Even though I’ve used the common term “wrongful dismissal” - the court points out that there is no such thing.   Either employer or employee can end their arrangement at any time for any reason.  The real issue is how much notice must be given. 

I guess we will have to come up with a new term to replace “wrongful dismissal” – how about “insufficient termination notice”.

Read this on Canoe

With an aging baby boomer population, succession planning is quickly becoming one of the biggest issues facing business owners. Lawyers are beginning to see the negative effects of the failure to plan ahead.

Though succession planning has received significant attention in recent years, many businesses have yet to put plans in place. Those who have thought about it may not have thought it through or put a plan in place.

For many business owners and entrepreneurs, the prospect of turning over to a successor the business they have put so much of their lives into building is too emotional to deal with. A properly prepared and executed succession plan can alleviate concerns over the future of their business, help ensure that their business thrives long after they exit and maximize their profit on leaving.

We have already seen situations in which a business owner is thinking of retiring in a few years and selling their business to a chosen individual who may already work there.

The owner discusses the idea with the individual, and strikes a loose, imprecise arrangement by which the individual will assume more responsibilities or service more of the business owner’s long-term customers over time. Sometimes it goes along with altered compensation packages where compensation is based not on a salary but on some kind of commission or fee structure.

But that plan goes awry along the way, leaving both parties frustrated and killing the arrangement. Why? Because the arrangement is loose, either not or poorly documented, and each party has a different view as to how and when the transition is to occur.

The owner may decide he wants to work longer, concerned about a reduced income in the transition years and in retirement, or just can’t seem to give up those customers or part of his control over the business.

The buyer gets frustrated because he or she is not getting the control they anticipated, and the transition is taking far longer than expected.

In the meantime, because of the slow transition, their compensation may actually drop, not rise. Each party is left feeling the other is not living up to their end of the bargain.

At a minimum, the relationship is soured and neither party is happy. And the buyer may just get fed up and walk away from the business and the deal.

So how can this mutual destruction and frustration be avoided?

Having a clear, mutual understanding in both parties’ minds is key to reducing the risk. While the owner may find it difficult, they should have frank discussions with the proposed successor with a view to entering a clear, mutually acceptable, clearly drafted written succession plan or purchase agreement.

And if the parties can’t reach a deal, at least they find out sooner rather than later. That lets both weigh their options before they become limited.

It attracted a comment from another author who describes the trend as attention based revenues displacing copy based revenues.

Read Chris Anderson’s post

Read Gerd Leonhard’s post

That has been true ever since the dawn of technology and markets.  Often easier said than done though.  One hint – if you start thinking that you need to have legislators change laws to protect your market, or feel the need to launch lawsuits against massive numbers of people – it may be time to reflect on this.

Read the Techdirt post

It comments that we have the technology and tools to do it – what we need is a change of mindset. I agree with that sentiment. I use less paper than most lawyers – but I can still do better.

In addition to saving paper, most of the tools used to save paper also increase productivity.

Read the article

Read this on Canoe

New figures released by Statistics Canada reveal a lack of response from public- and private-sector enterprises to the increasing demands for electronic commerce and technology.

The figures in the 2007 Survey of Electronic Commerce and Technology — available online at statscan.ca — show online sales have increased while the proportion of enterprises that sell goods and services online has remained relatively stable. In 2007, online sales by both the private and public sector increased by 26 per cent from the previous year, totalling an estimated $62.7 billion.

Though there has been an increase in online internet sales for six consecutive years, only 16 per cent of public-sector organizations and eight per cent of private-sector companies sold goods and services online in 2007.

While those numbers seem high, online sales made up an insignificant percentage of the total operating revenue in the private sector. Online sales accounted for only two per cent of total operating revenue in the private sector, up one percentage point from 2002.

Private- and public-sector enterprises are themselves participating in online transactions, but as consumers — not providers. According to the 2007 figures, public- and private-sector enterprises were more likely to buy goods or services online than they were to sell them online.

In 2007, 48 per cent of private-sector enterprises and 82 per cent of public-sector enterprises reported using the Internet to buy goods or services. In the same year, only eight per cent of the private-sector enterprises and 16 per cent of the public-sector enterprises reported using the Internet to sell online.

This trend has changed very little over the last four years, despite the continued growth in online sales. The most significant change has been in the percentage of public-sector enterprises, using the Internet to buy goods or services online, up 14 per cent from 2003.

One should not conclude from these figures that information and communications technologies are not popular among the public or private sector. In fact, most of the private sector reported using e-mail (81 per cent), wireless communications (77 per cent) and the Internet (87 per cent). Additionally, all public-sector enterprises surveyed reported using e-mail and the Internet (100 per cent) and nearly all — 91 per cent — reported using wireless communications.

It’s noteworthy that though more than three-quarters of the private-sector enterprises reported using some sort of information and communications technologies, less than half of them reported having a website (41 per cent). In contrast, 93 per cent of the public-sector enterprises reported having a website.

Essentially, private-sector enterprises are making use of information and communications technologies but not using them as much to facilitate online sales or to provide information about themselves and their products online.

This trend is surprising when only 10 per cent of the private-sector enterprises reported they perceived no benefits to doing business over the Internet. The most common perceived benefits by private-sector enterprises were lower costs (30 per cent), reaching new customers (36 per cent), and better co-ordination with suppliers, customers or partners (36 per cent).

