Law Times

Law Times • November 21, 2016 Page 7 www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT Coping with anxiety after the U.S. election BY DORON GOLD S omething's in the air. It's kinetic, insecure and unnerving. You can feel it in talking to people in your office, watching usually funny late- night TV shows that now seem like wakes or just taking in the looks on people's faces as you walk past them on the street. Something's in the air. I hesitated to write too candidly about this topic because this is not a political col- umn and I do not wish to presume to offer political opinion in this space, so I won't. That said, the unexpected and, for some, alarming election of Donald J. Trump as the next president of the United States of America has caused a discernable, seismic shift in the emotional tectonic plates that make up our communities. This includes the legal community, which does not want for informed, opinionated people. I don't recall perceiving this much of a psy- chological unhinging in society since the days following 9/11. This is not to suggest that the events are in any way analogous but, simply, to observe how deep and pro- found the reaction seems to be. These days, much of the news is preceded by an urgent "Breaking News" banner with correspond- ing dramatic music. In addition, sexual assault victims, Hispanic and Muslim Americans, among others, have endured a steady stream of emotional triggers, not to mention the impact on children. As a therapist, my first reaction is to anticipate an increase in anx- iety-related client calls. This is borne out by recent media reports that document some- thing the American Psycho- logical Association has called "election-related stress." It's a real phenomenon and it doesn't have to be directly re- lated to news emanating from the U.S. election. Our culture of media saturation and per- petual connectivity renders us captive to an inf lux of news virtually designed purposefully to un- settle us. We've always had news, and the media truism that "If it bleeds, it leads" is not new. However, we now have infinitely more sources of "leads" inundating us with information that we may or may not need, which may or may not be healthy for us to take in. This comes in addition to what are already demanding lives as legal professionals, juggling time demands, cli- ent expectations, excessive workloads and the inherent challenges of staying current on jurisprudential developments. All of this calls for strategies to cope with and counteract anxiety. First, don't let anyone tell you to "get over it" or "stop whining." There is no such thing as an inappro- priate emotion, and if you feel scared, anxious or stressed, you're entitled to your feelings. Under the current circumstanc- es, you have many kindred spirits in that state of mind. With that having been said, you should also put your fears into perspective. There was a time when most of what we knew about people and cur- rent events did not extend beyond what was happening within a 10-kilometre or so ra- dius of our village or town. It's likely that our brains weren't built to take in 24 hours' worth of worldwide information, much of it sensational, dramatic and of- ten traumatic. It is for this reason that some have taken to adopting a "news diet." These individuals either minimize or en- tirely eliminate TV, radio or Internet news sources from their awareness. Another cornerstone of coping with generalized anxiety is the availability of social support. Whether from family, friends, partners, colleagues or support groups, we gain powerful healing powers from our non- judgmental, loving and accepting social connections. They are a lifeline in tough times. The non-judgmental part is impor- tant because not everyone is a good sup- port in each situation. Pick wisely; those that will accept you as you are will support you in that. When you find yourself overcome by anxious feelings, breathe. I know it sounds simple, but it works. It doesn't have to be full-out mindfulness meditation, though I highly recommend it. But, sometimes, you just need to do something to get out of your head and get present. Finding a focus in your breath and slowly breathing in and out and keeping that focus can do won- ders to bring you into the now and calm your anxieties. Good, consistent sleep hygiene is es- sential for healing and rejuvenation. Sleeping seven to eight hours, on a con- sistent schedule, with no distractions such as cellphones or TV, in total darkness, can do wonders to create a foundation of well- ness. So, too, do good nutrition and lim- ited or no alcohol, drug or caffeine intake help you heal and rejuvenate. All of this is in service of a simple prop- osition: If you don't take care of you, who will? When you feel distress or anxiety — sometimes reasonably rooted in what seem to be upheavals in the world — self- care is your salvation. Don't let Trump or anyone else frame your existence. Choose what matters and focus on that. In this case, choose you. LT u Doron Gold is a registered social worker who is also a former practising lawyer. He works with lawyers and law students in his role as a staff clinician and presenter with the Member Assistance Program as well as with members of the general public in his private psychotherapy practice. He's available at dorongold.com. Changes mean burdens for business? BY GRAHAM KING O n Dec. 10, 2015, the Ontario legislature passed the Budget Measures Act, 2015, which enacted a number of new statutes, including the Forfeited Corporate Prop- erty Act, 2015. The Act also amended various existing pieces of leg- islation, such as the provincial Business Corporations Act, the Corporations Act and the Not-for-Profit Cor- porations Act. The overarching purpose of these legislative changes is to improve the management of real property owned by Ontario corporations that is forfeited to the Ontario Crown. The forfeiture of real property to the