Monthly Archives: January 2009

Ontario’s Enhanced Anti-Cruelty Law

Posted in: "All, Administrative Law, Animal Welfare by Admin | No Comments Sunday, January 18, 2009

In Ontario, 2008 was a good year for animals and people who care about them.

Bill 50 2008 (Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008: An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of  Cruelty to Animals Act) was passed in the provincial legislature and received Royal Assent on November 27, 2008. The new (and improved) law will come into force upon the Lieutenant Governor’s proclamation.

In particular, the following conducts are now prohibited under the amended Ontario SPCA Act:

  1. Causing animals to be in distress
  2. Permitting an animal to be in distress by an owner or a custodian
  3. Animal fighting
  4. Owning animal fighting equipment or structures
  5. Harming law enforcement animals (e.g. police dogs, K-9 units)

Under the new law, the Ontario SPCA is granted authority to seize animals in distress that are in plain view. It can now also enter into any building or place used for animal exhibit, entertainment, boarding, hire or sale (such as a petting zoo) without a warrant to carry on an inspection.

Upon the removal or seizure of an animal, the Ontario SPCA may keep the animal if ordered by a provincial judge or a justice of the peace. The owner or custodian is liable to the SPCA for costs and expenses in caring for the animal, regardless of whether the animal is ordered to be returned or kept in the custody of the Ontario SPCA.

If you know an animal that is being abused or neglected or is in distress, please contact

  • for non-emergencies: the Ontario SPCA Provincial Office at 1-888-ONT-SPCA (668-7722),
  • the farm animal care helpline at 519-837-1326 for owners who are unable or unwilling to care for their farm animals,
  • your local humane society (Toronto Humane Society at 416-392-2273 or 416-392-9992, then press “0″), or
  • your local police: 9-1-1 if the situation is urgent (local police officers can exercise the power of an SPCA inspector).

If you do not wish to disclose your ID when reporting, you can call CrimeStoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS.

Your call can save a life.

Do not email - emails can go unnoticed for days and it may be too late!

For more information, please visit the following websites:

Ontario SPCA

Toronto Humane Society

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Ontario’s e-Laws Now an Official Source

Posted in: "All, Administrative Law by Admin | No Comments Saturday, January 17, 2009

For a long time in Ontario the only accepted official source of laws and regulations has been the Queen’s Printer.

Although many courts would accept a copy of the legislation from sources like Quicklaw, Westlaw, or CanLII, technically copies from these sources have not been considered “official” under the Legislation Act. If you want a “truly authentic” copy, you had to buy it from a government publication retail location, such as Service Ontario or copy it from the Ontario Gazzatte.

However, there’s finally good news for the e-generation.

On November 30, 2008, the government approved the print-out version of laws downloaded from the e-Laws website (in HTML or MS Word format) as official copies of the law. According to the government news release, Ontario is the first jurisdiction in North America to adopt electronic versions of the law as official.

In addition, an on-screen display of the law from the e-Laws website is considered official. While it may seem silly to point this out, this seemingly minor change is important for lawyers who conduct their legal research online.

For example, I’ve sometimes had to make oral submissions regarding certain laws based on my recollection of online research. Now that the on-screen display and the print-outs are both official sources of law, I can breathe easier in court.

For more information, please visit the e-Laws website, www.e-laws.gov.on.ca.

Tagged , , , ,

Legal Aid Ontario: the Missing Manual

Posted in: "All, Administrative Law, Family Law, Legal Aid Ontario by Admin | No Comments Thursday, January 15, 2009

Many of my clients are funded by Legal Aid Ontario (LAO). However, few of them have an accurate idea of how Legal Aid actually works.

For criminal defence matters, Legal Aid help is available only when there is a possibility of imprisonment. For civil matters, LAO funding is generally limited to administrative law appeals, family law issues where children’s custody or paternal access is in dispute, or residential housing issues where one’s tenancy is in jeopardy. LAO assistance may also be available for refugee and immigration claims.

Since I don’t deal with immigration, refugees, or criminal matters, I’ll focus today’s blog on LAO-assisted civil proceedings.

Typically, once you’re approved for LAO eligibility, you’ll be issued a certificate for an opinion letter regarding to the merits of your case. At this stage, the lawyer of your choice is only allowed to investigate your case and write a reporting letter to LAO.

Hence, if you go to see a lawyer with an opinion letter certificate, and your case is due in court the next day, the lawyer will likely be unable to assist you in any substantive way. (This happens more often than you’d think.) Rather, the lawyer may only send the court a letter indicating that he or she has not been authorized by LAO to represent you. Depending on the circumstances, the court may or may not allow an adjournment.

After the opinion letter has been delivered to LAO, the staff lawyer or the area director will evaluate your case and decide whether to grant additional authorization for the lawyer to proceed to represent you. This may take several business days.

The lawyer will only be allowed to take on your case fully when he or she receives the additional authorization.

Keep in mind that LAO certificates are matter-specific. In other words, the certificate is only valid for the matter described within. Once the matter has been concluded, you’ll need to get a new certificate for any other legal service you may require, such as an appeal.

Tagged , , , , ,

“Super Costs”

Posted in: "All by Admin | No Comments Monday, January 12, 2009

Last year I posted several blogs on costs: “Costs” (July 17), “Costs- Self-Represented Litigants” (August 4), “Costs – Security for Costs” (August 5).

Generally speaking, there are two types of costs: party-to-party costs, and solicitor-client costs. While party-to-party costs may entitle you to recover about 2/3 of your legal bill against the opposing side, solicitor-client costs usually call for 80%-90% cost recovery. Only very rarely can the successful party recover from the opposing party 100% of the actual legal bills payable to the lawyers. I call these rarely granted cost recoveries “super costs.”

Super costs are rare. They’re only available to successful parties under exceptional circumstances or under certain legislative mandates.

For example, the Condominiums Act in Ontario provides that if the condominium corporation “obtains an award of damages or costs in an order made against an owner or occupier of a unit, the damages or costs, together with any additional actual costs to the corporation in obtaining the order, shall be added to the common expenses for the unit.”

The Ontario Court of Appeal+ has explained the difference between “an award of cost” and “additional actual costs.” The former refers to  cost orders made by the court or made after a court assessment, while the latter can also capture actual legal costs to the condominium corporation, payable to their lawyers.

Suppose the successful condominium corporation’s actual legal bill payable to the lawyers is $10,000, but the court has ordered that only $5,000 is payable. The condo corporation can nonetheless charge the entire $10,000 against the unsuccessful unit owner pursuant to the Condominiums Act.

+ MTCC No. 1385 v. Skyline Executive Properties Inc. (2005), 197 O.A.C. 145, 253 D.L.R. (4th) 656

Tagged , , , , , ,

Remarriage & Foreign Divorce in Ontario

Posted in: "All, Family Law, Legalese Dictionary by Admin | No Comments Thursday, January 8, 2009

You can run to Las Vegas and get married, and your marriage will be recognized in Ontario. What about a divorce?

It turns out that divorce is a serious matter in Canada. Under our Constitution, it falls under the federal jurisdiction, and there are strict limitations as to when a foreign divorce can be recognized.

The Divorce Act provides the following provision:

22. (1) A divorce granted, on or after the coming into force of this Act, pursuant to a law of a country or subdivision of a country other than Canada by a tribunal or other authority having jurisdiction to do so shall be recognized for all purposes of determining the marital status in Canada of any person, if either former spouse was ordinarily resident in that country or subdivision for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of proceedings for the divorce.

In plain English, this provision prohibits people from running off to a foreign country for a weekend to get a divorce that can be recognized in Canada. Rather, one of the spouses must have lived in the foreign country for at least one year immediately before the start of the divorce proceeding. Needless to say, the divorce must also be granted by a competent court or tribunal in that foreign country.

If you want to get re-married in Ontario after a foreign divorce, you’ll need to satisfy the requirements stipulated under the Ontario Marriage Act:

8. (1) An applicant for a licence who has been previously married is entitled to be issued a licence if such marriage has been dissolved or annulled and such dissolution or annulment is recognized under the law of Ontario and the applicant otherwise complies with the requirements of this Act.

…

(2.1) Before issuing a licence, an issuer may require a person to whom subsection (2) applies to deposit with the issuer such material as the issuer considers relevant to the proof of the divorce or annulment.

In practice, to obtain a marriage license from a municipal government, you’ll need the following in addition to the Marriage License Application :

(1) an original or a certified copy of the divorce decree,

(2) if the decree is in a language other than English or French, a translated copy together with an affidavit sworn by a certified translator,

(3) an opinion letter from a lawyer stating why the divorce decree in question should be recognized in Canada, and

(4) a Statement of Sole Responsibility (an official document) for each previously granted divorce, signed by both parties of the proposed marriage.

If you need an opinion letter regarding your foreign divorce, please do not hesitate to contact me at 416-433-5531.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

“No Pet” Condos vs. “No Pet” Provisions

Posted in: "All, Administrative Law, Animal Welfare by Admin | No Comments Thursday, January 8, 2009

A while ago I posted two blogs (October 14 and September 30, 2008) on “no pet” provisions under the Residential Tenancies Act, saying that tenants in Ontario generally have the right to own pets in their rental, units subject to certain limitations. These limitations generally concern interference of the enjoyment of others in the building or issues of safety or health.

Beyond the previously discussed limitations, if the rental unit is part of a condominium building, the tenant’s right to own pets may also be restricted by the declaration of the condominium corporation. The two cases below provide some insight to the limitations of pet ownership in condo buildings.

In one case+, a couple moved into a rented condominium apartment with their 16-year-old miniature poodle. The declaration of this particular condominium corporation prohibits pets in the building.

Upon the discovery of the dog living in the building, the condo board brought an application before the court, seeking a compliance order against the tenants.