Read this on Canoe

Many people presume it is better to incorporate a new business as a federal corporation rather than an Ontario corporation. But an Ontario corporation is usually the more practical alternative.

Ontario corporations can be created quicker than federal ones. They are also cheaper and easier to maintain going forward.

Many believe a federal corporation is required to operate across or outside Canada. Depending on the nature of the business, one with activities in several provinces may be better off incorporating federally, but an Ontario corporation can operate in various provinces as well.

If a corporation maintains a physical presence in a province other than where its head office is located, registration as an extraprovincial corporation is required, whether the company is incorporated federally or in Ontario.

Some feel a federal corporation is more prestigious, but that perception is neither strong nor widely held.

Some argue the corporate name is better protected if it’s a federal company. Use of a corporate name by either a federal or provincial corporation does not give the name any protection as a brand or trademark. If the corporate name will be used as its brand identity, it should be protected by a trademark registration.

Another advantage of an Ontario corporation is that bankers, accountants and lawyers are much more familiar with them. That saves time and money in the long run.

And when choosing a name for your corporation, whether federal or provincial, it’s a good idea to check to see if the domain name is available for various top-level domain extensions, including .ca and .com. And get those names quickly, while they are available.

A domain name can be a necessity for a business. A domain name the same as one’s corporate name can be useful international advertising. It may be the first place potential customers go to find information about a business.

Businesses also give a better impression if their e-mail addresses use their name. For example, dcanton@harrisonpensa.com seems more professional than dcanton@hotmail.com.

If the business intends to sell its products or services outside Canada, it may want to do at least some cursory trademark searches in other countries to see if the proposed name has been used by others for similar products or services.

It’s also prudent to put the proposed name in quotes and do a Google search to see what comes up. That will show any common uses for that name and what your customers will see when they search your name. It would not be a good thing if Google searches show sites that your customers might confuse with yours, or might be inconsistent with the image you want for your business.

It’s far better to think through federal versus provincial incorporation and choice of name at the outset, than to incorporate and find out you have to compromise on your domain name or change your name.

Read this on Canoe

Fraud affects business as well as individuals.

An Environics survey commissioned for the Competition Bureau of Canada revealed that Canadians lost more than $450 million to mass-marketing frauds committed by mail, phone and Internet in 2007.

It’s estimated that 95 per cent of people who are victims of mass-marketing fraud do not report it.

The Canadian Competition Bureau recently launched the Fraud Awareness for Commercial Targets, or FACT, campaign. This is an outreach and educational initiative that provides businesses and not-for-profit groups with the tools to avoid becoming victims of fraud.

Information to help organizations recognize and prevent fraud can be found on the bureau’s website at www.competitionbureau.gc.ca.

Examples of fraud vary. A common scam which targets many businesses is the issuance of fake invoices and fraudulent telemarketing pitches for office supplies. In other situations, office supplies that were never ordered are delivered or goods are paid for but never received.

By placing two to three strategic phone calls, fraudsters can glean enough information to make a business’s employee believe that a business relationship has been established. The merchandise delivered is usually poor quality and very expensive. Generally, there is no way to return the merchandise. Those who refuse to pay often get harassing calls from collection agencies and pay the bill to avoid damaging their business reputation.

Another common scam is the sending of an invoice for an appearance in a directory when applying for a trade-mark. It is done in a way that suggests it is part of the trademark application process. This is so common that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office includes a warning about it on their trademark approval invoices, along with a customer service number to confirm the legitimacy of the invoice.

The FACT Program urges employers to protect their organizations by training staff to offer responses like these:

- I need to see an offer in writing first.

- Send me a copy of our order.

- We only pay with evidence of a signed authorization.

- I need to consult my manager before making any decision.

- I cannot accept a shipment without written proof that we’ve ordered it.

- I’m not interested. Remove us from your contact list.

Businesses and consumers are encouraged not to make business arrangements over the phone and to hang up if the company soliciting business appears not to be legitimate.

This problem is not unique to Canada. At the international level, a Fraud Prevention Forum has been adopted. Thirty countries form ICPEN, the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network, which hosted Fraud Prevention Month activities.

Building on a previous co-operation agreement between Canada and the United States called the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), the competition bureau this month signed a co-operation arrangement with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Washington. The goal is to improve competition law enforcement to fight mass-marketing fraud and other deceptive marketing practices with a cross-border component.

The winners are:

Business of the Year (Small)
Big Blue Bubble

Business of the Year (Large)
Trojan Technologies

Global Traders Market Expansion
StarTech.com

Excellence in Human Resources
Citi Cards Canada – Citi Group

London Quality Award
University of Western Ontario Alumni Award

Global Traders Innovation
Quantum 5X Systems Inc

Corporate Icon Award
Trudell Medical (announced in advance of the event)

(Disclosure – I am on the Chamber’s board of directors)

Read the details on the Chamber’s web site

Jayme Cousins of In House Logic talked about how to develop a web presence.

David Ciccerelli of Voices.com talked about search engine optimization and search engine marketing.

I spoke about legal considerations around having a web site.

Take a look at my powerpoint (in pdf)