The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/50547
Law Times • December 13, 2010 Nasty fight over redistribution bill in the House of Commons in January. He wants to add another 30 P seats to the Commons, which would bring the number of ridings to 338, and figures he could win a majority of them. Some MPs would have to sit out in the hallway or behind the curtains as a result. Of course, maybe they'd instead give up their nice desks and soft leather chairs to sit on benches as MPs in the British House of Com- mons do. But that's not the problem. Who gets the extra ridings is the big political conundrum. Harper wants the additional 30 seats to go to only three prov- inces — Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia — because that's where the population growth has been. Quebec and the Atlantic provinces want to hear none of his plan. They have no interest in losing any of their political clout. The seats in the Commons are supposed to be based on population. But it hasn't been that way since Confederation. Take the most recent glaring example of last month's byelec- tions. Vaughan riding, won by Julian Fantino, is just north of Toronto with a fast-growing population. It had 120,864 voters. But Winnipeg North, which is inside the city, has only 51,198 voters. They get to elect one MP each. Numerically, that's hard- ly fair. But it's like that all over the country. Redis- tribution is sorely needed. Some northern ridings have lots of bush areas and small popula- tions. Some are bigger than entire European countries. But merg- ing sparsely populated northern ridings wouldn't be fair to either their voters or their MPs. Harper and Steven Fletcher, his minister for democratic re- form, say they have it all fig- ured out. Ontario would get 12 more seats with most of them going to the 905 area outside of To- ronto, including places such as Vaughan. The plan would see five new Alberta ridings carved out of the area around Calgary, Harp- er's hometown. One seat could possibly go to the oilsands region of Fort McMurray. The B.C. ridings, meanwhile, would go to the Lower Main- land around Vancouver. There's lots of population growth in that part of the province. But the real fight is with Quebec. What should be purely a numbers game, if all things were mathematical, quickly turns into a political issue. With 75 ridings right now, Quebec has 24.4 per cent of all seats in the Commons. Harper's plan would reduce Quebec's share to rime Minister Stephen Harper is planning to stir up one nasty fight The Hill By Richard Cleroux 22.7 per cent of the seats. It doesn't sound like much of a demotion, but that's not the way Quebeckers see it. They're strongly op- posed to losing any of their influence in the Commons. It's already a big issue in Que- bec. People there call the Harp- er plan "English Canada, 30; Quebec, 0." That makes it look like a football score, and a lopsided one at that. It's not something you'd like to see for your prov- ince at the Grey Cup. Even the Quebec national assembly got involved when Harper tried to add seats for Western Canada a couple of years back. It passed a unani- mous resolution condemn- ing any federal legislation that would diminish the province's standing in the Commons. As for the Bloc Québécois, Harper is giving it a glori- ous election issue. Since the Bloc holds 47 of the 75 seats in Quebec and none outside of the province, it has noth- ing to gain and everything to lose under Harper's plan. As Bloc MP Pierre Paquette says, "It's just one more step to marginalize the Quebec nation even more." Oh, oh, it could be humilia- tion time again. It all comes af- ter Harper declared Quebeck- ers a nation and promised he'd always look after their interests within Confederation. Does Harper really want to pick a fight with Quebec go- ing into a general election? The Liberals, who hold 14 seats in Quebec, have to balance what they could lose there by voting for Harper's legislation against what they could gain among those 12 new seats in urban Ontario. For Harper's Conservatives, who hold only 11 of the 75 seats in Quebec, it looks like a lose- lose situation in that province. Harper might find himself kissing goodbye to Quebec MPs in return for gains in the rest of Canada. That's not an easy decision for any prime minister. At the same time, we still haven't heard from Atlantic Canada where people aren't known for gleefully letting out- siders grab more power and run their affairs for them. There's little wonder, then, why this is Harper's third crack at getting legislation related to seat allocation through the Commons. LT Richard Cleroux is a freelance re- porter and columnist on Parlia- ment Hill. His e-mail address is richardcleroux@rogers.com. COMMENT Appeal court overturns for equalization and support pursuant to the Fam- ily Law Act after the court has granted a divorce. This case, El Feky v. Tohamy, was both interest- questionable separation agreement T he Ontario Court of Appeal recently re- viewed the law as it relates to the two-year limitation period for commencing claims ing and disturbing at the same time. The parties involved were married in Egypt in 1982. They moved to Canada and resided in Ontario from 1991 until they separated in 2004. In 1992, the parties jointly owned a halal super- market as well as a company with an investment property likely worth several million dollars. By the time the par- ties separated, their two sons owned both the supermarket and the investment company with each having a 25-per-cent interest in them. Upon separation, Naima Mohamed El-Sayed Mohamed El Feky returned to Egypt. Just prior to her departure, Adel Mohamed Tohamy pro- vided her with a document purporting to be a settlement agreement. Pursuant to that agree- ment, El Feky was