March 2, 2017
Law school journals are prestigious publications, and becoming the managing editor of one is a big deal. And for Michael Thorburn, Osgoode Hall Law Journal’s current managing editor, it’s an even bigger deal. Thorburn is the first black managing editor in the journal’s almost 60 years.
On Monday, Thorburn was formally recognized during Osgoode Hall Law School’s Black History Month ceremony. Thorburn, who is a third year law student, was given a plaque to commemorate his historical position.
What makes this even more interesting is the fact that it took the Law Journal’s executive editor, Joe McDonald, some time to realize that Thorburn was the first black managing editor. McDonald assumed that, because it’s 2017, it was unlikely that this was a first for the Law Journal. Particularly considering its been almost 30 years since Barack Obama was named the first black managing editor at the Harvard International Law Journal.
And to add yet another layer, there have been other persons of colour in leadership roles at Osgoode Hall Law Journal. However, Thorburn is the first to be officially recognized. He told Canadian Lawyer Magazine that he thinks this is because black students face more challenges at Osgoode. He also said he’s looking forward to the normalization of black students in roles like his.
Thorburn is happy to be a part of this step in the right direction in regards to diversity. However, he acknowledged that the work isn’t finished yet. Particularly considering the fact that the Law Journal doesn’t have a policy in terms of maintaining diversity when roles are filled. That said, the Law Journal does maintain that they seek out diverse candidates who can approach subjects from different vantage points.
Supporting diversity in law school is important, because lawyers who have different perspectives can better serve a more diverse set of clients. And the law community as a whole improves as law students become more diverse and they are able to find more success.
Featured image source: canadianlawyermag.com
February 26, 2017
Ever since U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated, he has wasted no time cracking down on immigration. His executive order that banned immigrants from Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. received backlash around the world. In a largely unprecedented move, many American federal judges even refused to uphold his order and challenged its constitutionality. Many have looked to Canada to see how it would respond in the face of its neighbour’s strict immigration policies. While Trump’s orders made his popularity plummet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau consistently lauded Canada’s diversity and inclusivity. Now, a new Liberal policy will turn his words into further action.
Who Are The Yazidis?
The Canadian Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen recently announced that approximately 400 survivors of ISIS have already entered Canada. The majority of these survivors are Yazidis from Iraq. These survivors have been coming into the country since the House of Commons unanimously agreed that Canada should take in Yazidi women and girls. Last year, the Conservatives made a motion to provide asylum to Yazidi women fleeing from genocide. The motion stipulated that ISIS is forcing the Yazidi women and girls to be sex slaves, and executing a genocide against their people as a whole. By the end of 2017, the Canadian government is aiming to resettle 1,200 Yazidi refugees. In addition to Yazidi women and children, these refugees will also include their male family members, and additional ISIS survivors.
While many have praised Canada for welcoming refugees fleeing terror, others do acknowledge that welcoming immigrants comes at a cost. News reports have claimed that resettling the Yazidi refugees will cost an estimated $28 million.
The government — and Canadians at large — must ultimately decide how many Yazidis to continue accepting in future. The international community applauded Canada for welcoming Syrian refugees with open arms, but it remains to be seen to what extent the same approach will be taken with the Yazidis. The government has already emphasized one notable difference in how it will resettle the Yazidis in comparison to previous groups. Given the volatile situation in Iraq, the government plans on acting with heightened discretion. As a result, it will minimize public photo opportunities and media coverage of Yazidis for security reasons.
Featured image source: CBC
February 3, 2017
What are qualities of a good lawyer? Of course, a skilled lawyer is astute, perceptive, supremely knowledgeable and thinks well on their feet. But when evaluating a lawyer’s skill set, one quality that’s often overlooked or dismissed entirely is efficiency.
Any lawyer knows that in addition to demanding clients and challenging cases, they also face mountains of paperwork. Indeed, the more cases a lawyer takes on, the more daunting their paperwork becomes. In order for lawyers to succeed, it remains crucial for them to keep all of their paperwork organized, and easy to track at all times. Effective legal management software is the key for a lawyer’s — and entire firm’s — efficiency and reputation in the long-run.
LexisNexis’s PCLaw is the trusted software of lawyers in the country. Used by over 12,000 firms, PCLaw streamlines accounting and billing, effectively forcing lawyers to make their processes more efficient. One of the software’s biggest advantages is its all-in-one nature — it lets you manage tasks you would normally organize separately. For busy lawyers who already put in long hours, the importance of a time-saving, organizational tool cannot be emphasized enough. PCLaw lets you do trust accounting, client management, billing and accounting, track billable hours, capture expenses all in one place. Moreover, with PCLaw, you can generate reports into your firm’s finances, saving valuable time typically spent on billing and accounting. All this time will let lawyers pour more hours into cases at hand, honing their skill set and ultimately bettering your firm.
