Nanda & Associate Lawyers View RSS

In short:

• The Canadian Law expects law enforcement officials to respect the Charter Rights of the accused throughout, no matter the nature of the crime.
• In the event of a Charter Rights violation, the accused has the right to request the Court to disqualify the evidence collected in such a manner.
• The importance of Charter Rights was demonstrated in a recent drug case heard in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.
• In R. v. Noel,  2025 NSSC 310, the Court declared that the conduct of the police in denying the accused access to his lawyer for seven hours was a clear breach of his Charter Rights.
• With the evidence becoming inadmissible, the charges against the accused were dismissed.

Canadian law entitles the accused to their Charter Rights, no matter the nature and circumstances of their alleged crime. The law enforcement officials are always expected to carry out the due process of law without infringing upon any of the accused’s Charter Rights. If any evidence was collected in violation of the Charter Rights, the courts are likely to disqualify such evidence from being presented in the case.

This point was clearly demonstrated in a recent drug case in Nova Scotia. The accused was denied access to his lawyer for almost seven hours. While they were able to recover significant quantities of cocaine and cash from his vehicle and his residence, it was deemed that all the evidence collected in violation of his Charter Rights was inadmissible, and subsequently, the charges against the accused were dismissed.

What are the Charter Rights?

Under Canadian law, the accused in a criminal case is entitled to the following Charter Rights regardless of the nature of the crime.

• The right to be informed of the charges.
• The right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself.
• The right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.
• The right to be free from arbitrary detention.
• The right of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures of personal property.
• The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
• The right not to be denied bail without a reasonable cause.
• The right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
• The right of protection from being tried again for the same offence.

If there were any Charter Rights violations during the arrest, search or investigation, the accused may approach the courts to disqualify such evidence collected from the trial.

Background of the case R. v. Noel, 2025 NSSC 310

• Based on a tip, the police initiated an investigation into Mr. Jean-Noel on January 31, 2022, and subsequently, on February 8, 2022, they obtained a search warrant for his 2014 white Honda Civic and his residence in Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia.
• The police carried out the warrant on February 9, 2022. They arrested Mr. Jean-Noel in his vehicle and conducted a search of his car. The search of his residence followed soon after.
• The police allegedly seized nine plastic bags from the car, each containing 0.8g of cocaine and various amounts of cash. The search of the residence also yielded many more bags of cocaine.
• The police informed the accused of his Charter Rights, including his right to contact his lawyer. Mr. Jean-Noel then requested access to his cell phone so that he could call his lawyer, Mr.  Ian Hutchison.  
• The police officers then obtained the phone’s password from the accused in order to unlock the phone and note down the number of his lawyer. Their intention was to facilitate this phone call at the Prisoner Care Facility.
• However, at the Prisoner Care Facility, the duty counsel room was already in use, and there were more people waiting to use it. While there were other rooms at the facility where such calls could be arranged, the officer-in-charge was not aware of this option.
• Finally, after seven hours, Mr. Jean-Noel was allowed to speak to his lawyer, Mr.  Ian Hutchison.
• The accused later approached the Nova Scotia Supreme Court requesting the dismissal of the drug charges, citing the violation of his Charter Rights.

 

Key Observations

In dismissing the charges laid against the accused in R. v. Noel, 2025 NSSC 310, the Court made the following observations.  

• It is clear that the police had every intention of upholding the Charter Rights of the accused. They verbally informed the accused of his Charter Rights. He acknowledged them and confirmed that he wished to contact his lawyer.
• The court is convinced that the accused’s Charter Rights were clearly violated in this case. Section 10 (b) of the Charter Rights is clear and unambiguous: “Everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right”. The delay of 7 hours is a clear violation of the accused’s right to “retain and instruct counsel without delay.”
• The court observed that admitting the evidence collected in violation of the Charter Rights would set the wrong precedent and could erode the public’s confidence in the administration of justice over time.
• The court acknowledged that the conduct of the law enforcement officials was not in bad faith or malicious in nature. Nonetheless, the delay of seven hours is unjustifiable in this case.
• The arrest was not spontaneous or dynamic; rather, it was planned well in advance. Therefore, the police should have made sufficient arrangements to facilitate the accused’s phone call to his lawyer within a reasonable amount of time.
• Since there is a clear breach of the accused’s Charter Rights, all the evidence thus collected has to be excluded as per Section 24 (2) of the Charter.
• Since the evidence has become inadmissible, the charges against the accused are dismissed.

Conclusion:

The phrase “without delay” in Section 10 (b) of the Charter Rights made it very clear that the unjustifiable delay in allowing the accused to contact his lawyer is a breach of his Charter Rights. This was not a spontaneous arrest, executed in haste. The whole thing was planned ahead of time, and an officer was even assigned the task of facilitating the accused’s phone call with his lawyer. Still, there was a failure in meeting this obligation, forcing the court to disqualify the evidence and dismiss the charges against the accused.

How can our criminal lawyer help you?

The above case is a clear example of the difference a good criminal lawyer can make in your case, regardless of all the evidence stacked against you. If you are fighting such criminal charges, ensure that you have our experienced and knowledgeable criminal lawyers defending you in court. Get in touch with our criminal lawyer today to ensure that you have the best legal representation available in your case.

Reach out to our criminal defence team at 905-405-0199 for a consultation

In short:

• The Trump Administration just implemented a steep hike in the H-1B visa fee to $100,000.
• Most tech firms in the US rely on the H-1B visa program to meet their requirement for skilled tech workers from foreign countries.
• The Trump Administration wants to encourage these firms to hire American workers instead.
• With the costs of economic immigration to the US skyrocketing overnight, Canada is likely to emerge as the new preferred destination for the top tech talent out there.

