Introduction of Cannabis Lounges: Good for Users? Cannabis Consumption in Ontario Under the current proposed regulations, the Ontario Government intends to control and operate the sale of marijuana. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario will operate approximately 150 stores and sell the product to people aged 19 and older. But what will the rules be for consumption of cannibas? At present, we know that there will be a ban on consumption in public spaces or workplaces. The rules proposed by the Ontario government restrict recreational consumption to private residences, while medical users will be subject to the same use rules as those governing tobacco and electronic cigarettes. Cannabis Lounges Now, Ontario is considering the possibility of allowing cannabis lounges and has requested the public’s opinion on the matter. It is unclear whether these lounges would be owned privately or whether they would also be owned and run by the Province. Many activists and politicians are in favour of these lounges, believing the current approach to consumption to be too restrictive. These lounges already exist in Toronto and other cities across Ontario. One such café in Toronto’s Kensington neighbourhood provides a communal space for customers to consume marijuana with equipment provided by the café. Though the lounge permits the recreational consumption marijuana, they do not sell the drug. Marijuana and Leases Landlords have also spoken up and they are seeking to be allowed to modify existing lease agreements once marijuana is legalized. For more information on this matter please refer to our previous blog by clicking here. With recreational consumption forbiden in rental units, recreational users may have no location to consume marijuana legally. To address this concern, a proposal for the creation of outdoor common smoking space on a building’s grounds has been presented, benefitting those with restrictions in their lease agreements. The advantages of doing this include: Limiting disruption to other tenants (no permeating smell if consumed indoors) Providing a social setting for tenants with restrictions in their lease Helping change the general perception of legal marijuana use Devry Smith Frank LLP‘s Cannabis Law Group is well versed in Cannabis law and is capable of providing advice on a host of matters relating to cannabis law. For more information, please contact a lawyer from our Cannabis Group or contact our office 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, Cannabis LawMarch 8, 2018June 16, 2020
Changing Weekend Visitation Family Lawyer John Schuman was asked the following question: My ex wants to keep my daughter this weekend and it is my weekend. I live in Ontario and this is a court ordered agreement. What can I do about this? John’s answer: A carefully drafted separation agreement, Family Court Order, or parenting plan will anticipate most things that will come up in a child’s life. But, it is not possible to anticipate everything. Things always change for children and unanticipated things creep up. Judges understand that, even when a judge has spent the time determining what custody order is in a child’s best interest. So, where parents can agree that a change to what is set out in a court order, either for once or permanently, is in a child’s best interest, then judges understand – unless a children’s aid society or the judge’s order says that no changes are allowed. In most cases, judges (and children’s aid societies) like it when parents can agree to changes to schedules, and other aspects of their children’s lives, in ways that benefit their children. With judges preferring parents being flexible to meet their children’s best interests, the purpose of Parenting Orders, parenting plans or separation agreements is to really to set out what will happen when the parents, unfortunately, cannot agree. When parents cannot agree whether something is in a child’s best interest, the “fall back” is what is in the Court Order, parenting plan or separation agreement. Put another way, if the parents do not agree to deviate from the parenting plan, one of them cannot do so without getting a judge to change the Court Order or agreement. When a parent asks a judge to change a Parenting Order or agreement, the judge will decide what to do based on what is in the child’s best interest. It is possible that decision is not what one, or both, parents want. Also, a parent who refused unreasonably refused to cooperate with the other parent, or denied to make changes without a good reason, may get in trouble from the judge. That parent may have to pay the other parent’s legal fees. Or, can lose custody of the child if the judge thinks the parent was trying to harm the child’s relationship with the other parent. It is always best to try to be reasonable and cooperate when it comes to parenting after separation – even when the other parent is being unreasonable. The process for going back to court can be quite complicated, and involve several court appearances. Before going to court, it is important for a parent to gather the evidence that what they want is in the child’s best interest. All that will not be worth it for one simple change. And, it is unlikely you will get the change made or an upcoming weekend. (Note, it is best to get travel consents arranged months in