2011 - August
-
Upload
ontario-bar-association -
Category
Documents
-
view
232 -
download
9
description
Transcript of 2011 - August
EnBref
BRIEFLY speaking
Official Magazine of the Ontario Bar Association - A Branch of the Canadian Bar Association August 2011 | Vol. 36 No. 4
LAWLESSRiots and the role of lawyers
Hockey: A Law Unto ItselfNew Class Actions Law Section
Exploring Youth Law
With its BlueTEC clean diesel technology, and the torque of a V-8 engine, the E-Class proves that performance does not have to be at odds with the environment, or your budget. A great investment for attracting great talent. The E-Class. You’ve arrived.
Special offer exclusively for you from Mercedes-Benz Canada. For more details, visit us at mercedes-benz.ca/OBA.
The 2011 E-Class 4MATIC™. Starting from $62,900*.© 2010 Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. *Price does not include Freight, PDI, dealer Administrative fees, GST, HST or PST.
You can tell a lot about a company by the company it keeps.
1Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
BRIEFLYspeaking
OBA Officers/ Comité directeur de l’ABO
R. Lee AkazakiPresident/Président
Paul R. Sweeny1st Vice President/1er Vice-président
Morris A. Chochla2nd Vice President/2e Vice-président
Sean M. Kennedy Secretary/Secrétaire
Douglas R. DowneyTreasurer/Trésorier
Carole J. BrownImmediate Past President/Présidente sortante
Steve PengellyExecutive Director/Directeur exécutif
Editorial Board/Comité rédacteur
James MortonChair / Président Steinberg Morton Hope & Israel LLP
Chantal Brochu Buset & Partners LLP
Alastair Clarke York Community Services
Nancy Cooper Nancy E. Cooper Law Office
The Honourable Doug Lewis Lewis Downey Tornosky Lassaline & Timpano
Jeffrey S. Percival Pallet Valo LLP
J. Andrew SpragueMiller Thomson LLP
Questions or Comments? / Questions ou commentaires?
Editorial Team, Briefly Speaking/Rédaction, En bref
Catherine BrennanEditor/Rédactrice Spécialiste de communications 416-869-1047 ext/poste [email protected]
Cheryl CrockerMarketing Specialist/ Spécialiste marketing416-869-1047 ext/poste [email protected]
Filippo ConteBilingual Public Relations Lead/Responsible bilingue des relations publique 416-869-1047 ext/poste 346
Janet WeldonGraphic Design/Graphisme416-869-1047 ext/poste 363
FEATURES
20 Law in Chaos | Nathalie Des RosiersLawyers should honour their commitment to the law despite the actions of anarchists or hooligans.
22 The Legality of Education | Martha MackinnonOntario education is more legalistic than in any other province.
24 The Legal Rights of Minors | John P. Schuman and Suzanne ClarkeChildren must consent to medical treatment, but they may never be heard in family court.
26 Hockey Law | James MortonHockey has a long history and a terrible legal reputation.
36 The New Human Rights Landscape | Juliet KnaptonExamining the latest changes to Ontario’s human rights regulatory regime.
38 Publication and Disclosure Under the YCJA | Niamh Harraher“Young offenders circulate anonymously in the community, posing untold risks to public safety” Niamh Harraher explains why this isn’t true.
COLUMNS
2 Nota Bene
4 President’s Message | Message de la président
10 Spotlight On Sections | New Class Actions Law Section | Sylvie Rodrigue
28 Advocacy in Action I Making a Difference | Elizabeth Hall
32 LSUC Update | Law Society Forms Task Force to Address Articling Requirements | Laurie Pawlitza
34 Snapshots | 2010/2011 OBA Awards
40 Queen’s Park Update | The Hon. Chris Bentley
42 Supreme Court of Canada Update | Eugene Meehan, QC
Cover Photo: The Canadian Press/Jake Wright
1420 Law in Chaos: Toronto’s G20
Introducing the 2010/2011 New Calls
The Legal Rights Of Minors 24Hockey Law26
PUBLICATIONS AGREEMENT NUMBER 40069139RETURN UNDELIVERED CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO: OBA | 300-20 TORONTO ST TORONTO, ON | M5C 2B8 The opinions expressed by the authors in Briefly Speaking are not necessarily the approved views of the OBA.
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 2
NOTA BENE
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
The Honourable Kenneth L. Campbell, Counsel with the Crown Law Office (Criminal) of the Ontario Ministry of the At-torney General in Toronto, is appointed Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, to replace Mr. Justice C. Perkins, who was elected to become a supernumerary judge as of May 1, 2011.
Mr. Justice Campbell received a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) from the University of Toronto in 1978 and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from Queen’s University in 1981. He was admitted to the Bar of Ontario in 1983.
Mr. Justice Campbell has been Director, Crown Law Office, Criminal, since 2005. He has been Chair of the Ontario Crimi-nal Conviction Review Committee and Director of Asset Man-agement, Criminal since 2006. He has been a representative of Heads of Prosecution of the Supreme Court of Canada Litiga-tion Practice Committee since 2005. He has been with the Min-istry of the Attorney General of Ontario in different positions since 1983. His main areas of practise include criminal, quasi-criminal and constitutional law.
Mr. Justice Campbell has participated in a variety of continuing legal education panels for the Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Asso-ciation, as well as educational programs hosted by the Crimi-nal Lawyers’ Association, the Ontario Court of Justice Judges, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Judges, the Advocates’ Society, the Ontario Centre for Advocacy Training and others.
He has been a member of the Faculty of the National Criminal Law Program since 2001. He was a member of the Faculty of The National Judicial Institute (2004-2008) and of The Ontario Specimen Jury Instruction Committee (1998-2002). He was a sessional professor for the Faculty of Law of the University of Windsor (1994-1996). He is a Life-Time member of the Grant Hall Society, associated with Queen’s University and became a member of the Principal’s Circle of Distinction in 2004. He is also a member of numerous community committees.
The Honourable F. Bruce Fitzpatrick, a lawyer with LLF Lawyers in Peterborough is appointed a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Thunder Bay) to replace Madam Jus-tice B. Warkentin who was transferred to Ottawa to replace Mr. Justice CD. McKinnon, who elected to become a supernumerary judge as of February 20, 2011.
Mr. Justice Fitzpatrick received a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in 1983 from the University of Toronto and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from Queen’s University in 1986. He was admitted to the Bar of Ontario in 1988.
Mr. Justice Fitzpatrick has been a partner with LLF Lawyers since 1993. He was an associate at Chernos Conway from 1990 to 1993 and with Hicks Morley from 1988 to 1990, both in To-ronto. His main areas of practise were civil litigation involving construction liens, employment and labour relations, commer-cial law, real estate and family law.
Mr. Justice Fitzpatrick has been a representative for the Cen-
NotaBenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabene
3Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
tral East Region of the Ontario Bar Association Council since 2005. He was a member and presenter at the Annual Central East Advocacy Conference from 2001 to 2006 and part-time Vice-Chair (Province of Ontario) Licence Appeal Tribunal from 2000 to 2006. He was a member and Secretary, Central East Region Bench and Bar Committee from 1994 to 1999. He was the recipient of the City of Peterborough Civic Award for Com-munity Betterment in 2006 and of the Peterborough Historical Society Burnham Award for Community Outreach in 2009. He is a member of several community organizations.
2011 OBA AWARDS
On May 16, 2011 Susannah Roth of O’Sullivan Estate Lawyers was presented with the first OBA Heather McArthur Memorial Young Lawyers’ Award. This award recognizes exceptional con-tributions and achievements by a young lawyer in the field of continuing legal education or development of the law for the benefit of the profession or the citizens of Ontario.
The late John M. Hodgson, QC, The Hon. Heather McGee of the Superior Court of Justice and Eugene Meehan, QC of McMillan LLP are the winners of the 2011 OBA Distinguished Service Award. The award was presented to Justice McGee, Mr. Meehan and to Mrs. Joan Hodgson, wife of the late Mr. Hodgson, at the OBA Annual Awards Gala on May 5, 2011.
Also presented at the gala were Alayna M. Miller of Sevigny Westdal, who won the 2011 Linda Adlam Manning Award, and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, who were awarded the 2011 OBA President’s Award. Professor Con-stance Backhouse, of the University of Ottawa, won the Mun-dell Medal for Legal Writing.
2011 OBA SECTION AWARDS
On June 1, 2011 Barry Fisher, arbitrator and mediator, was honoured by the OBA Alternative Dispute Resolution Section at a special dinner event. Mr. Fisher was presented with the 2011 OBA Alternative Dispute Resolution Award of Excellence.
James Simmons, QC of Weaver Simmons LLP and Barrister and Solicitor Paul Lee, QC were presented with the 2011 OBA Award for Excellence in Insurance Law at two separate events in Toronto (Mr. Lee) on April 28 and in Sudbury (Mr. Simmons) on May 3.
The 2011 OBA Award for Excellence in Family Law was award-ed to the late Terrence Caskie and was presented to his wife and family at a special dinner event on June 8, 2011.
The Hon. Peter H. Howden of the Superior Court of Justice was the honoured recipient of the 2011 OBA Award for Excel-lence in Municipal Law at the section’s year-end dinner on June 16, 2011.
The OBA Real Property Section presented the 2011 Award for Excellence in Real Estate to Bradley N. McLellan of WeirFoulds LLP at their June 21, 2011 annual section social cocktail dinner.
On May 2, 2011 Leslie McIntosh, of the Ministry of the Attor-ney General, was awarded the 2011 OBA Tom Marshall Award of Excellence for Public Sector Lawyers.
Mary L. MacGregor of Dickson MacGregor Appell LLP is the 2011 winner of the OBA Award for Excellence in Trusts and Estates. She was honoured for her achievements at a special dinner on May 31, 2011.
The OBA Insolvency Law Section presented Daniel Dowdall of Faser Milner Casgrain LLP with the 2011 OBA Murray Klein Award for Excellence in Insolvency Law on May 25, 2011.
J. Michael Robinson, QC was awarded the 2011 OBA Award for Excellence in International Law. He was presented with the award on June 22, 2011 at a dinner event in Toronto.
2011 OBA Award for Excellence in Pensions and Benefits Law Recipient Raymond Koskie, QC was honoured by the bar at an event in Toronto on June 14, 2011.
Robert Boswell of Boswell Chapman Professional Corpora-tion was awarded the 2011 Ron Ellis Award for excellence in workers’ compensation law. Mr. Boswell was presented with the award at the section’s year-end dinner on June 2, 2011.
Go to page 34 to view snapshots from the various award events.
NOTA BENE
WANTEDYour Job PostingThe Legal Career Centre is offered as a complimen-
tary service to members of the Ontario Bar Association
Find us on the OBA homepage – click ‘Legal
Career Centre’E-mail [email protected] to submit a career opportunity today.
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 4
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Lawyers as Canadian Heroes: In Search of Our Burning BuildingLee Akazaki
LAWYERS AS HEROES? At last December’s OBA Council meeting, lawyer and politician Tim Murphy reminded us that we don’t save lives, we don’t feed people, and we don’t rush into burning buildings. Instead, we defend those accused of crimes and take on unpopular causes. True enough.
The public’s relationship with lawyers is multi-layered. The lawyer as hero is a common literary archetype who saves the day through law and logic, but people find the work of real law-yers hard to figure out. Ultimately, negativity toward lawyers plunges down the public desire to invest in justice.
Awful Branding
Have you ever introduced yourself at a pot-luck supper as a barrister and solicitor? Tell Americans you are a lawyer, and they ask, “You’re an attorney?” (South of the 49th, authors of fine print are called lawyers. Hiring a lawyer is like cheating at cards.)
I have travelled this country exhorting lawyers to counter our profession’s negative brand. I have appeared on TVO’s The Agen-da to urge Ontarians to apply the farmers’ slogan, If you’ve eaten today, thank a farmer, to lawyers. If you enjoy living in a free so-ciety, thank a criminal lawyer. If you’re married to a same sex spouse, thank OBA Family Law Award winner Martha McCarthy. A woman reporting a date rape may be forgiven for not writing a thank-you note to the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), recipient of the 2011 OBA President’s Award. But thanks to LEAF, judges hearing rape cases think twice before obsessing over the victim’s high heels and makeup. Police lay charges even if victims dress like ‘sluts.’ You can thank lawyers for making our
churches and schools safer for children, and public sidewalks safer for pedestrians. Not to mention all the community work we do.
Examine lawyers’ public image closely, similar to that of politicians; the public asks both professions to think on their behalf. Criticizing our leaders is fun, but consider what kind of Canada we might have without politicians. Any program re-quiring short-term pain for long-term gain is met with protest (as John Crosby found out). The same with carbon taxes, HST, and justice. Nothing makes sense if it requires two or more steps of thinking.
Whatever complexity may exist in their work, doctors, farm-ers and fire fighters have the advantage of a one-step cause-and-effect between what they do and a desirable end. Ours is the age of Viagra politics. We even talk about public program dollars in terms of ‘bang for your buck.’ Ours claims to be a so-phisticated society, and yet we still pick our heroes from the doers of easily understood tasks. Heroism is all a matter of out-come. We, masters of process, don’t stand a chance.
We Like Our Lawyers to Be Played by Actors
We do excel in firing the public’s neurons when it comes to lawyers played by actors. For a brief spate in the 1970’s, we had earnest outcome-achieving role models among TV doctors (Marcus Welby, M.D.), farmers (The Waltons) and fire fighters (Emergency!). However, lawyers make ideal dramatic charac-ters because a good story is all about process. Great lawyers of fiction make us nervous no matter what the story’s outcome.
5Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Not accidentally, the first great character of classical dra-ma is an archetypal lawyer hero. King Oedipus uses his wits to solve the riddle and save Thebes from the scourge of the Sphinx. In the end, thinking and behaving like a lawyer was his downfall. As the play unfolds, he summons and cross-examines witnesses, until finding none other than himself guilty of the parricide and incest that allowed him to become king. In scour-ing out his own eyes, Oedipus sentences himself to a life of blindness. He is prosecuting attorney, judge and convict, rolled into one—at one level, a cautionary tale out of the conflict of interest rules; at another, an enactment of the jurist’s credo that the public interest must come before personal advantage. Law is integral to tragedy because the well-known device of a hero’s hubris is a crime of heresy, and the outcome of the plot is a sentence imposed by the gods. Although they are not law-yers, Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Milton’s Satan bring about their own downfalls by over-thinking and by asking too many questions. Not by accident, the original literary term for plot is “argument,” what lawyers do.
Whereas the lawyer hero of tragedy is brought down by law, their comedic counterparts employ law to deliver happy end-ings for others. Debate over anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice has made it hard for modern audiences to embrace the iconic lawyer of comedy, Portia. (Truth be told, much of our ambivalence derives from the portrayal of a woman in the role of jurist.) Rumpole of the Bailey, a lawyer hero in the ha-ha type of comedy, refers to colleague Phyllida Erskine-Brown as ‘the Portia of our Chambers,’ a put-down that has nothing to do with the Bard’s treatment of Shylock. Despite her gruesome logic, what Portia does to arbitrate between the antagonists is simply to restate a principle of contract law. The contra profe-rentum doctrine requires courts to construe contractual terms narrowly when secured lenders seek enforcement.
The fictional lawyer-hero archetype proves that law perme-ates popular consciousness far more than the public appreci-ates. Real courtroom drama can keep the planet glued to their sets (the O.J. trial). Here, even a corporate insolvency case will have us cheering for a Canuck (Jim Balsillie’s attempt to buy the NHL’s Phoenix Coyotes). But law as spectacle translates poorly into public policy. It implies a lawyer’s function is to de-liver sweeping gestures. Lawyers, unlike Harry Potter, cannot chant something clever in Latin and make problems disappear.
Unfair Expectations Hurt, Too
Do not underestimate the harm the denigration our work causes to public policy. Where it hurts most is in Access to Jus-tice. Lawyers take personal risks, work harder than other pro-fessionals, and keep working after the money’s run out. Yet we have a reputation of being elitist ‘fat cats.’
Some criticism of the bar and bench is warranted. We have utterly failed to promote leaders who are representative of a diverse Canadian demographic. In its June 7, 2011, editorial, The Globe and Mail rightly decried the lack of racial diversity in the bench and bar and reminded us: ‘The legal profession is one of society’s most important pillars of democracy, as well as a pipeline to other leadership roles, including political office
and corporate board appointments.’ Our failure to ignite public support for a justice agenda means governments of all stripes underfund our legal aid plan, our courts and our administra-tive tribunals. The failure of the bar and bench to be like the public is a source of alienation.
A reputation of privilege and power creates the expectation that it falls on lawyers to burden themselves with shortcom-ings in the justice system. We have heard the message, que la noblesse oblige, as if the legal profession were a feudal estate.1
The fallacy that lawyers decrease access to justice because of a high profession-wide median hourly rate not only alienates the public from the profession, but also diverts attention from the state’s role in providing a working justice system. The fees of Main Street lawyers have very low margins after they pay for rent and support staff. (Should lawyers in business law firms charge legal aid rates to blue chip companies and multi-nationals?) Our collective failure to invest in the justice system creates backlogs and adjournments, defensive practices and lengthier proceedings. Yet still we are blamed.
Marvel at the public’s reluctance to pay for justice and at the blank cheque written to Medicare. (Although Canadians see the shine coming off the fully public model.2) The health in-dustry’s billion-dollar lobbying power ensures it remains atop everyone’s list of priorities, at the expense of everything else. What is left pays for everything —from defending our borders, to filling potholes on the street where you live. Justice, alas, is the classic taken-for-granted girlfriend or boyfriend of Cana-dian politics. Our belief that the public cares about justice pro-grams like legal aid or court reform is a conceit. What stirs our souls, does not stir theirs.
Fear of Needing Lawyers—The Real Reason We Don’t Want Real Lawyer Heroes
If a lawyer entering a burning building could incite the pub-lic to start thinking about our crippled justice system, we may even find some volunteers. In many parts of the world, build-ings are ablaze with lawyers inside. Lawyers brave and suffer imprisonment, torture or death for performing their work. The existential reality of our calling is that people value an in-dependent bar only when backed into a corner by an oppres-sive regime, with lawyers standing between and them and arbitrary detention. The Robert Mugabe’s of the world know this. When lawyers are our heroes, we know we’re all in trouble. When the problem is that of our neighbour, or of those who live in communities we do not enter, we like watching lawyers in the theatre or on TV, and ‘get’ what they do. Let us then hope Canadians never have lawyers for heroes. Let us instead invest in law and justice. In the true spirit of heroism throughout the ages, lawyers say: That is all we ask.
1 “Legal system doesn’t work for ordinary people, top judge says,” The Vancouver Sun, February 14, 2011
2 Ensight, 2011 Post-Election Report: Mind Your Majority, Eh? May 6, 2011, p. 6
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 6
MESSAGE DU PRÉSIDENT
LES AVOCATS EN TANT QUE HÉROS? Lors de la réunion du conseil d’administration de l’ABO [Association du Barreau de l’Ontario] de décembre dernier, l’avocat et le politicien Tim Murphy nous a rappelés que nous ne sauvons pas des vies, nous ne nourrissons pas des gens, et nous ne nous précipitons pas dans des édifices en flammes. Par contre, nous défendons ceux que l’on a accusés de crimes et nous adoptons des causes impopulaires. C’est assez juste comme notion.
Le rapport du public avec les avocats incorpore plusieurs niveaux. L’avocat comme héros est un archétype littéraire qui trouve une solution au moyen du droit et de la logique, mais les gens trouvent que le travail de vrais avocats est difficile à comprendre. Ultimement, la négativité envers les avocats fait baisser la volonté du public d’investir dans le système judici-aire.
