Laws Required to Swat Employers' Hands from Employees' Tip Jar

BY ANA KRALJEVIC, LAWYER, WISE LAW OFFICE

In many workplaces in the service sector, tips are pooled together and, at the end of a shift, divided up among the workers on duty during that shift.  It is common practice for the employer to take a portion of the tip money in a practice known as “tipping-out,” wherein the employees are forced to pay a fixed portion of their tips to the managers and owners. The oft-cited justification is usually to recoup the losses that should be absorbed by the employer anyway such as the cost of broken dishes or worn-out equipment.

But can employers legally do this?  And is there a justification for doing so?  The answer to the first question is yes, they can, in Ontario at least.  Employment rights advocates would answer with a resounding no to the second question, and for strong policy-based reasons.

Tips form a mainstay of the income for employees in the hospitality and service industry.  Indeed, it is the reason why minimum wage standards in these sectors are lower than in most other industries.  Employers know that these workers rely on tips for their livelihood, and the law does to – to some extent.  However, Ontario’s employment laws are checkered and inconsistent and there is no protection afforded to the treatment of tips for these employees.  Given that many of these workers earn a living wage that places them below or very close to the poverty line - the lack of legal protection with respect to this employment issue places them in financial peril.

It is clear that Ontario law is in need of reform.  Currently it is lagging behind many other provinces that have already implemented legal protections in this area.  Quebec specifies that tips belong to the employee as of right and must not be intermingled with wages otherwise due to the employee.   Other provinces, including New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island have legislation that prohibits employers from seizing an employee’s tips and gratuities.

A look at the statutory provisions and regulations of the Employment Standards Act itself, and how it compares with companion legislation reveals many inconsistencies.  According to s. 11(1) an employer “shall pay all wages earned during each pay period,” and s. 13(1) further adds, unless otherwise provided for in the ESA, “shall not make a deduction from an employee’s wages or cause the employee to return his or her wages.”  Sounds good so far, but then s. 1(1) specifically excludes “tips and other gratuities” from the definition of wages” leaving this vital source of income free for the taking by the employer.

“wages” means,

(a) monetary remuneration payable by an employer to an employee under the terms of an employment contract, oral or written, express or implied,

(b) any payment required to be made by an employer to an employee under this Act, and

(c) any allowances for room or board under an employment contract or prescribed allowances,

but does not include,

(d) tips and other gratuities,

If tips and gratuities are excluded from the definition of wages, then how are they to be characterized in terms of income for the purposes of the ESA? It would seem that the drafters barely turned their minds to it except to the extent that they decided to exclude it from the definition of wages altogether.  However, this apparent intent to exempt tips and gratuities from the definition of wages is difficult to reconcile with the regulation under the ESA that sets the minimum wage for employees serving liquor below the legislated standard minimum wage (O. Reg 285/01).  This regulation specifically sets the minimum wage for employees who serve liquor in the course of their employment at $8.90 an hour, as opposed to the $10.25 legal minimum which applies to most other employees.  

Thus, although the ESA remains silent on how to formally characterize tips, it has implicitly recognized that a bartender’s wage must be supplemented with some other income source so as not to render this provision legally void.  To add even more fuel to the fire, the Income Tax Act recognizes tips and gratuities as taxable income.  Tips that are given to the employee from a customer must be declared on line 104 as “direct tips.” 

The Policy Rationale for the Legislative Protection of Tips and Gratuities

In response to challenges made against the practice of “tipping-out”, restaurant managers have tried to argue that it is necessary for paying dishwashers and other staff who do not receive tips in the course of employment.  However, the outcry against “tipping-out” was never about paying staff, it was always about the employer taking what rightfully belongs to the employee. 

No matter how the employer may try to spin it, most customers pay a gratuity in the expectation that it will go to the employee, not the employer.  A tremendous power imbalance exists in the employer-employee relationship and the retention of gratuities by the employer constitutes a mishandling of this bargaining power.

It is the employer who stands to profit the most from the success of the business while employee salaries stay more or less the same, regardless of performance.  The only exception being when the employee does a particularly good job in the hospitality/service industry and a patron rewards that performance with a tip.  As a matter of sound business practice, it makes little sense for the employer to take the tips earned by minimum-wage employees, which usually constitutes a nominal percentage of the overall profits, and remove the only economic incentive for employees to do good work.  Good workers drum up good business, which drums up more profit for the employer.

