Blog: DSF

Common Law Spouses, your Property and the Law?
May 23rd, 2013 by Rachel G. .C. Healey

Question:

If a friend lives with me for many years, could s/he claim that s/he is my common law spouse and, as a result, be entitled to half my property?

Answer:

There are two questions that need to be answered in order to properly respond:

  • What is a common law spouse?
  • If I have a common law spouse, is my s/he entitled to half of my property?

    • Whether or not a person is in a common law relationship is a question of fact that needs to be answered prior to determining one’s rights and obligations in a relationship. In Ontario, what is referred to as a “common law” relationship is defined by section 29 of the Family Law Act. It is defined as a relationship in which two people, who are not married to each other, cohabit continuously for a period of not less than three years; or are in a relationship of some permanence if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child.

    If there are no children involved, simply living under the same roof with a friend, in a platonic relationship, for three years or more would not trigger the obligations, which arise between common law spouses. The case of Stephen v. Stawecki is instructive and provides that the entirety of the couple’s circumstances must be taken into account. There must be an demonstrated intention to actually be in a conjugal relationship and you must hold oneself out as being in that relationship with the other person. If you have attended gatherings with family and friends as “a couple”; if you share finances; if you cook and meet for your meals together; if you discuss moving forward in your life together as a couple for a period of three years or more, then there may be cause to consider whether you are in a common law relationship. If this is the case, you should contact a lawyer to discuss your possible rights and obligations. However, simply with a roommate, without these other indicia of a conjugal relationship, is likely not sufficient to trigger the obligations which arise between common law spouses.


    This said, even if you are in a common law relationship, the statutes do not permit a right to share in the possession or value of property of the other spouse in the way that is associated with legally married spouses. Common law spouses do not have a “matrimonial home”; they do not have the right to share in the increase of your RRSP’s, pensions or investments. To learn more about “matrimonial home” watch this video. This said, they can make a complex legal argument that they are entitled to share in the increase in the value of a particular asset if they can show that you were “unjustly enriched” by the increase in value, due to their direct and substantial contribution to your asset. A successful claim of this sort is the exception and not the rule.

    Common law spouses may have the right to spousal support, however, the entitlement to spousal support is made on a case-by-case basis, considering the length and nature of the relationship, as well as the means and needs of each spouse. To read our blogs on spousal support click here.

    If you are concerned that you may be in a situation which may trigger the right to spousal support, or a claim for unjust enrichment due to your spouse’s contribution to an asset, you should consult with a Family Lawyer as there are ways, such as negotiating a cohabitation agreement, which may help protect you in such circumstances.

    For more information on Common Law Spouses and Relationships, or if you need a Toronto Family Lawyer, please contact one of our Toronto Family Lawyers at Devry Smith Frank at Toronto Family Lawyers.

    Posted in: Domestic Contracts, DSF, Family Law

    The Dangers of “Reply-All”
    May 21st, 2013 by

    This blog is written by our law summer student, Ira Marcovitch.

    For any of us whose job or life involves a healthy amount of e-mailing, it’s the button we love to hate: the sometimes-useful-but-more-often-mistakenly-used “reply all” button. More often than not, the result is harmless; we mistakenly send a personal email to a co-worker, or mistakenly receive something similar. But what happens when you receive an email from your boss that was not only not meant for your eyes, but discussed whether or not you should be fired? Enter Maria Fernandes.

    In March 2011, Ms. Fernandes, then Director of Client Services at Marketforce Inc., received an e-mail that her boss had intended for the company’s lawyers. The contents of the email were pretty straightforward, and damaging. It was a request for advice from the lawyers as to how Ms. Fernandes could be let go from the company. Documents filed in the Ontario Superior Court allege that Linda Guerin, Ms. Fernandes’ boss, immediately realized her mistake and, like many of us, immediately tried to rectify it. She sent three recall notices and finally sent Fernandes an email asking her to delete the unintended delivery without reading it. However, Ms. Fernandes did read the e-mail, and treated its contents as a constructive dismissal. Like anyone would, Ms. Fernandes copied the email and contacted a lawyer. And like anyone would, she went on vacation. Upon her return, she informed the company that she considered herself fired by email, and shortly after commenced a wrongful dismissal claim.

