Going Natural for Male Vitality

Going Natural for Male Vitality By Diana Gifford Mark Twain said, "Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." But for many aging men, it matters a lot when their prized male organ starts to lose the vitality of youth. One of the most common yet often unspoken challenges is the decline in testosterone levels, a natural part of aging that can significantly impact physical and emotional well-being. Starting as early as the mid-30s, testosterone levels in men begin to decrease by approximately 1 percent per year. This gradual decline can lead to symptoms like fatigue, reduced muscle mass, irritability, and perhaps most distressing for many, a diminished libido. Not everyone aspires to be Don Juan. But for many, having sufficient upbeat libido is what drives life’s most intimate joys. Plus, having positive and healthy intimate connections can be an indication of broader good health. How many readers know that erectile dysfunction (ED), for instance, is often a precursor to cardiovascular problems? The healthy performance of the male organ can be an indication of the healthy performance of the heart. And when the former declines in prowess, one may surmise the heart is also losing vitality. But here’s the rub. Many men have trouble discussing their sexual health – with their partners and their doctors, both. The personal relationship with their partners suffers needlessly as a result. Those who do act make two common mistakes. The first is to leap immediately to pharmaceutical solutions that come with potential side effects. The second is to scour the Internet for promising products, nearly all of which are dubious. Searching the Internet causes another problem – the invitation for algorithms to send more and more trashy content that will certainly embarrass when popping up on the screen as someone else is watching! There’s a Gifford-Jones law that says, “Try natural remedies first.” Fortunately, there are some products available at natural health food and supplements stores that are tested and proven solutions to reignite men’s testosterone production and renew sexual interest. One example is Testo Charge, produced by Certified Naturals, a firm that specializes in clinically studied ingredients, uses no artificial additives, and packages capsules in the dosage scientists have tested in trials. Testo Charge is made using patented LJ100 tongkat ali, an extract derived from a Southeast Asian plant having a long tradition as a natural aphrodisiac and vitality booster. Studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in boosting testosterone levels, improving sexual performance, and enhancing mood and energy. There’s something to be said for another natural approach to macho manhood. Don’t forget that a little romance can a powerful aphrodisiac. Build a menu of loving options, each one of which is priceless – a kiss, a caress, a lasting cuddle. There need not always be a main course when the appetizers are filling enough. It’s perfectly natural for intimate relationships to evolve as the years go by. What’s often underestimated is the importance of talking about how personal abilities change. Yet being the one to open up such discussions is often very, very hard. Years ago, we told readers that bananas go well with hanky-panky. That’s because bananas are loaded with potassium, a nutrient that lowers blood pressure. Bananas also contain magnesium and calcium, nutrients that can help to ease strained muscles. We recommended putting a banana on the bedside table as a fun way to signal romantic intentions to a partner. Since laughter is such good medicine too, why not write to us with your stories of the amorous effects of your own bedside banana? We’ll print the best ones in a future column. _________________________________________________________________________ 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

WARRING NATURES

WARRING NATURES By Wayne and Tamara I recently moved in with a man I love deeply. We’ve been together almost two years, and the only problem we haven’t worked out is the amount of affection I want. I have a higher sex drive than him, and I think that may be part of it. Whenever he is around, I want to throw my arms around him and give him kisses. While he has never outright denied the affection I want to give him, I can tell sometimes it may be too much for him. I find myself lying awake nights wishing he would put his arms around me without me having to initiate it, or hoping he would want to spend more time alone with me cuddling. Sophie Sophie, Timothy Treadwell, the subject of the movie “Grizzly Man,” lived among brown bears for 13 summers. Treadwell believed he loved brown bears and sometimes even crooned “I love you” as he approached a grizzly. In the end, the bears loved him back; they loved him to death. He and his girlfriend were eaten by bears. Timothy Treadwell’s life illustrates the nth degree of wanting what we cannot have. Treadwell thought because he loved bears, bears should love him. You think because you want cuddling, your boyfriend should want to cuddle. You and Treadwell act as if there is no will on the other side. What about the bears? What about your boyfriend? What if it is not their nature? The amount of physical affection a person desires depends on many things, including the nurturing they received or failed to receive in the opening years of life. It is a pattern etched into the brain. You can berate, torture, or soothe your boyfriend into sometimes giving you what you want, but that is not his natural state. You seek a way to get what you desire because you won’t acknowledge what he is like. Acknowledging what he is like implies change on your part, and perhaps, ending the relationship. If you stay with your boyfriend, either you will be sick of pushing him, or he will be sick of your demands. When a fox and a hare try to share the same den, they are in for a lifelong battle. Wayne & Tamara Bound To Fail My fiancée and I have a difficult relationship. I entered the relationship with lingering feelings for my previous girlfriend. It came down to ultimatum time, and I told the woman who is now my fiancée to move on. We carried on as before except for physical intimacy. She started dating another but told me, “He’s just a friend.” I believed her. As the prospect of losing her for good became real, I panicked. I opened up to her in ways I never had. I proposed and she said yes. We began planning the wedding, but under pressure from me she started dropping bombs about being sexually intimate with him. Can I trust her? Gregg Gregg, tit for tat, measure for measure, a taste of one’s own medicine. Is that what this is about? You pushed her away after being intimate with her. You wanted another woman who didn’t want you, and you let her know it. She dated someone else and lied. Why? Because she hoped you would come around. She didn’t want to be left with no one, if you continued to shove her away. When you decided she was better than nothing, you proposed. Part of wanting her was someone else wanting her. Now you’ve interrogated the truth out of her—so you can shove her away again. You don’t want to be with her, and you don’t want the insecurity of trying to find another. If this engagement goes to marriage, one day you will be standing at the altar, while your friends in the pews take bets on how long the marriage will last. Wayne & Tamara

