Can My Parents Take A Condo From Me That They Purchased Under My Name? Family Lawyer John Schuman was asked the following question: My parents purchased a condo under my name, is there a way for them to legally take the condo back? I live in Ontario, Canada. Due to some conflicts with my parents, they are claiming that by law they can force me to give back the condo to them (or force me to owe them the condo price) since they paid for it, anyone know if this is true? The condo was paid in full and it is under my name only. John’s Answer: The law does not help your parents at all if they have nothing registered against the condominium. At law, it is yours and they have no legal claim. However, Judges in Ontario can also apply the “Principals of Equity.” The Principals of Equity are more fully described in this podcast on Common Law Couples and Property Division. This is not because you and your parents are considered “common law” but because common law have no right in law to each other’s stuff, but they can make claims in equity. Your parents would say that you are the legal owner, but they are the beneficial owner – or the owner in equity. This means that nobody intended that you would be owner of the condo, but instead the intention was that you would hold the condo in “trust” for your parents and they would always be the “real owners” even though title is registered in your name. To succeed, they have to prove that it is more likely than not that this was the case and that they did not intend to give you the condominium as a gift. You will need some evidence that they did intend to make the condo a gift to you. If your parents cannot show that the property is a gift, or there is some ambiguity, they can also try to make a claim for “unjust enrichment.” Essentially there is claim it is unfair that you should profit from getting the condominium because they have suffered a large, unjustifiable, loss. This is explained more in that podcast. To summarize they need to prove to the judge: you received a benefit your parents suffered a loss that corresponds to the benefit (i.e. they are out the money from buying the condo) there is no “juristic” reason (meaning a reason in law), for you to get the benefit and them to suffer a loss. If you have been looking after the condominium, and paying the associated expenses without their help, it is hard for them to succeed because: it shows that they did not intend to be the owners you would suffer a loss and they would receive a benefit if they got the condo back and so they would be “unjustly enriched” – assuming you have paid more for those expense than you would to rent the condo from them. The Principals of Equity are tricky. Little things can have a big effect on those cases (again that is all explained in the podcast). So, it would be best for you to speak about the specifics of your case with a lawyer who knows about these kind of cases. You can get a lot more information about Ontario Family Law issues, including property division, support, and most other common family law issues by downloading this $9.99 e-book for Kindle, Kobo, or iPad/iPhone/Mac or ordering the paperback version. But, to keep out of trouble, it is always best to speak with a top family law lawyer. John Schuman is a Certified Specialist in Family Law. He is the partner managing the Family Law Group at Devry Smith Frank LLP, a full service law firm located near Eglinton and the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto. Learn more about John! Call him at 416-446-5080 or 416-446-5847 or email john.schuman@devrylaw.ca Listen to the Ontario Family Law Podcast! “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawJanuary 19, 2018June 16, 2020
UPDATE: “Crane Girl” Granted Absolute Discharge If you remember “Crane Girl”, an adventure-seeking woman by the name of Marisa Lazo who scaled a crane in April last year, you may have noticed she is in the news this morning. Back in April, she made her way to the top of a crane which was estimated to be about 12 storeys high and scaled down a cable which allowed her to sit on the hook of the crane. It took police hours to get to her, and at about 8:30a.m. she was put in handcuffs by the police. She was later charged with six counts of public mischief by interfering with property in her first court appearance and released on $500 bail, with a condition that she does not enter construction sites or go on rooftops of buildings. Yesterday, she pleaded guilty to two mischief counts and will pay a victim surcharge. The other charges were withdrawn. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we offer a wide range of legal services and have many experienced lawyers to serve you. If you require our assistance please visit our website for more information, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Criminal LawJanuary 11, 2018June 16, 2020
