Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the login-customizer domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Deprecated: Function WP_Dependencies->add_data() was called with an argument that is deprecated since version 6.9.0! IE conditional comments are ignored by all supported browsers. in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Deprecated: Function WP_Dependencies->add_data() was called with an argument that is deprecated since version 6.9.0! IE conditional comments are ignored by all supported browsers. in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131
The National Law Forum - Page 554 of 753 - Legal Updates. Legislative Analysis. Litigation News.

Digital Currency Identified as an “Emerging Risk” in the Canadian Federal Government’s 2014 Budget

Dickinson Wright Logo

 

On February 11, 2014, the Canadian Federal Government released its 2014 Budget. In the 2014 Budget, the Federal Government pledged to introduce legislative amendments to strengthen Canada’s anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regime in the area of virtual (digital) currency.

2013: Year of Bitcoin?

At the beginning of 2013, one bitcoin could be purchased for $12. For a brief period in November 2013, one bitcoin was worth more than one ounce of gold ($1242 to $1240, respectively). Forbes and MarketWatch wrote articles proclaiming 2013 as the year of bitcoin, and “bitcoin” was chosen as the word of the year by the Australian National Dictionary Centre (beating out worthy candidates, including “selfie” and “twerk”).

This increased popularity of digital currency has brought increased scrutiny from regulators and law enforcement. Last year in the United States, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued guidance with respect to whether activities by individuals and companies related to virtual currencies are subject to registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, and the FBI arrested the “mastermind” of Silk Road (a marketplace selling illegal items and accepting payment in virtual currency). In early 2014, a prominent member of the bitcoin community was indicted on money laundering charges.

Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) Release Its Position on Bitcoin

Prior to the release of the 2014 Budget, the main Canadian government references to digital currency were from the CRA. The first notable CRA acknowledgment of bitcoin was in April 2013 in the form of a CRA communication to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (“CBC”). The communication stated that transactions involving bitcoin are barter transactions and that gains resulting from bitcoin transactions could be income or capital depending on the specific facts.

On November 5, 2013, the CRA issued its first release on the taxation of digital currency. This release reinforced the CRA’s earlier position on bitcoin that was set out in its April 2013 e-mail to the CBC. On December 23, 2013, in CRA Document No. 2013-0514701|7, subject “Bitcoins,” the CRA further clarified its position with respect to bitcoin “in response to a summary of comments that were provided in response to a recent media enquiry describing the income tax consequences of various transactions involving digital currency.”

Accordingly, the CRA considers bitcoin to be a commodity, not a currency. Therefore, using bitcoins to purchase goods or services is considered a barter transaction. The sale of bitcoins at a profit is treated as either income or capital depending on a particular taxpayer’s circumstances.

Virtual Currency in the 2014 Budget

Virtual currency is identified in the 2014 Budget as an “emerging risk” that threatens Canada’s international leadership in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Bitcoin is cited in the 2014 Budget as an example of such virtual currency.

In the 2014 Budget, the Federal Government proposed to introduce anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulations for virtual currencies, such as bitcoin.

The Federal Government noted in the 2014 Budget that this proposal was based on a report by the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce entitled Follow the Money: Is Canada Making Progress in Combatting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing? Not Really (the “Report”). The Report is a five-year review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (the “Act”) and was issued in March 2013. However, the only reference in the Report to digital currency is a brief note that the development of electronic methods to launder money must be addressed through timely amendments to the Act and its regulations.

2014: Year of Bitcoin Regulation

The Federal Government has identified digital currency as an “emerging risk” in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Accordingly, the regulation of digital currency in Canada is imminent, and individuals and businesses dealing in bitcoin will soon be subject to certain registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

Article by:

Dickinson Wright PLLC

 

Join NAWL for their 2014 Mid-Year Meeting – March 19-20 in Washington D.C.

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 2014 Mid-Year Meeting of the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL).

2014 Mid-Year Brochure_Draft 5

When

Wednesday March 19 – Thursday March 20, 2014

Where

Washington, D.C.

Register here!

Join us at the 2014 Mid-Year Meeting in Washington, D.C. on March 19-20, 2014 at the Renaissance Washington, DC Downtown Hotel.

This year’s program is Leadership through Change: Lessons from D.C. and Beyond. The hard work and collaboration of the entire Mid-Year Meeting Planning Committee have produced a comprehensive and rich program relevant to Women in all fields of legal practice. Topics we will cover include a mix of professional development and substantive sessions: Navigating in a Majority Environment: Clearing the Hurdles to Success; Cyber & Data Security; Developing Lawyers as Leaders; 50th Anniversary of the Equal Pay Act: Where We Stand; and Power: How To Get It and How To Wield It. We will be announcing our keynote and other speakers soon, so please stay posted on the website. Finally, as always, there will be networking time built in throughout the event.

While we hope that you learn a lot from the meeting, we also want you to enjoy yourselves in our nation’s capital—and, with luck, enjoy the height of the cherry blossom season after a very long winter. We believe that you will leave the 2014 NAWL Mid-Year Meeting inspired and look forward to seeing you in D.C.

IP Law Summit Spring 2014 – March 20-22, 2014

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming IP Law Summit hosted by Marcus Evans.

IP summit 2014

When

Thursday March 20 – Saturday March 22, 2014

Where

Las Vegas, Nevada

Register here!

Intellectual Property is the bedrock of many contemporary companies and with the growth of the internet and a global market, having a smart IP strategy is more essential than ever. Every business decision that involves IP is a legal decision and every legal decision is also a business decision. Counsels are constantly pressed to promote innovation and must keep up-to-date with any worldwide regulatory changes ensuring the future growth and protection of their company’s IP.

The IP Law Summit is the premium forum for bringing senior IP Counsel within the largest corporations and mid-market organizations together with service providers. As an invitation-only event taking place behind closed doors, the Summit offers an intimate environment for a focused discussion of cutting-edge technology, strategy and products driving the IP marketplace.

USCIS Strictly Enforcing the Statutory Provisions in Adjudicating H-1B Petitions Filed Under the 20,000 Advanced Degree Cap

GT Law

 

A separate cap of 20,000 H-1B’s is allotted for those foreign nationals who were awarded advanced degrees in the U.S. However, not all degrees qualify under this provision. Recently, USCIS has been enforcing this provision very strictly, issuing requests for evidence, denials, and even initiating revocation proceedings for previously approved petitions under the advanced degree cap.

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 214(g)(5)(c) provides that those foreign nationals who earned a master’s or higher degree from a United States institution of higher education can file under the 20,000 cap, which is separate from the 65,000 cap reserved for all other H-1B petitions, with the exception of colleges, universities, and qualifying affiliated institutions who are exempt from the cap altogether. This section further states that only degrees awarded by those institutions which fit the definition set forth in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)). This section of the law, in turn, defines a U.S. institution of higher education as a public or other non-profit institution accredited by a “nationally recognized accrediting agency or association” or “granted a pre-accreditation status”. Degrees received from institutions which do not fit this definition, though located in the U.S. and award advanced degrees, do not qualify an H-1B petition to be filed under the 20,000 cap.

In the past USCIS has been liberal in reading this section, rarely rejecting filings made under this cap where the foreign national held an advanced degree awarded in the U.S. However, recently, in following its new policy of strict interpretation and observance of the immigration laws and regulations, USCIS has begun to closely scrutinize these filings, issuing requests for evidence, and even denials where it finds that the institution does not fit within the requisite definition to qualify. What’s more, Greenberg Traurig has been informed that USCIS has begun revocation proceedings for previously approved H-1B petitions, where it determined that it previously approved H-1B petitions under the advanced degree cap in error.

This year’s H-1B filings are once again expected to surpass the amount allotted under both caps within the first week, with USCIS conducting a random lottery to choose H-1B petitions for adjudication, similarly to last year. If a petition is filed erroneously requesting adjudication under the advanced degree cap and is rejected by USCIS, with both caps having been exhausted within the first week of the filing season, it is unlikely to be re-filed for the same fiscal year. Therefore, it is very important to provide all of the academic credentials in connection with the H-1B filing to your GT business immigration and compliance attorney and make sure to speak with them about the requirements involved with the H-1B petition cap filings.