Nature, Nurture, and Neuroplasticity -The Key to Understanding What Influences the Person You Are Today

Nature, Nurture, and Neuroplasticity -The Key to Understanding What Influences the Person You Are Today By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Every morning, you wake up, brush your teeth, and get ready for the day. Then, you head out the door, and live your daily life as you choose. But the question is, what made you choose that life? Why did students choose the courses they did, and what impacts an adult's career choice? Why did an individual choose to eat that for lunch today, and what inspired their outfit? Every detail of your life is related to the unique per son that you are, but what influenced that personality? Many people frame these philosophical questions as nature versus nurture. The big question has always been, are we born who we are, or do we become ourselves due to the world around us? Science has proved both to influence our identity; genes and physical traits play a large role in human behavior, but so does childhood, education, and socioeconomic status. When it comes to these two components, I have always found myself more interested in nurture, how our everyday choices affect our identities. I believe that although our DNA and inherited traits influence us, our complex nurture ultimately decides who we are and what we do. I am a teenager who loves to write, read, bake, debate, and act. I have strong morals, I spend most of my time studying, and I tend to overthink everything. When I analyze my identity, I realize I may not be the same person I am now if just one small thing about my past was different. If my mom didn’t encourage me to read when I was younger, I may not be the bookworm I am today. If I didn’t transfer schools in the seventh grade, I may not be interested in theatre, as I wouldn’t have known about the arts school I now attend. If I didn’t force myself to attend debate tryouts, I wouldn’t have developed the research and critical thinking skills which I gained from hours of tournament preparation. I am the person I’ve become due to my experiences, and I know my identity will continue to develop as I experience more of what the world has to offer. Our nurture is not just one isolated influence, it is made of many components which each affect us in different ways. These factors include, but are not limited to, our friends, pastimes, socioeconomic status, and cultural expectations. Childhood and early family life both have a large impact on your characteristics and personality. If an individual is exposed to violence as a child, they may develop a tendency to physically lash out at others when angry, they may become passive in an attempt to cover their negative emotions, or they may turn to friends and romantic partners with similar abusive habits. If parents are too controlling of their child, then they may not develop independence, however if they are too permissive, children may not understand boundaries or follow rules. Small, seemingly insignificant details from our childhood or adolescence may seem inconsequential, however, they may influence us for the rest of our life in ways we do not realize. Childhood and adolescence are not the only times when our identities are influenced; our everyday actions have a large impact on our character, regardless of our age. The human brain has neural pathways it is accustomed to using, which are formed by our daily routines. When we begin to practice new routines and habits, the brain creates new pathways. This is known as neuroplasticity, which is formally defined as, “the ability of the brain to form and reorganize synaptic connections, especially in response to learning or experience.” Scientists have proven that with time, we are always able to grow, learn, and adapt, regardless of past conventions. Every time we think, feel, or do something, the communication between our nerve cells are stimulated; the more we do that thing, the stronger the nerve connections, and the easier the activity becomes. As individuals, we are always changing, even if we don’t realize it. If we act consciously, we are able to do anything we put our minds to, regardless of how challenging it may seem at first. Neuroplasticity can be seen in our everyday lives, especially in relation to the media. We are constantly consuming information from news companies, social media books, movies, and even musical artists. The average person spends over two hours a day consuming media; therefore, the perspectives of the media we consume are ones we are constantly practicing, which causes the brain to adopt that thinking style. For example, if we are constantly exposed to media discussing the disasters of our society, we are constantly going to feel anxious and upset. However, if we watch media which is uplifting, inspirational, and enjoyable, we will more often feel confident and hopeful. Being mindful of our media consumption is a necessary step in understanding what influences our attitude and behavior, and it may be the solution to changing habits from ineffective to productive. As individuals, our identities are constantly being influenced by many components, such as our daily experiences and the media you consume. Your past and present affect you in ways you may not realize, from intelligence to your favorite color. For hundreds of years, philosophers have been debating whether we are made of our nature or nurture, but they’ve been asking the wrong questions. We now understand we are products of both, but we’ve also realized each component is far more complex than we thought. Nurture isn’t just our early childhood, it’s made of everything in our daily lives, from the moment you are born to the day you die. The key to understanding yourself comes from analyzing every experience, everything you consume, and everything you practice. Only through this reflection can you begin to truly understand what makes you, you.