advance to avoid court delays.) Parents who find that they have a lot of difficulty cooperating with the other parent and the Court Order or Parenting Plan does not resolve the issues, may want to consider using a parenting coordinator. That professional can quickly either assist with, or make, parenting decisions, such as whether a child should attend a special event on an upcoming weekend. It is important to keep a child insulated from, or losing out because of, fights between parents. You can get a lot more information about Ontario Family Law issues, including a further explanation of child custody and parenting legal issues by downloading this $9.99 e-book for Kindle, Kobo, or iPad/iPhone/Mac or ordering the paperback version. But, to keep out of trouble, it is always best to speak with a good family law lawyer. “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 LawFebruary 16, 2018June 16, 2020
Landlords Want to Ban Pot in Rentals Some residential landlords want to be able to ban the use of marijuana smoking in rental units when recreational use is legalized. Currently, the Residential Tenancies Act does not include explicit rules about smoking substances of any kind in a rental property. The new marijuana laws do not contain rules for renters engaging in recreational use either. As it stands, Landlords have the right to include stipulations in a new lease banning tobacco smoke. However, they cannot change an existing lease to restrict smoking of tobacco. This will likely apply to smoking marijuana when it is legalized. Amongst the concerns expressed by Landlords in permitting pot to be smoked in rental units are the following: Apartment units are not hermetically sealed allowing the smell of the smoke to travel to other apartments to the discomfort of other tenants; Costs are around $5,000 – $6,000 to rid each smoker’s unit of the smell; Increased complaints of tenants having to deal with marijuana smoke permeating their homes Efforts will have to be made to reach a compromise between Landlords and recreational pot using tenants, as they will otherwise be limited on the places they can smoke. Perhaps such a compromise will be creating a dedicated space outdoors for recreational users to smoke. “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, Real EstateFebruary 7, 2018June 16, 2020
Concerns with Canada’s Plan for Marijuana Regulation Canada’s approach to cannabis regulation has some people worrying. The federal government’s resources for guidance in developing the existing regulations including those regarding control by the federal and provincial governments, may not have been the best. The federal government looked to tobacco and alcohol for guidance in drafting the cannabis regulations. The problem is that the regulations applicable to each of tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis have their respective distinct focus and goal. Tobacco’s primary focus is “reducing use with eventual elimination” while alcohol promotes the “socially responsible use” mirrored by the existing cannabis regulations. Tobacco regulations address the marketing, displaying and packaging of tobacco, including: All forms of marketing are banned Packages have graphic health warnings Eventual possibility of plain packaging Alcohol regulations: Market to the public Have fewer restrictions Is viewed in a more positive light than tobacco There is a strong correlation between the nature and extent of regulation and enforcement, and the effectiveness of limiting the exposure and use of the controlled substance to and by Canada’s youth. Tobacco use has declined significantly from 33% of the population in 1980 to 15% in 2013, and the industry believes it will drop to 5% by 2035. Alcohol, on the other hand, has had a different impact on Canadians. Alcohol companies have been given such relaxed regulations that Canada has one of the highest rates of binge drinking in the developed world. In addition, the existing legislation is outdated to the point that it only places controls over what can be promoted on TV and on the radio. There are no provisions for the advertisement of alcohol via newer technologies and advancements such as the Internet, where most of the promotion and information on alcohol is available. Some suggest that the loopholes available as a result of the outdated regulations have significantly influenced underage drinking, and the same may be true for cannabis use. The proposed cannabis regulations in the Cannabis Act pull components from both tobacco and alcohol regulations, with a bias towards those applicable to alcohol. For instance, the Cannabis Act prohibits “promotion, packaging, and labeling of cannabis that could be appealing to young persons.” This wording alone may not be sufficient to stop enticing cannabis use by today’s youth. Without enforcement of restrictive regulations, how will its use be controlled? Enforcement remains an issue under debate. Provinces have the ability to provide their input to the federal government, but as not all have done so, it might be left to the federal government to decide. For more information on the Cannabis Act and how our Cannabis Law Group can help you, please contact one of our Cannabis Law lawyers today or call our office 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, Cannabis LawFebruary 6, 2018June 16, 2020