    While the case has yet to be decided, the company brought a motion for a declaration that the email was protected by solicitor-client privilege and that Ms. Fernandes could not rely on it in her claim. The motions judge, with whom an appeals judge agreed, found that the email was privileged and that its inadvertent disclosure did not amount to a waiver of that privilege.

    Nonetheless, the judge decided that it would be unfair, both to Ms. Fernandes and to the judge who would eventually hear the case, to exclude the e-mail. He determined that the trial judge would have to determine whether Ms. Fernandes acted reasonably in treating the email as constructive dismissal and that, without the email, he could only rely on second-hand inferences from Ms. Fernandes’ behaviour. The interests of justice and fairness, he determined, would be best served by having the judge have access to the email. While the judge realized the unfairness that may befall the company by allowing the email in, he noted that while unfortunate, it was their own mistake that created the whole mess.

    While the eventual decision will have implications as to what can constitute constructive dismissal, and whether Ms. Fernandes was right to treat the errant email as akin to a pink slip, the story so far contains some equally important lessons. Foremost, as we all know, the “reply all” button can have serious consequences; while they range from the mildly embarrassing email you mistakenly sent your boss about your weekend, to the devastating e-mail he or she mistakenly sent to you about your termination, we should all take an extra second before we click ‘send’ on our next email. Secondly, this case raises an important point about privilege.

    Should an email be excluded from protection because the party mistakenly sent it and the recipient party relied on it in commencing litigation against the former? The judge had noted that the boss had taken all reasonable steps to preserve the confidentiality of the email and that the privilege itself remained intact; so why should they be penalized because the steps taken were for naught? Further he determined that the contents of the email could be introduced into court without introducing the email itself, namely by questioning witnesses, which makes the disclosure seems more convenient for the interests of justice rather than necessary. Regardless, I’m sure we will wait with bated breath for the determination of the case; but in the mean time I know I will check twice before I next hit ‘send.’

    For the appeal decision of the motion: click here.

    Posted in: DSF, Employment Law, Termination
    Tags: , ,

    Do You Need An Emergency Temporary Custody Order?
    May 16th, 2013 by John P. Schuman

    Question: How do I go about getting an emergency temporary custody order for my son?

    Answer: Provided by our Toronto Family Lawyer John Schuman

    The first question you have to ask is whether you need an emergency temporary custody order. Judges do not like making custody orders, especially on incomplete evidence and on rushed basis unless the order is necessary to protect the health and welfare of the child. If the order is not necessary to do that, then the judge will want you to have a case conference first. Of course, that is if you really need to be in court. There are alternatives to court that are often better able to address children’s issues than court, unless there are issues of abuse, mental health, substance abuse or a very difficult parent. You can learn more about the alternatives to court in this video: Do I have To Go To Court For A Divorce.


    If you do have to go to court, there a large number of things you must do, and correctly. Your best chance to get this right, and avoid having a judge refuse your request, is to get a lawyer to help you. (For more reasons why you should hire a lawyer, see this webpage Why Do You Need A Family Law Lawyer. If you cannot hire a lawyer, you should get a copy of this $20 book on the basics of Family Law, which describes the Family Court Process and custody access issue, to help you: Devry Basics Ontario Family Edition. However, if that is not possible, here is the information about how to get the Order:

