer to continue. Relevant factors would include whether the accused could represent themselves if another lawyer could assist and if there would be prejudice against others if the trial needed to be adjourned.

In the case discussed, the judge concluded that similar considerations apply to child protection cases, where the government is seeking to apprehend a child.

Because the lawyer was seeking to withdraw because he had lost contact with his client and could not obtain proper instructions there was no basis to require the lawyer to continue with the case.

Finally, on the show, an unsuccessful attempt to claim unjust enrichment by an ex-wife of three years against her former father-in-law on the basis that she claimed to have contributed to paying the mortgage on a house she and her ex-husband had rented from him.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

In Canada, murder can be either first or second degree. A conviction for either kind of murder results in a mandatory life sentence. With first-degree murder, however, a person must wait 25 years before they can even ask for parole. For second-degree, the judge can decide how long someone would need to wait before being allowed to ask for parole, from 10 to 25 years.

The most common murder can become first-degree is when the murder is planned and deliberate.

There are other ways murder can become first-degree, even if it isn't planned. These include the murder of a peace officer, murder committed for a criminal organization, in the courts of a terrorist act, or while committing various serious crimes such as sexual assault or kidnapping, or unlawful confinement.

In the first case discussed on the show, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the murder of a rival drug dealer should have been first-degree.

The fact pattern in the case involved the murdered drug dealer being confined in a speeding truck by three other drug dealers. When the truck slowed down, the drug dealer who was being confined in the truck jumped out and tried to run away. He was shot by the accused while he was running away and then shot several more times, killing him.

The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that, even though the deceased drug dealer had managed to jump out of the truck and run away some distance, the murder was still in the course of unlawful confinement and, as a result, should be categorized as first-degree.

Also on the show, and in keeping with the theme of detention, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that a young aboriginal man’s right to retain and instruct counsel had been breached when the police took him back to the police station to be interviewed for three hours, without telling him about his right to talk to a lawyer, after a team of police officers attended to his house to execute a search warrant.

In Canada, the police have a constitutional obligation to tell someone about their right to a lawyer when they arrest or detain someone. If the person asks to talk to a lawyer, the police are obliged to stop asking questions or attempting to gather evidence from the person until they have been given a reasonable opportunity to talk to a lawyer.

As occurred in the case discussed, police will sometimes attempt to get a suspect to come to the police station for an interview without arresting the person to avoid telling them about their right to a lawyer because a lawyer is likely to tell a suspect in a criminal investigation not to talk to the police.

In the circumstances of the case discussed, including the fact that the police drove the suspect to the police station after showing up at his house to execute a search warrant, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the young man had been detained and his right to counsel had been breached.

The Supreme Court of Canada also concluded that when the police subsequently arrested the young man, they breached his right to counsel again by not permitting him to call his father to get help arranging for a lawyer. The police refused the request because the young man had previously phoned legal aid and had a very short conversation during which he was told that he should hire a lawyer.

In Canada, a person who is arrested or detained is not restricted to a single phone call. They must be provided with a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel and, if they are being reasonably diligent, this may require multiple phone calls, access to phone directories, or even contacting someone, like a parent, to help arrange for a lawyer.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

The British Columbia Medicare Protection Act purports attempts to protect Medicare by prohibiting any doctor from charging any more than what Medicare pays for any service that it covers and effectively prohibiting people from purchasing private insurance for any of these services.

These market interventions, combined with insufficient funding for Medicare, have resulted in the rationing of the services that are available by requiring people to wait for treatment.

While wealthy people can avoid waiting for treatment by traveling to the United States and paying privately, middle-class people are unable to purchase private health insurance and are forced to wait.

A constitutional challenge to the Medicare Protection Act was recently dismissed by the BC Court of Appeal despite evidence that even for the most serious category of medical conditions defined as “patients have severe pain or acute conditions, risk of permanent functional impairment, tumour/carcinoma/cancer/high risk of malignancy, or time sensitivity”, 72.2% were required to wait longer than the maximum acceptable wait time defined by the government.

The legal challenge was brought on the basis that the Medicare Protection Act violated patients' constitutional right to life and security of the person.

Even though the BC Court of Appeal Judges accepted that some patients would die because of the Medicare Protection Act, they were at pains to point out that they did not have the authority to determine if the legislation was good public policy. They could only determine if the legislation was so harmful that it was unconstitutional.

As discussed on the show, the judges hearing the case concluded that while the legislation breached patients' right to life and the security of the person, it did so in a constitutionally permissible way.

It’s likely that the case will proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Also on the show, another member of the Rainforest Flying Squad was sentenced after being convicted of criminal contempt of court for blocking a logging road in violation of an injunction.

As there are more than 400 people being prosecuted for criminal contempt, the series of sentencing decisions that have resulted have afforded interesting insight into the factors to be considered in such cases.

In the case discussed on the show, the trial judge concluded that the fact the accused was convicted following a trial, rather than pleading guilty, was not a significant factor in sentencing.

In addition to the three days the accused had already spent in jail, he was sentenced to 12 months of probation, including 65 hours of community work service.

Finally, on the show, a BC Court of Appeal decision allowing an appeal from a 6-month jail sentence following a conviction for possession of a small quantity of drugs for the purpose of trafficking is discussed.

