Our Take on Things

If the title of this Blog means nothing to you, you are likely not a lawyer and this Blog probably has little meaning to you. I’m o.k. with that.

I’ve thought about writing a Blog about the TWU debate for a long time and until now have opted not to, believing that mulling it over before putting my ideas onto the Web is a good idea. I’m over the mulling point now, particularly with the decision in Nova Scotia this week to overturn their Law Society’s refusal to recognize TWU’s forthcoming Law School.

The issue is that in order to go to TWU, you must agree that you will not participate “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman”. This has been taken to be defacto discrimination against homosexuals.

The Ontario Law Society has refused to give status to the TWU law school. The following is from the comments section of The Globe and Mail and sets out the argument:

“The core of the argument of the Law Societies of BC, Ontario and Nova Scotia is that all Canadians, regardless of religion or sexual orientation, should have equal access to the legal profession. Provincial regulation of (including the regulation of access to) the legal profession is properly the subject of the Charter’s jurisdiction.

To become a lawyer in any given province, one must attend an accredited law school. If TWU is accredited as a law school, Christians will have 20 options for entering the legal profession and non-Christians (and in particular LGBTQ students) will have 19. This does not constitute equal access to the legal profession and is, therefore, discriminatory.

19 vs. 20 may seem like a negligible difference, but (i) law school entry is competitive, so it matters; and (ii) more importantly, it isn’t equal, which is what the Charter guarantees. ”

I agree with the comment above. I do not support the idea of precluding any group from attending a Law School and I am concerned this is a slippery slope. Will the next Canadian Law School ban women from attending? What if a Canadian Law School banned Jews or Muslims from attending? What if a Canadian Law School banned Native Canadians from attending?

However, I also recognize the following reality: many lawyers called to the Ontario Bar have been educated outside of Canada. Many of those law schools are in countries that discriminate against women, homosexuals and a variety of races. Students who attend those schools are not prevented from being called to the Ontario Bar.

I think the solution to the TWU issue, in terms of a fairness issue, is to have one way of becoming a lawyer in Ontario: attend a Canadian Law School. Once that is the only way to become a lawyer, it is unlikely the Courts will find in favour of TWU.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

Our firm starts most of our litigation in Milton. We do this because it is an efficient jurisdiction to litigate, the Judges are excellent and the staff is friendly.

However, the 1970s building is not big enough for the population it services. This means that when it is time for a trial in Milton, the parties are often called to the Brampton Court House to have their matter heard. This is not a big issue if you’re not a resident of Milton, however, if you live in the region, having to travel to Brampton is not insignificant.

In addition to the lack of trial space, there is no private area to consult with clients. Literally nowhere. This means the cafeteria has become a makeshift meeting area where lawyers are trying to obtain confidential instructions without any privacy. Counsel attempt to accommodate opposing parties by finding other hallways in which to meet, but ultimately, this is impacting the administration of Justice in Milton.

You can imagine my surprise when I read this month that Brampton is getting an expansion. Brampton has a relatively new Court House and yes, it too is over capacity, though not as much as Milton. The best part of the Brampton announcement is that Milton would handle the overflow while the construction takes place.

Does that mean Milton will move trials to Brampton because it has no capacity, but take Brampton’s trials? I’m very confused by the logic.

Of course, perhaps what I am missing in an impending announcement of a new Court House coming to Milton soon? That must be it.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

A Business that comes and sees us to get organized properly spends far less in legal fees than the Business that comes to see us when they are sued or the Respondent to a Tribunal Complaint.

In an effort to save your Business money, here are some issues to tackle now, before 2015 is in full swing:

1. Have all Employees sign an employment contract that limits the amount of Notice you are required to provide at termination.  This allows you to budget for terminations with accuracy instead of estimating what a Judge is likely to award.

2. Have an Employee Handbook that contains all of the Government Required policies as well as other policies you intend to enforce in your Business.  This is not an option, certain policies on Harassment, Accessibility and Workplace Violence are required.

3. Have our firm prepare your Annual Shareholders & Directors Meeting Minutes.  This is an opportunity for our firm to focus on your business and ensure you’re up to date with the latest requirements.

4. Follow 30-60-90 Sue (R) to ensure you’re not running into a collection issue with your customers.

5. Register a Trademark for your Business to protect you from foreign “Trademark Squatters” who may take advantage of our new Trademark Laws to prey on Canadian Businesses.

6. Document all agreements in writing.  If your customer or supplier won’t commit to terms in writing, are they worth the risk they want you to take?

7. Ensure your business matters are handled by a Business Law firm.  We don’t do family, criminal or personally injury Law.  We only focus on Business Law, which means we understand your needs.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

It’s that time of year again: we’re looking forward, not back.

