Dispute over Custody of the Dog(s) By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student Back in January, we discussed the issue of dogs having rights similar to that of children in a custody battle. Mention was made to a then recent decision from the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, which held that dogs are to be considered as “property” and should not be treated as though they are children. The judge’s words came in response to a divorcing couples petition to the court for interim possession of the family dogs. Without question, custody battles over the family pets are quite common. Though it is not often that these types of disputes will make it to the courts. However, in Nova Scotia this issue has once again come before an adjudicator. Similar to Justice Danyliuk in Saskatchewan, Eric Slone – an adjudicator with Nova Scotia’s small claims court – was tasked with ruling on who gets custody of the family dog. Slone presided over a case of a former Halifax-area couple who had been sharing one of their dogs, Lily, since they separated back in 2012. However, the one of the partners sought to obtain sole ownership of Lily in early 2017. Because the previous ruling on the issue of “dog custody” stems from Saskatchewan, the decision is only persuasive in Nova Scotia, rather than authoritative. Decisions from the same level of court or other provinces or jurisdictions may assist decision-makers in reaching a decision, though these decisions are not binding upon adjudicators in other jurisdictions. However, the law in this area is clear. At law a dog is property, as it is a domesticated animal that is owned. “At law a dog enjoys no familial rights,” explained Justice Danyliuk. “In a more perfect world there would be special laws recognizing pets as living, feeling creatures with rights to be looked after by those who best meet their needs or interests, and there would be specialized accessible courts to determine the ‘best interest of the dog,’ as there are for children in the family courts,” Slone said in his written ruling released in early August. The Halifax adjudicator continued, “In this less perfect world, there is the Small Claims Court operating on principles of property law, treating pets as “chattels” not very different – legally speaking – from the family car.” “Determining ownership of family pets is not easy for the court, nor necessarily fair to the disputants. Often, as is the case here, neither of the people in this dog’s life was really concerned about legal ownership until things went wrong. When families break apart, the family dog will usually be awarded to the person with the best case for legal ownership,” Slone wrote. Unfortunately, what these decisions mean is that despite the representation in “Legally Blonde,” it is actually not in fact that easy to obtain “full canine property ownership” – Elle Woods. Here’s hoping that Canadian law surrounding pet ownership does in fact change in the near future. and that the end result is the “perfect world” described by Slone. If you have any questions about your property or custodial rights or require further information or assistance in regards to any family law matters, please contact one of our family lawyers. “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 LawAugust 24, 2017June 19, 2020
Former Lottery Worker Sentenced to 25 years for Rigging Winnings On Tuesday, former security director for the Multistate Lottery Association (MLA) Eddie Tipton, was given the maximum sentence – 25 years. Tipton was charged with ongoing criminal conduct for a scheme involving seven lottery tickets in five states, the court documents read. He rigged computer codes that would produce winning numbers which netted him and his accomplices millions. He was accused of buying tickets in various states and selecting numbers that he knew would win, since he designed the program that generated the winning numbers. Tipton then gave the tickets to third parties who cashed the winning ticket and split the money. In addition to the ongoing criminal conduct charge, Tipton was charged with money laundering but prosecutors agreed to drop the charge. His 25 year sentence will be severed concurrently with his five and a half year sentence in Wisconsin, which he pleaded guilty to theft by fraud and computer crime. Tipton also agreed to pay significant amounts to four lotteries, totalling about $2.2 million: $1.1 million to the Colorado lottery $644,000 to the Oklahoma lottery $391,000 to the Wisconsin lottery $30,000 to the Kansas lottery When Judge Brad McCall asked him on Tuesday how he intended to repay the money, Tipton said, “Initially, I really don’t know.” Tipton’s lawyer said he expects his client will serve three to four years before being released. At DSF we have many practice areas to suit your needs. If you require a criminal law lawyer, please visit our criminal law page and contact lawyer David Schell. 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 LawAugust 23, 2017June 19, 2020
Damages Awarded in Anti-SLAPP Ontario Case United Soils v. Mohammed is the first Ontario judicial ruling to award damages to a defendant under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation that was enacted in 2010. The government has been trying to stop misuse of the court with Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, a.k.a. SLAPP lawsuits. These lawsuits are intended to censor, intimidate and silence public critics by burdening a person or group of people with substantial legal costs until they abandon their criticism or opposition. The decision should serve as a warning to individuals bringing SLAPP lawsuits that not only will their case be dismissed, they will be liable for all lawyers’ legal fees and a damages award. While Ms. Mohammed was awarded a nominal amount of $7,500 for her emotional stress, the court’s remarks in the decision should be a much larger deterrent. The