Employment equity is an anti-discrimination policy in Canada that requires or encourages preferential treatment in employment practices for certain designated groups (the ones who are often discriminated): women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. While being a defense for these groups it goes beyond and also requires that these specific groups be targeted for proactive treatment. The whole process of establishing employment equity began in 1984 by the Abella Commission, chaired by Judge Rosalie Abella. She considered the US term, affirmative action, but decided to reject that term because of the emotions and ill will surrounding affirmative action. It was replaced with employment equity term for Canada. The report filled by Judge Abella later became the foundation of the Employment Equity Act of 1986, which was later amended as the Employment Equity Act of 1995. 

The Employment Equity Act designates four groups that have benefit of employment equity:

- Women;

- People with disabilities;

- Aboriginal people;

- Visible minorities;

In case of visible minorities and using the definition of the Canadian government, it covers: Blacks, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans, Latin Americans, Pacific Islanders, South Asians, and West Asians/Arabs. As for aboriginal people, this category covers Status Indians, Non-status Indians, Métis (people of mixed French-Aboriginal ancestry in western Canada), and Inuit (the Aboriginal people of the Arctic). Both of these categories use the controversial term “non-white” for defining the minorities. It is used in employment equity questionnaires distributed to applicants and employees. While it was intended to be a shorthand phrase it ended up as very confusing term, since people from some groups (like Arabs or Latin Americans) may consider themselves to be white which leads to mistakes in questionnaires. The Act is a federal legislation and so it covers only the industries that are federally regulated under the Canadian constitution.   These are banks, broadcasters, telecommunication companies, railroads, airlines, maritime transportation companies, other transportation companies if inter-provincial in nature, uranium-related organizations, federal crown corporations (companies where the federal government owns the majority of shares), and corporations controlled by two or more provincial governments. Unfortunately a big percentage of employers like all retailers and manufacturing companies, fall outside its jurisdiction.

The Federal Contractors’ Program (FCP), it is not a part of the Employment Equity Act, but it helps to extends employment equity to organizations beyond the scope of the Act. It states that suppliers of goods and services to the federal government (with some specified exceptions) must have an employment equity program in place.

While the act was definitely created with good intentions it is widely considered controversial. The opponents of employment equity argue that it violates the equality in general. But the critics argue that such actions are necessary to amend historic wrongs and to minimize economic differences between groups.

For more information on Canadian lawyers, Employment Labour Lawyers or lawyers in yoru area, you can visit http://www.lawyerahead.ca

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a multi-level value-added tax which was introduced in Canada on January 1, 1991. Canada belongs to 120 countries that impose a consumption tax or “value added tax” on goods and services. GST in Canada replaced a hidden 13.5% Manufacturers’ Sales Tax (MST), while its introduction was controversial the government stated that GST was implemented because the MST hurt the manufacturing sector’s ability to export.

The history of the GST began in 1989, when the Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney proposed to create a national sales tax of 9%. At that time, all the provinces in Canada except for Alberta had its own provincial sales tax.

The main purpose of the GST was to replace the 13.5% Manufacturers’ Sales Tax and Federal Telecommunications Tax of 11%. The federal government was expecting that the removal of the tax will aid Canadian manufacturers in their international competitiveness.

The tax became a controversy right from the beginning. While it was definitely helpful for the manufacturers and was promoted as revenue-neutral in relation to the MST, the opposition stated that the tax would make life more costly for Canadians. After a short stand, Mulroney used a little-known constitutional provision to increase the number of senators by eight temporarily, thus giving the Progressive Conservatives a majority in the upper chamber. The Opposition launched a filibuster and further delayed the legislation. The tax was lowered to 7% and Government defended the tax as a replacement for a tax unseen by consumers because it was placed on manufacturers. Eventually it came into force on January 1, 1991. In 2006 the Conservative Party of Canada reduced the tax by 1% (to 6%) on July 1, 2006 as part of an election promise. On January 1, 2008 they lowered it to 5%, bringing it to its current state.

The GST law is covered by the Excise Tax Act and all the Canadian Revenue Agency (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency before 2003). As of January 2009, the tax is 5% and applies to most goods and services, except for: used residential housing; most health, medical and dental services; day care; music lessons; and certain goods and services provided by non-profit organizations, governments, and other public service bodies. There are also a number of Zero Rated goods and services like: basic groceries, prescription drugs, exports, and any property or service that is for the use of the Governor General. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, have a combined tax of 13% which is composed of 8% provincial portion and the 5% GST. The aboriginal people in Canada are exempt from payment. Like in many countries with the GST, visitors for up to 60 days can apply to have their tax refunded. When they are leaving the country they can fill out a form at a Canadian airport or some duty free stores at border crossings. After that the visitor sent in original receipts with a stamp by Canadian Customs. Cheques are mailed to the visitor within a few weeks.

