Ontario Employment Law: Aggravated Damages in Wrongful Dismissal Cases

Aggravated damages may be awarded in wrongful dismissal actions on rare occasions to compensate an employee whose damages have been worsened or exacerbated by the employer's misconduct or bad faith upon termination.

Aggravated damages are compensatory in nature, and must reflect actual harm. They should not be confused with punitive damages, which are intended to punish or or admonish a defendant for a particularly reprehensible act that justifies public censure.

Both aggravated damages and punitive damages, however, have largely fallen out of favour in the nation's courts in employment law actions.

In a June, 2010 Ontario ruling, Branch v. CIBC, the court, referring to the seminal case in this area Honda v. Keays, stated as follows:

In order to be entitled to aggravated damages, Ms. Branch [the employee] must prove that the Bank’s [the employer] conduct during the course of dismissal constituted a display of unfair dealing or bad faith: Honda v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39 (CanLII), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362 at paras. 56-58; Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., 1997 CanLII 332 (S.C.C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701 at para. 98. Since aggravated damages are compensatory in nature, the employee must also prove the actual damages suffered: Honda v. Keays at para. 59.

In other words, an employee must prove actual, quantifiable injury. The Plaintiff employee in Branch was unable to do so.

While the employer might have lacked candour in the manner in which it terminated her, and terminated her for objectionable reasons, that was not enough to justify an aggravated damages award where actual damages could not be shown by the employee.

What kind of "actual damages" must a plaintiff employee prove to justify an award of aggravated damages?

While an exhaustive answer to this question is beyond the scope of this article, if an employee can prove that he or she has suffered documented psychological injury beyond the typical emotional upheaval of a termination, for example, then an award of aggravated damages might be warranted if the injury was rooted in an employer's exceptional misconduct.

It must underlined that the court in Branch stressed that even where "aggravated damages" are warranted, the Plaintiff will be not be entitled to an extension of the period of reasonable notice. This was the approach previously taken with Wallace damages, prior to the Honda ruling.

Instead an employee is entitled to a monetary award that reflects actual damages suffered.

For an example of a post-Honda ruling where aggravated damages were in fact awarded, see our November 2009 article on the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling in Slepenkova v. Ivanov: The Future of Wallace Damages in Ontario Employment Law

If you have been wrongfully dismissed, contact a lawyer for advice as to your rights and entitlements.

- Robert Tanha and Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140Law - Legal Headlines for December 20, 2010

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

• Supreme Court to rule on fertility industry - The Province http://is.gd/j383D
• Top court to hear appeal by Conrad Black's former associates - Globe and Mail http://is.gd/j37Gd
• SNL Does Wikileaks http://is.gd/j1rLx
• UK plans to block all porn in effort to ‘protect children’http://is.gd/j1ra2
• A destructive Internet worm could be potent cyber weapon http://is.gd/j0kpw
• Retailer starts adding animal-welfare ratings to meat labels http://is.gd/j0jjy
• 'Don't ask' is repealed in historic vote http://is.gd/j0iLC
• DADT Breaks Filibuster http://is.gd/iY937
• Telemarketer hit with $500,000 CRTC fine http://is.gd/iY8Ns
• PETA takes aim at Justin Trudeau over Christmas card http://is.gd/iY8Lq
• Evi Quaid misses probation hearing; warrant issued http://is.gd/iY8uy
• States sue BofA over foreclosure issues http://is.gd/iY8of
• Recovery for Madoff victims at halfway point http://is.gd/iY8hA
• Craigslist pulls 'erotic services' ads from Canadian sites http://is.gd/iY8eT
• Strip-searched Ottawa woman sues police http://is.gd/iWKce

- Rachel Spence, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Our Most Read and Tweeted Blog Posts of 2010

As 2010 winds down to its far-too-chilly Canadian end, it's holiday season (almost) and time, therefore, for the inevitable annual retrospectives to flow.

Not wanting to be behind that curve, let's take a look back at the Wise Law Blog articles our readers and friends on Twitter have found most interesting in 2010.

These lists are always fun to look back on as sign-of-the-times markers. As digital time capsules, so to speak, they often tell us what quite a bit about what was on our minds in the year now nearly behind us.

Most Read

With the caveat that this information comes from Google stats, which commenced publication of its blog traffic statistics only in July, 2010, here are our most-read articles in (the second half of) 2010:

1. Starting A Law Firm (posted Feb 1, 2007)
2. Constructive Dismissal: Employers Beware (posted December 22, 2008)
3. Bill 168: Ontario Workplace Harassment and Violence Legislation in Force (posted June 15, 2010)
4. Social Media and the Legal Profession: Where are We Now? (posted October 2, 2010)
5. “Totally, Totally Illegal” under the Federal Privacy Act (posted September 22, 2010)
6. A Few Twitter Analytics Tools (posted November 7, 2010)
7. Workplace Harassment and Bill 168 - A New Remedy for an Old Problem (posted November 20, 2009)
8. Wind Turbines and The Green Energy Pushback (posted September 10, 2009)
9. Canada's Prostitution Laws Struck by Ontario Superior Court (posted September 28, 2010)
10. Facebook, Background Checks and Job Applications (posted November 15, 2010)

Most Re-Tweeted:

By interesting comparison in this, the year of the Twitterer, here are our most retweeted posts of 2010, via Topsy:

1. Social Media and the Legal Profession: Where are We Today? (59 retweets)
2. A Few Twitter Analytics Tools (29 retweets)
3. Facebook, Background Checks and Job Applications (22 retweets)
4. Blogging, Responsible Journalism and Damages for Libel (16 retweets)
5. Is Cloud Computing "Careless" Computing? (14 retweets)
6. Ontario Employment Law: Restrictive Covenants 101 (11 retweets)
7. Notes on SiteMeter Stats vs Blogger Stats (and Blog Aggregators) (10 retweets)
8. Ontario Employment Law: Wrongful Dismissal and the Common Employer Doctrine (9 retweets)
9. James Morton: Ontario Litigation Has Become an "Elaborate Game of Chicken" (9 retweets)
10. Ontario Family Law: Court of Appeal Rules Superior Court Judges May Request, But Not Order, Children's Lawyer Involvement (9 retweets)
11. Ontario Employment Law: Reasonable Notice and 'Character of Employment' (8 retweets)
12. Ontario Employment Law: Discrimination On The Basis of Disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code (8 retweets)
13. Ontario Employment Law: Termination Pay and Severance Pay under the Employment Standards Act (8 retweets)
14. Video: Eugene Volokh on Why You Should Read Law Blogs (8 retweets)
15. OMG! Law Talk - In Conversation with Kevin O'Keefe (8 retweets)

There will be more seasonal fare in the week ahead, no doubt, including our 2010 CLawBie nominations, so please do stay tuned.

And thank you so much for visiting and tweeting us in 2010.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Details of Assange Accusers' Allegations Revealed

Guardian UK provides newly-leaked details today of the highly controversial sexual assault allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

See: 10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange - Unseen police documents provide the first complete account of the allegations against the WikiLeaks founder.

Mr. Assange has not been charged with any criminal offence, to date. He was released on bail Thursday from a UK prison, and awaits an extradition hearing which will determine whether he will be required to return to Sweden for further questioning arising from these incidents.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Ontario Employment Law: Jurisdiction of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal

In a recent decision, Gothard v. Clowater, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal provides us with an important reminder: Its jurisdiction is limited by the Ontario Human Rights Code itself.

The Tribunal only has the power to decide an applicant's claim where that claim alleges discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status, or disability.

The fact that an applicant has been treated "unfairly" by the employer is not enough; without a factual underpinning that brings a workplace matter within the ambit of the Code, the Tribunal may not provide compensation or relief.

As Adjudicator Judith Keene aptly notes in Gothard:

Clearly the applicant feels that he has been treated unfairly, but he does not allege that the actions to which he objects were taken because of an attempt on his part “to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act”. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code.

In order to establish a claim under the Code, an Applicant must provide information showing that his or her right to be free from discrimination, as provided by the Code, has been violated through the conduct of his or her employer. Only then will the Tribunal have the power to decide the matters raised and award a remedy if appropriate.

If you feel that you have been are are being discriminated against by your employer, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, seek legal advice from a lawyer to determine your rights and entitlements.

- Robert Tanha, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

This Week At The Ontario Court Of Appeal: 12-12-17

Each week, Wise Law Blog will review recent decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

R. v. Khawaja. An appeal by Mohammad Momin Khawaja, the first person in Canada to be sentenced under the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act. Mr. Khawaja's conviction in regard to a 2004 terrorist plot in Britain was appealed on multiple grounds. Mr. Khawaja appealed both his conviction and sentence of ten years; the Crown cross-appealed on the sentence, seeking a lengthier one.

Mr. Khawaja's background and history in terrorist-related plots were largely not contested; the defendant instead argued that he was not involved with the British terrorism plot and had instead been working to support armed conflict in Afghanistan, which by his argument invalidated his first two counts under the Act, and which left his remaining five counts up to the decision of the judge. The trial judge decided that counts 3 through 7 were not restricted to simply the British terror plot and that supporting the insurgency in Afghanistan constituted "enhancing or facilitating... a terrorist group and a terrorist activity," and that Mr. Khawaja's actions did not fall outside the definition of terrorism as they were directed to support the insurgent groups' broader agenda rather than just its front line combat. However, he found that the first two counts against Mr. Khawaja were too specific, and therefore did not convict in those grounds.

At trial, the judge also found that the phrase "terrorist activity" in the Act was violative of s.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in that it would potentially have a chilling effect on discourse due to "the government's tendency to focus its investigative resources on persons associated with those views," and that individuals who might not share those views but who had the same ethnicity or general political outlook would suffer the same chilling effect. One of the appellant defendant's appeal grounds was that, since the central definition of terrorist activity was flawed, the judge should therefore have declared the entire definition of no force and effect, and further that this amounted to a criminalization of motive.

The Court disagreed, stating that the conduct prohibited by the Act was violent and therefore not protected by section 2. The chilling effect argument was also considered and discarded by the Court, as they felt the trial judge's conclusion was too speculative and lacking in evidence, and further suggested that

the most obvious cause of any "chilling effect" among those whose beliefs would be associated in the public mind with the beliefs of terrorist groups is the temper of the times, and not a legislative provision that in all probability is unknown to the vast majority of persons who are said to be "chilled" by its existence...

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the charges against him should be dropped on the grounds of nonspecifity. Pointing out that from the very beginning, the Crown established its case both on the grounds of Mr. Khawaja's participation in the British terror plot and his general support of activities of the Omar Khyam group which ran the Afghani insurgency, the Court thus decided that this ground completely failed. Similarly, they affirmed the trial judge's decisions regarding the inapplicability of the armed conflict exemption and his judicial notice of the situation in Afghanistan (which was confined to widely available and notorious facts). They also disagreed with the appellant in finding the convictions on counts three through seven inadmissible.

The Court then turned its attention to sentencing. Determining that the trial judge erred in assessing Mr. Khawaja's level of determination in carrying out terrorist attacks (a key factor in the trial judge's decision to only issue a ten-year sentence, as he felt Mr. Khawaja was not nearly so intent on terrorist activity as some of his comrades), allowed the "amateurish" nature of Mr. Khawaja's actions to obscure his intent, and also erred in factoring in the lack of evidence of Mr. Khawaja's prospects for rehabilitation. The Court then stated that the sentence did not reflect the uniquely horrific nature of terrorism in that it is not only an attack on citizens but an attack on the Canadian state and its culture as a whole. Finally, they suggested that the sentence was not adequate enough deterrent to other would-be terrorists.

For these reasons, the Court changed Mr. Khawaja's sentence to life imprisonment, with no prospect of parole for the first ten years, and then four additional sentences adding to 24 years to be served concurrently with the life sentence. Read-the-whole-case rating: 5. It's not often you get to see the Court of Appeal break truly new ground in this manner, and the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. It's long, but well worth your time.

80 Mornelle Properties Inc. v. Malla Properties Ltd. An appeal regarding who would benefit from a property tax refund: the owner of a property who paid most of the taxes in question, or the current owner of a property who had since purchased it from the original owner. At application level, the judge found that since the City of Toronto Act authorized payment of the refund to the current owner of the property, that the current owner was entitled to the refund. The seller of the property appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the seller's appeal. Stating that the right to the refund was not, in fact, transferred along with the sale of the property, as assessment of land and taxation of land are two distinct processes and that therefore the right to the refund was a separate personal property right which would have to be explicitly assigned to the purchaser. Surveying the agreement between the two parties, the Court found that it only conveyed the property, chattels, buildings and lands, and no intangible property rights. On that basis - and also determining that the City of Toronto Act's wording was not intended to punish sellers of property - the Court found for the appellants. Read-the-whole-case rating: 1.5. Just read Khawaja instead.

- Christopher Bird, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Transformative Work Enthusiasts Bolstered By "Yogi Bear" Parody Reaction

Today, a rare instance of Hollywood failing to overreact when defending its copyrights:

A video parody of “Yogi Bear” that’s much darker than your average episode of that vintage Hanna-Barbera cartoon – not to mention the coming Warner Brothers film adaptation – isn’t a viral marketing campaign gone awry. But the studio said on Monday that it wouldn’t try to take down the Web satire, either.

The video, posted on December 13th, is a well-made parody which sets Yogi and Boo Boo in a story that mirrors the end of the film The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford. It has already generated almost two and a half million views since it was posted.

Many other viral Youtubes featuring corporate-owned properties like these are often taken down on the basis of copyright violation (which has led to amusing bits of confusion such as Sony temporarily forcing Youtube to remove access to Beyonce songs - from Beyonce's own channel). Indeed, takedowns for copyright infringement range across all the creative industries, from comic-book scan sharers having their Livejournal accounts nuked to the Department of Homeland Security shutting down hip-hop sites.

Although many have argued that owners of copyrighted work should consider a more liberal approach to dealing with infringement of that copyright - or that they should reconsider their distribution models to make on-demand access to the material easier to discourage infringement - this argument has been going on since the age of bootlegged music in the 70s and 80s.

What makes Warner Brothers' action worthy of note is that this action is not in response to copyright infringement through basic reproduction of the work, but in response to a transformative use of the work; copyright reform advocates have long argued that transformative use and "remix culture" should be considered protected under fair use/fair dealing law, since they use existing elements of copyright works to create new works which should then receive their own individual copyright.

Warner's statement that taking action against the short's creators would be difficult under existing fair use law is, in that light, an admission that they believe transformative works stand a good chance of ultimately being found allowable as a fair use of existing copyright. That should be encouraging for those of us who want to make parody Youtube videos - and those of us who enjoy watching them.

-Christopher Bird, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140Law - Legal Headlines for December 17, 2010

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

• Facebook knows your face. Is that a problem? - Christian Science Monitor http://is.gd/iTwav
• No ‘substantive’ damage from Wikileaks, Biden admits http://is.gd/iSNyL
• Vigna v. Levant: Ezra Decides To Go Another Round http://is.gd/iTv6M
• Council Votes To Scrap Car Tax, Declare TTC An Essential Service http://is.gd/iTv0X
• Canadians unnecessarily being put under knife: Report http://is.gd/iTuJU
• The Great Fallacy of Intellectual Property http://is.gd/iTuFs
• Media Decoder: After 25 Years, Larry King Signs Off http://is.gd/iTutI
• As Inmate Seeks to Suppress Wired Lawyer’s Evidence, a New Issue: Did Feds Bug Lawyer Room at Jail? http://is.gd/iSqOw
• Florida Federal Judge Still Not Persuaded That Health-Care Law is Legal http://is.gd/iSqMq
• Woman Sues TV Preacher for Failing to Disclose Affair http://is.gd/iSqAm
• Nine months for Internet luring conviction - Edmonton Journal http://is.gd/iSqq1
• G20 Summit just one of 2010's pressing legal issues - Toronto Sun http://is.gd/iSqlt
• China bans poultry, product imports from Manitoba over bird flu fears http://bit.ly/h7KnT0
• Canadian broadcaster CTV cleared over repeated plays of Olympic luge death video http://bit.ly/fqQ352
• Court: Irish abortion ban violates women's rights http://is.gd/iR1m5
• WikiLeaks Founder Ordered Freed as Court Rejects Appeal http://is.gd/iR13n
• Conrad Black libel case going to top court http://is.gd/iR0LS
• Court: Assange Will Be Freed http://is.gd/iR0kM
• Rebuilding a Law Library, Part 3: Is There a Place for Law Reports? http://is.gd/iR09I
• As Christmas nears, courtrooms fill with parents battling over kids - Globe and Mail http://is.gd/iQZM1
• SCC will hear appeal by Black's former associates - CTV.ca http://is.gd/iQZKB

- Rachel Spence, Toronto

Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

The Ontario Family Law Ruling "Everyone" Is Talking About

While Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn's November 29, 2010 ruling in Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII) goes strangely unmentioned by name in Kirk Makin's extensive Globe and Mail report today, In family court, a judge turns to ridicule to defuse the rage, I confess the case was nonetheless relatively easy to find online.

It merely required a search of the CanLii database for the term "dickhead."

(There was only one result)

Leaving Justice Quinn's many colourful turns of phrase aside for the moment, the case is primarily important as a rare example of an Ontario decision in which a spouse's misconduct - in this case parental alienation - has been regarded as so egregious as to essentially disqualify her from entitlement to spousal support.

The excerpts from the ruling, below, set out the Court's rationale for bypassing the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and limiting its spousal support award to $1.00 monthly:

9. Spousal Support

...(o) amount and duration under the SSAGs

[202] Larry’s projected annual income for 2010 is $81,000 (rounded). Using Catherine’s income as set out in her sworn financial statement and applying the with-child-support formula under the SSAGs, the monthly spousal support range is: $98(low); $466(mid); and $863(high). The minimum duration under the SSAGs is 5.5 years and the maximum is 11 years, both measured from the date of separation. The minimum period of 5.5 is generally what I thought would be appropriate (I was considering five years). Had Larry been earning $81,000 annually since separation, I would have selected the mid-range support figure of $466, preferring to be conservative in the circumstances of this case,[42] and require that it be paid for the first year after separation, declining to $400 in the second year, $350 in the third year, $300 in the fourth, $250 in the fifth and $200 in the remnant year.[43]As Larry’s ability to pay did not arise until the fourth year after separation, I order (but still provisionally) monthly spousal support of $300 in 2010, $250 in 2011 and $200 for the first six months of 2012.[44]

(p) spousal conduct

[203] Notwithstanding the SSAGs, s. 33(10) of the Family Law Act gives a discretion to the court to consider spousal conduct in arriving at the amount of support:

33(10) The obligation to provide support for a spouse exists without regard to the conduct of either spouse, but the court may in determining the amount of support have regard to a course of conduct that is so unconscionable as to constitute an obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship.

[204] Section 33(10) contains a number of key words and phrases, but they are straightforward in meaning and do not present any semantic tricks.

[205] To begin with, “course of conduct” requires something more than an isolated incident.

[206] The words “unconscionable”, “obvious”, “gross,” “repudiation” and “relationship” have meanings in everyday parlance consistent with their use in law. They are defined in The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary to include the following: “unconscionable” – “showing no regard for conscience; not in accordance with what is right or reasonable”;[45] “obvious” – “plain and evident to the mind; perfectly clear or manifest; such as common sense might suggest”; “gross” – “flagrant, glaring”; “repudiation” – “rejection, disownment, disavowal”; “relationship” – “an emotional association between two people; the state of being related” and “related” means “connected by blood or marriage.”

[207] Section 33(10) provides clear guidance as to when the court may consider the typically-taboo topic of spousal conduct. There is no need to formulate a test.[46] Section 33(10) contains its own test; and it will be a rare case that passes the test.

[208] Section 33(10) does not restrict “a course of conduct” to pre-separation conduct. Also, “relationship,” in my opinion, includes the relationship of spouses as co-parents. The relationship of parent and child is inextricably linked to that of husband and wife. Accordingly, I am permitted to consider the post-separation alienation that Catherine created between Taylor and Larry in determining the amount of spousal support to which Catherine is entitled.

[209] The parental alienation[47] in this case reflects an intent by Catherine to destroy the relationship between Taylor and Larry; it is shocking conduct. It also amounts to a hideous repudiation of the relationship between Catherine and Larry as co-parents of Taylor. The harm here probably is irreparable. Certainly, it is extremely serious at best. How could such conduct not satisfy the requirements of s. 33(10), stringent as they are?

(q) final conclusion on spousal support

[210] While Larry’s access-conduct has largely reflected nothing more than inept parenting, Catherine’s parental-alienation behaviour has been evil. Is there a remedy?

[211] Dollars cannot replace the father-daughter relationship that Catherine has destroyed. However, in the circumstances of this case, justice has only a Hobson’s choice. Catherine’s alienation of Taylor and Larry must be condemned and, an effective method of expressing that condemnation, is by way of a reduction in spousal support.

[212] Accordingly, the spousal support to which Catherine would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced to one dollar monthly.

The ruling's caustic tone is exemplified by a selection of Mr. Justice Quinn's footnotes:

[2] At one point in the trial, I asked Catherine: “If you could push a button and make Larry disappear from the face of the earth, would you push it?” Her I-just-won-a-lottery smile implied the answer that I expected.

[3] I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.

[4] It is likely that, in the period 2004-2006, Larry was having one or more extramarital affairs. Interestingly, Larry’s father was married five times, in addition to going through several relationships. Perhaps there is an infidelity gene...

[7] The courtroom energy level in a custody/access dispute spikes quickly when there is evidence that one of the parents has a Hells Angels branch in her family tree. Certainly, my posture improved. Catherine’s niece is engaged to a member of the Hells Angels. I take judicial notice of the fact that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is a criminal organization (and of the fact that the niece has made a poor choice)...

[21] A finger is worth a thousand words and, therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words.

[22] When the operator of a motor vehicle yells “jackass” at a pedestrian, the jackassedness of the former has been proved, but, at that point, it is only an allegation as against the latter.

[23] In recent years, the evidence in family trials typically includes reams of text messages between the parties, helpfully laying bare their true characters. Assessing credibility is not nearly as difficult as it was before the use of e-mails and text messages became prolific. Parties are not shy about splattering their spleens throughout cyberspace.

[24] These do not strike me as the statements of someone who is concerned about precipitating a Hells Angels house call.

[25] I confess that I sometimes permit a lengthier hiatus than the schedule of the court might otherwise dictate, in order to afford the parties an opportunity to reflect on the trial experience, come to their senses and resolve their difficulties like mature adults. It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench.

[26] The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “dickhead” as “a stupid person.” That would not have been my first guess.

[27] And all of these prohibitions by Catherine are taking place with a trial date already inscribed on her kitchen calendar.

The complete ruling is here.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140Law - Legal Headlines for December 16, 2010

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

• Italian court ups sentences for 23 CIA agents http://is.gd/iPHj8
• Internet Domain Name Theft Conviction May Be First in U.S.http://is.gd/iPEKf
• Courtroom battles over children crush Yuletide spirit - Globe and Mail http://is.gd/iPfw4
• Abuse not unique to polygamy, BC court told - CBC.ca http://is.gd/iOXA3
• U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks http://is.gd/iOXxO
• Toronto photographer must pay ex-lover $250,000 in costs, $15,000 in damages for intentionally causing mental distress http://t.co/pJKHWQg
• Top 10 predicted changes to legal profession for 2011 http://is.gd/iOWt9
• McDonald's sued over happy meals http://is.gd/iOBOs
• T.O. critics say 'Social Network' is year's best picture http://is.gd/iOBCC
• Ex Lawyer turned therapist: I suck at law: http://t.co/fY1WsUj
• U.S. joins Gulf oil spill lawsuits http://is.gd/iOAH0
• Ont CA: Stefanie Rengel’s killer loses adult sentence appeal; must serve life sentence http://natpo.st/hr5Pkp
• Injured veterans get free legal help http://is.gd/iOA5P
• Bits: Twitter Value Raised to $3.7 Billion http://is.gd/iOA1x
• Henry Dicker: LegalTech New York 2011 Preview http://is.gd/iOzDY
• Ontario told to pay for US surgery - National Post http://is.gd/iNodc
• Appeal to grant Assange bail to be heard Thursday http://is.gd/iNnI9
• Facebook's Zuckerberg named Time 'Person of Year' http://is.gd/iNn8s
• 2010 Top Ten Canadian Entertainment and Media Law Stories http://is.gd/iNmEq

- Rachel Spence, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Quebec to Appeal Unmarried Spouse Alimony Ruling to Supreme Court of Canada

According to PostMedia, the Province of Quebec will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada against a groundbreaking, November 3, 2010 appellate court ruling that allowed common law spouses in the Province to obtain alimony payments on marital breakdown.

More on the "Lola" trial and appellate rulings from the Globe and Mail: Quebec court decision means common-law spouses can sue for alimony.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

140Law - Legal Headlines for December 15, 2010

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

• WikiLeaks: Julian Assange bail hearing makes legal history with Twitter ruling - Telegraph http://t.co/J1456V8
• Breaking News on EFF Victory: Appeals Court Holds that Email ... (Electronic Frontier Foundation) http://is.gd/iMcSJ
• US Air Force bars personnel from Web sites of NY Times, 25 other news orgs and blogs that have posted WikiLeaks cableshttp://nyti.ms/h7341Y
• Lawyer’s Duty to “Sanitize” Storage Media http://is.gd/iLYYX
• Calif. Judge Cites Festivus to Justify Inmate's Special Meals http://is.gd/iLYPj
• Next ‘Huge Issue’ in Foreclosures: Faked Lawyer Signatures http://is.gd/iLYO3
• Elena Kagan Speaks Out For the First Time as a U.S. Justice http://is.gd/iLYFW
• Army birther pleads guilty to 1 of 2 charges http://is.gd/iLYji
• Justice Dept. set to appeal healthcare ruling http://is.gd/iLYfi
• Does the Health-Care Judge Have Conflicts? http://is.gd/iLYd
• Sweden to Appeal Assange Release http://is.gd/iLXXW
• Amazing Conversations Between a Fraudster and a Lawyer http://is.gd/iLXPJ
• Rengel killer appeals adult sentence; Crown says youth term won't protect public - Global Saskatoon http://is.gd/iLXK3
• Judge won't dismiss Phil Spector legal fee dispute http://is.gd/iLXFz
• Naomi Wolf on rape, justice and Julian Assange http://is.gd/iLXeL
• Wikileaks Releases Embarrassing African Cocaine Cables http://is.gd/iLX6N
• B.C. Law Institute Consultation Paper on Proposals for Unfair Contracts Relief http://is.gd/iLX4r
• FiveThirtyEight: Bayesianism and Julian Assange http://is.gd/iLWAU

- Rachel Spence, Toronto

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

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG