Breaking up Before the Wedding: Who gets the Ring? Many television shows and movies portray it, and many couples live it. When a couple separates, who really should keep the engagement ring? While some may argue that it is the recipient’s to keep (after all – it was a gift!), others take the position that the ring belongs to the giver (“If I bought it, it’s mine!”). Based on my own personal survey – conducted amongst family, friends and colleagues – it appears that there is no general consensus on this issue. Whatever your own personal answer may be, would it change depending upon who ended the relationship? A Nova Scotia court has taken a position on this issue and their opinion? If you broke off the engagement, the ring is not yours to keep. The “who gets the ring” issue went before the small claims court for one ex-couple in Nova Scotia. Several issues the ex’s were in disagreement over were also dealt with by adjudicator Gregg Knudsen. For Knudsen, it was of vital importance to determine who broke the engagement. Interestingly, Knuden was unconcerned with who ended the relationship. “It is the conditional aspect of the gift, the marriage or the intent to marry, which is the critical issue. The determination of the entitlement to the engagement ring is based upon who broke off the engagement and who didn’t.” This decision sparks some interesting questions. Under section 33 of the Ontario Marriage Act, the question of who caused the break-up is irrelevant in determining the right of the donor to recover the gift: Where one person makes a gift to another in contemplation of or conditional upon their marriage to each other and the marriage fails to take place or is abandoned, the question of whether or not the failure or abandonment was caused by or was the fault of the donor shall not be considered in determining the right of the donor to recover the gift. When one looks to the case law in Ontario, a slightly unclear picture emerges. There is case law to support the proposition that engagement rings are conditional gifts that must be returned if the marriage does not take place. In those cases, the courts have looked at who broke off the engagement (similar to the practice taken by Knudsen). See for example McArthur v. Zaduk (2001), where because the donor broke off the engagement, the recipient kept the ring. Though other cases have held that the engagement ring is an unconditional gift that does not have to be returned, regardless of the fault of either party. See Rakus v. Piccolo, (1989). Yet another opinion on the issue comes from Newell v Allen (2012), where the judge ordered that the engagement ring be returned from the intended wife to the intended husband, regardless of who had broken the engagement. In either case, if you ever find yourself in this position as a donor, it’s important that you request the ring back when the engagement is broken. If not, you may be prevented from demanding it back later. Delay in demanding the return of the ring may also suggest that its character has changed from an engagement ring, conditional on marriage, to an unconditional gift: H. (A.) c. M. (M.) (1997). Of course, a break-up is always an uncontemplated occurrence for couples – especially those who are engaged and intend on spending the rest of their lives together. However, having a cohabitation or pre-marital agreement in place can help you to avoid such conflicts down the road, if they were ever to occur. If you need help drafting such an agreement, or if you are having trouble recovering damages or are being sued as a result of a broken engagement, contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s family law group today or call us directly at 416-449-1400 for more information. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawJune 19, 2017June 24, 2020
Update: Proposed Sick Notes Ban By: Nicolas Di Nardo The praise for the Liberal government’s proposed ban on sick notes continues. During the government’s announcement outlining the proposed changes to Ontario’s labour law, which was part of the Changing Workplaces Review, doctors’ notes was the least of everyone’s concern, but it received the most support and attention by groups and organizations that have been pushing for a ban on sick notes for some time. Almost a month of public speculation on proposed changes to the law, the changes to sick notes remains a hot one. Even some representatives within the Progressive Conservatives including PC MPP Monte McNaughton stated, “I actually think it’s quite fair,” which is a surprise as he is usually an outspoken critic of the Liberal administration. While many agree with Labour Minister Kevin Flynn’s opinion that sick notes are a waste of a physician’s time (the OMA has been calling for an end to sick notes for some time now), there are still some groups that believe this is not a step in the right direction. The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses (CFIB) is one of them. The CFIB believes that people will abuse it, however, they do support the claim that it will limit the spread of germs and viruses to other people. With a note not required until passing 10 sick days under the new law, CFIB analyst Ryan Mallough would like sick days and doctors notes to remain “a flexible matter between employer and employee…[because] there is potential for abuse…[and] this is all part of the re-election campaign for the Liberals.” For more information on the developments of the Changing Workplaces Review, please refer to our previous blog posts: May 17, 2017: Is A $15 Minimum Wage, More Unionization And A Minimum 3 Week Vacation On The Horizon? June 1, 2017: Update: Ontario Liberals Announce Changes To Labour Law—And A $15 Minimum Wage June 9, 2017: Workplace Reform Showcase: Doctor’s Notes Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm located in Don Mills. If you require representation or have any questions, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP today. You may contact one of the many experienced lawyers on our website 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, Employment Law, Labour LawJune 19, 2017June 22, 2020
Determining Summer Custody Schedules with Your Child(ren)’s Best Interests in Mind For many separated families with school-aged children, summer can be a challenge. A written agreement or court order that sets out summer access with the children makes the season a lot less challenging, but for many families, such formalities are not in place. With regards to those families without order or agreement in place, the summer access schedule may still be straightforward. Consider, for example, those families who follow the same summer schedule informally every year. However, arranging such a schedule may prove to be difficult for families who are newly separated, or those who negotiate a summer schedule each year to accommodate the varying schedules of the parents and the child(ren). When there is no existing access agreement in place, parents have a lot of freedom in arranging the summer access schedule. Parents are free to negotiate and compromise when planning the schedule, however, they must ensure that the schedule is in accordance with the child(ren)’s best interests. The reason being, if the issue were to ever proceed to court for settlement, the judge will decide what is fair based on the best interests of the child(ren). See CLRA 24. (2) Best interests of child It is important to mention that when a court is considering an access award, the focus is always on the best interests of the child(ren), and not on the interests and rights of the parents. Although parents’ wishes are often at the forefront of a summer access negotiation – as mom or dad may only be allotted a certain week off work for a vacation for instance – it’s important to remember that for the court, these wishes are irrelevant. Rather, the best interests of the children are what the court will examine. For example, will the child(ren)’s best interests be met if they were to travel to Disneyland? For more information on how a judge may go about determining who should be granted custody, please listen to our podcast on this matter. Although it may seem that a vacation is always in a child(ren)’s best interests (after all – who doesn’t love a vacation?) this is not the case for the courts. According to one Canadian Judge, “The best interests of a child are not to be confused with such things as the “benefits” of a vacation.” In this case, the father sought to take his child on a vacation outside the country, and the mother obtained an order which restrained the father from doing so. Ultimately, the court made the final determination in accordance with the child’s best interests, and the father was not permitted to travel with the child. For the court, the evidence did not establish that the children’s best interests would be served by removing them from their home jurisdiction. As a parent, if you are seeking to travel outside the country with your child(ren) for a vacation, it will be necessary for you to obtain a consent to travel from your ex-spouse. If such consent is denied, you may consult John Schuman’s blog post “My Ex Won’t Sign a Travel Consent” to determine how to proceed. In any case, it is best to consult with a family lawyer prior to taking any legal action. To avoid both the cost and uncertainty of court, parents ultimately need to be able to agree on how to divide their child(ren)’s time during the summer. They must do so in a way that is best for their child(ren). Mediation may also be an option for parents who would like to settle their dispute outside of court. To find out more about family mediation services, please see our mediation page. If you are experiencing difficulties with scheduling summer access arrangements with your child(ren), contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s family lawyer John Schuman today for a consultation, or call our office directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawJune 8, 2017June 24, 2020
Do Ontario Private Elementary Schools Have to Follow the Same Laws and Standards as Public Schools? Many parents send their children to Ontario Private (or Independent) Schools because they want to make sure their child gets a “superior education.” There are many private schools that do offer excellent education or that have programs that are particularly suited to certain students. However, that is not guaranteed. When it comes to private education, especially for elementary students, Ontario is really a “buyer beware” market and parents must do their research. Parents assume that because a school operated in Ontario, it is subject to the Education Act. However, only very small parts of the Education Act apply to private elementary schools. Section 1(1) of the Education Act requires that private schools: Provide instruction any time between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on any school day Have five or more students; Have students of compulsory school age Provide instruction in any (but not necessarily all) of the subjects of the elementary or secondary school course of study. Beyond that, there are not many standards that apply to private elementary schools. Page 7 of the Ministry of Education’s Private Schools Policy and Procedures Manual contains the following passage: How are Private Schools Different from Publicly-Funded Schools? In Ontario, private schools operate as businesses or non-profit organizations, independently of the Ministry of Education. Private schools do not receive any funding or other financial support from the Ontario government. The Ministry does not regulate, licence, accredit or otherwise oversee the day-to-day operation of private schools. Private school operators set their own policies and procedures regarding the operation of their schools, and are not obliged to comply with the policies and procedures that school boards must follow. For example: Private schools are not required to use the Ontario curriculum unless they are seeking authority to grant credits toward the OSSD. Those that do may also offer other content beyond the Ontario curriculum. In Ontario private schools, principals are not required to have Ontario principal’s qualifications, and teachers are not required to be members of the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) or have OCT certification. Private schools are not authorized to deliver correspondence courses, which are delivered through the Independent Learning Centre (ILC). However, a private school can host the student taking such courses. Private schools may, but are not required to, communicate student achievement using either the Elementary Provincial Report Card (for Grades 1-8) or the Provincial Report Card (for Grades 9-12). When it comes to private elementary schools, there are very few rules that the school must follow. Most of the requirements are set out in Section 16 of the Education Act but those rules relate mostly to things that few parents care about, such as giving the Ministry notice of the intention to operate a private school and providing the Ministry with statistical information about the number of students, staff and courses offered. There are more rules for private schools that want to award Ontario Secondary School Diplomas, but not for elementary schools. There are no requirements that private elementary schools offer a minimum standard of instruction, or follow any requirements with regard to things like anti-bullying, discipline (including suspension or expulsion of students) or teaching any particular curriculum or skills. Many parents have been surprised to learn that private schools can kick out their child without any good reason or without any process because that is what the parents’ contract with the school says. For more on school suspensions or expulsions, watch this video: All the standards that a private elementary school has to follow are in its contract with the parents. Parents should look at the contract carefully and ask questions. If the contract does not require Certified Teachers, then the school does not have to provide them. If the contract does not require the school to teach certain subjects, then the school does not have to do so. If the contract does not say that the school will follow the Ontario Elementary School Curriculum, then the school probably doesn’t. Most private school contracts include a Code of Conduct which may have no resemblance to the Provincial Code of Conduct, but sets out how students will be disciplined and to what extent the School has the right to impose any form of discipline it wants. Some school contracts specifically allow the school to do whatever it wants. In those cases, the school is subject only to the criminal code, or the right of a Children’s Aid Society to intervene because a “person having charge of a child” has harmed a child or put a child at risk of harm. With private schools not having to follow a number of rules and regulations, who they decide to employ at their schools should be of interest as well, as the individuals they employ could put a child in harm’s way. In a recent case, Karla Homolka, a serial killer who raped and murdered 3 girls and at the time, was married to Paul Bernardo, has been volunteering at her children’s private elementary school in Montreal. Parents at the school were not advised that she had been volunteering there, and are shocked at the school board’s actions. Additionally, although private schools are not required to follow the procedures set out in the Education Act and accompanying regulations for exceptional pupils, they are required to follow the Ontario Human Rights Code. In doing so, they cannot discriminate against students and must accommodate special needs to the point of “undue hardship” – unless the contract with parents requires the school to provide specific accommodations. This podcast describes the rights of students with special needs. Still, it remains very important that parents do their research before enrolling their child in a private school. They need to be clear what sort of education their child will receive and by whom. They should also know what protection from bullying or what special assistance their child may receive. It is also important for parents to know what the School’s Code of Conduct is, how children are disciplined and precisely what can cause their child to be removed from the school. All of these things should be included in the contract with the school, otherwise, the school is not legally required to follow any specific rules when educating a child. Obviously, it is also important to find out about the school’s reputation and review references or testimonials – as people would do with any big purchase. The Ministry of Education has very little power to assist dissatisfied parents. The most appropriate remedy can be suing the school for breach of contract. If you are experiencing difficulties with a private school, it is important to figure out what rights you may have, and how the law might help you. Contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Education Lawyer, John Schuman for assistance. We answer all inquiries promptly and we can arrange for you to come in quickly for a consultation (charged at a reduced hourly rate). By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Education LawJune 6, 2017July 5, 2023
