The Toughest Column to Write

The Toughest Column to Write By W. Gifford-Jones MD and Diana Gifford A few days ago, I departed this planet with great reluctance during this, my 102nd trip around the sun. But I offer these final words with readers. I have never missed a week in over 50 years of writing this column. Possibly this persistence will help me squeeze through the Pearly Gates! Some will say, “Not bloody likely.” As I look back on my journalism career, it reminds me of the introduction to the book, A Tale of Two Cities. It was the best of times; it was worst of times. There were times when my life was threatened because I took on controversial issues, particularly the right of women to safe abortion. Opponents found fault with my work to legalize heroin for the treatment of terminal cancer pain. One well-known health organization labelled me “a headline-seeking medical journalist.” Other critics lied about the pain-killing advantages of heroin. When finally legalized, some hospitals set up foolish roadblocks to heroin’s use as pain therapy. Do I have regrets? Yes, the anxiety my work caused my family. I could have avoided trouble. But I’d have been an awful hypocrite, and I can’t stand hypocrisy. Besides, my DNA has never allowed me to be a fence-sitter. So, apart from some difficult bumps along the way, being a surgeon and medical journalist has been a wonderful dual ride, and “the best of times”. Final advice for readers? Remember, “If you keep going to hell you will eventually get there.” Living with a faulty lifestyle, fools attempt at the end of life what smart people do at the start. So, don’t fall victim to “pillitis” and take a pill for every ache and pain. Take prescription drugs for the shortest possible time, as they almost always add risks of terrible side effects. Above all, keep in mind what I stressed for years, that many natural remedies in health food stores are safe, less expensive, and should be tried first before prescription drugs, surgery, or other medical treatments. I want to mention the vital role that Susan, my wife, played. As my editor, she frequently kept me out of trouble with the words, “You can’t say that!” She was right 99 percent of the time. I’ll miss her presence, guidance, and love more than I can say. If there is a Pearly Gate I will be waiting at it for her and my family. I’m fortunate that my daughter, Diana, will carry on this column. She was too smart to become a doctor, and that’s why readers will learn a lot from her perspective on health and wellbeing, and about how the world actually works. How I’ll miss my almost daily chats with her. On a philosophical note, I was convinced long ago that “The problems of society are caused by so-called intelligent people who are largely fools.” I haven’t changed my mind. Shakespeare was right when he wrote “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves.” Unfortunately, humans have never learned the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as would you have them do unto you.” Do I have any last wishes? Yes, I’ve always said, “Freedom of the press only belongs to those who own the newspaper.” So, whatever type of media exists behind those Pearly Gates, I want total ownership. I hope a loving God shares my opinion. My best wishes to all readers and editors for good health and longevity. W. Gifford-Jones _________________________________________________________________________ Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive our weekly e-newsletter. For comments, contact-us@docgiff.com. Follow us Instagram @docgiff and @diana_gifford_jones

Know before you sign by Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist

Know before you sign by Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist As an option to purchasing a cottage, many people purchase a trailer. There are a few different types but if you are purchasing a trailer as opposed to buying a cottage, chances are you are going to purchase one in an established trailer park. I myself had a great trailer for many years in a park in Trent River, a little hamlet next to Havelock, Ontario. That is the most common scenario for trailers. There are a few others and that is what I am going to shed some light on here today. When you head out of the city in any direction you eventually find yourself in beautiful farm country of some sort. With so many lakes and rivers in Ontario there are thousands of parcels of land for sale in the province. Some large others small. Some with water on the property or adjacent to a lake river or stream. A new build is often attractive to people who feel they cannot afford to purchase an established property. In that scenario, you buy the land and then at some point, and there is usually no time limit, you build your house on your land. Some one came to me recently and told me that they had done exactly that. They had purchased a beautiful large vacant waterfront lot in a small hamlet east of Oshawa. The lot was fully serviced, meaning it had hydro and water available. The couple were thrilled that they had this beautiful lot. They purchased a 40-foot house trailer and had it delivered to the lot. After some settling in, everything looked gorgeous. They soon received notice from the township that there were no trailers allowed on the property. They were devastated. They were on the hook for the trailer because they had just purchased it. They also were the owners of the parcel of land. They had no idea that there would be such a problem given that they were the owners of the land. They had seen other trailers in other areas sitting nicely at the water’s edge and never thought that they would have this issue. There was in fact a bylaw for that area that there were no trailers allowed on a vacant lot. Not even while you build your house. The morale here is to never assume that what is perfectly okay in one area is alright in another. Not even in the same area. I would personally go to the city or town office with the paperwork of the lot or parcel I was planning to purchase and have them sign off on what is or isn’t allowed before I would sign on the dotted line. Too many people sign first and ask questions later. This can get very expensive if you try to fight it or try to get a variance for your property. In the end your best bet is always to do your home work.

