{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"CLTD","provider_url":"https:\/\/ctdj.ca\/en\/","author_name":"ctdj","author_url":"https:\/\/ctdj.ca\/en\/author\/ctdj\/","title":"Belvedere v. Brittain Estate - CLTD","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"66chEvrFu8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/ctdj.ca\/en\/jurisprudence\/belvedere-v-brittain-estate\/\">Belvedere v. Brittain Estate<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/ctdj.ca\/en\/jurisprudence\/belvedere-v-brittain-estate\/embed\/#?secret=66chEvrFu8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Belvedere v. Brittain Estate&#8221; &#8212; CLTD\" data-secret=\"66chEvrFu8\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/ctdj.ca\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"Droit des successions \u0096 Enrichissement injustifi\u00e9 \u0096 Fiducie constructoire \u0096 Principes g\u00e9n\u00e9raux \u0096 M. Brittain avait exprim\u00e9 son intention de l\u00e9guer ses r\u00e9gimes enregistr\u00e9s d'\u00e9pargne-retraite \u00e0 l'intim\u00e9e, s'ils faisaient encore vie commune au moment du d\u00e9c\u00e8s - Le juge de premi\u00e8re instance a omis de tenir compte que l'intention de transf\u00e9rer les R\u00c9ER \u00e9tait conditionnelle \u00e0 la signature de la convention de cohabitation par Mme Belvedere et \u00e0 la modification du testament de M. Brittain \u0096 La convention de cohabitation n'a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9dig\u00e9e et le testament n'a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 modifi\u00e9 - Le juge de premi\u00e8re instance a commis une erreur en concluant \u00e0 l'existence d'un enrichissement injustifi\u00e9 et d'une fiducie constructoire \u0096 Appel accueilli."}