Colleges and Faculty to Continue Contract Discussion to Avoid Strike In a previous blog post, we discuss the call for a strike that Ontario’s colleges faculty members will vote for in the fall, after rejecting a 7.5% wage hike offered by the Ontario government. Now, they are back to negotiating after the Thanksgiving weekend. Ontario’s colleges are back at the bargaining table today, as the strike deadline of October 15th approaches. The talks have been put on hiatus at the end of September after no progress was made. The union represents “full-time professors as well as “partial load” instructors who teach between seven and 12 hours a week, as well as college counsellors and librarians,” and the last offer that was received from the colleges provided a 7.5 per cent raise over four years, as well as improvements to benefits and a lump-sum payment which they did not accept. CEO of the college council, Don Sinclair, has reassured students that the colleges are concerned and will provide updates as they become available. In this case, the government has indicated that, before any strike vote, that the faculty union members vote on the last offer they have received. Employers usually have this right, stored under s. 42 of the Labour Relations Act, which says: (1) Before or after the commencement of a strike or lock-out, the employer of the employees in the affected bargaining unit may request that a vote of the employees be taken as to the acceptance or rejection of the offer of the employer last received by the trade union in respect of all matters remaining in dispute between the parties and the Minister shall, and in the construction industry the Minister may, on the terms that he or she considers necessary direct that a vote of the employees to accept or reject the offer be held and thereafter no further such request shall be made. The ability for the employer to call for a vote is a tactic of last resort—and can only be done once. In fact, in 2010, when the current collective agreement was signed, colleges used s. 42 to call for a vote, which approved the agreement with a slim majority. Only time will tell to see if this strategy will pay off for a second time, or if both parties will be forced to return to the bargaining table. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “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 Law, Labour LawOctober 10, 2017June 18, 2020
If My Guests Drive Drunk/Stoned, Am I Responsible? October is here, and over the next few months, there will be a number of family gatherings and work events that may involve the consumption of alcohol/drugs. When your guest leaves your house and drives while impaired, can you be held responsible if they injure themselves or others? Being a host, you should always be concerned about how your guests are getting home, who is the designated driver, and always be ready to offer up your couch or blow-up mattress for the night. Luckily, we have options like Uber, taxis, and even a service called Safe-T-Ride that will pick you up and drive you home (IN YOUR OWN CAR!) so that you and your vehicle arrive home safely. Morally, as responsible and caring hosts, we should ensure the safety of our guests while in our care in or around our home. The case law is fairly clear about that but once your guest leaves your home does that duty end? The short answer is probably (but don’t take chances and keep your guest and the public safe!). The Supreme Court of Canada in Childs v. Desormeaux confirmed that social host liability probably does not exist in Canada. The homeowner that has a party serving alcohol may have no duty of care to members of the public who may be injured by the activities of the impaired guest after they have left the care of the host. This reasoning may also apply with parties where marijuana or other drugs are used. Regrettably we may see an increase in impaired driving with legalization of marijuana use for non-medicinal purposes. According to Marc Spivak, lawyer and managing partner of Devry Smith Frank LLP’s personal injury group, the Supreme Court of Canada decision may leave open liability on the host if: all of the alcohol that was served was supplied by the host and consumed there and there was some sort of relationship between the host of the party and the guest whereby the host would have control over the extent of the alcohol consumption and whether the guest was intoxicated upon leaving the home. Social host liability cases can take years to litigate with appeals to higher courts by the upset loser of the litigation. These cases cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate and reflect the loss of life or loss of enjoyment of life that nobody should have to experience. If you are hosting a party this season, be prudent and take steps to avoid such possible accidents. Plan before your guests arrive and ensure your guests have safe transportation home. Judgment ability may change during your festivities. Make sure that won’t affect your guest’s safety and what happens after leaving your home. “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, Criminal Law, Personal InjuryOctober 6, 2017June 18, 2020