The legislation needs to be amended and should encompass workers across a wide spectrum -including hairdressers, valets, and hotel workers – who all rely on tips and gratuities as a significant portion of their incomes.  

Michael Prue, NDP MPP for Beaches East-York, has been lobbying for the passage of a law that would amend the ESA to prevent business owners and management from skimming off tips.  Prue’s Bill 49, the latest of a series of permutations that the bill has undergone since it was initially introduced, passed second reading in May 2013.  Despite its popularity, the bill has died on the order paper before it could receive Royal Assent and become legally enforceable.  On his website, Michael Prue has demanded that the government stop stalling and take action - “the time is now…will this bill be called for third reading by this government?”

The time for the provincial government to recognize the plight of minimum wage workers and formally address their concerns is long overdue.

- Ana Kraljevic, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

New BC Family Law Act - No More Palm Tree Justice for Unmarried Couples

BY ANA KRALJEVIC, LAWYER, WISE LAW OFFICE

Last year, British Columbia wholly revamped its family law legislation with a new approach that has serious implications for common-law spouses, whether desired or not.   The B.C. Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25, came into force on March 18, 2013, and replaced the province’s 32-year-old Family Relations Act.  

Perhaps the the weightiest change in the law was its new definition of “spouse,” which includes both married couples and those who have lived with another person “in a marriage-like relationship” for a period of at least two years.  

Depending on the specific circumstances and intentions of unmarried individuals, this represents either a welcome change or state intrusion into domestic affairs that should really be deferred to the wishes of the parties themselves.  As the Supreme Court of Canada had astutely noted in Kerr v. Baranow, "while domestic partners might not marry for a host of reasons, one of them may be the deliberate choice not to have their lives economically intertwined." 

The New B.C. Law

BC's new definition of spouse is set out in section 3 of its Family Law Act, while its approach to  equal division of marital assets and debt is found in section 81:

Spouses and relationships between spouses

3  (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i)  has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii)  except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

(2) A spouse includes a former spouse.

(3) A relationship between spouses begins on the earlier of the following:

(a) the date on which they began to live together in a marriage-like relationship;

(b) the date of their marriage.

(4) For the purposes of this Act,

(a) spouses may be separated despite continuing to live in the same residence, and

(b) the court may consider, as evidence of separation,

(i)  communication, by one spouse to the other spouse, of an intention to separate permanently, and

(ii)  an action, taken by a spouse, that demonstrates the spouse's intention to separate permanently.

Equal entitlement and responsibility

81  Subject to an agreement or order that provides otherwise and except as set out in this Part and Part 6 [Pension Division],

(a) spouses are both entitled to family property and responsible for family debt, regardless of their respective use or contribution, and

(b) on separation, each spouse has a right to an undivided half interest in all family property as a tenant in common, and is equally responsible for family debt.

Only Assets and debt that are accumulated during the period of cohabitation are subject to division.  Assets  that were accumulated before cohabitation commenced are excluded in the new BC law:

Excluded property

85  (1) The following is excluded from family property:

(a) property acquired by a spouse before the relationship between the spouses began;

(b) gifts or inheritances to a spouse;

(c) a settlement or an award of damages to a spouse as compensation for injury or loss, unless the settlement or award represents compensation for

(i)  loss to both spouses, or

(ii)  lost income of a spouse;

(d) money paid or payable under an insurance policy, other than a policy respecting property, except any portion that represents compensation for

(i)  loss to both spouses, or

(ii)  lost income of a spouse;

(e) property referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) that is held in trust for the benefit of a spouse;

(f) property held in a discretionary trust

(i)  to which the spouse did not contribute,

(ii)  of which the spouse is a beneficiary, and

(iii)  that is settled by a person other than the spouse;

(g) property derived from property or the disposition of property referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (f).

(2) A spouse claiming that property is excluded property is responsible for demonstrating that the property is excluded property.

