Search Results

Receiving court papers can feel overwhelming and frightening. Whether it’s a Statement of Claim , a Notice of Motion , or another legal document, it’s easy to feel lost in the legal labyrinth. Statement of Claim in Ontario - instructions to defendant Understanding the Court Papers When served with court papers, it's important to comprehend what these documents mean. Here are common types of court papers you might encounter: Statement of Claim : This outlines the plaintiff's case and the specific reasons for the lawsuit. For example, if someone is suing you for $30,000 in damages related to an unpaid loan, or faulty construction work, the Statement of Claim would explain the incident, the claim amount, and the basis for their complaint. In Small Claims, this is called a Plaintiff's Claim. Notice of Motion : This indicates that a party plans to ask the court for a specific order, such as an i nterim order for return of your personal property . It’s essential to understand what they are asking for and how it might affect you. Defence : If you are the plaintiff, and you receive a defence document, it is crucial to determine whether you are permitted to "Reply" to maintain your legal position. Responding to the Court Papers After receiving court papers, crafting an appropriate response is usually your next step. In Ontario, you typically have 20 days to file a response to a Statement of Claim. Here's how to proceed: Consult with a Lawyer : Engaging a qualified lawyer can significantly enhance your understanding of the situation. For instance, a lawyer can provide targeted advice and help you frame a strong defense tailored to your unique situation. Prepare a Defence : If you choose to represent yourself, draft a Statement of Defence that clearly responds to each allegation made in the claim. Use clear, concise language to explain your side of the story. Consider hiring a lawyer to draft the document for you as part of "unbundled" services. An incorrect defence statement can negatively affect the entire case. File Your Documents : Make sure to file your response with the court and serve a copy to the other party. Following court rules is essential to ensure your documents are accepted. Possible Outcomes Understanding the possible outcomes of your case can help you manage your expectations: Settlement : Many disputes are settled before reaching court through negotiation, often resulting in compromise. In our experience, settlement doesn't usually happen at the initial stages, but towards the end of a matter, prior to trial. Court Hearing : If a settlement cannot be reached, your case may go to trial. Both parties will present their evidence, and a judge will make a ruling based on the facts presented. Default Judgment : If you don’t respond to the court papers, the plaintiff may seek a default judgment against you, leading to significant financial or legal repercussions. Know When to Seek Professional Legal Assistance Consider hiring an experienced lawyer to draft your response or to handle the case entirely. The right legal counsel can change the trajectory of your case. A lawyer can: Translate complex legal language into understandable terms, ensuring you grasp the implications of the documents you receive. Aid in compiling evidence and presenting a compelling case. Handle negotiations on your behalf, increasing the likelihood of securing a favorable settlement. Investing in legal support can save you considerable stress and lead to better outcomes in challenging situations. Please note that this post is not legal advice, as every situation differs. Some information here may not apply to your specific case. A close-up view of a stack of court papers.

Tribunal Watch Ontario says applicants’ lack of legal knowledge accounts for many dismissals. There has been a rise in tribunal-initiated 'motions to dismiss' using a variety of different forms, requiring Applicants to file further legal submissions. Self-represented Applicants are failing to do so, resulting in their complaint being dismissed. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ("HRTO") announced on October 25 a series of proposed procedural changes, including: eliminating summary hearings, case management conference calls, expedited hearings, and interim remedies.   Tribunals Ontario noted that it has made progress in reducing its caseload. In June, the number of active cases totalled 8,800 – nearly a 1,000 reduction from the 9,700 active cases in February 2023. Last year was the first time since 2013 that the tribunal was able to reduce its caseload. At Sage Legal Solutions, we understand that the human rights process can be confusing and time-consuming. If you aren't able to afford hiring a lawyer to take on your entire case, we can assist with a "limited retainer" by editing your application form, or completing further forms as required by the tribunal (HRTO). We can also assist with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. For information on limited assistance, you can contact us at: contact@sagelegalsolutions.ca and 289-270-7243.

The Ontario Superior Court declared a lawyer a 'vexatious litigant', barring him from initiating or continuing legal proceedings without prior court approval. This was due to his persistent abusive and harassing behaviour in litigation against the City of Toronto. October 5, 2022: Shane O’Herlihy filed a personal injury lawsuit against Toronto and a city employee, alleging assault at the Jack Layton Ferry Terminal. After the defence was filed,the lawyer embarked on a campaign of harassment, sending 392 emails, voicemails, and letters over 318 days to the defendants, their lawyers, and unrelated parties. His communications included threats to embarrass and harm the lawyers and their families. His motives? Forcing a settlement.

