WOMANHOOD IS NOT A COSTUME AND I WILL NOT BOW

WOMANHOOD IS NOT A COSTUME AND I WILL NOT BOW By Councillor Lisa Robinson Let me say this as clearly as I can: I know what a woman is. And I will not lie about it. Not for applause. Not for politics. Not for anyone. Because this world has gone mad — Not by accident, but by design. They’re not just erasing definitions. They’re erasing us. They say a man can be a woman — No effort. No sacrifice. No truth. Just a statement… and suddenly, he belongs in our change rooms, our sports, our shelters, our prisons. He can win our medals, steal our scholarships, knock our daughters out cold in the ring — and be called brave. And if we dare speak up? We’re silenced. Fined. Fired. Dragged through the mud by the very institutions that once claimed to protect us. Well, not me. I was not elected to play pretend. I was not elected to obey a delusion. I was elected to lead. And I will lead with truth — even if I’m the last one left saying it. Because womanhood is not a costume. It is not a feeling. It is not a slogan on a rainbow sticker. It is flesh and blood. It is sacrifice. It is sacred. And it is ours. They call it inclusion. But who exactly are we including — and at whose expense? When a teenage girl trains for years, only to be beaten by a man in a skirt — is that inclusion? When a female inmate is locked in a cell with a man who calls himself “she” — is that progress? When girls on rugby fields are knocked breathless by men with every physical advantage — is that compassion? No. It is betrayal. A betrayal of women. A betrayal of truth. A betrayal of every mother, daughter, and sister who fought to be seen, heard, and respected. And here’s what makes it worse: Politicians like me? We don’t have to live with these policies. We don’t share bathrooms with the opposite sex. We don’t lose our scholarships to men. We don’t get our faces bloodied in a cage and called equal. We just vote. Then walk out the back door — untouched by the chaos we create. I will not be that kind of leader. Because I believe in boundaries. I believe in women’s rights. And I believe that lying to protect feelings while destroying reality isn’t kindness — it’s cowardice. So yes — I will say what others won’t. A woman is a woman. An adult female with XX chromosomes A man is a man. With XY Chromosomes And no law, no label, and no amount of lipstick will ever change that. We are not interchangeable. We are not props in someone else’s identity crisis. We are not placeholders for men who want a new costume. We are women. And we are not going away. Let me speak now to the women listening — The ones afraid to speak, scared to be called names, but who know in their bones: this is wrong. You are not crazy. You are not alone. And you are not the problem. You are the front line. The defenders of reality. The torchbearers your grandmothers once were. We are the daughters of iron. The mothers of nations. The keepers of truth. And we do not bow. Not to mob pressure. Not to fake science. Not to cowards in suits who traded courage for comfort. When the history books are written, I want it said: That we stood. That we told the truth. That we would not betray our daughters to win favour with liars. Let them sanction me. Let them slander me. Let them try to silence me. I will still be here — With truth in my spine, Fire in my voice, And every woman before me standing behind my words. This is our moment. This is the line. And we will not step back. Not now. Not ever. Councillor Lisa Robinson The People’s Councillor Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Truth, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It – Lisa Robinson 2023

Losing a Father Is a Bundle of Hurt

Losing a Father Is a Bundle of Hurt By W. Gifford-Jones MD and Diana Gifford I was 6 years old when I first calculated how many years I could expect to have with my father. He was 44 when I was born; and therefore 50 when I turned 6. I decided I would be lucky if I got to 35 and still had him. That would be 79 for him, and I felt that was an old age. Can you imagine how lucky I feel to have had him until 101? I’m grateful beyond words. Now, I am taking up the responsibility of writing the Gifford-Jones column – not as a doctor, but as a communicator. The immediate necessity is to say something helpful, something important, about an experience many of us will have during our lives: losing a father. I investigated the research. No two ways about it, we take a physical and psychological hit. From cellular level aging brought on by the physical impacts of grieving (sustained stress, disrupted sleep, poor diet) to the cognitive effects of loss (depressed mood and outlook, more substance abuse behaviours, anxiety), the death of one’s father is a bundled package of hurt. What would my father say about it? This is a question I will be asking myself every week going forward. I know what he did when I was hurt as a child – the kind of hurt that had me crying, a bad scrape on the knee or the sting of a bee. He’d touch me in the affected spot and let his touch linger. “Now,” he said, after a time, “doesn’t that feel better?” I got his point. Readers will hear echoes of his constant mantra. “Don’t be a wimp. Don’t take pills when there is an effective, natural alternative.” He practiced what he preached. When my father turned 90, I started to prepare for the day he would slow down. But he didn’t. He was launching another phase of his crusades. And what for? To fight big pharma. To demand better pain management and end-of-life care. To advocate for natural health. And most of all, to call on all humanity to improve our increasingly lousy lifestyle. You may recall, he wanted to throw rotten eggs at the Parliament buildings! And he had a few choice words for the newspaper editors who ceased publishing his column. For the past six years, it’s been an extraordinary collaboration writing this column with my father. He told me, “Don’t be a journalist if you are going to sit on the fence.” On some issues, we had some heated discussions! But the interviews we did together, the visits to natural health food stores, and the talks in communities increasingly closer to home, these are the occasions I enjoyed the most. Going forward, I plan a few crusades too. I will have my own opinions, and they may not always line up with his. I have a Harvard degree like my father, but even better, I have one from Wellesley. I’ve worked alongside global health experts at the World Bank and in the most impoverished places you can imagine. I am an advisor to the presidents of universities. I know where to find the research and who to talk to. You can count on me to simplify the complexities, identify what’s important, and cut out any baloney. And yes, the advice will be sharp – because some things, thankfully, are hereditary. For now, like many of you, I am grieving the loss of my father. But I take comfort in knowing how lucky we are to have had him in our lives. Thank you for all your messages, tributes, and personal stories that are pouring in. Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive my weekly e-newsletter. For comments, diana@docgiff.com. Follow on Instagram @diana_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