As a business owner in Ontario, your 2015 is about to start off with a bang.  Here are some of the highlights of the items you must comply with:

1.   January 1, 2015 all Ontario Businesses must have an Accessibility Standard in Place as well as an Emergency Plan for Customers and Employees;

2. January 1, 2015 all Ontario Businesses with 20+ employees must file their Accessibility Standard with the provincial government;

3. January 15, 2015 the Canadian Anti Spam Legislation (CASL) portions regarding the installation of software on computers or mobile devices come into effect.   The definitions of computer and mobile devices are very broad: get legal advice if you think this might impact you.

Of course, there are the annual requirements of Minutes of Shareholders and Directors, preparing T4s and determining if Employer’s Health Tax is payable.  These items, however, do not kick in on the fixed dates set out for the other matters I’ve highlighted in this Blog.

We wish you all a Happy & Successful 2015.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

On the twelfth day of Christmas (or the Holiday Season if Christmas is not your thing, we’re not looking to offend here, just have a little fun) my Business Law Firm gave to me:

Twelve monthly Minutes,

Eleven Resolutions,

Ten Trademark Applications,

Nine Incorporations,

Eight Arbitrations,

Seven Mediations,

Six Court Applications,

Five golden parachutes,

Four demand letters,

Three Statements of Claims,

Two Construction Liens,

And a Bill for their Fees (but not for this parody, because let’s face it, it’s priceless) !

 

Happy Holidays !

Inga B. Andriessen JD

 

The Interview movie will no longer open December 25, 2014.  In fact, it might not open at all.  Did the terrorists win?

I hope not.

As a Business Lawyer I see this through the eyes of Sony and all other businesses out there, large and small.

I understand that Sony was weighing the risks to reputation, overall business, and employees.  Ultimately, from a business perspective, the cost of not releasing The Interview may have been less than the costs incurred dealing with lawsuits, injuries and damages they could have been exposed to by releasing it.

I understand it: but I still don’t like it.

As a Business Lawyer, I likely would have recommended the same course of action to the client.  This decision was not about “standing up to North Korea” for Sony, it was a business decision and those are best made without emotion or patriotism, regardless of how important those things are.

I still don’t like it.

If a large, multi-national company can be threatened into not releasing a movie, what chance does a small “Mom and Pop” business have when a hacker comes calling?   As a Business Lawyer I can advise a business that any blackmail threats should be reported to the police and the police should handle it: but how does that help the bottom line of the company?

As a Business Lawyer I can also advise a business that they can sue for damages incurred, but have to be realistic about the ability to collect any of those damages from anonymous hackers in foreign countries.

I am hopeful that Sony has not actually completely pulled The Interview, but instead is taking away the “firm launch date” so that any attacks cannot be easily coordinated.

If/when it comes out I will want to see The Interview (this actually has nothing to do with North Korea, I like Seth Rogan movies, yes, I said that out loud).   I hope you will join me, even if you don’t usually go for Seth Rogan movies.

We can’t let the terrorists win.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

As a Business Law Firm that does a lot of collection litigation, we start our claims in Milton, Ontario.  There are many reasons for doing this: the Court staff are friendly, the time to trial is the quickest in the GTA and the Judges are fair minded when hearing all matters.

One of the Judges,  The Honourable Mr. Justice John Murray is retiring at the end of this year and he will be missed.

When I was an Articling Student 23 years ago I was in front of the Toronto Masters on an almost daily basis.  I learned very quickly which Masters would be tolerant of the learning student and which treated you as if you were a seasoned lawyer: ie. know your stuff or fail.  If you are a lawyer reading this who articled in the 1990s, I’ll just say “Master Sandler” and you know what I mean.

In Milton, Justice Murray is the equivalent of the “know your stuff or fail” Master.  Justice Murray does not suffer the ill prepared lightly, nor should he.  As lawyers we’re paid significant hourly rates to argue in Court: we should be prepared and if we are not, it should not go by unnoticed.

One of the great things about having Mr. Justice Murray in Milton is that it requires lawyers to bring their “A” game as you never know if you’ll be in front of him or not (I’m not suggesting we don’t try as hard in front of other Judges, but I am suggesting fear is an excellent courtroom motivator for very young lawyers).

While Justice Murray is known for his willingness to call lawyers out on poor preparation, he is also well known for his wit.  His humour from the bench, provided it is not at your expense, is often a welcome break during Motions Court.  Honestly, it’s also a little fun to see the fear in the eyes of Articling Students when he demands to know what Law School they went to.

