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
My estranged wife is denying me access to our baby. She refuses to communicate with me and I am yet to meet our new-born child. Is there something I can do? Ontario Family Court judges generally have a very dim impression of parents, mothers or fathers, who deny their children the opportunity to have a relationship with both parents. Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act requires that judges give children of married parents the maximum possible contact with each parent that is consistent with the child’s best interests. Section 20(1) of Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act states that, until decided otherwise, parents are equally entitled to custody of a child. A significant exception to this is when one parent leaves the child in the care of the other parent at separation as this action typically connotes that by doing so, the leaving parent gives the other parent temporary full custody of the children. That being said, the foregoing principle may not apply in a situation whereby the separation occurred prior to the child’s birth and the leaving parent was not actually given the opportunity to leave the child. Even for very young children, especially infants, current research says that frequent contact with both parents is ideal to allow the children to form a relationship with their parents and vice versa. When one parent refuses to allow the other parent to have contact with a child, it could in fact become a situation where it is possible to obtain an emergency family court order; however, if deemed possible, parents should first try parenting mediation with a parenting professional, before going to court. The parenting professional can help the parents understand the child needs and help them work out a parenting plan that best suits the child’s needs at each stage of development. If one parent does not agree to mediation, it is still beneficial to suggest this option to the other parent because Ontario family courts prefer parents take a more amicable approach, as opposed to one that is likely to cause conflict. Nonetheless, if a parent is denying a child the opportunity to have a relationship with both parents, it is always advised to seek advice from an experienced legal professional. For assistance with family separation and child access, contact experienced and certified specialist in family law, John P. Schuman of Devry Smith Frank LLP. Contact him directly at 416-446-5080 or email john.schuman@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, Family LawMay 28, 2019September 30, 2020
Bill 66: Changes to the Employment Standards and Labour Relations Acts Bill 66, which received royal assent on April 3rd, 2019, changes the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and the Labour Relations Act (LRA). Workplaces that are covered by the ESA should take note that: Posting requirements are no more: Employers are no longer required to display a poster in the workplace delineating the ESA’s applicable regulations and rules. However, employers remain obligated to provide a poster delineating ESA rules and regulations to their employees. Agreements extending the ESA overtime limit no longer require approval: Employers no longer need to apply for approval to make agreements allowing their employees to exceed 48 hours of work in a work week. As long as there has been an agreement between the employer and the employee extending the amount of hours the employee can work, employers are not violating the ESA. Overtime-averaging agreements no longer require approval: Employers no longer need to apply for approval to make an agreement with an employee to average their employee’s hours of work for the purpose of determining entitlements to overtime pay. Note, however, that the employee’s hours may be averaged in accordance with the terms of an averaging agreement only if the overtime period in the agreement does not exceed four weeks. Workplaces that are covered by the LRA should take note that: The list of non-construction employers has been expanded: municipalities, local boards, school boards, local housing corporations, hospitals, Ontario colleges and universities now no longer apply to the LRA’s rules with respect to construction employees. Employers listed under this new provision may opt-out, but only if: (1) A trade union represents employees of the employer who are employed, or may be employed, in the construction industry as of April 3, 2019; (2) The application must be made by a person with authority to bind the employer; and (3) The election must be filed with the Minister of Labour within three months of April 3, 2019. If you would like more information about these amendments, or would like legal advice to ensure your place of work follows these new requirements, 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 Law, Labour LawMay 24, 2019September 30, 2020
I’ve been accepted to a Canadian university and have a study permit; can I work while studying in Canada? Foreign nationals need authorization from the Canadian government to work. For international students, work experience can help a great deal in being exposed to the Canadian job market, earning extra income and providing the advantage of being able to adapt to workplace language and culture. Generally, foreign nationals with a study permit (i.e. international students) can work without a work permit in Canada if they are studying full-time at a Designated Learning Institution (DLI) and their study permit includes an endorsement authorizing work. Immigration officers will typically grant this authorization as a matter of course, but if a study permit does not include it, a revision may be necessary. Most major universities and colleges in Canada will be considered