Une stratégie de marque épouvantable
Vous est-il jamais arrivé de vous présenter aux invités lors d’un souper à la fortune du pot comme un avocat-procureur ? Si vous dites aux Américains que vous êtes avocat, ils vous de-manderont, « Vous êtes un avoué [« attorney » aux États-Unis]? » (Au sud du 49 e parallèle, on nomme les auteurs des clauses de contrat écrites en petits caractères des avocats. Engager un avocat ressemble à l’action de tricher aux cartes.)
J’ai voyagé partout dans ce pays à pousser les avocats à con-trer la marque négative de notre profession. J’ai fait une ap-parence au programme télévisé de TV Ontario « The Agenda [l’Ordre du jour] » pour inciter les Ontariens à appliquer le slo-
gan des agriculteurs, « Si vous avez mangé aujourd’hui, remer-ciez un agriculteur, » aux avocats. Si vous aimez vivre dans une société qui est libre, remerciez un avocat spécialisé en droit criminel. Si vous êtes marié à un conjoint de même sexe, remer-ciez la gagnante du prix d’excellence en droit de la famille de l’ABO Martha McCarthy. On pourrait pardonner à une femme qui signale un viol commis par une connaissance de ne pas vouloir écrire une note de remerciement au Fonds d’action et d’éducation juridiques pour les femmes (FAEJF), qui est le réci-piendaire du prix du président de l’OBA de 2011. Mais, grâce au FAEJF, les juges qui président les cas de viol réfléchissent deux fois avant d’être obsédé par des talons hauts et le maquil-lage de la plaignante/de la victime. La police dépose des accu-sations même si les victimes s’habillent comme des « putains ».Vous pouvez remercier les avocats d’avoir rendu nos églises et nos écoles plus sécuritaires pour les enfants, et les trottoirs publics plus sécuritaires pour les piétons, sans mentionner tout le travail communautaire que nous faisons.
Examinez l’image publique des avocats, et elle ressemble à celle des politiciens. Le public demande aux deux professions de réfléchir de sa part. On s’amuse à critiquer nos leaders, mais considérez quel genre de Canada nous pourrions avoir sans les politiciens. Tout programme exigeant que l’on accepte la dou-leur à court terme contre un gain à long terme provoque des protestations (comme l’a découvert John Crosby). Il en va de même pour les taxes sur les émissions de carbone, la TVH, et la justice. Rien ne donne sens s’il faut deux ou trois étapes de penser pour traiter de la question.
Les avocats en tant que héros canadiens : À la recherche de notre édifice en flammesLee Akazaki
7Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
MESSAGE DU PRÉSIDENT
Quelle que soit la complexité qui pourrait exister dans leur travail, les médecins, les agriculteurs et les pompiers ont l’avantage de jouir d’une relation de cause à effet en une seule étape entre leur profession et un résultat désirable. Notre âge est celui de la politique du Viagra. Nous parlons même du fi-nancement des programmes publics en termes de « rende-ment de l’investissement ».Notre société prétend en être une société qui est sophistiquée, et pourtant nous continuons de choisir nos héros parmi les performeurs des tâches qui sont facilement saisissables. En ce qui concerne l’héroïsme, il s’agit du résultat, en fin de compte. Nous, les maîtres des processus, n’ont aucune chance de nous en sortir.
Nous voulons que le rôle de nos avocats soit joué par des acteurs
Nous excellons à allumer les neurones au public lorsqu’il s’agit des avocats joués par des acteurs. Pendant une brève période dans les années soixante-dix, parmi des médecins des séries télévisées, nous avons eu des modèles de fonction professionnelle sincères qui ont réussi à obtenir des résultats : le Dr Marcus Welby, des fermiers (Les Walton) et des pompi-ers Emergency [Cas d’urgence]!). Cependant, les avocats font des personnages dramatiques idéaux, car une bonne histoire porte principalement sur les processus. Les grands avocats des romans nous rendent nerveux, peu importe le résultat de l’histoire.
Pas par accident, le premier grand personnage du drame classique est un héros avocat archétype. Le roi Oedipe emploie son intelligence pour résoudre l’énigme et pour sauver Thèbes du fléau du Sphinx. En fin de compte, penser et se conduire comme un avocat a entraîné sa ruine. À mesure que la pièce se déroule, il assigne à comparaître et contre-interroge des té-moins, jusqu’à trouver personne d’autre que lui-même qui est coupable du parricide et de l’inceste qui l’ont permis de deve-nir roi. En s’arrachant ses propres yeux, Oedipe se condamne à une vie de cécité. C’est le procureur, le juge et le détenu, ce qui constitue une entité —à un niveau, c’est un avertissement provenant des règles du conflit d’intérêt; à un autre niveau, c’est une représentation du crédo du juriste que l’intérêt du public doit supplanter l’avantage personnel. Le droit est inté-gral à la tragédie, puisque l’expédient bien-connu de l’orgueil démesuré du héros est un crime d’hérésie, et le dénouement de l’intrigue est une peine imposée par les dieux. Bien qu’ils ne soient pas des avocats, les personnages d’Hamlet de Shake-speare et de Satan de Milton entraînent leurs propres chutes en sur-pensant des idées et en posant trop de questions. Pas par accident, le terme originel pour l’intrigue est « argument », (infinitif « argumenter »), ce que font les avocats.
Alors que le héros avocat de la tragédie est abattu par le droit, ses homologues comiques emploient le droit pour livrer des fins heureuses pour d’autres. Le débat sur l’antisémitisme dans Le Marchand de Venise a rendu la tâche difficile au public moderne d’accepter l’avocate iconique de la comédie, Portia. (À dire la vérité, beaucoup de notre ambivalence provient de la représentation d’une femme dans le rôle d’un juriste.) Rumpole du Bailey, un héros avocat dans le genre de comédie rigolote, appelle sa collègue Phyllida Erskine-Brown « la Portia de notre cabinet », une insulte qui n’a rien à faire avec le traitement de
Shakespeare relativement au personnage de Shylock. Malgré sa logique horrible, pour arbitrer entre les antagonistes, Portia ne fait que reformuler un principe de droit des contrats. La doc-trine de « contra proferentem »exige que les tribunaux inter-prètent étroitement les dispositions contractuelles lorsque les créanciers garantis recherchent l’exécution des lois.
L’archétype du héros avocat fictif prouve que le droit pénètre dans la conscience du peuple beaucoup plus que le public ne l’apprécie. Le drame réel de la salle du tribunal pourrait tenir les habitants de la planète collés à leur siège (p. ex., le procès d’O. J. Simpson). Ici, même une action d’insolvabilité d’une en-treprise nous fera applaudir un Canadien (p. ex., la tentative de M. Jim Balsille d’acheter l’équipe des Coyotes de Phoenix de la LNH [Ligue nationale de hockey]. Mais le droit comme spec-tacle se traduit mal en politique publique. Cette notion impli-que que la fonction d’un avocat est de livrer des gestes symbol-iques. Les avocats, à la différence de Harry Potter, ne peuvent pas psalmodier quelque chose en latin pour faire disparaître des problèmes.
Des attentes injustes font mal également
Ne sous-estimez pas le mal que l’action de dénigrer notre travail entraîne à la politique publique. Là où ce concept nuit le plus est relativement à l’accès à la justice. Les avocats pren-nent des risques personnels, travaillent plus fort que d’autres professionnels, et continuent de travailler après que l’argent s’épuise. Pourtant, nous avons une réputation d’être des « gros chats » élitistes.’
On pourrait justifier certaines critiques du barreau et de la magistrature d’assise. À ce titre, nous avons échoué complète-ment à promouvoir des leaders qui sont des représentants d’une démographique canadienne diverse. Dans son édito-rial du 7 juin 2011, The Globe and Mail a correctement décrié le manque de diversité à l’assise magistrale et au barreau et nous a rappelé que : « La profession juridique est un des piliers les plus importants de la démocratie qui sert de passage vers d’autres rôles de direction, y compris l’instance politique et les nominations aux conseils d’administration des entreprises. » Le fait que nous n’avons pas réussi à susciter du soutien pub-lic pour un programme justice signifie que les gouvernements de tous les types sous-financent notre régime d’aide juridique, nos tribunaux et nos tribunaux administratifs. Le fait que le barreau et la magistrature d’assise au public ne ressemblent pas au public constitue une source d’aliénation.
Une réputation de privilège et de puissance crée l’attente qu’il incombe aux avocats de s’accabler de traiter des insuffi-sances dans le système judiciaire. Nous avons entendu le mes-sage que la noblesse oblige comme si la profession juridique était un état féodal. L’idée fausse que les avocats diminuent l’accès à la justice en raison d’un taux horaire moyen partout dans la profession, en plus qu’aliéner le public de la profession, distraie l’attention du rôle de l’état à fournir un système ju-ridique fonctionnel. Les honoraires des avocats de la rue Prin-cipale ont des marges très basses après qu’ils ont payé le loyer et le personnel de soutien. (Les avocats des cabinets juridiques en droit des affaires devaient-ils demander des taux d’aide ju-ridique aux sociétés de premier ordre et aux multinationales?
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 8
Notre manque collectif d’investir dans le système judiciaire crée des arriérés et des ajournements, des pratiques défen-sives et des instances plus longues. Pourtant, on nous blâme toujours.
Émerveillez-vous de la répugnance du public à payer la jus-tice et du chèque en blanc à l’ordre du régime d’assurance-maladie Medicare (même si les Canadiens voient la brillance se détacher du modèle qui est totalement public. ) Le pouvoir de manœuvres de couloirs, valant des milliards de dollars du secteur de la santé, s’assure que la santé reste en tête de la liste de priorités de tout le monde, aux dépens de toute autre chose. Ce qui nous reste paie tout – de la défense de nos frontières au remplissage de nids-de-poule dans la rue où vous habitez. La justice, hélas, est l’ami ou l’amie classique de la politique cana-dienne que l’on tient pour acquis. Notre croyance que le public se soucie des programmes judiciaires tels que l’aide judiciaire ou la réforme de la cour est, en fait, une vanité. Ce qui remue notre âme ne stimule pas la leur.
La peur d’avoir besoin des avocats – La vraie raison pour laquelle nous ne voulons pas de véritables héros avocats.
Si un avocat qui entre dans un édifice en flammes pouvait incit-er le public à commencer à penser de notre système juridique paralysé, nous pourrions peut-être trouver des bénévoles.
Dans plusieurs endroits au monde, des édifices sont en feu al-ors que les avocats en sont à l’intérieur. Les avocats affrontent et subissent l’emprisonnement, la torture ou même la mort en effectuant leur travail. La réalité existentielle de notre voca-tion est que les gens ne valorisent un barreau indépendant que lorsqu’un régime oppressif les met dans une situation difficile, des avocats leur servant de barrière contre la détention arbi-traire. Les Robert Mugabe du monde le savent bien. Lorsque les avocats sont nos héros, nous savons que nous sommes tous en difficulté. Lorsque le problème est celui de notre voisin, ou de ceux qui habitent des communautés où nous n’entrons pas, nous aimons regarder les avocats dans le théâtre ou à la télé et nous « saisissons » ce qu’ils font. Espérons que les Canadiens n’auront jamais des avocats pour héros. Investissons plutôt dans le droit et la justice. Dans l’esprit véritable d’héroïsme depuis toujours, les avocats disent : « C’est tout ce que nous demandons. »
1 Legal system doesn’t work for ordinary people, top judge says, [Le système juridique ne fonctionne pas pour les gens ordinaires, le plus haut juge dit-il » The Vancouver Sun, le 14 février 20112 Ensight Canada, 2011 Post-Election Report: Mind Your Major-ity, Eh? [Rapport postélectoral de 2011 : Occupez-vous de votre majorité, hein?], le 6 mai 2011, p. 6
MESSAGE DU PRÉSIDENT
McKellar introduced the concept of
structured settlements in Canada in 1979.
With almost 40 people at your disposal,
we continue to set the standard today,
providing safe, reliable, tax-free
investment options for injured parties,
while lowering claims costs.
McKellar... now you’re sure.
Billions of dollars invested, not a penny lost.The McKellar Structured Settlement™
EDMONTON
1.780.420.0897
GUELPH 1.800.265.8381
www.mckellar.com
HALIFAX
1.800.565.0695
UNITED STATES
1.800.265.2789
McKellar__Penny_7.5 x 4.5.indd 1 4/28/11 9:38:56 AM
9Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
Why Should an Established Lawyer Like Me Attend?• Promotethewonderfulcommunityyouliveandpractisein.• Meetyounglawyersinterestedinhelpingyourpracticegroworevenbuyingit.• Watchingyourbudget?Itwon’tcostyouapenny–theeventisFREE.
Why Should a New Lawyer Like Me Attend?• Learnaboutwork-lifebalanceoptionsavailabletoyou.• ExplorepathstosuccessbeyondBayStreetandclosertothecottage.• Didwemention,it’sFREE?
Symposium and Career Fair for new lawyers and law students to explore opportunities in smaller firms and communities across the province.
Last year, registration sold out weeks in advance. Don’t be left out!Register Online: ecom.lsuc.on.ca/articlingandbeyond
Workshops, networking, and attractive lifestyle options in fantastic Ontario communities await you.
Join us on Facebook (search Articling and Beyond) to take part in our exclusive programming poll and to find out about the programs on offer, the firms and practitioners attending, and other special updates.
Presented by:
November 18, 2011 | 1pm-5pmThe Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Register Online: ecom.lsuc.on.ca/articlingandbeyond
SAVE THE DATE FOR:
• Are you hoping to one day retire and actually sell your practice?
• Do you want to hire a law student or build your practice with a new lawyer?
• Do you live in a wonderful community and want to encourage its continued success?
What is it? A Symposium and Career Fair for Law Students and New Lawyers to provide them with information and contacts to help them explore opportunities in smaller firms and smaller communities throughout the province.
When and Where? November 18, 2011 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. at The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Look for registration details in September.
Why Should YOU Attend? It’s a great opportunity to connect with law students and young lawyers from across Ontario. It’s your chance to promote your practice, your community and all of the reasons why you and your colleagues work and live there. And it’s FREE.
Presented by:
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 10
I am thrilled to announce the creation of the OBA Class Ac-tion Law Section, and encourage everyone interested by this fascinating practice area to join.
Since the Class Proceeding Act was enacted in 1992, ours has been among the fastest growing areas of law in Ontario. Almost all mass torts, product liability, securities and anti-trust cases are litigated through the class actions process and not on an individual basis.
Recent cases include damage awards as high as $400 million. Although most cases used to settle after a certification order, a growing number of cases are now going to trial giving rise to new procedural and substantive law issues. The judiciary and the bar are developing experience in the manageability of large scale disputes through the class actions vehicle. This area of the law is constantly evolving. Decisions are being rendered on a weekly basis affecting the strategy that parties may want to adopt in their pending cases.
The OBA’s newest section has grown out of the Class Ac-tions Subcommittee of the Civil Litigation Section. In two short years, the subcommittee grew to include over 300 members. Recognizing the strong demand for professional development, networking and advocacy specific to this area of law, in March 2011 the OBA Board of Directors approved our proposal to ma-ture into a full fledged section and we are now accepting our first official members.
Our section provides an important forum for members of the plaintiff and defence bar, as well as in-house counsel, and the judiciary to exchange insights and opinions on the develop-ment of class actions law.
Interest in class actions risk and exposures is not limited to litigation lawyers. Class actions present significant business and enterprise risks to many corporations. These cases often
involve issues of substantive law studied by lawyers practising in business, pensions and benefits, aboriginal, citizenship and immigration, health, securities, product liability, environmen-tal, competition, labour and employment, constitutional, civil liberties, human rights, and franchise law. A dedicated class actions law section brings together all these lawyers and fos-ters a more focused dialogue on the issues unique to this area of practice.
Although class actions are litigated by a number of special-ists, there are many lawyers whose class actions practice is a markedly smaller proportion of their practice. Our section will promote accessibility for new practice entrants whether young lawyers or more experienced lawyers. In-house corporate counsel have been asking for more continuing education and professional development in this area as most of them need to manage these massive, often multi-jurisdictional cases, on a daily basis.
To date, one of the highlights of our continuing professional development programming has been the Annual OBA Class Ac-tions Colloquium. This event has quickly developed into one of the two premier class actions conferences in Ontario, showcas-ing national and international speakers, and delivered at mod-est rates that guarantee greater access to OBA members com-pared to conferences provided by profit-making organizations. We are in the process of organizing the 2011 Colloquium, to be held on December 1st. Save the date as it will be a fantastic program!
If you find yourself dealing with these issues, I would en-courage you to join our section and begin benefitting from all we have to offer.
Sylvie Rodrigue practises primarily in commercial and civil litigation and has ex-tensive experience in class action litigation. She is a partner with Norton Rose LLP in Toronto.
SPOTLIGHT ON SECTIONS
New OBA Class Actions Law SectionSylvie Rodrigue
11Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
Have your OBA Membership…and Sections too
Why Join Sections? It’s All About You.Advocacy Education Expertise Newsletters Awards Leadership
oba.org/joinsections See page 12 for registration form
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 12
2011-2012 Sections Renewal Join online at www.oba.org/joinsections
Discount pricing for 4 or more Sections see www.oba.org/discounts
VISA Mastercard Total Charge:________________ Card# __________________________________________________________ Expiry: __________
Signature: _______________________________________________________________________ Faxed forms will not be processed unless accompanied by valid credit card number and expiry date.
Cheque Enclosed (make cheque payable to Ontario Bar Association)
TThhrreeee wwaayyss ttoo EEnnrroollll::1. Join online at www.oba.org/joinsections2. By Fax to 416-869-1390 or 1-888-833-25803. By Mail: Ontario Bar Association
300-20 Toronto St - Toronto, ON M5C 2B8
Enquiries: 1-800-668-8900 or 416-869-1047 x 314 or x 315 Email: [email protected] Website: www.oba.org/sections
Full Name ____________________________________________________________ Organization __________________________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
CBA-OBA # _______________________________________ Phone ____________________________________________ Fax _______________________________________________ Email _____________________________________________
SECTIONS PRICE HST SUBTOTALAboriginal Law Administrative Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Business Law CCCA Toronto Chapter (Corporate Counsel) Charity and Not-For-Profit Law Citizenship and Immigration Law Civil Litigation Class Actions Law Constitutional, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Construction Law Criminal Justice Education Law Entertainment, Media and Communications Environmental Law Family Law Feminist Legal Analysis Franchise Law Health Law Information Technology and E-Commerce Insolvency Law Insurance Law International Law Labour & Employment Law Law Practice Management (LPM) Municipal Law Natural Resources and Energy Pensions and Benefits Privacy Law Public Sector Lawyers Real Property Law Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Sole, Small Firm and General Practice Taxation Law Trusts and Estates Workers’ Compensation Young Lawyers’ Division (YLD - $30 )
TOTAL
OBA’s Membership Directory: The Ontario Bar Association’s secure, online Membership Directory has been developed to further support the work of the association and to help Members find other Members, and is accessible to Members only by logging in behind the OBA “Members Only” wall at www.oba.org. This directory includes Member name, firm, address, phone, fax and e-mail address (as indicated on this form), plus county and any registered Sections and active Committee affiliations. A print directory of key volunteers may also be produced for limited distribution and internal use. For further information about CBA’s and OBA’s treatment of personal information, please see our Privacy Policy at www.cba.org or www.oba.org
By checking this box , I DO NOT wish to be listed in OBA’s secure, online Membership Directory, accessible only to Members.
NOTE:• You must be a CBA-OBA member in good standing
to enroll in Sections • Section enrollment fees are non-refundable, non-
transferable, and will not be pro-rated• Section benefits and activities begin in September
and conclude in June
CBA NATIONAL SECTIONS / CONFERENCES(NO CHARGE)
Air/Space Law Competition Law Elder Law French Speaking Lawyers Intellectual Property Legal Profession Assistance Maritime Law Military Law Commodity Tax, Customs & Trade
** ** ** PPRRIICCEESS ** ** **EACH SECTION (except YLD): $50.00 + $6.50 (HST) YLD SECTION ONLY $30.00 + $3.90 (HST)40 years of age or younger or called to the Bar 10 years or less
HST# R100760495
Confused about your discount pricing? Complete our secure online enrollment form at
www.oba.org/joinsections for a correct calculation. You have the option of submitting online or printing a hard copy and sending by
mail.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
13Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
1 Please refer to the policy for full details, including actual terms and conditions. The TitlePLUS policy is underwritten by Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (LAWPRO®). Contact LAWPRO forbrokers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and Québec.
2 Excluding OwnerEXPRESS® policies and Québec policies.® TitlePLUS, the TitlePLUS logo, OwnerEXPRESS and LAWPRO are registered trademarks of Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company.® BAR-RELATED Mark is a registered Mark of North American Bar Related Title Insurers used by LAWPRO under License.
PROTECTION AS GOOD AS IT GETS
1-800-410-1013 titleplus.ca
Everything you needTogether we have all the tools
The TitlePLUS® Program works with you to help protect yourclients from title risks.1 With the right tools we assist you, throughour legal services coverage2, by reducing the inconvenience ofdealing with a loss as the result of an error or omission in yourreal estate transactions.
To ensure your clients get the most comprehensive coveragein one policy, take a look at the TitlePLUS Program, yourBar-related® real estate partner!
26 Briefly Speaking (Multi-tool) 12/18/08 2:51 PM Page 1
www.navigantconsulting.com
FOCUSED ImpaCtCompanies and their counsel work side by side with seasoned
Navigant consultants to access expert guidance with a
balanced view of the matters in disputes and investigations.
The goal: better resolution with focused impact.
©2010 Navigant Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Navigant Consulting is not a certified public accounting firm and does not provide audit, attest, or public accounting services. See www.navigantconsulting.com/licensing for a complete listing of private investigator licenses.
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 14
Congratulations to the June 2011Calls to the Bar
15Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
LImtenan Sobhy Mohamed Abd El Razik
Bekhzod Abdurazzakov
Daniel Steven Ableser
Chad Nicholas Aboud
Roberto David Aburto
Pavlos Achlioptas
David Adanja
Oluwabukola Oluwarotimi Adeoye
Nina Aggarwal
Shafaq Ahmad
Robert Mark Akman
Daniel Albahary
Rebecca Zora Aleem
Maria-Antonietta Alfano
Kristen Farida Ali
Maryla Ali
Shelina Ali
Jacob Benjamin Allen
Bradley Alexander Allgood
Victoria Heather Allsopp
Sarra Hafidh Alsamarrai
Ansam Al-Sarraj
Byron Xavier Alvares
Aisha Amjad
Darcy June Edith Ammerman
Arash Amouzgar
Behrouz Amouzgar
David Andrew Anderson
Devin John Halton Anderson
Sherri Ann Anderson
Roberto Salvatore Andreacchi
John Albert Annen
Jessica Crystal Antoine
Kiel Pall Steinthorsson Ardal
Tobi Laraba Aribido
Varoujan Chasins Arman
Jonathan Mark Armitage
Matthew Edgar Armstrong
Melissa Lorie Arruda
Noah Michael Arshinoff
Ariane Joan Asselin
Troy Erin Robert Asselin
Deepti Asthana
Daniel Edward Attwell
Vickramjeet Aujla
Katherine Helena Aukema
Samuel Stephen Kenneth Ault
Karen Olufunlola Ayanbadejo
Andrew Michael Sangster Baerg
Shahram Bahmadi Moghadam
Michelle Janice Bain
Nicholas Charles Baker
Marta Natalia Balcewicz
Christopher Ball
Lindsay Karla Bandini
Shazia Banduk
David Edwin Lightfoot Barbaree
Ashlee Lorraine Barber
Meital Bar-Dayan
Jennifer Sarah Barnes
Timothy Charles Barrett
Yulia Barsky
Cecilia Marion Bastedo
Lyne Claire Marie Beauchamp
Kathryn Lauren Beck
Shannon Elizabeth Beddoe
Michael John Arthur Beeson
Samreen Rabbani Beg
John Stephen Beke
Darcy Keith Mathew Belisle
Joel Gregoire Belisle
Keri Lynne Bennett
Steven Duane Bennett
Brittany Leigh Benning
Harley Edward Bernard
Daniel Adam Bernstein
Rashmi Ramachandra Bhat
Domenic Nicolas Bianchi
Adrian Taras Bilyk
Heather Jane Bird
Mark William Birdsell
Danielle Celine Bisnar
Rene Joseph Sanderson Bissonnette
Christopher Patrick Harbour Bitonti
Andrew Nicholas Black
Michael Gibson Blackburn
Ovidiu Cristian Blidariu
Diana Rebecca Bloom
Sarah Joann Bode
Jessica Marie Boileau
Andrea Marie Bolieiro
Gillian Hope Bookman
Harpinder Singh Boora
Corinne Hailey Bordman
Morgan Clayton Borins
Jonathan David Born
Kathryn Ann Bortolussi
Christine Youssef Rizk Boulos
Joe Warren Richard Bowcock
Janelle Ann Bowman
Cheryl Anne Boyd
Danielle Lee Boyd
Christopher Darren Boyko
Ian Killoran Bradley
Amanda Nicole Branch
Craig Anthony Brannagan
Adam Joshua Braun
Laura Dryden Brazil
Julie Danielle Breau
Mathew Drew Brechtel
Geoffrey Hanson Breen
Kevin Robert Bridel
Gordon Alexander Henry Bridge
Joelle Humphrey Briggs-Sears
Laura Suzanne Brittain
Emilie Rafaelle Brouzes
Fiona Sioban Brown
Patrick McDonald Bruce
Lia Joyce Bruschetta
Robert Paul Brykman
Erin Lynn Buchner
Ren Richard Bucholz
Jonathan Joseph Roger Paul Bujeau
Sharon Ashley Burnett
Jason Alexander Robert Burns
Laura Jane Bursell
David Alexander Burton
Christopher James Bury
Idiat Afolake Busari
Jennifer Erin Butcher
Jennifer Polina Butkus
Erik William Bylsma
Bernard Clint Cadden
Nicholas Alexander Cake
David Andrew Campbell
Fiona Francis Campbell
Ryan Douglas Campbell
Tiffany Noelle Ciarallo Canzano
Andrew Omar Captan
Liam Christopher Michael Nicholas Cardill
Julie-Anne Claudine Lise Cardinal
Milena Cardinal
Avril M Cardoso
Timothy John Carre
Madeleine Anna Daisy Carter
Guillermo Andres Carvajal Gomez
Tyler Steven Leonard Casselman
Rami Camille Chalabi
Patrick Park Hay Chan
Theresa Suk-Ting Chan
Victoria Caroline Esther Chapman
James Kofi Chapman Nyaho
Sarah Elizabeth Tinkham Charles
Aurina Arnab Chatterji
Sunira Chaudhri
Alfred Wing Fai Cheng
Grace Tin Wai Cheng
James Roger Cheng
Harry Samuel Cherniak
Anthea Yuen Ting Cheung
Sarika Chhabra
Jamie Lynn Chiang
Jin Chien
Nadia Sarah Chiesa
Elmira Chimirova
Hoori Nora Chitilian
Peter Cho
Gargi Chopra
Joel David Chrolavicius
Benjamin Chia Ming Chu
Jillian Amanda Chuchryk
Shelby Chung
Susannah J S Chung
Robert Michael Church
Brendan James Clancy
Katherine Elizabeth Grace Clarey
Kyle Daniel Cleaver
Marie Theresa Clemens
Rebekkah Ann Coburn
Anne Louise Cole
Jenna Lacey Colle
Aimee Frances Collier
Antoine L Collins
Kristi Janene Collins
Raffaela Commodari
Serban-Alexandru Constantin
Javier Gonzalez Consuegra
Michael Alexander Cook
Andrew Kenneth Cooley
Niall Eoin Cooney
Jean-Michel Louis Corbeil
Beverley Gayle Cormier
Cara Ann Cornacchia
Carolyn Ruth Cornford
Rosemary Deborah Cosentino
Eric George Costaris
Julien Joseph Robert Maxime Côté
Brian Evert Cox
Michael Brandon Craig
Hilary Robin Crangle
Joanna Leigh Creed
Christopher Michael Crighton
Dylan James MacLeod Crosby
Eric Scott Crowe
Gadhi Cruz
Xue Xun Cui
Ying Fang Cui
Lisa Jean Culbert
Katherine Alicia Culver
Christopher William Cummins
David Albert Curry
Amanda Pamela Dakouré
Alana Marie Daley
Daniel Daniele
Natasha Simone Danson
Sindura Mehnaz Dar
Jasmeet Kaur Dara
Cara Elizabeth Davies
Elena Maryann Davies
Jonathan Christopher Despres Davies
Jill Christine Davis
Kathleen Marie De Block
Tasha Leinore De Freitas
Adam Christopher De Luca
Emilia Anna De Somma
Heidi Faith de Vries
Alexander James Reginald Dearham
Jennifer Del Vecchio
Justin Joseph Dela Pena
Mathieu Delorme
Varsha Nita Deokaran
Jean Benoît Joseph Jean Fernand
Dominique Deschamps
Michelle Lynne Desroches
Amaninder Kaur Dhaliwal
Jagdeep Singh Dhaliwal
Navjot Kaur Dhaliwal
Navnit Kaur Dhillon
Stefania Antoniella Di Girolamo
Stephanie Elizabeth Di Giuseppe
Peter Adrian Di Lullo
Ana Filipa de Matos Dias
Steven William Karn Dickie
Eleonora Dimitrova
Feruza Djamalova
Matthew Ryan Dobbie
Gregory Frank Dobney
Karma Phintso Dolkar
Mesha-Gaye Roseanne Donaldson
Brendan Christopher Sean Donovan
Brian Myles Doody
Caitlin Elizabeth Ann Dooley
Norah Gail Dorcine
Valérie Suzanne Doré
Kevin Luke Dorgan
Christina Iva Doria
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 16
David Baptista dos Reis
Daniel Adam Doubilet
Eric David Doucet
Lindsay Susan Doyle
Nigel Gregor D’Souza
Eric Ludger Laurier Dube
David Mark Dudkiewicz
Peter James Dueck
Evan Clarke Duffy
Yolande Gisele Marie Dufresne
David William Andrew Duggins
Owen James Duguid
Laurie Nadine Duke
Diana Renuka Dukhia
Yuliya Dumanska
Ashley Maria Dumouchel
Carolyn Lena Dunlop
Jonathan Mackenzie Dunlop
Rebekah Catherine Dunsmore
Marie-Frances Dupuis
Torwoli Silverine Dzuali
Graydon Andrew McLean Ebert
Andrew Julian Eckart
Kelly Elizabeth Eckert
Megan Manon Sullivan Edmiston
Michael Julian Edmonds
Maureen Ruth Anne Edwards
Joshua David Elcombe
Marie-Christine Nancy Eldridge
Waleed Mohamed Medhat Elgohary
Liam Hawrylo Soyko Ellis
James Kurt Elsley
Kevin Carwei Eng
Karen Anna Barbara Ensslen
Adam Jay Epstein
Daniel Ighogboj Etoh
Lisa Germaine Anne Evans
Brandon Leigh Evenson
Gillian Catherine Fahy
Natalie Yolanda Falcomer
Emily Lok-Yan Fan
Emily Yee-Chi Fan
Chi Lan Fang
Ahmed Nabil Farahat
Arezou Farivar-Mohseni
Claire Kathryn Farmer
Erin Dawn Farrell
Alanna Justine Fedak-Tarnopolsky
Melissa Jeanette Fedsin
Lisa Rachel Feldstein
Caitlin Elizabeth Fell
David Alexander Fenicky
David Fenig
Jessica Emily Fenson
Christopher Donald Francois Ferguson
Donald David Stewart Ferguson
Michelle Sharon Fernandes
Laura Fernandez
Danna Samantha Fichtenbaum
Carly Jessica Fidler
Lisa Lynn Fineberg
Thomas Sinclair Finlay
Trevor Stephen Fisher
Christina Wray Fitzmaurice
Oliver Adrian Fleck
Yadira Ileana Flores Flores
Neil Louis Foley
Erin Christine Fordyce
David Wilson Foster
Jessica Ashlin Foster
Sarah Irene Fountain
Matthew Jamie Fox
Elizabeth Toy Win France
Stephanie Marguerite Franklin
Ashley Lauren Frazer
Eric Charles Freedman
Jessica Lynn Freedman
Nathalie Freiman
Jacob Nisson Friedman
Jonathan David Frydman
James Duen-Nan Fu
Stephanie Susanne Bauder Fujarczuk
Maddalena Louise Giovanelli Fuller
William Eugene Hamilton Fyfe
Ryan Davis Bentley Gaikis
Mark Anthony Galati
Andrew Nicholas Gallo
Iwona Ganczak
Ratika Gandhi
Robert Justin Garay
Anthony-Daniel Garber
Adam James Garetson
Leah Christine Garvin
Porsha Lee Gauthier
Jeffrey Philip Gebert
Jennifer Marie George
Carolyn Maureen Gerbac
Amir Ghadaki
James Wolverton Gibson
Libby Frieda Gilbert
James Alexander Gildiner
Gregory Casimir Gilhooly
Kiran Gill
Kristina Dawn Gill
Jonathan Michael Giraldi
Daniel Girlando
Olivia Lisa Gismondi
Elena Gladkykh
Benjamin Matthew Gliksman
Helena Gluzman
Maria Anna Golarz
Elie Kevin Goldberg
Joshua Michael Goldberg
Raquel Elizabeth Kaplan Goldberg
Kelly Ngoc Phuong Goldthorpe
Laura Elizabeth Gomez
Mathew Patrick Good
Patricia McDonnell Goodman
Sarah Nicole Goodman
Heidi Alicia Gordon
Boris Goryayev
Caitlin Eloise Gossage
Amara Nicole Gossin
James Alexander Gotowiec
Jason William Norris Gottlieb
Jessica Clare Grant
Nicholas Steven Gray
Simon Alexander Gray-Schleihauf
Nathan Hayden Green
Jonathan Ira Greenwald
Lucan Jay Gregory
Avneet Kaur Grewal
Rita Grewal
Lawrence Alexander Gridin
Lauren Leigh Grimaldi
Peter Arthur Gross
Colin Christopher Neil Grosskurth
Rebecca Carolyn Leibovici Grosz
Ajeet Kumar Grover
Russell Donald Groves
Viktoriya Gryshyna
Jesse Mark Guberman
Mary Auxi Guiao
Sara Maude Eve Guillaumant-Fitzgerald
Dustin Michael Gumpinger
Madhu Mitta Gupta
Adam James Guy
David Alexander Hainey
Shaheen Haji
Erin Ashley Hallock
Anikka Hammett-Pugh
Rebecca Talia Hamovitch
Ioana Daniela Hancas
Eti Hankin
Carla Valarie Hanneman
Vanessa May Hansford
Stephanie Moira Penelope Hare
Omar Ben-Asuf Ha-Redeye
Rishi Hargovan
James Patrick Harnum
Meredith Amanda Harper
Gregory Phillip Harris
Kelly Elizabeth Harris
Chelsea Ann Harron
Salman Mahmood Hashmey
Emily Dawn Hassin
Carr Hatch
James Gregory Hawkins
Caitlin Elizabeth Healy
Aarika Cheryl Heath
Sean Douglas Richard Heeley
Michael Douglas Heikkinen
Joseph Kupfert Heller
Blaine Joseph Thomas Henderson
Joel Daniel Henderson
Bradley Michael Hennick
Pierre-Alexandre Joseph Carol Daniel Henri
Jesse Ryan Herman
Stephanie Susanna Hermans
Robert Neil Hester
Natalie Daria Hetmanczuk
Don Romesh Hettiarachchi
James William Hinton
Carl Hinzmann
Gabriel Hin-Fung Ho
Tracy Nicole Hobson
Peter William Chapman Hockin
Steven Justin Hoffman
Pamela Cecilia Hofman
Daniel Charles Hohnstein
Gavin Nicholas Craig Alexander Holder
Asher George Honickman
William Lee Hooper
Alison Michelle Hopkins
Patricia Elyse Horak
Ismar Horic
Malgorzata Gloria Horoszko
Daniel Israel Horovitz
Mahbod Hosseinian
Genevieve Anie Houle
Leigh Alexandra Elizabeth Hudson
Heather Chi-Wah Hui
Samuel James Humphrey
Allison Laura Hune
Christine Grace Hunter
James Patrick Hunter
Kevin James Alexander Hunter
Jonathan Paul Hureau
Nawaz Hussainaly
Joseph Matthieu Stéphane Hutt
Kimberly Diane Hyslop
Sharon Pamela Ilavsky
William Mac Donald Chase Irwin
Ilan Ishai
Atif Islam
David Stanislaw Jachimowicz
Christine Ann Victoria Jackson
Colin Alexander Jackson
Sarah Louise Jackson
Jasmine Jadubir
Jason Jaspreet Singh Jagpal
Sanam Jalali- Naeini
Kathryn Meredith James
David Bruce Jamieson
Kristin Julia Irene Jeffery
Laura Kathleen Jeffrey
Madison Elizabeth Anne Jeffrey
Stephanie Nicole Jeronimo
Natasha Lei Jimeno
Aidan Edward Johnson
Jacquelyn Rae Johnson
Laura Anne Marguerite Johnson
Matthew Allan Johnstone
Melissa Morgan Johnstone
Cynthia Amanda Jones
Janice Sharon Joo
Jennifer Ju
John Michael Juba
Joseph Juda
Tyler Anthony Kaczmarczyk
Catherine Rebecca Kahn
Andrew Anthony Kalamut
Christine Joanne Kallikragas
Kostantinos Kalogiros
Susanna Margaret Kam
Sébastien Armand Kamayah
Sepideh Kamyabi-Nassabi
Jeffrey Jie Kang
Maxim Kaploun
Sofia Karantonis
Canni Paula Kargas
Christopher George Peter Karpacz
Benjamin Marc Kates
Bram Solomon Kaufman
Jacob Benson Kaufman
Katherine Sarah Hobbs Kaufman
17Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
Pamindar Kaur Hayer
Heather Kathleen Hamilton Keachie
Eileen Mary Keast
Rajan Kehar
Catherine Maura Kehoe
Colin James Kelly
Matthew Thomas Kelly
Gerard Joseph Kennedy
Alyssa Keon
Courtney Lauren Keystone
Ali Zamir Khan
Hajra Fatima Khan
Janelle Antoinette Khan
Shahana Khan
Angela Julie Khoury
Christina Khoury
David Hyun Kim
Melissa Min Seon Kim
Stephanie Elizabeth King
Natalie Victoria Kingston
Megan Elise Kinsella
Daniel John Kirby
Ashleigh Breann Kirincich
Jennifer Wai-Cee Kirton
Ilya Kirtsman
Reshma Prem Kishnani
Robert Martin Kleinman
Christie Jeannine Kneteman
Rachel Kocsis
Joy Kohli
Hannah Kohn
Brian Kolenda
Lindsay Brooke Jusko Konkol
Robin John Koshy
Adam Joseph Kosnick
Christopher Bradley Joseph Coughlin Kostoff
Jacqueline Rae Kotyk
Olga Olegovna Koubrak
Lisa Jennifer Koverko
Aaron Loren Kreaden
Arun Sainath Krishnamurti
Jennifer Alexis Krob
Harley Marc Kruger
Brian Lewis Kuchar
Michelle Rachel Kudlats
Shambavi Kumaresan
Priya Natasha Kunan
Fahreen Kurji
Michael David Kutner
Stephanie Sim Man Kwan
Daniel La Gamba
Anthony James LaBar
Anas Maritza Labelle Lussier
Alexandra Patricia Lacko
Neil Francois Louis Lacroix
Danielle Francine Marie Lafleur
Ryan Michael Johnathan Lake
Safina-Zareen Lakhani
Chau Yee Lam
Harvey Hoi-Wai Lam
Hay Man Laura Lam
Soloman Lam
Monique Claire Lampard
Justin Peter Daniel Lang
Andrew Michael Lanouette
Jordana Michelle Laporte
Melanie Anne Larock
Jessica Aileen Latimer
Annie Shuk-Ying Lau
Jennifer Kar Yan Lau
Tiffany Sarah Wai-May Lau
Mercedes Margaret Dorner Lavoy
Andrew Stephen Law
Matthew Robert Law
Alanna Inga Lawson
Jonathan Erik Laxer
Linh Hong Le
Flora Thi Nhân-Trung L
Meagan Thelma Le Page
Michael Richard Kenneth Leaver
Larry Martin Lebovits
Kimberly Meghann Lederri
Margot Marie Genevive Leduc
Cheng Ning Lee
Soo Jin Lee
Chantal Joanne Lefebvre
Julia Lauren Lefebvre
Thomas Joseph Louis Legault
Patrick Douglas LeGay
Fiona Elizabeth Legere
Jonathan Gary Leibtag
Corwin Raymond Leifso
Serena Mary Lein
Ryan Christopher Lennox
Anne Carina Lentsch
Molly Claire Leonard
Ashley Dawn Lepine
Andrea Starr Levans
Karen Deborah Levin
Laura Felicia Levine
Jonathan Adam Levitan
Zohar Rebecca Levy
Hoi Kay Li
Hongbin Li
Jeff Jiehui Li
Pei Li
Simon Li
Matthew Vincent Liberatore
Michael Jonathan Lieberman
Stefanie Ann Ligori
Justin Paolo Cortes Lim
Jennifer Marie Lin
Joanna Lindenberg
John Hugh Frederick Lindsay
Eli Isaac Lipetz
Matthew Nicholas Lippa
Aleksandra Lipska
Thomas Rounthwaite Lipton
Adam Christopher Lis
Laura Kathleen Little
Shane Blair Litvack
Teri Yuen Tung Liu
Jennifer Ka Ming Lo
Rudi Morris Lof
Amy Margaret Long
Catherine Joanne Longo
Matthew Grant Longo
Guylaine Marie Monique Loranger
William Adam Loyens
Kevin Peter Ludgate
Brian Matthew Ludlow
Christina Licursi Luison
Tamarah Louise Luk
Birute Luksenaite
Patrick Wojtek Lupa
Caroline Sheila Lutes
Naomi Mary Lutes
Jennifer Cassandra Luu
Jessica Nicole Lyn
Daniel John Lynde
Douglas James Mac Con
Megan Keely Wellsman Mac Donald
Peter Lauchlin Mac Innes
Ian Bryce Mac Leod
Gillian Elizabeth Mac Neil
Paul Macchione
Robert Bruce Macdonald
Thomas Michael MacKay
Jonathan Maurey Mackenzie
Jennifer Ashley Macko
Eden Charmaine Maher
Jian Yu Mai
Sandra Maria Maio
Candace Man-Ying Mak
Ryan Johnathon Mak
Georgette Makhoul
Michelle Marie Malecki
Paras Malhotra
Jason Philip Mallory
Nicholas Patrick Malone
Kirandeep Mand
Rashesh Mandani
Michael Anthony Mandarello
Alexandra Anna Marie Mann
Jennifer Joanne Mannen
Alexandra Louise Manthorpe
Zaynah Marani
Jared Daniel March
Victoria Margolin
Jonathan Joseph Marin
Michael David Marin
Christina Maria Martin
Shane Christopher Martinez
Jacqueline Louisa Masse
Dino Gianfranco Massimi
Darrell Brandon Mast
Giselle Mary Matin
Francesca Eugenia Mattacchione
Tamara Rosemary Maurer
Helen Mayer
Cornelia P Mazgarean
Barbara Agnieszka Mazur
Marcus Finley Mazzucco
Carolyn Marie Mc Carney
Michael James Douglas Mc Clurg
Melissa Dawn Mc Cormick
Fraser Austin Mc Cracken
Brendan John Mc Cutchen
Mark Lyndon Mc Dermid
Meaghan Elizabeth Mc Dermid
Derrick Bradford Mc Intosh
Ryan Robert Mc Keen
Carolyn Lucy Mc Kenna
Heather Jaclynn Mc Knight
Emilie Elizabeth Mc Lachlan
Alexander Nicholas Mc Nabb
Kenneth Andrew Mc Nair
Ryan Paul Robert Mc Neil
Tyler Blair McAuley
Michelle Lee McBride
Daniel James McCabe
Donald Norman McClean
Joel Philip McCoy
Kerry Kathleen McGladdery Dent
David John McKenna
James Christopher McKeown
Jeffrey Robin McLaughlin
Colin Daniel McMorrow
Angus James McNeil
Lindsy Kay McNicoll
Lindsay Megan McPhee
Kerry Lee McVey
Carol Setrak Mechedjian
Ian Francis Henry Medcalf
Esmaeil Mehrabi
Andrew Lawrence Mercer
Danielle Megan Buhay Mercredi
Kaitlin Julia Watson Meredith
Annie Messerkhanian
Pawel Mielcarek
Cristina Gratiela Mihalceanu
Chelsea Anne Miller
James Michael O’Hara Miller
Jonathan Paul Miller
Tara Marie Mimnagh
Maryam Mirkhond Chegini
Ahsan-Uddin Mirza
Melody Mirzaagha
Michael Robert Misener
Gregory Dale Miskie
Christopher Paul Missiuna
Timothy Michael Mitchell
Maja Mitrovic
Juliet Soraya Mohammed
James Stephen Monier-Williams
Andrew John Montague
Elizabeth Frances Montpetit
Daniel Bernard Moore
Eli Kae Moore
Jordan Garth Angelo Morelli
Andrew James Richards Morgan
Cynthia Monica Morgan
Eric Douglas Wilton Morgan
Tamara Andrea Morgenthau
Karen Fujiko Morimoto
David Michael Watson Morlog
Kristen Anne Marion Morris
Adriana Marisa Morrison
Megan Johanne Mossip
Meva Vasant Motwani
Qian Mou
David Mousavi
Robert James Acram Moyse
Ahmad Nosrat Mozaffari
Danielle Natalie Mulaire
Bradley Glen Mullen
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 18
Johanna Elizabeth Murdock
Noorin Murji
Samir A Murji
Shane Patrick Murphy
Shannon Lyndsey Murphy
Blake Sanford Riley Murray
Stuart Cameron Murray
Roman Jurij Myndiuk
Kendra Ann Naidoo
Sheena Leisha Naidoo
Sharon Andrea Naipaul
Christopher Sunghyun Nam
Ryma Nasrallah
Christina Iskandar Nassar
Maya Ann Hall Nathwani
Stephen James Nattrass
Kubeskaran Navaratnam
Tanya Elise Nayler
Katherine Mary Nelson
Avrum Isaac Neuwirth
Debra Anne Newell
Catherine Mary Newnham
Zachary Jacob Newton
Emily Yun-Yun Ng
Lizbeth Patricia Ng
Hue Nguyen
Thi Hoang Mai Nguyen
Razvan-Laurentiu Nicolae
Adrian Alexander Nicolini
Brady Daniel Nielsen
Richard Arthur Niman
Robert James Ninham
Edward James Noble
Shana Elaine Nodel
Jennifer Lindsay Normand
Mark Robert John Northcott
Stephen Nicholas Oakey
Stephanie Jennifer O’Brien
Shannon Sheleyne Wein O’Connor
Lindsay Dawn Offner
Sarah Margaret O’Grady
Bolajoko Olufunmilayo Ogunmefun
Meghan Elizabeth Wynter O’Halloran
Thomas Ernest O’Hara Kimball
Okechukwu Princeton Ojiegbe
Conor Thomas O’Keefe
Orla Josephine O’Kelly
Tatsiana Okun
Alaba Olabisi Olalere
Erin Michelle OLeary
Adeyinka Oluwagbemisola Olusoga
Sean Francis Oostdyk
Paul Philip Opolski
Jeremy Robert Opolsky
Matthew Albert Orchard
Juan Diego Lopez Orellana
Michael Morris Orfus
Andrew Hugh Ottaway
Bernadine Adekemi Oye-Adeniran
Alexandro Pace
Palma Jean Paciocco
Margaret Sophy Pak
Mimi Ruth Palmer
Francois Louis Paltrinieri
John Andrew Pankiw-Petty
Sig Pantazis
Katherine Park
Sarah Jane Parkinson
Anthony William Paslat
Michael Joseph Pass
Samir Chandrakant Patel
Sheryl Patel
Alisa Renée Patterson-Lombard
Devon Michael Paul
Faith Paul
Kimberley Dawn Pearce
David-Mordechai Pearl
Jeffrey Alexander Peck
Margaux Anne Peck
Gary Marc Peires
Eric Pascal Pelot
Colin David Pendrith
Alison Lee Pengelley
Kanata Ann Penn-Maracle
Jeffrey Michael Simon Petermann
Kelly Donzelle Peters
Sarah Patricia Petersen
Paula June Pettit
Clara Tu-Anh Xuan Pham
Ellen Phan
Diane Phatsaphaphone
Josianne Marie Claudine Phénix
Bradley Peter Phillips
John Stuart Philpott
Sherilyn Joy Pickering
Kenneth Pimentel
Sabrina Frances Pingitore
Carlos Miguel De Araujo Silva Pinho Da Cruz
Sevinge Sigal Pinkhasov
Laura Mical Pizzale
Carole Plourde
Tara J Pobihushchy
Gabriel Christophe Poliquin
Silas Roy Polkinghorne
Kristen Hallyburton Pollock
Kamila Barbara Polus
Michael Geoffrey Onelio Polychuk
David Alexander Potter
Jeffrey Scott Potter
Kimberly Ellen Potter
Alissa Honey Powell
Wade Reginald Poziomka
Andrew Jeremy Prevost
Lia Anne Marie Preyde
Galyna Viktorivna Pribytkova
Jennifer Prieto
Jessica Heather Wallace Prince
Viktoria Prokhorova
Nidhi Nandu Punyarthi
Anne Louise Pyke
Meredith Helen Rady
Christopher Judd Rae
Saran Ragunathan
Manraj Singh Rai
Ajay Ramkumar
Anne Forrester Ramsay
Sanjaya Ruwan Ranasinghe
Sirpaul Kaur Randhawa
Steven Bram Raphael
Nazanin Rassouli
Mohammad Omar Raza
Maxmillian James Reede
Mehreen Rehman
Darnette Petrina Reid
Terry Adam Reid
Vanessa Diane Reid
Alexander Scott Reyes
David Paul William Reynolds
Sarah Brigitte Reynolds Repka
Sam Rezvani
Yalda Riahi
Marie-Andrée Jolne Richard
Patrick Ryan Riesterer
Andrea Danielle Rigobon
Neil Walter Riley
Andrea Richard Rinaldi
Liliana Ripandelli
Darlene Miranda Rites
Andrew Montgomery Robb
Katelyn Luanne Robertson
Laroux Peoples Robertson
Sarah Ann Robicheau
Kathryn Mary Robinson
Laura Elizabeth Robinson
Heather Erin Robson
Gianfranco Rocca
Joseph Brian Rochon
Rebecca Nehama Rivka Rodal
Natalia Ula Rodriguez
Anna Rolbin
Kylee Michelle Ronning
David Anthony Vincent Rosati
Michelle Alanna Rosenstock
Richard Terry Roskies
Genevieve Leila Ross
Isaac Caley Ross
Jordan David Ross
Matthew James Ross
Andrea Christine Rossanese
Benjamin James Rossiter
Dana Beth Rotenberg
Stuart Michael Rothman
Nardine Nashaat Magdy Naguib Roufaiel
Mélanie Marguerite Marie Roy
Sanjay Roy
Alexander Rozine
Jessica Avra Rubin
Ori Jeremiah Samuel Moshe Rubin
Jonas David Rubinoff
Jenna Nicole Rucas
Charu Bharat Ruparelia
Joelle Davida Ruskin
Nadine Catherine Russell
Diana Russo
Tanya Marion Ryan
Shilpa Sabharwal
Anne Sabourin
Michael David Saccucci
Karin Sachar
Kenneth William Saddington
Alexandra Lauren Sadvari
Michael Donald Saelhof
Maria Sagan
Maithili Sagar
Sabha Sajjad
Stephanie Alexandra Sales
Candace Rose Salmon
Laura Elizabeth Salvatori
Michael Helmy Sami
Esra Samli
Robert Sampson
Claude Marie Annie Samson
Guy Joseph Sanders
James Richard Sanders
Dilraj Singh Sandhu
Maithri Manoharan Sanmugam
Francesco Salvatore Santaguida
Jordan Matthew Louis Saperia
Alexander Edward Lamont Sarabura
Stephen William Sargent
Dharsa Sathiananthan
Malcolm Johannes Cornelis Savage
Daniel Steve Savoie
Pierre-Olivier Stanislass Savoie
Tamara Paulina Scarowsky
Claudia Anne Schmeing
Tasha Prasad Schmidt
Ariel Schneider
Jessica Sarah Rose Schnurr
Tara Helen Schuck
Melissa Stefanie Schulman
Christopher Wilhelm Schulz
Sylvia Schumacher
André Marshall Schutten
Neil Alexander Schwartz
Adrian Jeffrey Scotchmer
Peter Christopher Joseph Scotchmer
Dylan Michael Scott
Lindsay Sarah Scott
Michaelin Daria Kiperchuk Scott
Samantha Lee Scott
Samantha Charlotte Seabrook
Paul Charles Rickey Seaman
Joel Alexander Secter
Mandeep Kaur Sehmbi
Amanda Jeanette Sellers-Mc Caw
Kamaldeep Singh Sembi
Anastasia Semenova
Waragoda Mudalige Seneviratne
Sumir Sennik
Allison Diane Sephton
Miranda Eeva Serravalle
Ashley Ophira Shaffer
Shayan Shaffie
Nathan Joseph Shaheen
Anna Abu Shahid
Sumaira Shahid Shaikh
Miaomiao Shan
Sarah Ellen Shannon
Maxim Gabriel Shapiro
Anju Sharma
Rahul Varun Sharma
Megan Louise Shaw
William Douglas Shaw
Michael Jared Shedletsky
Shaan Zehra Sheerazi
19Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
Kwang Hoon Shin
Michel Beth Shneer
Sanveer Singh Shoker
Alysha Faith Shore
Robert Jonathan Shore
Pamela Jeanette Martin Sidey
Gagan Sikand
Daniel Wayne Simard
Nicole Catherine Simes
Brianne Lynn Simionati
Taryn Lee Simionati
Iris Simixhiu
Marc Alexander Simonik
Heather Lynn Simpson
Trisha Nicole Simpson
Amardeep Singh
Angad Dev Singh
Shereen Kaur Singh
Aarani Sinnadurai
Ananthan Sinnadurai
Andrea Yuen-Ting Siu
Daniel Lim Siu
John Andrew Siwiec
Cara Breanne Sklar
Thomas St John Gordon Slade
Steven Bret Slavens
Amanda Cristen Smallwood
Aileen Katherine Smith
Nathaniel Bruce Erskine Smith
Nathaniel Peter Adam Smith
Scarlet Laurie Smith
Kathryn Leah Smithen
Jessica Anne Smuskowitz
Yana Rae Sobiski
Ryan Kevin Solomon
Shalinder Singh Somal
Christopher James Somerville
Gloria Mee-Rang Song
Samantha Dru Sonshine
Giancarlo Soppelsa
Jennifer Ashley Sorge
Benjamin Yves Sormonte
Carolyn Michelle Sowerby
Catherine Louise Spafford
Chantelle Teresa Marie Spagnola
Katharine Irene Spear
Miranda Elizabeth Spence
Josef Keenan Sprague
Sheri Michelle Spunt
Cynthia Jane Squire
Erin Aileen St. James
Jonathan Crawford Stanley Stankiewicz
Christopher William Statham
Signy Diana Steckel
David William Steele
Laura Andreea Stefan
Miriam Cara Stein
Laurence Marie Cécile Madeleine Ste-Marie
Rachel Kathleen Stephenson
Erin Leigh Stevens
Jennifer Maryon Stewart
Mitchell Brian Stoddard
Annette Marie Stoehr
Barry Steven Stork
Leanne Catherine Storms
Carly Marie Stringer
Junaid Kaleem Subhan
Radha Lakshmi Subramanian
John Douglas Sulman
Crystal Xue Han Sun
Yi Sun
Murugha Sundararajan
David Murray Sundin
Tatha Michelle Carolyn Swann
Lynne Erica Sweeney
Brian William Sweigman
Patricia Mary Swerhone
Alison Carita Sykora
Barbara Ann Tanya Madeleine Symianick
Katherine Marie Carroll Symonds
Zuzana Szasz
Lukasz Szymura
Jack Ira Tadman
Heley Taitlbaum
Anthony Chun-Pong Tam
Joyce Choi Sei Tam
Arthur Liangfei Tan
Eileen Priscilla Tan
Isaac Kwok Lam Tang
Tushar Tangri
Robert David Tarantino
Laura Claire Tausky
Parham Tavajohi Fini
Andree Danielle Taylor
Shaneka Taylor
Mary Elizabeth Tersigni
Justin David Tetreault
Bobby Thomas Thakolkaran
Caroline Marie Claudette Théberge
Caroline Marie Theriault
Jennifer Anne Thomas
Anne Elizabeth Thompson
Natalie Anne Thompson
Colin James Thurston
Anthony Christopher Tiberini
Daniel Alexander Tiberini
Jenna Michele Tiffin
Russell Grahame Tilden
Emily Kang Yu Ting
Nathan David Tischler
Carlo Christopher Tittarelli
Sie Lung Tjew
Jason Wayne Todoroff
Michael Danny Toshakovski
Susan Tran
Alexandra Jennifer Tratnik
Claire Maree Tremblay
Lindsey Elizabeth Trevelyan
Matthew Edward Trim
Jonathan Avery Troniak
Melissa Wynne Tummon
Eric Uri Turkienicz
Caitlin Mary-Faith Turner
Oksana Turner
Julia Elizabeth Turvey
Caroline Twiss
Trevor Joseph Tynan
Nickolas Nektarios Tzoulas
Essien Okon Udokang
Sara Christine Ulmer
Uzondu Ruby Umoren
Matthew Shane Urback
Alexandra Maria Urbanski
Mercy Itohan Uwabor
Adriana Maria Vaduva
Radhika Vaidyanathan
Michael Asher Valo
James Joannes van Diepen
Eric Adrian van Eyken
Michael William Vanoostveen
Ioana Vatavu
Karine Amélie Lorraine Veilleux
Stacey Jean Venasse
Stephanie Lynn Venne
Cindy Lee Vergara
Sanjay Kumar Verma
Nicole Anne Vigneault
Miriam Villamil
Joanna Christina Eva-Marie Vince
Danielle June Marie Vincent
Okechukwu Benjamin Vincents
Julia Lauren Virzi
Jelena Vlacic
Andre Michael Vogl
Terrance Grant Wagman
Eric David Otto Wagner
Laura Michelle Wagner
Rachel Fern Waks
Erin Jennifer Wallace
John Benjamin Tyler Wallwork
Adrian Diane Walrath
Caihong Wang
Pema Choden Wangdi
Jennifer Sarah Warford
Carolyn Tiffany Michelle Warner
Renata Watkin
Karen Claire Watters
Matthew Alexander Way
Lillian Ashley Christine Waye
Linsay Morgan Weis
Maya Weiss
Patrick Gregory Welsh
Lindsey Katherine Weppler
Jessica Esther Wertman
Courtney Jennifer West
Christine Natalie Westlake
Amanda Jane Wheat
Emily Ann Gizhab Whetung
Jennifer Anne Whincup
Patrick Francis White
Kenneth Murray Whitelaw
Gregory Paul Whitelock
Chloe Dupuis Whitfield
Brian Richard Whitwham
Lauren Marie Wilhelm
Monika Wilk
Kelda Jayne Williams
Meghan Alexandra Willis
Elliott Franklin Willschick
Daniel Robert James Wilson
Jacqueline Frances Wilson
Matthew John Wilson
Meghan Elizabeth Wilson
Neil George Douglas Wilson
Nicholas Bryson Wilson
John David Holmes Wires
Rebecca Lynn Wise
Mieszko Jozef Wlodarczyk
Serena Jenna Wolfond
Melissa Ann Won
Jody Joyce Wong
Lindsay Julia Wong
Vivien Man Li Wong
Christine Wong-Chong
Peter Michael Woods
Jason Joseph Woolmer
Matthew Evelyn Wright
Samantha Ellen Wu
Fadi Yachoua
Tina Qi Yang
Robert Benjamin Yasskin
Lianna Yeung
William Yoon
Aliki Yorgiadis
Kun Yue
Pulat Yunusov
Shushanik Zakaryan
Bradley Douglas Gunnar Zander
Jan-Wojciech Zawisza
Rachel Leah Zeliger
John Warren Eugenio Zerucelli
Chun Wai Zhang
Yu Heng Zhang
Sandra Xue Zhao
Zahra Ziaie Moayyed
Dominique Giselle Zipper
Matthew Justin Zuk
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 20
There are some similarities between what hap-pened in Vancouver after the crushing defeat of the Canucks and the fateful G20 weekend in Toronto just a year ago: a minority of peo-ple ruined it all for the others. Breaking windows is breaking the law and the of-
fenders should be prosecuted, no matter what the event.
