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

Like most insurance policies, motor vehicle accident (MVA) insurance is something you “have”, but tend not to investigate until you need it. Policies vary in coverage and amounts paid should an accident occur. Although no policy is complete, anyone injured in a MVA is entitled to certain benefits no matter who was at fault.

Under the Canadian No-fault law, car accident victims are allowed to sue the other party for damages in addition to the insurance settlement. Insurance companies pay benefits out according to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), but these payments may not be enough to remedy expenses in a fault MVA. In the rare case that neither party has insurance, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund takes care of the injured party’s expenses.

Expenses covered are:

• Loss of Income. If injuries sustained from the accident prevented you from working at your job, the income lost during the recovery period may be reimbursed. Under the Insurance Act, parties are eligible for up to 80% of their net income from accident to trial and up to 100% gross income loss after trial.
• Medical Expenses. Any medical costs incurred. This includes rehabilitation.
• Attendant Care Expenses. After being injured and then released from the hospital, you may require the help of a nurse or other professional. MVA payments cover this.
• Additional Expenses. Expenses relating to the treatment of injuries sustained during an MVA such as travel costs, any prescribed apparatus, and other costs incurred because of the injuries.

Consulting with your lawyer after an accident is the best way to figure out what you are entitled too. The means of tabulating damages can be complicated and an experienced Canadian lawyer will have a good idea of what settlement you deserve. They will guide you on what to do if your insurance company wants a statement or the other party’s insurance company wants to talk with you among other issues.

It is best to be proactive about your MVA insurance policy. Before an accident occurs, find a lawyer to discuss what is and is not covered and what coverage would be best for you. A little preparation goes a long way and a simple consultation can help ease the mind over one’s safety if an accident ever does occur.

For more information on Canadian Lawyers, Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers and previous, real examples of cases related to your car accident situation you might be facing , visit www.lawyerahead.ca

Originally, this case, involving $30,000 dollars worth of debt owed to a collection agency, was won with evidence from Wikipedia. The debt collection lawyer company, Palisades Collection LLC introduced a page from Wikipedia to support their claim that Steven Graubard owed them $30,000. The Supreme Court of New Jersey found in favor of the company, but recently, this was overturned on appeal based on the infamous wiki evidence.

According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia was launched in January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and is currently the most popular general reference work on the Internet. This online reference utilizes a much-criticized way of informing the public by allowing the public itself to create accounts and entries regarding whatever they so please and saying whatever the author wants it to say. Although there is a vast array of wiki police that search for recent changes and do their best to eliminate the ridiculous, there is always a chance one entry may slip through the cracks and misinform the public. (Example: about a year ago, I posted that “30% of graduates go on to acquire doctorates of theology” on a wiki for a community college in my area. It took about two weeks for it to be removed.)

In the Appellate court’s opinion they wrote, “”Anyone with an Internet connection can create a Wikipedia account and change any entry in Wikipedia…” and that “It is entirely possible for a party in litigation to alter a Wikipedia article, print the article, and thereafter offer it in court in support of any given position… Such a malleable source of information is inherently unreliable.”

In the case, lawyers for Palisades Collection used an article from Wikipedia to show that JPMorgan bought Bank One. This being part of the debated chain-of-custody for who Mr. Graubard actually owed money to. They alleged that his credit card debt ping ponged between creditors from the original Chevy Chase Bank credit card to Bank One Corp. to JPMorgan and then finally to Palisades Collection. Their presentation convinced the judge to order that Graubard pay Palisades $17,500.

To me this speaks to the work ethic of Palisade’s lawyers. Saving a few minutes by using Wikipedia instead of probably thousands of other, more reputable sources to illustrate a simple chain-of-custody is now costing them time and money. It will be interesting to see if the ruling holds up or if in fact the courtroom will soon be flooded with wikis. Hopefully, this doesn’t cost some poor paralegal her job.

For information on Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers, or to find lawyer in your area, visit www.lawyerahead.ca

Wills are the one of the most interesting legal documents in the history of mankind!  Numerous movies and books in the past has had a will as the center of the plot.  History of wills hold many example of interesting and curious cases of wills.  There are have been instances of people preferring very short wills to complicated ones. 

The first two shortest wills belongs to Bimla Rishi of Delhi and Karl Tausch.  Bimla Rishi’s will dated February 9, 1995 only contained one phrase in Hindi “All to son”; and to Kall Tausch’s will dated January 19, 1967 consisted only of the phrase “All to wife”. 

Some other famous wills left by certain individuals has had tremendous impact and can be felt even today.  For example, the famous Nobel Prize was founded in Alfred Nobel’s will.  While some great men and women in the history have done extra ordinary things with their wills beyond just distributing their assets, other notable individuals have died without even having a single will.  Among them Abraham Lincoln (also a lawyer), Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, James A. Garfield, Howard Hughes, Martin Luther King, Jr.  Rocky Marciano, Tupac Shakur, Kurt cobain, Buddy Holly, Lenny Bruce, Billie Holiday, Marvin Gaye, Sam Cooke, Cass Elliot, Sonny Bono, Tiny Tim, Karl Marx and Pablo Picasso.

null

Yet another famous wills case is the Estate of Kidd case found on the body of a deceased Arizona prospector who left his entire $250,000 estate “for research or some scientific proof of a soul of the human body which leaves at death.  I think in time, there can be a photograph of a soul leaving the human at death.”

Yet another famous wills case belongs to Charles Vance Millar, a canadian lawyer and financier.  His unusual will that came in effect after this death in 1926, on the 9th clause of his will, required that the balance of Millar’s estate was to be converted to case and then given to the woman who gave birth to the most children in 10 years following his death.  Strange enough indeed.   He further went onto outline that in the event of tie, the money is was to be distributed equally among the candidates.  This triggered the event called the Great Stork Derby.  In the following 10 years many women in Toronto started to get pregrant and as quick as possible.  In 1936, after it was all said and done, the winning mothers were Anie katherine Smith, Kathleen Ellen Nagle, Lucy Alice Timleck and Isabel Mary Maclean.  they each had nice children and received a sum of $125,000. 

Two more women Lillian Kenny who had 10 children yet 2 were still unborn) and Pauline Mae Clarke who had 10 children but several were considered illegitimate received a sum of 12,500 out of court.  During the ten years of the Great Stork Derby, the Supreme Court of Canada attempted to invalidate the will as being contrary to the public policy.  In addition, Millar’s distant relatives also tried to have the will declared invalid.  But being a lawyer, millar had the will very well prepared and it survived 10 years of litigation.  Because of his investment in the Detroit Windsor Tunnel, Millar’sestate increased drastically during the 10 years to a net worth of 750,000 dollars. A lot of money in those days.

What will your will look like ?  I’m certainly going to think about mine……

Lawyerahead.ca is the best way to find lawyers for any legal issues wills and beyond wills.

Famed dictator and American prisoner for nearly the last two decades, Noriega is set to be extradited to France against his wishes. Now 75, Noriega has been fighting the extradition for the last two years while being held in U.S. custody.

Noriega’s lawyer plans to appeal to the State Department if things keep going the way they are. The goal being to get Noriega back to Panama, where he was convicted in absentia of charges ranging from embezzlement to murder.

Although they say Noriega is a prisoner of war, the court ruled that nothing in the Geneva Conventions “implies that a contracting party cannot abide by a valid extradition treaty and extradite a prisoner of war to another contracting party simply because the person is a prisoner of war.” Both the United States and France are ‘contracting parties’.

So why France? Well, Noriega allegedly laundered drug money through French banks. The French government convicted Noriega in his absence for this in 1999, but say they plan on holding a new trial once he gets there.

Manuel Noriega was the Panamanian general who collaborated with the CIA. Medellin advocate, Noriega was known for brutal tactics and the usual gamut of underworld activities. The CIA and DEA both at times praised Manuel for his anti-drug efforts, which (strangely enough) seemed to be only geared towards rival drug traffickers. In 1989, the U.S. decided they didn’t like Noriega anymore so they invaded Panama, kidnapped him and brought him back stateside for a trial. He was sentenced to 30 years and was ‘released’ after 17 for good behavior.

Similarly we have had many drug crimes and other corruption crime coming out of Vancouver and Toronto.   Bizzare stories about Vancouver lawyers are headlining this week, namely Dongdong Huang, who has detained by the Customs for  human trafficking enroute to Beijing.

In the economic slump we are currently facing, many are being “forced” to default on their mortgages. Foreclosure is when the bank forecloses or calls in the loan (mortgage) it gave for a house or property. This process of calling in the loan usually takes a few months and leaves homeowners homeless and without equity. Unfortunately, many are choosing to walk away from their mortgage even when they can afford to make the payments after realizing they’re upside down (the mortgage is worth more than the house). When someone finds their mortgage to be too expensive, there are some avenues to explore before default.

