The Laws Surrounding Formal Wills and Holographic Wills in Ontario Wills are a powerful tool that people can use to ensure that their families and loved ones are cared for after they pass away. The purpose of a Will is to convey the Testator’s wishes regarding the distribution of their properties and assets. Although not mandatory, Wills are often drafted by a lawyer. For a Will to be validly executed, section 4(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. S.26 (“SLRA”) states that a Will must be signed at its end by the Testator (or some other person in the Testator’s presence by the Testator’s direction) in the presence of two or more attesting witnesses who will also subscribe the Will at the same time. More specifically, in order for the Will to be deemed valid in Ontario, the SLRA requires the two witnesses to be present when the Testator signs and dates the Will. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, several provinces have implemented virtual witnessing of legal documents. Effective August 1, 2020, O. Reg. 431/20 was enacted to permit remote commissioning in Ontario. In order for Wills to be witnessed remotely and in counterpart, at least one of the witnesses must be a lawyer licensed by the Law Society of Ontario. “Remote witnessing” means that the signing of Wills can be completed with audio-visual communication technology. “In counterpart” means the witnesses can sign their respective copies of the Will. Furthermore, all the signed copies must be kept together in order to finalize the Will. Wet signatures on paper documents are still required in Ontario. Such Wills are known as a “Formal Will”. A Formal Will is the best way to convey the individual’s wishes and intentions regarding their Estate. Requirements for Formal Wills The Will must be created by an individual of sound mind, and over the age of majority in Ontario (age of 18); The Will must be made by the Testator – no one else can make it on their behalf; The Will must be signed in the “presence” of two valid witnesses; A witness should not be a beneficiary or the spouse or parent of any beneficiary; The witnesses must sign the last page of the Will together with the Testator; The Will must be signed in “wet ink” (a pen, seal, or other identifying mark) and stored as a physical copy. The second kind of Will recognized in Ontario is known as a Holographic Will. According to section 6 of the SLRA, a Testator may make a valid Will wholly by his or her own handwriting and signature, without formality, and without the presence, attestation or signature of a witness. Requirements for Holographic Wills The Holographic Will must wholly be the handwriting of the Testator; The Holographic Will must be signed by the testator at the end of the document; The Holographic Will must contain a “deliberate or fixed and final expression of intention as to the [Testator’s] disposal of property upon death”; Any gifts ‘below’ the signature are NOT be valid; Holographic Wills do not require witnesses; Holographic Wills do not require a date (although this can be very helpful). Changes to Existing Wills A Codicil is a legal document that is used to make minor modifications to an already existing Last Will and Testament. A Codicil has the same signing requirements as a Formal Will. In order to create a Holographic codicil, the entire amending document must be handwritten, with the date and signatory at the end of the document. Codicils are typically used for the purposes of changing the name of an executor, guardian, or beneficiary, or adding or deleting specific bequests. It is generally not recommended to have more than one Codicil to your Will as multiple documents may lead to a misinterpretation of the Testator’s intentions. The Case of Lacroix Estate, 2021 ONSC 2919 The Testator, Rebecca Lacroix, instructed solicitor Margaret Opatovsky to prepare her Will while she was hospitalised with late-stage cancer in 2020. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, Opatovsky was unable to visit Lacroix in the hospital to have the Will properly executed. Consequently, she delivered the typewritten Will to the hospital and advised Lacroix to create a Holographic Will incorporating the draft Will. Accordingly, Lacroix stated in a handwritten note: “I, Rebecca Stephanie Lacroix, declare that this holographic will shall constitute my last will and testament and I hereby incorporate into this my will the attached draft will which I have initialed on each page for identification purposes.” She attached this note to the draft Will and initialed each page. When the Estate Trustee named in the draft Will applied to the Court for a Certificate of Appointment, the Court denied the Application. The Court examined sections 6 and 7 of the SLRA and found that the Holographic Will satisfied the requirements under the Act to be valid. However, the Holograph Will alone was not a valid testamentary document, as it did not independently dispose of any property. Moreover, the Court noted that a Holographic Will cannot incorporate by reference a typewritten document, and the Holographic Will must be wholly in the deceased’s handwriting. Recent Legislative Amendments The Accelerating Access to Justice Act is a large omnibus Bill that amends various Ontario statutes and regulations, including the SLRA. As of January 1, 2022, Schedule 9 amends the SLRA by adding section 21.1 to give the Superior Court of Justice authority to, on application, make an order validating and rendering fully effective a document or writing that was not properly executed or made under the SLRA if the Court is satisfied that the document or writing sets out the testamentary intentions of a deceased, or an intention of a deceased to revoke, alter or revive a Will. Electronic Wills form an exception to this provision. Previously, Ontario adhered to a strict compliance regime such that the Court had no discretion in determining a document as constituting a valid Will if it did not fully comply with the requirements prescribed by the SLRA. Now, under section 21.1, improperly signed Wills are treated with more flexibility such that the Superior Court is authorized, on application, to determine a non-compliant Will valid. It is important to note that one can only make an application under section 21.1 where the date of death of the Testator is on or after the effective date, being January 1, 2022. Conclusion Recent amendments to the SLRA show that the law governing Wills and testamentary documents in Ontario is gradually but steadily evolving. However, Ontario legislators should take a cue from other provinces, such as British Columbia, where digital signing of Wills by Testators is now legal. Courts should also work to clarify the law governing the inclusion of typewritten documents in Holographic Wills. For more information regarding Wills, Trusts, and/or Estates related topics, please contact Kelli Preston at Devry Smith Frank LLP at (416) 446-3344 or kelli.preston@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 situations and needs.” This blog was co-authored by Owais Hashmi* By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Wills and EstatesJanuary 4, 2023July 6, 2023
