New OPP Technology Used to Identify Suspended Drivers

Drivers beware:

The OPP has recently announced that they are now using special cruisers that are equipped to scan license plates of vehicles automatically, check to see if the registration is in order, and, something even more; check to see if the registered owner's license has been suspended.

All done within seconds by a computer that scans your plate. Automatically. Robots are taking over. Pretty scary stuff.

See the OPP article:

http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=405&nid=1081

Undated Promissory Note Due when Called, Not when Issued

I had a motion last week in Small Claims Court, with a surprising result. It was in regards to a promissory note.

My client, the plaintiff, had given the defendant a cheque for $16,000.00 in June, 2009, for the purchase of a vehicle. When he decided he didn't want to buy the vehicle, he asked the defendant to return the money.

Promissory Note

The defendant said he no longer had the money, but agreed to sign a promissory note, agreeing to pay back the money as soon as he was able. 
The defendant signed the undated note the day after cashing the cheque. 

Over the next few years, the defendant kept putting off my client, assuring him that the money would be repaid, as per the promissory note -- just not yet. 

Three years later, the defendant became elusive. My client began to suspect that the debtor was planning to sell his property. That's when the plaintiff contacted me. I filed a Claim in February 2013, in the Small Claims Court,  for the amount of the promissory note. 


Motion to Strike

The defendant served my client with a motion to strike the claim, based on the limitation act. He argued that the two-year limit had started when the note was issued, three years earlier, and had expired before the claim was filed. 

We disagreed; our position was that the time limit started when the note was called, not when it was issued. The claim was the first demand for payment on the note. 

My motion factum was 13 pages long, and included seven cases. It clearly set out my response to their motion to strike, with references to the relevant case law and statutes, which I included in the book of authorities.

When the motion was heard, the Court asked me why one of my cases seemed to disagree with my argument. In particular, <em>Hare v. Hare</em>, [2006] O.J. No. 4955 states that a demand note is due upon issuance. I detected a smugness in the defendant's counsel when the justice pointed out this apparent contradiction in my case law. 


Legislative Amendment

I replied that, while the case ratio is useful for its interpretation and application of the law, the decision is outdated. <em>Hare</em> had been affected by a 2008 Limitations Act amendment. The change meant that the limitation period on such notes begins to run not as soon as the note is issued, but after a default when payment is demanded. 

The effect of the amendment is demonstrated in more-recent cases that I submitted. The amendment applies to demand obligations, such as promissory notes created on or after Jan. 1, 2004, when the basic limitation period was changed from six years to two years.

I also read to the court sections 22 and 23 of the <em>Bills of Exchange Act</em>, which state that if a note specifies no date, it is due upon demand, and if it states a date, it is due upon that date. It was clear, I said -- my client's claim was not statute-barred. 

The court agreed.

In my request for an order, I had asked for this matter to go to trial, or, in the alternative, that the court strike the defence. 

The court surprised me. The justice struck the defence and found that the limitation defence was the only defence, and it was not valid. Judgment was ordered for the full $16,000, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, plus $2,500 in costs.

So, we had gone from a possibility of our case being thrown out, to theirs being thrown out, all without a trial. My client was very pleased.

Related Cases and Legislation:


Bank of Nova Scotia v. Williamson, [2009] ONCA - http://canlii.ca/t/26dwm

Skuy v. Greenough Harbour Corp., [2012] ONSC - http://canlii.ca/t/fv5wx

Strashin Developments Ltd. v. Benzacar, [2013] ONSC - http://canlii.ca/t/fz79k 

Ewachniuk Estate v. Ewachniuk, [2011] BCCA - http://canlii.ca/t/fps2s

2148251 Ontario Inc. v. Catan Canada Inc. [2013] ONSC - http://canlii.ca/t/fzclw

Limitations Act, 2002, SECTION 4 and 5 - http://canlii.ca/t/31q

Bills of Exchange Act, SECTION 22 and 23 - http://canlii.ca/t/7vd0

No Shame in Being a Paralegal

No Shame in Being a Paralegal

People ask me in court "are you a lawyer?", my response is always "nope, I work for a living"...and then after a small chuckle... the truth is I wish I was, who can afford Law School?

Some paralegals are proud of their profession, some wish they were lawyers, some are ashamed when they have to admit that they are "only" a paralegal...and some have mixed feelings of all or any of the above, plus a few other reactions thrown in.

I even have some friends who are shy about my profession, and call me a lawyer, to which I correct them with "no, I'm a paralegal".