Article by:

Nataliya Rymer

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Retail Shopping: Virtual or Reality?

logo

 

In the 1998 movie, “You’ve Got Mail,” the charming children’s bookshop owned by Meg Ryan’s character is threatened by the mega-box book store owned by Tom Hank’s character. Despite the small shop’s long history as a part of the Main Street USA-style neighborhood, the store eventually folds underneath the pressure exerted by the discount powerhouse next door. Flash forward to 2014, and Borders book stores have closed their doors due in large part to Amazon.com’s supremacy in the sale of on-line books. According to Bloomberg News, in December 2013, “Cyber Monday web sales surged, sending online shoppers to a single-day record as Amazon.com and EBay, Inc. siphoned customers from brick and mortar stores.” At first glance, it seems like there’s only bad news for traditional retail shops.

Retail Shopping You've Got Mail

But here’s some good news: physical shopping centers can compete with the convenience of one-click online shopping by offering the right combination of stores, services, restaurants and entertainment that will draw consumers to live retail destinations.

Consumers will be more likely to shop in brick and mortar stores for products they want to touch and try out first hand, such as beauty products by Sephora, home furnishings by Boston Interiors, or high end clothing.  Specialized fitness studios such as yoga studios or indoor cycling classes and luxurious salon and spa services will also attract even the most avid online shoppers.

In addition, many new outdoor centers offer more immersive options than the traditional strip center or enclosed mall: These so-called “urban villages” feature amenities and entertainment venues such as walking boulevards, outdoor plazas for concerts, retro bowling alleys, ice skating rinks and even life-size Chess boards. In addition, many of the new centers offer a wide range of culinary options to satisfy every craving, from an elegant first-class steakhouse to a casual French bakery and cafe — the perfect place to indulge in a sidewalk cappuccino or chocolate croissant. Chain restaurants and discount stores strung along the highway don’t stand a chance against a restaurant or boutique located in one of these vibrant centers. These shopping hubs often have plenty of space and facilities for special events: restaurants can host celebrity chef events, and the outdoor spaces can accommodate fashion shows, fine art performances, art shows and other seasonal and community events.

By offering products and services that people prefer to buy in real life and by creating destination centers where friends and families will flock to shop, eat, socialize and have fun, the experience of shopping on Main Street USA will surely remain an integral part of the future of retail.

Article by:

Jane Errico

Of:

Sherin and Lodgen LLP

Chief Litigation Officer Summit – March 20-22 in Las Vegas

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the Marcus Evan  Chief Litigation Officer Summit taking place March 20-22, 2014 at the Red Rock Resort & Spa in Las Vegas, NV.

Chief Lit.March2014

Qualifying titles include:
Associate General Counsel
Chief Litigation Officer
Chief Litigation Counsel
Head of Litigation
SVP/VP Litigation
Senior Litigation Counsel

Key Topics in 2013 include:

  • Mitigating the Risks – Safeguarding your organization from whistleblower and retaliation claims

  • Taking the Reins – Solutions for controlling e-Discovery costs and driving efficiency

  • The Best Defense is Prevention – Uncovering practical approaches to litigation avoidance

  • Spotlight on Dispute Resolution – Determining whether to arbitrate vs. litigate

  • Working Hand in Hand – Creating valuable partnerships and synergy with your outside counsel

 

Distinguish Speakers Include:

Tanya Menton
Vice President, Litigation
ABC

Eva Lehman
VP, Litigation and Chief Compliance Officer
Western Digital Corporation

Mark LoSacco
EVP and General Counsel – Litigation, Labor and Employment
HSBC North America

Christopher E. Paetsch
Vice President and AGC Litigation
Kaplan, Inc.

Phyllis Golden Morey
VP and Deputy General Counsel – Litigation
Ingersoll-Rand

Steve Taub
Assistant General Counsel
U-Haul International, Inc.

