An Open Email dated June 12, 2020, from Personal Injury Lawyer, Marc Spivak, to our Attorney General Regarding Suspending Juries in Civil Law Cases To the Honorable Doug Downey Attorney General of Ontario I am a personal injury lawyer and have been for 28 years. The first 9 years of my practice I acted for insurance companies on the defence of insurance matters. I can tell you firsthand the almost complete unfairness of the archaic jury system that we have. A system that not only creates a complete advantage for insurance companies, but it also puts every injured victim in the unfair position of essentially overcoming an inherent misunderstanding of jurors why they are being forced in a courtroom leaving their jobs and family without pay for often 2-8 weeks. A system that prevents lawyers from educating the jurors about the involvement of an insurer; of the real discounted losses that the victim is faced with in car accident cases; and of the costs to the victim of being forced to prove a claim dragged on by insurers for sometimes 5-6 years. Every insurer files a jury notice in almost every personal injury matter for a reason. It is negligent for a lawyer or an insurer not to deliver a jury notice. There is no reason for our government to provide insurers with an unfair advantage that has resulted over the last 10 years in massive delay in being able to get to a civil trial. To have to wait 2-3 years to get to a 15-20 day trial date that may or may not go ahead as scheduled is barbaric for victims. Trial by judge alone is at least 50-60% faster and more efficient. Given the COVID risks, it is impossible for the foreseeable future to force our citizens to face the real health risks of sitting on a jury. It would be completely unfair in the circumstances to further delay the civil trial list by keeping juries as part of our civil trial system on personal injury matters (with the possible exception of med mal and sex assault cases). In temporarily removing juries we can free up limited judicial resources and get rid of the delay in getting to a civil trial (which would speed up the ability to get criminal cases dealt with in a timely manner), all at less cost to taxpayers. My suggestion is to temporarily suspend juries in the civil system (with the exception of med mal and sex assault cases) and make our justice system run more smoothly at less cost. I look forward to your decision. “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, COVID-19, Personal InjuryJune 12, 2020September 29, 2020
Canadian Spouse? Travel to Canada During COVID-19 Canadian Spouse? Travel to Canada During COVID-19 By now, you are probably aware that Canada like most other countries has implemented stringent travel restrictions on travellers to Canada in the midst of COVID-19. The restrictions affect everyone including citizens, visitors, workers, and their family members. The travel restrictions have come down in the form of Orders in Council (OICs), i.e. legal instruments created by the Governor General. While these provide basic rules surrounding restrictions and exemptions, they leave room for a lot of confusion as to how they apply in practice. This has been particularly so for spouses not currently living together in Canada where one spouse is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and the other a foreign national. This has led to foreign nationals with Canadian spouses in Canada being frequently denied permission to travel to Canada. According to the OICs, the basic restriction against foreign nationals travelling to Canada doesn’t apply to spouses of Canadian citizens or permanent residents so long as the foreign national has no COVID-19 symptoms and can prove they’re not coming here for a discretionary or optional purpose. Unfortunately, the OICs don’t define optional or discretionary. This has led to many instances of spouses being denied permission to travel to Canada since the prevailing OICs came into effect at the end of March 2020. Airline personnel and officers of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) have been tasked with assessing the travellers’ purpose in a short turnaround time based on whatever information the traveler provides. This has been and continues to be a distressing problem that keeps spouses apart longer than they perhaps intended. The Canadian government has been trying to provide further clarity by regularly updating its websites and practice directions, though these have at times led to further confusion. In perhaps what is one of the most useful updates so far, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) provided a substantial but non-exhaustive list of examples on April 29, 2020 of optional versus non-optional. That list clearly indicates the following are non-optional; coming to live permanently with a Canadian spouse, coming to spend the pandemic period with their spouse and to ensure each other’s wellbeing during this time, and to take care of ill family members who have no means to otherwise to do so. No doubt, spouses who fell into these categories were previously denied permission to travel up to now. Hopefully, this new direction from the IRCC will provide clearer parameters to airline personnel and CBSA officers making these tough assessments and will result in the reunion of spouses suffering the current hardship of being apart. If you, your spouse or any other family members have been denied permission to travel to or enter Canada, please contact our immigration lawyer Maya Krishnaratne at maya.krishnaratne@devrylaw.ca or 416-446-5841. “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, COVID-19, ImmigrationMay 1, 2020September 30, 2020
