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.

BEACHES CLOSED!!!

BEACHES CLOSED!!! B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Is it just me... or has the world gone mad.  I remember the days of my youth. Living in Uruguay South America. Summer days would see extreme heat. You could almost smell the sun in the air. Going to the beach was the only way to keep cool... Back then air conditions were a luxury most could not afford. The only relief if not the beach was a good siesta on a cold tile floor. At times going to the beach could be frightening. They had the ‘RED’ flag signaling strong tide, winds, unpredicted waves and the odd time.... the Rio Negro that ran out of the River Plata and out to the Atlantic would swell due to heavy rains and flush all kinds of animals. Including snakes, gators and anything that swam... including piranha and yes the odd shark that would loose it’s way. Yes, when you would see the red flag.  You had to ask and make sure you stayed out of the water. Never in all my days going to the beach did I ever have to worry about pollution. Toxic waste, radio active waste and or industrial run offs. It appears that things are a lot different today here in Canada. Out of the series of beaches. Some stay open many stay closed. Closed due to the toxic composition in the water. From infectious algae. To pollutants. Now, my question is.... how are some beaches OK to swim in and others are not? Same water. Same lake. That scares me. Think about it for a moment. I rather be bitten by a swept up piranha or have a Python wrap around my neck than have to worry about infection from the same water that we drink and bathe from. Now don’t get me wrong. I am not paranoid or some freak that fears the water. No, I have a very real concern. We live surrounded by nuclear plants. The experts tell us we have nothing to worry about. That it i safe. That the level of radiation these plants release are minimal and have no affect on our health. Yet, most of these experts live outside the danger zones. The test they run on the water measures toxicity based on thresh holds and not on actual purity. Therefore at one site it may read ‘A’ and on another a few miles away ‘B’. One same is safe the other is not.... but what is to say that as soon as that test is done... that the tide does not change and it deems the clear site as now toxic. You can’t expect for these so called experts to continue running tests all day in and out. If it is not safe in Oshawa for example. How can it be safe in Clarington... It is just does not ad up if you ask me. Further more they do not test for purity but for thresh hold figures that are only markers for minimal public health concern. How can you feel safe swimming in such an environment? NO matter the number the water is still toxic. What is worst... That is the same water that is bleached with chlorine and piped up to your faucet, shower... Then flushed out from your toilet, hospital waste lines, industrial plants, commercial food processing cleansing and lets not forget the odd leak from any one of the nuclear plants. You can dive in and take your share of pollutants... Or you can sip them and eat them at home in the form of water and or thought your vegies.... Scary thought...

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!

Oshawa isn’t just a car town anymore

Oshawa isn’t just a car town anymore By Dale Jodoin Oshawa isn’t just a car town anymore. The days of General Motors being the centre of everything are fading into the past, and in their place, new Subcultures. Across the Durham Region, a quiet transformation is happening. You might not notice it at first, but if you look closer, the city’s streets, parks, shops, and schools are full of signs that the way people express themselves and have fun is shifting. The entertainment scene isn’t just changing, it's being rebuilt from the ground up by people who don’t wait for permission. Take the car lovers. Oshawa will always have a place in its heart for gearheads. But now it’s more than just retired workers fixing up old Chevys. Young people are showing up with tuned Hondas, LED lights, and sound systems that shake the doors off gas stations. They meet in parking lots and industrial backroads, not for money or fame, but for community. Their cars are part art, part rebellion. These meetups are entertainment in its purest form loud, passionate, and completely their own. Not far from them, on smooth pavement and near old warehouses, you’ll find skaters and BMX riders claiming their space. These kids don’t need fancy gyms or fields. Give them concrete, a board, and a little room to fall, and they’ll turn it into a stage. They film tricks, cheer each other on, and post their wins online. It’s sweaty, painful, and risky but it’s real. And in a world of screens and filters, real life is hard to find. Step inside the local bars or dig around the basement show scene, and you’ll still hear the raw scream of metal and punk. Oshawa’s music culture hasn’t died, it's just gone underground. There are people in this town who live for the sound of heavy riffs and truth-telling lyrics. The crowd is mixed: teens with green hair standing next to grey-bearded punks who’ve been coming to the same spots for twenty years. They don’t follow trends. They make their own. And they’ve got the scars and tattoos to prove it. Down the street, the kids dressed in black, silver chains clinking, aren’t just going through a phase. The alt scene is strong in Oshawa. Some call themselves goths, others emo, others don’t bother with labels. What they share is a need to be seen for who they really are. They make their own clothes, write poetry, and stare the world down with courage masked in eyeliner. They don’t just consume entertainment, they create it in everything they wear, say, and do. Meanwhile, gamers and tech fans are building another world entirely. In dorms, basements, and online chat rooms, they’re coding, streaming, and pushing pixels to the edge. Ontario Tech and Durham College are feeding this quiet revolution. Some of these kids are turning hobbies into side hustles. Others are chasing dreams of esports glory. They may not throw parties, but their screens light up every night with life, drama, and action. You won’t always see them, but they’re there changing the game one click at a time. The hip-hop scene in Durham might not be in the spotlight, but it’s got heart. Local rappers are putting out tracks online, mixing beats in bedrooms, and writing lyrics that speak to real life struggles, losses, hopes, and hustle. It’s not about fame or record deals. It’s about having a voice when no one else is listening. These artists are turning side streets and basketball courts into stages. And if the big city music labels won’t look this way, they’ll build their own scene instead. One of the most colourful subcultures is the anime and cosplay crowd. These fans don’t just watch cartoons. They become them. You’ll spot them at conventions, libraries, or sometimes even wandering through the mall in costume, smiling as kids stare in awe. They sew, sketch, and dream up whole new identities. It’s not weird, it's creative. It’s brave. And it takes guts to show up in full costume when the world is quick to judge. Tattoos have become part of daily life in Oshawa. It’s not just bikers or rockers anymore. Teachers, nurses, waiters, and grandparents are walking around with full sleeves and deep stories written in ink. Tattoo shops aren’t just businesses, they're gathering places. Every design carries meaning. Some mark pain, others celebrate love, and a few are just for fun. Either way, they’re permanent proof that art doesn’t always hang on a wall. Outside the city, a slower, softer culture is taking root. Cottagecore and vintage living aren’t just internet trends, they're ways of life for a growing number of people in the region. These are the folks baking bread, pressing flowers, and thrifting for clothes from another era. They like quiet days, simple joys, and small gatherings. In a fast paced world, they remind us that entertainment can be as gentle as a book and as meaningful as a cup of tea. All of these groups, from the loud to the quiet, from the rough to the soft, are part of what makes Oshawa and Durham special today. This isn’t a city waiting for a concert to come to town or for a big event to make it on the map. The people here are making their own kind of fun, their own way. They’re not looking for permission or attention. They’re looking for connection. Whether it’s through music, fashion, sport, or art, they’re saying one thing loud and clear: we’re here, we’re proud, and we’ve got something to say. The face of entertainment has changed. It’s younger, more creative, and much more personal. And in Oshawa and across Durham, it’s growing every day. If you want to see the future, don’t look at the billboards. Look at the streets, the skate parks, the tattoo chairs, and the cosplay meetups. That’s where the action is. And the best part? Anyone can join in.