Waterleaks are Costly

Waterleaks are Costly By Maurice Brenner Regional Councillor Ward 1 Pickering As a Regional Councillor I have been receiving an increasing number of calls regarding a higher than normal water bill. While rates have increased in an effort to ensure adequate funds are available to cover the infrastructure required to provide clean water to your home along with the charge for sanitary/waste disposal, I am finding that more and more residents have been impacted by a water leak resulting in a substantial increase on their Water Bill which is why I want to focus on some simple tests you can do before it costs you. Ways to Spot a Water Leak before it costs you! Did you know that water leaks in your home are very common. A majority of leaks are silent, and are hard to spot. These silent leaks can end up causing a higher-than-usual water and sanitary/wastewaterbill. Here are some simple tips to help detect a leak before it costs you and could save the cost of ripping apart your walls and ceilings. Check Your water Meter for consumption: Water consumption is measured by the amount of water that passes through your water meter. Before going to bed, write down the number on your water meter. In most homes the water meter is located in the basement towards the front of your home. Do not run sprinklers, appliances or toilets overnight. When you get up, check the number on your meter. If the number has changed, this indicates water has been running through it which means there is a possibility that you have a water leak somewhere inside or your house. Once you have determined a possible leak, before you call the plumber, check your toilets as well as a visual check for dripping facets. By narrowing it down, you save the cost of the plumber looking for the problem. How to Test for leaks: One of the most likely causes of a high water and wastewater bill is a running toilet. The best way to check for a running toilet is to: i Remove the tank lid from the back of the toilet. ii Put a dye tablet or five drops of food colouring in the toilet tank. You can also use Worcestershire sauce or another dark liquid. iii Close the toilet lid and wait 30 minutes – It is important not to use or flush the toilet during this time. After 30 minutes look at the water in the toilet bowl to determine if the the dyed water has found its way into into the bowel. If the bowl is clear and all that means the toilet likely doesn’t have a leak. iv Repeat this with every toilet in your home. v If you not been able to confirm the source is a running toilet, conduct a visual check of each of your facets, a little drip surprisingly adds up. A hot water drip will also increase your other utility bills Once you have confirmed the source or if unable to find the source call a licensed plumber, but if at all possible avoid the weekends when you will be paying a premium. There is no point in calling Durham Region since they are not responsible for any water leaks inside your home.

** REMEMBERING COUNCILLOR JOHN AKER ** THE FIRST OF MY NEW SUMMER SERIES COLUMNS

** REMEMBERING COUNCILLOR JOHN AKER ** THE FIRST OF MY NEW SUMMER SERIES COLUMNS I WRITE THIS COLUMN in memory of my friend and one-time colleague, John Aker. John served his community for 33 years - on both City and Regional Councils, as well as a decade at the Ontario Municipal Board. John said his final goodbye on Thursday February 4th, 2021, at the age of 78. This is his story. One meaningful event can make a world of difference for a young man who might be trying to navigate his way into the world of politics. For 29 year old John Aker, it was the decision by a close friend not to seek re-election. That announcement would lead to John putting his own name forward for a seat on Oshawa Council. The year was 1972. When I spoke with John in summer of 2020, he enjoyed recalling his first election win, an event that would set the stage for many such victories during his career. The ‘72 election was a watershed – not only for him but for the entire council. That year saw an incredible turnover, and John described it as an “exciting time”. When I asked him to share his memories of those with whom he served, John responded without hesitation, telling me his years on council were shared with “good spirited people” who tried to do the right thing for everyone. John was born in Edmonton, and came to Oshawa with his parents at the age of two, attending St Gregory School and O’Neill Collegiate. He would eventually go off to Queens University in Kingston, obtaining a Bachelor of Commerce degree, which he said held him in good stead. It was during his university days that John was fortunate enough to gain yearly summer employment at the William Street offices of General Motors. While many of his friends from school were doing manual jobs they didn’t like, he found himself wearing a jacket and tie, doing work he always felt was interesting. Over time, he would join Schofield-Aker Insurance in 1970, a firm bought by his father Reg Aker in 1954, eventually taking over the business in 1985. We talked about how different city council was back in the 1970’s, and he reminded me that most, if not all of those on council, did the job part time, as they were already fully employed. City hall staff were the full-time career professionals who held the most influence in those days. Since then, the number of full-time councilors (the term ‘alderman’ having been abolished) has increased significantly, and as such, the influence of municipal staff has - to a degree, waned. Long term, career politicians with a lot of experience are now more common. The formation of the Region of Durham in 1974 was the first major issue John would encounter as a city alderman, and we discussed the long debates and the intricacies involved with the amalgamation of policing, and the creation of various regional departments. He was proud of his involvement in helping to bring further growth by way of the Oshawa hospital expansion, as well as the establishment of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, which he said helped transform this city from a one-industry town into a place where careers are now developed in many walks of life. Looking back, I encouraged John to recall some of the good times shared with those among his colleagues he most enjoyed working with. His first thoughts were about his friend Jim Potticary, who spent eight years as mayor. John told me everyone used to call Mayor Potticary “Gentleman Jim”, and that he’d never seen anyone enjoy a job quite as much. John did, however recall some difficult moments in his career, one of which took place a little too close to home. In 1992, a foster home for young offenders was proposed in his own neighbourhood. When residents became aware, they sent flyers door to door, and John would receive at least 65 telephone calls from concerned residents. The foster home never did receive approval, however the memory of that day remained in John’s mind, describing it to me as a daunting moment to stand in front of a group of angry residents that were also his neighbours. There were many significant issues over the years that John had to wrestle with, including Sunday shopping, the implementation of Oshawa’s first ward system, the ongoing battles with the Port Authority, downtown revitalization, and the debate over ‘transparency’ in government. John’s second stretch as a member of council (his first being 1973 to 1997) was probably the most challenging. His election in 2010 marked an incredible eight year, two-term comeback for a man who had years earlier decided to close the book on an honourable career. John showed everyone he had an important role to play as an ‘elder statesman’, bringing a voice of experience and reason to an otherwise unwieldy council. A September 2014 Article in the Globe and Mail described Oshawa Council at that time as a ‘political circus’ with elected members shouting each other down, citizens protesting and being tackled by undercover police, and a serious division among councilors. Still, John was able to stand on a solid footing and survive the melee, as the scenes that played out month after month went against his own desire to work with others to find common ground. John used to tell me with confidence that Oshawa will remain a prosperous city in the decades to come due to its geographic location between Toronto and Kingston. He said the amazing network of new highways will ensure further new development, the likes of which Oshawa has never before witnessed, and although something of the size and scope of General Motors may never be seen again, Oshawa definitely turned a corner in its pursuit of higher education that will meet the needs of generations to come. To quote my friend directly, “Whether we knew it or not, Oshawa long ago began a worthwhile transformation from a one industry town into a modern, cosmopolitan community where new opportunities exist.” John Aker gave as much as one man could to the community he truly loved.

