Income Earned by Wrongfully Dismissed Employees No Longer Automatically Deducted Under the Duty to Mitigate The duty of wrongfully dismissed employees to mitigate their damages is no longer as clear-cut as it once was. Notice periods are seen as an amount of time, or a level of compensation, to assist a dismissed employee to find comparable work. Previously, lawyers made the assumption that any income gained by an employee during an employment notice period was to be automatically deducted from the amount an employee would be entitled to, due to the fact that the employee successfully mitigated the damages that their previous employer was responsible for. However, in Brake v PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc, the Court of Appeal declined to lessen the wrongful dismissal damages an employee was entitled to because of income earned from other employment during the notice period. The employee, Esther Blake, was awarded more than $104,000 for a 20-month notice period due to wrongful dismissal. The defendant, PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc, is a holding company that owns franchised McDonald’s in the Ottawa area. Esther worked as a manager at one of the McDonald’s locations for 25 years until she was wrongfully dismissed. While working at McDonald’s, Esther also worked a part-time job at Sobey’s as a cashier. When Esther was dismissed from McDonald’s, she continued to work at Sobey’s as she did before but expanded her hours there as she was no longer working full-time at McDonald’s. The Court of Appeal declined to see the Sobey’s employment as income from mitigation as she would have continued to work there part-time regardless of her status at McDonald’s. Also of note is Court of Appeal Justice Kathryn Feldman’s concurring decision in this case. The lower court judge determined that $600 that Esther received from Home Depot during the notice period should also not be deducted as it was “so substantially inferior” to her managerial position at McDonald’s (para 24). While Justice Feldman did not use the same wording, she reiterated that employees are entitled to turn down jobs that are not comparable, without having the potential income from that job deducted for a failure to mitigate losses. Using that reasoning, an employee should not be penalized when they choose to accept the job that they were entitled to turn down. Justice Phillips of the Court of Appeal did not deduct this income either but stated it was due to the lack of clarity regarding the income. The clear implication of this case is that employment lawyers will need to prove not only the amount of income an employee earned during the notice period but the nature of the work that income came from. With a changing economy and the rise of non-standard work, it will be interesting to see how the Court of Appeal treats mitigation efforts as comparable standard employment becomes more elusive. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full-service law firm that has experienced lawyers within our employee and employment law group. If you are in need of representation, please contact one of our lawyers today or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawJune 22, 2017June 24, 2020
Affluent Boomers are Taking Pressure from ‘YIMBY’ Groups in the GTA By: Nicolas Di Nardo During the recent Ontario Housing Summit the main focus was on millennials and home ownership, and the consensus of the Summit was that there is a need for more affordable housing supply. Some of the points that were made are: Boomers are restricting access to prime property Boomers would like to move out, but don’t see any suitable alternatives in their area Trade down houses (townhomes, midrise condos, duplexes) are not zoned in desired area “Missing middle” or those defined as trade down houses for boomers, starter homes for millennials, are not available NIMBYs, “not in my backyard” homeowners oppose development of such buildings in single-family home neighbourhoods However, there is a rise in YIMBYs in Toronto. YIMBYs are the supporters of affordable housing, or as the name goes, “yes in my backyard” homeowners. Toronto’s YIMBY group is known as Housing Matters, they are a group of activists. They are growing fast and hope to bring change to Toronto’s affordable housing, however, they must take more action than just utilizing social media to get their message across, they must approach the city and other groups with hard facts and evidence that affordable housing will be able to benefit not only the city, but the neighbourhoods they will be in. Until the city can determine what to do, it is a waiting game. For now, we’ll have to see what the government’s current measures to cool down the market will do, as it seems to have some impact on the housing market in Toronto already. 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. “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 EstateJune 21, 2017June 22, 2020
