Contracts come up often during the course of business. Common types of business contracts include employment, land/lease/rental contracts, contracts with suppliers and contracts with customers.

Employment contracts. Contracts with staff for either professional or nonprofessional services appear frequently. Employment contracts range from salary stipulations through right-to-work arrangements. They state how the employee will be compensated and what actions they must perform. Any oral agreements concerning compensation for overtime or benefits should be included in these contracts. Any performance-based incentives or bonuses should be included as well. Employers should include termination clauses befitting the position. For example, morality clauses are less common, but in some instances should be included if the employee is a direct representative of the company.

Land/Lease/rental contracts. These contracts are between business owners and landowners over usage of a building or parcel of land for business purposes. Rental contracts identify the rights and requirements of tenants and landlords. They address such instances like when a landlord sells or loses the title to a building (due to bankruptcy, etc). Commercial leases should provide an adequate time allotment to avoid constant renegotiation that can impede on owner’s ability to conduct business.

Supplier contracts. Contracts with good suppliers add a sense of stability to a business. These allow a business owner to know what they are getting and whom they are getting it from and at what price. The contract benefits suppliers by binding the business to always purchase from them instead of their competitors.

Customer contracts. Contracts with customers provide both parties written assurance of what oral agreements the other has made (if any). Although oral contracts can be binding, having a signed copy allows either party to revisit the agreement in the case where the other did not perform as agreed upon (either the services rendered were not as advertised or the compensation for services was not adequately made). An example of a contract between a business and customer is a tire store warranty stating that a replacement tire will be issued without cost if the purchased tire explodes within 30 days of installation.

Lawyer can draw up an effective, template-style contract for each situation. This allows business owners to employ contracts in a timely manner instead of having a new one drawn up for each instance. For example, having a standardized agreement for customers only requiring a name, date, description of services rendered and a signature saves lots of time and ensures there are no questions over the contracts validity should a dispute arise. This works well for general employment contracts as well.

Business Owners and Employers can visit Lawyerahead.ca and find the the most comprehensive information on Canadian Lawyers including Toronto Lawyers and Vancouver Lawyers.

Continuing on with the cigarette related articles posted some time ago, we will tell you about one more Act that exists and is valid in Canada - the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

Canada is not only one of the leading countries in prohibition of the smoking advertising, but is also a huge advocate  of the second part of the tobacco problem - the health of the Canadian citizens. They are protected by the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allows the government and lawyer to sue tobacco companies for breach of duty to recover costs on the health care system for people suffering from tobacco related illnesses. This act was found constitutionally valid in the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. case in 2005. This historic case had its first turning point on June 5, 2003 when the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act violates the territorial limits of provincial law and was unconstitutional. The decision was overturned in May 2004 be the Court Of Appeal, on the basis that the pith and substance, ie. the dominant characteristic, of the canadian law fell under the property and civil rights provision of the Constitution Act, 1867. Imperial Tobacco continued the struggle and on June 22, 2004 the company appealed to Supreme Court of Canada. They were supported by four other tobacco companies and the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the case.

The Supreme Court reviewed three main issues:

   1. Is the Act ultra vires the province by reason of extraterritoriality?

   2. Is the Act constitutionally invalid as being inconsistent with judicial independence?

   3. Is the Act constitutionally invalid for violating the rule of law?

The answer for all the three was negative and on September 29, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Tobacco companies clamed that the Act was retrospective and retroactive and violated the rule of law by creating an unfair trial. They also felt that legislation should neither target a particular sector nor confer special privileges on the government. The Constitution protects the rule of law and so it does not require that Act ensures a fair civil trial or avoids giving the government advantages. The Supreme Court found this conception amorphous and claimed that accepting it would render several more narrowly formulated provisions of the Charter redundant. The Court dismissed the suggestion that a shift in burden to the accused or the unconventional rules of procedure and evidence created by the Act will have any effect on Judicial independence. The Head of Supreme Court found that pith and substance of the Act was within the authority of the province under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The subject of the Act, compensation for health costs, and the effect, suing companies who harmed those in the province, must be under the regulation of the provincial law.  So find a lawyer for you if you require compensation for health costs.

Lawyerahead.ca has the most comprehensive information on a canadian lawyer.  Browse Lawyers or Post Case.

We’re all familiar with medical malpractice in the common sense where an impetuous surgeon misplaces a scalpel or two inside a patient’s chest cavity… but what about pets? As it turns out, more and more cases are surfacing involving the death of a pet due to veterinary malpractice.

Historically, the value of an animal was limited to its economic value. The intent leaned more towards farmers who, if disenfranchised by the loss of livestock, would be awarded the market value of that animal. This of course forgoes any consideration for the connection between an owner and their furry friend, which is evident when what the owner spends to save their animal exceeds the pet’s “market value”. For instance, a pet owner who funds a $50,000 surgery to have a cancerous tumor removed from their cat when the cat’s market value is fourteen dollars.

Some believe that Canada is right for not putting a price tag on the emotional distress caused by losing an animal to veterinary malpractice. The high price of a vet visit would only increase after malpractice insurance rates grow due to larger settlement amounts. This seems justified by what has happened with healthcare in the United States. But is it right for the whole to save a few dollars when a few have legitimate claims to bigger settlements?

California doesn’t think so. The USA Today mentions the saga of a dog owner’s lawyer who fought for and received $30,000 for the dog’s “unique value” in addition to the costs associated with the surgery. They go on to mention a similar case out of Kentucky where the court awarded a pet owner $15,000 for their dead German shepherd.

The common law opinion that animals are merely property is perceived more and more as defunct. Tort suits in the US where pet owners receive monies beyond the scope of their animal’s economic value are becoming more prevalent and it may only be a matter of time before Canada follows suit.

To find a lawyer for your legal matters, visit www.lawyerahead.ca.

Lawyerahead.ca has the most comprehensive online lawyer information on a Canadian Lawyer including medical malpractice lawyers.

Visit site, call few canadian lawyers or post case and interested lawyers will contact you.

A phrase coined by New York Times writer, John Swartz seems dead on. In his piece on the growing problem of jurors using internet-capable cell phones to and post updates about the trial, it appears that technology will be a new headache for litigators.

Facebook updates and ‘twits’ during the trial are a couple of the problems arising. According to Canadian law, “no information regarding any portion of the trial at which the jury is not present shall be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way before the jury retires or considers its verdict.” Jurors that post updates or twits are screwing things up.

In one case, a juror who posted Twitter updates is the defendant’s grounds for appeal. The controversy over the juror’s messages which included, “Oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter.” Stoam Holdings, the company involved in that trial is asking the judge to overturn the 12 million dollar ruling. In his defense, Mr. Powell (the juror) states that he waited until everything was said and done before referring to the case. “I was done when I mentioned the trial at all,” he said. “They’re welcome to pull my phone records.”

The bigger problem tends to be with jurors doing research on the case. Recently, another juror alerted a Florida judge to a juror’s e-indiscretions. The judge proceeded to interview the rest of the jury and found that eight other members had also looked things up online. After eight weeks of litigation, the judge decided to declare a mistrial.

Although the skeptical mind seeks answers and the evidence at hand may not be all that satisfying, when it comes down to it, the law is the law and not allowing the defendant (or prosecution) their ‘day in court’ by furtively searching the internet seems rather unethical.

More case information on Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers and Local Lawyers, visit http://www.lawyerahead.ca/

After articles related the equality, freedom and anti-discrimination under the same law we will take a simple question that many women have asked themselves. 25 years ago it was impossible even to sue someone without your husband but today can you sue for emotional distress? The short answer is yes, you can. A more detailed answer will follow.

Within the Canadian Legal System a spouse can seek a divorce from a husband shall the other spouse has committed any cruelty, damages or has been physically abusive.  Unlike our neighbors down South, Canadian Law does not allow the the party seeking divorce because of emotional distress to sue for Emotional Distress.

One of the main cases in the field was McCulloh V. Drake (Wyoming, 24P. 3d. 1162 (2001)).  the case revolved around a husband that began physically and sexually abusing the wife, soon after the marriage.  the wife decided that emotional distress caused to the other spouse by extreme and outrageous conduct by one spouse that can creat a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and entitile the victim to collect compensation for her suffering.

null

The conclusion of the court was following:

“emotional distress is as real and tormenting as physical pain, and psychological well-being deserves as much legal protection as physical well-being’. In preserving marital harmony as their main goal, the court held that ‘behaviour that is truly outrageous and results in severe emotional distress should not be protected in a misguided attempt to promote marital harmony.”

