Monkey Sues Human Over ‘Selfies’ Taken In 2011 By: Nicolas Di Nardo It’s 2017 and apparently, every year that goes by brings something new that we never thought we’d ever see possible. Now, animals seem to be able to sue humans over anything they please. Back in 2011, a British photographer by the name of David Slater gave a crested black macaque his camera, who ended up taking two ‘selfies’. This occurred after Slater spent many long periods of time with the monkey, teaching it to become interested in his equipment. Unfortunately at the time, Slater probably didn’t think he’d be on the receiving end of a lawsuit from the monkey. The monkey and photographs in question were taken in 2011 as part of his project to raise awareness about the species, which is endangered. His intentions were always good, Slater says, he has been a conservation photographer for a very long time. These photos went viral, and quickly ruined Slater’s life. He was no longer able to sell them to raise money for the conservation project, and couldn’t pay himself. The photos became to accessible to the public, so purchasing the photos from him were now out of the question. Wikipedia also created a page dedicated to the photographs, which made them even easier to find. Before all of this, he was making and raising money for the project, which he estimates he made roughly £2,000 in the first year, but after the photographs went on Wikipedia, he estimates that he lost at least £10,000, due to the lack of interest to purchase the photos from him. Now jumping to 2012, Slater was involved in the first legal dispute of many over the photos. In this dispute, Slater requested that Wikimedia Commons pay for his work or remove them, because they had uploaded them to the web as royalty free images. Wiki refused to do so, and claimed that Slater owned no copyright because the monkey was the one who pressed the shutter button, taking the photos himself. In 2014, Slater mentioned in an interview that he lost a huge amount of revenue as a result of this dispute. Wikipedia was Slater’s first hurdle, which he failed to overcome. Now, fast-forwarding to 2015, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) decided to get a piece of the action. PETA is an animal rights organization which consists of 6.5 million members and supporters. Their motto is “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse in any other way.” PETA challenged Slater by claiming that the proceeds from the photographs should go to the monkey, but shortly after in 2016, the court disagreed. The court ruled that copyright protection could not be applied to the animal. Coming to that type of verdict meant that there was still legally no copyright licence on the photos, and that they remain in the public domain. Feeling the pain of defeat, PETA fought back. This time, they took to the Copyright Act (U.S.). Last year they decided to fight the ruling in court, naming the monkey as the author of the works “in ever practical (and definitional) sense.” PETA appealed to the ninth circuit court of appeals, which heard the arguments last week. Using the Copyright Act, PETA stated in the appeal papers, that: “Had the monkey selfies been made by a human using Slater’s unattended camera, that human would undisputedly be declared the author and copyright owner of the photographs… Nothing in the Copyright Act limits its application to human authors… protection under the Copyright Act does not depend on the humanity of the author, but on the originality of the work itself.” The court must now decide: Whether PETA has a close enough relationship with Naruto to represent him What the value would be to provide a community of macaques with written notices of copyright Whether Naruto is actually losing out by not being the formal copyright holder One question has been brought up during the development of this case: Has PETA identified the correct monkey? Slater claims that the one in the photo is female and is not the same age as the one PETA is representing. The monkey PETA is representing is a six year old macaque. Slater believes strongly that it does matter that the right monkey is suing him, and PETA seems to not have the correct one, according to Slater. He’s been suffering after the constant battles in court. He couldn’t even attend the latest court date because he couldn’t afford a plane ticket to the U.S. In addition, he still owes his lawyers, has no real income, can’t afford new camera equipment, and as a result may quit photography all together. He would be happy being a dog walker or a tennis coach. It is shocking how a monkey has the capability in today’s world to ruin a career and put them on the verge of bankruptcy. Slater’s photos have always been for the right reasons, his intentions were good, he supports the raising of awareness for endangered species, but it seems an organization that should be on his side has overlooked Slater’s intention through the distribution and sale of these photographs, and might be taking this a little too far. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we have experienced lawyers in all areas of law. If you are looking for a lawyer or have general questions, please feel free to contact one of our lawyers today, 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, Intellectual PropertyJuly 21, 2017June 22, 2020
Canada’s Immigration Detainees: Locked Up By Dodgy Risk Assessments By: Nicolas Di Nardo A recent blog post highlighted an immigration detainee that went to court to fight for his release after being locked up for 4 years while awaiting deportation. For more information on that story, please click here to read our blog. Now, a Star investigation further into this matter reveals that detainees are being locked up based on dodgy risk assessments. Immigration detainees are essentially defined as individuals that are non-citizens, whom the government believes will not show up for their deportation. They wear jumpsuits, orange in colour, and can be subjected to routine strip searches. Kept in maximum-security provincial jails, they spend 18 to 24 hours a day in their cells, even if they are no criminal record. These individuals are also detained indefinitely. Unfortunately, there is no legislation governing where the detainees must be placed, so their fate is held by the border services officers once someone has been ordered to be detained by the quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board. In our previous article, The Star profiles a detainee, Ebrahim Toure, who is the longest held detainee currently imprisoned. The reason for his detention in a maximum-security centre is that the government fears he is not going to show up for his deportation, even though he has cooperated with the government, providing them with all of his information, documentation, and has even stated he wishes to be deported. Now, with new developments in The Star’s investigations revealing that the risk assessments done on these detainees are quite dodgy, especially considering someone like Toure is in detention with no criminal record in Canada, can be quite worrisome. Many of Canada’s Border Police lack the expertise to assess risk posed by immigration detainees, as revealed by documents obtained by The Star which were filed in federal court. With such a crucial downfall for the Border Police being exposed to the public, it makes you wonder how many detainees have been wrongfully placed in detention due to unqualified officers’ assessments. Considering detainees can be held indefinitely even though they pose no threat to our society, or may have been cooperative with the government the entire time, something needs to be done. Lawyer Jared Will has been fighting for detainees in the past, and is currently assisting Toure fight for his release and represented Alvin Brown for his deportation. With the current spotlight of The Star’s investigation on the risk assessment for Kyon Ferril’s detention from 2015, a risk assessment was provided to the court filled out by one Canada Border Services Agency officer. The officer wrote, “I am not a medical or mental health professional… I have not received any training on the completion of this form. This assessment is cursory in nature and should not be construed as an accurate representation of the subject’s risk of mental health status.” This not only raises concern about the qualifications of our border officers, but also may cause people to question the legitimacy of theses assessments – especially if almost every form was filled out as such, and still led to these individuals in question to be detained. How many people are detained that don’t pose a threat to society? How many don’t have a criminal record but are detained? How many of them really won’t show up for their deportation? It might be hard to find a legitimate answer to those questions once you factor in the possibility that many of these assessments may be inadequately completed, or false. Unfortunately, the above statement that was on the form for one detainee, Kyon Ferril, caused him to continue serving his indefinite detention in a maximum-security jail, rather than being sent to a less-restrictive facility. The government has three medium-security facilities which are mainly used for immigration detention, however, once an assessment is done and the detainee is deemed “high risk” they are immediately sent to a maximum-security provincial jail. The assessments in question are known as the National Risk Assessment for Detention (NRAD). This form is used when someone is first incarcerated and once complete, will provide their classification (high, medium, low) which then determines how they are to be dealt with. Per the policy, this form should be reassessed every 60 days. As a result of the NRAD, a majority of the detainees end up in jails alongside the criminal population, when many should be in the medium or low-security jails. Most of which are held there indefinitely while detained (if they are ever deported or released). Back in May, there was a fight against indefinite detention, for more information please see this article. Ebrahim Toure, the detainee profiled by The Star as mentioned earlier, is being represented by Jared Will, who has been in a constant battle with Canada’s immigration system and often representing detainees looking to fight for their release, transfer to a less restrictive facility, or even to be deported back to their home country. Will also expresses his disapproval during his cases, and has chimed in about how the officers fill out these forms. He’s shocked by the “lack of competence” of the officers. Considering these officers hold the power to determine how one must live until they are dealt with by the government, deciding people’s basic liberty and security interests, Will is appalled by the administrative process. From the officer’s form that was submitted to court, you can clearly see and understand that the officer had an issue with the task they were given. The statement essentially says that they don’t know what they’re doing, and that the information the officer is providing is not reliable. As The Star dug deeper into the assessment forms, they found “shoddy, inaccurate form completion”, something that should be alarming, considering, as stated before, they determine where someone is going to be held indefinitely. A couple of things they noted from reviewing the forms were: Key sections left entirely blank Both “no” and “unknown” boxes ticked on questions about mental illness and medication Long gaps in time between assessments For two former detainees, Alvin Brown (deported) and Ferril (on strict bail) their assessment forms were accurate with the points listed above. Due to the realization of this horrible practice by Canada’s Border officers, the CBSA will be improving their NRAD form, protocol changes are in the works, training will take place (beginning this summer), and policy will now require the officers provide detainees with a copy of the assessment once completed. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that can assist you with any need. We have a very experienced group of immigration lawyers that are ready to assist you in any capacity. If you require representation, please contact our immigration lawyers today, or if you have any questions you may contact our office 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, ImmigrationJuly 20, 2017June 22, 2020
Security Tightens as U.S.-bound Flights Require Enhanced Screening By: Nicolas Di Nardo Enhanced security measures on any U.S.-bound flight begins today at Pearson Airport. Airlines such as Air Canada and WestJet have already advised passengers to arrive at least 2 hours prior to their flight in order to get through the additional screening process. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security requires personal devices (laptops and tablets) to have enhanced screening done to them. The devices must be: Easily accessible All cases and covers removed This also includes: Enhanced overall passenger screening Increased security around the aircraft Increased security in all passenger areas Use of advanced technology Expanded canine screening The reasoning behind all of this is due to the threats to commercial aviation by terrorist groups, as they continue to target aircrafts. For more information, please visit the Department of Homeland Security website and the Pearson Airport website. Devry Smith Frank LLP is here to assist its clients in all types of immigration matters. We have an experienced immigration law group that deals with individuals as well as businesses for any immigration matter. For more information, please contact one of our Immigration lawyers directly, or call us today 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 SiddiquiBlogJuly 19, 2017June 22, 2020
Lululemon sues Under Armour Over a $52 Sports Bra By: Nicolas Di Nardo Two of the biggest athletic apparel companies are about to go to war, this time, in court and over a sports bra. Lululemon Athletica (NASDAQ: LULU), a Vancouver-based athletic apparel company is suing rival, Under Armour (NYSE: UAA) for copying a sports bra design. The bra in question is Lulu’s Energy Bra, which retails for $52 USD, which Lulu claims UA has copied. The Under Armour products ranging from their Armour Strappy ($22-$29 USD) to their Armour Eclipse Low Impact which retails for $39 USD. The suit focuses on patent and trademark infringements, and Lulu claims “Under Armour’s unauthorized actions have caused an will continue to cause irreparable damage to Lululemon and its business.” Baltimore-based Under Armour responded in wake of the suit, only saying that they take “intellectual property rights of others very seriously.” These two companies are looking to take a piece of the growing market for sports bras, which currently accounts for more than $1 billion in U.S. sales a year. For Lululemon, securing their spot within any market is a key component of their business plan, seeing as they currently have over three dozen patents for their products, one of which happens to be for the sports bra in question. To secure the patent for this particular bra, they had to prove that the straps were an original design, and that it has ornamental value (as opposed to being strictly functional). Lawyers have said this occurrence is unusual in the fashion industry, especially since such companies would not usually go through the trouble and lengthy process of securing patents for their products. Intellectual property lawyer Laura Ganoza has said that, considering an article of clothing may only last a season or less, it is surprising that a company would go through a process that could take a year and a half just to get the patent. Another intellectual property lawyer from Minnesota chimed in, saying that if this case moves forward, he expects that it will focus predominantly on Lulu’s design. Lulu however, may not be too concerned with going to court with competitors. They took Calvin Klein to court back in 2012 in a dispute over a waistband design on its Astro Pant. The companies later settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. It seems that Lululemon is trying to intimidate its competitors, establish their dominance, stand their ground, and deter competitors from copying their designs. They are establishing themselves as a legitimate player in the bra industry by doing their research, and protecting their interests by obtaining rights through patents and trademarks, so that if a company were ever to copy a design, they open themselves up to legal problems. If this suit ends badly for Under Armour, it has the potential to skyrocket Lulu’s position in the sports bra market and bra industry, and also create more opportunity for start ups and online businesses to step in amid Under Armour’s potential downfall and loss of share in the market. There is also potential for Under Armour to have difficulty recovering and gaining back a percentage of the market, if while they suffer from this suit, the start ups, online businesses, Lululemon, and other major players take over completely. On the other hand, with Victoria Secret slowly declining, it could allow for Under Armour to leap back into the market. However, with it being an industry with $1 billion in sales in the U.S. alone, Under Armour should have no problem with their line of sports bras. As more develops and Under Armour responds, the fate of the Baltimore-based company will become clear. It is how they plan to recover that will seal their fate. Until then, we’ll have to wait and see. Devry Smith Frank LLP has a very experienced team of intellectual property lawyers that can assist companies and independent researchers with any of their intellectual property needs. For more information, please visit our intellectual property page and contact one of our lawyers today, or call us directly at 416-449-1400 for more information. “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, Intellectual PropertyJuly 19, 2017June 22, 2020
Is Toronto Now a Buyers’ Market? By: Nicolas Di Nardo The CREA has stated that the GTA has had the biggest drop in sales in June, and Toronto has now fully moved from sellers’ territory (ratio above 60 per cent) to buyers’ territory (ratio under 40 per cent). Patterns of sellers facing difficulties offloading properties as buyers sat around hoping for prices to come down, may have led the change. Sales-to-listings ratios are also a benchmark that is utilized to determine the territory, which the following can be identified: Balanced: 50 per cent (5 homes are sold for every 10 that come on the market) Sellers’: 60 per cent plus Buyers’: 40 per cent and below This is a significant change in Toronto’s market. If you take a look at the ratio in March, that stood at 86 per cent. Considering the effort put in by the government to assist in cooling down the hot Toronto market, it seems to now be taking some effect. Not only has it changed the way people are now looking at the housing market, but they are beginning to deter buyers from snatching up every single property within Toronto, due to the new initiatives in place. This drop is the largest monthly decline since 2010. Homes priced at $1.5 million and above have seen very little action, with low attendance to open houses, and being on the market for weeks rather than just a weekend. It will be interesting to see if the decline will continue, or if the current market trend and prices will stay stagnant into 2018. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateJuly 19, 2017June 22, 2020
Bill C-6 and a Smoother Path to Canadian Citizenship By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student Bill C-6, an Act to Amend the Citizenship Act and make consequential amendments to another Act, was introduced in Parliament on February 25, 2016. Nearly sixteen months later, on June 19, 2017, the Bill received Royal Assent. In other words, as of June 19, 2017, the Bill is now law. However, not all of the changes introduced by Bill C-6 have taken legal effect. Many changes will not take effect until Fall 2017, while others will come into force in early 2018. The introduction of the Bill brings about many positive changes, and provides benefits to thousands of Canadian immigrants. Of the changes ahead, most notable is that permanent residents of Canada may apply for citizenship sooner than they were previously able. There are many other very positive changes to the Citizenship Act brought forth by Bill C-6, including, but not limited to, the following: Equal treatment under the law: Dual citizens living in Canada who are convicted of treason, spying and terrorism offences can no longer have citizenship revoked, but rather, will face the Canadian justice system, like any other Canadian citizens who break the law. Effective June 19, 2017. More flexibility for Canadian immigrants: Applicants no longer have to declare on the application form an intention to continue living in Canada once they are granted citizenship. Effective June 19, 2017. Minors can apply for citizenship without a Canadian parent: The age requirement for citizenship has been removed. Further, a person who has custody of a minor can now apply for citizenship on behalf of the minor. Effective June 19, 2017. Accommodations for those with disabilities: It is now codified law that reasonable measures must be taken to accommodate the needs of a citizenship applicant who is a disabled person. Effective June 19, 2017. Less stringent time requirements: Applicants will be required to be physically present in Canada for 3 out of 5 years before applying for citizenship. Under the previous Act, the requirement was 4 out of 6 years. Additionally, the requirement that applicants must be physically present in Canada for 183 days in 4 out of 6 years preceding their application will be repealed. Effective Fall 2017. Prior time spent in Canada counts toward citizenship: Applicants will be able to count each day that they were physically present in Canada as a temporary resident, or protected person, before becoming a permanent resident as a “half-day” toward meeting the physical presence requirement for citizenship, up to a maximum credit of 365 days (1 year of the 3 year requirement). Effective Fall 2017. Income tax filing: Applicants must file Canadian income taxes, if required to do