Blog


Block Fee Services Now Available at PSWLaw

Posted in: "All, Site Updates by Pei Wang | No Comments Wednesday, March 23, 2011

I’m pleased to offer the following services on a block fee (or flat rate) basis:

  • Initial Consultation or Second Opinion* for up to 90 minutes: $275 plus HST. A summary memo will be provided at no extra cost subsequent to the meeting.
  • Uncontested Divorce, where no claims except for divorce are made by either party: $500 plus HST and disbursements.
  • Foreign Divorce Opinion Letter for matters that meet the legislative criteria:$275 plus HST. If you would like us to send and receive documents on your behalf, add $50 plus HST.
  • For Notary Public Services, the first item is $50; each subsequent item is $25. HST is applicable.

Other legal services remain billable at the hourly rate.

*This is not a solicitation to change your lawyer.

If you wish to book an appointment, please call 416 433 5531.

Helping Animals Affected by Earthquake in Japan – Japan Earthquake Animal Rescue and Support

Posted in: "All, Animal Welfare, In the News, Lawyer Talk by Pei Wang | 2 Comments Saturday, March 19, 2011

While relief workers are desperately seeking human survivors in Japan, more than one week after the earthquake and tsunami struck, there has been very little news media coverage of the plight of pets and other animals in the region.

One sliver of good news came to light when rescue workers found a dog guarding a second, injured dog amid the rubble, refusing to leave until both were rescued a few days ago. However, local rescue groups say that this example of attention to the problem is rare.

The truth is that, by and large, animals are not priorities for most at a time when more than 10,000 people are still unaccounted for.

According to NYdailynews.com, a woman was found by rescue workers wandering aimlessly with her collie. She said she had stayed in her damaged house for three days because many shelters refused to accept her canine companion.

Please consider donating to the following groups that are in desperate need of funds for supplies and assistance:

  • Animal Refuge Kansai is a rescue group located in the western region of Japan and is assisting with rescue efforts. Donate by PayPal at www.arkbark.net.

I have made a small donation to Japan Earthquake Animal Rescue and Support on behalf of PSWLaw as a gesture toward helping those animals that can be saved. I hope readers will also extend a helping hand to the animals who would otherwise be left behind.

Image courtesy of NYdailynews.com, used soley for news reporting purposes.

PSWLaw Joins South Toronto Small Practice Group (Collaborative Family Law )

Posted in: "All, Collaborative Practice, Family Law, Site Updates by Pei Wang | 1 Comment Thursday, March 17, 2011

I’m pleased to announce that PSWLaw is now a member of the South Toronto Small Practice Group, hosted by collaborative family law lawyer Lorisa Stein.

Ms. Stein was kind enough to extend an invitation to our firm, which was gratefully accepted.

The group meets once a week to discuss matters relevant to collaborative practice in family law. The topics include team building, cultural competence, negotiation strategies, transparency and confidentiality, developing a child-focused parenting plan, and equitable division of properties.

If you’re interested in approaching your family law matters in a non-adversarial way, feel free to contact PSWLaw at 416 433 5531.

Fraudsters Cash in amid Japan’s Calamities

Posted in: "All, In the News by Pei Wang | No Comments Thursday, March 17, 2011

“Misery” would be an understatement to describe the suffering of the victims of Japan’s recent calamities of severe earthquake, tsunami, and a series of explosions at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility.  Many are without food, water, or electricity while it’s still snowing.

Canadians and people around the world are sympathetic to the Japanese who have survived the disaster. They are opening up their wallets, seeking to provide some relief.

Alas, in the meantime fraudsters are busy setting up traps to cash in on people’s goodwill.

The CBC reported earlier today that fraudsters are setting up seemingly legitimate websites and soliciting donations by phone or email. The donations processed through the bogus sites are funnelled to private PayPal accounts.

Still more worrisome for the public, some perpetrators are soliciting donations under names that are confusingly similar to legitimate charities, such as the Canadian Red Cross, by using names like “The Redcross of Canada.”

Here are a few tips on how to make sure your donations do not end up in someone’s private bank account:

  • Legitimate charities seldom solicit funds by telephone. They never ask for donations by email. Emails soliciting relief funds often appear legitimate but contain links to bogus sites set up by the fraudsters.
  • Legitimate charities and not-for-profit groups have websites ending with “.org” or “.ca”, and never “.com” or “.net”.
  • Watch out for the spelling of the domain name. The bogus sites often utilize misspelled words or words in a different order to confuse the victim.
  • Be wary of links posted on social media sites, for example, those shortened links posted on Twitter, especially if you’re browsing through your mobile phone. The small screen makes it difficult to judge the legitimacy of any site that you visit.
  • Go through legitimate media portals, such as cbc.ca/japanrelief, to enter the websites of the charities of your choice. Even search engines may mistakenly bring up bogus sites through the careful manipulation of the fraudsters.

Legal Aid Ontario Launches (Free) Family Law Information Program

Posted in: "All, Family Law, In the News, Legal Aid Ontario, Product Review by Pei Wang | 3 Comments Friday, March 11, 2011

In their effort to promote greater access to justice in family law, Legal Aid Ontario recently launched the Family Law Information Program (FLIP), accessible online free of charge for individuals with family law issues.

The program provides easy-to-understand, jargon-free information on family law matters, utilizing audio and text. It is designed as an online tutorial on family law, with 63 sections ranging in subject from “What is custody?” to “How to find legal representation.” Users can either follow the tracks or jump to a topic of their interest.

The program, while available on the World Wide Web, is only valid for the Province of Ontario and does not offer legal advice.

After browsing through the site, I am impressed with the quality of the contents. They are comprehensive and yet easy to understand. Almost all major topics are covered, in a way that is applicable to common scenarios. In other words, the program provides general knowledge of family law and court proceedings that is suitable for most people facing family law issues.

My personal favourite topic is “What not to expect from the court.” Accordingly, you should expect neither an immediate appearance in court nor an immediate decision by the judge. The family law process in Ontario encourages negotiation between the parties, with judges available to assist the parties at conferences. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, the judge may decide for the parties as a last resort. However, the litigation is lengthy and the litigants must follow court procedures carefully.

The audio guide provides more information than the texts. It sets itself apart from general information sites and bloggers, who generally rely heavily on texts, which can be daunting for some.

That being said, the program is not, and is not intended to be, a substitute for legal advice. Individuals seeking answers to their specific situation must contact a lawyer for independent legal advice.

Law Society of Upper Canada to Review Scope of Practice for Licensed Paralegals

Posted in: "All, Family Law, In the News, Lawyer Talk by Pei Wang | No Comments Wednesday, March 9, 2011

The Law Society of Upper Canada is set to begin a review of the areas in which licensed paralegals are allowed to practice, the Law Times reported today. The areas that may potentially be affected include real estate, simple wills, incorporation, appeals from areas that licensed paralegals are entitled to practice, and family law.

Last year a motion was tabled at the Law Society’s annual general meeting to expand the areas of practice for licensed paralegals. The motion, which caused quite a stir among family law lawyers, fizzled after it was withdrawn.

Now it appears that reconsideration of the scope of paralegals’ practice is on the horizon again.

To determine whether change to the authorized areas of practice for paralegals is necessary, the Law Society will produce a report in the fall before commencing public consultation.

Before paralegals became regulated, it was permissible for non-lawyers to appear for certain family law matters. However, non-lawyers have been barred from attending family law matters altogether for the past several years. Quite a few paralegals would like to have their entitlement back.

Family law lawyers, however, contend that the complex nature of matters of family law makes them unsuitable for paralegals.

There’s no question that the public deserves competent legal services.  In family law people are often emotionally distressed and find it difficult to make rational, informed decisions. So to determine what degree of training, other than a lawyer’s, should be required for what kinds of family law matters will no doubt be a daunting task and subject to vigorous debate.

Let’s hope that in the end a resolution can be achieved that is fair to both the public and the profession.

Cohabitation in Separate Residences

Posted in: "All, Family Law by Pei Wang | No Comments Monday, March 7, 2011

A while ago I wrote a blog discussing how a couple may be considered to be living separate and apart under the same roof (“Separation under the Same Roof“). The reverse is also true. A couple can be considered, for family law purposes, to be cohabiting even if they maintain separate residences.

In Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development),* the Supreme Court of Canada held that cohabitation, a constituent element of a common-law relationship, is not synonymous with co-residence. Two people can cohabit even though they do not live under the same roof. Periods of physical separation do not end the common-law relationship if there is a mutual intention to continue. A common-law relationship ends when either party regards it as being at an end, and when his or her conduct has demonstrated in a convincing manner that this particular state of mind is a settled one.

In determining whether a couple can be said to be cohabiting, the court must look at all of the circumstances and consider the reason for maintaining another residence.  In other words, there are no hard and fast rules regarding the determination of a spousal relationship.^

For example, in Hazlewood v. Kent,+ the parties, parents of two children, were found to be spouses partly because marriage had been discussed, even though the father spent his weekends at his mother’s home, where he kept personal effects.

