|
^^^ Even still, if ClientA is attempting to pass themselves off as PartyX - or to mislead customers in some other way - that might still constitute fraud and open you to criminal and civil liability. Fraud is both a crime and a tort in civil law. I'm not familiar with the civil aspect this at all, but I know that it is very complicated and that involves potentially complex intellectual property issues. As a business engaged in web design you should really retain intellectual property lawyers and/or commercial lawyers to map out these issues for you. As far as the criminal side of things goes, fraud is a very complex crime and would absolutely require a lawyer to evaluate the specific facts of your case. Well, any crime that involves jail time, and hell, any Criminal Code offence, should be evaluated by a lawyer who practices in your jurisdiction. Typically, I think this sort of case would also be handled by your commercial lawyers. As a piece of legal information, you should understand that if ClientA is attempting to commit fraud and you assist them in this, under Canadian criminal law you could likely be a party to that crime and could be held liable to all of the same penalties as the principle offender. If you suspect that they might be committing a crime this can constitute knowledge of the commission of that crime, particularly if you fail to take reasonable steps to investigate. This can be true even, as might be the case here, if the principle offender is outside the jurisdiction of the court in question. If you suspect that somebody may be committing a crime and that they may be attempting to use you as accessory to that crime it is incumbent upon you to, at minimum, seek legal counsel. Fraud is a very serious crime and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. This is not to mention the untold potential for civil liability. Don't fool around with this poo poo. P.S. I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer. I am a law student in Ontario, everything here could be wrong. This is not legal advice, this is legal information. Seek independent legal counsel.
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Jan posted:
The CRTC is one of the clearest examples of regulatory capture that you will ever find. If it ever was a proper regulator, and I doubt that, it has long since been completely taken over by the Big Three Telecoms. The best thing that you an do here is not to take legal action, it's to write to or call your MP. If you're really indignant you could go to their constituency office. I've been told that in their electoral calculus, MPs think of every person who comes to see them - and who isn't a crackpot - as representative of 1000 voters that are interested in the issue. I'm certain that your dad, as a trained lawyer, was well aware of his legal rights. Mounting lawsuits is prohibitively expensive even in clear cases, and it's not clear here who he would sue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Quick question for any Canadian lawyers: does the Young Offenders Act introduce some sort of statute of limitations onto indictable offences? Could I still be charged with something I did 8-10 years ago as a 12-14 year-old (not murder or sexual assault; probably harassment and/or simple assault if anything)? Disclaimer: This is provided for information purposes only. I am a law student, not a licensed lawyer. Some of this is speculation on my part; this could all be wrong. If you are charged with a criminal offence it is absolutely imperative that you contact a lawyer immediately. The Youth Criminal Justice Act, which replaced the Young Offenders Act, explicitly does not create a limitation period for indictable offences. If you're curious, the relevant section is s. 142(4) of the Act. The default under the Criminal Code, as you seem to know, is that there is no limitation period for indictable offences. Therefore, in principle, you could still be charged for an indictable offence committed 8-10 years ago. It'll be up to the discretion of the Crown and/or police whether they will proceed. That being said, it seems unlikely that the Crown would proceed by indictment for a simple assault or harassment committed 8-10 years ago by a child. Without some aggravating factors it would be unusual for the Crown to proceed by indictment even in a fresh assault case, and this case would seem to be very cold. Evidentiary issues alone would make indictment difficult and expensive. That isn't to say that they can't, they can, it would just be rare. Whether they would consider proceeding would depend on the specific facts of the case and the sorts of evidence that the Crown has available to them. To get a more definite assessment, and if you have some additional reason to be concerned, you'll really have to go speak to a lawyer who knows the YCJA and who is familiar with the policy of the Crown in your area.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
CADPAT posted:Hey I just came across this thread so I'll throw this one out here for fun. This is provincial jurisdiction. What province are you in?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
I don't know Nova Scotian law - I'm a law student in Ontario - so I wanted to check whether there was anything strange in their Wills Act. Basically echoing what everyone has said, the Nova Scotia Wills Act is pretty clear.Nova Scotia Wills Act posted:
If you can get the will struck down as invalid for some other reason, then you'd be much better off, but otherwise you're probably out of luck. Obviously get a Nova Scotian lawyer to look into this. You're going to want to check whether the will has been probated yet and an executor appointed. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a law student. I'm certainly not your lawyer and this is not legal advice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:clarification re: my question from last night: apparently the issue was that my dad's lawyer said to "tell her he [my dad] isn't signing anything until he [lawyer] says", and not addressing the fact that she had stopped paying the agreed-upon spousal support unless he signed the tax document, making it impossible for him to pay the utility bills and for groceries. What jurisdiction are you in?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
