News

As lawyers, we are advocates, advisors, and sometimes, the bearer of uncomfortable news - especially when ethics come into question. One of the more challenging aspects of being an advocate is engaging in candid ethical discussions that can make or break a case and, sometimes, a career. Judges talk to each other about us: they talk about our skills as advocates and, more importantly, they talk about our trustworthiness. These conversations and our reputations are not things any of us should take lightly. We need not only to educate ourselves on the ethical issues we may face, but also on how to hold conversations with our clients about ethical issues.

Upon being called to the bar, we are mostly left to ourselves with respect to the identification and resolution of various ethical dilemmas that will arise in our daily professional lives. It can be difficult to flag a potential ethical issue, let alone to know what to do once it has been identified.

In this series, we will review various ethical issues faced by lawyers and the best ways to address those issues with clients with input from some of the best lawyers involved with The Advocates’ Society. Specifically, we will provide guidance on what to do if: (i) you’ve determined you do not have the requisite skill set necessary to continue with a file; (ii) you suspect your client may not have capacity to instruct counsel; (iii) there has been a breach of confidentiality (accidentally or otherwise); or (iv) you are proceeding against self-represented parties or lawyers who have been suspended. In this issue, we will address how to head off potential ethical quandaries in the gathering of evidence in family law cases.

First, we need to understand the source of our ethical responsibilities. When we were called to the bar we all swore an oath. We promised to conduct all cases faithfully and to the best of our abilities, to faithfully serve and diligently represent the best interests of our clients, to conduct ourselves honestly and with integrity and civility, to not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, and last, but certainly not least, to strictly observe and uphold the ethical standards that govern our profession.

Here in Ontario, the Rules of Professional Conduct lay out the ethical standards relating to the practice of law. Rule 2.1-1 states that “a lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public, and other members of the public honourably and with integrity.” Rule 3.1-2 additionally provides that “a lawyer shall perform any legal services undertaken on a client’s behalf to the standard of a competent lawyer.” The commentary on Rule 3.1-2 directs that competence is founded upon both ethical and legal principles.

One of the most difficult conversations we regularly face as family law lawyers is having discussions with clients about ethical evidentiary issues, including electronic privacy, especially in cases where the other party is self-represented and does not understand the various evidentiary rules. Courts have found that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their personal electronic devices. In highly charged family law cases, counsel must advise their clients about what evidence is fair game and what’s off limits, in cases where a client has access to their partner’s device and knows or can guess the password. Attempting to put such evidence before the court because the client demands it runs the dual risk that not only will the evidence not be admitted but that you have seriously harmed your reputation with the court by complying with the client’s demands in the face of what you know should, and should not, be properly put before the court.

As trusted counsel, the onus is on us to educate and guide our clients through the evidence gathering steps, and to impress upon them the importance of the source of the evidence. When clients provide us with documents, it’s important to make diligent inquiries about how they came into possession of the documents, and segregate any records that may have been obtained improperly. When we approach ethical issues from a trusted advisor perspective, instead of merely a service perspective where the customer is king, the inherent tension lessens and allows us to deepen the client relationship.

 - Jennifer M. Bolduc

Giffen LLP is pleased to announce that Richard Noll (and his esteemed clerk, Rachel Petts) have joined our firm!

While Richard has extensive knowledge and experience within all aspects of family law and related issues, he can also assist with real estate, mortgages, wills and powers of attorney, estate planning, administration and litigation. 

As a seasoned litigator having appeared before all levels of court in Ontario, Richard will assess all options available and work with his clients to best resolve any situation.

We welcome Richard and Rachel to team Giffen!

Giffen Lawyers welcomes Tyler Nivins as an associate lawyer.  Born and raised in Kitchener, Ontario, Tyler earned his BA (Honours) from the University of Western Ontario in 2011 prior to receiving his law degree from the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom in 2019.  Great to have you with us, Tyler!

To learn more about Tyler's practice, please go here. 

By: Greg A. Carr

With a few specific exceptions, an employer has an absolute right to terminate an employee at any time.  There do not need to be performance issues, disciplinary issues, or any other justification for the termination.  Notwithstanding, the law protects employees by requiring an employer to provide the employee with reasonable notice of their termination, or alternatively, paying them an amount of money in lieu of receiving reasonable notice.

So what is reasonable notice?  Reasonable notice is governed by two different regimes – (1) the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) and (2) the common law (judge-made law). 

The Employment Standards Act

Pursuant to the ESA, an employee who has been employed for at least 3 months, is entitled to reasonable notice of:

• one (1) week, if they have been employed for less than a year;
• two (2) weeks, if they have been employed for more than 1 year, but less than 3 years;
• one (1) week per year of service if they have been employed for more than 3 years, to a maximum of eight (8) weeks’ notice.

In addition, an employee may be entitled to “severance pay”, if they have been employed for more than 5 years, and their employer has a payroll exceeding $2.5 million.  In such circumstances, in addition to the notice requirements above, the employee is entitled to one additional week’s pay per year of service (to a maximum of 26 weeks).  For example, an employee who is terminated by an employer with a payroll exceeding $2.5 million, who has been employed for 10 years, would be entitled to reasonable notice (or pay in lieu) of 8 weeks, and an additional 10 weeks’ severance pay.

The common law

Where the ESA does not apply, an employee is entitled to reasonable notice at common law.  In determining reasonable notice at common law, courts will consider a number of factors, including the employee’s age, education, role they held, and likelihood of re-employability in that or a similar position.  Based on the factors to be considered, the notice period may vary greatly depending on the case, and the ultimate notice period is informed by what judges have found to be a reasonable notice period in similar cases in the past.  While a number of factors are involved, the guiding principle at common law is a notice period of 1 month per year of service.

How do I know if it’s the ESA or common law that applies?

Whether it is the ESA or the common law that establishes the reasonable notice period will be determined by the termination provisions of an employment contract.  The common law will apply unless the employee has entered into a legally enforceable employment contract limiting the employee to “ESA minimums” upon termination.   

Even where an employment contract purports to limit an employee’s entitlement to ESA minimums, the clause may not be enforceable.  There is likely no issue in employment law more often litigated than the enforceability and applicability of a termination clause.  Courts have established strict requirements which must be contained in a termination clause, such as providing for reasonable notice and the continuation of benefits.  Where the clause does not comply with the requirements established by the courts, or runs afoul of the ESA, the clause will be unenforceable and the common law notice period will apply.

What is the employee entitled to during the notice period?

While there are some exceptions, generally speaking, an employee is entitled to their entire remuneration package throughout the notice period.  This includes not only wages and health benefits, but can include pension contributions, RRSP matching, bonuses, company cell phone reimbursement, company vehicle reimbursement, and any other benefits that arise out of employment. 

Please note that this article is for information purposes only and is not intended and should not be relied on as legal advice.  If you have any questions about your rights as an employer or employee about this, or any other employment matter, please contact Greg A. Carr at Giffen LLP, and we would be happy to meet with you to discuss your matter and determine how we can best assist you moving forward. 

Spouses involved in family law disputes should beware: online social media posts can be used as evidence in court.  Read the AdvocatesDaily interview with Giffen LLP Lawyers partner and family law lawyer, Lorrie Stojni, here.