Crown may be the result from various circumstances, including where a corporation is dissolved or struck from the re- cord and the real property held by the corporation is not properly dealt with prior to dissolution. The Forfeited Corporate Property Act and these amendments are set to come into force on Dec. 10 (ex- cept for the amendments to the Not-for-Profit Corpo- rations Act, which will come into force when the Not- for-Profit Corporations Act itself comes into force). It is worth noting that there is a grace period of two years following the entry into force of this new require- ment before it becomes applicable to existing corpora- tions (corporations incorporated after Dec. 10, 2016 will be required to comply immediately). As the Ministry of Infrastructure explained in a pa- per dated Aug. 11, 2016, the objectives are to reduce the number of corporate properties forfeited to the Crown, to return these properties to productive use more quick- ly, to increase corporate accountability for costs related to forfeitures and to be more transparent and certain in the management and disposition of forfeited property. While such goals are laudable in principle, there is risk that the way they have been implemented in the Forfeit- ed Corporate Property Act and related amendments to Ontario corporate statutes will result in the imposition of increased burdens on Ontario businesses and not-for- profit entities and potential exposure for failure to com- ply with these provisions on an ongoing basis. From a corporate document management standpoint, the key element of these legislative changes is the introduction of a new record-keeping duty on Ontario corporations. Following the entry into force of the FCPA and re- lated amendments to corporate statutes, the amended acts will require business and not-for-profit corpora- tions to maintain a register of their "ownership inter- ests in land in Ontario." This register will need to identify each piece of real property owned by the corporation as well as the date it was acquired and/or disposed, and will need to include copies of deeds, transfers or similar documents that contain information with respect to the real property's municipal address, identifier number, legal description and assessment roll number, if any. This new register may find its way into the current form of standard min- ute books that are generally in use and maintained by counsel or otherwise maintained by the corporation it- self. The new obligations may prove to be quite onerous to corporations that hold real property. Practically speaking, corporations (and their coun- sel) will likely spend a significant amount of time and resources to retrieve the information required to be listed in the ownership interests register and to update their minute books or records accordingly and on an ongoing basis. It is worth noting that there is a grace period of two years following the entry into force of this new require- ment before it becomes applicable to existing corpora- tions (corporations incorporated after Dec. 10, 2016 will be required to comply immediately). In a time of fi- nancial pressure on small businesses and not-for-profit entities to reduce legal spending, corporations would prefer fewer rather than additional requirements that will likely increase the cost and time required to main- tain and update corporate records. In addition, this new requirement seems to run against the current effort of many law firms and corporations to go "paperless." The actual wording of these legislative changes may be problematic from a practical business perspective as well. For instance, neither the Forfeited Corporate Property Act nor the amendments to the other acts provide a definition of "ownership interests." While this breadth and vagueness adds to the scope of the information to be provided in the new- ly required ownership interests register, it also ar- guably means that this new record-keeping obligation applies equally to registered owners and to beneficial owners of real property in Ontario. Many corporate groups use the distinction between legal and beneficial ownership of land when planning and structuring their ownership of real property and, therefore, this new record-keeping requirement may significantly impact that process. The new record-keeping requirements also increase Ontario corporations' exposure to fines for failure to comply with the provisions of their respective govern- ing statute. While some are of the view that the Ontario government does not currently impose fines or penal- ties on non-compliant corporations in every circum- stance, the reality is that the imposition of these new requirements does create additional obligations and related exposure, and such increased exposure is com- pounded by the practical challenge of maintaining a detailed ownership interests register when a corpora- tion owns many pieces of land or otherwise transacts real property on a regular basis. This could prove to be a significant development as fines and penalties imposed by Ontario corporate stat- utes can be quite significant. The Ontario government's objectives to deal with forfeited real property and the downloading of ad- ditional responsibility to corporations in this regard needs to be weighed and considered against the prac- tical implications of additional ongoing corporate re- cord management and potential additional exposure for non-compliance. It may also have some looking to incorporate under a less onerous statute, but for cur- rent Ontario corporations, it's time to update your books. LT u Graham King is a partner at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP and is the manager of BLG's Corporate/ Commercial and Private Company groups in Toronto. King received assistance for this piece from Pierre Permingeat, an associate, and Katherine Deakon, an articling student, at the firm. u SPEAKER'S CORNER The Lawyer Therapist Doron Gold

• Cover