Even if lawyers aren’t at the office, they often want to get updates with what’s going on at the firm. PCLaw is available remotely and can be connected through mobile devices, giving you access to your firm’s information at all times.
You also don’t need to worry about spending even more time training lawyers how to use PCLaw. PCLaw has a visually-friendly dashboard that presents important details where you need them. There’s no need to search different areas of the software for what you need. Instead, PCLaw immediately lets you access what you need all in one dashboard.
Still not sure if PCLaw is right for your firm? You can book a free demo, which gives you an in-depth tour of the online billing and accounting software.
Featured image source: LexisNexis
January 31, 2017
Donald Trump signed executive orders barring immigration and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries on Friday. Protests have erupted throughout the world. Policy experts are also protesting the ban, stating that it’s actually illegal.
Why Is the Ban Illegal?
In an op-ed for the New York Times, David J. Bier from the Cato Institute’s Center for the Global Liberty and Prosperity called the ban illegal. He cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 as the reason. This act “forbids all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin”.
Trump’s order bans Syrian refugees indefinitely until “significant changes” are made and also temporarily blocks visitors from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The reason? The order states that these countries are of “particular concern”.
Trump has been using a law from 1952 to support the order. But Bier states that “the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be ‘discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.’” This 1965 law was also designed to “give Americans the freedom to sponsor family members or marry a foreign-born spouse”.
Bier also questions whether Trump can rewrite immigration laws without Congress. He writes: an appeals court stopped President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.”
Other Concerns About the Muslim Ban
There are a number of other experts who are also speaking out against Trump’s Muslim ban. United Nations right’s chief, Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein, recently stated “Discrimination on nationality alone is forbidden under human rights law”.
Other organizations are also speaking out. The Paris-based medical aid agency, Médecins Sans Frontières, is also against the ban. The organization said that the Muslim ban “will effectively keep people trapped in war zones, directly endangering their lives”. The organization Doctors Without Borders is also speaking out. They called the Muslim ban “an inhumane act against people fleeing war zones” and called on the US government to lift the order.
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation also issued a statement saying that “such selective and discriminatory acts will only serve to embolden the radical narratives of extremists and will provide further fuel to the advocates of violence and terrorism”.
Only a couple of days in, Trump’s time as President is off to a very rocky and troubling start.
January 26, 2017
According to Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, the province’s justice system needs to become more tech-friendly. During an event last week at the Law Society of Upper Canada, he stated that the province is seriously considering the possibility of e-filing divorce papers.
Naqvi said that a lot of services will soon be available online, and e-filing is a very important first step. It began with an interest in seeing what could be done with family law. The feedback was that people should be able to file divorce papers online.
The province of Ontario has recently introduced a lot more digitization in their systems, particularly in Small Claims Court. A lot of lawyers are happy about these changes, as this kind of progression could make their work a lot more streamlined. Anything that cuts back on paperwork and increases efficiency is seen as a step in the right direction.
However, there are two possible problems with the plan to digitize the filing of divorce papers. According to the Family Law Act, the equalization of net family property could be impeded. A person has up to six years from the date of separation, or two years following a divorce to seek that equalization.
Someone involved in a divorce might not realize that e-filing for a divorce or receiving e-filed divorce papers means that the process to move towards the equalization of net family property has begun. A lot of insurance companies also won’t extend health care benefits to a person who is no longer the spouse of a beneficiary. E-filing for divorce, or receiving e-filed divorce papers could mean you or your spouse will get automatically cut off from extended health care benefits.
Even so, it seems that the possibility of e-filing divorce papers, or any digitization of processes, is a welcome change within the legal community. It will make everything more efficient and ultimately result in cost savings for the people going through these processes.
Adopting technologically-advanced processes will help Ontario adopt the fastest, cheapest and most modern way of communicating, which is the cornerstone of any lawyer-client relationship.
Article source: canadianlawyermag.com
Featured image source: huffpost.com
January 26, 2017
Terry Lake, the British Columbia health minister, is looking to raise the legal smoking age to 21.
Each province and territory in Canada sets the age limits for smoking. In B.C. and five other provinces, the smoking age limit is 19; the rest of the provinces have set the smoking limit at 18. Lake is “an ardent anti-smoker”. He believes that the later someone is able to legally purchase cigarettes, the better the odds that they won’t develop a smoking habit.
What the Opposition Says
Other politicians in British Columbia back Lake’s campaign to raise the legal smoking age. Opposition New Democrat Leader John Horgan stated “as a reformed smoker, I want to discourage smoking whenever possible. I don’t want to give policy pronouncements on the fly, but if we can reduce smoking in B.C., I encourage that.”
Will Raising the Legal Smoking Age Affect Smoking Rates?
Lake admitted that this campaign is personal to him. “I’ve seen in my family, my mom die, my dad suffer with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” Lake said. “I’ve seen my siblings struggle with addiction to nicotine.” He isn’t running again in the May election, but he “wanted to start the conversation so future governments may consider that.”
He has noted that other jurisdictions have raised the legal smoking age and found it reduced smoking rates among students. Lake has also said that Hawaii and California have raised their legal smoking age to 21 as well. However, he did not provide United States data on smoking rates since the increase was implemented.
In a statement released on Thursday, the ministry said “tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease and death in British Columbia and one of our primary goals is to stop youth from starting to use tobacco products. We have made great progress in reducing tobacco prevalence in the province, and we continue to have the lowest smoking rate in Canada, at approximately 15.3 per cent”.
To learn more about this story, visit the CTV news website.
Story source: CTV News
Featured image source: Cigarettes Reporter
January 15, 2017
The announcement that Donald Trump was appointing his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to the position of senior advisor on Monday left us all with a few questions. Firstly, who the hell is this guy? Secondly, is he going to step down from his position as executive of the Kushner Companies real estate empire? Or are conflicts of interest just the name of the game in this administration? Finally, is this move even legal?
In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson passed the anti-nepotism statute. It stated that no federal official could hire someone in their family to work under them. This stands in stark contrast to the capitalist world that Trump hails from, where nepotism has always been de rigeur. So naturally, he’s trying to get around this pesky rule. Since Kushner is apparently so talented that he could, according to Trump, “do peace in the Middle East”, he’s clearly essential to the new administration.
To combat this, Trump is trotting out a court opinion from 1993 and a separate provision of federal law from 1978 stating that the president could appoint White House staff “without any regard to any other provision of law”. He’s claiming that this means that the anti-nepotism law was never meant to apply to the White House but only for other elected government officials.
Henceforth, many legal experts are skeptical of this claim. Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, is one of them. “Congress didn’t in this law carve out an exception for the White House,” she said. “It’s quite broad in scope. It applies to the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, the D.C. government.”
Kushner has been meeting with lawyers about the issue and plans to forgo a salary if needed to keep the position. Granted, he doesn’t need a salary as he already makes tons of money from his global real estate empire. Although this brings up the whole ethics issue.
What do you think of this move? Sound off in the comments below!
Image source: Salon
January 6, 2017
President Obama is meeting with Democrats today to protect his healthcare law from Republican opposition. Senate Republicans are already taking steps to repeal Obamacare. As per NPR, on January 3 Republicans introduced a budget resolution that would basically let them undo the Affordable Care Act with a “simple majority vote”.
Democrats want to defend the law, as it has given health care insurance to 20 million Americans. Repealing it would effectively strip them of their health protection. Plus, Republicans haven’t figured out how to replace Obamacare yet.
Obama’s administration has criticized this “repeal now and replace later” strategy. Whitehouse spokesman Josh Earnest calls it a “bait and switch”. The American Medical Association (AMA) is also against the move to repeal Obamacare. In an open letter directed at lawmakers, the association acknowledged that Obamacare isn’t perfect. However, the letter also stated that “any effort to cut costs or increase choice should as least preserve the existing level of coverage”. AMA CEO James L. Madara stated that “before any action is taken through reconciliation or other means that would potentially alter coverage, policymakers should lay out for the American people, in reasonable detail, what will replace current policies”.
What is Reconciliation?
Reconciliation is a procedural tactic that would allow Senate Republicans to change parts of the Affordable Care Act without the threat of a Democratic filibuster.
Support for the Measure
President Obama, Democrats, and the AMA aren’t the only ones who are against changing Obamacare. There are some Republican senators who are wary about taking away healthcare from people without a new health care plan in place.
However, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and President-elect Donald Trump remain committed to the measure. Ryan called the budget resolution “the first step towards relief for Americans struggling under Obamacare”. In a tweet, the President-elect stated that “People must remember Obamacare just doesn’t work, and it is not affordable”.
Trump pointed to increased premiums from the government-run exchange in Arizona to support his statement that it’s not affordable. However, government subsidies help negate some or all of those increases. The Obama administration also says that customers have been signing up for the exchange at a record rate.
To learn more about this story, visit NPR.com.
Story source: NPR
Featured image source: Wikipedia
December 28, 2016
Canada’s legal framework is fair and just, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some rather strange inconsistencies. You might think it’s fine to empty your change jar to pay for your lunch, but in truth, the act is quite illegal.
Keeping up-to-date on the ever-changing legal landscape can be difficult (at least it is without the help of legal management software) but is essential for any legal professional. Actually, it’s important for the average citizen, too, because you might end up breaking a law without even knowing it.
From fake psychics to booking an Airbnb in Ontario, there are more than a few Canadian laws that most probably aren’t even aware of. Check out a sample below and make sure you’re not breaking the law!
The Canadian Ban On Crime Comics
Superheroes weren’t always the main focus of comic books. Dark and seedier crime and murder-mystery comics were actually quite popular in the 40’s and 50’s, with plots featuring content that might not have been appropriate for kids. That’s why the Canadian government banned crime comics in 1949, believing the comics could encourage illicit behaviour. The law itself stipulates that should any character in a comic do anything unlawful, they would have to be arrested or be foiled by the end of the story. Beware if you have a comic in your hand that illegally has the bad guys winning in the end.
Leave The Sign Where It Stands
As cool as it may be to have a deer or duck crossing sign in your rec room, the legal trouble you can get into may be more than you bargained for. According to Article 443 of the Canadian Criminal Code, pulling down an official government sign (municipal, provincial, federal) could land you with a whole five years in jail.
No Fake Psychics Allowed
Only those truly gifted with paranormal powers are allowed to operate in Canada, apparently, as Article 365 of the Canadian Criminal Code specifically states that it is illegal to “fraudulently” practice “witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration.” The law extends to any fortune tellers or those using “knowledge of the occult or crafty science” to aid in investigations or searches. All in all, be careful who you’re using to contact the dead, because you might be participating in some illegal activities if they’re faking. Wonder what the stance is on “real” psychics or witchcraft practitioners…
Never Pay With Too Much Change
In a move that has certainly pleased cashiers for years, the Canadian Currency Act specifically states that there is a limit to how much change you can use to pay for something. For example, if you’re paying a $5 bill, the maximum amount of change you can use is 100 nickels. Same goes for a bill of $25, where loonies are the limit.
Watch Out Where You Airbnb In Ontario
Quite recently the province of Ontario has given a fair bit of power to condo buildings, as they can effectively make sharing services like Airbnb illegal. Condo corporations have the power to enforce this ruling on their own discretion, and would prohibit condo-owners from renting out their units on Airbnb or Expedia. No doubt this recent ruling will alter the legal landscape quite a bit, as Airbnb and like services have become incredibly popular, and similar rulings will no doubt be seen in other provinces quite soon. Keep this in mind whenever you’re booking an Airbnb in Ontario, as condos may get you into a sticky legal situation.
Featured image courtesy of: succo
December 28, 2016
Advocates for marijuana’s legalization have long argued that the drug should be regulated like alcohol. Now, it appears they gained an ally in the country’s Prime Minister.
At a press conference last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he agreed that those allowed to drink legally be permitted to smoke marijuana as well.
Trudeau’s statement comes in response to a recommendation made by a federal task force. In a report on marijuana legalization, the task force recommended that 18 should be the minimum age to buy recreational marijuana. However, 18 does not represent legal drinking age across all provinces. Therefore, the task force also recommended that provinces make its marijuana laws coincide with their legal drinking age.
Of course, the task force’s recommendation earned its fair share of detractors. The Canadian Medical Association argued the minimum age to buy marijuana should be 21. Evidence shows that the brain is still developing until one turns 25, making marijuana usage beforehand potentially unsafe.
Trudeau argued that a minimum age of 18 would still ensure marijuana stays away from children and prevents criminals from reaping its profits. In French, Trudeau stated: “We know the largest misdeeds of marijuana use happens at a lower age than 18, 19 years of age, and I think this is a responsible approach that we have found in terms of balance that is both practical and useful.”
The task force conceded that no universal consensus exists on the minimum age to purchase marijuana. In addition, according to the task force, increasing the minimum age comes with multiple drawbacks. On one hand, an age set too high makes it likely that people will still buy marijuana illicitly. Moreover, an overly high minimum age makes it likelier that the government will criminally prosecute young people. The highest rates of marijuana usage occur between the 18 to 24 bracket, so an ideal minimum age would factor in that statistic. Going on that logic, then, the report also argued that a minimum age of 25 remains unrealistic. Ultimately, a minimum age that reaches too high would make marijuana users continue to buy the drug illegally.
For more on this story, visit The Huffington Post.