Toronto Must Figure Out Housing Solutions or Risk Losing Top Young Talent As we are well aware, Toronto’s housing market has been a hot topic for some time now, with the rising prices and record sales. Unfortunately, for those who can’t afford to purchase a home for whatever reason, it leaves them renting within the city, or forces them to move to the suburbs with the hope that they can potentially afford something outside of Toronto. An article released by The Star features a couple, Chris Dunne and his fiancée, both young professionals, who are hoping to get out of their rental and begin their adventure as homeowners, get married, and start a family. Again, the current market is continuing to put a dent in their dream. Dunne and his fiancée, both 28, currently rent a condo in the area of Spadina Rd and Queens Quay. They both have steady jobs, but yet, they are struggling to find a place to call their own and begin a family. They moved to Toronto from Newfoundland 18 months ago with a dream, to live in Toronto. With a wedding planned for next year and plans for children, they want to find a place with a patch of green to call their own. The issue: it comes down to simple supply and demand. With no middle ground when it comes to the Toronto housing supply, it leaves few options for buyers. Before government involvement and the spring market, Toronto’s supply did not line up with demand. Supply was low, while demand was high, leading to high prices on the supply and demand graph. Currently, Toronto’s supply consists of primarily small condos and detached homes. There are few semi-detached and town-homes within Toronto available to current home-buyers. The current government involvement, spring listings, and demand for detached homes still high, sales have begun to decline. This is reflected through listings being active for longer than a weekend, and fewer sales as a result, as stated in our recent real estate update. In April, Toronto’s detached re-sale homes hit $1.6 million on average. To make matters worse, young professionals aged 18-39 say: 32% plan to buy a home in the next year 58% say high prices are why they won’t buy a house in the next year 19% will stay in their current home 17% want a townhouse 51% want a detached house 13% want a semi-detached 17% already own a home *Source: Environics Research for the Toronto Region Board of Trade. Survey-based off 387 people aged 18-39, part of a bigger 1,000 person survey Of the people who expect to buy in the next year, 81% don’t want to live in a condo and 69% want a house with at least 3 bedrooms. The Board of Trade CEO, Jan De Silva is urging the city or province to begin diversifying our supply to meet the needs of all residents and has even suggested they make it legal to add just one laneway house, coach house, or duplex per hectare in detached home zoning areas. This solution would allow individuals priced out of the detached home market, that don’t want to live in condos, to own a home, and would accommodate 45,000 people in Toronto. Unless this situation changes, the region could be compromising its ability to attract talented professionals to the city of Toronto. Without businesses being able to attract and retain young professionals or newcomer talent, our economy will begin to struggle to succeed. If you are currently searching for a property or have a plan to purchase property in the near future, contact our Real Estate Group with any questions or concerns you may have. Browse our Real Estate lawyers page and contact them directly, or, call our office at 416-449-1400 for more information. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateJune 1, 2017June 24, 2020
New Fairness for Children of Unmarried Couples A new Constitutional challenge is currently unfolding at the Brampton courthouse. Robyn Coates is challenging the validity of Ontario’s Family Law Act on behalf of her 22-year-old son, Joshua Coates. Joshua has DiGeorge syndrome and suffers severe cognitive impairment. Robyn is arguing the law is discriminatory as it arbitrarily harms disabled children of non-married parents. Coates wants Joshua’s father, Wayne Winston, to continue paying child support payments for the rest of Wayne’s life. Watson, despite not seeing Joshua since he was six, has paid child support throughout the boy’s life. With a wife and two kids, and not enough money to even pay his own legal bills, Wayne thinks he has paid enough. Wayne believes Joshua should be covered by Ontario Disability Support Programs. Ontario Disability Support Programs assist people like Joshua, but his mother argues this is insufficient. Robyn believes Joshua requires day programs to live a more enriched life, which can cost between $3,500 – $17,000 per year. When a couple gets divorced, their disabled child is eligible to receive child support payments for the duration of their lives. However, if the couple is never married, Ontario’s Family Law Act states that child support only continues where a child is in full-time post-secondary education. Child support for divorced parents is governed by the federal Divorce Act. The Divorce Act allows disabled individuals to receive child support from their parents beyond their eighteenth birthdays. For non-married parents, child support payments are based on provincial Family Law Acts, which in Ontario, make clear that support will only continue to be paid in circumstances where a child is enrolled in full-time post-secondary education. Alberta has similar legislation to Ontario, while the rest of the provinces are aligned with the federal Divorce Act. What is at issue in this decision is not whether the law is bad or immoral, but whether it is unconstitutional, which requires the law to be discriminatory. Robyn Coates is a resource worker helping students with disabilities and is hoping to send a message with this action. Robyn has given quotes that indicate this case is about more than Joshua, but about all children with disabilities from unmarried parents, receiving care. Robyn said: “Many women are raising these kids alone and they are living in poverty. And nobody seems to give a damn,” and “I don’t want any other mother to go through this.” However, even if the court is unpersuaded by Robyn’s argument, the media attention this case is generating might be sufficient to motivate the legislature to act. This challenge raises some important questions about family law legislation in Ontario. Should non-married parents be treated differently than married parents? Presently, the law dictates the act of creating a child only mandates 18 (plus any additional school years) years of legal responsibility, while the act of marriage (and divorce), makes the parents responsible (by law) to the child for their entire life. The court will have to assess if the is law trying to distinguish between divorced parents and non-married parents. If the law is not trying to achieve this purpose, it would be arbitrary for the law to in effect, treat disabled children of non-married parents differently than disabled children of divorced parents. Given Ontario’s Family Law Act does not distinguish between divorced and non-married parents in other capacities, it is likely that the law in question is arbitrary and therefore, discriminatory. If you need assistance navigating your family dispute, Devry Smith Frank LLP’s family law group can provide you with the guidance and support that you require. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawMay 26, 2017June 24, 2020
Grandparents’ Custody and Access Claims Enhanced by Amendments to Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act Parents’ separations can mean difficult transitions for children. Grandparents very often play a special role in these circumstances, providing their grandchildren with stability and unconditional love when they need it most. These times of transition, however, can also lead to parents and grandparents becoming estranged from one another, such that grandparents’ access to their grandchildren can be abruptly reduced or terminated. In Ontario alone, an estimated 75,000 grandparents have been denied access to their grandchildren (as reported here). Recent amendments to the Children’s Law Reform Act (the Act), in force since January 1 of this year, may help such grandparents. Section 21 of the Act has been amended to make specific reference to grandparents as among the parties who can bring an application for custody or access. Subsection 24(2) , which lists factors used to determine the best interests of the child, has been amended to specifically refer to “a parent or grandparent” as among those whose “love, affection and emotional ties” to the child must be considered. In context, the amendments are as follows: Application for custody or access (1) A parent of a child or any other person, including a grandparent, may apply to a court for an order respecting custody of or access to the child or determining any aspect of the incidents of custody of the child. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 21; 2016, c. 23, s. 3; 2016, c. 28, s. 1. Merits of application for custody or access (1) The merits of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4). 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1). Best interests of the child (2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including, (a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and, (i) each person, including a parent or grandparent, entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child, (ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and (iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing; What’s Changed? The amendments consist of only eight added words – fewer characters than your average tweet. While hardly revolutionary, some things certainly have changed. Grandparents were always able to bring applications for custody of, or access to, their grandchildren – they were simply included as “any other person” under section 21. Likewise, considering the “love, affection and emotional ties between the child” and others, including a grandparent, was always required of judges in determining what custody or access arrangement was in the best interests of the child (section 24). Now, however, judges must specifically consider these ties between child and parent, and child and grandparent, rather than simply between the child “and those entitled to or claiming custody or access.” In other words, the grandparent-grandchild relationship is now expressly considered as a component of the best interests of the child. While it is too early to tell whether and how the courts might seize on this amendment, one might expect that all else being equal, the courts would be more likely to make an order granting access to one’s grandchild. After all, to the extent the grandparents play a positive role in a child’s life, it will be difficult to argue that their role should be reduced or halted in the child’s best interests. Parental Autonomy Undermined? Some of you may be thinking, “Wait, what if the parent has a good reason to keep their kid(s) from their grandparent(s)? Aren’t parents better placed than courts to decide what’s best for their kid(s)?” These and other issues were raised during a parliamentary debate. To be clear, the amendments do not require that grandparents be given access or custody, just that their unique relationship with grandchildren be considered in making those determinations. Of course, a parent may have a sound, child-focussed rationale for denying grandparents access to the child. In such a case, it is the best interest of the child (or grandchild) which will determine the outcome. These amendments, appear to be aimed at cases where grandparents’ access is unreasonably withheld. Consider, for example, loving maternal grandparents, previously heavily