As I’ve preached several times before, the practice of law takes a great deal of hard work and dedication, and certainly isn’t a career chosen with minimal deliberation.
Always happy to be helping students who display the motivation to succeed, I was pleased to accept an invitation to speak on behalf of Devry Smith Frank LLP as a panel member with the Pre-Law Society at York University taking place February 29th, 2012.
Court Overturns Discrimination Finding of Human Rights Tribunal in Pieters v. Peel Law Association
The Human Rights Tribunal found that two black lawyers were discriminated against after they were asked for identification in a courthouse library. However, this decision was recently overturned by the Divisional Court, which concluded that “A complainant cannot merely point to his or her membership in a racialized group and an unpleasant interaction to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” Will the case be appealed to the Court of Appeal?
Click here to read the full article in the National Post. Click here to view the Tribunal’s decision (which has been overturned).
The three-year mandatory minimum sentence for gun possession has been declared unconstitutional. Check out the full article in the National Post.
While many people are forced to work multiple jobs in this tough economy, employees should ensure that they properly consult with their primary employer before taking on any other unrelated work. The recent case of a bank employee, Marilyn Patterson, who worked as a real estate agent part time, serves as a warning for employees contemplating a similar move.
Ms. Patterson had been employed with a bank for 12 years, when she received a real estate license and began working part time with a local realty office. The bank became aware of this arrangement, and requested that Ms. Patterson discontinue her real estate activity or look for a new opportunity within the bank (one where no conflict with her current duties and her real estate activities would exist). After she refused these requests, Ms. Patterson was terminated without notice. Though no other performance issues were claimed by the bank, the judge in Ms. Patterson’s wrongful dismissal suit was forced to dismiss the action. The bank had clearly outlined guidelines regarding secondary employment and conflicts of interest, to which Ms. Patterson had agreed to in her employment contract.
The bottom line is that, while not all secondary employment will be viewed as posing a conflict with one’s primary employment, employees considering such an arrangement should spend the time reviewing their company’s policy regarding conflicts of interest and exclusivity of employment. Employers are entitled to set reasonable standards, such as prohibiting bank employees (where access to mortgage authorization may exist) from working as realtors. In light of Ms. Patterson’s case, conflicts that are obvious are likely to be upheld by the courts.
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Kusnierz v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company confirmed that psychological impairments should be combined with physical impairments to determine whether a car accident victim has suffered a catastrophic impairment.
This is an important decision for all victims of motor vehicle accidents in Ontario, who, according to current motor vehicle legislation generally fall into two categories: those who receive minor injuries, and those who are catastrophically impaired. Accident victims who meet the definition of catastrophic impairment are entitled to claim greater accident benefits, and for a longer period of time.
Writing for a unanimous Court of Appeal, Justice MacPherson, ruled that the proper interpretation of section 2(1.1.)(f) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (the “SABS”) is consistent with allowing the combination of both psychological and physical impairment scores to determine an injured person’s WPI score. Referencing the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, which is explicitly designated as the frame of reference for the relevant sections of the SABS, Justice MacPherson writes:
In my view the trial judge erred by concluding that combining physical and psychiatric impairments “would contradict the express purpose of the Guides, which is to provide a system for evaluating impairments that is objective and standardized”. With respect, this ignores the Guides’ parallel aim of assessing the total effect of a person’s impairments on his or her everyday activities. An objective, standardized system of assessment is only useful to the extent that it can reflect persons’ actual levels of impairment. To disregard the mental and behavioural consequences of a person’s injuries because they are too hard to measure would defeat the purpose of the Guides.
The Court determined that combining scores produces results that are consistent with the purposes of the SABS and that allowing combination promotes fairness and the objectives of the statutory scheme.
This is a positive outcome for all victims of motor vehicle accidents in Ontario as it means that people with severe psychological and physical impairments may get easier access to the medical benefits recommended by their doctors and hasten their recovery and improve their quality of life.
95 Barber Greene Road, Suite 100, Toronto, Ontario M3C 3E9
Tel: 416-449-1400 | Fax: 416-449-7071
Devry Smith Frank LLP is to be a proud member of the Alliott Group and the Canadian Franchise Association.
Devry Smith Frank LLP is successor to: McClintock and Devry; McClintock, Devry and Pierce;
Devry and Deeth; Eric Bowman Q.C.; Rogers, Smith Dick & Thompson; Keith and Kramer;
Adourian Law; Nesathurai & Luk
© 2013 DEVRY SMITH FRANK LLP | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Site Map | Return to Home