Paralegals have not yet reached the height of prestige that they probably should. It's a good idea to keep in mind that Ontario is the first jurisdiction to regulate it's Paralegals in the same way that Lawyers are regulated, and (hopefully) many other jurisdictions will soon follow suit.

Unfortunately, for now, most of the general public does not even know what a Paralegal does, or can do, here, rather than anywhere else in the world.

I "hung out my shingle" nearly 2 years ago, after a few years working for a law firm. It felt like the right move to set up my own shop, and I haven't regretted it yet.

The law firm that I was at previously was one that specialized in family law, and I was told that it would provide me with lots of work, as the lawyers in the firm wouldn't want to bother with the "small" files that came through the door. I was told wrong. Well, not wrong, just not correct to a certain degree.

I was the last one in the line. The lawyers got their pick of the files, and even if a file was in Small Claims or Criminal, if it was a tasty file, I didn't get it.

I was affiliated with the law firm in a "eat what you kill" capacity. I wasn't being paid to sit on my behind, I only got paid if I billed a file.

To give an example, the firm would get a call from someone who had a claim for $15,000, and a lawyer could get a few thousand in billing out of it - they'd scoop it up.

Most of the calls that would trickle down to me were silly wastes of time, like someone asking "I had a collection agency call me for $600, what can I do?", or some such thing.

So I had to go out and find my own files. Atop of not having any files given me from the firm, I didn't have my own office, I had to "hot-seat" it, by using any available space when it came up, and otherwise use a terminal tucked way in the back of the office. I soon realized that it was foolish for me to split my billings with a law firm if I had to find my own files, but I didn't couldn't afford to start out on my own. I had to save up.

Saving up was hard to do, because of my low billings. It took a long time, a couple of years. Finally, after saving up a bit, I took the plunge, and rented an office. I then ordered business cards and created a website, and put up some ads on Kijiji and Craigslist.

It's too early to tell yet, but the only real proof of success is that I'm still here, after almost 2 years. They say that most businesses, if they fail, will do so in the first 6 months (I'm not sure who "they" are, but I've heard it a few times).

Here's to being "still alive and kicking..."

First Blog Entry

First Blog Entry

I'm not sure how often I will create these, or if anyone will ever read them, but I've been encouraged by my web designer to create a blog that reflects what type of a paralegal business I have.

This first entry will not be like the rest - this one is to explain just where my skillset lies, and what type of a professional I am in what I do.

I like Small Claims Court cases, mostly. They are often challenging and never boring. Sure, it's not the most lucrative area of practice, (traffic tickets, if you're asking) but it can be one of the most rewarding. There is something fulfilling (for me, at least) about meeting with your clients, discussing their issues, identifying problems, coming up with a solution to their specific set of circumstances, and then moving on to preparing all of the right documents, in the right way, advocating for your client, and eventually obtaining the best result possible - it's a much more detailed process than some people like, but I enjoy it.

I'm good at Traffic Tickets and other Provincial Offence matters too. I don't want anyone to think I can't do that well. My results speak for themselves. I've had some good mentors that have shown me the do's and don'ts of the POA court system, and I feel strong and confident of my abilities in that arena.

If anyone were to give me a Speeding Ticket, they can rest assured that I will work to get them the best result. As I always say, "you and I create a numbered list of expectations, and I will go through them, in order, and get you the best result for your problem".

Sometimes it's about making a good deal with the prosecutor, sometimes it's about finding that flaw in the evidence that only experience can detect - sometimes it's just as simple as showing up when the officer doesn't. There are so many variables that can effect someone's results, and any number of them can happen at any given time.

With Landlord and Tenant cases, I have no qualms about working both sides of the table.

A landlord can have a tenant who doesn't pay, and deserves to be paid. It happens all the time. Sometimes it happens because the tenant can't afford to pay, and sometimes it happens because tenants don't want to pay. I work to defend and enforce the rights of whoever hires me.

A tenant can have issues with a landlord too. Pipes not fixed, loud music upstairs, illegal rent increases, illegal entries, there are all sorts of issues that can come up. A person is a person, and deserves fair treatment under the law.

Each case is different, and each side has their own story. My job is to represent the side who hires me, and deliver the information in the best possible way. If my client doesn't have a leg to stand on, I have no issue with letting them know. I have refused retainers on countless occasions due to the simple fact that I thought the potential client would be wasting his money.

I intend to continue this blog with case studies, using some scenarios that I have encountered in my years of practice. Some studies will be for Small Claims, some will be for Traffic, and some will be for any other interesting case that I take on in the multiple legal arenas out there.

That's all for now.

Toronto Police are looking for assistance from the public on a collision on Thursday, October 31, 2013. For more go to http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/28220