fbpx
  • Latest News
  • Trending News
  • All
  • Latest News
  • Featured
  • Industry News
  • Legal Governance
  • Constitutional Law
  • Op-Ed
  • News Archives
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Analysis
  • Bankruptcy Law
  • Consumer Protection Law
  • Cyber Security Law
  • Family Law
  • Disability Law
  • Employment Law
  • Environmental Law
  • Estate Law
  • Housing Law
  • Human Rights Code
  • Immigration Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Privacy Law
  • Tax Law
  • Workers Compensation Board
Court of Appeal upholds tribunal decision on pay equity for Ontario midwives

Court of Appeal upholds tribunal decision on pay equity for Ontario midwives

June 15, 2022
More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home while investigating possible Espionage Act violations (US)

FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home while investigating possible Espionage Act violations (US)

August 12, 2022
Ontario class action settlement reclassifies volunteers as employees, setting new precedent

Ontario class action settlement reclassifies volunteers as employees, setting new precedent

August 11, 2022
Availability of Judicial Review in SABS Disputes

Availability of Judicial Review in SABS Disputes

August 10, 2022
Are masking policies still valid?

Are masking policies still valid?

August 10, 2022
Justice Canada releases commission report on impact of lack of legal aid in family law disputes

Justice Canada releases commission report on impact of lack of legal aid in family law disputes

August 9, 2022
Harmonized sales tax part of maximum amount of attendant care benefits owed by insurer: court

Harmonized sales tax part of maximum amount of attendant care benefits owed by insurer: court

August 8, 2022
New rules coming next month to help Canadians with cancelled and delayed flights

New rules coming next month to help Canadians with cancelled and delayed flights

August 3, 2022
Stephen King set to testify for govt in books merger trial (US)

Stephen King set to testify for govt in books merger trial (US)

August 2, 2022
New law program in Quebec to begin next fall, a first in 50 years

New law program in Quebec to begin next fall, a first in 50 years

August 2, 2022

Defence lawyers threaten job action over Legal Aid Alberta funding

August 1, 2022
The Impact of the Lack of Legal Aid in Family Law Cases

The Impact of the Lack of Legal Aid in Family Law Cases

July 29, 2022
SCC rules that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom but do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault.

SCC rules that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom but do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault.

July 29, 2022
Big Plastic suing feds over single-use ban — again

Big Plastic suing feds over single-use ban — again

July 29, 2022
Tim Hortons offers coffee and doughnut as proposed settlement in class action lawsuit

Tim Hortons offers coffee and doughnut as proposed settlement in class action lawsuit

July 29, 2022

NBA investigating Philadelphia 76ers for possible tampering

July 29, 2022

#MeToo didn’t end sexual harassment in the workplace and vigilance remains a must

July 29, 2022
The SCC has refused to hear the appeal to declare the renewal of the state of health emergency by the Quebec government invalid

The SCC has refused to hear the appeal to declare the renewal of the state of health emergency by the Quebec government invalid

July 28, 2022
Federal privacy commissioner investigating controversial ArriveCAN app

Federal privacy commissioner investigating controversial ArriveCAN app

July 28, 2022
Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (US)

Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (US)

July 26, 2022
Ontario court certifies class action on former patients’ anxiety from notice of risk of infection

Ontario court certifies class action on former patients’ anxiety from notice of risk of infection

July 26, 2022
The stakes couldn’t be higher as Canada’s top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit

The stakes couldn’t be higher as Canada’s top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit

July 26, 2022
Professor Barnali Choudhury selected by EU as trade and sustainable development expert

Professor Barnali Choudhury selected by EU as trade and sustainable development expert

July 25, 2022

Abuse and harassment survivors ‘silenced’ by non-disclosure agreements fight for change to B.C. law

July 23, 2022
The Supreme Court decision on the ‘Ghomeshi’ amendments will help sexual assault victims access justice

The Supreme Court decision on the ‘Ghomeshi’ amendments will help sexual assault victims access justice

July 5, 2022
AFN Reaches $20 B Final Settlement Agreement to Compensate First Nations Children and Families

AFN Reaches $20 B Final Settlement Agreement to Compensate First Nations Children and Families

July 4, 2022

Why your options may be limited if your employer wants you back in the workplace

July 4, 2022

City directs contractors to reinstate Sikh security guards who lost work due to clean-shaven rule

July 4, 2022
  • ABOUT LITN
  • SUPPORT LITN
  • LEGAL, PRIVACY & POLICY
  • PUBLIC EDUCATION & RESOURCE LINKS
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
  • Login
  • Register for a FREE LITN account
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Entertainment Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact Us
    • Support LITN
      • Contribute to LITN Operations
      • Place YOUR Custom Ad on LITN
      • Engage with LITN Sponsored Ads
      • Create a FREE LITN Account
      • Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter
      • Connect, Follow, Like, Retweet and Repost LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Cookie Policy (CA)
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
  • Public Education and Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Entertainment Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact Us
    • Support LITN
      • Contribute to LITN Operations
      • Place YOUR Custom Ad on LITN
      • Engage with LITN Sponsored Ads
      • Create a FREE LITN Account
      • Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter
      • Connect, Follow, Like, Retweet and Repost LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Cookie Policy (CA)
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
  • Public Education and Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
No Result
View All Result
Home Human Rights Code

Court of Appeal upholds tribunal decision on pay equity for Ontario midwives

Ignoring gender and ignoring the equity concerns of women workers can lead to serious human rights violations and exposure to significant damages.

June 15, 2022
Reading Time: 9 mins read
0
A A
0
Court of Appeal upholds tribunal decision on pay equity for Ontario midwives
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare by Email
 
PHOTO: Stock
 
  • Amanda Jerome ⁞ The Lawyer's Daily
  • June 15, 2022
 
The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOH), upholding the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s finding that midwives faced gender-based discrimination and require an adjustment in compensation. Counsel involved in the case said the decision, released June 13, “shows that ignoring gender and ignoring the equity concerns of women workers can lead to serious human rights violations and exposure to significant damages …”

“The decision makes clear that the Human Rights Code requires employers and compensation setters to be proactive in monitoring for the well-known effects of systemic gender discrimination in compensation of women workers,” said Adrienne Telford, a partner at Cavalluzzo LLP and counsel for the Association of Ontario Midwives with Lara Koerner-Yeo, Jackie Esmonde and Mary Cornish.

“A key message is that when setting compensation for female predominant job classes or professions, employers and compensation setters must use a gender sensitive human rights lens to objectively value the work in comparison to male predominant job classes and professions. This case shows that ignoring gender and ignoring the equity concerns of women workers can lead to serious human rights violations and exposure to significant damages even though those violations may have been unintentional,” she added, suggesting that employers use an “intersectional human rights lens, which takes into account Code protected grounds of discrimination,” including gender, race, gender identity, and disability, at the outset.

Adrienne Telford, Cavalluzzo LLP

Cornish, of Cornish Justice Solutions, noted that “the Court of Appeal decision highlights again that occupational sex segregation for women and low wages go hand in hand.”

The “decision accepts that deeply held attitudes and practices have led employers and compensation setters to give less value to women’s work because they are women. It recognizes that such undervaluation happens because of a web of attitudes, compensation systems and structures which have disadvantaged women,” she stressed.

In Ontario (Health) v. Association of Ontario Midwives, 2022 ONCA 458, the court heard that the respondent Association of Ontario Midwives (AOM) brought a human rights complaint in 2013 “on behalf of more than 800 midwives, alleging systemic gender discrimination” by the MOH, “which funds Ontario’s midwifery program.”

According to court documents, the AOM “challenged the MOH’s compensation practices back to 1994, when Ontario midwives were regulated, and sought compensation back to 1997.”

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario adjudicator, Leslie Reaume, “divided her decision into two periods: 1993 to 2005, and 2005 to 2013.”

According to court documents, the adjudicator found that “in 1993, the parties agreed to equitable compensation principles that were designed to ensure that midwives’ compensation was not affected by harmful assumptions and stereotypes concerning the value of women’s work.”

“Significantly,” the court added, “she found that these principles were connected, if not imbued, with gender” and “was satisfied that the parties maintained a connection to the principles until 2005.”

That changed “after 2005,” the court explained, “as the MOH gradually withdrew from the principles they had agreed to in 1993.”

The court noted that in 2010, “after a joint compensation report recommended that midwives receive a 20% compensation increase, the MOH made it explicit that the principles would no longer inform the compensation of midwives and that they would not be replaced with a new methodology for determining appropriate and fair compensation.”

According to court documents, the tribunal adjudicator determined that this “left the compensation of midwives exposed to the well-known effects of gender discrimination on women’s compensation” and concluded that “sex was more likely than not a factor in the adverse treatment midwives experienced after 2005, including the significant compensation gap that developed between midwives and certain family physicians,” who “served as a male comparator.”

Therefore, the adjudicator found that “the MOH was liable for discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code.” She then released a separate decision with remedial orders, “including orders granting a compensation adjustment of 20% back to 2011 and compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect in the amount of $7,500 per eligible midwife, plus orders to promote ongoing compliance with the Code.”

The MOH, the court noted, made an application to the Divisional Court for a review of the decisions, but its application was dismissed.

The MOH then appealed to the Court of Appeal, raising multiple issues, which the court narrowed down to: “What is the standard of review of the Tribunal’s decisions post-Vavilov?” “Is the Adjudicator’s liability decision unreasonable?” and is the “Adjudicator’s remedy decision unreasonable?”

Associate Chief Justice J. Michal Fairburn, writing for the Court of Appeal, determined that “the Adjudicator’s decisions are reviewable on a reasonableness standard” and “both of the Adjudicator’s decisions are reasonable.”

Before reviewing the history of the regulation of midwifery, Associate Chief Justice Fairburn noted that “the midwife profession is the ultimate sex-segregated profession: women providing a service for women in relation to women’s health.” She also noted that “there was an obvious risk that midwives would be under-compensated because they are women.”

The court noted that midwifery “has been a regulated health profession in Ontario since January 1, 1994” and before that “midwives were officially excluded from Ontario’s health care system.”

As of 1994, the court noted an initial salary range for midwives was $55,000 to $77,000.

“This placed an entry-level midwife’s salary around the top salary of a CHC [community health clinic] senior nurse, and the highest compensation level for a midwife at approximately 90% of the base salary of an entry level CHC family physician,” the court explained, noting that midwives’ salaries were then frozen from 1994 until 2005.

After “11 years of compensation restraint,” the court added, the parties “reached a 3-year agreement,” which “resulted in increases to midwife compensation, including a first-year increase of 20% to 29%, depending on experience level, and 1% to 2% increases in the remaining years of the contract.”

The agreement expired in 2008, so the parties “commenced negotiations for a new funding agreement.”

However, the court explained, “the AOM had become concerned that a gender gap in compensation had developed between midwives and their CHC physician comparator.”

In 2009, the parties “reached a new three-year agreement, retroactive to April 1, 2008,” which gave midwives “a raise of 2% per year plus an increase in benefits.” They also agreed to “a joint non-binding compensation review conducted by an independent third-party consultant to inform the next round of negotiations.”

Therefore, in 2010, the parties engaged in a compensation study conducted by the Courtyard Group. The resulting report, the court noted “is central to both the Adjudicator’s decision on liability and her decision on remedy.”

The report noted that “the highest paid midwife was paid $104,847 and the lowest paid CHC physician was paid $181,233. Therefore, the highest paid midwife had gone from being paid 90% to around 57% of the lowest level of pay of a CHC physician.”

According to court documents, the “Courtyard Report recommended a 20% increase in compensation, referred to as an ‘equity adjustment’, effective April 1, 2011, to restore midwives to their historic position of being compensated at a level between senior CHC nurses (now nurse practitioners) and CHC physicians.”

The MOH “raised concerns” about the report’s “methodology and its recommendations” after it was released and “for the first time, advised the AOM that negotiations would be governed by the government’s policy of compensation restraint, consistent with the compensation restraint legislation that had been passed before Courtyard started its work.”

The parties did reach a funding agreement in 2013, but “it was entered into on a without prejudice basis to the AOM pursuing legal action.” So that same year the AOM “brought an application to the Tribunal under the Code, alleging that midwives had experienced systemic gender-based discrimination in compensation.”

In her analysis, Associate Chief Justice Fairburn explained the standard of review and determined that Shaw v. Phipps, 2010 ONSC 3884 is “consistent” with Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

“In my view, the Divisional Court’s approach to the interpretation of s. 45.8 in Shaw v. Phipps is entirely consistent with Vavilov. The Divisional Court in Shaw v. Phipps did exactly what Vavilov instructs us to do now,” she wrote, noting that in “Shaw v. Phipps, the Divisional Court engaged in a purposive interpretation of s. 45.8 that took into account legislative intent, recognizing that the legislature intended that the highest degree of deference be accorded to the Tribunal’s determination of facts, its interpretation and application of human rights law, and decisions on remedy.”

Associate Chief Justice Fairburn determined that “the standard of review of the Tribunal’s decisions remains reasonableness, although the application of the reasonableness standard is now informed by the guidance provided in Vavilov.”

On the reasonableness of the adjudicator’s liability decision, Associate Chief Justice Fairburn wrote that “the Adjudicator’s reasoning does ‘add up.’”

“Her reasons reveal a logical chain of analysis grounded in the record and the relevant jurisprudence in support of her key conclusion that sex was a factor in the adverse treatment that midwives experienced and the compensation gap that developed between midwives and CHC physicians after 2005,” she explained.

Associate Chief Justice Fairburn noted that the “Adjudicator recognized from the outset of her analysis that she could not presume a connection between gender and adverse treatment solely from context,” but was “alive to the social context of this claim.”

“Importantly, based on the evidence before her, the Adjudicator found as a fact that in 1993 the AOM and the MOH were both ‘aware of the pervasive nature of system[ic] discrimination in compensation, the stereotypes associated with women’s work and the necessity to ensure that women are paid by reference to objective factors like SERW [skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions],’ ” she added.

The court noted that, for the adjudicator, “the adverse treatment experienced by midwives started after the 2005 agreement was concluded, as midwives gradually lost the connection to the 1993 principles” and “culminated after the release of the Courtyard Report, when the MOH withdrew from the process and advised the AOM that the 2010 negotiations would be governed by compensation restraint.”

“Having reasonably found that the 1993 principles were connected, if not imbued, with gender, it was open to the Adjudicator to find that the Courtyard Report, which affirmed those principles, indicates ‘that gender discrimination may be an operative factor in the compensation of midwives,’ ”Associate Chief Justice Fairburn explained, noting that it “was also open to the Adjudicator to reasonably find that the Courtyard Report was ‘sufficiently compelling for the MOH to realize that the AOM’s claim of gender discrimination may have some validity.’ ”

Regarding the burden of proof, the court noted that “the Adjudicator knew that the ultimate burden remained on the AOM throughout, and she kept it there.”

“All that shifted to the MOH was the evidential burden, which the Adjudicator found was not met,” Associate Chief Justice Fairburn added.

The MOH argued that “the Adjudicator erred by failing to engage with its expert evidence in her liability decision” and the evidence demonstrates “that gender was not a factor in midwives’ compensation.” However, Associate Chief Justice Fairburn disagreed.

“In my view,” she wrote, “the Tribunal’s treatment of the MOH’s expert evidence was reasonable when understood in the context of the litigation and the decision.”

The judge also found that the adjudicator’s “finding that CHC physicians remained an appropriate comparator is reasonable.”

She noted that “while CHC physicians became female-dominant over time, they were family physicians who worked in a particular setting. After 2004 when the OMA [Ontario Medical Association] started bargaining on their behalf, their compensation was harmonized with the compensation of the larger group of family physicians, who remained more than 50% male even in 2013.”

“CHC physicians became financially aligned with other family physicians, leaving a gulf between the compensation of midwives and CHC physicians. In other words, CHC physicians remained a male comparator in 2013, even though they were predominately women, because their pay had been aligned with a male dominated group,” she added.

Associate Chief Justice Fairburn noted that the MOH repeated “many of the same arguments that it made before the Divisional Court in arguing that the Tribunal unreasonably imposed a positive obligation on the MOH to compare midwives’ compensation to that of CHC physicians.” The Divisional Court found that adjudicator’s decision was reasonable, and the associate chief justice agreed.

“The Code provides the Tribunal with broad remedial discretion to order remedies that are fair, effective and responsive to the circumstances of the particular case. In exercising her remedial discretion, the Adjudicator fashioned a remedy based on the evidence that was before her. The MOH has not pointed to any legitimate basis for interfering with the Tribunal’s discretionary remedial decision,” she explained, dismissing the appeal with Justices Lois Roberts and Francine Van Melle in agreement.

Associate Chief Justice Fairburn concluded that she was “satisfied that the Adjudicator’s decisions on both liability and remedy bear the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility. They are justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on them. The reasons are also transparent and intelligible.”

 

Mary Cornish, Cornish Justice Solutions

In a statement to The Lawyer’s Daily, Cornish noted that “80.1 per cent of Ontario’s health occupations are held by women, yet they face the widest overall earnings gaps at 46.8 per cent with men in those occupations earning on average $93,377 and women earning on average $43,583.”

“Along with midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners, personal support workers and many other female predominant workers provide critical health-care services. The Court of Appeal decision provides a strong legal warning to the compensation setters for these workers and all of Ontario’s workers,” she added.

“Your time for bringing your practices into Code compliance is up. Compensation setters have a clear proactive responsibility to examine their compensation systems and practices and to take steps to close the gender wage gap. Those who fail to take steps to identify and correct their systemically inequitable compensation practices are subject to major lawsuits which can result in significant compensation and injury to dignity damages and orders to fundamentally change their compensation systems and practices,” Cornish stressed.

“This decision recognizes the need to look at the systemic nature and cumulative effects of policies and conduct on disadvantaged groups,” said Patricia DeGuire, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission which was an intervener on the appeal.

“Duty-holders should proactively monitor for and prevent systemic discrimination which includes ensuring pay equity,” she added in a statement.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, a respondent alongside the AOM, did not provide comment before press time.

The Ministry of the Attorney General, on behalf of the Crown, declined to comment on the decision.


 
GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENT

Want direct access to the latest LITN content?

Stay in the loop ➞ Subscribe to LITN instant notifications.
Receive the latest content delivered directly to your device.
Unsubscribe at anytime.

Unsubscribe from LITN instant notifications
Previous Post

Canada’s military police charge retired lieutenant-general with sexual assault

Next Post

Backlogged justice system can’t return to pre-pandemic ways, chief justice warns

Latest News

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report
Medical Law

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
7
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined
Constitutional Law

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
7
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence
Disability Law

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
7

Subscribe

Join the LITN Newsletter ➞ the latest news delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time.


GOOGLE ADVERTISEMENT

Instagram Feed

  • #LegalTechWoes #legaltech #legaltechpainpoints #legalinnovation  #legalops #legaloperations #legal
#legalgeek #legaltechs #legaltechnology | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews
Courtesy Mat Jakubowski ...silvertownlegal.com | @matjakubowski ... https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-jakubowski | https://lawinthenews.com/
  • #LegalTechWoes #legaltech #legaltechpainpoints #legalinnovation  #legalops #legaloperations #legal
#legalgeek #legaltechs #legaltechnology | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews
Courtesy Mat Jakubowski ...silvertownlegal.com | @matjakubowski ... https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-jakubowski | https://lawinthenews.com/
  • #LegalTechWoes #legaltech #legaltechpainpoints #legalinnovation  #legalops #legaloperations #legal
#legalgeek #legaltechs #legaltechnology | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews
Courtesy Mat Jakubowski ...silvertownlegal.com | @matjakubowski ... https://www.linkedin.com/in/mat-jakubowski | https://instagram.com/lawinthenews

Facebook Feed

Facebook Feed

Twitter Feed

Join the Conversation

Personal selections from a Canadian perspective. #Law in the #News #LITN @Law_In_The_News

News Categories

Latest Headlines

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report

August 13, 2022
7
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined

August 12, 2022
7
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence

August 12, 2022
7

Subscribe to the LITN Newsletter

Join the LITN Newsletter ➞ the latest news delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time.

Website Powered By

DJT Design Studios logo

© 2022 Law in the News Media (LITN)

  • About LITN
  • Contact LITN
  • Support LITN
  • Legal, Privacy and Policy
  • Public Education & Resource Links
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Sign Up
  • Latest News
  • Industry News
  • Categories
    • A to C
      • Aboriginal Law
      • Access to Justice (A2J)
      • Administrative Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Analysis
      • Animal Law
      • Arbitration Law
      • Anti-Corruption Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Banking and Securities Law
      • Bankruptcy Law
      • Cannibis Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Civil Litigation
      • Class Action
      • Commercial Law
      • Constitutional Law
      • Construction Law
      • Consumer Protection Law
      • Contract Law
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber Security Law
    • D to H
      • Disability Law
      • Editor’s Choice
      • Elder Law
      • Employment Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Highway Traffic Law
      • Housing Law
      • Human Rights Code
    • I to L
      • Immigration Law
      • Industry News
      • Insurance Law
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • International Law
      • Labour Law
      • Latest News
      • Legal Governance
    • M to Z
      • Medical Law
      • Municipal Law
      • Op-Ed
      • Personal Injury Law
      • Privacy Law
      • Real Estate Law
      • Regulatory Law
      • Tax Law
      • Telecommunications Law
      • Transportation Law
      • Workers Compensation Board
  • News Archives
    • 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
    • 2021
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
  • Public Education & Resource Links
  • About LITN
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • Our Mission
    • Our Goal
    • Contact LITN
    • Support LITN
    • Legal, Privacy and Policy
      • Home
      • Cookie Policy
      • Privacy Policy
      • Terms of Use Policy

© 2022 Law in the News Media (LITN)

Welcome Back to LITN!

Sign In with Facebook
Sign In with Google
Sign In with Linked In
OR

Login to your LITN account below.

Forgot your password? Sign Up

Create a FREE LITN Account!

Sign Up with Facebook
Sign Up with Google
Sign Up with Linked In
OR

Please complete your registration below.

*By registering into the website, you agree to LITN's Terms & Conditions.
All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
⚖ Law in the News .com (LITN) Media 📃
Manage Cookie Consent
LITN uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information to provide the best user experience. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
Go to mobile version