What to Expect With Your Family Law Matter After COVID-19 Andreina Minicozzi and Devry Smith Frank LLP are committed to following the guidelines and recommendations outlined by the Public Health Agency of Canada to ensure the safety and wellbeing of employees, colleagues, clients, friends, and families. During these unprecedented times, we understand that your family law matter may be in flux. It is important to recognize what the landscape of family law may look like in Ontario after COVID-19. This post looks at such a future. With limited relief currently available to families through the courts, these unprecedented times may change the future of family law forever. Alternative dispute resolution, which continues to be refined, has surged, and on the other hand, the courts are now forced to offer a more streamlined and efficient process. Overall, this may bode well for the family law system holistically. Alternative Dispute Resolution Alternative dispute resolution such as mediation, arbitration and collaborative family law have become staples in the legal landscape and while the courts have scaled back on the issues which they can resolve, these alternative dispute options continue strongly and have the capability to adapt to an online platform much quicker. An online mediation could allow a couple to resolve their family law matter over a shared video conference platform such as Zoom. Arbitration allows parties to hire a private arbitrator to make a decision on their dispute. Arbitration can use video conferencing for oral arguments and cross-examination, and documents can be exchanged electronically in moments. Litigation can be lengthy and expensive, but with the health of alternative dispute resolution maintaining its position in the legal landscape amid such a crisis, you can expect many more family law matters to engage with the justice system through mediation, arbitration, and collaborative family law given their streamlined service and ability to adapt to changing landscapes. A Streamlined Court System Canadian courts are now also rapidly updating their procedure to accommodate litigants through remote access and virtual hearings. Even such processes like notarizing documents and signing affidavits have been adapted to accommodate the need to changes in this current landscape. We have also seen an advanced email filing system for many Ontario courts The longer social distancing is required, the more the courts will need to adapt, increasing the options for remote or virtual hearings and streamlining further processes. This is also stated with the understanding that there will be a predictable influx of new and ongoing family law matters that need to be addressed once the restrictions relating to COVID-19 are lifted. Even long after Canada has recovered from COVID-19, you can expect such streamlined processes in family law to remain as the new norm or at least a viable option for litigants; a welcomed culmination of a time where the entire world was forced to adapt for the better. What may result is a more modernized court process through technology and expediency, and one predicated on efficiency. Conclusion The future of family law may just mean a move away from the courts to other dispute resolution platforms, and a nuanced family court process that is more streamlined and efficient. Nevertheless, while understanding the future of family law is intricate, developing and dynamic, for many, the future is now. If you believe your family law matter requires urgent attention by the courts, please do not hesitate to contact Andreina Minicozzi at Devry Smith Frank LLP to have your rights assessed and protected. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, COVID-19, Family LawApril 29, 2020September 30, 2020
Bringing Motions During COVID-19 in Family Law Andreina Minicozzi and Devry Smith Frank LLP are committed to following the guidelines and recommendations outlined by the Public Health Agency of Canada to ensure the safety and wellbeing of employees, colleagues, clients, friends, and families. During these unprecedented times we understand that your family law matter may be in limbo. It is important to understand which family law motions may still be brought before the Superior Courts. This post looks at this issue within the Toronto, Central East and Central West regions. Toronto In Toronto, the Superior Courts will only hear motions on specific grounds. The first ground is that the motion must be urgent. This includes: Requests for urgent relief relating to the safety