Personal Growth and Use Limitations The Cannabis Act, once in force, prescribes a number of limitations regarding the personal cultivation and consumption of marijuana in Canada. For example, the Act permits anyone over the age of 18 to consume cannabis and permits each household to grow up to 4 cannabis plants for personal use. However, the legislation also permits each Province to raise the minimum age of consumption or to further restrict how much cannabis can be grown for personal use. Some of the other key questions regarding personal growth and use of marijuana are: Where can you legally purchase materials and seeds to begin cultivating your own plants? Where can you grow your plants on your property? Are there height restrictions for plants? Can you transfer cultivation to another individual? To answer some of these questions, the Government of Canada has provided a Q & A section to their website, addressing FAQs surrounding personal cultivation. For example, if you wish to purchase your own seeds and materials to cultivate your own cannabis plants, you must acquire the proper materials and seeds from a “provincially or territorially regulated retailer or…federally licensed producer.” In addition, if you are unable to cultivate your own plants, you will only be eligible to transfer the cultivation to another person if you “have been authorized by your healthcare practitioner to use cannabis for medical purposes…[and] are unable to cultivate your own cannabis.” In all other cases, you must cultivate your own plants that you wish to grow for personal use. Each province and territory has been working hard over the past year to prepare for the legalization of cannabis, and as of December 2017, they’ve made some progress. Below is a summary of many of the local proposals which have been announced so far: B.C. Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Public and Private Stores (retailers must purchase supply from government regulated wholesale distribution system) Alberta Age of Consumption: 18 Sale and Distribution: Private operators (must only sell cannabis and cannabis-related products). Online sales will be controlled by the province. Saskatchewan Held a public consultation and will introduce legislation after their review. Manitoba Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries will regulate the sale of cannabis (municipal governments are given the option to ban sales by referendum) Personal Cultivation: Prohibited Ontario Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: 150 LCBO-run stores and online sales Personal Cultivation: Up to 4 plants per household Possession: 30 grams for an adult and up to five grams for a youth Consumption: Have banned the consumption of cannabis in public spaces and workplaces – There is a zero tolerance policy for drivers Quebec Age of Consumption: 18 Sale and Distribution: Through provincially run liquor board (opening 15 stores) and controls online sales Personal Cultivation: Prohibited Possession: Prohibited for an adult to possess, in a place other than a public place more than 150 grams Consumption: Must be consumed in the same places as tobacco. Prohibited on university and CEGEP grounds – There will be a zero tolerance for drivers New Brunswick Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Will be sold by a subsidiary of the province’s liquor commission – Will require any cannabis in households to be locked up P.E.I. Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Outlets run by the liquor commission and allow online sales Consumption: Restricted to private residences Nova Scotia Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Alongside alcohol in provincial liquor stores and sold online. Personal Cultivation: Up to 4 personal plants Possession: 30 grams a person – Establishing provincial penalties for youth possession up to 5 grams Newfoundland & Labrador Age of Consumption: 19 Sale and Distribution: Crown-owned liquor corporation will oversee sale and distribution to private retailers Consumption: Restricted to private residences Yukon Age of Consumption: 19 Personal Cultivation: 4 plants per household Sale and Distribution: controlled by the government and done by government outlets Possession: Limited to 30 grams Northwest Territories – Has been holding consultations with communities in person and online. Nunavut – Holding consultations with the public to develop policy and legislative options. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Cannabis LawJanuary 9, 2018July 5, 2023
Tim Hortons Franchises Reduce Employee Benefits The news has been filled with stories about certain Tim Hortons franchises reducing employee benefits and no longer paying employees for their breaks. What these franchises have done is a shock to many, especially so to their employees. Despite this media storm, what these franchises have done is completely legal and complies with the Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (ESA). Within the ESA, employers must provide employees with: A 30-minute unpaid eating period after no more than 5 hours of consecutive work (unless an employment contract requires payment). This break can be split if the employee agrees. This break is not considered working time under the Employment Standards Act. Additional breaks (ex. coffee breaks) are only paid breaks if the employee is required to stay on premises. Employers are not required to provide benefit plans. If they do, they must comply with the rules against discrimination under the ESA. Two of the Tim Hortons franchises mentioned in this CP24 report are owned by the children of the co-founders of the franchise. These owners have provided a letter to employees outlining the following changes, all of which fall in accordance to all current laws and regulations but have still upset many of their employees: Dental and Health Plan Changes/Reductions 6 months to 5 years employed: 25% coverage 5+ years employed: 50% coverage Breaks are no longer compensated (3 hour shifts will be paid for 2 hours and 45 minutes work) These franchise owners claim that they have implemented these changes to offset the costs that they will be subject to with the new wage increase that was effective as of January 1st, and that they will further evaluate these changes once all costs are known and the minimum wage is increased again in 2019. They have said that they “may bring back some or all of the benefits [they] have had to remove.” The franchise owners assert that these changes are necessary to prevent layoffs at the restaurants. Some