Here’s the latest viral trend on YouTube: literal versions of pop music videos.
The users take the original video and change the lyrics into a literal description of the scene.
Warning: Doing this may constitute copyright infringement if the materials are used without the copyright owner’s permission. I don’t recommend, endorse, or condone any kind of copyright infringement.
The quality of these parody videos varies; here are a couple of my favourites shared here for news summary purposes.
On May 14, 2010, a new practice direction was issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Central West, Central South, North West, South West, and Toronto Regions.
A list of Often Cited Family Cases for family matters containing cases frequently relied on is now supplied to the judges. Parties in family law proceedings in the Superior Court in the addressed regions need no longer include authorities on the list in the book of authorities.
However, specific extracts from those authorities which counsel intend to refer to the court must be included in the factum or book of authorities.
Let’s hope a few trees may be saved under this practice direction. To view the up-to-date list, visit the Superior Court of Justice website at www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en.
Note: Please keep in mind that this article is provided for information and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as such. The law may have changed since the publication of the article.
PSWLaw provides effective representation on your family law matters.
Can’t afford your medication? The Trillium Drug Program (TDP) may be able to help.
The TDP is intended for Ontario residents with OHIP coverage who have high prescription drug costs. It provides coverage for prescription drug products listed on the Formulary. Drugs not listed on the Formulary may be covered on a case-by-case basis.
To be eligible for the TDP, you must meet the following criteria:
The TDP isn’t a free-for-all program: a “deductible” (see below) applies in proportion to your income. The program runs from August 1 to July 31 of the following year. Before you will receive coverage, your household must pay for a certain amount of your prescription drug purchases, otherwise known as the “deductible.” The deductible is paid in quarterly and is calculated based on net household income and household size.
For more information, contact the TDP at the following address:
P.O. Box 337, Station D
Etobicoke, Ontario
M9A 4X3
Tel : 416-642-3038
Fax : 416-642-3034
Toll-Free : 1-800-575-5386
E-mail : trillium@resolve.com
Alternatively, visit their website at: www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/drugs/trillium.html
In family law contracts, including cohabitation agreements, separation agreements, and marriage contracts, if one party fails to disclose material financial information, the contract may be set aside by the court. However, it’s debatable whether a mutually accepted mistaken fact constitutes a failure to disclose.
In the recently published decision Butty v. Butty,* the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the issue of mutually accepted mistaken facts in marriage contracts.
In Butty, the husband and wife were married for 10 years until their separation. When they were married, a marriage contract was entered into to protect Mr. Butty’s farm property, with the soon-to-be husband and wife obtaining independent legal advice. At the signing of the contract, Mr. Butty and all witnesses believed the farm property consisted of one parcel of land.
A decade later, the parties were experiencing serious marital problems. The wife made an application seeking to set aside the marriage contract before the court. Following a nine-day trial, the trial judge ordered that the marriage contract be set aside for the following reasons:
The trial judge acknowledged that the first disclosure problem was the result of inadvertence because at the time the contract was entered into, neither the husband nor his lawyer knew that the farm property consisted of two parcels, rather than one.
The Court of Appeal held that issue #1 does not distract from the fact that Ms. Butty knew that she was giving up all claims against the whole of the farm property.
Issues #2 to #4 were not pursued by Ms. Butty despite her lawyer’s concerns when the contract was entered into. Therefore, the Court of Appeal ruled that “a party to a marriage contract cannot enter into it knowing of shortcomings in disclosure and then rely on those shortcomings as the basis to have the contract set aside.“^
The Court of Appeal distinguished the present matter from another recent decision of its own LeVan v. LeVan.#
In LeVan, the following factors led to the affirmation of a trial judge’s exercise of discretion in setting aside a domestic contract:
*(2009) 99 O.R. (3d) 228
^Raaymakers v. Green (2006), 25 F.L.R. (6th) 54 (C.A.)
# (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 1
Note: Please keep in mind that this article is provided for information and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as such. The law may have changed since the publication of the article.
Earlier this week the National Post reported this story that a woman is suing Rogers Wireless, Canada’s largest cellphone provider, alleging that the invoice for the service exposed her extramarital affair causing the breakdown of her marriage.
In a nutshell, the woman said that her husband left her after discovering her affair as revealed by the cell phone bill. According to documents filed before the Ontario Superior Court, the plaintiff stated that she was devastated after her husband’s departure and subsequently lost her job because she was unable to function. She has asked for $600,000 in damages.