    • First you should understand the legal meaning of the term “custody.” It may be different than you think. Read this webpage for more info: What Does The Term Custody Of A Child Mean?
    • You must file a Form 8 Application General that sets out all the orders you want the court to make and the facts that give the court the legal authority to make those orders. There are certain facts that are important when judges decide any parenting issue, including custody, and many facts that judges do not care about. It is important to put the right facts in your Application, and in your affidavits, so read this webpage: How Do Judges Decide Which Parent Gegts Custody Of A Child?. They both explain how judges decide who gets custody.
    • Since you are claiming custody, you must also complete, and swear or affirm before a commissioner of oaths (these are in law offices and at the court), a Form 35.1 Affidavit which sets out several facts that judges want to know regarding parenting.
    • If you are asking for any form of support you must also complete a Form 13 Financial statement (again this has to be sworn or affirmed). If you are asking for support and making property claims, you have to fill out a form 13.1 Financial Statement. (Note that only the Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to deal with property claims.) Your financial statement must attach 3 years of Notices of Assessment from the Canada Revenue Agency. If you do not have them, you must get them through the CRA’s website: My Account.
    • You have to take all of the above documents to the court to have them “issued.” The court will not allow you to issue the documents if there are errors or they are incomplete.
    • You must create a continuing record volume for the court. For information about doing that, see this link: Formal Requirements.
    • At the time that you are issuing your Application, you should ask the court for when you can have a case conference. You should book the first date. The court will give you a Conference Notice, that you must add to all the other documents.
    • After issuing the documents, you must have someone, other than you, serve the documents on your spouse and anyone else who can claim to have been an active parent of the child. Service usually means identifying the person being served and a handing them the documents to be served. The person must complete a affidavit of service, attesting that he or she served the documents properly (another commissioned document). Then you must file the documents with the court.
    • After all of that, you must bring a motion for temporary custody. Unless there is a compelling reason why the other parent(s) should not be served with your motion material (because they would do something bad to the child before the court had an opportunity to hear the motion) you must give them at least 4 business days notice. To get a court date, you have to go to the family court service counter and ask what dates the court has available to hear your motion.
    • You must first complete a Form 14 Notice of Motion that sets out the precise order you are asking the court to make.
    • You must also write, and swear, a Form 14A affidavit that sets out your version of the facts. (Refer to the podcast and website listed above to know what facts are important.) As you have to swear or affirm that the document is true, it is very important that the facts be accurate. It is also important that the affidavit is written in a way that is clear and compelling to a judge. To hear about what judges consider good parenting, listen to this podcast: The Voice Of A Child. The affidavit must also make it clear why you cannot wait to until the court can have a case conference to discuss the issues on your motion. One thing you must include is when the first case conference date is available from the court and also The affidavit is your “evidence” on the motion. You do not get to tell the judge any additional facts on the hearing of the motion. The motion is not a trial, so no one testifies in court. All the facts that the judge needs must be in the affidavits.
    • If you want other people to give their evidence on your motion, they have to swear their own affidavits.
    • You must serve the Notice of Motion and all of the other affidavits on the other parties that you have named in your Application. Unless you are trying to bring your motion without notice to the other parties, you must serve them at least 4 days before.
    • The other parties in your court proceeding have the right to file their own affidavit in response to yours. After they do that, you have the right to file an affidavit that responds to the new facts or issues in the other party’s affidavits. However, you cannot raise any new issues in your “reply affidavit.”
    • Two days before the set motion date, before 2:00 p.m., you must file a form 14C to tell the court and the judge whether your motion is going ahead as scheduled or not. Most courts let you file your 14C by faxing it to a special fax number, but the 14C is the ONLY document you can file that way.
    • Then you show up on the day of the motion and you explain to the judge why the law says you should get your emergency temporary custody order (and why you could not wait for the case conference). The judge usually will have had the opportunity to read all the affidavits, so you will only want to mention the most important facts and tell the judge where to read about them in all the materials that were filed (using specific tab and page numbers if possible). Keep in mind that motions are supposed to be argued in less than an hour total. So, you should plan on speaking to the judge for no more than 20 minutes at first. That includes the time that the judge asks you questions. The other party will get about the same amount of time. Then you will get to speak to the judge about any new facts or issues that the other party spoke about that you did not mention in your first twenty minutes. However, this is not a time to repeat your points. The judge’s time is precious and there are a likely other cases waiting. So you do not want to be repetitive, or do anything else to upset the judge.
    • The judge will then either decide your case on the spot, or “reserve” which means the judge will decide the case later and send a written decision to you. The decision is different from a formal court order. If you need a formal court order, that is another process… which can the topic of another post. Or you read about it in the book that I mentioned above.
    • If the judge decides against you, or decides the motion could have waited until after a case conference, then the judge will likely order you to pay the legal fees and other costs of the other party. This is where not using a lawyer can really cost you. If you do not get your own lawyer, you can end up paying the cost of your ex-spouse’s lawyer if you lose.

    All the court forms are found here: Ontario Court Forms. Also, I did not quote the precise rules that set out all of the above, but you can find the Family Law Rules here English Elaws.