It has always been the case that the first choice for skilled economic immigration, especially in IT or any of the other STEM fields, has been the United States. The top talent always opted for the United States, and Canada remained the second preference up until now. But thanks to the aggressive anti-immigration policies of the Trump Administration, this is all set to change.

Trump Administration’s drastic changes to the H-1B visa policy

Recently, the US government implemented a steep hike in the H-1B visa fees to $100,000 in order to further discourage economic immigration to the country. Already, the number of work permits issued under H-1B has been capped at 85,000 per year, with some exemptions, and they are allocated through a lottery system. Up until now, the visa fees ranged between $2,000 and $5,000, depending on the size of the firm. The new $100,000 fee, which came into effect on September 21, is meant to discourage these companies from hiring foreign workers and employ Americans instead.

H-1B visas are granted for a period of a maximum of three years, with the option to extend them to six years. Previously, the application fee had to be paid again when applying for the extension. The new fee, however, is said to be a one-time payment made at the time of initial application. As of now, it is not clear whether the same amount will have to be paid again when extending the visa to six years. Reports indicate that the Trump Administration is planning to announce even more reforms in the coming months.

The issue here is that for certain highly skilled positions, the American tech firms are finding it difficult to source the required talent locally. However, the Trump Administration seems to be under the impression that tech companies are choosing to hire foreign workers only because of the lower pay.

Canada is the obvious beneficiary of this shift in US policy

As things stand now, Canada has the potential to emerge as the new primary destination for such highly skilled tech workers going forward. The new Carney Administration is focusing on encouraging more skilled economic immigrants into the country while trying to get some of the non-economic immigrants out in the next two years. Ottawa is planning to meet their target of bringing the percentage of temporary residents down to 5% of the total Canadian population by 2027.

Canadian immigration options for H-1B aspirants looking for alternatives

Canada’s economic immigration program offers many pathways to H-1B aspirants looking for alternatives. The main advantage is, of course, the visa fees. The visa fee for an economic immigration program in Canada costs only between CAD 155-2,500, compared to the USD 100,000 for the H-1B visa.

Express Entry: Federal Skilled Worker Program

• This is a permanent residency immigration program meant to attract foreign workers with skills and work experience.
• It follows a points-based system based on factors such as age, language proficiency, education, and work experience.
• The main focus is on fields such as STEM, healthcare, and other trades.
• Processing time: 6 months.

Global Talent Stream

• This is a fast-tracked temporary foreign worker program to allow employers to hire skilled workers to fill technological and engineering positions quickly.
• Processing time: 2 weeks.

Provincial Nominee Program

• This province-specific permanent residency program is meant to attract skilled workers specific to the provincial job market requirements.
• Processing time: 6-12 months.

Start-up Visa Program

• It is aimed at entrepreneurs looking to start innovative businesses in Canada.
• Processing time: 12-16 months.

Planned immigration programs to attract H-1B Aspirants

• The Carney Administration has already announced that they would be offering an immigration plan specifically for such H-1B visa aspirants looking for alternatives.
• They are also expected to revive the 2023 H-1B Holder Work Permit program, which offered a 3-year open work permit to the US H-1B visa holders without any job offer requirements.

What can Canada do more to attract highly skilled economic immigrants?

• Bring down the processing times and backlogs.
• Increase the currently allotted slots for economic immigration programs.
• Fix the infrastructure issues, especially in the housing sector.
• Bring back the discontinued H-1B Holder Programs, such as 2023 H-1B Work Permit program.

Conclusion

The demand in Canada for skilled economic immigrants is only rising, especially in fields such as STEM, healthcare, agriculture, and other skilled trades. While the global talent is looking for alternative career destinations to the United States, Canada must welcome them with a simpler immigration process and a clear pathway to permanent residency.

How can our immigration lawyers help you?

If you are planning to apply for a work permit or permanent residency in Canada, contact our experienced immigration lawyers today. Our experienced legal team will guide you through your immigration application and help you complete the process in time.

Call our immigration lawyers at 905-405-0199 for a free consultation today.

In short:

• In Ontario, under the Real Property Limitation Act (RPLA), if someone has been exclusively using a piece of land belonging to someone else for more than 10 years continuously, they may claim the legal ownership of that property.
• This is called adverse possession, and it puts the burden on the title owner of the property to take the necessary legal action to reclaim possession of the land during this period.
• Recently, in Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28, the Supreme Court affirmed that the concept of adverse possession applies in a case where a portion of municipal parkland has been in the possession of private owners for decades.

The legal concept of adverse possession, also known as squatter’s rights, is complicated to say the least. It legally allows the transfer of the ownership of the land to someone who has continuously occupied the land without the permission of its legal owner.

Once a significant amount of time has passed, the new occupant of the land may claim legal ownership of the property. And it is expected that the original owner of the land will take the necessary legal steps to retake possession of the land during this period. In Ontario, under the Real Property Limitation Act (RPLA), the time limit to qualify for adverse possession is 10 years. But this might vary depending on the jurisdiction.

Background of the case

Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28, is an interesting case since the property in question is public land and not private property. The couple, Pawel Kosicki and Megan Munro, are the current occupants of this land, which is part of their backyard, and falls inside their chain-link fence.

The couple bought this property in 2017 on the southeast corner of Lundy Avenue and Warren Crescent, located near the Humber River in Toronto. Behind the property lies a laneway owned by the municipality and a large municipal park on the other side of the lane. Since the purchase, the couple have been paying property taxes on the whole property, including the area in dispute.