plaintiff, United Soils, decided to sue Katie Mohammed, a teacher, after she posted her remarks in two Stouffville Facebook groups– one, a secret group called “Stouffville Mommies” and the second, a closed group called “Stouffville Buy and Sell.” Due to the group’s privacy settings, Ms. Mohammed’s remarks were not made to the public at large but to a subset of the public that had joined the groups. Ms. Mohammed posted about United Soils after her local city council voted to amend an agreement it had with the company in regards to a gravel pit that the company operates close to a geological watershed that is the source of drinking water for most of Toronto. The amendment allowed the company to deposit “acceptable fill from small quantity source sites and hydro-evacuation trucks.” Ms. Mohammed was very concerned about the amendment as groundwater contamination has occurred in Stouffville in the past. She joined a protest group on Facebook and even attended a meeting on the issue. Ms. Mohammed was not the first to notice or oppose the amendment. In fact, she had heard about the amendment from a series of tweets about the counsel meeting, posted on the city council’s webpage, that suggested that the mayor and a councillor were concerned about the risk posed by what the trucks might deposit on the site. A local newspaper also picked up the story and published it the next day. It was after these public comments that Ms. Mohammed posted in a secret and a closed Facebook group. Her comments stated that she was concerned that contamination could poison her and the town’s children. United Soils distinguished its selection of Ms. Mohammed based on her use of the word “poison.” Ms. Mohammed was soon sent a letter by the company’s lawyer. The letter demanded that she retract her statement and apologize. Complying with the letter, she promptly retracted her statement and apologized but was sent a Notice of Libel (an allegation of defamation) the next day with a claim against her for $120,000 in damages. Her lawyer David Sterns, the current president of the Ontario Bar Association, decided to take her case on a contingency basis based on his past submissions to the Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel, a panel commissioned to limit these types of lawsuits. Due to this Panel’s report, the Ontario government amended the Courts of Justice Act to include anti-SLAPP provision s. 137.1. Under this section, if a defendant was successful in an anti-SLAPP motion they would be awarded costs on a full indemnity basis for both the motion and the action (i.e. his or her legal bill would be fully reimbursed by the other side). Section 137.1(9) also allows the court to award damages if the judge finds that the proceeding was brought for an improper purpose. Justice Lederer found that there was substantial evidence that the lawsuit was brought in an attempt to silence Ms. Mohammed and others in the community who were protesting the amendment. First, Ms. Mohammed had already apologized and retracted her statements, exactly what the letter demanded she do. The company brought four interlocutory motions to slow down the proceedings, many without merit. Soils had even conceded that Ms. Mohammed had made an “expression” “related to a matter of public interest,” which is a complete defence to defamation. Despite forcing the company to pay the other side’s (and its own) legal costs as well as a damages award of $7,500, these nominal amounts may not be enough to deter well-heeled individuals and corporations from bringing these lawsuits. As mentioned in an interview with Canadian Lawyer Magazine, United Soils has sued at least two other people in the same community for similar remarks. 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: Michelle Cook, Summer Law Student “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 SiddiquiBlogAugust 22, 2017June 19, 2020
Six Figure Income Required To Buy in the GTA If the past year of insanely high home prices hasn’t made you rethink home ownership, maybe this new report will. Two real estate companies conducted separate studies and have come up with the income requirements if you are looking to afford a home in Toronto. The results don’t seem to benefit Canada’s millennials. A majority of millennials out there, approximately 59% of those aged 25 to 30, would like to own a detached house in 5 years. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but according to research by TheRedPin, the annual income needed to afford the average detached house in Toronto ($1.15 million) is a whopping $200,663 with monthly mortgage payments of $4,349 (based on 20 per cent down, 2.99% mortgage, amortized over 25 years). A condo does not give millennials much hope either, with the average price being $576,000, you’d need an income of $92,925 to carry payments of $1,933 a month, plus tax, utilities, and condo fees. While these numbers start to slowly change, people in their late 20s are going to continue to face affordability issues compared to their parents. While cities like Toronto provide the best opportunity for employment for young adults, they result in being the most expensive markets to own property. Going outside of the city to live and work may seem like the better option, but it is still relatively expensive: Buyers need more than $150,000 a year to cover the cost in half of 22 Toronto area municipalities Oshawa needs an annual income of $108,773 to afford an average home of $552,268 King Township needs $264,000 a year to afford $5,883 in mortgage payments with an average price of $1.6 million Many young adults looking to escape their family home, stop paying rent, and find a place to call their own, cannot afford to put a down payment on a condo or house. Nearly 25 per cent have looked to family for assistance on a down payment. Even though that number is quite low, it may continue to grow with the rate the market is going. It isn’t as easy to afford housing as it used to be. If you are in need of a real estate lawyer, please visit our website and contact one of our real estate lawyers today. If you are in need of any other services or have any questions, you may also contact our Toronto office 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, Real EstateAugust 22, 2017June 19, 2020