involved in a child’s life, who are now denied access because the father, who was just awarded sole custody, has decided that it is no longer necessary for them to continue seeing their grandchildren. In this all too common scenario, the decision to deny access is not based on the child’s best interests. Indeed, it may well be harmful to the child. This is where the courts have been instructed by Parliament to intervene. Parental autonomy is important, but the law is clear: the best interests of the child are the courts’ predominant concern. Given these amendments, the grandparents in question may now have a better chance of asking a court to grant them access in the face of the parent’s objections. What happens next? These amendments will be welcomed by the thousands of grandparents who might find in them some hope of reuniting with their grandchildren. Some parents may instinctively object to the courts second-guessing their choices, but, as a society, we’ve long restricted parents’ behaviour where it is seen to harm their children. Thanks to these amendments, a judge must now specifically consider a grandparent’s important role in a child’s life. Are you a grandparent seeking access to, or custody of, your grandchild? The experienced family lawyers at Devry Smith Frank LLP can help. For any family law concern, please do not hesitate to contact us at 416-449-1400 in Toronto, 705-812-2100 in Barrie, or 289-638-3171 in Whitby, or send us an email at info@devrylaw.ca. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawMay 23, 2017June 23, 2020
Air Passenger Bill: Does it Really Protect Passenger Rights? Transportation Minister Marc Garneau introduced a Passenger Bill of Rights which is included in a package of amendments to the Canada Transportation Act. This bill is being introduced as a result of the United Airlines incident, where a passenger was dragged from a plane in Chicago after he refused to give up his seat on an overbooked flight. That incident was the first of many for multiple airlines that suffered from negative PR in the last month or so. This bill, known as Bill C-49 or the Passenger Bill of Rights, however, has been said to protect the airlines, not the passengers. The main purpose of the bill is to have the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) set clear standards for how passengers can be treated, which include: Situations where they are denied to board Lost baggage Delays while on the tarmac A passenger rights advocate, Gabor Lukacs, has concerns with this bill. The bill does not outline penalties for companies that do mistreat customers, and complaints must be filed by the person affected, which means that action cannot be taken against airlines for problems such as overbooking of flights. A consumer group labels this bill as ‘useless’ to passengers, as it does not enforce the rights of travellers, and does not include new sanctions against airlines if they were to break the rules. See the full list of concerns here. Canada is well behind in the area of passenger rights, seeing as sixty countries have some form of passenger rights legislation, with the U.S. and E.U. as the only ones with compensation rules established for passengers that get bumped from flights. Unfortunately, with the wording in this legislation, it leaves the Canadian Transportation Agency to create and implement the standards at some point in the future, while our Canadian airlines are suffering in the satisfaction category with Air Canada dead last in North America, and WestJet second-last in the low-cost carrier category. Complaints have increased significantly against Canadian carriers between 2011 and 2016, and if the CTA does not implement a set of rights that protect passengers, they may continue to receive complaints until something is done. If you are in need of representation or have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the lawyers of Devry Smith Frank LLP today at 416-449-1400, or browse our website 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, Human Rights LawMay 23, 2017June 23, 2020
General Electric Workers Exposed to Toxic Chemicals for Decades Between 1945 and 2000, General Electric’s factory in Peterborough was the epicentre for many work-related illnesses among employees and retirees, a study of chemical exposures at the plant reveals. This, however, is nothing new. The community has been saying this for quite some time, and the 173-page report confirms this. GE’s plant workers built household appliances all the way to diesel locomotive engines and fuel cells for nuclear reactors. The workers were exposed to more than 3,000 toxic chemicals in the process, some of which include 40 to be cancer-causing. Workers were exposed to these chemicals at levels hundreds of times higher than what is now considered safe, says the report. General Electric allowed workers in the past to handle the toxic substances without protective gear, which they were rarely offered. As they were paid by the piece and not by the hour in the 1980s, there was an incentive to cut corners. Seeing as about 500 lbs. of asbestos was used daily and workers did not have respiratory protection or proper ventilation, it is no wonder these employees have had trouble with their health after being exposed. The managers also knew the harm that these chemicals can cause to people without the proper protection, as early as the 1920s and 1930s. The lead was another huge component that circulated the plant. Workers used about 40,000 lbs. in a week to produce PVC pellets until the 1980s, and also experience daily exposure to: Solvents Welding Fumes Epoxy Resins PCBs Beryllium Uranium Daily exposure to the above without proper protection is extremely dangerous. However, around 2000 is when safety measures were being mandated, and since then, GE’s plant is a smaller operation, and