Once they learned that the title of the southern portion of their backyard is in the City’s name, they offered to purchase this portion from the City, and their offer was refused. They subsequently filed their claim of adverse possession of the disputed portion. While they bought the property only in 2017, this land has been part of the backyard for the previous owners of the house at least since 1971. This is well above the time limit of 10 years mentioned in the Real Property Limitation Act, and therefore, they do have a valid claim for adverse possession.

Lower court rulings

In Kosicki v. City of Toronto, 2022 ONSC 3473, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the couple’s claim while pointing out that a private individual should not be allowed to fence off a portion of municipal parkland, excluding it from public access and claim exclusive continuous use of the property to qualify for adverse possession.

Their appeal in the Court of Appeal for Ontario was also rejected. In Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONCA 450, the Appeals Court observed that the municipal parkland was meant for public use. And if the City was not aware of or ever agreed to its private use, then such public lands must be protected from adverse possession for public benefit.

The couple then proceeded to appeal these lower court rulings in the Supreme Court.

Key observations

In its judgment, the Supreme Court made the following observations regarding the case.

• It is indeed the case that certain categories of public lands have been excluded from adverse possession under the Real Property Limitation Act (RPLA). However, this exception clearly does not apply to municipal parklands.
• This means that the continuous exclusive possession for at least 10 years is the main criterion to qualify for adverse possession under RPLA for the property in question, and this qualification was met at least four decades ago when it was under the possession of the previous owners.
• Therefore, the City’s claim to the ownership of the property was legally extinguished over four decades ago.
• The court also observed that the land title registration system, implemented in 2001, protects public lands such as municipal parklands from adverse possession. However, the adverse possession of the land in question happened well before this system came into effect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the couple, pointing out that there was no exception for the municipal parkland under RPLA and the continuous exclusive possession for 10 years was the only criterion applicable in this case. The couple’s claim to the ownership of the property under adverse possession was therefore upheld.

How can our civil litigation lawyer help you in such cases?

In such complicated cases, having an experienced civil litigation lawyer fighting in your corner makes all the difference. This is why you need to get in touch with our civil litigation lawyer from the very beginning. With our team of experienced lawyers representing you in court, you can be assured that your property rights and financial interests will be protected throughout.

Reach out to our legal team at 905-405-0199 for a consultation today.

In short:

• The proposed Strong Borders Act is set to expand the powers of the immigration officials to pause and stop the acceptance or processing of immigration applications en masse in the public interest.
• However, the demand for skilled immigrant workers in fields such as STEM, healthcare and agriculture has been growing steadily in recent years.
• Many fear that this reality might force the Carney government to disproportionately target low-skilled, low-wage workers and asylum seekers under the new Bill.

Back in June, the Carney Administration introduced the Strong Borders Act, Bill C-2, with the stated goals of ensuring safe borders for Canadians, as the name of the Bill indicates. However, the Bill also aims to empower the immigration officials to cancel, suspend or vary the acceptance or processing of immigration applications en masse in the public interest. It is not clear how these expanded powers will be implemented when the Bill finally becomes law.

Background

Despite the measures taken by the Administration so far to rein in the immigration numbers, the backlog of immigration applications continues to grow. The pending applications at the end of July stood at 2.2 million, which included 892,400 for permanent residence and another 1,079,300 applications for temporary residence. The applications for citizenship made up the rest.

The proposed Strong Borders Act will empower the immigration officials to clear such backlogs quickly by rejecting some of the application groups outright. Critics have already expressed concerns that humanitarian programs, which do not contribute economically, might be among the first to be affected under the new rules.

It is expected that the Conservatives, with their tougher stance on immigration, are likely to support it, although they might demand a few changes to the bill in its present form. Once passed, the provisions of the Bill will empower the Administration to take further measures to get many of the temporary residents out of Canada.

Which applicants are most likely to be impacted?

There is a strong possibility that once the Bill is passed, many of the application backlogs will be cleared by simply rejecting these applications under the new powers. The Administration is likely to consider the processing time and size of these backlogged applications, and the potential economic benefits when deciding which applicant groups to go after.

Such policies are likely to disproportionately affect lower-skilled immigrants doing lower-wage jobs in Canada. Another affected group will be refugees, currently awaiting their applications to be processed. They are mostly sponsored by private groups, and once the Bill is passed, most of their applications are likely to be rejected. Any applicants with minor criminal records are also likely to face the same outcome.

Conclusion

It is inevitable that, with the general public opinion currently not in favour of increasing immigration, the Carney Administration must find a way to meet their target of bringing the population of temporary residents down to 5% of the total Canadian population. The temporary residents remain steady at 7% of the population, and the demand for skilled immigrants in the fields of STEM, healthcare, agriculture, and skilled trades is not abating. Faced with these options, the Administration will have no choice but to focus on getting some of the existing temporary residents out of the country by 2027.

How can our immigration lawyers help you?

Once the Strong Borders Act is passed, the immigration rules are likely to become stricter, leading to more rejections. If you are planning to apply for permanent residency or a work permit, get in touch with our immigration legal team to help you figure out how you can stay ahead of such changes. Our experienced immigration lawyers can guide you through the process and ensure that your application is processed on time.

Call our immigration lawyers at 905-405-0199 for a free consultation today.

In short:

• The Liberal government hopes to reduce the non-permanent resident population to 5% by 2027.
• At around three million, the non-permanent residents currently stand at 7% of the total Canadian population.
• This means that the Carney government have no other option but to get as many temporary residents out of Canada as possible in the next two years.