WE LOST A GREAT ONE…

WE LOST A GREAT ONE... B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States With sadness in my heart I report to you today the passing of a great man. A man that was a friend and associate and an over all exceptional human being. He was one of our first columnist at the Central over 30 years ago. Dr. Ken Walker was born in Croydon, England, the son of Walter and Annie Walker. At the age of three, his parents emigrated to Montreal and later moved to Niagara Falls, Ontario. He received premedical training at the University of Toronto and graduated from the Harvard Medical School. He trained in surgery at the University of Rochester, McGill University and later at the Harvard Medical School. He was also a family doctor, hotel doctor at the Manoir Richelieu Hotel at Murray Bay, Quebec, and ship’s surgeon where on his first Atlantic crossing had to remove the captain of his command due to illness. For 25 years Dr. Walker practiced as gynecological surgeon in Niagara Falls and then was appointed to the staff at Toronto Western and Toronto General hospitals. He authored 10 books and was a medical journalist for over 50 years, published by dozens of newspapers in Canada and the U.S. under the pseudonym, W. Gifford-Jones M.D. A strong advocate for women’s rights, medical assistance in dying, and common-sense health, one of his many campaigns was to legalize heroin in Canada to ease the pain of terminal cancer. He was a founding member of The Lincoln Trust and Savings Company. His foundation provided funds to establish the Gifford-Jones Professorship in Pain Control and Palliative Care at the University of Toronto Medical School. He often joked that he was refused admission to the University of Toronto Medical School so was forced to attend Harvard where the admission standards were lower, grateful to be accepted at the Harvard Medical School and even more grateful to graduate. His column stressed over the years the advantages of living a healthy lifestyle. He often wrote about controversial issues, and never as a fence-sitter. As occasionally his columns were rejected by editors, he often expressed the hope that, if there is a Valhalla somewhere, he would own all the newspapers. Dr. Walker enjoyed 70 years with Susan, his wife and constant companion. He will be missed by Susan, his four children and 12 grandchildren. He will be missed and never forgotten. Ken Walker M.D. (W. Gifford-Jones M.D.) February 28,1924 – July 1, 2025