organizations, researchers, and government officials have been warning that layoffs will be the result of the increases to minimum wage since it is not being phased in over a significant amount of time. With little “assistance and financial help from head office… like not lowering food costs, raising prices and reducing couponing… franchises have been forced to take steps to protect their business” which has affected employment. If franchise owners cannot control the price of their goods they will take steps to curtail their costs in areas they can control such as benefits and wages. It must be noted however, that many economists believe that the changes to the ESA, specifically the minimum wage hike, will be a positive for the economy. They believe that more income for the estimated 8% of Canadians who work for minimum wage means more money to be spent by those employees which in turn will fuel the economy as a whole. How these changes will play out is unknown. For now, employers must ensure that they are compliant with these changes and put themselves in a position to succeed until the repercussions of the ESA amendments are truly understood. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawJanuary 8, 2018June 17, 2020
New laws to take effect this year Over the last half of 2017 there was a flood of information on what was going to take effect in 2018 and how we are to prepare for it all, taking the form of articles and news segments discussing controversial components of what will be implemented as of January 1st and how it will impact Canadians as a whole. To help simplify what to expect for 2018 in Canada and Ontario specifically, here’s a quick summary of some things to expect this year: Parental Leave (Canada) Changes to parental leave in Canada provide Canadians with the ability to spread a years worth of federal employment insurance over 18 months, stay home with their children longer, and allow for a 15-week leave caregiver benefit to assist critically ill or injured adults or 35-week leave for an ill or injured child. Microbeads Ban (Canada) Microbeads are officially banned from being manufactured and imported in Canada. They have been seen and used in many toiletries including toothpaste, facial scrubs, lotions, gels, and other beauty products. The ban has been implemented due to the inability for the microbeads to break down and are too small to be caught by wastewater treatment filters, ending up in our bodies of water. In addition, microbeads have also been added to the list of toxic substances under the Environmental Protection Act. Small-business Tax Changes (Canada) The primary change to small-business taxes is the issue of “income sprinking”. This is one of the many changes that have been implemented by the government in their tax reform plan as they continue to make Canada’s tax system fair and close certain loopholes that exist. Legalization of Marijuana (Canada) July 1, 2018 is the expected date for Canada’s legalization of cannabis to take place and introduce LCBO managed stores (Ontario), personal growth regulations, and licensing of cannabis producers and sellers among many other components to be introduced with the sale of cannabis in Canada. Minimum Wage Increase (Ontario) The Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 proposed changes to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, which included an increase of the minimum wage to $14 per hour by January 1st, 2018 and again to $15 per hour by January 1st, 2019. Scalper Bot Ban (Ontario) The scalper bot ban has attracted the most attention. Within the consumer protection bill is the Ticket Sales Act, which will address ticket bots and ticket resale prices. In summary, the Ticket Sales Act would: ban scalper bots ban tickets from being resold at more than 50 per cent of the face value will make it illegal to knowingly resell tickets that were purchased by bots sellers will need to display all fees, taxes, service charges resellers will need to disclose the face value of the ticket The legislation passed at Queen’s Park as of December 13, 2017. The province voted in favour of the bill, with MPPs from the Liberals supporting, while the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats opposed it. If you have any questions or concerns about any upcoming changes, or require any legal services please contact our office at 416-449-1400 to speak with a lawyer at Devry Smith Frank LLP. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Cannabis Law, Corporate Law, TaxJanuary 5, 2018June 17, 2020
Public Schools Cannot Just “Kick Kids Out” – They Must Have A Full Expulsion Hearing It may seem obvious, but School Principals cannot expel students without actually expelling them. In Ontario, allowing children access to a publicly funded education is a fundamental value. Children should not be deprived of that education, except in extreme circumstances. To deprive a child of the ability to attend school, the principal and the Board must follow the rules and procedures for expelling students. Unfortunately, often School Principal’s take short cuts, which are illegal, to kick kids out of school. Expelling students is hard. There are lots of rules to follow and students have rights in the process. Unfortunately, principals often try to kick students out of school without actually expelling them. The law says that is not allowed. To start, principals cannot kick a student out of school because the student is difficult to teach, has challenging or complicated special needs, has difficult parents or other family members, hangs out with the wrong people or is from a bad neighbourhood. Children can only be expelled if they commit very serious offences either