Top 3 Reasons You Should Appeal that Court Case You Lost. And Top 3 Reasons You Shouldn't Appeal.

So much time, money and especially emotional energy go into any kind of court case, that it's natural to have a sense of injustice, being wronged, and wanting to prove the injustice to a higher authority when you lose. Civil business litigation, family cases, criminal trials, small claims, they all have winners and losers.

Most judgments can be appealed up to at least one higher court. Sometimes you've got two or even three levels of appeal available. But should you?

Top 3 Reasons You Should Appeal

1. There was a Very Clear Error of Law in the Trial Judgment

All judges and hearing officers are human. And humans make mistakes. If judges were perfect, there would be no need for an appeal infrastructure as a safety valve for decision makers having an off day. 

Starting out my legal career, I used to imagine that you had to get very, very creative to dream up viable grounds of appeal, because most trial judgments would be solidly reasoned. I couldn't have been more wrong.

Sometimes the facts and law really are against a party, but the decision maker fails to adequately explain how she got to her decision. At other times, the decision fundamentally miscomprehends the law or facts, so that you’re effectively into miscarriage of justice territory. You don’t need to be an unjustly imprisoned lifer to have a miscarriage of justice. 

How often such errors are made is a matter of conjecture, since practically speaking many people won’t bother appealing after a long trial process has taken its toll. But I can tell you from statistics from the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Tax Court of Canada that approximately one in four civil appeals succeeds in some way, and about one in three criminal appeals finds some success. Those really aren’t bad odds if a lot is at stake, and can probably be improved upon with an experienced appellate lawyer since a significant number of appeals are advanced by the self-represented. 

2. An Appeal is Way Cheaper than Paying the Judgment

Its unfortunate that in our society a lot of things come down to money, but that's just the way it is. The reality is that an appeal that will cost you $25,000 in fees against a $3 million judgment is far more justifiable than an appeal that will cost you that same $25,000 in fees as compared to a $40,000 judgment against you.

I have found that litigants often fall into the age old trap of "throwing good money after bad." That's because they've spent a lot of money on trial litigation, perhaps fighting over something that wasn't worth all that money to start with, and then feel compelled to keep spending money on a lost cause on appeal that still isn't really worth it. 

The appeals being justified because they cost a fraction of judgment costs theory also applies to court costs awarded at trial. Even if you perhaps should have lost, but then have $200,000 of the other party's legal fees awarded against you on top of that, you might need to appeal just to fight the costs award. Sometimes by merely filing the appeal, you may gain enough leverage to negotiate a much lower level of costs with the opposing party, or even to have them abandon the costs in exchange for you not further fighting the judgment. 

Once I went before the Ontario Court of Appeal to overturn an unjustified family court contempt finding that should have never been made against my client. When I was contemplating taking on the case, I initially wondered whether it was worth it for my client (and me) to go to the highest court in Ontario to fight what was somewhat of a symbolic order (because it's very rare for anyone to go to jail over a contempt finding). But when I learned there had also been a $20,000 costs award against my client out of the contempt motion, I became convinced of the merits of the appeal. We wound up successfully overturning the contempt judgment, and wiping out the costs award, thereby mostly paying for the cost of the appeal. 

3. Your Were Fighting for Something Priceless at Trial

Of course there are some trial issues that aren't quantifiable in monetary terms. Issues that if you lose, are worth a continued fight, regardless of the cost. Your freedom and your children may be the two most obvious categories. 

However, courts hate frivolous appeals. You need an arguable case. An experienced appeals lawyer may be able to come up with at least arguable grounds for you, even if winning that argument is an uphill battle. You absolutely can't base an appeal solely on not liking the trial level court or tribunal result. 

And an appeal isn't a new trial. It's tough to introduce fresh evidence at an appeal - you'll usually need to bring a motion. An appeal isn't just another kick at the can.

So if you're truly fighting over something priceless, you're better off investing resources at trial than on appeal. I'm often approached by litigants who were self-represented at trial, got hammered (perhaps quite unjustly), and now are thinking of hiring me to "fix" the situation. Sometimes I'm able to do that, but you'll never have as good of a shot at winning on an appeal as you did at trial. Often the best result from an appeal is another trial 

Top 3 Reasons You Shouldn't Appeal

1. Finality

There may be a certain emotional peace to a case finally being over, even if you lost. Appealing will just drag things outs. 

