Mitchell Irwin Sentenced to 4 years Behind Bars, 6 year Driving Ban By: Nicolas Di Nardo Yesterday’s blog outlined the incident that occurred on June 13, 2015, when Mitchell Irwin sped through an intersection, hit a cyclist and left the scene. The cyclist later passed away due to major head trauma. Mentioned in the previous blog were the statement of facts, along with the charges laid in the initial arrest: Criminal negligence causing death (sec. 220) Failing to remain (sec. 252) Violating bail conditions, which includes: Communicating with two friends who were in the car at the time Consuming alcohol Irwin was sentenced yesterday for above hit-and-run. He was sentenced to: 4 years in prison 6 year driving ban (following his prison sentence) This was given out on Monday after pleading guilty last Friday to dangerous driving causing the death of Adam Excell, and failing to remain at the scene and breaching his bail conditions. Excell’s family still does not believe that justice was served after hearing the sentence. They believe that “if you take someone’s life while driving, you shouldn’t be able to drive…you shouldn’t have that privilege.” If you require representation for criminal disputes, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s criminal lawyers. For all other legal services and inquiries, please take a look at 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 LawJuly 25, 2017June 22, 2020
Christopher Husbands: Eaton Centre Shooter Granted New Trial By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student In a previous blog post, we discussed the possibility of a new trial being granted to Christopher Husbands. Husbands was the perpetrator in the 2012 Eaton Centre shootings, which killed two people. Husbands was found guilty of two counts of second-degree murder in 2015. Recently, Husbands argued that his 2015 trial was prejudiced as a result of an improperly selected jury, and as such, he argued that he was entitled to a new trial. Last Friday, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed. The Court overturned Husbands’ convictions as a result of the trial judge’s “irreparable mistake” with regards to the jury selection. As discussed in the previous post on this issue, in the 2015 trial, static jurors were imposed by the trial judge, despite Husbands’ lawyers’ request for rotating jurors. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that Husbands’ request was clear, and the trial judge was wrong to have imposed static jurors. According to the Court of Appeal, “In accordance with the current state of the law… what occurred here cannot be salvaged.” This decision comes as little surprise, as the Court of Appeal has made the law clear on this point: the improper use of static jurors will render a conviction voidable (R v Noureddine). As the Noureddine decision stems from the highest court in Ontario, it is binding on all lower courts in the Province. It is the trial judge’s failure to follow Noureddine that has led to the overturning of Husbands’ convictions. Yet, it is likely to take more than a year before a new trial for Husbands gets underway. As Husbands was acquitted on the charge of first-degree murder, his new trial will be on the charges of second-degree murder, as well as aggravated assault and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. If you require representation for criminal disputes, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s criminal lawyers. For all other legal services and inquiries, please take a look at 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 LawJuly 25, 2017June 22, 2020
Driver Charged in Attack of 74 year-old Cyclist in Peterborough By: Nicolas Di Nardo A video that surfaced (WARNING: Graphic Content) on the internet of an incident that occurred last Tuesday around 11 a.m., has led to a man being charged for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The man in question, David Fox, 65, is shown in the graphic video beating a man with a club while kneeling over top of him on the side of the road. Police have said that an argument had taken place between the 74 year old cyclist and the truck driver prior to the attack. Fox’s only defence in the video when confronted was that he “tried to walk away.” Later on it was reported that Fox had fled with scene in his truck. Luckily for the cyclist, the woman recording was able to get a clear shot of the attacker, the truck’s make, model, and license plate, not to mention also capturing part of the attack. She unfortunately was unable to record the beginning of the confrontation that led to the attack. A number of bystanders cam to the aid of the cyclist when they realized what was going on, and attempted to contain the driver until police arrived, but were unsuccessful. An hour later, Police arrested David Fox, while the cyclist was transported to the hospital, and was treated and released. David Fox is scheduled to appear in court on August 24th, and was released from custody. If you require representation for criminal disputes, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s criminal lawyers. For all other legal services and inquiries, please take a look at 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 LawJuly 25, 2017June 22, 2020
Driver of Vehicle that Killed Cyclist in 2015 to be Sentenced By: Nicolas Di Nardo Back in June 2015, Mitchell Irwin, now 21, struck a cyclist, Adam Excell, 26, while he was biking at night. Now two years later, Irwin owned up to his actions and pled guilty to dangerous driving causing death on Friday. At the time of the accident that took place in the area of Yorkville, Irwin was 19. The statement of facts which was agreed upon, outlines the night of the incident: 11:20 p.m.: Excell was making a left turn onto Davenport during an amber light, after oncoming traffic had stopped Irwin was weaving through vehicles, sped into the intersection and hit Excell According to a collision reconstruction report, Irwin was going 87 km/h in a 50 km/h zone Excell was thrown a significant distance, suffered major head trauma and passed away at the hospital Irwin then continue to drive home after the collision to Keswick, Ontario The next day Irwin surrendered to police The initial arrest charged Irwin in accordance with the Criminal Code: Criminal negligence causing death (sec. 220) Failing to remain (sec. 252) Violating bail conditions, which includes: Communicating with two friends who were in the car at the time Consuming alcohol After the court appearance on Friday, Excell’s family made a point to discuss dangerous driving in many of their statements to the media, and how the actions of these drivers can seriously damage the lives of the victim’s family members. It impacts you differently when you hear about it on the news, versus when it ends up being one of your own. Even though you hear about cyclists in the news quite frequently (unfortunately), when it is a family member, it becomes personal. The case resumes this morning and Mitchell is expected to be sentenced. If you require representation for criminal disputes, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s criminal lawyers. For all other legal services and inquiries, please take a look at 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 LawJuly 24, 2017June 22, 2020
Exxon Mobil Violated Russian Sanctions when now U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was the President and Director By: Michelle Cook, Summer Law Student On Thursday of last week, the Treasury Department fined Exxon Mobil a meagre $2 million for violating sanctions that the U.S. had imposed on Russia. However, the political cost of this violation is much higher for U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Donald Trump’s presidency. These violations occurred in 2014 when Rex Tillerson was the company’s President and Director and further adds to the allegations swirling around Russia’s association with President Donald Trump’s campaign. The 2014 sanctions were put in place after Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea and have only been strengthened after it became clear that Russia was attempting to undermine the U.S. presidential election. Exxon Mobil chose to disregard these clear sanctions by allowing their American subsidiaries to do business with individuals whose assets were blocked by the United States. In particular, legal documents were signed for oil and gas projects with Igor Sechin, the head of Russia’s state oil company, Rosneft. Rex Tillerson and Igor Sechin had a strong friendship preceding 2014. In fact, Rex Tillerson was awarded with the Russian government’s Order of Friendship after he signed deals with Rosneft opening the Kara Sea in Russia’s north-western Arctic to oil drilling. Rex Tillerson’s strong ties to Russia were known before President Trump confirmed his appointment, amid large opposition. While there has been suspicion of President Trump’s collusion with the Russian government even before he was elected President, the Presidency has been stymied after it was revealed his son had an undisclosed meeting with a Russian government lawyer to obtain information that would “incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Instead of trying to keep clear of anything that would associate himself with Russia, President Trump took a secret almost one-hour one-on-one meeting with Putin of which the U.S. government has no records of. Rex Tillerson was the only other U.S. public official in the room besides President Trump. While Rex Tillerson has officially left Exxon Mobil to join the Trump government, it is clear that Exxon Mobil has been attempting to influence the U.S. government to get special exemptions in relation to Russia. For example, in April Exxon asked the Treasury for a waiver from sanctions against Russia so it could drill in the Black Sea with Rosneft. This waiver was denied. Amidst all of this, instead of admitting liability, Exxon Mobil has chosen to challenge the fine. Ultimately, they believe that there were no sanctions against Rosneft, just Mr. Sechin, and therefore they should not have been blocked against doing business with him when he is working in an official, not personal, capacity. Interestingly, Exxon Mobil pointed the finger at BP oil’s American chief executive, who also had several meetings with Rosneft and their 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 SiddiquiBlogJuly 22, 2017June 22, 2020
Monkey Sues Human Over ‘Selfies’ Taken In 2011 By: Nicolas Di Nardo It’s 2017 and apparently, every year that goes by brings something new that we never thought we’d ever see possible. Now, animals seem to be able to sue humans over anything they please. Back in 2011, a British photographer by the name of David Slater gave a crested black macaque his camera, who ended up taking two ‘selfies’. This occurred after Slater spent many long periods of time with the monkey, teaching it to become interested in his equipment. Unfortunately at the time, Slater probably didn’t think he’d be on the receiving end of a lawsuit from the monkey. The monkey and photographs in question were taken in 2011 as part of his project to raise awareness about the species, which is endangered. His intentions were always good, Slater says, he has been a conservation photographer for a very long time. These photos went viral, and quickly ruined Slater’s life. He was no longer able to sell them to raise money for the conservation project, and couldn’t pay himself. The photos became to accessible to the public, so purchasing the photos from him were now out of the question. Wikipedia also created a page dedicated to the photographs, which made them even easier to find. Before all of this, he was making and raising money for the project, which he estimates he made roughly £2,000 in the