The Ontario Superior Court recently awarded 30 months’ notice period and bonus payments in full during that notice period to a long-service employee. The Judge noted that termination without cause in this case resulted in forced resignation as comparable employment was not available for the 62-year-old employee who had devoted 37 years to the company, and was therefore entitled to 30 months’ notice period. Moreover, the altered conditions of employment whereby bonus payments would only be payable if employed on date of payout was struck down as it was not appropriately communicated to affected employees-as the Judge noted that posting . . . [more]

The first stop in the lawsuit against the Statement of Principles concluded this month, with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upholding a motion by the law society to transfer the matter to the Divisional Court.

The Amended Application in this matter disposed of the injunctive relief originally sought, and instead seeks a number of declarations, including an interpretation and content of what the Statement of Principles obligation means, that the requirements are ultra vires the Law Society Act, and challenging the constitutionality of the requirements.

It’s the latter relief, the constitutionality of the Statement of Principles, that . . . [more]

Earlier this week, American President Trump nominated Brett M. Kavanaugh from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to take the place of Justice Anthony Kennedy who will be retiring as of the end of this month.

Who is Kavanaugh?

There are plenty of resources to figure that out.

The Library of Congress in Washington has published a page with resources about the nominee. The page includes links to articles and books by and about the nominee, to cases decided by him, to Congressional materials about his earlier nominations to federal judicial posts, and to web resources. . . . [more]

When legalization of cannabis comes into effect in Canada, which is scheduled for October 17, 2018, marijuana will no longer be listed as a controlled substance under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act and the consumption and incidental possession will no longer be a crime under Canada’s Criminal Code. . . . [more]

Everyone knew that the marketing and promotion restrictions on packaging for licensed producers in the recreational market were going to be onerous.

The Cannabis Act (the “Act”) itself sets out a number of restrictions, including prohibitions on packaging that:

• could be appealing to young persons;
• sets out a testimonial or endorsement, however displayed or communicated;
• depicts a person, character or animal, whether real or fictional;
• associates the cannabis or one of its brand elements with a way of life; or
• contains information that is false or misleading.

On top of what is set out in the Act itself, in March, . . . [more]

Far-right American groups tout the threat of “creeping sharia.” Comparable groups in Canada appear to be warning of a threat of a different kind, of the influence of the Charter in Canadian society.

If this seems puzzling, you’re not alone. The Charter is part of the Canadian constitution, arguably the most important legal document in our entire system. And yet, it becomes a convenient scapegoat when courts make decisions that some aspects of society disagree with.

What I’m talking about is Prof. Bruce Pardy, who criticized the Court’s decision in Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada. . . . [more]

On June 20, 2018, the federal government introduced Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, the long-awaited national accessibility legislation which will enable the government of Canada to take a proactive approach to end systemic discrimination of people with disabilities.

The Bill also known as the Accessible Canada Act would establish a model to eliminate accessibility barriers and lead to more consistent accessibility in areas covered by federally regulated sectors such as banking, inter-provincial and international transportation, telecommunications and government-run services such as Canada Post and federally funded organizations. Moreover, the Bill aims to “identify, remove and . . . [more]

The Dirty Money Report

At 9:30 PDT this morning (June 27, 2018) BC Attorney General David Eby QC convened a press conference to discuss the release of the much anticipated report by Peter German QC. Minister Eby was joined by German, a classic quadruple threat. Quite boring really. Lawyer (BC and Ont), former RCMP member of 31 years, Correctional Service Regional Deputy Commissioner, money laundering expert and textbook writer, PhD, and Queen’s Counsel. He does not, so far as we know, hold any Olympic medals, important medical patents or Eurovision victories.

Those who tuned in to the live stream, as . . . [more]

Many Canadians confuse the law when it comes to recording telephone conversations, likely due to exposure to American concepts in the media. Although the Wiretap Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. § 2511) contains a one-party consent rule, a dozen states have a two-party consent that supersedes American Federal law, and given its presence in California (Cal. Penal Code § 632), it’s likely that this is often the source of the misunderstanding in Canada.

In Canada, we have Part VI of the Criminal Code, which states,

Consent to interception

183.1 Where a private communication is originated by more than one person

The number of workers over the age of 65 has risen significantly in recent years. The increasing number of older employees who choose to remain in the workplace, combined with the elimination of mandatory retirement across Canada, has put into question the issue of the termination of benefits after an employee reaches the age of 65.

While most employers routinely terminate benefits at age 65, the changing workforce demographic has created a demand for benefits coverage for older workers. However, providing benefits to employees past the age of 65 can be difficult because insurers either will not provide the coverage, . . . [more]

You can expect to hear, “A trial is not a tea party,” from a lawyer on the other side, sometime in the near future.

That lawyer will likely be acting in an obstinate, demeaning, impolite, or even aggressive manner, and this quip will come quickly in defence of their conduct.

The reason I can predict this with absolute certainty is the recent  Supreme Court’s decision in Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, released this week, which evaluated the law society’s discipline hearing decision in 2013. The discipline involved Groia’s defence in R. v. Felderhof, of a mining . . . [more]

With a smartphone in every pocket, and easy access to the law in every home, when does independent research by a juror become sufficient for a mistrial? The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently explored this issue during a personal injury trial in Patterson v. Peladeau, where Justice Hackland dismissed the motion for mistrial.

At issue for the mistrial motion was an unusual jury question on the first day of deliberations. The content of the note inferred that the jury had been discussing the liability issue at trial, but in an context of a statutory reference that was not at . . . [more]