Sometimes it is in the best interest of landlords to allow tenants selective use of a property. This can benefit both parties and tends to be the best solution in a variety of scenarios. Originally this was done through subdividing the land for a tenant use, but over the years, government has encroached upon this practice through legislation that regulates subdivisions which, in turn made it feasible for landlords to define the land as an easement instead.

The government has transformed subdivision into a potential money pit. Through the Local Government Act, municipalities and other local governments are granted powers over zoning and land subdivision. The powers to control subdivisions are heightened in the Land Title Act, which goes as far as to say an “approving officer may refuse to approve a subdivision plan…” if it doesn’t comply with myriad local and provincial regulations.

Noting that, creating an easement instead offers more freedom. Common Law has four requirements for land to be considered an easement and these are: There must be a dominant and servient tenement (‘dominant’ being the land benefiting from the easement and ‘servient’ being the land subjected to the easement), the easement must accommodate the dominant tenement, the owners of the dominant and servient lands in question must be different people, and the easement must be strictly defined.

Lack of exclusive possession concerning easements may be considered a downside. If a landlord filed for an easement granting their tenants exclusive possession, she would be denied, because granting exclusive possession makes it a lease, not an easement. Although this is the case, one may grant exclusive occupation, allowing tenants occupation rights while maintaining rights to ownership. Also, landlords may include a few conditions in the easement agreement regarding: Limiting access to the easement area to tenants and landlord, allowing tenants to install fences around the area, and limiting landlord’s easement access to certain times and in the presence of the tenant.

Creating an easement as opposed to a subdivision will save time and money. Although it may not be a hundred percent the same, the benefits from choosing an easement far outweigh the rights gained from a subdivision. As always, consult with a lawyer, specifically real estate lawyers regarding any contract. During consultation, posing the question of whether creating an easement is more beneficial than subdividing couldn’t hurt. Experienced lawyers, well-versed in property law and the local zoning laws will know what the best interest of a landlord is, given his or her specific situation and will answer any questions that arise.

While it’s wonderful that your boss can’t just fire you for no reason, California’s the only state in the U.S. to tell your employer they can’t fire you for your use of medical marijuana. I personally suspect that Cali secretly enjoys being the epitome of all things that Red states hate, but that’s just speculation. Though, in all fairness, here in Canada, we’re protected from being fired for our recreational pot use, so, I guess we shouldn’t throw stones.

Obviously, workplace discrimination is a serious issue- even if you’re in California. And while most of us can still get fired for smokin’ up, there are many legitimate reasons to sue your employer/company if you feel you’ve been discriminated against. For us here in Canada, there have been a lot of important discrimination cases lately- covering a variety of issues.

In a landmark gender discrimination case, and 15 years after the initial complaint, a female land agent in Alberta won her case against Mobil Oil Canada. Contracting for land with oil companies was a male-only business, but Delorie Walsh, the plaintiff, managed to find a job and work her way up. However, she faced severe sexual harassment and discrimination while at work. Unfortunately, Walsh reports that other women have come to her with similar stories, even recently, saying that oil companies refused to accept their resumes since they were women. Hopefully Walsh’s award will be sufficient to make Mobile and other companies rethink their sexism.

Your company can’t fire you just because you’re a bit up in years, either. A Nova Scotia school district that enforced mandatory retirement on its employees at 65 was recently decided against in a case brought by John Cline of Coldbrook. Cline’s been awarded a total of $12,850, in lost income and other damages.

And, finally, you’re protected from discrimination for certain mental illnesses- including Bipolar Disorder. Paul Lane, formerly of ADGA Groups Consulting, Inc. sued his former employers for wrongful termination, after he lost his job shortly after requesting special accommodations for his bipolar disorder. Lane was awarded around $80,000 in the case. While this case may enter further appeals, it’s important to note that this is one of the first discrimination cases to acknowledge bipolar disorder a covered condition.

All these discrimination cases considered, it should be said that if you face similar circumstances, find a legal ear to hear your case- you may be able to either win back wages lost because of the discrimination against you, or break new ground with requiring employers to accommodate your conditions.

*Discrimination case that received the most attention from lawyers in Ontario this week at lawyerahead.ca

*Sexual harassment case that received the most attention from lawyers in Toronto this week at lawyerahead.ca