Written by:  Sara Santos-Vigneault Date:  February 23, 2026 Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko What Is the Small Claims Court in Ontario The Small Claims Court  is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice  established under the Courts of Justice Act  [1]. It is intended to resolve lower-value civil disputes through a more streamlined process than higher levels of court. Small Claims Court in Ontario hears claims for money or the return of personal property where the amount in dispute does not exceed $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This limit was raised by regulation in October 2025 [2]. Although the court is intended to be more accessible, parties are still required to follow formal rules of procedure and evidence [3]. Types of Disputes Commonly Heard in Small Claims Court Small Claims Court regularly hears civil disputes such as: Claims for unpaid debts or invoices Breach of contract Property damage Consumer transactions Claims for the return of deposits or money owed Cases are decided based on the evidence properly before the court, including documents and witness testimony, and the application of relevant legal principles. Is a Lawyer Required in Small Claims Court A lawyer is not required to bring or defend a claim in Ontario Small Claims Court. Under the Rules of the Small Claims Court , parties may represent themselves or be represented by an authorized representative. Authorized representation may include a lawyer or a licensed paralegal [3]. The Government of Ontario provides public legal information explaining the Small Claims Court process, including how individuals may participate in proceedings on their own behalf [4]. Lawyers are fully authorized to represent parties in Small Claims Court and regularly appear in these proceedings. Legal counsel may be involved in matters that raise legal complexity, involve multiple parties, or are connected to related proceedings outside the court’s jurisdiction. Lawyers may also assist with legal analysis, evidentiary issues, and compliance with procedural requirements. Nothing in the Small Claims Court process restricts a party’s ability to retain a lawyer if they choose to do so. Photo by RDNE Stock project Paralegal Representation in Small Claims Court Licensed paralegals in Ontario are authorized to represent parties in Small Claims Court and are regulated by the Law Society of Ontario [5]. The Rules of the Small Claims Court  expressly permit representation by licensed paralegals [3]. Within Small Claims Court, licensed paralegals may: Prepare and file claims and defences Communicate with opposing parties Appear at settlement conferences Appear at motions and trials Examine witnesses where permitted under the rules Many paralegals focus their practice on matters within Small Claims Court and are familiar with its procedures, timelines, and evidentiary requirements. Their authority is defined by the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court and applicable law. How Representation Works in Practice Although Small Claims Court is intended to be more straightforward than higher courts, it remains a formal court process. Parties are required to comply with filing deadlines, procedural rules, and evidentiary standards set out in the Rules of the Small Claims Court  [3]. The same procedural rules apply to all parties, whether they are self-represented or represented by a lawyer or licensed paralegal. The court applies consistent standards regardless of the form of representation, and decisions are based on the evidence and submissions properly before the court. Conclusion Ontario’s Small Claims Court is designed to resolve lower-value civil disputes without requiring legal representation. Parties are permitted to represent themselves, and the Government of Ontario provides public legal information to help individuals understand the Small Claims Court process and procedural requirements [4]. Parties may also choose to be represented by a lawyer or a licensed paralegal. Legal representation may be helpful in matters that involve legal complexity, multiple parties, or procedural issues. Small Claims Court allows for different ways to participate, reflecting the types of disputes it is meant to address. Legal fees and billing structures may vary depending on the type of legal professional retained and the circumstances of the case. Regardless of how a party chooses to proceed, the same procedural and evidentiary standards apply to all parties before the court. References [1] Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c43 [2] O. Reg. 626/00, Small Claims Court – Monetary Jurisdiction (as amended, effective October 1, 2025) https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/000626 [3] Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 258/98 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/980258 [4] Government of Ontario. Suing someone in Small Claims Court https://www.ontario.ca/page/suing-someone-small-claims-court [5] Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90l08

Written by:  Sara Santos-Vigneault Date:  February 14, 2026 Image by <a href=" Valentine’s Day is commonly associated with romance and personal choice. Its modern observance reflects a legal environment in which adults may form intimate relationships with relative freedom and equality. That legal environment did not always exist. Canadian marriage law developed within legal systems that treated men and women differently and assigned legal consequences to romantic commitments. Marriage existed as a legal status long before it was understood as a partnership grounded in affection. Law governed who could marry, how marriage was formed, and what rights followed. Within that framework, men generally retained legal authority, while women experienced marriage as a condition that limited their legal independence. Marriage and Women’s Legal Status Under common law principles inherited from England, marriage altered a woman’s legal capacity in ways that did not apply to men. A married woman’s legal identity was absorbed into that of her husband under the doctrine of coverture. As a result, married women were generally unable to own property in their own names, control their earnings, enter contracts independently, or initiate legal proceedings without their husband’s involvement. These principles formed part of Canadian law through reception of English common law. Marriage therefore created different legal consequences depending on gender. Men retained control over property and legal decision-making within marriage, while women’s legal capacity was restricted. Marriage continues to be defined and regulated by statute. In Ontario, the Marriage Act , RSO 1990, c M.3, governs capacity, consent, licensing, and solemnization.[1] In Quebec, the Civil Code of Québec  sets out the legal requirements and effects of marriage.[2] Modern statutes reflect legal equality, but they are built on a legal history in which marriage operated as a structured legal institution rather than a private romantic arrangement. Engagement, Promises, and Legal Consequences Romantic commitment once carried legal consequences under Canadian law. Courts recognized civil actions for breach of promise to marry, allowing damages to be claimed when an engagement was broken. In McLean v Pettigrew , the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed damages arising from a broken promise to marry, confirming that such actions were recognized by the courts at that time.[3] The existence of this cause of action demonstrates that engagement was treated as legally significant rather than purely social. Ontario later abolished this cause of action by statute. Section 57 of the Marriage Act  provides that no action may be brought for breach of a promise to marry.[1] The statutory abolition confirms that breach of promise actions had previously existed and were removed through legislative reform. Federal law reform bodies later identified breach of promise actions as inconsistent with modern views of marriage and personal autonomy. The Law Reform Commission of Canada discussed the historical use of these actions and supported their abolition in its Report on Family Law .[4] Romantic Gifts and Property Law Although promises to marry are no longer enforceable, Canadian law continues to address disputes arising from romantic relationships. Engagement rings have been treated by courts as conditional gifts given in contemplation of marriage. In Fisher v Fisher , the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that engagement rings are generally considered conditional gifts.[5] Where the marriage does not take place, entitlement to the ring depends on the intention attached to the gift and the surrounding circumstances. This legal treatment reflects the continued intersection of romantic relationships and property law. Married Women’s Property and Legal Reform The legal position of married women began to change through legislative reform. In Ontario, the Married Women’s Property Act  recognized married women’s capacity to own property and engage in legal transactions independently of their husbands.[6] Similar legislation was enacted in other Canadian jurisdictions. These statutes altered the legal structure of marriage by recognizing women as separate legal persons. The change did not arise from evolving romantic ideals, but from statutory reform addressing legal inequality within marriage. Restrictions on Marriage and Legal Capacity Marriage law historically imposed restrictions based on age, family relationship, and capacity. Provincial statutes regulated who could marry and under what conditions, reflecting legal concerns related to inheritance, family structure, and social order. The application of marriage law was later influenced by constitutional equality protections. Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  guarantees equality before and under the law without discrimination.[7] This provision reshaped the interpretation of marriage laws and limited the use of legal distinctions that excluded certain relationships from recognition. Image by <a href=" Same-Sex Marriage and Legal Recognition The recognition of same-sex marriage represents a significant change in Canadian marriage law. In Halpern v Canada (Attorney General) , the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the common law definition of marriage violated equality rights and reformulated marriage as the voluntary union for life of two persons.[8] Following this decision, Parliament enacted the Civil Marriage Act , SC 2005, c 33, which established marriage as legally available to same-sex couples throughout Canada.[9] The statute extended legal recognition to relationships that had previously been excluded under Canadian law. Divorce and the End of Enforced Intimacy Divorce law further reflects the decline of legal enforcement of personal relationships. The Divorce Act , RSC 1985, c 3, permits marriage to be dissolved without proof of fault.[10] Courts no longer assess emotional commitment or personal conduct when granting a divorce. Law continues to regulate the economic and parental consequences of marriage, but it no longer enforces the continuation of intimate relationships. This represents a departure from earlier legal approaches that treated marriage as a permanent legal condition. Valentine’s Day and Legal Change Valentine’s Day is celebrated in a legal setting that did not always exist. Today, people are generally free to choose their partners, express affection, and enter or leave relationships without legal punishment. Those conditions are the result of legal change, not long-standing tradition. For much of Canada’s legal history, love was shaped by rules that governed marriage, property, and family roles. Marriage gave men legal authority and left women with limited control over property, earnings, and legal decisions. Engagements and intimate commitments could carry legal consequences, particularly for women, whose reputation and economic security were closely tied to marriage. The modern meaning of Valentine’s Day depends on the removal of those rules. Law no longer treats romantic relationships as matters to be enforced or disciplined. Instead, it recognizes personal relationships as private choices made between legally equal partners. What now appears as a simple celebration of affection rests on legal reforms that changed who could love, on what terms, and with what consequences. References Marriage Act , RSO 1990, c M.3, s 57 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m03 Civil Code of Québec , arts 365–396 https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/CCQ-1991 McLean v Pettigrew , 1945 CanLII 20 (ON CA) https://canlii.ca/t/fsn1x Law Reform Commission of Canada, Report on Family Law  (1974) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/jus/JL2-21-1974-eng.pdf Fisher v Fisher , 2008 ONCA 11 https://canlii.ca/t/1v8kh Married Women’s Property Act , RSO 1897 https://free.bcpublications.ca/civix/document/id/hstats/hstats/33647245 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , s 15 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html Halpern v Canada (Attorney General) , 2003 CanLII 26403 (ON CA) https://canlii.ca/t/6v7k Civil Marriage Act , SC 2005, c 33 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-31.5/ Divorce Act , RSC 1985, c 3 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/D-3.4/

Written by:  Sara Santos-Vigneault Date:  March 2, 2026 Photo by Vitaly Gariev  on Unsplash Why Court Dates Matter in Ontario Court dates in Ontario are legally binding. When a court schedules an appearance, the parties involved are expected to attend unless the court has excused them in advance. Attendance allows the court to manage cases fairly , hear evidence, and make decisions based on proper participation. Missing a court date does not have the same consequences in every situation. What happens next depends on the type of proceeding, the court or tribunal involved, and the role of the person who failed to appear. General public information about Ontario courts is available through the Ontario Court of Justice website [4]. Missing a Court Date in a Criminal Matter In criminal proceedings, attendance is taken very seriously. Most criminal matters in Ontario are heard in the Ontario Court of Justice . If an accused person fails to attend a scheduled court appearance, the court may: Issue a bench warrant for the accused’s arrest Proceed with certain steps in the case in the accused’s absence Treat the failure to appear as a separate offence under the Criminal Code  [1] Whether a warrant is issued and how the case proceeds depends on the circumstances and the stage of the matter. Courts generally expect accused persons to attend all required appearances unless the court has directed otherwise. Public information about criminal court proceedings, including attendance expectations, is available through the Ontario Court of Justice [3]. Missing a Court Date in Small Claims Court Civil matters in the Small Claims Court  operate differently from criminal cases, but attendance remains important. If a party does not attend a scheduled court date, such as a settlement conference or trial, the court may: Proceed in that party’s absence Dismiss a claim Grant a default judgment against a defendant who fails to appear Small Claims Court decisions are based on the evidence before the court. When a party does not attend, they lose the opportunity to participate in the process and respond to the other side’s evidence [2]. Public legal information about Small Claims Court procedure is provided by the Government of Ontario [7]. Photo by Vitaly Gariev  on Unsplash Missing a Court Date in Family or Other Civil Court Matters In family and other civil proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice , missing a court date can also have consequences. Depending on the type of appearance and the circumstances, the court may: Proceed without the absent party Make procedural or substantive orders Record the failure to appear in the court file Adjournments are not automatic, and courts expect parties to respect scheduled appearances unless permission not to attend has been granted [5][6]. Missing a Hearing Before an Administrative Tribunal Administrative tribunals in Ontario, such as the Landlord and Tenant Board  and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario , also require parties to attend scheduled hearings. If a party does not attend a tribunal hearing, the tribunal may: Proceed in the party’s absence Dismiss an application Decide the matter based on the evidence available Each tribunal operates under its own enabling legislation and procedural rules. Public information for these tribunals is available through Tribunals Ontario and Social Justice Tribunals Ontario [8][9][10]. Differences Between Courts and Tribunals Courts and tribunals are distinct decision-making bodies with different mandates and procedures. Courts generally operate under broader statutory frameworks, while tribunals are governed by specific legislation that defines their authority and processes. Despite these differences, attendance requirements are taken seriously across both systems. Failing to attend a scheduled appearance can affect how a matter proceeds and what decisions are made. Conclusion Missing a court date in Ontario is more than a scheduling issue. Courts and tribunals set appearance dates because they are how cases move forward and decisions get made. Legal processes can feel unfamiliar, especially for people encountering the court system for the first time. Knowing how court dates fit into that process helps explain why attendance matters and how decisions are reached, and can bring structure to what might otherwise feel overwhelming. When someone does not attend, the process does not simply pause. In many situations, it continues without them. References [1]  Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 145 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-145.html [2]  Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 258/98 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/980258 [3]  Ontario Court of Justice. Criminal Court https://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/criminal-court/ [4]  Ontario Court of Justice. About the Ontario Court of Justice ttps:// www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/ [5]  Superior Court of Justice. Family Court Information https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/family/ [6]  Superior Court of Justice. Civil Court Information https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/civil/ [7]  Government of Ontario. Suing someone in Small Claims Court https://www.ontario.ca/page/suing-someone-small-claims-court [8]  Tribunals Ontario. Landlord and Tenant Board https://tribunalsontario.ca/ltb/ [9]  Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario http:// www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/ [10]  Tribunals Ontario. About Tribunals Ontario https://tribunalsontario.ca/

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: February 8, 2026 Law code of Hammurabi, a smaller version of the original law code stele. Terracotta tablet, from Nippur, Iraq, c. 1790 BC. Ancient Orient Museum, Istanbul For historical background, authorship, and preservation of the Laws of Ur-Nammu, see: https://www.remiellaw.ca/post/the-laws-of-ur-nammu-the-oldest-known-legal-code-in-human-history Only five laws are discussed in this article. The law numbers are not consecutive because parts of the original code are missing. Later surviving laws are numbered higher even though they are not additional laws discussed here. [1] The provisions set out below reproduce selected surviving laws  from the Laws of Ur-Nammu , using standard scholarly translations  of the original Sumerian text. The numbering reflects modern scholarly reconstruction based on fragmentary cuneiform tablets from the Ur III period. [1][2] Law 1 – Murder If a man commits a murder, that man shall be killed.  [1] What the Law Regulates This law defines intentional killing as a public offence with a fixed punishment. It states the rule and the consequence without addressing how guilt is determined or how the sentence is carried out. [1] Legal Function in Ur III Society Cities in the Ur III period depended on stability to function. Violence between individuals threatened families, trade, and state authority. By treating murder as a matter for public punishment, the law removed justice from private revenge and placed it under state control. [2] Penalty Structure Murder is not resolved through payment or compensation. The penalty is absolute, showing that some harms were considered beyond repair. [1] Modern Legal Parallel Modern criminal law continues to treat homicide as the most serious offence against the person. While punishments differ today, unlawful killing remains a matter handled by public authorities rather than private retaliation. Law 2 – Robbery If a man commits a robbery, he shall be killed.  [1] What the Law Regulates This provision treats robbery as a violent offence involving force or threat, rather than simply the taking of property. [1] Legal Function in Ur III Society The Ur III state tightly controlled goods, labour, and distribution. Violent theft disrupted that system and threatened public order. This explains why robbery was treated with the same seriousness as murder. [2][3] Penalty Structure Robbery carries the same punishment as murder. The focus is not on the value of what was taken, but on the danger posed by violence to social stability. [1] Modern Legal Parallel Modern legal systems continue to distinguish robbery from non-violent theft. Although capital punishment is no longer typical, robbery remains classified as a serious violent crime. Law 3 – Kidnapping If a man commits a kidnapping, he shall be imprisoned and shall pay fifteen shekels of silver.  [1] What the Law Regulates This law applies to the unlawful seizure or detention of another person. It combines imprisonment with a financial penalty. [1] Legal Function in Ur III Society Kidnapping interfered with family relationships, labour obligations, and social status. The law treats it as serious wrongdoing, but one that could be addressed without execution when the victim was recovered. [2] Penalty Structure The combination of imprisonment and a fine places kidnapping below murder and robbery in severity. Payment functions as compensation, not as a substitute for punishment. [1] Modern Legal Parallel Modern criminal law similarly treats kidnapping as a serious offence involving loss of liberty, usually punished through imprisonment rather than fines alone. Photo by حسن  on Unsplash Law 5 – Injury Causing Loss of an Eye If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall pay one-half mina of silver.  [1] What the Law Regulates This provision addresses serious bodily injury that results in permanent harm. The consequence is a fixed monetary payment. [1] Legal Function in Ur III Society Rather than requiring physical retaliation, the law converts bodily harm into an economic obligation. This reduced cycles of violence and allowed disputes to be resolved in a predictable and controlled manner. [2][3] Penalty Structure The set amount reflects an early system of standardized compensation. Different injuries carried different values, showing an organized approach to assessing harm. [1] Modern Legal Parallel Modern civil law similarly uses monetary damages to respond to bodily injury, rather than physical punishment. Law 9 – Sexual Offence Against a Free Woman If a man violates the wife of another man, that man shall be put to death.  [1] What the Law Regulates This law addresses sexual violation involving a married free woman. The offence is defined by marital status and household relationships rather than by the woman’s individual autonomy. [1] Legal Function in Ur III Society Marriage was a central social and economic institution tied to inheritance, lineage, and household stability. Sexual violations were treated as serious disruptions to these structures, reflecting a system focused on family and social order rather than individual consent. [2] Penalty Structure The prescribed penalty is death, placing this offence among the most serious in the code. The severity reflects the legal importance assigned to marital status and social rank. [1] Modern Legal Contrast Under modern legal systems, including Canadian law, sexual assault is recognized as a serious criminal offence, but it is not punishable by death . Penalties typically involve imprisonment, with sentencing based on factors such as violence, harm caused, and prior offending. This contrast highlights an ongoing challenge. Although the Laws of Ur-Nammu imposed the harshest possible punishment in certain cases, modern legal systems often struggle with underreporting, low conviction rates, and sentences that many view as inadequate. From this perspective, the absence of capital punishment today does not necessarily equate to stronger justice for women. How These Laws Shaped Early Legal Systems These five laws show that the Laws of Ur-Nammu were not a loose collection of customs, but part of a structured legal system with defined rules and predictable consequences. Each provision identifies specific conduct and assigns a fixed response, reducing uncertainty and personal retaliation. [1][2] A clear pattern runs through the code. Acts that threatened social stability—such as murder, violent theft, and certain sexual violations—were punished by death. Other harms, especially bodily injury, were addressed through standardized monetary compensation. This reflects an early effort to distinguish irreparable wrongdoing from harm capable of restitution. [1] The laws also make clear that equality before the law did not exist. Legal status, family relationships, and social rank directly affected how conduct was judged and punished. While these distinctions differ from modern legal principles, they demonstrate that outcomes were governed by known rules rather than arbitrary decisions. [2][3] References [1]  Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor . Scholars Press, 1997.(Standard scholarly translations of the Laws of Ur-Nammu.) http://www.g2rp.com/pdfs/LawCollectionsFromMesopotemiaAndAsiaMinor.pdf [2]  Civil, Miguel. “The Law Collection of Ur-Namma.” In Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection , edited by Andrew R. George. CDL Press, 2011. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303824101_Cuneiform_Royal_Inscriptions_and_Related_Texts_in_the_Schoyen_Collection [3]  Mark, Joshua J. “Code of Ur-Nammu.” World History Encyclopedia . https://www.worldhistory.org/Code_of_Ur-Nammu/ [4]  Schøyen Collection. Ur-Nammu Law Code (MS 2064). https://www.schoyencollection.com/law/sumerian/ur-nammu-ms-2064

Written by:  Sara Santos-Vigneault Date:  January 26, 2026 Stock photo by Vecteezy The Role of the Landlord and Tenant Board The Landlord and Tenant Board  is an administrative tribunal that resolves disputes between landlords and tenants under Ontario’s residential tenancy system. Its authority is established by the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 , which sets out the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants and grants the Board its adjudicative powers [1]. LTB proceedings are not criminal or civil court trials. Hearings are conducted by an appointed LTB Member, who manages the proceeding, receives evidence, and applies the Act to the facts presented by the parties [2]. The Board does not investigate disputes independently and does not act on behalf of either party. Decisions are based solely on the evidence and submissions provided during the hearing process [3]. Types of Landlord and Tenant Board Hearings The Landlord and Tenant Board hears a range of applications authorized under the Residential Tenancies Act, including eviction applications, tenant rights applications, and other statutory matters. A summary of application types and filing processes is published by Tribunals Ontario [4]. Hearings may be conducted in person, by videoconference, by telephone, or as written hearings. The LTB has discretion to determine the hearing format and may change the format where appropriate to ensure fairness and accessibility [5]. Information about hearing formats and scheduling is publicly available on the LTB’s hearings page [6]. The Notice of Hearing When an application is accepted for processing, the LTB issues a Notice of Hearing. The Notice identifies the LTB file number, the parties, the type of application, and the date, time, and format of the hearing. It also sets out procedural information relevant to the proceeding [7]. Notices of Hearing are issued in accordance with the LTB’s Rules of Procedure and form part of the Board’s formal adjudicative process. Guidance on how hearings are scheduled and how Notices are delivered is published by Tribunals Ontario as part of its application and hearing process materials [8]. Evidence at the Landlord and Tenant Board LTB hearings are evidence-based proceedings. The Board considers evidence presented by the parties in accordance with its Rules of Procedure, which address the admissibility and treatment of documentary and testimonial evidence [9]. Evidence may include documents, photographs, audio or video recordings, and oral testimony. The LTB Member determines the relevance, reliability, and weight of the evidence presented. The Board does not gather evidence independently or supplement the record on behalf of the parties [10]. Procedural guidance on evidence, disclosure expectations, and hearing preparation is published by Tribunals Ontario in its hearing information materials [11]. Speech Stock photos by Vecteezy How a Hearing Typically Proceeds An LTB hearing follows a structured process managed by the assigned Member. Hearings generally begin with introductions and identification of the application before the Board. Preliminary procedural issues may be addressed before evidence is received. Each party is given an opportunity to present evidence and respond to the other party’s materials. The LTB Member may ask questions to clarify evidence or issues relevant to the application. Once evidence is complete, parties may be invited to make submissions addressing the application of the law to the facts presented [12]. The hearing concludes when the Member determines that sufficient information has been received to decide the matter. Conduct and Expectations During a Hearing LTB hearings are governed by procedural rules intended to ensure fairness and orderly proceedings. Parties are expected to follow the direction of the LTB Member and comply with the Board’s Rules of Procedure [13]. Recording hearings without authorization is restricted. Tribunals Ontario also publishes information regarding accessibility accommodations and procedural fairness across tribunal proceedings [14]. Common Misunderstandings About LTB Hearings An LTB hearing is not mediation unless specifically designated as such. The LTB Member does not act as an advocate and does not resolve disputes based on personal assessments of fairness alone. Decisions must be grounded in the Residential Tenancies Act and the evidence properly before the Board [15]. The scheduling of a hearing does not predetermine the outcome of an application. The Board’s role is to assess evidence and apply the law as written. Landlord and Tenant Board hearings function within a statutory and procedural framework established by the Residential Tenancies Act and administered through Tribunal rules. These proceedings are intended to resolve residential tenancy disputes by assessing evidence presented by the parties and applying the Act as written. Understanding how hearings are structured, how evidence is considered, and how procedural documents such as Notices of Hearing operate provides context for the Board’s adjudicative role within Ontario’s residential tenancy system. The LTB’s authority is limited to what is granted by statute, and its decisions are grounded in the record before it. References Ontario. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17 Tribunals Ontario. Landlord and Tenant Board: About the LTB https://tribunalsontario.ca/en/ltb/ Tribunals Ontario. Application and Hearing Process https://tribunalsontario.ca/en/ltb/application-and-hearing-process/ Tribunals Ontario. Forms, Filing and Fees https://tribunalsontario.ca/ltb/forms-filing-and-fees/ Tribunals Ontario. LTB Hearings https://tribunalsontario.ca/search/?