Courts held a secret trial recently. The names of the offender, lawyers and trial judge, and crimes for which the person was convicted, are all withheld. Highly unusual, but likely dealing with confidential informants. https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/news/ontario/the-redacted-court-of-justice-ontario-courts-held-apparently-secret-trial/article_58986e82-4acb-5df4-94ca-228ef2d3cbc7.html?li_source=LI&li_medium=canada

Court ordered a Toronto man to pay $4.7 million to 53 plaintiffs who said he was responsible for cyber harassment and defamation. Defendant refused to apologize or retract any of the defamatory statements. https://www.lawtimesnews.com/practice-areas/privacy-and-data/ontario-court-hands-down-47-million-judgement-against-internet-troll-who-defamed-hr-recruiters/377711

The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that arbitration clauses in employment agreements are, in most cases, an effective means of referring a dispute to arbitration as opposed to being determined in civil court. An arbitration clause is an agreement between contracting parties that certain disputes will be resolved by an arbitrator, not a civil court. Arbitration proceedings are often faster, less costly and more private than those in a court. If an agreement contains an arbitration clause and one party brings a civil claim, the defendant may ask the court to stay the claim and order the matter to arbitration instead. Two years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller , 2020 SCC 16 , which some have interpreted as limiting the enforceability of arbitration clauses, particularly in employment contracts or independent contractor agreements. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision Irwin v Protiviti , 2022 ONCA 533 confirms that (1) the exception articulated in Uber is a rare exception to the general rule that challenges to arbitration clauses should be referred to the arbitrator, and (2) most arbitration clauses can be relied upon to refer a dispute to arbitration, even in the face of arguments that the clause is not enforceable.

Ontario government asked to increase social assistance rates - Rates are well below the poverty line and have been stagnant since 2018. https://www.lawtimesnews.com/.../ontario.../368910

The company has agreed to reclassify staff on future trips as employees rather than volunteers. Some experts say we can expect to hear more cases like this and the settlement is a sign that the courts are adapting to the new realities of some workplaces. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/first-in-canada-class-action-settlement-makes-volunteers-employees-1.6547375?fbclid=IwAR2k4SkNLWhTdPYO9a1AtYs3k5ACmZL1C3CVvWH0BinUNI2OXIoEXntWFlQ

With the pandemic came a silver lining: courts and the justice system have adapted to 2022 technology. Hearings are being held over Zoom, mediations done over Microsoft Teams, and documents are able to be filed and shared online. These measures have helped to save costs (by removing travel requirements for lawyers and clients), save resources (by going paperless), and save time (no longer waiting in the courtroom but rather, able to work at your own desk while waiting for your Zoom hearing to begin). Of course, in-person interactions tend to be easier and do not suffer from technology issues and glitches. Moving forward, having both of these options assists with greater access to justice. For more information on How the pandemic radically reoriented Ontario's justice system, see: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/legal-system-ontario-covid-19-pandemic-1.6278927

REPOSTED from: THE LAWYERS DAILY Published by LexisNexis Canada Thursday, February 10, 2022 @ 10:51 AM | By Ian Burns The opening salvos have been fired in what several legal experts are saying will be the big story in labour and employment law over the next year — whether employers can dismiss their employees for not getting vaccinated for the COVID-19 virus. And they are also saying it is doubtful there will be a “one-size fits all” answer to that question. As the response to the pandemic unfurled, businesses from coast to coast brought in requirements that their workers should get vaccinated or face disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. And some employees who have been dismissed are taking their former bosses to court. One such person is Andrea Horvath, a B.C. accountant (not the Ontario NDP leader) who was let go from her position with Ducks Unlimited after not getting the jab. As part of her claim for wrongful dismissal, she points out that she is working from home 100 per cent of the time now and, since she will not be facing customers or other employees face to face, there is no need for her to take that step. In their response to Horvath’s claim, Ducks Unlimited says that although Horvath spent the majority of her time working from home, she was required to attend staff meetings in person and occupational health and safety (OHS) rules requires them to protect their employees and stakeholders, including a duty to prevent COVID-19 infection. But Horvath’s lawyer, Taran Dhanda-Sidhu of Vancouver’s Samfiru Tumarkin LLP, said she disagreed with those assertions. “[Horvath] works from home and didn’t feel it was necessary, and our position is that an employer doesn’t get to decide what occupational health and safety compliance entails — only the government does,” she said. “It is equivalent to an employer implementing something along the lines of no perfume in the workplace, and then firing an employee for cause for wearing perfume at home.” And Dhanda-Sidhu said her firm is dealing with similar lawsuits across the country. “It seems many companies, without being government mandated to do so, are bringing policies to say you have to be fully vaccinated in order to continue working there, whether the individual works from home or not,” she said. “Many of my clients do work 100 per cent remotely, so it just begs the question why the employer needs to know whether somebody at home is vaccinated or not and clearly it has not prevented them from doing their job over the last 18 to 20 months since the pandemic began — so why now? And those people are being put on unpaid leaves of absences or terminated for cause, and that is basically what are we dealing with on most of these files.” Legal experts say the issue of whether a business can dismiss someone due to their vaccination status is an issue that will play out repeatedly over the next year or two — and there will likely be no clear-cut answer on whether an employer can fire someone for not getting the jab. Stuart Rudner, an employment lawyer and mediator with Rudner Law in Markham, Ont., said a business can impose discipline on someone for breach of policy or insubordination as long as the policy is reasonable, and “that is where all of these cases or going to succeed or fall apart.” “On the one hand if you are talking about someone who is in a health-care institution and on the front lines, it is pretty reasonable to say they should be vaccinated,” he said. “But at the other end of the spectrum you may have a tech support worker or a sales employee who is working entirely remotely and never comes into contact with customers, and to me there isn’t really a reasonable basis to require they be vaccinated — so firing that person for cause is not justifiable and that is why this is not going to be a one size fits all analysis. Michael Lynk, a professor of labour and employment law at Western University in London, Ont., said if a mandatory vaccine policy is deemed to be reasonable there are four options companies should consider when dealing with someone who won’t get a jab — rapid testing, allowing the employee to work from home, considering whether that person has a religious or health exemption from vaccination, and then unpaid leave. “Some employers are saying if you don’t get a vaccination we are going to fire you, and I’ve seen some decisions which have upheld terminations,” said Lynk, pointing to a recent arbitral decision in Ontario which dismissed a number of grievances of Hydro One’s mandatory vaccine policy. “The big issue in 2021 was vaccine mandates, and the big issue in 2022 will be what are the allowable exceptions for mandatory vaccines if the policy itself is deemed to be reasonable. And that likely depends on the workplace.” Rudner said he expects to see a “tremendous” amount of litigation over the next few years with largely inconsistent results. “It is going to come back to if you can justify this requirement as reasonable, and that isn’t even one size fits all for most organizations. Even in a health-care setting you may have people working directly with patients, and you may also have staff working remotely or an office space where there are other ways to ensure safety — it is going to really be a fact-specific analysis,” he said. “And the issue is very likely to make it to the appeal level, if not the Supreme Court at some point, because it is a big one and a matter of national importance, because it applies across the country. And we all know anything related to vaccination triggers some very strong opinions.” Pictured: Michael Lynk, Western University. If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for The Lawyer’s Daily please contact Ian Burns at Ian.Burns@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5906. https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/all_news/articles/33494/big-issue-in-2022-will-be-extent-of-allowable-exceptions-to-mandatory-vaccine-policies-law-prof

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released an updated Notice to Profession and Public Regarding Court Proceedings, which is in effect until February 28, 2022. The Court recommends that participants use virtual methods of meeting. In particular, Civil and Family matters will proceed virtually, with some urgent situations proceeding in a hybrid hearing. "Access to participate in a virtual hearing: Where a litigant does not have access to the necessary technology to participate in a virtual hearing, and does not have a lawyer who is able to provide supports or resources, they should reach out to their local court office immediately so that arrangements can be made to facilitate their participation in the hearing." For full details, see: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/notices-and-orders-covid-19/court-proceedings-notice/

Disconnect from work: Employers with 25 or more employees are now required to have a written policy with respect to disconnecting from work. The term “disconnecting from work” is defined to mean not engaging in work-related communications, including emails, calls, video calls, sending or reviewing messages. (amendment to Employment Standards Act, 2000) An employer shall provide a copy of the written policy with respect to disconnecting from work to each of the employer’s employees within 30 days of preparing the policy. An employer shall provide a copy of the written policy with respect to disconnecting from work that applies to a new employee within 30 days of the day the employee becomes an employee of the employer. Non-Compete: Prohibits employers from entering into employment contracts or other agreements with an employee that are, or that include, a non-compete agreement. “non-compete agreement” means an agreement, between an employer and an employee that prohibits the employee from engaging in any business, work, occupation, profession, project or other activity that is in competition with the employer’s business after the employment relationship between the employee and the employer ends. Passed into legislation: Bill 27 was read in Fall 2021. On December 2, 2021, it received Royal Assent. https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-2/bill-27#BK4 This is not legal advice and some exceptions may apply. For further information on these matters, and specific advice on your situation, please contact our lawyers.