Reagan Bradford
Deputy General Counsel
Chesapeake Energy Corporation

Tiffany Woodie
Senior Counsel/Head of Litigation
PetSmart Corporation

To watch a testimonial video click: http://ow.ly/tWvdy

To receive the full agenda and to register, contact:
Jenny Keane
Marketing Manager
+1.312.540.3000 x6515
j.keane@marcusevansch.com

Federal Court Upholds Validity of 2011 H-2B Prevailing Wage

Jackson Lewis Logo

The Temporary Non-agricultural Employment 2011 H-2B Wage Rule for calculating the prevailing wage rates (“Rule”) has cleared one of the last hurdles to implementation by the U.S. Department of Labor, with a ruling by a federal appeals court in Philadelphia upholding the regulation.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held on February 5 that the DOL has authority to make rules regulating the H-2B program, that the Rule was lawfully promulgated and that it did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act or the Immigration and Naturalization Act.  The lawsuit was brought by employer associations that recruit H-2B workers and stand to face higher labor costs as a result of the Rule.  The case is La. Forestry Ass’n v. Sec’y United States DOL, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2167 (3d Cir. Feb. 5, 2014).

The Rule (76 Fed. Reg. 3,452 (Jan. 19, 2011) (codified at 20 C.F.R. § 655.10)) eliminated the “four-tier wage methodology” in favor of the mean Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) wage for each occupational category, and established a wage calculation regime wherein the prevailing wage is the highest of the applicable collective bargaining agreement(s), the rate established under the DBA[???] or Service Contract Act, or the OES mean.  It also barred use of employer-submitted surveys if the prevailing wage can be determined based on OES data or the rates established under the DBA or SCA. According to DOL’s estimates, “the change in the method … will result in a $4.83 increase in the weighted average hourly wage for H-2B workers and similarly employed U.S. workers[,]” and a total annual transfer cost of $847.4 million.

This Third Circuit decision is welcomed by DOL, which has faced numerous court challenges in its efforts to promulgate new H-2B rules since 2008.  The 2011 H-2B Wage Rule was published in response to an August 2010 court order enjoining the agency from implementing its 2008 H-2B wage rule on the ground that it violated the APA, promulgated without seeking public comment.   The court ordered the DOL to promulgate new, APA-compliant rules.

Even though DOL published the 2011 Rule within the time ordered, its implementation has been held up by court action and by Congressional “appropriations concerns” denying DOL funding.  DOL continued to use its 2008 rule.  This was challenged and in March 2013, a federal district court vacated the 2008 wage rule and permanently enjoined the agency form implementing it (see www.globalimmigrationblog.com/2013/03).  The court gave the DOL 30 days to comply.  As a result, DOL and USCIS published a joint interim final rule in April 2013 that established a new methodology for calculating H-2B prevailing wages (seewww.globalimmigrationblog.com/2013/04), which DOL indicated would be effective only until the 2011 H-2B Wage Rule took effect.

Since Congress lifted the appropriations ban on the Rule when it enacted the DOL Appropriations Act, 2014 (see Pub. L. 113-76, Div. H, Title I (2014)), we anticipate DOL will now apprise the public of the status of H-2B prevailing wages and the effective date of the Rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.

The Third Circuit recognized its decision may lead to  a rift in the courts of appeals.   In Bayou Lawn & Landscape Servs. v. Sec. of Labor, 713 F.3d 1080 (11th Cir. 2013), the Atlanta court affirmed an injunction barring implementation of the interim rule preliminarily, finding DOL had no rulemaking authority over the program.  The Third  Circuit cautioned, however,   that Bayou may not be the last word on the subject from its sister circuit: “The three-member panel in Bayou opined only on whether the District Court abused its discretion…, not on whether the DOL actually has that authority or not….”

Article by:

Otieno B. Ombok

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

 

The Top 25 Law Marketing Cliches to Avoid

Fishman Marketing logo

 

As a whole, lawyers are very literal, often too literal for good marketing.  As a result, many firms simply opt for the obvious icons that represent the general concept of “Law,” just like most of their closest competitors.  The logical rationale seems to be, “Well, if everyone else is doing it this way, it must be right.”  But that’s wrong.

Your marketing should set you apart, help you stand above the crowd.  And doing exactly what they do buries you in the anonymous middle.  Sure it’s safe, but ”safe” doesn’t help generate revenue.

That is, if your website home page shows a skyline or column, you’ve immediately convinced everyone who sees it that (1) your firm is mediocre, and (2) there’s nothing worth reading inside.  If you want to claim to be a high-end, A-tier firm, then you must look like it, and a photo of a handshake, map, or pen resting on a document won’t cut it.  No exceptions, unless you’re, say, Wachtell or Cravath.

So here they are, the 25 most typical and tedious clichés law firms use (and what they actually convey to the average reader):

The Image (What it means.)

