In the News

Matrimonial Revenge Served Piping Hot… and Backfiring

Posted in: "All, Family Law, In the News, Lawyer Talk by Pei Wang | No Comments Friday, August 19, 2011

The Globe and Mail published an article on “divorce pranks” today.* They include the following:

  • Ex-husband dumped a 20-ton rock on ex-wife’s driveway, spray-painted “Bonne Fete” (happy birthday) and topped with a pink bow. The explanation: “She never had a rock big enough.”
  • Wine collector husband left the matrimonial home. Wife went to the wine cellar, steam-peeled the labels off, and then mixed the bottles up.
  • Wife poured the husband’s wine collection down the sewer.
  • Wife disabled the husband’s car when it was discovered in a compromising position, parked in front of the mistress’s house.
  • Wife went on a shopping spree on the husband’s secondary credit card before it was cancelled.
  • Husband stapled a spider to his cheque for spousal support, which the wife must endorse to cash it.

Readers are warned not to try any of these acts of revenge (and stupidity) because they almost always backfire. In fact, I’ve never come across one that hasn’t. These pranks inevitably will be submitted into evidence, which makes the judge wonder, “What else is this person capable of doing?”

Divorce is a traumatic experience. Don’t let the emotions take over the better part of you. Do what’s rational and logical, and try to resolve the situation. We’re here to help.

*Zosia Bielski, “Divorce Pranks: You Might Think It’s Funny, but the Judge Won’t Laugh,” The Globe and Mail (19 August 2011) Online: The Globe and Mail <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/love/divorce/divorce-pranks-you-might-think-its-funny-but-the-judge-wont-laugh/article2134193/>

Major Pet Store Chain Announces End of Puppy Sales: The Evils of Puppy Mills

Posted in: "All, Animal Welfare, In the News, Lawyer Talk by Pei Wang | No Comments Thursday, August 18, 2011

Major pet store chain PJ’s Pets has announced that its stores will stop selling puppies on September 1, 2011, reports The Toronto Star.+ Rather than sell puppies, the chain will promote pet adoption from animal shelters or humane societies.

I applaud this decision. Puppies available for sale at retailers are often purchased from brokers that provide the retailers with puppies that are competitively priced but of questionable origins.

Many puppies sold at retail stores are from “puppy mills,” where mother dogs are constantly impregnated without regard to their health. The environment of puppy mills is typically unsanitary and overcrowded.

The mother dogs are typically confined in small cages without exercise or adequate care. They may spend their days in their own feces and urine. Some are put in stacked cages with wire flooring that injures their paws and legs. Some spend their entire useful life outdoors without shelter from the elements. Serious medical conditions that are common at puppy mills include malnutrition, parasites, urine burns, rotten teeth, severely overgrown nails, matted fur, skin diseases, blindness, ear infections, wire cuts and open wounds, and overall weakness.

Once the breeding dog has gone beyond its prime (usually at 4 years of age), it is often discarded, abandoned, or killed. The lucky ones are shot; the unlucky ones are starved to death.

The misery isn’t confined to the mother dogs. Upon their arrival at the retailer, the puppies are left in the display windows for prolonged periods of time without adequate care, socialization, or exercise. Prolonged isolation, inadequate care, and lack of socialization are detrimental to a puppy’s overall development. Because of the mistreatment of mother dogs, store-bought puppies are often born with defects that lead to a lifetime of poor health.

At times, new pet parents discover serious health problems in their new pets shortly after the purchase. When this happens, the new pet owner faces a grim dilemma of either putting the pet down or facing substantial veterinary expenses. (Most retailers do not accept returns.) Perhaps a handful of owners sue in small claims court for damages, with limited success.

Such are the evils of puppy mills.

