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
Amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act On Friday, September 1, 2017, changes to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (“RTA”) affected how landlords can terminate a tenancy. Bill 124, Rental Fairness Act, 2017 amended some of the RTA provisions on terminating a tenancy. The amendments provide renters with more protections. Background Under the RTA, s. 48(1), a landlord is able to terminate a tenancy for the landlord’s personal use. This means that a landlord can terminate a tenancy in good faith for personal uses such as: possession for a family member, for his or her spouse, for his or her children, for his or her parents or for his or her spouse’s children or parents or a caretaker of any listed family members. The family member has to live in the unit for at least a year. Here’s an example of how this rule plays out: David owns a rental unit in Yorkville and his oldest daughter, Carly, just got accepted to the University of Toronto. David wants Carly to move into the rental unit so that she can be close to school. Under the RTA, David would be able to have the tenant vacate the unit and have his daughter move in. There are specific timelines for how much notice he would be required to give under the RTA. David can legally remove the tenant as long as this is done in good faith and Carly lives in the unit for at least a year. The Changes When a tenant is evicted under this section of the RTA, the landlord will not get off scot free. Under the new section 48.1 of the RTA, landlords will now have to pay the tenant one month’s rent as compensation or offer the tenant a comparable rental unit. This means that when David is evicting his tenant, he either has to pay the tenant one month’s rent or offer the tenant another unit. The Effects Tenants now have more protections against eviction. Landlords will have to be careful to comply with the new eviction rules. If a landlord wants to move a relative into a rental unit, landlords will have to compensate the current tenant or offer another acceptable rental unit. The relative has to actually live in the unit for at least a year. If the landlord bends this rule in order to re-rent at a higher rate or convert the unit, there will be repercussions. This can be in the form of a fine up to $25,000. So if our friend, David, re-rents the unit to a new tenant at a higher rate, there could be monetary penalties. The Landlord and Tenant Board may award a large fine against a landlord if he or she tries to circumvent the rules. This new rule is a way to deter landlords from re-renting a unit at a higher rate or converting a unit. This comes as part of the government’s housing plan, which was announced this spring. This included a cap on rental increases in 2018 at 1.8 percent. “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 Law, Real EstateSeptember 19, 2017June 18, 2020
Sears Pension Issues shows a Need for Diversification Sears Canada pensioners are still fighting for a payout, and some are shocked to see what they’re receiving from their pension due to the company’s insolvency process. Sue Earl, a 38-year Sears Canada employee recently found out she would only get 81 per cent of the value of her pension, with the other 19 per cent “up in the air,” and also had her severance payments cancelled. She assumed that her defined-benefit pension was going to be paid out to her regardless of the state and health of the company, which was a risk she took. Experts have said that depending too much on the defined-pension plan is a risk, and that the employer-sponsored pension plans become risky when the employer isn’t healthy enough to fund them. However, James McCreath, associate portfolio manager with BMO Nesbitt Burns (Calgary) says they are also a good thing because it forced people to save. A defined-benefit plan promises members a retirement income usually based on salary and years of service. Sears has been paying $3.7 million a month to top up these plans, and the government has now proposed new rules to not require topping up as long as it is funded 85 per cent or higher. Sears’ troubles which has now started to impact former employees, shows the importance of educating yourself on your finances and retirement planning. Tony Salgado of CIBC Wealth Strategies (Toronto) says, “many don’t even know what kind of pension plan they have, much less what their retirement income might be.” Personal wealth planning is an extremely important part to ensure that you’re prepared for your future retirement and guarantee that you won’t be spending it paying off debt, or having to tightly manage your funds. At Devry Smith Frank LLP, we have experienced lawyers that can assist with personal tax/wealth planning to advise on retirement planning to guarantee you’re getting the most out of your savings. If you have any questions or would like to make an appointment with a personal tax/wealth planning lawyer, please contact one of our 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, TaxSeptember 19, 2017June 18, 2020
Google Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Gender Pay Google is under fire yet again with another lawsuit, this time, it has to do with gender-based pay discrimination at their headquarters in Mountain View, California. As much as 90 women have responded to lawyer James Finberg’s call to determine how man women have been discriminated against, including three women who are listed in the suit to seek class action status for the claim. James is representing three women, Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri – who all quit after realizing they were put on career tracks that would give them less pay than their male counterparts. They seek loss of wages and a piece of Google’s profits, in addition, the lawyer will try and represent up to 21,000 workers of Google – as part of the goal to seek justice for all women who are employed and have been employed by Google in the last 4 years. The suit follows a federal labour investigation that, with what they have found, will help the suit. They made preliminary findings of systemic pay discrimination among the 21,000 employees