Nevertheless, there are important differences be-tween the two events that ought not to be forgotten: both the events and the crowds were dissimilar and the policing was certainly of a different order.
Unfortunately, riots are part of a certain sports cul-ture. While inviting hockey fans to gather together downtown certainly brings revenues to local business-es, it also presents risks. Counting on the benefits of an-onymity in a large crowd, hooligans can cause mayhem. Because of alcohol and adrenaline, they may succeed in precipitating a riot. The crowd loses control and a mob mentality ensues. This seems to have been the case in Vancouver.
Political protests are also infiltrated by people set on causing property damage. And at times, mobilized by anger, sustained
by a similar toxic combination of alcohol, violent rhetoric and bravado, a peaceful crowd can turn ugly and a riot emerges.
This was not the case in Toronto. The large crowds never turned on the police and indeed often sat down, chanted and
FEATURE
LAWLESSRiots and the Role of LawyersNathalie Des Rosiers
The
Can
adia
n Pr
ess/
Chri
stia
n La
pid
21Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
held peace signs. The property damage was extensive but it was perpetrated by a defined group of people. But the crowd could have lost it, say the defenders of the massive and punitive policing strategy.
Indeed, the most important difference between June 2011 in Vancouver and June 2010 in Toronto was the policing strategy. While the Vancouver po-lice dispatched hundreds of police officers, there were close to 20,000 police officers in Toronto. More importantly, in Toronto, the police engaged in mass arrests, mass detentions, mass searches and violent disruptions of peaceful crowds. Even individuals on the streets as part of their daily routine were treated with suspicion and subjected to violations of basic rights. We do not know yet the full measure of the policing in Vancouver (a public inquiry has just been announced), but there were no large scale mass ar-rests.
The reason why policing at the G20 should be de-nounced is not only that it involved unconstitution-al tactics such as mass arrests and mass detentions, but also that it was harsher and more punitive than other mass events. It is both ironic and frightening to think that people who have a political message are exposed to worse treatment at the hands of the au-thorities than other participants in large scale public events such as hockey celebrations or parades. Many protesters during the G20 wanted to express their disagreement over the lack of concern to poverty or environmental issues in the austerity message of the leaders. That they were subject to mass arrests, mass detention, illegal searches and violent disruptions of their peaceful activities is shocking. This is unaccept-
able in a democracy: the peaceful expression of dissent should be welcome, not silenced or policed out of existence.
In highlighting the harsh treatment given to protesters, I am not advocating mass arrests for hockey riots, or that other violent police tactics should be used on fans. Rather, the policing approach ought to reflect the nature of the event, but always be bound by law. Respect for the law is essential to good policing and is the only guarantee of its legitimacy. There is no reason to abandon commit-ment to law and proportionality because of the actions of anarchists or hooli-gans: that is what they want.
The legal profession has a role in ensuring the continuing protection of the rule of law. It is one of its core responsibilities. Although a large group of lawyers are working to bring truth and accountability to policing excesses and abuses, it may be time for the profession to take a stand on these issues. If we tolerate police abuses when we see them, we are condoning their perpetration when we don’t. Unlawful actions by police officers cannot be left unchecked; it sends a message that the ends justify the means; that police can simply ask for forgive-ness instead of working within the law.
It is often the lawyers who must ask for this accountability, no matter how difficult, bureaucratic and unresponsive the process may be. The rule of law de-mands no less.
Nathalie Des Rosiers is the general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
FEATURE
Social Media: The People are Watching
Adam Nobody
One of the highest profile cases of the Toronto G20, Adam Nobody was allegedly assaulted on two occasions by police at the June 26, 2010 G20 Queen’s Park demonstration. In the first incident, famously captured on film and posted to Youtube, Nobody is seen being brutally tackled to the ground then beaten by riot police. The province’s Special Investigations Unit inspected the video, and along with supporting evidence, identified Constable Babak Andalib-Goortani as one of the officers dressed in riot gear. In December 2010 Andalib-Goortani was charged with assault with a weapon.
Dorian Barton
Toronto Police Const. Glenn Weddell was charged with assault causing bodily harm against Dorian Barton at the June 26, 2010 G20 Queen’s Park demonstration. While taking photos of police officers, Barton was allegedly struck by a police riot shield, knocked to the ground and then hit with a baton. His arm was broken.Video footage and several photographs were taken by civilian witnesses and submitted to the Special Investigations Unit. Eleven witness officers were asked to view the photographs, however none could identify the one officer whose face is visible, despite their close proximity. Due to a lack of identifying evidence, the case was dropped.In January 2010 the Toronto Police Service provided the name of the offending officer after zooming in on the badge number on the chest of his uniform. The SIU did not have the technology to perform this operation. Due to a lack of supporting evidence, the case was closed.In May of 2011, the SIU re-opened the case when the Toronto Police Service provided them the name of the identifying witness. With the statement from this witness, the SIU obtained reasonable grounds for charges.
LAWLESSRiots and the Role of LawyersNathalie Des Rosiers
The
Can
adia
n Pr
ess/
Fran
k G
unn
Disagree? Have your say. Write to the Editor.
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 22
I often observe the shock and dismay of lawyers starting their first education cases at what seems to them to be a system run for the convenience of board employees rather than for the benefit of students. Why are they so surprised? Surely lawyers remember their own school days when students were simply told to drop out—and
they did.
If lawyers are surprised by the limits of legal processes in Ontario schools, they can take comfort from the fact that some processes are more legalistic and formal in Ontario than in any other province.
Discipline
In the “olden days” it was almost inconceivable that a fam-ily would seek an appeal or judicial review of a principal’s de-cision to suspend or to recommend expulsion. The Education Act now requires written notice of suspensions or proposed expulsions, including the right to appeal. The appeal process for suspensions and the hearing process for board expulsions is in the control of each school board although school board counsel will always have advised administrative law fairness.
Expulsions can only result from a hearing held by the school board (trustees) or a committee of at least three members of the board. There is an appeal to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) which often takes the position that an appeal should be a hearing do novo, in part, at least because school board processes do not always seem fair, and in part be-cause the young person’s life may have changed significantly since the time of the original suspension/expulsion decision.
In the case of Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board v. Grant 101 O.R. (3d) 252, a decision of the CFSRB was judicially reviewed and upheld. The divisional court decided to hear the application for judicial review despite the fact that the young person had completed high school by the time the matter reached the court, because of the guidance its decision would
provide to school boards across Ontario. In that case, the CF-SRB and the court were critical of the principal’s investigation, speculations and process. The school board argued that defer-ence was owed to the principal by the board and by the court when it conducted the expulsion hearing.
This argument was unsuccessful, with many of the court’s criticisms related to fairness. In addition, the court determined there must be limits to a principal’s capacity to discipline a stu-dent for off-school conduct.
Section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act says that a principal can refuse to admit to a school or classroom a person whose presence would “in the principal’s judgement” be detrimental to the well-being of the students. This power to exclude stu-dents is subject to an appeal to the school board, but is not cir-cumscribed by express criteria or a legislative code. My experi-ence is that the provision is used much too widely, but boards
The Legality of EducationMartha Mackinnon
Ontario badly needs more lawyers willing to act for parents and students in discipline matters.
23Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
do not have to report exclusions to the Ministry of Education, as they do suspensions and expulsions, so the scope of the problem is not known with certainty.
Of the lawyers who practise in this area, all but a very few represent school boards. Parents and students frequently com-plain that “their” tax dollars pay for the school board to be rep-resented, and often both the school board and the principal, but no representation is provided to the student. This imbal-ance adds to their perception that the process is skewed in fa-vour of the school and nothing can be done about it. Ontario badly needs more lawyers willing to act for parents and stu-dents in discipline matters. The challenge, apart from comfort with the area of law, is that the majority of parents who feel empowered enough to be upset about the treatment of their children are of middle income and sometimes feel that lawyers are unaffordable.
Special Education
Ontario has the most formally legislated, regulated, multi-tiered approach to special education in Canada. The process begins when a parent or principal asks for an Identification Placement Review Committee (IPRC) to determine whether a child is exceptional. An IPRC consists of at least three people appointed by the board. It decides whether a pupil is excep-tional and if so defines the exceptionality. It also decides the placement (educational setting) for the child. If asked, it will also make recommendations with respect to the programs and services needed by the student.
If the parent agrees with the decisions (or is silent), the prin-cipal (or designate) will develop an Individual Education Plan (IEP) which will set out the programs and services the school will deliver to support the student’s needs.
If the parent (or student 16 or older, living independently) does not agree with the decisions, there is an appeal to the Spe-cial Education Appeal Board (SEAB) which consists of three people appointed by the parents and board. The SEAB does not make decisions, but rather, recommendations to the school board. If the parent does not agree with the school board’s de-cision with respect to the SEAB recommendations, there is an appeal to Ontario’s Special Education Tribunal. Its decisions are final and binding on the school board.
Despite the apparent justiciability of special education is-sues, most conflicts between home and school do not relate to the identification of a student. Usually there is a psycho-edu-cational assessment diagnosing a student as having a learning disability or ADHD. Sometimes school boards are reluctant to convene an IPRC and formally identify a child, either because they think an identification is a stigmatizing label or because they do not wish to be held to all of the requirements of the formal process, including reviews at least annually, or because they have a wait list for assessments and the services expected to be necessary when identification is complete. But the legis-lation is clear; if a parental request for an IPRC is made, it is the board’s legal obligation to hold one and to provide appropriate services in the meantime.
The decision about classroom placement can be contentious, however the majority of disputes between school boards and families relate to the services and supports the school is sup-
posed to provide according to the IEP. While identifications and placements are appealable, services and programs are not. There are some Special Education Tribunal decisions that in-dicate if a service is truly integral to the appropriateness of a placement, it becomes part of the placement and, therefore, ap-pealable.
Human Rights
Human rights law frequently affects both student discipline and special education decisions. Education is a service which must not be delivered in a discriminatory way. Because a dis-criminatory effect is as prohibited as a discriminatory intent, it may be unlawful to punish a student with an Attention Deficit Disorder diagnosis for failing to pay attention in the same way as a student with no disability diagnosis.
Education is the day job of young people; it is their work. They do not get paid for it and are required by law to attend. Lawyers have a role to play in ensuring that young people in our schools are recognized as true stakeholders in the educa-tion system, and that they are provided with the opportunity to realize their potential and develop into highly skilled, knowl-edgeable, caring citizens.
Martha Mackinnon is the executive director of Justice for Children and Youth and the chair of professional development of the OBA. She has been practising education law for almost 25 years.
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 24
For at least fifteen years, Ontario Law has required doctors and other health care providers to get consent for treatment of children. Throughout the province of Ontario, some medical teams have consulted with young children about their medical issues, in order to obtain their consent for medical procedures. However, decisions regarding the child’s care are not easy. They are tough decisions about complex illnesses and injuries. But, even young children receiving treatment in hospitals may know more about their illness and treatment, than most adults. Therefore, many health care professionals expect that they will work together with children to make the treatment decisions.
Compare that approach with that taken in family court, where even though the governing statutes require the court to consider a child’s views and preferences, there is strong re-luctance to do so. Children know their parents, their homes and their family situation. However, most people assume that children understand those family concepts more readily than medical procedures such as chemotherapy, catheterization and blood transfusions. Therefore, although Ontario Law requires children to participate in their health care decisions, children are often placed at the periphery of other important decisions such as with which parent they will reside.
Children’s Role in Health Care Decisions
Outside of hospitals and pediatricians’ offices, many people assume that parents, and not kids, make the decisions regard-ing health care. But, the opposite is true. In fact, some medical
teams view it as critically important to the treatment process that children be informed participants in the decision making processes. That same belief is reflected in the law, which man-dates that kids who are able to direct their treatment do so.
Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, SO 1996, c-2. (“Consent Act”) does not impose any age restrictions on making medical decisions. Instead, the ability to understand the treatment is the critical determinant. Section 4(1) of the Consent Act states,
A person is capable with respect to a treatment, admission to a care facility or a personal assistance service if the person is able to understand the information that is relevant to mak-ing a decision about the treatment, admission or personal assistance service, as the case may be, and able to appreci-ate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.
Sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Consent Act creates the pre-sumption that people, including children, are able to direct their own treatment unless there is evidence to contrary. Further, not understanding a complex medical decision, and therefore not having capacity in that instance, does not mean a child cannot make other treatment decisions. In fact, section 15(1) of the Consent Act states that children are entitled to direct the treat-ment they do understand, even if they cannot direct the treat-ment they do not understand. Further, section 15(2) states that as children gain better understanding as they grow, they are en-titled to have their capacity to direct treatment reassessed.
“I Have to OKMy Surgery, But Nobody Asks Where I Want to Live” John P. Schuman and Suzanne Clarke
Children must consent to medical treatment, but they may never be heard in family court
25Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
The issue of children directing their medical treat-ment was addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada
in the decision of A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services, 2009 SCC 30, [2009] 2 SCR
181. In that case, a fourteen year old girl and her parents appealed the order that the girl
receive a blood transfusion despite the fact that she signed a medical directive contain-ing her written instructions not to be giv-en blood under any circumstances. After the girl refused to consent to the receipt of blood, the Director of Child and Fam-ily Services apprehended her as a child in need of protection, and sought a treat-ment order from the court under s. 25(8)
of the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act, CCSM 1985, c. C-8. Section 25(8) allows
the Court to authorize a medical treatment that the court considers to be in the best in-
terests of the child.
At first glance, this may seem like a “no brainer” to some readers- shouldn’t the hospital’s decision be giv-
en precedent considering the girl is a minor, and may not fully understand the implications of her decision? To these readers, the Supreme Court would respond, “not necessarily”.
Justice Abella writing for the majority of the Court explained that when dealing with medical decisions of children under the age of 16, emphasis should be placed on the child’s maturity. She stated that when dealing with children under 16, the more a court is satisfied that a child is capable of making a mature, independent decision on his or her own behalf, the greater the weight that will be given to his or her views when a court is ex-ercising its discretion under s. 25(8) of the Act. Furthermore, when considering the best interests of the child, Justice Abella held that the court should evaluate the following factors:
1. The nature, purpose and utility of the recommended med-ical treatment and its risks and benefits;
2. The adolescent’s intellectual capacity and the degree of sophistication to understand the information relevant to making the decision and to appreciate the potential con-sequences;
3. The stability of the adolescent’s views and whether they are a true reflection of his or her core values and beliefs;
4. The potential impact of the adolescent’s lifestyle, family relationships and broader social affiliations on his or her ability to exercise independent judgment;
5. The existence of any emotional or psychiatric vulnerabili-ties and the impact of the adolescent’s illness on his or her decision-making ability and,
6. Any other relevant information from adults who know the adolescent.
Therefore, once a child demonstrates that they appreci-ate and understand the implications of their decision, a court could endorse their decision even if the decision is contrary to that of the relevant medical personnel.
But With Simple Family Law Decisions, Kids Have Less Say
Doctors and other health care professionals are required to at least meet with a child and consider whether that child
understands medical decisions and follow their direction if the child does. Similarly, the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 64 states that Ontario judges making custody and access decisions have the authority to meet with children. However, this is rarely done. In fact, in his article titled, “Rep-resenting Children in Custody & Access Proceedings”, Family Law: The Voice of the Child (Toronto, LSUC, 2009), Dan Gold-berg explained that The Office of the Children’s Lawyer does not believe that meeting with children is appropriate, despite the requirement that the judge consider the child’s views and preferences under the Children’s Law Reform Act.
Consider the divergent case law on whether a child’s view matters in family court:
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. K ., 2005 CanLII 16595 at para 12: The trial judge ordered custody to a parent with whom three children, ages 13, 9 and 7 did not want to live. The 13-year old was found to be a “parentified child” whereby his needs were sacrificed in order to take care of the needs of his parents. This factor combined with his special needs, led the judge to determine that he was not mature enough to under-stand the impact of his decision.
Kincl v. Malkova, 2008 ONCA 524 (CanLII) at para3: The On-tario Court of Appeal, based upon fresh evidence introduced at the appeal, concluded that a 14-year old daughter, who had not seen her father since November of 2005, did not want to have access, and observed, “ … Veronica is almost 14 years of age and her views are entitled to considerable weight; in real-ity she will do what she wishes in any event and the absence of access over the past almost three years seems to confirm her views in that regard, at least for the present time.”
Walker v. Baker, 2010 NSSC 440 (CanLII) at para 25: Justice Dellapinna refused to order a “strong willed” 12-year-old to see her father, and also refused to order the mother to provide further mental health treatment to address the breakdown of the child’s relationship with her father, even though such treat-ment might have been helpful.
Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII) at para 130: Jus-tice Quinn refused to order access against the wishes of a 13-year-old, finding that the mother and her new partner “have engineered an alienation that is so complete as to leave the court with no feasible option.” Justice Quinn also declined to order counseling to repair the relationship between father and daughter.
In hospitals, and other places where the Consent Act applies, if a child understands the decision, regardless of its complexity, that child’s decision carries the day. That is true even when the child’s parents and health care providers try to influence the child’s decision. In family law cases, where the decisions are usually much more straightforward, why does it appear that children’s wishes so much less important?
John Schuman is head of the Family Law Group at Devry Smith Frank LLP in Toronto.
Suzanne Clark is a student at Devry Smith Frank LLP.
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 26
Fifty-eight years ago a rookie teenaged defenceman died af-ter a vicious hit from behind launched him head first into the boards. Just hours later his heartsick mother said: “It’s murder on ice.”
The death of Bob Gillies led to a sensational trial in 1953; many thought it would change the culture of violence that of-ten accompanies hockey. It did not.
From racial slurs, to wrongful hits (remember Aaron Rome in the Stanley Cup), to out and out violence both on the ice and off, hockey has a terrible reputation.
Smithers v. R. [1978] 1 S.C.R. 506 is the leading Canadian case on causation in manslaughter. Smithers is a hockey case.
On February 18, 1973, Smithers played in a hockey match during which he was subject to numerous racial slurs by Cobby.
Smithers and Cobby had a history on ice and after the game Smithers attacked Cobby. Cobby died, although the attack was not the type one might expect would lead to death. The Chief Justice noted:
There was substantial evidence before the jury indicating that the kick was at least a contributing cause of death, outside the de minimis range, and that was all that the Crown was required to establish. It was immaterial that the death was in part caused by a malfunctioning epiglot-tis to the malfunction of which appellant may, or may not, have contributed. A person commits homicide when di-rectly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being and it was therefore no defence that appel-lant did not expect that death would ensue.
Hockey’s reputation for violence is not new. At the turn of the last century hockey was so violent that, according to Mi-
Hockey—A Law Unto ItselfViolence, racial slurs, underage drinking; James Morton explores the legal boundaries within our nation’s beloved sport.
James C. Morton
27Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
chael McKinley, there were calls for hockey to be banned in much the same way as cockfighting and bearbaiting. Certainly injury and death were not unheard of and two players were killed in three years during brawls on ice.
A modicum of restraint started around the time of the First World War and since then hockey’s violence has been some-what more muted.
As a legal matter, of course, violence in hockey is generally unlawful. The Court in R v. Henderson [1976] 5 W.W.R. 119 pointed out “where there are obvious infractions of the crimi-nal law, the authorities are duty bound to take whatever action is necessary to prevent a repetition of such conduct.”
Checking is lawful in hockey, based on the principle of con-sent. Players agree to physical contact and agree to be checked in much the same way as boxers agree to be hit. The intention-al infliction of violence is, in this sense, proper in hockey. But there are limits.
An intentional hit not justified as a check falls outside of the consent implied in playing hockey. Such a hit is an assault and can be prosecuted as such. Similarly, racial slurs or, more gen-erally, defamatory remarks, are not within the scope of normal play or the rules of hockey, and claims for damages are (at least in theory) available.
On the other hand, a miscalculation leading to an otherwise improper hit does not become an assault. In Agar v. Canning, (1965), 54 W.W.R 302 (Man. Q.B.) affd. (1966), 55 W.W.R. 384 (Man. C.A.), a civil case, Canning struck Agar in the face with his stick during a hockey game. The blow was not a premeditated hit but was, in some sense anyway, accidental. The Court held someone playing hockey must assume to accept the risk of ac-cidental harm and it would be “inconsistent with this implied consent to impose a duty on a player to take care for the safety of other players corresponding to the duty which, in the nor-mal situation, give rise to a claim of negligence.”
The broader issue of why hockey often leads to violence goes beyond legal questions. Hockey, like many sports, engages very strong emotions. Tie those emotions to a game where physical force is an accepted part of play and it is easy to see how illegal violence can occur. Unfortunately there is little that can be done, beyond vigilance by the referees, to limit vio-lence on ice. Off ice violence falls to the police and Crowns to deal with.
James Morton practises with Steinberg Morton Hope & Israel in Toronto. He is a past presi-dent of the OBA and is chair of the Briefly Speaking Editorial Board.
Disagree? Have your say. Write to the Editor.
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 28
ADVOCACY IN ACTION
OBA at the Court of Ap-peal: A Summary of Our Submissions on Rule 20.
At the invitation of the Court of Appeal, the OBA acted as amicus curiae on a series of summary judgment appeals heard to-gether on June 21, 22 and 23rd. The OBA’s role was to assist the court in interpreting the scope of the new summary-judgment rule. The OBA defined the issues this way:
The question to be addressed by the OBA is, in light of the amendments to Rule 20 that came into effect pursuant to the Regulation, under what circumstances is rule 20 the appropri-ate procedure for determining whether a party is entitled to judgment?
The two key issues addressed by the OBA were:
(a) Whether the rule amendments changed the test for summary judgment; and
(b) The circumstances in which it is appropriate for the mo-tions judge to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility and draw reasonable inferences under rule 20.04 (2.1) in or-der to grant or refuse summary judgment.
Essentially, the OBA’s position was that the test for sum-mary judgment has changed from whether there are triable issues of fact to whether a determination of those issues re-quires a regular trial to achieve a just result. In cases where there are no issues of credibility and the evidence, on its face, clearly entitles a party to judgment, the operation of the rule has not changed as a result of the amendments —judgment should be granted. In other cases, a judge now has the power to assess credibility, weigh the evidence and draw inferences, unless it is in the interest of justice that such powers only be exercised at a trial.
In determining whether it is “in the interest of justice” to proceed with the summary judgment motion and to exercise
Making A DifferenceElizabeth Hall
Left to Right: Robert van Kessel, David Sterns and incoming OBA President Paul Sweeny appeared before the Ontario Court of Appeal to address summary judgment motions on June 23rd
Left to Right: Shahidul Haque, Tayeba Islam, David Wright, Minister Kamrul Islam, Rahat Bin Zaman, OBA President Lee Akazaki, Shaun O’Brien
29Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
1051
Thank you for visiting CCH at the 2011 Institute in Toronto, Ontario. If you would like to find out how CCH’s expert legal resources will enhance your library collection, call your Account Manager today at 1.866.750.7467.
CCH provides you with the latest and most reliable Legal resources on the following specialty practice areas:
C C H C A N A D I A N L I M I T E DYour first choice for secondary source information!
For more information or to register for a complementary training session visit: www.cch.ca/legal/
� ADR� Civil Litigation� Corporate/Commercial� Environment� Estate
� Family� Insurance� Labour and Employment Law� Progress of Legislation
� Real Estate� Securities� U.S. and International� Tax
ADVOCACY IN ACTION
these powers, the OBA argued that a motions judge must con-sider three categories of factors. The first and most critical category is the reputation of the administration of justice: a just substantive result and the appearance of justice. The second two categories relate to the crucial access to justice issues of affordability and effective use of judicial resources. More specifically, they were: whether proceeding with the motion is the most expeditious and least expensive way of justly determining the matter on its merits; and whether the time and expense related to exercising these powers is pro-portionate to the importance and complexity of the issues and the amount involved.
The OBA’s exceptional legal team included Incoming Pres-ident Paul Sweeny, Robert van Kessel, author of the book Summary Judgments and Dispositions Before Trial and Civil Litigation Section Chair David Sterns. You can find the OBA’s factum at www.oba.org.
Making a Difference at Home:
The OBA has the following task forces hard at work:
1. The Task Force on Family Shares in Legal Profession-al Corporations will advocate on behalf of lawyers to amend the Ontario Business Corporations Act to allow lawyers in a professional corporation to split their in-come with family members.
2. The Task Force on Judicial Mediation is looking at the many aspects of this emerging trend, including proce-dural requirements, improving access to justice and the need for facilitative expertise.
3. The Task Force on Roster Mediator Rates is working on issues affecting the availability of mediators and the consequences for access to justice.
4. The Task Force on Automobile Insurance fraud is exam-ining strategies to deter and otherwise prevent insur-ance fraud. The OBA is leading its expertise to this issue in an effort to lower premiums for Ontarians without compromising coverage.
Making a Difference Around the World
The Ontario Bar Association assisted in the Bangladeshi Minister of Law’s effort to improve justice system effective-ness and access to justice in his country.
OBA President Lee Akazaki, Shuan O’Brien from the OBA Constitutional and Civil Liberties Section Executive, David Wright, chair of the Ontario Human Right Tribunal and Mi-chael Gottheil, executive chair of the Social Justice Cluster, met with Mr. Kamrul Islam, Minister for Law, Mr. Shahidul Haque, parmanent secretary and Mr. Rahat Bin Zaman, first secretary, Bangladesh High Commission on June 10, 2011.
The delegation was interested in the role played by the OBA in the legal structure of Ontario as well as reforms to Ontario’s administrative, criminal and civil justice systems. They were particularly interested in the OBA’s role in advocating for legal aid sustainability and other access to justice issues.
Elizabeth Hall is the director of government and stakeholder relations for the OBA. [email protected]
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 3030
As an associate in my sixth year of family law practice and as a mother of a tod-dler, the impact that ordi-nary words, words that we took for granted while in law school, our bar admission course and in our everyday lives, astound me.
“Custody” and “access” are terms that family law prac-titioners encounter daily. “Custody” is the term grant-ed to a parent who will have decision-making authority
over their children, while “access” is the term used to refer to the time non-custodial parents spend with their children.
When our family courts determine that parents are unable to communicate and make decisions that are in the best inter-est of their children, one parent will be granted sole custody, thereby having sole decision-making authority. In cases where parents are found able to communicate and cooperate, our
courts will implement a custodial regime wherein decisions on major issues like education, mobility, religion and medical care are to be made jointly.
A custody trial has a winner and a loser. If there was ever a need for confirmation of this fact, simply ask the parent who didn’t get custody. Unfortunately, our present system feeds this
win/lose mentality, and we do a disservice to children and par-ents by employing language that has, at its core, the concept of winners and losers. By awarding custody to the winner, we give parents a completely unnecessary objective to fight for and about. Parents become so focused on the absolute need to be granted custody that they set out on a path that invariably
It is time to dispose of the terms “custody” and “access” from our legislation.
Parents become so focused on the absolute need to be granted custody that they set out on a path that invariably damages the immediate and long term interests of their children
Custody ... Access
Taking the Combat Out of Co-ParentingElizabeth Mourao
31Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
damages the immediate and long term interests of their chil-dren, and unknowingly in many cases, destroys any chance of future co-operation with the other parent.
What we often see as family law practitioners are parents who want to be granted custody of their children, but who also do not truly understand what custody and access mean. Some,
who have read up on these terms and who understand that a prerequisite to an award of custody is an inability to communi-cate with the other parent, all too often proceed to engage in a combative fashion so as to bolster their claim for custody.
Police involvement in family law files, in what are often un-founded allegations that result in automatic criminal assault charges and restraining orders, is not uncommon. These or-ders often carry a no contact/communication condition with the other parent. Similarly, contacting police is often a success-ful tool in having one parent removed from the home if the par-ties continue to reside separated but under the same roof. It is disconcerting, but a reality, that this tactic is used by some to suggest that the parties are unable to communicate and that a sole custodial arrangement is the only viable option.
It is time to dispose of the terms “custody” and “access” from our legislation. The damage that is being done to children and parents as a result of increased conflict over these labels has been researched and remedied in various US States and in oth-er common-law countries. It’s time for Canada to follow suit.
An effort to rectify these issues was considered in December 2002 with Bill C-22, An Act to Amend the Divorce Act. Bill C-22 considered the replacement of the “custody” / “access” terms with ones that did not carry such negative connotations. Un-fortunately, Bill C-22 died in November 2003 and has not been re-introduced since. The only recent advancement on this front has been in British Columbia, where the provincial government attempted to tackle the problematic nature of these terms, amongst other issues in family law, with the introduction of their “White Paper”. Their White Pater proposes a complete overhaul to British Columbia’s provincial Family Relations Act, including a replacement of “custody” / “access” language with terms like “parenting time” and “guardianship”.
In day-to-day practice, a shift away from use of these terms already appears to be occurring. Seeing that unnecessary con-flict and litigation can easily be minimized, if not avoided, we are increasingly seeing matrimonial lawyers, members of the bench and third party professionals crafting separation agree-ments, court orders and parenting plans that are silent as to “custody”.
Separation agreements, court orders and parenting plans that provide for shared parenting and contain provisions al-locating children’s time with each parent, while also allocat-ing decision making authority, are becoming more prevalent. While the goal remains that decision making occur jointly, if
such cannot be obtained because of the nature of the relation-ship between parents, then decision making is divided.
If an agreement cannot be reached, after consultation with the other parent, one parent will have final say over certain matters impacting their children, as for example their educa-tion, while the other parent while have authority over other matters, as for example medical care. Such arrangements are indistinguishable from an award of custody and access and do away with the concept of winners and losers in family law.
As I stated at the beginning of this paper, now a parent my-self, I question what self worth I would have if I was stripped of decision making authority as it related to my own child. I imag-ine a sense of shame in having a separation agreement or court order that provided an “access” regime with my own child.
While I acknowledge that changing legal terminology cannot alter attitudes or force parties to abandon confrontation, it may do away with the distracting battle over terms. It would make parents feel like valued individuals in their children’s lives and assist them in focusing on what really matters: the best interest of their children.
Elizabeth C. Mourao is an associate with Ricketts, Harris LLP and a member of the OBA Family Law Executive. Her practice is restricted to family law.
Do away with the concept of winners and losers in family law
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP
365 Bay Street, Suite 200, Toronto, Canada M5H 2V1T 416.360.2800 F 416.360.5960
Excellence in Commercial Litigation and Competition Law
a g m l a w y e r s . c o m
excellenceADVICE. REPRESENTATION. OUTCOME.You want us on your side.
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 32
Each year, licensing candidates face the challenge of securing and completing articles as the final phase of the Law Society’s licensing process. Traditionally, the articling process has pro-vided candidates with 10 months of practical skills training. The Law Society recently formed an articling task force to look at the objectives of the articling requirement and the challeng-es to completing articling.
“As the regulator, the Law Society needs to take a closer look at and consider how we can best address the licensing needs we see entering our system now,” says Law Society Treasurer and Task Force member Laurie H. Pawlitza.
“We need to ensure that all of the components of the licens-ing process are accessible and fair. At the same time, we also need to make sure that our licensing criteria ensure that all candidates can demonstrate the entry-level competencies re-quired to competently serve their clients immediately after be-ing called to the bar,” she adds.
Established by Convocation on June 23, the 12-member Ar-ticling Task Force will:
• examine the competency-related principles that articling is intended to address—as well as the program’s effective-ness in addressing those principles;
• examine the historic and current approaches to articling;
• identify the challenges facing the current program, includ-ing the increasing number of unplaced candidates;
• consider additional or alternative approaches to articling; and
• make recommendations to Convocation about the future of the articling system.
Growing number of licensing candidates
In recent years, there has been a growing number of licens-ing candidates, due to a number of factors, including increasing law school enrolments, and more national and internationally trained candidates seeking placement in Ontario.
Currently, there are approximately 200 licensing candi-dates from the 2010 – 2011 licensing period who are seeking but cannot find articling positions. This is further compound-ed by those unplaced from previous years who are also still seeking placements.
Recent efforts
“We’ve been monitoring articling issues for several years now and we’ve invested significant resources in trying to help the profession support the current articling process,” the Trea-surer explains.
Most recent changes were made in 2008, follow-ing consultation with the profession and recommen-dations from the Licens-ing and Accreditation Task Force. These included sim-plifying the administrative requirements of the articling process, encouraging flexibility through joint articling and part-time articling, and allowing an exemption from the articling requirement for lawyers who have practised for more than 10 months in a common law ju-risdiction outside of Canada.
The Law Society has also hosted an articling symposium and career fair for law firms and candidates and another is sched-uled for November 18. As well, an articling registry is available on the Law Society website, enabling employers and candidates to post and search for articling positions. The Law Society also continues to provide training to licensing candidates looking for assistance with their resumes and job interview skills.
“Unfortunately, all of these efforts do not appear to have al-tered the situation. We have an increasing number of candi-dates who cannot fulfil the articling requirement because they can’t obtain a placement,” says Treasurer Pawlitza.
She notes that in 2009 – 2010, the Law Society also conduct-ed an extensive survey of law firms throughout Ontario to as-sess the scope of the articling market and encourage firms to consider the possibility of undertaking joint or part-time ar-ticles.
“Through the survey, it became very clear that, at this time, under the current circumstances, the profession does not ap-pear to be willing or able to expand articling opportunities within the market,” the Treasurer explains.
The Task Force’s next steps
The task force has begun meeting over the summer to dis-cuss all of the issues, benefits and risks associated with the ar-ticling component of the licensing process, with a view to de-veloping options. The task force is expected to provide a brief report to Convocation in September, followed by a full report in May 2012.
Articling Task Force members are: Treasurer Laurie H. Pawlitza, and bench-ers Tom Conway (Chair), Raj Anand, Adriana Doyle, Jacqueline Horvat, Vern Krishna, Dow Marmur, Janet Minor, Barbara Murchie, Paul Schabas, Joseph Sullivan and Peter Wardle.
LSUC UpdateLaw Society Forms Task Force to Address Articling Requirements
Treasurer Laurie H. Pawlitza
33Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
Le Barreau forme un groupe d’étude pour aborder l’exigence de stage
Chaque année, les candidats et candidates au Processus d’accès à la profession doivent se trouver un stage pour ter-miner la dernière phase du processus d’admission au Barreau. Le stage a toujours offert aux candidats dix mois de formation pratique. Le Barreau a récemment formé un groupe d’étude sur le stage pour analyser les objectifs de l’exigence de stage et les difficultés d’y satisfaire.
« Comme organe de réglementation, le Barreau doit regarder de plus près les façons d’aborder les besoins liés à l’accès à la profes-sion qui se manifestent dans notre système, » affirme la trésorière du Barreau et membre du groupe d’étude Laurie H. Pawlitza.
« Nous devons nous assurer que toutes les composantes du processus d’accès sont accessibles et justes. Cependant, nous devons également nous assurer que, selon nos critères d’accès à la profession, tous les candidats peuvent démontrer les com-pétences requises en début de carrière pour bien servir leurs clients dès qu’elles et ils sont inscrits au Barreau, » ajoute-t-elle.
Constitué par le Conseil le 23 juin, le groupe de 12 membres aura les tâches suivantes :
• Examiner les principes de compétence que le stage vise à aborder – ainsi que la façon dont le programme applique ces principes;
• Examiner les approches historiques et actuelles au stage;
• Reconnaître les difficultés au sein du programme actuel, dont le nombre croissant de candidats sans stage;
• Tenir compte d’autres approches au stage;
• Faire des recommandations au Conseil quant à l’avenir du système de stage.
Nombre croissant de candidats
Le nombre croissant de candidats à la profession observé ces dernières années est attribuable à plusieurs facteurs, dont un plus grand nombre d’inscriptions aux facultés de droit et davantage de candidats formés hors de l’Ontario ou du Canada et qui cherchent un stage en Ontario.
Actuellement, environ 200 candidats à la profession pour 2010 – 2011 cherchent un stage, mais n’en trouvent pas. Cela s’ajoute à ceux qui n’ont pas trouvé de stage dans les années passées et qui cherchent encore.
Efforts récents
« Depuis des années, nous surveillons les problèmes reliés au stage et nous avons investi beaucoup de ressources pour
essayer d’aider la profession à soutenir le processus actuel, » explique la trésorière.
Les changements les plus récents ont été faits en 2008, après une consultation de la profession et des recommandations du groupe d’étude sur l’accès à la profession et l’agrément. Parmi les changements, nous avons simplifié les exigences adminis-tratives du processus, encouragé la flexibilité en permettant des stages conjoints et à temps partiel, et en permettant une ex-emption de l’exigence de stage pour les avocats qui ont exercé plus de 10 mois dans un ressort de common law à l’extérieur du Canada.