Talk to your lender. If you cannot or will not soon be able to afford your mortgage payment, take action immediately. The sooner you talk to them (preferably, when you’re still in good standing), the more likely they will be to work with you. Banks and lenders would rather have your monthly payments than a house on their books. If the mortgage is an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) or an interest-only mortgage, negotiate to get it changed into a fixed rate mortgage. This is called ‘loan modification’. If you foresee a future bump in income, they may be willing to agree to forbearance in lieu of foreclosure, which means a lower or no payment for a specified amount of time. Ultimately, a default would harm you both and in a perverse way the depressed housing market gives you a bit more leverage when negotiating.

Bankruptcy. Bankruptcy may not immediately seem like a viable way to keep your house, but it can be. Other obligations may bog down or eliminate your ability to pay your mortgage and by getting out from under that debt, you may be able to save your house. For example, Jill has 18k in credit card debt of which she makes the minimum monthly payment of $300. Jill’s interest-only mortgage has recently adjusted from $600 a month to an unaffordable $900 a month. With other costs of living, her monthly expenses total $1800 as opposed to the previous total of $1500 before her mortgage adjusted. She makes $1600 a month. After negotiating with her lenders, the agreed to change the mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage with a slightly lower payment of $850 a month. Although Jill was able to save a hundred a month (in theory) before her mortgage adjusted, now she has to tap into that savings (if any) to just get by- even with her new, slightly lower fixed rate mortgage. By filing for bankruptcy on her credit card debt, she may be able to save herself from defaulting on her mortgage and losing her house outright. This can either be chapter 13 or 7. Thirteen being where Jill would agree to pay back her creditors and catch up on her mortgage by the time her bankruptcy discharges. Chapter 7 is where the creditors would not be paid back and, if Jill were current on her mortgage payments, she would be able to keep her house.

The government may be able to help as well. The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) may qualify you to participate in their FHASecure program and provide financing. The qualifications are specific, but giving them a call couldn’t hurt. After all, they are an agency set up to promote home ownership and provide multiple types of assistance to those looking to buy a house and homeowners.   Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers specializing in Real Estate can help.  If you are not from Toronto or Vancouver is not your place of residency, you may also post your case here and have a lawyer in your area contact you.

Unfortunately, there may come a time where a person needs to get a restraining order. Even though Canada has restraining orders, restraining orders in the U.S. resemble the Canadian Peace Bond. Here is a brief synopsis of what restraining orders and peace bonds are and how you obtain them.

A restraining order is a court document signed by a judge requiring a person to not do certain things and abide by certain conditions. The purpose of a restraining order is to legally protect individuals who feel they have been abused, harassed, stalked or otherwise mistreated by another. In many situations, this may be the only recourse a person has to prevent the other party from interfering with his or her life.

There are three main types of restraining orders: Emergency protective, Temporary and Permanent. Emergency protective orders go into effect immediately. These usually last a week or so and are issued to give people who feel they are in immediate danger peace of mind before they file for a restraining order.

Temporary restraining orders are usually given after filing for a permanent order. These last a bit longer than emergency protective orders and are a means of protection before and during the hearing for a permanent order.

Restraining orders, (permanent restraining orders) are orders given after a hearing. These orders can be in effect for years and renewed or cancelled if necessary.

To obtain a restraining order, you must first file the required paperwork. This paperwork can vary on locality, but in essence, it requires your name, address, and contact information, the nature of the abuse or reason why this order is needed and information about the person you need ‘restrained’.

Once the paperwork is filed, the judge decides if a temporary order is needed and sets a hearing date. At this point, the victimized party needs to ‘serve’ the appropriate documents to the alleged abuser. This can be accomplished with the help of a friend or a courier service.

At the hearing with lawyer present, the victim has to prove that the person they need a restraining order against committed abusive or harassing acts and that they actually do need protection. If all goes well, the judge will grant an order and the victim will receive a copy. They should make other copies of this order and make sure one is with them at all times. This ensures that if the offending party ever breaks the restraining order, the victimized party has something to show the police to prove that there is in actual order and that legal recourse is needed. In any event, if the offending party encounters the victimized party, the police should be called posthaste.

