Legal Process Outsourcing’s Point Of Inflection

Posted on by blogger

Depending on what you are reading and who you are talking to it can be unclear whether or not legal process outsourcing is making true headway in the legal industry. A report on some sites surfaced this week which discuss apparent reluctance to sending even simpler legal tasks offshore. The Lawyer reported how Integreons operations both in Fargo and in Bristol was cost prohibitive to the firms operations since clients do not prefer the LPO to send any work overseas. Its quite interesting that the LPOs clients, who give their business to Integreon, want the provider to perform work onshore rather than reap benefits of the lower cost offshore model which they signed on to profit from in the first place. Is this a trend in legal process outsourcing which has been largely synonymous with transmitting work overseas to the lower cost centers in India, Philippines and beyond? Or rather, does this story reflect the eve of an inflection point that will breed LPO differentiation to new service delivery models moving forward?

The reason for the differentiation question lies in the case seen in the Integreon story. Providers will adjust and offer service as dictated by their clients when it makes sense. Its a fact of doing business. Otherwise turning your back on clients doesnt bode well for your future business, and in turn helps your competitors who adjust and offer accordingly. But does this story actually make sense – to essentially abandon the offshore model which is the foundation for the cost savings and is at the heart of the law firm attraction to LPO?

Onshore arms do make sense to the LPO model if the delivery model finds a way for it to make it economically viable. Paying up to 90% of revenues to onshore salaries does not, but it could if fees could be raised to justify the overall service being provided. Or perhaps volumes will allow them to achieve economies of scale thus pushing them into the black. But this does call for another look at the overall legal outsourcing value proposition.

Cost savings, increased productivity, access to back office capacity – and the list could go on – but these are some of the driving forces behind the value of legal process outsourcing. However were witnessing a transformative period for the industry if the offshore reluctance holds true. It will, if it hasnt already, cause legal process outsourcing providers to ask themselves how they continue driving their operations and maintain the value to the client. The answer will lie based on their internal capabilities, their ability to react, and most importantly their innovative view of the service model. The winning model will achieve greater inroads in improving the central word of the industry name; Process. The industry as a whole must improve the process in which it interacts with clients and delivers their work products.

No matter the industry, business process exists in one way or another, and it in fact is almost always enhanced through the implementation o f technological solutions that make life easier for all those involved. It requires studying the end-to-end process between client and provider, and determining the areas of pain and opportunity to marry up with new tools, perhaps not yet envisioned. The fact is that technology has undoubtedly facilitated the LPO industry, but this inflection point is calling for a push to the boundaries of what technology will do for LPOs maturity in the face of client demands for onshore support. More mature, cutting edge platforms coupled with some level of onshore support must contribute to the value proposition and offer a complementary service to the overall offering of the provider.

If pieced together properly, the suite of services that the LPO provides may in fact dictate higher fees through the realization of increased service value. Or it may just at least maintain legal process outsourcings cost competitive edge. Either way it will create a factor of differentiation between pure play LPO providers who compete solely on cost, and those providers who seek to stand apart from the pack and offer an innovative approach to legal outsourcing.

Are Fake ID Cards Legal or Illegal

Posted on by blogger

We all know fake ID cards are available widely on the internet with many people believing that fake ID cards illegal but this isnt always the case. There are many websites that sell novelty ID cards that are called fake ID cards as this is the industry slang. These fake ID cards are legal to sell and legal to purchase as long as they are used for what they are intended.

In the eyes of the law it is not illegal to have a fake ID card like a fake driving license in your wallet, even if your fake driving license looks a like the original government issued document. As this is a novelty item the law cannot prove that you are using your fake ID card for anything other than novelty purposes. The companies that produce and sell fake ID cards often have disclaimers on their websites that you have to agree too, these say that you agree that your fake ID card will not be used for anything other than novelty purposes. They also point out that using your fake ID card for anything other than novelty use is illegal and they do not condone it. They can also refuse to sell you a fake driving license etc if you have implied that you will be using it for something other than a novelty ID card.

Purchasing a fake passport or fake driving license for anything other than novelty purposes is illegal and your punishment will depend on the extent of the crime. This can range from a hefty fine to a jail sentence. The law will have to prove the fake ID card is being used for something other than novelty purposes. Lets say an illegal immigrant or terrorist is found in possession of a fake ID card then there will be consequences for this type of crime.

Proving a company is selling fake ID cards for anything other than novelty purposes can be very hard. There will have to be proof that a company is corresponding with a criminal gang that are known for purchasing fake driving licenses to illegal immigrants before any prosecution can take place. Our advice is if you would like to purchase a fake ID card like a fake driving license or a fake student card then only purchase it if your intentions of use are for novelty purposes only.

Welcome to myfakeid.biz, Buy fake ID cards including fake driving license and other fake ids. Fake ID cards from 10 pounds and very realistic. Best Fake ID and fake driving license online.

Residential Tenancies Mental Health Problems A duty to accommodate and a tenant’s right to remain

Posted on by blogger

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES: Mental Health Problems, a Duty to Accommodate, and a Tenant’s Right to Remain in their Home

By: Michael K.E. Thiele, B.A., LL.B., Plant Quinn Thiele LLP, Ottawa, Ontario Canada. Copyright 2007

The legislation governing most residential landlord and tenant relationships in Ontario is the Residential Tenancies Act S.O. 2006, c.17. (RTA). While the residential lease, written, oral, or implied, executed by the parties may inform the rights and responsibilities between the parties, the lease agreement may only establish those rights subject to the over-riding provisions of the RTA. In Ontario, the RTA applies to rental units in residential complexes despite any other Act and despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary. Further, where a provision in a tenancy agreement/ lease is inconsistent with the RTA or its regulations, that provision is void, and where the provision of another Act conflicts with the RTA the RTA takes precedence. In this regard, the freedom to contract is restricted; even prevented by the RTA, and appellate judicial pronoucement confirms that the RTA is effectively a complete code removing even the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in dealing with the relationship between landlord and tenant outside of the regime established by the RTA.

A recognized and statutorily mandated exception to the foregoing is the application of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the provisions of which take precedence over the provisions of the RTA. It is with respect to this exception that this paper is concerned, in the context of discussing recurring and difficult cases arising at the Landlord and Tenant Board, and how the Human Rights Code is helping tenants suffering from disabilities that cause behaviours which otherwise or normally would justify termination of their tenancies and eviction.

In practice before the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario, it has become increasingly apparent that a great number of tenants who are called upon to defend themselves and consequently their tenancies are suffering from some form of mental illness. In many instances, the mental illness is undiagnosed, but nevertheless is apparent to the observant onlooker. These tenants, but for the litigation support offered through Legal Aid Ontario, Community Legal Clinics, and generous lawyers, are left without the protections that one expects a Court to afford parties under disability. The Landlord and Tenant Board will allow proceedings to continue against a tenant, who by any reasonable measure would appear to be a party under disability, with the usual caveat being that they speak to duty counsel (who can not represent during the proceeding) prior to hearing.

Whether justice is wrought in these circumstances is a hard question; however, I believe it is fair to say that under these circumstances, the chance for injustice is greatly elevated. How then, and where, is the protection for parties under disability, for the mentally ill and infirm?

The starting point to deal with mental illness in residential landlord and tenant matters lies in the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H 19.. The code provides that -every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance-. A disability is defined to include a condition of mental impairment or a mental disorder.

In the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Werbeski v. Ontario (Director of Disability Support Program, Ministry of Community & Social Services), 2006 SCC 14 (S.C.C.) , the Court held that a provincially created statutory tribunal was obligated to follow the provincial human rights legislation when rendering its decision. The Court stated that statutory tribunals, which were empowered to decide questions of law, are presumed to look beyond the enabling statute, to apply the whole law to a matter properly before them.

The OHRC is a fundamental law. The Ontario legislature affirmed the primacy of the OHRC in the law itself, which is applicable both to private citizens and public bodies. Further, the adjudication of OHRC issues is no longer confined to the exclusive domain of the Ontario Human Rights Commission: OHRC, Section 34. The legislature has clearly contemplated that this fundamental law could be applied by the Court and other administrative bodies and has amended the OHRC accordingly.

In Werbeski , supra, the Supreme Court of Canada found that an administrative tribunal should apply the provisions of the OHRC when interpreting statutes because:

(i) The Ontario Human Rights Code states that it has primacy over other legislative enactments;

(ii) The recent amendments to the OHRC have removed the exclusive jurisdiction over interpretation and the application of the Code, from the Human Rights Commission.

In addition, the provisions of Section 11(2) and Section 17(2) and (3) of the OHRC specifically state that “a Court, as well as the Tribunal or the Commission, could apply these provisions of the OHRC when deciding if the needs of a person with a disability can be accommodated without undue hardship.” Section 47(2) of the OHRC states that the OHRC is paramount over other legislation. The Supreme Court of Canada has also held that the Human Rights Code takes precedence over agreements and contracts: Syndicat Northcrest c. Amselem, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 (S.C.C.).

APPLICATION TO LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD PROCEEDINGS

The Divisional Court in Walmer Developments v. Wolch, on a appeal from a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (predecessor to the Landlord and Tenant Board), dealt with a situation where the tenant was diagnosed with schizophrenia. As a consequence of this condition, the tenant exhibited behaviours that included frequent screaming, throwing garbage loose in the halls, shouting profanity in the elevator, putting her property, such as her TV, out in the hall, and leaving food cooking on the stove unattended and hence filling the hall with smoke.

The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal did not apply the Ontario Human Rights Code, and failed to give consideration to the implications of section 2 of the OHRC to the eviction proceedings before it. This was ultimately held to be in error as Section 17 of the Code provides:

17(1) A right of a person under this Act is not infringed for the reason only that the person is incapable of performing or fulfilling the essential duties or requirements attending the exercise of the right because of disability.

(2) The Commission, the board of inquiry or a court shall not find a person incapable unless it is satisfied that the needs of the person cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any.

After some discussion of issues pertaining to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal’s ability to require accommodation (since ameliorated by statutory amendments), the Court held that a tenant suffering a disability has the protections of the OHRC, and most importantly that the question of accommodation shall be considered in the Tribunal’s/Board’s determination of whether to relieve from eviction under the discretionary provisions of the Tenant Protection Act/Residential Tenancies Act.

In Walmer, the appeal was allowed because it was ultimately demonstrated that the landlord could accommodate the tenant by notifying the tenant’s family of problems as they arose and that the tenant’s family could intervene. It was found that the tenant, when on her medication was controlled and her behaviour was then not objectionable.

Walmer, then, stands for the proposition that a landlord has a duty to accommodate a tenant who exhibits behaviours as a result of a disability, that otherwise would warrant termination and eviction, and where the accommodation does not amount to undue hardship, to actually take steps to assist the tenant in maintaining their tenancy by finding reasonable solutions to the problems alleged. Further, where a landlord fails to provide such accommodation, the Landlord and Tenant Board is directed to consider what may be a reasonable accommodation and where available, refuse termination and eviction to the landlord.

SINCE WALMER The Walmer decision has had the practical impact of sensitizing the Landlord and Tenant Board to the fact that many of the persons who appear before the Board are suffering from disabilities. While sensitized to the issue, it continues to be the case that the burden of establishing the existence of the disability; and further establishing what the reasonable accommodation may be; remains with the tenant. Where tenants do not have representation and/or do not have a support network the accommodation potential (and hence retention of the rental unit) offered by Walmer , is not pursued and hence is lost. Very clearly, in the Landlord and Tenant Board context, a human right is only a right if it is pursued and the Board will not, on an institutional basis assure that a mentally ill party is represented and that his/her human rights are asserted.

The Walmer decision has had a dramatic real life impact for many tenants. In particular, tenants suffering from schizophrenia, paranoid delusional disorder, dementia, alzheimers, hoarding instincts, and a host of other mental illnesses that from time to time cause behaviours that otherwise would warrant termination and eviction; now, are retaining their housing, with the landlord being required to take a little extra care for them. The Walmer development has been a positive change in that it has very clearly prevented homelessness of persons with mental illness who are able to be treated and who will function normally with the right support, understanding, and accommodation.

This is significant as the number of aging renters increases. Aging seniors, who haven’t had an issue with their landlords since the commencement of their tenancy are increasingly finding themselves before the Landlord and Tenant Board facing allegations of anti-social behaviours. Often these behaviours are age related as aging sometimes brings on mental illnesses or medical conditions that cause a person to exhibit anti-social behaviours. Often, these can be medically treated or ameliorated by additional care and support. These -mentally ill- tenants are often just regular folks whose entire life is subject to being turned upside down through eviction because they got sick. Through eviction they lose the stability that having a place to live gives, it robs them of peace, their routines, and likely exacerbates any medical condition or mental illness through the stress caused by the eviction.

While Walmer has been a tremendous help to many tenants by forcing the Landlord and Tenant Board to recognize -disabilities- and to impose accommodation of those disabilities where reasonable; the procedures of the Landlord and Tenant Board in adjudicating cases dealing with the mentally ill continue to disregard the fact that in many instances these tenants are not only mentally ill but incompetent as well. From the perspective of the Landlord and Tenant Board it never has a party before it that can be a -person under disability- as in the sense of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Query whether this is just.

CONCLUSION The issue that this paper started with remains unresolved. Persons suffering with mental illness still face procedural disadvantage at the Landlord and Tenant Board. The Landlord and Tenant Board can make a person homeless. Hopefully, the law will eventually recognize that the mentally ill and incompetent deserve procedural protection and it seems fair to suggest that one avenue to such protection is through the ideas expressed by the Court in Walmer.

Computer Forensics Chain Of Custody

Posted on by blogger

As the trend for high-specification mobile phones and computers continues at a rapid pace so too does the potential for electronic media misuse and abuse. This kind of fraudulent activity is becoming more commonly seen in legal cases, particularly with employment tribunals. Legal firms are beginning to employ the services of computer forensics experts more widely in documenting electronic evidence and providing litigation support, as this can be crucial in the outcome of cases.

Computer forensics can be used to track and provide evidence in cases of intellectual property theft, money laundering, hacking, moonlighting and the accessing of illegal or inappropriate websites. Digital forensics can also help to secure concrete evidence of illegal activity not usually associated with electronic devices including blackmail, drug dealings and abusive behaviour.

Regardless of whether digital forensics is being used in a criminal case or a civil matter (even as part of an E-discovery exercise), maintaining chain of custody is vital. This is the fully documented tracking of evidence for the period of time that the forensics team has possession of an electronic device. It ensures that each member of the team can be held accountable for any action that they take with the media.

The purpose of this chain is to log the movements of the data, how it has been stored and subsequently analysed. It is essential that this documentation presents an accurate description of any copying, transportation and storage that has occurred, to prevent any potential legal challenge.

It is worth pointing out the differences between e-discovery and computer forensics. E-discovery is the method of processing and manipulating electronically stored information to be used in legal cases. This can take the form of emails, word processed documents, images and any other type of file, which can be filtered, viewed, analysed and categorised effectively via this system. E-discovery using a forensically acquired data set is crucial in maintaining the integrity of any information present, while potentially recovering any deleted material that may be appropriate for the legal proceedings.

Computer forensics is a highly complex industry that requires the latest in product knowledge and technical expertise. Specialists will have years of experience in the on-site capturing of data from computers, servers and other forms of electronic media. This data is then analysed by their forensic analysis specialists, and used to track how a particular device has been used. All areas of the chain of custody documentation will be completed to the highest standard to ensure peace of mind for the client.

Dealing with a troublesome and rebellious employee who is disrupting the work environment

Posted on by blogger

Managing with a troublesome and rebellious employee who is disrupting the work environment

Good harmonious working environments and co-worker relationships are a must in a productive healthcare marketing organization or any other business marketing environment. Anything that takes away from a stable and happy work environment diminishes the organizations’ strength and its’ financial success by creating work force uncertainty, work environment friction and ultimately loss of job enthusiasm and job unhappiness.

Whenever one begins a new job assignment as a manager, they should meet with the entire staff and lay out expectations and the limits that are acceptable as related to job performance, work attendance, work place disruption and trouble stirring employees. Make certain everyone knows what is expected from them including how they are expected to contribute to a harmonious and productive work environment. Whenever a new employee is started, this same orientation must be provided to insure they understand the work place requirements and rules and the consequences for not adhering to the expected performance practices.

Whenever someone is found to be a disruptive agent in the work environment or a trouble stirring employee in general, they should be called in and counseled regarding the circumstances, observations, perceptions and given an opportunity to clear up any uncertainty and to make sure they understand what you require and expect from them regarding their contribution to and participation in a harmonious and productive work environment. This process allows the air to be cleared without any uncertainty as to what you are expecting from them and allows the employee to express their commitment to work with your directives and management focuses. In addition, they must be reminded that performance and behavior expectations in the workplace have already been set forth in an earlier orientation meeting as to your expectations related to employee contributions in and to workplace environment. All occurrences, incidents and meetings regarding work place performance and discipline should be documented as well as the initial orientation session that is was conducted disclosing your expectations from employees. These documentations should include date, time and the discussion points of meetings with the person(s) involved. Remember to follow your company’s’ policies and procedures as related to disciplinary actions, corrective action plans and proper protocol in these matters and keep your superiors and HR informed of your actions. This will keep your head off the corporate chopping block and protect your company and your job from legal challenges that may be brought later by a dismissed employee.

If disruptive activities and behavior issues persist, further and immediate action in is of the utmost importance. It is readily apparent when there is a disruption in the work environment. The disruptive employee(s) will try to gather 1 or 2, and sometimes more people to support their disruptive activities and behavior. Often, this is done by making threatening comments to these other people such as -the boss is out to get you- or -I heard the director talking about making some changes in your position -. The disruptive employee may do and say anything to gain support from other employees for their disruptive plans. Their efforts may extend outside your department and direct management area. The more support or sympathy they receive, the bolder they will become in making threatening statements to other employees about their manager and a common rumor thread is that you are going to fire or eliminated another co-worker. These statements are designed to bring maximum disruption within the work environment and give unfounded credibility to the disruptive force creating fear and unrest among other employees and winning the disruptive agent support and a degree of misguided respect by frightened co-workers. The disruptive agent may eventually take these activities to the corporate level and when that happens you will be hearing from above regarding morale in your department with questions about your management capabilities. Work begins to slow down, morale drops out the bottom and everyone is huddling together in small groups whispering and repeating rumors of perceived or rumored threats and worried about their jobs. The focus in this work environment becomes job worry, apprehension and fear of coming to work every day. Job happiness has left the building and the job. Before this happens, (not after) it is time to bring the disruptive employee in and take immediate action before morale gets this far gone. Once morale drops to this level, it takes a lot of work and time away from the managers’ normal duties to fix the problems that have surfaced and return the work environment to a productive one. You may spend days and weeks dealing nearly all day with this issue especially if it escalates to the corporate level. If that happens, you are dealing with the disruptive issue on two fronts and this means twice the time and energy to bring the disruption under control.

A written corrective statement should be issued and given to the disruptive employee in format allowing the employee a response in writing and a specific action plan set forth for correction and an action plan for failure to correct the disruptive activities. If the disruptive employee does not correct their activities or if they again resume these activities, they should be terminated immediately and escorted from the building by security. Employees who are so entrenched on disrupting the work environment are out to destroy your position, your department or the organization and will stop at nothing in this pursuit including going all the way to the top corporate CEO to discredit your performance. Once they are gone, you must work to promote and reestablish good employee relationships, re-building, team spirit promotion and employee motivation. A disruptive employee left in place too long can destroy a lot of progress, cost you your job, cost the business in financial success and achieved production. Remember, if you have a disruptive employee who refuses to cease disruptive activities, the sooner they are out, the better. If you are in management, keep your team focused and working smoothly with each other. If you have issues among personnel, address it immediately and don’t ignore it hoping it will go away. It usually does not go away and may become a huge issue for you and could ultimately bring scrutiny upon your position for failure to perform. Remember, you want positive recognition, not negative recognition.

Ray Vaughn, HealthCare Marketing Specialist Developing Successful Marketing Strategies for HealthCare and Business Contact at or

Copyright © 2026 Law Hermes-Belt . All rights reserved.