Provincial Regulatory Bodies -- a brake on the development of Canada

Provincial Regulatory Bodies -- a brake on the development of Canada by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Lead by Prime Minister Mark Carney, the federal government is rapidly taking steps to eliminate the interprovincial trade barriers under its jurisdiction. It has now removed all 53 federal exemptions in the Canada Free Trade Agreement that would inhibit interprovincial trade. The Prime Minister had significantly reduced the number of federal barriers prior to the spring election, but there were still almost two dozen exemptions left in place, primarily for national security reasons. The Liberals’ Bill C-5, aimed at removing the federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility, was passed nearly unanimously by MPs on June 20, shortly before the House rose for the summer break. The bill moved onto the Senate and was passed late last week, jut before the first of July, as promised. Some provinces have themselves been taking action to remove internal trade barriers, signing agreements and memorandums of understanding to do so. Despite this, several sticking points remain in place and many interprovincial trade barriers continue to exist. These include geographic restrictions on the sale of certain goods, regulatory and policy differences across jurisdictions, and hurdles to labour mobility. The committee on internal trade — made up of provincial ministers and premiers representing all of Canada’s provinces and territories — is set to convene on July 8, at which point it will lay out any progress individual jurisdictions have made to scrap their own exceptions under the trade agreement. One of the main issues is the reluctance of provincial licensing bodies to act in the interest of Canadians rather than their own self-interest. Basically, nothing has changed on the licensing of foreign trained Canadians in the last half century. There are still barriers to getting a licence, only now the process is more sophisticated. The provincial ministers, whose responsibilities form a part of the act of the licensing bodies, have never taken an interest in participating in the licensing process, and exerting their powers to keep the associations faithful to the interests of Canadians. This is the reason that licensing bodies have ignored the respective ministries and have done whatever was convenient for them, in the name of protecting public safety. It is well known that regulating the professions is a provincial responsibility and regulatory bodies approach their role by looking at academic credentials, usually finding fault with foreign credentials, asking candidates to sit additional examinations. Then they look for experience in general and find gaps. The federal government could easily eliminate many of these hurdles by exercising its right to sign international agreements with countries for reciprocal recognition of credentials. The European Union for example, does just that, in order to facilitate the movement of professionals among its 27 member states. So what are we waiting for? Once the recognition of credentials is in place, the regulatory bodies cannot invoke academic credentials issues and must apply their particular examination to all candidates equally, be they Canadian or foreign educated. These actions of the provincial regulatory bodies put a brake on Canadian economic revival. Canada immigration is looking for qualified people to come to Canada and making decisions based on the qualifications of potential immigrants. However, they fail to advise candidates of the provincial regulations of the professions. Therefore, we find physicians, engineers, nurses etc. coming to Canada and finding that they cannot exercise their profession. This is a major loss for both the individual and the country. There are many testimonies confirming just that, and I can personally attest to this with respect to my experience with the Professional Engineers Ontario. For many newcomers, rebuilding a career in Canada often means starting from scratch. Despite years of experience and training, they arrive to find their qualifications questioned and careers derailed by opaque licensing rules and persistent barriers to credential recognition. For decades, Canada has positioned itself as a global magnet for skilled immigrants, promising opportunity to those with education and experience. Over the past 25 years the country has shifted to a model where immigrants are required to study or work here as temporary residents before becoming eligible for permanent status. The aim has been to prioritize those with Canadian education and work experience in a bid to solve the “lack of Canadian experience” for which earlier immigrants were penalized. While some improvements have been made over the years — the federal government in March announced funding of up to $52 million toward foreign credential recognition. The question is who will administer this money? The regulatory bodies; the wolves in sheep’s clothing? This shift has not fixed problems such as the devaluation of foreign credentials, or the persistent wage gaps and underemployment faced by newcomers. The result is a system that still underutilizes skilled immigrants, leaving many in precarious work situations — despite critical labour shortages and an aging population — and it is estimated to cost Canada $50 billion in lost GDP each year. “Are we actually recognizing foreign credentials better? Not really,” said Rupa Banerjee, associate professor at Toronto Metropolitan University and Canada Research Chair of economic inclusion, employment and entrepreneurship of Canada’s immigrants. Rather than addressing barriers newcomers face; that prevent them from applying their existing qualifications, “we’ve circumvented this issue of foreign credentials as much as possible by really prioritizing people with Canadian education and experience.” There is no “convincing evidence that credential recognition has gotten demonstrably better” said Tricia Williams, director of research at the Future Skills Centre. “For every example of a regulated profession that’s gotten better, there’s others that have stayed the same.” More then a quarter-century ago, the Toronto Star raised many of the same questions, documenting the struggles and aspirations of newcomers like myself. I was interviewed in 1989 while trying to navigate Ontario’s professional engineer licensing system. And don’t forget: to be a Canadian engineer who can practice in every province and territory, you need 13 licences. Is this right? It was difficult to succeed in Canada despite many qualifications, but I enrolled in the Canadian Military Engineers, served the country in overseas missions, and ultimately I was elected as a Member of Parliament. By the way, engineers in the Parliament of Canada are like endangered species. It is time for Canada to seriously re-evaluate the role of self-regulating professional associations; to make them progressive and not a brake on the economic development of Canada. What do you think?

Modern Day Slavery: The Silence They Ignore

Modern Day Slavery: The Silence They Ignore By Dale Jodoin Slavery still exists. Today, it's called human trafficking and illegal immigration. While everyone argues over slavery from 400 years ago, they ignore the slavery right in front of them. This silence is not an accident. It’s deliberate, because modern slavery benefits people in power. Human trafficking is organized slavery. Migrants pay cartels to be smuggled across borders. When they arrive, they owe a debt. That debt is enforced through violence and fear. These people, men, women, and children are forced into labour, drug running, and prostitution. Speaking out means deportation or death. Businesses quietly profit. Undocumented workers are cheap, desperate, and replaceable. They can’t form unions. They don’t complain. Farms, factories, and service jobs all benefit. And politicians look the other way because it keeps industries fed and the economy humming. That’s the truth. Liberals say they defend the vulnerable. But they fight to protect systems that trap people in modern slavery. They call it compassion. They say it’s about opportunity. But how is it compassion to leave someone in a job they can’t quit, earning wages they can’t live on, under threat from violent traffickers? Cartels thrive on this system. Trafficking migrants is big business. Some are used to smuggle drugs. Others are forced into sex work. Debt keeps them trapped. Fear keeps them quiet. This isn’t just happening at the border, it's everywhere. In cities. In the suburbs. In towns where no one thinks to look. Sex trafficking is another form of slavery. Girls and women are taken from India, Asia, Central and South America. Many are drugged, raped, beaten, and sold repeatedly. They’re forced to work as prostitutes and are punished if they resist. Some never escape. Where’s the outrage? Where are the marches, the speeches, the social media campaigns? The same people who demand reparations for past injustices ignore the suffering of people enslaved today. They don’t want to confront the truth, especially when the criminals involved belong to politically protected groups. In Canada and the U.S., the justice system goes soft on minority offenders. Judges hand out light sentences for human trafficking, especially when the accused are Indigenous, Black, or part of another minority group. The idea is to avoid appearing racist. The result is a free pass for traffickers. Gangs of every background are involved: Black gangs, Indigenous gangs, Chinese mobs, and white supremacist groups. They all traffic humans. They all profit. White gangs are just as guilty, often working across state lines, moving drugs and women like cargo. Some are tied to biker gangs and nationalist militias that preach hate while running trafficking rings behind the scenes. Yet they’re rarely exposed because law enforcement fears being accused of profiling, or worse, targeting protected identities unfairly. And still, nothing changes. Speaking honestly gets you labeled racist. That fear keeps people silent. That silence protects criminals. In Canada, Indigenous girls go missing every year. The numbers are staggering. Many families are still waiting for answers. Some of these girls are assumed to have been trafficked, but we don’t truly know how many have fallen into modern slavery. The data is limited, the investigations are weak, and too many cases remain unsolved. The truth is buried under bureaucracy and silence. The UN claims to stand against human trafficking. Yet it often prioritizes politics over victims. Conferences are held. Speeches are made. But the criminals stay in business, and the slaves stay hidden. Liberals cry about the past while ignoring the present. They demand payment for slavery that ended generations ago but won’t confront the slavery happening now. Their outrage is selective. Their compassion is fake. And their silence makes them complicit. This is not about deportation or closed borders. It’s about the truth. People are being enslaved right now. Girls are being raped. Men are being forced to work under threat of violence. Children are vanishing. And the systems built to stop it are protecting the perpetrators. This is not a mystery. We know where it happens. We know who does it. But nothing changes. Because the truth is inconvenient. Because it challenges the narratives. Because it exposes the lies. Human trafficking is the slavery of today. It's in your city. Your neighbourhood. And maybe even your street. But no one talks about it because it doesn’t make anyone feel good. Because there’s no easy villain to blame. Because it might force people to face hard facts. The media avoids it. Politicians downplay it. Activists stay quiet. And victims keep suffering. That’s the cost of silence. That’s the price of fake compassion. We need honesty. We need courage. And we need to stop pretending this isn’t happening. Call it what it is: slavery. No more excuses. No more cover-ups. No more lies.