The trial judge had felt obliged to impose the jail sentence because of earlier Court of Appeal cases which had concluded that this should be the outcome absent exceptional circumstances.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

In August of 2018, two sisters were walking their dogs on Central Saanich Road in Saanich BC when a vehicle struck them. One of the women, and her dog, were killed. The other woman survived with devastating injuries.

The woman who survived spent a year in the hospital. Her injuries included broken ribs, a spinal injury, and damage to an eye. Most significantly, however, was a traumatic brain injury.

She now has a severe impairment of self-awareness, short-term memory, and attention. She is not able to self-regulate, plan, or have a sense of time. She has outbursts and dysregulation, including perseveration, disinhibition, dysregulation of effect, irritability, anger outbursts, and a lack of insight. She is able to read to some extent and can do puzzles with her mother.

Despite all of this, ICBC alleged that the woman who survived did not suffer any injuries arising from the accident. It denied that the man who hit her was negligent even though he was charged and convicted of impaired driving causing death. It alleged that the woman had not followed medical advice and had failed to mitigate her damages.

Because the accident occurred prior to 2021, when no fault ICBC insurance was implemented in British Columbia, the woman was able to go to court and sue.

The vehicle driven by the man who hit the two women did not belong to him. Because of this, the woman who survived was able to sue not only the driver but also the owner of the vehicle.

When a vehicle owner lets someone else use it, the owner can also be liable for injuries and damage caused by the person who borrowed it.

The vehicle was in the process of being purchased from a car dealership by a relative of the man who was driving it.

Because the car dealership was unable to arrange financing it prepared an agreement saying the vehicle would be purchased for cash, even though the relative of the driver who was trying to purchase it clearly had no ability to pay cash. The car dealership let the relative take the vehicle home while it tried to arrange financing to complete the sale.

In British Columbia, the Consumer Protection Act makes consumer contracts void for unconscionability if there was no reasonable probability of full payment of the total price by the consumer.

As a result, the judge hearing the case concluded that the vehicle was still owned by the car dealership at the time of the accident and the car dealership was therefore jointly responsible for the injuries caused. It is likely that the car dealership was insured by ICBC which would explain why ICBC took the position it did in the case.

The judge hearing the case awarded the injured woman $5.5 million, in large part to pay for her care for the rest of her life. Because of her brain injury, she will need to live in an assisted living facility for the rest of her life.

As discussed on the show, it’s troubling that ICBC took the position it did in this case. Had the accident occurred after the no-fault system was implemented in 2021 the injured woman may have been left at the mercy of ICBC.

Also, on the show, another case dealing with government restrictions on suing for injuries in vehicle accident cases is discussed.

The BC government passed regulations limiting the amount that could be paid for medical and other experts in vehicle accident cases to 6% of any award to save ICBC money.

In the case discussed, the judge found the limit to be unconstitutional.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Twenty-five years ago, a man and his family moved into a home they had built in the Highlands with only a temporary occupancy permit. A final occupancy permit was never obtained, and the lack of compliance was noted on title.

As his wife passed away and his children had moved out, the homeowner decided it was time to sell the home.

The homeowner hired a contractor to complete some repairs including work on some badly weathered decks. The agreement to do the work was oral and the scope of the project changed several times.

The contractor was asked to replace two smaller decks completely but, to save money, only replace the decking on a large main deck.

The contractor pointed out to the homeowner that the structure of the main deck was rotten but agreed to continue replacing only the decking.

When the home was listed for sale, a building inspector was called by a real-estate agent and several deficiencies were noted, including the rotten main deck.

The homeowner was upset that the building inspector had attended and demanded that the contractor replace the main deck as his own expense. The contractor refused because he had only been hired to replace the decking and litigation ensued.

Following a three-day trial, the judge concluded that while the contractor wasn’t responsible for the full cost of replacing the main deck, he shouldn’t have proceeded with replacing the decking given the rotten structure. The contractor was ordered to pay for the wasted time and decking material.

Because the homeowner sued in Supreme Court, seeking the full cost of a new main deck, and was awarded only $5,175, he is unlikely to receive costs that would ordinarily be awarded to a successful party because the amount awarded is within the jurisdiction of Small Claims Court.

The legal costs of the three-day trial are likely to have been substantially more that the amount awarded. The contractor represented himself at trial.

Also on the show, the BC Court of Appeal resolved a dispute over an estate that occurred because the deceased didn’t have a valid will.

The BC Wills, Estates and Succession Act has provisions that deal with who should receive an estate when someone dies without a will. If someone has a spouse and no descendants, the estate passes to the spouse.

The central issue on the appeal was whether the man who had lived with the deceased was her spouse.

The Wills, Estates and Succession Act provides that when someone is in a “marriage like relationship” for two years prior to someone’s death is their spouse.

There are a variety of factors that courts have looked at to decide if a relationship is “marriage like”.

The trial judge focused on the fact that the man and woman didn’t engage in a conjugal relation and concluded that the man wasn’t a spouse.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and pointed out that there should not be a checklist of factors and that relationships are diverse. 

The man shared a bed with the deceased for three years prior to her death. He took her to hundreds of medical appointments, did the grocery shopping, they shared meals and celebrations together and he testified that he loved her.

While, ultimately, the result is likely to have been in accordance with the deceased woman’s wished, several years or litigation and uncertainty could have been avoided if she had prepared a proper will.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.