2. The Trial Result Really Wasn't That Bad

While you might be outraged about a trial result, on further examination sometimes it really isn't all that bad. It may be a criminal trial where you were convicted, but you weren't sentenced to jail. It could be a family trial where you didn't secure sole custody of your children, but you also didn't lose custody, and will wind up with them 60% of the time, plus you did get spousal support in your favour. Or perhaps it was business litigation where you and your former business partner were suing each other, and the court found that neither of you had proved your claims. 

You'll have to carefully assess how "bad" is a bad that you can't live with coming out of a trial court; that will be a very personal assessment. For instance, for one person who has a high level security clearance, the criminal conviction without jail might lead to a permanent loss of employment and career, whereas for another who is self-employed it might just not really matter much.

You must especially guard against your appeal against a judgment involving partial success triggering a cross-appeal by your opponent, thereby potentially challenging even that partial success. 

3. You Can't Really Afford It

The cost of an appeal is not just in the appeal, but also in paying the fees involved in a court process that might continue after the appeal. If you win the appeal, your opponent could seek to appeal the appeal. If you win the appeal, the case might be sent back for a new trial leading to further expense. Losing the appeal may mean paying the other side's legal costs. 

Often the best strategy for figuring out whether you should or shouldn't appeal may even be to make that determination on a preliminary basis early on in the trial phase of your case. Then you won't be rushed in later making a final decision on an appeal. Yes, you'll have to assess the judgment you received, but at least the appeal pros and cons will already have been considered. 

Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) Confidential: An Immigration Lawyer Tells You What You Need to Know to Not Be Refused Entry to Canada

Shocked you’ve suddenly got to fill out something called an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) in order to come to Canada by air, even though you’ve entered many times before Visa-free? Not sure how to answer the eTA questions? Refused entry to Canada because of an eTA, even though you've been welcomed many times before? You’re not alone.

What is an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA)?

It’s been less than a year since the Government of Canada in November 2016 imposed the eTA requirement on nationals of all Visa-free entry countries (over 50 states), other than Americans. Although the Government seems to have promoted eTAs as not a big deal, in many ways these are mini-Visas, with all the attendant risks, hassles and delays that Visas entail. Supposedly 3.5 million people a year will be applying for eTAs. Previously, only a tiny fraction of those were asked the eTA's probing questions after arriving at a Canadian air port of entry. 

Canada Border Services Agency Officers have the right to ask foreigners seeking entry to Canada all manner of probing questions, but airports are busy places, and most people never were asked questions about things like prior arrests. Now, all foreigners (other than Americans) get asked through the eTA.

While you don’t need to apply for an eTA if arriving in Canada by land or sea, how many people actually do that other than Americans? Canada is not an easy place to get to unless you fly. 

What's the Difference Between a Visa & an eTA?

The main difference between an eTA and a Visa, other than cost and waiting period, is that the eTA is a self-reporting tool that is computer screened. Only if an applicant answers YES to particular questions, or is otherwise flagged in an electronic database, will the eTA application be escalated to human review. By comparison, all Visas supposedly get some human attention (some more than others). 

What's Risks Do eTAs Pose for Travellers?

While the Government of Canada rightly points to the fact that eTAs are only screening for the admission criteria that always applied to any foreigner seeking entry to Canada and which were already tested for in Visa applicants, detailed screening of another 3.5 million people a year is sure to result in thousands of additional refused entries to Canada.

While the government touts the huge numbers of eTAs successfully issued, what is not focussed on is the number of people refused entry because of an eTA. The most common reason for refusal is likely because of disclosure of minor criminal records that the Government of Canada would not otherwise have known about were it not for the eTA questioning. But refusal for health reasons, for being unable to financially support yourself while in Canada, or for being unlikely to leave Canada all also pose refusal risks.

How Should I Answer the eTA Questions?

If you only had to fill out your name, birthdate, address and purpose of visit, the eTA would be easy. But instead, you’re faced with questions like “Do you have a serious health condition for which you are receiving regular medical treatment?”

ou might be wondering, what qualifies as “serious” and what is meant by “regular” or even “treatment"? Good question! There are a lot of important nuances in that one question alone. You don't want to minimize a condition, and then be accused of lying. But you don’t want to unjustifiably exaggerate a condition, and then be refused entry when in fact your condition wasn’t all that serious, and your treatment wasn’t particularly regular. 

