Wise Law Blog

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Friday, January 27, 2012

2012-01-27T09:09:00.001-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines for Friday, January 27, 2012 from Wise Law on Twitter :

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Thursday, January 26, 2012

2012-01-26T09:42:00.001-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines for Thursday, January 26, 2012 from Wise Law on Twitter:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Wednesday, January 25, 2012

2012-01-25T09:05:00.003-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Wednesday, January 25, 2012:

Have a wonderful day and thank you for taking the time to click through our tweets!

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines from Wise Law on Twitter

2012-01-24T09:25:00.000-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines for Tuesday, January 24, 2012 from Wise Law on Twitter:

- Rachel Spence, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for January 23, 2012

2012-01-23T08:24:00.002-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines for Monday, January 23, 2012 from Wise Law on Twitter:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Friday, January 20, 2012

2012-01-20T08:45:00.001-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Friday, January 20, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Thursday, January 19, 2012

2012-01-19T09:11:00.000-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Thursday, January 19, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Wednesday, January 18, 2012

2012-01-18T09:38:00.003-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Wednesday, January 18, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Tuesday, January 17, 2012

2012-01-17T08:16:00.003-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Tuesday, January 17, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Monday, January 16, 2012

2012-01-16T08:40:00.001-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Monday, January 16, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

This Week at the Ontario Court of Appeal - January 13, 2012

2012-01-14T18:30:00.000-05:00

Each week, Wise Blog looks at recent decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Tuerr Holdings Inc. v. Vrankovic

The appellant, Peter Vrankovic, appealed from an order granting summary judgment to the respondent, Tuerr Holdings Inc., on the appellant's guarantee of a second mortgage on a commercial property owned by Cambridge Place Commercial Corporation ("Cambridge"). The appellant was the president and director of Cambridge.

The respondent served a Notice of Intention to Enforce Security on Cambridge and a Notice to Attorn Rents on Cambridge's tenants as a consequence of Cambridge being in default on its second mortgage to the respondent. On May 14, 2010, the parties executed a Minutes of Settlement and Forbearance Agreement. The respondent agreed to suspend any further enforcement proceedings on the mortgages until September 5, 2010. This agreement was contingent on Cambridge paying the arrears owing to the respondent and keeping its first mortgage on the property, held by Meridian Credit Union (Meridian), in good standing. Moreover, the Minutes of Settlement and Forbearance Agreement were confirmed by a consent court order.

Contrary to their agreement, Cambridge failed to pay the arrears owing to the respondent and defaulted on its first mortgage to Meridian. As a consequence, Meridian obtained an order appointing a Receiver to sell the property. Furthermore, the respondent commenced an action against the appellant on his guarantee of the second mortgage and obtained summary judgment on the claim.

The Court agreed with the motion judge that Cambridge breached the terms of the Minutes of Settlement and Forbearance Agreement by failing to pay the arrears owing to the respondent and by its default under the first mortgage provided by Meridian. Further, when Vrankovic signed the Minutes of Settlement, the respondent was unaware that Cambridge was already in default in its mortgage payments to Meridian (first mortgagee), and owed over $500,000 in municipal taxes on the property. The Court reaffirmed the motion judge's conclusion that by signing the document in his personal capacity, the appellant waived his right to raise any previous deficiencies in the respondent's enforcement proceedings in response to the motion for summary judgment.

The Court dismissed the appellant's position that Meridian verbally agreed to forbear on enforcement of its first mortgage and to permit Cambridge to pay reduced rent so that it could pursue lease negotiations that would yield increased revenue from existing or potential tenants. The appellant submitted that this evidence served a viable defence to Meridian's assertion that it was entitled to enforce its mortgage security. Additionally, the Court noted that the motion judge correctly rejected the appellant's assertions of an oral forbearance agreement with Meridian, as these assertions were not supported by any documentary evidence, were inconsistent with the terms of the first mortgage and failed to adduce any convincing evidence that Cambridge lost prospective tenants as a result of the respondent's actions.

The Court added that Cambridge was hopelessly in debt, in breach of the terms of the first mortgage and could not be rescued by any extended lease arrangements that were a long ways away from completion. As a result, the Court found that the appellant failed to raise any genuine issues requiring a trial.

Warren Woods Land Corporation v. 1636891 Ontario Inc.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the appellant satisfied the three criteria for the granting of a stay under rule 63.02(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.The order sought to be stayed was an order removing all notices filed by the appellant on the land of the respondents (the "Owner"). The application judge held that the appellant did not have an interest in the land in question at the time the notices were registered.

Article 3.14 of the Development Management Agreement between the appellant and respondent contained a provision, which gave the appellant an option to purchase the land. The respondent was disappointed with the appellant's work and advised the appellant that it wished to terminate the Agreement. The respondent did not take the required steps to terminate as contemplated by the Agreement.

The appellant registered the notices in question on October 16 and 28, 2009, claiming entitlement to an unregistered interest in the Owner's property pursuant to s.71(1) of the Land Titles Act. The respondent subsequently sent a Notice of Complaint to the appellant on August 8, 2011, which referred to default on the part of the appellant. The appellant replied to the respondent's Notice of Complaint by letter a two and a half weeks later, providing its understanding of their agreement. Further, the respondent claimed to have formally terminated the Agreement on August 30, 2011 and brought an application to have the notices that the respondent registered on title removed.

Additionally, the appellant claimed that the fact the Agreement created a contingent option to purchase land signified that it had an interest in the land. The respondent submitted that the issue whether an interest in land had been created was a question of mixed law and fact. Moreover, they stated that the appellant only had a right to an "incorporeal hereditament" at common law, which is an intangible right. In Bank of Montreal v. Dynex Petroleum Ltd, the court held, "At common law, an interest in land could issue from a corporeal hereditament but not from an incorporeal hereditament". Therefore, the respondent's position was that since the appellant only had a right to an incorporeal hereditament, it did not have an interest in the land in dispute at the time it registered the notices.

The respondent also argued that Article 3.14 of the Development Management Agreement was void because it contained no time restrictions and thus violated the rule against perpetuities. According to Politzer v. Metropolitan Homes Ltd, an equitable interest is void if it can vest beyond the perpetuity period of twenty-one years.

The Court articulated the three criteria for the granting of a stay:

The appeal must raise a serious question;
The appellant must demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable hard if the stay were not granted;
Finally, on a balance of convenience, the appellant must satisfy the court that it would suffer greater harm if the stay were not granted than the respondents would suffer if the stay were granted.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court held that there was not a serious questioned to be determined. The appellant failed to provide any reasons why the common law prohibition on the creation of an interest in land from an incorporeal hereditament should not apply. Concerning the rule against perpetuities, the Court found that the appellant did not respond to the respondent's claim that the Agreement was void since it was in contravention of the rule.

Additionally, the Court noted that refusing a stay would not result in irreparable harm to the appellant. Irreparable harm is harm that cannot be quantified in monetary terms. The Court found that the appellant would not be able to enforce the Agreement by claiming specific performance, as it intended to sell the lands and it did not put forth evidence that the lands were unique in any fashion.

The appellant failed to satisfy the third criteria as the Court declared that the balance of convenience did not favour granting a stay. If a stay were granted, the respondent would not be able to refinance the lands and sell them pending the outcome of the appeal. On the contrary, if a stay were not granted, the appellant would not be without recourse as it would still be in a position to sue for damages for alleged breach of the Agreement.

Elsegood v. Cambridge Spring Service

One of the primary issues of this appeal was whether the Employment Standards Act ("ESA")could support an employee's claim for common law damages.

The respondent worked for the appellant employer for seven years as a spring technician. There was no written employment contract. The respondent was laid off on two occasions. After the first occasion, he was recalled to work only to be laid off again approximately seven weeks later. The cumulative duration of the layoffs exceeded the statutory maximum of 35 weeks within a 52 week-period, as prescribed by s. 56(1)(c) of the ESA. Once the respondent's layoff period reached 35 weeks, he commenced an action for common law damages for wrongful dismissal rather than claiming termination pay under s.54 of the ESA. Holub Deputy J. awarded him $9,900 in damages reflecting a notice period of six months.

On appeal, the employer argued that an employee's employment status survives a statutory termination by the ESA. It argued that the ESA and common law were independent regimes so that upon a statutory termination pursuant to the ESA, the employee was entitled only to remedies under the Act.

The Court did not agree.

It held that the appellants could not rely on s. 56(1) of the Act, which provides that the employee is terminated "for purposes of section 54". The Court disagreed with the employer's position that the respondent was not terminated for all purposes, but only for the purposes of s. 54. In fact, s. 56(1) prohibits an employer from terminating an employee without notice or payment in lieu of notice. The purpose of s. 54 is to prevent employers from avoiding their liabilities upon termination by pacing employees under a facade of indefinite layoff.

In holding that the ESA provides for the continued application of the common law despite its statutory termination provisions, the Court cited a passage by Iacobucci J. in Machtinger:

Section 4(2) states that a right, benefit, term or condition of employment under a contract that provides a greater benefit to an employee than the standards set out in the Act. I have no difficulty in concluding that the common law presumption of reasonable notice is a benefit...

The Court considered what would transpire if one accepted that the employee's employment at common law survived the operation s. 56(1). At common law, employers do not have a right to layoff employees. Unless there is an agreement to the contrary, a unilateral layoff by an employer is a substantial change in the employee's employment and is considered to be a constructive dismissal.

Employees are entitled to reasonable notice of termination, regardless of what an employment contract states. In Machtinger, one of the employees' contracts allowed his termination without notice, and the contract of the other individual allowed his termination on only two weeks notice. The trial judge found that the termination clauses were invalid because they violated the ESA. He held that the employees were entitled to seven and seven and a half months pay in lieu of notice respectively. On appeal, the Court agreed that the termination provisions were invalid, but held that the termination provisions supported the inference that the employees intended to have very short notice periods. The Supreme Court disagreed and stated, "If a term in null and void, then it is null and void for all purposes, and cannot be used as evidence of the parties' intention". Since the employees' contracts failed to address notice requirements, they were entitled to reasonable notice at common law.

The Court rejected the appellant's claim that an implied term in the employment agreement allowed the employer to place the respondent on indefinite layoff exceeding 35 weeks in a 52-week period. The Court noted that since the indefinite layoff provision failed to meet the ESA's minimum standard, it was void. As a consequence, the Court declared that the implied term should not be read down but rather excised from the employment agreement.

R. v. Lalumiere

The appellant was convicted of two counts of counselling to commit murder against his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Prior to the convictions under appeal, the appellant accumulated 23 convictions for offences involving his ex-wife and her boyfriend ranging from uttering threats to criminal harassment. Various violence risk assessment tests conducted on the appellant indicated that he had a 70% likelihood of assaulting his ex-wife at least once in the next five years.

In 2007, the appellant was in jail for uttering threats and for breaching his probation order. During his time in jail, a confidential informant divulged to the police that the appellant desired to hire someone to kill his ex-wife and her boyfriend. On June 14, 2007, a police officer posed as a member of the Hells Angels and met the appellant in the visitor's area of the prison and told him that he understood that the appellant wanted to eradicate two individuals. The undercover officer provided the appellant with his phone number and the appellant was agreeable to the arrangement but he stated that he could not pay the officer until after his release at the end of the year. After failing to hear from the appellant over the ensuing two weeks, the officer returned to the jail and raised the issue once again with the appellant about having the two individuals killed. The appellant agreed to pay the officer $5,000 and later telephoned him to provide personal details about the targeted victims.

At trial, the appellant claimed that he knew all along that the undercover officer's intentions were not legitimate. The appellant asserted that he led the undercover officer on and planned to report him to authorities. Furthermore, prior to the undercover officer's meetings with the appellant, the police obtained a judicial authorization, which permitted the officer to secretly record his conversations with the appellant. Also at trial, the appellant brought an application to exclude the audiotape of the June 27, 2007 telephone conversation under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter. Moreover, the appellant applied to have evidence of his police interview excluded under ss. 10(a), (b) and 24(2) of the Charter. The trial judge found a breach of s.8 but rejected the rest of the appellant's applications.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to exclude the audiotape under s. 24(2) of the Charter, by failing to exclude the evidence of his police interview under ss. 10(a), (b) and 24(2) of the Charter, in his instructions to the jury and in his ruling on entrapment.

Concerning the ss. 8 and 24(2) Charter issue, the Court noted that the trial judge correctly applied the Collins factors in support of his conclusion that the evidence obtained should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. Furthermore, the Court stated that the Grant factors favoured admission of the evidence because the undercover officer's evidence concerning his telephone conversations with the appellant was admissible in any event.

In regards to the appellant's ss. 10(a) and 10(b) claims, the Court reviewed the trial transcripts and concluded that the appellant was advised of his 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights and the police offered to assist the appellant in contacting counsel. Further, they asserted that the appellant invited the police to continue speaking with him and he declined to answer specific questions when he felt he should not do so without the benefit of counsel present.

Additionally, the Court found no legal errors in the trial judge's instructions to the jury, holding that the trial judge informed the jury that it was their recollection of the evidence that carried the most weight. More importantly, the jury heard the audiotape of the conversation between the undercover officer and the appellant as well as the appellant's explanation.

On the issue of entrapment, the Court saw no error in the trial judge's pronouncement that the police acted on reasonable suspicion and did no more than provide the appellant the opportunity to commit the crime. Also, they noted that the police were justified in giving credence to the tip received from the confidential informant and that the undercover officers' conduct fell short of inducement.

Poole v. Whirlpool Corporation

The appellant terminated the respondent without cause in early March 2010. The respondent brought a motion and was awarded summary judgment for wrongful dismissal, and the motion judge ruled that the respondent was entitled to a bonus in the amount of $5,598.38 per month during the 19-month notice period determined upon the motion.

The appellants challenged the motion judge's decision that the respondent was entitled to a bonus, her calculation of the bonus and her conclusion that no genuine issue requiring a trial arose concerning the respondent's bonus claim.

The appellants argued that in order to qualify for a bonus under the applicable Bonus Plan, the respondent was required to be actively employed on December 31st of the year for which the bonus was claimed. Since the respondent was terminated in March 2010, he was not eligible for a bonus in 2010 or 2011.

The Court found that the motion judge did not err in her rejection of this position. The Court held that the bonus eligibility stipulation relied on by the appellants was not incorporated in the respondent's letter of employment. Moreover, there was no evidence that the stipulation was drawn to the respondent's attention at any time, whether in writing, orally, by means of the appellants' internal intranet communication system, or that he had ever agreed to it. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant's failure to cross- examine the respondent on his affidavit material, in which he swore that he never agreed to the stipulation, precluded any reliance by the appellants on the stipulation to defeat the respondent's bonus claim.

In regards to the motion judge's calculation of the bonus, the Court held that the motion judge was correct in her analysis as to the appropriate method for the bonus calculation. Finally, the Court found that the motion judge did not err in her ruling that no genuine issue requiring a trial arose in regards to the respondent's entitlement to a bonus or the method of calculating the bonus.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court concluded that once it was determined that the respondent was wrongfully terminated, the determination of his bonus was straightforward and based on evidence that was mainly uncontested.

- Alim Ramji, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Digest - December 1, 2011-January 1, 2012

2012-01-14T18:13:00.000-05:00

Each month, Wise Law Blog reviews important decisions from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

RULINGS ON DISCRIMINATION

Rampersaud v. Primary Response Inc. et al.

In this case, the Applicant, a self-identified Black male of East Indian descent who was employed as a security guard, alleged discrimination against the Respondent security company on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and age, contrary to sections 5(1), 5(2) and 9 of the Code. The Respondent stated that the Applicant had been terminated after he was involved in an egregious incident at the assigned work site involving the exchange of unauthorized parking passes to cafeteria staff in return for free beverages from them.

Employment Standards had determined that the Applicant was not entitled to termination pay since he had been guilty of wilful misconduct. Nevertheless, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the Application on the basis that the substance of the Application had been dealt with in another proceeding since none of the Code-related allegations in the Application were addressed in the ESA proceeding.

The Applicant cited the several incidents of discrimination against the Respondent, for which he sought substantial monetary compensation:

After his return from a medical leave, the Applicant claimed that a specific Respondent employee, Ms. Oza, an employee who he believed had supervisory authority over him, tried to have him demoted. The Tribunal rejected this allegation on the basis that it was based on hearsay information and that the Applicant had not identified the informant nor how he or she would have known this information.
The Applicant claimed that he was subject to discriminatory comments on the basis of his ethnic background, namely that he was called "Son of Slave" by Ms. Oza in the presence of other employees, a derogatory and demeaning term about the Applicant's ethnic group. With respect to this allegation, the Tribunal held in favour of the Respondents, noting that the Applicant had not mentioned this allegation in his Application and that sufficient particulars of the allegation had not been put into evidence. What language was the remark made in? What was the context of the statement?
The Applicant claimed he was improperly excluded from radio communications during the course of his shifts because of his race, but was not aware whether other security guards were being treated in a similar way. The Respondents claimed that this did not occur, or if it did, any denial of access was not done purposely and was as the result of faulty radios. The Tribunal accepted the Respondents' version of events, noting that even if he had been improperly excluded somehow from radio communication there was not evidence that this was done for reasons related to Code grounds.
The Applicant claimed he was improperly denied computer access by the Respondents on the basis of Code Grounds. Again, here, the Tribunal sided with the Respondents, finding that the Applicant was only denied access to specific terminals for logistical reasons and that any improper denials were not linked to Code grounds in any event.
The Applicant claimed he was falsely accused and verbally disciplined for giving false evidence to the media by the Respondents with respect to a security incident that had occurred in October 2008. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's allegation here too, preferring the Respondents' evidence that the Applicant had been disciplined for violating company policy in not waiting for the police and ambulance before attending at the scene.

With respect to the Applicant's position that he had been erroneously and falsely accused by the Respondents of giving free parking passes to cafeteria staff in violation of company policy on the basis of his ethnicity and race, in purported justification of his termination, the Tribunal concluded on all the evidence that the termination, while maybe not entirely fair, was not discriminatory:

In my view, the Respondents have established a reasonable non-discriminatory explanation for the termination of the Applicant's employment.

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

Romero v. Mennonnite Brethren Senior Citizens Home et al.

In this case, the Applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, requesting that they comply with their disclosure obligations under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Rule 16.1 states:

Not later than 21 days after the Tribunal sends a Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, each party must deliver to every other party (and file a Statement of Delivery):
a) a list of all arguably relevant documents in their possession. Where a privilege is claimed over any document the party must describe the nature of the document and the reason for making the claim; and,
b) a copy of each document contained on the list, excluding any documents for which privilege is claimed.

The Respondents did not comply and the Applicant sought an Order compelling produce of documents from the Respondents. The Tribunal ordered the Respondents to comply with the requirement under Rule 16.1 within one week.

Vallee v. Fairweather Ltd.

In this case, the Applicant filed an application alleging discrimination against the Respondent. The Respondent had continued to fail to file a response in spite of rulings and notices by the Tribunal that it do so in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provides:

Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may: a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application; b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent; c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding; d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.

In accordance with Rule 5.5, the Tribunal held as follows:

. . . the Respondent is deemed to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding. The Tribunal will proceed without the participation of the Respondent. The Respondent is deemed to have waived its right to participate pursuant to Rule 5.5(c) and to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5(a).

...........

If you believe you have experienced discrimination, contact a lawyer who can advise as to your rights and entitlements under the Ontario Human Rights Code and other relevant legislation.

- Robert Tanha, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Friday, January 13, 2012

2012-01-13T09:26:00.002-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Friday, January 13, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Thursday, January 12, 2012

2012-01-12T09:17:00.003-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Thursday, January 12, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Wednesday, January 11, 2012

2012-01-11T09:19:00.001-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Wednesday, January 11, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Tuesday, January 10, 2012

2012-01-10T09:29:00.003-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Tuesday, January 10, 2012:

-Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Monday, January 9, 2012

2012-01-09T09:31:00.004-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Monday, January 9th, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Friday, January 6, 2012

2012-01-06T09:00:00.005-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Friday, January 6, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Thursday, January 5, 2012

2012-01-05T09:04:00.003-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Thursday, January 5th, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Wednesday, January 04, 2012

2012-01-04T09:10:00.002-05:00

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Wednesday, January 04, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for January 3, 2012

2012-01-03T09:03:00.001-05:00

Here are the first leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012. If you opted to avoid technology over the New Year holiday break, here is your chance to get caught up!:

Loopholes in law spark rise in illegal surrogacy deals - Law Times http://twurl.nl/eal401 - Insghts from @fertilitylaw (S. Cohen)
Fogler, Rubinoff partner facing contempt charge just doing his 'duty' - Law Times http://bit.ly/d62xgF
The Office of Religious Freedom - Conservative Ministry of Truth - Dawg's Blawg (Blog) - http://goo.gl/KZYhi
Israel must uphold the law (Canadian Jewish News) http://bit.ly/sdYwLv
Top CEOs earn 189 times average Canadian wage http://bit.ly/s3XSKw
Toronto Legal Marketing Association’s annual conference focuses on adding value in a changing environment http://natpo.st/sgVEpH
BigCityLib's 2012 Resolutions "3)Destroy Fox News North.But before the free market does.So I'll have to hurry" http://bit.ly/s2eJni
Ontario name-change now easier, cheaper after divorce - NorthernLife.ca http://bit.ly/d62xgF
New Jersey Court Holds Divorcing Husband Can’t Be Ordered to Give Wife a Jewish Religious Divorce http://bit.ly/sMPLqg
Prosecutor orders charges against Greek tax official for failure to pursue potential fuel smugglers http://bit.ly/s3oxpD
Best of Blawgs, Canadian and Criminal http://bit.ly/rvayoW
Golf cart horns, efficient light bulbs and the end of happy hour: 40,000 new laws for 2012 - http://goo.gl/EAXSF
Mubarak trial resumes amid acquittal speculation http://bit.ly/rK06aO
Walmart shopper attempts purchase using $1 million bill http://bit.ly/s4vAFf
More US states allow same-sex civil unions http://bit.ly/sOAoQS
Legal Skills Prof Blog: The Legal Brief: The New Paradigm http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2012/01/the-legal-brief-the-new-paradigm.html
Signing Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 The White Househttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
Spammers propel India to junk-mail top spot http://bit.ly/u1scJh
Man steals ambulance to get himself to a hospitalhttp://bit.ly/sEqqHq
Top stories from our courts - Toronto Sun http://bit.ly/d62xgF
SOCTUS Chief Justice Roberts defends court's impartiality http://bit.ly/siHvTX
Obama signs indefinite detention without charge or trial into law, but "pledges" to exempt Americans http://bit.ly/uIA6Aj
Oh, say can you ... sing? New state bill could make it illegal to sing national anthem 'inappropriately.' http://bit.ly/sIrMb7
Egypt Christian student detained for Prophet images on Facebook, tensions rise - Bikya Masr http://bit.ly/d62xgF
First Nations in Canada: A 2011 Retrospective of the Year's News - Indian Country Today http://bit.ly/d62xgF
Pennsylvania hospital says smokers need not apply. Will screen job applicants for nicotine use. http://bit.ly/uwfcMC
2011: The Year Facebook Killed Google - PCWorld http://bit.ly/d62xgF
Justice 2011: The Mounties get a new broom and Canada gets tougher sentencing laws - Montreal Gazette http://bit.ly/d62xgF
King Newt takes on the judges http://bit.ly/s0jqjf
Changing surname after divorce now easier, cheaper - Ontario amends Change of Name Act to cut red tape. http://bit.ly/sTzJWZ
40,000 new US laws to go into effect in 2012 http://bit.ly/vIFuLq
2011 CLawBies (Canadian Law Blog Awards): Wise Law Blog named as a finalist/runner-up in the Legal News categoryhttp://goo.gl/Qs1wd
Lawsuit May Determine Who Owns a Twitter Account -http://NYTimes.com - http://goo.gl/8rCnB
Mayor Ford quiet on domestic disputes: Family Violence Unit probes two recent incidents at the mayor’s home http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1108997--mayor-quiet-on-domestic-disputes
Federal court approves telco immunity for spying on citizens http://bit.ly/tkFXjQ
Court of Appeals Approves Prosecution of Man for Reading Estranged Wife’s E-Mail Without Her Authorization http://bit.ly/vjHV3q
Two Maryland abortion doctors face murder charges http://bit.ly/tI8MWZ
Judge Rakoff accuses SEC of misleading federal court (Shahien Nasiripour/Financial Times) http://bit.ly/stJeRa
Top 10 stories of 2011 on http://lawtimesnews.com http://bit.ly/vajlok
Questions and Answers - Valuation and Division of Ontario Pension Assets on Breakdown of a Spousal Relationship -http://goo.gl/nWukl
FSCO: Valuation and Division of Pension Assets on Breakdown of a Spousal Relationship effective January 1, 2012 -http://goo.gl/QD3KX
150 officers warned over Facebook posts - BBC News http://bit.ly/d62xgF
Spanish pianist faces jail time for excessive practising http://natpo.st/vZ9lCs
Stanley Cup riot enters courts, but is justice coming? http://bit.ly/swWQcQ

Happy 2012 to you all from all of us at Wise Law Office.

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

2011 ClawBies Announced

2011-12-31T07:43:00.004-05:00

The winners of the 2011 Canadian Law Blog Awards have been announced.

Congratulations to Erik Magraken's B.C Injury Law Blog, named as Canada's best of 2011, and to all winners and finalists in the many other categories.

Happily, Wise Law Blog has made the cut this year as a runner-up in the ClawBies' Legal News category for our 140Law updates.

We are proud to be in such good company as the Legal News winner, Legal Feeds, the blog of Canadian Lawyer magazine and the Law Times newspaper, and our co-runner-up, the Financial Post's Legal Post.

Thanks so much for the honour and mention, which I gladly share with our office's law clerk extraordinaire, Rachel Spence, who has been the voice of so many of our daily legal news posts

Congrats, once again, to Steve Matthews of Stem Legal for so ably quarterbacking the 6th Annual ClawBie awards process.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Signing Off for 2011

2011-12-30T05:11:00.001-05:00

It's been quite a year, and with this, our 400th post of 2011, let me simply thank our readers for joining us here at Wise Law Blog, via RSS, on Twitter and at the various sites where our posts can be found online.

We appreciate that you take the time to visit with us, and sincerely hope we've brought something of value to you in 2011.

Our thanks go out to Bob Tarantino, Samantha Collier and V.MaryAbraham for their respective nominations of this blog for a 2011 Clawbie award. It is greatly appreciated.

Have a safe and happy New Year's Eve tomorrow.

Best wishes from all of us at Wise Law Office.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140 Law - Legal Headlines for December 30, 2011

2011-12-30T04:59:00.000-05:00

It's our final edition of 14o Law for the year! Here are our leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Friday, December 30, 2011:

Lawsuit settled over Elly Mae Clampett Barbie doll http://bit.ly/vo2kup
Ontario appeal court clarifies definition of catastrophic impairment - Canadian Lawyer Magazine http://bit.ly/d62xgF
Boston Judge Upholds Twitter Subpoena re: Anonymous Membershttp://bit.ly/sYbxuW
Sun Media: Alan Shanoff's Top 10 Legal Stories of 2011 - Pt.1-http://goo.gl/Y0X76
Handout of Gideon Bibles in Ontario public schools ignites passions over tradition - http://bit.ly/d62xgF
2012 Tips and Predictions – Part 1 (via David Billinsky) http://bit.ly/vzL6F1
67% of Canadians support legalizing assisted suicide: poll - National Post http://bit.ly/d62xgF
Judge Blocks California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard http://nyti.ms/vlseFQ
A Toronto juror’s story: ‘It was Middle Ages. It really was.’http://bit.ly/tGS73y
Justice and Prosecutorial Misconduct http://nyti.ms/vKeUXj
Ethnic studies in Tucson ruled illegal http://bit.ly/sDdrts
US extradites woman suspected of war crimes to Bosnia
NYC judge Rakoff stands behind SEC-Citigroup ruling http://bit.ly/sy6SOf
New state (US) laws ban happy hour, regulate fire-breathing bit.ly/tg0UB
Freedom of Expression, the ‘Occupy’ Movement and the Dismantling of Tents: Case Comment on Batty v. Toronto http://bit.ly/rQ7cxn
2011 Top Canadian Entertainment and Media Law Storieshttp://bit.ly/uSjcVs
Dept. of Homeland Security Is Watching You Twitter & Tweet http://bit.ly/tBSu8t
Holograph will upheld by Sudbury court, suicidal man cuts wife out - http://goo.gl/WUa8w
There Is No Next Facebook: How Multiple Social Networks Will Peacefully Coexist - The Atlantic http://bit.ly/d62xgF
Courthouses of Canada: Pictou, N.S. http://bit.ly/rsO2G0

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Scary, Dumb Republicans

2011-12-28T16:22:00.000-05:00

Texas Governor and Republican presidential wannabe, Rick Perry:

“Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” Mr. Perry said in Clarinda, earning a loud round of enthusiastic applause.

(Via New York Times)

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG