Topic: Woke Canadian government overrides will that gave more to son than daughter, citing sexism.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #120,857
https://vancouversun.com/news/bc-court-overrules-will-gender-bias
You can't rely on the government to honor your wishes.
You can't rely on the government to honor your wishes.
Dana joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 35 minutes later[^] [v] #1,322,357
Do we know the court’s reasoning?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,360
@previous (Dana)
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-nearly-shut-out-of-mother-s-estate-sues-brother-in-b-c-supreme-court-and-wins-1.7045258
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-nearly-shut-out-of-mother-s-estate-sues-brother-in-b-c-supreme-court-and-wins-1.7045258
Dana replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,361
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,362
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 26 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,363
@1,322,361 (Dana)
It is that clear cut. The government decided a parent doesn't get to pick what to do with their money, and they will make their own decision.
It is that clear cut. The government decided a parent doesn't get to pick what to do with their money, and they will make their own decision.
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,371
@OP
> https://vancouversun.com/news/bc-court-overrules-will-gender-bias
>
> You can't rely on the government to honor your wishes.
your title says "Canadian government" but the article refers to a single part of Canada's judiciary, which is not exactly a government, but the judicial branch of the part named British Columbia
> https://vancouversun.com/news/bc-court-overrules-will-gender-bias
>
> You can't rely on the government to honor your wishes.
your title says "Canadian government" but the article refers to a single part of Canada's judiciary, which is not exactly a government, but the judicial branch of the part named British Columbia
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,390
@previous (boof)
It's said that America invaded Iraq, but that's not quite right. The executive branch, not the congress or judiciary, managed an occupation of Iraq.
It's said that America invaded Iraq, but that's not quite right. The executive branch, not the congress or judiciary, managed an occupation of Iraq.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,400
> The court ordered the will amended to give Lam 85 per cent of a property that was initially split 50-50 in the will – but her lawyers noted that is nowhere close to what her brother received outside of the will.
> “The result is not going to be equality, it can't be,” said Girou. “Ginny’s mother wanted to prefer her son, Ginny’s brother, and she did. And so her autonomy in that regard is preserved. But what this decision gives us is some equity.”
> “The result is not going to be equality, it can't be,” said Girou. “Ginny’s mother wanted to prefer her son, Ginny’s brother, and she did. And so her autonomy in that regard is preserved. But what this decision gives us is some equity.”
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,424
@1,322,360 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)> https://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-nearly-shut-out-of-mother-s-estate-sues-brother-in-b-c-supreme-court-and-wins-1.7045258
Read top to bottom - Very cool read. Loved the part where the Brother said "Lawyer up" and she did LoL.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 37 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,426
@1,322,390 (A)
> It's said that America invaded Iraq, but that's not quite right. The executive branch, not the congress or judiciary, managed an occupation of Iraq.
so if Florida's Supreme Court made a decision, I can say the USA government is forcing something? fuck off
> It's said that America invaded Iraq, but that's not quite right. The executive branch, not the congress or judiciary, managed an occupation of Iraq.
so if Florida's Supreme Court made a decision, I can say the USA government is forcing something? fuck off
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 54 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,432
@previous (boof)
If Florida made a decision that you must wear green shoes, citing the Federal Green Shoes Wearing Act, then yes you can.
If Florida made a decision that you must wear green shoes, citing the Federal Green Shoes Wearing Act, then yes you can.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,436
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 46 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,441
@1,322,426 (boof)
The courts make decisions about what will be forced or not, yes. What counts as "the government" doing something if not issuing a formal decision that is then enforced?
The courts make decisions about what will be forced or not, yes. What counts as "the government" doing something if not issuing a formal decision that is then enforced?
Dana replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,442
Isn't it a lawsuit?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,445
It is a bit weird that a court can override a will, absent showing some kind of fraud/manipulation. Like if the mom were still alive and gave the son $5,000/month and gave the daughter nothing, would she be able to sue and make her mom give her $5000/month too? Or would the court order the mother to give them each $2500/month?
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,449
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Reading how poorly the girl was treated by the mom. Chinese thing where a girl is poorly valued. Then as the mom gets sick, the girl is the only one around to care for the mom until mom dies.
Courts looked at the sum total of what the daughter went through. The brother was a jerk and it cost him.
Reading how poorly the girl was treated by the mom. Chinese thing where a girl is poorly valued. Then as the mom gets sick, the girl is the only one around to care for the mom until mom dies.
Courts looked at the sum total of what the daughter went through. The brother was a jerk and it cost him.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,627
@1,322,441 (A)
> The courts make decisions about what will be forced or not, yes. What counts as "the government" doing something if not issuing a formal decision that is then enforced?
I know you aren't this retarded that you'd forget what I'd posted earlier, so I figure you are playing around
> The courts make decisions about what will be forced or not, yes. What counts as "the government" doing something if not issuing a formal decision that is then enforced?
I know you aren't this retarded that you'd forget what I'd posted earlier, so I figure you are playing around
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,628
@previous (boof)
odd words for a person that uses a tripcodeless nametag shared amongst several posters in an attempt to defeat the board softwares differentiation.
odd words for a person that uses a tripcodeless nametag shared amongst several posters in an attempt to defeat the board softwares differentiation.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,629
Some countries are so barbaric that equal division amongst surviving children is mandated by law.
Hard to believe, isn't it?
Hard to believe, isn't it?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,661
@previous (I)
It is barbaric to override someone's will, because the courts have no idea what influenced the decision. Maybe one kid would do more with the money, maybe there are debts that the parent is subtracting, there are many other possible reasons.
When the courts jump to conclusions about a family they know nothing about it means the person who earned the money has no say in what happens to it.
It is barbaric to override someone's will, because the courts have no idea what influenced the decision. Maybe one kid would do more with the money, maybe there are debts that the parent is subtracting, there are many other possible reasons.
When the courts jump to conclusions about a family they know nothing about it means the person who earned the money has no say in what happens to it.