Apply Fundamental Relationship-Building Psychology

Apply Fundamental Relationship-Building Psychology to Your Job Search By Nick Kossovan An effective way to shorten your job search is to leverage the fundamental psychological principle—a game-changing lifehack—that most people overlook when trying to form a relationship, whether during job hunting, aspiring to climb the corporate ladder, seeking new friends, networking, or looking for that "special someone": If you want someone (read: an employer) to be interested in you, first be interested in them. Showing interest in someone is a massive gesture that makes you stand out; this is particularly true during interviews, where the goal is to establish a connection with your interviewer. When expressing interest in someone—an employer—a key consideration is focusing your communication on how you can contribute to their success. This approach will make you memorable, which is what you should strive for, as it contrasts with most job seekers whose sense of entitlement has them primarily focused on their wants. Job seekers who are "what's in it for me" focused tend to struggle with their job search. Focus on "What Can I Do for You?" A hiring manager's primary concern is how the candidate can help the business. Therefore, distinguishing yourself from competitors, who are likely "me" focused, is as simple as demonstrating to employers the quantitative results you've achieved in your previous roles and how you intend to attain similar results. In 2025, your entire job search should focus on showcasing your past achievements that demonstrate your ability to either generate revenue or solve problems that hinder revenue. Can you answer the question savvy interviewers ask: "Tell me how you brought value to your most recent position."? · "I led a software implementation project that was completed on time and under budget by $35,000." · "By calling dormant accounts that hadn't made a purchase in over two years with a one-time offer, I resurrected over 200 accounts, generating $850,000 in revenue." · "My hunger to achieve my monthly sales quota motivated me to make at least 40% of my calls before or after traditional business hours when decision-makers were most likely to answer their phones. This calling strategy resulted in a significantly higher connection rate, enabling me to exceed my monthly sales quota for 34 consecutive months." Being different is better than "being better." Stop trying to be "the best-qualified candidate." Remember, you're striving to be memorable. Solely highlighting your qualifications and experience, especially without numerical evidence, is a surefire way to blend in with every other candidate. American psychologist Dr. Robert Cialdini asserts, "To be persuasive, you need to be unique." Determine ways to present yourself to employers that will make you stand out. Often, just doing the basics that few job seekers do, such as creating a results-oriented resume and LinkedIn profile, including a compelling cover letter that sells as the ideal candidate for the position (not including a cover letter is lazy), and sending a post-interview thank you note to reinforce why you're the 'must-have' candidate, really well will make your stand out from those you're competing against. Job seekers, now more than ever, need to bring a fresh perspective to their applications. Social proof helps establish trust. Catherine Sanderson, Professor of Psychology at Amherst College, notes, "People are influenced by what others think. Social proof can be a powerful motivator." Your interviewer is a stranger; best-case scenario, you're a referral, thereby sharing a "we know the same person" connection. Unsurprisingly, since they're hiring strangers, hiring managers ask themselves: "Can I trust this person?" The foundation of any successful relationship is trust. A crucial step in establishing trust is demonstrating credibility. Today, the most effective way to establish credibility is by taking advantage of social media platforms—LinkedIn being the most obvious—to provide social proof. Post screenshots of your successes include recommendations from previous bosses and share client success stories. Establish your credibility! If you've worked with well-known companies and brands, mention them to foster a reputation for trustworthiness and competence. Employers are more likely to trust you when they see that a reputable company has hired (read: trusted) you. Fear of missing out (FOMO) motivates. We all want what others have. A job search tactic I've successfully used several times is to create a perception of scarcity—that I'm in high demand. The perception that you have other options makes recruiters and hiring managers move faster. Being interested in you is good, but being concerned about losing you to a competitor is even better. If you're in contact with several companies, even if you haven't reached the interview stage, mention it subtly. "I'm excited about several opportunities right now" conveys value without being overly boastful. Using this tactic frequently (no guarantee) encourages the employer to act quickly to hire you. Reciprocity is powerful. "There is one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life - reciprocity." - Confucius. The act of giving fosters social connections while positioning you as a valuable resource, thus enhancing your visibility and desirability. Do what most job seekers don't do: share industry insights, write informative posts, or comment thoughtfully on hiring managers' posts. The more you give, the more people will remember you, which, in turn, facilitates striving to be a memorable candidate.

OSHAWA COUNCILLORS TURN A ‘SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING’ INTO A SATIRICAL ‘COMEDY OF ERRORS’

OSHAWA COUNCILLORS TURN A ‘SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING’ INTO A SATIRICAL ‘COMEDY OF ERRORS’ HAVING OBSERVED OSHAWA COUNCIL for well over four decades, I’ve listened to more meetings and commentary among councillors than I can remember. In recent years, I have taken to writing a great deal, and I’ve often thought of trying my hand at writing a short play, based on municipal politics, with characters carefully chosen for their unique personalities. As it happens, Oshawa councillors conspired to work against me, by acting out their own little drama recently, one marked by broad satirical comedy and an improbable plot. In other words, a farce. I have only so much space in this column, however I will do my best to give my readers the Coles Notes version. The play, in the form of a Special Council meeting held in early June, opens with a discussion on a motion to hold a public meeting on a somewhat convoluted set of By-law changes that affect things like local tattoo parlours, payday loan establishments, and pawn shops. The characters are in order of appearance, and only their last names are used, with the exception of ‘Mayor’. GIBERSON… “And just one small clarification on that, just to make sure I’ve understood what I just heard correctly. That would require either the calling of a Special Council meeting in July, let’s say, or piggybacking on some other matter that could arise in July…” MAYOR… “Everything depends on what the decision of this Council is today, and that will set the timelines.” GIBERSON… “Thank you. Just a couple of comments related to…” (Interrupted by the Mayor) MAYOR… “Your time has expired.” GIBERSON… “I haven’t spoken five minutes. The Commissioner has…” (Interrupted by Mayor Carter) MAYOR… “When your first question went in, it was 2:03 (time) and the answer the Commissioner had answered was at 2:05 to 2:06.” GIBERSON… “I haven’t spoken for five minutes at this point.” MAYOR… “I always keep time… (Interrupted by Giberson) GIBERSON… “Okay, as a procedural matter then, if I could ask what the appropriate manner would be to ask for a division?” MAYOR… “I’m going to check with the Clerk. Do we have a seconder on the division for One, Two, and Three?” GIBERSON… “I don’t believe you require a seconder.” MAYOR… “Yup, it’s a motion. So, it’s a motion. I’ve got a seconder, which is councillor McConkey. So, we’ll take a vote on Part One, Part Two, and Part Three.” NICHOLSON… “Point of order. I’m just seeking clarification here. Given that Council has not made any decision on any of this… how does one vote for or against any of the things being considered in the public discussion? MAYOR… “Right. The recommendation that is in front of us is just about the public meeting…that’s all it is.” NICHOLSON… “If I vote ‘no’ on any of those, I’m voting on record as being against public participation in the process.” MAYOR… “That’s how I would interpret it, yes. So that’s what’s on the floor. Madam Clerk, we’ll need a recorded vote on each item, One Two, and Three.” McCONKEY… “Um, before we vote, I have questions.” MAYOR… “In regards to the Division that’s on the table?” McCONKEY… “Um, I was seconding that to help councillor Giberson.” GIBERSON… “Can we clarify that, please, and go to #28 in our Procedural By-law to clarify division?” MAYOR… “No. You just asked for a division. I’ve accepted it. You have a seconder.” GIBERSON… “We don’t need a seconder. Let’s go to #28 in our…” (Interrupted by the Mayor) McCONKEY… “Well, I’ll withdraw my seconder to just keep the discussion going here, because I would like to go into Committee of the Whole. I do have questions.” NICHOLSON… “Point of Order. As to the motion before us…” (Interrupted by McConkey) McCONKEY… “I said I was withdrawing my seconding of it.” NICHOLSON… “There’s a motion to call a public meeting, and there’s been a request for a division for voting purposes. That’s what’s on the floor right now?” GIBERSON… “Point of Order… So let’s go to Part 28 of our Procedural By-law.” MAYOR… “Can you give me a second, please?” GIBERSON… “Just have the Clerk read the part out.” MAYOR… “Okay, let’s get the book up. I just want to check, because… (Turning to Giberson) Please don’t do that, Derek. Okay? Alright? I’m trying to figure this out, okay? You may be an expert on governance…I’m not. That’s why I depend on both our Clerk and our Deputy Clerk. So, please don’t shake your head. Thank you. GIBERSON… “And, if we’re going to have decorum, we use titles rather than first names. I appreciate that. Thank you. MAYOR… “So, I’ve been corrected. The motion that is on the floor is ED-25-80, a motion in regards to holding a public meeting… I have a request from councillor McConkey at this time to speak… so I would go to you (councillor McConkey) on that.” McCONKEY… “And I have five minutes. And, I would like to know, and I think it’s a good move to get something going here, especially with the vacancies at the O.C. (Oshawa Centre) and I would like to know, first…what is the height restriction?” MAYOR… “I just want to get clarity. The only thing on the floor is about holding the public process under the Planning Act.” NICHOLSON… “Point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Would it not be correct that any discussion of any item other than the motion on the floor… would not be in order? MAYOR… “I was under the impression, and it’s my interpretation, that what we’re asking today is that a statutory public process would be undertaken… I think that, based upon what councillor McConkey has said, I can take these questions and have some discussion…” (Interrupted by councillor McConkey). McCONKEY… “Yeah…but I have another question…not to interrupt, but I do.” NICHOLSON… “We were not asked to come in and debate the merits of the contents of any report that would go to the public meeting. Just, do we want a public meeting or not want a public meeting.” GIBERSON… “Point of Order. This is a specious argument. The contents of this report that’s in front of us…anything that is in this report is open for discussion and debate. This is a way of just trying to shut down discussion on it. MAYOR… “No. The public was informed of exactly why this meeting was called, and this meeting was called, as it says here: Development Services be authorized to initiate a statutory public process under the Planning Act and to consider the report… I think that’s all we should concentrate on.” At his point, councillor Giberson begins to pack up his documents and any personal items. McCONKEY… “Under the public Planning Act process, this happens to be a matter that, as I understand it, with Bill 17, is very much in flux… Is it not in flux and changing?” Councillor Giberson may be seen leaving the Council chamber. MAYOR… “I don’t believe so. I believe that there is still a requirement to have the public meeting.” McCONKEY… “That’s my question. Thank you.” MAYOR… “Great. Alright. So, division was requested. Oh…councillor. Nicholson…its 2:18” NICHOLSON… “Just again, a point of clarification. Given that the person that requested division is no longer in the premises, and has left the room in a fit, is there, within a request for a division…” (Interrupted by McConkey) McCONKEY… “Excuse me…I’d like to make a Point of Personal Privilege. You can’t say another member of Council left the room ‘in a fit’ as there is no evidence…” (Interrupted by Mayor Carter) MAYOR… “Hold on.” NICHOLSON…“I’ll withdraw …in a fit…” McCONKEY… “It’s disparaging to…” (Interrupted by Mayor Carter) MAYOR… “Hold on. I don’t know what a Point of Privilege is. (Turning to the Clerk) Is there something in our...We don’t have a Point of Privilege, do we?” NICHOLSON… “We do.” MAYOR… “And, what is it in regards to? The rules? Oh, the health and safety and the rights…okay. So, your Point of Privilege is on what? On a health and safety issue?” McCONKEY… “Mayor Carter…we’ve heard a member of this Council say another member left the chamber ‘in a fit’ and I think that is disparaging. There was no evidence of someone leaving in a fit. That’s my statement.” NICHOLSON… “Mr. Mayor, as the original speaker is no longer…” (Interrupted by the Mayor) MAYOR… “You don’t need a division because of the reason that the individual that requested it is gone, and it is no longer on the floor. Thank you. (Turning to the Clerk) Councillor Nicholson asked for it. Please proceed. All councillors present in the chamber votes ‘Yes’ to the recommendation to initiate a statutory public meeting regarding changes to City By-laws included in report ED-25-80. MAYOR… “So, no-one voted no? Okay, thank you very much. Can I have a motion for adjournment, please? Moved by councillor Neal and seconded by councillor Kerr (By way of a show of hands). Any in opposition? Being none, thank you very much. There’s another Special Council meeting that will deal with accessibility this evening. I hope it’s not contentious. It might be, though. The meeting took approximately 21 minutes

This Is Not Discipline It’s Political Punishment

This Is Not Discipline It’s Political Punishment By Councillor Lisa Robinson On Monday, Pickering Council will vote - again - to take away my income. If they approve the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendation, I will have officially worked an entire year without pay. A single mother, elected by the people to represent them, will be punished for doing just that - representing the people. Let’s be absolutely clear: I submitted a full rebuttal to the Integrity Commissioner’s Preliminary Findings on June 6, 2025 - two separate emails outlining my response in detail. That submission addressed every allegation with facts and evidence. But the final report - the one being used to justify this punishment - falsely claims that I didn’t respond at all. That is a lie. And when I asked that the item be removed from the agenda so this glaring error could be corrected, they refused. Not only is this a blatant violation of procedural fairness, it exposes the political agenda at play. While the full contents of my response may not have been reviewed, Council, the Clerk, the Mayor, and the Solicitor are fully aware that I responded - and they’re choosing to move forward anyway. This isn’t about conduct. It’s about control. Let’s talk about the source of these complaints. Aside from the first two sanctions - one brought by Councillor’s Brenner, Cook, and Nagy, and the second, which I strongly suspect also involved a member of Council - every single complaint since then has come directly from the CAO or the Mayor, the two highest-ranking powerholders in the corporation. In fact, there are additional complaints from the CAO that were submitted even before she submitted this current one, but the Integrity Commissioner is deliberately holding them back - waiting to bring them forward after Monday’s vote, so they can hit me with yet another 90-day suspension. That’s not accountability. That’s strategic punishment - carefully staggered to keep me under continuous attack and financially crippled. And what kicked it all off? A simple, honest statement I made months ago: “If I were Mayor, I would remove the CAO, the City Solicitor, and several Directors - because corruption starts at the top. I’d tear down city hall, rebuild it from the ground up, and give it back to the people.” That’s the truth - and it shook them. Because if I win the mayoral seat in October 2026, the CAO could lose her $250,000-a-year job. That’s over $4,500 a week. So ask yourself: are these complaints really about Code violations - or are they about protecting power, position, and paycheques? And let’s not pretend this is a fair process. The report actually says it’s “unfortunate” that Council can’t bar me from attending meetings, as if my very presence on the floor is something they’d eliminate if they had the legal authority. They use words like “sentencing” and “deterrence,” as though this were a criminal courtroom and I were some repeat offender, not a duly elected official fulfilling her mandate, by being the voice of the people who voted for me, and even those who didn’t. Even the Mayor himself has said, on the record, “She hasn’t learned her lesson” - like I’m a disobedient child who needs to be punished into submission. That tells you everything you need to know about the mindset behind these votes. They don’t want accountability. They want obedience. Let me be clear: Council does not have to accept the recommendation of the Integrity Commissioner. The Municipal Act allows for alternatives: training, education, even community service. But they’ve never once considered a single other option. It’s always straight to the most extreme measure: take her pay. Why? Because that’s what hurts most. And if Council votes in favour of this - knowing the report is flawed, knowing my response exists, knowing the bias behind these complaints - then every councillor who votes yes is complicit. It will say everything about their character, their cowardice, and their willingness to follow orders instead of doing what’s right. This should concern every person in Pickering. If this council can financially destroy an elected official simply for telling the truth, what will they do to you when you speak up? This is not democracy. This is dictatorship by majority vote. This is not discipline. This is targeted political punishment. I was elected to stand for the people. And no matter how many times they try to crush me, I will not back down. Councillor Lisa Robinson “The People’s Councillor” “Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - 2023

June is Men’s Mental Health Month

June is Men’s Mental Health Month By Dale Jodoin It’s supposed to be a time to help men and boys feel brave enough to talk. To cry if they need to. To say, “I’m not okay,” and still feel like they matter. But most people don’t even know it exists. And the truth is, many men are struggling—but feel like they can’t say a word. How Many Men Are There? In Canada, there are more than 20 million men. In the United States, there are about 168 million men. In Europe, there are around 360 million men. That’s a lot of people. That’s millions of fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, grandpas. But when it comes time to talk about their health—especially their mental health—something happens: They’re forgotten. It Starts Early In schools, most teachers are women. About 65% of all teachers in Canada are female. That number’s even higher in elementary school. This is not an attack on women—it’s a fact. Boys grow up without male teachers or mentors. Most of them go through years of school without one man showing them how to be strong in the right way. They’re told to “sit still,” “calm down,” and “stop being loud.” If they run around or get too excited, they get told they have problems. Many get put on medicine just for acting like boys. They’re not allowed to talk about how they feel. They’re told, “Be quiet. Don’t cry. Don’t complain.” Some boys even believe something is wrong with them just because they’re boys. Then It Gets Worse When boys become teenagers, the confusion grows. They’re told being “manly” is bad. That it’s wrong to be strong or competitive. They start to think that being themselves is not okay. And if they speak up about feeling sad or lost, they get laughed at or called names. In high school and college, many boys stop trying to date. They’re scared to talk to girls. They’re scared of being accused of something. They’re scared to even be near people sometimes. They feel like being a man is dangerous or bad. And when some men in college try to start clubs just for men—to talk and feel safe—they get shut down. People say those groups “hate women,” even if they don’t. So the men go quiet again. What About Fathers? Here’s something wild. Father’s Day is in June. That’s during Men’s Mental Health Month. A time meant to honour fathers. But instead of feeling honoured, many dads feel beaten down. They get taken away from their kids in court. They get told they don’t matter as much as moms. They lose jobs and homes. And nobody checks on their hearts. Many boys grow up watching their dads get pushed around, or pushed away. So what do those boys learn? They learn not to trust the system. They learn that being a man means being alone. No One is Attacking Women Let’s be clear: this is not about taking anything from girls or women. This is about boys and men having a space too. If a group is just for girls, people say “good for them!” But when boys want a group just for them, they’re told it’s “not fair.” That’s not equal. All-boy clubs, spaces, and safe places are not wrong. They are needed. It’s not about hate. It’s about healing. Boys need room to talk with other boys. They need male role models. They need men who’ve been through pain and made it out the other side. That doesn’t take away from anyone. It just gives boys something they’ve lost. What We Can Do So what’s the answer? Let’s start in schools. Bring in male mentors. Real men. Police officers. Soldiers. Firefighters. Dads. Uncles. Coaches. Let them sit with the boys. Let them say, “You’re not broken. You’re just growing.” Let’s build new boys’ clubs. No girls or women allowed. Not because we’re mean, but because boys need space. Real space. To talk. To laugh. To cry. To heal. That’s not against equal rights. That is equal rights—for the boys. Let’s make a new National Boys and Men’s Association. It can follow boys from middle school to college. Help them find friends. Help them find mentors. Help them find hope. We used to have places like that. They were called Boy Scouts and frat houses. Now they’re called nothing. It’s time to change that. If We Don’t Act If we don’t make space for boys to grow and talk, things will keep getting worse. More young men will give up on dating. On love. On family. More will feel afraid to speak. More will stop trying. And the saddest thing of all? Many will think it’s their fault. But it’s not. It’s our fault—for staying quiet. Let’s Be Brave Let’s not whisper about this anymore.Let’s speak loud. Let’s speak clearly. Men’s Mental Health Month is not a joke. It’s not weak. It’s not something to hide. It is brave. It is strong. It is needed. And it should be taught in schools. Celebrated in towns. Respected in the media. Supported in homes. Let’s raise boys to be proud of being boys. Let’s show them how to be good men, not silent ones. Because every boy deserves a hero. And every man deserves a month where he’s not invisible.

Desjardins’ $7-Million Vacation-Pay Settlement Shakes Up an Everyday HR Practice

Desjardins’ $7-Million Vacation-Pay Settlement Shakes Up an Everyday HR Practice By Tahir Khorasanee, LL.M. Senior Associate, Steinbergs LLP For years, Desjardins Group allowed new hires across its non-Quebec operations to book holidays before they had technically “earned” them. The arrangement felt like a perk—until employment ended and the company clawed back those advance hours from departing workers’ final paycheques. That routine payroll adjustment has now spawned a country-wide class action, a proposed $7-million settlement, and a pointed warning for any employer that thinks negative vacation banks are harmless bookkeeping. How a friendly perk became a legal flash-point Under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (ESA) and comparable statutes in other provinces, employees accrue the legal right to paid vacation only after completing one full year of service. Yet many businesses, keen to compete for talent, front-load vacation so newcomers can recharge during that crucial first year. The unspoken catch: if the worker leaves before their accrual catches up, the employer deducts the “negative balance” from final wages. That is exactly what Desjardins—Canada’s largest federation of credit unions—did as a matter of course, according to the statement of claim filed in June 2021. Employment-law boutique Monkhouse Law argued that the practice breached section 13 of the ESA, which bars all wage deductions unless the employee signs a document that (a) expressly authorizes the deduction and (b) spells out either the amount or a precise formula. Many ex-employees, the lawsuit said, had never seen—let alone signed—such paperwork. The road to a seven-figure deal The representative plaintiff, a former Desjardins employee with a negative vacation balance, launched the class action on behalf of colleagues dating back to 2011. The lawsuit ballooned to cover workers at 13 Desjardins entities, from Desjardins Financial Services to The Personal Insurance Company, everywhere in Canada except Quebec (which has its own labour code and civil-law system). After nearly four years of litigation and a postponed summary-judgment motion, the parties reached a tentative settlement on April 24, 2025. Key milestones followed in rapid succession: May 28, 2025 – The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the action on consent for settlement purposes. June 9, 2025 – HR Law Canada broke the story, revealing the headline figure: “more than $7 million.” July 14 & 27, 2025 – Deadlines for class members to file objections or opt out of the deal. September 29, 2025 – A settlement-approval hearing slated before Justice Belobaba (by Zoom, if past class-action practice is any guide). If the court approves, funds will flow to former employees whose pay was docked, while current employees will see their negative vacation balances wiped out—or receive time-bank credits to offset any repayments already made. Administration duties will fall to Verita, a class-action claims administrator with a track record in employment cases. No admission of guilt—but a major policy reversal Desjardins “denies liability and any wrongdoing,” a boilerplate phrase that appears in both the HR Law Canada report and Monkhouse Law’s dedicated settlement page. Even so, the company has agreed to eliminate negative vacation balances for thousands of current staff. That concession alone signals a corporate course-correction that HR professionals everywhere will notice: effectively, Desjardins is scrapping the very policy under dispute. Why the case matters beyond Desjardins Common practice, uncommon scrutiny. Negative vacation banks are ubiquitous in finance, tech, retail—you name it. Until now, few questioned whether the post-employment claw-back complied with wage-deduction rules. The Desjardins settlement thrusts that quiet assumption into the spotlight. The ESA’s exacting paperwork. Section 13 does not outlaw deductions entirely; it simply demands crystal-clear, signed authority for each one. In fast-moving HR departments, that step is easily missed. Failing to obtain a tailored authorization—rather than burying a one-liner in a staff handbook—can turn an everyday payroll correction into a six- or seven-figure liability. Class-action momentum in employment law. Monkhouse Law alone is steering class actions against Allstate, BMO, Medcan and others, using the opt-out model that automatically sweeps in hundreds or thousands of employees. The Desjardins pact adds another proof-point that wage-and-hour class actions can settle for real money, even without a merits ruling. Opt-out costs. Courts look closely at whether a settlement fairly compensates each class member. With $7 million in the pot, lawyers on both sides will have modelled average payouts. Employers considering similar settlements should remember that the bigger the class, the larger the fund needed to secure court approval. Policy hygiene beats damage control. Fixing authorization forms—and auditing whether they are actually signed—costs pennies compared to litigating a class action. Desjardins’ post-deal promise to zero out negative balances is a stark, expensive reminder to resolve compliance gaps proactively. Practical take-aways for HR and payroll teams Audit vacation and deduction policies now. Identify every situation where money comes off a paycheque—uniform deposits, training costs, parking infractions, equipment losses, negative vacation, salary advances. For each, locate the employee-signed authorization. If you cannot find it, assume it does not exist. Use event-specific consent forms. Courts have frowned on blanket clauses buried in offer letters. The safest approach is a standalone form, signed at the moment the deduction is contemplated, stating exactly how the amount is calculated. Communicate policy changes clearly. If you decide to claw back a negative vacation balance, explain the amount, the statutory authority, and the employee’s right to refuse. Transparency not only builds trust; it forms part of the evidentiary trail if litigation looms. Track provincial differences. Quebec’s civil-law regime was carved out of the Desjardins settlement. Other provinces have similar but not identical rules. National employers should resist one-size-fits-all documentation. Monitor the September 29 approval hearing. Judges sometimes tweak settlement allocations or notice plans. The final order will likely become required reading for in-house counsel updating vacation policies this fall. A cautionary tale wrapped in a compliance checklist Class actions rarely grab the public’s imagination in the way blockbuster personal-injury lawsuits do, but payroll-deduction cases cut closer to home for millions of Canadians who trade their labour for a paycheque every two weeks. Desjardins’ proposed settlement may appear modest next to nine-figure securities or product-liability deals, yet its resonance in HR offices could be far greater. It reframes a benign-seeming perk—early access to vacation—into a potential ESA minefield. Whether Justice Belobaba ultimately approves $7 million or pares it down, the litigation has already achieved what every class action purports to deliver: behavioural change. Desjardins has rewritten its policy, and rival employers are—quietly, hastily—reviewing theirs. For workers who lost hundreds or thousands of dollars to a negative vacation claw-back, a cheque from the settlement fund may soon land in the mail. For the broader HR community, the louder message is preventive: get your deduction paperwork right, or risk paying dearly for an “advance” that was never supposed to cost a dime.

Know Your Numbers

Know Your Numbers By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist I want to tell you about a story that was relayed to me through a friend. I came to know this by way of dinner conversation with this friend when I inquired about a mutual acquaintance. I was shocked but not surprised. We both knew this couple that were looking for a house to purchase. They had an agent and were actively looking. After seeing many houses this couple found a house they really loved so they put an offer on it. What happens when someone puts an offer on a house is, the listing agent sends out a message to anyone who has viewed the house either through an open house or a personal tour. The message is to let those people know that there has been an offer registered on that property in case they may have been mulling it over. It essentially brings everyone to the table. If you had walked through and were thinking about it, now was the time to make an offer and everyone gets a chance. It’s also how agents whip up bidding wars. That is exactly what happened in the case of this couple. They ended up losing the house to someone who bid higher than they could afford to go. This actually happened not once, but a couple of times. The couple grew somewhat despondent, thinking that they may never be able to purchase a house if this was the process with every offer. The couple were drawn to this beautiful house that had absolutely everything they wanted in their new home. They put a offer on the house knowing there would probably be at least one more coming in. They had a plan. When the agent came back to them and asked if they’d like to improve their offer, they said yes. They had launching into the bidding war. The problem being that they could only afford a certain number. They were just so desperate to get the house, they kept raising their offer. Eventually the agent informed them that they had won, and that the sellers were going to work with their offer. They were thrilled. Now came the real problem. While they had been approved for a certain dollar value in terms of the mortgage, the bank ordered an appraisal of the house. That is common in most cases. The appraisal came back far below the offer price on the house. That left the couple in a real bind. They could either come up with the difference between what the bank said the house was worth and what they had offered to pay for the house or, the sellers could sue them. This is a situation that played out during Covid-19 far too often as people got caught up in desperately trying to purchase something for fear they would not have an opportunity down the road. In this case the couple was able to come up with the difference, but in most cases the situation winds up in court. The whole process of house hunting can be an emotional roller coaster but my advise to everyone is to never panic, and always know your numbers.

The Endless #OpenToWork Banner Debate is Tiring

The Endless #OpenToWork Banner Debate is Tiring By Nick Kossovan A straightforward belief: A person's results speak for themselves. Making excuses for being a "victim of," "not having the same advantages as," or blaming your parents, the government, and the stars not being aligned doesn't change this. A person's results are influenced by how they respond to their circumstances, their actions—playing the hand they're dealt—and the amount of effort—strategic effort—they put forth. When it comes to job search results, such as landing interviews, your results are a testament to the effectiveness of your job search strategy. I'm sure you've noticed that many job seekers on LinkedIn harshly and venomously critique the job search strategies of other seekers. It's no one else's business how a job seeker conducts their job search, who ultimately must live with the results their job search strategy achieves. This supposed "concern" for what other job seekers are doing is why LinkedIn has become a digital hub for juvenile debates, the most prevalent being whether to use LinkedIn's #OpenToWork banner feature, adding a green circle frame to your LinkedIn profile picture to inform LinkedIn members you're seeking a new job. My initial take: "Care about what other people think, and you will always be their prisoner." - Lao Tzu. Why do so many people give a f*ck about what others do on social media? An incessant need "to be right" (You're right, everyone else is wrong.) hinders personal growth. What prevents us from following the harmony principle: you do you, and I will do me? Basically, mind your own business! My second take: Before LinkedIn became the dumpster fire it is today, where job seekers congregate to bash employers, essentially biting the hands they want to feed them, and self-proclaiming "experts" offering pseudo job search advice, followed by a pitch for their overpriced, never-guaranteed service, LinkedIn was the go-to platform for announcing you were looking for a new job. Why LinkedIn? LinkedIn was where your current and former colleagues, friends, hiring managers, and recruiters hung out. These days, many managers, directors, executives and even recruiters avoid LinkedIn. They no longer see LinkedIn's value or want to spend their time wading through the victim mentality drama that dominates the platform. Once upon a time, you could concentrate all your job search efforts on LinkedIn. Today, LinkedIn should make up only a small part of your job search activities. The #OpenToWork banner is merely one tool in your job search toolkit. It's unlikely that the banner alone will significantly influence your job search, either positively or negatively; however, every little bit helps. The #OpenToWork banner debate generally centres on whether the green banner makes a person seem "desperate." The banner is simply a sign that you're open (available) to opportunities, serving the same purpose as a red neon 'vacancy' sign in the window of a roadside motel, indicating to travellers that rooms are available. Is the owner of the roadside motel making it known they have rooms available "desperate"? · If I owned a retail store, I'd display a sign that tells people what I sell. · If I were selling my house, I would put a sign on my front lawn. · If I were opening a new dental clinic, I would advertise on billboards. · If I were looking for a job, I'd... What LinkedIn's #OpenToWork doesn't do is help you establish your value proposition. It's your responsibility to demonstrate how you can contribute measurable value to an employer's bottom line. Hiring managers filter LinkedIn profiles by skills, experience, and other factors related to their search criteria. Filtering by "Open-To-Work" won't bring up LinkedIn profiles of those who possess the skills and expertise they're seeking. However, if your profile appears in an employer's or recruiter's search and you've toggled on the "Open to Work" setting, which is unrelated to the #OpenToWork photo frame and, while visible to everyone, isn't something recruiters and employers can search for, it makes sense, at least I think so, to contact you first since you're advertising that you're available and therefore are more likely to be open to discussing an opportunity than someone who's currently employed and will need to be persuaded to leave their current position. Advertising your availability doesn't make you appear desperate; it removes ambiguity, making it easier for recruiters and employers to recognize candidates who are actively job searching. You're not pleading for a job; you're helping employers find you, which reflects a proactive mindset. I don't know any recruiter or employer who holds a candidate's proactive job search against them. However, it's crucial to recognize that being easy to find on LinkedIn and the impression a recruiter or hiring manager gets from your profile are two entirely separate influences on your job search. Unless your profile clearly states, using quantifying numbers, the value you've added to your previous employers, your #OpenToWork banner's effectiveness is almost nonexistent. One last note: if you're participating in the #OpenToWork banner debate, stop it! It's not your concern how others conduct their job search. Keep your focus on what you need to do to achieve your desired job search results, which speak for themselves. _____________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. Send Nick your job search questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

Stop the Spin: Pickering Is Not the Fastest-Growing City - And Here’s Why That Matters

Stop the Spin: Pickering Is Not the Fastest-Growing City - And Here’s Why That Matters By Councillor Lisa Robinson Let’s cut through the false narrative shall we: If you’ve listened to Pickering’s Mayor lately, you’d think we’re on track to become the next Toronto. He’s been proudly declaring that Pickering is the fastest-growing municipality in Ontario, as if that’s something to celebrate without question. But here’s the truth: it’s not accurate - and more importantly, it’s not honest. According to the Region of Durham’s own Monitoring of Growth Trends report (May 2025), from 2020 to 2024, Pickering’s population increased by about 16,500 people. That might sound impressive on its own - until you look beyond the headlines. In the same period: · Oshawa grew by over 17,700 people - that’s more than us. · Whitby is close behind, adding 16,100 new residents. · Clarington also saw solid growth with over 8,500 people. So why is the Mayor still standing at podiums pounding his chest, claiming we’re leading the charge? The reality is simple: we’re not. We’re somewhere in the middle, maybe, and even that depends on how you count. And that’s where the real issue lies. A closer look at how these numbers are calculated shows a major flaw in the narrative. Much of what’s being called “growth” is actually just construction - not people. The Region includes housing completions in its estimates, regardless of whether the units are finished, occupied, or even livable. Some of these buildings are still under construction. Others are completely empty, used for short-term rentals, or have been bought up by speculators. Yet all of them are baked into the data as if they represent real families, neighbours, and taxpayers. That’s not real growth, it’s fiction dressed up as fact. It’s like counting every chair at a dinner table and calling it a party - even if nobody showed up. Let’s apply a little common sense. Just because a home has five bedrooms doesn’t mean there are five people living in it. It could be a vacant property, a staged model home, or a one-person household. The Region’s model doesn’t count people - it counts buildings. It doesn’t count toothbrushes in bathrooms, it counts blueprints. And let’s talk about what residents actually want, because no one seems to be asking them. The people of Pickering are tired of the condo craze. They don’t want 30-storey towers looming over our streets. They don’t want a mini-Mississauga popping up in their backyard. They moved here for space, for family living, for community, not for endless concrete and glass. Yet council continues to greenlight development after development without a serious plan to deal with the consequences. We don’t have the infrastructure to support this rush to urbanize. Our roads are clogged, our schools are full, our hospitals are strained, and our emergency services are under-resourced. We don’t have enough police, firefighters, or even paramedics to keep pace with the population we already have - never mind the tens of thousands more being promised in planning documents. What good is "growth" if it leaves people stuck in traffic, waiting hours in emergency rooms, or wondering whether first responders will arrive in time? It’s time we stopped confusing cranes and condos with community. Growth should be about people - real people - not inflated projections and real estate marketing. But that’s exactly what the Region relies on: projections, not population counts. They use birth rates, immigration figures, and building permits to guess how many people might be here. And when those assumptions are off, and they often are, the ripple effects go far beyond just the numbers. Because when you build policy, infrastructure, and taxes on top of flawed estimates, residents end up paying the price - quite literally. It means overbuilt subdivisions with empty units. It means roads and schools planned for families that never arrived. It means taxpayers funding services based on phantom growth. This isn’t just about correcting a political talking point — it’s about demanding honest leadership. The people of Pickering deserve more than spin. We deserve facts. We deserve transparency. And we deserve leaders who will speak plainly about what’s really happening, not just regurgitate developer-friendly soundbites. So the next time someone tells you that Pickering is the fastest-growing city in Ontario, ask them to prove it. Not with projections. Not with housing completions. With real numbers. With lived reality. Let’s build a city where families thrive, not just where developers profit. A city rooted in truth, transparency, and community. Because real growth isn’t just measured in buildings - it’s measured in people, purpose, and progress. And it’s time Pickering started telling that story. Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It - Councillor Lisa Robinson 2023

Conservative Party of Canada – success and failure

Conservative Party of Canada – success and failure by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As world affairs return focus to the geopolitical scene, and we have a strong minority Liberal Government for the fourth time in Canada, one may wonder why the Conservative Party was not able to form the current government. Since 2015 when PM Stephen Harper lost to the liberals, the Conservative Party has been unable to rise and form government. We need to find the root causes of this situation and that is not so easy. However, we can analyze some factors that may go some way toward explaining this failure and suggest ways to potentially correct the situation and steer the Party towards future success. In this last round, the Party lost a remarkable 27-point lead in opinion polls and failed to win an election for the fourth time in a row. While it gained seats and earned almost 42% of the popular vote - its highest share since the party was founded in 2003 - its leader, Pierre Poilievre, was voted out of the seat he has held for the past 20 years. One of the main problems was the candidate selection process. Not only was it tainted by undue influences, but the Party was late in nominating candidates, thus reducing the time candidates had to get themselves known to their electorate. They had more than two years to prepare for the election before it was called. Furthermore, the Conservative Party does not seem to have been interested in choosing professionally qualified candidates. Instead, they selected candidates based on personal relationships with people close to the leader’s circle and staffers. Much of the time, they overruled their own established rules, which was allowed by one toothless and apparently useless Conservative Party National Council. There were many cases of potential good and experienced candidates, who were denied the opportunity to be nominated. There were even situations where preferred candidates were nominated in new ridings even before a riding association was constituted. Then came the resignation of Justin Trudeau on January 6 2025. After a short leadership contest organized by the Liberal Party Mark Carney was chosen as Leader and Prime Minister. An experienced professional with glowing qualifications, albeit non-political ones, he immediately called an election. In the mean time, our neighbour to the South made some unfriendly gestures towards Canada, and the Conservative party leadership was slow to react. Most Canadians perceived this hesitancy in reacting to the American threats menacing our national existence as lack of courage and confidence. The combination of all of these mistakes contributed to the sudden evaporation of the Party’s impressive lead in the polls built up over the Trudeau years, and the ultimate loss of the election. The Conservatives have once again become the official opposition, and are stuck with a dilemma. What, if anything, should they do differently in the coming years, than they did before the election? Do they head into the future with the same team of decision-makers who did not quite win? And, how do you answer that question when you don’t know what the future holds, given that one complaint against the current leader is that he didn’t respond effectively when the playing field changed? As far as Pierre Poilievre is concerned, there’s nothing to decide. “We had the biggest vote count in our party’s history, the biggest increase in our party’s history, the biggest vote share since 1988 and we’re going to continue to work to get over the finish line,” he replied when asked. That argument is on offer from other Conservatives keen on moving past the vote that left them in second place once again. Yes, Poilievre has done better than the previous leaders and Poilievre was not necessarily disliked by people; he was simply less liked than his opponent Mark Carney. In short order, Carney became the most positively viewed political leader in the country, generating positive impressions we have not seen since 2015. In a campaign where trust and risk were key themes that made all the difference, Carney consistently outperformed Poilievre in leadership attributes such as trustworthiness, competence, and experience. Their arrogance and inertia didn’t allow Pollievre’s, campaign staff, headed by Jenni Byrne, to see the shift of the electorate towards liberals in time to react effectively. If they ever want to form the government, the Conservative Party needs to look at the lessons learned in the last campaign and needs to make some radical changes. The beginning of these necessary changes starts with the Conservative Party's National Council, which is scheduled to meet on June 14 for its quarterly meeting. They will decide, among other issues, the timing and venue of the next policy convention. So let us see if any changes are forthcoming in the Conservative party and its leader Pierre Poilievre. He appears to remain committed to key strategist and enforcer Jenni Byrne; a woman whose ability to make enemies is legendary and whose treatment of the Conservative caucus evokes thoughts of the Commissars in the soviet regime. Indeed, whether or not Byrne keeps her job will be a telling sign of whether Poilievre’s support for change includes change on his own behalf. In conclusion, having failed to react successfully to changed circumstances in the latest election, Conservatives need time to better prepare for the next one. Let us hope that their leaders see the light sooner rather than later. It seems to me that a little hubris would not be out of place. What do you think?

IN THIS MODERN AGE…

IN THIS MODERN AGE... By Dale Jodoin In this day and age, it’s become popular to point fingers at Boomers. You hear it everywhere—“They had it easy,” “They ruined the economy,” “They’re the problem.” But no one ever stops to ask what happens when seniors lose everything. When a lifetime of work, bills paid, children raised, and pride kept turns into nothing more than a shopping cart and a park bench. You don’t see many headlines about seniors becoming homeless. But it’s happening. Right now. Every day. Quietly. People in their 50s, 60s, even well into their 70s, are sleeping on sidewalks and shelter mats, not because they made bad choices—but because life, plain and simple, gave them the short end. Here’s the part we don’t want to admit: the longer you work, the harder your body breaks. The wear and tear shows up in every joint. The knees swell. The hips grind. The spine stiffens. The hands curl with arthritis. And when the body gives out, the job usually goes right with it. Maybe they’re let go. Maybe they can’t physically keep up. Maybe their boss just wants someone younger. And once that paycheck stops, things fall apart fast. Rent is missed. Groceries are skipped. The car gets sold. The next thing you know, a man who spent forty years working is standing in a soup kitchen line wondering how he got here. But even then, even standing there with his life crumbling, he won’t ask for help. Because pride is the one thing he still has left. That pride, the kind that built homes and raised families, becomes a curse when you’ve got nothing. It keeps seniors from reaching out. It keeps them quiet, curled up under a worn-out blanket in minus thirty weather, just trying to survive another night. Now picture this: your hips are gone, bone-on-bone. Your hands barely open. You haven’t slept right in weeks. You’re in a crowded shelter, surrounded by strangers. Some of them are angry, some violent. If you speak up, you might get beaten for it. If you say nothing, you might lose your only blanket. So you make yourself small. You find a corner. You try to disappear. But not everyone in those shelters is cruel. Some of the young people in there—those who’ve also lost homes, jobs, families—see the older folks and step in. They give them a spot in line. They pass over a sandwich. They keep an eye out while the senior rests. These young ones don’t do it for thanks. They do it because they still understand what respect looks like, even in places where respect is usually long gone. And that matters. A lot. Still, most seniors don’t make it to shelters. Many can’t. The beds are limited. The places are dangerous. Some have wheelchairs with dead batteries and no place to charge them. Others can’t walk the blocks to get there because their joints scream in pain. Health nurses are posted miles away, and they won’t come to the person—they expect the person to come to them. But how do you get there when you can’t even stand? And what about money? The pensions supposed to come every month, right? But where do they send it? You don’t have an address when you’re living in a tent behind the strip mall. You don’t get phone calls when your battery’s dead and your charger got stolen. You fall through the cracks. Then you fall even further. Until you’re invisible. And most people just walk by, assuming the worst. And even the little jobs they used to count on—like working part-time at Tim Hortons or McDonald’s—those are gone too. There was a time when an older person could stand behind a counter, move a little slower, greet customers with a smile, and still feel like they mattered. It wasn’t glamorous, but it gave them purpose and dignity. Now? Those spots are filled with foreign workers brought in on contracts, paid less, expected to move faster, and told not to question it. Seniors don’t even get looked at anymore. They’re too slow, too stiff, too “in the way.” So they get nothing. Not even a chance. But you know what? Even then, the heart still beats. I’ve seen an old man with a limp and a split lip put himself between a junkie and his girlfriend because he couldn’t stand to see her hit again. He didn’t have a home, didn’t have clean socks, but he had enough strength to take a beating for a stranger. That’s who these men and women are. They’re not a problem. They’re the people who once built this country with their hands. And now they sit in doorways holding a paper cup they can barely grip. They don’t beg. They just ask. And even then, some can’t reach out to take the coin because arthritis has locked their hands shut. Meanwhile, we’ve got months for everything now. Black History Month. Pride Month. Heritage days. Every culture gets recognition—and rightfully so. But where’s the month for seniors? Where’s the public funding to make sure they have warm food and a safe place to sleep? Where’s the respect? Because when they were younger, they had it. We gave it. But now? Most people look away, mutter something about pensions, or worse, joke about how they should just “get with the times.” It’s sickening, really. These are the same people who fought wars, built roads, stocked shelves, cleaned schools, raised kids, ran farms, and did every job that younger folks now scoff at. “Let someone else do it,” the new attitude says. Well, these seniors were someone else. And they did it without complaint. So now that their hands can’t lift anymore and their legs barely carry them—what, they’re supposed to just disappear? This isn’t just a sad story. It’s a warning. Because we’re all heading there. If we’re lucky, we grow old. And if we’re really lucky, we grow old with dignity. But that dignity is vanishing. Fast. And once it’s gone, good luck getting it back. You laugh at the elderly now—until you're them. You brush them off—until it’s you on the bus with no one offering a seat. The difference is, when they were young, they had respect for their elders. Now, they are the elders, and all they get is silence. So what can we do? Start here. Don’t look away. If you see a senior on the street, don’t assume they’re an addict or a lost cause. Look again. That could be a retired carpenter, a grandmother, a war vet. Someone who paid rent for 45 years before one bad turn knocked them over. If they hold out a hand, don’t overthink it. Just help. Not because they asked—but because they shouldn’t have to. The seniors of today were the workers, soldiers, parents, and builders of yesterday. Their pride was earned, not given. And while it may keep them quiet, it’s still there, holding them together, even when everything else has fallen apart. They are not a burden. They are not the past. They are us—just a few years ahead. And the way we treat them now is the exact way we’ll be treated later. So maybe it’s time we stop blaming them and start honouring them—before it’s too late.

