I Want a Divorce – What Are The Steps In Getting a Divorce in Ontario? Until married couples obtain a divorce, the law still considers them to be married, even if they are living separate and apart. This may have implications on spouses’ estates rights, entitlements to benefits and life insurance policies, and the ability to make end-of-life decisions for incapable spouses. Before seeking a divorce, it is important to obtain advice on how these rights may be affected. Interestingly, while many family law issues can be resolved outside of court, a divorce requires standardized court forms and a judge’s signature. You cannot avoid the court process if you want a divorce. Steps to Obtain a Divorce Eligibility in Ontario Before applying for a divorce, it is important to ensure that spouses meet the following three eligibility criteria: The spouses were legally married in Canada or in any other country; The spouses intend to separate permanently from one another, or they have already separated with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation; and At least one spouse has lived in Ontario for at least 12 months preceding his or her application for divorce. Breakdown of the Marriage There is only one basis on which a judge can grant a divorce – a “breakdown of the marriage”. This can be proven in one of three ways: (1) adultery; (2) cruelty; or (3) separation for a period of at least one year. By far the most common route couples choose to prove a breakdown of the marriage is the one year separation period. Couples who choose adultery or cruelty have the added (and difficult) burden of proving this in court, a task that is often expensive and lengthier than the one year waiting period. Additionally, spouses may begin their application for divorce at any time post-separation, but the order can only be granted after the expiration of the one year time period. Divorce Application and Corollary Issues The spouse who is seeking divorce becomes the Applicant in the proceedings and will prepare an Application. The particular form to be used will depend on whether any “corollary issues” arise from the spouses’ separation, such as child support, spousal support, and property division. If children are involved, judges are prevented from granting a divorce order unless they are satisfied that reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of the children. Judges may also refuse to grant a divorce unless there is satisfactory evidence that the remaining issues are resolved – often this is shown by way of a valid separation agreement. If corollary issues are in play, the Applicant will begin with a Form 08 – Application (General). If no corollary issues are present, the Applicant will use a Form 08A – Application (Divorce) to start the proceedings. Issue, Serve, and File Once the Application is complete, it must be taken to the appropriate courthouse where it gets stamped by a court clerk and assigned a court file number. This is referred to as “issuing” the Application. Following this, a copy of the Application must be personally served on the opposing spouse, who becomes the “Respondent” in the proceedings. Service must be done by somebody other than the Applicant, who is at least 18 years old. The person who served the Respondent must then complete an Affidavit of Service, to be sworn in front of a commissioner of oaths, then filed at the courthouse – spouses often hire process servers to complete these steps. Affidavit for Divorce Once the Respondent has been served, he or she has 30 days to deliver a response. If this 30 days expires without a response, the Applicant will complete an Affidavit for Divorce, along with three draft Divorce Orders. The Affidavit must stipulate all the details of the marriage, and prove that the corollary issues have been resolved (or that they are not issues at all – when parties have no property or children, Toronto (Any)for example). If there is insufficient evidence to this effect, the judge may refuse to grant the divorce order. Assuming the judge is satisfied with the evidence, he or she will sign the three draft orders provided, then mail one to each of the spouses, and keep one for the court file. 30-day Waiting Period The day the judge signs the divorce order triggers a final 30-day waiting period, after which the divorce takes effect. In the eyes of the law, the spouses’ marriage is then dissolved. Navigating the court process can be daunting, even when both spouses are on the same page and share the same goal to obtain a divorce. Hiring a lawyer from the outset provides the added assurance that documents are completed properly, and the procedure is followed in a timely manner. For more information on how we can assist, please contact our office online or directly on (416) 449-1400 and schedule a consultation today. “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 LawNovember 23, 2018June 16, 2020
