<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>quantum - Toronto Estate Law Blog</title>
<link>http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/articles/topics/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 04:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:43:01 -0500</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Remember the Evidence Act!</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>How does one prove a negative?&nbsp; This is a challenge facing many estates: after a person dies, individuals spring forth&nbsp;requesting compensation for services rendered on a <em>quantum meruit</em>&nbsp;basis or alleging that promises were made by the deceased.&nbsp; A common example is a claim that one provided domestic services such as cleaning, shopping or laundry.&nbsp;</p><p>The&nbsp;riddle of proving a negative is&nbsp;quite relevant&nbsp;to estates litigation because the&nbsp;star witness for the estate is usually, by definition, dead.&nbsp;&nbsp;Fortunately, since&nbsp;estate trustees can't&nbsp;prove negatives, they don't have to.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/88a17d9a-8a15-474e-86e7-0414a43b9936/1/frame/?search=browseStatutes&amp;context=">Section 13</a> of the Evidence Act specifically addresses this scenario, requiring independent corroboration of evidence in claims against estates.&nbsp;&nbsp; The provision is designed to prevent claims that consist of mere allegations, which are easy to make, difficult to refute and expensive to litigate.&nbsp; There is a great deal of case law on what constitutes corroboration, the standard of proof and so forth but the provision is a great deterrent to frivolous claims.</p><p>It seems trite to say but the Act is worth a review, even for non-litigators.&nbsp; It's full of counter-intuitive gems that are easily forgotten: for instance, <a href="http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e23_e.htm#BK8">section 9</a> the Evidence Act states that&nbsp;witnesses are not excused from answering questions tending to criminate them under any Act of the Legislature.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Have a great day,</p><p>Chris Graham</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2008/05/articles/topics/remember-the-evidence-act/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2008/05/articles/topics/remember-the-evidence-act/</guid>
<category> TOPICS</category><category>Estate &amp; Trust</category><category>Litigation</category><category>corroboration</category><category>evidence</category><category>evidence act</category><category>meruit</category><category>quantum</category><category>unjust enrichment</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 04:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
<author>nonley@hullandhull.com (Hull &amp; Hull LLP)</author>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>