Monday, September 27, 2010

140Law - Legal Headlines for September 27, 2010

Good day, readers. I hope everyone enjoyed their weekend and got a chance to catch the twitter inspired premiere of "$#*! My Dad Says" last night on CTV.

Here are today's leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter.
- Rachel Spence, Toronto

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

Census Challenge to Be Heard in Federal Court

CBC reports that the Federal Court of Canada will hear argument today on a Charter challenge by a Francophone association to the Harper government's voluntary "census" law:

The Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada has asked the court to void the Harper government's new policy, but it also wants an injunction that would keep the new census from being distributed this year.

The federation, which has also filed a complaint with Canada's official languages commissioner about the census change, argues that the government's new policy violates not only the Official Languages Act, but also the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The case is listed as FÉDÉRATION DES COMMUNAUTÉS FRANCOPHONES ET AL. c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE ET AL. (JR-Bilingual) - S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

Sunday, September 26, 2010

The Importance of Up-to-Date Powers of Attorney and Wills

The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta released a decision in May 2009 which brings home the implications of not having a will, or powers of attorney, covering decisions concerning your property and health-care.

Arnot Russell Maves was a man of reasonable means, with assets worth in excess of $300,000. They consisted of a modest house, several large pieces of farmland, at least some of which were capable of producing revenue, and household contents including antiques. He died in November, 2008. Back in 1995, when he first became gravely ill and unable to manage his financial affairs or make medical decisions for his personal well-being, he did not have powers of attorney in place. And when he died some thirteen years later, he did not have a will.

The Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Lee in the case known as Maves Estate, should be a sobering warning to us all. The decision points out how without the proper legal documents in place, the value of your estate can be substantially eaten up through legal proceedings; family members can end up being pitted against one another; and while you’re struggling with your health, your financial affairs can be mismanaged without your knowledge.

Laws governing such matters are legislated provincially, which means that there may be variations from province to province and territory to territory, and terminology may not always be the same between jurisdictions. While this case was decided in Alberta, for the ease of reference I’ll use Ontario terms. However, the legal principles at work are pretty well consistent in most respects, throughout Canada.

A power of attorney is in effect while you are alive. In Ontario there are two types. A power of attorney for property enables you to appoint one or more individuals (or a financial institution) to manage your financial affairs by making decisions and transacting business relating to banking, investments, payment of bills, buying and selling real estate, and so on. A power of attorney for personal care is a separate document, and enables you to appoint one or more individuals (or an institution) to make decisions on your behalf regarding your health if you are mentally incapable of making such decisions. Responsibilities include nutrition, shelter (i.e. moving to a nursing home, assisted living facility, etc.), clothing, hygiene, safety, and cessation or continuation of measures whereby your life may be artificially prolonged.

Upon your death, your powers of attorney are of no further force or effect, and your will takes over. This means that decisions, mainly relating to carrying out of the financial terms of your will such as holding and then selling assets to create a fund to pay your beneficiaries, are made by your executor / executrix, often referred to as estate trustee. You appoint your estate trustee in your will. As with powers of attorney, you can appoint one or more individuals and / or institutions (i.e. a trust company).

In the case of both powers of attorney, and a will, most people tend to appoint a close relative or friend, often someone younger for obvious reasons, or a combination of people. And in both cases, if you do not have powers of attorney, or a will, in the event of respectively your infirmity or death, complications frequently arise … as our case illustrates.

When Mr. Maves first became seriously ill in 1995, his sister and a niece, Carla Poppitt, one of the Applicants in this most recent proceeding, were appointed his attorneys over his assets and health-care decisions. When Ms. Poppitt left Alberta, her daughter took over her responsibilities, and in 2004, the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed to attend to the care of Mr. Maves. In 2008, another niece, Rose Braun, the Respondent in this case, filed a court application to become her uncle’s attorney for personal care. It was opposed by Ms. Poppitt.

The implication of the foregoing is that whenever a court application is filed, whether it is a purely administrative step, or opposed, costs are involved. In this case, because Mr. Maves did not have powers of attorney, three proceedings ensued, each of which required payment of filing fees, and in all likelihood legal fees. At least one of the proceedings was contested, resulting in even more lawyer costs being expended. Legal fees and disbursements usually come out of the estate of the infirmed.

With powers of attorney, while one can always apply to a judge if there are grounds to believe that an attorney is not acting in the best interest of the individual, more often than not there are no such proceedings, and there is little or no expense to the estate of the grantor. In this case powers of attorney did not exist. Accordingly, we must assume that thousands of dollars from Mr. Maves’ estate were used up before he even passed away.

When you do not have a power of attorney for property, you have no way of being assured that the best person or persons, in your opinion, will be making decisions which affect your assets. In this case, according to the judge, Ms. Poppitt was apparently a lifelong city resident, whereas Ms. Braun was a “farm person.” Ms. Braun alleged that Ms. Poppitt caused the estate to lose value. She stated that Ms. Poppitt:

1) did not properly tend the farmlands and they were allowed to go to weed. This resulted in the need to spray with expensive herbicides, the property then no longer being able to be characterized as “organic;”

2) did not rent out the lands between 1995 and 2008, thereby not enabling Mr. Maves to obtain rental revenue, and when she finally did rent them out, she did so for below market value;

3) failed to take adequate steps to protect Mr. Maves’ property, in that many of his personal effects and household goods including antiques were never removed from the farmhouse, and it and the barn were ultimately ransacked and vandalized, causing yet further losses.

Had Mr. Maves appointed a power of attorney for property, he likely would have considered, in the course of making his decision, which of his relatives would best be able to maximize revenue for him and protect his real estate and chattels. Certainly Ms. Braun would have been a top candidate given that she had a record of ongoing management of farmlands, having looked after her late father’s rural holdings. Ms. Poppitt had no such experience.

Because Mr. Maves died intestate, Alberta legislation governed who were the beneficiaries, and the percentages to be distributed to each. They consisted of ten nieces and nephews. Two of the nieces, Ms. Poppitt and her twin sister Karen Loucraft, applied to be appointed estate trustee in this final court proceeding. They had a lawyer. The remaining beneficiaries supported Ms. Braun, herself a beneficiary, being the estate trustee. She also had a lawyer. Once again, there were legal costs to the estate, all incurred because Mr. Maves did not have a will.

The judge concluded that both groups had much to contribute and that it would be difficult and unfair to exclude either. But isn’t it the job of the judge to make difficult decisions? Should fairness enter the equation, or should the decision be based on how best to maximize the net value of the estate and attend to its distribution. The judge appointed Ms. Poppitt and Ms. Loucraft, and Ms. Braun as representative of the remaining beneficiaries. He believed that they could put aside their differences to work for the benefit of their late uncle’s estate, yet acknowledged that “neither group publicly wants to have a great deal to do with the other on a regular day to day basis.”

Is this how you want your relatives to conduct themselves upon you becoming ill, and ultimately upon your demise? Is this how you would want your lifelong efforts working and collecting, to be rewarded; paying lawyers? Just think about it; and then get in to see your lawyer; if not for drafting these legal documents for the first time, then to review what’s already in place with a view to making amendments based on any recent changes in your circumstances.

Read the ruling: Maves Estate

- Alvin Starkman, Oaxaca, Mexico

Alvin Starkman received his Masters in Social Anthropology in 1978. After teaching for a few years he attended Osgoode Hall Law School, thereafter embarking upon a successful career as a litigator until 2004. Alvin, a good-standing member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, now resides with his wife Arlene in Oaxaca, Mexico, where he writes, leads small group tours to the villages, markets, ruins and other sights, is a consultant to documentary film production companies, and operates Casa Machaya Oaxaca Bed & Breakfast.

______________

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

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Video: Colbert Congressional Testimony

Enjoy:


- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Friday, September 24, 2010

Seven Practical Tips for Getting Into Law School

Many sources give information on the process of getting into a Canadian law school and becoming a lawyer.

Very few, however, give practical tips on what you can do to separate yourself from the rest of those thousands of other potential candidates who are also trying to get admitted into the LL.B. or J.D. program, besides trying to obtain an extremely high LSAT and GPA.

After much thought, including about my own experience with law school admissions, here my own top tips for getting into law school:
  1. For most law schools, except those that base admissions strictly on numbers, you must tailor your personal statement to fit the particular school’s profile. So if the school focuses heavily on social justice issues – the Universities of Ottawa and Windsor come to mind – then you must try to show that you have a demonstrated interest in social justice. That, of course, is easier if you really do. If you don’t, maybe that school is not for you.
  2. Give your referees – yep, those people who draft your reference letters for the purposes of the law school application – clear instructions on how to draft the letters. Even if your letter is highly complimentary, if it does not touch upon those skills which law school admission committees think are necessary, little weight will be given to it.
  3. Volunteer. Many law schools use a holistic approach to admissions, which means that they look for well-rounded candidates. Particularly where candidates are evenly matched in every other respect, extra-curricular activities, especially those in which you've taken a leadership role, can make the difference.
  4. Obtain a graduate degree. While this is no guarantee of admission and considered by most law schools to be a “soft factor”, some schools, including Ottawa’s look highly upon such degrees. If your GPA or LSAT score are near the cusp, a “graduate degree” can be the clincher.
  5. Be forthright in identifying your past academic, work, and volunteer experience on the biographical section of your application. Keep in mind that some schools may take steps to verify that you have in fact done what you claimed to have done.
  6. Keep yourself informed. There are many sub-points to this particular point but let me hit the two that I think are most important. First, if a particular school rejects you, call that school and find out the reasons why. Should you choose to apply there again, this will allow you to make the right adjustments to your application. Second, the admission policy of each law school can, and does, change. You must keep yourself apprised of such changes and modify your application accordingly if your want to give yourself the best shot of securing a spot.
  7. Be true to thyself. In a personal statement, as well as in the rest of the application, you should try to tell your story (as fully and candidly as possible), not someone else’s. Even though there are objective considerations in the admissions process such as GPA and LSAT, there are also subjective components. Thus, the human element should not be discounted.
Good luck.
- Robert Tanha, Toronto

Mr. Colbert Goes to Washington

Comedian Stephen Colbert, testifying in character today at Washington before a House Judiciary Subcommittee on migrant labour:
"I don't want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, sliced by a Guatemalan, and served by a Venezuelan, in a spa, where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian."
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

140Law - Legal Headlines for September 24, 2010

It's Friday, and here's hoping this wonderful Toronto weather lasts for the weekend! Here are today's leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter.

- Rachel Spence, Toronto

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

Quotable

The Republicans were doing pretty well for themselves as the Party of No. So why did they decide to rebrand themselves as the Party of Nonsense?
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Thursday, September 23, 2010

"From Writer's Block to Cell Block"

A chronically overdue Michigan court reporter has been sentenced to thirty days in the slammer for contempt of court.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

140Law - Legal Headlines for September 23, 2010

Here are today's leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter.

There's a full moon tonight! Take time to get outside and enjoy it before the cold weather comes our way.
- Rachel Spence, Toronto

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

Rose Coloured Hockey Visors

Pension Plan Puppets' tongue-in-cheek commentary on last evening's 4-1 exhibition victory by the Toronto Maple Leafs over the hated Ottawa Senators:
...Break Up the Leafs
The only fair thing to do after a performance like last night's is to force the Leafs to tear apart this juggernaut. No one likes watching a sport dominated by one single team.
PPP is one of the better of the many excellent hockey blogs now online. Smart, funny and insightful.

Now that hockey season is back, give it a read. You may never feel the need to pick up a newspaper sports section again.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Ontario Employment Law: Notice Periods for Non-Managerial Employees

Ontario employers are required to provide reasonable notice when terminating employment without cause. The duration of the notice period required is based on a number of factors, such as length of employment, seniority, the employee's age, likelihood of re-employment and character of employment.

In this article, we will consider the notice entitlements of non-managerial employees in non-unionized workplaces, based on the factors relevant to the assessment of reasonable notice, as articulated in the oft-cited case of Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R. (2d) 140 (Ont. H.C.).

In Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd. 1997 3 S.C.R. 701, the Supreme Court of Canada awarded 24 months salary in lieu of notice to a company’s top salesman, noting that such an award could be said to fall at the “high end of the scale.” In coming to this decision the Court applied the well-known Bardal factors:

Applying these factors in the instant case, I concur with the trial judge’s finding that in light of the appellant's advanced age, his 14-year tenure as the company's top salesman and his limited prospects for re-employment, a lengthy period of notice is warranted. I note, however, that Bardal, supra, does not state, nor has it been interpreted to imply, that the factors it enumerated were exhaustive: see e.g.Gillespie v. Bulkley Valley Forest Industries Ltd., [1975] 1 W.W.R. 607 (B.C.C.A.); Corbin v. Standard Life Assurance Co. (1995), 15 C.C.E.L. (2d) 71 (N.B.C.A.); Bishop v. Carleton Co-operative Ltd. (1996), 21 C.C.E.L. (2d) 1 (N.B.C.A.). Canadian courts have added several additional factors to the Bardal list. The application of these factors to the assessment of a dismissed employee’s notice period will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.

In addition, the court considered inducement - a factor not addressed in Bardal.

In Wallace, the employee had been induced by the employer to leave previous secure employment:

In my opinion, such inducements are properly included among the considerations which tend to lengthen the amount of notice required. I concur with the comments of Christie et al., supra, and recognize that there is a need to safeguard the employee’s reliance and expectation interests in inducement situations. I note, however, that not all inducements will carry equal weight when determining the appropriate period of notice. The significance of the inducement in question will vary with the circumstances of the particular case and its effect, if any, on the notice period is a matter best left to the discretion of the trial judge.

In the instant case, the trial judge found that UGG went to great lengths to relieve Wallace's fears about jeopardizing his existing secure employment and to entice him into joining their company.

Of course, the Wallace case is best known for its articulation of principles relating to bad faith termination; these principles were ultimately revisited and revised by the Supreme Court in 2008's seminal ruling in Honda v. Keays [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362.

In Cronk v. Canadian General Insurance Co., 1995 CanLii 814 (ON C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s decision to award a clerk sternographer (who was 55 years of age and had 28 years of service) 20 months of notice on the basis that the clerical character of the employment of the plaintiff did not entitle her to as lengthy a period of notice:

In my opinion, the character of the employment of the respondent does not entitle her to a lengthy period of notice. As pointed out by Saunders J. in Bohemier v. Storwal International Inc., supra, at p. 269:

It seems to me that the character of the employment of the plaintiff with Storwal does not entitle him to a lengthy period of notice on the basis of decided cases and the reasons I have stated. If the issue had been addressed at the time he was first employed, it would not have been reasonable for his employer to have agreed to a notice period sufficient to enable him to find work in difficult economic times. In saying this, I hope that it is not thought that I am unsympathetic to the plight of the plaintiff. His claim, however, is based on contract and it is not reasonable to expect that his employer would or could have agreed to assure that his notice of termination would be sufficient to guarantee that he would obtain alternative employment within the notice period.

In the end, the majority of the Court opted to give Ms. Cronk twelve months' pay in lieu of notice.

In Minnott v. O’Shanter 1999 Can Lii 3686 (ON C.A.), 42 O.R. (3d) 321, a case decided after Cronk, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected “the rule of thumb” approach to calculating notice periods, where an employee is essentially given 1 month of notice for each year worked, emphasizing the need to use a contextual approach that considers the Bardal factors and other such factors.

In this case, an employee who had worked in the employer’s maintenance department for 11 years received 13 months of notice. In so deciding, the Court stated the following with respect to the Cronk case:

I do not agree, however, that this court’s decision in Cronk establishes an upper limit of 12 months notice for a manual worker such as Minott. And I do not agree that an award of damages equivalent to 13 months notice is unreasonable. Although perhaps at the very high end, 13 months notice for Minott is within an acceptable range.

Minott and Cronk exemplify the range of Ontario courts' approaches to the notice entitlements of non-managerial employees.

In Bramble v. Media Health and Pharmaceutical Services Inc. (1999) 214 N.B.R. (2d) 111, a decision that has garnered considerable attention from courts across Canada including the Supreme Court of Canada, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal departed from prevailing judicial thought, especially in Ontario, in disregarding the Bardal factor dealing with Character of Employment as an established factor in the assessment of the employee’s notice period:

It is now widely accepted that employment is an essential component of a person's self-worth. See Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, at p. 368, Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., supra, and Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., supra, at para. 93. By treating junior employees unfavourably solely on the basis of the status of their employment, the traditional approach undermines, without any justification, their self-worth. As a result, courts have been justifiably uncomfortable with a continued adherence to the traditional view. This discomfort may go a long way in explaining why courts, despite the lip service paid to character of employment as a factor, have tended, of late, to award notice periods to junior employees that approximate those historically reserved for senior employees.

In taking this position, the Court was moved by Statistics Canada research, especially unemployment figures, indicating that lower level employees have a more difficult time finding work than high level employees.

Ultimately, the calculation of reasonable notice upon termination of employment is dependant on the specific circumstances of each case. If your employment is terminated, legal advice should be obtained as to your specific entitlements.

- Robert Tanha, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Ontario Employment Law: “Just Cause” for Dismissal

When can employment be lawfully terminated "for cause?"

In order for the courts to find that an employer has dismissed an employee for “just cause," the employee must be found to have breached a fundamental term of the contract of employment.

In other words, the employee must fail to perform a fundamental obligation of his or her job: Mckinley v. B.C. Telephone, 2001 SCC 38, (2001) 200 DLR (4th)

What constitutes “just cause” in any particular circumstance?

In the classic English case of Pearce v. Foster (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 536, a case whose discussion of “just cause” is regularly cited by Canadian courts with approval, the court stated:

What circumstances will put a servant into the position of not being able to perform, in a due manner, his duties, or of not being able to perform his duty in a faithful manner, it is impossible to enumerate. Innumerable circumstances have actually occurred which fall within that proposition, and innumerable other circumstances which never have yet occurred, will occur, which also will fall within the proposition.

In the much more recent Canadian case, Mckinley, the following description of “just cause” is given by the Supreme Court of Canada:

The conduct under consideration must be seen in context. The issue is whether the employee’s misconduct was such that gave rise to a breakdown in the employment relationship.

If a court finds that there was just cause for the dismissal, the employee loses entitlement to notice, pay in lieu of notice, and may fail to qualify for unemployment insurance.

An important point to remember is that “just cause” can only be relied upon by an employer to justify termination when cause arises.

If an innocent employer does not warn the employee or dismiss for cause at that time of discovery of the misconduct, or otherwise fails to respond when fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the misconduct, it may be found to have condoned, or essentially forgiven, the misconduct.

Thus, absent timely response by the employer, the employee’s alleged or actual misconduct can not alone be relied upon by the employer as a reason to dismiss the employee at some remote, future time.

We see this rule at work in the following passage from Kellet v. Mazda, 2008 CanLii 74291 (ON S.C.), a case involving termination of an employee by an employer for, among other things, multiple acts of sexual harassment:

The sexual harassment evidence herein is properly taken into account in deciding whether there was just cause for dismissal. The defendant did not condone or waive these serious acts of employee misconduct. It disciplined the plaintiff and warned him by letter about the seriousness of the conduct in issue. That letter also contained a warning about other unprofessional conduct. Pursuant to Nossal v. the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Toronto (1985) 51 O.R. (2d) 279 (C.A.), further misconduct allows past misconduct, even of a different nature, to be considered when deciding whether there is just cause. In other words, all acts of misconduct, unless condoned or otherwise forgiven, properly may be accumulated for the purpose of deciding whether there was just cause, in the circumstances.

With respect to the definition of “just cause," courts have stated that the misconduct for which an employee is dismissed must be of a serious nature; mere dissatisfaction by the employer is not enough.

Of course, assessing the seriousness of the misconduct will be context-specific; in other words, it will depend largely on the nature of employment. Only in rare instances will a single mistake justify the dismissal of an employee, for example where that mistake threatens life or the continuance of a business. In most circumstances, a pattern of conduct and a series of warnings will be required before just cause justifying a termination will be found by a court.

In Pearce v. Foster, the court identified specific circumstances that can justify a finding of “just cause” by the employer:

  1. serious misconduct;
  2. habitual neglect of duty;
  3. incompetence, off duty conduct that is incompatible and prejudicial to the employer’s business;

Other circumstances that can justify dismissal of an employee include insubordination, post-dismissal conduct, and sexual harassment.

Legal tests, which are highly sensitive to context, have been articulated by our courts to address these various circumstances.

In future posts, we will consider each of the noted circumstances.

We will also look at the key role written warnings by an employer may play in determining whether grounds exist for termination of employment for just cause. Finally, we will look at alternate forms of discipline, such as temporary suspension of employment, which may be an appropriate remedy to misconduct.

- Robert Tanha, Toronto

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

Google Street View and Privacy

Barred from the Czech Republic and under review in Germany, will Google Street View be next in Canadian Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart's crosshairs?


- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

South African Tweeter Charged for Speed Trap Alerts

Via CNN:
A controversial Twitter user has been challenging South African authorities by alerting thousands of followers to speed traps set by traffic police.
Now the Johannesburg police are pushing back, saying they have charged the @PigSpotter Twitter user with defamation, impairing the dignity of another person and "defeating the ends of justice," according to Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department spokesman Wayne Minaar. He declined to name the person who has been charged or provide documentation of the charges.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Canada's Privacy Commissioner: I ♥ Facebook

According to Canada's Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, Facebook's privacy protections have come a long way, indeed.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada published a news release today, Privacy Commissioner completes Facebook review, setting out its findings, after a review of the social media site's controversial privacy policies and practises:

OTTAWA, September 22, 2010 – The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has finished reviewing the changes that Facebook implemented as a result of her investigation of the social networking site and has concluded that the issues raised in the complaint have been resolved to her satisfaction.

Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart today issued the following statement:

The changes Facebook has put in place in response to concerns we raised as part of our investigation last year are reasonable and meet the expectations set out under Canadian privacy law.

The investigation has resulted in many significant changes. Facebook has put in place measures to limit the sharing of personal information with third-party application developers and is now providing users with clear information about its privacy practices.

Read more....

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

Advice For The Third-Year Law Student Without An Articling Position

So you've gone through two years of law school already.

You've written exams. You've written papers. You've (hopefully) gotten a little bit of practical legal experience under your belt. You've gone through the on-campus interview process: three or four extensive interviews every day, some of them (like Crown office interviews) quite rigorous.

And when it came time for firms to call you back and offer a job, nothing happened. No call, no job, no nothing.

Okay: not good. Nobody likes being the person who doesn't have a job; you're going into third year having a lot of additional stress and extra work to do, while your classmates who all have jobs already get to sit back and do the third-year-coast. (It is generally about this time that you realize that so many law students are, in fact, insufferably smug. Not you, of course. You don't have a job yet.)

So, how do you get a job?

1.) Ask your professors - or anybody else you know - if they know anybody who's looking. You will get this advice so often it will become incredibly trite to you, but it's not a bad idea, so let's get it out of the way: networking is just part of being a lawyer. Not just finding a job, but having a circle of contacts who can pass along referrals, who can offer advice or consultation when you're out of your legal depth, knowing people who know people who can help your case (sometimes in esoteric ways).

Do not get your hopes up about this tack. The reason everybody will suggest it to you is because everybody knows to do it - especially with regard to your professors. By the time you go ask them "er, do you know anybody who might be hiring?" you will be, at a minimum, the twenty-first person to ask them, and probably at least the twentieth they'll have to tell "no" because after the first person their friend who was considering hiring told them "please don't send me any more of your students." Your professors still won't get angry with you for asking - you're a student without a job and if you're polite about it then it's the responsible thing for you to ask. But the odds that they can help you are very low.

Your odds of professional contacts being able to help you are a bit better, if only because they aren't being constantly beseiged by other job-seeking students - but only a very small bit of better. The simple truth about getting an articling position through networking is that articling positions are a very specific sort of job and, unlike other sorts of jobs, don't generally flourish with more practice popping up. Small firms are reluctant to hire articling students because of the cost.

A clever applicant can sometimes work around this by arranging a dual article via your law society, working five months with one practice and then five months with another - but as a general rule you'll need to have good contacts at at least one of the practices and preferably both. Many careers offices at law schools will confidently tell you about how a dual article is the answer to a prospective graduate's job dilemma, but the truth is that a dual article means you have to sufficiently impress two interviewers rather than one, and just because they're hiring you for half the time doesn't mean you only need them to trust you half as much. In practice a dual article is often harder to achieve than your basic single article: only bother with it if one practice really likes you but is really worried about the cost of hiring you.

(I haven't mentioned family connections. If a close relative of yours is a lawyer in a practice where they have some influence over hiring and you haven't thought of asking them for help yet, maybe this law thing is not for you. Consider becoming a shepherd.)

So after you've talked to everybody and nothing's happened, what do you do next?

2.) Apply to job notices and postings. I really hate that this is my second option, but they're there and you're going to use them, so let's discuss them. You're primarily going to rely on two sources for these: your law society's job postings and what your school's careers office provides. The former is usually a fairly steady stream of notices; the latter will vary widely, depending on how proactive and talented your careers office is. (They range from "extremely dedicated" to "well-meaning but inept," and size and/or reputation of the law school generally has nothing to do with how good its careers office happens to be.)

Of course, those won't be the only areas you'll find articling postings. Some of the other legal job sites occasionally have articling postings other than large firms' annual OCI announcements, and I memorably once found a solo criminal defense practitioner advertising for an articling student on Craigslist. But generally your law society and careers office will have almost all of the advertisements for jobs.

Do not apply for every job, no matter how desperate you might be. You're simply not going to be the candidate for a lot of positions: if you're interested in business law and securities and have no litigation background at all beyond taking Evidence because everybody takes it, you're not even going to get an interview with that criminal practice, and the same goes for you criminal law specialists and business firms. Applying for this sort of job wastes your time and more importantly theirs; there's no sense in irritating somebody you don't even know, especially since it can only hurt your networking down the line.

The average job notice generates about ten interviews at most. (As a general rule: nobody wants to interview more than ten people for any job ever. OCIs are a special case.) But those ten interviews come out of an immense stack of applications. When I interviewed with one small estate litigator earlier this year who had posted a job notice, he told me that he had received over 150 applications, and that about a quarter of those were from out of province. Practices outside of large cities will get less applications, obviously, but even one practice in the Kawarthas (three or four hours' drive from Toronto) where I interviewed got over a hundred.

Personally, I am not a big fan of the "just apply to things" school of finding a job. A generation of kids have come out of high school convinced by guidance counsellors that the best way to get a job is to check want ads (or the online version thereof). If you get a bit of experience in the real job market, you quickly come to learn that most positions never get mentioned in want ads: they get filled before there's ever a need for one. Articling positions are no different. So what do I endorse?

3.) Cold calls. I know you hate making cold calls. So do I. Everybody hates making cold calls; they make you feel awkward, uncomfortable, intrusive, even rude. However, one thing is undeniable: cold calls work. This is not because they are brilliant or especially effective for what they are; they work because you can do a lot of them in a short period of time. If you know another student or two who's also looking for a job, you can set up a cold-call team, each of you calling certain segments of the list and then each of you sending your application packages to all the "yes" answers both of you get; this can make it less soul-destroying, as well as quicker and more effective.

When I began cold-calling, I set up a system. I went to the law society's directory of lawyer's contact numbers and began copying and pasting. The LSUC's directory doesn't have a "browse" option, but it lets you search by postal code; thus I put together a big spreadsheet of postal codes and began sorting out redundant numbers from lawyers working at the same firm or practice, as well as identifying out-of-date information (of which, unfortunately, there was quite a bit). I also made sure to do a bit of research on each practice with Google and Quicklaw to figure out what each firm actually did so if asked questions about the firm I could appear engaged and interested.

This took about a week to set up, but once I finished, I had a call list for pretty much every firm, office, chambers and solo practitioner in Toronto, the GTA and outlying communities in southern Ontario. I started with those areas closest to me geographically and started systematically working outwards.

I put together a pretty basic script for the calls: greeting, inquiry as to whom handled hiring, then a simple straightforward "are you planning to hire an articling student within the next X months?" (X was usually six; sometimes I went to eight.) About nine answers out of ten were "no, sorry," in which case I thanked them and moved on. The remaining ten percent were either "no" followed by a lawyer being very friendly and asking how it was going, if I had tried asking my profs for help or going to the LSUC, et cetera; or they were "you can send us your resume and cover letter." Sometimes they were actively hiring and just hadn't put up a notice yet; sometimes they weren't openly hiring but were open to the idea of the right candidate. One or two lawyers told me apologetically that they weren't hiring but then directed me to another practitioner they knew who was thinking about it.

At a rough estimate I'd say I made about fifty calls per day. Fifty calls per day meant five applications going out per day; of those applications, I'd say about one in twenty led to an interview. This sounds terrible, but in context it's pretty good: that's one interview generated by every two days of cold-calling. (The last one, which I got about a week before Garry hired me, was from an application I had sent over two months beforehand; their previous articling student had quit and they needed an immediate replacement. They called me for a second interview after I'd accepted a position with Wise Law, which gave me the welcome opportunity to politely reject an employer rather than vice versa.)

Cold calls can be dispiriting and mentally fatiguing; it's hard to hear "no" so many times in one day. But if you grind away at them, they will eventually get you a job you want; you can say this about no other method of looking for work.

- Christopher Bird, Toronto

A brief note:

As a quick add-on to Chris' extensive comments, students should note that law firms' requirements can and do change as a year progresses. Often, particularly in smaller firms, positions may come available in June or July that weren't even contemplated in the months preceeding.

Thus, it never hurts to check back in with firms that are of particular interest to you - you never know....

- Garry J. Wise
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net