_sf_s=hearings Tribunals Ontario. Navigate Tribunals Ontario https://tribunalsontario.ca/ltb/navigate-tribunals-ontario/ Tribunals Ontario. Important Information About Your Hearing https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/Important%20Information%20about%20Your%20Hearing.html Tribunals Ontario. Application and Hearing Process https://tribunalsontario.ca/en/ltb/application-and-hearing-process/ Tribunals Ontario. LTB Rules of Procedure https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Rules/LTB%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.html Tribunals Ontario. LTB Hearings https://tribunalsontario.ca/search/?_sf_s=hearings Tribunals Ontario. Important Information About Your Hearing https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/Important%20Information%20about%20Your%20Hearing.html Tribunals Ontario. Landlord and Tenant Board Rules of Procedure https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Rules/LTB%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.html Tribunals Ontario. LTB Rules of Procedure https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Rules/LTB%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.html Tribunals Ontario. Accessibility at Tribunals Ontario https://tribunalsontario.ca/en/accessibility/ Ontario. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: January 19, 2025 Photo by Karola G Many Ontarians face family law issues without access to affordable legal help. Divorce, child support, or domestic agreements often require legal assistance, but hiring a lawyer may not be financially realistic for everyone. In response, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO)  created a new licensing pathway that allows qualified paralegals to provide certain services in family law. This new role—called the Family Legal Services Provider (FLSP) —allows paralegals to assist with specific, low-conflict family law matters. The goal is to improve access to justice while maintaining clear professional boundaries. This article outlines what licensed FLSP paralegals can legally do, what they cannot do, and how the public can access these services. Why the FLSP Program Was Introduced Access to legal services in family law has long been a challenge in Ontario. Many individuals represent themselves in family court or avoid taking legal action altogether due to cost. According to reports submitted to the Law Society between 2017 and 2022, family law was one of the most requested areas for expanded paralegal involvement. The FLSP program was approved in 2022 and launched in 2025. It is part of the Law Society's broader effort to address unmet legal needs in a way that is both regulated and responsible. Paralegals who complete this training are permitted to provide limited family law services , provided the matter is low-conflict, procedural, and clearly within scope [1]. Overview of the FLSP Licence and Training The Family Legal Services Provider licence  is not automatic. To qualify, a paralegal must: Be licensed and in good standing with the Law Society of Ontario Complete an accredited FLSP training program Successfully finish a 40-hour field placement  in family law Pass a final competency assessment The program is currently offered by Fanshawe College , in partnership with the LSO. Coursework is delivered online and covers legal concepts, ethics, client communication, and family court procedures [2]. What Paralegals with FLSP Licences Can Do Paralegals with FLSP status are allowed to assist with a limited, clearly defined scope  of family law matters. These are primarily document-based or administrative tasks that do not require court appearances or legal interpretation of complex rights . The services must relate to cases where the facts are not in dispute and both parties are cooperative. The sections below describe in detail the types of services an FLSP paralegal can offer. 1. Uncontested Divorce Applications FLSP paralegals can assist clients in filing for divorce where: Both parties agree to end the marriage There are no contested issues  involving children, property, or support The divorce is filed as a simple divorce  (one party files) or joint divorce  (both parties apply together) They may: Explain what documents are required Help clients complete Form 8A or Form 8 under the Family Law Rules Submit court filings using the Ministry of the Attorney General’s portals or in person Assist in tracking service deadlines and required proof of service They cannot provide advice on how assets should be divided or what parenting plan would be best . If any part of the divorce is disputed, the paralegal must refer the client elsewhere [1]. 2. Child Support Applications and Modifications Paralegals can help with child support matters that are formula-based and administrative . This includes: Assisting a parent in filing a new child support application  through the Ontario Child Support Service , which calculates support based on income and number of children Helping request administrative recalculation  of an existing support amount under section 39.1 of the Family Law Act Preparing court forms for a motion to change support , if the facts are simple (for example, updated income documents and no disagreement between parents) Paralegals may explain which forms are needed (such as Form 15, 15A, or 14B), but they cannot appear in court or advise on whether a parent is entitled to more or less support. Cases involving complex income, shared custody, or disagreement over amounts are outside the permitted scope [1][3]. 3. Domestic Contracts: Separation and Cohabitation Agreements FLSP paralegals may assist clients with drafting certain domestic contracts , including: Separation agreements : covering issues such as support and property division, when both parties have agreed to terms Cohabitation agreements : for unmarried partners Marriage contracts : also known as prenuptial agreements They may: Prepare written versions of agreements based on client input Use plain-language clauses consistent with Ontario family law Explain filing procedures or notarization steps, if applicable Paralegals must not negotiate terms on behalf of a party, nor interpret the legal effect of clauses. Clients are expected to provide clear instructions and, in many cases, seek independent legal advice before signing [1]. 4. Family Court Forms and Procedure Support Paralegals can offer procedural help, including: Identifying which court forms are needed (e.g., Form 13 Financial Statement) Assisting with form completion based on client-provided information Explaining how and where to file documents Helping navigate online systems such as Justice Services Online Reviewing deadlines and court rules under the Family Law Rules They cannot: Provide legal advice about strategy Draft affidavits with contested facts Appear in court or speak on a client’s behalf This support is especially useful for people who are representing themselves in a basic family law proceeding but want help understanding the steps [1]. Photo by Karola G What FLSP Paralegals Are Not Permitted to Do The FLSP licence is limited. Paralegals are not allowed to: Represent clients in court or speak for them during hearings or motions Handle contested issues , including: Parenting or custody disputes Spousal support Property division Work on cases involving the Children’s Aid Society (CAS)  or child protection Offer legal advice about what someone is entitled to under the Divorce Act or Family Law Act Act as negotiators or mediators If a case involves disagreement, complex finances, or emotional intensity, it is beyond the FLSP paralegal’s legal authority. FLSPs must screen all files using Law Society tools  to ensure they are legally allowed to assist. Matters that fall outside their scope must be referred to a licensed lawyer [1]. How to Access Paralegal Services in Family Law Members of the public can: Search the Law Society of Ontario’s public directory  to find authorized FLSP paralegals Confirm whether a paralegal is in good standing and eligible to offer family law services Contact the paralegal directly to confirm pricing and availability It is important to understand that FLSP paralegals can only work within the legal boundaries set by the Law Society. While their services are more affordable than full legal representation, they are designed for specific, low-conflict situations  only [4]. References Law Society of Ontario – Family Legal Services Provider https://lso.ca/paralegals/about-your-licence/family-legal-services-provider Fanshawe College – Family Legal Services Provider Program https://www.fanshawec.ca/pt/flp1-family-legal-services-provider Government of Ontario – Child Support Service https://www.ontario.ca/page/set-up-or-update-child-support-online Law Society of Ontario – Find a Family Legal Services Provider https://lso.ca/public-resources/choosing-the-right-legal-professional/about-paralegals/find-a-family-legal-services-provider

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: January 12, 2026 An eviction order is serious, but it does not mean a tenant must leave immediately. In Ontario, eviction is governed by statute and tribunal procedure, and several legal steps must occur before a tenant can be physically removed from a rental unit. Being served with an eviction order often creates uncertainty. Tenants may not know whether the order takes effect right away, how it was issued, or what actions are legally permitted at this stage. Understanding the document and the process behind it is essential before reacting. Photo by Allan Vega  on Unsplash What is an eviction order An eviction order is issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board after a landlord files an application and the Board makes a decision. This may occur following a hearing or, in some cases, when one party did not participate. An eviction order is not the same as a notice of termination. Notices such as Form N4, N5, or N12 are part of the eviction process but do not themselves authorize eviction. Tribunals Ontario states clearly that a notice of termination is not an eviction order and does not, on its own, end a tenancy [1]. Eviction orders typically include a Landlord and Tenant Board file number, the address of the rental unit, the statutory grounds relied on under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 , and any conditions or timelines set by the Board. How an eviction order may be served Landlord and Tenant Board documents do not need to be handed to a tenant personally to be valid. The acceptable methods of service are set out in Rule 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Board Rules of Procedure [2]. Tribunals Ontario publishes a public brochure explaining how documents may be served and when they are considered received [3]. Service may occur by personal delivery, mail, placement in a mailbox or mail slot, or other methods permitted by the Rules. The method of service can affect deadlines, which is why documenting how and when the order was received is important. Eviction enforcement in Ontario An eviction order does not allow a landlord to evict a tenant personally. Only the Court Enforcement Office, commonly