    Again, the process for bringing an urgent motion is a complicated one, and you have to tell the judge the right things. So, you should consult a good family lawyer and get a copy of this $20 book Devry Basics Ontario Family Edition on family law that covers all of this in more detail. . For further information or assistance with a legal matter regarding Family Law & Emergency Temporary Custody Orders, contact one of the Toronto Family Law Lawyers listed on the left by clicking on their name.

    Posted in: DSF
    Tags:

    How Step Parents And Grandparents Can Have To Pay Child Support
    May 8th, 2013 by John P. Schuman

    How Step Parents And Grandparents Can Have To Pay Child Support

    Parents and even Grandparents can find themselves on the hook for child support in Canada. This is episode of the Ontario Family Law Podcast explains how that happens. The basic premise of child support is that it is paid by all parents to a child. But, a child can have more than two parents. When parents or step parents step into the role of parents, they may step into paying child support. This podcast explains how judges decide whether someone is now a parent to a child and should pay child support. John Schuman also discusses how much support a step parent may have to pay when the biological parent in the picture and when biological parent is gone.

    How Step-Parents and Grandparents Can Be On the Hook for Child Support

    If you are becoming close to someone else’s children, or even your own grandchildren, you should listen to this podcast to findout whether you are putting yourself on the hook for child support.

    Posted in: Child Support, child support guidelines, Custody, Custody, Divorce, DSF, Emotions, Ethics, Family Law, Finance, Spousal Support
    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

    Do Judges Care What Children Want In Child Custody Cases?
    May 7th, 2013 by John P. Schuman

    Do Judges Care What Children Wants In Child Custody Cases?
    I have a court appointed psychologist report recommending 1/2 custody, I applied for a motion and the judge announced we must go to trial, but I have no money to. Can a child of 13 yrs apply to court for her chosen custody?

    In Child Custody Cases, custody and access assessments are not binding on judges. That means judges do not have to follow them. The report is only one piece of evidence, and the psychologist is only witness at a trial. The judge has to consider everything. For all the factors that a judge has to consider read this webpage: How do judges decide which parent gets custody of a child?.

    At 13 years old, what a child wants is a factor that the judge has to consider, and it may be very important to the judge. In addition to all the other resources, you may want to listen to this podcast: What say do children get.

    Judges are becoming more and more interested in what children have to say in separation and divorce. If the child has a clear preference, that is the result of pressure (intentional or not) from one party, that can be very important to how the judge decides. Judges care what children wants in child custody cases.

    If you have a report in your favour and your child’s views are in your favour, then you should make a formal offer to settle on the same terms as the report. If the judge agrees with the report after the trial, the judge can order your spouse to pay almost all of your legal fees from the day you made the offer until the day the judge made the order. If that order comes after a trial, then your spouse could owe you a lot of money. There may be some other strategies to get what you want while avoiding a trial, but those would depend on some very particular facts in your case. So, you should speak to a child custody lawyer about your situation.

    You should also get a copy of this easy-to-understand $20 book on Ontario Family Law: Devry Basics Ontario Family Edition. It explains the court process, and gives several tips for how to succeed in court, and goes over the basics of Ontario Family Law so you have some idea of what your rights are. It goes over everything in this post in more detail. It may even be on sale on Amazon right now.

    For further information or assistance in regards to family law, including questions and answers about topics like “Do Judges Care What Children Wants In Child Custody Cases?”, please contact one of our Family Lawyers in Toronto.

    Podcast: Play in new window

    Posted in: Custody, Custody, DSF, Family Law, Podcast
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Legal Grounds For Will Challenges
    May 1st, 2013 by Justin Winch

    The loss of a loved one can be a devastating experience. Unfortunately, some of those still grieving find another painful shock awaiting them when they learn they have been left out of the deceased’s will. These can be difficult times where informed legal advice regarding Legal Grounds for Will Challenges becomes a necessity.
    There are a number of legal grounds in which to challenge the validity of a will. Below is a brief summation of the 3 most common types of will challenges.