 The husband’s lawyers in this case argued this decision by backing it up saying that emotional distress caused while legally bound in a marriage does not count for anything illegal. Actually in some situations it is hard to understand if the emotional distress is a cause for a trial. A family is a complex thing and it is okay that two people won’t get along well in everyday life. Still some courts consider that a distress claim is better for a family than a divorce claim.

Another example is what to do in this situation if you are from Canada and you husband is from the United States (for example). In this case the laws of the civilized countries will protect you, but similar to the Canadian case you will be able only to get a jail sentence for the husband (if this is the first case of violence, he will most probable get a scolding and probation). The fees in this case will be impossible to get. Still we live in a time when the laws protecting women are becoming stronger every year, so don’t be afraid to sue your husband and demand a personal injury fee. If you have a good lawyer and great courage, you can probably end up as one of the cornerstone cases in women rights movement and some day we will write an article about you.

A coalition in Ontario has called for an inquiry into the representation of First Nations on Juries in the province, particularly in districts where First Nations make up the majority the population but are underrepresented in the Jury lists. Actually, in the district in question, there are about 44 members of First Nations on a jury role of about 700- in an area where First Nations make up about 20% of the population. Which makes for a roughly 6% representation in the jury role- something that’s going to have a severe impact on developing juries for crimes committed by and against members of the First Nations.

Julian Falconer is helping lead the coalition, for Nishnawbe Aski Nation and Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto. Falconer’s call for the inquiry comes from experience in an ongoing coroner’s inquest, though the issue is certainly not new. The deputy Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Alvin Fiddler, says that he and other First Nations have seen and been complaining about unfair juries for years. Though they’re not alone in saying this- Mark Israel published an article in the January 2003 issue of Law and Policy, titled “The Underrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples on Canadian Jury Panels.” The article outlines, quite thoroughly, the issue of Native representation on Juries and elsewhere in the legal system- even though they appear before this system in disproportionately high numbers.

All of this is important, but it simply builds on a much larger issue- the lack of representation of First Nations members in the courts system in general. While Canada’s certainly doing a bit better of a job by its Native population than the U.S., since Canada actively recruits First Nations members for local policing whereas the US doesn’t, it’s still, clearly, not enough. The lack of representation at higher levels- lawyers, judges, paralegals, and other members of the courts system- is also a problem.

This isn’t exactly the sort of topic that’s going to be solved by some banal comment about needing more acceptance- these are issues that require outreach and education, and lots of time and political effort to solve. Whether or not the political willingness exists, to put more time, effort, and resources into incorporating the First Nations into our judicial system. Whether or not the inquest that Falconer and others are calling for will help bring the awareness and will together to do this remains to be seen- though if they confine their work to simply jury representation, it’s unlikely we’ll find the types of programs we need to better integrate the First Nations, and make them feel comfortable in our judicial system.

On July 16, U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced a new policy which authorizes customs agents to seize, copy and analyze any information, including electronic media, transported by any individual entering or departing from the States. The authorities claim the policy is essential in detecting terrorists, drug smugglers, and people violating copyright or trademark laws.

Electronic Media is defined as: “any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form. Examples include: hard drives, compact disks, digital versatile disks, flash drives, portable music players, cell phones, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes and disks.”

Information disclosed to a lawyer in Canada is subject to almost complete confidentiality. Clients are entitled to expect privacy of the contents of their lawyer’s files and their communications with them. In unusual circumstances, a file can be examined by the law society, who is then bound by the same confidentiality as the lawyer is.

The new U.S. policy, in stark contrast, allows for the examination and seizure of all information “absent individualized suspicion”, i.e. without any evidence that the lawyer or his client is violating U.S. law. With regard to attorney-client privilege, the policy specifically states that “legal materials are not necessarily exempt from a border search”, but the official should seek advice from a U.S. attorney’s office before conducting the search.

While it may be reasonable for customs agents to inspect luggage for contraband, seizing a laptop and copying its hard drive is another question entirely - especially if it is the property of a Canadian lawyer. Perhaps it may be justifiable if there is evidence of a crime, but “absent individualized suspicion”, would seem to be a gross violation of privacy.

You can read the full content of the policy here (No. 1) and here (No. 2).

Click here to see the current immigration cases and Patent cases on lawyerahead.ca