while at school or in an activity that is closely linked to school. Those offences are set out in section 310 of the Education Act. They are as follows: Possessing a weapon, including possessing a firearm. Using a weapon to cause or to threaten bodily harm to another person. Committing physical assault on another person that causes bodily harm requiring treatment by a medical practitioner. Committing sexual assault. Trafficking in weapons or in illegal drugs. Committing robbery. Giving alcohol to a minor. Bullying, if, the pupil has previously been suspended for engaging in bullying, and the pupil’s continuing presence in the school creates an unacceptable risk to the safety of another person. Any activity for which a student might be suspended (such a threatening to cause bodily harm, vandalism, being under the influence of alcohol or drugs or bullying) that is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or any other similar factor. Any other activity that, under a policy of a board, is an activity for which a principal must suspend a pupil If the student’s behaviour does not constitute one of the above offences or was not committed at school or can be linked to school, then neither the principal nor the School Board can expel the student. Further, before expelling a student, Ontario Regulation 474/07 requires that both a principal and school board consider whether the student’s behaviour is the result of identified special needs – especially if the school has not been accommodating those needs properly, whether the student has been a victim of bullying or harassment and what effect the discipline will have on the student’s education. These factors MAY make it impossible to expel a student. The whole process of expelling a student can be very inconvenient. It should be impossible to kick a student out of school because his or her special needs are difficult to accommodate. There are lots of students who can really irritate teachers, but who knows the rules and don’t do anything to get themselves expelled Sometimes a student is weird, or unpopular, or “different”, or does not reflect well on the school. In all these cases, the expulsion process does to work because the school has no basis in law to expel a student. In those circumstances, where a student’s actions do not allow them to be expelled, principals have taken to just giving students a “Trespass Notice” and telling them that they are not allowed to come onto school grounds anymore. Sometimes, the principal also threatens to call the police if the student tries to come to school. The principal will say that section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act gives a principal the authority to take such action. Indeed, section 265(1)(m) does give the principal of the school the authority to “refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils.” The principal does not have to hold a hearing, or follow any set procedure before doing this. Unlike for suspensions, which can only be for 20 days, there is no time limit for how long a person can be denied admittance to the school. There are no other obligations imposed on the principal who refuses to admit someone, except to allow that person to appeal the principal’s decision to the School Board. However, there is no timeline for the hearing of such an appeal. Principals cannot use section 265(1)(m) against their students. Section 3(3) of Ontario Regulation 474/00 says that a principal cannot refuse to admit a student into a school if the student is enrolled as a pupil at that school. To be clear, it is illegal for a principal to refuse to admit a student into the school at which that student is enrolled. It is also a illegal for a principal to issue a “Trespass Notice” to a student in relation to that student’s own school. A principal cannot use a “refusal to admit” or an “exclusion” as a substitute for an expulsion. Parents of students who have been “excluded” should challenge that decision immediately, which may mean an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board. In its decision in DN v. TDSB, a case in which John Schuman was counsel for the parents and student, the Child and Family Services Review Board both commented on the illegality of a principal “excluding” a student from his or her own school, and gave parents and students recourse when a principal does that. In that case, the CFSRB decided that an “exclusion” of a student from his own school was really an expulsion and should be treated as such. For that reason, the CFSRB decided it could hear the student’s appeal of the principal’s decision as if it had been an expulsion. This is important because the CFSRB is not only an objective tribunal that is completely separate from the school board, but also, it hears appeals within 30 days while a School Board can hear an appeal of a “refusal to admit” whenever it feels like it. The CFSRB also commented that if a child is suspended for more than 20 days, the Board looses the right to expel a student. If a principal uses section 265(1)(m) to prevent a student from attending school, that student and his parents should immediately file an appeal to the Child and Family Services Review Board. The CFRSRB is a formal tribunal, with its own procedural rules, and that conducts hearings that look very similar to a trial in court, with live witnesses and legal arguments. For that reason, parents may want to consult with an education lawyer prior to starting the appeal. It may be important to do that as principals and school boards can let “exclusions” go on for months, causing a student to lose his or her year, and perhaps fall out of he education system entirely, before the matters resolved. If a school board cannot meet a child’s special needs within a particular school, including the child’s home school, the school board is allowed to move the child to a school that can better meet a student’s needs. However, the Board must go through the IPRC process to identify the student’s special needs and determine the appropriate school placement. Ontario Regulation 181/98 says parents are entitled to participate in that process… it cannot happen behind the parent’s backs. Other than that, a child can only be removed from or transferred out of a public school with the parent’s consent (or with the child’s consent when the child is old enough to give it.) Schools, school board’s and principals cannot just tell a student that he or she cannot come to school anymore. John Schuman is the education lawyer who represented the parents in DN v. TDSB (and other important education law cases like this one). He has helped get many many students back into school with the services they need. To arrange a consultation with him, at a reduced hourly rate, call 416-446-5869 or use the form below. We try to answer all inquiries promptly as we know it is important to get kids back in school. Contact with us is protected by solicitor-client privilege. “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, Education LawJanuary 3, 2018July 5, 2023
Uber Data Breach Affecting 815,000 Canadians, Investigation Launched As much of the world has heard, Uber has had a data breach that affected people worldwide. Now, after several demands from a number of levels of Canadian governments, Uber finally disclosed that 815,000 Canadians were affected by this breach, resulting in the Canadian Privacy Commissioner opening a formal investigation into the breach. Uber has said that only names, emails and mobile phone numbers were taken by the hackers and that no credit card information, bank accounts or dates of birth were compromised. Unlike the U.S. and U.K., Canada has no laws in place requiring Uber to disclose data breaches and under the license agreement with the city of Toronto, the city council had to vote in order to demand information on the breach. The Privacy Commissioner “gave little detail in announcing the formal investigation, noting confidentiality provisions under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)”. PIPEDA entitles individuals to certain protections for personal information that is collected in the course of commercial activity. “Personal information” is broadly defined by PIPEDA, and includes any information about an identifiable person (s 2). “Commercial activity” is also broadly defined and includes: any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character, including the selling, bartering or leasing of donor, membership or other fundraising lists (s. 2). These sections form the basis of the protection of personal information under federal law. When a complaint is filed with the Commission, PIPEDA confers wide-ranging investigative powers to the Commissioner to investigate alleged breaches, make corrective orders to organizations, and assign penalties if a breach is found. Luckily, to address the lengthy process required to obtain information from businesses such as Uber, Federal privacy laws are being developed that would require businesses to disclose if a data breach occurs. Under the revision, the Privacy Commissioner would be limited to issuing a maximum fine of $100,000 for not disclosing a breach. “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, Intellectual PropertyJanuary 3, 2018June 17, 2020
Fair Insurance Act The Ontario Liberal government, just prior to an election, claims it has again decided to address high automobile insurance premiums (but ignores the negative effect of these changes on victims of car accidents). In the 2017 Ontario Ministry of Finance Report “Fair Benefits Fairly Delivered: A Review of the Auto Insurance System of Ontario” the average yearly rates for car insurance by province were: Ontario: $1,458 C.: $1,316 Alberta: $1,179 Newfoundland & Labrador: $1,090 Manitoba: $1,001 Northwest Territories: $974 Nunavut: $968 Yukon: $806 Nova Scotia: $783 Saskatchewan: $775 New Brunswick: $763 E.I.: $755 Quebec: $724. The Liberal government, which has historically taken away benefits and protection from victims with empty promises of keeping car insurance rates affordable (I have never seen any reduction in car insurance the last few years, have you?), has created smoke and mirrors and called it The Fair Auto Insurance Plan. This plan is supposed to “improve care, reduce disputes around diagnosis and treatment… promote innovation, competition and other steps to improve consumer protection.” The plan creates a fancy title for investigation of alleged fraud “The Serious Fraud Office” which is to be operational by the spring of 2018. Call me sceptical but insurers have appropriately and successfully cut out all fraud from car insurance for years, so is this the Premier’s excuse why her promises regarding reducing car insurance premiums never worked out? (although they did cut off perhaps 50% of the benefits desperately needed for victims and greatly increased profits of the auto insurers). The Fair Auto Insurance Plan will also introduce: Standard treatment plans for immediate care on common injuries: sprains, whiplash, etc. (Ask yourself how “common” your injuries are when you are so inflicted). Independent examination centres for more serious collision victims aimed to reduce diagnosis disputes, reduce system costs and inefficiencies (Historically “independent” examination centres are insurer biased). Insurance Act to be given “greater teeth” to protect consumers (Consumer benefit has never been the intention behind changes since 1990- ask any personal injury lawyer). These promised changes have elements that have been used in previous car insurance regimes that have all failed, yet before election promises are being made to protect consumers! The only protection for consumers in the car insurance industry is to acquire optional benefits from your insurance broker to better protect you and your family and to ask a personal injury lawyer whether your coverage is adequate before it is too late! For more information please contact Personal Injury lawyer Marc Spivak by email marc.spivak@devrylaw.ca or phone 416-446-5855. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be 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, Insurance Defence, Personal InjuryDecember 19, 2017July 5, 2023