As a result, whether the newly dubbed “spouses” like it or not, assets that accumulated during their marriage-like relationship will be subject to an equal division without any burden of proving equitable principles under the common law.  Whether this was a deliberate decision motivated by a concern for preserving the proprietary rights of common law couples or a more practical interest in judicial economy is unknown.  

What is important to note is that property claims arising out of common law relationships were reportedly taking up as much as 25% of the court’s time.  With this new legislation and its formulaic approach to property division, the family law docket will no doubt be cleared of cases that would otherwise drag on indeterminately.

The Common Law Approach

Previously, under the old BC law, individuals were left with no prescribed statutory entitlements following the dissolution of a common-law relationship, regardless of the number of years they had cohabited or the degree of their contributions to the assets.  Without the legal protections afforded to their married counterparts, common law spouses had no other means for asserting a family property claim other than the equitable principles of constructive trust and the claim to an interest in a joint family venture ushered in by Pettkus v. Becker, [1980] 2 S.C.R.834 and Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, [2011] 1 S.C.R.269.

Ontario continues to follow this equities-based approach.  

Under common law, in order to prove that a spouse is entitled to an interest in an asset arsing from a joint family venture, he or she has the burden of demonstrating: i) the mutual effort of the parties; ii) their degree of economic integration; iii) their actual intent during the relationship; and iv) the prioritization of the family unit in decision-making.  

In most cases, a monetary remedy will be deemed sufficient to remedy the unjust enrichment as opposed to a proprietary interest.  

There are two distinct mechanisms for valuing a monetary award.  The first is the "value survived" approach which determines the claimant's share in the increase in the overall value of the property that is directly proportional to his or her efforts.  The second approach is the "value received" approach (or quantum merit approach) which more or less treats the services provided by the claimant as that of hired help insofar as it is calculated based on a "fee-for-services" basis.  For obvious reasons, claimants are less desirous to have the latter approach used when it leaves one spouse with a disproportionate share of the assets.

The other available option as a remedy, and the one that is the most difficult to prove, is the constructive trust, or a "restitutionary proprietary award."   This award is appropriate where the claimant can prove a causal relationship between his or her contributions and the acquisition, preservation, maintenance, or improvement of the property.  

In Kerr and Baranow, Cromwell J. succinctly said the following about the rights of common law couples to claim an interest in property "cohabitation does not, in itself under the common law of unjust enrichment, entitle one party to a share of the other's property or any other relief.  However, where wealth is accumulated as a result of joint effort, as evidenced by the nature of the parties' relationship and their dealings with each other, the law of unjust enrichment should reflect that reality."  

With the passage of the new law, this statement is no longer applicable in British Columbia.  

The Change in BC

Judges have noted the dichotomy between the legal remedies that are available in common law property claims since the coming into force of the new legislation and how this compares to what has historically been awarded.  

In a BC appeal decided before the new law came into force, Ibbotson v. Fung, 2011 BCSC 1021, (heard on November 14, 2012), the appellate court affirmed a trial judge’s decision to award the Respondent a 25% interest in a home on the basis of a constructive trust.  The trial judge had ordered that the property be sold and the net proceeds of the sale apportioned on a 75/25 basis in order to account for the fact that the Appellant’s mother had made a significant gift towards the acquisition of the property.  The Appellant husband appealed on the basis that the property’s increase in value was attributed to inflation and therefore no direct link existed between the accumulation of wealth during the relationship and the Respondent’s contributions.  The Appeal judge affirmed the decision and found that a monetary remedy would be insufficient to reflect the degree of the Respondent’s contributions which were substantial and direct enough to sustain a proprietary award.   

“In my view, the findings of fact of the trial judge support the necessary and specific nexus between Ms. Ibbotson's contributions and the acquisition, maintenance, preservation and improvement of the Vancouver Property (paragraph 74).” Paragraph 48 of the judgment summarizes the particular circumstances of the parties and the fact-finding analysis that supported the decision.

• In this case, the parties' were part way through a long-term relationship when the purchase occurred. They identified the opportunity together. Through their joint financial contributions and labour they made the Property habitable, and treated this major asset as a joint venture to which they both contributed over a long period, and to which Lindsay has continued to contribute to this day. When Lindsay made further improvements to the Property after separation, Henry just stood by. As I have said, he was aware of the improvements, but not necessarily consulted. In any event, he did not assert sole ownership to the Property at that time, or, for that matter, at any time during the period of ownership.

Ibbotson v. Fung underscores how BC’s new law translates into very distinct outcomes in terms of real numbers and dollars and cents. 

For example, if this case had been heard after the coming into force of the new legislation the Respondent would have received, by default, a 50% interest in the property.  

What’s more, this remedy would have been awarded with the added benefit of avoiding the high cost and inconvenience that inevitably confront litigants relying on the joint family venture doctrine.  It is an expensive exercise that is daunting for most litigants.  One should point out that the Respondent was forced to jump a very high hurdle in order to be entitled to a mere quarter interest in a property whereas a half-interest would be presumptively be awarded to a married woman simply because of her marital status and irrespective of her efforts and connections to the property. 

While the joint family venture has proved to be a doctrinally useful principle that has alleviated the inequity that otherwise prejudice and disenfranchise common law spouses, it has also resulted in ad-hoc and variable decision making that forces the evolution of the law to proceed on a case-by-case basis.  Its inherent unpredictability has deterred many common law spouses from bringing claims for a proportionate share in the accumulation of wealth that their efforts have helped build.  

Thus, the new BC legislation is promising for common law spouses who enter relationships with few assets and leave it with their partners financially better off.   

- Ana Kraljevic, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Poor Baby, Poor Mommy - The Rights of Incarcerated Mothers

BY ANA KRALJEVIC, LAWYER, WISE LAW OFFICE

British Columbia used to have a program in place which permitted inmates to serve their prison sentence with their babies.  Despite the untold benefits of accommodating the health needs of babies in the critical window of infancy, the program was eliminated.  The reason cited by a prison official was the fact that infants did not fall within the purview of the correctional service.  The Ministry of Children and Family Development was left with no other option but to “apprehend” babies previously in the care of their mothers and place them in foster care.    

In response, two former inmates of Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Maple Ridge, B.C. commenced a lawsuit in 2008.  The final decision was handed down in a 145 page judgment released on December 16, 2013.  Justice Carol Ross ruled that the bureaucratic decision infringed the mother’s equality rights and security of the person and liberty, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under the Charter of Rights.  Perhaps the most fundamental legal principle that the revocation of the program offended was the principle of the best interests of the child.  Justice Ross noted the following adverse consequences of the forced estrangement of mothers from their babies:

“As a result, infants have been and will be separated from their mothers during the critical formative period of their life, interfering with their attachment to their mother, and depriving them of the physical and psychological benefits of breastfeeding.”

The judge imposed a six-month deadline on the province to cure the unconstitutionality of the province’s policies concerning mother’s in correctional facilities.  The justice ministry can either appeal the decision or reinstate the mother-child program.  

Currently, Ontario does not have a mother and baby program in place in correctional institutions but a recent case involving Julie Bilotta, a female prisoner who gave birth at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, has sparked controversy in the province.

Ms. Bilotta gave birth to her son on Sept. 29, 2012 on the concrete floor of a prison cell. She was eight months pregnant at the time.  She alleges that she tried to convince jail staff that she was in labour, but the nursing staff and guards on duty ignored her pleas for help.  Her baby died about one year later.  It is unknown whether complications arising from the birth played a role in the child’s sudden death. 

While the B.C. decision is not binding on Corrections Canada, a federal body, it is nonetheless influential in stating that women have the right of access to their children, whether behind bars or not.  Proponents of the ruling, such as representatives from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies have lauded the decision as an incremental step towards recognizing the plight of women in conflict with the law.  However, there are others who have denounced it as privileging the rights of mothers over that of their babies. 

In all likelihood, this view is driven by the stigma attached to incarcerated mothers – a demographic seen as “unworthy” and undeserving of the protections we would otherwise accord them.  Whatever moralistic undertones may accompany criticism of the ruling, which no doubt also played a role in the cancellation of the program, they need to be set aside.  It is poor public policy to assert that the commission of an offence in and of itself bars a mother from her right to bond with and care for her child.  More importantly, the detractors have no factual basis for asserting that mother-baby programs are harmful for infants. 

Grace Pastine, the litigation director for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Association, - said the following about the benefits of the mother-baby programs -"It led to better health outcomes for the babies. Safety guidelines were strictly followed during the program, which was supported by health-care practitioners, including doctors and psychologists, as well as prison officials.” 

While it remains to be seen how B.C. will formally adopt the ruling, many believe that the government can no longer withhold a program that has such profound and undeniable benefits for both mothers and babies.*

- Ana Kraljevic, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Thursday, March 6, 2014

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Thursday, March 6, 2014:

• Whitehall and Microsoft negotiate NHS Windows XP hacker survival plan
• Anti-virus software ‘totally useless’ in face of growing malware threat
• New pot legislation in the works, justice minister says
• Massacheusetts Court: 'Upskirt' photos are legal
• Testimony at Hacking Trial Gives Peek Into British Tabloids
• Unpaid interns: MPP calls for new ESA protections in private member's bill - Toronto Star
• Federal judge refuses to block Wisconsin same-sex marriage ban
• George Doodnaught denied bail while appealing sex assault convictions
• Vancouver police won't enforce new marijuana law
• Law students didn't blackmail Maclean's, libel trial told
• Student, 18, sues parents for tuition
• Same-Sex Adoptions Recognized in Idaho
• SCOTUS rules against dad seeking return of his daughter in international child abduction case
• Indiana judge is removed from office for rude conduct, delayed dispositions and retaliation
• Prosecutors seek password for indicted judge’s personal computer
• Abortion providers file lawsuit against Arizona
• LAWPRO Student Magazine: The dangers of social media and how to avoid them
• How a Canadian tomato juice law helped save Heinz’s plant in Leamington, Ont. from closing
• Check the Facts
• Long term disability - when will employment contract be “frustrated”?
• No Failiure to Mitigate Damages For Refusing Medical Marijuana: BC Court
• Oklahoma lawyer arrested for duping inmate into trading sex for ‘representation’
• Man shot to death in courthouse standoff with law enforcement was armed with toy airsoft replica gun 
• A Civil Litigator’s iPad Toolbox

-Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Wednesday, March 5, 2014:

• Marijuana TV ad makes history in U.S.
• The Most Bizarre Lawyer Commercial
• Professional engineering requirements found discriminatory towards immigrants
• DealBook: A Standoff of Lawyers Veils Madoff’s Ties to JPMorgan Chase
• Rob Ford on Jimmy Kimmel - Video
• Can US whistleblower protections apply to law firms? SCOTUS says yes in case involving mutual fund
• SlawTips Tuesday
• Victims of Dr. George Doodnaught go public with stories
• Hamilton man who assisted friend's suicide awaits Supreme Court of Canada ruling, sentencing on hold
• Quebec language police back down on Facebook complaint
• Can federal juror’s comment in deliberations be used to show voir-dire dishonesty? SCOTUS to decide
• Republicans in Western states tell appeals court: Bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional
• Judge rules lawyer used ‘corrupt means’ to get $18 billion judgment against Chevron

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Tuesday, March 4, 2014:

• 66-year-old L.A. man awarded $26 million in age discrimination lawsuit against Staples
• Mayor Rob Ford stays on attack on Jimmy Kimmel show
• Egypt police get 10 years for beating death that helped set off 2011 uprising
• Lawsuit filed: Keurig Will Use DRM In New Coffee Maker To Lock Out Refill Market
• Time for a career change? Advice for lawyers on switching things up (podcast) 
• US Supreme Court to decide if police be sued for fatal chase?
• SCOTUS accepts teeth-whitening case; could decision impair state bars’ ability to regulate lawyers?
• U Vic law students win Twitter moot 
• US Supreme Court Agrees to Weigh Arkansas Muslim Inmate’s Right to Grow a Beard
• University of Ottawa suspends men's hockey program amid police probe of alleged Sexual assault
• May Lawyers Advise Clients to ‘Clean Up’ Social Media Pages?
• Sun News host Ezra Levant's libel trial starts; lawyer seeking $100K in damages - Winnipeg Free Press
• Heenan Blaikie’s actions questioned
• The Meanest Lady on Linkedin
• Justices Hear Florida Case on Measuring Intellectual Disabilities of Inmates
• Supreme Court of Canada Statistics 2003-2013
• Appeals court orders bail for 70-year-old former juror jailed for 6 months in contempt case
• Are contractual employment termination provisions reliable?
• Appeal court upholds BC roadside suspensions
• Conservative MP Brad Butt may have misled Parliament: Speaker
• Residential school survivors want government lawyers turfed
• How 'synthetic' identity fraud costs Canada $1B a year - Canada - CBC News

-Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Monday, March 3, 2014

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Monday March 3, 2014:

• BMO customer's account emptied of $87K as bank falls for scam - British Columbia - CBC News
• Devastated Ikea monkey owner ends battle to get pet back from animal ...
• 11 Dead in Suicide Attack on Court in Pakistan’s Capital
• Former boss of Canadian eavesdropping agency defends activities
• Unpaid internships appear to be on the rise as Canada’s laws just a ‘hodgepodge’
• Ontario’s quirk of letting chief justice set provincial fines should be changed, lawyers say
• Rules of conduct amended
• Child Support Application by an Adult Child
• Alternative business structures a step closer to reality for Ontario lawyers
• Juror, 70, who is serving 6-month contempt sentence must stay in the slammer during appeal
• An Immodest Proposal for a Law School Curriculum (by Simon Fodden)
• "Canadian experience required": prohibited discrimination or being discriminating about standards?
• Defamation claim over sexual harassment complaint at work: how employers can minimize liability
• More law societies take on Trinity law school question - Lexology
• Scary stuff - Russian media on Crimea: “Putin will become the first person of world politics”
• Trump wins 'cybersquatting' case
• Federal judge stays enforcement of Kentucky same-sex marriage ruling
• Federal judge rejects Bin-Laden son-in-law mistaken identity claim
• Renting Judges for Secret Rulings
• Google files court appeal for right to put anti-Islam film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ back on YouTube
• Public sex offender registry coming soon, says Peter MacKay
• Facebook post by blabbermouth Florida daughter looses her parents' $80,000 settlement
• Told by judge to pull up sweatpants, defendant ‘dropped trou’ on way out of court, gets 10 days

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Friday, February 28, 2014

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Friday, February 28, 2014:

• My post today @SlawTips: Rediscovering the Art of Dictation on Your iPhone
• Court of Appeal denies Melissa Todorovic new trial for Stefanie Rengel murder
• Rob Ford on Bill Blair: 'If he's going to arrest me, arrest me'
• Computer virus locks up American law firm’s files
• Man who beheaded Greyhound passenger granted unsupervised outings
• Heenan Blaikie closes its doors
• Mentally ill inmates kept in 'grossly inadequate' conditions
• The Best Legal Movies Of All Time
• Indianapolis cops must allow themselves to be filmed in public after $200,000 settlement
• Taxpayers to cover Hazel McCallion's $513K legal bill
• Lev Tahor leader's refugee case questioned
• Conn. man arrested for having friend film him having sex with a cow while covered in jelly
• Florida law governing non-compete employment convenants ‘truly obnoxious’ to New York, court holds
• Florida law governing non-compete employment convenants ‘truly obnoxious’ to New York, court holds
• SCOTUS spectator is charged after interrupting arguments
• Chief Bill Blair knew Doug Ford attack was coming
• Are Unpaid Internships Legal In Canada? - Employment and HR - Canada
• Google sets roadblocks to stop distracted driver legislation in U.S. - The Globe and Mail (via LuigiBenetton)
• Lawyer censured for buying keywords for other lawyers and law firms - ABA Journal (via Kevin O'Keefe)
• Law Society update on Trinity Western Accreditation (via LSUC)
• Lavery scores again: adds former Quebec premier from Heenan Blaikie
• New Documentary Exposes Sinister Pa. Judge Who Sent Thousands of Innocent Youths to Jail for Money
• Texas school district pays $77,000 damages to lesbian student outed to mother by softball coaches
• Judge OKs injury suit by lawyer decked in court by death-row client
• NSA helped Britain’s spy agency steal private webcam images from millions of Yahoo users
• That "special" relationship. Our good friends across the pond are looking at your nibbles and bits

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net