When can multiple entities be considered a single employer? O’Reilly v. ClearMRI Solutions Ltd., 2021 ONCA 385 (CanLII) Under the common law Doctrine of Common Employer, multiple entities can be considered a single employer under particular circumstances. The O’Reilly case is crucial for clarifying the “common employer” doctrine in Ontario employment law. Specifically, it articulates the need to show intent to create an employer/employee relationship between the employee and the alleged common employer(s). Overview In October of 2014, William O’Reilly commenced a claim for six months’ wages and twelve months vacation pay against his employer(s) via myriad defendants: ClearMRI Solutions Ltd. (“ClearMRI Canada”), ClearMRI Solutions, Inc (“ClearMRI US”), Tornado Medical Systems Inc. (“Tornado”), as well as against individual directors of these corporations.[1] All of the corporations were sued collectively as “common employers.” Tornado was the majority shareholder of ClearMRI Canada which itself had ClearMRI US as its own wholly owned subsidiary.[2] Although William did not have a written employment contract or position with Tornado, he alleged that Tornado—along with the other corporations—were all his common employers.[3] William obtained default judgment against the ClearMRI companies and successfully moved for summary judgment against the other defendants.[4] Tornado appealed.[5] The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed Tornado’s appeal, stating that the motion judge erred in the articulation and application of the common employer doctrine.[6] In doing so, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the motion judge made an extricable error of law in concluding that Tornado was a common employer.[7] The Lower Decision William served as the CEO of ClearMRI Canada.[8] In 2012, William signed an agreement with ClearMRI US confirming the terms of his employment which named ClearMRI US as the employer.[9] William did not hold any formal position with Tornado.[10] Although ClearMRI US was named as William’s employer in the written agreement, the motion judge found that William was also employed by Tornado.[11] The motion judge identified three factors that should be considered in determining whether there was a common employer: the employment agreement itself, where the effective control over the employee resides, and whether there was common control between the different legal entities.[12] Using these factors, the motion judge found that Tornado was a common employer of the plaintiff as Tornado exercised “a sufficient amount of control” over the plaintiff and found that there was common control between Tornado and the different legal entities.[13] Tornado appealed. Ontario Court of Appeal Decision On appeal, the Court of Appeal determined that Tornado was not liable as a common employer. A corporation is not held to be a common employer simply because it is owned, controlled, or was affiliated with another corporation that had a direct employment relationship with the employee.[14] Rather, a corporation will be found to be a common employer only where it can be shown that there was an intention to create an employer/employee relationship between the individual and the related corporation.[15] Where there is a written employment agreement with an entity other than the alleged common employer, the court must assess how such an agreement bears on whether there was an intention to create an employment agreement with the alleged common employer.[16] The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to undertake the required analysis of the effect the written agreement had in determining whether there was intention that Tornado was a party to the employment agreement.[17] Further, the Court of Appeal found that none of the three factors that the motion judge relied on were enough to find that Tornado exercised control over the plaintiff as an employee. [18] Lastly, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to explain why the existence of a corporate relationship between Tornado and the ClearMRI companies provided an intention that Tornado was a party to the employment agreement with the plaintiff.[19] In all, the Court of Appeal found that there was no intention between the plaintiff and Tornado to contract with Tornado as a common employer. In the absence of evidence that would show an intention to have Tornado as a common employer, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment against Tornado.[20] Analysis and Conclusion The Court of Appeal makes it clear that whether an entity is considered a common employer is dependent on the intention of the parties in addition to factors such as the existence of an employment agreement, control over the plaintiff, and existence of a corporate relationship between the entities. The courts will strictly interpret the application of the common employer doctrine to ensure that intercorporate relationships would not be conflated as evidence of a common employer relationship. Employees who provide services for multiple entities should seek legal advice as they may be able to seek recovery from multiple parties. Conversely, employers should be careful of having employees perform services for or take direction from other entities unless the intention is to create a common employer relationship. “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 situations and needs.” This blog was co-authored by student-at-law, Abby Leung [1] 2021 ONCA 385 at para 26. [2] Ibid at para 15. [3] Ibid at para 6. [4] Ibid at para 7. [5] Ibid at para 8. [6] Ibid at para 11. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid at para 19. [9] Ibid at para 20. [10] Ibid at para 19. [11] Ibid at para 35. [12] Ibid at para 31. [13] Ibid at para 35. [14] Ibid at para 50. [15] Ibid. [16] Ibid at para 75 [17] Ibid at para 75. [18] Ibid at para 86. [19] Ibid at para 91. [20] Ibid at para 92. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawDecember 29, 2022August 15, 2023
Non-Canadians Will be Prohibited from Buying Canadian Residential Property in 2023 Proposed in the Federal Budget of 2022, and passed in June of 2022, the Government of Canada has enacted the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act[1] (the “Act”). As is made clear by the title, the Act prohibits the purchase of Canadian residential property by non-Canadians, directly or indirectly. ‘Indirectly’ refers to scenarios where a purchase is attempted through a trust, partnership, or an unincorporated association. Interestingly, the Act overrides section 34 of the Citizenship Act[2], which otherwise explicitly grants this right to non-Canadians. The Act will be enforced for a two-year period beginning January 1, 2023 and does not apply if a non-Canadian becomes liable or assumes liability under an agreement of purchase of sale of residential property before this date.[3] To understand the extent of the application of the Act to potential purchasers, it is important to pay close attention to the Act’s definition of a “non-Canadian”. The definition is as follows: an individual who is not a Canadian citizen, permanent resident of Canada or registered as an Indian under the Indian Act,[4] a corporation that is not incorporated under the laws of Canada or a Canadian province, a private corporation that is incorporated in Canada but that is controlled by a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above. In addition, “purchase” means to acquire or agree conditionally or unconditionally to acquire a legal or equitable interest, or an immovable real right in a residential property. There have been proposals to preclude certain situations under this term, specifically those pertaining to an acquisition resulting from divorce or separation, the rental of a residential dwelling unit, or an acquisition resulting from succession. These proposals are expected to be included in a set of Supporting Regulations (the “Supporting Regulations”) that will be released to provide additional detail regarding the application of the Act. Exemptions As is common to many laws and regulations, the Act provides for certain exemptions. These exemptions include: temporary residents within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act[5] who satisfy prescribed conditions set out in the Supporting Regulations; a refugee; an individual who is a non-Canadian and who purchases residential property in Canada with their spouse or common-law partner if the spouse or common law partner is a Canadian citizen, person registered as an Indian under the Indian Act[6] permanent resident or person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above; or, a person of a prescribed class of persons under supporting regulations.[7] Penalties, Enforcement and Liability Under section 6(1) of the Act, anyone who contravenes or counsels, induces, aides or abets a contravention of the Act, or attempts any of the above, is guilty of a summary conviction of a fine of not more than $10,000. Additionally, if the offence is committed by a corporation, then any officer, director, or agent or other authorized individual that “directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in” the commission of the offence is a party and is held equally liable, regardless of whether the corporation was prosecuted.[8] Note that a contravention of the Act will not void a contract to purchase residential property from an innocent vendor. However, if a non-Canadian is convicted of having contravened the Act, a court may order that the property be sold in a prescribed manner and under prescribed conditions. Subsection 8(2) of the Act indicates that when a court orders the sale of residential property bought by a non-Canadian in contravention of the Act, the non-Canadian cannot receive more than the purchase price paid for the property from the proceeds of sale. Given the implications of the Act, individuals who are involved in the real estate industry, such as real estate agents, mortgage brokers and lawyers, should take extra care to ensure that they confirm the residential status of purchasing clients. Real estate professionals should independently verify their clients’ identity, document their clients’ Canadian status, and have the clients confirm their status in writing. Real estate professionals acting for the vendor in a transaction should also be wary about contravening the Act unintentionally. Even though it may not be the direct responsibility of the selling party to verify the Canadian status of the purchaser, do not be quick to conclude liability may not extend that far. It would be good practice to include certain provisions within an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to shield the selling party from potential liability at the outset of the transaction. If you have additional questions or concerns regarding the Prohibition on the purchase of residential property by Non-Canadians Act, please feel free to contact Jason Lane at Woitzik Polsinelli LLP at 289-220-3241 or jason@durhamlawyers.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 legal advice tailored to your specific situation and needs. [1] SC 2022, c. 10 s. 235 [2] RSC, 1985 c. C-29. [3] Supra note 1, s. 4(5). [emphasis added] [4] RSC 1985 c.I-5. [5] SC 2001 c.27. [6] Supra note 5. [7] Supra note 1, s. 4(2). [8] Ibid, s. 6(2). By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateDecember 20, 2022June 10, 2023
Sticker Shock: Market Adjustment Fees in the Automobile Industry Automotive dealers have a supply and demand issue: they cannot secure enough supply to meet the customer demand. In the wake of supply chain issues, and in the face of these market realities, many dealerships resort to including “market adjustment fees” on top of the final bill charged to the end customer. This market adjustment fee could be added even after the parties have negotiated the price. This sticker shock to the consumer can cause surprise and dismay. Market adjustment fees may be hundreds or even thousands of dollars over the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. These fees are becoming more commonplace in the market of low inventory and inflated prices. However, many consumers wonder if dealerships can include market adjustment fees even after an agreement is reached between the customer and the dealership. The answer will likely depend on if the agreement is a binding contract. Binding Contract or Negotiated Price? A binding contract includes all the terms and conditions in which the dealer and the consumer agree to, including any additional fees. In order for a purchase agreement to be binding, each purchase agreement must contain the following statement next to the purchaser’s signature: Sales Final Please review the entire contract, including all attached statements, before signing. This contract is final and binding once you have signed it unless the motor vehicle dealer has failed to comply with certain legal obligations.[1] If an agreement reached between the dealership and the customer is not a binding contract, a dealership could add market adjustment fees in the final contract. Background: The Law and Ethics The legal framework is articulated by statute and regulations. The Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (“OMVIC”) administers the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 30, Sched B (the “Act”) which sets out the requirements that must be fulfilled by those engaging in the business of buying and selling vehicles. The OMVIC provides that under the Act, if a motor vehicle dealer advertises a price for a new or used vehicle, the price must include all fees and charges the dealer intends to collect with the exception of HST and licensing.[2] Examples of fees that must be included in an advertised price include government levies, pre-delivery inspection or expense fees, administration fees, and OMVIC fees.[3] However, adding additional fees to vehicles that catches a customer’s eye at a dealership is permitted — provided that the fees are clearly indicated in the contract. The legal framework is complemented by a code of ethics for the industry. The OMVIC may not have the authority to stop the practice of adding market adjustment fees, but they may have the prerogative to remind dealerships to abide by the Act’s code of ethics. Section six (6) of the Act enshrines a code of ethics which requires dealerships to act with integrity, respect, and honesty.[4] This is a requirement to maintain registration. OMVIC encourages their dealers and salespeople to meet the high standards enshrined in the legislation. However, none of the OMVIC bulletins issued since the pandemic specifically discourage dealerships from adding market adjustment fees or other unexpected charges in final contracts.[5] In particular, OMVIC did not provide any refutation that adding market adjustment fees are unethical, or that dealerships should not change interest rates or prices after prior negotiations. Little Recourse without a Binding Contract (For Now) Currently, consumers in Ontario have little recourse when a negotiated price is not a binding agreement. Consumers should ensure that all promises, terms, and conditions and a statement providing that the contract is final and binding once signed unless the dealer fails to comply with certain legal obligations are written on the contract. South of the border, the Federal Trade Commission in the United States is proposing new rules which aim to prohibit market adjustment fees and bait-and-switch advertising tactics in an effort to eliminate unwanted charges.[6] If similar rules were adopted in Ontario, it would help protect consumers by making the car-buying process more clear and competitive. It would further allow OMVIC to recover money when consumers are misled or charged without their consent. Until such rules are implemented, customers will need to take the extra step to ensure their price negotiations are binding. “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 situations and needs.” This blog was co-authored by student-at-law, Abby Leung [1] https://www.omvic.on.ca/portal/Consumers/ConsumerProtection/CancellinganAgreement.aspx [2] https://www.omvic.on.ca/portal/Consumers/ConsumerProtection/AllInPricing.aspx [3] Ibid. [4] SO 2002, c. 30 Sched B, s. 6. [5] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/market-adjustment-fee-car-sales-1.6653676 [6] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/ftc-proposes-rule-ban-junk-fees-bait-switch-tactics-plaguing-car-buyers By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Commercial LitigationDecember 16, 2022June 10, 2023
More Homes Built Faster Act,2022 pt.2 Further to our 8 November article on this topic, the More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23) received Royal Assent on to 28 November 2022 and is now largely in force. It is intended to increase housing supply and affordable housing options for Ontarians by getting 1.5 million homes built over the next 10 years. It boldly does so in a number of very significant and controversial ways. The highlights of the approved form of Bill 23 include: Development Charges Act, 1997 Bill 23 creates a number of new exemptions from development charges as follows: the greater of 1 residential unit or 1% of existing residential units in a building containing 4+ residential units; up to 3 residential units in a new detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse; non-profit housing development; and residential affordable housing pursuant to a development approved by way of a zoning by-law (after 28 November 2022); and residential units intended to be affordable or attainable for a period of 25 years or more (on a date to be proclaimed) Under section 5 of that Act the amount of development charges are now reduced on a sliding scale from 80% to 95% from the charges imposed pursuant to a by-law passed on or after January 1, 2022 (unless the DC is payable immediately prior to 28 November 2022). Development charges for rental housing projects are reduced by 25% for premises with three or more bedrooms, 20% for two bedroom units, and 15% for all other residential units. Commencing on 1 January 2023 municipalities are now required to spend and/or allocate each year at least 60% of the monies in reserve funds for water supply services, including distribution and treatment of services, waste water services, and treatment and services related to highways. A development charge by-law now expires every 10 as opposed to every 5 years. The Planning Act The most significant changes to the Planning Act will limit/extinguish the appeal rights of third-parties, including upper tier municipalities now characterised as upper tier municipalities without planning responsibilities (the GTA Regions of Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo, York and Simcoe) and conservation authorities (date to be implemented TBD). For minor variances and consents the Act will restrict a right of appeal to applicants, public bodies and “specified persons” (public utilities, operators of railway lines, and telecommunications providers). This will increase the significance of local Committees of Adjustment as they may now be the only opportunity to oppose a project. Importantly this provision has retroactive effect and will nullify appeals where a hearing on the merits has not been scheduled before October 25, 2022. Upper Tier municipalities without planning responsibilities will cease to become approval authorities for local planning instruments. Bill 23 contains other consequential changes including: deleting the prohibition on making requests for official plan and zoning by-law amendments for the 2 year period following their coming into effect; allowing the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to make amendments to official plans where the Minister is off the opinion that a plan will adversely affect a matter of provincial interest; allowing up to three residential units in a house to be permitted “as of right” (including placing restrictions on parking requirements); reducing the section 37 community benefit further by making the prescribed percentage of value (4%) subject to a ratio recognizing the existing floor area. This ratio will be further reduced where the formula takes into account affordable/attainable units (date to be implemented TBD); exempting from site plan control (section 41): A. residential development of up to 10 units and a land lease community home from site plan control; and B. exterior design as an element to be considered in site plan drawings. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on urban design guidelines; revising section 42, parkland dedication, requirements by: A. with respect to the dedication of land/cash-in-lieu of 5% (residential rate): decreasing that requirement by the percentage of affordable/attainable units (on a date to be proclaimed); and exempting up to 3 residential units and non-profit housing; B. with respect to the alternate rate (unless a building permit has been issued): changing the rate from 300 units/ha to 600 units/ha; restricting the calculation further to: if 5 ha or less of land, 10% of the land or the value of the land; if more than 5 ha 15% of the land or land value; excluding from the calculation: the number of existing units; and affordable/attainable units from the calculation of net residential units (date to be implemented TBD); C. permitting land owners to propose the conveyance of portions of their land, including encumbered lands, for parkland purposes as opposed to having to rely on the determination of the local municipality (date to be implemented TBD); and D. requiring municipalities to allocate at least 60% of monies collected for parkland purposes at the beginning of each year (1 January 2023). amending section 51 by removing the requirement for a public meeting on subdivision applications. Conservation Authorities Act The Conservation Authorities Act is amended to greatly reduce the ability of Conservation Authorities to regulate development activity by removing their ability to comment on development applications and to require permits for projects approved under the Planning Act. Moreover the Minister will have greater powers to make exceptions for development applications. (date to be implemented TBD). “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 situations and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateDecember 9, 2022May 16, 2023
If I Don’t Have Money, Will I Lose in Family Court? Often when spouses separate, one spouse leaves with much greater access to money than the other. Then that spouse wants to hold on to his or her money after separation, so doesn’t want to be cooperative, knowing that his or her ex does not have the money to go very far in Family Court, and so will just have to take what is offered and give up what he or she is entitled to receive. There are a lot of good reasons to avoid going to Family Court. The cost of going through the process is a big one. Family Court costs exponentially more than mediation, arbitration or collaborative practice. But, where one spouse has all the money, he or she may not see any reason to choose a less expensive alternative when his or her ex cannot afford to go to court. Going to Family Court to enforce your rights usually means hiring a lawyer (you have to live in poverty to get Legal Aid, and Legal Aid only covers limited legal issues) and if one spouse cannot afford that, then that spouse may not even be able to make it in front of a judge to get what is fair. Although, often all it takes is getting in front of a judge who is concerned that only one spouse has money for the other spouse to want to negotiate, go to mediation or otherwise stay out of court. When one spouse has found the money to start court proceedings, his or her ex may worry that there is the money to continue them. Starting court proceedings involves a lot of steps, which can make it expensive. So, an uncooperative spouse may choose to be cooperative to avoid spending more on a court case that he or she may lose, and uncooperative spouses may find that they lose a lot. Fortunately, there are some options for people with limited funds to get the legal help they need to go to court: Ask for money from friends and family. This is the most common way people get money for their divorce or to go to Family Court. Often, this money will be a gift, or if it is a loan, then the repayment terms are very favourable. Hire a lawyer on a limited scope retainer. There is a lot more information at the link, but essentially this means hiring a lawyer to give advice only or do one specific task, rather than dealing with every part of the file. The spouse with limited funds then can chose what he or she is going to have the lawyer do and keep control over how much it will cost. Ask a judge for an advance on monies owed. In many cases, particularly when it comes to property division in a divorce, it will be evident right from the beginning that one spouse will owe the other some money in the end. Where the spouse who needs money is the spouse who will be receiving the money, then it is possible to ask for the spouse with the money to pay at least some of it immediately. If the spouse with the money won’t agree to do this, Judges can order the payment on a motion where it is clear that one spouse will owe money. However, this is a motion for “partial summary judgment”, which makes it a little technical, so it is best to speak to a lawyer. Ask a judge for “interim costs and disbursements.” Rule 24(18) of the Family Law Rules says that a judge can order that a party to a Family Court case pay an amount to another party to cover some or all of the expenses for carrying on the case. Judges may do this where it is necessary to “level the playing field” or where one party’s behaviour is so unreasonable it is clear that party will end up paying costs in the end anyway. Get a “Divorce Loan” or a Litigation Loan. These can be expensive loans, but they may be worth it to a spouse who needs to go to court to get anything from their ex. Also, it is often possible to get support orders, especially child support orders, early on in the case. These are for temporary support and are meant to last until there is a trial or settlement. They may not get the support amount exactly right, but they can provide some necessary cash flow to help with Family Court. With the court making automatic orders for disclosure right at the start of the case, the parties are required to provide at least basic financial disclosure within 30 days of the start of the court proceeding. That allows for at least an estimate of what support will be payable. Only unreasonable Family Court litigants will not settle some or all of the support issues. Judges may punish a party for being unreasonable by having that party pay the legal fees for the other party. All of the above options that require a court order can be a little tricky and technical. It is best to at least book a consult with a respected family law lawyer to understand what option is best for you and how to pursue it. Still, there is no denying that court is very expensive. It is the only dispute resolution process that one separated spouse can force the other into. For that reason, and others, some judges struggled between allowing each party the full opportunity to present his or her case the way he or she sees fit, and dealing with matters quickly and potentially leaving the impression that the court was not listening or did not care. Parties with more money can ask for more opportunities to pursue more steps, bring more motions, present more arguments, and generally litigate more aggressively than parties who are trying to do their case on a tight budget. In addition, where judges believe a settlement may be possible, there may be repeated settlement conferences, which one party can use to financially exhaust the other – looking ready to settle but just really trying to multiply the number of court appearances. Many Family Court cases are wars of economic attrition. The party that can stay in the fight the longest can take advantage of the other party’s need to “get out” to leverage a favourable settlement. Or, the party with money can force on a trial, which will be extremely expensive, knowing the other party cannot afford to have a lawyer assist and so the party with less money either has to settle for a reduced amount, or face the prospect of losing at trial because he or she does not know how to conduct a trial, or the laws and rules that apply. Of course, none of this matters when spouses want to work toward a fair arrangement after separation. But parties who want that should not be in Family Court in the first place. When things are nasty enough to go to court, each spouse really should speak to a lawyer about the financial situation on both sides and what that means for what strategy will work best for that spouse. “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 situations and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawDecember 7, 2022August 28, 2023
The Doctrine of Knowing Receipt: How a Third Party can be Liable for Receiving Proceeds of Fraud Picture this: you are a victim of fraud. Understandably, you want to find out who ultimately received the money, and get it back from them! You trace the funds to their ultimate recipients, who claim they’re innocent. They say they did not know that the funds were misappropriated as a result of a breach of trust; and they say they were a stranger to the fiduciary relationship that resulted in the breach. Now what? When a third party receives proceeds of fraud or trust property for their own benefit, and are enriched at the expense of a beneficiary, victims can sue to recover the property in the possession of the third party under the law of “knowing receipt”. Under the doctrine of knowing receipt, a recipient of defrauded funds may be liable to return them where he or she receives the funds for their own benefit, and has actual or constructive knowledge of facts which would put a reasonable person on inquiry, but fails to inquire into the possible source of the funds.[1] Liability for knowing receipt of defrauded funds and property is “restitution-based,” which is concerned with correcting the unjust enrichment of one party to the detriment of another.[2] In order to establish liability under the doctrine of knowing receipt, the victim must satisfy the court of two things: a receipt requirement and a knowledge requirement. Receipt Requirement To satisfy the receipt requirement, the third party must have received and become charged with some portion of the trust property. In other words, they must have received the property in his or her own right, and must have received the property beneficially, thus becoming enriched at the plaintiff’s expense.[3] As such, merely receiving or possessing the funds or trust property without enjoying its benefits is not sufficient to satisfy the receipt requirement. Similarly, a third party holding misappropriated funds for another party as an agent does not provide for a cause of action in knowing receipt.[4] Knowledge Requirement In addition to the receipt requirement, one must prove that the third party had a certain degree of knowledge about the breach of trust to justify liability.[5] Historically, the jurisprudence has been inconsistent on whether a third party needs to have actual or constructive knowledge about the possible breach of trust. Case law such as Gold v. Rosenberg, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 767 have indicated that requiring constructive knowledge is best suited for the restitutionary basis of a claim in knowing receipt.[6] Constructive knowledge is understood to mean “knowledge of facts sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice or inquiry,”[7] and liability arises “where the recipient fails to make proper inquiry in circumstances where an honest and reasonable person would realize that the funds transferred were from a suspicious or improper source.”[8] Constructive knowledge is a lower threshold, and is easier to prove from an evidentiary perspective.[9] Some courts have ruled that even if the property was received innocently and without knowledge, the recipient must return any property that they still hold after they learn of the fraud.[10] Other cases have suggested that an innocent party who subsequently learns of a fraud will be required to return its proceeds only where no juristic reason exists for them to retain the funds.[11] Taken together, where no juristic reason exists for an innocent party to retain proceeds of fraud, that party will be required to return the funds regardless of the timing of their knowledge of the fraud. However, where there is a juristic reason for enrichment (e.g. the return of investment or repayment of a loan), an innocent party may not be required to return the funds to a defrauded party notwithstanding the existence of a fraud, unless they had a duty to inquire about the bona fides of the payment. Conclusion The doctrine of knowing receipt can be a powerful tool in the context of complex fraud and offers a way to hold third parties liable for receiving funds following a breach of trust. If you have any questions about knowing receipt or commercial litigation in general, please contact Graeme Oddy at 416-446-5810 or Graeme.oddy@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 situations and needs.” This blog was co-authored by student-at-law, Abby Leung [1] Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Lloyds Bank Canada, [1997] 3 SCR 805 at para 23. [2] Ibid at para 49. [3] Gold v. Rosenberg, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 767 at para 40. [4] Air Canada v. M&L Travel Ltd., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 787 [Air Canada]. [5] Gold, supra note 3 at para 42. [6] Ibid, at para 45. [7] Citadel, supra note 1 at paras 48-49. [8] Holmes v. Amlez International Inc., 2009 CarswellOnt 6595 at para 7 [Holmes]. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid at para 12. [11] Sarhan v. Chojnacki, 2012 ONSC 747 at para 28. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Commercial LitigationNovember 30, 2022June 10, 2023
More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 The Ontario provincial government has introduced new legislation in the form of the More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23) to support Ontario’s newest Housing Supply Action Plan. Bill 23 is intended to provide the groundwork to increase the housing supply and affordable housing options for Ontarians by getting 1.5 million homes built over the next 10 years. It boldly does so in a number of very significant and controversial ways. The highlights the Bill 23 include: The Planning Act The most significant changes to the Planning Act will limit/extinguish the appeal rights of third parties, including upper-tier municipalities which are not approval authorities for official plan amendments. Whereas at present persons or public bodies who participate in the planning approvals process enjoy a right of appeal with respect to a zoning by-law, official plan, consents, and minor variances Bill 23 would restrict such rights of appeals to public bodies and “specified persons” (public utilities, operators of railway lines, and telecommunications providers). This change, clearly aimed at preventing NIMBY appeals, will be huge for neighbours and residents’ associations. It will be interesting to see if this will lead to increasing pressure on municipalities to participate in appeals of development applications which face neighbourhood opposition. This could have a significant impact on the caseloads of the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) and the Toronto Local Appeal Body. It should also increase the significance of local Committees of Adjustment as they may now be the only opportunity to oppose a project. Importantly this provision has retroactive effect and will nullify appeals where a hearing on the merits has not been scheduled before October 25, 2022. Bill 23 contains other consequential changes including: exempting pits and quarries from the two-year moratorium on applications to amend official plans or zoning by-laws. This is a huge, hard-fought, win for the industry; allowing the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to make amendments to official plans where the Minister is of the opinion that a plan will adversely affect a matter of provincial interest; allowing up to three residential units in a house to be permitted “as of right”; revising the formula (recently introduced by this same government) for determining the amount of a community benefit charge (formerly known as a section 37 benefit) that may be imposed by a municipality on new developments. Municipalities will now have to revise their recently passed section 37 by-laws to incorporate this cap on benefits chargeable to developers; making changes to the provisions of section 41 to exempt residential development of up to 10 units and a land lease community home from site plan control. Exterior design is also removed as an element of site plan drawings. Given the degree to which some smaller municipalities rely on site plan control as a way of regulating specific development this could represent a significant change; revising parkland dedication requirements by removing that requirement for non-profit housing and the development of up to three residential units in a house. Moreover the timing of the calculation and the calculation of the maximum rate (alternative rate/hectare and the cash-in-lieu) will be changed in ways that lessen the ask from municipalities. Bill 23 will also permit owners to propose portions of their land, including encumbered lands, for parkland conveyance as opposed to having to rely on the determination of the local municipality. It will also force municipalities to spend at least 60% of monies collected for parkland purposes at the beginning of each year; and amending section 51 by removing the requirement for a public meeting on subdivision applications. Conservation Authorities Act Bill 23 proposes to amend the Conservation Authorities Act to greatly reduce the ability of Conservation Authorities to regulate development activity by removing their ability to comment on development applications and to require permits for projects approved under the Planning Act. Moreover, the Minister will have greater powers to make exceptions for development applications. Development Charges Act, 1997 Bill 23 proposes to make various amendments to the Development Charges Act, 1997. New sections are added to fully exempt affordable residential units, non-profit housing developments, and inclusionary zoning residential units from development charges. The Development Charges Act would also be amended to require a reduction in the maximum development charge that could otherwise be charged for the first four years a development charge by-law is in force. These reductions would be applicable to development charges imposed pursuant to development charge by-laws passed on or after June 1, 2022. Under Bill 23, rental housing development charges would be reduced for residential units intended for use as rented residential premises by 25% for premises with three or more bedrooms, 20% for two-bedroom units, and 15% for all other residential units. The Development Charges Act would also be amended to require municipalities to spend and/or allocate at least 60% of the monies in reserve funds for water supply services, including distribution and treatment of services, wastewater services, and treatment and services related to highways. City of Toronto Act, 2006 Under Bill 23, the City of Toronto Act, 2006 would be amended to give the Minister the power to make regulations that impose limits and conditions of the municipality’s power to prohibit and regulate the demolition and conversion of residential rental properties under Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act. Ironically the City has always relied on this cherished ability to protect tenants and rental, particularly affordable rental, units. Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 Traditionally, in the interests of encouraging public participation in the planning process, the OLT has not awarded costs to unsuccessful parties except where the conduct of such parties has been patently unreasonable and/or vexatious. This could change as Bill 23 will amend the Act to specify that the OLT may order an unsuccessful party to pay the costs of a successful party. Depending on how the OLT decides to implement this, and given how expensive hearings can be, opponents of development projects may be very wary of appealing those projects. Additional proposed changes to the Ontario Land Tribunal would include clarifying the Tribunal’s powers to dismiss appeals due to unreasonable delay and failure to comply with a Tribunal order and prioritizing certain classes of proceedings. Changes to Consumer Protection and Land Speculation If passed, Bill 23 would further strengthen consumer protections for new home buyers by doubling maximum fines for unethical builders and vendors of new homes who unfairly cancel projects or terminate purchase agreements under the New Home Construction Licensing Act. These fines would increase from the existing $25,000 fine to $50,000 with no limit for additional financial penalties. These changes would also assist the Home Construction Regulatory Authority to use funds from these penalties to provide funds back to affected consumers which would make Ontario the first jurisdiction in Canada to provide these funds to consumers. Further changes to Ontario’s New Home Construction Licensing Act would also involve cracking down on land speculation as home builders are taking extended periods of time to complete their planning applications which delays home creation. Bill 23 would allow Ontario to work with industry partners to consult on the issue of land speculation and to determine whether regulatory changes under the New Home Construction Licensing Act are needed to address the issue. Ontario Heritage Act Bill 23 will significantly change the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act by, among other things: requiring that “listed” properties meet prescribed criteria for determining whether a property is of cultural heritage value. Such criteria already exists with respect to the designation of heritage properties pursuant to Ontario Regulation 9/06 and new or different criteria may be developed by way of further regulation; imposing time limits on how long a property can be listed. Municipalities will now have to initiate the designation process for listed properties within 2 years of the listing. Otherwise a property will be delisted and cannot be listed again for a period of 5 years. The process of designation can be an expensive one for municipalities given the requirements for notice and the possibility of appeals; restricting the ability of municipalities to designate a property in response to a development application. If the property is not already listed it cannot be designated in this circumstance; and adding additional requirements for the establishment of heritage conservation districts. Those criteria will also be established by regulation. As noted above, Bill 23 has the potential to greatly change the landscape of development approvals. To better understand the changes and the transition provisions around this subject please contact one of the following municipal and development lawyers today! Marc Kemerer–marc.kemerer@devrylaw.ca, 416-446-3329 Adam V. Grossi–adam.grossi@devrylaw.ca, 416-446-5094 David S. White–david.white@devrylaw.ca, 249-888-6633 Christopher W. Statham–christopher.statham@devrylaw.ca, 416-446-5839 Larry W. Keown-larry.keown@devrylaw.ca, 416-446-5815 Louis A. Gasbarre–louis.gasbarre@devrylaw.ca, 416-446-3318 By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Construction LawNovember 8, 2022June 25, 2023
Student Rights During a Teacher Strike At the time of this article, Ontario’s education workers are on strike and Ontario’s public schools are closed to students. It is important to note that teachers (licensed teachers) are not on strike and are not doing anything to close the schools. Ontario’s school board’s have decided that they cannot allow students into the physical school buildings without the education workers present. This is because education workers perform many essential tasks in schools. Some are custodians, who keep the buildings clean, heated and maintained. Others are educational assistants and child and youth workers who provide critical assistance to students with special needs that allow those students to attend schools. The presence of early childhood educators (ECEs) was factored into the determination of how large kindergarten classes can be, so the size of some classes is too large for a teacher alone to manage safely. Other workers provided supervision of students, prevent bullying, or tend to other tasks that are necessary for schools to operate. With these (non-teacher) education workers providing services that are so critical to the functioning of the education system that the Ontario Government is trying to use the Notwithstanding Clause to take away their collective bargaining rights, people are asking about what about children’s right to an education in Ontario? Is there a right to an education in Ontario? Children in Ontario do not have an absolute right to an education, or to any particular standard of education. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not give an explicit right to education. Neither does the Ontario Human Rights Code. Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child creates a right to a primary education, but does not specify what exactly that means or how it will be delivered. Canada ratified that convention, but the Canadian Constitution gives power over education to the provinces. The Ontario Government could make education a right, but has chosen not to do so. This is because there are a lot of differences of opinions of what a child’s education should look like. Why hasn’t the Government of Ontario done more to make education a right? There is no universal agreement over what a right to an education would look like, which means creating such a right would be difficult or impossible because of the controversy it would create. Some people want their kids to go to religious schools, other want their children to go to schools that teach particularly values or emphasize particular subjects, other parents want to homeschool their children, others want schools that are free to teach kids as they see fit without government interference. Consequently there are no absolute standards for an education or an absolute requirement to follow a particular curriculum. As illustrated by how private schools work in Ontario, there is no minimum standard for a school education in Ontario. It is only or students to get an Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD), which is coveted around the world, that their school does need to meet some curriculum and evaluation requirements. But there are private high schools that do not grant OSSDs. Over the pandemic, and with the introduction of online high school courses, the Ontario Government has been clear that it going to school does not necessarily require going into a school building. Are Child Legally Required to Go to School? While there is no right to an education, section 21 of the Education Act creates a legal requirement that children over the age of six attend school full-time or be registered for home schooling by parents who agree to take on the task of providing an education (although no particular education) themselves. Education is more of a responsibility for students than a right. However, there is a lot of flexibility as to how students can receive their education – they can get it in a school, on-line, or at home. Students Do Have Rights in School – That Is Part of the Current Problem There are some rights for students in the public education system. When any school or school board agrees to provide education to students, it is legally required to give every student, to the extent possible, equal access to the curriculum and the other services provided by the school. It must not discriminate and give some students preferential access or educational opportunities over other students. In other words, schools cannot discriminate when providing an education to students. Each student has an absolute right to have the same access to school services as other students. That means that schools cannot decide to stop providing special education services due to a labour disruption. They cannot say that accommodations for students with disabilities will be withdrawn until the unions and the government reach an agreement. If you look carefully at the labour actions that teachers took during their work-to-rule, they were not taking away services that are necessary for students with special needs to succeed in school. The labour actions have the same negative impact on all students, those with special needs and those without. Students continue to be given equal access to public education services in Ontario. Since so many education workers provide the essential services that students with special needs require just to go to school, they cannot do much short of striking to apply pressure during contract negotiations. If they were to withdraw or reduce services, they would disproportionately affect students with disabilities, or who otherwise have special needs, and that would be discriminatory and a violation of the children’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Ontario’s Human Rights Code. It may be that as a result of changes in the Ontario Government’s policy, or funding priorities, there are fewer, or poorer, special education services available to students with special needs – be they a disability, or economic