ADVERTISING!!! OR DECEPTION?

ADVERTISING!!! OR DECEPTION? B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States They say we simulate what we see on television... If so, then this explains why I am missing most of tip of my fingers.... Ok. Stop laughing... Let me explain. Everyone has seen the McDonald commercial as that of most other hamburger chain ads.... A huge burger eaten by an actor.. Pretending they are getting a mouth full of burger with every bite. Only, to purchase one and the happy meals and the toy is a magnifying glass.... so that you can use on finding the burger on an overly small bun. Should these ads not be removed from broadcasting as they are misleading and not true to the reality of what is being served. Subway not to long ago got pinched by the government for advertising sandwiches that did not reflect the reality of what they serve. I know first hand.... Subway workers... appear to take offense when asked for more toping.... it is as it come out of their pay. Needless to say. I will not buy from Subway. But the food industry is not the only to blame. Have you seen the casino ads. Talk about deceptive. Not to mention the sea of ‘apps’ associated with major brand casinos. This is a horrible attempt at deception. To make comments as “COME FEEL THE FUN” and they show a formula one car racing through some casino arcade. Or the fancy graphic from particular themes.... making statements... The Fun awaits... Like really are there that many stupid people out there...... What am I saying.  There obviously are that many stupid people. Why would casino’s spend such revenue on the production of such an elaborate advertising campaign. It is as if we live in an era of the stupid... We are led to believe to be true things that defy logic. Things that make no sense... We are brought to edge of insanity with the promise of a better tomorrow all knowing that the sacred land is not attainable. I am not a gambler. I watch my kids play regular video games and rejoice on the completion of each stage... Only for me to look at them and think. They are being brain washed into believing they actually are playing a part on the outcome that has been pre-destined/set by some computer software engineer. The bottom line you never win... As success is based on your ability to make a sequence of mathematical choices. Much like in life. Success is not for everyone. We are genetically programmed to fail. Our social/education system constantly tests us. The casino industry plays on this. Promise the holy land and deliver the hell of the reality of loosing time and time again. The only difference in the video game model. You at least get to re-try for free. In the casino model. You keep loosing and loosing. Talk about loosing... Have you ever seen the Pharma commercials...beautiful displays of the promise land.... only to be told at the end that it does not really cure anything and if anything it may end up killing you.... (it is like having a head ache and Pharma sells you a bullet to shoot yourself in the foot. Head ache gone.) Life is complicated enough without misleading ads.

Tariffs -- Canada vs the United States

Tariffs -- Canada vs the United States by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The saga of tariffs continues at the mercy of the United States. President Donald Trump continues to weaponize import duties, cajoling and bullying nations to agree to hastily enacted trade deals that oftentimes fall woefully short of addressing even the most basic tenets of his perceived gripes. With deadlines set and postponed, he creates a continuous incertitude, more accurately referred to as chaos. This treacherous landscape makes for a bruising and precarious dialogue between North America’s two biggest trading partners and once-great friends. The announcement of a 35 per cent increase in tariffs on all Canadian goods by August 1 places Ottawa’s leaders between a proverbial rock and a hard place. Prime Minister Mark Carney will have a difficult job navigating these precarious turbulences. This is the environment Canadian negotiators find themselves in. One small misstep has the potential to send talks screeching to an abrupt halt, and the very real possibility of being on the bruising end of this unhinged President’s scathing tirades. As the Aug 1 deadline for a Canada-U.S. trade deal gets closer, Prime Minister Mark Carney has stated that it is unlikely a deal will be made without some level of tariffs. This was the first public admission from Carney although he recently expressed some doubt that Ottawa could immediately lift some of Trump’s tariffs during trade talks. President Donald Trump appeared to be losing patience with his administration’s efforts to make trade deals with nations around the world. The President has been sending letters to trading partners, including Canada, threatening to impose higher tariff rates on Aug. 1. The letter addressed to Carney last week said Canada would be hit with 35 per cent tariffs but the White House later stipulated it would not include goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. The President’s actions and approach to the tariffs issue is creating a very complicated trade problem to resolve. President Trump posted a letter to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on social media that said Mexico would be hit with a 30 per cent rate. A separate letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared a 30 per cent rate for the European Union. There is no clarity on why Canada is facing a higher tariff than either Mexico or the EU. It is strange but we are living in a strange world. Canada and Mexico are the top two U.S. trade partners, and Canada is a national security partner as well. Yet we have no reasonable explanation as to why Canada is hit with a 35 (per cent) tariff while Mexico only gets a 30 (per cent) tariff. Prime Minister Mark Carney has been proactive on defence and border security spending. It would be hard for the United States to claim Canada was not bargaining in good faith. While Canada was “nice,” it got hit with a tariff nearly as high as the 50 per cent Brazil is facing. It does not make any sense. It makes sense only if the President of the United States is still aiming to make Canada the 51 US state. In that case, putting such immense pressure on the Canadian economy might be an effort to make Canada surrender. Prime Minister Carney and President Trump have been negotiating what they have referred to as a new economic and security pact since the pair met at the White House in early May. At the G7 summit last month, Carney said they had set July 21 as a deadline for reaching that deal. However, Trump unilaterally delayed it to Aug 1st. Trump raised tariffs on steel and aluminum from 25 to 50 per cent in June and Carney has held off following suit pending the possibility of a deal. Canada has made a few other moves to aid industry on this side of the border, including new limits on the amount of foreign steel that can come in before high tariffs are charged. Canada also implemented a new interim policy on reciprocal procurement to restrict the ability of companies to bid on government contracts if their home country limits Canadian access to their government contracts President Trump has also raised the tariffs on copper by 50 per cent recently. According to data, the U.S. was Canada’s largest copper importer in 2023. In a Truth Social post, Trump’s ominous message portends the upheaval that is on the horizon. He stated, “America will, once again, build a DOMINANT Copper Industry. THIS IS, AFTER ALL, OUR GOLDEN AGE!” Let’s face it, there is a fundamental asymmetry in the Canada-U.S. trading relationship. We are largely in the business of exporting commodities and intermediate goods, and that gives president Trump a certain amount of advantage. However, it also exposes U.S. industries, U.S. manufacturers. We are already seeing evidence of that in the 50 per cent tariff on aluminum which creates problems for US manufacturers. In this surreal environment of trade negotiations with the United States I sincerely hope that Canada will emerge with the least amount of damage. Only time will tell if we have succeeded or not. It is a difficult job and needs real skill. Let us hope Prime Minister Carney and his team will be able to make the best deal for Canada. Long live Canada!