first year, but after the photographs went on Wikipedia, he estimates that he lost at least £10,000, due to the lack of interest to purchase the photos from him. Now jumping to 2012, Slater was involved in the first legal dispute of many over the photos. In this dispute, Slater requested that Wikimedia Commons pay for his work or remove them, because they had uploaded them to the web as royalty free images. Wiki refused to do so, and claimed that Slater owned no copyright because the monkey was the one who pressed the shutter button, taking the photos himself. In 2014, Slater mentioned in an interview that he lost a huge amount of revenue as a result of this dispute. Wikipedia was Slater’s first hurdle, which he failed to overcome. Now, fast-forwarding to 2015, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) decided to get a piece of the action. PETA is an animal rights organization which consists of 6.5 million members and supporters. Their motto is “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse in any other way.” PETA challenged Slater by claiming that the proceeds from the photographs should go to the monkey, but shortly after in 2016, the court disagreed. The court ruled that copyright protection could not be applied to the animal. Coming to that type of verdict meant that there was still legally no copyright licence on the photos, and that they remain in the public domain. Feeling the pain of defeat, PETA fought back. This time, they took to the Copyright Act (U.S.). Last year they decided to fight the ruling in court, naming the monkey as the author of the works “in ever practical (and definitional) sense.” PETA appealed to the ninth circuit court of appeals, which heard the arguments last week. Using the Copyright Act, PETA stated in the appeal papers, that: “Had the monkey selfies been made by a human using Slater’s unattended camera, that human would undisputedly be declared the author and copyright owner of the photographs… Nothing in the Copyright Act limits its application to human authors… protection under the Copyright Act does not depend on the humanity of the author, but on the originality of the work itself.” The court must now decide: Whether PETA has a close enough relationship with Naruto to represent him What the value would be to provide a community of macaques with written notices of copyright Whether Naruto is actually losing out by not being the formal copyright holder One question has been brought up during the development of this case: Has PETA identified the correct monkey? Slater claims that the one in the photo is female and is not the same age as the one PETA is representing. The monkey PETA is representing is a six year old macaque. Slater believes strongly that it does matter that the right monkey is suing him, and PETA seems to not have the correct one, according to Slater. He’s been suffering after the constant battles in court. He couldn’t even attend the latest court date because he couldn’t afford a plane ticket to the U.S. In addition, he still owes his lawyers, has no real income, can’t afford new camera equipment, and as a result may quit photography all together. He would be happy being a dog walker or a tennis coach. It is shocking how a monkey has the capability in today’s world to ruin a career and put them on the verge of bankruptcy. Slater’s photos have always been for the right reasons, his intentions were good, he supports the raising of awareness for endangered species, but it seems an organization that should be on his side has overlooked Slater’s intention through the distribution and sale of these photographs, and might be taking this a little too far. 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, Intellectual PropertyJuly 21, 2017June 22, 2020
Canada’s Immigration Detainees: Locked Up By Dodgy Risk Assessments By: Nicolas Di Nardo A recent blog post highlighted an immigration detainee that went to court to fight for his release after being locked up for 4 years while awaiting deportation. For more information on that story, please click here to read our blog. Now, a Star investigation further into this matter reveals that detainees are being locked up based on dodgy risk assessments. Immigration detainees are essentially defined as individuals that are non-citizens, whom the government believes will not show up for their deportation. They wear jumpsuits, orange in colour, and can be subjected to routine strip searches. Kept in maximum-security provincial jails, they spend 18 to 24 hours a day in their cells, even if they are no criminal record. These individuals are also detained indefinitely. Unfortunately, there is no legislation governing where the detainees must be placed, so their fate is held by the border services officers once someone has been ordered to be detained by the quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board. In our previous article, The Star profiles a detainee, Ebrahim Toure, who is the longest held detainee currently imprisoned. The reason for his detention in a maximum-security centre is that the government fears he is not going to show up for his deportation, even though he has cooperated with the government, providing them with all of his information, documentation, and has even stated he wishes to be deported. Now, with new developments in The Star’s investigations revealing that the risk assessments done on these detainees are quite dodgy, especially considering someone like Toure is in detention with no criminal record in Canada, can be quite worrisome. Many of Canada’s Border Police lack the expertise to assess risk posed by immigration detainees, as revealed by documents obtained by The Star which were filed in federal court. With such a crucial downfall for the Border Police being exposed to the public, it makes you wonder how many detainees have been wrongfully placed in detention due to unqualified officers’ assessments. Considering detainees can be held indefinitely even though they pose no threat to our society, or may have been cooperative with the government the entire time, something needs to be done. Lawyer Jared Will has been fighting for detainees in the past, and is currently assisting Toure fight for his release and represented Alvin Brown for his deportation. With the current spotlight of The Star’s investigation on the risk assessment for Kyon Ferril’s detention from 2015, a risk assessment was provided to the court filled out by one Canada Border Services Agency officer. The officer wrote, “I am not a medical or mental health professional… I have not received any training on the completion of this form. This assessment is cursory in nature and should not be construed as an accurate representation of the subject’s risk of mental health status.” This not only raises concern about the qualifications of our border officers, but also may cause people to question the legitimacy of theses assessments – especially if almost every form was filled out as such, and still led to these individuals in question to be detained. How many people are detained that don’t pose a threat to society? How many don’t have a criminal record but are detained? How many of them really won’t show up for their deportation? It might be hard to find a legitimate answer to those questions once you factor in the possibility that many of these assessments may be inadequately completed, or false. Unfortunately, the above statement that was on the form for one detainee, Kyon Ferril, caused him to continue serving his indefinite detention in a maximum-security jail, rather than being sent to a less-restrictive facility. The government has three medium-security facilities which are mainly used for immigration detention, however, once an assessment is done and the detainee is deemed “high risk” they are immediately sent to a maximum-security provincial jail. The assessments in question are known as the National Risk Assessment for Detention (NRAD). This form is used when someone is first incarcerated and once complete, will provide their classification (high, medium, low) which then determines how they are to be dealt with. Per the policy, this form should be reassessed every 60 days. As a result of the NRAD, a majority of the detainees end up in jails alongside the criminal population, when many should be in the medium or low-security jails. Most of which are held there indefinitely while detained (if they are ever deported or released). Back in May, there was a fight against indefinite detention, for more information please see this article. Ebrahim Toure, the detainee profiled by The Star as mentioned earlier, is being represented by Jared Will, who has been in a constant battle with Canada’s immigration system and often representing detainees looking to fight for their release, transfer to a less restrictive facility, or even to be deported back to their home country. Will also expresses his disapproval during his cases, and has chimed in about how the officers fill out these forms. He’s shocked by the “lack of competence” of the officers. Considering these officers hold the power to determine how one must live until they are dealt with by the government, deciding people’s basic liberty and security interests, Will is appalled by the administrative process. From the officer’s form that was submitted to court, you can clearly see and understand that the officer had an issue with the task they were given. The statement essentially says that they don’t know what they’re doing, and that the information the officer is providing is not reliable. As The Star dug deeper into the assessment forms, they found “shoddy, inaccurate form completion”, something that should be alarming, considering, as stated before, they determine where someone is going to be held indefinitely. A couple of things they noted from reviewing the forms were: Key sections left entirely blank Both “no” and “unknown” boxes ticked on questions about mental illness and medication Long gaps in time between assessments For two former detainees, Alvin Brown (deported) and Ferril (on strict bail) their assessment forms were accurate with the points listed above. Due to the realization of this horrible practice by Canada’s Border officers, the CBSA will be improving their NRAD form, protocol changes are in the works, training will take place (beginning this summer), and policy will now require the officers provide detainees with a copy of the assessment once completed. 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, ImmigrationJuly 20, 2017June 22, 2020
Security Tightens as U.S.-bound Flights Require Enhanced Screening By: Nicolas Di Nardo Enhanced security measures on any U.S.-bound flight begins today at Pearson Airport. Airlines such as Air Canada and WestJet have already advised passengers to arrive at least 2 hours prior to their flight in order to get through the additional screening process. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security requires personal devices (laptops and tablets) to have enhanced screening done to them. The devices must be: Easily accessible All cases and covers removed This also includes: Enhanced overall passenger screening Increased security around the aircraft Increased security in all passenger areas Use of advanced technology Expanded canine screening The reasoning behind all of this is due to the threats to commercial aviation by terrorist groups, as they continue to target aircrafts. For more information, please visit the Department of Homeland Security website and the Pearson Airport website. Devry Smith Frank LLP is here to assist its clients in all types of immigration matters. We have an experienced immigration law group that deals with individuals as well as businesses for any immigration matter. For more information, please contact one of our Immigration lawyers directly, or call us today 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 SiddiquiBlogJuly 19, 2017June 22, 2020