Hockey Union alleges the OHL broke Labour Laws By: Nicolas Di Nardo Back in 2014, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Canadian Hockey League (CHL) over wages. It claimed the league was breaching minimum wage laws. In summary, they are seeking $180 million in outstanding wages, vacation, holiday and overtime pay and employer contributions for thousands of players between 2012 and 2014. It is still ongoing and has had some recent developments. Now, the CHLPA has filed with the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The Canadian Hockey League Players’ Association (CHLPA) attempted to unionize its major junior players within the Ontario Hockey League (OHL) promising minimum wage payment. This is a result of the OHL commissioner stating that the players are not entitled to minimum wage because they are defined as “amateur athletes”, however, union officials say that provincial labour laws should apply to for-profit hockey clubs, seeing as they generate profit from the work of their players. Currently, the players within the OHL do get paid, however, it is in the form of stipends (less than $500 a month) with benefits such as lodging, food and gear, but have never been paid in accordance with minimum wage legislation. There are a number of exhibits before the court, such as administrative memos to clubs advising them to not notify the CRA, and instructing teams to disregard the CRA’s classification of OHL players as employees. Additional exhibits also include a number of player contracts with changes to the language stating the relationship between players and their clubs. The current application to the labour board requests that the CHLPA become the bargaining agent for players in the OHL, or damages of $175,000 for union drive expenses. For more information on this, please click here to read the original article. 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 LawJune 21, 2017June 22, 2020
Bill C-16: Proud to Extend Protections to Transgender and Other Gender-Diverse Persons June is Pride Month, when we celebrate sexual diversity and gender variance in the context of gains made by the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) communities. It is thus fitting that the Canadian Senate last week passed Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to protect gender identity and gender expression. Gender identity is broadly defined as one’s personal experience of their own sex, their internal sense of being male, female, a combination thereof or neither. Gender expression is the public expression of that identity, through markers such as clothing, speech and body language. Now that better acceptance and legal protection has been secured, after years of advocacy, for the LGB communities, issues facing the T(ransgender) community have moved to the fore. Issues of gender identity and expression have recently featured prominently in the news, particularly south of the border with the introduction of “bathroom bills” that restrict use of a washroom to one’s biological sex. These issues have highlighted the discrimination, isolation and violence faced on a daily basis by trans and gender diverse people. To address the vulnerability of the trans/gender diverse community, the Bill amends: sections 2 and 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination; and subsections 318(4) and 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code to include gender identity and expression in the definition of an identifiably group and to extend the protection of hate propaganda to persons who are distinguished by gender identity and gender expression. Evidence that violence or hate was aimed specifically against transgender or other gender diverse persons on account of that identity or expression will now constitute an aggravating circumstance court can take into account when imposing a sentence for the crime. Bill C-16 began life in 2005 as a Private Members Bill. After languishing for such a long period of time, it was taken up by the current federal Liberal government as part of the government’s legislative agenda to facilitate its passage. Even still, approval by the Senate was not a sure thing in the face of criticism that the amendments infringed on freedom of expression and/or promoted a lifestyle not every Canadian supported. The argument that protecting minority groups infringes on free speech is often used when those rights are new to our social fabric. Once established, we wonder why there was ever an issue. Indeed, the protections afforded by Bill C-16, in the view of this author, serve to promote freedom of (gender and sexual) expression. In moving to better protect gender diversity and expression Canada again proves its global leadership in the promotion of human rights and dignity. It will make celebration of sexuality and diversity this year particularly sweet. Happy Pride! Marc Kemerer practices fertility and reproductive law at Devry Smith Frank LLP By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawJune 20, 2017June 22, 2020
Breaking up Before the Wedding: Who gets the Ring? By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student Many television shows and movies portray it, and many couples live it. When a couple separates, who really should keep the engagement ring? While some may argue that it is the recipient’s to keep (after all – it was a gift!), others take the position that the ring belongs to the giver (“If I bought it, it’s mine!”). Based on my own personal survey – conducted amongst family, friends and colleagues – it appears that there is no general consensus on this issue. Whatever your own personal answer may be, would it change depending upon who ended the relationship? A Nova Scotia court has taken a position on this issue, and their opinion? If you broke off the engagement, the ring is not yours to keep. The “who gets the ring” issue went before the small claims court for one ex-couple in Nova Scotia. Several issues the ex’s were in disagreement over were also dealt with by adjudicator Gregg Knudsen. For Knudsen, it was of vital importance to determine who broke the engagement. Interestingly, Knuden was unconcerned with who ended the relationship. “It is the conditional aspect of the gift, the marriage or the intent to marry, which is the critical issue. The determination of the entitlement to the engagement ring is based upon who broke off the engagement and who didn’t.” This decision sparks some interesting questions. Under section 33 of the Ontario Marriage Act, the question of who caused the break-up is irrelevant in determining the right of the donor to recover the gift: Where one person makes a