“Brief Note” Series

A Brief Note on Guardianship of Minor Children’s Property

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Family Law, Legalese Dictionary by Admin | No Comments Wednesday, March 10, 2010

In Ontario, a parent is automatically the guardian of person of his or her minor child. However, a parent is not automatically the guardian of property for that minor child. A parent can only receive and manage property on behalf of a child by law, court order, or other documents.

Minor children may be entitled to property or a large amount of money under various circumstances. For example, a child may be entitled to monetary compensation under an insurance policy.

How can a parent obtain authority to manage and hold property on behalf of his or her child?

The Children’s Law Reform Act* stipulates that if the value of the property is under $10,000, the parent or custodian may receive it on behalf of the child.

Alternatively, a parent may make an application before the court to be appointed as the guardian of the property of the child. By law the Office of the Children’s Lawyer must be notified of the proceeding, so that the minor’s interest may be adequately protected.

Once appointed, the guardian of property must keep careful records (called “accounts”) of all dealings respecting the property. The guardian also must comply with Trustee Act requirements for the investment of trust funds.

Finally, once the minor turns 18, the guardian will have to transfer of the child’s property to the child.

* R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (as am.)

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.

Tagged , , , ,

A Brief Note on Time Management and Avoiding Office Time Wasters

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Business Development by Admin | No Comments Monday, February 22, 2010

Not getting work done? Constantly running out of time?

Try avoiding these time wasters:

10. Unannounced visitors and drop-bys: Having a stream of visitors dropping by to say hi, it can hinder your efforts to concentrate on your tasks.

9. Gossiping: Senseless chatter about others wastes everyone’s time and creates friction in the office.

8. Surfing the net: This includes reading “funnies” (funny junk emails), looking at non-work-related websites, signing up for sweepstakes, and playing online games.

7. Excessively checking emails and voicemails: Constant checking of incoming messages disrupts your concentration and your work flow.

6. Starting a project without all the necessities: Be it a piece of information or a spread sheet, if you don’t have everything you need, you will inevitably run into trouble.

5. Procrasination: Day dreaming, indecision, or purposely delaying assigned tasks will leave you scrambling at the last minute.

4. Disorganization: You won’t get much done if you’re constantly looking for that piece of paper buried in the file.

3. Doing someone else’s job: It happens when you don’t say no to others’ petty requests. While it’s important to be a team player, it’s imperative that you look after your key projects first.

2. Meetings without a specific purpose, timeframe, or agenda: A meeting lacking any of these three goes on longer and achieves less.

1. Lack of priorities and plans: Many people feel the task daunting because they don’t know where to start or how to proceed once started.

Tagged , , , ,

A Brief Note on Child Support and Extraordinary Expenses – What Counts?

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Family Law, Legalese Dictionary by Admin | 2 Comments Friday, December 4, 2009

As I mentioned in my blog yesterday (“A Brief Note on Child Support and Undue Hardship“), there are two kinds of child support payable in Ontario – the basic amount and the extraordinary amount. While the basic amount refers to the amount set out in the Child Support Guidelines,* what constitutes “extraordinary expenses” is subject to interpretation.

For the purposes of this blog, we will refer to the federal version of the Guidelines.

According to the regulation, the term “extraordinary expenses” means “expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse’s income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table.”

In plain language, the term refers to the extra costs of raising the children that the recipient spouse can not seasonably afford on his or her own. The granting of extraordinary expenses means that the other spouse will have to help pay part of these costs.

Examples of extraordinary expenses may include the following:

  • child care expenses
  • medical and dental insurance premium attributed to the child
  • tuition or fees for educational programs to meet the child’s particular needs
  • expenses for post-secondary education
  • costs for extracurricular activities

In determining whether the extraordinary expenses are allowable, the court may also consider the following:

  • the amount of expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting such expenses
  • the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities
  • any special needs and talents of the children
  • the overall cost of the program and activities

read more…

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

A Brief Note on Child Support and Undue Hardship

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Family Law, Legalese Dictionary by Admin | No Comments Thursday, December 3, 2009

In Ontario there are two kinds of child support payable – the basic amount and the extraordinary amount. (For more information, see my December 4 blog “A Brief Note on Child Support and Extraordinary Expenses.”)

The basic amount (also called “table amount”) of child support payable is determined solely by the income level of the support payor under the Child Support Guidelines.* In other words, the income level of the recipient is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the basic amount payable.

Exceptions to the basic amount are few. The most commonly seen exception is for “undue hardship.”

For the purposes of this blog, we will limit the discussion to the federal Child Support Guidelines, enacted under the Divorce Act.+

There are several circumstances that may support the claim of undue hardship: an unusually high level of debts incurred to support the receiving spouse and children prior to the separation or to earn a living; unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access; and a legal duty to support another person.^

However, to claim undue hardship, the court must consider differences of living standards between the households. Under the law, the claim for must be denied if the court determines that the household of the spouse claiming undue hardship would have a higher standard of living than the household of the other spouse.

In comparing standards of living, the court would follow the schedule under the regulation, which provides an elaborate calculation formula. The formula provided is complicated, to say the very least, especially if you attempt to do the calculation with pen and paper. Therefore, most family law practitioners use a specialized computer program.

read more…

Tagged , , , , , ,

A Brief Note on the Limitation Period in Ontario

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Legalese Dictionary by Admin | No Comments Thursday, December 3, 2009

“Limitation period” is a legal jargon meaning a statutory term after which a lawsuit (or prosecution) cannot be brought in court.

In Ontario the limitation period is governed by the Limitations Act, 2002. It’s interesting to note that in contrast to the law in other countries, such as the US, the Ontario Act is not applicable to offences under the Criminal Code^ because the Code falls under federal jurisdiction.

The basic limitation period in Ontario is two years from the day on which the claim was discovered.# For example, if you were involved in an automobile accident and suffered minor injuries, you would have to bring your claim before the court within two years, or your claim may be barred by the statute.

Nonetheless, the Act provides numerous exceptions under which the limitation period may differ from the basic two-year rule. Therefore, in the event that you wish to commence a proceeding, you should act promptly and consult with a lawyer to ensure that your claim is not barred by the statute.

*S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B

^R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46

# Limitations Act, 2002, s. 4, 5

read more…

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

A Brief Note on Income Tax and Jail Time

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Administrative Law, Business Development by Admin | No Comments Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Under the Canada Income Tax Act,* most disputes are processed administratively through assessments and re-assessments. If a taxpayer disagree with the Minister’s assessment, the taxpayer may institute a civil proceeding before the Tax Court. These proceedings are civil in nature and generally don’t result in imprisonment, unless the taxpayer is prosecuted criminally.

As it turns out, unlike its US counterpart, the Canada Revenue Agency doesn’t conduct criminal prosecutions. Criminal prosecutions under the Act are referred to the Department of Justice, which considers criminal charges based on evidence.

The offcences that may result in criminal prosecutions are listed in sections 238 to 243 under the Act. Below is a partial list of the offences:

  • failing to file or make a return
  • false or deceptive statements
  • destruction of records
  • false entries
  • evasion of tax
  • conspiracy to commit an offence

Penalties range from a fine to a jail term not exceeding 5 years.

Don’t do the crime or you’ll pay the fine (or do the time).

read more…

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

A Brief Note on Bill 168, Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace)

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Administrative Law, Business Development by Admin | No Comments Friday, November 27, 2009

In April the Ontario government introduced a bill to address violence and harassment in the workplace by requiring employers to prepare a policy with respect to workplace violence and harassment. Bill 168,* Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act, has been carried through second reading, and is now before the Standing Committee prior to third reading. It is expected to receive Royal Assent in 2010.

While some may cry foul against the anticipated burden of further statutory compliance, Toronto-based labour and employment lawyer Glenn Wheeler^ believes that the benefits of the proposed requirement can easily outweigh the compliance costs.

Under the proposed law, employers must make themselves of the requirement, and it is therefore advisable to have policies in place before incidents arise. Wheeler suggests that the requirement is not onerous.

“The policy can be as simple as a poster at the workplace stating that harassment and violence at work will not be tolerated and that there are venues available for victims to voice their grief,” says Wheeler. “For example, where there is low-level bullying among co-workers in the office, the victim should know where to take their concerns to, and what can be expected as a result of the complaint.”

*1st Sess., 39th Parl. Ontario, 2009

^To learn more about Mr. Wheeler’s practice, please visit his website and blog at http://www.glennwheeler.ca

Tagged , , ,

A Brief Note on the Disability Tax Credit – and How to Get It

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Administrative Law by Admin | No Comments Friday, November 20, 2009

The Disability Tax Credit is a non-refundable income tax credit under the Income Tax Act.*

The tax credit is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and is not affiliated with other federal or provincial programs, such as the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) or the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). Therefore, receiving disability benefits from any other program doesn’t necessarily mean you are will receive the disability tax credit.

A taxpayer is eligible for the disability tax credit only if a qualified practitioner certifies that he or she has a severe and prolonged impairment, subject to the CRA’s approval. Although the CRA defines disability similarly to other benefit programs, such as the CPP, the threshold is not as stringent.

If you’re given the disability tax credit, you become eligible for the Registered Disability Savings Program (RDSP). (For more details, see my prior post “A Brief Note on the Registered Disability Savings Program.”)

To apply for the disability tax credit, you need to submit a completed Form T2201, Disability Tax Credit Certificate. You can obtain a copy of the form from the CRA website. Applicants must first complete Part A of the form, and bring the form to a qualified practitioner (usually the family doctor) to have Part B completed. The completed application may be submitted at any time during the year. The CRA will review the application before your annual return is assessed.

read more…

Tagged , , , , , ,

A Brief Note on Terminating Child Support

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Family Law by Admin | No Comments Tuesday, November 17, 2009

In Ontario the majority of child support payments are enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) if the payments are made pursuant to a court order or a registered domestic contact, unless the parties have withdrawn their file from the FRO.

The support obligation in Ontario, unlike other jurisdictions, is not automatically extinguished under the law when the child turns 18.

There are two ways to cease the enforcement of child support. If both the payor and the recipient agree that the support should be terminated, they can file their consent with the FRO and the FRO will close the file accordingly.

If the parties can’t agree whether the support obligation should end, there’s nothing the FRO can do. Instead, the support payor must bring a motion to change before the court that granted the child support payments in the first place.*

It’s perhaps a good idea to discuss the proposed termination with the recipient to find out whether a consent order to terminate child support could be a possibility. If so, the support payments may be terminated without the parties’ attending the court by way of a consent motion. If not, the support payor will have to ask the court to change or terminate the support.

*Family Law Rules O. Reg. 114/99, R. 15

Tagged , , , , , ,

A Brief Note on the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) Disability Benefits

Posted in: "All, "Brief Note" Series, Administrative Law, Business Development, Legalese Dictionary by Admin | No Comments Monday, November 16, 2009

The Canadian Pension Plan provides disability pension benefits to persons with disabilities. To become eligible to the benefits, a claimant must meet the financial contribution threshold during the years prior to the claim.

The tests for the CPP disability benefits as set out under the legislation* are as follows:

a person shall be considered to be disabled only if he is determined to have a severe and prolonged mental or physical disability, where

(i) a disability is severe only if by reason thereof the person in respect of whom the determination is made is incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation, and

(ii) a disability is prolonged only if it is determined in prescribed manner that the disability is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration or is likely to result in death

Most applicants to the CPP disability benefits meet the legislative requirement of having prolonged disabilities. The contention, however, mostly rests on the determination of whether the disability is severe enough to warrant the granting of benefits.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled in the case Villani v. Canada (A.G.)^ the individual words of “regularly” and “substantially” must be given due emphasis when applying the legislative requirement.

For example, the word “regularly” means “at interval or times” and not “at all times,” while the word “substantial” encompasses “actually existing, not illusory, of real importance or value, practical” and not “completely.”

In addition to the considerations above, the Court commented as follows:#

What the statutory test for severity does require, however, is an air of reality in assessing whether an applicant is incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation.  Naturally, decision-makers already adopt a certain measure of practicality in their severity determinations.  As an obvious example, the scope of substantially gainful occupations suitable for a middle-aged applicant with an elementary school education and limited English or French language skills would not normally include work as an engineer or doctor.

In summary, the legislative test must not be applied in a vacuum. Rather, the particular circumstances of the applicant must be taken into account. If the applicant satisfies the decision maker that he or she cannot largely pursue gainful employment, he or she ought to be granted with the benefits.

* Canada Pension Plan, R.S>C. 1985, c. C-8, s. 42(2)

^ [2001] F.C.A. 248, [2002] 1 F.C. 130 (CanLII)

# Ibid., at para. 46

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.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Page 3 of 512345