Update: Laid-off Sears Workers land hardship fund By: Stuart Clark, Student-at-Law In an earlier blog, we noted that Sears Canada had agreed to create a fund for former employees who were denied severance payments while the company restructured. Now, according to the Financial Post, Sears’ creditors say that they will seek a motion to lift the court-ordered stay which prevents them from exercising their rights on Sears’ unpaid debts. Recall that a debtor company can seek an initial order from the court that grants them a ‘stay’ against its creditors while it renegotiates or restructures its debts, but that this stay is not indefinite. The creditors have said that they will seek to remove the stay to go forward with a claim of ‘negligent misrepresentation’ and ‘oppression’ against Sears leadership. The ‘oppression remedy’ is a specialized tool that corporate stakeholders can use to contest actions by a corporation and its board of directors. The remedy derives from s 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) which says that the courts may intervene wherever a corporation’s business is carried out, or directors’ powers are being exercised, in a manner that is ‘oppressive’ or ‘unfairly prejudicial’ to the interests of any security holder, creditor, director, or officer. The remedial powers in the section are vast—allowing the court a wide range of discretion to correct the oppressive treatment. The test for engaging the remedy comes from a case called Icahn Partners LP v Lions Gate Entertainment Corp, which says that the oppression remedy is only appropriate where: There is a breach of reasonable expectations: The stakeholder’s reasonable expectations are breached through the actions of the corporation or its directors; and, The breach is oppressive: The breach was either oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregarded the interests of the complainant. For the first condition to be met, the expectations breached form part of the reasonable expectations created between the claimant and the company. This depends on the specific relationship between the two parties and accounts for the relationship between parties, duties under the CBCA (like a director’s duty to act in the best interest of the corporation), and industry standards. For the second, the conduct must be found to be substantially unfair. A breach of those reasonable expectations is not automatically oppressive, the conduct of the company must unfairly disregard the interests of the security holder. In Icahn, the court found that shareholders have a reasonable expectation that their interests will not be discriminated against to the benefit of other stakeholders. As a result, board walk a fine line between protecting larger corporate interests and oppressive conduct towards shareholders. Sears walks this line right now. One of the biggest tensions in corporate governance arises when interests of the corporation run against the interests of its shareholders or creditors. We will have to wait to see if Sears’ leadership has been successful in meeting their duty to the corporation while still taking into account the interests of their creditors. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our corporate and bankruptcy groups. 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 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, Corporate LawAugust 21, 2017June 19, 2020
Laid-off Sears Workers land Hardship Fund By: Stuart Clark, Student-at-Law According to the Financial Post, Sears Canada has agreed to create a fund for former employees who were denied severance payments as the company restructures itself. The deal was hammered out by lawyers representing the company and workers, and will be funded to the tune of $500,000—coming directly from money earmarked for executive bonuses. While it will not make employees as a group whole, the fund will target those facing genuine hardship. Sears’ severance obligations were modified as a component of the court-controlled restructuring process under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). Using the Act, Sears was able to shed roughly 2,900 jobs across the country without severance. Under the Act, a debtor company can seek an initial order from the court that grants them a ‘stay’ against its creditors while it renegotiates or restructures its debts. In simple terms, this means that creditors are prevented from exercising their rights to collect on a debt, agreements with suppliers cannot be terminated (from either party), and further transactions require court approval. For example, under a stay, a creditor with an outstanding secured debt would be prevented from repossessing the secured property (like a piece of equipment, etc.). The stay is not indefinite, however. The guiding purpose of the Act is to give companies who qualify time to restructure so they can meet their creditor obligations. Generally, a business may only qualify if the total claims against the company are more than $5,000,000 (s.1). The counterpart to the CCAA is the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), which applies to individuals, corporations, income trusts, and partnerships. The key difference is complexity, debtor companies apply for CCAA protection because of their size, while individuals and small businesses operate under the BIA. The processes are similar, however, and both offer debtors the tools to preserve their business, renegotiate with creditors, and, most importantly, avoid liquidation. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that has a very experienced group of lawyers within our bankruptcy and insolvency groups. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Corporate LawAugust 17, 2017June 19, 2020
