Our Take on Things

Ah, nothing like a few pints (well, maybe more than few) and a Soccer Match to bring out the hooligan in some people: you all know what I’m writing about. I’m writing about the FHRITP comment (Google if you must, but beware it’s NSFW – Google that before the first one) that lead to the public termination of the Hydro One Employee.

When this became news last week, everyone was quick to ask everyone’s opinion: was the termination an overreaction?

I remained firmly on the fence, well sort of. I will admit I did feel the hooligan got his just deserts, but the Lawyer part of me would be very reluctant to encourage an employer client to follow suit.

The caveat to my Lawyer side is this: if the employer has a signed employment contract that notes the employee can be disciplined for any public behaviour that reflects badly on the employer, then go ahead and terminate for this behaviour.

However, in the absence of a signed employment agreement to that effect, the employer may find themselves on the hook for damages equal to one month per year worked and possibly more if they terminate the employee in such a public manner. If that happens all the “good PR” that is generated will probably not be worth the amount of money that is shelled out to the hooligan.

Another problem for an employer without a “morals clause” is if the hooligan works with women. In that case, the Ontario Occupational Health & Safety Act duty to provide a safe work environment will kick in and the employee will have to be counseled and supervised to ensure they are not creating an unsafe work environment. In a small business, this may create a very big problem and that may justify termination, but never, in a public way.

Ultimately, drunken hooligans need to stop yelling FHRITP. I suppose if this public termination stops it, then it is worth the risk that Hydro One took with the public termination. Of course, this might just end up being another line on my Hydro Bill and then I’m going to be smoking mad, can you imagine seeing:

Fee paid to Hooligan for terminating him due to yelling FHRITP on City TV $ 40.00.

I’ll be yelling something into a TV camera if I see that !

Inga B. Andriessen JD

I recently read an article in the Globe & Mail that suggested cutting all men’s wages so they were equal with women’s wages. I won’t delve into the politics of equality in this Blog, but will tell you, as a woman, nothing gets me more annoyed than someone trying to “help me”. I don’t need your help. I’m equal.

I digress.

Many of the comments on the website supported this idea for many reasons. Of course, as a lawyer whose practice includes Employment Law for the Employer, I immediately saw the big problem: cutting wages is constructive dismissal. So, to achieve equality all employers should be sued for wrongful dismissal? Insert golf claps here.

In a similar vein is a motion before the Law Society that, if passed, would require law firms to hire Articling Students at a rate of pay determined by the Law Society.

I can only imagine how great the quality of an Articling experience would be at a Law Firm bitter to be forced to take on a Student and pay them a wage that is not linked to the financial plan of the firm.

The Globe Article, I hope, was just meant to stir up conversation.

The Law Society motion, I fear, was put forward in earnest by lawyers who do not have a sense of business and apparently are content to declare a person a lawyer regardless of the quality of their Articling Experience.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

Many people when they first meet me ask me “what are you?” This didn’t happen where I grew up in BC, but in Toronto, it appears necessary to many people to put people in a box.

I always answer Canadian as I am born here, however, I generally ultimately relent and say, I’m a Canadian born to Dutch Immigrants.

Today that Dutch part of me is thanking the Canadian in me – 70 years ago today Canada liberated Holland from Nazi occupation.

My grandfather had often had to hide in the attic to escape being taken by the Nazi’s to labour for them. My father was so skinny at the end of the war, he was sent to Sweden to be “fattened up” again.

Part of the reason my grandparents set sail for Canada after the war was the kindness of the Canadian soldiers and the knowledge that Canada would be a great place to settle.

Canada is still a great place to live.

We are free to express our beliefs without fear of persecution. We have protected rights and freedoms. We have the expectation of equality.

Thanks Canada !

Inga B. Andriessen JD

A file I was working on just settled on the eve of trial.  As a trial lawyer, I enjoy arguing a case before a Judge.  I revel in the questions, the objections, the arguments based on law.

I appreciate, however, clients do not enjoy trials.  Trials cost money, take away productivity and have an element of a gamble to them as no lawyer can ever predict with certainty what the outcome of a trial will be.

Many Judges often say a good settlement is where both parties are unhappy.  That likely has a bit of truth to it, though the payor usually is less happy than the party receiving funds.

I’m pleased when I am able to achieve a settlement for a client – the eve of trial is not ideal, but sometimes it takes that long for the numbers to make sense to those involved.   Ultimately, the parties have to accept that the cost of settling is better than the cost of rolling the dice at trial.

The bonus part of this process is that now, as the lawyer, I have a few free calendar days available to devote to other matters that I thought might need to wait until next week.  Hey, I might even get to head out to a driving range!

Inga B. Andriessen JD

Last week I attended Court on an unusual motion. In 2012, a defendant to a law suit settled an action with my client by agreeing to make payments over time. As is common in settlements of a long duration, one of the terms was that the defendant sign a Consent to Judgment for the full amount of the claim, less payments received, plus actual legal fees and interest.

The Judgment would only be used if there was a default in payment that wasn’t fixed within a period of time agreed to by the parties. The defendant defaulted and we obtained Consent Judgment.

The unusual motion was the defendant moving to set aside the Consent Judgment arguing it was in the “interests of justice” to do so. As nothing had changed since the Judgment was obtained and we had put absolutely everything in front of the Judge signing the Consent Judgment, the defendant was not successful and the Judgment remains in place.

We successfully defeated this motion in large part because of putting every email and telephone call before the Courts. Many firms choose not to do that, they’d rather be “bare bones” about it and many clients insist on cutting costs if at all possible.

Ultimately, remember if you sign a Consent, you could be called upon to honour it. Do not sign lightly and if you’re taking out the Judgment, put everything before the Court.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

Lately there have been a lot of articles written by Law Students. They’re complaining about the debt they’ve incurred to get their degrees. They’re complaining that there are not enough Articling positions and they may have to pay the LPP fee in order to be licensed. They’re complaining they have to write the Bar Admission test. They’re complaining there are no jobs when they finally are called to the Bar.

While I understand no one likes any of the above list of grievances, I’m going to point out what should be glaringly obvious: none of the above issues were things you could not have researched before deciding to obtain a Law Degree and practice in the Province of Ontario.

I love working with students, High School, Law School, Articling and LPP. I love encouraging people to pursue a career in Law, however, I’m also blunt and honest with all of them. I tell them, there are few jobs out there and many of them do not pay a lot. You may incur a tonne of debt, so you had better not be doing this for the money.

So. If you want to be a lawyer, great. Do your research. If you go to U of T, Osgoode or any other top tier school, it will cost you $ 75 000.00 at least to get your law degree (this is not including undergrad).

Many entry level positions for first year associates who are not at a big firm in Toronto pay $ 50 000.00 or less.

If you’re planning to go to Law School, you’re smart: do the math. How many years are you going to be in debt? Are you able to handle that? If yes, then go ahead. If no. There are many other careers in Law that do not involve being a lawyer. They will not cost as much to obtain your degree. Perhaps pursue those.

However, if you do decide to go to Law School, then please, stop complaining about the cost. If you didn’t do your research going into this, you can only blame yourself.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

On Thursday, March 12 the Halton County Law Association (HCLA) will be holding it’s AGM. I am currently on the Board of Directors, having been acclaimed for my first term, last year. I will be seeking re-election this Thursday.

I joined the Board as I wanted to help formalize the relationship between Halton Lawyers and the Halton High School Law Teachers. For many years I have been a volunteer Judge in the High School Mock Trial program. I have also volunteered each semester to Judge the final Mock Trial of Grade 11 and 12 law classes.

Since joining the HCLA Board, and being appointed to Chair the Mock Trial Committee, I have created a program, with the Halton High School Law Teachers, where each Law Teacher is now paired with at least two Halton Lawyers who are a resource to those teachers. I have also helped organize the Halton Mock Trial Championships in 2014 and 2015 and assisted with the Ontario Justice Education Network (OJEN) to organize the Central West Mock Trial Tournament for 2015. It has been wonderful to see the formalization of relationships this past year and I would like to continue this work for one more term.

In addition to my work on the Mock Trial Committee, I chaired the 2014 Civil Litigation CLE, drafted By-Laws at the Board’s Request, updated Annual Minutes, assisted in obtaining info for the new Court House campaign, assisted in organizing the fall event where we provided information regarding the LPP program to Halton lawyers and attended every Monthly meeting of the HCLA.

As a business lawyer I would like to assist the HCLA in setting some more formal budget policies this coming year and should I be re-elected as a Board Member, I will seek election to the position of Treasurer in order to put forward those recommendations.

I look forward to the AGM on Thursday and appreciate your vote, should you decide you wish to support me.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

The Simpsons debuted on TV while I was in Law School. I have many memorable episodes, but the one that sticks out the most is where Bart touches the electrocuted science experience that the Lisa set up, gets buzzed, says ow, then repeats it over and over again.

I thought about Bart yesterday during a conversation with a criminal/family law lawyer who is having some collection issues and asked for my advice.

I suggested that they ensure they have a monetary retainer in their trust account at all times sufficient to cover the work and if they run out, stop working until it is replenished. Yes, that means going through the uncomfortable conversation of saying “I require $ 1500.00 in my trust account against which I will bill my time. I will let you know when I require more money. I won’t do any work if there is no money in my trust account.”

After the uncomfortable conversation, I recommended the lawyer do the “work” of regularly monitoring their trust account.

All lawyers should do the work of monitoring their firm’s financial situation on a regular basis. Those tabs in your Legal Accounting Software that say G/L statements are not just for accountants – they let you know how you’re doing.

The lawyer told me that they didn’t think that they would be able to have the uncomfortable conversation because they want to help people. I asked if they also wanted to pay their bills: apparently they are conflicted as to which is more of a priority.

This lead the image of Bart’s bzz-ow-bzz-ow to jump to my mind. Clearly the lawyer is always going to be where they are right now … well that or out of business.

So, to recap, the moral of today’s Blog is: “don’t be a Bart”.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

Our firm handles a lot of Vehicle Leasing litigation and documentation. Working in this area of law, we’ve seen a lot of changes over the years, particularly to the liability of leasing companies when one of their lessees is in an accident.

In 2006 the Ontario law changed to limit the liability of a Leasing company & it’s Insurer to one million dollars, less any amount the lessee’s insurance policy has available for the claim. While you might like to think that would end things, as lawyers, we wait for the Court challenges to proceed before we exhale a bit.

At the end of 2014 the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the limit of the 2006 change and as a result Leasing Companies, and their insurers, do not need to wonder if they have enough insurance protection, provided they maintain the requisite one million dollar coverage.

There is not a lot of certainty these days (just read some of our Blogs about Employment Law issues) however, it is nice to see that in this one are of law, there is a bit of certainty for now.

Inga B. Andriessen JD