Prompt
Legal AI prompts for Canada
4 prompts you can paste straight into HAQQ or any other assistant. Every one is written out in full. Open it, copy it, change the bracketed parts.
Reconsideration Letter to a Canadian Decision-MakerLetter / EmailAdvancedAdministrative Law
You are counsel drafting a persuasive letter to the administrative decision-maker whose decision my client wants reconsidered, written before any application for judicial review is filed in Canada. Make the case for reconsideration in firm but courteous terms that keep the working relationship with the decision-maker intact. Facts: the client is [Client Name]; the decision was made by [Decision-Maker or Tribunal] on [Decision Date] under [Statute or Program Description]; the outcome was [Outcome]; the reasons given were [Summary of Reasons]; the review or appeal deadline is [Deadline]; the main complaint is [Core Complaint]. Deliverables: 1. A short opening paragraph that identifies the decision, the client and the exact relief requested. 2. A statement of the facts that were before the decision-maker, limited to what is on the record. 3. The argument for reconsideration, framed around procedural fairness, the adequacy of the reasons and the reasonableness of the outcome in the federal or provincial setting that applies. 4. A request for written reasons or the certified record if either is missing, with a proposed date for the reply. 5. A closing paragraph that states what the client will do next if there is no reply, without threatening proceedings. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, section number, case name or citation; cite the named source for every rule or deadline you rely on, or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel. Do not call the decision unreasonable or unfair unless the facts above support it. State whether the decision-maker has power to reconsider its own decision, and say plainly if that is unknown. The letter is a draft for a lawyer to review and is not legal advice for the client's specific situation.
Insurance Renewal Program Review Tables for CanadaTable / TimelineEnterpriseInsurance
You are coverage counsel reviewing an insurance renewal program for a Canadian group on behalf of its board, and presenting the findings concisely as tables. Canada has common law provinces and a civil law province, so state which province's law governs each policy and how differences between them affect the board's position. Facts: the insured group is [Insured Group], the lines of cover are [Lines of Cover], the insurers and layers are [Insurers and Layers], the policy periods are [Policy Periods], the retentions and limits are [Retentions and Limits], the claims or circumstances already notified are [Notified Claims], the counterparties requiring evidence of cover are [Cover Requirements], and the broker's recommendation is [Broker Recommendation]. Deliverables: 1. A table of each policy with insurer, limit, retention, trigger, period and governing law. 2. A table of the main exclusions, conditions and notice requirements, with clause references and the effect on the group. 3. A gap and overlap table across the layers, showing where cover is missing, duplicated or inconsistent between primary and excess policies. 4. A table of notified claims and circumstances against each policy, with the notice position and the insurer's response. 5. A table of contractual cover requirements against what the program provides. 6. A conflict table where the policies, the group's by-laws and the indemnities to directors point in different directions. 7. A comparison of the broker's recommendation with the findings, listing the alternatives with their cost and risk. 8. The decisions the board must take before renewal, in order, each with a recommended answer. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the policy clause or named source for every finding, or mark any rule or deadline as unverified and flag it for local counsel in each province. Do not state that a claim is or is not covered unless you quote the clause from the text supplied. Treat a notice deadline as missed only if the facts show it. Keep every table cell short.
Provincial Franchise Disclosure Compliance TableTable / TimelineAdvancedFranchise & Distribution
You are preparing an analytical compliance table for the board of [Franchisor Name] on its plan to sell franchises in several Canadian provinces. The board needs to see which provinces regulate franchise sales, what a disclosure document must contain, when it must be given and what happens if the franchisor gets it wrong. Facts: the franchisor is based in [Franchisor Location]; the target provinces are [Target Provinces]; the franchise is [Franchise Description] with an initial fee of [Initial Fee]; the franchise agreement is governed by [Governing Law]; the planned first sale date is [First Sale Date]. Deliverables: 1. A table by province showing whether a franchise statute applies, the disclosure timing, the form of the document and any filing or registration step. 2. The treatment of Quebec as a civil law province, expressed separately from the common law provinces. 3. The remedies for late or defective disclosure, including rescission and damages, and who bears the risk, stated per province. 4. The relationship obligations the statutes impose on the franchisor during the term, such as fair dealing and the right to associate. 5. A gap list of what the franchisor must prepare before the first sale, with an owner and a date for each item. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the named statute for every entry or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel in each province. Do not assume that the rules of one province apply in another. Do not state a time limit, a fee or a content requirement without a source. Flag where the facts leave the answer open.
Franchise Renewal Clause Review for a Canadian FranchiseeClause / ScheduleExpertFranchise & Distribution
You are reviewing the renewal clause of a franchise agreement for a franchisee in Canada and producing a clause-level markup for the client. The review is concise: it must show what the clause really requires, where it favours the franchisor, and a replacement clause the franchisee can propose. Facts: the franchisee is [Franchisee Name] operating in [Province]; the franchisor is [Franchisor Name]; the renewal clause reads as follows [Renewal Clause Text]; the current term ends on [Term End Date]; the franchisee's investment in the unit is [Investment in Unit]; the franchisor's planned changes, if known, are [Planned System Changes]; the other clauses that touch renewal, such as transfer, fees and default, are [Related Clauses]. Deliverables: 1. A plain restatement of what the clause obliges each side to do, with the dates and notice steps in order. 2. A list of terms that favour the franchisor, such as a requirement to sign the then-current form of agreement, a release or a new fee, each marked as common or unusual. 3. A note on how the franchise disclosure rules and the fair dealing duty of the province may affect the clause, with the point to confirm against the source. 4. A replacement clause for the franchisee to propose, in numbered sub-clauses. 5. A fallback version that gives up the least important points, and the points not to concede. 6. Questions for the franchisee about facts that change the advice. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, section number, case name or citation; cite the named source for every rule, or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel in the relevant province. Franchise law in Canada is provincial, so name the province you assume and say what would change in another. Do not say that a term is unenforceable; say only that it should be tested. Quote the original clause only as pasted and never fill gaps in it. This review is not legal advice on the franchisee's specific situation.