spotless. The report will be used to support occupational disease claims that were previously denied by Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”). Hundreds have filed compensation claims, and unfortunately, Ontario’s worker compensation system does not allow employees to sue their employer when they have been given the ability to claim benefits when they are injured or fall ill because of work. The WSIB has been given 660 compensation claims from GE workers since 2004, with 280 accepted, more than half withdrawn, abandoned or rejected because of insufficient evidence that the conditions were work-related. “Workers that suffered from working within the plant were forced, for many years, to provide proof of their working conditions, only to be told this is anecdotal,” said Sue James, whose father worked at the plant for 30 years and died of lung and spinal cancer, believed to have been caused by exposure to the chemicals used in GE’s plant. A former employee believes he developed colorectal cancer because he worked more than 22 years under asbestos-wrapped pipes, which would occasionally shed while he worked. This employee, Roger Fowler, was one of the former employees who worked on the report. With this investigation drawing some attention, the provincial labour ministry announced it will be setting up an occupational disease response team by the end of the year to focus on chemical exposure prevention and help sick workers file compensation claims. 11 retirees worked as advisers on this report. Together, this committee along with health researchers Bob and Dale DeMatteo, interviewed over 75 former workers to gather information on working conditions and production processes. The data collected from these workers was coupled with data from labour ministry inspection reports, joint health and safety committee minutes, company memos, industrial hygiene literature and other documents, gathered by the union. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we provide a full range of services to suit any need. If you are seeking information or representation for a similar situation, please contact the lawyers of our Health and Safety and Employment Law Teams today. If you require more information please 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 SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Human Rights LawMay 19, 2017June 23, 2020
A Threat to Access-To-Justice in Ontario Legal aid is a central component of the Canadian justice system, and of justice systems elsewhere in the world. Legal aid helps those individuals who are otherwise unable to afford legal representation and access to the court system. No matter the legal issue – be it a landlord/tenant dispute, or a child custody dispute – legal aid is available to low-income Canadians in order to promote access to justice. In 1998, the Ontario government enacted the Legal Aid Services Act. This Act speaks to the Province’s commitment to legal aid and access-to-justice. However, recent statistics have revealed that our Province’s commitment may have extended a bit too far, financially speaking. As reported by Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) this past January, the agency has a deficit of approximately $26-million. Not surprisingly, the agency will require “significant support to enable it to meet its targets,” one of which includes assisting more than 1 million Ontarians annually. LAO has had to make some difficult decisions regarding cutbacks in order to remain afloat. One of the most notable decisions made by LAO is that the agency will no longer cover costs for a criminal dispute unless there is a “substantial likelihood of incarceration.” What this means is that many low-income Ontarians are now left with no choice but to represent themselves. Not only is this stressful for the self-represented litigant – who if convicted, may lose their job or be faced with a fine they’re physically unable to pay – but it also eats up more oh-so-valuable court time, as the Judge has a duty to ensure the self-rep is given a fair trial. In order to appropriately exercise this duty, the Judge is required to aid the accused in the proper conduct of his/her defence, and guide him/her throughout the trial in order to ensure the defence is brought out suitably. In January, Attorney General Yasir Naqvi ordered a third-party review of LAO’s finances. The review was conducted by Deloitte, who found that the changes implemented by LAO thus far are insufficient, and more must be done in order for the society to realize significant savings. LAO’s president and CEO, David Field, disagrees with Deloitte’s findings and states that LAO is “happy with the progress we’re making [since December].” However, when one considers the recent influx of refugees to Canada, the picture is again worrisome. Many refugees are low-income, which means that the LAO is likely to face increasing demands for services in the near future, and this is a demand they’ll be unable to meet. Cooperation from the Federal government is essential to resolving the problems faced by LAO, and by legal aid agencies across Canada. Ultimately, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance must take action to initiate federal funding for legal aid, not only for Ontario but for Canada as a whole. And with regards to Canadian taxpayers, though we all have a lot to say about the uses to which our money is being put, it’s hard to argue against improvements to the justice system, especially when such improvements are so vital for so many Canadians. If you are in need of representation, please contact the full-service law firm of Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-449-1400 for more information, or visit our website today. “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, Human Rights LawMay 14, 2017June 23, 2020