Ontario’s Court of Appeal Declares ESA-Only Termination Clauses Alive and Well

Ontario’s Court of Appeal Declares ESA-Only Termination Clauses Alive and Well By Tahir Khorasanee, LL.M. Senior Associate, Steinbergs LLP When the Ontario Court of Appeal released Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc., 2025 ONCA 379, employment-law Twitter lit up with a single, incredulous question: Did the Court really just bless an ESA-only clause? It did—and in doing so, it handed employers their clearest roadmap in years for limiting termination packages to the Employment Standards Act’s bare minimums. A meteoric rise—and a four-week fall The appellant, identified as G.B., joined Toronto-based cybersecurity firm Datastealth Inc. in May 2024 as a vice-president on a $300-thousand salary. Less than nine months later he was let go without cause and given four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice— inclusive of the 1 week notice required under section 57 of the ESA for employees with under one year of service. Believing he deserved 12 months’ reasonable notice at common law, G.B. sued. His entire case turned on one paragraph in his contract. The clause under the microscope The deal Datastealth presented G.B. read in part: “If your employment is terminated with or without cause, you will be provided with only the minimum payments and entitlements owed under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000… including notice (or termination pay), severance pay (if applicable) and benefit continuation. …If any of your entitlements under this Agreement are, or could be, less than your minimum entitlements under the ESA, you shall instead receive your minimum entitlements under the ESA.” That final sentence—the so-called failsafe—was Datastealth’s insurance policy: if the clause ever drifted below ESA floor, the ESA kicked back in. Ambiguity argument: the employee’s Hail-Mary G.B. conceded the wording tracked the statute, yet insisted it was ambiguous because a layperson might think the company could fire for mere negligence without pay, contrary to the ESA’s stricter “wilful misconduct” standard. If a clause is even potentially ESA-offside, courts usually strike it down; ambiguity is fatal. The motion judge’s first-down ruling On a Rule 21 motion Datastealth asked the Superior Court to strike the claim outright. Justice Morgan obliged, finding “no reasonable interpretation” that violated the ESA and dismissing the suit without leave to amend. G.B. appealed, arguing the judge set the bar for ambiguity too high. The Appeal Court’s playbook: common-sense, not conjecture Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice Lauwers sided with the employer on every point: Reasonable interpretation trumps fanciful fears. The test is how the clause can fairly be read, not how an uninformed reader might misread it. “With or without cause” does not invite ESA breaches. Read together with the failsafe, the phrase cannot authorize sub-standard notice. Legalese is allowed when the meaning is clear. Phrases like “termination pay” and “severance pay” come straight from the ESA; using them does not create uncertainty. Finding no ambiguity, no contracting-out, and no public-policy concern, the Court of Appeal dismissed the case. Game over. Why Bertsch matters beyond one executive’s paycheque A rare appellate stamp of approval. Since Waksdale (2020), employers have watched a string of lower-court cases gut termination clauses for the slightest drafting slip. Bertsch is the first Ontario Court of Appeal decision in years to uphold an ESA-only provision in its entirety—without blue-pencilling or judicial rescue. Practical language gets a thumbs-up. The Court accepted a straightforward “minimum-standards-only” clause plus a failsafe, rejecting arguments that more elaborate wording is needed to fence off every hypothetical pitfall. The “ordinary person” test takes a backseat. Plaintiffs often argue termination clauses must be intelligible to the non-lawyer employee. The Court clarified that contracts are interpreted objectively, not subjectively, and that reasonableness—not perfection—is the yardstick. Ripple effects across Canada. The decision aligns with British Columbia’s Egan v. Harbour Air Seaplanes (2024 BCCA 222), hinting at a cross-provincial shift toward enforcing plainly drafted ESA or CLC clauses. Playbook for employers: drafting lessons from Bertsch Do Don’t Anchor every entitlement to the ESA—reference the Act explicitly and spell out that statutory minimums are the ceiling as well as the floor. Use blanket language that could be read as limiting benefits or bonuses below statutory thresholds. Include a failsafe: If any portion of the clause is or could be illegal, ESA minima govern. Assume a failsafe alone can cure sloppy drafting—courts still scrutinise the entire agreement. Specify “with or without cause.” This signals the clause covers both no-cause and just-cause scenarios while still bowing to ESA limits. List grounds like “negligence” or “poor performance” that fall short of “wilful misconduct”—that wording invites attack. Keep it reader-friendly but precise. Clear headings (“Termination Pay”) and bullet points help defeat ambiguity claims. Bury critical language in tiny font or dense paragraphs—courts look at structure as well as words. What employees—and their counsel—need to watch Short service, big risk. Senior recruits lured by glossy titles but thin tenure are the most exposed under ESA-only clauses; bargaining for a guaranteed minimum beyond the ESA should be priority one during negotiations. Failsafe ≠ free pass. If any other clause (bonus plan, stock options, confidentiality) purports to claw back amounts on termination that violate the ESA, the entire contract can still fall. Fresh consideration matters. Amendments tightening termination rights mid-employment require something of value in return—for example, a promotion or signing bonus—or they may fail for lack of consideration. Will this change the litigation landscape? Probably—but not overnight. Plaintiffs’ lawyers will still test the limits of every clause, and trial-level judges remain free to distinguish Bertsch on its facts. Yet the ruling offers a powerful precedent: employers who mirror the Datastealth language and respect ESA floors stand a solid chance of early dismissal motions succeeding, sparing six-figure litigation costs. Final whistle For years, HR professionals have juggled duelling dicta: draft ESA-only clauses for cost certainty, but fear they’ll be struck down in court. Bertsch v. Datastealth finally tilts the field back toward predictability. The Court of Appeal didn’t invent a magic incantation—it simply applied first principles of contract interpretation and statutory compliance. The takeaway is refreshingly mundane: write clearly, honour the ESA, add a failsafe, and your clause should stand. In an era when termination-clause litigation has become a cottage industry, that bit of common-sense guidance is worth far more than the four weeks’ pay Datastealth cut to its ex-VP.