Police now require Search Warrants to Obtain Hydro Records for Grow-Op Investigations By: Nicolas Di Nardo Police practices are about to change, now that the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that police investigating a suspected marijuana grow-op now require a search warrant to obtain hydro records from utility companies. The Ontario Court of Appeal made this ruling in a case that involved police investigating a grow-op in a Hamilton home. This landmark decision sends a message to law enforcement as well as hydro companies. It is common practice for police to review hydro-usage patterns in order to identify grow-ops, because they use enormous amounts of electricity compared to they average home. “Now, police must obtain a warrant or other judicial authorization in order to search and seize hydro consumption records” with respect to suspected grow operations. The defendants rented a home with a grow-op in the basement. The hydro company that co-operated with police is Horizon Utilities, which has a customized software to detect patterns of electricity use that are consistent with grow operations. However, the court ruling notes that the hydro company forwarded the information to the police. This is actually a common practice by Ontario utility companies, and have never required a warrant to do so – however, Paul Lewin, the lawyer for the defendants, said that Horizon went a step further by forwarding the police the information rather than waiting for the police to contact them for the records. This, comes after the surveillance and investigating, when they requested additional information about the electricity use at the home, including neighbouring residences, with Horizon voluntarily complying. Following surveillance, the police applied for a warrant to search the residence, which relied on, in part, the electricity usage that was supplied by Horizon. Police discovered the grow-op in the basement, seized $23,000 and charged the defendants. They were convicted in 2014, after the judge deemed their rights were not violated under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Judges of the Court of Appeal did find their rights against an unreasonable search and seizure violated when Horizon shared the information with the police, which launched the investigation. Justice David Doherty wrote in the decision released August 11, that “the examination and use of the data by the police was not authorized by law, and therefore could not be reasonable within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter… the appellants’ right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was breached.” As stated earlier, the evidence was not excluded because judges believe the police might have believed in good faith that they were entitled to the energy data without a warrant. Now, once pot becomes legal next year, if police suspect people are exceeding the allowance put in place (four plants for Canadians, 12 plants for medical growers) they will have to request a warrant in order to obtain any records, keeping what goes on in the home, private. 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. “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 LawAugust 17, 2017June 19, 2020
Canadian Government Launches the Global Skills Strategy By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student On June 12 of this year, the Government of Canada announced the commencement of the Global Skills Strategy. The program was originally announced back in November, 2016. The Global Skills Strategy Programme is designed to assist employers to attract foreign workers with top-talent and innovative skills in an effort to help Canadian companies thrive, grow and ultimately, create more jobs. “When companies in Canada can thrive and grow, they create more jobs.” The intent of the Global Skills Strategy is to provide employers with a faster and more predictable process for attracting top-talent and new skills to Canada. Under the Strategy, in most circumstances and for managerial and professional occupations, lengthy visa processing delays no longer await highly-skilled workers coming to Canada. Canada’s ambitious two-week turnaround for processing work visas and permits brings a greater level of certainty to both workers and employers. The two-week service standard also applies to immediate family members accompanying highly-skilled workers to Canada. The Strategy also introduces work permit exceptions. Highly-skilled workers who need to come to Canada for a short-term work assignment no longer require a work permit. Eligible workers are permitted one 15 consecutive day work permit-exempt stay in Canada every 6 months, or one 30 consecutive day work permit-exempt stay every 12 months. Researchers taking part in short-term research projects also do not require a work permit. Rather, researchers are allowed one 120-day stay every 12 months with no work permit, if they are working on a research project at a publicly funded degree-granting institution or affiliated research institution, such as a University. Other changes brought forward by the Strategy include: * A dedicated service channel for employers making a significant investment to Canada. This channel helps employers navigate the immigration application process. The channel gives employers access to an account manager, who will assess the employer’s needs, answer questions, and provide guidance. and * The creation of Global Talent Stream for skilled occupations in shortage and for employers with unique talent needs. The Global Talent Stream is available to two categories of employers: Category A: Firms in Canada that are referred to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program’s Global Talent Stream by an Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) Designated