What Happens When Your Child’s School Registration Form Contains False Custody Information? Family and Education lawyer John Schuman was asked the following question: What are the legal penalties for someone who has filled out an Ontario elementary school registration form with false information concerning a court child custody order? John’s Answer: This question is a good one because it touches on the intersection between schools, parents, kids and the law when parents separate. Parents separating can cause a lot of stress and tension for other people as well. First, it is critical to remember that the school, the principal, the teachers, and the school board do not want anything to do with your separation or divorce. If you think any of them are going to “take sides” and support you, then you are wrong. Most school boards have policies that prevent them from becoming involved in disputes between parents. This does not mean that Family Court Judges do not find the thoughts and observations of teachers useful when deciding which parent gets custody. But, nobody wants them involved (I will mention how to get the useful information below). The most important reason why schools will not become involved in disputes between parents is that schools are the kids’ “space.” School is more than just a child’s “workplace.” It is the center of their social lives, it is where they develop an identity independent of their parents, it can be the center of their non-academic activities and, during times of parental conflict, it is often their sanctuary away from that. So, it is very important that fights between parents do not use the school as the battleground. Section 305 of the Ontario Education Act and Ontario Regulation 474/00 give principals the authority to bar any parent from entering school premises because he or she has done anything to upset any pupil. If a principal does that, a Family Court Judge is sure to notice. With that said, it is very important for schools to know what the current custody order says. This helps the school avoid making mistakes that can create tensions between parents or can even allow a parent to abduct a child. It also avoids having the school hand off the child to the wrong parent – or to a parent who is not supposed to visit the child or go to the school. While it is important for schools to get copies of court orders that relate to the school, it is important that parents do not use those orders as weapons. If the school has a copy of a court order that it should not have, or that is no longer valid, parents can do something about it. Section 266(4) of the Education Act allows parents to request in writing that the principal remove any inaccurate information from a student’s record. If the principal does not remove the information, then a School Board superintendent can hold a hearing to determine whether the information should be removed. The Ontario School Record Guideline sets the test for whether a document or information should be removed from a child’s OSR. Any document that is “no longer conducive to the improvement of the instruction of the student” should be removed from a student’s school record. Therefore, a principal should remove any expired, repealed, or irrelevant court order from a student’s record. That should get the court order out. When deciding custody cases, judges need evidence, and they really like the evidence of impartial professionals. The observations of those professionals of the behavior of the parties, and more importantly, how a child is doing, can really influence a judge when deciding custody cases. But, judges do not want educators put in the middle. Section 35 of the Ontario Evidence Act allows judges to admit into evidence any record that a teacher (or other professional) has made “in the ordinary course of business” without having the teacher testify. Those are any records that someone does as part of their job and not for the purposes of any form of litigation (including disputes in Family Court.) So, judges will look at report cards, school attendance records, school IPRC reports, individual education plans, school forms and school emails that are not directly about the custody/access dispute. Those can give the judge a really clear picture of what is going on, how involved each parent is, and whether either parent is being a “problem.” A parent who is being a “problem” or whose actions are having an adverse impact on a child can get into big trouble in family court. Not being supportive of the other parent, acting unilaterally with respect to the children (especially in contravention of a court order) and not putting the children’s needs first are some of the best ways for a parent to lose custody of children It is often possible to get these helpful school records without involving any school personnel directly in the Family Court Fight and, most importantly, without bringing the fight to the child’s school and sanctuary from the parent’s fighting. You can learn a bit more about the family court process by watching this video or listening to these podcasts (iTunes version here). You can get a lot more information about Ontario Family Law issues, including a further explanation of child custody issues and tips to help you and protect your child in and out of court, by downloading this $9.99 e-book for Kindle, Kobo, or iPad/iPhone/Mac or ordering the paperback version. But, to keep out of trouble, it is always best to speak with a good family law lawyer. On school issues, it can also be helpful to get speak to a lawyer who knows about education law. “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, Education Law, Family LawJanuary 31, 2018July 7, 2023
