Child custody arrangements can be made by the parents or by the court of jurisdiction of the divorce.
Under the common provision, the parents have joint guardianship over the children and the parental rights are equal. Each parent has an equal right to child custody when they separate.
When determining the home in which to place the child, the court tries to reach a decision that is in the best interests of the child. This includes considering the wishes of the parents, the child, the siblings, the child’s comfort in his home, school, and community, and the mental and physical health of the involved individuals.
When a court awards exclusive child custody to one parent, the non-custodial parent maintains the right to see and visit the child. One of the most difficult things to deal with after the divorce is when one parent denies access to the other either by not making the children available when they come to pick them up or returning the children late, sometimes by an entire day.
From a legal point of view, the options for dealing with denial of access are unfortunately limited. The police will usually stay out of such disputes and tell you to contact you lawyer. It’s very frustrating to have time and plans with your children ruined without any notice. So, what can you do?
It is recommended that you send an official letter to the other parent or their lawyer. This is done so that in the future you can prove the other parent has denied you access to your children.
Another good idea is to demand make up time. This is in the best interest of the children. You can use denied access materials to build a case as to why you should have the sole child custody. One factor courts consider in awarding child custody is the willingness of each parent to facilitate access to the child by the other parent.
The last resort for dealing with denied access by bringing a motion for contempt of court. There are a lot of difficulties in proceeding this way, but if the other parent is persistent in denying access you really have no choice. It generally not worth going to court about an occasional missed access period.
Criminal pardons in Canada have always caused much controversy and resentment. Many Canadians feel that whilst an offender may have served their legal sentence, the suffering for the victims of serious crime continues long after the offender has been released into the community. Public outcry over criminal pardons in Canada has led the Canadian government to propose legislation to amend the Criminal Records Act and abolish pardons in Canada for serious crimes.
If the new legislation is passed anyone convicted of child sex offences would not be able to apply for a pardon or the proposed replacement scheme a ‘record suspension’ a ‘record suspension’. Sex offenders who could prove that they were ‘close in age’ to the victim would still be eligible. Likewise anyone convicted of four or more indictable offences would no longer be able to apply for a pardon or a record suspension. The time line for a pardon application would also be raised from 3 years to 5 years for summary convictions and to 10 years for an indictable offence.
In future anyone applying for a record suspension would have to prove that it would help them to remain a law-abiding citizen and that they had not been convicted of offences under an Act of Parliament. The National Parole Board would be required to monitor the number of applications received versus the number of record suspensions granted and would have to take into account the severity and nature of the crime committed, the circumstances surrounding the crime and the offender’s full criminal record.
If the proposed legislation for the abolition of pardons in Canada in favour of record suspensions becomes law pardon applications received before the new law comes into force would be reviewed under the old system whilst applications received after the law is adopted would be subject to the new rules.
A recent report based on telephone interviews with managers in 500 small and medium companies in Ontario shows that generally managers in small companies are not aware of benefits of mediation.
The report suggests that only 7 % of the managers interviewed have used mediation in order to save time and money in settling supplier, employee and customers disputes. A further 56% have heard of this form of dispute resolution but have never used it.
Around two-thirds of all respondents said that mediation is only to be used as a last resort after an issue has been taken to court and the court did not reach a satisfactory verdict. Another wide-spread delusion among managers was that they viewed it as a very expensive procedure, suitable only for big enterprises.
Mediation is sometimes referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution. The main benefit of mediation services is that they offer a way to solve problems between individuals and organizations without involving a court. Some courts refer cases to mandatory mediation before permitting the case to court. In Ontario the mandatory mediation program is compulsory for all civil cases. Under the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program, all parties have to compile evidence regarding the issues in need of dispute resolution within 30 days after the last day for serving a notice of appearance and the court then appoints one of the parties that will have to organize the resolution session.
While the content of the mediation session is confidential and cannot be disclosed in court or in front of third parties, any agreements made at the session are legally binding. Therefore, if one of the disputants fails to observe the agreement, the other disputants may make a motion for judgment or enter into legal proceedings or arbitration. The non-compliant party is responsible for paying the mediators cancellation fee as well as being receiving court sanctions.
Arbitration clauses in consumer product contracts are causing controversy in Canada. In a recent lawsuit against Dell Canada Inc the plaintiff complained that the company has sold him computers that had defects causing them to overheat, switch off and fail to restart. Although there was an arbitration clause in the contract, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that such a clause does not preclude litigation.
Commercial arbitration routinely includes clauses in consumer product contracts in an effort to protect retail companies from lawsuits. In particular, with the growing trend of litigation in Canada, companies view these clauses as an important tool to limit their legal liabilities. This type of clause mandates that if there is a dispute between the company and a consumer, the issue is to be resolved with the help of arbitration. However, that clause might not be able to save companies from class action anymore.
Companies need to keep in mind that consumers have protection from Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act, which shields them from being forced to attend arbitrations that can be expensive for them, even if the parties reach an agreement.
All that said, arbitration is still a faster and cheaper way of resolving disputes than going to court. The process is confidential, whereas topics discussed in court can be heard by the general public. A contract between an Ontario arbitrator and disputing parties contains a confidentiality clause, so the company image is not jeopardized by the arbitration process. This method of dispute resolution is generally cheaper that litigation because the arbitor’s fees are lower and there is less paperwork.
In a dispute between a company and a consumer group, one of the most important things is to stop further deterioration in existing relationships. Arbitration is much more useful than litigation in this matter. Moreover, as business becomes more global, it is important to remember that Canada is a signatory to the International Commercial Arbitration Act. This means that disputes between companies based outside of Canada can be solved through commercial arbitration. The solutions imposed by the arbitors, known as the arbitral awards, will be recognized and upheld in court.
Legal Aid in Ontario assists people on low-incomes to get legal help, representation and telephone and online support. Legal aid in Ontario is available to immigrants facing a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board, tenants facing hearings with the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board, victims of domestic violence, those people who have been charged with criminal offence and cannot afford a lawyer and those families involved in child custody disputes. Unfortunately civil representations have been cut from the Ontario Legal Aid roster of services.
One of the tools to make access to Legal Aid in Ontario easier is the new toll-free hotline, but this has met with sharp criticism that the service offered is ineffective with long wait times and poor access. The idea behind the phone service was to cut the number of Legal Aid application offices in the province but many clinic lawyers believe that moving from direct consultation to phone services will negatively affect the traditional client-lawyer relationship.
David McKillop, Vice President of Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) admitted that the LAO call centre needed more staff and that a plan was in place to recruit more call center agents. LAO had been caught out by experiencing a higher than expected demand for the toll free phone service. Additionally, French speakers experienced waits of up to one hour because the call centre did not have enough bilingual staff.
LAO has experienced huge increases in the number of people calling for certificate services and its online application portal has helped to cope with some of the demand. Calls for certificate services come predominantly from citizens living outside of Toronto who found it difficult to get to a legal aid office. Nevertheless critics of legal aid in Ontario maintain that the new phone line does not adequately serve poorer and disadvantaged sections of society; they maintain that these people need one to one consultations. David McKillop stresses that face to face representation will be available to those people who need it and that the phone service is there to compliment not replace the traditional legal aid processes.