Employers Are Not Responsible for Your Chosen Lifestyle

Employers Are Not Responsible for Your Chosen Lifestyle By Nick Kossovan Recently, I came across the above picture of a man during the Great Depression wearing a sandwich board advertising that he was looking for work. Aside from the number of people who'll see it, his sandwich board doesn't differ much from the 'I'm now available' posts I see on LinkedIn. The picture made me think, '90 years ago, job seekers made the same mistake as they do today, saying what they want instead of explaining what they can do. Did he expect employers to stop and ask him what the three languages and trades he speaks and knows are? Did he think broadcasting that he'd fought for three years and has three children would motivate employers to hire him? Today, job seekers have the Internet and social media, especially LinkedIn, to broadcast (advertise) that they're looking for work—no need to wear a sandwich board—and are making the same mistake that the man in the picture made. Like me, you probably see the many 'Open to Work' posts on LinkedIn from newly minted job seekers sharing what they want—remote work, a six-figure salary, unlimited PTO, benefits to start immediately—when they should be touting their skills and sharing quantifiable achievements that demonstrate the value they can bring to an employer, such as: · Willing to work on-site. (Don't underestimate how attractive this is to employers.) · Speak English, French, and Spanish fluently. · Certifications (e.g., Project Management Professional (PMP), AWS Certified Solutions Architect, Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), Certified Ethical Hacker) · Managed a portfolio of projects valued at $47 million, ensuring a minimum ROI increase of 25%. · PMO head with over 15 years' experience managing portfolios ranging from $50 to $100 million and leading global IT teams of up to 100. · Over the course of 12 years, I sold 513 Corvettes in Las Vegas. (A candidate actually told me this, and I ended up hiring him. Within three months, as part of an inside sales team of 39, he was leading in POS sales.) · In 2018, I secured over $85 million in mortgage loans for clients. · I'm the person behind the EcoBrew "Sip Sustainably" campaign. · Answered between 60 and 80 calls daily. Since 2022, I have consistently maintained a client satisfaction rate of 95% or higher. · Delivered over 30 keynote speeches at national banking conferences and industry events, engaging audiences of up to 1,500 people. I believe most people are willing to help job seekers if they can, which is good news since companies are comprised of people. Therefore, right now, there are job opportunities all around you attached to people (employees), illustrating the importance of networking. The caveat is that you need to make it easy for people to help you, starting by giving them more context than "I'm looking for a job." Do you think someone, especially someone in a position to hire you, takes unsubstantiated opinion statements like "I'm a team player," or "I'm detail-oriented" seriously? Is using statements such as "I have rent and bills to pay" or "I'm running out of savings" an attempt to guilt employers into hiring you? When posting an 'Open to Work' announcement, include the essential information—context, clarity—that hiring managers, recruiters, directors, executives, and an employee needs to evaluate whether you can add value to their company. To further reduce friction and boost your chances of receiving help, follow my one rule—a goal to aim for—for writing bullet points for a resume, LinkedIn profile, or an "Open to Work" announcement: Write each bullet point so that the reader thinks, "I must meet this person!" At the risk of sounding overly blunt, each of us freely created our respective lifestyles or bought into marketing propaganda that influenced us to create it. Employers didn't create your lifestyle, so why would you expect employers to be responsible for it? Your worth to an employer isn't determined by your lifestyle or the cost of living. Your worth, from an employer's perspective, is solely based on the value they believe you can bring to their business. Therefore, the more specific value you can demonstrate—and provide evidence of, such as "Grew TikTok followers from 0 to 10,000 in four months with creative video content," [link to video added]—rather than just saying "Managed social media"—the more likely your 'Open to Work' post will generate engagements that could lead to your next job. An employer-employee relationship, as anyone who has been in the corporate trenches should know, is a business relationship, not a personal one. Thereby, not an employer's concern: · The lifestyle you choose to live. · The cost of living going up. · Your career. If you want your "I'm looking for a job" broadcasting efforts to pay off, then start hyper-focusing on showcasing your value to employers. The more you demonstrate your value add, whether when posting your 'Open to Work,' throughout your resume, LinkedIn profile, while networking and interviewing, the shorter your job search will be. Job searching isn't about making employers guess what you can offer; it's about communicating your value without expecting employers to be responsible for your lifestyle. _____________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. Send Nick your job search questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

*** A CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT BELL ***

THE THIRD OF MY SUMMER SERIES COLUMNS *** A CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT BELL *** THE HERITAGE OSHAWA COMMITTEE continues to be well served by my friend Robert Bell, a man who truly cares about the history of his community. His photographs on social media number into the tens of thousands, and he has long been regarded as the unofficial photographer of all things Oshawa. This is his story. Born at Oshawa General in 1959, Robert has made it his mission to share all that makes his hometown a great place to live – and for him the reason is simple: “Our collective experiences form the basis of the human condition.” In this regard he has become a sort of pioneer, seeking to put on record all that may represent the best examples of community bridge-building among those he likes to call “connector people”. Robert’s father was a postman, and Robert himself attended the University of Toronto, graduating in 1983 with a 4-Year BA Honours in Economics and Political Science. When I asked him as to the key to his success in such a rigorous program, he said with confidence “I was required to read many books, and in every instance I would try to become one with the author, taking on his mindset to the point where I could write my own quotations on his behalf.” The costs of his education were met through creative means, and his summer jobs included a stint at Dupont in Whitby, however the bulk of my friend’s income was derived through furniture refinishing. “In point of fact, most of the raw material came from local landfills.” Robert explained it this way: “I would venture out to the dump each week, and always come back with more than I went out with.” Unlike most, my friend can boast local political ties within his own family, being a descendant of Abel Wilder Ewers, an early Ontario County politician, and a radical of his time. Ewers was a Reach Township man, much given to the ‘cause of the people’. Further such family political ties include a connection to Ruth Bestwick, who served for 14 years on Oshawa Council. As to his possibly running for office, he said his penchant for always reaching a consensus is reason enough for his disqualification. “Elected officials are duty bound to ultimately reach a decision, even when the facts are perhaps less than clear, and I can’t see myself making such a commitment when there exists even an element of doubt on my part.” The two of us then discussed Oshawa’s future, and I asked him to provide a few insights on the subject. He instantly delivered: “One should always start with a historical perspective, and an appreciation of history by linking our future to our past.” he said. “We were a community long before we became a city, and it’s people that make the difference.” In his view, we must always seek to modernize, and he illustrated this point by referencing the renovation of the Genosha Hotel, a historic building that maintains its outward identity, but with a focus on the future and new opportunities. Robert obtained his real estate license in 1986, at the urging of those who knew of his buying and selling antiques. Looking back, he says “My friends thought I was a natural born salesman, and that gave me the necessary encouragement to take the plunge and get into the world of real estate.” Among those who played a major role in the development of his career was Lloyd Corson, a well-known Oshawa realtor who started Guide Realty in 1961, and who passed away at the age of 95 in 2012. Also prominent in his career was Keith Peters, another well-known realtor who passed away in 2018. Fast forward to today, and you’ll see Robert’s name on Coldwell Banker signs, as he enjoys a productive business relationship with his colleagues. When not at work, my friend spends his time collecting books and antiques, chatting on social media, and enjoying his time as a member of the North Shore Amateur Radio Club. His collection of radio equipment is impressive, and the work of a serious enthusiast, however, it is his interest in photography that has gained him a significant presence on social media and throughout the community. At the age of five, he was given his first camera, a Kodak 127 model. After years of taking photos on family outings and during special occasions, it was Robert’s entry into real estate that caused him to purchase a professional camera, eventually upgrading to digital. What he calls “the biggest transformation” occurred in 2012, when he purchased a Cannon 60D. From that day on his interest in photography exploded. To illustrate this, he looks to his Facebook and Twitter accounts, and talks of having uploaded many thousands of photos, with almost two million views. He has attended too many local events and gatherings to count, and the number of people who have been captured by Robert’s lens is staggering. According to my friend, his experiences have shown most people to be naturally drawn towards the camera, wherever he may be, and for him that’s a good thing. At this point in what amounted to a very long and interesting conversation, we decided to venture out to one of Robert’s favourite spots for a fish and chip takeout, and as usual my friend was immediately recognized by one or two regulars, and a hearty conversation began. I moved over to the counter where the owner of the shop was gently wrapping fried fish in newspaper – a tradition I had thought long gone. She told me of the many people who have come to know “the man in the suit” and how customers look forward to chatting with my friend about whatever may be happening around town. As Robert and I made the journey back in a car filled with the aroma of fish and chips, I told him he was certainly liked and respected by the people in the restaurant, and I suspect this is true wherever he may venture throughout the city. He laughed modestly and told me of a book he was reading, a book about the power of families and neighbourhoods. With a grateful tone, he said, “the author writes about communities, and how all of us bear a responsibility for each other, and I think that’s true.”

