Michael joined Chappell Partners LLP in July 2011 as a tax partner, after having been counsel to and a tax partner at other well-established business law firm in Toronto.

Michael practices in the areas of taxation law, estate planning, wills, trusts and estates, tax dispute resolution and business law. His practice is primarily focused on providing tax planning advice and strategies, estate planning advice and strategies, preparing wills and trusts, advising regarding estate administration, and representing clients in tax disputes and tax litigation, as well as providing business law advice regarding the establishment, reorganization and purchase/sale of businesses.

During his career, Michael has assisted clients to achieve business and/or personal objectives in connection with a broad range of activities, including:

• tax structuring for businesses, including tax advice regarding the establishment of businesses, the reorganization of corporations and the purchase/sale of businesses
• business succession arrangements, including the transfer of family-owned businesses between generations
• estate planning, including the structuring and preparation of wills, trusts and powers of attorney
• planning for estate and wealth preservation, including “estate freeze” reorganizations and “crystallization” transactions
• family trust planning, including the establishment of trusts and the preparation of trust agreements
• charitable gift planning, including the establishment of charitable foundations
• retirement planning strategies, including the establishment of individual pension plans and retirement compensation arrangements
• advising accountants, investment advisers, insurance advisers and financial planners regarding tax planning strategies, estate planning strategies and retirement planning strategies for their clients
• advising executors and/or beneficiaries in estate administration situations
• representing individual clients and corporate clients in tax disputes resolution and tax litigation (including tax appeals to tax courts)
• business law advice, including structuring and implementing business transactions (such as corporate reorganizations and the purchase/sale of businesses)

Michael has been a frequent speaker on a broad range of tax planning, estate planning and will preparation topics to various organizations, including The Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario Bar Association, and numerous business organizations. He has also been an adjunct professor at Queen’s University Law School, teaching the personal taxation course and the corporations taxation course, and previously served as an instructor in the Business Law course and the Estate Planning course of the Ontario Bar Admission course.

Michael is a member of The Law Society of Upper Canada, the Canadian Tax Foundation, the Canadian Bar Association and the Society of Trusts and Estates Practitioners (STEP) and has been a member of the Estate Planning Council of Toronto. He is also active in a couple of community-based organizations.

Lynda Quinn and Roland Keiper were married in 1989 and separated in 1996 or 1997.

Both parties hired high priced lawyers after the separation. The husband’s financial affairs were complicated. The wife hired a litigation accountant, who sent a detailed list of questions to the husband about his financial affairs. There was also a court order for financial disclosure.

The husband did not provide the information requested. Instead, the parties signed a comprehensive Separation Agreement, which provided that the husband pay to the wife a property settlement of $10 million.

The wife had second thoughts. In 2005, she applied to set aside the Separation Agreement on the basis that he had not made full disclosure. She also sued her former lawyer for failing to get financial disclosure.

Justice Brown granted summary judgment dismissing the wife’s claim. He said the claim was so weak that it did not raise a “genuine issue” for trial. While the husband’s disclosure had not been perfect, it did not appear that there was a glaring failure to disclose any asset. There was no proverbial “Swiss bank account” that the husband had hidden from the wife.

Justice Brown made this important comment: “Exhausting formal pre-trial disclosure remedies is not a pre-condition to entering into a valid separation agreement. Our law permits a party to enter into a valid domestic contract even when the party thinks that the other should make more financial disclosure.”

In the opinion of this writer, Justice Brown’s decision is questionable. It creates an incentive for the wealthier spouse to “stonewall” on financial disclosure, and exhaust the poorer party financially through litigation, in the hope that the other party will be forced to settle without full disclosure.

The decision is under appeal. It will be interesting to see what the Court of Appeal says about the above quotation and other similar statements.

Quinn v. Keiper 87 O.R. (3d) 184

Under Jewish law, only the husband can give a religious divorce. If the husband does not agree, then there is no divorce, and the wife cannot remarry under Jewish law. This can cause great hardship for religiously devout Jewish women as it prevents them from remarrying within the faith.

Bruker v. Marcovitz was such a case. The parties were married in 1969 and separated in 1980. There was a civil divorce in 1981. They signed an agreement in 1980 which required the husband to give a religious divorce. He then refused to comply.

In 1989, the wife sued for breach of contract. Finally, in 1995, the husband gave the divorce.

The wife was 31 at the time of the separation but 46 at the time of the Jewish divorce. She claimed damages of $500,000 on the basis that the husband had prevented her from remarrying for this 15 year period.

The trial judge awarded her $57,000 in damages plus interest. The husband appealed, claiming that enforcing the contract violated his religious beliefs. Justice Abella of the Supreme Court of Canada had little sympathy for him.

Justice Abella questioned the husband’s sincerity; there was evidence that he refused the Jewish divorce on the basis of spite rather than any genuine religious conviction.

Even leaving aside the question of sincerity, Justice Abella found that freedom of religion had to be balanced against other values, and in particular, the wife’s legitimate interest in remarrying within her religion.

Freedom of religion is not an absolute value but must be balanced against other values.

It should be pointed out that the wife could have, at any time, remarried in a civil ceremony. The lack of religious divorce prevented her from remarrying under Jewish law, but not under the civil law.

Bruker v. Marcovitz [2007] S.C.J. No. 54

The Guidelines are the creation of two Canadian academics. Their purpose is to bring predictability to spousal support cases. They establish formulas for the amount and duration of spousal support.

The Guidelines call for sharing of income. The amount of income to be shared depends on the length of the marriage, the income of the parties, and whether they had children.