referred to as the sheriff, can physically remove a tenant from a rental unit. Landlords are prohibited from changing locks, denying access, or removing belongings on their own authority. Tribunals Ontario confirms that it is illegal for a landlord to lock a tenant out and that only a sheriff can carry out an eviction [4]. Initial steps after receiving an eviction order in Ontario After receiving an eviction order, the first step is to read the document carefully. The order should be reviewed for the date it was issued, the reason for eviction, any conditions attached, and whether the decision was made after a hearing or without one party present. Maintaining complete records is critical. This includes keeping copies of the order, envelopes, emails, notices, payment records, and written communications related to the tenancy and the Landlord and Tenant Board application. Orders made without a tenant present If an eviction order was issued without a tenant participating, it may be an ex parte order. The Landlord and Tenant Board provides Form S2 – Motion to Set Aside an Ex Parte Order , which may be used in these circumstances [5]. Tribunals Ontario also publishes a brochure explaining this process and the applicable deadlines [6]. Requests to review an eviction order In limited circumstances, the Landlord and Tenant Board allows a party to request a review of an order. The applicable form is Request to Review an Order  [7]. The process is explained in Interpretation Guideline 8 – Review of an Order , which clarifies that a review is not a rehearing and is limited to specific procedural grounds [8]. Relief from eviction Ontario law allows the Landlord and Tenant Board, in some circumstances, to delay or refuse eviction. This discretion is addressed in Interpretation Guideline 7 – Relief from Eviction  [9]. Relief depends on the facts and the statutory framework and is not automatic. What landlords can and cannot do after an eviction order is issued Even when an eviction order exists, a landlord’s authority remains limited by law. A landlord may apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board, participate in hearings, and file an eviction order with the sheriff for enforcement. A landlord may also communicate in writing regarding the status of the tenancy, provided that communication does not amount to harassment or interference. A landlord may not personally evict a tenant. Changing locks, removing doors, shutting off utilities, denying access, or removing a tenant’s belongings without sheriff involvement is unlawful under Ontario law [4]. The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006  also prohibits landlords from harassing, obstructing, coercing, threatening, or interfering with a tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit [10]. Repeated pressure to leave, aggressive messaging, or conduct intended to force a tenant out outside the legal process may fall within these prohibitions. Landlords are also restricted in their right of entry. Entry into a rental unit generally requires proper written notice and must meet the requirements set out in the Act, even where an eviction order exists but has not been enforced [10]. A landlord may not increase rent, demand additional charges, or impose new conditions outside what is permitted by the Act and existing tenancy agreement during this stage of the process [10]. If a landlord locks a tenant out or otherwise attempts to enforce eviction without the sheriff, Tribunals Ontario provides specific guidance for tenants on how to respond to unlawful lockouts [4]. Tribunals Ontario guidance confirms that a lockout without an eviction order is illegal. The Landlord and Tenant Board states that landlords are not permitted to change locks or deny access unless an eviction order has been issued and enforced by the Sheriff, and that tenants who are unlawfully locked out may apply to the LTB for an order restoring possession of the unit. Photo by HiveBoxx  on Unsplash Reliable sources for information and forms Official forms, filing instructions, and procedural rules are available directly from the Landlord and Tenant Board website [11]. https://tribunalsontario.ca/ltb/ Moving forward An eviction order often raises more questions than it answers. It confirms that a decision has been made, but it does not mean everything has already happened. At this stage, clarity matters more than speed. Understanding what the order actually says, what it allows, and what it does not allow helps prevent unnecessary assumptions and rushed decisions. Hearing and evidence issues come later. Understanding the order comes first. References [1] Tribunals Ontario – Notice to End your Tenancy N5 https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Notices%20of%20Termination%20&%20Instructions/N5.pdf [2] Landlord and Tenant Board - Rules of Procedure https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Rules/LTB%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.html [3] Tribunals Ontario. How to Serve a Landlord or Tenant with https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/How%20to%20Serve%20a%20Landlord%20or%20Tenant%20with%20Documents%20%28EN%29.html [4] Tribunals Ontario. If You Are Locked Out of Your Unit – Information for Tenants https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/If%20You%20are%20Locked%20out%20of%20Your%20Unit%20Information%20for%20Tenants.html [5] [6] Landlord and Tenant Board. Motion to Set Aside an Ex Parte Order (Form S2) https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Other%20Forms/Motion%20to%20Set%20Aside%20an%20Ex%20Parte%20Order%20Form%20S2.pdf [7] Landlord and Tenant Board. Request to Review an Order https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Other%20Forms/Request%20to%20Review%20an%20Order.pdf [8] Tribunals Ontario. Interpretation Guideline 8 – Review of an Order https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Interpretation%20Guidelines/08%20-%20Review%20of%20an%20Order.html [9] Tribunals Ontario. Interpretation Guideline 7 – Relief from Eviction – Refusing or Delaying an Eviction https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Interpretation%20Guidelines/07%20-%20Relief%20from%20Eviction%20-%20Refusing%20or%20Delaying%20an%20Eviction_dec2020.html [10] Ontario. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17 [11] Tribunals Ontario. Landlord and Tenant Board Forms, Filing and https://tribunalsontario.ca/ltb/forms-filing-and-fees/ [12] Tribunals Ontario. Landlord and Tenant Board: Application and Hearing Process https://tribunalsontario.ca/ltb/application-and-hearing-process/ [13] Tribunals Ontario. Brochure: Important Information about Your Hearing https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/Important%20Information%20about%20Your%20Hearing.html

Written by:  Sara Santos-Vigneault Date:  January 5 , 2026 Photo by Heike Trautmann  on Unsplash Sexual harassment often occurs in private or semi-private settings, making it difficult to prove through traditional forms of evidence. In many cases, there are no witnesses, no recordings, and no physical proof of what took place. Yet Ontario’s legal framework recognizes these challenges and allows complaints to proceed even when evidence is limited. Ontario’s human-rights laws define sexual harassment, identify common evidentiary issues, and explain how courts and tribunals assess these cases. Defining Sexual Harassment Under Ontario Law Under section 7(2)  of the Ontario Human Rights Code , every person has the right to be free from sexual harassment in employment, housing, and services. The law prohibits unwelcome conduct or comments of a sexual nature that create a hostile or intimidating environment. [1] The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC)  clarifies that sexual harassment includes words, gestures, contact, or requests for sexual favours. It can occur once or repeatedly and does not need to involve physical contact to breach the Code. [2] Why Evidence Is Difficult to Obtain The OHRC Policy on Preventing Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment  notes that sexual harassment “does not often occur in full public view.” Because there are rarely witnesses or physical evidence, credibility becomes a central issue in many cases. [3] Private Settings and Lack of Witnesses Harassment frequently occurs in isolated environments such as offices, meeting rooms, or hallways. When an incident takes place without witnesses, the tribunal must assess the credibility and consistency of the parties’ evidence. Delayed Reporting and Trauma Responses Victims may delay reporting due to fear of retaliation, shame, or confusion. Trauma can influence how a person recalls events, and this may affect perceptions of consistency during testimony. [4] Power Imbalances Incidents often involve someone in authority over the complainant—such as a supervisor or senior colleague. These dynamics can discourage reporting, reducing opportunities to preserve evidence. [5] Pattern or Behavioural Evidence When direct evidence is limited, tribunals may consider “pattern” or “similar-fact” evidence. This refers to repeated conduct by the same respondent, which helps establish credibility and context. [6] Legal Standards for Proof Human-rights proceedings use the civil standard of proof , known as the balance of probabilities . This means the adjudicator must determine whether it is more likely than not that the harassment occurred. [7] The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO)  has held that credible and consistent testimony can meet this standard even without physical proof. Decision-makers rely on internal consistency, supporting details, and contextual evidence rather than documentation alone. [8] Relevant Canadian Cases Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252 The Supreme Court of Canada held that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under human-rights law. The case established that harassment need not be public or involve financial consequences to violate the Code. [9] Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84 The Court ruled that employers can be held responsible for harassment committed by employees in the course of employment. This extended liability to private and unwitnessed conduct. [10] Bannister v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., 1998 CanLII 7152 (Ont CA) The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that harassment can arise from cumulative interactions that collectively create a hostile environment, even when each event appears minor. [11] Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30 The HRTO accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible despite the absence of witnesses. The decision emphasized surrounding circumstances and consistency of evidence. [12] Dev Asangbam Social Context and Systemic Barriers Historically, women who reported harassment faced disbelief, blame, and social stigma. Studies show that victim-blaming attitudes remain common, reinforcing the perception that women are responsible for preventing harassment. [13]The Department of Justice Canada  notes that trauma, power dynamics, and social pressure contribute to under-reporting and make evidence harder to obtain. [14] Tribunals now increasingly apply trauma-informed  approaches, recognizing that delayed reporting or emotional responses are not indicators of fabrication but typical reactions to harm. [15] Procedural Avenues in Ontario Individuals in Ontario may bring sexual-harassment claims under the Human Rights Code , through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario . Workplace incidents may also fall under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) , which requires employers to maintain harassment-prevention policies and investigate complaints. [16] Civil claims may be available in certain cases involving constructive dismissal or damages for emotional harm, but the HRTO remains the most accessible route for most complainants. Conclusion Sexual harassment that occurs behind closed doors presents some of the most challenging evidentiary issues in Ontario law. The absence of witnesses or physical proof does not lessen the seriousness of the conduct, nor does it prevent a case from proceeding. Ontario’s human-rights system recognizes the hidden nature of harassment and evaluates claims based on credibility, context, and consistency. The ongoing shift toward trauma-informed adjudication marks progress in addressing both legal and societal barriers to justice. References Human Rights Code , RSO 1990, c H.19. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h19 Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC)  – Policy on Preventing Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment. https://www3.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-sexual-and-gender-based-harassment-0 Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC)  – Policy on Preventing Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment, Section 7 – Evidentiary Issues. https://www3.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-sexual-and-gender-based-harassment-0/7-burden-proof-evidentiary-issues Department of Justice Canada  – Impact of Trauma on Victims and the Justice System. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/trauma/trauma-eng.pdf Department of Justice Canada  – Impact of Trauma on Victims and the Justice System (Summary Section). https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/trauma/trauma-eng.pdf Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO)  – Practice Direction: Similar Fact Evidence. https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/hrto/Practice%20Direction%20-%20Similar%20Fact%20Evidence.pdf Law Society of Ontario (LSO)  – Rules and Tribunal Standards: Burden and Standard of Proof. https://lso.ca/about-lso/legislation-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc. , 2005 HRTO 30 (CanLII). https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2005/2005hrto30/2005hrto30.html Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. , [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252 (CanLII). https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii97/1989canlii97.html Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board) , [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84 (CanLII). https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1987/1987canlii75/1987canlii75.html Bannister v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. , 1998 CanLII 7152 (Ont CA). https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1998/1998canlii7152/1998canlii7152.html Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc. , 2005 HRTO 30 (CanLII). https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2005/2005hrto30/2005hrto30.html Statistics Canada  – Gender-Based Violence and Attitudes in Canada, 2018. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2018001/article/54980-eng.htm Department of Justice Canada  – Understanding Gender-Based Violence. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2022/mar01.html Ontario Human Rights Commission  – Trauma-Informed Approach in Investigations. https://www3.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-sexual-and-gender-based-harassment-0/8-trauma-informed-approach Occupational Health and Safety Act , RSO 1990, c O.1. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o01

Written by:  Sara Santos-Vigneault Date:  April 12, 2025+ Image by <a href Long before the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known attempts to record law in written form emerged in ancient Mesopotamia. The Laws of Ur-Nammu are generally regarded by historians as the oldest surviving legal code, dating to approximately 2100 BCE. Issued during the reign of King Ur-Nammu of the Sumerian city of Ur, the code provides rare insight into how early societies understood justice, responsibility, and social order. [1][2] Contrary to modern assumptions about early law being harsh or purely punitive, the surviving provisions reveal a structured legal system that often relied on financial compensation rather than physical punishment. These laws reflect an early effort to regulate behaviour in a predictable and publicly accessible way, emphasizing stability and restitution over retaliation. [3] Historical Context and Authorship The Laws of Ur-Nammu originated during the Ur III period, a time marked by political centralization, urban development, and increasing administrative sophistication in southern Mesopotamia. Ur-Nammu ruled from approximately 2112 to 2095 BCE and is traditionally credited with issuing the code. Some scholars, however, suggest that portions of the text may have been compiled or finalized under his son and successor, Šulgi, who is known for expanding bureaucratic reforms and promoting literacy. [1][3] The broader historical context helps explain the emergence of written law. As cities grew and economic activity became more complex, standardized rules were necessary to resolve disputes, protect property, and reinforce royal authority. Written legal codes also served a symbolic purpose, presenting the ruler as a guarantor of justice under divine authority. [4] Image by <a href Discovery and Surviving Texts The Laws of Ur-Nammu do not survive in a single complete document. Instead, the text is reconstructed from fragments discovered at several Mesopotamian sites, including Nippur and Ur. These fragments are written in Sumerian using cuneiform script and were inscribed on clay tablets and cylinders. [1][5] One of the most significant surviving artifacts is a clay cylinder held in the Schøyen Collection in Oslo, catalogued as MS 2064. Additional fragments are housed in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums and other institutional collections. Together, these materials allow scholars to reconstruct much of the original code, though portions remain lost. [5][6] Structure and Legal Content Like later Mesopotamian law codes, the Laws of Ur-Nammu appear to have followed a formal structure consisting of a prologue, a series of legal provisions, and a concluding section that has not survived. Each law typically begins with the conditional phrase tukum-bi  (“if”), followed by a specified legal consequence. This “if–then” format would become a defining feature of later legal writing in the region. [3] Approximately forty provisions survive today, with scholars estimating that the full code may originally have included more than fifty. The laws address a broad range of everyday matters, including homicide, bodily injury, sexual offences, marriage, divorce, inheritance, property disputes, theft, and false accusations. [1][3] A notable feature of the code is its preference for monetary compensation in cases of injury or wrongdoing. While serious offences such as murder could still attract capital punishment, many other violations resulted in fines payable in silver. This approach suggests an early form of restorative justice aimed at compensating victims and maintaining social equilibrium. [2][3] Legacy and Legal Significance The Laws of Ur-Nammu occupy a foundational place in legal history. They represent one of the earliest known efforts to formalize law as a public institution, rather than relying solely on custom or ad hoc decision-making. Later Mesopotamian legal collections, including those associated with Eshnunna, Lipit-Ishtar, and Hammurabi, followed similar structural and conceptual models. [3][4] Beyond their historical priority, the laws are significant for what they reveal about early legal thinking. They reflect a society already grappling with questions of responsibility, proportionality, and fairness — concerns that continue to shape legal systems thousands of years later. The survival of these texts underscores how deeply rooted the idea of written law is in human civilization. [1][2] References Civil, Miguel. The Law Collection of Ur-Namma . In Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection , edited by Andrew R. George, pp. 221–286. CDL Press, 2011. https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/publications/1749484 Mark, Joshua J. “Code of Ur-Nammu.” World History Encyclopedia , October 26, 2021. https://www.worldhistory.org/Code_of_Ur-Nammu/ Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor . Scholars Press, 1997. https://archive.org/details/lawcollectionsfr0000unse Wilcke, Claus. Der Kodex Urnamma . München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002. https://www.worldcat.org/title/52180432 Schøyen Collection. “Ur-Nammu Law Code (MS 2064).” https://www.schoyencollection.com/law/sumerian/ur-nammu-ms-2064 Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI). “Ur-Nammu Law Code Tablet Fragments and Transliterations.” https://cdli.ucla.edu/search/search_results.php?SearchMode=Text&ObjectID=P278740