In future blog posts, I’ll deconstruct the ways to approach each questions. 

The Government of Canada has produced a 22 page guide on how to fill out the ETA: 

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/eta/english.pdf

While the guide is helpful, in some ways it raises more questions than it answers, like in response to the medical question it states: "Select YES if you are receiving regular, ongoing medical treatment for any mental or physical condition.”

But note that the guide's "clarification" isn’t using the same question that was asked in the eTA. The word “serious” has disappeared. The word “ongoing” has appeared.” And mental as well as physical conditions have now been added, leaving one to wonder does taking a low dose anti-depressant need to be disclosed? To me, it certainly doesn’t qualify as “serious health condition” and “regular medical treatment,” but it might qualify as ongoing treatment for a mental condition, especially if some psychotherapy in thrown in. My take would be to follow the wording of the actual question, and not the wording of the guide. But you can hopefully see how confusing this can get, and how easily it might lead to misunderstandings leading to entry to Canada problems.

Three Guiding Principles for Filling out eTAs

For now, I offer you three guiding principles for completing an eTA:

1. Don’t Lie - a "misrepresentation" can bar you from visiting, working or studying in Canada. The misrepresentation may be considered to be far more serious by the Government of Canada than the thing you were trying to hide. Even if you think the government will never find out, you can't be sure about what database access the government might have. I worked for the government for years, and I was never sure. You can be sure that eTA applicants home countries will share more data with Canada than will Visa-required countries, because the eTA countries tend to be close allies of Canada.
2. Don’t Answer Yes Without First Obtaining Legal Advice - these are all loaded, legal questions. If you're asked one of them in person at an airport, you aren't going to be able to have the opportunity to obtain legal advice. But with an eTA, you can talk to a lawyer. A lawyer local to where you live won't be much good to you, because it's unlikely he or she will be qualified to give advice on Canadian law. 
3. Don’t Book Travel Prior to Obtaining an eTA - they’re good for five years, and only cost 7 dollars. So this should be the first step of your trip planning. 

We offer “eTA Quick Legal Consults” (eTA QLC) for those faced with filling out an eTA, and who have concerns about how questions should be answered based upon their personal facts. And on how to resolve eTA refusals. 

The Government of Canada hasn’t changed any of the entry rules to Canada. Reasons for refusal remain the same as they have been. But with eTAs they’ll now have a lot more information on everyone, so you need to treat the eTA document as seriously as you would a Visa application to another country or a passport application in your own country. 

Claiming Birthright Canadian Citizenship: Top 3 Application Errors to Avoid

It might not be all that surprising in the current climate, but my law firm continues to see a surge of applicants seeking to confirm their own or their children's Canadian citizenship. Confirmation of citizenship is quite different from applying to become a citizen. For those seeking confirmation they're already all citizens, but have never previously had a reason to seek out official confirmation from the Government of Canada that they have a right to work, study and live in Canada on an unlimited basis, including carrying a Canadian passport and voting in Canadian elections if they've reached the age of 18.

A lot of the people who retain us to help them with Canadian citizenship confirmation have already tried to apply for confirmation, but the government returned their applications unapproved because of failure to fulfill the requirements. Sometimes those applications have been returned multiple times, leading to many months - perhaps even years - of frustration.

Yes, there's a DIY guide to citizenship confirmation. And yes, you can do it yourself. But if speed, an error free application, and lack of frustration is important to you, you should give serious consideration to using a citizenship lawyer. The cost is pretty reasonable as compared to some other legal services, and is less expensive even than many other immigration law services.

The top three citizenship confirmation errors we've lately seen in our practice relate to birth certificates, translation of documents, and photographs. All seem deceptively simple things to provide to the government. And yet, the government finds fault again and again with what is submitted because the government won't hold your hand, won't coach you through the standards, and applies a standard of perfection. 

1. BIRTH CERTIFICATE ERRORS

a. Not understanding what is a certified copy

A certified copy isn't just a photocopy. And you can't take a copy into someone qualified to make certified copies without also bringing along the original, so that person can compare the original to the copy. That's what certified means: someone trustworthy has seen the original, carefully compared it to the copy, and then stamped and written on the copy, in the customary manner applicable in the territory the certification is being made in, that the copy is "true" to the original.

In Canada, notaries, commissioners of oaths and lawyers can usually create certified copies wherever your live. There may also be other officials like bank managers or school principals who are authorized to do so.

Overseas you should probably stick with a notary who can create a "Notarial Copy" which is generally even better than a certified copy.

Family members can't certify other family members' copies.

b. Attempting to use documents issued in Quebec prior to 1994

In Quebec, you might need to apply for a new birth certificate prior to applying for citizenship confirmation, even if you've already got a birth certificate or baptismal certificate. The Federal Government doesn't like those Quebec documents if they were issued prior to 1994.

Who knows why. I did two law degrees in Quebec, and I don't know why, though I suppose I could find out. You've just got to accept that that's the way it is, and apply for a more recent document. 

2. TRANSLATION ERRORS

In Canada we all know there are only two official languages: English and French. Other than those pesky documents from Quebec mentioned above, the Government of Canada does not have any firm rules on document standards from a country which has produced the documents you might be submitting, but it does require that they be in English or French, otherwise the Canadian government worker processing them won't be able to read them. The government won't translate your documents for you, you've got to pay to do it yourself.

The documents can be translated either in Canada or overseas. Probably in Canada is easiest, since then it's easier to prove you've used a certified translator; make sure you submit that proof. If done by someone who isn't certified in Canada, you'll need to submit a separate affidavit from that person attesting to not only the accuracy of the translation, but also the fluent proficiency of the translator in both the language being translated from and the language being translated to.

The government will NOT take your word on the accuracy of translations without an official translation.

3. PHOTOGRAPH ERRORS

You'd think photos would be the easiest thing of all to provide. We've all now got camera phones that take great pictures. I often try to justify my overpriced new phone to myself by thinking that I actually bought a really great camera, with a phone thrown in for free. But the Government of Canada has yet to enter the digital photo age.

When I went to get my United Kingdom passport (I'm a dual citizenship), they were more than happy to accept the $3 mall photo booth strip of photos I had procured. Not so with Canada. Mess up the photos, and your application will get returned, sometimes with little explanation as to what went wrong.

Photos have a mere 15 requirements to qualify as acceptable (as quoted from the IRCC website):

• Photographs must be printed on quality photographic paper.
• Provide the name of the photographer or the studio, the studio address and the date the photos were taken on the back of the photos
• Print the name of the person on the back of the photos.
• The photographs must be identical and taken within the last six months. They may be either black and white or colour.
• The photographs must be clear, well defined and taken against a plain white or light-coloured background.
• If the photographs are digital, they must not be altered in any way.
• Your face must be square to the camera with a neutral expression, neither frowning nor smiling, and with your mouth closed.
• You may wear non-tinted prescription glasses as long as your eyes are clearly visible. Make sure that the frame does not cover any part of your eyes. Sunglasses are not acceptable.
• A hairpiece or other cosmetic accessory is acceptable if it does not disguise your normal appearance.
• If you must wear a head covering for religious reasons, make sure your full facial features are not obscured.
• The frame size must be 50 mm x 70 mm (2″ x 2 ¾″).
• The photographs must show the full front view of the head, with the face in the middle of the photograph, and include the top of the shoulders.
• The size of the head, from chin to crown, must be between 31 mm (1 1/4″) and 36 mm (1 7/16″).
• Crown means the top of the head or (if obscured by hair or a head covering) where the top of the head or skull would be if it could be seen.
• If the photographs do not meet the specifications, you will have to provide new photographs before your application can be processed.

Don't staple the photo to the application - a paperclip is the most severe form of attachment tolerated.

So to avoid errors, especially as to size, just go to a passport photo place. Drug stores often do this. For about $10 or $15 dollars, you'll get your two photos. The Government of Canada is really picky about its photos.

Succeeding in your citizenship confirmation application involves not just adhering to the letter of the law, or the letter of government policy, but also the letter of the minute application instructions. Misinterpret those instructions, and you'll be receiving a return to sender envelope from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. 

Bucket List of Top 5 Legal Things You Should Do Before You Die

I like those bucket list books as much as anyone. 100 places to see before you die. 100 foods to try before you die. 100 adventures to have before you die. 

We might like the lists as much for proving to ourselves we've actually done a few (maybe very few) of those things, as we do for their giving us new ideas of places, food and things to do! 

I've never heard of a bucket list of legal things to do before you die. So I'm giving you my top five legal things you should do before you die list. And unlike those other lists, for these you really do need to get through all of them - even if it takes you a few years. It's never too late. 

1. Make a Will

Even if you don't think you've got much in the way of property or dependants, no one knows better how things should be taken care of after you pass than you do. Everyone needs a will. And I do mean everyone. 

2. Make a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property

With people living longer and longer, there's an ever increasing risk that you might become mentally incapable long before you die. You need someone other than the government who is empowered to look after your property, including being able to use your assets to pay for your care.

3. Make a Power of Attorney for Personal Care

You know best what kinds of medical decisions you would like to be made about your life, and a power of attorney for personal care in Ontario (sometimes called by other names elsewhere) is the only way to pass on those wishes if you're incapacitated.

4. Update Your Life Insurance Beneficiaries

Contrary to what many people think, life insurance does not pass through a will if you've named particular beneficiaries in an insurance policy. If you're younger, life insurance might be your greatest asset, but your personal circumstances could have changed from the time you originally named beneficiaries. Make sure the person(s) you wish to receive your insurance payout really are the ones named in the policy. 

5. Ensure Someone Knows Where all Your Legal Documents Are  

While a few smart places (like Quebec) have government registries for wills, most (like Ontario) don't. So it won't matter how many of these things you've crossed off your bucket list if no one can find the documents you've created!

Ideally, you'll leave them with the lawyer who drafted them. But lawyers get old just like everyone else, and the documents could be difficult to track down. So make sure someone you trust - preferably your executor - knows where to find the documents, and absolutely don't leave them in a safety deposit box because no one may be able to access it without possession of the documents that you've locked in the box. 

Top 5 Things Never to Do in a Property Dispute

I’ve devoted much of my legal career to attempting to demystify the law for people. To convince them that lawyers don’t hold all the secrets to the black letter law arts, and that everyone can read and interpret the law - though getting a lawyer’s advice is always helpful. 

But there are unfortunately some areas of law that are a lot more impenetrable than others, usually because of two factors:

1. the amount of time the area of law has been in existence;
2. a lack of legislative codification.

Meaning 500 years of cumulative law is a lot more difficult to figure out than 50 years of law, and a well organized 500 pages of law that has been recently refined by the legislature is much easier to deal with than 50 separate statutes passed over the last 100 years

Real property law unfortunately falls into the just really complicated category of law that’s been around a very long time, and is spread over an awful lot of statutes. It’s especially too bad for it to be so complicated, as a very large number of Canadians will have reason to be involved with it over the course of their lifetimes in buying or selling property, as compared to other more niche areas of the law which might be easier to figure out, but where few people will ever need to understand them.

I find disputes over real property all too common, and they tend to take on a nasty tinge that only neighbours who aren’t related to each other, but are still stuck coexisting side by side, seem to be able to develop for each other. Perhaps it's the helpless feeling of being stuck next to someone, and perhaps even seeing them every day, but not being able to interact with them to resolve the issues involved.

Some of these disputes can be resolved without going to court, though I find some lawyer involvement is usually necessary to figure out what each party's rights truly are. Occasionally only a court can sort out who has which real property right, and what's the appropriate remedy to enforce those rights. 

Here are my top five things to never do in a property dispute. 

1. Lack evidence

In almost any legal dispute, the burden of proof is on the party making the argument for the remedy. So if you think you have a right to cross your neighbour’s backyard in order to get to your garage because all owners of your property for the past 40 years continuously have been doing just that, you better be sure of your evidence. Knowing you’re right, and being able to prove it, are not the same thing. 

2. Fail to get a survey

It's easy to think you know where the boundaries of your land are. But do you really?

Just because you think the property line is where the fence is, if you don’t have a recent survey prepared by a licensed surveyor, you need to get one done. Surveys are endlessly useful, not just in establishing boundaries, but also for determining where easements sit, how far an encroachment cuts into your property, or just generally as an aid to later selling your house because buyers can have confidence in knowing exactly what they are buying.

3. Fail to get a title search

It's also easy to think that you have absolute ownership over your property, but in fact none of us does other than the Crown. At best, we own “fee simple” which still means Crown title underlies our land (thus making things like expropriation possible). And sometimes there could be all sorts of other rights or charges registered on our land that we don’t know about. 

Only an up to date and probing title search, carried back sufficiently in time (rather than just looking at the last transaction) will truly tell you about the rights hovering over (and under) your property. 

4. Fail to make a title insurance claim

Title insurance is increasingly common, and could pay all your legal fees or damages if you wind up with a previously unknown title problem to your land after you’ve closed a purchase for which you bought residential or commercial title insurance at the same time.

There's a lot of paper produced at the time you buy real property, so it's understandable you might not have poked into that thick reporting package envelope your real estate lawyer sent you all those months or years ago. But go take a look. 

You might discover a few pages mentioning that you did indeed agree to buy a policy from one of the major providers like First Canadian Title or Stewart Title. There's no guarantee (like any insurance policy) that they'll cover your loss, but there is no downside to making a claim. 

My personal experience is that sometimes you'll get coverage, and sometimes you won't, with the results really depending on your factual situation as compared to the wording of your policy. It's often helpful to retain a lawyer to assist you in making a claim because of the complexity of property law, but it's not required. 

5. Fail to get legal advice prior to acting

A couple of hours of legal advice from a lawyer is a bargain compared with the dozens or even hundreds of hours that can be burned through in a court case if you proceed to do something on your land that it later turns out you had no right to do, like block a laneway, cut down trees, or erect a fence. 

I offer you this suggestion not out of self-interest - I make more off court cases than I do legal opinions - but rather because of the unfortunate real property difficulties I see people get themselves into time and time again, that can be very costly to dig out of, and that are completely avoidable with a little advice.

The Top Reason to Never Do Your Own Separation Agreement or Divorce & It's Not Because Lawyers Need All Your Money

The vast majority of family separations and divorces are settled out of court. Only about 1% of family cases in Canada actually get to trial. But building a solid family law settlement is somewhat analogous to building a sound house: you've got to start with a good foundation, and while you might be able to do a bit of wiring and plumbing yourself, foundations are best left to the professionals. 

DIY agreements live in the moment

Many of the family law cases I assist clients with in court as a barrister started years before I got involved. Couples with good intentions, full of emotions surrounding a separation, worked out agreements that seemed reasonable at the time, and committed them to paper. 

Usually those agreements took up only one or two pages for the couples to draft the key points that were important to them at the time. Sometimes they validated the agreements through obtaining consent court orders, and were reassured that because there was a court seal on their agreements, they must be legal and binding for all time. Sadly, they couldn’t be more wrong. 

If there’s something to potentially fight over you need a lawyer

If separating couples have no children, truly no assets, and very modest incomes, they may not need a lawyer because there really isn’t anything to fight over. Everyone else needs legal advice, and a lawyer to draft their separation agreement. Trust me on this. I’m a lawyer. Would I lie to you?

After the separation agreement is done, you might be able to do your own divorce (though the additional the cost of doing a divorce at the same time as the separation agreement is negligible). But it’s the separation agreement that’s the foundation for the post-marital house the former spouses will both be stuck inhabiting for a long time to come.

And the top reason is ...

The top reason to never do your own separation or divorce is because your mutual no-lawyers agreement won’t resist future discord between you and your former spouse. It won’t be resilient. And it won’t stand up in court. 

So long as you and your former spouse will get on well for decades to come, the DIY agreement may be just fine. But if you got on really well as a couple, you probably would not have split up to start with. Thus just as with marital relationships, post-marital relationships (including post-common law relationships) will have their ups and downs. I know I’m stating the obvious, and I’m not a psychologist, but my goal is to explain what I observe on a daily basis as part of my practice to be the adverse legal consequences of those ups and downs. 

When you’ve got an up, both parties might honour a DIY agreement, though its lack of detail may cause tensions because children’s holidays, or expenses, or division of family property really weren’t sorted out in sufficient detail after all. When there’s a down, the entire agreement may be repudiated, with one of the ex-spouses now claiming retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, and a redivision of the family property right back to the time of separation. And they might win.

Beware current online separation agreement tools

As Canada’s former Director of E-Business Development, I love technology. I believe it to be the future of legal practice, and the best hope for improving lawyer-client engagement and court efficiency. But current online technology is decades away from being a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed lawyer. 

There are now some amazing online family law tools available, most notably www.maysupportcalculator.ca/calculator which is great for figuring out likely amounts of child and spousal support; it’s a giveaway from the software creators of DivorceMate that all lawyers use. But online fill in the blanks separation agreements just won't cut it until artificial intelligence advances greatly.

If you wouldn’t dream of taking out your own appendix, then you shouldn't be trying to do your own separation agreement. DIY for either has huge risks of future complications, even if you survive the initial process.