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
Gateway to Canada: Roxham Road By: Nicolas Di Nardo Desperate migrants are still making a run for it to Canada’s border. Since Trump took over the highest office, a tiny dead end on Roxham Road looks to have become the favourite non-official border crossing for tons of people looking for refuge. On Sunday alone, approximately 400 people crossed over the border using Roxham Road, according to U.S. and Canadian officials. Every person to cross at Roxham Road, enters Canada with the hope that it will be the answer to their problems, most of which stem from the current political climate in the United States. What they probably don’t expect, is to be greeted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers with handcuffs, ready to arrest them. However, they are only cuffed for a moment, now that Canadian police have set up a reception centre in the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle area of Quebec, so that migrants can be processed, given food, and assistance to help prepare their applications for refuge. They even have shuttle busses ready to transport everyone, and will soon be adding electricity and portable toilets. Just this week, they have also started to add tents to accommodate more people, and are looking to add lighting and heat. Interestingly enough, even though these migrants are entering Canada at an unofficial location (not a legal port of entry), they are legally allowed to request refugee status as a result. A little quirk in the application of the law has caused this, but whoever was the first to come to this realization, using Roxham Road as an entry point, had to have done some research beforehand. If they were to try to enter Canada from the U.S. using a port of entry, they would have been denied entry and told to apply for refugee status in the U.S. as a result. The law, under the 2002 Safe Country Agreement between Canada and the U.S. states that if migrants are seeking asylum, they must apply to the first country they arrive in. Since people are entering Canada through a non-official point of entry, they are not being denied or told to turn back, instead, they are given the opportunity to apply for refugee status. Many Migrants have decided to seek refuge in Canada because of Trump’s bans and clear dislike of majority-Muslim countries, because they do not see the U.S. as they used to, as a safe haven. Instead, Canada has now become their idea of a safe haven. Taking a chance and staying in the U.S. with the risk of being sent back to their respective countries was not attractive for many, and the risk they took to get to Canada and cross the border was and is a better option. A number of migrants have said that they are seeking a better life, and if they are forced to go back, they will be in more trouble than they are currently. With the increase in numbers of people entering Canada, last week it was announced that shelter will be available in Montreal’s Olympic Stadium, however, if people would like to go on their own and seek their own housing, they are welcome to do so. If they require assistance, they are also able to reach out to the government. For now, until their applications are processed and approved, they are free to live in Canada and do what they choose. 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. “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 10, 2017June 19, 2020
Minister of Justice Suggests Lowering The Legal Alcohol Limit By: Nicolas Di Nardo The days of romantic dates could potentially disappear if the Federal government decides to reduce the legal alcohol limit for licensed drivers. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has suggested lowering the limit to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood from the current 80 milligrams. Last May, Wilson-Raybould sent a letter to provincial and territorial justice ministers suggesting this, as she believes that it will “better respond to the danger posed by impaired drivers,” however, others disagree. François Meunier, a spokesperson for Quebec’s restaurant lobby has said that, “the (change would) mean a woman can have one drink and a man, in most cases, two,” so forget about ordering a bottle of wine with dinner, that won’t fly anymore. Meunier also notes it won’t only be a problem for couples trying to enjoy a night out, but restaurants will also suffer. He stresses that owners are not worried about losing alcohol sales, but food sales that go along with the alcohol, and their total revenue are of their main concern. He also notes it is likely that, “when it comes to celebrations, parties, all that will be done at home as people change their behaviour…people will choose to stay home.” Wilson-Raybould responded to reactions over her letter, stating that the current rules were established after an abundance of research, and with more recent research already conducted, it indicated that the “data underestimated the fatal crash risk,” and outlined that the risk of getting into a car accident is actually: Almost double at 50mg Almost triple at 80mg Wilson-Raybould also mentioned in her letter a case