The steps to procure a peace bond are similar. One must first testify before a judge or justice of the peace about what has happened to make you fearful. Afterwards, another hearing will be scheduled where the alleged abuser attends.

At this second hearing, you and the other party are both given a chance to state your case as to why or why not a peace bond is needed. Bonds tend to be granted by default if the defendant fails to attend. Otherwise, the judge will decide whether a peace bond is necessary.

The main difference between restraining orders and peace bonds is the length of time they last. Peace bonds are good up to a year whereas restraining orders are more open-ended. After a year, if the bond is still needed, the Applicant must file an application for a new peace bond.

Toronto Lawyers, Vancouver Lawyers, and Lawyers in your area can help you with getting a restraining order at lawyerahead.ca.

Chris Bosh, Toronto’s favourite basketball icon and a 4 time all-star has gotten much media attention recently in Toronto over his child support lawsuit filed by his former live-in girlfriend and now mother of his daughter.  According to the lawsuit filed by Allison Mathis, Raptor’s star dumped her after his return from the Olympics game.  The lawsuit claims that not only did he no longer supported her financially, he also attempted to remove her from his 1.6 million dollar Texas home.

Allison Mathis at that time did not have a job and as a result was forced to move in with her mother.  After 3 weeks of since their daughter was born, she certainly didn’t waste tiem to file her lawsuit.  She is now on record demanding support for herself and her new born.
Chris Bosh makes 14.4 million usd as it stands.  One can expect the child support payment to be a not so regular child support an average income maker would pay. 

In Chris Bosh’s defense, his lawyer claims Bosh began legal proceedings to support his daughter finincially and gain child visitation rights well before Allison’s lawsuit.

We will just have to see how this plays out and most importantly we will have to wait and see if he is able to settle out of court or if lengthy legal proceedings are required.

Robert Rotenberg, a lawyer who opened his criminal law practice 18 years ago has now published a crime thriller based in Toronto itself.

Here is a snippet of this story Line as published by Toronto Star’s Geoff Pevere

“… As police, reporters and various representatives of the local legal community scramble around the periphery of the murder of a popular radio host’s young wife, Toronto flashes by with captivating vividness: streetcars rumble along College St., traffic chokes the terminally congested DVP, sinister confabs unfold at the Vespa Lunch and late-night hockey games crack and slap in the chilly air at Nathan Phillips Square. …”

Toronto Criminal lawyer Robert Rotenberg’s book is titled “Old City Hall” and can be found at a book store near you.

The E. Coli outbreak in Toronto, originating from a Harvey’s restaurant in the city, is now leading to a class-action lawsuit, as two of the victims of the outbreak, Bradley Bell and Daniel Goguen, file their claim. There are 209 suspected cases of E. Coli, all of which tie back to the one Harvey’s restaurant. One of the victims, a child, is in serious condition at Sick Kids Hospital as of last night.

Cases first started being reported about two weeks ago, though it took them several days to discover the common factor between the cases. The Havey’s was closed that Sunday evening, though a public statement of this wasn’t made until Tuesday.

While there are 209 possible cases, only 39 have been confirmed through laboratory testing (this apparently takes quite a while), and it seems as though the disease was limited to the one restaurant, and thus not a particular issue for other Toronto residents. However, the Health Department and other local government agencies seemed slow to respond, and concerns have been raised about their ability to respond to more severe crises.

Though, with so many possible cases, including such serious cases, it seems like this class-action suit may grow. Cara Operations Ltd. (Harvey’s parent company) was the only party named in the suit, and the two gentleman are currently asking for $17,000,000 in damages.

So, whether or not Harvey’s corporate owners are liable for the hygiene (or lack thereof) at this particular branch, remains to be seen. Best of luck getting over the E. Coli, though, guys.

In other food news, a whole bunch of William Davids Foods sandwiches are being recalled! And, yeah, it’s our favorite reason for recalls these days: Listeria. While there are no illnesses reported that are related to these foods yet, apparently they may be contaminated, so avoid them. And while this is, of course, in the wake of a bevy of cases of Listeria this summer, and then several Listeria-related class action lawsuits. Whether there will be cases from William Davids Foods, and whether they will further be held liable for their food’s safety, is yet to be seen.

And so while it seems that our food services industry here is primarily devoted to keeping liability lawyers busy, we can always remember- at least we have legal recourse when things go wrong, unlike in China.

[E.Coli: Globe and Mail, Listeria: Toronto Star]