Ontario Courts to Employers: Update Your Contracts or Pay the Price

Ontario Courts to Employers: Update Your Contracts or Pay the Price By Tahir Khorasanee, LL.M. Senior Associate, Steinbergs LLP Ontario employers are being put on high alert: outdated, vague, or improperly drafted employment agreements are increasingly being rejected by courts, often at great cost to the employer. A wave of recent decisions, including two in June 2025, has reaffirmed that poorly worded termination and layoff clauses can leave employers on the hook for significant severance obligations. In one case, the Ontario Superior Court awarded 16 months' notice to an employee who had been placed on a temporary layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic. The employer assumed it had the right to lay off the employee due to the pandemic's exceptional circumstances. However, the court found that because the employment agreement did not contain a valid and enforceable layoff clause, the layoff constituted a constructive dismissal. In another high-profile decision, the Township of Ignace was ordered to pay damages in a wrongful dismissal suit after failing to comply with contractual and statutory obligations. The employee was dismissed without sufficient cause or notice, and the municipality's failure to adhere to the Employment Standards Act (ESA) requirements proved costly. These rulings underscore a broader legal trend in Ontario: the courts are scrutinizing employment contracts more rigorously than ever, and any clause that fails to comply with the ESA may be deemed unenforceable in its entirety. Why Contracts Are Being Struck Down Under the ESA, employees are entitled to minimum protections regarding termination, notice, severance, and conditions of layoff. If an employment agreement includes language that even potentially denies or undercuts those entitlements, it risks being void. One common example is a "just cause" termination clause that defines cause more broadly than the ESA. Because the ESA has a higher threshold for when notice can be withheld, these overreaching definitions can lead to the entire termination provision being invalidated. Similarly, layoff clauses must explicitly authorize the employer to place an employee on a temporary layoff in accordance with the ESA. If the agreement is silent or ambiguous on this right, any layoff may be interpreted as a constructive dismissal, triggering full common law notice obligations. Key Clauses That Must Be Updated Legal experts now urge employers to review the following clauses in all employment agreements: Layoff Clauses: Must expressly permit layoffs under ESA terms. Without it, employers risk exposure to constructive dismissal claims. Termination Clauses: Must clearly state that employees will receive at least ESA minimums, and must not attempt to contract out of those minimums either directly or indirectly. Just Cause Provisions: Avoid overly broad language. Limit definitions to what the ESA recognizes. Severability Clauses: Although helpful, they will not save a termination provision that violates ESA minimums. Real-World Impact When a contract is struck down, courts do not revert to some "middle ground." Instead, they fall back on the common law, which typically awards one month of notice per year of service, and sometimes significantly more depending on the employee's age, position, and job market conditions. For example, in the COVID-related case, the terminated employee had a relatively short tenure but was still awarded 16 months of pay because the court found the layoff unjustified and the termination clause unenforceable. This is a stark reminder that employees don’t need decades of service to be awarded lengthy notice periods. Broader Context: Uncertain Economy, Increased Scrutiny These decisions come at a time of economic uncertainty, where layoffs, restructurings, and cost-cutting are common. Employers that rely on outdated contract templates are particularly vulnerable. The pandemic shifted the legal landscape. It exposed just how many employers failed to include valid layoff language in their contracts. Now courts are closing the door on those arguments. Moreover, the courts are showing less willingness to "blue pencil" or fix flawed clauses. Instead, they are invalidating entire sections, resulting in greater liability than many employers anticipate. Practical Tips for Employers If you're an employer in Ontario, here are steps to reduce risk: Audit Your Existing Agreements: Especially for long-standing employees. Even minor language issues can render termination clauses void. Use ESA-Compliant Language: Clauses must reflect the exact language and requirements of the ESA. Courts look at technical accuracy. Clarify Just Cause and Termination Rights: Ensure your contracts don’t appear to waive ESA rights or exaggerate your grounds to terminate without notice. Include Layoff Provisions: If you foresee needing flexibility during economic downturns, ensure temporary layoffs are explicitly permitted. Consult Employment Counsel: Generic templates downloaded from the internet may not be valid in Ontario. Legal review can save six-figure payouts. The Bottom Line In both the COVID layoff and Ignace cases, employers relied on outdated or unenforceable agreements. The result? A common law windfall for the employees and avoidable legal costs for the employers. As more employment cases arise post-pandemic, courts are sending a clear message: contracts must be clear, compliant, and current. A few pages of well-drafted language can mean the difference between a manageable notice payout and a six-figure judgment. For Ontario businesses, the time to act is now. Review your employment agreements, revise your contracts, and protect your business before it becomes the next cautionary tale in a courtroom. Because in 2025, ignorance of contract law is not just costly—it’s entirely avoidable.