+Vanessa Lu, “PJ’s Pets Ends Puppy Sales” The Toronto Star (16 August 2011) online: <http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1040266>

On Publication Bans and Sealing Orders in Family Law: The Partial Publication Ban on Russell Williams’s Divorce

Posted in: "All, Family Law, In the News by Pei Wang | 1 Comment Wednesday, August 17, 2011

On April 12, 2011, Justice Mackinnon of the Superior Court of Justice granted the wife of convicted murderer Russell Williams, now identified as M.E.H., an anonymity order and a partial publication ban on the details of their divorce.*

By motion, the wife sought to have the entire matrimonial proceeding sealed to protect her fragile mental health as a result of Mr. Williams’s convictions for first-degree murder, sexual assault, and forcible confinement and the ensuing public and media attention. The motion was opposed by a number of media intervenors.

It’s said that a sealing order is a blunt tool. It will adversely affect a democratic society’s reliance on a transparent and open judiciary. Therefore, a complete sealing order is rare, except in a handful of areas, such as when dealing with young offenders.

In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has long taken the open court principle very seriously. In 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down provisions in Alberta’s Judicature Act prohibiting publication of most details of matrimonial proceedings.^

More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada restated the importance of the open court principle in Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (A.G.).+ Justice Deschamps stated that the open court principle “ensures that citizens have access to the courts and can, as a result, comment on how courts operate and on proceedings that take place in them.”

At the same time, the open court principle also mandates access to justice by citizens. The proper administration of justice must allow litigants access to the court to obtain relief that they are lawfully entitled to without sacrificing their mental and physical health by doing so. For example, victims of sexual assault should be afforded protection of anonymity, lest one more deterrent discourage such victims from coming forward.#

In the present case, the judge found that the wife had demonstrated she would face real risks to her mental health (e.g., beyond personal embarrassment and discomfort) if a privacy order were not granted. At the same time, a sweeping sealing order keeping the entire file from the public was seen to be unjustified as it would have too great an impact on the open court principle.

In striking the delicate balance of the public interest and the real risks of harm to the wife, the judge deemed it appropriate to place a partial publication ban on information that serves to identify the name, address, or contact information of the wife. Sensitive information, such as medical reports, social insurance number, date and place of the wife’s birth, and certain financial transfers were also banned from publication.

*H.(M.E.) v. Williams (2011), 105 O.R. (3d) 344 (Sup. Ct.)

^Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (A.G.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326, S.C.J. No. 124

+[2011] S.C.J. No. 2, 2011 SCC 2

#T.(S.) v. Stubbs (1998) 38 O.R. (3d) 788 (Gen. Div.)

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

Ontario Rolls Out Procedural Reform on Family Law; Information Session Now Mandatory Province-Wide

Posted in: "All, Family Law, In the News by Pei Wang | No Comments Monday, July 18, 2011

Effective today, Monday, July 18, 2011, all Ontarians who seek a divorce must attend a mandatory information session before the divorce application may be filed.

Once the parties have attended the mandatory information session, they have access to publicly funded mediation services if they wish to resolve their differences privately.

For couples in Toronto, the mandatory family law information session isn’t something new, however. It has been mandatory in Toronto for the past several years. It is now made compulsory throughout the province.

From my experience, the mandatory information session is too little, too late. By the time the matter reaches the court, the parties may have become too positional for any meaningful interest-based alternative dispute resolution to work.

I contend that the mandatory family law information session, while it may be helpful to some, doesn’t go far enough. A program such as a mandatory mediation session (i.e., a claim cannot be filed without a mediator’s certificate of completion) may be necessary to implement real change.

Bell Canada Settles Complaint on Misleading Advertisements; Agrees to Pay $10 Million Fine

Posted in: "All, Administrative Law, Business Development, Case Digest/Comments, In the News, Lawyer Talk by Pei Wang | No Comments Friday, July 15, 2011

Bell Canada recently settled a complaint brought by the Commissioner of Competition with respect to misleading advertising under the federal Competition Act* by filing a consent agreement with the regulating tribunal. Under the terms of the settlement, Bell Canada is obliged to pay an administrative fine of $10 million, which is the maximum monetary penalty available under the legislation.

The Commissioner of Competition alleged that many of the services by Bell aren’t available at the advertised price because of hidden fees. For example, consumers who pay the advertised home phone service price must also pay a touch tone fee. Similarly, in providing high-speed internet, Bell charges modem rental fees in addition to the advertised price.