in almost ever job classification. In addition, a former employee of Google created a spreadsheet in 2015 which was obtained by USA Today and New York Times which revealed how significant the gap is. The federal investigation was part of a suit against Google by the government to bar them from doing business with the Federal government until it released thousands of documents related to an audit over its pay practices. The three former employees listed on the suit shared their stories: Kelly Ellis Hired with four years of experience Placed at Level 3 (where new college graduates are often placed) Weeks later a male colleague with the same experience was hired into Level 4 She was put on the less-prestigious front-end development team, despite having experience in backend development The backend team is higher paid and almost exclusively men Kelli Wisuri Hired into a Level 2 Sales role, men with similar qualifications entered at Level 3 Men were more often hired into roles that received commission Holly Pease Entered with 10 years of experience as a network engineer and oversaw “technical” staff Wasn’t considered to be a “technical” employee herself – limited her pay Denied the opportunity to transition to the “technical” classification After returning from medical leave she was moved out of engineering entirely Much of the lawsuit revolves around the tiered pay system, as the higher tiers are given higher salaries and bonuses. Additionally, if one is considered a “technical” employee, they are given higher pay than those classified as “non-technical” employees. They also claim that Google violated California law, including the California Equal Pay Act. In addition they want Google to correct its hiring practices. Even though Google pledged three years ago they will “close the race and gender gap to make its workforce better reflect the panoply of people it serves around the globe,” they are still overwhelmingly male and employs few Hispanic and African Americans. The suit, if designated as a class action lawsuit, will cover all women at Google over the last 4 years. 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 and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawSeptember 18, 2017June 18, 2020
15 Arrested in Another Canna Clinic Raid Toronto police have raided another Canna Clinic just days after the government unveiled a sales plan for legal marijuana, making private dispensaries such as the Canna Clinic in Kensington Market that was raided, illegal. 15 suspects were arrested, and hail from Toronto, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, and Guelph, and range in age from 20 to 46. All 15 are facing charges related to: Drug Possession Drug Trafficking Possession of Proceeds obtained by Crime The police seized: 7 kilos of marijuana 5 kilos of marijuana oil 9 kilos of shatter $14,410 in Canadian currency They are due in court at Old City Hall on October 23rd. 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. “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, Cannabis LawSeptember 15, 2017June 18, 2020
3-Point Turns are U-Turns, Says Police and Courts Many drivers know the difference between a U-turn and a 3-point turn, but it turns out that each have some similarities. A man from Brampton, Michael Robinson, executed a three-point turn on Sunforest Drive when he was pulled over by a Peel Regional Officer for disobeying a “No U-turn” sign, and was given a ticket. This raises the question, Is a three-point turn also a U-turn? The police and the courts say, yes. The Ontario Highway Traffic Act intentionally does not define a U-turn, in order to allow “liberal interpretation of your behaviour. If it’s too clearly defined, people can then create a conduct that may not fit the definition and get off free,” says Jordan Donich, a traffic lawyer. He goes on to say that the driver’s intent to turn around is more important than the manoeuvre itself, so even though a fundamental difference between a three-point turn and a U-turn is that one involves three separate actions compared to a single one, it is not relevant to the overall infraction that occurred. Therefore, a three-point turn for the purposes of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act is not legally distinct from a U-turn, as it is the fact that the vehicle was going in the opposite direction that is the main focus. Section 143 of the Highway Traffic Act states that a U-turn is a turn “so as to proceed in the opposite direction,” which was what led to Robinson’s charge. On the 18th of August he was found guilty of disobeying a sign and handed demerit points. The officer that testified said that he did a U-turn because he didn’t fully leave the roadway during the three-point turn, which the courts agreed with, given the previous explanation of the interpretation of the Highway Traffic Act. Robinson is still upset with the decision and would’ve continued to fight, but doesn’t possess the time or funds to continue on. If you require representation please contact the lawyers of Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-449-1400 . By: Nicolas Di Nardo “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 SiddiquiBlogSeptember 14, 2017June 18, 2020
End to DACA in Sight? Trump has recently announced that the controversial DACA program is coming to an end. He has turned the decision over to Congress to determine the proper legislative response to ensure that the future of undocumented persons is constitutional. The program has been suspended for 6 months; those already registered can continue to have their permits renewed, but no new applications will be processed. The program was put into place by the Obama administration. DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, offered foreign-born persons who were brought to the United States as children some degree of residency. Individuals could receive a tenuous status in the United States if they met the following conditions: they immigrated before their 16th birthday, they were enrolled in school or had graduated, and had no felony convictions. If eligible, individuals were able to pay $495 to apply for a two year period of protection from deportation