UN Human Rights Council Faces Criticism for Including Countries Accused of Abusing Women

UN Human Rights Council Faces Criticism for Including Countries Accused of Abusing Women By Dale Jodoin Geneva The United Nations Human Rights Council is once again under fire after new members were elected to its 47 nation panel, including several countries with poor records on women’s rights and human freedoms. The Human Rights Council, created in 2006 to promote and protect global human rights, has drawn criticism for allowing nations accused of human rights violations to serve on the very body meant to stop such abuses. Critics say that some of these countries treat women like second-class citizens or worse—and yet still sit in judgment of others. “It’s hard to take the Council seriously when it includes governments that don’t even give their own women basic rights,” said one analyst. “Some of these nations lock up protesters, punish free speech, and control women’s lives in ways that would never be accepted in democracies.” Women’s Rights Concerns Several current and former Council members have been called out by international human rights groups for strict control over women. In Iran, women can be arrested for not wearing the proper head covering, or hijab. In 2022, a young woman named Mahsa Amini died in police custody after being detained by Iran’s morality police. Her death led to widespread protests, which were met with crackdowns, beatings, and arrests. In Afghanistan, where the Taliban regained power in 2021, girls have been banned from attending school beyond grade six. Women are restricted from most jobs and cannot travel without a male guardian. Many are required to wear full-body coverings in public. In Saudi Arabia, women still live under a system of male guardianship. While some laws have been relaxed in recent years, many women must still seek permission from a male relative to travel, marry, or be released from prison. Some women’s rights activists remain in detention. Other countries, such as Somalia and Sudan, have also been accused of failing to protect women from abuse, forced marriage, or harmful practices like female genital mutilation. Double Standards Accused Despite these serious concerns, several of these countries have served or continue to serve on the Council. Meanwhile, Israel continues to face repeated criticism from the body, prompting allegations of political bias. Israel is the only country that is singled out in a permanent item on the Council’s agenda. Many human rights advocates and independent observers say this focus is unfair when other member states have far worse human rights records, including state violence and systemic abuse. “Israel is a democracy,” said one human rights scholar. “People there have freedom of speech, women vote, there’s a free press. But it gets condemned more than countries where women can’t even leave the house without permission.” In contrast, China, which has been accused of detaining over a million Uyghur Muslims in internment camps, and North Korea, known for extreme censorship and widespread starvation, have received far less attention from the Council in recent years. A History of Controversy The Human Rights Council was formed to replace the earlier Commission on Human Rights, which was shut down because it had allowed notorious rights violators to serve. Now, critics say the same problems are happening again. Countries are elected to the Council by the General Assembly through regional group votes. That system has allowed nations with poor human rights records to win seats, often uncontested. In recent elections, Iran, China, Sudan, Qatar, and Venezuela have all either served or competed for seats. Some critics argue that the Council has become more political than principled. “It’s no longer about protecting people,” said a former UN official. “It’s about scoring political points and protecting allies.” What Reform Might Look Like Some diplomats and rights organizations are now calling for stricter rules on membership. Ideas include banning countries with ongoing human rights investigations, requiring open voting, or even creating a separate watchdog group to review candidates before elections. Others suggest that Council votes should be tied to actual human rights records, not just regional agreements or backroom deals. So far, no major changes have been adopted. The Human Cost While diplomats argue and policies stall, people around the world continue to suffer. Women are denied education, protesters are jailed, and entire communities are silenced. Observers warn that unless the Council is reformed, it risks losing its credibility. “The world needs a real voice for human rights,” said one analyst. “But that voice gets weaker every time a government that hurts its own people is allowed to sit at the table.”

You Are a 'Perfect Fit' Job Seekers: Do Not Assume You Are a 'Perfect Fit'

Job Seekers: Do Not Assume You Are a 'Perfect Fit' By Nick Kossovan I repeatedly hear, or read it in online venting comments, as I'm sure you also do, something along the lines of "I've been job searching for over seven months and have applied to more than 600 jobs that I'm more than I'm a perfect fit for and only gotten three interviews." Tip: Never vent your frustrations on public forums, such as LinkedIn; it shows employers you can't control your emotions. It's not a brag that job seekers think it is to apply to over 600 jobs. Applying to more than 20 jobs a week—four quality applications a day—is akin to spraying and praying, which isn't a job search strategy; it's a lazy approach. However, I want to focus on the words "perfect fit," which are highly subjective due to the varying degrees of nuance that define what "perfect fit" means to the person using the term. When you claim you'd be a "perfect fit," you're basing your assumption on how you compare to the job description. Essentially, you're ticking off boxes, believing that if you tick all or most boxes, then you're a "perfect fit." What you're not considering is that you have no idea what's happening behind the scenes, and that a large part of hiring decisions comes down to gut feel. As I've mentioned in previous columns, being likeable supersedes your skills and experience. I don't know a hiring manager who hires candidates they don't like. It doesn't matter if you think you're a perfect fit. What matters is whether the person reading your résumé and interviewing you thinks you are. A candidate's skills and qualifications aren't the only factors considered in hiring decisions; also assessed: · How well you'll fit with the team—will the current team accept you?—and the company's culture. (Employers don't hire disruptors.) · Your communication and soft skills (These are my 'must-haves.' When hiring, my primary concern is the candidate's verbal and written communication skills.) · Your energy level. · Are you a flight risk? · Whether your qualifications are "too much" of a good thing. Then there's the elephant in the room: something you can't control. If the hiring manager sees you as a threat to their position, you're not a perfect fit. You wouldn't hire someone who could jeopardize your job or disrupt your team, so why would you expect the hiring manager to do differently? Unless you've spent time within the company, seeing how the sausage is made, attending boardroom meetings, speaking with hiring managers and employees at all levels, and eating in the lunchroom, you can't be certain you're a "perfect fit." You're assuming. You may believe your résumé matches the job description, but unless you're being referred, you have no insight into how the person you'll be reporting to leads and manages, or what keeps them awake at night. You don't know the challenges the company is facing or the internal politics at play. Since the concept of being a "perfect fit" is subjective, there's no guaranteed way to make yourself appear like the perfect fit. However, you can increase your chances of being considered a "perfect fit" by focusing less on your skills and qualifications and more on coming across as a safe, low-risk hiring choice—hiring managers tend to prefer candidates who won't be disruptors. Low risk = perfect fit One thing job seekers often overlook is that hiring decisions are visible to everyone in the company. Making a bad hire, which I've done several times, is never a good look and can cast doubt on your judgment skills. The last thing a hiring manager wants to hear is "Did you hire Bob? He's a train wreck!" Understandably, especially given today's job market, employees worry about keeping their jobs; therefore, they're concerned with how they're being perceived by their boss and their boss's boss. Being worried about "What will the boss and the team think?" is why hiring managers tend to prefer candidates who come across as predictable and low-risk. Consequently, being overqualified and having employment gaps are often viewed as liabilities, and why ageism persists. Rightly or wrongly, these factors are often considered high-risk red flags when making hiring decisions. In uncertain times, such as we're currently experiencing and will likely be for the foreseeable future, employers tend to favour candidates who appear steady rather than bold. There are three aspects of a candidate that determine whether they're likely to be a low-risk hire: 1. Ability to perform the job effectively 2. Shows stability TIP: In your résumé and LinkedIn profile, include the reason for your current career gap and explain what you're doing to stay current in your profession and industry. 3. Aligns well with the company culture Whenever you're being interviewed, it's because the employer believes you're qualified for the role. Ultimately, the purpose of an interview is to assess whether you'd be someone who'll likely fit well with the current team and culture. Here's what you need to accept: the decision whether you're a fit or not is entirely out of your hands. All you can do is show you're a "great match," but never assume you're a "perfect fit."

Taxed to Death: Why Canadians Are Going Underground

Taxed to Death: Why Canadians Are Going Underground By Dale Jodoin Every day, more Canadians wake up wondering how they’re going to make it to the end of the month. Prices are up, wages are flat, and the only thing growing is the list of taxes on everything we do. Rent is now so high it feels like a joke. Grocery bills are eating paychecks whole. Power prices are through the roof, and with the government pushing electric cars on everyone, don’t expect that to change anytime soon. They keep telling us this is all for the greater good. That it’s about saving the planet or growing the economy or whatever new excuse they roll out. But regular Canadians aren’t seeing the benefit. They’re being left behind. What we’re seeing is the slow death of the middle class, and worse, the rise of a new kind of silent economy one where you have to hide what you earn just to survive. The Liberals and the NDP have turned Canada into a land of hidden hustle. Not the fun kind of hustle you post about on Instagram. This is quiet, backdoor work. This is cutting lawns for cash, fixing cars in the garage, selling baked goods out of your kitchen, or helping people move for a twenty-dollar handshake. No paperwork. No receipts. No CRA. Why? Because the second you play by the rules, the system bleeds you dry. That’s the new Canadian reality. You can work hard, pay your taxes, follow the law, and still not afford a normal life. Or you can take your chances, keep your mouth shut, and do what needs to be done. And it’s not just a few people doing this anymore. It’s spreading. Fast. The only way to survive in this new Canada is to stop telling the government everything. That sounds harsh, maybe even illegal, but look around. We’re being pushed into it. The government will call it tax fraud. They’ll say you’re a criminal. But what do you call it when a system forces its people to go broke for simply trying to live? We used to be proud of our country. We used to brag about how great Canada was. But now, more and more people are ashamed. Not of being Canadian but of what’s being done in our name. While Ottawa talks about equality, they give handouts to people who just arrived while the ones who’ve worked here all their lives get told to wait. While the elite throw money at green energy plans and fancy carbon credits, average folks can’t even fill their gas tank. And while politicians pose for the cameras, Canadians are sitting in the dark because they can’t pay the power bill. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This is everyday life now. The rich are still rich. The poor are still poor. But the working class, the ones who kept the country going, are being punished for simply existing. It’s not about right or left anymore. It’s about survival. People are afraid to speak up. They’re afraid their neighbours might report them. They’re afraid of audits, fines, or worse. We’ve created a country where you don’t know who to trust, where even doing an honest day’s work might come back to bite you if you mention it to the wrong person. That’s not freedom. That’s fear. And the fear is growing. The more the government taxes, the more people hide. And the more people hide, the more the government tightens its grip. It’s a loop. One that’s hard to break. And they know it. They want control. They don’t want independent Canadians. They want dependents. They want us poor, desperate, and obedient. That’s why they tax small businesses harder than corporations. That’s why they punish side hustles but let billion-dollar companies skate by with loopholes. That’s why they praise people who rely on government programs, but shame the ones who try to make it on their own. They’re building a country where hard work doesn’t pay and independence is punished. But there’s still a fight left in us. There are still people out there who aren’t ready to give up. If you’ve got a skill for anything from carpentry to cutting hair you need to keep it close and keep it quiet. Don’t advertise online. Don’t trust platforms that track you. Use word of mouth. Free papers. Posters on local boards. Your neighbour’s garage. Keep it small, keep it moving, and keep the government out of it. That might sound un-Canadian to some, but ask yourself: what’s more Canadian than helping your neighbour, working hard, and asking for nothing but a fair chance? That’s not a crime. That’s community. This isn’t about greed. It’s about survival. The people who defend the system will keep calling us lazy, selfish, or paranoid. But they’re the ones who benefit from it. They’re the ones who get the subsidies, the free education, the special grants, the electric car rebates, the carbon credit bonuses. Regular Canadians get none of that. We just get taxed. Again and again. And if we complain? We’re told we’re the problem. That we need to sacrifice more. That we need to work harder. We’ve been doing that. And we’re done. If this country wants to keep the lights on, it better start listening to the ones paying the bills. Because when we all go underground, the system will collapse. And maybe that’s what it needs. Maybe it’s time to stop pretending that everything’s fine. Because it’s not. The country we knew is gone. And if we want to survive what’s coming next, we can’t wait for someone to save us. We have to save ourselves. Quietly. Carefully. Together.

Court Finds Employer Broke Contract, Awards $456,908 to Dismissed Executive

Court Finds Employer Broke Contract, Awards $456,908 to Dismissed Executive By Tahir Khorasanee, LL.M. Senior Associate, Steinbergs LLP In a case that underlines the importance of sticking to written agreements, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered Artisan Development Labs Inc. and its subsidiary, Artisan Cell Labs Inc., to pay $456,908 to former Executive Vice-President Dr. Nicholas Timmins. The court concluded that Artisan “by their correspondence and actions” repudiated—meaning fundamentally broke—the employment contract when they dismissed Dr. Timmins and failed to honour the severance terms it had promised. A Contractual Promise Unfulfilled Dr. Timmins began working for Arte­san’s American parent company in November 2019, earning an annual salary of $475,782 CAD, plus stock options, benefits and a performance bonus. In 2021 he moved to Toronto to establish Artisan Cell Labs Inc., the company’s Canadian operation, and was promoted to Executive Vice-President. His 2019 employment agreement clearly stated that if he was dismissed without cause, he was entitled to the greater of: Three months’ pay in lieu of notice, or His minimum statutory entitlement under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). Despite this clear promise, in March 2023 Dr. Timmins received only one week of ESA-minimum notice pay. The letter explaining his termination also tied any additional severance to Dr. Timmins signing a “full and final release,” which would bar him from pursuing any further claim against the company. What “Repudiation” Means When one side to a written contract shows—by words or by conduct—that it no longer intends to be bound by the contract’s terms, courts call that a “repudiation.” In such cases, the innocent party can treat the contract as ended and seek damages under common-law rules. Here, Justice Callaghan agreed with Dr. Timmins that Artisan’s insistence on a release before paying contractual severance made no sense if the company truly intended to honour its three-month notice promise. How the Court Calculated Damages Rather than simply order the three months’ payment, the court moved to assess a fair amount of notice under common law, applying the familiar Bardal factors: Age (44 years) Length of service (3.5 years) Character of employment (senior executive role) Availability of similar work (niche gene-therapy sector) Balancing these considerations, Justice Callaghan set a nine-month notice period. Nine months’ worth of salary, benefits, pension contributions, phone allowance and a prorated bonus totals $456,908. A Warning Shot to Employers For businesses of all sizes, the decision is a vivid reminder: honour your written termination clauses. If you condition contractual severance on signing a broad release—or impose any hidden requirement—courts may find you have repudiated the contract, leaving you exposed to larger common-law awards. Practical Takeaways Draft Clear, Stand-Alone Clauses: Ensure severance or notice provisions are written plainly and without strings attached. Separate Release Agreements: If you require a release or confidentiality covenant, present it in a distinct document—not as a condition to pay what’s already owed. Train HR Teams: Make sure those who handle terminations understand that contractual entitlements must be honoured in full. Budget Accordingly: Factoring in the risk of repudiation claims can save six-figure surprises down the road. Broader Impact Although this dispute involved a high-earning executive in the biotech field, the ruling has implications for workers at every level. Any employee whose contract specifies a fixed amount of severance or notice, now has clear authority to demand common law severance, which is often much higher than the contractual amount. Case Reference: Timmins v. Artisan Cells, 2025 CanLII 2387 (Ont. S.C.J.) Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

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

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.

Employers Do Not Care About ‘Your Whys.’ They Care About ‘Their Whys.’

Employers Do Not Care About ‘Your Whys.’ They Care About ‘Their Whys.’ By Nick Kossovan Outside of you, nobody really cares about your "whys." Therefore, an effective way to build a relationship with someone is to show them you care about their whys. The ability to cultivate strong bonds with others is a valuable skill that will significantly enhance your personal and professional life. A job search and life tip: When you meet someone for the first time, ask yourself, “How can I help this person?” When interviewing, keep asking yourself, “How can I help this person?” Keeping this question top of mind will change how you interview and come across. For one thing, you will be more consultative rather than the typical "I need a job" candidate. You will be that rare candidate who asserts, "I can help you achieve your goals; here is how," which is very attractive. "Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961 When it comes to searching for a job, some of your whys may be: · To be able to make your mortgage payments. · To be able to buy food. · To be able to vacation in Costa Rica. · To be able to own a car. · To forward your career. There are countless reasons why someone needs a job and is job searching. Employers are not concerned with any of them. Employers are concerned with their whys. An employer's top four reasons (whys) for hiring for a particular position are: · To maintain their business. · To handle an increasing workload · To grow their business. · To enhance their competitiveness by adding new skills or perspectives. Note none of the employer's whys are "to create a job so a new hire can fulfill their whys." It is your responsibility to manage your career and finances and the employer's responsibility to ensure that their company remains in business and grows. Employers are not in the job-creating business; they are in the profit-making business. Therefore, all their whys lean towards creating and maintaining profits. It is not the goal of a company to increase its workforce. A company's goal is the opposite: Having as few employees as possible while being successful. Care and friendship are not part of the bargain of employment. The deal is 'a day's pay for a day's work.' Anything more than that is either luck or brilliant management. Years ago, I had a tense conversation with a C-suite executive, which ended with, "This company didn't create your lifestyle, so why do you think we should be responsible for it?" Eventually, I realized his point. I was thinking backwards! I was expecting my employer to care about my whys without me caring about my employer’s whys. Once I stopped looking to employers to take care of me, my career trajectory and job search success significantly improved. I was now giving off the "vibe" — your vibes are an integral part of your communication; therefore, always be aware of the vibes you are giving off — that I was looking to help the employer achieve their goals, not just help myself. My vibe differentiated me from the other candidates. Employers will lean into you much more if they feel you genuinely want to help them achieve their goals. This requires understanding why the job you are applying for exists, how it fulfills a need or will help achieve a goal(s). (e.g., increase revenue, lower production costs, maintain a high-value client, increase efficiency) When applying for a job, consider why the position exists. All positions exist to fulfill an essential function. The person hired to fill a position is hired based on their ability to perform and achieve the position's goals. The next time you apply for a job, do something most job seekers never do… reflect on the purpose of the job. Ask yourself, "Why did the company create this position?" "Why does this job exist?" Then, address these whys throughout your application (resume, cover letter) and when interviewing. Holistic reasons a position exists: · Payroll manager: Manage payroll. · Office manager: Oversee office operations. · Social Media Manager: Manage the company's social channels. · Warehouse Order Picker: Pick and package items. The employer's reason for creating the position. · Payroll manager: Ensure that payroll is processed accurately and that payroll tax laws are followed precisely. · Office manager: Maintain an efficient and cost-effective office. · Social Media Manager: Plan, create and execute content strategies to drive engagement on a company's social platforms. · Warehouse Order Picker: Pick and prepare requested items for shipping and complete the necessary paperwork, ensuring orders are processed correctly. You cannot go wrong presenting yourself to employers in such a way that your skills, experience, and, most importantly, your desire to assist the employer in achieving their goals are evident. Nowadays, in addition to having the skills and experience to do the job, employers are looking for employees who are genuinely committed to helping their business succeed. A savvy job seeker focuses on how they can help the employer achieve their whys (goals). Their personal whys are not their primary focus. This is how you make yourself valuable to employers.

GIBERSON PREDICTS COURT CHALLENGES AS COUNCILLORS VOTE TO APPROVE SOCIAL SERVICES BYLAW CHANGES

GIBERSON PREDICTS COURT CHALLENGES AS COUNCILLORS VOTE TO APPROVE SOCIAL SERVICES BYLAW CHANGES I BEGAN A SIX-PART SERIES of social media essays in 2020 on the topic of homelessness in the city of Oshawa, and I can tell you that, five years and over 16,000 views later, the issues I wrote about then are still very much the same now. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and I made some lasting friendships along the way. It was also a real eye-opener as I went into the camps to see, first hand, much of what being homeless was all about. I interviewed elected officials and those living and working in the downtown, and I also spent time volunteering for a local meal program. All-in-all it was a disturbing scene, but one filled with a sense of community built on the relationship between those living in desperate conditions, and the army of volunteers and agencies who work so hard to offer support. Looking back at all that I did to immerse myself into the world of homelessness, I can recall standing in line at a now-closed charity on Simcoe Street awaiting a meal prepared by a team of volunteers – in absolutely sweltering conditions. I learned much that day by eating and talking with the men and women who actually rely on local charities and other agencies for their day-to-day survival. Which brings us to the present time, and the debate over changes made to a municipal by-law governing the number and location of social services within the city’s limits. In summary, Oshawa councillors recently approved amendments that would require a considerable separation between new and existing agencies and charities that serve the homeless. Other retail entities were also affected, however the focus of public debate has so-far been focused on the affect these new rules may have on services available for those most vulnerable. At a special council meeting held on Thursday morning, several residents were joined by representatives of the AIDS Committee of Durham Region, as well as the John Howard Society, to express their concerns. The underlying message sent to councillors appeared to be one of implied deceit, with several delegations questioning the ‘real intent’ of the proposed changes. One resident, currently working towards his Masters of Urban Planning degree, appeared before council to suggest the vote would be based more on ‘identity’ than on actual land use aspects. Another resident went so far as to accuse councillors of potential discrimination bordering on Human Rights violations. The specter of going against such laws was also brought to the fore by councillor Derek Giberson – who has, himself, been a board member for the Back Door Mission, a collaborative social service and primary health care HUB located at the Simcoe St. United Church. It is well known the Mission has received an extension to allow them time to find a new space, as the church officially closed, having held their last service in April 2024. That means much of what councillor Giberson said was undoubtedly driven by the likelihood of the Mission being shut out of a large geographical area which surrounds the downtown. However, during his questioning of one of the delegations, he seemed to offer up an entirely different scenario, “If a pre-existing organization in a primary location wants to open a satellite location, would they start ‘massing up’ at their current location…which would go against the intent of these by-law changes?” And that’s not all. On one of his social media pages, the Ward 4 councillor took his colleagues to task by way of a few pre-emptive remarks: “If tomorrow's Zoning By-law amendment passes…it will prevent any new social services operated by a non-profit or charity from opening anywhere in the City of Oshawa within an 800 metre radius of an existing social service… Two letter-writers have already identified the serious concern that it may not pass a Human Rights Code test.” Added to this was a hint dropped by councillor Giberson in the same social media post, perhaps unwittingly, where he appeared to shed light on a potential relocation of the Back Door Mission: “Also included is ‘Dispensing from or receiving at the building clothing and household articles’, prohibiting a place of worship that doesn't currently provide this type of assistance from starting up such a service…” Is it possible the Mission may have found another willing host but inadvertently missed the boat on a new location? Meanwhile, councillor Brian Nicholson who represents Ward 5, itself being inclusive of a portion of the greater downtown area, offered the following comments on his own social media page: “Rather than get into a back and forth with those spreading the false rumours, I would like to express a few simple thoughts. Nothing in the proposed changes impacts the location of existing social services and support groups nor does it limit access to those services… One thing that has been learned from the last decade or so is that locating all social services uses in a confined area leads to many issues for both those in need of services and those resident in the community. It cannot be a one way conversation. Compassion must be offered to both those in need and those living in communities.” He went on to add, “The proposed changes being discussed tomorrow are not a hurried response as claimed by opponents, but a well thought out compromise put forward by planning professionals that both protects the services of those in need and protects the safety and integrity of neighbourhoods and residents impacted by these services.” So, there were specific comments made during the special council meeting which really caught my attention. One of the delegations referred to what she called the “social services industry”, and suggested any blanket ban on new services would essentially be a “freeze on growth.” That aspect was repeated in a question from councillor Giberson: “Some organizations mature and become ‘provincial’… Is this a barrier to that growth?” to which the delegation replied, “Yes.” Another delegation who represents a newly established social services agency lamented the fact they were unable to locate in the downtown, and suggested, “We’re getting bigger and have…federal agencies looking at us now.” Although ‘non-conforming uses’ as they are known, still retain the ability to expand at their current locations, one got the sense that those representing such agencies are more concerned with opportunities for growth than they are at maintaining a balance between those services and the needs of residents and business who call downtown Oshawa their home. Clare Hewitt, the co-founder of Redemption House of Recovery, told councillors, “800 metres (separation between agencies) will stop people from using services. They will stay where the drugs are… People on the streets need to be navigated.” I’ll leave my readers to contemplate the meaning of his remarks.

