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
Ontario’s First Post-Secondary Marijuana Production Certificate Niagara College will become the first college to offer a post-secondary certificate in marijuana production, which will launch in the fall of 2018. The program has been approved by the Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development and will be available to those with a diploma or degree in agribusiness, agriculture science, environmental science/resource studies, horticulture or natural sciences, or an acceptable combination of education and experience. Niagara College decided to introduce this program to address a need in the growing labour market that will come, due to the legislative changes in Canada and abroad. Production of cannabis is highly regulated, and the program will conform to all regulations and requirements. For more information on the legalization of marijuana, please visit our blog page and check out our most recent posts on the matter, including: Ontario to Have Employees Trained for Pot Stores Next Year LCBO to run Marijuana Stores Tough Rules wanted for the Legalization of Marijuana Ontario Legislature Returns From Summer Break – Labour & Marijuana to be Main Focus Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us 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 LawSeptember 21, 2017June 18, 2020
Top Intersections for Condos in Toronto Condos have been taking over the Toronto skyline, with more to come not only in the downtown core, but in popular hubs around the entire city. New builds provide a ton of options for prospective buyers because they seem to be popping up all over the city, but it seems that re-sale condos surrounding many of the city’s key downtown intersections have the demand and high prices. Prices are up to 23 per cent higher than the city-wide average, according to TheRedPin. The real estate company looked at 25 key intersections with two bedroom and one bedroom units. Two-bedroom condos at Bay and King Sts., and Bay and Bloor Sts. sold at some of the highest prices between January and August with an average of $1.5 million. Two-bedroom apartments in Yorkville sold for an average of $1.3 million, while one-bedroom units were around $753,735. In comparison, you could secure a one-bedroom at Bay and King for $494,591 and $626,989 at Bay and Bloor. On average, one-bedrooms were selling for $545,000 in Toronto and two-bedrooms at $925,000. Enzo Ceniti of TheRedPin said that “at these busy intersections, value can increase by 20 per cent or more,” if you’re an investor, areas like the ones mentioned above are where you should be looking. For those looking to invest or purchase, here is a statistic that may be helpful to know: 56% of condos at the 25 intersectoins were one-bedroom 30% were two-bedroom Remainder consists of studios and larger apartments For those looking to not spend as much as previously mentioned, TheRedPin has also identified the lowest sale prices and their areas. Two-bedroom units were at their lowest at Yonge and Dundas Sts., averaging $658,234. One-bedroom units could be found as low as $371,444 at Queen and Yonge Sts. Needless to say, condos outside of downtown can be found for less. Yonge St. and Finch Ave. averaged $424,698 during the study, with two-bedrooms costing $583,014 on average. Prices decrease as you move further out of the core. With prices increasing over the past year, entry-level for Toronto consumers has been a condo, rather than a townhome, semi-detached or detached homes. As things are looking to settle in Toronto, with the measures taken by the government, it will be interesting to see if the distinction between the house and condo market will continue to shrink. 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 EstateSeptember 21, 2017June 18, 2020
Canada Not Ready for New Wave of Asylum Seekers Canada is not ready to handle a second wave of asylum seekers who may be fleeing the United States, especially when the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is going to expire between January and March 2018. In August alone, 5,712 refugee claimants arrived in Canada, which calculates to an 82 per cent jump from July. Quebec saw 5,530 people cross at Roxham Road B.C. saw 102 people Manitoba saw 80 people through In total, 13,211 people have entered illegally into Canada since the beginning of 2017. Roxham Road has been the point of entry for 11,896 of the 13,211. In an effort to limit the next wave of asylum seekers, the federal government has dispatched Montreal Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez who took a trip to Los Angeles to meet with lawmakers, diplomats, immigration advocates and members of the Latino community to spread a message that Canada was no automatic safe haven for migrants, if they choose to make their way to our border. If you have any questions regarding requirements needed for asylum, citizenship, or general immigration inquires please contact our Toronto Immigration Lawyers, 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, ImmigrationSeptember 20, 2017June 18, 2020
WSIB to Re-examine Rejected Claims from Former General Electric Employees Between 1945 and 2000, General Electric’s factory in Peterborough was the epicenter for many work-related illnesses among employees and retirees, a study of chemical exposures at the plant reveals. This however, is nothing new. GE’s plant workers built household appliances, diesel locomotive engines, and fuel cells for nuclear reactors. The workers were exposed to more than 3,000 toxic chemicals in the process, some of which include 40 to be cancer causing, at levels that were hundreds of times higher than what is now considered safe. Workers were exposed to these chemicals at levels hundreds of times higher than what is now considered safe, says the report. Lead was another huge component that circulated the plant. Workers used about 40,000 lbs. in a week to produce PVC pellets until the 1980s, and also experience daily exposure to: Solvents Welding Fumes Epoxy Resins PCBs Beryllium Uranium Occupational disease claims that were previously denied by Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”) will now review the more than 250 claims. This will also include a review of the cancer and non-cancer related claims, with updated research on chemical exposure levels and illnesses related to them, and will also look at claims to allow widows, widowers and children of former workers who died without realizing it may have been linked to a workplace illness. The plant has announced however, that it will be shutting down after 125 years, which will leave 350 employees without work. They say that it is not closing due to the illness claims, but due to changing markets. The claimants won’t rest until they have money in their pockets, even though the money may not help some of them beat their battles with cancer or disease, they will be able to live knowing that the employer they worked years for, recognizes they are entitled to something. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we provide a full range of services to suit any need. If you are seeking information or representation for a similar situation, please contact the lawyers of our Health and Safety and Employment Law Teams today. If you require more information please call us today at 416-449-1400. 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 LawSeptember 20, 2017June 18, 2020