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: December 15, 2025 Photo by Nicole Michalou Private holiday parties often include alcohol, guests staying late, and travel home in winter conditions. These situations raise important legal questions about whether the host could be responsible if someone gets hurt after leaving. Canadian courts refer to this as social host liability . While the law does not generally hold private hosts responsible, recent cases show that legal risk may arise when certain facts are present. What Is Social Host Liability? Social host liability is a legal concept that applies when a person hosts a private event and a guest harms someone after consuming alcohol at that event. The harm is usually caused by impaired driving, but other forms of injury may be considered. The injured person may sue the host for negligence. To succeed in a negligence claim, the injured person must prove that: The host owed them a duty of care , The host breached that duty, The breach c aused their injury , and They suffered compensable damages. Canadian courts assess whether the duty of care existed based on three factors: foreseeability , proximity , and broader policy concerns . The Supreme Court's Position in Childs v. Desormeaux In Childs v. Desormeaux , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that social hosts do not automatically owe a duty of care to people harmed by their guests [1]. The case involved a New Year’s Eve party where a guest consumed alcohol, drove away, and caused a fatal car crash. The hosts did not serve the alcohol—it was a BYOB (bring your own bottle) event. The Court found that: There was no foreseeable risk  that the hosts should have known the guest would drive while impaired. There was no proximity , because the hosts did not control the guest’s actions or alcohol consumption. Recognizing a duty could lead to policy concerns, such as placing an unreasonable burden on people who host private events. The decision established that private hosts are generally not liable when guests harm others after leaving their event—unless additional factors are present. Photo by The OurWhisky Foundation 🥃 When the Facts Differ: Williams v. Richard In Williams v. Richard , the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a claim against a social host to proceed to trial [2]. In that case, the host provided beer to a guest who consumed approximately 15 drinks over three hours. The host knew the guest would be driving children home and tried to intervene, but the guest left anyway and was involved in a serious crash. The Court emphasized that factual details matter . Unlike Childs , the host in Williams  supplied the alcohol, knew the guest was intoxicated, and knew the guest was responsible for others while driving. These facts were enough to justify a full trial to decide whether a duty of care existed. This decision shows that in certain cases, especially where hosts are more actively involved, liability may be considered. Why the Holiday Season Matters Holiday gatherings may increase the legal risk for social hosts. Some common seasonal factors include: Winter driving conditions , such as ice and snow, which make impaired driving more dangerous. Late-night departures , when fatigue adds to the risk of harm. Guests driving children , which increases potential consequences. Greater alcohol consumption , often associated with year-end celebrations. While the law does not impose a general duty on hosts to monitor guests, courts may consider whether a host was aware of these risk factors and failed to take reasonable steps. How Courts Evaluate Host Responsibility Courts examine whether the harm was foreseeable  based on the situation. For example, if a host knew a guest was intoxicated and planned to drive with children in the car, that could support foreseeability. The court also considers proximity —whether the host’s involvement in the event was close enough to create responsibility. In Williams , the host’s role in supplying alcohol and being aware of the risk was critical. In Childs , the hosts had less involvement, and no duty of care was found. There is no clear formula. Each case depends on specific facts. What Hosts Commonly Do in High-Risk Situations While not legally required, some hosts take steps to reduce the risk of harm, such as: Encouraging taxis or rideshare use  for guests who have been drinking, Organizing a sober driver  for groups of guests, Offering overnight accommodations , especially during winter weather, Avoiding service of alcohol  to guests who appear visibly impaired, Checking in with guests  before they leave, particularly when children are in the vehicle, Supervising underage guests  and preventing access to alcohol or cannabis. Courts may view these actions as signs that the host acted responsibly, even if something goes wrong. However, these actions are not legal obligations unless a specific duty of care is established in court. What Remains Unsettled in Canadian Law Several questions about social host liability remain unanswered: Cannabis use  is increasingly common, but few cases have addressed whether it changes the analysis. Employer-sponsored events  may raise different legal issues, including workplace and occupational safety law. Cases involving minors  may impose higher expectations on adult hosts. Different provinces  may interpret similar facts in different ways. The law continues to evolve. As Canadian courts hear new cases, the boundaries of social host liability will become clearer. Conclusion Canadian law does not make private party hosts automatically responsible when a guest causes harm after leaving. However,: when the host serves alcohol, is aware of impairment, and knows a guest intends to drive—especially during the holidays or in winter conditions—the courts may consider whether the host had a duty to act. Recent case law shows that facts matter. Legal risk may arise depending on the host’s level of involvement and awareness of danger. References Childs v. Desormeaux , 2006 SCC 18 https:// www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2006/2006scc18/2006scc18.html Williams v. Richard , 2018 ONCA 889 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2018/2018onca889/2018onca889.html Siskinds LLP – Social Host Liability Holiday Reminder https://www.siskinds.com/tis-the-season-a-refresher-on-social-host-liability/ BLG – Social Host Case Commentary ( Williams v. Richard ) https://www.blg.com/en/insights/2018/11/partys-over-duty-of-care-of-social-hosts-hinges-on-fact-specific-determinations-of-foreseeability Bogoroch & Associates LLP – Overview of Social Host Liability in Ontario https://www.bogoroch.com/blog/what-is-social-host-liability/

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: December 8, 2025 Photo by Vitaly Gariev  on Unsplash Ontario's legal profession has taken formal steps toward addressing misconduct, particularly in matters involving sexual harassment and authority misuse. Recent decisions from the Law Society Tribunal illustrate inconsistencies in disciplinary outcomes, particularly when comparing cases with differing levels of evidentiary documentation. The decisions in Law Society of Ontario v. Suh  and Law Society of Ontario v. Moubarak  reveal a core concern in professional regulation, disparities between the severity of harm and the availability of proof. Law Society of Ontario v. Suh: Misconduct in the Absence of Digital Evidence In Law Society of Ontario v. Suh, 2023 ONLSTH 152 , the Tribunal determined that lawyer Sang-Kyun Suh engaged in professional misconduct involving verbal abuse, sexualized commentary, and unwanted physical contact toward a junior colleague. Incidents included shouting in the office, suggesting the complainant unbutton her blouse during a networking dinner, and groping her thigh and buttocks while she was in a vulnerable state [1]. The Tribunal described Suh’s conduct as “objectively humiliating and degrading.” It stated: “The respondent touched her in a sexualized way while she was intoxicated and vulnerable. This abuse of power was not incidental—it was deliberate.” (para 71) Despite recognizing the gravity of the conduct, Suh received a three-month suspension and $6,000 in costs. Mitigating factors cited included a lack of prior discipline and partial cooperation. The Tribunal accepted the complainant's testimony as credible but emphasized the evidentiary limits: “The panel finds the complainant’s evidence to be clear, compelling, and credible. However, there is a lack of contemporaneous documentation to support the timeline of incidents.” (para 66) This acknowledgement reflects a systemic issue within legal disciplinary processes. In cases involving interpersonal misconduct, particularly those that occur in social or informal workplace settings, victims rarely have access to contemporaneous documentation. Comments may be made verbally, physical contact may occur in private, and witnesses may be absent entirely. The difficulty in proving such interactions to an adjudicative standard can disincentivize reporting and affect the credibility assessment, even where a complainant is fully believed. Law Society of Ontario v. Moubarak: Admitted Misconduct Supported by Documentation In Law Society of Ontario v. Moubarak, 2025 ONLSTH 116 , the respondent Rabah Moubarak admitted to sexually harassing two junior employees. The conduct included repeated flirtations, unwelcome comments about appearance, emotionally manipulative messages, and instances of unwanted touching. The misconduct was extensively documented through a large volume of digital communications [2]. Among the most troubling findings were text messages in which Moubarak called one employee “the love of my life” and continued to contact her after she made clear his comments were unwelcome: “The complainant clearly expressed that she was not interested. Despite this, Mr. Moubarak continued to send inappropriate and emotional messages, which created a hostile work environment.” (para 38) The Tribunal imposed a four-month suspension and $12,500 in costs. In assessing the impact of the digital evidence, the panel noted: “The existence of written messages and the respondent’s own admission to the agreed statement of facts obviate the need for a credibility assessment. The evidence is overwhelming.” (para 45) Evidentiary Disparities and Ethical Consequences The comparative outcomes demonstrate how documentary evidence significantly influences disciplinary penalties. In both matters, the misconduct involved abuse of authority and clear violations of professional standards. Yet the outcomes differed based on the volume and type of supporting material. In Suh, the complainant’s account, while accepted as credible, was not supported by documentation such as emails, messages, or contemporaneous notes. This shaped the Tribunal’s assessment of the frequency and severity of the incidents, and arguably influenced the relative leniency of the penalty. Sexual harassment and other forms of workplace abuse often unfold in ambiguous or private contexts. Victims may delay reporting, minimize incidents, or lack technological documentation, especially when misconduct is verbal, covert, or normalized within office culture. The absence of contemporaneous documentation should not be mistaken for the absence of harm. As seen in Suh, procedural limitations can result in lighter sanctions despite serious findings. Photo by <a href=" Conduct Expectations Under Professional Rules Legal professionals in Ontario are bound by rules that prohibit sexual harassment, discrimination, and other forms of misconduct, reflecting the values set out in Ontario’s human rights laws. These professional obligations require licensees to act with integrity, civility, and respect in all workplace and client relationships. Guidance materials published by the Law Society of Ontario emphasize that harassment includes unwelcome behaviour of a sexual nature and that such conduct often occurs outside the presence of