Toronto Zoo Strike Costs Toronto $4 Million Last spring, the Toronto Zoo saw a strike over wages for its workers, which caused the Zoo to remain closed for 5 weeks while an agreement was reached. The agreement gave the workers a 1.25-per-cent wage hike in each of the four years of their contracts and the non-union staff will be closely watched as the Zoo board will decide on what they will receive as a result. Figures were released in a report on attendance and revenue which revealed: The Zoo expected 218,012 visitors Net forecast loss of $3.99 million After they re-opened, they still saw a decrease in attendance of 65,125 due to cancellations of group trips and camps. With the addition of the pandas, attendance hit 1.3 million and is expected to dip once they are transported to Calgary. Overall, August attendance levels were below target, but, still above 2016 levels with a rebound happening in September. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “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 Law, Labour LawOctober 4, 2017June 18, 2020
Toronto Home Sales Continue to Tank This Fall Data shows that September continued to be a month of decline for the Toronto real estate market, with sales falling between 38 and 45 per cent compared to a year earlier. This marks the fifth month in a row of declining sales, which not too long ago had high home values and crazy sales numbers. Once the government stepped in to try and cool the market with new housing rules, such as the 15-per-cent foreign buyers’ tax, May was the beginning of the decline. In the current market, depending on the value of the home and the neighbourhood, some are selling quickly while some continue to sit there. Lauren Haw, CEO of Zoocasa says that “homes around $500,000 are on fire and selling very quickly,” while things are slower in the higher price ranges in the city. In the current market, Haw suggests, if you “miss the mark with your initial pricing, your house will go stale.” Haw also believes that the next 6 months will continue to be slow in Toronto, with no price collapse in Toronto’s future. Haw sees prices stabilizing, while other analysts see pressure on Toronto’s housing market due to rising interest rates, mortgage rule tightening which would require borrowers who put 20 per cent down or more to go through a “stress test” to see if they can afford their mortgage if rates were to increase by two percentage points. If you are in need of a real estate lawyer, please visit our Real Estate Page and contact one of our Real Estate Lawyers today. For any other legal services or inquiries, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP directly at 416-449-1400 or visit our website for more information. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “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 EstateOctober 4, 2017June 18, 2020
Drug Evidence Excluded in Strip Search Case In a recent decision from the Ontario Court of Justice (R. v MacPherson, 2017 ONCJ 615 (CanLII)), an accused was facing charges of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession of marijuana under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. However, Justice Sheila Ray decided to throw out all drug evidence against him. Her ruling comes after a critical review of the events that took place prior to his arrest, the evidence given by the officers involved, and a close look at the right to not be subjected to an unreasonable search under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The lead up to the unreasonable search and seizure began with the police receiving a call regarding a car that had been driving erratically. Justice Ray states in her ruling that, the police “had good reason to speak with MacPherson at that point, in order to check his sobriety and documents, and if there was no issue, to let him continue on his way.” However, after seeing movement in the vehicle before they made their way to the car, officers believed the accused may have been hiding a weapon. As a result they searched the accused at the scene, pulling back his pants and boxers to expose his skin, where they located drugs stashed near his tailbone. In her decision, Justice Ray concluded that this search was in fact a strip search. She also stated that a simple pat down in the field would have been sufficient to verify if the accused had been hiding a weapon, and that there was no need to conduct a strip search, especially outside of the police station. In her words, “there was no urgency. Nothing in Mr. MacPherson’s pants was running away.” The Toronto Police Service does have a policy with respect to search of persons, and categorizes them as level 1 to level 4. Justice Ray noted that she felt at least one of the officers in the MacPherson case was not aware of the policy and that the officers believed their actions were appropriate at the time, and that the search was not a strip search. Search levels under the policy are defined as: Level 1: Frisk or a pat-down search of clothing, pockets, and does not include the removal of any clothing except outerwear such as jackets, hats and/or gloves/mittens Level 2: More thorough search that involves removing clothing that does not expose a person’s undergarments or the areas of the body covered by them. Removal of belts, footwear, socks, shoes, sweaters, extra layers of clothing, or the shirt of a male are included in Level 2 Level 3: Removal of some or all of a person’s clothing and a visual inspection of the body. More specifically, the removal of clothing that full exposes the undergarments or an area of the body normally covered by undergarments (genitalia, buttocks, women’s breasts) Level 4: Body cavity search conducted by a qualified medical practitioner See the full policy on “Search of Persons” here. In the 2001 case, R v Golden, the Supreme Court of Canada provided guidance with respect to strip searches by police and when they may be appropriate. The Supreme Court ruled that strip searches should only be conducted when there are reasonable grounds, as they are “inherently humiliating and degrading.” Such searches will only be reasonable where they are conducted as an incident to a lawful arrest for the purpose of discovering weapons in a detainee’s possession, in order to ensure the safety of the police, the detainee and other persons, or for the purpose of discovering evidence related to the reason for the arrest, in order to preserve it and prevent its disposal by a detainee. Strip searches should generally only be conducted at the police station except where there are exigent circumstances requiring that the detainee be searched prior to being transported there. In the MacPherson case, Justice Ray concluded that the strip search of the accused was an unreasonable search and seizure and that his Charter right had been violated. As a result, she excluded all evidence of the drugs seized by the police. This is one of a number of cases recently reported in the media, where police have been criticized for conducting strip searches. The issue has gotten so serious that the Office of the Independent Police Review Director is conducting a province wide review of police strip search practices. “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, Criminal LawOctober 2, 2017June 18, 2020
22-year-old Man Charged in Travel Agent Scam A Toronto man posed as a travel agent and sold fraudulent tickets to travelers last summer, collecting the money via Interac e-Transfer which ranged from $400 – $3,000 each. When purchased, the travelers were able to confirm their bookings on the airline website, but the bookings were cancelled days later because of issues with the credit card that was used. The man charged, 22-year-old Hangfeng Zhang used several aliases including Jack Chen and Jason Wong and has been charged with: Two counts of fraud under $5,000 Two counts of possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000 He is due in court on November 9th. If you require representation for criminal offences, please contact our Criminal Lawyer David Schell, or call Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-449-1400 today. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “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, Criminal LawOctober 2, 2017June 18, 2020
Oakville Rejects Proposal to Demolish Glen Abbey Golf Course One of Ontario’s finest golf courses that has hosted 28 Canadian Opens, was on the docket at Oakville Town council on Wednesday, as ClubLink applied to have the historic golf course demolished. Oakville town council voted unanimously to reject the plan proposed by ClubLink, which was filed on Monday to make way for homes, offices and stores. ClubLink filed the application under section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, leaving the RayDor Estate House, Canadian Golf Hall of Fame and Museum, and the Stables untouched, the rest, demolished. The proposed plan for the development of the land involved: 141 detached homes 299 townhomes 2,782 apartments Retail space Office space Parks Open space Heritage areas Prior to the proposal going to town council, local residents expressed their concerns with what the proposed development of the golf course might do to the local area. They were concerned with the traffic levels, loss of green space, density levels, and losing a world class golf course. The application was submitted in response to the decision by the Oakville Planning and Development Council to pass a notice of intention to designate the entire property under the Ontario Heritage Act. If you need assistance navigating Ontario’s provincial policies regarding development and growth, are considering developing a piece of land, or have concerns about a development near you, Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Planning and Development Group can provide you with the guidance and support that you require. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “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, Planning and Development LawSeptember 28, 2017June 18, 2020
Ontario’s Workforce is Increasingly Temporary Recently, Fiera Foods, an industrial bakery in Toronto, came under fire for the third death of a worker at its factory since 1999. All three workers were temporary workers and killed in workplace accidents, giving rise to questions of the quality of training that such employees received. A temporary worker is more likely to be injured on the job. Research suggests that temps receive less training while also being assigned riskier work. Last year, non-clerical temps suffered more than twice as many injuries as non-temps doing similar work. Dangerous working conditions are just one aspect of employment that employment legislation addresses. The Employment Standards Act is designed with the benefit of employees in mind through providing protections for them in respect of their employment relationships. However the legislation in Ontario fails to include some of the most vulnerable individuals in the workforce. Temporary workers fall outside the majority of the protections provided by legislation such as the Employment Standards Act. Unprotected, yet on the rise. Employment in Ontario can no longer be considered made up of stable jobs with benefits and security. Instead, temporary work positions are increasing, and taking the place of permanent positions. In Ontario it has increased by 20% in the last ten years. In the GTA alone there are over 1700 temporary employment agencies. And with the rise of temporary work comes the rise of not only safety issues, but also insecurity. Employers of temporary workers are permitted to treat temporary workers differently than permanent workers. They can provide the temporary employees with no benefits and lower wages than their permanent counterparts. There is also no obligation to make temporary workers permanent, even after years of uninterrupted service. What is especially troubling, given the deaths of three temporary workers at one factory, is that there is a liability incentive for companies using temp agencies. The workplace can be investigated and charged by the Ministry of Labour, but if it uses a temp agency, it is not liable under WSIB. Under WSIB it is the temp agency that is liable for injury, not the workplace. This saves the workplace money on insurance premiums and incentivizes the workplace to staff its entire workforce with temporary workers, and there is nothing in the legislation to prevent this. In response to the deficiencies in providing protections for the present character of the workforce in Ontario, namely that temporary workers increasingly make up a large proportion in certain industries, Bill 148 is being proposed. “Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, ” the proposed legislation best known for aiming to increase minimum wage to $15, addresses some of the vulnerabilities of temporary workers. If successful, the Bill would require equal wages for temporary and permanent workers, as well as making it easier for temp workers to unionize. The Bill aims to curb companies avoidance of creating permanent jobs by lessening the financial incentives of employing temp workers. However, in its present version, Bill 148 does not require employers to make workers permanent after a certain period of employment, nor does it restrict the proportion of the workforce that can be filled by temporary workers. Employee advocates are hoping that as the Bill progresses it will close more loopholes and increase protections for the full nature of the Ontario workforce. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Samantha Hamilton, 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 Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawSeptember 27, 2017June 18, 2020
Recycling Plant to Pay $1.33M in Fines, Back Wages A recycling plant in North York has been employing temp-workers for years at a low-wage and has been ordered to pay $1.33M in fines and back pay to workers. Canada Fibers Ltd. has violated the City of Toronto’s fair wage policy after a two year investigation revealed they were paying workers below the agreed upon rates. Canada Fibers has two, seven-year contract with the city to process blue bin recyclables, and within those contracts included that all employees, including temp workers, will be paid $12.34 an hour with pay increases tied to inflation. The contracts with the city are worth more than $264 million. After a series of reports by The Star on a worker who had been working for years at minimum wage with the company, $11 an hour at the time, an investigation was launched in 2015 into the company which found that 1,600 workers were owed money due to low wages. The investigation was conducted over two years by the city’s Fair Wage Office. It also found that Canada Fibers uses 5 different temp agencies to staff their facilities. Now, Canada Fibers has agreed to pay approximately $1.2M in good faith payments to employees and a $135,000 administration fee to the City of Toronto. Such an investigation highlights how important Bill 148 is to provide equal work for equal pay to temp agency workers and part time workers, as improvements are needed in the enforcement of this. Part time and temp workers who do the same work as their full time counterparts deserve the same treatment and pay. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our employee and labour law groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “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 Law, Labour LawSeptember 26, 2017June 18, 2020
Harsher Penalties Proposed for Distracted Driving Harsher penalties have been proposed for distracted and careless drivers, in an effort to help save the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed changes introduce a new provincial offence for careless driving causing death or bodily harm, tougher punishments for distracted driving and increased penalties for drivers who fail to yield for pedestrians. The legislation will be introduced this fall, but may take up to two years to come into effect. These changes would amend the Highway Traffic Act, and drivers will see significant penalty increases, such as a licence suspension up to five years, two years in jail, and fines up to $50,000. In addition, fines for using a cellphone behind the wheel and other offences will see stricter and stiffer penalties, and could see distracted driving penalties change to the following: For fully licensed drivers: Current: Fine of $300 – $1,000 Three demerit points Proposed: First conviction: 3 day licence suspension $500 – $1,000 fine Three demerit points Second: 7 day suspension $500 – $2,000 fine 6 demerit points Third: 30 day suspension $500 – $3,000 fine 6 demerit points For novice drivers (G1, G2, M1, M2) will face the same fine structure, but will be given the following: No demerit points First conviction: 30 day licence suspension Second: 90 Day suspension Third: Cancellation of licence For more information on these proposed changes and to see the full list of proposed changes, please visit this link to view the Government of Ontario, Ministry of Transportation’s News release. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we have experienced lawyers in all areas of law. If you are looking for a lawyer or have general questions, please feel free to contact one of our lawyers today, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “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, Criminal LawSeptember 22, 2017June 18, 2020