THE RIGHTS OF MOTHERS AND FATHERS IN CHILD PROTECTION CASES: THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE TO ARGUE FOR CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS

Everyone agrees the "best interests of the child" test trumps all in child protection proceedings. However, the innumerable child protection court cases which reveal five versions of children's best interests - the Children's Aid Society (CAS) version, the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) version, the father's version, the mother's version, and the court's version - demonstrate the often highly subjective nature of children's best interest assessments. Child protection law is more "art" than "science." Which is why expert reports, while helpful, are never definitive in presenting the one ideal plan of care that will be in the children's best interests.

If one even looks at basic children's law principles like children are generally better off residing with their parents, parental contact should be maximized in access situations, and wishes of older children should be taken into account when making best interests assessments, competing views of best interests quickly turn the conversation into a quagmire if CAS insists neither parent is fit, both the mother and father insist it is the other parent who is unfit, and the OCL expresses the children's views that they want to live equally with each parent.

The demand you hear most often from child protection judges is for more evidence of best interests. Judges don't want to guess, they want to decide on facts. So if you - whoever you are - are putting forward a particular plan of care for a child, you're going to need some cold, hard facts to back up why that plan is feasible, rather than just wishful thinking.

Rules of evidentiary admissibility are pretty loose in child protection, so you don't need to get too hung up on legal formality. Letters written by relatives, or social workers, or medical professionals, or addiction counsellors can all work, though usually they should be appended as exhibits to someone's affidavit sworn to present the overall version of the facts. But each of those people don't need to file their own affidavits, and usually would not be required to attend court to testify. Getting your own expert witness would be best of all, but don't make the mistake of hiring an expert, and then rejecting his findings.

Showing up in court asserting your rights as a father or mother, arguing that a particular plan is in your children's best interests, and having no evidence whatsoever to back you up other than your own promises, usually isn't going to cut in in the face of conflicting CAS sworn evidence.

As a lawyer who represents fathers and mothers in child protection proceedings, I firmly advocate for my client's rights, and their views of what is in their children's best interests. However, my clients need to give me evidence that permits me to sell the court on the correctness of their arguments. So as soon you as father or mother learn that CAS is showing interest in your family, you should start compiling evidence that will assist you and your children in court much later.

FOUR INSIDER TIPS TO SURVIVING A DRUG CHARGE IN CANADA

Although the media is full of talk about the imminent legalization of the possession of small amounts of marihuana in Canada, the reality is that we may still be at least a couple of years away from legislation coming into force, that growing or selling your own marihuana will probably remain offences, and that courts will continue to be clogged with those accused of possessing, selling, producing or importing a host other recreational pharmaceuticals.

Being investigated, charged or going through the court process for a drug offence can be a very stressful life event. I served for many years as a Federal Crown drug prosecutor, and now defend those being investigated for or charged with drug offences. I've trained the police on how to properly draft and execute drug search warrants and wiretaps, make drug-related arrests and take statements from those implicated in drug offence. I've even published a series of books called The Investigator's Legal Handbook related to these issues. Being well informed is your best defence to a drug charge. Here I give you the four tips you need to follow to survive a drug charge or investigation.

Tip 1 - Say Nothing other than Identifying Yourself

Don't say anything to the police, other than giving them your correct name. And if you're driving, you're going to need to produce a driver's licence, vehicle insurance and registration documents.

Don't try to talk your way out of the situation. Don't deny anything. Don't admit to anything. Don't agree to let the police search anywhere. But follow their directions and be polite to them.

Whatever you say will be used against you later. Even if you deny everything, that could later be used against you. Trust me. I've seen it all before.

Regardless of whether you're walking along the street, driving in a vehicle, or sitting at home watching television, when the police come knocking, say nothing. Follow this tip, and the police will only be left with evidence of what they find or don't find. What others say or don't say about you usually doesn't count for anything in a criminal court drug trial, unless it's a police agent or police officer who is testifying. But what you personally have told the police counts for a lot.

Don't think even if the police aren't making a recording of what you're saying, or aren't writing it down in a little black notebook, that it can't later be used against you. Say nothing. That's your right, so take full advantage of that right.

However, don't try to obstruct the police in doing their jobs. If they've got a warrant to search your house, let them get on with their job of searching. Let your lawyer later figure out if it was a valid or invalid warrant. But you don't need to point anything out to the police. Resist identifying items for the police, even if the police tell you that will save on their messing up your house.

Same thing in a vehicle - no need to hand anything over. If they're going to search your vehicle, they will search. Nothing you say or don't say will change things, as tempting as it might be to say something.

Likewise if you're walking down the street. Don't become trapped by the "have you got anything on you that you shouldn't have?" question. And its companion request: "if you do, hand it over." Many of my clients assume that by being cooperative, the police will just let the matter drop and send them on their way. But often what happens is that they've dug themselves into a self-incrimination hole and get charged with drug offences. Whereas if they had said and done nothing (other than giving their names), the police may have had no legal authority to search.

Tip 2 - Talk to a Lawyer ASAP

In some personal disputes, lawyering up early on only aggravates the dispute. But being criminally investigated or charged is a completely different situation. There, you'll want to consult a lawyer as soon as possible.

A little bit of legal advice can be a bargain in protecting your rights. That advice might mean a police investigation goes nowhere, that less serious charges are laid - for instance possession instead of possession for the purpose of trafficking - or if a court case does proceed that you haven't helped the police make the case against you.

You shouldn't wait to talk to a lawyer until you've been charged. Some drug investigations take a while, and there may be things you can do to protect your rights at an early stage of the investigation. Your lawyer might talk to the police for you to ask about the scope of their inquiries. Your lawyer might be able to work out a deal for you to avoid you getting charged with anything. Your lawyer might be able to get some charges dropped. Or your lawyer might go to court for you to get back seized money or other assets.

Tip 3 - Be Personally Informed About Drug Laws

Informing yourself in a basic sense about drug laws is the best way you can make intelligent decisions about your legal defence. There's a lot of clutter - like hundreds of years of the common law of evidence and dozens of years of constitutional rights law - that makes it seem really complicated, and for which you definitely need a lawyer. But I can sum up the basics for you quickly.

There are principally 5 types of drug offences (all under what's wordily known as the Controlled Drug and Substances Act): possession, possession for the purpose of trafficking, trafficking, production, and importation. The type of drug involved might make the penalties for any of these offences more severe, but mostly don't alter their inherent character. "Conviction" for any of them will gives you a criminal record, and could cause you a lifetime of hassles crossing the U.S. border and applying for jobs within Canada until you are able to obtain a pardon (now unpoetically called a "record suspension"). So you really, really, really want to avoid a conviction.

There are three ways to do that.

One, convince the Crown to drop the charges. Good defence lawyers are capable of doing this. It might not happen that often, but it's usually your best shot to make everything go away.

Two, plead guilty and convince a judge to give you what's known as a "discharge." It's a finding of guilt, but no conviction is entered. So if you're later asked by anyone, "have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence," you can truthfully say "no." Again, a good defence lawyer might be able to obtain this for you - but it will depend on the type of offence and type of drug you are pleading to.

Three, take your case to trial. You might have a viable defence, because the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is entirely on the Crown. You have to prove nothing. The Crown has to prove knowledge and control and possibly other elements. You might even have a Charter of Rights defence if your rights were violated. There sometimes isn't much downside to taking a drug case to trial other than the legal fees if the sentence imposed after trial isn't much different than the sentence you would have received after a guilty plea. A good drug defence lawyer will not be afraid to take your case to trial so long as there is some viable defence to present.

TIP 4 - Don't Plead Guilty if You're Not Guilty

I often have clients stuck in the system. They're understandably stressed out by their drug charges hanging over their heads for months on end. They want the process over with. They have a good defence, but they can't take the waiting anymore. So they tell me, "look Gordon, I didn't do it, but I want to plead just to get it over with." But it's not ethical for any lawyer to help you with such a plea. Lying to the court is an offence. If you didn't do it, you just need to hang in there. You'll be stuck with a conviction for life, so ultimately waiting a year to have your trial day in court is worth it. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

SMALL CLAIMS COURT OR SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE: WHICH SHOULD YOU CHOOSE FOR YOUR CIVIL CLAIM IN ONTARIO?

The first - and perhaps most important - decision anyone is faced with when contemplating pursuing a civil claim against someone else is: which court should I be proceeding before? If life and the law were simple, there would only be one court that would deal with all problems.

But unfortunately as most of us have discovered by adulthood, life is never as simple as our younger selves hoped it would be. And those who need to brave the court system likewise soon discover that there are a complex multiplicity of courts and tribunals out there, any one of which might be "the place" you're supposed to go to seek a solution to your particular legal problem. Showing up at the wrong one can be like arriving at the wrong birthday party, where you're told there's no cake for the likes of you!

Although Ontario also has criminal and family courts in addition to a plethora of administrative tribunals, for the purposes of any "civil" claim the sole choices are between the Small Claims Court and the Superior Court of Justice (unless the claim is one of the few going to the Federal Court). Confusingly, the Small Claims Court is actually an arm of the Superior Court, but where "Deputy Judges" preside over a less complex procedure involving less risk for the losers and also lesser rewards for the winners.

The key things to know about the Small Claims Court are that:

1. You can only demand damages up to $25,000. You can still bring a claim worth potentially much more than that before the Small Claims Court, but you'll be required to "abandon" the excess.

2. You can only demand the return of property up to a value of $25,0000.

3. You can't demand any other kind of remedy, like declaratory or injunctive relief, meaning you can't ask the court to force another person to do or not do something, or declare that something is or is not the case - like that a law is unconstitutional.

4. You can only obtain "costs" (sometimes awarded to the winning party) of 15% of the value of all claims pending before the court, even if you spent much more on legal fees.

5. Your legal fees charged by a lawyer will be much, much cheaper in Small Claims Court than in the Superior Court of Justice, because of the simpler and quicker procedure involved.

What this means to choosing between civil courts is that if you're definitely seeking a remedy other than money or property, you've got no choice - you're going to the Superior Court of Justice. If you're seeking money or property worth less than $25,000, then again the choice is a no brainer - you're going to the Small Claims Court.

The zone of claims where the choice gets tricky is for those worth a bit (though not a massive amount) over $25,000. My rule of thumb is that any claim worth under $40,000 should choose to go to the Small Claims Court, since you're probably going to spend at least another $15,000 in legal fees going to the Superior Court of Justice. Even claims up to $50,000 might wish to consider cutting their numbers in half to go to Small Claims.

Over $50,000, and Superior Court of Justice is likely the way to go. If you claim $100,000 or less there, you're entitled to take advantage of what's known as a "simplified procedure" - though it's still a lot more costly and time consuming than Small Claims Court procedure.

But before you settle on the Superior Court of Justice route for what you're convinced is your very valuable claim, get some legal advice about claim valuation. You might very legitimately believe that you've suffered a great injustice at the hands of the plaintiff, but the burden rests solely on you as plaintiff to present proof on a balance of probability of quantification of damages. This means proof of what you've lost, and what is a fair amount payable by the defendant to "make you whole" again.

Figuring out damages numbers is easiest when you're fighting over a thing - like a vehicle - with a well known value. Damages are more difficult to quantify for less well agreed upon numbers, like the value of a broken arm. Damages can become very difficult to put a number on when they are intangible - like damage to reputation due to defamation.

You definitely don't want to "win" after a lengthy and expensive trial, only to be awarded $1 - or any figure that is less than the amounts you've spent on pursuing the case.

HOW LANDLORDS AND TENANTS CAN SEEK JUSTICE FOR COMMERCIAL LEASING DISPUTES

Most jurisdictions have a rental board that deals with residential landlord-tenant disputes. The board has its own rules, its own forms, and its own schedules. It's meant to be accessible without lawyers to both landlords and tenants (though lawyers can certainly be helpful).

But a vast number of landlord-tenant disputes involve commercial premises. Where do those landlords or tenants go to seek justice? What is a landlord's recourse when a tenant stops paying rent or refuses to leave rented premises after a lease expires? What can a tenant do when a landlord locks him out of premises over which he holds a lease? Who ya gonna call? In Ontario the answer is: the Superior Court of Justice.

The Superior Court is always the place to go when there's no other place else you're supposed to be going legally speaking. So you don't go there for residential landlord-tenant matters, because there's already an administrative tribunal set up for that. But the only thing regulating commercial leasing is the common law of contract, plus what's known as the Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. c. L.7.

That Act generally applies to all tenancies to which the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply. Unfortunately the Commercial Tenancies Act isn't the easiest Act to read. It's got a lot of really old language in it that's never been "modernized," so that you're left with provisions like: "Every person has the like remedy by distress and impounding and selling the property distrained in cases of rents seck as in the case of rent reserved upon the lease." And no, "rents seck" isn't a typo, it comes with the Middle English "rent sek" which in turn comes from the Anglo-French "rente seque" meaning "dry rent." I highly advise you to retain a lawyer to advise you on your rights and obligations under the Act.

The Commercial Tenancies Act contains lots of useful provisions for both commercial landlords and tenants, though it's definitely not a complete code of procedure governing commercial tenancies. The gaps are filled in by the common law of contract. For landlords, there are provisions like s. 58 which provides that a tenant will owe a landlord twice the monthly rent for every month during which he illegally overholds a property beyond the expiry or termination of a lease. For tenants, there are provisions like s-s. 32(2) which permits a sub-tenant to serve a statutory declaration on a landlord who is seeking to seize tenant goods for non-payment of rent confirming that the tenant has no interest in the property of the sub-tenant, and that the sub-tenant's property therefore shouldn't be seized.

Because the Superior Court is a court of "original inherent jurisdiction," you can ask it for any remedy you think to be just. You might also have recourse to the Small Claims Court for money or property disputes under $25,000 in value involving commercial leases, but you can't get orders from that court forcing people to do or not so things - like evicting a tenant - you can only get money or property returned. So Small Claims Court has limited use in commercial lease disputes.

The key to happy commercial leasing is good legal advice (for both the landlord and the tenant) prior to signing a lease. Such advice can be a real bargain compared to the expense of going to court later to fight over whether or not the terms of the lease have been breached, and what remedies should be granted for that breach. But be assured that the Superior Court of Justice, the common law, and the Commercial Tenancies Act do provide for robust remedies for both landlord and tenants facing commercial leasing injustices.

ESTATE LITIGATION: FIVE TIPS ON HOW TO DEESCALATE FAMILY FEUDS

In the "good old days" (which often weren't so good), most of us died relatively poor. We might hopefully have been rich in life accomplishments, and family or friends, but financially speaking there often wasn't a whole lot left to divvy up among those who survived us.

With significant increases in home ownership, and especially significant rises in the equity held in those homes in Canada's major urban centres, if you die owning a mortgage-free house, you now often die rich. Plus there may be life insurance and investments to distribute. This is all great for one's survivors, but not so great if family relationships are already a little strained at the time of passing.

In the old days, even if beneficiaries of estates were inclined to squabble over who got what, they did not often retain legal counsel to do so if the legal fees would outweigh the money in dispute. But now with estates frequently running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in value, "lawyering up" is becoming more common.

As an estate litigation and dispute settlement lawyer, I've found having some background in drafting wills and powers of attorney for clients has helped me assist families in deescalating disputes before they start, and managing disputes if they are already ongoing. Here I offer you five basic but key tips to deescalating actual or potential estate family feuds.

Tip #1: Picking the right executor for your will may be more important than picking the right beneficiaries. I find people often spend months of time debating who should or should not receive that prized china tea cup in a will, but spend about five minutes (literally) determining who should act as executor and estate trustee. Your executor is THE key player who will determine whether your estate is distributed hassle free, or with acrimony and lawyer involvement. Picking someone who is relatively impartial (and ideally not a major beneficiary, but who is compensated for his or her effort), and has people skills, is the usually the best strategy.

Tip #2: Don't completely exclude anyone who is deserving from your will. The more people you "cut out" of your will who might usually be expecting a gift, the more you heighten the chances for one of them challenging the will. You definitely don't need to treat everyone equally (at least under Canadian common law, as in Ontario), but if you have three children, and you give two of them $100,000 each, and the third one nothing, you are asking for trouble. Even if you have good reasons for doing so.

Tip #3: Once a dispute has started, quickly get legal advice but try to prevent it going to court. A lawyer's opinion is a bargain compared to the hassle and expense it can later save you. However, dragging a case (or being dragged) into court is never a bargain, and will take at least months and possibly years to resolve. Once that litigation freight train starts heading down the track, it can be very difficult to apply the brakes.

Tip #4: If you are in court, keep open a dialogue with the other side(s). While this tip might appear obvious, my experience is that many assume that once a matter is in court, they should just "let the court sort it out" and stop speaking to the other parties. It's unlikely a court will actually be able to sort it out in a definitive way - a court might clarify the issues, and resolve some of them, but definitive resolution could require many, many years since even if you are successful at trial, an appeal is possible, so keep the lines of communication open.

Tip #5: If you are involved in a contested court hearing, ensure you have solid evidence to support your position beyond just your oral testimony. It's reasonable to assume that judges want to make "just" and "fair" decisions, but they can only do so based on the law and evidence before them. Even if the law is on your side (for example, that a properly executed will is valid), prepare to back up your position with lots collateral evidence. Judges love documents - as they're less likely to lie than witnesses - so try to produce some supporting your position. Other witnesses backing up testimony will also help. You might also need expert witnesses. You will make your legal bill lower and greatly increase of your chances of success in court by helping you lawyer locate the documents and witnesses you need to present a compelling case.

New Website, New Blog

Now that you're just getting over the winter blahs, surely you're ready for a strong dose of the new Aubry Campbell MacLean (ACM) Blog! Trouble sleeping? Need something to distract you from the cat biting your leg? Well we've got the solution!

The Aubry Campbell MacLean blog will potentially feature contributions from all our lawyers and students, explaining the law in simple (but not simplistic), easy to understand terms.

I'll keep writing The Barrister Brief Blog which will continue to focus on litigation and dispute resolution dos and don'ts, but a lot of those posts will now also appear here. However, you'll also now get a much greater dose of solicitor legal dos and don'ts for things like real estate deals, wills, and business agreements thanks to my colleagues who practice in those areas. Welcome, and happy reading. Videos will show up in the future (I promise, I've even already ordered the studio lighting).