When Selecting a Commercial Mediator, Value Breadth of Experience Over Depth Parties to a commercial dispute are generally inclined to select a specialist mediator with expert knowledge in the field of business where the parties operate. However, there’s much more to a commercial dispute than precise legal issues. Mediators with an “expertly” narrow focus are generally looking neither beyond nor beneath the problem. A broad-based background in many areas—including varied experiences with human dynamics—positions a mediator to recognize the real “heart” of the matter and increase the possibility of settlement. For example, a mediator with a background in construction law disputes and family and estates disputes is able to see more deeply into business or legal disputes. It is often the case that the root of the apparently intractable dispute is often only tangentially related to the business. In one real-world example, a fight was boiling over between business partners in the trucking industry with respect to costs associated with running the business. In another example, a former business partnership deteriorated even further after the split when one party opened up a competing business, allegedly built on the back of clients from the old shared company. The focus of every party in both of these situations was on their respective legal positions—non-compete covenants, breaches of fiduciary duty, et cetera. But, during the course of the mediations, it became clear that the core of both issues was a latent family history between the partners. Failing to recognize this unstable element in a critical situation could render it almost impossible for mediators to deal with the legal and business issues. When a case does not settle, it could be due to the mediator’s unwillingness to address and overcome the “touchy-feely” issues. Mediators who fail to pick up on clues beyond their particular area of expertise might not make the same progress as a mediator with a broad background. A mediator with a breadth of experience is prepared to acknowledge personal issues and craft a solution that preserves and restores relationships. Virtual or remote mediations conducted during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic pose a further challenge for mediators to perceive the unspoken indicators of problems beneath the surface of a dispute. Commercial mediators with broad experiences mediating different types of disputes in different kinds of settings are the best equipped to address the nuances behind complex problems—even through the screen. For more information, or for inquires regarding commercial mediation for your dispute, contact our commercial lawyers and mediators today. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Justin DominicBlog, MediationSeptember 23, 2021September 23, 2021
Conflicting Jurisprudence Regarding Whether a COVID-19 Reduction of Wages and/or Hours Amounts to a Constructive Dismissal For what is not the first time and will not be the last time in Ontario employment law, two different judges of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have issued conflicting decisions – this time with respect to whether reducing or eliminating an employee’s wages and/or hours during the COVID-19 pandemic, in response to the pandemic, amounts to a constructive dismissal under the common law. In Ontario, termination entitlements are determined via two sources: legislation or the “common law” (if an employee’s entitlements have not validly been limited to statutory minimums). The common law is not based on written guidelines but instead on prior decisions. On May 29, 2020, the Ontario government enacted O. Reg. 228/20 Infectious Disease Emergency Leave(the “IDEL Regulation”), a regulation that retroactively established an Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (“IDEL”) during the “COVID-19 period” (i.e. from March 1, 2020, and most recently extended to September 25, 2021). Ontario’s minimum standards legislation, the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, was amended to preclude a claim for a statutory constructive dismissal during an IDEL. Therefore, while it was clear that an employee could not pursue a constructive dismissal claim under the ESA for COVID-related reductions in wages and/or hours, it was unclear whether they could still pursue one under the common law. On April 27, 2021, Justice D.A. Broad of the Ontario Superior Court rendered Coutinho v. Ocular Health Centre Ltd., 2021 ONSC 3076 [Coutinho], a summary judgment decision favourable to employees. After reviewing the relevant IDEL Regulation and ESA provisions, Justice Broad found that the IDEL regulation would apply if the following five conditions were satisfied: The employee is not represented by a trade union;The employee is subject to a temporary reduction or elimination in hours of work and/or wages;It must be the employer that temporarily reduces or eliminates the employees’ hours of work and/or wages;The temporary reduction or elimination of the employees’ hours of work and/or wages must have occurred for reasons related to COVID-19; andThe above four conditions must occur during the defined COVID-19 period. In our opinion, based on the wording of the statute, the above five conditions to trigger an IDEL will likely be upheld. Justice Broad in Coutinho held that absent an agreement to the contrary, a unilateral layoff by an employer amounts to a constructive dismissal. He relied on: Section 8(1) of the ESA, which says that “subject to section 97 [when employees cannot commence civil proceedings for the same matter], no civil remedy of an employee against his or her employer is affected by this Act”;An online publication of the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development which explicitly noted that the IDEL Regulation affects “only what constitutes a constructive dismissal under the ESA”; andThe pre-COVID-19 decision Elsegood v. Cambridge Spring Service 2002 Ltd., 2011 ONCA O.J. No. 6095, which held that absent an agreement to the contrary, an indefinite leave can amount to a termination under the common law. In Coutinho, despitefully mitigating (i.e. eliminating) her common law damages, the employee was entitled to her statutory minimums for termination. In contrast, on June 7, 2021, Justice J.E. Ferguson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered Taylor v Hanley Hospitality Inc., 2021 ONSC 3135 (“Taylor”) which explicitly and firmly rejected Coutinho and held that an employee could not pursue a common law claim for constructive dismissal if the employee had properly been placed on an IDEL at any time during the COVID-19 period (as the amendments applied retroactively). Justice Ferguson relied on the following: He was of the view that the IDEL Regulation was enacted to ameliorate the impact of the government’s own legislation causing businesses to temporarily close or cut back their operations due to an unprecedented modern pandemic;Elsegood held that statutes can displace the common law and the common law does not operate independently of the ESA;If the common law was independent, he believed that the common law should evolve due to the unprecedented regulations and impact on businesses; andHe dismissed s.8(1) of the ESA as merely confirming that the ESA was not the exclusive forum to seek redress for ESA violations. Notably, Justice Ferguson did not address the Ministry’s online publication. Accordingly, all temporary layoffs relating to COVID-19 (retroactive to March 1, 2020) were deemed to be a statutory leave (IDEL) and therefore subject to leave related rights (e.g. reinstatement rights, benefits continuance). If the conditions for an IDEL leave were met, a common-law termination did not occur. While employers and management personnel will no doubt be happy with the Taylor decision, we would advise organizations to proceed with caution until the Ontario Court of Appeal provides some much-needed clarity and guidance. It does not appear that either decision has been appealed yet. The Superior Court of Justice has now rendered directly conflicting decisions. Our employment law team at Devry Smith Frank LLP will continue to monitor the situation closely. If you or your organization have any questions about the IDEL, or any other labour or employment law issue, we would be happy to assist you. “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 Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, Employment LawSeptember 21, 2021September 21, 2021
DSF is recognized in ‘Best Lawyers’ for 2022! Devry Smith Frank LLP (‘DSF’) is proud to announce that we have been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada 2022 with 8 of our lawyers ranked across multiple practice areas. The lawyers in the list are highlighted below: George Frank – Personal Injury Litigation Jennifer Howard – Family Law David Lavkulik – Personal Injury Litigation Todd Slonim – Family Law Diana Solomon – Family Law Marc Spivak – Personal Injury Litigation Ashley Doidge – Trusts and Estates Nicholas Reinkeluers – Corporate and Commercial Litigation DSF is pleased by the nominations and awards from our peers and we look forward to providing services by these nominable standards. Best Lawyers is a leading peer-review publication in the legal profession, recognizing the top attorneys in over 100 practice areas. These individuals have been selected for this distinction after receiving the highest overall peer-feedback within their geographic region and specialty practice area. Only a single lawyer in each practice area and designated metropolitan area is honoured as the “Lawyer of the Year,” making this accolade particularly significant. Please visit their website for more details: https://www.bestlawyers.com/ By Justin DominicBlog, Commercial Litigation, Family Law, Personal InjurySeptember 20, 2021September 20, 2021
Keep Your Medical Benefits For a Short Term After Your Employment is Terminated If your employment is terminated, you are entitled to temporarily keep your group or employee benefits, such as medical or drug insurance plans. However, there are a number of important considerations to keep in mind. How long can I keep my benefits? The amount of time you will generally be allowed to keep your benefits is a range that depends on how long you were employed. It can be a simple calculation: if you worked for less than one year, you will be able to keep your benefits for one week. If you worked for eight years or more, your benefits will last for eight weeks. It is your employer’s responsibility to continue making payments on your behalf to ensure that you keep your benefits during this time period. This time period is called the “statutory notice period.” If you become sick or disabled during the statutory notice period (e.g., if you become ill with COVID-19), you remain entitled to your medical benefits. If your illness or disability extends beyond the period, your