® Fall 2005
Transcription
® Fall 2005
Fall 2005 ® A straightforward look at law and business Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP is a fifteen-lawyer local law firm with offices in Kitchener and Guelph specializing in all areas of business law Time Really is of the Essence I n a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Court confirmed that the standard “time is of the essence” clause that appears in most purchase and sale agreements is just as important as any other clause and will be enforced by courts as such in appropriate circumstances. 1473587 Ontario Inc v. Jackson involved an agreement of purchase and sale between the owners of a farm property near Fergus, Ontario and a major grocery store operator for the purchase of a 12 acre portion of a 56 acre parcel of land at a price of $150,000 per acre. As is the case with most commercial purchase and sale agreements, the agreement included provisions which provided that time was to be in all respects “of the essence of this agreement” and that no extension of time for the making of any payment or the doing of an acts thereunder was to be a waiver or modification of that principle. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the purchaser was required to deliver a deposit of $75,000 to the vendors within five days of the date of execution of the agreement. Through inadvertence, the purchaser failed to comply with this requirement but instead delivered the deposit within seven days of the date of execution. Since the purchaser failed to comply with the deadline for delivering the deposit, the vendors opted to treat the agreement as discharged and proceeded to negotiate and execute a second agreement with another purchaser for the sale of the entire 56 acre parcel at a price of $125,000 per acre. Both purchasers brought actions before the Court to seek to enforce their respective purchase and sale agreements and the actions were consolidated and decided as one motion for summary judgment. The initial purchaser took the position that the delay in providing the deposit was a minor oversight and did not permit the vendors to treat the agreement as discharged. It further argued that the vendors had verbally extended the time for delivery of the deposit and had, therefore, waived the “time is of the essence” clause as it related to the deposit. The Court rejected these arguments and confirmed that the failure to deliver the deposit within the time set forth in the agreement constituted a breach of an essential term of the contract. Accordingly, the late delivery constituted a fundamental breach of contract which entitled the vendors to treat the agreement as being at an end. On the issue of waiver, the Court determined that any waiver of the “time is of the essence” provision would have to be explicit and fully proven. It also confirmed that such an amendment to a written agreement for the purchase and sale of land would have to be made in writing to be effective. The Trial Court’s ruling on the issue of waiver was upheld on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. While the result in this case may appear to some to be harsh in light of the fact that the deposit was only late by two days, the Court has sent a strong message that a “time is of the essence” clause does have meaning and will be enforced if either party fails to comply with a time-sensitive obligation. There are several lessons to be learned from this case. First and foremost, if timing is an essential element of the agreement, there should be an appropriate “time is of the essence” clause in the agreement - the Court’s characterization of the late delivery of a deposit as being a fundamental breach of contract in this case was dependent upon the existence of such a provision in the agreement at issue. Second, if an agreement contains such a provision, the parties should be sure to strictly comply with all time-sensitive obligations contained therein. Lastly, if a party wishes to rely upon an extension of time or a waiver of the “time is of the essence” clause (or any clause for that matter), the waiver must be explicit and should be reduced to writing. THE INSIDE LOOK! Regulation of Paralegals Congratulations to Loon in Balloon Inc. pg 2 Regulation of paralegals in Ontario is on the way. Spousal Support Remains Hot Topic in the Courts The Court of Appeal rules on the issue of retroactive support. pg 3 Local publishing company publishes its first book. Employers Need to be Careful Not to Interfere with Former Employees Watch what you say and who you say it to. Around the Firm pg 4-5 The excitement continues at SorbaraLaw. Organ Donation Requests Leaving these important decisions to your Will may not be effective. pg 6 pg 6 pg 7 Some Good Deeds are Punished Teenage girls subject to a small claims Court judgment after a random act of kindness. Visit us on the web at www.sorbaralaw.com "LegalEase" and the "LegalEase" logo and "SorbaraLaw" and the "SorbaraLaw" logo are registered trade marks of Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP. pg 8 Regulation of Independent Paralegals in Ontario is On the Way S ince paralegals started emerging within the legal community thirty years ago, they have attempted to branch out from fighting traffic tickets and handling small claims court matters to more complicated areas such as preparing wills, real estate transactions, incorporations, immigration matters and WSIB complaints. This had lead to growing concern within the legal community regarding the lack of regulation and accountability for paralegals and the potential perils that their clients may face as a result. In 2004, the Law Society of Upper Canada voted in favour of accepting the role of regulating paralegals and the Ministry of the Attorney General undertook the task of drafting legislation to provide the Law Society with authority to regulate independent paralegals working in advocacy and to put in place a framework for this regulation. At that time, it was expected that a bill on the regulation of paralegals working in advocacy would be tabled in the spring of 2005 but, to date, this has yet to happen. As a result, paralegals continue to operate in a legal ‘no-mans’ land. They are not regulated or licensed by any governing body and many independent paralegals are uninsured. Until this new legislation is enacted, the Law Society has no authority over paralegals, except to the extent that it can initiate prosecutions for the unlicensed practice of law. No professional standards exist by which paralegals’ conduct can be measured and no formal training or 2 qualifications are required before a person can offer services as a paralegal. Moreover, consumers have little protection or recourse if they receive substandard or negligent services from a paralegal. This problem was recently highlighted in an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in which the Court ordered a paralegal to pay $25,000.00 in damages to a client who spent two nights in the Don Valley Jail because the paralegal failed to perform its duties in a competent or adequate fashion. In another case, a woman was successful in a case against the paralegal that provided erroneous advice and failed to file necessary documents on her behalf in a worker’s compensation benefits matter. As a result of the paralegal’s conduct, the woman’s benefits were terminated. The Court found that the woman received nothing of value in return for the fees she paid to the paralegal and it reimbursed the same to the woman and awarded damages for emotional distress. Under the proposed regulations that are expected from the Attorney General, independent paralegals that provide advocacy services will have to be licensed and they will be expected to adhere to standards of competence in areas of education, good character, and ethics in the interest of consumer protection. They will also be required to obtain liability insurance. However, it is expect that these regulations will fall short of complete protection to the public because they will target only a small group of independent paralegals Fall 2005 and will exclude other practice areas where paralegals work extensively including estates, corporate law and real estate. In fact, it is estimated that fewer than 1,000 out of approximately 2,000 paralegals will be affected by the proposed legislation. It is clear that there is a need and a place in today’s legal environment for properly trained and regulated paralegals. Indeed, paralegals are able to provide meaningful services in some areas of law and facilitate access to justice for those who may not be cannot afford the services of a lawyer in certain matters or in matters which may not justify the expense of, or require the expertise of, a lawyer. Regulation of paralegals will provide credibility for those paralegals that are properly trained and qualified and it will provide protection for members of the public who engage the services of independent paralegals. However, in the absence of appropriate regulation, consumers may still be at risk of having their legal rights seriously compromised by unqualified and inept paralegals, without any legitimate recourse. It is important, therefore, that consumers scrutinize the qualifications of proposed paralegals and take proper precautions to ensure that the people they choose to represent them are properly trained and qualified to carry out the task. Visit us on the web at Spousal Support Remains a Hot Topic in the Courts I n our last issue of LegalEase, we reported on Parliament’s introduction of the new spousal support guidelines that were designed to bring some certainty to the issue of spousal support. While it is still too early to tell whether or not the guidelines have been successful in this regard, it is clear that spousal support remains a litigious issue. In particular, there has been much debate recently over the issue of retroactive spousal support – ie. the obligation to pay support dating back to the date of separation even though a formal request for support had not been made at that time. While it is expected that the Supreme Court of Canada will soon release a decision dealing with retroactive support, a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision has redefined the issue by clarifying what notice is required in order to trigger a start date for the entitlement to retroactive support. In Mackinnon v. MacKinnon, the wife had made several requests for financial disclosure dating back to August 2000 for the purpose of negotiating spousal support, among other things. The husband did not provide financial www.sorbaralaw.com disclosure in response to these requests but the wife did not formally apply for spousal support until the husband brought an application for divorce in March 2002. The main issue before the Court of Appeal was whether or not the initial requests for financial disclosure from the wife were sufficient to constitute a start date for the purposes of retroactive support. Traditionally, the start date for retroactive support was considered to be the date upon which the application or other court proceeding in which spousal support was claimed was commenced. The rationale for this approach was that this formal proceeding clearly put the other side on notice that a claim for spousal support was forthcoming and that there was a possibility that the court could award spousal support for the period from that date until the date of judgment. The Court of Appeal found in favour of the wife and determined that the wife’s prior requests for financial disclosure constituted sufficient notice to the husband of the potential claim for spousal support and it considered the date of the initial request as the start date for Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP her entitlement to support. In so doing, the Court characterized spousal support from the request for disclosure until the date of judgment as "prospective" support as opposed to "retroactive" support. Prospective support is the support a court determines should have been paid from the date the party is given notice that a support claim is being pursued until the date of judgment. An applicant who requests financial disclosure for the purpose of negotiation and litigation and who reasonably proceeds to the disposition of the claim will, if entitled, be granted "prospective" support from the date of the requested disclosure. As a result, the husband was required to pay the spousal support he should have been paying since the wife’s request for disclosure. With this decision, the Court of Appeal has sent a message that prompt and complete financial disclosure is required in family law matters and a support payor cannot escape support obligations by simply refusing to disclose the necessary financial information. 3 Around O n October 13, 2005, Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP officially celebrated the 25th anniversary of the firm with a party at The Rotunda in Kitchener City Hall. The event was designed as a way for us to thank area businesses and the community for helping to make our past 25 years so successful. To commemorate the occasion and demonstrate our gratitude, the firm made a $25,000 donation to the Wilfred Laurier School of Social Work which is currently renovating and will soon operate from the former St. Jerome’s High School building in Downtown Kitchener. This is an exciting aspect of the rejuvenation of Downtown Kitchener and we are honoured to have contributed to it. The party was a tremendous success and we would like to thank everyone who was able to attend and help us celebrate this significant event. This article appeared in the KW Record on October 17, 2005. We are also pleased and excited to announce that, effective October 24, 2005, we have officially moved our Guelph office to the new location at 457 Woolwich Street. Our new mailing address appears on the back cover of this newsletter and all of our other contact information in Guelph remains the same. As part of our commitment to better serve our clients and the community, the partners and staff of Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP are pleased to announce the addition of three new members of our team. 4 Fall 2005 Visit us on the web at the Firm Vishal (Vinny) Chaudrhi joined our litigation department on September 26, 2005 and will be practicing primarily out of our Kitchener office. Vinny graduated from Punjab University in Chandigarh, India with a Bachelors of Law in 1997 and practised in India as a litigator for several years, handling a variety of matters including insurance, employment, contract and commercial disputes as well as personal injury matters. Vinny immigrated to Canada in 2001 and completed his accreditation requirements to practise law in Ontario at the University of Windsor. Vinny completed his articling term at a full service law firm in London, Ontario. In addition to his education in India and Ontario, Vinny also obtained a certificate in International Human Rights, Education and Monitoring from Hemline University in St. Paul, Minnesota. College at the University of Waterloo before earning her law degree from the University of Windsor’s Faculty of Law. Jennifer will be working primarily out of our Kitchener office and will gain exposure in all our areas of practice over the course of the coming year. We are also pleased to welcome Brenda Hooton to the firm as our new litigation assistant. Brenda is a welcome addition to our litigation department and brings with her considerable experience in the areas of motor vehicle, personal injury and medical malpractice matters. their second son, Carson, on October 7, 2005. We also wish to congratulate our litigation associate, Justin Heimpel, and his new wife, Doreen Weise, on the celebration of their recent wedding. Doreen and Justin were married on September 30, 2005 during a beautiful ceremony at Hauser Hall in Heidelberg. We wish them all the best in their married life together. Brenda will be working closely with Greg Murdoch, a partner and the head of our litigation department. Greg has developed a great deal of experience and expertise in the areas of personal injury and medical malpractice. Greg recently presented a paper entitled "Assessing Clinical Practice Guidelines" to the Medical Malpractice section of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association on September 23, 2005. Brenda has joined the firm in part to assist us while our long-time litigation assistant, Adrienne Hummel, is off on maternity leave. In this regard, we wish to congratulate Adrienne and Rob who recently celebrated the birth of Doreen & Justin’s Wedding LegalEase is a seasonal publication and is intended only as a source of general information on a broad range of interesting and important subjects. The views expressed are those of the author and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Before acting on any information contained in LegalEase, Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP urges readers to obtain professional legal advice, as Vishal (Vinny) Chaudrhi each situation has its own unique set of circumstances. For further information on any of the material contained in this issue, please feel free to call or write to us. ©2005 Sorbara, Schumacher, Vinny now resides in Kitchener with his wife and daughter. Vinny is fluent in English, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu. McCann LLP. All rights reserved. Your privacy is very important to us. Your personal information may be used to send you this newsletter. It will also be used for Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP’s internal marketing research Jennifer Black also joined the firm this past September as our articling student for the 2005 – 2006 term. Jennifer is a life-long resident of Kitchener. She completed her undergraduate studies in History, Legal Studies, Criminology and Peace and Conflict Studies, at St. Jerome’s www.sorbaralaw.com purposes. We may also use third parties to process some aspect of the personal information for your use, provided that they similarly agree to protect your privacy. If you have a privacy question or do not wish to receive future issues of our newsletter, you may contact Greg Murdoch in writing at: Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP, 300 Victoria St N , Kitchener N2H 6R9 or email [email protected]. Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP 5 Organ Donation Requests in Your Will May Not be the Best Way to Express Your Wishes T he idea of organ donation or donation of a body to science after the death of an individual has gained increasing popularity with all of the medical advancements and scientific breakthroughs over the past few decades. In dealing with wills and estates matters, we are often faced with questions from clients about how to properly address organ donation issues in their Wills. However, a Will may not be the most effective way to deal with these issues in large part because the Will is often not read until it is too late to properly affect an organ donation. The Trillium Gift of Life Network Act was enacted by the Ontario Legislature in 2000 to regulate when and how organ donation decisions can be made and to provide a framework in which to carry out these donations in a dignified and efficient manner. The Act created a non-profit corporation known as the "Trillium Gift of Life Network" whose mandate is to, among other things, plan, promote, co-ordinate and support activities relating to the donation of organs for transplant and activities relating to education or research in connection with the donation of organs. Under the Act, a person who is at least sixteen years of age, mentally competent to consent, and able to make a free and informed decision may consent in writing to the removal of an organ during his or her life for the purpose of a transplant. Likewise, any person over the age of sixteen may consent in writing, or orally in the presence of at least two witnesses during his or her last illness, to the use of his or her body or parts thereof for therapeutic purposes, medical education or scientific research. In addition, where a person has not given consent for use of his or her body after death for these purposes, the Act permits certain designated people to make such determination as to the use of the person’s body after his or her death. The medical professionals charged with retrieving organs after death are obligated to do so with respect and dignity and in a manner that will not to interfere with funeral practices. Organs that can be donated after death include the heart, liver, kidneys, pancreas, lungs, small bowel, corneas, heart valves, bone and skin. Gift of Life Network provides donor cards for individuals to fill out in order to affect an organ or tissue transplant upon their death. Similar donor cards are also available for those interested in donating their bodies to science. These cards should then be carried with you at all times. While issues of mortality are often difficult to think about and/or discuss with loved ones, organ donation is something that is better dealt with sooner rather than later as these difficult decisions will be left to a person’s loved ones if he or she has not made appropriate arrangements. For more information about this important topic, please contact Trillium Gift of Life Network at 1-800-263-2833 or the University of Waterloo, School of Anatomy at 1-519-888-4567, ext. 6363. In the case of donations of a body for scientific study, a person can select the specific school of anatomy to which the body is to be donated. Locally, a whole body donation may be made to the University of Waterloo’s School of Anatomy. Persons interested in donating their organs for therapeutic purposes or their body for scientific study upon their death should be sure to make their intentions known to their loved ones and family members. In addition, the Trillium Congratulations to Loon in Balloon Inc. S orbaraLaw would like to congratulate our client, Loon in Balloon Inc., upon the publication of its first novel, Murder at Mussel Cove, by PEI author, Hugh MacDonald. World famous Canadian author, Alistair MacLeod, calls this moody mystery set in Nova Scotia "a fast-moving, action-packed novel filled with suspense". Mr. MacLeod, the author of the best-seller, No Great Mischief, says that "Hugh MacDonald writes with a sure hand". 6 You can pick up a copy of this novel at your favourite book store or online at www.chapters.indigo.ca or www.amazon.ca. If you have any questions about any aspect publishing law, please feel free to contact either Denise Kocher or Sam Sorbara at either of our offices. Fall 2005 Visit us on the web at Employers Need to be Careful Not to Interfere With Former Employees n a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, a major employer in the Windsor area had its wrists slapped quite hard for deliberately interfering with a former employee’s future employment opportunities. I The case involved Cogeco Cable, a cable and fibre optics provider which enjoys a virtual monopoly in the cable and fibre optic industry in Windsor and Mastec, an independent contractor of Cogeco that provides installation services to it. In the Windsor area, Cogeco is by far Mastec’s largest customer. The employee in question had worked for Cogeco for 15 years until he resigned in December 1999 to pursue opportunities in the cable industry in the United States. Two years after leaving Cogeco, the employee returned to Windsor and was hired by Mastec. However, before he began work in this new position, he was informed by Mastec that it did not actually have a position available for him. At that time, a Mastec employee had asked the employee why it was that his boss at Cogeco had not liked him. The employee contacted a lawyer who then corresponded with Cogeco and accused it of interfering with the employee’s contractual relations. Cogeco’s Human Resources Department then provided a letter to counsel in which it stated there had not been any direct instructions given by Cogeco to Mastec not to employ the employee. The employee then presented this letter to Mastec and it rehired him immediately. However, on the first day that he reported to work for the second time, the employee was informed by Mastec that Cogeco had made it known that the employee could not be employed by Mastec if it meant that he would be required to attend on Cogeco property during the course of his employment. Shortly thereafter, Mastec terminated the employee’s employment. with the economic relations of former employers. The evidence presented at trial confirmed that all of the employee’s performance reviews at Cogeco had been positive and that he was a highly skilled and competent technician. The employee had left Cogeco on his own accord under what appeared to be positive circumstances - his co-workers even presented him with a gift and a card signed by everyone in the office upon his departure. Nevertheless, it turned out that there was one Cogeco manager who had an issue with the employee and took it upon himself to pass on unsubstantiated allegations about the employee to Mastec upon the employee’s return to Windsor. It was this conduct that lead to Mastec’s decision to terminate the employment. Having said that, it is clear that this case is an example of extreme misconduct in circumstances where there was no justification for the representations made about the employee. This case should not be taken as a general rule that employers are not permitted to make any negative representations about former employees. Indeed, if an employer is contacted as a reference and has to truthfully answer questions in a negative way, it can do so without fear of reprisal so long as the information being passed on is accurate. The Court found that Cogeco had “blackballed” the employee with Mastec and other cable technician and installation providers in Windsor which severely limited the employee’s ability to find employment in the area in his chosen field. The Court granted judgment against Cogeco for the wrongful act of procuring the termination of the employee’s employment with Mastec and awarded damages to the employee for all of the losses he suffered as a result. In this regard, the Court awarded the employee over $135,000.00 for loss of income and over $60,000 as damages for humiliation, loss of reputation and loss of career opportunities. Another important lesson for employers is that they will be held vicariously liable for the improper conduct of their employees in circumstances such as this. Consequently, employers would be well advised to make sure that its management team and supervisory employees are given proper training with respect to representations regarding former employees. Likewise, employers should establish a protocol for dealing with reference inquiries for former employees and a method for recording what information was provided in response to such inquires to ensure that a uniform and appropriate approach is taken in each case. This decision was a costly lesson for Cogeco but is a good warning to other employers that they ought to be mindful of their conduct regarding former employees and ought not to take improper steps to intentionally interfere LegalEase is circulated seasonally to over 1,000 businesses and individuals in and around Waterloo Region and Wellington County. If you would like more information about LegalEase or are interested in contributing to upcoming issues, please feel free to contact Justin Heimpel at our Kitchener office. www.sorbaralaw.com Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP 7 Some Good Deeds Attract Punishment Rather Than Reward I n a recent Small Claims Court decision from Colorado, two teenage girls were required to pay their neighbour $900 in damages after they had the audacity to bake, package and leave homemade cookies on her doorstep. The seventeen and eighteen year old girls were members of the "T and L Club", a group whose mandate was to surprise neighbours and others with simple and random acts of kindness. Unfortunately, the girls really did surprise a woman in their neighbourhood one evening when she observed two dark figures on her doorstep and called the police in a state of fright at 10:30 p.m. The local Sheriff arrived at the neighbour’s house to find nicely packaged homemade cookies on the doorstep with a heart shaped note simply stating "Have a great night. Love the T and L Club." The next day, the neighbour, fearing that she was experiencing heart failure, visited a hospital. Tests were completed and the woman was found to be suffering from anxiety attacks. She blamed these anxiety attacks upon the teenage girls and their "thoughtless" act. The woman’s hospital bill amounted to $900 and, although the girls’ parents offered to pay for this bill, she refused to accept the payment as a settlement and instead brought a claim for payment of the hospital bill and for punitive damages. Samuel O. Sorbara Brian McCann Mark W. Schumacher J. Greg Murdoch Gary A. Keller Grace Sun Elizabeth A. Waywell Ronald J. Nightingale As the case progressed, it gained notoriety throughout the United States as some onlookers wrote letters in support of the girls and others defended the woman’s claim. While many expected the case to be laughed out of Court entirely, the woman was partially successful. The Small Claims Court found the girls liable for the cost of the woman’s hospital bills but it dismissed the claim for punitive damages. Justin J. Heimpel Denise M. Kocher Catherine A. Brohman Sebrina Schoen Vishal (Vinny) Chaudrhi Mervyn J. Villemaire, QC, Counsel Steven K. Kenney, Counsel for Medical Malpractice and Catastrophic Injury Do-gooders beware – it appears that kindness is now a matter of perspective and can have unintended legal consequences. 300 Victoria Street North Kitchener, ON N2H 6R9 Tel: (519) 576-0460 Fax: (519) 576-3234 457 Woolwich Street Guelph, ON N1H 3X6 Tel: (519) 836-1510 Fax: (519) 836-9215 www.sorbaralaw.com