My “oh no, I’m in for it now” moment in front of Mr. Justice Murray was quite a few years ago.  My cell phone when off while waiting to be heard in Motions Court.  As luck would have it, the ring tone was the theme from Mission Impossible.  When it was my turn to argue my motion, Justice Murray stared me down from the Bench and said “you” will all of the frustration he must have felt.  Thankfully, when I apologized profusely and said I hoped my Motion wouldn’t be  mission impossible, he smiled, accepted my apology and we moved on.

I’m thankful my apology was accepted back then and I know I’m not alone when I say, we will miss Justice Murray in Milton.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

 

 

All Ontario Businesses, regardless of size, must currently have in place a Customer Service Standard and Workplace Emergency Response Information document.

Companies with 20 or more employees must file evidence of their compliance on or before January 1, 2015.  Do not think this will not be enforced: there is a strong lobby group that is keeping pressure on the Government to enforce this requirement.

While no one likes more “red tape,” complying with the law is not difficult to do and most of it makes good business sense.

The Customer Service Standard requires your business to evaluate its’ environment and explain how it will deliver services to individuals with accessibility issues.  In our firm this highlighted our inability to have people with seeing eye dogs attend at our firm due to a severe animal allergy of one of our employees.  However, we have been able to address that issue by stating we will meet with individuals with guide dogs outside our offices.

The Workplace Emergency Response Information requires you to ensure all members of your business can be safely evacuated, should the need arise.  This doesn’t just mean individuals in a wheelchair.  We recently addressed the needs of a very pregnant employee, in light of a fire drill, who needed to be protected from crushing and rushing down stairs: thinking about this ahead of the drill made it easier to accommodate her as we all knew our role.

If you need help to ensure you’re compliant, contact your Business Lawyer: better to be safe than fined!

Inga B. Andriessen JD

 

 

As a business law firm, we have a good amount of experience in the various rules and regulations Ontario cities require that businesses comply with in order to carry on business in those cities.

The worst city for red tape, delay and operating as if it is still in the 1950s is Toronto.  The cost to businesses as a result of the Toronto bureaucracy is enormous and incredibly frustrating to anyone looking to do business here.

As most people know, Uber has decided to take on Toronto and offer both its’ Uber and UberX service here.

If you have never Uberred then you have no idea how wonderful this service is.  I Uberred recently: I used the Ap to have a black car arrive, pick me up and drop me off, all without having to raise my hand, find change or wonder where it was (you track it on the ap).

This is so much better than hailing a cab in Toronto.  I have not had to do it often, however, my memories of hailing a cab include the cabbie not knowing where Queen’s Park was and the cabbie yelling at me for using my debit card (which the cab was equipped with).

Why is Toronto using tax payer’s money to take Uber to Court to try to shut it down in this city?  Could it be because the city is so ingrained in operating as if it is the 1950s that the thought of using technology to move forward is something it simply must shut down?

I know that the city licenses taxis and makes a nice chunk of change from doing that.  I appreciate they have “turf” to defend.  I do not accept the insurance argument they’re trying to advance when it comes to Uber.   I do, however, have concerns about the UberX Ride Share option and the insurance arguments there may be more valid.

The Mayor Elect has already spoken out in favour of Uber and I hope this is a sign of the direction this unnecessary battle will take after he is sworn in.

It’s time for Toronto to be open to business.

Inga B. Andriessen JD

This past week the President of the BC Law Society created a big stir when people reported comments she made to a Cloud Computing Seminar. Apparently she said that BC Lawyers could only use cloud computing if the cloud was located in BC. The President has since backed away from that statement, but does insist that lawyers must comply with the new BC rules and as always, with Canadian Privacy Rules.

We’re an Ontario law firm, so the BC Rules do not directly impact us. However, we’ve always been cautious when dealing with servers and insist that they be Canadian based if we’re using them for client data. We avoid the Cloud for client related matters as currently, we are unaware of any Cloud based storage servers located solely in Canada.

The biggest concern we have is that any USA based server is subject to the ever watching eyes of the USA government due to the Patriot Act.

Imagine, if you’re a tax lawyer in Toronto, consulted by a Canadian  individual who has both USA and Canadian Tax issues and you store all your client notes, including financial data, on Dropbox. Dropbox servers are located in the USA. Do you really think that the USA government cyber sleuthing might not pick up on your notes?

Have you just breached lawyer/client confidentiality by storing to a non-Canadian cloud? I’m going to suggest you have.

Our firm considers these issues in all of our technology decisions. We ensure our servers and our backup servers are located in Canada. We do our best to protect our client’s confidentiality and uphold our obligations as lawyers.

Cloud computing is great: it is convenient and yes, however, as lawyers convenience must take a back seat to our obligation for lawyer/client privilege.

Inga B. Andriessen JD