claim for benefits could possibly extend for as long as the medical issue persists. However, it will be very important for you to be able to prove when the medical issue started. If your medical issue arises beyond the statutory notice period, you may still be entitled to medical benefits under the “common law notice period.” However, unlike the statutory notice period, there is no simple calculator available to determine how long this period lasts. The Ontario High Court of Justice held that “there can be no catalogue laid down as to what is reasonable notice” (Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., 1960 CanLII 294 (ON SC)). The Ontario Court of Appeal declared that calculating this period “is an art, not a science” (Minott v. O’Shanter Development Company Ltd., 1999 CanLII 3686 (ON CA)). For this reason, it is very important for you to get legal advice to understand your legal rights before accepting a settlement offer. At a minimum, you may wish you consider having a complete medical examination. “What if I was terminated because I have COVID-19? Or, what if I was terminated because of any other medical condition?” If the decision to terminate you was influenced by a medical issue—or even a perceived medical issue—your human rights may have been violated and you are entitled to make a human rights complaint. However, human rights complaint processes and awards are complex. It will be very important for you to get legal advice to understand your legal rights. Seek Legal Advice For more information, assistance, or any other questions, please contact our employment lawyers today. Do not delay. This blog was co-authored by David Heppenstall, Student-at-Law. “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 Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, Employment LawSeptember 13, 2021September 13, 2021
Ontario School’s COVID-19 Vaccination Policies Months into the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, various sectors around the province have begun to implement vaccination policies for high-risk settings. On August 17th, 2021, the Ontario government announced that the COVID-19 Mandatory Vaccination Policy is required for specific environments, including post-secondary institutions and school employees. The policies include proof of full vaccination status or regular antigen testing, among others. Ontario has also now mandated, as of September 1st, 2021, that evidence of the COVID-19 vaccine is required for select settings. The Ministry of Education will begin to introduce a vaccination disclosure policy for the 2021-2022 school year for publicly funded school board employees, private school staff, and all licensed child care facilities staff. Many Ontario Universities and Colleges have announced the same, requiring students and staff to show proof of vaccination. The educational school systems in the Greater Toronto Area include Toronto, York Region, Peel, and their Catholic School System counterparts. At this time, there is not a vigorous policy for COVID-19 vaccinations for students, only for their respective staff. This could, however, quickly change, pending approval on those individuals under age 12. Ontario Ministry of Health provides as current law that, unless there is a valid exemption, all children who attend a primary or secondary school must be immunized against a list of vaccines available as per the Immunization of School Pupils Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.1. The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has asked that the Ontario Government make the COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory for all school children aged 12 and up. The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has developed a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine procedure that requires that all TDSB staff, trustees, and visitors disclose and provide proof of vaccination status and require them to be fully vaccinated. However, if you are not vaccinated, TDSB will comply with all human rights obligations to accommodate employees legally entitled to any accommodation. Those individuals will be subjected to an education on the benefits of vaccination. These are subjected to change after September 9th, 2021. Similarly, various colleges and universities across Ontario are requiring those not vaccinated to attend a mandatory information session on the positives of the vaccine. This too may change but is in place for now to follow. Possible Exemptions to Potential Policies: Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter H7 allows a Medical Health Officer the ability to restrict students from attending school to prevent the spread of certain diseases. It is also now possible in Ontario to expel a student aged 8, the equivalent to grade 3 or below if this student potentially poses a risk to the safety of those at their respective school. While policies continue to update for adults, there is still no clear indication of whether Ontario school systems will include the COVID-19 vaccine for students amongst the list of mandatory vaccines required to attend school. With students expected to be back in class full time starting the fall semester, Ontario school systems will have to outline policies and exemptions for students who are eligible to be vaccinated, the same which was done for those unable to wear a mask or other face covering. Parents can provide a valid exemption for non-vaccination for their