  1. Globe/Map (We did a deal in Toronto once)
  2. Shaking hands (We’re your partner.)
  3. Building/Architectural detail (We work in a building!)
  4. Skylines (We work in a city!)
  5. Columns/Courthouse (We’re lawyers!)
  6. Gavel (Yup, we’re lawyers.)
  7. Light bulbs (We have good ideas.)
  8. Chess pieces (We’re strategic.)
  9. Diverse conference room (Stock photo)
  10. Smiling lawyers (People work here!)
  11. Scales of justice (Still just lawyers.)
  12. Dart boards (We’re on target.)
  13. DNA/Test tube/beaker/gears/CD (We have an IP practice.)
  14. Man/Woman walking, in suits (That’s our profession’s action shot.)
  15. Vacant lobby/Conference room (We go home at 5:00.)
  16. Books (This might be 2012, but we still use books.)
  17. Laptop/Computer (Look!  We use computers!)
  18. Eyeglasses or pen on a document (We work on documents.)
  19. Boxing gloves (We’re tough.)
  20. Rowing/Musicians (We work as a team!)
  21. Crayons/Flags/Circle of hands (Diversity!)
  22. Grinning PI or divorce lawyer (Lost a limb? Wife left you? Good for me!)
  23. Cheetah (We move fast.)
  24. Maze (We solve puzzles.)
  25. Blurry man running up steps (Out of my way! Late for court!)

The fact that you immediately recognized all or most of these, and perhaps laughed embarrassingly at a few, proves that these images have lost their impact.  So, if you’re using any of these in your marketing materials, from website or blog to print ads or brochures, stop immediately.

Either change your tag line to “Average skills. Average price.TM” or, preferably, come up with something that really sets you apart.  Create something else, something great.  Something that helps you stand out in a way that generates real revenue. If you can’t do it, hire someone who can.  But it must be done, it’s important.

Figure out who you really are, then build your marketing around that.

Article by:

Ross Fishman

Of:

Fishman Marketing, Inc.

Dewonkify – Risk Corridors Re: Affordable Care Act

DrinkerBiddle

 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act –commonly referred to as “the ACA”—is a law that reformed nearly twenty-percent of the economy through modifications to regulations and changes to existing law. Its primary goals were to expand health care coverage and control rising costs. Among a number of reforms, the ACA mandated that all citizens have health insurance for a minimum of nine months of the year (or face a penalty); allowed children to remain on their parents plan until the age of 26; created health insurance market places where anyone can shop for health insurance; and banned insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

Word: Risk Corridors

Used in a sentence: “Risk corridors, a provision of the ACA, limits both the amount of money that a health-insurance plan can make and lose during the first three years it is sold on the new health-care exchanges. Related programs that mitigate risk for insurance companies are also being targeted by conservative Republicans.” –Rep. Tom Cole quoted in The Washington Post.

Definition: Risk corridors are a component of the ACA that limit the risk borne by qualified health plans on the insurance marketplaces. Risk Corridors are a mechanism to minimize the year-end losses of insurers who covered a disproportionate share of sicker, often older, insured customers. The federal government, through the Department of Health and Human Services, agrees to cover 50% of the excess costs borne by insurers if those costs exceeded premiums by 3-8%. In the event those losses amount to greater than 8%, the government will defray 80% of those losses. However, if insurance companies see similar gains then the situation is reversed and the federal government is the beneficiary of those excess funds. This is the risk adjustment portion of the ACA where “healthier” insurance companies help ones shouldering more expensive populations.

History: Ideally, insurance is a system whereby a company manages risk by distributing moneys from a sizeable portion of healthy participants—needing minimal to moderate medical services—to a much smaller portion of sicker participants that need a lot more medical services. This results in a margin or profit where premiums exceed the medical costs of the consumers participating in a given plan. This is a simplified way of explaining what actuaries do every year. They take consumers in a given plan and compare their likelihood to use medical services with the expected revenues from monthly insurance premiums and other out-of-pocket costs like yearly deductibles. However, the advent of the ACA brought on this new frontier of health insurance marketplaces where no one could be denied care due to pre-existing conditions: previous surgery, diabetes, HIV, cancers, benign tumors, hypertension, etc.