I have Relocated to Canada – Can My Parents and Grandparents Come With Me? Emigrating to another country can sometimes be a very lengthy and daunting process. Often families are forced to temporarily leave their loved ones behind and set up home in a new environment with hopes to reunite with their family in the near future. Consequently, family reunification is perceived to be a benefit to Canada and often a vehicle whereby older members of the family, parents and grandparents, allow their adult children the benefit of being able to participate in the labour market and ensure the continuation of culture to their grandchildren. Deviations from this regime can often disrupt the family dynamic and at Devry Smith Frank LLP, we understand the need for support and the value of fostering diversity. The Family Class Sponsorship initiative incorporates the Parent and Grandparent Sponsorship Program and it is through this method that, one who is considered to be a permanent resident or citizen of Canada is afforded the opportunity to sponsor their parent(s) and/or grandparent(s) to eventually be in receipt of permanent residency in Canada. – Reuniting the family unit permanently. Upon realization of your interest in becoming a sponsor and before commencing the process, one must first express interest to the government and then get invited to apply. Once invited to apply, it is imperative to assess one’s eligibility. To be eligible, you must meet the basic following criteria: You are 18 years of age or older, living in Canada and are a: – Canadian citizen or – Person registered in Canada as an Indian under the Canadian Indian Act or – Permanent resident of Canada Additionally for the purpose of eligibility, there is a financial component requiring a minimum level of income in order to qualify as a sponsor. – The notion is that you will be able to support that person and their dependents financially, for the period of time stipulated in your sponsorship agreement. While this list is not exhaustive, sponsorship applications can get complicated and often require guidance from immigration and family lawyers who have wide- ranging experience in litigating affairs in both immigration and family law. If you are considering sponsoring parents or grandparents, talk to one of our lawyers today in our Toronto office location. Farzana Jiwani and Maya Krishnaratne are both knowledgeable, results driven lawyers – Providing the client with the ability to make well-versed decisions. For more information on how we can assist, please contact our office online or directly on (416) 449-1400 and schedule a consultation today. “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, ImmigrationNovember 10, 2018June 16, 2020
Common Law Couples: What Happens to Our Jointly Owned Home After Separation? The definition of “common law” couples differs depending on which legal rights are in question, and it is possible to be considered “common law” in one context, but not another. For family law purposes, we look to Ontario’s Family Law Act. Perhaps surprisingly, Ontario’s family law regime does not recognize the term “common law relationship”. While it is a vernacular that has developed over the years in both colloquial language and case law, what we are ultimately concerned with is the legal definition of “spouse”. More confusingly, the definition of “spouse” changes throughout the Act. With respect to the property regime, “spouse” only refers to married couples, meaning that unmarried couples are not entitled to a division of property acquired throughout their relationship. With respect to spousal support, unmarried couples are considered “spouses” if they have either: Cohabited for at least three years; or Have a child together and have cohabited in a relationship of some permanence. Additionally, Canada’s Income Tax Act defines common law spouses as having lived together in a conjugal relationship for at least one year. On the other hand, there is no such thing as common law partners for the purposes of estates rights – you will not be entitled to your common law partner’s estate if your partner dies without a will, even if you are considered “common law” in another context. Jointly Owned Home In Kamermans v. Gabor, a recent case from Woodstock, Ontario, Justice Heeney dealt with a common scenario for unmarried couples: the parties jointly purchased a “fixer-upper” home, with the male partner placing a deposit on the purchase price in the neighborhood of $70,000.00. The parties then jointly obtained a mortgage to finance the balance. Title of the home was placed in the parties’ names as “joint tenants”, which affords either spouse the right of survivorship in the event of the other’s death, as opposed to registering title as “tenants in common”, which guarantees the spouses a percentage interest in the home. Both parties spent roughly equal time and expenses improving and renovating the property, which increased its value. The parties sold the home at a profit post-separation, with the majority of the proceeds of sale remaining in a trust account, until the parties determined how to split the proceeds. The issue: the female partner instantly acquired equity to the home. If the parties split the proceeds equally, the male partner loses his significant deposit on the purchase price, resulting in a windfall in the female