On the other hand, in Obringer v. Kennedy Estate,** a 20-year intimate, exclusive relationship including joint holidays together and mutual friends was not considered a spousal relationship. The parties did not have a common residence and were financially independent of each other.

*[2004] S.C.J. No. 60

^ Thauvette v. Malyon (1996), 23 R.F.L. (4th) 217 (Ont. Gen. Div.)

+ [2000] O.J. No. 5623 (Ont. Fam. Ct.)

** 16 E.T.R. (2d) 27 (Ont. Gen. Div.)

Please note that the law may have changed since the publication of this article. This blog is provided for your reference only and is not a substitute for the law. This article is not legal advice and should not be regarded as such.

Joint Custody Is Not for Everyone

Posted in: "All, Family Law by Pei Wang | No Comments Monday, March 7, 2011

Many people seem to think that when parents separate, the default custody arrangement is joint custody. Alas, this is not the case in Ontario. Several decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal that have been subsequently followed by the lower courts have made it clear that there is no default position in favour of joint custody in Ontario, and each case is fact-based and decision driven.*

In Johnson v. Cleroux,+ the Ontario Court of Appeal held that in any custody case, the sole issue is the best interests of the child. Joint custody orders require a high degree of cooperation between the parents and are only awarded when the parents have demonstrated an ability to cooperate.

Subsequently, in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis,^ Weiler J.A. set aside the joint custody order given by the trial judge and ruled that joint custody should not be awarded (a) where there is no evidence of a history of cooperation and appropriate communication between the parents or (b) in the hope that joint custody would improve the parenting skills of the parties. In that case, the corroborated evidence showed that the parents could not communicate without screaming at each other.

*See, e.g., Patterson v. Patterson (2006), 36 R.F.L. (6th) 268 (Ont. S.C.J.)

+(2002), 24 R.F.L. (5th) 422 (C.A.)

^[2005] O.J. No. 275 (C.A.); see also Ladisa v. Ladisa [2005] O.J. No. 276 (C.A.), Giri v. Wentges, [2009] O.J. No. 5173

Please note that the law may have changed since the publication of this article. This blog is provided for your reference only and is not a substitute for the law. This article is not legal advice and should not be regarded as such.

PSWLaw Sponsors “Pancake Tuesday” Charity Fundraising on March 8, 2011, hosted by Fresh Start Coffee, 655 Bay St., Toronto, Ontario

Posted in: "All, In the News, Lawyer Talk, Site Updates by Pei Wang | No Comments Thursday, March 3, 2011

March 8 is International Women’s Day.

On March 8, 2011, PSWLaw is sponsoring the fundraising event “Pancake Tuesday” in benefit of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. This event is hosted by Fresh Start Coffee at 655 Bay St., Toronto, Ontario.

On March 8, 2011, from 7:30 am to 11:30 am, Fresh Start Coffee will be serving freshly made pancakes, with all proceeds going to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. We are very pleased to cover the costs of staff and material used at this event.

I will be greeting customers at the door. If you’re around the neighbourhood, drop by to say hi and support a great cause!

A Brief Note on Supervised Access

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Family Law by Pei Wang | No Comments Wednesday, March 2, 2011

When parents separate, the children will primarily reside with one parent. When this happens, the other parent is usually entitled to access to the children, except in extraordinary circumstances. There are two kinds of access in Ontario: supervised access and unsupervised access. Today’s blog addresses supervised access.

Supervised access is often granted by the courts. Circumstances leading to supervised access may include mental health issues, criminal history, domestic violence, and addiction on the part of the non-custodial parent.

If the parties decide that they cannot properly facilitate access on their own, rather then resorting to a court order, they may prefer to agree to supervised access in a separation agreement.

The Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General funds a supervised access program for access centres. These centres are often run by not-for-profit agencies that provide supervision for parental access in a safe, child-friendly setting. All visits and exchanges are observed and recorded. If incidents happen, the observation reports may become admissible before the court as evidence.

To apply for supervised access, a court order or a separation agreement is required (so they don’t become subsidized daycare centres). Often the access centres charge a nominal fee for their services. However, if the client cannot afford the fee, it may be waived.

Please note that the law may have changed since the publication of this article. This blog is provided for your reference only and is not a substitute for the law. This article is not legal advice and should not be regarded as such.

Page 10 of 51« First...89101112203040...Last »