Individuals seem to be increasingly unwilling to accept personal responsibility for actions they take, and people are being served with frivolous lawsuits for a multitude of perceived wrongs. It's the newest get-rich-quick craze and it's on the rise.
In 2013 Texas teenager Ethan Couch was able to successfully shirk responsibility for driving under the influence causing the deaths of four pedestrians and injuring 11 others by arguing he was too wealthy to know right from wrong. The notorious “affluenza” defence was born.
Last week I read an article published on the CBC website courtesy of Erica Johnson at CBC GoPublic. The article told the story of an elderly couple who sought financial advice for transferring $198,000 from the United States to Canada. Despite being strongly discouraged from proceeding with the transfer by both CIBC and RBC due to the taxes and penalties, the couple sought a third opinion from their local BMO.
The BMO planner allegedly told them she would be able to process the requested transfer without the additional taxes. The couple lost $47,000 in tax on the transfer.
Rather than accept responsibility for their financial situation, the couple felt BMO should cover those taxes. When BMO offered them a $19,000 settlement in good faith, they turned the offer down.
Did it not occur to this couple to check if the financial advisors in the first two banks that they visited may have been on to something? In the age of the Internet it's difficult to plead ignorance when the information is literally at your fingertips.
Worse yet, Johnson and CBC GoPublic felt it was appropriate to name the individual planner who made the alleged error.
The planner is not facing criminal charges. What business does GoPublic have accusing her based on allegations alone? If they wanted to tell this couple's story, they could easily have done so without naming her; “a planner at BMO” would have been sufficient.
We may never know what really happened in the appointment. For some reason CBC GoPublic believed the couple based on hearsay, and tarnished the planner's reputation by printing her name. She was not quoted in the article. There is no indication she was contacted at all to refute the claims. Objective journalism, indeed.
CBC implies the planner may have had a monetary incentive to provide misinformation to the couple, but didn't bother to check on the validity of the statement or provide specific details. They didn't say what sort of a commission planners receive, instead opting for a vague generalization likening financial planners to salespeople. Apparently the story couldn't wait until all of the facts were in.
These cases scream a lack of personal responsibility, and in CBC's case, lazy journalism. We can hope that someday we don't find ourselves at the business end of a vindictive civil suit where “innocent until proven guilty” doesn't apply.
We all make mistakes, but it is essential, now more than ever, to own up to them and learn. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