The Guidelines are not the law but are supposed to be “advisory.” In other words, a judge can look at them but does not have to follow them.

Over the last several years, the Guidelines have received a mixed reception. In this writer’s experience, some judges in Toronto were highly skeptical of the Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal does not share the skepticism. Justice Susan Lang agreed with B.C. cases that the Guidelines are a “useful” tool.

Justice Lang stated that “I am optimistic that, with experience, the Guidelines will become accepted as a reliable tool for resolution of many cases, subject always to the important caveat that due consideration be given to the parties’ individual circumstances.”

The Guidelines will also be a useful tool for appeal courts in evaluating the reasonableness of lower court decisions, Justice Lang found.

The case in question was Fisher v. Fisher, where the parties had been married for 19 years, and never had children. Employing the Guidelines, Justice Lang found that the trial judge’s award had been too low. She awarded 7 years of spousal support; $3000 per month for the first 3 ½ years and $1500 per month for the second 3 ½ years.

Given this clear statement from the Court of Appeal, family law lawyers will have to be ready to argue the Guidelines every time there is an issue of spousal support.

Fisher v. Fisher [2008] O.J. No. 38

Paul Henry graduated from Trinity College, University of Toronto with a B.A. in 1969 and with an LL.B. from University of Toronto Law School in 1972.  He articled with the firm and was called to the bar in 1974.  He has been counsel on over 60 major civil and criminal trials and administrative board hearings.

Paul has acted on behalf of numerous personal claimants and plaintiffs, developers and public agencies including Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Regional Municipality of Peel, the Regional Municipality of Durham, the County of Northumberland, the Town of Richmond Hill, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ontario Realty Corporation.

Paul has been a frequent lecturer to the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Expropriation Association, the Investigative and Forensic Accounting Diploma Program and to the Ontario Municipal Board.  He is a member of the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Expropriation Association and the Advocates Society.

Paul is frequently counsel for owners of expropriated properties and expropriating authorities.  He has been involved in many major projects including the Pickering Airport, the North Pickering Project, the Humber Bay Shores (Motel Strip), the Port Union Linear Park and the widening and construction of Highways 401, 427, 407, 410, 416, 69, 7, 6 and the Queen Elizabeth Way.

He has been counsel in the former County and Supreme Court, the Superior Court of Justice, the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Publications:

• Editor for a newsletter with respect to expropriation

During the period 2002 to 2007, Ross acted as counsel to the Province of Ontario and the Ontario Realty Corporation with respect to the taking into public ownership of more than 1250 acres of the Oak Ridges Moraine in Richmond Hill, Ontario. His varied experience and sound judgment make him a valued counsel to small, large and medium size corporations of all types as well as individuals in need of sensible, well-balanced advice. Problem-solving and timely decision-making skills are his professional hallmark.

Ross is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Canadian Bar Association, and acts as counsel to other lawyers and law firms.

Ross has handled a wide range of legal matters including:

• real estate acquisitions and sales including all types of properties: commercial, residential, multi-residential
• real estate financings both commercial and residential including multi-residential and condominium;
• leasing for landlords and tenants;
• real estate developments, syndicates and partnerships;
• wind/solar energy transactions and related financing;
• mortgage enforcement, remedies and powers of sale;
• incorporation of companies and formation of partnerships including shareholders agreements and partnership
• drafting of a wide variety of commercial contracts;
• restructuring of corporate relationships;
• acquisitions and dispositions of businesses and other commercial entities;
• succession and estate planning;
• estate freezes;
• wills, estates and trusts;
• general counsel to ongoing clients including individuals, businesses and institutions.

James was called to the bar in 1992. He has worked his entire career at the firm, practicing family law and civil litigation. He is a partner in the firm.

In his twenty-year career, James has accumulated a great deal of experience, appearing in court in a wide variety of cases.

James’ approach to litigation is practical. He understands the costs and stress of litigation. He resolves his clients’ cases fairly, and in a cost efficient manner. In any litigation, a cost / benefit analysis is conducted before taking any significant step.

He is a supporter of alternatives to the traditional litigation route. In particular, James has had success with “Mediation / Arbitration” which is an increasingly popular way of resolving family law cases.

James has significant experience outside the area of family law. He regularly works in the area of defamation, wrongful dismissal, collections, and commercial litigation.

James is a member of the Advocate’s Society and the Ontario Bar Association.

He speaks at continuing education programs offered by the Ontario Bar Association and the Law Society of Upper Canada.

James was the co-chair of the “Family Law Institute,” a significant continuing legal education program offered by the OBA in February 2009.

He also acts as the editor of O’Brien’s Encyclopedia of Forms – Family Law.

Michele is a Partner with the firm. She has practiced exclusively family law since graduating from Osgoode Hall Law School and her call to the Bar in 1985. Her work involves all aspects of family law and she has extensive trial and appellate experience at every level of court including the Supreme Court of Canada.

Michele is a member of Collaborative Practice Toronto, the Advocates Society, the Toronto Lawyers Association, and the Family Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. She has completed training in mediation and collaborative law and was an Instructor with the Law Society of Upper Canada Bar Admission Course for many years. While involved in the Operations Committee of the Ontario Court of Justice (member and past-Chair) Michele sat as a Family Law Referee for 5 years.

Michele also served as a Board member (and past President) of the Canadian Foundation for Children and the Law (Justice for Children and Youth), and as a Board member for Covenant House Toronto.

For more information on Collaborative Practice, please contact info@collaborativepracticetoronto.com

Articles: – Collaborative Law