Apparently the cellphone bills in question had been delivered directly to the plaintiff until her husband signed up for other services from the same provider. The services, including the wireless phone, were then bundled together in one invoice, which was sent to the husband.
The defendant denies all claims and said the cause of the breakdown of the plaintiff’s marriage was her extramarital affair, not the bill in question. The communication giant further states that there are no legal grounds for the claim.
None of the allegations have been proven in court. The outcome remains to be see.
I’m pleased to announce that PSWLaw is now accessible via the popular networking site Facebook.
Click on the badge below to visit us!
Pei-Shing B. Wang Lawyer | Create Your Badge
We are a Toronto-based law firm practising in the areas of family law, business law, and administrative law appeals.
Orders issued by the family law courts in Ontario typically come with mandatory provision for the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) to enforce the support payments. The enforcement clause looks like this:
Support Deduction Order to Issue. Unless this order is withdrawn from the Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director and the amounts owing under the order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the recipient. Where sufficient deductions are not being made by support deduction order, payment may be remitted to the Director, Family Responsibility Office.
In some cases. the support payor and the recipient prefer to arrange for support payments to take place privately without the FRO’s involvement. This can be done by withdrawing the support order from the FRO.
Re-registering a case
If the support payor and the support recipient decide to re-register a case with the FRO, a administrative fee will be charged to both parties. Either party may request to re-register the case.
Note: Please keep in mind that this article is provided for information and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as such. The law may have changed since the publication of the article.
I often encounter this question during consultations: “What if they don’t show up at the hearing?”
The answer depends on the nature of the proceeding.
In civil and family law proceedings, the matters are before the court. The court, bound by the fundamental principles of justice, must determine whether procedural fairness is observed.
If the court is of the opinion that the absent party has received proper notice and there’s no legitimate excuse for their absence, the court may instruct the other party to proceed on an unopposed basis. They then must convince the court that on the balance of probability, the present party is entitled to the relief sought.
On the other hand, if the court is not convinced that the absent party has received proper notice, or believes they have legitimate excuses, the court may decide to adjourn the proceeding to a future date. The attending party, however, may be entitled to costs for their attendance.
However, rules are quite different in administrative law proceedings, such as matters before the Landlord and Tenant Board and the Social Benefits Tribunal.
At the Landlord and Tenant Board, if one of the parties doesn’t attend, the matter may proceed in that party’s absence. If the applicant party doesn’t show, the matter may be dismissed outright. If the responding party doesn’t attend, the Board will inquire whether proper notice has been given to them.
Only after the Board is satisfied that procedural fairness has been observed will the Member will proceed to receive evidence from the attending party. It’s important to note that a decision in favour of the attending party isn’t guaranteed. If the Member isn’t satisfied with the evidence presented, the case may be nonetheless dismissed. I’ve seen this happen on several occasions.
At the Social Benefits Tribunal, the parties may rely on written submission rather than presenting in person. In fact, the Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) does so on a regular basis. The Appellant nonetheless has to prove to the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong. Without compelling evidence, the Member of the Social Benefits Tribunal may nonetheless side with the Director and dismiss the appeal. In other words, if the Appellant doesn’t attend the hearing, the appeal will likely be dismissed.
Note: Please keep in mind that this article is provided for information and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as such. The law may have changed since the publication of the article.
Legal Aid Ontario is finally in the process of implementing the Memorandum of Understanding with the Criminal Lawyers Association and the Ministry of the Attorney General that was agreed upon in January.
The rate increase applies to certificates issued between February 1 and March 31, 2010, for which the Year 1 rate applies. For certificates issued on or after April 1, 2010, the Year 2 rate applies because Legal Aid Ontario’s fiscal year ends on March 31.
| Effective | 1-Feb-10 Year 1 | 1-Apr-10 Year 2 | 1-Apr-11 Year 3 | 1-Apr-12 Year 4 | 1-Apr-13 Year 5 | 1-Apr-14 Year 6 | 1-Apr-15 Year 7 |
| Lawyer Rate Tier 1 | $81.44 | $85.51 | $89.79 | $94.27 | $98.99 | $103.94 | $109.13 |
| Lawyer Rate Tier 2 | $91.62 | $96.20 | $101.01 | $106.07 | $111.37 | $116.94 | $122.78 |
| Lawyer Rate Tier 3 | $101.81 | $106.90 | $112.24 | $117.86 | $123.75 | $129.94 | $136.43 |
| Complex Criminal Case Rate | $120.02 | $124.82 | $129.81 | $135.00 | $141.75 | $148.84 | $161.05 |
@PSWLaw_TO