Canada Day 2025

Canada Day 2025 by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East This year is the 158th anniversary of a country still called Canada. Mired by the dark aspersions cast on our history and the complicated world situation we find ourselves in, we need to remember that we are still Canadians and be proud of it. As we reflect on events since the beginning of the year, let us hope that this year Canada Day will finally bring the nation a glimmer of hope and that the second half of 2025 will be better. Let’s take a moment to consider the incredible contributions made by Canadians throughout our history. Their efforts have helped to make the country what it is today; a country of vibrant cities and strong rural communities. Canada is a place where cultural freedom still flourishes, and Canadians from all backgrounds are still free to express themselves and help our country prosper despite recent tendencies to restrict these freedoms. Successive waves of immigrants from France, Ireland, Germany, the United Kingdom and other countries together with Indigenous people have helped to forge our nation’s unique character. Through their efforts, our communities have become a distinct part of the Canadian identity which we need to preserve rather than deny. We should honour this legacy while we recognize that we can do better in the future. Let’s be proud of our combined anglophone, francophone and indigenous heritage and seek a strong and constructive cooperation with all our people of different backgrounds for a better Canada. Canada was not born of bloody conflict. It emerged from a lengthy process of brainstorming about practical matters, of negotiations, proposals, and legislative ratifications. On July 1, 1867, the Confederation of four Canadian provinces created our country and with the inclusion of Lower Canada – now Quebec – it ensured from the outset that Canada would be a blend of two nations, two cultures and two languages. The acceptance of both civil and common law systems is a factor that still makes Canada a helpful player on the international scene. And from the outset, religious tolerance was Canada’s only option. The enactment of the British North America Act, 1867 (today called the Constitution Act, 1867), which made the confederation of the provinces law, was celebrated on July 1, 1867, with the ringing of the bells at the Cathedral Church of St. James in Toronto. Contemporary accounts of the celebration also describe "bonfires, fireworks and illuminations, excursions, military displays and musical and other entertainments". On June 20 of the following year, Governor General the Viscount Monck issued a royal proclamation asking for Canadians to celebrate the anniversary of Confederation. However, the holiday was not established in statute until May 15, 1879, when it was designated Dominion Day, alluding to the reference in the British North America Act to the country as a dominion. The holiday was initially not dominant in the national calendar; celebrations were mounted by local communities and the Governor General hosted a party at Rideau Hall. No larger celebrations were held until 1917 and then none again for a further decade—the gold and diamond anniversaries of Confederation, respectively. Canada's centennial in 1967 is often seen as an important milestone in the history of Canadian nationalism and in Canada's maturing as a distinct, independent country, after which Dominion Day became more popular with average Canadians. Some Canadians were, by the early 1980s, informally referring to the holiday as Canada Day, a practice that caused some controversy. However, with the granting of Royal Assent, the holiday's name was officially changed to Canada Day on October 27, 1982. Canada Day coincides with Memorial Day in Newfoundland and Labrador, with memorials typically held in the morning of July 1. As the anniversary of Confederation, Dominion Day, and later Canada Day, was the date set to commemorate a number of important events. It was the first national radio network hookup by the Canadian National Railway (1927). It was the inauguration of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's cross-country television broadcast, with Governor General Vincent Massey's Dominion Day speech from Parliament Hill (1958) and the flooding of the Saint Lawrence Seaway (1958); It was the first colour television transmission in Canada (1966); the inauguration of the Order of Canada (1967); and the establishment of "O Canada" as the country's national anthem (1980). Other events fell on the same day coincidentally, such as the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916, shortly after which Newfoundland recognized July 1 as Memorial Day to commemorate the Newfoundland Regiment's heavy losses during the battle. Our nation is facing greater challenges today, than ever before. These include economic hardship, less reliance on our neighbour on the South, and issues related to a new conflagration in Europe and Middle East, high unemployment and seriously escalating social problems. Let us again show that we support each other. This community spirit is one of the most admirable characteristics of being Canadian. On July the 1st let’s celebrate our country’s achievements and use them, not our failings, as a foundation to build a better and a brighter future together. Let’s celebrate our unity and our treasured country. Happy enlightened Canada Day!

So Many Questions

So Many Questions By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist A while back I was having dinner with a friend when her son came home with his girlfriend. They are in their twenties and recent graduates of university. With their careers on track, their next step according to them is to plan for buying a house and planning their future together. As many people do, they have amassed a lot of information, but it was apparent after just a few minutes of conversation that much of the information they were equipped with was flat out wrong. So began an evening of answering many questions and dispelling many myths regarding purchasing a home. It was very impromptu but welcome at the same time as I hate to see people wondering around ill-informed when it comes to buying a home. Misinformation in this area can literally alter the trajectory of someone’s life. If a person is not aware of their options, they often make decisions that they would not have otherwise made, but they weren’t aware of what was available to them. One of the first questions they had was regarding income. In an effort to bump up their income, they were not only working but they had put together a little side business. Their business was viable and generated income. The problem was that they were just taking the income as it came in and putting it in the bank. They thought that if they just put the money in the bank and told the bank officer where it had come from that all would be well, and it could be considered part of their overall income. I told them that if they wanted it to count as income that would be recognized by the bank when it came time to get a mortgage that they would have to structure that income as being received through their small business and that they would have to open a business account and show that to the bank officer. One thing about income that hasn’t changed too much over the years is that banks want to see stable sources of income, and they want to see proper documentation. A good rule of thumb is that to have part-time income included you should have that part-time job for 2 years. That is the same for self-employed people. Another question they had pertained to downpayment. All of the examples they had seen referred to a 20% downpayment. So, naturally they thought that they needed to come up with 20% down as a minimum. That is not accurate. 5% is the requirement. The reason 20% is always thrown out there is because when you put 20% down you do not have to obtain mortgage insurance through CMHC. There is a minimal cost for the insurance and that is factored into your payments. While the more you can put down, the better it is for you, you can get into the market at 5% down. Never hesitate to ask questions.