disadvantage, or being from a member of a group that has been historically disadvantaged or unfairly treated. If these students with special needs are not allowed the same ability to attend school and receive the education that they need to fulfill their potential, then they will be discriminated against. There will be human rights cases against schools, school boards and the Ontario Government to ensure those disadvantaged children are as able to access the Ontario Curriculum and other aspects of the education system as every other child. The labour disruptions should not affect anti-bullying programs either. This is because bullying puts students at a disadvantage in the education system. It can impair the victim’s ability to learn. It can threaten their security while they are at a place that the government requires them to be. Bullying can truly be discrimination that gets in the way of an education. Bullying also impairs a child’s development. The Ontario College of Teachers requires its members to promote the healthy development of students. That is why during their labour talks, teachers did not take actions that promote, encourage or allow bullying to grow within schools. Education workers are not government by the Ontario College of Teachers, but they still should not promote bullying as part of a labour action. Whenever educators do not do enough to combat bullying, there’s a good chance that will result in a violation the human rights of students in their schools. What Could the Strike Mean for Students and Their Education? Ontario Public Schools do have some stringent standards that they have to meet, which has made Ontario’s public schools amongst the best in the world. Only the Scandinavian Countries consistently perform better. Those standards are the result of the strict regulation, guidance, required educational practices, research, and resources that the Ontario Government puts into the public education system. On behalf of the people of Ontario, the Ontario Government creates the standards that Ontario students have come to expect from the public education. In fact, it is those standards that the education workers’ union (and the teacher’s union before them) are saying they are fighting to protect. The people of Ontario have expectations for the quality of education found in public schools and, presumably, if any Government does not meet those expectation, it will be voted out. These government education standards may mean that some remedial steps must be taken to make sure that students have been given the necessary education, particularly for high school. So, there may be a need to add school days into the summer to so that students attend for the expected number of hours to get their high school credits. Mandatory, EQAO testing, may be rescheduled until after the labour disruption concludes. Extracurricular programs may be replaced by additional instruction on core subjects to make sure students cover the required material. Public schools may have to put other measures in place to make sure the education delivered to public school students meets the required standards. Conclusion The constitution and human rights law in Ontario do not give students a right to an education, but it does set requirements for how education is provided to Ontario Students. If your child is being denied the same opportunity to succeed in school that every other student has, then it is time to speak to an Education Lawyer about how to protect your child and make sure he or she gets the education every Ontarian deserves. If you need help with that, email us, or call 416-446-5847 to set up an appointment. For more information about Ontario Education Law, and other education law issues, such as assistance for students with special needs and discipline such as academic sanctions, suspensions and expulsions, check out the Education Law section of this website. “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 situations and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Education LawNovember 4, 2022July 7, 2023
Divorce and Support Payments: Living in Canada But Married, or Even Divorced Elsewhere? Just because you were married elsewhere, or maybe even have a divorce from a foreign country, does not necessarily mean that our Courts in Canada will not hear your matter. Take for example, a recent case in 2017, where the Court of Appeal[1] handled a case where a Canadian citizen (husband) was married to a person who resided in China (wife). The wife had never come to Canada; however, the couple did have one child born to the marriage when the husband lived in China briefly. The wife sought a divorce in Ontario including spousal support, child support and custody of the child pursuant to the Divorce Act. She further requested equalization of the net family property pursuant to the Family Law Act. In response, the husband filed for divorce in China, seeking a divorce, custody and equalization or property. In response, the wife brought a motion in an Ontario court requesting temporary child support which was granted. The husband then requested that his application should be heard in China. The Ontario court agreed and allowed the application to move forward in China. The underlying reasons were that the application involved custody, access and support; therefore, the hearing should be pursued in the jurisdiction of the matrimonial proceeding. Custody and a divorce were granted by the court in China to the wife. However, the issue of support and equalization were left to be brought forward in the Ontario courts as the husband did not disclose his proper financial information and all his financial holdings were in Ontario/Canada. The Court of Appeal of Ontario was required to determine two questions: Does an Ontario court have jurisdiction to hear and determine a corollary relief proceeding under the Divorce Act following a valid divorce in a foreign jurisdiction? Does an Ontario court have jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to determine the issue of child support after a foreign court has issued a divorce? The Court of Appeal held that Ontario Superior Court has jurisdiction to determine the issues of child support and equalization of net family property pursuant to the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (the “FLA”). However, there is no jurisdiction under that legislation, or otherwise, for the Superior Court to order spousal support. From this case comes an important question – Will a foreign divorce be recognized in Canada? The Canadian courts have stated that divorces obtained in other countries will be held valid if the laws of the parties’ domicile (at the time of their divorce) would have recognized a foreign divorce.[2] In Canada, s. 22 of the Divorce Act states that a divorce granted by a foreign jurisdiction will be recognized in Canada if either former spouse was ordinarily resident in that foreign jurisdiction for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings for the divorce. In looking for a divorce, that is also a requirement. At least one of the parties has to be considered a “resident”. For more information on what that may look like, contact our Family Law Department at Devry Smith Frank LLP. What about remarriage? Part of the process for authorization to remarry in Canada involves obtaining a legal opinion from a lawyer. The lawyer must give reasons why the divorce should be recognized in Ontario. If you need help with a foreign divorce being recognized in Ontario, it is worthwhile to discuss your case with a family lawyer in our office. If you have more questions related to Family Law, please visit our website or contact Katelyn Bell at Devry Smith Frank LLP to discuss any questions regarding your specific family law situation and your options. She can be reached at 416-446-5837 or Katelyn.bell@devrylaw.ca. This blog was co-authored by Law Student, Kathleen Judd. “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 situations `and needs.” [1] Cheng v. Liu, 2017 ONCA 104 [2] Zhang v. Lin, [2010] A.J. No. 755, 2010 ABQB 420, 500 A.R. 357, at para. 53 By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawNovember 3, 2022June 10, 2023