To find tax lawyers, business lawyers and lawyers in Canada, please visit http://www.lawyerahead.ca/

Word of mouth is a strong determinant in selecting a lawyer for some.  Like family physicians, a friend mentions the name of their much beloved doctor of 14 years and soon that doctor has a new set of patients.  In a sense, this applies to law, but more often than not, someone else’s attorney may not be the best representation for you.  Finding a suitable attorney is a process of understanding exactly what your legal needs are, seeking out an attorney who practices in these areas, and grilling them during a consultation to determine if they are your best choice.

            What do you need an attorney for anyway?  The law has many facets with different court systems set up to handle different types of cases.  A lawyer could plausibly have a footing in all forms of the law from contract to family, but it is highly doubtful that this sort of lawyer will have years of experience with each.  It is important before you go shopping for an attorney to isolate what kind of case you will be involved in.  Is this an effort to change the visitation arrangements with your children in Vancouver?  Vancouver Lawyers specializing in family law is best.  Do you need representation for a DUI charge in Toronto?  Toronto Lawyers specializing in criminal defense should handle this.  Once you have established your case type, it is time to go looking.

            There are many different ways to find lawyers.  Thanks to the Internet, you do not even have to leave your home.  Attorneys advertise their services on various websites like lawyerahead.ca and it has gotten to the point where it is a buyer’s market.  For any case type, there are quite a few qualified attorneys willing to handle it.  It boils down to a few resumes that stand out.  After you have a short list of lawyers worthy enough to represent you in court, set up consultations and see how they are in person.

            Consultations are two-way interviews.  The lawyer is determining whether they will take your case and you are deciding if they are good picks.  Solid experience is one thing, but nothing compares to sitting down face-to-face and seeing how a person handles themselves.  Are they congenial?  Do they seem preoccupied and disinterested in your case?  Having a list of thoughtful questions going in to a consultation will make the appointment more fruitful.  One should make a point to bring up the exciting topic of how much representation will cost, who exactly will be handling the case (will it be delegated), expected outcomes, and the timeframe from beginning to end.  If you are happy with their answers, you still have the choice to shop around.  Maybe the lawyer down the street will have similar experience expertise and mannerisms but charge $200 less.  Who knows?  Scheduling a handful of consultations ahead of time lets you flesh out your options a bit better and choose more wisely.

            After all that rigmarole, it is time to break out the checkbook and make a decision.  After all the vetting, the choice will sit well and the case will go smoothly.  The true test of course takes place in the courtroom and perhaps after favorable results, you might one day happily recommend your attorney to a friend.

Here are a list of recent cases on Lawyerahead.ca requiring legal representation from lawyers:

1. Writing a will
2. Speeding Ticket
3.  Work Place Accidents
4. Business Tax Arrears (business Income Tax)
5. Serious Motor Cycle Accident
6. Dog Bite
7. Possession of Marijuana
8. Spousal Support Review
9. Parternship Dissolves and Disputes
10. Impaired Driving / Drunk Driving
11. Common Law Separation
12. Sexual Harrassment
13. Common Law Prenuptual Agreements
14. Real Estate Litigations
15. Expired Reseller Agreements - Commercial Litigation
16. Adoptions
17. Private Adoption
18. Slip and Fall
19. Possession of a Controlled Substance
20. Search Warrants

Lawyer/Client Relationship

The relationship between a lawyer and client is best summed up by a synonym - a lawyer is an advocate. And an advocate is “a person who speaks or writes in support or defense of a person or cause.” Just as a physician is duty bound by their profession to protect and improve the physical health of their patient, so too is a lawyer bound to protect the legal health of a client.

The tradition of trust and service was important enough for even the Supreme Court to have stated, as far back as 1850,

“…There are few of the business relations of life involving a higher trust and confidence than that of attorney and client, or, generally speaking, one more honorably and faithfully discharged; few more anxiously guarded by the law, or governed by sterner principles of morality and justice; ”

The Lawyer’s obligations

Your lawyer is bound to represent you within the ethics of the profession and the strictures of the law. This means that without your consent (and in most cases insistence) they cannot act against your interests, and this extends to other cases they may take on as part of their practice. Some parameters attorneys must follow include:

·       Attorneys must be knowledgeable in the area of the law your case requires - it would be unethical for them to act without proper competence or without the ability to analyze the legal issues.

·       Your lawyer is required to follow your directions in how your case should be handled. He or she may present you with options and recommendations, but you have the final say.

·       Attorneys are forbidden to operate under a conflict of interest. They may not, for instance, represent both parties in a dispute.

·       Your lawyer must keep you informed as a legal matter progresses.

·       Any property in a lawyers custody must be kept separate from the lawyer’s own and must be surrendered when demanded.

·       Communications must be kept confidential - both by the attorney, their staff, and any others they hire. This obligation may at times be broken when ordered by a court for specific reasons.

Your lawyer is not required, and in fact is prohibited, from performing any illegal actions at your request.

The Client’s obligations

As a client, you are obliged to be honest and forthcoming with your attorney. Your communications are protected to allow you to fully reveal information, even embarrassing or culpable facts. Other obligations:

l  Being available to your attorney, both for simple communication and for legal proceedings you are required to attend. This means having good contact information and timely responses.

l  Cooperation. There may be legal reasons to do something you find onerous or simply inconvenient. Your lawyer will be handicapped if you argue and fight the help they offer. If you do not understand the purpose of some act or request - ask.

l  Payment. Clients are obligated to pay for the services they receive and should do so willingly. Attorneys will discuss rates and charges with you when requested, and clients should be comfortable with financial arrangements. However, your attorney is a professional who performs a service for a fee - a fee that should be paid.

For more information on Find Lawyer, Canadian Lawyers, Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers and lawyers in your local area, visit www.lawyerahead.ca

Severance pay amounts vary depending on the length of employment before separation, contract stipulations, and on salary. The age and seniority of the terminated employee are definite factors as well when determining how much severance is owed. Being that the ultimate goal of termination pay and severance is to provide an employee time to find a different job, age plays a large role because it becomes more difficult the older you get.

Age and length of service increase the severance amount. In the case of a 59 yr old rabbi who was let go after 26 years of service, the court decided that even though his employer gave notice 9 months prior to termination, it was inadequate and required them to pay the rabbi the remainder of 30 months of severance. Because the rabbi never “intended to be employed for a limited term” and considered an indefinite term employee, he was eligible to receive severance pay. Contrasting this, another case found that a 29 year old store manager with five years of service was eligible for 5 months of severance pay, even though the circumstances surrounding his termination were… much less favorable than that of the rabbis (The store manager was falsely accused of sexual harassment).

According to Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), employees are eligible for severance pay if the business they worked for goes bankrupt. Stating that, “former employees are entitled to make claims for termination pay (including vacation pay due thereon) and severance pay as unsecured creditors.” In this case, Rizzo Shoes went bankrupt suddenly and many employees were ‘economically dislocated’ because of it. Qualifying them as unsecured creditors allowed employees to pursue severance claims against Rizzo.

Eligibility aside, the amount of severance varies on a case-by-case basis. Consideration is given to the length of employment, age and chances of the terminated employee to procure new work, and the circumstances surrounding the dismissal. Judicial discretion plays a role as well.

Lawyer experienced with employment law will have a good idea of what severance pay you are entitled to.

Recent employment cases for lawyers:  seniority employment case, wrongful dismissal after 10 yrs of employment, wrongful dismissal human rights tribunal, illegal employment termination.

For more information on employment labour lawyers in Toronto, employment labour law firms in toronto, visit http://www.lawyerahead.ca    

Functionality of social media and connectivity are growing on the Internet. Many businesses are creating Twitter accounts and Facebook pages. Direct marketing and relationship marketing thrive with these forms of interactive tools. Another innovative technique lawyers are using to market their firm is Google profile and alerts. These may seem foreign but setup is a breeze.

Google Profile allows anyone to create a personal, searchable page on Google. Once an account is created (if you do not have one already with Google), you begin by entering in data about yourself or business into the form and any links you would like displayed. Google allows users to upload photos and contact information. Click the ‘create profile’ button and you are finished. Here is an example of a Miami firm’s profile.

Google Alerts keeps you updated on stories or people you are interested in. It works by allowing users to isolate key phrases or words they often search for and emailing or delivering via feed new results. For instance, a VP at Pampers may want up to date information about its competitor, Huggies. By creating a Google Alert for “Huggies”, they no longer have to dedicate time to searching for themselves. Google will email them any new developments posted on the web about Huggies.

Other applications for Google Alerts include monitoring what others are saying about your business (or you). By creating an Alert for your name, any occurrence of it in the press will immediately be mailed or show up on a Feed Reader.