study that looked into the dissuasive effect a reduction in blood/alcohol limit levels can have, citing Ireland. She wrote, “the reduction to 50 milligrams of alcohol, combined with obligatory testing for alcohol, produced a 50 per cent reduction in deadly road accidents… and a reduction of about 65 per cent in the number of (criminal) charges.” With Bill C-46, it allows police to demand drivers submit to a breathalyzer even if they don’t suspect they are under the influence. This, in tandem with the proposed lowered alcohol limit, could prove to be very effective. However, bar and restaurant owners still do not approve. They believe that the government should focus on stopping repeat drunk drivers, not penalizing responsible ones. Other opinions address Trudeau and the legalization of marijuana, how he “wants to get everyone high”, but also prevent them from drinking. “It’s a double standard,” says Peter Sergakis, head of an association representing bar owners, “where is the logic?” The timing could not be worse to introduce this measure, seeing as provinces are preparing for the marijuana legalization bill to become law in 2018. Trying to juggle both at once may be too big of a pill for the government to swallow. 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 SiddiquiBlogAugust 9, 2017June 22, 2020
Toronto Man Subjected To ‘Cruel and Unusual’ Punishment While Detained By Brantford Police By: Nicolas Di Nardo, Junior Marketing & Administrator Treatment of prisoners is a big issue that for the most part, goes unseen by many all over the world. Many countries are full of corrupt law enforcement officers, horrible prison conditions, or do not follow the basic rights that are to be given to prisoners. However, you’d never suspect that a prisoner in Canada would go through and type of ‘cruel and unusual’ treatment that we hear about on the news. Unfortunately, it still does happen in our own backyard. Philip Alafe didn’t expect something like this to happen in Canada either, especially to him. Alafe, 27, is from Nigeria and is currently applying for refugee status. He was arrested back in July 2015 for dangerous driving, and assault with a weapon for driving dangerously at others. Upon his arrest, he disclosed his mental health issues – depression and anxiety – along with his disease, sick cell anemia, which without medication he can be left in an abundance of pain. In addition, he told Brantford Police Officer Staff Sgt. Cheney Venn that he was not suicidal in any way. Alafe and Venn arrived at the Police station at 6:50pm, at which time Alafe disclosed the above information before being placed in a cell. There, he began to have one of the worst nights of his life. Alafe described his whole night, stating that they treated him “worse than an animal…[he was] stripped of everything… [he] just didn’t want to live anymore… [he] thought he was going to be in that situation forever.” Philip’s night in the station was broken down into events: 11:21 p.m. Alafe spends 15 minutes asking for medication and throws wet toilet paper Venn threatens a “very frigging cold night” if Alafe continues to throw toilet paper 11:48 p.m. Alafe continue to throw toilet paper Venn takes his blanket and mattress away and provides Alafe with one pill 1:10 a.m. Philip ties his jumpsuit to the cell bars Venn threatens to take it if it is not taken down 2:50 a.m. Over this time, Alafe asks for his blanket back and ties his t-shirt to the bars, which Venn takes 3:01 a.m. Philip tries to get a piece of paper with his jumpsuit Jumpsuit is taken by Venn 3:03 a.m. From this point on, Alafe now spends his time in the cell naked, until 7:30 a.m. At 6 a.m. he tries to tie his socks into a noose, which an officer takes from him 7:30 a.m. Other officers return Alafe’s jumpsuit, mattress, and blanket After having gone through this night in the Brantford Police station and bringing this matter to court, Alafe said that without the video footage no one would have believed him when describing the events that took place. The footage displayed the “cruel and unusual treatment” that Alafe suffered, which the Ontario Court Justice Ken Lenz had also determined. Lenz found his rights under section 7 and section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated. Sec. 7: Life, liberty and security of a person Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Sec. 12: Treatment or punishment Everyone has the right to not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. When this ruling was issued in April, Ken Lenz condemned Venn’s behaviour describing the treatment as “egregious” and “clearly degrading to human dignity”. Not only did Judge Lenz identify that Venn had violated police policies relating to treatment of people in custody with mental health concerns, he defended Alafe by acknowledging that there was “nothing the defendant could do to stop his mistreatment even when he did behave as requested for extensive periods of time.” This is not the first case in which Venn has mistreated people in custody with mental health concerns. Venn defended his actions, testifying in court that his actions were common practice in similar situations. Lenz