Although, risk was managed by mandating that everyone be covered, this did not completely allay the fears of private insurers. Actuaries remained nervous. Anyone from the individual market—usually those not eligible for Medicaid/Medicare or employer sponsored coverage—could enter the exchanges and purchase insurance coverage. This uncertainty could have resulted in excessive premiums to consumers. To mitigate that risk and help with the possibility that consumers would be sicker and older—and thus more likely to use many costly medical procedures—the authors of the law created risk corridors. This would be a temporary program to help insurers on the insurance market places for three years.

Article by:

José Woss

Of:

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Planning for Disabled Beneficiaries in Ontario

Altro Levy Logo

Whether you own Cross-Border assets or not, when dealing with the transfer of assets to a disabled beneficiary who is resident in Ontario, special planning may be needed to preserve your disabled beneficiary’s entitlement to certain benefits he or she may be receiving, or may be entitled to receive in future.

The Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) is a provincial program offering income and employment support to adults with physical and/or mental disabilities.

An eligible applicant must show financial need, which is determined by calculating the assets held by such applicant. A single adult is entitled to hold up to $5,000 worth of assets. If he or she has a spouse (whether married or common-law), the limit rises to $7,500. The limit increases by $500 for each dependent child living with the disabled beneficiary.

Certain assets are exempt from counting toward the asset limit, including, but not limited to, an interest in a principal residence, a car and a prepaid funeral. Other assets may be exempt up to certain limits or as determined by specified rules.

For instance, an interest in a second property, such as a cottage or vacation property in Florida, may be exempt if it can be shown that the property is an asset necessary for the health and well-being of the ODSP applicant. If the second property is not exempt, the owner may not be eligible for ODSP benefits. Where this is so, the property will be exempt for only 6-months, during which time the property would be expected to be sold. If reasonable efforts to sell the property fail to produce a bona fide purchaser, the property may remain exempt until such time as the property is sold, provided that reasonable efforts to sell are maintained. Following the sale, attention must be paid to structuring the holding of the proceeds of sale in order to ensure such proceeds do not put the ODSP recipient offside of the asset limitations.

The ODSP regulations are complex, with many restrictions, of which the consequence of breaking may be ineligibility or permanent loss of ODSP income benefits. Some of the notable restrictions include limitations on ownership of assets above the thresholds outlined above as well as asset class. For instance, an ODSP recipient is restricted from owning more than $100,000, in aggregate, of life insurance (cash value), segregated funds (similar to a mutual fund but offered only by insurance companies) and any inheritance, whether received outright or held in trust for the recipient’s benefit.

You might ask why go through the trouble of trying to protect such income benefits when you plan to leave your disabled beneficiary much more than what he or she would receive from ODSP? Although ODSP provides financial benefit to your disabled beneficiary, there are also social programs, such as employment assistance, that may be lost. Such programs can be valuable to disabled persons of all financial backgrounds.

A special type of trust, referred to as a “Henson Trust” (named after the precedent-setting Ontario Court of Appeal case: The Director of the Income Maintenance Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services v. Henson, 36 Estates and Trusts Reporter 192, and also referred to as an absolute discretionary trust), may alleviate many of the foregoing issues.

Where drafted appropriately, a Henson Trust provides a means to leave unlimited assets to a disabled beneficiary without jeopardizing the benefits he or she may receive from ODSP or other government sources, both financial and otherwise. In other words, your disabled beneficiary can benefit from the substantial inheritance you may leave in such Henson Trust for his or her benefit, while continuing to collect the financial (and other) benefits available pursuant to the ODSP.

Whether a Henson Trust is an appropriate structure requires some fact gathering and analysis, coupled with a consideration of whether the beneficiary is disabled but has capacity, versus disabled but does not have capacity. In the case of the former, a trust structure may not be ideal where the beneficiary manages or is involved in managing his or her own finances. Further, where a Henson Trust is implemented, selection of one or more trustees to administer the trust is critical as there is a greater potential for abuse than in non-Henson Trusts.

Consideration should also be given to whether to utilize the federal government’s Registered Disability Savings Plan (“RDSP”), a registered matched savings plan for people with disabilities. An RDSP may be used in conjunction with a Henson Trust or on its own.

Article by:

Heela Donsky

Of:

Altro Levy LLP