to receive $100,000 in lump- sum spousal support. She further released all other rights to equalization of net family prop- erty. She signed it without legal advice. In 2006, El Feky was served with a divorce application. Presumably, as she didn't respond to it, the parties were formally divorced that year. Subsequently, after her health began to deteriorate, she returned to Canada in 2008. At that time, her son presented her with a second separation agreement on behalf of Tohamy. This second document purported to provide her with a condo to live in while in Canada as well as $150,000 as an equalization payment with further releases of everything, including her equity in the matrimonial home. El Feky's son then took her to see a lawyer to get independent legal advice on the second agreement. Obviously, Tohamy was concerned about the enforceability of the first document for which she had no legal advice. Not surpris- ingly, the lawyer told her not to sign the agree- ment as it was entirely unfair and suggested she apply for legal aid. Unfortunately, after she was refused legal aid funding, her son took her back to the same lawyer while threatening that if she didn't sign the agreement, she would be home- less and he would "leave her there." The lawyer, of course, was very uncomfort- able as an argument broke out between him and the son. Aside from the obvious issues with this meeting, including the coercion and duress, El Feky's evidence centred on language issues given that she didn't speak English very well while the lawyer didn't know Arabic. At the same time, she didn't read English well and Editorial Correspondence LITTLE GRAVY AT BLUE MOUNTAIN The total cost per person of having the govern- ment's civil lawyers (saying Crowns misleads) is about $600 a person for 2 1/2 days of good- quality continuing legal education plus socializing and room and board. Compare that rate with one day of the cheapest not-for-profit CLE otherwise available that's substantially more than 2 1/2 days for the Association of Law Officers of the Crown conference with no room, no board, and maybe a lunch if you're lucky. Commercial CLE starts at at least a grand for a day, often more, with still no room or board. The association has booked a resort in the off- season so cheaply because there's really nothing to www.lawtimesnews.com Family Law By Marta Siemiarczuk didn't have any disclosure upon which to base a financial decision. But due to the duress she was under, she signed the agreement. The law- yer also signed a certificate of independent legal advice. What's most telling is the handwritten note El Feky put at the bottom of the agreement in Arabic while signing it. "I will never forgive you, and will never ever accept what you have done to me," she wrote. "Allah (Alone) is Suf- ficient for me, and He is the Best Disposer of affairs (for me). And you are unjust." Frankly, it doesn't get much clearer than that. Four months after the two-year limitation period had expired, El Feky commenced her appli- cation for equalization of net family property, support, and ancillary relief. In turn, Tohamy brought a motion for summary judgment rely- ing on the separation agreement as well as the expiry of the limitation period. The motions judge granted him summary judgment, which El Feky appealed. The Court of Appeal, per Justice Marc Rosen- berg, held that the motions judge made errors of law on two aspects of the three-part test to de- termine whether an extension of the limitation period ought to be granted and the motion for summary judgment dismissed. On the first point, Rosenberg ruled El Feky did in fact have apparent grounds for relief. At least on the face of it, she had a real claim for equalization, among other relief, under the Family Law and Di- vorce acts. In particular, Rosenberg held that the motions judged erred in considering whether El Feky had grounds for setting the agreement aside rather than whether she had a case for an appar- ent claim. In addition, he said El Feky, contrary to the finding of the motions judge, had acted in good faith in that she had no ulterior motive. The motions judge looked at the issue from the per- spective that she should have further investigated when her divorce had actually gone through. Finally, given the other two findings, the mo- tions judge didn't address the issue of prejudice to Tohamy. However, the appeal court deter- mined there really was no prejudice to him as he was at all times aware of exactly what El Feky's claims were and the delay was only four months after the expiry of the limitation period. The decision should be commended and should serve as a reminder that the courts will, whenever possible, apply the law to ensure that fairness prevails. LT Marta Siemiarczuk practises family law litigation and collaborative family law with Kathleen Chap- man and Associates in London, Ont. She can be reached at msiemiarczuk@gmail.com. do but meet and confer at the time of year chosen. If one is not out of town, one will be back at the office or not go for the full time and will lose a lot of the value of the meeting. It can be done but should not be. Alternatives are mainly university dorms when students aren't there. I have attended a ministry ses- sion there. It wasn't bad but was pretty spread out over a wide area, and even for a university, it wasn't that easy to accommodate the numbers that the an- nual conference has attracted. The concern is not about value for money; it's all about optics. Your article is some help with the re- alities, but let's have a thoroughly informed discus- sion. At Blue Mountain in late April or early May, there's lots of wet mud but not much gravy. Comment by John G. on lawtimesnews.com about "Should Crowns have 2011 conference at Blue Mountain?" PAGE 7