Partner because they are innovative and can demonstrate a need to hire unique and specialized temporary foreign workers in order to scale-up and grow. Category B: Firms in Canada that need to hire foreign workers for highly skilled in-demand occupations found on ESDC’s Global Talent Occupations List where there is insufficient domestic labour supply. Reports indicate that since the official launch of the Strategy, Canada has been quite successful in recruiting new workers and talent. This is not however surprising, given the reputation Canada has for good quality of life, in tandem with the current political climate in the United States. If you are an employer looking to hire a highly-skilled foreign worker, or you are a highly-skilled worker looking to come to Canada, or for any other immigration related matters, please contact our Immigration lawyers today. For any other inquiries, browse our website, 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, ImmigrationAugust 16, 2017June 19, 2020
Legal Limbo By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law There is a gap in the deportation system, and it is being filled with indefinite detention. But is this acceptable? A recent decision from the Federal Court says yes, the gap is a misapplication of an appropriate, acceptable law. Alvin Brown spent five years in immigration detention before his deportation order could successfully be carried out. Once deportation has been ordered, immigration detention can be ordered to keep the individual in custody until the date of deportation. Such detention address the evil of individuals not showing up on their deportation dates, where CBSA estimates that there are over 40,000 such individuals in Canada. In response to this, interim detention can be ordered to keep individuals in custody and ensure that they are in fact deported. However, this is not always the linear progression. The problem arises when individuals have been given a deportation order, yet do not meet the formal, legal requirements for deportation, often because they lack formal identity papers for their former countries to repatriate them. What results in this situation is a state of limbo, indefinite detention. In order to deport an individual there needs to be a receiving country, which is supposed to be the individual’s place of birth. However, some people do not have adequate formal documentation to satisfy a recipient government of their nationality or birth place. Recipient countries will not accept such individuals without confirmation of their identity. An individual may lack adequate identification for a variety of reasons, such as a lack of record of their birth, or leaving their birth country at a young age without bringing any documentation, posing an issue of accuracy of identification. Reviews of prolonged detention are to occur every 30 days, but without any movement on the identification of the nationalities of these individuals, such reviews maintain the detention status. While immigration detention is meant as a mechanism to facilitate deportation, in these situations it can become vexatious and quasi-punitive. Some individuals frustrate this process as they refuse to sign their identity paperwork, such as in the case of Michael Mvongo. But others were seemingly innocent, as they happen to be born in countries that are refusing to recognize their births, such as in the cases of Alvin Brown, Ebrahim Toure, and Kashif Ali. The UN has recommended a 90 day cap for detainees. Other countries have set this as the maximum period of immigration detention, but Canada has not. In 2016 there were multiple reports of hunger strikes by detainees holding out for such a cap, with three of them lasting over two weeks. As of yet, the potential for unlimited detention can persist in Canada. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that can assist you with any need. We have a very experienced group of immigration lawyers that are ready to assist you in any capacity. If you require representation, please contact our immigration lawyers today, or if you have any questions you may contact our office 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, ImmigrationAugust 15, 2017June 19, 2020
Ontario’s Colleges Call for Strike By: Stuart Clark, Student-at-Law According to the Toronto Star, the Ontario government has offered faculty members at the province’s colleges a 7.5% wage hike. However, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (“OPSEU”), has called for a strike vote in the fall—wanting to address other issues beyond compensation. Employers and workers represented by a union negotiate working conditions through the process of collective bargaining, governed by Ontario’s Labour Relations Act, 1995. Once a union has been certified or recognized in accordance with the Act (s. 16), both parties are obliged to come together and bargain in good faith to reach a collective agreement (s. 17). For sophisticated employers and unions, the scope of an agreement can be immense; covering everything from salaries, to the hiring process, and even how workers are individually scheduled for their shifts. For example, in a recent blog post, we noted that LCBO workers had threatened to strike over the July long weekend. Workers have since ratified a deal, which included terms that end the LCBO’s practice of scheduling two-hour shifts. This is just one example of how granular a collective agreement can become. Normally, for the agreement to come into force, it must be ‘ratified’ by the members of the union’s bargaining unit (s. 44), with those supporting the offer totalling more than 50% of votes cast. Even if union leadership supports a deal, this is no guarantee of its success. 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 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. “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 Law, Labour LawAugust 10, 2017June 19, 2020