A Short History of the Canada US Tariffs War

A Short History of the Canada US Tariffs War by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East We are fast approaching a difficult deadline in negotiations in the tariff war between Canada and United States. In a couple of days we may be in for a shattering awakening. The United States has recently made preliminary agreements with Japan and the European Union for a tariff of 15%. However, for the moment, Canada is still being threatened with a 35% tariff and no signs from President Trump that he may eventually lighten the load. Was he deliberately mocking us when he stated a few days ago that Canada is not a priority for him? Surely, he jests. The 2025 Canada–United States tariff war marks one of the most serious trade disputes in the modern history of the two countries. As two of the world’s closest trading partners, Canada and the United States have long benefited from free trade agreements such as NAFTA and its successor, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). However, the return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency in January 2025 set the stage for a dramatic shift in American trade policy. President Trump campaigned on a strong protectionist platform, promising to revive American manufacturing and reduce dependence on foreign imports. On February 1, 2025, he signed executive orders imposing sweeping tariffs: 25% on most Canadian imports and 10% on Canadian oil, gas, and potash. He justified these measures on the grounds of national security and unfair trade practices, invoking sections 232 and 301 of U.S. trade law. The tariffs officially took effect on March 4, 2025. Canada responded immediately by imposing 25% tariffs on approximately CA$30 billion worth of U.S. products, targeting politically sensitive sectors such as steel, aluminum, household appliances, and certain agricultural goods. Both governments adopted an increasingly confrontational tone, with President Trump threatening even higher tariffs if Canada did not agree to new trade terms. In the following months, the U.S. introduced increasingly stringent measures. Tariffs on steel rose to 50%, and auto parts not fully produced in North America faced 25% duties. Canada expanded its retaliation, increasing tariffs on additional U.S. goods and filing challenges at the World Trade Organization. By mid-spring, the trade dispute had disrupted key industries, particularly in the automotive, steel, aluminum, and forestry sectors. On May 28, 2025, a U.S. trade court ruled that some of the new tariffs exceeded the president’s authority under emergency powers. However, tariffs imposed under national security (Section 232) and unfair trade (Section 301) provisions were deemed fair, and were therefore upheld. That left most of the measures in place. The tariff war caused immediate economic disruption. The automotive industry, deeply integrated across the United States–Canada border, reported billions of dollars in losses. Stellantis, a major automaker, alone projected a US$1.7 billion hit in 2025 as shipments fell by about 25%. United States tariffs on Canadian lumber were increased to an effective rate of around 35%, pushing up housing and construction costs in the United States. Canadian aluminum producers began diverting exports to Europe and other markets to reduce reliance on the U.S. For consumers, prices of imported goods rose on both sides of the border. Small and medium-sized businesses reported difficulties claiming USMCA exemptions, meaning that they were paying full tariffs even on qualifying goods. The Canadian public reacted strongly to what many people perceived as United States economic bullying. Consumer boycotts of American goods and travel to the United States gained widespread support. Politicians from across the spectrum called for Canada to diversify trade relationships, deepen ties with Europe and Asia, and reduce its economic dependence on the United States. Through mid-2025, trade talks between the two countries remained deadlocked. Trump set an August 1, 2025 deadline for a new bilateral trade deal, threatening to impose 35% tariffs on Canadian imports if no agreement was reached. At the same time, he floated the idea of a universal “world tariff” of 15–20% on imports from all countries, which could further harm Canadian exporters. Canadian officials, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, describe the current talks as being in an “intense phase,” but they acknowledge that a comprehensive deal before the deadline is unlikely. Canada has continued to prepare new retaliatory measures and pursued formal disputes through the World Trade Organization. The 2025 Canada–U.S. tariff war has underscored the fragility of even the closest trade relationships when political priorities shift. While the two countries remain bound by the USMCA, the conflict highlights the limits of trade agreements in constraining unilateral tariff actions. As of late July 2025, the outcome of the negotiations—and the future of North American trade integration—remains uncertain, with significant economic and political consequences looming for both nations. Let us hope for the best, and good luck to Canada in making the best possible deal for its people!

Terminations by Employers for Off Duty Conduct

Terminations by Employers for Off Duty Conduct By Tahir Khorasanee, LL.M. Senior Associate, Steinbergs LLP When an employee’s misconduct occurs outside of office hours, employers must tread carefully between protecting their reputation and respecting individual privacy. Striking that balance has become a pressing challenge as social media and public visibility blur the line between personal life and professional role. Legal experts agree that discipline for off‑duty behaviour is only justified when there is a clear connection to the employment relationship. An employer needs to show that the conduct undermines its business interests, damages its reputation, or directly impacts workplace harmony. Without that link, disciplinary action risks violating privacy laws and human rights protections. Certain positions carry an elevated duty of public trust, making off‑duty discipline more readily defensible. Police officers, teachers, health‑care professionals and high‑level executives are held to a higher standard because misconduct outside work can erode public confidence and impede effective job performance. In one recent British Columbia case, a special provincial constable was terminated after an off‑duty altercation that received local media coverage. The court upheld the dismissal, noting the incident’s serious damage to the constable’s credibility and the force’s integrity. By contrast, employers should think twice before disciplining rank‑and‑file employees for private‑life choices. Courts have ruled that social media posts or lifestyle decisions, however distasteful, warrant discipline only if they are illegal or if they create a foreseeable risk in the workplace—such as disclosing confidential information or harassing co‑workers online. Employers need very strong, narrowly tailored policies to intervene in off‑duty conduct. To reduce legal exposure, organizations are advised to adopt clear, accessible off‑duty conduct policies that define the scope of prohibited behaviour, outline potential disciplinary measures, and provide examples of real‑world scenarios. Regular training for managers ensures consistent application and guards against unconscious bias. “A well‑drafted policy is your best defense,” says HR consultant Laura Patel. “Ambiguity invites disputes.” When an incident arises, fair process is essential. Employers should investigate thoroughly, afford the employee an opportunity to respond, and apply progressive discipline where appropriate. Immediate termination without warning may be defensible in extreme cases—such as violent or criminal acts—but risks being overturned if the employer cannot show prior guidance or if the conduct bears no direct link to the workplace. Beyond legal risk, off‑duty discipline carries reputational stakes. Public perception of an employer punishing someone for harmless personal conduct can prompt social‑media backlash, harming morale and consumer goodwill. A well‑known retailer learned this lesson after briefly suspending an employee over controversial political views expressed on social media. Public outcry prompted a swift reversal and a costly public apology. Experts also note the importance of proportionality. If an employee’s off‑duty conduct has no tangible effect on job performance, a verbal reminder may suffice; more serious infractions might call for written warnings or temporary suspension. In determining an appropriate response, employers should weigh factors such as the nature of the misconduct, its frequency, the employee’s disciplinary history, and the potential impact on co‑workers and clients. For companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, local legislation adds another layer of complexity. Privacy statutes in Canada, for example, protect employees from overly intrusive inquiries into personal social‑media activity. Employers must ensure that any monitoring or investigation of off‑duty conduct complies with provincial privacy laws and applicable human rights codes. As the boundary between personal and professional lives continues to blur, balancing organizational interests with respect for individual rights grows ever more complex. Employers that invest in clear policies, manager training, and fair investigative processes position themselves to respond effectively when off‑duty issues arise—protecting both their brand and their employees’ fundamental rights. In an era where a single social‑media post can reach thousands within minutes, the question is not whether off‑duty conduct will come to light, but how employers will respond. The answers lie in thoughtful policy design, consistent enforcement, and a measured approach to discipline that respects both the workplace and the private sphere.

Are Regular Canadians Racist or Just Tired of Being Ignored?

Are Regular Canadians Racist or Just Tired of Being Ignored? By Dale Jodoin Are you a racist if you say the word “deport”? What if you say “illegal immigrant”? What if you simply want your family to get help before newcomers do? Lately, it feels like regular Canadians, especially working-class ones can’t say anything without being called a racist. But is it really racism? Or is it just plain frustration? Let’s get something straight. The average Canadian is tired. Tired of paying high taxes. Tired of watching their grandparents struggle on fixed incomes. Tired of single moms working two jobs just to afford groceries. And while all that is happening, we see newcomers getting free housing in hotels, bonus cheques, legal support, and fast-track programs. If you question that, you're racist. If you ask why a hotel was turned into a shelter for people who just arrived, you're far-right. If you say “my kid deserves a fair shot,” you're hateful. It’s gotten so backwards, it’s laughable. And it’s not just here. This same pattern is happening across Europe. In France, Germany, the Netherlands, the U.K. regular people are being silenced, shamed, or even punished for raising concerns. Say the wrong word, and you're branded dangerous. We’re not talking about bigots waving signs. We’re talking about quiet Canadians truck drivers, janitors, grandmothers, hockey moms who’ve stayed silent for too long. Now they’re speaking up. And instead of being heard, they’re being labeled. We were told diversity was our strength. Fair enough. But now it feels like we're being told to shut up and move over in our own home. You can’t call that “inclusion” if it means exclusion for the people who built the house. People are watching their daughters lose spots on sports teams to biological males and get told it’s progress. When they speak up, they’re shouted down. Racist. Bigot. Transphobe. But most of them aren’t any of those things. They’re just parents. They’re just trying to protect their kids in a world that keeps changing the rules. And it’s not just Canadian parents British families, German parents, French citizens who are dealing with the same fights. Speak up and you’re silenced. Not because what you said was wrong, but because it didn’t match the official narrative. Here’s the new rule: If you’re most regular Canadians or anyone in the West with traditional values everything you say is taken the wrong way. You say you care about border security? Racist. Do you want immigrants to follow the law? Racist. You think your daughter shouldn’t have to compete against a 6'2” man in a dress for a volleyball scholarship? Bigot. But who’s really dividing the country? Is it the people trying to protect their culture, language, and values? Or is it the politicians, the activists, the university mobs who say nothing is sacred anymore? When you see people attacking Jewish Canadians in the streets and nobody stops them because the attackers are “international students,” something is broken. When you say “they should be deported,” and they call you racist for wanting to uphold the law something is very wrong. You don’t get to punch someone in the face, then hide behind your student visa. And Europe is seeing the same thing: students calling for the destruction of Israel while attacking Jews in broad daylight, with governments too scared to step in. Try calling that out in London, and you’ll get police at your door for a hate crime complaint. Let’s say this out loud. Regular Canadians are not racist. They’re exhausted. They’ve watched their wages get eaten by inflation. They’ve seen their tax dollars fly overseas while the food bank down the street runs out of peanut butter. They’ve seen their local emergency room shut down while the government cuts a check to help another crisis somewhere else. They’ve been told their history is shameful. Their traditions are offensive. Their faith is outdated. Their accent is wrong. Their skin colour is a problem. And still, they work. Still, they give. Still, they hang on. But now they’re angry. Not because of someone’s race or religion but because the system they paid into is failing them. And when they ask questions, they’re told to shut up. That’s not democracy. That’s bullying. And it’s spreading across Europe, across the West regular people are being scolded for wanting the country they were raised in to still feel like home. And now, globally, there’s another group pushing regular folks out of their lives the rich. Wealthy elites from Canada, the U.S., and Europe are buying up property in poor countries Mexico, Portugal, Thailand and driving the prices sky high. Locals can't even afford to live in their own neighbourhoods anymore. Gentrification has gone global. The people with money bounce from country to country, driving up the cost of housing, food, and land while calling it “investment.” What used to be affordable homes are now overpriced Airbnbs. What used to be communities are now playgrounds for expats. This isn’t just about immigration anymore. It’s about class, control, and a growing gap between those who make the rules and those forced to live under them. Let’s take a real look at what’s going on. People are flooding into Canada, some legally, some not. Some want to be part of the country. Others want to change it into the one they left behind. When a Canadian questions that, suddenly they're worse than Hitler. But when a group of international students chants slogans calling for violence and attacks people on the street, that’s just “free speech”? No. That’s hypocrisy. And here’s the worst part: the media plays along. The government funds the same outlets that shame the people footing the bill. The same news anchors who sip coffee in downtown Toronto call farmers in Saskatchewan “dangerous extremists.” They call tired dads "alt-right" because they post a meme. They call moms "bigots" for standing up at school board meetings. All for saying what any parent would: “Leave my kid alone.” And in Europe, it's the same: regular people are the new villains if they ask where their taxes are going or why their neighbourhood has changed overnight. When your heating bill is $800, and you see money going to luxury housing for newcomers, you get angry. When your son can’t get a job but your city is handing out welcome bonuses to people who just arrived, you ask why. When you say you want Canadian values protected, and you get told you’re a threat, you start to wonder: who really owns this country anymore? These aren’t racist thoughts. These are survival instincts. It’s the voice of someone trying to feed a family while the people in charge are throwing your money out the window and calling it charity. The same voice is rising across Europe: regular people who’ve had enough, who feel forgotten, who’ve watched their communities change without their say. And now it’s rising from towns in Mexico to cities in Portugal where locals watch their homes turn into resorts for digital nomads who fly in with cash and leave everyone else behind. Let’s stop pretending it’s racist to care about your country, your family, your future. You can love your neighbour without letting them walk all over you. You can support fair immigration without wanting your kids pushed aside. You can be proud of being Canadian or British, or French without being ashamed of your values, your roots, or your voice. The real racists? They’re the ones who believe only certain groups have the right to speak. The real danger? A society that silences its own citizens and praises outsiders for breaking the rules. We’re not going to let that happen. This isn’t hate. This is heartbreak. This is frustration. This is the voice of someone who’s had enough. Canadians and millions of others across Europe and beyond are done being quiet. We’re not racists. We’re realists. We pay the bills. We work the jobs. We keep these countries running. And we’re tired of being told we’re the problem.

The EV Mandate Is Not About the Environment It’s About Control

The EV Mandate Is Not About the Environment It’s About Control By Councillor Lisa Robinson In just six months, the federal government will begin phasing out your ability to buy a gas-powered car in Canada. Starting January 1, 2026, automakers will be required to ensure that 20% of all new vehicle sales are electric. By 2035, that number rises to 100%. You won’t be allowed to buy a new gas car — at all. They say this isn’t a ban. But if you can’t buy one, what else would you call it? This isn’t just about vehicles — it’s about freedom. Your freedom of movement. Your freedom to choose. And your freedom to live without being micromanaged by unelected bureaucrats, global bodies, and digital tracking systems. Let’s be honest: electric vehicles are not realistic for the average working Canadian. They’re expensive, impractical, and pose safety and environmental risks most people aren’t being told about. Yet instead of listening, the government is doubling down — threatening automakers with $20,000 fines per gas vehicle sold above quota, unless they buy “credits” from companies like Tesla. So who profits? Not Canadian families. Not our auto workers. While we get punished, companies like Tesla cash in. That’s not environmental policy. That’s economic manipulation dressed in green. Here in Pickering, this agenda is already in motion. On June 9, 2025, Council voted to expand EV chargers across the city — at fire halls, libraries, and community centres. This, despite the fact that our current chargers are underused, financially unsustainable, and losing money. There is no mass demand. There is no local mandate. And yet the rollout continues — paid for by you, the taxpayer. Let’s be honest: most residents in Pickering cannot afford a $70,000 electric vehicle. But they’re now being asked to subsidize chargers for those who can. This isn’t equity. It’s upward redistribution — and it’s not right. Worse still, EVs come with risks no one wants to talk about. Their batteries burn longer and hotter than regular cars — and are difficult to extinguish. They leach toxic chemicals into the environment. Less than 5% of these batteries are actually recycled. And the materials used to make them? Often sourced through child labour in the Congo, and mined in ways that devastate ecosystems around the world. This is what they call “sustainable.” But this isn’t just about batteries, or even cars. It’s about the digital infrastructure being quietly built beneath it all. Every EV charger logs your location and data. Every networked grid ties into a broader vision — one that includes smart cities, 15-minute zones, carbon credit systems, digital ID, and even restrictions on when and where you can travel. Not to mention, they can be shut down by a push of button, without your consent. These aren’t conspiracy theories. They’re published goals. And they’re happening right now under the guise of climate action. Pickering is part of ICLEI — a global network aligned with the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and Agenda 2030. Their motto is: “Think globally, act locally.” But when did you vote for that? You didn’t. And neither did I. These policies are being pushed through local councils, often quietly, with little to no public consultation. But the consequences are national — and generational. Make no mistake: this isn’t about reducing emissions. It’s about increasing control. Because once you accept that government can dictate what you drive, it’s only a matter of time before they dictate where you go, how often you go there, and whether you’re even allowed to drive at all. What starts with your car ends with your freedom. I didn’t run for office to stay silent. I ran to stand up. I opposed the EV charger expansion in Pickering because I believe we should be listening to the people — not pushing global agendas disguised as local policy. This isn’t about being anti-environment. It’s about being pro-choice — in the most fundamental way. You should have the right to choose how you live, how you move, and how you provide for your family. This isn’t just about cars. It’s about freedom, fairness, and the future of Canada. It starts in six months. And it ends only when you say you’ve had enough. 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.