Failure to Contact Interpreter Critical in Decision to Set Aside Over 80 Conviction In the recent case of R. v. John, a summary conviction appeal court set aside a conviction for Over 80 as a result of the police not contacting an interpreter when they should have done so. In this case the first language of the accused was Tamil. He was arrested and advised of his rights including his section 10 (b) Charter right to counsel. According to the trial judge’s findings, the police noticed the ethnicity of the accused and that he had an accent. Despite being aware of these facts, the police did not ask if he needed an interpreter. The accused exercised his right to counsel and the police put him in contact with duty counsel on four occasions and the accused spoke with English speaking duty counsel on three of those calls. After his last conversation with duty counsel, the accused told the arresting officer that he did not understand duty counsel. Rather than request an interpreter, the arresting officer assumed the accused understood English and took him into the breath room where he was required to blow into the breathalyzer. At trial, the trial judge found that the police had violated the accused’s right to counsel when they failed to obtain the services of an interpreter after he told them he could not understand duty counsel. Despite this finding, the trial judge felt the Charter breach was not serious enough to exclude the breathalyzer evidence under section 24 (2) of the Charter. As a result the accused was convicted of Over 80. The accused appealed the conviction. In the appeal decision Justice Harris of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice took a different view with respect to the seriousness of the Charter breach. In determining whether the trial judge erred in concluding the breach was not serious, Justice Harris stated the following: Boiling down these reasons, I believe one main error is evident. The conclusion that the police believed they had satisfied their obligations after the appellant said he did not understand duty counsel simply endorsed the subjective belief of the police. It failed to consider the critical question of whether, applying the objective perspective, the police acted reasonably. My view of the record is that a finding of police wilful blindness was inescapable. The police were told by the appellant that he had not understood duty counsel and made no efforts to rectify the problem by either offering an interpreter or further exploring the issue with the appellant. Minutes after saying that he did not understand duty counsel, the appellant was whisked into the breath room and was required to give the first breath sample. This was a serious breach. Justice Harris excluded the breath results, allowed the appeal and the Over 80 conviction was set aside and an acquittal entered. “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, Criminal LawJanuary 29, 2018June 16, 2020
Can My Parents Take A Condo From Me That They Purchased Under My Name? Family Lawyer John Schuman was asked the following question: My parents purchased a condo under my name, is there a way for them to legally take the condo back? I live in Ontario, Canada. Due to some conflicts with my parents, they are claiming that by law they can force me to give back the condo to them (or force me to owe them the condo price) since they paid for it, anyone know if this is true? The condo was paid in full and it is under my name only. John’s Answer: The law does not help your parents at all if they have nothing registered against the condominium. At law, it is yours and they have no legal claim. However, Judges in Ontario can also apply the “Principals of Equity.” The Principals of Equity are more fully described in this podcast on Common Law Couples and Property Division. This is not because you and your parents are considered “common law” but because common law have no right in law to each other’s stuff, but they can make claims in equity. Your parents would say that you are the legal owner, but they are the beneficial owner – or the owner in equity. This means that nobody intended that you would be owner of the condo, but instead the intention was that you would hold the condo in “trust” for your parents and they would always be the “real owners” even though title is registered in your name. To succeed, they have to prove that it is more likely than not that this was the case and that they did not intend to give you the condominium as a gift. You will need some evidence that they did intend to make the condo a gift to you. If your parents cannot show that the property is a gift, or there is some ambiguity, they can also try to make a claim for “unjust enrichment.” Essentially there is claim it is unfair that you should profit from getting the condominium because they have suffered a large, unjustifiable, loss. This is explained more in that podcast. To summarize they need to prove to the judge: you received a benefit your parents