    • The first ground for challenging the validity of a will would be its failure to comply with the rules set out by the Succession Law Reform Act. Ontario requires full compliance with the formalities of execution. While most wills prepared by legal professionals will comply with these rules many home made wills do not.
    • Another ground is whether the deceased had the capacity to make the will.
      Did the deceased know what property and assets they had and that the will would be disposing of these assets after their death? Did they understand and have a true understanding of any obligations they may have to spouses and children? A challenge on this ground would require hiring expert medical witnesses to review the deceased medical records and retroactively assess the deceased’s mental capacity at the time the will was made.
    • The third ground to be discussed is whether there were any suspicious circumstances surrounding the drafting of the will or whether the deceased was under any undue influence. A Will has to represent the true intentions of the deceased. Undue influence can occur when a person feels compelled to honor the wishes of someone making a direct or implied threat, or attempts to leverage an elderly persons weakened state to their advantage. This can often occur when a child convinces a parent to remove their sibling from the will. Similarly, a will signed on the deceased death bed leaving everything to a caregiver at the expense of family members may give rise to a challenge on the grounds of suspicious circumstances.

    Legal-Grounds-for-Will-Challenges-in-Toronto

    The law surrounding challenges to a will is complicated. Furthermore, no two cases are the same. This article provides a brief, general introduction to the topic. If you are in this situation it is important that you seek out qualified legal advice from an Estate Lawyer. The Will lawyers at Devry Smith Frank LLP can assist you during this difficult time.

    For further information or assistance in regards to Legal Grounds for Will Challenges, please contact Toronto Estates Litigation Department lawyer Justin Winch. He has significant experience representing executors and beneficiaries in the area of estate litigation, including Will interpretations, Will disputes, Legal Grounds for Will Challenges, passing of estate accounts and dependant support proceedings.

    Posted in: Commercial Litigation, DSF, Estates
    Tags: , , ,

    Should Shares in Payment for Services be Issued for Services Rendered?
    April 25th, 2013 by Albert C. Luk

    There is an increasing trend among emerging and high growth companies to pay service providers, either in part or in whole, by issuing Shares in Payment for Services in their corporation. For the emerging and high growth company, this is a fast way to pay for services they otherwise could not afford. For the service provider (especially those who have a venture capitalist mentality of owning a piece of many businesses), it is a way to participate in the potential upside of its clients.

    The practice has gained particular traction in Toronto as numerous new accelerators, and the ecosystem created around the accelerator space, view investing partially through cash and partially through share issuance as the new normal.

    The practice, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. However, the emerging and high growth company and the service provider need to consider at least 3 issues:

    • 1. Valuation of the emerging and high growth company

      Companies who have not received external funding generally do not have readily available valuations. Consequently, it is typically hard to value the worth of an emerging and high growth company. The more practical issue is that valuation consists of guess-work by all parties without a formal valuation.
      Where the service provider happens to also be investing money and services (as Arlene Dickinson of the CBC TV show Dragons’ Den is want to do), these issues tend to disappear or be mitigated since a pre-money valuation is being conducted. For those emerging and high growth companies not in this fortunate position, there is no definitive right answer.

    • 2. Valuation of the services to be provided

      Valuation of services provided in consideration in part or whole for shares of an emerging and high growth company can be rife with abuse. For example, a software developer charging $50,000 in cash to develop an application suddenly increases its fee to $75,000 in share consideration. Correspondingly, an emerging or high growth company hires the same software developer to develop an application in return for 10% of its shares and halts the project before completion, claiming no shares should be issued.

      • We have seen far too many hand-shake and “trust me” arrangements when services are provided in return for shares. At the very least, the parties must agree to the following:

        a) A set valuation for the services to be provided. The valuation should at least be competitive with what the competition is charging. Where goods are being delivered instead of services, is the good being exchanged at cost, at cost plus a small profit margin or at regular retail/wholesale pricing? In other words, please do your due diligence.
        b) The criteria when the shares should be issued. Are the Shares in Payment for Services issued at the beginning of the project, in tranches/ instalments as the project is delivered or at the end? For the service provider, what happens if the emerging and high growth company abandons the project in the middle? Do you have legal recourse?
        c) The intellectual property must be exchanged for the services issued. This sounds obvious but we have seen service contract agreements which address services to be issued but not the transfer of intellectual property. Since Canadian copyright law generally states intellectual property belongs to the contractor unless otherwise indicated in writing, the emerging and high growth company needs to make sure this issue is addressed adequately.
        As the above shows, the parties cannot resort to a standard contract in these types of situations and legal advice should be sought to protect the respective interests of the service provider and emerging and high growth company.