so under the Income Tax Act, for 3 out of 5 years (rather than 4 out of 6). This requirement matches the new physical presence requirement. Effective Fall 2017. Relaxed age requirements: Applicants between 18 and 54 years of age (previously those between 14 and 64) must meet the language and knowledge requirements for citizenship. Effective Fall 2017. Seizure of fraudulent documents: Under the Citizenship Act, there will be clear authority for Citizenship Officers to seize fraudulent or suspected fraudulent documents. Effective early 2018. Federal Court authority: The Federal Court, as opposed to the Minister, is the decision-maker in all citizenship revocation cases, unless the individual requests that the Minister make the final decision. Further, individuals will have a right to appeal the decision if their citizenship was revoked because of fraud. Effective early 2018. Without question, the changes introduced by Bill C-6 are positive in nature. In reversing many of the changes to the Citizenship Act introduced by the previous Conservative Government, the Liberals have made their position on immigration crystal clear — “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” (- Justin Trudeau in spar with Harper over the right to revoke citizenship (2015)). Not only are the changes under Bill C-6 contrary to the Conservative agenda, but the Liberal government’s approach to immigration in general is in stark contrast to President Trump’s approach in the United States. As Canada becomes more generous, the U.S. continues to crack down on immigration. If you have any questions regarding Bill C-6 changes, or are in need of an immigration lawyer, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s immigration lawyers today, or contact our office directly at 416-449-1400 for more information. “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, ImmigrationJuly 18, 2017June 25, 2020
Paramedic Who Had His Mother Die In His Arms Denied Workers’ Compensation By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student It is common practice for Paramedics to arrive for their shifts up to a half an hour prior to their scheduled start time. This is done in an effort to prevent the crew they are relieving from possibly working overtime hours, which would be the case if a call were to come in within the last moments of their shift. When Paramedics arrive at the station, they check their vehicles and equipment at the start of their shirt. Equipment preparation includes, amongst numerous other things, checking the radios. Often times, emergency calls may come in during this time, and when this happens, first responders who are not “technically” on the clock will respond to the call. One Paramedic, Mr. Mireault, did exactly that. Mireault is a Paramedic in Rawdon, Quebec and when he was preparing his equipment before the start of his shift, a call came in for a cardiac arrest. And the address? Mireault’s mother’s home. Mireault and his partner made the decision to respond to the call several minutes before their shift was scheduled to begin, because they were the closest to the scene. The two workers left the garage at 8:00:13, having been only officially “on the clock” for 13 seconds. When Mireault arrived at the scene, his mother passed away in his arms. As a result of this happening, Mireault has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Mireault has taken a leave of absence from work as a result of his PTSD. Mireault submitted a claim for compensation while on leave to the Quebec workplace health and safety board (CNESST), and his claim was denied. Reason being, Mireault wasn’t technically on the clock when he responded to the call over the radio. For the CNESST to compensate a worker for paid leave, the workplace incident must have happened during a work shift, and it must also be unexpected and sudden. Arguably, the “incident” – that is, the death of Mireault’s mother – did happen during a work shift, and unquestionably, her death was unexpected and sudden. So why won’t CNESST honor the compensation request? According to Daniel Chouinard, president of the Fédération des employés du préhospitalier du Québec, which represents ambulance workers in the Province, the CNESST often refuses claims involving paramedics and PTSD because the pretext is that it is part of their jobs. The denial of Mireault’s claim is unquestionably upsetting and actually quite worrisome. After becoming aware of this story, many Canadians, most notably, first responders, may be asking the question, “Could this happen in Ontario?” In Ontario, there is specific law surrounding PTSD and First Responders. Bill 163, Supporting Ontario’s First Responders Act, came into force in April, 2016. Section 14(3) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act reads “…a worker is entitled to benefits under the insurance plan for posttraumatic stress disorder arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment…” The legislation creates a presumption that PTSD diagnosed in first responders is work-related. Therefore, an employee doesn’t necessarily have to be “on the clock” in order to be entitled to WSIB benefits. Once a first responder is diagnosed with PTSD by either a psychiatrist or a psychologist, the claims process to be eligible for WSIB benefits is expedited, and there is no need for the first responder to prove a causal link between PTSD and a workplace event. For employers of first responders, Bill 163 has significant consequences in terms of both the additional costs arising from expanded benefit entitlements, and the onus of rebutting the