The House I Recently Purchased Was Used to Manufacture Illegal Substances: What Now? You’ve just signed an agreement of purchase and sale, and you’ve discovered that drugs were illegally manufactured on the property years before the seller bought it. Can you get your deposit back? A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision dealing with an “Illegal Substances Clause” in an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”) says: ‘it depends.’ ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES CLAUSES In Beatty v Wei 2018 ONCA 479, the parties had entered into a standard form APS under which the purchaser agreed to purchase a residential property in Scarborough for the purchase price of $916,000. The Purchaser submitted a deposit of $30,000. The purchaser discovered prior to closing that the property has been used as an illegal marijuana grow-op before the sellers had acquired it. The purchaser stated he was entitled to terminate the agreement prior to closing and get his deposit back; the sellers disagreed. Instead, they sued the purchaser claiming forfeiture of the deposit to them, and damages for any loss they might suffer as a result of the delayed re-sale of the property. The main analysis centred around the Illegal Substances Clause, which stated, in part (emphasis added): The Seller represents and warrants that during the time the Seller has owned the property, the use of the property and the buildings and structures thereon has not been for the growth or manufacture of any illegal substances, and that to the best of the Seller’s knowledge and belief, the use of the property and the buildings and structures thereon has never been for the growth or manufacture of illegal substances… Upon interpretation of the Illegal Substances Clause, the court found that the Sellers’ representation and warranty that the use of the property had never been for the manufacture of illegal substances was limited to their knowledge as it existed when they executed the APS. Since the seller did not know at the time of executing the APS that their house was formerly a grow-op, the court found for the sellers rather than the purchaser. In essence, the Court of Appeal concluded the sellers had to know at the date the APS was signed that illegal substances were previously manufactured on the property. If the sellers found out one day later, the APS would still be valid, and it would accordingly be a breach of contract for the purchaser to terminate the agreement. Since the purchaser unilaterally terminated the APS well after both parties signed it, the purchaser was found to have breached the contract. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME AS A HOME PURCHASER? This case tells us that home purchasers should be careful to negotiate agreements of purchase and sale on terms that are favourable to them. If a significant desire of a home purchaser is to ensure their new house was never used to manufacture illicit substances, then the agreement should reflect that desire as closely as possible. If you would like more information on how to protect yourself as a home-purchaser, please contact Jennifer Hetherington at 416-446-5838 or at jennifer.hetherington@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateJuly 9, 2019September 30, 2020
An Illness/Injury Has Made It Unable to Return to Work: What Can I Do? If an injury or illness has resulted in there being no reasonable likelihood that you will be able to return to work within the foreseeable future, you may be entitled to compensation. The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Hoekstra v. Rehability Occupational Therapy Inc., 2019 ONSC 562, sets out new guidelines on frustration of contract in the workplace. This potentially entitles employees to compensation if they have been injured or are suffering from an illness making it unfeasible to return to work. Frustration of contract What is frustration of contract? Frustration occurs where due to an unanticipated, intervening event beyond the control of the parties, a contractual obligation, if performed, would be radically different in character from what was initially agreed upon (see Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd v John Walker & Sons Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 164 Eng. Ct. A.). Normally, frustration relieves both parties of any obligations they have under the contract. Frustration under the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) Frustration operates somewhat differently in the context of employment law. Under section 2 of regulation 288/01 of the ESA, where a contract of employment is frustrated due to illness or injury, the employer remains obligated to pay the employee’s minimum termination pay and severance pay as of the date of frustration. In Hoekstra, cited above, the plaintiff had not performed any employment duties for four years due to a severe illness that forced him to go on medical leave. As a result, an employment dispute ensued, stemming from the employer’s refusal to pay further medical benefits. The medical condition eventually shifted from being merely temporary to being a permanent disability, and thereby rendered him incapable of engaging in required work at his employment. The court held that frustration of an employment contract occurs where “there is no reasonable likelihood of the employee being able to return to work within a reasonable time” (at para 28, citing Fraser v. UBS, 2011 ONSC 5448 at para 32). The employee was entitled to termination pay based on the period from the first day of his employment, to the date the frustrating event occurred (i.e., the date the illness was indicated as being more-or-less permanent by a doctor). The court also ordered the employer to pay the employee statutory severance pay. Importantly, the court held that both employees and employers can claim frustration of contract. This principle is also highlighted in the decision of Estate of Cristian Drimba v Dick Engineering Inc., 2015 ONSC 2843, where an employee took the position that his employment contract had been frustrated and the court agreed and awarded termination pay and severance pay pursuant to the ESA. Either way, the employee may be entitled to compensation under s. 2 of regulation 288/01 of the ESA if the test for frustration is met, and the frustration is the result of injury or illness. If you would like more information about these new developments, or would like legal advice as to frustration of contract, please contact experienced employment lawyer Marty Rabinovitch of Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-446-5826 or marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawJuly 4, 2019September 30, 2020
Does every home purchase and sale in Ontario require a lawyer? Parties to a real estate Agreement of Purchase and Sale occasionally ask whether they actually need a lawyer to close the deal. The answer to that question is a resounding yes. Historically, closing a real estate transaction in Ontario would involve lawyers attending at a Land Registry Office (LRO) to conduct title searches. On the day of completion, lawyers from both parties would meet at the LRO to exchange documents and keys and register the transfer. Today, with electronic registration, everything from title searches to transfers of land are completed with specialized software. Only lawyers and law firms can gain access to this software, and the switch to electronic registration does not remove the requirement that a lawyer must sign the transfer of land. When choosing a lawyer to help you complete your real estate transaction, it is important to find a lawyer experienced with real estate. Experienced real estate lawyers will understand where complications with home sales tend to arise, and will make sure that their clients’ interests are protected. Having an experienced real estate lawyer review an Agreement of Purchase and sale before it becomes firm is also a good idea, as a lawyer will often catch potential issues that a layperson will miss. In a standard resale agreement you should consider including a clause that the agreement is subject to your lawyer’s review, and for a pre-construction condo you should have your lawyer review the contract within the statutory ten-day cooling off period. Devry Smith Frank LLP has a dedicated real estate department, combining years of experience in real estate law to ensure that your next real estate deal goes smoothly. For further information or assistance please contact Jennifer Hetherington at 416-446-5838 or Jennifer.hetherington@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateJuly 2, 2019July 5, 2023
Buying a Condo? Make Sure You Review the Status Certificate Before Making a Firm Offer The past decade has seen a considerable increase in the number of condominium developments in Southern Ontario. As the population continues to grow, condos are a great way to efficiently use scarce land in major cities. The price point of condos is often much lower than that of detached homes, which makes them a popular choice among first-time homebuyers. Condos have also become common among more experienced homebuyers who are looking to downsize or perhaps are spending more time abroad and prefer the added security and included maintenance of a condominium. Many buying a condo for the first time may question if the buying process and condo ownership is different from that of a detached home. The answer to that is yes, and there are a few items in particular that a condo buyer should be aware of. In today’s post we will focus on the importance of reviewing a condo’s status certificate.As per the Condominium Act, 1998, SO 1998 c. 19, when a condominium development is registered in Ontario, a special type of corporation is created – one without share capital. The objects of the corporation are to manage the property and assets of the corporation on behalf of the unit owners. The unit owners elect a board of directors, which is responsible for making the decisions of the corporation. The board’s authority ranges from making decisions on capital upgrades and financial expenditures to the creation or amendment of the rules that the unit owners must follow.As a unit owner, you own your particular unit, and have an interest in the property’s common elements. Therefore, you share an interest in the assets and liabilities of the corporation. Before buying a condo, it is important to make yourself aware of the financial standing of the condo corporation and whether or not any legal action is pending against the corporation. You can find this information on your condominium’s status certificate. In addition to providing you with information on whether there are any outstanding common expense fees owing on a particular unit, a status certificate will provide information on the corporation’s reserve fund, whether the corporation expects any upcoming special assessments or increases in common expenses, whether there are any outstanding judgments against the corporation and provides a copy of the current rules and bylaws of the corporation that all unit owners must comply with.A condo corporation must provide a status certificate within 10 days of one being ordered. If it fails to provide the certificate then it is deemed that there is no default in common expenses by the current unit owner, that there is no planned increase in common expenses and that there are no planned special assessments. The corporation can charge a prescribed fee of $100 for ordering a status certificate. As a general rule, you should never make a firm offer on a condominium without you or your lawyer first reviewing the condo’s status certificate. A typical agreement for the purchase of a condo contains a provision that the offer is conditional upon the review of the status certificate by the buyer’s lawyer.If you have any questions about status certificates and why you need one when buying a condo, please contact Robert Adourian at 416-446-3303 or Robert.adourian@devrylaw.ca“This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateJune 27, 2019December 17, 2020
My child has been suspended from school. Do I have the right to appeal this decision? In Canada, a child’s right to receive an education is an important one. As a result, children both in private and publicly funded schools are entitled to have any allegations put forth against them, fairly and impartially investigated. Additionally, an appeal process whereby the principal’s decision to expel or suspend a student for more than one day should form part of the process – particularly in publicly funded schools whereby a student can evoke his or her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a fair hearing. However, it should be observed that the nature of these appeal hearings can be somewhat complex. Consequently, having legal representation can significantly increase chances of success and ensure that the opposing party is in compliance with human rights legislation and will fairly consider all legal considerations applicable to the situation. When the decision is made to suspend or expel a student, the school must provide written communication that explicitly explains what penalty the school is imposing, including the precise length of any suspension. The school must also detail the events or behaviour that led to the decision, a reference to which ground for suspension or expulsion the school is relying upon, and the appeal route that is available to the student to challenge the punishment. The suspension or expulsion may not be valid unless the letter sets out all of these considerations. In addition, the school must provide the student, and the parents, an opportunity to be heard before making the punishment final. For publicly funded schools, the Education Act sets out two types of activities that relate to suspension or expulsion: Activities for which a principal may suspend a student, but does not have to suspend a student. These are listed in section 306 of the Education Act. In deciding whether to expel a student for the type of conduct described in this section, the principal must consider mitigating factors, both in terms of whether suspension is appropriate, and if so, for how long. Activities for which a principal must expel a student and may expel the student. These are listed in section 310 of the Education Act. Probably the most recognized conduct that falls under that section is repeated bullying. Since suspension is mandatory for the conduct described in this section, the principal does not have consider mitigating factors and has no choice but to suspend a student. While a student is suspended for one of these possible offences, the principal is required to further investigate whether the student ought to be expelled. The principal can then decide to expel the student. Private schools on the other hand, are not governed by Sections 306 and 310. Instead, the conduct that is likely to result in a suspension or an expulsion is specified within the school’s policies or contract, if you will. Nevertheless, once a private school accepts a student, it can only remove a student as permitted by its contract with parents. Sometimes those contracts incorporate a “code of conduct” that sets out rules and procedures for suspension. Others just give the school absolute discretion to remove a student, which is only tempered by human rights laws. A fair hearing is required before such measures are finalized. A public school principal must consider certain factors which affect the overall decision. Among other considerations, these can be mitigating factors for a suspension, or evidence that a child did not intend the actions that could lead to an expulsion. Some examples of these factors are: A child who has been the repeated victim of bullying and feels vulnerable until the day he or she responds violently to the aggression of a bully. A child who has special needs which are not being met and who is either frustrated, or in a position where he or she feels the need to act out of character for attention, or whose disability makes the impugned action involuntary. A surprising statistic is that children who are receiving special education services in public schools represent less than nine percent of the total student population. However, children with special education needs make up almost 50% of all students who are suspended or expelled from school. Statistics such as these, suggest that many suspensions or expulsions may be a form of discrimination as they result from a school who is unable or unwilling, to meet a child’s needs according to the Education Act and Ontario Human Rights Code. Each school has some latitude in establishing its appeal procedure. However, the Education Act does set some requirements and the hearing must adhere to some formality as there are rules pertaining to such hearings that must be followed. This information must also be conveyed to the parents or guardians of the child and the length of time in which they have to appeal. Furthermore, it is important to note that “informal discussions” with a Superintendent of Education, that are not part of the school’s formal appeal process, do NOT extend the deadline for bringing an appeal. If you are trying to resolve matters with the school board, you still have to take the necessary steps to bring your appeal on time – or you will lose your right to appeal. If your child has been suspended or expelled, it is important to speak to an experienced education lawyer immediately. The time lines for appeals are short – and there may even be things the lawyer can help you do before bringing an appeal to resolve matters. Suspensions stay on a student’s records and expulsions obviously not only stay on the student’s record but profoundly affect his or her education. For assistance with education law, contact education lawyer, John Schuman of Devry Smith Frank at 416-446-5080 “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Education LawJune 25, 2019July 5, 2023
What Is an Educational Credential Assessment Report and How Do I Obtain One? An Educational Credential Assessment, or an ECA report, is required by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to assess one’s international academic credentials obtained from outside of Canada. The main purpose of an ECA report is to verify how much a foreign educational credential is worth by Canadian education standards. ECA reports are only valid for a maximum of five years from the date of issue. Therefore, if you have an ECA report that was issued more than five years ago, you have to obtain a new one from a designated organization. In addition, ECA reports are mandatory for applicants applying under the Canadian Express Entry program and, in limited circumstances, for international students attempting to gain admission into a Canadian college or university program. There are seven designated organizations which are currently authorized to issue ECA reports: World Education Services (WES) Comparative Education Service – University of Toronto (CES) International Credential Assessment Service of Canada (ICAS) International Qualifications Assessment Service (IQAS) International Credential Evaluation Service (ICES) Medical Council of Canada (for Doctors) Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada (for Pharmacists) It is ultimately up to the applicant to decide which organization is best suited for the purposes of their immigration application. However, it is worth noting that a degree assessed by ICES may be valued differently than the same degree evaluated by CES. By contrast, degrees in medicine and pharmacy must be assessed by the Medical Council of Canada and Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada, respectively. Perhaps more importantly, an ECA report does not prove that an applicant is accredited or licenced in a regulated profession. Instead, professional accreditation is an entirely separate process from an ECA, which is determined by regulatory authorities in each Canadian province. How do I obtain my ECA Report? ECA reports can be obtained from the seven organizations noted above for a designated fee. Processing fees vary for each organization and the number of degrees an applicant wishes to have assessed. The most commonly used organization by immigration applicants is the WES. This is because their instructions are easy to follow and their assessments are usually completed faster than the other organizations mentioned above. Applicants are required to create a profile on the website of the organization from which they decide to get their report. While creating the profile, applicants provide background information about their academic credentials from their country of education. Once this is complete and processing fees are paid, applicants receive a list of documents required by the assessing organization to start the evaluation process. These documents cannot be submitted online and therefore must be mailed directly by the academic institution to the assessing organization. Remember that obtaining an ECA report is only one aspect of your immigration application which must be handled with great care and diligence. Failure to submit the correct report for your academic credentials, or not submitting it when required by IRCC can result in the refusal of your immigration application. If you are not sure about whether you need an ECA report, or if you are ready to begin your Canadian immigration journey, contact our office to assist you through the process. Please forward your inquires to immigration lawyer Maya Kirshnaratne of Devry Smith Frank LLP, directly at 416-446-5841 or maya.krishnaratne@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, ImmigrationJune 18, 2019September 30, 2020
Medical Marijuana: Limits to Consumption in Unionized Workplaces A recent labour arbitration decision from Saskatchewan has framed what might be the boundaries around workplace consumption of medical marijuana. In Kindersley (Town) v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2740, 2018 CanLII 35597 (SK LA), an employee was dismissed for vaping medical marijuana while operating the employer’s vehicle. The employee had previously disclosed to his employer that he had had a prescription for medical marijuana and was allowed to vape marijuana in the workplace. The employee was not allowed to operate his employer’s vehicle for approximately 30 minutes following vaporization of marijuana. He was also not permitted to operate heavy machinery for 1 hour after vaping. The employee was later discovered to have been vaping while driving and immediately before driving. As a result, the employer summarily dismissed the employee. The employee’s union filed a grievance challenging the summarily dismissal. The arbitration board held that, despite the lack of proof of the employee’s impairment on a balance of probabilities, the vaping of marijuana immediately prior to and while operating the vehicle entitled his employer to summarily dismiss him. The board also emphasized the fact that the employee appeared to lack respect for the limits of his employer’s medical accommodation of him, and cared little for the safety of his coworkers by vaping while other employees were in the vehicle with him. The arbitration board found the decision to summarily dismiss was not excessive discipline. The board noted that while the employee should not be deprived of using marijuana for the medical purpose intended, ultimately “there is no reason he could not have done this more discreetly rather than in the presence of his co-workers and while driving.” What does this case tell us? While it is a Saskatchewan decision, the same principles apply in Ontario: having a prescription for medical marijuana is not a free licence to consume it whenever and wherever you like, particularly while working for an employer. Moreover, even if your employer has expressly accommodated you by allowing you to consume marijuana in the workplace, not adhering to the terms of that accommodation could result in dismissal without notice. It is also important to note this case applies to unionized employees, who have greater protections from dismissal than non-unionized employees. This suggests that, in a non-unionized workplace, the threshold for misconduct meriting dismissal based on the consumption of medical marijuana could be lower. According to Ontario’s human rights laws, all employers must accommodate employees with a disability to the point of undue hardship. This accommodation could include allowing employees to use medical marijuana while at work. However, employees must comply with the limits of their employer’s accommodation, so as to avoid undesirable disciplinary measures. If you would like more information about these amendments, or would like legal advice to ensure your place of work is compliant, please contact experienced employment lawyer Marty Rabinovitch of Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-446-5826 or marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Cannabis LawJune 14, 2019July 5, 2023
Buying or Selling a Resale Home? What You Need to Know About the Disclosure of Defects You have recently closed the deal on what you thought was your perfect dream home. After moving in you discover that the house is in need of many more significant repairs than you expected. Had you known about some of the issues, you would not have offered the price that you did, or perhaps you would not have made an offer on that particular property at all. Did the seller have an obligation to disclose the defects to you? If the seller failed to disclose, do you have any recourse against them? The answer depends on the nature of the defect, and whether or not it is something you could have discovered on your own with reasonable efforts. The principle of caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware,” applies to patent defects. For example, roof shingles in need of repair, aging HVAC equipment and water damage in the basement are items that a prospective buyer should be able to discover before an Agreement of Purchase and Sale becomes firm. The seller has no obligation to disclose these types of defects. The buyer is responsible for being duly diligent and performing any necessary inspections of the property. On the other hand, the seller must not actively attempt to conceal defects, for example by installing paneling over water damage (see, for example, McQueen v Kelly, [1999] OJ No 2481 (Sup Ct J)). The seller must also alert the buyer to any material latent defects that the seller is aware of. A material latent defect is a defect that (1) is not easily discoverable by a buyer in the timeframe of a home purchase transaction and (2) renders a property uninhabitable, dangerous or potentially dangerous (see, for example, Krawchuk v Scherbak, 2011 ONCA 352). Such a defect may not even be discoverable through a normal professional home inspection. There are disclosure rules that apply to Realtors as well. A seller’s agent that is aware of material latent defects must disclose them to the buyer or buyer’s agent. The duties of a buyer’s agent toward a buyer are more comprehensive. According to the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act (SO 2002, c 30, Schedule C) Code of Ethics (O Reg 580/05) at s21: (1) A broker or salesperson who has a client in respect of the acquisition or disposition of a particular interest in real estate shall take reasonable steps to determine the material facts relating to the acquisition or disposition and, at the earliest practicable opportunity, shall disclose the material facts to the client. A material fact is defined in Section 1 of the Code of Ethics as “a fact that would affect a reasonable person’s decision to acquire or dispose of [an] interest [in real property].” Therefore, a buyer’s agent should alert a prospective buyer client to anything that the agent is aware of that may affect the client’s decision to purchase the property. If you have further questions about the disclosure of defects in real property transactions or for experienced assistance with both commercial and residential real estate, please contact: Louis Gasbarre at 416-446-3318 or by email at louis.gasbarre@devrylaw.ca or Robert Adourian at 416-446-3303 or by email at robert.adourian@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateJune 5, 2019September 30, 2020
Medical Marijuana: Limits to Consumption in Unionized Workplaces A recent labour arbitration decision from Saskatchewan has framed what might be the boundaries around workplace consumption of medical marijuana. In Kindersley (Town) v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2740, 2018 CanLII 35597 (SK LA), an employee was dismissed for vaping medical marijuana while operating the employer’s vehicle. The employee had previously disclosed to his employer that he had had a prescription for medical marijuana and was allowed to vape marijuana in the workplace. The employee was not allowed to operate his employer’s vehicle for approximately 30 minutes following the vaporization of marijuana. He was also not permitted to operate heavy machinery for 1 hour after vaping. The employee was later discovered to have been vaping while driving and immediately before driving. As a result, the employer summarily dismissed the employee. The employee’s union filed a grievance challenging the summarily dismissal. The arbitration board held that, despite the lack of proof of the employee’s impairment on a balance of probabilities, the vaping of marijuana immediately prior to and while operating the vehicle entitled his employer to summarily dismiss him. The board also emphasized the fact that the employee appeared to lack respect for the limits of his employer’s medical accommodation of him, and cared little for the safety of his coworkers by vaping while other employees were in the vehicle with him. The arbitration board found the decision to summarily dismiss was not excessive discipline. The board noted that while the employee should not be deprived of using marijuana for the medical purpose intended, ultimately “there is no reason he could not have done this more discreetly rather than in the presence of his co-workers and while driving.” What does this case tell us? While it is a Saskatchewan decision, the same principles apply in Ontario: having a prescription for medical marijuana is not a free licence to consume it whenever and wherever you like, particularly while working for an employer. Moreover, even if your employer has expressly accommodated you by allowing you to consume marijuana in the workplace, not adhering to the terms of that accommodation could result in dismissal without notice. It is also important to note this case applies to unionized employees, who have greater protections from dismissal than non-unionized employees. This suggests that, in a non-unionized workplace, the threshold for misconduct meriting dismissal based on the consumption of medical marijuana could be lower. According to Ontario’s human rights laws, all employers must accommodate employees with a disability to the point of undue hardship. This accommodation could include allowing employees to use medical marijuana while at work. However, employees must comply with the limits of their employer’s accommodation, so as to avoid undesirable disciplinary measures. If you would like more information about these amendments, or would like legal advice to ensure your place of work is compliant, please contact experienced employment lawyer Marty Rabinovitch of Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-446-5826 or marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Cannabis Law, Employment LawJune 5, 2019July 5, 2023
My Uber was involved in a collision and I was injured – Can I be compensated for my injuries? In recent years, ride-hailing services have become increasingly popular and the demand appears to continue to rise. In densely populated cities such as Toronto and in the GTA in general, owning a car can be prohibitively expensive, making the ride-sharing concept a great convenience. Toronto’s licensing department has issued almost 70,000 private transportation company licenses to drivers for ride-hailing companies such as Uber. With such congestion, it is almost inevitable that you or a loved one may be involved in a collision or accident with an Uber car at some point. Should this happen, legal issues often arise and contacting an experienced personal injury lawyer will help improve your odds of getting the treatment and compensation you deserve. Can I Claim Compensation from Uber Directly, After a Crash? The difference between calling a conventional taxi and an Uber, is that an Uber driver uses their personal vehicle to pick you up, as opposed to a taxi service which uses commercial vehicles for the sole purpose of carrying passengers. Essentially, Uber drivers are considered independent contractors. That being said, insurance claims involving an Uber vehicle are typically treated in the same way as other car accident claims. Any driver has the legal obligation in an accident is to remain at the scene of the accident, and where the property damages are more than trivial or someone is injured, to call the police and any emergency medical services, in instanced where required. As an Uber passenger, there is little legal obligation on you in an accident. If you witnessed the accident, you may give your name and number to the people involved in the accident and speak to the police if they are called to the scene. If you are injured, you should be taking steps to help yourself right away. Seeking medical help for your injuries and contacting a personal injury lawyer will help protect the integrity of your claim and ensure your claim is successful. In the midst of the chaos surrounding the aftermath of an accident, it is difficult to keep information straight. If you have a cell phone and can physically and safely move around, take video footage of the scene of the accident. Include the licence plates of the cars involved, the positioning of the cars, the damages to the vehicles and the street signs or addresses. You can describe what you see. Keep in mind that other people may end up seeing this video so keep it as accurate as possible. Your recollection of how the accident occurred may also be described. If you can’t record a video, take photos of the accident scene including the cars and make notes as soon as possible. Take photos of the Uber driver’s licence and insurance pink slip and licence plate. Take the same photos of the licences and insurance of all of the other vehicles involved. If you don’t have a camera phone, write down all the details you can get: the driver’s licence numbers from all drivers involved: the licence plates of the Uber and other car(s) involved; the name and policy number from each of the drivers; and the contact details for any witnesses to the incident. In the event that you do not have your own car insurance, you may claim benefits from the insurer of the Uber vehicle. These benefits may include your medical and rehabilitation treatment, possible attendant care assistance and weekly income replacement benefits. In July 2016, the Ontario government approved a regulatory change under the Insurance Act to allow commercial fleet insurance to be offered to vehicles that can be hired through an online application. For Uber drivers with appropriate ride sharing insurance, the insurance policy applies from the moment the driver logs into the ride sharing app and is available to accept passengers, until the last passenger exits the vehicle and the app is closed. At all other times, the driver’s personal insurance policy may respond, usually with a denial as most personal auto policies have specific exclusions for ride sharing use. There are presently only two auto insurers offering ride sharing insurance. Unfortunately, not all Uber drivers have the appropriate insurance. While is it almost impossible to know the exact outcome of a claim, an experienced personal injury lawyer will always be able to guide you through this difficult and often confusing time. If you or a loved one have been injured in an accident involving a ride hailing service such as Uber, contact experienced Toronto, Whitby and Barrie based personal injury lawyer Marc Spivak of Devry Smith Frank LLP at marc.spivak@devrylaw.ca or 416-446-5855. A consultation is free with no obligations. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Personal InjuryMay 31, 2019July 5, 2023