Smith v. Casco Inc., 2011 ONCA 306 deals with a fairly arcane issue about the validity of a spousal waiver of pension benefits.
In the course of considering the matter the Court of Appeal noted that, where regulations prescribe a form, and that form is not followed, the doctrine of
non est factum does not apply.
It would suggest that common law defences (and perhaps analyses) do not apply in the context of prescribed forms. How this is applied generally is uncertain. Does it mean a different constructive analysis must apply and if so what?
The Court held:
[45] Casco argued that the doctrine of non est factum applies, with the result that Mrs. Smith is bound. In my view, that doctrine does not apply when the legislature has provided a prescribed form. Casco chose to use its own form at its peril.
1 comment:
The answer to the first question is the national media is populated by Ivy League elites — extremely biased, “Lucky Sperm Club” leftists who drink the socialist-flavored Kool Aid. Few have ever started a business, made a payroll, or created a job. They know nothing about economics, or what is happening to small business owners on Main Street.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/20/whats-behind-trumps-rise/#ixzz1K6Q04H90
THE SAME HERE IN CANADA.
PEOPLE LIKE MORTON WHO HAVE NEVER CREATED A JOB, MET A PAYROLL OR STARTED A BUSINESS.
YET BECAUSE MORTON WENT TO SOME BIG SHOT CANADIAN UNIVERSITY AND BECAUSE HE IS ALSO A LAWYER HE IS ENTITLED TO THE POSITION.
Post a Comment