children under the Immunization of Schools Pupil Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.1. COVID-19 Consequences for Children at School: Ontario schools are not typically liable for damages within school boundaries. If your child does contract COVID-19, it would be difficult to prove that this happened at school itself. This would also include proving negligence beyond reasonable doubt by your child’s school as per the policies set forth by the Ministry of Education and the Ontario School Board policies. While this unprecedented time for teachers, parents, and students has left little reassurance, with the start of the 2021-2022 fall semester, there are expected to be updated policies and procedures. To discuss your COVID-19 policy concerns for you or your children or if you feel that you may be entitled to compensation for negligence by your child’s school, please contact Education Lawyer Katelyn Bell, or you can phone her to discuss at 416 446-5837 for any assistance with this matter. *This blog was co-authored by Angela Victoria Papeo* “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 Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, Education LawSeptember 8, 2021September 17, 2021
Did You Sign On The Dotted Line? Before participating in an activity that could lead to injury or death, a person may be required to sign a waiver as a form of expressed consent to the risks that exist, due to the inherent nature of the activity. By signing on the dotted line, the waiver could prevent an injured person or their family from advancing a claim against those responsible for permitting/facilitating the activity. Phrases such as “payment of this is confirmation of agreement to the following terms of usage” may also be equivalent to signing on the dotted line and agreeing not to advance a claim for personal injuries suffered while participating in the activity. In Hosseinkhani v. QK Fitness Inc., 2019 ONSC 70 (CanLII), the plaintiff joined the defendant’s gym on a one-year membership agreement. Upon joining, she was presented with a contract which contained an exclusion clause. The exclusion clause provided that: “The Member releases the Club… from any claim whatsoever hereafter arising by reason of the Member suffering disease, deterioration of health, illness, or aggravation of condition or of ill health as a result of participation in the programs, acceptance of advice or use of the facilities provided by the Club or any claim for personal injury sustained by the Member in, on or about the facilities of the Club and its related companies, including and without limitation any claims for personal injuries resulting from and/or arising out of the negligence of the Club…and acknowledges that he/she is using the said facilities at his/her own risk.” After signing the release, the Plaintiff was injured while participating in an exercise class operated by the defendant. During the exercise class, the plaintiff was instructed to step off the step to her right. The plaintiff stepped on a circular metal dumbbell immediately to her right which caused her to lose her balance and fall on her back. The plaintiff took the position that she did not have an opportunity to actually read the Agreement and that no one brought the exclusion of liability clause to her attention when she signed the Agreement. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was solely responsible for her injuries and that she was able to read and understand the Exclusion Clause. The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff. The Court relied on Section 5(3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act which required that a gym must take reasonable steps to bring the provisions of the waiver to the attention of the member when she signed the agreement. In the current case, the Court found that the document itself did not take reasonable steps to bring the exclusion clause to the member’s attention as the provision was on the reverse side of the Agreement under the general heading “Membership Agreement – Terms and Conditions” and in tightly printed “fine print”. There was no place on the agreement for the member to sign or initial the provision which would have demonstrated that the gym made reasonable efforts to bring the provision to the member’s attention. As such, the defendant could not rely on the exclusion clause contained in the membership agreement (although the waiver was set aside, the Court found that the plaintiff could not establish that the defendant was negligent in any manner and held that the defendant gym was not liable to the plaintiff). The walk away from this case is that a waiver is meant by at least one party to prevent someone from making a claim. The validity of the waiver will depend on the wording of the waiver applying to what happened and whether the waiver was properly brought to the attention of the person. There has to be an agreement or deemed agreement between the parties for the waiver to be binding. The validity of sporting events and ski hill waivers are much less obvious than gym contracts signed and initialed with a person allegedly explaining details of the waiver. More recently your ski hill ticket is purchased online. You have to tick off that you read the conditions under which the ticket is being sold. In the conditions, you have to agree to not make any claim against the hill or its employees even if an accident occurs as a result of the negligence of the hill. You get to the hill and there are usually some signs at the lift about riding the lift at your own risk and there are signs warning you will ski at your own risk. The back of the ticket you are wearing usually has a waiver written in small print. You didn’t necessarily sign on the dotted line and you didn’t have someone explain to you the details of the waiver. Despite this, waivers are typically binding on foreseeable and usual risks, but perhaps not where unexpected things happen that are outside of the norm. Your best bet if you or your family are involved in an accident and a waiver may be applicable is to consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. “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 Justin DominicBlog, Personal InjuryAugust 20, 2021August 20, 2021