DLIs, but a full list can be found here. The authorization to work on a study permit typically allows one to work on campus for an unlimited number of hours or off campus for up to 20 hours during regular academic sessions (and fulltime off campus during regularly scheduled breaks between sessions). On campus work is not limited to jobs involving the school as the employer; it includes any jobs physically on campus,(such as a job as a barista at a Starbucks on campus grounds). Sometimes programs of study include a work component such a co-op semester, unpaid internship for a period of time, or even a clinic where one spends a few hours getting practical experience in a particular field of study. In most cases, these activities will be considered “work.” While the endorsement on a study permit may sometimes be sufficient to allow you to engage in these placements (i.e. provided you meet the conditions set out above for on campus and off campus work), very often it will not be enough. If your co-op placement is for an extended period of time and requires you to work more than 20 hours a week, or if you are a part time student with a co-op on campus, or a combination of your personal employment and school placement total more than 20 hours a week, you will need a special work permit called a co-op work permit. A co-op work permit can be obtained at no additional cost to a study permit and it may be useful even to students who expect to stay within the conditions of the study permit authorization to work as it provides maximum flexibility. certain schools may even require it for all instances of program-based work. It is important to check the school’s requirements so that one can apply for the appropriate authorization. Co-op work permits are available to those who are enrolled in a program at a DLI that requires work as an essential component of the program as long as the work doesn’t comprise more than 50% of the overall program. A letter from the school confirming these details will be needed in order to get a co-op work permit. A co-op work permit can be issued at the time a study permit is issued or afterward. This article should not be construed as legal advice, and each case ought to be reviewed on a case by case basis. If you would like assistance with applying for a study permit and a work permit, please contact experienced immigration lawyer, Maya Krishnaratne of Devry Smith Frank LLP 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, ImmigrationMay 22, 2019July 5, 2023
My ex-spouse refuses to amend the schedule and allow me to take our child on vacation. What can I do? Taking the children away on a vacation is a frequent source of conflict after separation, and is the subject of many Family Court motions. The non-travelling parent may be jealous, or may worry that the trip could give the travelling parent the advantage of having a better relationship with the child. Judges, on the other hand, are less concerned with these factors and are instead focused on deciding whether or not the trip is in the child’s best interest. If the parents have lawfully separated or divorced, a Separation Agreement or Divorce Order is likely already in place to stipulate to the custody arrangements. A typical Separation Agreement or Divorce Order contains detailed information pertaining to the precise days and times the children are to spend with each parent. That being said, Judges will generally allow changes to the parenting schedule to allow a child to go on a vacation. What do you do when a parent unreasonably refuses a travel request? Unfortunately, it may be necessary to go to family court if one parent continues to unreasonably refuse to allow the other parent and child to travel. One advantage of going to court were the judge to be sufficiently dissatisfied, the resulting court order may dispense with the need to obtain travel consent in the future. Nevertheless, if the trip is looming, it is best to obtain legal advice specific to your situation. Getting proper advice will give you the best possible chance of the vacation going ahead as planned. For assistance with a divorce or separation, contact certified specialist in family law, John P. Schuman of Devry Smith Frank LLP. He is the partner managing the Family Law Group at DSF, a full service law firm. Contact him directly at 416-446-5080 or email john.schuman@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, Family LawMay 17, 2019September 30, 2020
Bill C-86: What it Means for Your CBCA Corporation Bill C-86 institutes a long list of amendments to several Federal statutes, including the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), and officially comes into force on June 13th, 2019. What does this mean for your corporation? Prior to these amendments, the CBCA required only federally-registered corporations to maintain a general securities register under s. 50(1). As of June 13th, however, all privately controlled corporations governed by the CBCA will be required to maintain a detailed securities register of individuals with “significant control” over the corporation. An individual with “significant control” is someone who is the registered/beneficial owner of, or someone who has direct or indirect control over, a “significant number of shares” of the corporation, being either ownership of 25% or more of the corporation’s outstanding voting shares, or ownership of any number of shares equal to 25% or more of the corporation’s outstanding shares measured by fair market value. “Significant control” also includes an individual who has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation, and anyone to whom “prescribed circumstances” (to be defined by future regulations) apply. Two or more individuals who jointly own a “significant number of shares” can be considered jointly an individual with “significant control over the corporation.” The register of individuals with “significant control” must provide the following information with respect to each such individual: (a) the individual’s names, date of birth and the last known address; (b) the individual’s jurisdiction of residence for tax purposes; (c) the day on which the individual became or ceased to be an individual with significant control; (d) a description of how each individual has significant control over the corporation; and (e) any other prescribed information [to be explained in future regulations] The Bill also includes several other requirements regarding the proper maintenance of the “significant control” register. Improper maintenance of this register is an offence punishable on summary conviction and may result in a fine of up to $5000. Any director or officer of a corporation who knowingly records, provides, authorizes or acquiesces in the provision of false or misleading information in this register is liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to $200,000 or imprisonment of up to 6 months, or both. The corporation’s shareholders or creditors, as well as the Canadian government, may request access to the information contained in the significant control register which, if provided, may be used only for matters relating directly to the affairs of the corporation. Finally, it is also likely Ontario legislation, at some point in the future, will mirror these new Federal amendments, as the Finance Minister of each province has agreed to “pursue legislative amendments” that strengthen the transparency of corporate ownership. If you would like more information on these amendments, or would like legal advice to ensure your corporation follows these new requirements, please contact elisabeth.colson@devrylaw.ca or at (416) 446-5048. “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, Corporate LawMay 9, 2019June 13, 2020
Erase Every ‘Shall’? In many English speaking jurisdictions, the term “shall” is deemed to be somewhat ambiguous for the simple reason that it appears to make reference to discretion rather than obligation. In an attempt to look at its meaning precisely, consider Canadian corporate legislation as set out in the Canada Business Corporations Act which states, “A corporation “shall” set out its name in legible characters in all contracts, invoices, negotiable instruments”. In law school, aspiring lawyers are overwhelmed with “shalls” in statutes and contracts and as a result, “shall” still remains the word that makes legal instruments obviously clear. However, in actual fact, one may argue that it indicates quite the contrary. There has been a notable amendment to the Interpretation Acts of at least three Canadian provinces (British Colombia, Alberta and Manitoba) which states that “must”, is to be interpreted as imperative, eliminating any contradiction with the use of “shalls”. This solution is not commonly acknowledged by other government agencies even though there is insufficient evidence, mainly in the form of case law, to cast doubt on the effectiveness of replacing “shall” with “must” to establish obligation. This approach may offer more consistency and less vagueness. Legal writing should be precise and, in a ideal world, offer little to no room for dispute. Yet, in corporate contract circumstances, it is common practice to ensure that the obligation of each party is reflected in any agreement, in what should be deemed incontestable. Therefore, the intended consequence must be made ultimately clear to avoid scrutiny. With that being observed, it may be fair to determine that the preferences of legal professionals lean towards the unambiguous “must” – imposing clarity and a legal obligation. A corporate lawyer is an essential part of your contract review and negotiation process to ensure that any agreement entered into accurately reflects the desired intent. Contact Elisabeth Colson of Devry Smith Frank LLP for experienced corporate assistance, at elisabeth.colson@devrylaw.ca or at (416) 446-5048. “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, Corporate LawApril 30, 2019May 22, 2021
I Fell at My Local Supermarket. Can I be Compensated? The vast majority of us are familiar with the term ‘personal injury’, a phrase usually associated with a claim based on the negligence or misconduct of a person or organisation, which has caused injury to another person (the claimant). The injury can be physical, emotional and psychological and compensation may be recovered for economic and non-economic losses. For instance any expenses related to lost wages, medical bills, housekeeping and personal care expenses, compensation for pain and suffering and a reduced quality of life are just some of the claims one may recover. Sometimes we encounter the unthinkable and as a result of an accident, injuries can occur that have a lifelong impact. A personal injury could be the result of a car accident, premises liability (slip and fall), manufacturers’ liability, and medical malpractice – just to name a few. In the case of a slip and fall, an occupiers’ liability claim is normally advanced against a property owner or occupier who was negligent in preventing an injury from happening on their property. Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act serves as the foundation for claims within the province and also requires occupiers to make provisions for informing the general public of any foreseen dangers. The Right to Sue for Personal-Injury Claims in Ontario Provincial laws hold owners and occupiers to a standard of reasonable care to maintain their: – Driveways; – Sidewalks/walkways; – Stairs; and – Private parking lots. The most common hazards one might find in these areas are unploughed snow, inadequately signed mopped or waxed floors and stairways with missing handrails or broken steps. In any case, an occupier is legally obliged to take reasonable steps in learning of these potential hazards and provide a suitable remedy. Depending on the circumstances personal injury claims can be categorised in various ways and are often overwhelming. At Devry Smith Frank LLP, we understand personal injury law and endeavour to always ensure our clients receive the full compensation they deserve. To learn how we can help you or schedule a FREE consultation, contact experienced personal injury lawyer, Marc Spivak at marc.spivak@devrylaw.ca or 416-446-5855 “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 InjuryApril 25, 2019June 14, 2020
Setting Aside Orders in Family Court For various reasons, family law litigants may fail to participate in their court proceedings, placing them at risk of being “noted in default”. The court may then make “uncontested” orders in their absence, based on the evidence of the moving party only. It may come as a great surprise to learn that these orders are often detrimental to the absent litigants’ interests. As a result, they may seek to change or set aside these orders. Sometimes, litigants learn about these court orders for the first time when the Family Responsibility Office informs them of their significant support arrears. Until the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Gray v Gray 2017 ONCA 100, there was confusion in Ontario regarding the appropriate route to remedy uncontested orders. One line of cases relied on section 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside orders, which allows the court to “change” orders based on a list of factors, despite the rule making no explicit mention of “setting aside” an order. Another line of cases rejected this approach, instead relying on either the court’s inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order to prevent a miscarriage of justice, or rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides the court with jurisdiction to set aside orders in ordinary civil matters. Gray v Gray settled this dispute and concluded that family law litigants may appropriately rely on section 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside uncontested orders. The actual test to be applied on a motion to set aside an order appears to be unchanged from the previous jurisprudence, however. This test remains consistent with the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to deal with cases justly. To this end, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen 2014 ONCA 194 held that dealing with a claim to set aside an order justly requires a consideration of the following factors: Whether the motion was brought promptly after learning about the judgment; Whether there is a plausible excuse or explanation for the defendant’s default in complying with the Rules; Whether the facts establish that the defendant has an arguable defence on the merits; The potential prejudice to the moving party should the motion be dismissed, and the potential prejudice to the respondent should the motion be allowed; and The effect of any order the court might make on the overall integrity of the administration of justice. If you believe you have grounds to set aside an order, it is important to speak with knowledgeable family counsel promptly, as any additional delay has the potential to cause significant prejudice to your case. Contact Mason Morningstar of Devry Smith Frank LLP for help determining your rights and obligations in this regard. mason.morningstar@devrylaw.ca or 416-446-3336 “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, Family LawApril 16, 2019June 14, 2020
What happens if I default on my Mortgage? A mortgage on your home will most likely be the most significant debt you will incur in your lifetime. A commitment in which you will be obligated to pay for a considerable amount of time – in the majority of cases anywhere between 10-30 years. That said, when a borrower defaults on their loan and from their obligations in the mortgage agreement, the lender has two possible remedies. Power of sale This is the most frequently used remedy. Pursuant to Ontario’s Mortgage Act upon a mortgage default the lender is entitled to determine that the mortgaged property in question should be sold to a third party. This remedy, if you will, is by far the least complicated and permits the lender to recoup the balance remaining. The lender however, must give the borrower written notice by registered mail 45 days after default. The lender does have a legal obligation to sell the property at the fair market. If there is equity in the property, the remaining balance will go to the borrower after the mortgage balance and any other associated fees such as legal fees have been paid. If the sale does not cover the balance of what is owed, the borrower is still liable for the remaining balance. This process can only be prevented by the borrower paying the arrears and the lenders legal fees or by payment of the remaining balance of the defaulted loan in its entirety. Foreclosure Foreclosures is a legal proceeding initiated by the lender to obtain the full legal title to the asset outlined in the mortgage agreement. If the value of the asset is less than what is owed, the lender cannot pursue the borrower for the remainder. Should there be equity in the property or proceeds remaining from a subsequent sale, the lender is under no obligation to account the borrower for the equity, or the proceeds. Contact Robert Adourian, of Devry Smith Frank LLP, for experienced assistance with both commercial and residential real estate. robert.adourian@devrylaw.ca or 416-446-3303 “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 EstateApril 12, 2019July 5, 2023