[Sliver]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I'm curious.....why do you feel that way? What specific reason(s) do you feel that this decision benefits Canada?

If I was one of the daughters, what would I care if it benefits Canada? As an outsider I don't even care if it benefits Canada. I think if the father made an irrational decision and the daughters could prove that, they may be entitled to some compensation, which is exactly what happened.

I'm short on time so I'm not researching this as well as I would like, but didn't the judge say something to the effect of the father didn't take into account how much his life and his wife's life were enriched by the daughters? That's important, as well as the care she gave the father at the end.

Haven't you ever seen a parent totally favour one kid, while mistreating another? I hate that more than anything - I like that this judge righted a wrong (based on my limited understanding of the case).

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Is it because the judicial system should be in charge of reversing the wrongs caused by crappy parenting?

The courts step into familiy matters all the time and if I was one of the daughters I would have fought it too.

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Or it it because the judicial system should be the nation's moral compass, and completely ignore personal freedoms in order to correct perceived unfairness?

What country do you live in? Maybe I would like to smoke a big fat bowl after work; however, I'm not "free" to do that legally.

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

It's a completely different story if the daughters were still young dependents, but they're not. They are grown adults, and are responsible for themselves. If the guy was a tyrant (and it appears he was), why would they stick around for 50+ years? I suspect that the kids hung around for the money as much as the old man likely used it to control them.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know.

Originally Posted by Table 5

What's the whole point of wills then if courts don't respects it?

That's a good point and I think they should in a general sense. But there are always going to be situations where a will can be fairly challenged.

Originally Posted by valo403

Yes, people do contest wills all the time, and barring a failure in the actual creation of the will they are generally shuffled out of court rather quickly. There's a reason for this, it's called freedom of contract. A will is nothing more than a contractual document. A properly executed will should be followed to the furthest extent legally possible, notions of fairness and morality have no place in the analysis of a legal document outside of failures in execution, or where laws intentionally invoke such standards.

This is nothing more than judicial activism. This is a judge who has taken it upon themselves to decide what a dying man wanted to have done with his estate. That is disgusting.

I'm sure you're right. I'll bet 99.9% of people contesting wills are petty, theiving a-holes that don't deserve more than they get for a million good reasons.

Sometimes, though, there are situations where a person will make a will and I don't think they have the mental capacity to do so rationally (like this case). The problem, of course, is a lawyer will typically have signed off on the will stating that their client was of sane mind (or whatever the wording is) when the will is prepared. You're never going to get the lawyer that signed off on the will to admit his client wasn't of sound mind, so right away it's an uphill battle to overturn a will.

Anyway, as far as judicial activism goes (new term for me), in theory it's probably a really bad precident, but in this one case if he made something that was wrong right, I think that's cool.