partner’s favor. Given that the parties were not married, they could not look to the Family Law Act for an equal division of property. Instead, the male partner was forced to rely on equitable principles that have developed in case law over the years, particularly a principle called a “constructive trust”. Ultimately, the judge in this case found that the female partner was unjustly enriched by the male partner’s deposit, and there was no legal reason for her to enjoy this enrichment. The male partner recovered his deposit as a result. Constructive trust claims are notoriously complex and difficult to prove. The lesson we can glean from this case: this issue could have been avoided with a valid cohabitation agreement. If you need advice regarding common law relationships or you are concerned about a related family law issue, please contact one of our experienced family law lawyers online or directly at (416) 449-1400. “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 LawNovember 8, 2018July 5, 2023
Update: “Taking the High Road” – Crossing the Canada/US Border following the Legalization of Cannabis In our previous blog post, we discussed the serious implications of cannabis affiliation at the U.S. Border. With the very recent legalization of cannabis, this topic has also made headlines. Many Canadians are concerned that they will be banned for life from the U.S. if they admit to smoking cannabis, presently, or in years past. Canadians are also worried about admitting their ties to cannabis producers or retailers, whether these ties are in the form of one’s employment or one’s investments (or maybe even both). Cannabis use is not federally legal in the U.S., which means Canadians are right to be concerned. Canadians should never take cannabis across the border, as this could result in very serious consequences. Border officers have full discretion, and they allow entry into the U.S. based on the circumstances of each traveller. Should you be in possession of cannabis at the U.S. Border – even unintentionally – or should you admit to any association with the drug, officers may choose to ban you for 5 years, or indefinitely, depending on the severity of the situation and the amount of cannabis at issue. Importantly, a determination of inadmissibility is not easy to overcome. Canadians who do find themselves banned can apply for a temporary waiver to allow entry, but the process can take up to a year, and the waiver must be renewed every so often. On October 10, 2018, the U.S. Government released a statement, clarifying that Canadians who are employed in a legal cannabis industry are generally allowed to enter the US for non-work purposes (i.e. reasons unrelated to the cannabis industry). If you are granted entry into the U.S., you must know that you cannot bring any cannabis back into Canada from the U.S., just as you cannot bring any Canadian cannabis into the states. This is a steadfast rule: it even applies when you purchased the cannabis in a state which the drug has been legalized. If you “accidentally” have cannabis in your car upon entering Canada, declare it to Border authorities. It will be seized but that is preferred to being charged for attempting to smuggle. It is important that Canadians consider and evaluate the risks in even attempting to cross the U.S. Border, as a result of their connections to the cannabis industry. Transportation within Canada can be done a lot more freely, due to the recent legalization, though there are still some restrictions (transportation of cannabis within Canada is limited to 30g). For more information about how the recent legalization of cannabis could affect your chances of crossing the U.S. Border and how Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Immigration lawyers can assist with your immigration law matter, please contact one of our immigration lawyers. “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, ImmigrationOctober 23, 2018June 16, 2020
Cannabis: Legislation passed For Legalization – But What Happens Next? On October 17, 2018, the historic formation of a new industry was birthed and the decriminalization of cannabis and its recreational use was finally introduced. A day whereby some thought would most certainly never be the case, however, the general perception of liberalism in Ontario may, in actual fact, not be as unrestricted as one may think. So, what does it mean exactly? – Inevitably, despite months of deliberation, the concept of what constitutes full legalization is still lacking clarity and for that reason alone, it should be acknowledged that there are some considerations that one ought to possibly observe when possessing and partaking in recreational use of cannabis legally. Nonetheless, three main issues still seem to be at the forefront of peoples minds: Selling Cannabis Unless you are a licensed retailer, you are prohibited from selling Cannabis to other individuals. As tempting as it may seem to sell a gram or two to a friend, it is strongly advised you obtain the proper licensing beforehand, or you run the risk of a possible custodial sentence and/or a hefty fine. You can, however, give