Le Barreau a aussi tenu un symposium sur le stage et une foire d’emplois pour les cabinets et les candidats, et en prévoit un autre le 18 novembre. De plus, un registre de stages est of-fert sur le site web du Barreau, permettant aux employeurs et aux candidats d’afficher et de chercher des postes. Le Barreau continue d’offrir de la formation aux candidats qui ont besoin d’aide avec leur curriculum vitae et leurs entrevues d’emplois.
« Malheureusement, tous ces efforts ne semblent pas avoir changé la situation. Un nombre croissant de nos candidats ne peuvent pas remplir l’exigence de stage parce qu’ils ne se pla-cent pas, » indique la trésorière Pawlitza.
Elle dit qu’en 2009 – 2010, le Barreau a également mené un grand sondage auprès des cabinets juridiques en Ontario pour évaluer la portée du marché du stage et encourage les cabinets à considérer la possibilité d’offrir des stages conjoints ou à temps partiel.
« Grâce à ce sondage, il nous est apparu clairement qu’à ce temps, dans les présentes circonstances, la profession ne sem-ble pas vouloir ni pouvoir élargir son offre de stages dans le marché, » explique la trésorière.
Prochaines étapes
Le groupe d’étude a tenu ses premières réunions cet été pour discuter de tous les enjeux, avantages et risques associés à la composante de stage du Processus d’accès à la profession, en essayant de trouver des solutions. Le groupe d’étude devrait remettre un bref rapport au Conseil en septembre, et un rap-port complet en mai 2012.
Les membres du groupe d’étude sont : la trésorière Laurie H. Pawlitza, et les conseillers Tom Conway (président), Raj Anand, Adriana Doyle, Jacqueline Horvat, Vern Krishna, Dow Marmur, Janet Minor, Barbara Murchie, Paul Schabas, Joseph Sullivan et Peter Wardle.
Miso à jour du Barreau du Haut-CanadaLe Barreau forme un groupe d’étude pour aborder l’exigence de stage
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 34
SNAPSHOTS – OBA AWARDS
Top Row: Award of Excellence in Alternative Dispute Resolution winner Barry Fisher with Deborah Anschell; 2011 Award for Excellence in Insolvency Law winner Daniel Dowdall with wife Sharon Dowdall and Joseph Marin; Pensions & Benefits Award winner Raymond Koskie, QC with wife Rochelle Koskie.
Second Row: Barbara Caskie (centre) and sons (back row) accept the 2011 Award for Excellence in Family Law on behalf of the late Terrence Caskie; OBA Incoming President Paul Sweeny (left) with Heather McArthur Memorial Young Lawyers Award winner Susannah Roth and husband James Roth.
Third Row: 2011 Insurance Law Toronto Award Dinner; 2011 Ron Ellis Award winner Robert Boswell with mother Patricia Boswell; Bradley N. McLellan, winner of the 2011 Award for Excellence in Real Estate Law (centre) with family and colleagues.
Bottom Row: 2011 OBA Award for Excellence in Insurance Law winner Paul Lee (second from right) and wife ___ with colleagues; 2011 Award for Excellence in International Law win-ner J. Michael Robinson (with plaque) and Kevin A. Johnson; 2011 Tom Marshall Award winner Leslie McIntosh (centre) with Attorney General Chris Bentley.
35Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 36
Can you run a job ad requiring candi-dates to have a driver’s license? Do you have to accommodate your em-ployee’s time off to tend to a sick child? Can comments made in a confidential mediation be subject to the Human
Rights Code? Do you need to accommodate a lawyer who is unable to meet a billable hour target because of a disability? How do you approach a complaint of body odour within the office environment?
There are changes afoot in the regulatory regime of the hu-man rights landscape that will affect legal obligations within our firms, to our clients and to others to whom we provide service. These changes will affect all lawyers in all areas of law, whether they practise in sole, small, mid-sized, large or national firms.
Josée Bouchard, equity advisor at the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), and Cynthia Petersen, discrimination and ha-rassment counsel at the LSUC, recently presented a diversity workshop with the OBA Equal Opportunity Committee to in-form us of this changing legal landscape and to answer many of the questions above.
Firms of any size must comply with the Rules of Profession-al Conduct (lawyers and paralegals), the Human Rights Code of Ontario (Code), the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabili-ties Act (AODA), 2005 (and the coming Accessibility Standards for Customer Service) and the Ontario Health and Safety Act (OHSA). As you are aware, the Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 5.04, 5.03) place special responsibility on lawyers and paralegals to respect human rights laws in Ontario. The Rules on discrimination and harassment apply to a lawyer or paralegal in their employment of lawyers or paralegals, stu-dents or other person in professional dealings.
Discrimination
Differential treatment, whether intentional or not, that imposes a disadvantage or a burden on a person or group of persons, or that results in the denial of a benefit to a person or group of persons, based on one or more of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The Code applies in the following contexts: employment, provision of services, contractual relationships, accommo-dation and vocational associations. Of particular interest to law firms is the recent decision McCormick v. Fasken Martin-eau Dumoulin (No. 2), 2010 BCHRT 347 (Can LII), where the Tribunal found that the Code applies to law partnerships.
Duty to Accommodate
The duty to accommodate requires an employer or service provider to accommodate employees, customers or clients on all of the grounds listed in the Code. The duty requires accommodation to the point of undue hardship. This means that some hardship to the employer is acceptable and to be expected, however, someone who requires accommodation also has an obligation to facilitate reasonable offers of accom-modation. Any failure to provide reasonable accommodation based on human rights grounds constitutes discrimination.
The OHSA will see changes under Bill 168: wording that mirrors the Code will be in effect for issues of harassment. It also requires employers to develop and post written policies on workplace harassment and workplace violence (including a complaint mechanism) and to provide instructions to em-ployees regarding the policies.
Are You Ready for the New Human Rights Landscape? Juliet Knapton
37Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
In January 2012, the new Customer Service Standard for the AODA will come into effect for all law firms. In the case of a firm with 20 or more employees, written policies, practices and procedures should be in place to address services to cli-ents with disabilities. In all cases, training is mandated for every person who deals with members of the public or third parties on behalf of a provider.
The Standard requires that persons with disabilities be given an opportunity equal to that given to others to obtain, use and benefit from goods and services. The goods and ser-vices must be provided in a manner that respects the dignity and independence of persons with disabilities. Generally, the services should be integrated unless an alternate measure is necessary to enable a person with a disability to benefit from the good or services. The Standard will also come with enforcement measures and inspectors may attend to review a particular firm and have the power to levy administrative fines for non-compliance. As well, their orders may be sent to Superior Court for enforcement.
Avenues of Recourse for Employees or Clients• an internal complaint• contact the Discrimination and Harassment Counsel of
the LSUC 1-877-790-2200 or [email protected]• a complaint to the LSUC• an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario• civil recourse (e.g. wrongful dismissal)
Protecting Employers from Liability• ensure awareness and training for all staff and management• have a complaint mechanism
• act promptly when handling complaints• deal with complaints seriously• meet obligations to provide a healthy work environment• keep parties informed of outcomes
In general, a Discrimination and Harassment Policy should:• contain a strong statement of the employer’s commit-
ment• define discrimination and harassment• have a redress mechanism• establish a safe counsel/advisor or refer to the DHC• have penalties and remedies• have an implementation plan
Are you ready?
The Law Society has resources for developing a harassment and discrimination policy on its website. The OBA Equality Com-mittee also offers resources to its members at www.oba.org.
The author would like to thank Josée Bouchard, equity advisor at the Law Society of Upper Canada, and Cynthia Petersen, discrimination and harassment counsel at the Law Society of Upper Canada and partner at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, for sharing their work in regards to this article.
Juliet Knapton practises plaintiff-side civil litigation at Connolly Obagi LLP in Ottawa. She is Past Chair of the OBA Young Lawyers Division and Co-Chair of the OBA Equality Committee.
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 38
Fed in part by high profile media incidents that involve young people, a mistaken impression exists amongst some members of the public that youth crime is on the rise. A further base-less suggestion from some people in positions of power is that young offenders circulate anony-mously in the community, posing un-told risks to public safety whilst their identities remain concealed due to the overly lax provisions of the Youth Crim-inal Justice Act (YCJA).
Those of us who work in the area of youth criminal justice know that this nightmarish scenario of the pub-lic imagination could not be further from the truth. According to Statistics Canada, overall youth crime continues to fall, and rates of violent youth crime have remained stable for a number of years. Moreover, the majority of young people that do, in fact, commit crimes are committing non-violent property related offences. Thus the majority of young people coming into conflict with the law are those for whom the YCJA’s aims of reintegration and rehabilita-tion are eminently achievable; partic-ularly if they are able to put their his-tory of youthful offending behaviour behind them. Protection of their privacy is therefore critical to their ability to move on with their lives.
We at Justice for Children and Youth regularly see the priva-cy provisions of the YCJA being flouted but not in the high pro-file way one might expect, where the name of a young person is unlawfully splashed all over the newspapers or the television. Very specific criteria have to be met in order for the identity of a young person dealt with under the YCJA to be made known by the media. In this realm of privacy protection, the YCJA gen-erally operates effectively. Where the YCJA fails to adequately protect youthful offenders, and indeed facilitates an insidious erosion of their privacy, is through the YCJA’s regime governing youth record disclosure
In its introductory Declaration of Principle, the YCJA recog-nizes that the criminal justice system for young persons must
be separate from that of adults and emphasises the need for “enhanced procedural protections to ensure that young per-sons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected” (s.3(b)). The safeguards to pre-
vent identifying young people dealt with under the YCJA are believed to promote rehabilitation by avoiding the stigmatization or premature label-ling of a youthful offender while still in their formative years. According to Prof. Nicholas Bala, in his book Young Offenders Law, “[p]ublication increases a youth’s self-perception as an offend-er, disrupts the family’s abilities to pro-vide support, and negatively affects in-teraction with peers, teachers, and the surrounding community.”
There are two different and impor-tant concepts to understand in rela-tion to the protection of a youthful offender’s privacy: “publication” and “disclosure”. Both terms are defined in s. 2(1) of the YCJA. “Publication” means the communication of infor-mation by making it known or acces-sible to the general public through any means, including print, radio or televi-
sion broadcast, telecommunication or electronic means. “Dis-closure” is defined as the communication of information other than by way of publication.
Publication
The general rule is that publication of a young person’s iden-tity that has been dealt with under the YCJA is prohibited. Ex-ceptions to this rule exist in the circumstances set out under s. 110 of the YCJA and are relatively straightforward (with the ex-ception of “presumptive offences” dealt with in s. 110( 2)(b)). Publication is allowed, for example, when an adult sentence is imposed on a youth (s. 110 (2)(a)It is also permitted under s. 110(4) which allows a youth court judge to order publication (which lasts for a period of 5 days) in a situation where a dan-gerous youth escapes and must be apprehended. A young per-son themselves can also apply to a youth court to have their identity published under s.110 (6).
Publication and Disclosure Under the Youth Criminal Justice ActNiamh Harraher
Youth crime, violent youth crime in particular, seems to be a source of concern for many Canadians.
39Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
Presumptive offences are defined in s. 2(1) of the YCJA and include offences such as first and second degree mur-der, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, and “serious violent offences”, which are offences where a young person causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. D.B. [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3, held that in these kinds of serious cases the burden of proving that an adult sentence is justi-fied falls to the Crown.
The YCJA provides that if a young person is charged with committing a presumptive offence and the Attorney Gener-al provides notice that an adult sentence will not be sought, then the Court will order a publication ban (s.65). Under s. 63 of the YCJA, a young person charged or found guilty of a presumptive offence may apply for an Order that he or she is not liable for an adult sentence so that a youth sen-tence can be imposed. If the youth is successful in obtaining a youth sentence, the youth court judge is obliged by s. 75 of the YCJA to ask if either the young person or the Attor-ney General wishes to make an application for a publication ban. The judge in deciding whether or not to order a publica-tion ban must balance the importance of rehabilitating the young person with the public interest. Again, the case of R. v. D.B. is instructive because the SCC, in finding that s. 7 of the Charter was engaged by this section of the legislation, held at paragraph 87 that “lifting a ban on publication makes the young person vulnerable to greater psychological and social stress … it renders the sentence significantly more severe.” As a result, as with the imposition of an adult sentence, the onus remains on the Crown to justify why the protection of a publication ban to which the young person is presumed to be entitled should be lifted.
Disclosure
A record is anything that contains information created or kept for the purposes of the YCJA or for investigating an of-fence that could be prosecuted under the YCJA. Almost any contact with the justice system creates a record. This in-cludes arrests, charges and sentences. Importantly, it also includes extrajudicial measures (EJM), which are measures other than judicial proceedings used to deal with a young person alleged to have committed an offence. For example, a police caution or a warning to a young person detained dur-ing an investigation is an extrajudicial measure. In the case of R. v. R.L., 2008 ONCJ 29, Justice Cohen pointed out that re-cords of EJM’s are records of mere allegations that have nev-er been tested in court and for which a young person has not accepted responsibility. They are “inherently unreliable”.
Part 6 of the YCJA regulates access to and disclosure of youth records, including records held by the youth court, the police services, or other government agencies (e.g. records created for the purpose of administering a youth sentence) during and after the young person’s involvement in the jus-tice system. Sections 119 – 124 outline permissible access to youth records, and sections 125 – 129 provides for permis-sible disclosure and required destruction of records.
The YCJA distinguishes between access to a record and dis-closure of a record. Many of the people allowed access to a re-cord under s. 119(1) and 123 of the YCJA are not specifically
dealt with in the disclosure provisions (ss.125 and 127), In fact s. 129 prohibits anyone who has lawful access to youth records from disclosing the information to anyone who is not authorised under the YCJA to have access to that record.
Contravention of this section is considered a hybrid of-fence under s.138. This may create some confusion in that sometimes the YCJA sometimes does, and sometimes does not specify the purpose for which access to a record may be granted For instance s. 119(1)(a), which allows a young per-son access to their own record, does not specify any purpose, and does not permit disclosure except to others who are also permitted access under the YCJA. In some cases, the purpose for which access is sought under s. 119(1) may not require further disclosure. In others, the purpose for which access is sought does require further disclosure. In the example above, the young person may get access to their record and then proceed to violate the YCJA by disclosing the record, with-out knowing that such disclosure is a violation of the YCJA. If the purpose of seeking access to the record is in a formalized context, such as litigation, the matter will generally proceed as provided for in the YCJA—an application can be brought to a youth court judge seeking access to and disclosure of the record. Courts and judges have structured various ways for acceptable disclosure of the records to take place. This has been the case for young people who have sought to access records for use in complaints to the Human Rights Tribunal about their treatment by the police or cases in which a party to a civil action for negligence wishes to use a youth court record for use in that proceeding.
In contrast, young people who have been dealt with under the YCJA are often requested to provide police record checks when applying for part-time jobs, volunteer opportunities, or to participate in work placements for certain post-secondary programs. Providing the record to the young person for the purpose of employment, volunteer screening, or any purpose other than the young person’s own information runs con-trary to the letter and the spirit of the YCJA. The police may be seen to be assisting in the commission of a s. 138 offence if the young person goes on to disclose that information (which they often feel they have no option but to disclose).
It is troubling to contrast the high level of Charter analy-sis that has taken place in relation to publication bans with the day to day operation of the YCJA’s youth record disclo-sure provisions, as the same privacy interests of young peo-ple are engaged with a significantly different outcome. If we accept that protection of a young person’s privacy in order to foster rehabilitation is a legitimate societal aim, then we should care about records of youthful misdeeds circulating in a poorly controlled and inconsistent way. The Supreme Court has found it to be a principle of fundamental justice that young people are entitled to a presumption of dimin-ished moral blameworthiness or culpability flowing from the fact that, because of their age, they have heightened vulner-ability, less maturity and a reduced capacity for moral judg-ment. The glare of the media is not the only unwelcome light that needs to be kept away from them. We all have a vested interest in the rehabilitation of young people.
Niamh Harraher is a staff lawyer at Justice for Children and Youth.
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 40
QUEEN’S PARK UPDATE
One of my priorities as the Attorney General of Ontario is to ensure that our courts work for the people they serve. We have a very strong justice system that is the envy of the world. It is one of the reasons that people come to Ontario from all over. Unfortunately, for many years our justice system has been chal-lenged by cases that take longer and use up more resources than they used to.
The Justice on Target (JOT) strategy was launched with the goal of making our criminal justice system faster by using exist-ing resources more effectively. The key to JOT’s success is collab-oration at the local level among the judiciary, Crown attorneys, defence counsel, police, corrections officials, court staff, victim service workers, Legal Aid Ontario and other organizations.
When we launched JOT in June 2008, the average number of appearances needed to complete a criminal charge was on the rise and almost double what it was in 1992. Now, we have reversed the upward trend. For the first time in nearly twenty years the number of appearances has started to consistently go down instead of up.
Data from January to December of 2010 shows the average number of appearances needed to complete a criminal charge has fallen nearly 6 % since the strategy was launched.
There have been more than 325,000 fewer court appearances in non-complex, non-violent cases (Class I and Class II) since the strategy began. This means courtrooms are not being used to ad-journ cases but to resolve them. The people in those courtrooms are able to use their time and effort to resolve or try cases.
Justice on Target is a four year strategy that was rolled out in successive waves to ensure that every court site can learn from the experiences of earlier sites and implement initiatives rele-vant to local needs. The first wave of courthouses began imple-menting JOT initiatives in 2009. In the past year, all remaining court sites of the Ontario Court of Justice were engaged. Where
new initiatives have been in place the longest, we are seeing the most progress. This is creating the capacity to direct more at-tention to more serious and difficult cases, and to better serve victims, witnesses and the public.
Change is not easy, but through hard work and focused col-laborations, we’re moving in the right direction.
For example, some courts are now coordinating recess times so that the people who need to connect, such as Crown and de-fence counsel, have an opportunity to resolve matters quickly. Some sites are looking at processes for setting trial dates to re-duce the administrative burden for court staff, police, Crown and defence counsel. Still other locations have enhanced the bail court process to ensure defence counsel have access to the Crown position on bail, and time to confer with clients before bail court is in session. This in turn benefits corrections staff and police, who spend less time transporting the same prisoners to and from court, day after day. Police officers are spending less time waiting in court and more time in the community.
From the beginning we let people see the progress by putting all the information online. The criminal court statistics are avail-able on the ministry’s website so that everyone can follow the progress of the strategy and see the impact on courthouses in their local communities.
Justice on Target is working. Together, through collaboration and innovation we have developed a strategy that is making our justice system better and stronger.
The Queen’s Park Update provides a forum, on a regular
rotation, for the views of the Attorney General and the
Opposition Justice Critics.
The Hon. Chris Bentley
The Hon. Chris Bentley, MPP, is the Attorney General of Ontario.
41Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
En tant que Procureur général de l’Ontario, l’une de mes priorités consiste à m’assurer que nos tribunaux remplissent leur rôle auprès des personnes qui les utilisent. Nous possédons un système judiciaire bien établi que le monde entier nous envie. C’est l’une des raisons pour laquelle l’Ontario accueille des gens des quatre coins du monde. Malheureusement, depuis de nom-breuses années, notre système judiciaire est mis à l’épreuve par des affaires qui prennent plus de temps et qui demandent davan-tage de ressources que par le passé.
La justice juste-à-temps (JJAT) est une stratégie qui a été mise en place dans le but de faire progresser le système de justice pé-nale plus rapidement à l’aide de ressources existantes utilisées plus efficacement. La clé de la réussite de la JJAT réside dans un effort de collaboration à l’échelle locale entre le pouvoir judici-aire, les procureurs de la Couronne, les avocats de la défense, la police, les officiers des services correctionnels, le personnel des tribunaux, les représentants du programme d’aide aux victimes, Aide juridique Ontario et d’autres organismes.
