NRI husband entitled to victim's life insurance, Ontario's top court rules

TORONTO - A man who killed his wife should be allowed to collect on her life insurance policy because he was insane at the time, Ontario's top court ruled Tuesday.

In overturning a lower judge's decision, the Appeal Court of Ontario decided that public policy, which normally would bar killers from benefiting from their victims' deaths, does not apply in this case.

However, the court put its decision on hold to allow the government to try to seize the money.

In June 2006, Ved Parkash Dhingra hit his estranged wifeKamlesh Kumari Dhingra several times on the head with a white marble religious statue of Krishna as she slept at her home in Richmond Hill, Ont. He then stabbed her 24 times in the neck and body.

Dhingra was tried for second-degree murder. Then 66 years old, he was found not criminally responsible in 2008 on account of mental disorder. He was later granted a conditional discharge.

Dhingra, who had suffered a mental disorder for many years, sought to collect on his wife's life insurance policy worth $51,000.

The victim's son disputed the payout and claimed the proceeds for the estate.

Last June, Ontario Superior Court Justice Andra Pollak ruled Dhingra was not entitled to the insurance money, even if he didn't mean to kill his wife.

"(Dhingra) committed second-degree murder," Pollak ruled. "Even though he was found not criminally responsible, he still physically committed the crime."

Relying on a handful of relevant cases, the Appeal Court decided Pollak was wrong to discount Dhingra's mental state.

"If a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not 'morally responsible' for his or her act, there is no rationale for applying the rule of public policy," the court found.

"It was an error for the application judge to describe the appellant as having 'committed second-degree murder'."

However, in a novel twist, the court also looked at whether Ontario's Civil Remedies Act, enacted by the legislature in 2002, might trump the common-law rule.

Among other things, the act aims to compensate victims of crime and prevent criminals and others from profiting from wrongdoing.

Under the act, the attorney general can ask the courts to have "proceeds of unlawful activity" forfeited to the government, even if a person was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The court, however, can refuse the forfeiture "where it would clearly not be in the interests of justice."

While the Appeal Court decided the Civil Remedies Act did not trump the common-law rule of public policy, it did decide the attorney general could still ask the courts to give proceeds of the insurance policy to the government.

A decision would then rest on whether the interests of justice would be served in doing so.

As a result, the Appeal Court ordered the money paid to Dhingra, but stayed the order for 30 days to allow the attorney general, who did not take a position in the appeal, to decide if it wants to seek forfeiture of the funds.

Elaine Fils, a spokeswoman for Ontario Attorney General John Gerretsen, said Tuesday the matter was in the review period and commenting would be inappropriate.

Alberta election result is good news for Canada

EDMONTON - Over the past few weeks, many Canadians outside Alberta watched uneasily as the Wildrose Party under leader Danielle Smith promised to build a political "firewall" around the province, promote unfettered oilsands development, fight against Canada's federal notion of equalization payments and defend clearly homophobic and antiethnic commentary.
This upstart political party born out of the rib of the entrenched Progressive Conservative Party was threatening to end the 41-year PC dynasty in Canada's richest province.
Right up until election day on Monday, polls had Smith leading Wildrose to a historic victory. Instead, PC leader Alison Redford, who had had to battle accusations of profligacy and entitlement, led her party to a comfortable majority of 61 seats out of a total of 87, with 17 going to Wildrose. In terms of the popular vote, PC took 44 per cent to Wildrose's 34 per cent.
In some important ways a soul sister to the social-conservative wing of the Harper government in Ottawa, Wildrose would have worked to loosen Ottawa's already light reins over environmental policies and the regulatory framework for oil and gas projects. Smith's insistence that the science of climate change remains unproven - her total denial of the credibility of the science - reinforced a view that Albertans put their economy before the welfare of the environment and Canada's international reputation.
Redford's victory signals a potential new era in provincial-federal relations. Alberta is the country's economic powerhouse. Its petro wealth is the motor driving a westward shift in Canada's population and economic centre of gravity. What happens in Alberta today matters to the rest of the country in a way that wasn't the case a couple of decades ago. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has warned that his province, the country's manufacturing centre, is suffering because Alberta's petro potential is driving up the value of the Canadian dollar and making manufacturing in this country less competitive.
Redford struck the right note after her election win when she said that the electoral choice had been between erecting walls and building bridges and that Albertans chose to build bridges. At a time when its wealth and accompanying political muscle could allow it to play the heavy in Confederation, Alberta under Redford is talking about connecting more closely with the rest of the country. This should be seen as an invitation to work together toward goals many Canadians want accomplished, including a genuine effort to meet the Harper government's goal of a 17-per-cent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2020.
There was more good news from the election results. Voters' repudiation of intolerance within Wildrose will do wonders to combat the stereotype of Alberta's redneck reputation.
Pollsters, on the other hand, have nothing to celebrate. They were wrong, spectacularly so. And they need to figure out why. In fact, this is just the most recent example of polling not being in sync with election results. While more study is needed into potential methodological difficulties with modern polling, it will also be interesting to probe just how much last-minute strategic voting took place among traditional Liberal and New Democratic Party supporters to give Redford the edge over Smith.
The Alberta election also showed that low voter turnout continues to plague Canadian politics. For the past 30 years, voter turnout in Alberta has ranged around the 50-percent mark; and even with two dynamic female leaders competing for top provincial office in Canada's richest province, only 56 per cent of eligible voters cared to vote. This compares with 56 per cent in the last Quebec general election, which was the lowest Quebec turnout since 1927. With almost half of voters not bothering to turn out, every vote counted in Alberta on Monday night. A majority of the people who cared clearly sided with Redford.