the cannabis away, to an adult friend, without the expectation of remuneration, on the basis that it is less than 30 grams worth. Travelling with Cannabis As a Canadian, you may be able to travel with the stipulated amount of up to 30 grams of cannabis on domestic flights only. Yet, if you intend to cross over into international territory, it is still a criminal offence to have it on your person. – Even if you are intending to end your journey in a legalized US state. Driving It is illegal, under the Criminal Code of Canada , to operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs or where you have exceeded a certain level of alcohol or drug concentration in your blood. The legislation, Bill C-45, amended the Criminal Code such that police can now conduct roadside saliva tests on drivers they suspect to be under the influence of drugs and how you are reprimanded depends on the amount of THC detected. – Which can leave a trace for several hours after smoking cannabis? It is recommended that you avoid driving and consuming cannabis altogether to avoid these penalties. That said, indeed you can still be charged if you are found to be in violation of the Cannabis Act However, judging by the vagueness of this legislature, it would be fair to anticipate what might be deemed a few teething problems. Devry Smith Frank LLP will be monitoring the province’s efforts to adhere to and enforce the Cannabis Act in Ontario. If you have questions about cannabis laws or need advice understanding how the recent legislation will impact you both professionally and personally, please contact our office online or directly on (416) 449-1400 “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, Criminal LawOctober 20, 2018June 16, 2020
Canadian Courts and Mahr Agreements – Can My Mahr Agreement be enforced? We have discussed the topic of divorce in a previous blog post, however at Devry Smith Frank LLP, we are aware that typically, traditions vary in different cultures. In particular, the South Asian community. Family separation and divorce within the South Asian community is often seen as a taboo subject and notions of uncertainty as to whether a Mahr Agreement can actually be enforced, frequently arises. – Either promptly, at the time of the marriage or on a deferred basis, which allows for the wife to gain financial security in the event of unforeseen circumstances, such as the death of her husband or a separation. Occasionally, it is misperceived as a ‘bride price’ or ‘dowry’ which does not seem fitting, considering the agreement is not a prerequisite for marriage. Typically, it is a gift given to the bride from her husband when the stipulations of the contract of marriage is made. Over the years, there has been inconsistency in the rulings of Mahr agreements in Canadian courts. Nonetheless, some courts have deemed the contract to be one of a domestic nature and enforced it under the provisions of family law. As seen in Mohammadi v. Safari , a case in which Farzana acted as Counsel on behalf of the Applicant and whereby the ambiguity depicted within the Maher Agreement, led to what one would believe to be a partial enforcement. – Despite the Respondent’s opposing claim that the Mahr Agreement in which he initially agreed to, should be considered invalid. That said, the standards to which could make a Mahr agreement enforceable is very much akin to those of any other domestic contract. To be valid in Ontario, a Mahr must: Be in writing, signed by the involved parties and witnessed. Financial disclosure must be provided by the parties to one another Must be signed without duress Whilst the enforceability still depends on the specific facts of each case, it is imperative that you seek independent legal guidance. Talk to one of our South Asian lawyers today in our Toronto office location. For more information on how we can assist, please contact our office online or directly on (416) 449-1400 “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 LawOctober 20, 2018July 5, 2023
Employment Bill 148 is Being Scrapped…But Which Parts Are Uncertain Last week Doug Ford announced that he was halting the implementation of a $15 per hour minimum wage in Ontario but it looks like he is seeking to additionally roll back other employment laws that have already come into force. Yesterday, October 2, 2018, Doug Ford announced in the Ontario legislature that he was going to scrap Bill 148, a bill enacted by the previous Liberal government (after a broad consultation) that increased protections for workers in an effort to alleviate the impacts of precarious work (see our previous blogs on Bill 148). Bill 148 introduced many new provisions to both Ontario’s Employment Standards Act and Ontario’s unionized Labour Relations Act. Some of the new provisions included a presumption that a worker is automatically an employee unless it is proven otherwise (an employee classification gets the most protection under labour and employment legislation), mandated scheduling provisions including the expansion of the “3 hour rule” (i.e. an employee gets paid for three hours of work if his/her shift is cancelled