Rising immigration levels in the last few years have put enormous pressure on the healthcare system and available housing, and kept wages stagnant in Canada. This has turned the public opinion against uncontrolled immigration in recent years, forcing the Liberal government to commit to bringing the total immigration down to manageable levels.

What changes can you expect from the Carney administration?

As of now, the Carney government is nowhere close to meeting their stated goal of bringing the percentage of temporary residents down to 5% of the total Canadian population. While they have implemented measures to bring down the current immigration levels, the percentage of temporary residents is still hovering at 7% and it does not appear to be coming down any time soon.

Strong Borders Act expected to pass soon

To achieve these immigration goals, the Carney government had introduced the Strong Borders Act back in June, with provisions to expand the powers of law enforcement authorities in order to pause and cancel the acceptance and processing of immigration applications, such as applications for visas and work permits, and restrict access to asylum seekers already in Canada. The proposed bill will also expand information sharing with international agencies and surveillance capabilities.

Once passed, the Bill will authorize the immigration officials to cancel or suspend such immigration applications en masse in the public interest. In fact, Ottawa recently reduced the Immigration Department workforce by 3,300, while recruiting an additional 1,000 border officers. This is a possible indication of things to come.

Canada still needs more skilled economic immigrants

However, on the ground, there is still a growing demand for skilled economic immigrants in fields such as healthcare, STEM, agriculture, and other skilled trades. Already, the spots for the provincial immigration program have been reduced from 110,000 to 55,000 through 2027. This has raised concerns about whether such a measure would adversely affect the ability of the provinces to meet their job market requirement for skilled workers. Critics point out that instead of reducing the slots allotted to the provinces, the federal government must give more leeway to the provinces to decide on the number of skilled economic immigrants they require based on the demands of their job market.

Conclusion:

As things stand now, the 5% target is increasingly looking unrealistic. The challenge for the Administration is to reach this target without compromising the immigration of skilled workers to meet the rising demands of the economy. The new Bill will empower the Administration to take further measures to get many of the temporary residents out of Canada. The focus will be on getting some of the low-skilled workers and asylum seekers out by 2027. The eligibility criteria are expected to be tightened, with applicants with even minor criminal records getting rejected under the new rules.

How can our immigration lawyers help you in the case?

With the administration implementing stricter rules and regulations, it might be difficult for the average layman to keep up with the changes and figure out the most suitable immigration pathway for them. If you are planning to apply for permanent residency or a work permit in Canada, do not hesitate to reach out to our legal team for a consultation. Our experienced immigration lawyers can help you check your eligibility under the new rules and effectively guide you through the application process.

Call our immigration lawyers at 905-405-0199 for a free consultation today.

In Short:

• IRCC plans permanent job mobility, letting foreign workers switch employers immediately after applying for new permits.
• Workers gain freedom, employers hire faster—but must improve conditions to retain talent amid stricter hiring rules.

Canada is planning a big change for foreign workers. Right now, most people who come to work in Canada on a Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) permit can only work for one employer. If they want to leave their job, they usually must wait for a new work permit before they can start working somewhere else.

But now, the government wants to change that. A new report says that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is thinking about allowing foreign workers to start a new job right after applying for a new permit, instead of waiting for it to be approved.

This could make a big difference for many workers and employers in Canada.

Why This Matters

Today, most foreign workers are on what’s called a “closed work permit.” That means their job, location, and employer are all listed on the permit. If they want to switch jobs or leave a bad situation, they must wait weeks—or even months—for a new permit before they can start working again.

This can be stressful for workers. Some people feel stuck in unsafe or unfair jobs. Others lose income while waiting to get approved for new work.

In May 2025, the government introduced a temporary fix. Workers could apply to change employers and ask for “interim authorization,” which let them start a new job while waiting for approval. This was part of a wave of changes we covered in our article on how Canada’s Prime Minister announced key changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Now, IRCC is considering making that rule permanent.

What It Means for Employers

If this change happens, businesses will be able to hire workers faster, especially if they are already in Canada. Employers won’t need to wait so long for approvals, which can help fill job openings quicker.

But there’s a catch.

With more flexibility, workers will also be able to leave their jobs more easily. So, employers may need to make sure their workplace is fair, supportive, and legally sound. That means better contracts, clear onboarding processes, and better worker retention strategies.

At the same time, other changes are also making hiring harder in some places. In regions with high unemployment, like Toronto and Vancouver, low-wage LMIA applications are no longer being accepted. If you’re hiring in these areas, it’s important to understand the broader impact of recent reforms, as discussed in our blog: Is the Temporary Foreign Worker Program Ending?

What It Means for Workers

For workers, this is mostly good news. If the change becomes official, they will be able to leave jobs where they feel unsafe or unhappy—and start working in a new role without waiting a long time.

This can give workers more freedom and better opportunities.

However, the change may not apply to everyone. The government may still limit this to people with valid status in Canada or those working in certain job sectors. In recent months, they have talked about sector-specific permits, which only allow workers to change jobs within the same industry—like agriculture or fish processing. These plans, along with new rules about wage deductions for housing, raised concerns among experts, which we explained in our post on TFWP reforms and what employers and workers need to know.

The government is also working on a full package of reforms based on feedback from employers and worker groups. These include new rules for housing, wages, access to health care, and transportation—part of a larger effort to improve safety and fairness for foreign workers.

So while job mobility might improve, other changes could still make things tricky.

How It Fits with Other Changes

The Canadian government has made many changes to the TFW program this year. In June, it increased the minimum wage thresholds needed to hire foreign workers. This affected many employers, especially those hiring in industries like retail or food service.