suffered a loss that corresponds to the benefit (i.e. they are out the money from buying the condo) there is no “juristic” reason (meaning a reason in law), for you to get the benefit and them to suffer a loss. If you have been looking after the condominium, and paying the associated expenses without their help, it is hard for them to succeed because: it shows that they did not intend to be the owners you would suffer a loss and they would receive a benefit if they got the condo back and so they would be “unjustly enriched” – assuming you have paid more for those expense than you would to rent the condo from them. The Principals of Equity are tricky. Little things can have a big effect on those cases (again that is all explained in the podcast). So, it would be best for you to speak about the specifics of your case with a lawyer who knows about these kind of cases. You can get a lot more information about Ontario Family Law issues, including property division, support, and most other common family law issues by downloading this $9.99 e-book for Kindle, Kobo, or iPad/iPhone/Mac or ordering the paperback version. But, to keep out of trouble, it is always best to speak with a top family law lawyer. John Schuman is a Certified Specialist in Family Law. He is the partner managing the Family Law Group at Devry Smith Frank LLP, a full service law firm located near Eglinton and the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto. Learn more about John! Call him at 416-446-5080 or 416-446-5847 or email john.schuman@devrylaw.ca Listen to the Ontario Family Law Podcast! “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, Family LawJanuary 19, 2018June 16, 2020
UPDATE: “Crane Girl” Granted Absolute Discharge If you remember “Crane Girl”, an adventure-seeking woman by the name of Marisa Lazo who scaled a crane in April last year, you may have noticed she is in the news this morning. Back in April, she made her way to the top of a crane which was estimated to be about 12 storeys high and scaled down a cable which allowed her to sit on the hook of the crane. It took police hours to get to her, and at about 8:30a.m. she was put in handcuffs by the police. She was later charged with six counts of public mischief by interfering with property in her first court appearance and released on $500 bail, with a condition that she does not enter construction sites or go on rooftops of buildings. Yesterday, she pleaded guilty to two mischief counts and will pay a victim surcharge. The other charges were withdrawn. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we offer a wide range of legal services and have many experienced lawyers to serve you. If you require our assistance please visit our website for more information, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “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, Criminal LawJanuary 11, 2018June 16, 2020
Personal Growth and Use Limitations The Cannabis Act, once in force, prescribes a number of limitations regarding the personal cultivation and consumption of marijuana in Canada. For example, the Act permits anyone over the age of 18 to consume cannabis and permits each household to grow up to 4 cannabis plants for personal use. However, the legislation also permits each Province to raise the minimum age of consumption or to further restrict how much cannabis can be grown for personal use. Some of the other key questions regarding personal growth and use of marijuana are: Where can you legally purchase materials and seeds to begin cultivating your own plants? Where can you grow your plants on your property? Are there height restrictions for plants? Can you transfer cultivation to another individual? To answer some of these questions, the Government of Canada has provided a Q & A section to their website, addressing FAQs surrounding personal cultivation. For example, if you wish to purchase your own seeds and materials to cultivate your own cannabis plants, you must acquire the proper materials and seeds from a “provincially or territorially regulated retailer or…federally licensed producer.” In addition, if you are unable to cultivate your own plants, you will only be eligible to transfer the cultivation to another person if you “have been authorized by your healthcare practitioner to use cannabis for medical purposes…[and] are unable to cultivate your own cannabis.” In all other cases, you must cultivate your own plants that you wish to grow for personal use. Each province and territory has been working hard over the past year to prepare for the legalization of cannabis, and as of December 2017, they’ve made some progress. Below is a summary of many of the local proposals which have been announced so far: B.C. Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Public and Private Stores (retailers must purchase supply from government regulated wholesale distribution system) Alberta Age of Consumption: 18 Sale and Distribution: Private operators (must only sell cannabis and cannabis-related products). Online sales will be controlled by the province. Saskatchewan Held a public consultation and will introduce legislation after their review. Manitoba Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries will regulate the sale of cannabis (municipal governments are given the option to ban sales by referendum) Personal Cultivation: Prohibited Ontario Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: 150 LCBO-run stores and online sales Personal Cultivation: Up to 4 plants per household Possession: 30 grams for an adult and up to five grams for a youth Consumption: Have banned the consumption of cannabis in public spaces and workplaces – There is a zero tolerance policy for drivers Quebec Age of Consumption: 18 Sale and Distribution: Through provincially run liquor board (opening 15 stores) and controls online sales Personal Cultivation: Prohibited Possession: Prohibited for an adult to possess, in a place other than a public place more than 150 grams Consumption: Must be consumed in the same places as tobacco. Prohibited on university and CEGEP grounds – There will be a zero tolerance for drivers New Brunswick Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Will be sold by a subsidiary of the province’s liquor commission – Will require any cannabis in households to be locked up P.E.I. Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Outlets run by the liquor commission and allow online sales Consumption: Restricted to private residences Nova Scotia Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Alongside alcohol in provincial liquor stores and sold online. Personal Cultivation: Up to 4 personal plants Possession: 30 grams a person – Establishing provincial penalties for youth possession up to 5 grams Newfoundland & Labrador Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Crown-owned liquor corporation will oversee sale and distribution to private retailers Consumption: Restricted to private residences Yukon Age of Consumption: 19 Personal Cultivation: 4 plants per household Sale and Distribution: controlled by the government and done by government outlets Possession: Limited to 30 grams Northwest Territories – Has been holding consultations with communities in person and online. Nunavut – Holding consultations with the public to develop policy and legislative options. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Cannabis LawJanuary 9, 2018July 5, 2023
Tim Hortons Franchises Reduce Employee Benefits The news has been filled with stories about certain Tim Hortons franchises reducing employee benefits and no longer paying employees for their breaks. What these franchises have done is a shock to many, especially so to their employees. Despite this media storm, what these franchises have done is completely legal and complies with the Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (ESA). Within the ESA, employers must provide employees with: A 30-minute unpaid eating period after no more than 5 hours of consecutive work (unless an employment contract requires payment). This break can be split if the employee agrees. This break is not considered working time under the Employment Standards Act. Additional breaks (ex. coffee breaks) are only paid breaks if the employee is required to stay on premises. Employers are not required to provide benefit plans. If they do, they must comply with the rules against discrimination under the ESA. Two of the Tim Hortons franchises mentioned in this CP24 report are owned by the children of the co-founders of the franchise. These owners have provided a letter to employees outlining the following changes, all of which fall in accordance to all current laws and regulations but have still upset many of their employees: Dental and Health Plan Changes/Reductions 6 months to 5 years employed: 25% coverage 5+ years employed: 50% coverage Breaks are no longer compensated (3 hour shifts will be paid for 2 hours and 45 minutes work) These franchise owners claim that they have implemented these changes to offset the costs that they will be subject to with the new wage increase that was effective as of January 1st, and that they will further evaluate these changes once all costs are known and the minimum wage is increased again in 2019. They have said that they “may bring back some or all of the benefits [they] have had to remove.” The franchise owners assert that these changes are necessary to prevent layoffs at the restaurants. Some organizations, researchers, and government officials have been warning that layoffs will be the result of the increases to minimum wage since it is not being phased in over a significant amount of time. With little “assistance and financial help from head office… like not lowering food costs, raising prices and reducing couponing… franchises have been forced to take steps to protect their business” which has affected employment. If franchise owners cannot control the price of their goods they will take steps to curtail their costs in areas they can control such as benefits and wages. It must be noted however, that many economists believe that the changes to the ESA, specifically the minimum wage hike, will be a positive for the economy. They believe that more income for the estimated 8% of Canadians who work for minimum wage means more money to be spent by those employees which in turn will fuel the economy as a whole. How these changes will play out is unknown. For now, employers must ensure that they are compliant with these changes and put themselves in a position to succeed until the repercussions of the ESA amendments are truly understood. “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 LawJanuary 8, 2018June 17, 2020