Toronto lawyers James B. Musgrove and Daniel G. Edmondstone of McMillan LLP think that the Commissioner’s pursuit of the maximum administrative fine may be the clearest message to retailers who utilize “add-on” or “hidden fee” advertising structures.

In addition to the administrative fine, Bell Canada also agreed to pay for the Commissioner’s legal fees in the amount of $100,000.

*R.S.C. 1985, c C-34

Toronto Man Accused of Animal Cruelty Charges; Alleged to Have Attacked Baby Raccoon with Shovel in His Backyard

Posted in: "All, Animal Welfare, In the News, Lawyer Talk by Pei Wang | No Comments Thursday, July 14, 2011

Photograph used under licence by stock.xchng; all rights reserved.

A Toronto man is facing charges of animal cruelty and possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes for allegedly attacking a family of raccoons with a shovel in his backyard last month.

Witnesses recalled being awakened by the sound of the man allegedly attacking a family of raccoons in his backyard on June 1, 2011. Police were called soon after.

The crown prosecutor told the court that it will proceed through a lesser charge of summary conviction, rather than by indictment. If convicted by indictment, the accused would have faced up to 10 years of imprisonment for the weapon charge.

Under the summary conviction proceeding, the accused risks 2 years in custody.

Animal Services found that one baby raccoon suffered from broken toes and was sent to a rehabilitation centre for treatment. The conditions of the rest of the raccoons are unknown as the mother took the babies away.

The allegations have not been proven in court. The accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Regardless of the outcome, I can’t stress enough that violence is never a solution in a free and democratic society like ours. If you feel your home is being invaded by unwanted animals - be they raccoons, snakes, or wasps - it’s perhaps best to contact animal services or a private wildlife control company so the intruders may be removed humanely. Anyone who beats a baby raccoon with a shovel is both barbaric and cowardly and is condemned by this office.

Ontario Unveils Integrated Domestic Violence Court

Posted in: "All, Family Law, In the News, Lawyer Talk by Pei Wang | No Comments Thursday, July 7, 2011

The Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court, the first of its kind in Ontario, opened on June 10, 2011, at Toronto’s 311 Jarvis Street courthouse.

The IDV Court allows charges of domestic violence and related family law issues (except for divorce, property division, or child protection matters) to be heard by the same judge during the same court appearance.

Rather than requiring various appearances for concurrent family law and criminal law proceedings, the IDV Court assigns one judge to one family. Therefore, the parties are relieved from explaining their position twice to two different judges, as they would have to in regular courts. The pay-off should be greater efficiency and reduced delays.

Additional services, such as the Family Law Information Centre (FLIC), Partner Assault Response (PAR), and the Victim/Witness Assistance Program, are also available. Enhanced security ensures a safe environment for the victims.

To participate in the IDV Court, all parties, including the Crown prosecutor, must sign their consent. PSW Law strongly recommends that, prior to signing, the parties obtain independent legal advice regarding the potential consequences (e.g., whether there may be great prejudice on the accused because of his or her participation in the IDV Court).

The IDV Court, however, cannot conduct a trial. If the matter cannot be resolved without trial, it will be sent back to the regular court.

The IDV Court is a two-year pilot project. For more information, please visit http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/idvc/brochure.htm.

N.Y. State Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Posted in: "All, Family Law, In the News by Pei Wang | No Comments Friday, June 24, 2011

The New York State Senate has passed the same-sex marriage bill. Passed by a small margin of 33-29, the legislation makes New York the sixth U.S. state to legalize marriage between individuals of the same sex. Once Gov. Cuomo, who proposed the bill, signs it into law, same-sex marriages may be performed in 30 days.

Change is possible.

Impact of Canada Post’s Labour Dispute Deeper Than Expected at This Law Office

Posted in: "All, Business Development, Family Law, In the News, Lawyer Talk by Pei Wang | No Comments Wednesday, June 22, 2011

The dispute between the union and management at Canada Post is affecting this law firm more deeply than we expected.

When Canada Post management first suspended mail delivery on June 15, 2011, the consensus among lawyers regarding the dispute seemed to be that there would be only a minor inconvenience. After all, in the 21st century, we have (or are supposed to have) various alternative means to communicate. Besides the obvious email and fax, we can also use commercial couriers. (Social media such as Facebook and Twitter are not used for routine legal correspondence because of the lack of security.)

However, as outgoing mail piles up beside my desk, it’s becoming clear that practising family law without reliable mail delivery is beyond the “minor inconvenience” that we first expected.

Although our firm does take credit card payments, clients who prefer to pay by cheque must now deliver them either in person or by courier, rather than by mail. For clients who work full-time and are unable to deliver the funds in person, it can be quite burdensome to pay an additional $20-$30 just to have the cheque delivered.

Similarly, the disbursement of trust funds, which is done exclusively by cheque at this firm, has been put on hold except where the recipient is willing to pay for alternative delivery services.

Paying vendors has also become nearly impossible. Because many service providers are small to medium-sized companies, cheques remain the most cost-effective way to pay. It is simply impractical to explore alternative payment methods given the amounts payable and the likelihood of timely resumption of mail delivery services.

For many public institutions and offices, correspondence by mail remains the default method of communication. For example, court orders are almost exclusively delivered by mail once they have been signed by the judge. With Canada Post delivery suspended, people aren’t able to receive their divorce orders and may have to delay their plan to remarry.

Correspondence with other institutions relying heavily on mail are similarly frustrated. These institutions include Legal Aid Ontario, the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the Social Benefits Tribunal, the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, and the Office of the Registrar General, just to name a few. Although some of these institutions do accept incoming messages by fax, their outgoing messages are largely delivered by mail.

Finally, the timely delivery of routine correspondence and reporting letters becomes an issue, even in the era of the internet. Often, the reporting letters contain documents that may be too large in volume to be delivered electronically or contain original documents that must be physically delivered to the client.

The cost of alternative delivery for routine correspondence is approximately 20 or more times greater than that of ordinary mail. For example, a standard letter under 30 grams costs 59 cents by mail but at least $10 for overnight delivery, depending on the distance. For items that are not urgent, we telephone the client advising them of the delay. However, for items that are time-sensitive, we often have no alternative but to pay private couriers for timely delivery.

What’s your experience with the mail delivery disruption? Feel free to leave a comment.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) Not Compellable to Provide Services… for Now

Posted in: "All, Case Digest/Comments, Family Law, In the News, Lawyer Talk by Pei Wang | No Comments Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that the courts ought not to compel the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to provide service without giving the OCL an opportunity to decide whether it would become involved.*

Under the Courts of Justice Act,^ at the request of a court the Children’s Lawyer “may” act as the legal representative of a minor who is not a party to the proceeding.

On the one hand, historically the Superior Court has “parens patriae” jurisdiction (the public power to intervene against negligent parents) to protect minors who are otherwise unable to fend for themselves. On the other, the statutory language is merely permissible and not mandatory. Whether the OCL is compellable to provide services by orders of the court has been subject to debate.

As a matter of policy, the OCL are involved in child protection proceedings. Therefore, the residual parens patriae jurisdiction will only be invoked in matters involving custody and access.

Although the Court of Appeal declined to rule on the very point of whether the OCL is compellable to provide services under the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal reasoned that given the limited resources available to the OCL, it is improper to order the OCL to provide services prior to making a request as contemplated by the legislation.

The judge of the first instance ought to have made the requests first, without intervening in the OCL’s discretion to provide services. If the OCL declines to act, the court may further request that the OCL reconsider its decision. Only after all available remedies are exhausted should the courts consider exercising their parens patriae jurisdiction.

*Bhajan v. Bhajan, [2010] ONCA 714, (2011) 104 O.R. (3d) 168

^R.S.O. 1990, c. C43, as am. ss. 89(3.1)


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

Page 3 of 712345...Last »