In my office prosecuting traffic tickets is the most junior job so everyone gets stuck with it when they first start. It's a good way to train prosecutors in an absolutely no-stakes environment. It's the wild west of criminal law. Almost everyone is self-represented and procedure is just tossed to the wind. I've seen "evidence" given from the gallery. Witnesses are "recalled" during closing submissions. A majority of people successfully convict themselves during their testimony. A number of people show up intoxicated. A large number of people cry over traffic tickets. I used to like it when civil litigators showed up to defend the tickets. They're very easy to work with and I think it's a good education in humanity for them to spend some time in the room. Edit: I thought this was the normal lawyer thread. Uh, don't lie on job applications. Also, obey the law, citizens. Gleri fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
Different jurisdictions have different rules about how defence attorneys have to treat that situation so it's going to vary based on local circumstances. I'm a Canadian criminal lawyer and this is true to the best of my knowledge in Canada. First off, a plea of not guilty really means that you're requiring the state to prove its claim. It's not a factual statement. The presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent mean that you never have to say anything or help the state make its case. You're not required to plead guilty even if you are. That means that if your client tells you that they intended to kill somebody and did in fact kill them, which are the basic elements of a murder, you can still plead them not guilty because the state is required to prove both of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. But, your case will entirely be negative, poking holes in the state's arguments. That's because, in the Canadian jurisdictions I'm familiar with, a lawyer can't make an argument they know to be false. That it is perjury. So, if your client tells you "I pulled the trigger and killed that guy" you can't make the affirmative argument that they weren't there or that there was no gun or that someone else shot the gun or whatever. For this reason a lot of defence lawyers will limit or control to a certain extent what their clients tell them because what their client tells them will control the arguments that they can make on their behalf. Also, the factual portion is also only one side of the question of guilt. Being guilty is not a fact; it's a legal conclusion based on the application of law to facts. All of the facts of a murder can be there without a person being guilty of murder. For instace, it could have been in self defence or they could claim that it was an accident. Your client could say they have a mental illness that renders them not criminally responsible. There are a lot of possible defences to a murder charge that will render a fact pattern that would otherwise be murder non criminal or at least to not be murder and be something else like manslaughter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
I obviously can't speak for any other jurisdiction but my rules of professional conduct are very clear on this point so I'll quote them verbatim. quote:Duty as Defence Counsel - When defending an accused person, a lawyer's duty is to protect the client as far as possible from being convicted, except by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction and upon legal evidence sufficient to support a conviction for the offence with which the client is charged. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the lawyer's private opinion on credibility or the merits, a lawyer may properly rely on any evidence or defences, including so-called technicalities, not known to be false or fraudulent This is why defence counsel don't elicit admissions from their clients. If they don't want to plead guilty that's the end of it. My understanding of the rules with respect to perjured testimony is also, as I understand it, that if the witness begins testifying and I know the testimony is false I am required to sit down and ask no further questions. I then file an application to withdraw due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship. That all being said, everyone is right that the odds of a lawyer being caught leading false testimony are really low. You'd have to know that your client is lying rather than just giving a different version of events. But, you only have to be caught doing it once for it to ruin your career. I don't think that's a risk worth taking for the sake of a client.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Chamale posted:Is a magnet gun legally a firearm in Canada? The law says it's not a firearm if it's: "Firearm" for what purpose? You're quoting the Firearms Act exemptions to the Federal registration requirements. The Criminal Code defines firearms as "a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily harm or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm" For a lot of purposes the Code applies. Often provincial or municipal laws also apply. This is a very complex and technical area of the law and you should be very, very careful. Do not ask the internet. You can call the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program at 1-800-731-4000 to find out if your gun would be considered a firearm for the purposes of the Firearms Act.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 13:12
|
|