    • 3. Rights of the service provider as a shareholder

      If the service provider and the company disagree sometime in the future, should the service provider continue to remain as a shareholder? Alternatively, if the service provider provided a one-off service which is not mission critical to the business (i.e. sales and marketing services for a pitch to external investors 5 years ago), should it share in the upside of the business many years down the road?
      This is perhaps the least thought through legal issue between the parties. There are several options to consider on a non-exhaustive basis:

        • a)The service provider be issued preference shares which are eligible for dividends with the company possessing a right to redeem the shares at a sum equal to the value of services to be provided plus, if negotiated, some type of additional preference value (for example, some multiple of the preference redemption value). In other words, the service provider is paid for upside over the years and receives the value of the service provided upon exit. This would be analogous to a liquidation preference on the shares venture capitalists typically receive when they invest in emerging and high growth companies. Qualified legal and accounting advice must be sought since this type of arrangement can cause unintended tax and legal issues.
        b)The service provider and the company agree that the company has a buy-back option at some valuation to be determined. The buy-back option can either be added as part of a shareholders’ agreement or as a stand-alone agreement between the parties to avoid Shareholder Disputes.

      As the above shows, the issues can be quite complicated from a business and legal perspective. It is always flattering for a company to be so attractive that others are willing to work on alternative fee arrangements. It is always exciting for the service provider to have the potential to participate in the upside of an emerging or high growth company. Whatever side of the relationship you are on, both parties should conduct their due diligence and seek qualified legal advice on issuance of Shares in Payment for Services.

      If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Business Lawyers and Corporate Lawyers at Devry Smith Frank LLP. We have been assisting our clients grow and prosper since 1964.

    Posted in: Business Law, DSF
    Tags: ,

    Special and Extraordinary Child Support Expenses
    April 22nd, 2013 by John P. Schuman

    Child Support’s Special and Extraordinary Expenses

    This is episode of the Ontario Family Law Podcast is all about child support’s special and extraordinary expenses.  Parents share those expenses on top of base child support, so it is important for them to understand how this component of child support works.  This podcast explains what special expenses are and what extraordinary expenses are.  It also explains how parents calculate how much of these expenses they should share.  After that, John Schuman discusses the definitions of special expenses and extraordinary expenses and how they are different.  He then gives specific information on sharing the following types of expenses as they relate to child support:

    •   medical expenses
    •   child care expenses
    •   post-secondary education expenses
    •   extra-curricular activities
    •   sports – from beginning lessons to the elite level
    •   hockey
    •   private school

    All separated parents should listen to this podcast to make sure they are paying, or receiving the right amount for special and extraordinary expenses.

    Podcast: Play in new window

    Posted in: Child Support, child support guidelines, Custody, Divorce, DSF, Family Law, Finance, Podcast, Spousal Support
    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

    When do I need a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)?
    April 22nd, 2013 by Cory Schneider

    The simplest answer to the question, “When do I need a Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”)?” is: “Before you disclose any confidential information to a third party”.

    NDA’s are typically used when one party intends to disclose proprietary information that may have commercial value and is not yet in the public domain to another party; such as a potential customer, partner, investor, or manufacturer. You should consider using an NDA before disclosing or receiving any sensitive information that might be compromised by public disclosure. In general, such types of information relate to competitive advantages, potential business opportunities and intellectual property for which you may intend to file a patent application.

    By using an NDA, you can ensure that:

    • your confidential information remains confidential;
    • you can still potentially obtain a patent; and
    • the confidential information can’t be misused for other purposes.

    If you provide confidential information to another party without an NDA in place, the information could be used in ways that you don’t want and you may lose the ability to rely on important forms of intellectual property protection (such as patents and trade secrets). Without an NDA in place, disclosure of your invention to a third party is likely to be deemed public disclosure, which can potentially compromise your ability to obtain patent protection. While Canada and the US provide for the ability to file for patent protection within one year of public disclosure, many countries treat any public disclosure as an absolute bar to patentability.