The tenants contended that they had the right to keep their dog in the unit under the Residential Tenancies Act, which stipulates, “No injunction… shall be granted against a tenant based on the provisions of an agreement respecting the presence of an animal in the premises,” subject to certain conditions.

Unfortunately for the tenants, the judge decided that although that section of the Act applies to the tenancy, the RTA only prohibits an order “based on the provisions of an agreement.” Because the order sought by the condo board was based on the declaration of the condominium corporation, and not an agreement, the compliance order was accordingly granted.

In another case*, coincidentally involving the same condominium corporation, the condo board sought to enforce the “no pet” provisions of the declaration against the owner of an indoor apartment cat after the cat had lived in the unit for 10 years. The cat was “invisible” to other unit holders during this 10-year period. The condo board decided to step-up enforcement of the “no-pet” policy only in 2004.

Both the hearing judge and the Court of Appeal declined to grant the order because it would be unfair to enforce the policy against the owner of an indoor cat, particularly after the cat had been living in the unit for 10 years.

+ MTCC No. 949 v. Irvine [1992] O.J. No. 1598

* MTCC No. 949 v. Staib (2005), 205 O.A.C. 15

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Top 200 Jobs… Where’s Yours?

Posted in: "All, Business Development by Admin | No Comments Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Career website careercast.com recently published a survey on a comprehensive ranking of 200 jobs in the U.S. The survey includes 5 factors for the ranking: work environment, physical demand, income, stress, and outlook.

The findings are very interesting. Apparently, the best jobs all involve science. The top 3 are mathematician, actuary, and statistician.

For individuals working with the law, paralegal assistants and bookkeepers are apparently the top jobs, ranking #17 and #39 respectively, while attorneys rank a dismal #82, mostly because of high level of stress. A federal judge in the U.S. evidently holds a better job than I, ranking #69.

But the plight of lawyers doesn’t look so bad when you compare us with our counterparts in medicine. Medical secretaries rank #29, while general practice physicians, registered nurses, and surgeons rank #141,  #142, and #156 out of 200 respectively.  Janitors rank #140, one spot ahead of physicians. So much for medical school!

The most stressful job in the U.S. according to the survey belongs to firefighters (#181) , while attorneys are not far behind in the top 20.

However, high stress rankings by no means translate into low job satisfactions, as firefighters rank #3 in this category, right behind clergy and physical therapists.

I’m not surprised that the survey suggests lawyers don’t have the best jobs – perhaps it never will be. The stresses of being a lawyer are all major stressors in life: tight deadlines, meeting with the public (clients), working in the public eye (in court), win-or-lose situations, competitiveness, advocacy in matters important to the client, and requirements such as working with details, precision, initiative, and stamina (when working on big cases).

I think I’ll go home chill now.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Courthouse Security Lax

Posted in: "All by Admin | No Comments Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Today I attended the Ontario Superior Court for an application. Interestingly, when I arrived at the courthouse, there was no one at the security desk. Litigants and lawyers alike were walking in and out of the court facility without hindrance, while the metal detector stood idle. Although the registrar and the clerk were present in the courtroom when the court was in session, I didn’t feel so safe when I was waiting in the hallway.

A few years ago someone smuggled a gun into the Ontario Court of Appeal during a family law hearing and shot and killed a lawyer. Since the incident, and subsequently 9/11, the Ministry of the Attorney General has greatly enhanced security measures at the courthouse. For example, at the end of a lunch break, you can often see people lining up outside the courthouse at 361 University Ave. to go through the security check before they enter the courthouse.

Unfortunately, it seems that these security measures are only available at certain locations, mostly ones that hear criminal and family law matters. As for civil litigation, the security is worryingly lax.

Don’t get me wrong, there are police officers on duty at the courthouse, even at civil-litigation locations. (Toronto Police Services has an office in the building.) Police officers regularly patrol the hallway to monitor any irregularities. However, I don’t think mere patrolling is enough to keep court personnels safe – something more is needed.

Tagged , , , ,

New Year, a New Start: 2009 Productivity Initiatives

Posted in: "All, Business Development by Admin | No Comments Monday, January 5, 2009

Happy new year!

After taking some time off during the holidays, I am rested and ready to take on the world (on behalf of my clients).

In particular, I’m pleased to announce a series of initiatives that will boost the productivity at PSWLaw. They include:

  1. website fine-tuning: We are currently fine-tuning the website to make it easier to navigate and even more accessible.
  2. internet visibility: We are working closely with various internet portals for a promotion blitz that will be launched in spring, 2009.
  3. new utility software: We have adapted voice-recognition software to speed up routine correspondence and administrative tasks. We anticipate other productivity-boosting software (such as a PDF converter) to be installed in the near future.
  4. hardware maintenance and upgrade: We have replaced our standard keyboards and mice with ergonomic ones to reduce stress on the joints and fatigue.  We  plan to purchase a second tray for the all-in-one printer for legal-sized paper.

I hope these initiatives will help us serve you better. Please let me know if you have other suggestions that can further improve our productivity.

Photo licensed by stock.xchng, all rights reserved.

Page 2 of 212