At the same time, some regions saw new limits on the number of low-wage workers employers can bring in. These changes were made to protect Canadian jobs, but they also made it harder for businesses to fill labor gaps.

Now, with this new idea of permanent job flexibility, the government seems to be moving toward more worker-friendly rules—but only in some areas.

Employers and workers should both stay alert, as these changes will keep evolving.

What You Should Do Now

If you are an employer, review your hiring process and employment contracts. Understand which workers may be allowed to change jobs more easily—and what you can do to keep them.

If you are a foreign worker, check if you are eligible to switch jobs under the current interim policy. If you are already in Canada, you may not have to wait for full approval to begin your next job.

For both groups, understanding how the TFW program is changing can save time, money, and trouble.

How Can Our Immigration Lawyers Help You?

At Nanda & Associate Lawyers, we stay updated on every change to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. We help employers make sure they are hiring legally and protecting their workforce. We help foreign workers understand their rights, switch jobs safely, and avoid mistakes during work permit applications. We also support people facing LMIA rejections or those who want to explore permanent residency pathways.

Whether you’re hiring, working, or managing legal documents, we can guide you every step of the way.

In Short:

• The applicant, Veronica Balkisson, had hoped to avoid probate tax by purchasing a property in the name of her son, Stefan, the respondent. He had agreed to transfer 50% of the ownership to his sister Heaven once she turned 18.
• But the relationship soon deteriorated, and Veronica wanted to reverse her decision, claiming that the property was not a gift but a resulting trust.
• However, since a gift once transferred is irrevocable, the court in Balkisson v. Sandy, 2025 ONSC 856, ruled that her children remained the sole owners of the property.
• This case clearly demonstrates the importance of doing proper estate planning by following the advice of an experienced Wills & Estates lawyer.

While there is no inheritance tax in Canada, what is normally referred to as the estate tax is the estate administration tax, also known as the probate tax, which varies from province to province. For example, in Ontario, it is calculated at the rate of 1.5% on the total value of the estate, applicable to all estates above $50,000 in value. On the other hand, in Manitoba, there is no probate tax at all. If you are worried about the burden of probate tax on your heirs, you need to consult an experienced Wills and Estates lawyer on estate planning.

Balkisson v. Sandy, 2025 ONSC 856

Consider the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Balkisson v. Sandy, 2025 ONSC 856. The applicant, Veronica Balkisson, wished to avoid probate tax by registering a property in her son’s name. Later, once the relationship between the family members had soured, she tried to reverse her decision by taking her son and his wife to court to restore her ownership of the property.

What is the background of the case?

Ms. Balkisson wanted to use the proceeds of sale from her earlier property to purchase a house at Lambeth Street in Brampton, with the intention of passing it on to two of her children, Stefan and Heaven, as their inheritance. Seeking to avoid the probate tax on the property, she decided to have the property registered in her children’s names, but since Heaven was a minor at that time, the property was registered in Stefan’s name only, with the understanding that Heaven would receive her share of the property once she turned eighteen.

On Ms. Balkisson’s telling, because the purchase price of the property at Lambeth was $905,000, this corresponded to a $420,000 interest in the property for both Stefan and Heaven, coming to a total of $840,000. The beneficiaries were expected to repay the remaining $65,000 of the purchase price to the applicant during her lifetime. Veronica had noted down all these inheritances in a handwritten will.

Soon after the purchase, the beneficiaries, Stefan and Heaven, Stefan’s wife Andrea, and their children, moved into the house. The relations between Andrea and Veronica started deteriorating soon after this. After a scuffle broke out between Veronica and Adrea on May 23, 2024, Veronica was no longer allowed to visit the house or meet her grandchildren. This prompted the applicant to change her will and divide her estate equally among all her children. She informed Stefan that he must transfer the Lambeth property back to her. She argued that it was not a gift but a resulting trust and that he had failed in his duties as a trustee and must transfer the property back to her.

The respondents, Stefan and Andrea, argued that the transfer of the property to Stefan was never intended as a resulting trust but as an irreversible gift. The only stipulation was that Stefan must transfer 50% of the ownership to Heaven once she turned eighteen. The respondents had plenty of evidence in the form of messages between Stefan and Veronica to prove their point.

Why did the court rule in favour of the respondents?

With the chain of messages clearly establishing the intention of Veronica to purchase the property as a gift for Stefan and Heaven, and her change of mind after the fight with Andrea, the court ultimately ruled in favour of the respondents, Stefan and Andrea. The court made the following observations in its judgment.

• The applicant clearly referred to the house as a gift repeatedly in her text messages to Stefan.
• The communication Veronica had with Stefan clearly shows that “she wanted to change things” after her fight with Andrea.
• Veronica had made the payment of $840,000 on behalf of Stefan and Heaven, clearly as a gift since there was no expectation of repayment of this amount. Instead, the repayment was only applicable to the remaining $65,000.
• The applicant referred to the proceeds from the Wheatley sale as her children’s inheritance in her communication with Stefan.
• It was evident that the applicant had no intention of living at the Lambeth property. Her decision to move her furniture from storage to Lambeth was to save money on storage fees.
• The applicant did not have a bedroom at the Lambeth property. The bedrooms at the property were for Stefan and Heaven’s families alone.
• The text messages also show that there was a clear plan by Heaven and Stefan to sell the property after a few years and split the proceeds equally between them. This was supposed to serve as the funding for the purchase of their own separate houses later on.
• There is evidence in the text messages to show that the applicant had referred to Heaven as Stefan’s halfway partner.
• In the text messages between Heaven and Steven, Heaven repeatedly referred to her 50% ownership of the property. Her current position in support of her mother that the property was never intended as a gift, therefore, lacked credibility.
• The court disagreed with the argument that $420,000 each paid on behalf of Stefan and Heaven was just a budget.
• The court also observed that a legally valid gift, once made, cannot be revoked.

In summary, the court agreed with Stefan and Andrea that the house was indeed a gift and not a resulting trust as Veronica claimed. The court further noted that the evidence clearly showed that the applicant changed her mind about the gift after she had a serious breakdown of relations with her son, especially after the altercation she had with her daughter-in-law. The court observed that the applicant cannot legally undo the gift already transferred to the respondent.

What are the key takeaways from this case?

• Gifts are irrevocable: Once a gift has been granted to a family member, it is not possible to take it back because of a disagreement or quarrel.
• Everything should be documented and signed into a legally binding agreement between the parties.
• Registering property entirely in the name of your children or jointly with them might not be the best way to avoid probate fees.
• Explore legal avenues to protect the property interests of minors. If you cannot register the property in the name of the minor, then establishing a trust in their name might be an option.
• Do proper estate planning by consulting a Wills and Estates lawyer to avoid possible family conflicts and confusion later on.

In such cases, it is always best to rely on an experienced Wills and Estates lawyer to advise you on your legal options.

 

In short:

• The financial situation of the buyer might change between the time they signed the agreement for a pre-construction property and the date of closing.
• Various factors such as market fluctuations, project delays, and increased interest rates might cause the financing to fall through.
• The failure to close in such cases will lead to the forfeiture of the deposit, dealing with lawsuits for damages, a poor credit rating, and, in extreme cases, even bankruptcies.
• It is crucial to employ the services of an experienced real estate lawyer before the buyer commits to the agreement and to follow their legal advice to safeguard the buyer’s financial interests and to avoid such costly pitfalls.

A pre-construction condo might have looked too good to pass on when you committed to purchasing it a few years ago. But things change. The market fluctuates. Interest rates go up. Your financial situation might not be as strong as it was a few years ago. And now, it has become impossible for you to close on the deal you signed on a few years ago. If you are facing such a possibility of failing to close, you need to immediately contact our litigation lawyer to explore the legal options available to you.

What are some of the reasons for buyers’ failure to close?

Some of the common reasons leading to some buyers’ inability to close or their decision to back out of a pre-construction property are the following.

Market fluctuations:

The real estate market has always remained volatile. In the time period between when the buyer signed the agreement and the date of closing, the value of the property might fall considerably. Obviously, the builder is under no obligation to take these changes into consideration and agree to reduce the purchase price.

Unforeseen increase in mortgage payments:

An unforeseen increase in the interest rate will push up the mortgage payments even higher than what the buyer had planned for. This might render the property unaffordable to the buyer.

The bank’s appraisal falls below the purchase price:

While the buyer might have already agreed to a higher purchase price, their bank might differ from this figure in its appraisal of the property. For example, if the buyer signed the agreement for a purchase price of $1.5 million and the bank’s appraisal of the property comes to the total value of only $1.2 million, then they will have to figure out another way to raise the remaining $300,000.

Project delays derailing your financing plans:

This is always a risk when buying a pre-construction property. The construction delays might push the closing date further and further into the future. The buyer might have secured some financing with a particular closing date in mind. The changes in the closing date might derail some of those financing arrangements, forcing the buyer to look for other funding options.

What are the possible consequences to the buyer?

Many buyers remain confident about closing and fail to pay close attention to the legal consequences mentioned in the contract for any breach of agreement. In most cases, a buyer failing to close might have to face one or all of the following consequences.

Forfeiture of the deposit:

As per the terms of the agreement, the moment the buyer fails to close the transaction, the builder becomes eligible to request the forfeiture of the deposit amount in their favour. There is no need for the builder to even approach the courts for this.

Lawsuit for damages:

Also, the builder has the right to pursue legal action against the buyer for any loss they incurred from their failure to close the transaction, including any difference between the agreed purchase price and the current market price of the property.

Impact of the debt recovery process:

If the buyer fails to pay the damages awarded to the builder, the builder can approach the courts to initiate the debt recovery process against them. The court might issue a wage garnishment order in favour of the builder or put a lien on the buyer’s other properties.

Problems with future financing:

The buyer’s failure to close will adversely affect their credit rating for at least the next few years. They will find it difficult to obtain loans and funding for any other significant financial deals until their credit rating improves.

What are the options available to the buyer?

The first thing to consider in such a situation is to figure out a way to close the real estate transaction by looking for ways to cover the shortfall in the financing. A buyer might explore some of the following options in such a situation.

Approach other banks:

If they cannot secure full funding from one bank, it makes sense to approach other banks to obtain additional funding for the property. This is because the lending policies of another bank are likely to be different, and they might be able to meet the qualification criteria of another bank for the loan.

Negotiations with the builder:

Another option is to renegotiate with the builder on the terms of the agreement. Some builders might prefer to avoid a lengthy and expensive legal process to obtain damages from the buyer. They might be open to extending the closing date or a flexible payment plan to suit the current financial situation of the buyer.

Co-signer:

Another option is to get someone with a good credit rating to co-sign on the buyer’s mortgage. This will help them to easily secure the remaining funding they need for the property. But the co-signer will be taking on themselves the responsibility of repaying the loan if the buyer fails to do so. This often makes it difficult to find someone to co-sign on the mortgage.

Private lenders:

If banks and other traditional lenders are not willing to provide the necessary funding for the property, the buyer can still try approaching private lenders. These are small organizations or individuals providing mortgage loans, typically on a short-term basis. Obviously, their qualification criteria and lending policies vary significantly from those of traditional banks, and the buyer might be able to secure the necessary funding.

Assignment sale:

In an assignment sale, the buyer is selling their rights and obligations under the agreement to a new buyer. The new buyer will take over all the financial obligations from the old buyer, complete the closing formalities, and obtain ownership of the property. However, this requires the necessary approval from the builder.

Seek alternative funding:

If banks and private lenders are not an option, then the buyer might have to consider approaching their friends and family members, who might be willing to help them out financially.

Consumer Proposal:

A consumer proposal offers the buyer protection from creditors while they work on paying back at least a portion of their debts. However, the total debt, excluding the mortgage, must be below $250,000 for them to qualify for this option.

Division I proposal:

Such debt limits do not apply to a Division I proposal. Regardless of the extent of the debt, the buyer may submit their proposal for the payment of at least some portion of the debt. However, if the builder were to reject their Division I proposal, it might trigger bankruptcy proceedings.

Bankruptcy:

For obvious reasons, this is the last resort. If the buyer has exhausted all sources of income and all their assets, then bankruptcy might be the only option left. It will offer them protection from creditors and will also protect their essential assets from any debt recovery process.

How can our real estate lawyer help you in such cases?

• If you had engaged the service of an experienced real estate lawyer early on, they would have advised you on the potential costly pitfalls of any failure to close and helped you with renegotiating the terms of the breach of agreement.
• The same applies if you are considering the option of an assignment sale. Your lawyer will negotiate favourable terms for you with the new buyer, obtain the necessary consent from the builder, and arrange all the necessary documentation.
• When you are dealing with a possible failure to close, contact an experienced litigation lawyer and follow their advice in protecting your financial interests as much as possible from the legal consequences of breaching the agreement.

Read: Legal Disclaimer

In short:

• Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that youth can only receive adult sentences if their adult-level maturity is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The rulings made in R v IM (2025 SCC23) and R v SB (2025 SCC 40873), has steered criminal system towards rehabilitating youth offenders, reinforcing diminished moral blameworthiness.
• Bringing Criminal lawyers early, is essential for fair treatment and prevention of adult incarceration or lifelong stigma.

Earlier this month (July 2025), the Supreme Court of Canada reached a landmark decision in R v IM (2025 SCC 23) and affirmed in R v SB (2025 SCC 40873), establishing a far more serious standard to sentence youth like adults in Criminal law cases. In R v IM, the Court unanimously overturned a lower court’s decision to impose an adult sentence on a 17-year-old involved in a robbery that turned fatal, underscoring that youth maturity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Understanding Youth Sentencing Under the YCJA

Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) governs offences committed by individuals aged 12–17, emphasizing rehabilitation, proportionality, and youth-specific protections. Key principles include:

• Presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness: Youth are presumed less guilty due to immaturity, brought upon by their age.
• Privacy safeguards: When a youth is accused or convicted of a crime, it becomes mandatory to ban any sort of publication that reveals their name, photograph or any details that could reveal their identity.  This is done to prevent stigmatization of the youth involved. If not done, it could derail rehabilitation easily.
• Proportionality: This means that the punishment given must suit the seriousness of the crime committed. Thus, the circumstances surrounding the criminal incident must be inspected carefully. The consequences should promote a sense of responsibility because the end goal is to rehabilitate them to join society again.
• Timely intervention: The YCJA encourages prompt action in administering justice in the case of youth offenders. This is to ensure that the youth understands that there are consequences for criminal actions.
• Extrajudicial options: For less serious offences, the YCJA encourages to punish the youth through extrajudicial measures. Therefore, judges must consider alternatives like community service, probation, rehabilitation programs etc.

The Two-Prong Test for Adult Sentencing

Under the YCJA, a Crown prosecutor must satisfy a two-part test before seeking an adult sentence for a youth aged 14–17 charged with a serious offence:

1. Moral culpability test: Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the youth’s maturity and moral judgement is equal to that of an adult.
2. Accountability gap test: The court must also find that a youth sentence would not be sufficient for accountability, though this second prong does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

These new guidelines raise the evidentiary bar significantly. As Justice Kasirer noted, while proving developmental maturity can be complex, it remains a factual inquiry suited to strict proof.

Why This Matters: Rights, Outcomes & Systemic Impact

1. Protecting Youth Rights Under the Charter

These rulings reaffirm Section 7 of the Charter (life, liberty, and security of the person), ensuring that only when a youth truly demonstrates adult-level moral capacity can the court override the tree of rehabilitation and privacy embedded in the YCJA.

2. Rehabilitation vs. Punishment

Sentencing youth as adults will expose them to harsher environments, which would lead to longer incarceration, and systemic fallout. These new rulings founded in the cases mentioned above will help to steer the justice system back to preserving youth’s opportunity to emerge in society as contributing citizens.

3. Indigenous Youth Sentencing

While these rulings didn’t specifically reference Gladue considerations, courts must still assess systemic factors affecting Indigenous youth. For example, colonial trauma and socioeconomic disadvantages.

Real-Life Implications: The Role of Evidence & Advocacy

In R v SB (murder conviction upheld due to sufficiently persuasive Crown evidence), the Court accepted that the youth’s moral maturity was indeed adult-level. In contrast, in R v IM (robbery leading to a murder), the Crown failed to meet the high standard, hence the childish impulsivity couldn’t be ruled out

This highlights that evidence matters deeply in youth sentencing, and so does legal interpretation.

What Every Parent or Youth Should Know?

Step	Action
Police Detention	Youth have the right to immediate counsel and to have a parent notified
First Hearing	A criminal lawyer ensures procedural fairness and introduces rehabilitation goals
Expert Evidence	Psychological/developmental evaluations may be required to dispute adult-like maturity
Crown’s Burden	Crown must satisfy tight evidentiary standard (beyond a reasonable doubt)
Agreed or Imposed Sentence	Lawyers can argue for youth-oriented sentences and alternatives like probation

Why Should You Speak to a Criminal Lawyer Early?

Criminal defense lawyers can identify whether the Crown has sufficient evidence to rebut youth presumption. If yes, then they can refute any weak claims that insists on adult level maturity. Experienced criminal lawyers can bring in psychological assessments, relevant experts, and community resources to support a youth-centred outcome. Be it early detention or sentencing, you need someone who ensures the youth’s YCJA and Charter rights are respected.

Please know, the more delay you do in calling a criminal lawyer, the more chances to receive an adult sentencing increase. This can hinder education, mental health, and employment beyond measures.

Your only option is to bring proactive legal involvement. It can prove to be just the thing that stands between a youth sentence and an adult conviction.

If you or your child is involved in a serious youth offence, don’t wait—seek legal advice immediately. Call Nanda & Associate lawyers at 905-405-0199 to book a consultation today!

Read: Legal Disclaimer

In short: 

• In the 2025 Jamshed Mavalwala case, the Ontario Court of Justice denied recognizing an electronic will. 

• The Will was not considered to be valid as it was not physically signed and witnessed, and the testator passed away only after drafting it.  

• Courts can “cure” technical errors or “revive” revoked wills in some cases, but purely electronic drafts cannot be validated under Ontario’s strict compliance rules. 

The Ontario Superior Court made a landmark decision in the case of late Jamshed Mavalwala, ruling that his purely electronic will was invalid. The deceased wrote a will in 2021, after that he wished to change his will in 2023. Mavalwala had drafted it on a computer in the month of November and planned to sign it that same day. However, he passed away before he could meet his lawyer and validate that will.  

Although the digital draft gathered from his computer reflected his intentions of changing his previous will, the Ontario court declined to recognize it. The court did so because Ontario law still requires wills to be physically signed and witnessed, highlighting the crucial role of execution formalities. 

What Is an Electronic Will (and Why It Matters) 

An electronic will (or e-will) refers to a document created and stored in digital format. It can be on a laptop, smartphone, or the cloud. Basically, if the will has never been physically printed, signed, or witnessed, it will not be considered as valid. 

Globally, jurisdictions such as British Columbia, parts of Australia, and some U.S. states now recognize electronic wills. It is either through legislation or via judicial “curing” provisions that allow courts to validate e-wills despite technical defects 

However, in Ontario, the Succession Law Reform Act requires wills to be physical documents, signed in the presence of two witnesses. There’s no curing mechanism to validate unsigned or informally executed wills.  

Why the Court Rejected the Electronic Will? 

In Mavalwala’s case, the court emphasized several key points: 

1. Official formalities matter — The draft existed only electronically as a word file on his lawyer’s laptop. It had no sign or attestation rendering it invalid.  
2. Lack of execution — Mavalwala never reviewed or formally approved the final version in front of anybody, hence the lawyer had no confirmation of his intent. 
3. Authenticity concerns — Courts rely on physical signatures and witness presence to prevent misuse of law. This is critical in Ontario’s compliance framework is strict in nature as it ensures protection against undue influence and fraud.

The final ruling makes it evident that only intent is not sufficient for the proper execution of a testamentary will. Therefore, it is proved that Ontario courts will not accept an unsigned digital document as a valid will. 

So, What Can You Do? 

1. Always Use Physical Execution 

Make sure your will is: 

• Printed on paper  

• You (the testator) signed it in front of two people who were not related to you.

• The will should be dated and stored in a secure place.  

2. Talk to an Wills & Estates Lawyer 

Working with a qualified and experienced wills & estate lawyer: 

• Will ensure compliance with Ontario’s legal requirements such as age, mental capacity, who were the witnesses, etc.  

• Will prevent you from making common errors that increase the stress of going through the probate process. For example, making your beneficiary a witness.  

• Will help you to translate your wishes in legal language so that there is no space for ambiguity.  

• Will ensure that you sign in front of the right people, as it is mandatory, especially when virtual witnessing is allowed from 2022. 

3. Educate yourself about Estate Law Safeguards 

In Ontario, courts may cure or revive problematic wills—but only under specific conditions: 

• Under Section 21.1(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA), it says that a will with technical errors may be considered valid, if it reflects the true intent of the testator. However, purely electronic drafts, like the one in Mavalwala case, cannot be cured because they were never valid wills to begin with.

• In certain cases, a cancelled will may be revived if there is clear evidence of purpose, usually in the form of a codicil, a legal document that changes or verifies a will. However, a handwritten note that satisfies the standards for holographic wills will also work. 

However, our wills and estate attorneys advise not to rely on these remedies as it is risky. Anybody should ideally, aim for full compliance from the beginning.  

How Our Wills & Estate Lawyers Can Help? 

Considering the evolving legal landscape, especially virtual witnessing, seeking professional legal advice is invaluable. 

The July 2025 Mavalwala decision serves as a stark reminder that in Ontario, digital will isn’t enough. For your estate plan to stand up in court, you must print, sign, and witness your will properly. 

Don’t jeopardize your legacy and book a free consultation with Nanda & Associate lawyers now. Our team of Wills and Estate lawyers offer tailored estate planning, digital compliance guidance, secure updates, and probate support. 

Call 905-405-0199, so that your final wishes are legally protected and executed.  

Read: Legal Disclaimer