and renewable work permits. Only available to those who came to he United States in their youth, this program reaches those whose immigration was not their own decision. Children who know no other country are given the opportunity to succeed in what is their home. This program has afforded these children the security and potential for upward mobility that has always been denied to their undocumented parents. Under DACA they have been able to go to university, get drivers’ licenses and work freely. This program has made whatever semblance of “American Dream” the hopeful parents had for their children within reach. However even the decision to apply for protection under the program is a big decision, since it means identifying oneself to the government as being undocumented. There are presently around 800,000 individuals registered, but many more are eligible. For some, this risk of registration is too great. Trump’s recent announcement may be the materialization of just this risk. Trump has publicly attacked the constitutionality of the program itself. DACA was introduced by Obama after years of Congress being unable to pass a likewise bill addressing undocumented children and what their rights should be with respect to school and employment. In response to Congress’ inability to pass legislation, Obama introduced DACA as an interim measure to provide security for eligible persons while waiting for reform legislation to be written. The Trump administration has expressed that DACA is unconstitutional because it was passed by the President and not the legislature, which is the government body that is constitutionally mandated to pass laws. This is a division of powers argument. The program is being impugned because it was formed through an executive act, where it is argued that only a legislative act can create programs such as itself. For now, like Obama tried, Trump has turned to Congress and given them six months to enact legislation and thereby legalize the program. Trump’s announcement has generated discussion as to whether Canada will open its immigration doors to the former DACA recipients. The participants are considered valuable from a labour market perspective as they are either educated or employed, and pay taxes. It is interesting to note that Canada presently has no comparable program to provide work permits for children who were brought by their parents illegally. By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law “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, ImmigrationSeptember 14, 2017June 18, 2020
Ontario to Have Employees Trained for Pot Stores Next Year Kathleen Wynne announced that 150 stores will sell marijuana once it is legalized and the LCBO will oversee the operation of all stores. The LCBO has the expertise for the regulation and distribution of alcohol, so in order for the government to save some costs and know that the initiative is properly dealt with, the LCBO is the best choice. They will oversee the introduction of legalized marijuana. This will allow for a smooth transition. Many critics have said that the LCBO will not have properly trained and educated employees working within these locations, however, president of the Ontario Public Service Employee Union, Warren “Smokey” Thomas, addressed this concern earlier this week. He says, “we’ll be ready for it, don’t worry about that,” because his members will be well trained by experts available from the medical marijuana industry that will pass on knowledge of distribution, sales, and product quality control and expects experienced workers from soon-to-be-outlawed private operations to apply for such jobs, and highlighted the benefit of higher union wages as the main attraction. There are opposing views to the time frame and question of educated employees and the training they will receive with dispensary supporters stating that as dispensary technicians they “determine experience, tolerance, and recommend the appropriate product to ensure they have a good experience,” and believe ha the level of attention they provide, will not be given. They consider the level of attention that is presently given by the LCBO in their liquor stores, and the transition they want to have, cannot happen overnight. While Greg Engel, CEO of a licensed producer of medical cannabis said the government is realistic with their goal, and that staff that will be able to advise clients of the effects, duration, and recommends something that is right for the experience they are looking for is critical. Of the first wave of the 150 stores, the first 40 to be opened will require 200 new members and could grow to 1,000 or more once all of the stores are up and running. “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, Cannabis LawSeptember 13, 2017July 5, 2023
Man Arrested for Disrupting Filming in Riverdale HBO has been filming a movie featuring Michael B. Jordan and Scarborough-born YouTube star Lilly Singh, however a frustrated neighbour of 450 Pape Avenue took matters into his own hands, resulting in his arrest on Monday Afternoon. HBO was filming Fahrenheit 451, when they were disrupted by Nick Shcherban who set up two speakers and an amplifier in his backyard, and pointed it in the direction of 450 Pape Ave. He was charged with mischief – interfere with property, public mischief, criminal harassment and causing a disturbance. He will have his bail hearing today. Not only did the film crew have an issue with his loud music on Monday, but residents also called authorities and issued noise complaints against him, which prompted a visit from police to discuss the complaint, later resulting in him being escorted into a police car – while the film crew watched. The city confirmed that the film company did engage with the community to get support and approval for the late night filming that took place, and to ensure the public that all filming will be limited to the property and inside the residence. The mansion located at Pape and Riverdale has previously been used for the movie It and CTV show Orphan Black. 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 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 LawSeptember 13, 2017June 18, 2020