To create a Google Alert, first login to your account and go here. Proceed to type in whatever search term(s) you desire. Google gives you the option to search only news, videos, blogs, groups or all of the above (comprehensive). This can be useful as a filtering mechanism. Next, they want to know how often you would like updates. The choices are once a day, as it happens or once a week. Finally, Google needs to know how you want this information sent to you- to either a Google account email or feed.

These two quick and useful tools go a long way to monitor and market. They are both extremely powerful and user-friendly. To get an account with Google and get started go here.

For more information on Canadian Lawyers, Lawyer Marketing, Law firm advertising visit http://www.lawyerahead.ca/

Much like working with an accountant, working with a lawyer is a collaborative venture. The more information you provide to your lawyer, the better they can perform in the courtroom. Simple, subtle little instances surrounding a case can change the whole landscape of how you can be defended. In civil suits, the seemingly mundane make or break some claims. Not necessarily if you plucked your eyebrows that morning, but other little things like the time of day, the atmosphere, and other details can affect a suit. Among those, here are some things you should know about working with a lawyer.

Their time is precious. Lawyers have caseloads. If they did not, they would probably go bankrupt. Be respectful of their time and the scheduled consultation appointments. If you cannot make one for whatever reason, politely call ahead and request a new time that would work out better for the both of you. Simple courtesy goes a long way.

If they ask, give it to them. Many times, a lawyer might need records or assorted documents for the case. They could be dead ends or they could be the details that add case-changing elements. Either way, if they ask for something, do your best to get it to them as quickly as possible. The longer they have to examine the files and decide their pertinence to the case, the better.

If they have not asked and it seems pressing, give that to them too. Lawyers are human and may forget to ask for something relating to the case that you feel “should be mentioned”. Why not mention them? Much like a doctor, who cannot read your mind about your knee pain, lawyers do not know “everything”. Waiting for them to ask about a related piece of info is counterproductive when you can just tell them and let them include or exclude it. If the information pertains to deviant or illegal behavior, remember your client/attorney privilege.

Follow their advice. Lawyers have copious amounts of experience in the courtroom, or at least more than you do (hopefully). At times, they may request that you dress or act a certain way during proceedings. Take their advice. Courtrooms are rich in procedure and appearances (the robes should give that away). The element of respect and dress code may be at a strange level inside the courtroom, but it should be followed. If your lawyer takes the time to ask you to do something in a specific way, take the time to follow their advice.

Finally, remember that they are working for you. This does not mean be a bossy jerk, more that the two of you are on the same team. You share the same goals. If the attorney offers you a plea deal or settlement, they are not trying to swindle you; they are presenting the option they feel is the best deal you are going to get. Hear them out. It may seem unreasonable and maybe it is, but most likely, the deal is fair and probably the outcome that would have happened anyway with a long trial. Heed their advice!

For more information on Lawyers, Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers or any other Canadian Lawyers, you may visit http://www.lawyerahead.ca/

Adult child support invokes the response that most oxymorons entail- say what now? Although adults are not children, some adult children or adult dependants cannot survive on their own and require the assistance of their parents. Some cases that fall under this category are when a son or daughter is mentally disabled or otherwise impeded by afflictions, depending on parents while attending university, or any other case that disallows these ‘children’ to support themselves.

The Divorce Act slips in a nifty little catchall allowing ‘other causes’ to be reason for adult child support. The act defines a ‘Child of Marriage’ as, “[someone] the age of majority or over and under their charge but unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessities of life.” As blurry as the guidelines are for who exactly deserves support, judges have done a good job of restraining the age limit.

Some of the other causes affirming support payments according to case law include pregnancy, unemployment, and post-secondary education. According to the British Columbia Justice presiding in Wesemann v. Wesemann, he refers to his “four-step approach” to determine support:

1. Decide whether the child is a “child of the marriage” as defined in the Divorce Act. If s/he is not, that ends the matter.
2. Determine whether the approach of applying the Guidelines as if the child were under the age of majority (“the usual Guidelines approach”) is challenged. If that approach is not challenged, determine the amount payable based on the usual Guidelines approach.
3. If the usual Guidelines approach is challenged, decide whether the challenger has proven that the usual Guidelines approach is inappropriate. If not, the usual Guidelines amount applies.
4. If the usual Guidelines approach is inappropriate, decide what amount is appropriate, having regard to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child and the financial.

At minimum, this and other such meticulous lists depict how considerate judges are on the subject.

In the abstract for Child Support for Adult Children: When Does Economic Childhood End? Nicholas Bala notes, “Reflecting the changes in intact families where young adults are living with their parents longer as well as looking to parents for more financial support, compared to a couple of decades ago, the courts in Ontario and other Canadian provinces are now more likely to recognize the obligation to provide support for adult children.” Apparently, now more than ever, offspring are living at home and depending upon their parents far beyond the 18-year benchmark.