less than 48 hours before he or she was to commence working), equal pay for equal work laws between full and part-time workers, personal emergency leave provisions (10 days of emergency leave absences with 2 days of paid leave), and increased regulation on temporary help agencies. However, whether Bill 148 is going to be axed in its entirety or in a piecemeal fashion remains to be seen. Doug Ford’s statements in the legislature were incredibly broad, saying “We’re getting rid of Bill 148. We’re going to make sure we protect the front-line workers because 60,000 people lost their jobs under Bill 148 … We’re going to make sure we tell the world Ontario is open for business. We’re going to make sure we’re competitive around the world.” After Question Period, reporters swarmed Jim Wilson, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, with respect to Ford’s comments. Wilson scaled back Ford’s comments, stating that the government was still reviewing Bill 148 and a final decision had yet to be made. Wilson made statements that despite the Conservative government voting against the Bill when the Liberals introduced it, they were likely going to keep the $14 an hour minimum wage and other sections. Devry Smith Frank LLP will be monitoring the province’s efforts to scrap Bill 148. It is important to contact a labour and employment law lawyer to keep apprised of recent legislative developments and get advice on how it will impact your business or personal contracts. If you need assistance with labour and employment laws please contact one of our employment lawyers. “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 LawOctober 10, 2018March 27, 2024
Is Your Will Still Valid After A Recent Ontario Ruling? A recent decision stemming from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is likely to have far-reaching implications on wills across the Province, and your will could be one of them. On September 11, 2018, Justice Sean Dunphy ruled that wills cannot leave the distribution of one’s assets to the discretion of one’s trustees. If it does, it will be invalid. A need to avoid the “basket clause” The “basket clause” is used when an individual has more than one will. The use of the clause enables the trustees to determine what assets fall into either will, rather than enumerating each asset in one of the wills. Until Justice Dunphy’s ruling, the validity of the basket clause had not been tested in the Ontario courts, however, based on the ruling, it is now clear that the use of the clause can invalidate a will. Given how many lawyers across Ontario rely on and utilize this “basket clause,” when drafting a will, it should come as no surprise that many established and well-respected estate planning lawyers in Ontario are concerned by Justice Dunphy’s ruling. The ruling: Milne Estate (Re), 2018 ONSC 4174, The case before Justice Dunphy concerned a couple who both passed away in October 2017. The couple each had two wills, a primary will and a secondary will, with “materially identical” language in each. Justice Dunphy found that the couples’ secondary wills were valid, and their primary wills were not. Reason being, the secondary wills of each testator (the person who made the will) vested all property of the testator in the executors, and therefore, the requirement of certainty of subject-matter was satisfied. By contrast, the primary wills effectively vested in the executors the entire discretion to determine retroactively whether any assets were vested under the will at death, based upon the executors’ view as to whether probate is necessary or desirable. The court found that it was the uncertainty contained within the primary wills that made those wills invalid. The language used in a will must be certain It is imperative that wills describe with certainty any property that is subject to them. The property or assets that are subject to a will must be ascertainable objectively based upon the expressed intent of the testator, without regard to discretion of the estate trustees exercised after the will has been executed. If your will includes the “basket clause”, or a similar type of clause, you may want to consider contacting a lawyer to update your estate plans. If you have questions about a current will, or need assistance with drafting a new will, contact one of the estate planning lawyers at Devry Smith Frank. This article is intended to inform and entertain. 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, Wills and EstatesOctober 2, 2018June 16, 2020