challenged Venn’s testimony and reviewed the Brantford Police policy, which states: A blanket should not be provided only if there is a history of suicidal tendencies, destructive behaviour, or the officer in charge deems it harmful to the prisoner, any person, or the facility. The policy does not mention the actions of removing mattresses, but does state that clothing may only be removed if the prisoner is suicidal. During his testimony, Venn said he was not concerned he would self-harm until he witnessed the sock incident. Lenz continued to take Alafe’s side, saying that Venn was “bullying someone in his control because he could” and that it “looks more like punishment than an attempt to elicit good behaviour.” Parallel with Alafe’s belief, Lenz even addressed the video exhibits, Lenz said, “without the cell videos, he would’ve simply believed the officer’s testimony.” This particular case is causing Lenz to have a change of heart with regards to our police force. He went on to say that the is beginning to share the perception that Alafe has, that the police can’t be fully trusted. As a result, the judge stayed the charges against Alafe. Venn is still on the force, he remains on regular duties. In addition to this ruling, Brantford police chief Greg Nelson will be investigating into potential professional misconduct. The policy and training practices in relation to prisoner care and handling will also be addressed and reviewed by the Brantford Police Service, and their findings will be presented to the Police Services Board. 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 Law, Human Rights LawAugust 3, 2017June 22, 2020
Toronto Man Sentenced to Life in Prison, Eligible for Parole after 25 Years By: Nicolas Di Nardo, Junior Marketing & Administrator A man that was on the verge of marriage, Brett Ryan, 36, pleaded guilty last week to killing his mother, and two of his brothers in August 2016. However, Brett’s motivation for the events that occurred in August 2016 stem from his troubled past. In 2009, Ryan pleaded guilty to eight bank robberies, sentenced to five years. Due to pretrial custody he only ended up serving three years and nine months. Fast forward to June 2016. Ryan got a job at an IT company, but before he could even step foot in the office, he was fired after the employer discovered he had a criminal record. Days before the murders took place, Ryan admitted to his mother that he was unemployed, and has been lying to his fiancée. He was telling her that he was working from home. Susan, Brett’s mother had told her son to tell his fiancée the truth, and that she would support him financially for a period of time, says the statement of facts. Brett than became concerned that if he were to admit he was unemployed to his fiancée, that she would break off the relationship. In the statement of facts, he then admitted to a plan to kill his mother out of fear that she would expose him and that the wedding would then be called off. Ryan’s plan involved: Placing a crossbow in the garage of their family home Setting up his devices (laptop, iPad, iPhone) to be activated and create an internet footprint to serve as an alibi On the 25th day of August 2016, Ryan arrived to confront his mother around 1 p.m. The statement of facts reads that Ryan only intended to confront her about her threats of exposing him, and that he was going to convince her to continue to support him financially until the wedding and until he found a job. The argument unfortunately took a turn, and Ryan’s mother called her son Christopher, 42, to come help her. During the argument, Brett retrieved the crossbow and bolts from the garage. He then stabbed his mother with a bolt, and strangled her. Once Christopher arrived, he shot him with a bolt, and hid their bodies in the garage. As he was walking out, his other brother, Alexander, 29, arrived. They fought and Alexander was then stabbed. By this time, Brett’s plan had escalated and he was left with three of his family members’ bodies. Leigh, his older brother was in the house, and came downstairs to see what was going on. Leigh walked outside to see Ryan standing over Alexander’s body and ran into the house. He was then assaulted by Brett while attempting to call police. Leigh managed to escape to a neighbour’s house and called 911. Ryan was charged with three counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder. Last week in court, Brett Ryan pleaded guilty to the following: First-degree murder in the death of Christopher Ryan Two counts of second-degree murder of Susan Ryan and Alexander Ryan Attempted murder of his older brother Leigh He was sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder, life in prison in the second-degree murders, and a 10-year sentence for the attempted murder of his brother. He is not eligible for parole for 25 years, and the sentences will run concurrently. If you require representation for criminal disputes, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s criminal lawyers. For all other legal services and inquiries, please visit 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, Criminal LawAugust 1, 2017June 22, 2020