statutory presumption of entitlement, if the PTSD is not work-related. In some cases, this may be an heavy onus for employers to meet, especially when one considers the statistics: first responders are at least twice as likely as members of the general population to suffer from PTSD. Ultimately, the legislation in Ontario provides far more protection to first responders than does the legislation in Quebec. But would Bill 163 protect a worker such as Mireault, who responded to a call before he was on the clock? Is an individual considered to be working “in the course of employment” when setting up equipment, even before their scheduled shift? In one decision heard at the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, the panel rationed that when performing an action related to one’s work, they are working in the course and scope of their employment: “The general rule in cases of travelling to and from work is that injuries sustained by an employee travelling to or from work off the premises of the employer are considered to have arisen outside the course of employment. Those cases in which travel to or from work is considered to be within the course of employment are exceptions to the general rule. The guiding principal in deciding whether a case presents facts which justify departure from the general rule is whether, due to the factual circumstances of the case, the worker has essentially entered the sphere of employment.” Where the worker is using equipment or material supplied by the employer but receives no benefit beyond the use of the employer-owned equipment, (i.e. pay), and when there is evidence that there is no requirement for the employer to provide such equipment or transportation, no obligation on the worker to use it and no remuneration such as wage or salary for travel time, the only possible criterion that could place the worker in the course and scope of employment would be the use of the equipment itself. Whether or not the employer is exercising control over the worker, and/or whether the worker is performing any work for the employer at the time of injury, are additional factors that the Tribunal must consider when determining whether or not the worker was “in the course of employment.” Based on the above line of reasoning, because Mireault was using equipment supplied by the employer (the radio) at the time he responded to the call, it is likely that he would receive WSIB benefits. However, if the Board finds that an employee is entitled to benefits under the insurance plan for PTSD, the employer has the opportunity to appeal the decision. If the employer were to be successful, then compensation on leave would not be provided to the employee. Devry Smith Frank LLP proudly supports First Responders. Our First Responders Group provides a full range of legal support from family law, employment, insurance claims, to business and corporate services. If you require representation or would like to speak with one of our lawyers, contact Devry Smith Frank LLP‘s First Responders lawyers today, or contact our firm 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 SiddiquiBlogJuly 13, 2017June 25, 2020
Law and Society: Forever Evolving By: Nicolas Di Nardo Canadian judges are going back to school, or at least, that’s what it feels like. Judges must “understand the people they are judging” says Justice Adele Kent, head of the National Judicial Institute. That is the primary goal of “social context” education, which is cited in a federal bill now before the Senate. Questions about what education should be mandatory for judges about certain issues, such as gender-based violence and sexual assault law were front and center at a human trafficking conference, which had about 45 judges attend. Judges were shown videos of real cases, filmed with actors, with the script taken verbatim from transcripts in order to educate judges about human trafficking, domestic violence and why a victim may not leave an abusive partner, may not call the police and may have an emotional connection to their abuser. The conference was interactive. It involved the group, as they were required to participate by writing questions down, and even a single word to describe how they felt about what they saw when watching video segments. Some of these words included “horror,” “sadness,” “disillusionment” and “helpless.” The 45 judges were then invited to submit questions during a break in the conference, which was then discussed with a panel. The panel was moderated by: Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Sheilah Martin Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Sheila Greckol U.S. judge Ann Goldstein from the International Association of Women Judges Nicole Barrett, expert on law and human trafficking (University of British Columbia) One of the questions was – how common is the woman’s explanation for why she did not leave? Barrett replied: “She is isolated from others, she lacks financial independence, she has broken self-esteem, she has a fear of escalated violence, she has a fear of retaliation, that they will tell her family, a psychological bond with her abuser… once you start listing the reasons she doesn’t have, it becomes fairly overwhelming.” The second question addressed the reason why the judges were there. The question began with “until this job and judicial education, I had no way to be aware this happens to ordinary folk.” Ontario made this training to take place for new judges, a mandatory piece of education that took effect in March. The training for new judges in sexual assault law and social context education is monitored by the Canadian Judicial Council. Just like any other occupation, judges are also in need of ongoing education to be up to date. Changes in law, social context, and other advancements within our society are crucial for judges to stay on top of. Justice Martin makes a great point, “the criminal laws have changed as societies have changed,” and judges must be educated on how and why changes occurred. Social context education is another important part of this training. It focuses on the understanding of diverse life situations, to understand individuals being judged, through: Examinations of race Disability Region Poverty Mental illness Gender-based violence It is designed like the human trafficking seminar, and will involve academics and community groups. Not only must the judges change, but police, lawyers, and alternative models from the criminal justice system must do more to tackle sexual assault. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we have experienced lawyers in all areas of law. If you are looking for a lawyer or have general questions, please feel free to contact one of our lawyers today, 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 SiddiquiBlogJuly 11, 2017June 22, 2020
Bradford Man Charged with Child Abandonment By: Nicolas Di Nardo Canada Day, the day we celebrate an important milestone, the anniversary of the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1867 (July 1, 1867). The celebration this year was a special one, it is Canada’s 150th. However, this past Canada Day a man enjoyed the day a little too much. A 33-year-old man from Bradford was charged with abandoning a child and failing to provide the necessities of life, and was held for a bail hearing. South Simcoe Police responded to a call about a man refusing to leave a bar at 1:45 a.m. on Saturday, July 1. When police arrived, he became belligerent and was arrested due to his intoxicated state. They then brought him to the police station to sober up, as there was no one home to take care of him. At about 6 a.m., the man told police that his son, 2 years-old, was home alone. Once police located the boy, they brought him to the hospital as a precaution and now the child is in the custody of the Children’s Aid Society. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm located in Barrie, providing services to Barrie and the surrounding areas. We provide a wide range of legal services. If you require representation for criminal disputes, contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Barrie lawyers. For any other legal services and inquiries, please call our Barrie office directly at 705-812-2100 or visit our website. “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 SiddiquiBlogJuly 10, 2017June 22, 2020
Quebec Hunter Petitions to Make Squirrel Hunting Legal By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student Poutine, a favourite among many Canadians. While some aren’t too adventurous with the meal and tend to stick with the common-yet-delicious cheese curds (me), others will go further and add bacon to the mix, or chicken, or even macaroni and cheese. And then there are some Canadians who would even take it one step further, and would eat their poutine with squirrel meat. Yes…. you read that correctly. Squirrel meat. Martin Poirier, a 21-year-old hunter and university student from Quebec has recently made news following the launch of his formal petition, which asks the Province of Quebec to make squirrel hunting legal. But why? According to the student, squirrel meat is good for you. As the law stands today, Quebecers are prohibited from hunting squirrel, which is what led Poirier to launch his petition. Surprisingly, the law in Quebec is contrary to that in many other Canadian jurisdictions, where squirrel hunting (and eating) is permissible. In British Columbia for example, gray and fox squirrels can be captured and killed at any time. Similarly, in Alberta, several species of squirrels can be hunted without a permit. Ontario however, has more stringent rules related to squirrel hunting. Though it is not illegal to hunt squirrels in Ontario, there is a cap on daily kills, and specific rules for hunting with and without a falconry bird. The Canadian government regulates recreational hunting in order to ensure that certain species of animals are protected, and that others are appropriately hunted. If an individual were to violate the hunting regulations in their province, they would be subject to significant fines. In Ontario, these fines can be issued under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and the Ontario Fishery Regulations. The fines handed out for hunting violations can be quite significant, so it’s no wonder Poirier wants to make squirrel hunting legal. However, it takes more than a petition to change the law. The Quebec legislature considers specific legal issues and should they so choose, votes them into law. This is done in a number of stages in the Assembly and in parliamentary committee. Whether the legislature will approve of squirrel hunting remains to be seen. The issue is expected to be tabled in the Quebec National Assembly this fall. All this to say, it’s going to be quite a while—if ever—that you will be able to indulge in squirrel meat poutine in Quebec. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we have experienced lawyers in all areas of law. If you are looking for a lawyer or have general questions, please feel free to contact one of our lawyers today, 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 SiddiquiBlogJuly 7, 2017June 22, 2020