En juin 2008, lorsque nous avons mis en place la stratégie Jus-tice juste-à-temps, le nombre moyen de comparutions requises pour mener à bien une accusation criminelle était en augmenta-tion et avait presque doublé depuis 1992. Nous avons désormais renversé cette tendance à la hausse. Pour la première fois en près de vingt ans, le nombre de comparutions requises a com-mencé à diminuer de façon constante au lieu d’augmenter.
Les données recueillies entre le mois de janvier et le mois de décembre 2010 indiquent que le nombre moyen de comparu-tions requises pour mener à bien une accusation criminelle a chuté de presque 6 % depuis le lancement de cette stratégie.
Il y a eu plus de 325 000 comparutions devant les tribunaux en moins pour les dossiers simples et non-violents (catégorie I et catégorie II) depuis la mise en œuvre de la stratégie. Cela signifie que les salles d’audience ne sont plus utilisées pour ajourner les affaires mais bien pour les résoudre. Les personnes présentes dans ces salles d’audience sont à même de mettre leur temps et leurs efforts à profit pour clore des dossiers ou les instruire.
Justice juste-à-temps est une stratégie qui s’étale sur quatre ans et qui a été mise en œuvre par étape, en vagues successives afin de s’assurer que chaque palais de justice peut bénéficier de l’expérience des autres avant lui et prendre des initiatives qui correspondent aux besoins locaux. En 2009, une première vague de palais de justice a eu recours aux initiatives de JJAT. Depuis un an, tous les palais de justice de la Cour de justice de l’Ontario les
ont adoptées. C’est là où les initiatives ont été adoptées en pre-mier que les progrès réalisés sont le plus notables. Cela permet de recentrer notre attention sur des dossiers plus graves et plus complexes, et de mieux subvenir au besoin des victimes, des té-moins et du public.
Changer n’est certes pas chose aisée, mais grâce à un travail assidu et des efforts de collaborations ciblés et continus, nous faisons un pas dans la bonne direction.
Par exemple, certains tribunaux ont commencé à faire coïn-cider les suspensions d’audience de sorte que ceux qui ont be-soin de se rencontrer, comme le procureur de la Couronne et l’avocat de la défense, peuvent le faire et ont alors l’occasion de résoudre les litiges promptement. Sur certains sites, on exam-ine des processus destinés à établir les dates de procès afin de réduire le fardeau administratif qui affecte le personnel des tri-bunaux, la police, les procureurs de la Couronne et les avocats de la défense. Dans d’autres sites, le processus lié aux séances de libération sous caution a été amélioré pour s’assurer que les avo-cats de la défense connaissent les dispositions de la Couronne et ont le temps de s’entretenir avec leur client avant l’ouverture de la séance de libération sous caution. Par ricochet, le personnel des services correctionnels et la police en récoltent également les fruits car ils passent moins de temps à faire des allers-retours de la prison au tribunal pour y conduire les mêmes personnes jour après jour. Les officiers de police passent moins de temps dans les tribunaux et plus de temps au sein de la communauté.
Nous permettons aux gens de suivre la progression dès le départ en mettant à leur disposition tous les renseignements en ligne. Les statistiques portant sur les tribunaux criminels sont affichées sur le site Web du ministère afin que tout un chacun puisse suivre les progrès réalisés depuis le lancement de la stra-tégie ainsi que l’impact de cette dernière sur les palais de justice au sein de leurs communautés.
La justice juste-à-temps fonctionne. Ensemble, dans une op-tique de collaboration et d’innovation, nous avons développé une stratégie qui améliore notre système judiciaire et qui le rend plus fort.
UPDATE QUEEN’S PARK
La mise à jour de Queen’s Park fournit un forum, en rotation régulière, pour les
opinions du procureur général et les porte-parole de justice de l’opposition.
L’honorable Chris Bentley
L’hon. Chris Bentley, Député, est Procureur général de l’Ontario
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 42
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA UPDATE
SummariesEugene Meehan, QC
Supreme Court of Canada Update
APPEAL JUDGMENTS
ACCESS TO INFORMATION: ACCESS TO RECORDS
Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) (Fed. CA, May 27, 2010; May 29, 2010) (33296, 33297, 33299, 33300) May 13, 2011
Records located within the offices of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport, and those parts of the Prime Minister’s agenda in the possession of the RCMP and the Privy Council Office are not subject to disclosure under s. 19(1) of the Access to Information Act.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: ANTON PILLER ORDERS
British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik (BCCA, May 7, 2009) (33266) April 21, 2011
In the context of an Anton Piller order authorizing search of business and residential properties, a Superior Court judge hearing an ex parte application may admit into evidence the findings and conclusions of a prior judicial decision (here a Rowbotham proceeding).
CLASS ACTIONS, CHARTER: GOVERNMENT LIABILITY; FIDUCIARY; NEGLIGENCE; BAD FAITH/UNJUST ENRICHMENT; S. 15
Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society (Alta. CA, December 4, 2009) (33551) May 12, 2011
Alberta is responsible for the cost of medical care required by residents of nursing homes and auxiliary hospitals, but patients may be asked to contribute to costs of their housing and meals through the payment of accommodation charges. A class of elderly residents of Alberta’s long-term care facilities alleged the government artificially inflated the accommodation charges to subsidize the cost of medical expenses. Breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and bad faith in the exercise of discretion were struck from the statement of claim; unjust enrichment and the s. 15(1) Charter claim allowed to proceed to trial.
CORPORATE COMMERCIAL LAW: SECURITIES DISCLOSURE; FIDUCIARY DUTIES
Sharbern Holding Inc. v. Vancouver Airport Centre Ltd. (BCCA, May 22, 2009) (33280) May 11, 2011
Justice Rothstein: “When securities are offered to the general public, the rule of caveat emptor no longer applies. Securities legislation imposes on issuers a statutory duty of disclosure.
The following is a summary of all appeals and all leaves to appeal between April 12, 2011 – June 9, 2011.
Leaves specifically include both the date the SCC granted leave and the date of the CA judgment.
43Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
SummariesEugene Meehan, QC
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA UPDATE
That duty may vary in detail from one Act to another or from one jurisdiction to another … Rather than issuers being required to provide unlimited disclosure, disclosure obligations have been enacted to provide a balance between too much and too little disclosure”. The SCC held (upholding the BCCA): sufficient disclosure on the facts of this case; no negligent misrepresentation; no breach of fiduciary duty.
CRIMINAL LAW: CHARACTER EVIDENCE
R. v. O’Brien (NS CA, July 14, 2010) (33817)
The SCC held:
• “The trial judge said in his reasons that he relied “entirely” on the DNA evidence; that meant that he did not rely on the character evidence”;
• “A trial judge has an obligation to demonstrate through his or her reasons how the result was arrived at; this does not create a requirement to itemize every conceivable issue, argument or thought process”;
• “Trial judges are entitled to have their reasons reviewed based on what they say, not on the speculative imagination of reviewing courts.”
CRIMINAL LAW: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
R. v. Reynolds (Ont. CA, September 8, 2010) (33919) April 28, 2011
The SCC upheld the dissenting judge (Blair J.A.): “[s]uggesting a facile, albeit deceitful, way of accomplishing the desired objective is just as much a part of the “persuasion package” as providing the incentive to carry out the desired objective in the first place.”
CRIMINAL LAW: REASONABLE DOUBT
R. v. VY (August 5, 2010) (33841) May 6, 2011
Convictions for sexual assault and forcible confinement were set aside by a majority, and the SCC, based on their review of the trial judge’s reasons as a whole, agree that he erred in law by failing to give adequate consideration to the question of whether the evidence raised a reasonable doubt.
CRIMINAL LAW: SEARCH & SEIZURE; SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; s.24 (2)
R. v. Loewen (September 7, 2010) (33914) May 5, 2011
After stopping the accused for speeding, a police officer smelled freshly burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle and found $5,410 in the accused’s pocket. He arrested for possession, searched the vehicle, and found 100 grams of crack cocaine. The trial judge admitted the evidence of cocaine. The accused was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. A majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The SCC dismissed the appeal.
CRIMINAL LAW: SEXUAL ASSAULT
R. v. JA (Ont. CA, March 26, 2010) (33684) May 27, 2011
The definition of consent for sexual assault requires the complainant to provide actual active consent throughout every phase of the sexual activity. It is not possible for an unconscious person to satisfy this requirement, even if she expresses her consent in advance. Any sexual activity with an individual who is incapable of consciously evaluating whether
she is consenting is therefore not consensual within the meaning of the Criminal Code.
DEBTOR/CREDITOR: PPSA; TRUST; BFPFV
Trade Finance Inc. v. Bank of Montreal (Ont. CA, August 18, 2009) (33394) May 20, 2011
The transaction herein by which BMO acquired its enforceable PPSA security interest made it a “purchaser” within the meaning of the words “bona fide purchasers for value without notice”. BMO therefore fell within the exception to the tracing order previously given.
LABOUR LAW: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser (Ont. CA, November 17, 2009) (32968) April 29, 2011
The Ontario Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which excluded farm workers from the Labour Relations Act, but crafted a separate labour relations regime for farm workers, is constitutional.
TRADEMARKS: CONFUSION
Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. (Fed. CA, October 13, 2009) (33459) May 26, 2011
Consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including the factors set out in s. 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act and particularly that Alavida’s trade-mark “Masterpiece Living” and Masterpiece Inc.’s “Masterpiece the Art of Living” are very similar, lead the SCC to a finding that Masterpiece Inc. has proven that the use of Alavida’s trade-mark in the same area as those of Masterpiece Inc.’s would be likely to lead to the inference that the services associated with Masterpiece Inc.’s trade-marks were being performed by Alavida. Because Masterpiece Inc.’s use preceded Alavida’s proposed use, Alavida was not entitled under s. 16(3) to registration of its trade-mark.
LEAVES TO APPEAL GRANTED
CIVIL PROCEDURE: FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES
Are the choice of forum and arbitration clauses in this case valid?Momentous.ca Corporation, et al v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd., et al (Ont. CA, October 29, 2010) (33999) May 19, 2011
COPYRIGHT: “FAIR DEALING” EXCEPTION
What is fair dealing in the Copyright Act, and what comes under the exception under s. 29.4 of the Act?Province of Alberta as represented by the Minister of Education, et al v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency Operating as “Access Copyright” (Fed. CA, July 23, 2010) (33888) May 5, 2011
CRIMINAL LAW: SEXUAL ASSAULT
There is a publication ban in this case involving alleged failure to disclose HIV-positive status.
R. v. CLM (Man. CA, October 13, 2010) (33976) May 5, 2011
August2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 44
Eugene Meehan, QC, is a partner with McMillan LLP in Ottawa. [email protected]
INSURANCE & MUNICIPAL LAW: “DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN AUTOMOBILE”
When a municipally-owned tree falls on a car and kills an occupant, is this “damage caused by an automobile”?City of Westmount v. Richard Rossy, Sharon Rossy, Justin Rossy, Luke Rossy, Nicholas Rossy and Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (Que. CA, November 22, 2010) (34060) May 19, 2011
PENSIONS: PUBLIC SERVICE
In what circumstances can there be contribution holidays and/or withdrawal of surplus in mandatory contributory defined benefit pension plans?Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, et al v. Attorney General of Canada (Ont. CA, October 8, 2010) (33968) May 5, 2011
PHARMACEUTICALS: GENERIC VIAGRA
This generic Viagra test case comes up to the SCC for review, the generic alleging Pfizer’s patent is invalid for obviousness, lack of utility, and insufficient disclosure.Teva Canada Limited v. Pfizer Canada Inc., et al (Fed. CA, September 24, 2010) (33951) May 5, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA UPDATE
Farley Cohen • Ross Hamilton • Peter Steger • Paula Frederick • Prem Lobo
cohenhamiltonsteger.com 416 304 1595
Three words when looking for the right expert in damages quantification, business
valuation and forensic accounting:
Expertise. Independence. Objectivity.
Three words when looking for the right firm:
Cohen Hamilton Steger
45Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
Expedited ArbitrationADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration is designed for people who want a fast and inexpensive arbitration. Expedited arbitrations are fixed fee arbitrations (usually less than $6,500 per party including taxes and room fee) with strict time frames and limitations on number of documents, length of briefs and time for the hearing. The process takes less than 90 days from the appointment of the arbitrator to the issuance of the award, and there is only one hearing day.
Evideo MediationeVideo mediation services allow you to conduct mediations seamlessly, in real time, when people are in different cities.
Participate in a mediation as you normally would: see and hear everyone, conduct private caucuses by making use of virtual private rooms, present and share documentation, and collaborate on settlement agreements.
Participants only need a computer with Internet access.
www.adrchambers.com416.362.8555
CAnAdA’s MEdiAtion And ArbitrAtion lEAdEr
August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref 46
Don’t miss the gem of the
autumn social calendar!
The OBA Award for Excellence in Civil Litigation
will take place on Tuesday, October 25th, 2011 at
the Fairmont Royal York Hotel, in Toronto.
This year’s formal dinner and ceremony will be
honouring the 2011 award recipient
Harvey Strosberg, QC of Sutts, Strosberg LLP.
Register online today
at oba.org/pd.
OBA Institute 2012! When? February 9-11, 2012Where? The Westin Harbour Castle Conference Centre and the Conference Centre at the OBA, in TorontoWhat? 3 Days of Fantastic CPD Programs - Earn Those Mandatory Hours!
Are you a new lawyer, looking for guidance? Are you an established practitioner, interested in sharing your experience with a young colleague? Let the OBA Mentorship Program connect you. Mentorship successfully transitions new lawyers into the legal profession and community and helps them find the path to success. Interested? Find out more at oba.org/mentorship
OBA Notice Board
47Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011
Publications White SaleDon’t miss out on your chance to save – savings up to 75%!
We are having a clearance on some of our publications
in either downloadable or hard copy formats. Visit our
new publications store and find a wide variety of titles in
your area of practice for only $25.
Order your publications online today
at oba.org/publications
Upcoming Fall 2011 CPD Programs
FAMILY LAW
BREAD AND BUTTER ISSUES - SEPTEMBER 16
THE ONTARIO E-DISCOVERY INSTITUTE:
E-DISCOVERY FOR ALL CASES AND ALL LAWYERS
- SEPTEMBER 19
NEW DEALS IN CANADIAN ENTERTAINMENT LAW: TERMS OF TRADE,
CONSOLIDATION AND COMMERCIAL CLAUSES - SEPTEMBER 22
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PENSION DIVISIONS UNDER THE
PENSION BENEFITS ACT
- SEPTEMBER 23
TRUSTS AND ESTATES: THE DEPENDANT’S SUPPORT
APPLICATION FROM NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO TRIAL
- SEPTEMBER 27
YLD: DIALOGUE WITH THE BENCH AND BAR
TOOLS AND TACTICS TO IMPROVE YOUR ADVOCACY SKILLS
- OCTOBER 4
LAW PRACTICE MANAGEMENT
WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN A FRAUD INVESTIGATOR COMES TO YOUR
OFFICE? - OCTOBER 5
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS - OCTOBER 12, 2011
www.oba.org/pd
Webcast
Live
Local. Affordable. Festive.
The Conference Centre at the OBA200-20 Toronto Street,
Toronto, M5C 2B8Contact Annette Wing
[email protected] 416.869.1047 ext.321
It’s Not too Early to Think About the Holidays
Book Now and Save 15%*
Let The Conference Centre at the OBA host your holiday celebration. Whether you’re gathering with colleagues and co-workers, or family and friends, we can accommodate your every need.
*15% discount applies Sat & Sun only, from Dec. 3 – 18, 2011
Introducing the new home and auto insurance program for all members of the legal profession.
GREAT RATES ON HOME AND AUTO INSURANCE
CBIA Insurance Services offers home and auto insurance, complete with additional features and options that go beyond standard protection – all at exceptionally great rates.
GET A HOME OR AUTO INSURANCE QUOTE
See how easy it is to switch your insurance company…and save money.
The Canadian Bar Insurance Association Sponsored Home & Auto Insurance is underwritten by The Personal General Insurance Inc. in Quebec and by The Personal Insurance Company in all other provinces and territories. Certain products and services may not be available in all provinces and territories. CBIA Insurance Services is a division of 3303128 Canada Inc., a licensed insurance broker.
Judgefor yourself
1-877-314-6274
CALL OR CLICK 1-877-314-6274www.barinsurance.com/homeauto
CBIA_Ad_8.5x10.875_CMYK_bleed-0.125-no-contest.indd 1 6/27/11 4:13 PM
www.ERAssure.com
Estate trustees need good counsel – and risk protection.
New ERAssure is the
only errors and omissions
insurance available for
estate trustees.
Today’s estate trustees take on what has always been a complex role in an increasingly complicated environment. There are a larger number of blended families, the economy continues to be volatile and every beneficiary with internet access can feel like an expert about estate administration. The decisions estate trustees make – with or without the benefi t of your advice – are coming under increasing scrutiny, in a context where litigation is readily used to resolve disputes.
You already provide estate trustees with experienced legal advice. Now recommend protection.
Learn more at www.ERAssure.comERAssure is a trademark of Estate Risk Protection Plan Inc.
3117-1
OBA NEWSLETTER
FEB 22, 2011
3117-7 ERAssure Ad OBA Newsletter.indd 1 11-02-22 2:35 PM
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP*Associated Office
MONTRÉAL OTTAWA TORONTO CALGARY VANCOUVER NEW YORK CHICAGO LONDON BAHRAIN AL-KHOBAR* BEIJING SHANGHAI* blakes.com
Great coveragewhen it matters most.
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
Do you sometimes wonder how lifegot so out of control?
Need Help?Call
Greater Toronto Area: 905•238•1740 Toll-free: 1•877•576•6227
www.olap.caOntario Lawyers' Assistance ProgramW e U n d e r s t a n d L a w y e r S t r e s s
Depression/AnxietyDrug or alcohol misuse
Stress/BurnoutFamily problems
Job loss/Career changesFinancial pressures
Confident ia lProfessional Help
andPeer Support
The title insurer that puts you front row, centre
1-888-667-5151 or www.stewart.ca
Putting the legal community front and centre has made
us the #1 choice with Canadian legal professionals for
over a decade. While other title insurers go head to head
with you for your business, Stewart Title does not support
programs that reduce or eliminate the legal professional’s
role in real estate transactions. Instead, we focus on what
matters to you:
• unsurpassed policy coverage
• competitive pricing
• underwriting expertise
At Stewart Title, we keep real estate transactions
where they belong – in your office!
STG_OBA_hfpg_287c_04_11_Layout 1 4/14/11 12:39 PM Page 1
® RealtiWeb, RealtiWeb and design and LawyerDoneDeal and design are registered trademarks of LawyerDoneDeal Corp.
real estate • wills • corporatewww.lawyerdonedeal.com 1 800 363 2253
Now is the perfect time to join the movement online
Move to a better real estate transaction platform
with RealtiWeb®. You can escape your firm’s
inefficient software, with the help of our expert
support staff and migration specialists. We
work with you to make the transition as
seamless as possible.
Call us today for your
no-obligation consultation
® RealtiWeb, RealtiWeb and design and LawyerDoneDeal and design are registered trademarks of LawyerDoneDeal Corp.
real estate • wills • corporatewww.lawyerdonedeal.com 1 800 363 2253
Now is the perfect time to join the movement online
Move to a better real estate transaction platform
with RealtiWeb®. You can escape your firm’s
inefficient software, with the help of our expert
support staff and migration specialists. We
work with you to make the transition as
seamless as possible.
Call us today for your
no-obligation consultation