Although there is opportunity for exploitation because of its murkiness, adult child case law has done a good job so far of reining in the longevity of support and monitoring who and who doesn’t require continued support. Support tends to hinge on certain requirements (if for unemployment, that they are actively searching for work, or in the case of pregnancy that the young lady return to work once the baby is eight months old) that makes it less like welfare and more like welfare-to-work.

It is always recommended to consult a lawyer relating to such matters.

For more information on Find Lawyer, Lawyers, Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers, Canadian Lawyers, Adult Child Support and Family Law visit http://www.lawyerahead.ca/

The rights of the disabled have been championed by many an organization. Few countries have museums dedicated to the rights struggle, but Canada is among these caring few. Legislating rights has always been a delicate balance between exclusion and reality. For example, handicap parking spaces may be exclusionary and you may grumble about them but at the same time, they have a realistic purpose. It is important to understand the function of these laws, the rights disabled citizens have, and what she should do if one of those rights is violated.

As defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (on which the Canadians with Disabilities Act was patterned after) a person is considered disabled when they have a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.” This could be a wasting disease, a mental retardation or anything that interferes with normal daily activities. Many people are born with these disabilities and some accrue them during their lives via a car accident or injury on the job. In either case, if something happens to limit ones ability to function normally, they are considered disabled.

Specific rules are necessary to prevent unfavorable treatment of the disabled. Unfortunately, the Canadian government has yet to pass the Canadians with Disabilities Act (CDA) and many feel that without it, an atmosphere of discrimination will persist in Canada. Without sounding too biased, I would like to think Canadians are more ethical and mature than the US (I am American), but saying that, the states exemplify the potential for exploitation without passing anti-discrimination laws (pick a minority).

Forgetting the CDA for a moment, there are certain rights the disabled possess already. In an employment setting, employers should make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees. According to the Employer Equity Act, “every employer shall implement employment equity by . . . making such reasonable accommodations as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in each occupational group in the employer’s workforce that reflects their representation in society.” They go on to describe what is and what a “reasonable” accommodation is not. Reasonable accommodation issues arise in housing and services as well.

So what happens when one is discriminated against? Firstly, they should try to work it out with whomever they feel is acting in error. The problem may not be as obvious to them and one should try resolving the issue. Once they make it clear that they do not intend to rectify the situation, it is time to talk to your lawyer. Organizations like the Canadian Human Rights Commission can help as well.

For more information on accessibility laws, go here. As it stands now, the law leaves something to be desired. It would seem appropriate to enact the CDA or a similar bill to clear the air. Many government buildings and large institutions that are difficult or impossible for the disabled to access and perhaps legislation is necessary to level the playing field.

For more information on Lawyers, Find Lawyer, Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers or a lawyer in your geographical area, you may visit http://www.lawyerahead.ca/

A while ago Arizona decided it wanted a hockey team before it remembered it was in an arid, desert region of the United States. After they received the electric bill and no one showed up to watch their games the Coyotes decided to go bankrupt. And then billionaire hockey aficionado Jim Balsillie stepped in to buy the team and move it back up north to Canada.

Well this rubbed Arizona hockey fans the wrong way. Even though the team has lost over $300 million dollars in the 14 or so years it has been in Arizona, they really want the team to stay. The NHL wants the team to stay in Arizona as well and is asking everybody to buy the Coyotes to keep it out of Canadian hands. This fits with Arizona’s repertoire of taking things like the London Bridge from other countries and putting them in a desert. What is a billionaire to do?

Recently, the judge presiding over the team’s bankruptcy said the timeframe Balsillie had in mind was unrealistic. They needed more time to get things squared away and the June deadline just would not do. This led Balsillie to extend the offer to September. Balsillie wants a mediation hearing with the NHL to work out their differences. He is even considering paying a relocation fee of $100 million.

So can Jim Balsillie get his way? Oh yeah. Although Arizona and the NHL are being stubborn, the facts are obvious. In Arizona, the team loses money. Outside of their name, it makes no sense at all for the Coyotes to be in Arizona. The only reason the NHL is being a jerk about this is (I’m guessing) they want more money. And really, the only surprise is that it took this long for the team to go bankrupt.

Balsillie will get the team back into the homeland of hockey and Arizona will pout as they cash the check. Money talks and Balsillie has it. Soon enough, he and Ontario will have a new hockey team.

For information on Bankruptcy lawyers, toronto lawyers, vancouver lawyers and lawyers visit www.lawyerahead.ca