Ontario’s New Standard Lease Agreement Starting April 30, 2018 Padmapper released a rent report earlier this year showing Barrie as the third most expensive city in Canada to rent a two bedroom ($1,650/month), and the fifth most expensive for a one bedroom ($1,250/month). That’s an increase of roughly 15% from rental prices in 2016. With the Barrie rental market heating up, landlords and tenants alike must be aware of the new standard form lease that now applies to almost all residential tenancies in Ontario. As of April 30, 2018, landlords must use the new standard form lease for most private residential rental units. This includes single and semi-detached houses, apartment buildings, condominiums, and secondary units such as basement apartments. This lease must be used by both individual landlords and property management companies. Kathleen Wynne, the then-Premier of Ontario, announced that tenants in Ontario have had to endure illegal and hard to understand provisions in their lease agreements for too long. The new lease is intended to head off those issues by clarifying “understanding between landlords and tenants about what the rules are, what the agreement is and what the responsibilities of each is”. “We’re working to prevent those problems, those kinds of misunderstandings before they begin” Wynne commented. If a landlord is not using the standard lease, tenants can ask for one. The request must be in writing and if the landlord does not provide the standard lease within 21 days of a written request, the tenant may give 60 days’ notice to terminate the lease early. Tenants can also withhold a maximum of one month’s rent upon making a request for a standard lease, but otherwise must continue paying rent for the rest of the term of their lease, or until its early termination. The standard lease form contains: Mandatory fields that must be completed and cannot be altered or removed, including basic information about the tenant, landlord and tenancy terms. Optional additional terms where the landlord and tenant can agree on terms that are unique to the unit, provided that terms that are inconsistent with the Residential Tenancies Act will be void and unenforceable, such as prohibiting a tenant from having pets. General information for landlords and tenants on their rights and responsibilities. The purpose of this section is to avoid the problem of common illegal terms in tenancy agreements such as no pet-clauses and damage deposits other than rent deposits. If you are in need of a real estate lawyer, please visit our website and contact one of our real estate lawyers in Barrie, Toronto or Whitby today. In addition to real estate, our firm offers assistance in the areas of corporate law, wills, estates and litigation matters. Contact our Barrie office directly at 705-812-2100, or Cayley Rodd at cayley.rodd@devrylaw.ca. This article is intended to inform and entertain. 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 EstateSeptember 7, 2018June 16, 2020
Supreme Court Refuses Leave to Appeal: Toronto Real Estate Agents Must Publish Data On Thursday, August 23 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) declined to hear an appeal that has been over seven years in the making. For the last seven years, the Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB) and the Competition Bureau have been litigating over the issue of sales-data policies. It all began when the Competition Bureau brought an action against the TREB, alleging that TREB was harming innovation by restricting Virtual Office Websites (VOWs) – an alternative form of a traditional real estate brokerage office – from accessing large chunks of the data in the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data feed, including historical sales-price data. Without question, alternate forms of real estate brokerages, like VOWs, were suffering at the hands of the TREB and their restrictive regime. So too were new agents to the scene, who were not a part of TREB. Many brokerages obtain new clients by cold calling residents who live close to a home that just sold. The brokers will share how much the potential clients’ neighbours home sold for, and what kind of offers were placed on the property, in an effort to persuade these clients to also sell their home and to sell it with the realtor on the other end of the cold call. However, only real estate agents who are TREB members have access to sales price information, historic sales and realtor commissions, which meant that other agents and VOWs were at a disadvantage (or at least they used to be!). On February 3, 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) set aside the Federal Competition Tribunal’s order dismissing the Commissioner’s Application and the FCA referred the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. At this re-hearing, which took place on April 27, 2016, the Federal Competition Tribunal determined that the sales-data policies were too restrictive, so much so that they contravened the Competition Act. According to the Tribunal, the practices of the TREB were an “abuse of dominance.” In 2017, the FCA agreed, and the court dismissed TREB’s appeal. However, the TREB was not backing down. TREB fought for a total of seven years to keep the information at issue in the hands of Toronto real estate agents, arguing that posting the data more publically would violate consumer privacy. In 2017, the Board sought leave to appeal the Federal Court’s decision to the SCC. For further information or assistance, please contact a Litigation Lawyer. If you would like to contact our office directly, please call (416) 449-1400. “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, Commercial LitigationAugust 30, 2018June 16, 2020