Get A Tax Refund On Your New or Substantially Renovated Home If you bought a new or substantially renovated home, you may be entitled to a tax refund. As a consumer, you pay 13% Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on most goods and services in Ontario. HST is a hybrid sales tax consisting of both federal and provincial sales taxes. As of June 2010, HST is now also payable on all new home sales in Ontario. However, you may be entitled to a rebate. Am I eligible? You may be eligible if you bought, built, or substantially renovated an existing house. This could include residential condominium units, duplexes, mobile or modular homes, or floating homes. You may also be eligible if you built a major addition, or if you converted a non-residential property for residential use. You may also be eligible if you bought a share of the capital stock of a co-operative housing corporation (co-op). You may not need to live in this home yourself. You may be eligible if the home is to be occupied by a relation—however, there are particular rules about who qualifies. You are likely not eligible if you are in the business of manufacturing or reselling homes, or if you are a corporation or partnership. How much is the refund? The federal component of the HST rebate is available in every province. Certain provinces—including Ontario—also offer a rebate on the provincial component of the HST. The amount of your refund will vary based on the province in which you live, and the fair market value of your home. In Ontario, where the fair market value of your home falls within the following brackets, you may be entitled to the following rebate: Below $350,000: the potential rebate is 36% of the federal tax, and 75% of the provincial tax.From $350,001 to $449,999: the potential rebate is up to 35.9% of the federal tax on a sliding scale, and up to 75% of the provincial tax to a maximum of $24,000.$450,000 and above: the potential rebate is $24,000. Is there a deadline? Yes! You have two years to apply. The date upon which the clock starts ticking depends on the nature of your situation, and the circumstances of your purchase or renovation. Double-check the rules and do not miss your chance to apply for your refund. How do I apply? For complete instructions, review the official Guide from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) on the GST/HST New Housing Rebate. (You can also download it in PDF). There are two separate rebates for the federal and provincial components. If you live in Ontario, be sure to apply for both rebates. For the federal rebate, complete either Form GST191 or Form GST191-WS, depending on your situation.For the Ontario rebate, complete Form RC7191-ON. Due to the COVID pandemic, it is possible that the CRA will be evaluating rebate applications with greater scrutiny. Be certain that you follow the rules and regulations in your application to ensure that you have the greatest chance of successfully claiming your rebate. For more information, assistance, or any other questions regarding new home purchases, renovations, or other real estate transactions, please contact our real estate lawyers today. Do not delay. “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 Justin DominicBlog, Real Estate, TaxAugust 20, 2021August 21, 2021
Student’s Rights During Covid-19 School systems in Ontario have seen challenges over the last several years regarding funding allocations and other additional issues that come along when discussing a large-scale academic school system like most school boards in Ontario. These issues are even more prevalent when discussing the massive Peel and Toronto Public and Catholic School systems. These challenges are now exemplified when discussing the additional funding and protocol now required by school boards to be compliant with government, and Minister of Education, Stephen Lecce’s regulations. Minister Lecce announced on August 3, 2021, via Twitter, that students will be #backtoclass full time in the fall (via @sflecce, Minister Lecce’s Twitter hashtag used to announce in-person learning). This plan includes additional mental and physical health support as well as restoring physical education, sports, and other important activities that are essential to Ontario’s youth development. Although Minister Lecce has a fantastic and exciting plan to bring Ontario Students back to school, questions regarding the pandemic and the fear of future Covid-19 outbreak waves have left parents with a significant amount of ambiguity regarding the idea of their children’s rights once they return to in-person learning at their respective schools in the fall. One of the most common and important questions that most parents are asking at this time is what rights do my children have in the school system? Does my child have to go back to school? Does the school have to accept them? If you are questioning if your child can be forced to stay home, the answer is yes. Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act R.S.O 1990, Chapter H7 authorizes a Medical Officer of Health to order any person to refrain from school to prevent any spread of disease. Although before it was not possible to expel a student in grade 3 or below, in August of last year, the Ontario government gave school officials (not only Principals) the right to remove any student indefinitely if they believe the student poses any risk to the safety of anyone in the school. It’s important to note that even though the pandemic has often left parents in the dark, children in Ontario school systems still have rights that can still be enforced by parents and guardians. Unfortunately for parents, there is no law stated in Ontario that a student has to attend the school closest to their home. This is why the province has the right to convert students to at-home learning, especially when discussing special needs or safety concerns. What about contracting COVID-19? If your child contracts Covid-19 while at school, schools are usually not liable for damages. In addition to that, it will be difficult to prove that a child did contract Covid-19 from the school itself, and not at any other places. Also, there will have to be negligence on the school’s behalf. Meaning that the school must fail to have done something that it is required to do pursuant to the Ministry of Education and Ontario School Boards’ Covid-19 protocols. If the school fulfills all the mandated recommendations and a child still contracts Covid-19, it will be very difficult for the court to find the school liable. If you still believe that your child is entitled to damages, then the child must have received some sort of permanent damage and prove that they received permanent damage from Covid-19 caused directly by the negligence of the school which breached Covid-19 protocol. This may be difficult to prove in the immediate future. Staying home has its consequence too: Questions now are arising due to growing concerns of mental illness and delayed social development of children who are not in schools for in-person learning. It is important to note that not sending a child to school for in-person learning is not a zero harm option. There are additional implications that can come into play when a child is kept at home without contact with any classmates and does not experience a classroom and social environment. If you believe that your child’s rights are not being considered by their school board, or that you may be entitled to compensation for negligence by your child’s school, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP Lawyer Katelyn Bell or call her at 416 446-5837 for assistance with this matter. “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 or speak to 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 Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, Education LawAugust 10, 2021August 21, 2021
An Update on COVID-19 Travel Restrictions As vaccination rates increase in Canada, and COVID-19 infection rates decline, the Canadian government is gradually relaxing its strict travel restrictions and quarantine requirements. Prior to this past July 6th, Canada’s borders were closed to all discretionary non-essential travel, with limited exceptions, and those who were permitted to enter were subject to a 14-day quarantine requirement, regardless of vaccination status, also with limited exceptions. Those entering Canada by air were also subject to a 3-day stay in a government-authorized hotel. Effective July 6th, all individuals permitted to enter Canada for an essential non-discretionary purpose, or due to an exemption, who have evidence of being fully vaccinated, together with a negative PCR test obtained within 72 hours prior to coming to Canada and are asymptomatic, are exempt from the quarantine requirement, including the hotel stay. To be considered fully vaccinated, the traveler must have received the full series of a vaccine or a combination of vaccines that are accepted by the Canadian government, and the last vaccine must have been administered at least 14 days prior to entering Canada. Individuals who cannot be fully vaccinated due to a health condition may also qualify for the eased quarantine and testing requirements currently available to fully vaccinated travelers but must follow a modified quarantine. Commencing August 9th, United States permanent residents and citizens who are residing in the U.S. are allowed to enter Canada for non-essential discretionary travel. Thus, as of the date of this blog, U.S. citizens and permanent residents who are fully vaccinated may enter Canada for any purpose on a quarantine-exempt basis. Also, effective August 9th, all travelers to Canada by air, who remain subject to the quarantine requirement, will no longer be required to stay in a government-approved hotel, which requirement has been eliminated. All travelers, whether or not fully vaccinated, must provide COVID-19 related information electronically, prior to traveling, through the ArriveCAN app or web version, meet all pre-entry testing requirements, be asymptomatic upon arrival, and have a paper or digital copy of their vaccination documentation in English or French to present to government officials on request. Provided that Canada’s COVID-19 situation remains favourable, the Canadian government has announced its intention to open Canada’s borders for non-essential discretionary travel to all international travelers effective September 7th. At that time travelers to Canada from anywhere who are fully vaccinated and who meet specific entry requirements will be able to enter Canada freely. As a final note, the current rules governing entry into the U.S. are very different and non-reciprocal from Canada. To summarize: anyone who has been in Canada for 14 days prior to travel by air to the U.S., has been able to do so throughout the pandemic without needing to demonstrate an essential non-discretionary purpose. However, at the land border, the U.S. still requires an essential non-discretionary purpose for entry with limited exceptions, notwithstanding Canada’s new policy to admit U.S. citizens and permanent residents for any purpose, as described above. With respect to quarantine, the U.S. did not have any such requirement on the federal level throughout the pandemic, however, certain states imposed a quarantine requirement at different times. Should you require additional information about the current state of the law in Canada or the U.S., or upcoming changes, please contact the firm’s immigration group. “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 Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, ImmigrationAugust 9, 2021August 9, 2021
Surveillance, Social Media, and Personal Injury Disputes The rapid technological advancements of our time can create implications when the laws surrounding their use are unclear or have yet to be addressed. Our judicial system is often left playing catch-up to legal questions surrounding technology and interaction with people’s rights and other issues of public policy. On the one hand, technology can greatly benefit people’s access to information, but on the other hand, it is important that people’s privacy is respected when such information becomes much more easily accessible by way of technological development. Our judicial and parliamentary system is always changing and enacting laws to help adequately address the delicate balance between these two competing interests. For this reason, it is a good idea to ensure you are always aware of how your information can be gathered and used against you in court. For example, the development of Google Earth cameras has raised the issue of invasive surveillance, and whether and how this surveillance can be used for evidence in a car accident lawsuit. Is Google Earth the next “Big Brother”? Of all the means by which our daily lives can be monitored, Google Earth is not at the top of this list. As it currently stands, evidence gathered by Google Earth cameras is not something to be concerned about; footage of the accident taken from these cameras is not often used in car accident cases. One of the reasons for this is because the pictures that are taken by a Google Earth camera are updated every one to three years. This makes the chance of your appearance on Google Earth extremely unlikely. This is good news considering that the average Canadian is caught on camera an average of 70 times every day. If an image is captured by Google Earth, can it be used in Court? If so, how? There are still a small number of instances where footage taken by Google Earth cameras is used in court as evidence against opposing parties in personal injury disputes. They are used to supplement the otherwise commonly-used maps and 3D models to illustrate to a judge or jury about the true nature of the accident. Though its use is technically possible, it would mean that an image would have to be captured at the exact moment of your accident – a very unlikely occurrence. Are there other means by which a video of my car accident may be recorded? While there will not be footage of your accident taken by Google Earth, it does not mean that an image or footage of your accident does not exist. In fact, if the accident occurred in a major city, it is more likely than not that it was captured by some nearby street or building camera. Getting access to such footage before they are taped over is difficult and an immediate follow-up investigation would have to be done. This is not often seen other than when police authorities conduct this investigation due to a serious injury or fatality and possible criminal charges being laid. In personal injury disputes, your own social media presence will be immediately investigated for information about you and your lifestyle. For this reason, your lawyer will warn you about the dangers of being on social media and the impact that it can have on your case. Though you might think that a post is innocuous, opposing parties can be very creative in using that post against your claims. It is usually best to stay away from social media altogether during the duration of your case. In addition, it is recommended that you seek a lawyer’s services if you are involved in a personal injury dispute. This is perhaps the best way for you to protect yourself and your interests since the stakes in a serious car accident can be high. In addition, your lawyer can help you get the highest possible amount of compensation to which you are entitled. “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 Justin DominicBlog, Personal InjuryAugust 6, 2021August 20, 2021