Lululemon sues Under Armour Over a $52 Sports Bra By: Nicolas Di Nardo Two of the biggest athletic apparel companies are about to go to war, this time, in court and over a sports bra. Lululemon Athletica (NASDAQ: LULU), a Vancouver-based athletic apparel company is suing rival, Under Armour (NYSE: UAA) for copying a sports bra design. The bra in question is Lulu’s Energy Bra, which retails for $52 USD, which Lulu claims UA has copied. The Under Armour products ranging from their Armour Strappy ($22-$29 USD) to their Armour Eclipse Low Impact which retails for $39 USD. The suit focuses on patent and trademark infringements, and Lulu claims “Under Armour’s unauthorized actions have caused an will continue to cause irreparable damage to Lululemon and its business.” Baltimore-based Under Armour responded in wake of the suit, only saying that they take “intellectual property rights of others very seriously.” These two companies are looking to take a piece of the growing market for sports bras, which currently accounts for more than $1 billion in U.S. sales a year. For Lululemon, securing their spot within any market is a key component of their business plan, seeing as they currently have over three dozen patents for their products, one of which happens to be for the sports bra in question. To secure the patent for this particular bra, they had to prove that the straps were an original design, and that it has ornamental value (as opposed to being strictly functional). Lawyers have said this occurrence is unusual in the fashion industry, especially since such companies would not usually go through the trouble and lengthy process of securing patents for their products. Intellectual property lawyer Laura Ganoza has said that, considering an article of clothing may only last a season or less, it is surprising that a company would go through a process that could take a year and a half just to get the patent. Another intellectual property lawyer from Minnesota chimed in, saying that if this case moves forward, he expects that it will focus predominantly on Lulu’s design. Lulu however, may not be too concerned with going to court with competitors. They took Calvin Klein to court back in 2012 in a dispute over a waistband design on its Astro Pant. The companies later settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. It seems that Lululemon is trying to intimidate its competitors, establish their dominance, stand their ground, and deter competitors from copying their designs. They are establishing themselves as a legitimate player in the bra industry by doing their research, and protecting their interests by obtaining rights through patents and trademarks, so that if a company were ever to copy a design, they open themselves up to legal problems. If this suit ends badly for Under Armour, it has the potential to skyrocket Lulu’s position in the sports bra market and bra industry, and also create more opportunity for start ups and online businesses to step in amid Under Armour’s potential downfall and loss of share in the market. There is also potential for Under Armour to have difficulty recovering and gaining back a percentage of the market, if while they suffer from this suit, the start ups, online businesses, Lululemon, and other major players take over completely. On the other hand, with Victoria Secret slowly declining, it could allow for Under Armour to leap back into the market. However, with it being an industry with $1 billion in sales in the U.S. alone, Under Armour should have no problem with their line of sports bras. As more develops and Under Armour responds, the fate of the Baltimore-based company will become clear. It is how they plan to recover that will seal their fate. Until then, we’ll have to wait and see. Devry Smith Frank LLP has a very experienced team of intellectual property lawyers that can assist companies and independent researchers with any of their intellectual property needs. For more information, please visit our intellectual property page and contact one of our lawyers today, or call us directly at 416-449-1400 for more information. “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, Intellectual PropertyJuly 19, 2017June 22, 2020
Is Toronto Now a Buyers’ Market? By: Nicolas Di Nardo The CREA has stated that the GTA has had the biggest drop in sales in June, and Toronto has now fully moved from sellers’ territory (ratio above 60 per cent) to buyers’ territory (ratio under 40 per cent). Patterns of sellers facing difficulties offloading properties as buyers sat around hoping for prices to come down, may have led the change. Sales-to-listings ratios are also a benchmark that is utilized to determine the territory, which the following can be identified: Balanced: 50 per cent (5 homes are sold for every 10 that come on the market) Sellers’: 60 per cent plus Buyers’: 40 per cent and below This is a significant change in Toronto’s market. If you take a look at the ratio in March, that stood at 86 per cent. Considering the effort put in by the government to assist in cooling down the hot Toronto market, it seems to now be taking some effect. Not only has it changed the way people are now looking at the housing market, but they are beginning to deter buyers from snatching up every single property within Toronto, due to the new initiatives in place. This drop is the largest monthly decline since 2010. Homes priced at $1.5 million and above have seen very little action, with low attendance to open houses, and being on the market for weeks rather than just a weekend. It will be interesting to see if the decline will continue, or if the current market trend and prices will stay stagnant into 2018. “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 EstateJuly 19, 2017June 22, 2020