third-party witnesses or physical evidence. A respectful and safe working environment is not just aspirational, it is an enforceable standard tied to professional responsibility [3][4]. This is not a theoretical concern. A 2022 report from the Law Society of Ontario’s Retention of Women in Private Practice Working Group found that more than 50 percent of women lawyers under 40 considered leaving practice, citing reasons such as harassment, lack of mentorship, and exclusion from meaningful work. In the same report, over one-third of racialized women in private practice reported experiencing discrimination or bias. These figures reflect ongoing challenges for equity within the profession and suggest that under-enforcement of harassment norms can contribute to attrition and inequality. Power, Gender, and Structural Challenges Both respondents held supervisory or senior positions over their complainants. The misconduct was shaped not only by inappropriate behaviour but also by an imbalance of power. The Tribunal in Suh explicitly acknowledged this power dynamic: “The respondent’s behaviour occurred in professional and social contexts where he held authority. This power imbalance compounded the harm.” (para 70) This raises concerns about the regulatory process itself. When proof becomes the gatekeeper for meaningful sanctions, complainants who lack evidence may face barriers to justice. These challenges disproportionately affect individuals whose experiences unfold outside of documented contexts. Institutional Response and Future Direction Tribunal decisions increasingly reflect an awareness of the evolving standards in professional ethics, particularly surrounding gender-based harm. However, as these two cases demonstrate, the application of those standards remains uneven. Regulatory bodies may need to reassess how they weigh oral testimony and contextual patterns of behaviour in the absence of digital proof. The integrity of the profession depends not only on punishing misconduct but on ensuring consistent, equitable approaches to discipline that prioritize the safety and dignity of all legal workers. References [1] Law Society of Ontario v. Suh, 2023 ONLSTH 152 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlsth/doc/2023/2023onlsth152/2023onlsth152.html [2] Law Society of Ontario v. Moubarak, 2025 ONLSTH 116 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlsth/doc/2025/2025onlsth116/2025onlsth116.html [3] Paralegal Rules of Conduct – Law Society of Ontario https://lso.ca/about-lso/legislation-rules/paralegal-rules-of-conduct/complete-paralegal-rules-of-conduct [4] Paralegal Professional Conduct Guidelines – Law Society of Ontario https://lso.ca/about-lso/legislation-rules/paralegal-rules-of-conduct/paralegal-professional-conduct-guidelines

Written by:  Sara Santos-Vigneault Date:  October 22, 2025 Introduction Canada’s legal framework on abortion has undergone a dramatic transformation over the past 150 years — from total criminalization to full decriminalization. Today, access to abortion is governed by health regulations and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , specifically section 7, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person [1]. This article outlines the key legal turning points in Canada’s abortion laws, including landmark court rulings, changes in federal legislation, and the evolving role of health policy. Understanding this history offers critical insight into the legal rights and health protections available to individuals today. A Timeline of Key Legal Events 1869 – Criminal Prohibition Abortion was first criminalized in 1869. The offence carried a punishment of life imprisonment for both the person performing the abortion and the person receiving it [2]. 1892 – Criminal Code Codification Canada’s first Criminal Code  reinforced abortion as a criminal act. It also prohibited the sale and distribution of contraceptives [3]. 1929 – Women Are Declared "Persons" in Law In the Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General)  decision, known as the Persons Case , the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled on October 18, 1929 that women are legally recognized as “persons” under the British North America Act. This decision marked a fundamental shift in Canadian constitutional law and opened the door to broader legal recognition of women's rights [4]. 1969 – Limited Legalization (Bill C-150) The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69  (Bill C-150) introduced a narrow exception. Abortions were allowed if a Therapeutic Abortion Committee  (TAC) within an accredited hospital approved the procedure, confirming that the pregnancy posed a risk to the woman's life or health [5]. 1982 – Constitutional Foundations The enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  in 1982 laid the groundwork for future constitutional challenges. Section 7 became a key provision used to contest abortion restrictions [1]. 1988 – Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Law In R. v. Morgentaler , the Supreme Court declared section 251 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the abortion law violated section 7 by imposing unjustified barriers to health care access and bodily autonomy [6]. 1989 – Fetal Personhood Rejected In Tremblay v. Daigle , the Court held that a fetus has no legal status as a person under Quebec civil law or the Charter, and that men do not have legal standing to prevent an abortion [7]. 1993 – Federal vs. Provincial Jurisdiction In a second Morgentaler decision , the Court struck down Nova Scotia regulations that sought to restrict abortion through provincial health legislation, reaffirming that criminal law is a matter of federal  jurisdiction [8]. 2015–2019 – Introduction and Expansion of Mifegymiso In 2015, Health Canada  approved Mifegymiso , a two-drug combination for medical abortion. Initially, access was restricted, but between 2017 and 2019, prescribing conditions were relaxed, and all provinces and territories began covering it under public health insurance  [9][10][11]. Image by <a href= Legal Impact of the Morgentaler Decision (1988) The Supreme Court’s ruling in R. v. Morgentaler  was a constitutional milestone. The Court held that requiring TAC approval created unequal access, delays, and emotional distress. Chief Justice Dickson stated that the law interfered with a woman’s control over her own body — a core component of liberty and security under section 7 [6]. The decision did not establish a “right to abortion” per se but removed criminal barriers and left regulation to health systems and constitutional boundaries. Current Legal Framework and Federal Authority Today, there is no federal criminal law prohibiting abortion in Canada . Instead, abortion is treated as a health care service , regulated under provincial frameworks. Any future attempt to criminalize or limit abortion must comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , and satisfy the Oakes Test  — a legal standard requiring that rights limitations be justified in a free and democratic society. The Oakes test involves four criteria: a pressing and substantial objective, rational connection, minimal impairment, and proportionality [1]. Courts have consistently reaffirmed that health-related abortion access cannot be indirectly criminalized under provincial authority, as seen in R. v. Morgentaler (1993)  [8]. Access Challenges Despite Decriminalization While abortion is legal in Canada, access remains uneven across regions . Challenges include: Lack of providers in rural and remote areas Hospital policies that restrict services Misinformation and stigma Limited access to surgical abortion outside urban centres Health Canada’s loosening of Mifegymiso regulations has improved early abortion access, but physical and social barriers persist [10]. Image by <a href =" Global Context and Comparison Compared to other nations, Canada has one of the least restrictive legal environments for abortion. The procedure is treated solely as a health care matter, without criminal sanction. In contrast, countries like the United States have seen recent legal regressions, while others, such as Ireland and Argentina, have undergone liberalization only in the past decade. Canada’s model is frequently cited in international reproductive rights discussions as an example of Charter-based protection. Looking Forward: Emerging Legal and Policy Issues Legal access does not guarantee universal availability. Disparities persist, especially in remote, northern, and Indigenous communities  where health infrastructure is limited. Telemedicine and mail-order Mifegymiso have increased rural access, but broadband gaps and logistical challenges remain. Future legal debates may test the scope of provider conscience rights, the responsibilities of provinces to ensure equitable access, or Charter-based claims arising from health system delays. Conclusion Canada’s abortion law has evolved from criminal prohibition to a health care framework grounded in constitutional rights. The absence of criminal regulation reflects judicial recognition that reproductive autonomy is protected under section 7 of the Charter . Legal milestones such as R. v. Morgentaler (1988) , Tremblay v. Daigle (1989) , and the Persons Case (1929)  continue to shape the conversation around reproductive rights. However, ongoing vigilance is needed to ensure that legal access translates into practical availability for all who need it. References Department of Justice – The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html Pro-Choice Action Network – History of Abortion in Canada https://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/print-friendly/history-abortion.pdf Canadian Encyclopedia – Abortion in Canada https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/abortion Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) [1929] UKPC 86 – The Persons Case https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/ukpc/doc/1929/1929canlii368/1929canlii368.html Wikipedia – Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act,_1968%E2%80%9369 R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 (CanLII) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii90/1988canlii90.html Tremblay v. Daigle, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremblay_v_Daigle R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463 (CanLII) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1993/1993canlii74/1993canlii74.html Health Canada – Notice of Review of Mifegymiso (2015) https://dhpp.hpfb-dgpsa.ca/review-documents/resource/RDS00032 Health Canada – Removal of mandatory ultrasound for Mifegymiso (2019) https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/alert-recall/health-canada-approves-updates-mifegymiso-prescribing-information-ultrasound-no-longer-mandatory Health Canada – Summary Basis for extending gestational age to 63 days https://dhpp.hpfb-dgpsa.ca/review-documents/resource/RDS00294