Facts about Bill C-45, Canada’s Proposed New Cannabis Act – Still More Questions than Answers? Bill C-45 (An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts), also known as Canada’s proposed Cannabis Act, recently passed third reading in Canada’s House of Commons and has been forwarded to Canada’s Senate for approval. Although Bill C-45 in its current form answers many of the questions regarding the future regulation of Canada’s existing medical and new recreational cannabis industries, the proposed rules remains uncertain given that many Senators have indicated that they intend to carefully review the draft legislation and perhaps propose changes rather than adding a rubber stamp to the version of the bill tabled by the House. Some Senators have even hinted that they are not necessarily committed to the July 1, 2018, legalization date proposed by the House of Commons. Adding to all of this uncertainty is the fact that many of the important legislative issues surrounding the regulation of cannabis do not even fall under the proposed Act itself but rather, will be addressed by regulations to the Act. So far, only a limited amount of information regarding these proposed regulations is available. In late November, the Canadian Government released a Consultation Paper detailing the Government’s position on many of these issues such as: The proposed new licensing regime for cannabis producers and sellers Requirements for packaging and labeling of cannabis products, and; Regulation relating to the different classes of products that will be permitted to be sold (dried, seeds, oils, edibles etc.). Although the Consultation Paper provides some guidance, the final rules on these issues will not be settled until after the consultation period has been completed in early 2018. Moreover, except for the report authored by the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation which was tabled over a year ago, the government’s position on several key issues have yet to be addressed at all. One of the most significant unknowns is the Government’s final position on regulations restricting the marketing and advertising of cannabis products, an issue which will be vitally important to the numerous producers who have been jockeying for position in their efforts to service the new recreational market in the summer of 2018. All of this uncertainty at the Federal level is making it very difficult for the provinces, who are charged with the implementation of these new Federal rules, to pass their own provincial legislation which is necessary to supplement the Federal framework. For more information or to speak to a Cannabis Law lawyer, please visit our Cannabis Law practice page and contact one of our lawyers listed. For any other inquiries, please contact our office directly at (416) 449-1400. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Cannabis LawDecember 13, 2017June 17, 2020
National Housing Strategy On Wednesday, November 23, Justin Trudeau announced the federal government’s 10 year national housing strategy. The federal housing strategy is aimed at ensuring that Canadians have access to affordable homes. The aim is to reduce poverty and homelessness. Trudeau deemed access to adequate housing as a “human right”. The federal government is hoping to make a systematic change that will have lasting effects. The federal government has made a $11.2 billion commitment to social and affordable housing over 10 years, and plans to do some of the following: Build 100,000 new affordable housing units; Repair 300,000 housing units; and Extending housing subsidies that are set to expire. Combined with investments from provincial governments, the total spending could reach as high as $40 billion. The plan relies on the provinces and territories matching funds. Some of the key measures include: A certain number of units will be reserved for Canadians in vulnerable populations, such as people with developmental disabilities, seniors and survivors of family violence; Support for Indigenous people who do not live on reserves and a separate Indigenous housing strategy, which is to be released at a later date; Funding provided directly to low-income families and individuals; Funding to expand and extend the homelessness partnering strategy; Creating new legislation that will require future federal governments to maintain a federal housing strategy; and Creating an advocate for federal housing to help seek solutions to these systemic issues, such as advising the government and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of possible solutions. The strategy includes a co-investment fund which will provide financial contributions and low interest loans to developers that meet certain criteria. The government will also be transferring federal land to housing providers on a number of conditions. “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 EstateDecember 12, 2017June 17, 2020