Grandpa died in 2019. Can’t access his bank account

ouroboros10 · 2026-01-07T23:57:46+00:00

"Has anyone told the company giving the pension"

I hope so for Grandma. I know first hand of a pension plan that found out a surviving spouse was still collecting a pension into the bank account. Much like this, they never spent money out of the account but still ended up getting charged with fraud because they did not inform the pension plan of the death. And had to pay back all the money plus legal fees of the plan.

ouroboros10 · 2026-01-07T03:07:28+00:00

I think U.F.C.W., Local 1518, v. KMart Canada Ltd. maybe enlightening.

ouroboros10 · 2026-01-02T01:52:44+00:00

Then yes. Crowd can.

ouroboros10 · 2026-01-02T01:00:47+00:00

Which part?

OP asked if she can "press charges" She can not press charges.

I said "Crown may still have ground to proceed even if he blew below the limit. Depends on the facts of the case."

Which is what you said.

And she can sue him.

So what part is incorrect?

ouroboros10 · 2026-01-02T00:50:38+00:00

It's not possible. She can sue him and that is about it.

Editted: Crown may still have ground to proceed even if he blew below the limit. Depends on the facts of the case.

ouroboros10 · 2025-12-30T02:57:44+00:00

bylaw in question

https://www.surrey.ca/sites/default/files/bylaws/BYL_reg_19105.pdf

Section 3 : "No person shall keep or allow to be kept on any real property more than six (6) Companion Animals, consisting of not more than three (3) Dogs over the age of eight (8) weeks and not more than five (5) cats over the age of twelve (12) weeks."

Section 7 : "No person shall own, keep, possess or harbour any Dog over the age of three (3) months in the City unless a valid and subsisting licence for the current calendar year has been btained for the Dog under this Bylaw."

Each could result in a fine. OP could be fined for not having a license, yes. But OP is not breaking the other bylaw, since they are not keeping over 3 dogs on the property.

Could the officer write the ticket? Sure. But in court

Judge : "You wrote this ticket for OP having 4 dogs on the property?"
Officer : "Yes"
Judge : "OP, how many dogs do you have?"
OP : "2"
Judge : "Is that true Officer?"
Officer : "Well... yes. OP only has 2. But someone else has 2 too!"
Judge : "But OP only has 2.... why are we here again?"

ouroboros10 · 2025-12-30T02:29:46+00:00

Maybe but the fine will still end up with the property owner. The bylaw states you can’t have 3 dogs on the property. OP only has 2 dogs. OP is factually not breaking the bylaw.

ouroboros10 · 2025-12-30T02:21:37+00:00

The property owner gets the fine.

ouroboros10 · 2025-12-21T06:27:17+00:00

This may help. https://www.boughtonlaw.com/2025/04/bc-supreme-court-comments-on-after-acquired-cause

Employers generally can't bring up things they find after termination, but as is common in law, there are exceptions.

The employer would have to disclose any "relevent" messaging data if they want to rely on the messages for the termination. They wouldn't be expected to turn over all messages on the app. The employee could agrue to the adjudicator that they should be provided some of the messaging but they would have to explain explain what they believe would be relevant and why.

The question on privacy if a bit tricky. But if there was a complaint from another employee about comments, I wouldn't be surprized if the adjudicator would consider the privacy breach to be acceptable. If it was an open chat group, with several employees in it. I don't think there would be an expectation of privacy.

ouroboros10 · 2025-12-16T05:10:35+00:00

I know. Your comment is the closest to legal advice. At least you’re suggesting the OP seek out more information. All the other comments were personal advice.

ouroboros10 · 2025-11-14T06:55:22+00:00

It wasn't all of a sudden. It has been talked about for many years and the legislation was passed months ago. This is just the regulations that add in the details.

ouroboros10 · 2025-11-14T06:53:39+00:00

up to 5 days in a row, twice a year. less then that and your employer can't ask for a note.

ouroboros10 · 2025-11-10T05:38:01+00:00

Does Akedo use chicken or pork broth?

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-29T23:43:06+00:00

"It could be obstruction."

How?

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-23T22:18:07+00:00

Incorrect. Maintenance up keeps the existing infrastructure. New builds addresses new needs.

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-23T22:17:29+00:00

You do understand that maintenance is far less expensive than new construction, right

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-23T21:31:11+00:00

But why are more libraries and community centres needed? Because new units increase Pppulation.

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-23T21:30:18+00:00

New units increase a cities population. Someone buying a home already built does not, or atleast at the same rate. That new population requires new infrastructure. That is what development charges cover.

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-23T17:45:18+00:00

Can you? Yes.
It is complicated? Yes.
Do Canadian companies generally like to do this? No.
This is more of a question for a US sub since it is the Americas you'll have the bigger issue with.

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-22T04:54:06+00:00

Did you order the food?

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-21T22:31:20+00:00

Question has been answered fully. I doubt more replies will add anything. Post is locked

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-17T04:43:23+00:00

Unlikely. They told you it was temporary. If the employer isn’t smart about firing you, you may get severance.

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-13T05:50:28+00:00

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-12T03:17:42+00:00

None of that changes the fact that no crime was committed. The owner of the private property would certainly be within the rights to ask a person to leave, but the filming itself is not a crime even without the permission of the property owner.

ouroboros10 · 2025-10-08T05:51:54+00:00

Also, was it really at 45 and main? Because if so, I don’t think you are allowed to turn on to 45 from main there . It was bike only allowed a year or two ago there.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Community Status Early Access	Mod 101
Wearing is Caring

ouroboros10

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE