Jump to content

jjbean

Members
  • Content Count

    690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jjbean

  1. I'm not sure it is that different in principle. If the WCB (or WCAT in BC; I'm based in Alberta) decides an injury arose out of employment and a person files suit in a superior court, it will be dismissed by the court summarily. Similarly if someone files suit that should have gone to the CRT. I'm not sure why on principle it would be ok to strip s. 96 courts of their powers/jurisdiction this way but not based on the anticipated quantum of damages.
  2. This was a common problem with the old CPLED program as well. It was a roll of the dice on how competent your graders/tutors were. What do you think of the assignments themselves? Do you feel like it's useful to do the basic legal "tasks" in a controlled environment? Could you now do the tasks in a real work environment?
  3. It's worth noting that workers' compensation systems took away the right to sue for a different kind of personal injury: one that occurs in the course of employment. This includes motor vehicle accidents that occur while driving for employment purposes. I struggle to see how the logic of this decision would allow any government to set up any kind of administrative mechanism to compensate personal injury in a more efficient way. I think this strains the meaning and purpose of s. 96 CA1867 too far. Just quoting to say that this is already the case with most workers' compensation tribunals, which typically have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an injury arose in the course of employment and is therefore subject only to WCB jurisdiction.
  4. Decision if anyone is looking for it: https://www.cbabc.org/CBAMediaLibrary/cba_bc/pdf/Advocacy/SupremeCourtBC_TLABCvBCAG.pdf
  5. Curious to know what you've heard. The new approach was applauded by a pretty cutting-edge legal futurist (Jordan Furlong) and seems logical to me. I did the old CPLED program, but I found its approach generally quite useful and certainly better than a bar exam.
  6. The pay isn't great, but proofreading tends to match well with lawyers' skill sets: https://proofreading.org/about/careers/. It's extremely flexible.
  7. So sorry to hear that this happened. I wanted to echo what others said here about not blaming yourself, seeking someone to talk to, etc. After an incomplete suicide in my job, I took a two-day certification called Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training (https://toronto.cmha.ca/asist-applied-suicide-intervention-skills-training/), which helps me feel better equipped when working with clients in distress. It's not a guarantee that you will catch every person, but it might provide a helpful framework moving forward. Take care.
  8. Just a note that Alberta articling students have been entitled to the minimum wage for decades, so this is not a novel idea....
  9. This might interest folks: https://tool.myopencourt.org/am-i-an-employee-or-a-contractor Note it may not take into account exclusions for professionals under the various employment standards statutes. In your case, if you don't end up working for the person after articling, consider speaking to an employment lawyer at the end of your articles to see if you are entitled to anything (vacation pay, etc.).
  10. I'm not familiar with the Code of Conduct in Ontario, but at least in Alberta, prosecutors have special duties to act in a fair and dispassionate manner and to seek justice rather than just a conviction (the SCC has set out similar duties in caselaw). While you shouldn't threaten to report the prosecutor, if at the end of the process you feel they have crossed a line, you may want to consider making a complaint to the Law Society. This won't impact your client, but at least it's a step you can take if you have serious concerns about the ethics of this particular prosecutor and the impacts of his or her character going forward.
  11. This post is incorrect and misleading. You shouldn't be posting information on this if you don't have the expertise. EI looks at your previous 52 weeks to determine if you have sufficient hours (this number is variable depending on your region). Most people working full-time will have no issues meeting that hours requirement after 6 months of employment (i.e. the maximum number of hours is 700 for areas with the lowest unemployment: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/reports/regular-benefits/eligibilty.html), and often less. The requirement to issue a Record of Employment is a federal requirement applicable to all employers who have employees engaged in "insurable employment." This applies to law firms employing articling students and associates. Provincial employment standards regulation are completely irrelevant. The typical articling student who has worked for several months should qualify for regular EI (i.e. 55% of their previous salary to a maximum of $573 per week).
  12. We have an equivalent in Alberta, if that's where OP works...
  13. How is this possible? Can you provide a breakdown?
  14. Having your principal present you is definitely customary, but not required. Any active member of the Law Society can apply for you to be admitted.
  15. I find it way more coherent conceptually. If the Legislature thinks the expertise justifies courts staying out, they can choose not to include an appeal clause in the home statute and then the reasonableness presumption stays intact. Otherwise, what's the point of the appeal clause...? Overall, I think the decision is a step forward for admin law.
  16. In-house union is comparatively high because their staff are unionized. That being said, I think it's rare for a new call to move in house to a union. They would generally want some experience first.
  17. In-house union varies, but a safe bet is to look at that union's Labour Relations Officer salaries and ask for something in that ballpark. Most LROs are unionized themselves, so their salaries should be publicly available. I'm in Alberta, where LROs make between $110-$120 k (plus benefits, car allowances, etc.), so I would expect most unions would be expecting to pay at least that for in-house. You can also check out the job board for the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers (here). Some postings (not all) have salary ranges. Good luck!
  18. In Alberta at least, you are entitled to a certain amount of reservist leave under the Employment Standards Code, but of course clear communication and agreement from your firm is even better .
  19. Articling salaries seemed to hover around $50,000 in Edmonton when I was a student (about a year ago). It's possible the bigger firms were a bit higher (I was in a boutique firm), but I would be surprised if articling salaries exceeded $60 or $65k, even at bigger shops. I suspect first-year associates are looking at $65-$75, with a $10-$15 bump each year after that, but YMMV.
  20. There are plenty of very qualified professors who can teach the basics of law and who are willing to do so for $150k per year rather than $300k (in fact, many practitioners will do it for a nominal fee). There is no justification for UofT's outrageous tuition fees.
  21. I would just reiterate that collective bargaining doesn't have to conform to traditional industrial agreements. Even physicians, who are private business owners with an incentive to maximize profits, bargain collectively with many provincial governments (and in some provinces, like Alberta, that right is enshrined in law). Also, there is often lots of ambiguity between management and employees. Determining whether a "supervisor" is an employee (and in a bargaining unit) or a manager (and therefore excluded) is bread-and-butter work at labour boards. There are established tests and lots of decided cases.... Associates would clearly fall within the employee category.
  22. Call me optimistic! Lawyers collectively bargain in a whole series of workplaces in Canada. (Yes, my reference was to associates bargaining in a larger firm, not the profession as a whole). Legal Aid Ontario lawyers bargain collectively, as do federal government lawyers in almost all jurisdictions across the country, as do associates at a variety of labour firms in downtown Toronto.... The view that collective bargaining is only for lower skill professionals is pretty outdated in the research and in practice. Physicians bargain collectively in every province in Canada, as do other professionals (planners, etc.) across civil services in most provinces. Federal government lawyers have had a collective bargaining structure in place for years and have bargained several collective agreements. I'm not sure why you think it would not be feasible in the private sector. It might not be a formal union, but a strong and united associates' committee in a large firm can exert far more pressure than individual associates bargaining on their own. Also, your description of the purposes of collective bargaining are very... industrial. Collective bargaining is about creating workplace fairness by having a counter-weight to what is usually almost unlimited employer power. In some workplaces (such as those you described), this means predictable seniority-based progressions, to protect against favouritism. But collective bargaining is not required to produce that result. Lawyers could collectively bargain lower yearly hour targets, or higher bonuses, or more vacation, or better benefits and salary. The point is to come together to get a better outcome in your particular workplace, not to replicate how others have approached it in other work locations. TL;DR: Professional collective bargaining is a thing. Labour relations have moved past the industrial revolution.
  23. Alternatively, do what other private sector workers have done when they want more of their excess value to go to them rather than their bosses: organize. Depending on your jurisdiction, you may not be able to unionize as a lawyer, but you can work with other associates to pressure for fairer compensation. Not easy, but not impossible.
×
×
  • Create New...