Cases

I am a high school guidance counselor in Hamilton, Ontario. Every semester I sit across from students who are about to graduate and have no idea how compound interest works, what a TFSA is, or why carrying a credit card balance at 19.99% APR means they will pay nearly double for every item they put on that card. They can solve for x but they cannot read a pay stub. They can analyze a Shakespeare sonnet but they cannot spot a predatory loan. I see the direct line from financial illiteracy to the crises my own parents lived through: payday loans, maxed-out credit cards, and the kind of debt that takes a decade to escape. The research is settled that financial education delivered before people take on their first financial products significantly reduces default rates and increases retirement savings. Several US states and at least one Canadian province now mandate a standalone personal finance course for graduation. Other jurisdictions keep it as an elective or embed it in math or social studies. The question is straightforward: should a dedicated personal finance course — covering budgeting, credit, debt, taxes, investing, and consumer rights — be a mandatory requirement for every high school diploma? Or does that mandate overreach into what should be a family responsibility, and risk crowding out other valuable coursework? And if it should be mandatory, who designs the curriculum and ensures it is consistent across districts?

I am a paralegal in Budapest who has spent forty years reviewing contracts and family estate plans. I see the same pattern repeat every wedding season: a couple announces their engagement, the parents offer to pay for part or all of the wedding, and somewhere between the venue deposit and the seating chart, a dispute erupts over who gets to decide. The parents say: we are paying, so we choose the guest list. The couple says: it is our wedding, not yours. Neither side has a written agreement about what the money buys beyond the catering invoice. This is not about ingratitude. It is about the absence of a contract. When a parent contributes financially to a wedding, they are making an investment the couple would not otherwise have. The parent naturally expects a voice in how the money is spent. The couple naturally expects autonomy over their ceremony. Both positions are reasonable, and that is precisely why the disagreement is predictable without a pre-arranged framework. The question this trial asks: when parents contribute financially to a wedding, should the size of their contribution entitle them to proportional decision-making authority over the wedding arrangements? Or does a gift, by its nature, transfer without strings attached?