DEAL BREAKER…

DEAL BREAKER... By Wayne and Tamara As I sit on my computer emailing a woman I could start an affair with, I search for answers. Your explanations about infidelity are plausible, reasonable, and thoughtful, but I still have questions I would like to ask. I would like to start by saying I love my wife, but we are at a crossroads. My wife seems to have an unknown mental aversion to sex, something neither of us recognized upon meeting the first time. She saved herself for marriage, only to find she did not care for sex. We have been and are in counseling. Our therapist has tried to give my wife tools and direction to focus on our sex life, while telling my wife and me she is surprised by my understanding, support, and patience. Unfortunately, in seven years not much has changed, and I'm looking for a balance between self and marital preservation. I work with someone who obviously has issues of her own with her marriage, and she introduced the idea of having an affair. I'm not one to complain about my wife openly, nor did I confide in this woman, prior to her offer, about my own marital problems. It simply was based upon a mutual unconscious attraction, as best as I can tell. Prior to having anyone in mind, I once asked my wife if she would allow me to have an affair. While crying and shaking her head no, she told me that I could. I am old enough to know I am reaching middle age where I will be more interested in planning my retirement than becoming the table-dancing, lampshade-on-the-head guy at the next wild party. I do not want to go into those years without a fulfilling, active sex life. My wife is the kindest, warmest, most caring human being I know. She would do anything for anyone, but she is greatly struggling with what her husband wants and needs. We work together to raise our children, pay our bills, and juggle our finances. So, standing upon the precipice of infidelity, I'm asking for advice. I’m beyond asking my wife and our therapist for help because the result is the same. Don Don, a fulfilling, active sex life is not something you can purchase at Walmart. You think your wife is standing between you and a given. It is not a given. You have a mental picture of what things will be like, but having an affair could change your life in ways you cannot imagine. You want a great sex life with someone who wants sex, but the woman who suggested an affair has more on her mind than a roll in the hay. She wants out of her marriage and a new man. Women don’t give away sex for free. A young girl having sex isn’t getting anything out of it except to say, “He’s my boyfriend, he loves me.” A mature woman may get pleasure from sex, but her underlying desire is still love. If you find a woman who wants only sex, you will get a woman who has been altered or damaged in some way. If you find a woman you have great chemistry with, you will think you love her and want to be with her. The idea of saving yourself for marriage goes hand in hand with the idea sex is for procreation, not pleasure. Perhaps your wife is the way she is because of religious conditioning. Possibly she is one of those women who are nonorgasmic. Since she is not excited about sex, it is a gruesome event. We don’t know what her issue is, but we do know she shook her head no. That’s her answer. The body doesn’t go along with lies coming from the mouth. It boils down to this. You have to decide what you want: wife and kids, or the risks that come from going outside your marriage. Wayne & Tamara

Why Are Canadian Jews Under Attack for a War They Didn’t Start?