gift to another in contemplation of or conditional upon their marriage to each other and the marriage fails to take place or is abandoned, the question of whether or not the failure or abandonment was caused by or was the fault of the donor shall not be considered in determining the right of the donor to recover the gift. When one looks to the case law in Ontario, a slightly unclear picture emerges. There is case law to support the proposition that engagement rings are conditional gifts that must be returned if the marriage does not take place. In those cases, the courts have looked at who broke off the engagement (similar to the practice taken by Knudsen). See for example McArthur v. Zaduk (2001), where because the donor broke off the engagement, the recipient kept the ring. Though other cases have held that the engagement ring is an unconditional gift that does not have to be returned, regardless of the fault of either party. See Rakus v. Piccolo, (1989). Yet another opinion on the issue comes from Newell v Allen (2012), where the judge ordered that the engagement ring be returned from the intended wife to the intended husband, regardless of who had broken the engagement. In either case, if you ever find yourself in this position as a donor, it’s important that you request the ring back when the engagement is broken. If not, you may be prevented from demanding it back later. Delay in demanding the return of the ring may also suggest that its character has changed from an engagement ring, conditional on marriage, to an unconditional gift: H. (A.) c. M. (M.) (1997). Of course, a break-up is always an uncontemplated occurrence for couples – especially those who are engaged and intend on spending the rest of their lives together. However, having a cohabitation or pre-marital agreement in place can help you to avoid such conflicts down the road, if they were ever to occur. If you need help drafting such an agreement, or if you are having trouble recovering damages or are being sued as a result of a broken engagement, contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s family law group 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, Family LawJune 19, 2017July 5, 2023
Breaking up Before the Wedding: Who gets the Ring? Many television shows and movies portray it, and many couples live it. When a couple separates, who really should keep the engagement ring? While some may argue that it is the recipient’s to keep (after all – it was a gift!), others take the position that the ring belongs to the giver (“If I bought it, it’s mine!”). Based on my own personal survey – conducted amongst family, friends and colleagues – it appears that there is no general consensus on this issue. Whatever your own personal answer may be, would it change depending upon who ended the relationship? A Nova Scotia court has taken a position on this issue and their opinion? If you broke off the engagement, the ring is not yours to keep. The “who gets the ring” issue went before the small claims court for one ex-couple in Nova Scotia. Several issues the ex’s were in disagreement over were also dealt with by adjudicator Gregg Knudsen. For Knudsen, it was of vital importance to determine who broke the engagement. Interestingly, Knuden was unconcerned with who ended the relationship. “It is the conditional aspect of the gift, the marriage or the intent to marry, which is the critical issue. The determination of the entitlement to the engagement ring is based upon who broke off the engagement and who didn’t.” This decision sparks some interesting questions. Under section 33 of the Ontario Marriage Act, the question of who caused the break-up is irrelevant in determining the right of the donor to recover the gift: Where one person makes a gift to another in contemplation of or conditional upon their marriage to each other and the marriage fails to take place or is abandoned, the question of whether or not the failure or abandonment was caused by or was the fault of the donor shall not be considered in determining the right of the donor to recover the gift. When one looks to the case law in Ontario, a slightly unclear picture emerges. There is case law to support the proposition that engagement rings are conditional gifts that must be returned if the marriage does not take place. In those cases, the courts have looked at who broke off the engagement (similar to the practice taken by Knudsen). See for example McArthur v. Zaduk (2001), where because the donor broke off the engagement, the recipient kept the ring. Though other cases have held that the engagement ring is an unconditional gift that does not have to be returned, regardless of the fault of either party. See Rakus v. Piccolo, (1989). Yet another opinion on the issue comes from Newell v Allen (2012), where the judge ordered that the engagement ring be returned from the intended wife to the intended husband, regardless of who had broken the engagement. In either case, if you ever find yourself in this position as a donor, it’s important that you request the ring back when the engagement is broken. If not, you may be prevented from demanding it back later. Delay in demanding the return of the ring may also suggest that its character has changed from an engagement ring, conditional on marriage, to an unconditional gift: H. (A.) c. M. (M.) (1997). Of course, a break-up is always an uncontemplated occurrence for couples – especially those who are engaged and intend on spending the rest of their lives together. However, having a cohabitation or pre-marital agreement in place can help you to avoid such conflicts down the road, if they were ever to occur. If you need help drafting such an agreement, or if you are having trouble recovering damages or are being sued as a result of a broken engagement, contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s family law group today or call us directly at 416-449-1400 for more information. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawJune 19, 2017June 24, 2020
Update: Proposed Sick Notes Ban By: Nicolas Di Nardo The praise for the Liberal government’s proposed ban on sick notes continues. During the government’s announcement outlining the proposed changes to Ontario’s labour law, which was part of the Changing Workplaces Review, doctors’ notes was the least of everyone’s concern, but it received the most support and attention by groups and organizations that have been pushing for a ban on sick notes for some time. Almost a month of public speculation on proposed changes to the law, the changes to sick notes remains a hot one. Even some representatives within the Progressive Conservatives including PC MPP Monte McNaughton stated, “I actually think it’s quite fair,” which is a surprise as he is usually an outspoken critic of the Liberal administration. While many agree with Labour Minister Kevin Flynn’s opinion that sick notes are a waste of a physician’s time (the OMA has been calling for an end to sick notes for some time now), there are still some groups that believe this is not a step in the right direction. The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses (CFIB) is one of them. The CFIB believes that people will abuse it, however, they do support the claim that it will limit the spread of germs and viruses to other people. With a note not required until passing 10 sick days under the new law, CFIB analyst Ryan Mallough would like sick days and doctors notes to remain “a flexible matter between employer and employee…[because] there is potential for abuse…[and] this is all part of the re-election campaign for the Liberals.” For more information on the developments of the Changing Workplaces Review, please refer to our previous blog posts: May 17, 2017: Is A $15 Minimum Wage, More Unionization And A Minimum 3 Week Vacation On The Horizon? June 1, 2017: Update: Ontario Liberals Announce Changes To Labour Law—And A $15 Minimum Wage June 9, 2017: Workplace Reform Showcase: Doctor’s Notes Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm located in Don Mills. If you require representation or have any questions, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP today. You may contact one of the many experienced lawyers on 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, Employment Law, Labour LawJune 19, 2017June 22, 2020
Determining Summer Custody Schedules with Your Child(ren)’s Best Interests in Mind For many separated families with school-aged children, summer can be a challenge. A written agreement or court order that sets out summer access with the children makes the season a lot less challenging, but for many families, such formalities are not in place. With regards to those families without order or agreement in place, the summer access schedule may still be straightforward. Consider, for example, those families who follow the same summer schedule informally every year. However, arranging such a schedule may prove to be difficult for families who are newly separated, or those who negotiate a summer schedule each year to accommodate the varying schedules of the parents and the child(ren). When there is no existing access agreement in place, parents have a lot of freedom in arranging the summer access schedule. Parents are free to negotiate and compromise when planning the schedule, however, they must ensure that the schedule is in accordance with the child(ren)’s best interests. The reason being, if the issue were to ever proceed to court for settlement, the judge will decide what is fair based on the best interests of the child(ren). See CLRA 24. (2) Best interests of child It is important to mention that when a court is considering an access award, the focus is always on the best interests of the child(ren), and not on the interests and rights of the parents. Although parents’ wishes are often at the forefront of a summer access negotiation – as mom or dad may only be allotted a certain week off work for a vacation for instance – it’s important to remember that for the court, these wishes are irrelevant. Rather, the best interests of the children are what the court will examine. For example, will the child(ren)’s best interests be met if they were to travel to Disneyland? For more information on how a judge may go about determining who should be granted custody, please listen to our podcast on this matter. Although it may seem that a vacation is always in a child(ren)’s best interests (after all – who doesn’t love a vacation?) this is not the case for the courts. According to one Canadian Judge, “The best interests of a child are not to be confused with such things as the “benefits” of a vacation.” In this case, the father sought to take his child on a vacation outside the country, and the mother obtained an order which restrained the father from doing so. Ultimately, the court made the final determination in accordance with the child’s best interests, and the father was not permitted to travel with the child. For the court, the evidence did not establish that the children’s best interests would be served by removing them from their home jurisdiction. As a parent, if you are seeking to travel outside the country with your child(ren) for a vacation, it will be necessary for you to obtain a consent to travel from your ex-spouse. If such consent is denied, you may consult John Schuman’s blog post “My Ex Won’t Sign a Travel Consent” to determine how to proceed. In any case, it is best to consult with a family lawyer prior to taking any legal action. To avoid both the cost and uncertainty of court, parents ultimately need to be able to agree on how to divide their child(ren)’s time during the summer. They must do so in a way that is best for their child(ren). Mediation may also be an option for parents who would like to settle their dispute outside of court. To find out more about family mediation services, please see our mediation page. If you are experiencing difficulties with scheduling summer access arrangements with your child(ren), contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s family lawyer John Schuman today for a consultation, or call our office directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Family LawJune 8, 2017June 24, 2020
Do Ontario Private Elementary Schools Have to Follow the Same Laws and Standards as Public Schools? Many parents send their children to Ontario Private (or Independent) Schools because they want to make sure their child gets a “superior education.” There are many private schools that do offer excellent education or that have programs that are particularly suited to certain students. However, that is not guaranteed. When it comes to private education, especially for elementary students, Ontario is really a “buyer beware” market and parents must do their research. Parents assume that because a school operated in Ontario, it is subject to the Education Act. However, only very small parts of the Education Act apply to private elementary schools. Section 1(1) of the Education Act requires that private schools: Provide instruction any time between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on any school day Have five or more students; Have students of compulsory school age Provide instruction in any (but not necessarily all) of the subjects of the elementary or secondary school course of study. Beyond that, there are not many standards that apply to private elementary schools. Page 7 of the Ministry of Education’s Private Schools Policy and Procedures Manual contains the following passage: How are Private Schools Different from Publicly-Funded Schools? In Ontario, private schools operate as businesses or non-profit organizations, independently of the Ministry of Education. Private schools do not receive any funding or other financial support from the Ontario government. The Ministry does not regulate, licence, accredit or otherwise oversee the day-to-day operation of private schools. Private school operators set their own policies and procedures regarding the operation of their schools, and are not obliged to comply with the policies and procedures that school boards must follow. For example: Private schools are not required to use the Ontario curriculum unless they are seeking authority to grant credits toward the OSSD. Those that do may also offer other content beyond the Ontario curriculum. In Ontario private schools, principals are not required to have Ontario principal’s qualifications, and teachers are not required to be members of the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) or have OCT certification. Private schools are not authorized to deliver correspondence courses, which are delivered through the Independent Learning Centre (ILC). However, a private school can host the student taking such courses. Private schools may, but are not required to, communicate student achievement using either the Elementary Provincial Report Card (for Grades 1-8) or the Provincial Report Card (for Grades 9-12). When it comes to private elementary schools, there are very few rules that the school must follow. Most of the requirements are set out in Section 16 of the Education Act but those rules relate mostly to things that few parents care about, such as giving the Ministry notice of the intention to operate a private school and providing the Ministry with statistical information about the number of students, staff and courses offered. There are more rules for private schools that want to award Ontario Secondary School Diplomas, but not for elementary schools. There are no requirements that private elementary schools offer a minimum standard of instruction, or follow any requirements with regard to things like anti-bullying, discipline (including suspension or expulsion of students) or teaching any particular curriculum or skills. Many parents have been surprised to learn that private schools can kick out their child without any good reason or without any process because that is what the parents’ contract with the school says. For more on school suspensions or expulsions, watch this video: All the standards that a private elementary school has to follow are in its contract with the parents. Parents should look at the contract carefully and ask questions. If the contract does not require Certified Teachers, then the school does not have to provide them. If the contract does not require the school to teach certain subjects, then the school does not have to do so. If the contract does not say that the school will follow the Ontario Elementary School Curriculum, then the school probably doesn’t. Most private school contracts include a Code of Conduct which may have no resemblance to the Provincial Code of Conduct, but sets out how students will be disciplined and to what extent the School has the right to impose any form of discipline it wants. Some school contracts specifically allow the school to do whatever it wants. In those cases, the school is subject only to the criminal code, or the right of a Children’s Aid Society to intervene because a “person having charge of a child” has harmed a child or put a child at risk of harm. With private schools not having to follow a number of rules and regulations, who they decide to employ at their schools should be of interest as well, as the individuals they employ could put a child in harm’s way. In a recent case, Karla Homolka, a serial killer who raped and murdered 3 girls and at the time, was married to Paul Bernardo, has been volunteering at her children’s private elementary school in Montreal. Parents at the school were not advised that she had been volunteering there, and are shocked at the school board’s actions. Additionally, although private schools are not required to follow the procedures set out in the Education Act and accompanying regulations for exceptional pupils, they are required to follow the Ontario Human Rights Code. In doing so, they cannot discriminate against students and must accommodate special needs to the point of “undue hardship” – unless the contract with parents requires the school to provide specific accommodations. This podcast describes the rights of students with special needs. Still, it remains very important that parents do their research before enrolling their child in a private school. They need to be clear what sort of education their child will receive and by whom. They should also know what protection from bullying or what special assistance their child may receive. It is also important for parents to know what the School’s Code of Conduct is, how children are disciplined and precisely what can cause their child to be removed from the school. All of these things should be included in the contract with the school, otherwise, the school is not legally required to follow any specific rules when educating a child. Obviously, it is also important to find out about the school’s reputation and review references or testimonials – as people would do with any big purchase. The Ministry of Education has very little power to assist dissatisfied parents. The most appropriate remedy can be suing the school for breach of contract. If you are experiencing difficulties with a private school, it is important to figure out what rights you may have, and how the law might help you. Contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Education Lawyer, John Schuman for assistance. We answer all inquiries promptly and we can arrange for you to come in quickly for a consultation (charged at a reduced hourly rate). By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Education LawJune 6, 2017July 5, 2023
Toronto Must Figure Out Housing Solutions or Risk Losing Top Young Talent As we are well aware, Toronto’s housing market has been a hot topic for some time now, with the rising prices and record sales. Unfortunately, for those who can’t afford to purchase a home for whatever reason, it leaves them renting within the city, or forces them to move to the suburbs with the hope that they can potentially afford something outside of Toronto. An article released by The Star features a couple, Chris Dunne and his fiancée, both young professionals, who are hoping to get out of their rental and begin their adventure as homeowners, get married, and start a family. Again, the current market is continuing to put a dent in their dream. Dunne and his fiancée, both 28, currently rent a condo in the area of Spadina Rd and Queens Quay. They both have steady jobs, but yet, they are struggling to find a place to call their own and begin a family. They moved to Toronto from Newfoundland 18 months ago with a dream, to live in Toronto. With a wedding planned for next year and plans for children, they want to find a place with a patch of green to call their own. The issue: it comes down to simple supply and demand. With no middle ground when it comes to the Toronto housing supply, it leaves few options for buyers. Before government involvement and the spring market, Toronto’s supply did not line up with demand. Supply was low, while demand was high, leading to high prices on the supply and demand graph. Currently, Toronto’s supply consists of primarily small condos and detached homes. There are few semi-detached and town-homes within Toronto available to current home-buyers. The current government involvement, spring listings, and demand for detached homes still high, sales have begun to decline. This is reflected through listings being active for longer than a weekend, and fewer sales as a result, as stated in our recent real estate update. In April, Toronto’s detached re-sale homes hit $1.6 million on average. To make matters worse, young professionals aged 18-39 say: 32% plan to buy a home in the next year 58% say high prices are why they won’t buy a house in the next year 19% will stay in their current home 17% want a townhouse 51% want a detached house 13% want a semi-detached 17% already own a home *Source: Environics Research for the Toronto Region Board of Trade. Survey-based off 387 people aged 18-39, part of a bigger 1,000 person survey Of the people who expect to buy in the next year, 81% don’t want to live in a condo and 69% want a house with at least 3 bedrooms. The Board of Trade CEO, Jan De Silva is urging the city or province to begin diversifying our supply to meet the needs of all residents and has even suggested they make it legal to add just one laneway house, coach house, or duplex per hectare in detached home zoning areas. This solution would allow individuals priced out of the detached home market, that don’t want to live in condos, to own a home, and would accommodate 45,000 people in Toronto. Unless this situation changes, the region could be compromising its ability to attract talented professionals to the city of Toronto. Without businesses being able to attract and retain young professionals or newcomer talent, our economy will begin to struggle to succeed. If you are currently searching for a property or have a plan to purchase property in the near future, contact our Real Estate Group with any questions or concerns you may have. Browse our Real Estate lawyers page and contact them directly, or, call our office at 416-449-1400 for more information. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateJune 1, 2017June 24, 2020