of a child or parent (e.g., a restraining order, other restrictions on contact between the parties or a party and a child, or exclusive possession of the home); Urgent issues that must be determined relating to the well-being of a child including essential medical decisions, issues relating to the wrongful removal or retention of a child, or failure to comply with existing court orders and parenting plans; Issues regarding the financial stability of the family unit, including for example support or the need for a non-depletion order; Urgent child protection motions involving the Children’s Aid Society. It is important to note that the actual hearing of these motions is likely to take place either virtually or by way of teleconference. Parties can also consider bringing motions by way of 14B. A 14B motion is a motion made in writing. The courts will continue to hear 14B motions that are made on consent of all the parties. Central East – Barrie, Bracebridge, Cobourg, Lindsay, Newmarket, Oshawa, Peterborough Much like Toronto, the Central East Region is only hearing motions on specified grounds. This includes: Urgent motions that meet the threshold for urgency, and ex-parte motions i.e. on matters relating to the safety or well-being of a child. 14B motions in writing, requesting consent Orders on issues such as support, changes to temporary support, parenting issues (primary residence, “access” time), disbursement of funds held in trust, appointment of an OCL, Child Protection matters, and other consent matters. 14B motions requesting a Case Conference if the issues are pressing. Pressing issues that may require a Case Conference include issues of parenting, COVID-19 concerns, financial issues, or Child Protection matters that do not necessarily meet the stringent test of urgency in addition to urgent matters of a similar nature. Consent Motions to Change when both parties are seeking to change a portion or all of a previous order or agreement in place. Again, note that the actual hearing of these motions is likely to take place either virtually or by way of teleconference. Central West – Brampton, Milton, Orangeville, Guelph, Owen-Sound, Walkerton The Central West Region’s hearing of motions during these unprecedented times mimic the hearings offered by Toronto, including again: Requests for urgent relief relating to the safety of a child or parent (e.g., a restraining order, other restrictions on contact between the parties or a party and a child, or exclusive possession of the home); Urgent issues that must be determined relating to the well-being of a child including essential medical decisions, issues relating to the wrongful removal or retention of a child, or failure to comply with existing court orders and parenting plans; Issues regarding the financial stability of the family unit, including for example support or the need for a non-depletion order; Urgent child protection motions involving the Children’s Aid Society. The Superior Courts in Central West will also hear consent motions in writing, made by way of a 14B motion. However, unlike Toronto and Central East, Central West is allowing parties to submit motions if the parties consent that the entire motion can be decided in writing only. This means no oral hearing is provided, and the presiding judge will make their decision predominantly based on the parties’ written material only. Conclusion If you believe your family law matter requires urgent attention by the courts, please do not hesitate to contact Andreina Minicozzi at Devry Smith Frank LLP (289-638-3179 or andreina.minicozzi@devrylaw.ca) to have your rights assessed and protected. Court procedures for filing materials and scheduling a motion have also changed and we have stayed up to date on these new procedures so that your rights continue to be protected during these unprecedented times. By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, COVID-19, Family LawApril 23, 2020September 30, 2020
The CERB criteria has expanded: Am I eligible? This blog is co-written by our former articling student, Janet Son. On April 15, 2020, the federal government announced the expanded eligibility criteria for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”), upon mounting criticism that many workers were unable to collect the CERB despite being financially impacted by COVID-19. The following changes have been made: Now workers can earn up to $1,000 per month in employment and/or self-employment income while collecting the CERB. Some examples: A gig economy worker has lost 80% of their jobs due to COVID-19 however the remaining 20% they earn $1000 for the month. They can still collect the CERB, which means total potential earnings of $3000 per month while receiving the benefit. A worker held two part-time jobs. They were laid off from one of their jobs due to COVID-19, however they are still working at the second part-time job. If the second job pays less than $1000/month, they are able to continue to work while receiving the $2000 benefit. A retail worker is receiving $1000 per month from a relief fund set up by the company they work since the store they work for is closed. They can still apply for the CERB and receive the $1000 from the relief fund. An office worker has had their pay cut to $1000 per month along with reduced working hours. They can continue to work and earn up to $1000 per month from their company while also receiving the CERB. Seasonal workers who have exhausted their Employment Insurance (EI) regular benefits and are unable to undertake their usual seasonal work as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. For example, those who work in commercial fishing, construction or resorts who work for a period of the year and would typically receive EI for the remaining months and now cannot return to those jobs due to COVID-19 are eligible for the CERB benefit. Workers who recently exhausted their EI regular benefits between December 29, 2019 and October 3, 2020 and are unable to find a job or return to work because of COVID-19 For example, if you are collecting EI which is set to end May 1, 2020 and you are unable to find a job because of COVID-19, you can switch to receiving the CERB if you meet all the other criteria If you are an essential worker that makes less than $2500 per month, you will soon be eligible to receive a temporary salary top-up. Details of this program will be released shortly. There are likely to be further changes in the CERB eligibility requirements, in particular for students who are currently ineligible for the CERB and yet have no prospects for summer employment. If you are a student who earned at least $5000 during 2019 from a summer job, part-time work during the school year, and/or a co-op term, you are eligible for the CERB if you had a job offer for the month of May that has been deferred for at least 14 days. If you have more questions about your eligibility for the CERB, contact employment lawyer Marty Rabinovitch at 416-446-5826 or at marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, COVID-19, Employment LawApril 20, 2020September 30, 2020
Fair Insurance Act The Ontario Liberal government, just prior to an election, claims it has again decided to address high automobile insurance premiums (but ignores the negative effect of these changes on victims of car accidents). In the 2017 Ontario Ministry of Finance Report “Fair Benefits Fairly Delivered: A Review of the Auto Insurance System of Ontario” the average yearly rates for car insurance by province were: Ontario: $1,458 C.: $1,316 Alberta: $1,179 Newfoundland & Labrador: $1,090 Manitoba: $1,001 Northwest Territories: $974 Nunavut: $968 Yukon: $806 Nova Scotia: $783 Saskatchewan: $775 New Brunswick: $763 E.I.: $755 Quebec: $724. The Liberal government, which has historically taken away benefits and protection from victims with empty promises of keeping car insurance rates affordable (I have never seen any reduction in car insurance the last few years, have you?), has created smoke and mirrors and called it The Fair Auto Insurance Plan. This plan is supposed to “improve care, reduce disputes around diagnosis and treatment… promote innovation, competition and other steps to improve consumer protection.” The plan creates a fancy title for investigation of alleged fraud “The Serious Fraud Office” which is to be operational by the spring of 2018. Call me sceptical but insurers have appropriately and successfully cut out all fraud from car insurance for years, so is this the Premier’s excuse why her promises regarding reducing car insurance premiums never worked out? (although they did cut off perhaps 50% of the benefits desperately needed for victims and greatly increased profits of the auto insurers). The Fair Auto Insurance Plan will also introduce: Standard treatment plans for immediate care on common injuries: sprains, whiplash, etc. (Ask yourself how “common” your injuries are when you are so inflicted). Independent examination centres for more serious collision victims aimed to reduce diagnosis disputes, reduce system costs and inefficiencies (Historically “independent” examination centres are insurer biased). Insurance Act to be given “greater teeth” to protect consumers (Consumer benefit has never been the intention behind changes since 1990- ask any personal injury lawyer). These promised changes have elements that have been used in previous car insurance regimes that have all failed, yet before election promises are being made to protect consumers! The only protection for consumers in the car insurance industry is to acquire optional benefits from your insurance broker to better protect you and your family and to ask a personal injury lawyer whether your coverage is adequate before it is too late! For more information please contact Personal Injury lawyer Marc Spivak by email marc.spivak@devrylaw.ca or phone 416-446-5855. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be 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, Insurance Defence, Personal InjuryDecember 19, 2017July 5, 2023
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
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
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