    With a well drafted NDA in place, a breach of the NDA will give you a cause of action and potentially allow you to seek injunctive relief (where the court orders the breaching party to cease disclosure and use) and monetary damages.

    A well drafted NDA should include:

    • a description of the information that is to be considered confidential;
    • under what circumstances the receiving party may use the confidential information; and
    • the term of the agreement (ideally for the disclosing party, the term of the NDA will never expire).

    non-disclosure-agreement-for-Intellectual-Property-Protection-in-Toronto

    If you are the receiving party, it is also important that exceptions to the confidentiality provisions are clearly defined in the NDA. For example, information that the receiving party had prior to the disclosure, information in the public domain, information created by the receiving party, etc…

    NDA’s often contain provisions confirming that the NDA does not grant the receiving party an explicit or implied license to the disclosed material and that any and all material disclosed shall be returned to the disclosing party upon request.

    You should always ask anyone to whom you are disclosing confidential information to sign an NDA. In practice, it is not always easy to get someone to sign an NDA, particularly if you don’t have a previous business relationship with them. Typically, venture capitalists and other financers are reluctant to sign NDA’s given they come across so many inventions. Whether refusal to sign a non-Disclosure Agreement for Intellectual Property Protection is a deal-breaker will depend on your specific situation.

    We have been assisting our clients to grow and to prosper since 1964. If you have any questions regarding confidentiality agreements or NDA’s in regards to intellectual property protection, please do not hesitate to contact the Intellectual Property Lawyers or Business and Corporate Services Department at Devry Smith Frank LLP.

    Posted in: DSF, Intellectual Property
    Tags: , ,

    Can a CAS worker interview my child without my permission
    April 18th, 2013 by John P. Schuman

    Can a CAS worker interview my child without my permission and What are the Parental rights of Parents with Special Needs Children?

    Does a CAS worker have the right to interview my 14 yrs old daughter with severe learning disabilities, ADHD and ODD without my consent after I have notified the school in writing that they are not to hold these interviews on the school property? If the information they gathered while interviewing my child requires them to request an in-home interview with the parents and other children, must I comply and allow them into my home? What are the parental rights of parents with special needs children in Ontario?

    Yes. In Ontario, a Children’s Aid Society has the right to interview children without their parents’ consent during the course of a child protection investigation (an investigation into abuse or neglect). The school cannot stop the CAS from interviewing a child either. There may be issues as to whether a particular CAS worker is qualified to interview a child with specific special needs. However, refusing to let a child speak to a CAS worker only makes it look like you are trying to hide something and you are afraid that the child may tell the CAS that you are abusing him or her.

    Whether you speak to a CAS worker yourself is a more complicated matter – and you really need to consult with a lawyer who does child protection law. If you do not cooperate with the CAS, that will be held against you. However, if the concerns are that you did something contrary to the Criminal Code, then you also have a right not to speak to the CAS because the CAS worker will tell the police every thing you say. If you are charged, you statements may be used against you in criminal court. If you do not speak, your refusal to speak to the CAS may be used against you in child protection court and make it difficult for you to get your kids back if the CAS takes them. This is a very difficult situation to be in. Child protection lawyers (the small number of family lawyers who do Children’s Aid Society cases) can give you a lot of valuable advice, specific to your situation, to try to keep you out of trouble.

    Another good reason to speak to child protection lawyer right away is that there is a big advantage to having a lawyer ready to fight back right away if the Children’s Aid Society does take your kids, or starts court proceedings, or asks you to sign an agreement permitting the agency to be in your life. There is also a chapter on what to do when the children’s aid society is investigating you in this $20 easy-to-understand book on Ontario Family Law: Devry Basics Ontario Family Edition.

    It really is worth your while to consult a child protection lawyer and read the book because if you get yourself into a trouble in a CAS case, it can take a long time to get yourself out and that may mean that your kids are in foster care for a long time. Getting good advice early on parental rights of parents with special needs children in Toronto can keep you out of trouble.
    John Schuman is the head of the Family Law Group at Devry Smith Frank LLP, a full service law firm located near Eglinton and the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto. Learn more about John! Call him at 416-446-5080 or 416-446-5847 or email john.schuman@devrylaw.ca

    Posted in: DSF, Family Law
    Tags: ,

    « Older Posts