Why Are Canadian Jews Under Attack for a War They Didn’t Start? By Dale Jodoin A wave of threats, attacks, and hate crimes is sweeping across Canada. Synagogues are being hit with gunfire. Jewish schools are on lockdown. Community centres are being evacuated over bomb threats. In some cities, Jewish students are being harassed and doxxed. Let’s be crystal clear: these attacks are not against a foreign army. They are not acts of protest. They are acts of terrorism targeting innocent Canadian citizens, most of whom have no connection to Israel, its government, or its military. And Canada is not doing nearly enough to stop it. It’s a dark day when Canadian Jews your neighbours, doctors, teachers, classmates are being blamed for something happening half a world away. This isn’t political disagreement. This is hatred, and it’s being fed by a dangerous crowd of radicalized youth hiding behind protest signs and university lanyards. When a schoolgirl can’t walk safely in Toronto because she’s wearing a Star of David, that’s not free speech. That’s terrorism. And when it comes from a foreign student who’s only here on a study permit, the answer should be simple: they should be deported. If they act violently they should be charged. If their goal is to intimidate Canadian citizens based on religion, they are not protestors. They are foreign operatives, plain and simple. And what about the systems that allow this to happen? The colleges that don’t expel these students. The city councils that make excuses. The police that issue warnings but not charges. The school boards that downplay it. At what point do we stop pretending these institutions are neutral? If they let hate spread unchecked, if they choose silence when Jewish families are threatened, then they are no longer protectors. They are participants. And participation in terrorism whether direct or passive is still terrorism. No badge or bureaucratic title should shield them from that truth. Here’s the ugly double standard. If the same kind of violence were happening to Muslims, LGBTQ people, or any other group, the media would explode. There would be press conferences, candlelight vigils, and wall-to-wall outrage. But when it’s Jews? Suddenly, we get “context.” We hear “It’s complicated.” We get lectures on colonialism and maps. That’s not justice. That’s justification. And it’s shameful. Blaming an entire group for the actions of a state is how the worst chapters in history always begin. It’s scapegoating. And we know where that road leads. But instead of standing against it, some universities hand out flyers. Some unions pass motions calling Jewish businesses “Zionist collaborators.” And some teachers, the very people trusted to educate the next generation, are openly supporting the same groups who call for violence. That’s not activism. That’s organized hate. And if Canadian services public or private aid or excuse this in any form, then they are no better than the ones throwing the rocks. They are terrorists in suits. We’ve seen foreign students in Canada chanting “death to Israel” in the middle of downtown. We’ve seen threats called into Jewish old age homes. We’ve seen Molotov cocktails thrown at synagogues and then watched as police issue vague statements about “ongoing investigations.” No results. No arrests. No charges. So let’s call this what it is: failure. And not by accident. When justice is this quiet, it’s because someone’s turned down the volume on purpose. If someone threw a firebomb at a mosque, or threatened to blow up a Pride parade, we’d rightly demand action. But when it’s a synagogue, the debate shifts. We’re told not to make it worse. We’re told to be careful not to offend. But silence is not peace. Silence is surrender. And the Jewish community is being forced to accept that silence from the very country they trusted to protect them. Canada must wake up. The government’s job is to protect its citizens. All of them. No matter who they vote for, what they wear, or which God they pray to. And when that duty is ignored, when Jewish children are made to feel unsafe walking to school, that is not a small oversight. That is state failure. If that failure continues knowingly it is state-sponsored terror. We would never say it about ourselves, but we must. Because it's the truth. And let’s be honest: if a Canadian citizen threatened a mosque or LGBTQ event, they’d be in jail by dinner. But foreign students, radical professors, and cowardly administrators get a free pass as long as the hate is pointed at Jews. Why? Because we’re used to it? Because the government is afraid of backlash? That is not leadership. That is complicity. And in the case of Canadian services that continue to protect or excuse this, yes, that is terrorism, too. Canada is not Gaza. Canada is not a war zone. We are a nation of law, of citizenship, of responsibility. If someone commits a hate crime here—Canadian or not they face consequences. If they are a foreigner, they are sent back. And if an institution enables that hate, they should be named, investigated, and stripped of public funding. This isn't a call for chaos. It's a call for equal justice. You do not get to target Jews and call it activism. You do not get to burn down a community and say it's a movement. You do not get to hide behind student visas and taxpayer-funded salaries while helping fuel the oldest hate on Earth. If this country cannot stand up for its Jewish citizens, then we have already failed. The test of a democracy is not how well it treats the majority. It's how fiercely it defends the minority. And right now, Canada is flunking that test. There is still time to turn it around. But only if we stop excusing hate and start calling it what it is. Terror.

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

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.

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."

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE NEEDS ATTENTION

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE NEEDS ATTENTION By Councillor Lisa Robinson Over the last several months, the City of Pickering has been rocked by violence — the kind of violence no community should ever have to face. Let me remind everyone exactly what has happened in our city: On May 2, a man was found dead in Pickering — our city’s first homicide of the year. On May 29, an 83-year-old woman was stabbed to death in her own front yard by a 14-year- old boy. On July 5, a 69-year-old woman was killed in a suspicious house fire on Primrose Court — now confirmed to be a homicide. And just days ago, on July 11, a man’s body was found near Highway 401 and Whites Road — the fourth homicide in just over two months. Four lives gone. Four families shattered. And an entire city left asking: what is happening to Pickering? But it doesn’t stop there. We are also seeing an alarming rise in carjackings, violent home invasions, guns seized, and increasing threats to public safety — right here in our neighbourhoods. Partner violence is up. Mental health breakdowns are up. Homelessness is rising. And far too many people feel abandoned — by the very system that’s supposed to protect them. Let me be absolutely clear: this is not just a public safety crisis. This is a crisis of leadership. Because while the violence rises, City Hall stays silent. While families mourn, the headlines vanish. And while people feel afraid to walk down their own streets, not a single elected official is standing up to say: Enough. Well, I will. To the families of the victims — I offer my deepest condolences. No words can take away your pain, but please know this: you are not alone. If you need support, I will do everything I can to help. I will fight to make sure your loved one is not forgotten. And I will never stop demanding justice — not just for them, but for every single resident who calls this city home. To the people of Pickering — I hear your fear. I feel your frustration. But I also know your strength. We are a city of good, hardworking people — and we deserve to live without fear. We deserve leaders who care. And we deserve a system that puts the safety and wellbeing of its people above political games and bureaucratic silence. I was elected to serve — not to sit quietly while our city unravels. And I say this today not just as a councillor, but as a mother, as a neighbour, and as someone who loves this community deeply: This city needs leadership. Real leadership. Leadership that’s not afraid to tell the truth, to face the hard problems, and to stand up for the people — no matter the cost. So I’m here. I’m standing firm. And I’m not going anywhere. Because the safety of our people is not negotiable. Because every life matters. Because this is our home — and I intend to protect it. Thank you. And may God be close to the brokenhearted tonight. Kind regards, Lisa Robinson “The People’s Councillor” City of Pickering “Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - Lisa Robinson 2023

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

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