February 2011 Briefly Speaking

ZXYGeneration

Bridging the

Gap

Official Magazine of the Ontario Bar Association - A Branch of the Canadian Bar Association February 2011 | Vol. 36 No. 1

EnBref

Briefly speaking

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.

1

BrieflyspeakingOBA 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

Nancy Cooper Nancy E. Cooper Law Office

Alastair Clarke York Community Services

The Honourable Justice Heather McGee Superior Court of Justice

Chantal Brochu Buset & Partners LLP

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

Robert Mitchell Director, Communications and Marketing/ Directeur, communications et marketing 416-869-1047 ext/poste 318 [email protected]

Catherine BrennanCommunications Specialist/ Spécialiste de communications 416-869-1047 ext/poste [email protected]

Cheryl CrockerMarketing Specialist/ Spécialiste marketing416-869-1047 ext/poste [email protected]

Rob GilmourAdvertising SalesVente d’annonces416-869-1047 ext/poste [email protected]

Filippo ConteBilingual Communications Specialist/Spécialiste bilingue de communications publiques 416-869-1047 ext/poste 346

Janet WeldonGraphic Design/Graphisme416-869-1047 ext/poste 363

FEATURES

One-On-One with Roy McMurtry | 14

Beth Symes Appointed Order of Canada | 17

The Generation Gap: Who’s Who? | Kyle Magee | 19

Rob Nicholson and Son on the Generation Gap | 26

“Y” Enter Practice in Today’s Market | Christopher Williams and Trevor Branion | 29

CBIA Insurance Changes | 30

In Memoriam: Richard Bruce Lawson, Claude Renwick Thomson | 31

Incivility: The A-Hole Factor | Eugene Meehan | 32

Pilot Project: Circuiting Toronto Masters to Central East and West | Audrey Ramsay and Brian Bangay | 34

Smartphone Etiquette | J. Andrew Sprague | 37

COLUMNS

Nota Bene | 2

President’s Message | Message de la président | 4

Supreme Court of Canada Update | Eugene Meehan | 8

Queen’s Park Update | Questioning Bill 122 | Ted Chudleigh | 20

Advocacy In Action | Attorney General Announces Family Law Reforms at OBA | 23

Just For Laughs | Recollections in a Rearview Mirror | Marcel Strigberger | 24

Spotlight On Sections | Student Division | Julia Lefebvre | 28

Snapshots | OBA Supports Daily Bread, MAG Recognized | 38

32

14 Bridging the Gap with Roy McMurtry

Incivility: The A-Hole Factor

Nicholson & Son26“Y” Enter Practice 29

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.

Briefly Speaking • en Bref | February 2011

February 2011 | Briefly Speaking • en Bref 2

Nota BENE

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

The Honourable Paul J. Henderson, a sole practitioner in Oakville, is appointed a Judge of the Superior Court of Jus-tice of Ontario, Family Division (London), to replace Mr. Jus-tice H. Vogelsang, who elected to become a supernumerary judge.

Mr. Justice Henderson received a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in 1978 and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) in 1981 from Queen's University. He was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1983.

Mr. Justice Henderson has been a sole practitioner since 2000. He was a legal agent for the Office of the Children's Lawyer and a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court. He was a Federal Assistant Crown from 1989 to 1992. He was a partner with Brian J. Hanna and Daniel Barichello from 1986 to 2000 and an Associate with Brian Hanna from 1983 to 1986. His main areas of practice were family law, civil liti-gation and wills.

Mr. Justice Henderson has been a Bencher and a member of several committees for the Law Society of Upper Canada since 2006. He has been a member of the Peel-Halton Col-laborative Family Law Association since 2001, a member and past president of the Halton County Law Association since 1983, the Peel Law Association and a member of Fam-ily Mediation Canada since 2000. He is actively involved in several charitable and community organizations.

The Honourable Andrew J. Goodman, an Assistant Crown Attorney with the Ministry of the Attorney General of On-tario in Milton, is appointed a Judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Milton), to replace Mr. Justice M. Quigley, who was transferred to Toronto to replace Mr. Justice C.L.

Campbell, who elected to become a supernumerary judge.

Mr. Justice Goodman received a Bachelor of Social Scienc-es (B.S.Sc.) in 1984 and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) in 1991, both Magna Cum Laude, from the University of Ottawa. He also received a Master of Arts (M.A.) in Public Administra-tion in 1988 from Carleton University. He was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1993 and the Alberta Bar in 1998.

Mr. Justice Goodman has been an Assistant Crown Attorney in Milton since 2000. He was Counsel and Senior Risk Man-agement consultant with Lindquist Avey McDonald Basker-ville, forensic accountants in Toronto from 1998 to 1999. He was with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Service from 1977 to 1997. During that time, he was a legal representa-tive of the R.C.M.P. in Ottawa from 1992 to 1997; Detach-ment and Unit Commander in Cornwall in 1997-1998; Staff Relations Representative in Ottawa from 1984 to 1988 and a Police Constable in Manitoba from 1977 to 1984. His main area of practice was criminal law.

Mr. Justice Goodman was an Adjunct Professor at the Uni-versity of Guelph-Humber in Toronto from 2004 to 2009. He has been a member of the Ontario Crown Attorneys' Asso-ciation since 2000, including the Board of Directors and Ed-ucation Committee. He was member of the Ontario Bar As-sociation from 1992 to 2004; the Canadian Bar Association, Administrative Law Section from 1992 to 2002 and of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association from 1997 to 2000. He has been a lecturer to local lawyers of the Halton County Law Association and guest speaker at numerous seminars. He has been a member of the Board of Directors for the John Howard Society and for the Elizabeth-Fry Society, as well as a volunteer with several associations.

NotaBenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabene

3Briefly Speaking • en Bref | February 2011

NotaBenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabenenotabene

The Honourable John P.L. McDermot, a partner with Craig, Boswell, McDermot in Barrie, is appointed a Judge of the Su-perior Court of Justice of Ontario (Bracebridge), to replace Mr. Justice T.M. Wood, who elected to become a supernumer-ary judge.

Mr. Justice McDermot received a Bachelor of Arts (B.A. His-tory) from Brock University in 1977. He received a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from the University of Ottawa in 1981 and was admitted to the Bar of Ontario and of Alberta in 1982.

Mr. Justice McDermot has been a partner with Craig, Boswell, McDermot since 1998. He was an associate and partner with Zwicker, Evens & Lewis from 1990 to 1998; associate solici-tor with Weir & Fould from 1988 to 1990; assistant city so-licitor for the City of Brantford in 1987-1988; associate so-licitor with Pearson, Flynn, Sturdy & Lennox in 1986-1987 and litigation associate with Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer in Calgary from 1986 to 1992. His main areas of practice were family law, alternative dispute resolution, real estate, civil litigation and wills and estates.

Mr. Justice McDermot has been a member of the Executive of the Simcoe County Law Association, the Arbitration Insti-tute of Canada, and the Legal Aid Area Committee. He was a member of the Community Resources Committee and Fam-ily Court Liaison Committee. He has been President of the Simcoe County Family Law Lawyers' Association since 1999 and a member of the Mediation Centre of Simcoe County since 1994.

Nota BENE

We’re trying something new at Briefly Speaking with a

Letters to the Editor section that lets you, our readers, have your say about the editorial content and direction of the official magazine of the OBA.

You can contact us by e-mail at [email protected] or opt for “snail mail” at:

Briefly SpeakingOntario Bar Association20 Toronto St., Suite. 300Toronto, OntarioM5C 2B8

We want to hear from you about the quality of the ar-ticles, the look and design of the magazine and its value to you as a practising member of the Bar. It’s your maga-zine; it’s time you told us what you think. Don’t hesitate to offer suggestions, constructive criticism or story ideas.

Address your thoughts to Letters to the Editor, Briefly Speaking at either address provided and we will print your responses in the forthcoming October issue. Keep your thoughts to 250 words or less. We look forward to hearing from you.

1010

CCH will be at the 2011 Institute in Toronto, Ontario. Come visit us, check out our new products and learn about the most recent enhancements to our online platform. Plus receive your free gift from CCH.

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.

Come see for yourself, all that CCH has to offer!

� ADR� Civil Litigation� Corporate/Commercial� Environment� Estate

� Family� Insurance� Labour and Employment Law� Progress of Legislation� Real Estate

� Securities� U.S. and International� Tax

February 2011 | Briefly Speaking • en Bref 4 February 2011 | Briefly Speaking • en Bref

PresideNt’s MESSAGE

lift nozzle and squeeze Handle: Is Self-Service Law Really the Answer?Lee Akazaki

In post-war 1950’s Ontario, industry and commerce defined legal needs. Civil cases in the law reports reflected the parties associated with having lawyers: railways, mining, branch plants, banks and insurers. The 50’s were also the origins of our first legal aid plan, and lawyers worked for free. While lawyers had a long tradition of good works, the bar suddenly saw an institu-tional need for providing legal services to a broader cross-sec-tion of society. The bar made an important choice. As democrat-ic institutions grew, access to our expertise could enable public participation. On the other hand, it could be an obstacle, leading to calls for the profession’s independence to end.

Sixty years later, the commercial law workload of our courts has been pushed out and into private arbitration. Courtrooms fill up with family conflicts, personal injury victims and em-ployment disputes. Given the delays and inefficiencies of the civil justice system, the economics of pro bono legal services has been unsustainable for decades. When times are tough, or-dinary people want more law. People from all walks of life fend for themselves and encounter the law’s sharp edges. Well-in-tentioned leaders in the bar have proposed alternatives to pri-vate practice lawyers and law firms, such as ‘unbundled’ legal services (a mixture of self-help and lawyer-help), websites, and other self-serve and semi-self-serve access points. Enabling more self-help, however democratic, will also fuel the demand for judicial resources. Such demand, without providing for re-sources to meet them, only makes it more difficult for lawyers to act for clients in the courts.

Unfortunately, these informational alternatives assume vastly more legal literacy than the average lay person possesses. In-stead of devising processes that cut lawyers’ services into small bites, or seek to replace lawyers with websites or call centers, now is the time to enable lawyers to deliver the services only lawyers can deliver. Self-help is really not a solution but a last resort, and usually a problem. The law deficit for the low-to-mid-dle income earners is not limited to litigation. Small businesses, franchisees and others are denied justice if they organize their affairs without being able to afford legal advice. Failure to have a lawyer draft a separation agreement early on leads to fights over money and children in the courts. In short, put a lawyer in a community where once there was no one, and you have a net gain in a society’s access to justice. (This is not a mere hypoth-esis. Justicenet.ca, for example, provides a match-making service for clients seeking lawyers for more modest hourly rates. Law-yers have the will. They just need the means.)

Community access to justice also benefits law firms whose business model is national or global. Think about it. While the individual large-firm lawyer may not be aware of their reliance on their retail counterparts, any managing partner or law firm CEO has to see the need to support the entire bar. As did the 1950’s lawyers who created legal aid, we must not forget the well from which we all draw sustenance is a common one: the licence to practice in a self-regulated profession. Unless we all help put new lawyers in Cochrane or Rainy River instead of re-cruiting them all to Toronto, attrition will ensure demise of the profession’s ability to provide access to law. Like solicitor-client

T he University of Toronto hosts an international symposium on the provision of legal services to people who do not qualify for legal aid. In Ontario, public legal institutions study civil access to justice as a serious democratic deficit. All of a sudden, why are we so interested in law for the middle class?


PresideNt’s MESSAGE

privilege or credible conflict of interest rules, access to justice is a bread-and-butter issue. It is not just for bleeding hearts. Our pro-fession as a whole is threatened if we do not live up to the public’s expectation of access. The real solution must be found in support for the local lawyer. As the lawyers’ association, finding the solu-tion is the OBA’s work.

This brings me to the skill-testing portion of this President’s Message. Which one of these businesses is not like the other?

(a) dry cleaners;

(b) doctors’ offices;

(c) dental offices; or

(d) law offices

If the criterion is access to small-business tax incentives, the answer is “(d).” Doctors and dentists have been permitted to incor-porate and split their income as dividends with non-professional family members. Lawyers, in contrast, can do so only up to the val-ue of actual services rendered by the family member. By virtue of subsection 61.0.1(4) of the Law Society Act (LSA), lawyers cannot issue shares in professional corporations to non-lawyers. As an ex-ception to the Business Corporations Act, subsection 61.0.1(4) is nothing less than a tax on legal professional corporations. In es-sence, Ontario taxes access to justice. Last September, the OBA cre-ated a special task force chaired by our First Vice-President Paul Sweeny, to start a long-needed campaign to seek the elimination of this provision in the LSA. Every member of the OBA can help the work of the task force by communicating the message to his or her local MPP. If you need OBA to help do this in your community, we will be there.

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


Message Du PRéSIDENT

Prenez le pistolet et serrez la poignée: le droit libre-service est-il réellement la réponse?

Lee Akazaki

Dans l’Ontario de l’après-guerre, lors des années 1950, l’industrie et le commerce ont défini les besoins juridiques. Les cas civils des recueils de jurisprudence reflétaient les par-ties qui disposaient des services des avocats : chemins de fer, mines, succursales d’usines, banques et assureurs. Les années 1950 ont également vu la naissance de notre premier plan d’aide juridique, et les avocats travaillaient gratuitement. Bien que les avocats étaient reconnus depuis longtemps pour leurs bonnes œuvres, le barreau a subitement décelé le besoin insti-tutionnel de fournir des services juridiques à une section plus importante de la société. Le barreau a fait un choix important. Au fur et à mesure du développement des institutions démocra-tiques, l’accès à nos compétences pouvait permettre la participa-tion publique. À l’opposé, cela pouvait être un obstacle, ce qui a entraîné des demandes pour mettre fin à l’indépendance de la profession.

Soixante ans plus tard, la charge de travail liée au droit com-mercial de nos tribunaux a été poussée vers l’arbitrage privé. Les tribunaux sont remplis de conflits familiaux, de victimes de préjudices personnels et de disputes liées à l’emploi. Étant don-né les délais et les insuffisances du système de justice civile, les arguments économiques sous-tendant les services juridiques bénévoles ne sont plus tenables depuis des années. Lorsque les temps sont durs, les gens ordinaires demandent davantage de lois. Des individus de tous les milieux se débrouillent par eux-mêmes et se retrouvent face aux rigueurs du droit. Des leaders du barreau pleins de bonnes intentions ont proposé des solu-tions de rechange aux avocats en pratique privée et aux sociétés d’avocats, tels que des services juridiques « dégroupés » (un mé-lange de libre-service et de service d’avocats), des sites web et d’autres points d’accès libre-service et semi-libre-service. Toute-fois, la disponibilité de plus de libres-services, aussi démocra-tiques soient-ils, alimentera également la demande pour les res-

sources juridiques. Avec une telle demande, sans des ressources pour la satisfaire, il devient plus difficile pour les avocats de représenter leurs clients devant un tribunal.

Malheureusement, ces solutions de rechange liées à l’information supposent qu’une personne ordinaire possède beaucoup plus de connaissances juridiques qu’elle ne possède réellement. Au lieu de concevoir des processus qui découpent les services des avocats en petites bouchées ou qui cherchent à remplacer les avocats avec des sites Web ou des centres d’appels, le moment est arrivé de permettre aux avocats de fournir les ser-vices qu’eux seuls peuvent fournir. Le libre-service n’est pas une solution, mais un dernier recours, et c’est généralement un pro-blème. Le déficit juridique pour les personnes au revenu faible à moyen ne se limite pas aux procès. La justice est refusée aux petites entreprises, aux franchises et à d’autres si elles organ-isent leurs affaires sans avoir les moyens d’avoir recours à des conseils juridiques. S’il n’est pas possible de faire rédiger une entente de séparation par un avocat tôt dans le processus, cela entraîne des disputes concernant l’argent et les enfants devant les tribunaux. En bref, mettez un avocat dans une collectivité où il n’y en avait aucun, et on peut observer un gain net dans l’accès à la justice de la société. (Cela n’est pas qu’une hypothèse. Justi-cenet.ca, par exemple, fournit un service de liaison pour les cli-ents qui recherchent des avocats dont le tarif horaire est moins élevé. Les avocats ont la volonté. Ce dont ils ont besoin, ce sont des moyens.)

L’accès communautaire à la justice présente également un avantage pour les sociétés d’avocats qui ont un modèle d’affaires national ou mondial. Pensez-y. Bien qu’un avocat individuel tra-vaillant pour une grosse société n’est peut-être pas au courant de sa dépendance à l’égard de ses homologues travaillant seuls, tout associé directeur ou président de société d’avocats doit con-

L’Université de Toronto organise un symposium international concernant la prestation de services juridiques aux individus qui ne sont pas admissibles à l’aide juridique. En Ontario, les institutions juridiques publiques considèrent l’accès civil à la justice comme un déficit démocratique grave. Pourquoi nous intéressons-nous subitement au droit pour la classe moyenne?

February 2011 | Briefly Speaking • en Bref


Message Du PRéSIDENT

stater la nécessité de soutenir l’ensemble du barreau. Comme l’ont fait les avocats des années 1950 qui ont créé l’aide juridique, nous ne devons pas oublier que le puits qui nous soutient est commun à tous : le droit de pratiquer au sein d’une profession autorégle-mentée. Si nous n’aidons pas tous à installer de nouveaux avocats à Cochrane ou à Rainy River au lieu de tous les recruter à Toronto, l’attrition aura pour conséquence que la profession ne pourra plus donner accès au droit. Comme le secret professionnel de l’avocat ou les règles dignes de foi relatives au conflit d’intérêts, l’accès à la justice est une question essentielle. Elle ne concerne pas unique-ment les amis du peuple. Globalement, notre profession est mena-cée si nous ne satisfaisons pas les attentes du public relativement à l’accès. La solution réelle doit être le soutien de l’avocat local. En tant qu’association d’avocats, la recherche de la solution est l’œuvre de l’ABO.

Cela m’amène à la question d’habileté de ce message du prési-dent. Laquelle de ces entreprises n’est pas comme les autres?

(a) nettoyeurs;

(b) cabinets de médecins;

(c) cabinets dentaires; ou

(d) sociétés d’avocat

Si le critère est l’accès à l’incitation fiscale pour les petites en-treprises, la réponse est « (d) ». Les médecins et les dentistes ont la permission de se constituer en personne morale et de diviser leur revenu à titre de dividendes avec des membres de la famille ne faisant pas partie de la profession. À l’opposé, les avocats ne peuvent le faire que jusqu’à concurrence de la valeur des services réels rendus par le membre de la famille. En vertu du paragraphe 61.0.1(4) de la Loi sur le Barreau, les avocats ne peuvent pas émettre à des non-avocats des actions dans des ordres professi-onnels. Comme exception à la Loi sur les sociétés par actions, le paragraphe 61.0.1(4) n’est rien moins qu’une taxe sur les ordres professionnels juridiques. Essentiellement, l’Ontario taxe l’accès à la justice. En septembre dernier, l’ABO a créé un groupe de tra-vail spécial présidé par Paul Sweeny, notre premier vice-président, pour lancer une campagne bien nécessaire pour éliminer cette dis-position de la Loi sur le Barreau. Chaque membre de l’ABO peut aider le groupe de travail en transmettant ce message au député de sa circonscription. Si vous avez besoin de l’ABO pour le faire dans votre collectivité, nous sommes là pour vous aider.

Briefly Speaking • en Bref | February 2011

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.

February 2011 | Briefly Speaking • en Bref 8 February 2011 | Briefly Speaking • en Bref

suPreMe Court of CaNada uPDATE

SummariesEugene Meehan, Q.C.

Supreme Court of Canada Update

APPEAL JUDGMENTS

ABORIGINAL LAW: DUTY TO CONSULT

Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation (YT C.A., Au-gust 15, 2008) (32850) Nov. 19, 2010

The S.C.C. held:

• the reconciliation of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in a mutually respectful long-term relationship is the grand purpose of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

• the argument that the treaty is a "complete code" is untenable

• as the text of s. 35(3) makes clear, a modern comprehen-sive land claims agreement is as much a treaty in the eyes of the Constitution as are the earlier pre- and post-Confed-eration treaties

• a treaty does not exclude the duty to consult and, if appro-priate, accommodate.

ABORIGINAL LAW: DUTY TO CONSULT

Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (B.C.C.A., February 18, 2009) (33132) October 28, 2010

The S.C.C. held:

• to trigger the duty to consult, the Crown must have real or constructive knowledge of a claim to the resource or land to which it attaches

• the threshold, informed by the need to maintain the hon-our of the Crown, is not high

• actual knowledge arises when a claim has been filed in court or advanced in the context of negotiations, or when a treaty right may be impacted

• constructive knowledge arises when lands are known or reasonably suspected to have been traditionally occupied

The following is a summary of all appeals and all leaves to appeal (ones granted – so you know what areas of law the S.C.C. will soon be dealing with). For leaves I’ve specifically included both the date the S.C.C. granted leave and the date of the C.A. judgment below.

9Briefly Speaking • en Bref | February 2011Briefly Speaking • en Bref | February 2011

SuPREME COuRT OF CANADA uPdate

by an aboriginal community or an impact on rights may reasonably be anticipated

• while the existence of a potential claim is essential, proof that the claim will succeed is not; what is required is a credible claim.

AERONAUTICS: DIVISION OF POWERS

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Asso-ciation (Que. C.A., March 4, 2008) (32604) Oct. 15, 2010

Here the S.C.C. held:

• the first step is to determine whether the provincial law trenches on the protected "core" of a federal competence; it does, the second step is to determine whether the pro-vincial law's effect on the exercise of the protected federal power is sufficiently serious to invoke the doctrine of in-terjurisdictional immunity.

• the location of aerodromes lies at the core of the federal aeronautics power; long-standing precedent establishes that where aircraft may take off and land is a matter pro-tected by the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity; since the Quebec Act purports to limit where aerodromes can be located, it follows that it trenches on the core of the federal aeronautics power.

AERONAUTICS: DIVISION OF POWERS

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe (Que. C.A., March 4, 2008) (32608) Oct. 15, 2010

Similar summary to that above.

BANKRUPCY & INSOLVENCY: UNREMITTED GST

Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (B.C.C.A., May 7, 2009) (33239) Dec. 16, 2010

With regard to reconciling provisions of the CCAA and the Excise Tax Act in the context of a corporate reorganization, it is the CCAA and not the ETA that provides the rule. The broad discretionary jurisdiction conferred on the supervis-ing judge must be interpreted having regard to the remedial nature of the CCAA and insolvency legislation generally. The court has the discretion to partially lift a stay of proceedings to allow the debtor to make an assignment under the Bank-ruptcy and Insolvency Act.

CIVIL PROCEDURE IN QUEBEC: LIMITATION PERIODS

Christensen v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Québec (Que. C.A., July 8, 2009) (33360) Oct. 29, 2010

The S.C.C. wrote that the point at which prescription started to run raised questions of fact that could not be resolved on the face of the record, and the trial judge will have to assess the evidence, hence, the case was remanded back to the Que-bec Superior Court.

COMMERCIAL LAW: PRIORITIES; FEDERAL BANK ACT v. PROVINCIAL PPSA

Bank of Montreal v. Innovation Credit Union (Sask. C.A., March 12, 2009) (33153) Nov. 5, 2010

The S.C.C. upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal below which itself had held:

• the proper interpretation of ss. 427(2) and 435(2) of the Bank Act leads to the application of provincial property law to determine the effect of a prior security interest

• here, the first-in-time PPSA security interest had priority over the Bank Act security because the Bank acquired no greater interest than the debtor himself had at the time the Bank Act security was taken

• the Bank's security interest was therefore subject to the Credit Union's prior interest, regardless of the fact that the latter was unperfected.

The S.C.C. wrote at the end of this judgment that “In summary, a proper interpretation of the Bank Act gives an earlier unper-fected PPSA interest priority over a subsequent Bank Act inter-est, and there is no provision in the PPSA which subordinates an unperfected PPSA interest to a Bank Act interest.”

COMMERCIAL LAW: PRIORITIES; FEDERAL BANK ACT v. PROVINCIAL PPSA

Royal Bank of Canada v. Radius Credit Union Ltd.(Sask. C.A., March 12, 2009) (33152) Nov. 5, 2010


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: DIVISION OF POWERS

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Native Child and Family Services of Toronto (Fed. C.A., October 31, 2008) (32908) Nov. 4, 2010

Labour relations presumptively fall under provincial author-ity. Federal jurisdiction arises only as an exception when the nature of an entity's operations can be properly character-ized as federal on an application of the "functional test".

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: DIVISION OF POWERS

NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v. B.C. Govern-ment and Service Employees' Union (B.C.C.A., August 27, 2008) (32862) Nov. 4, 2010


CRIMINAL LAW: POST-OFFENCE CONDUCT

R. v. Allen (Alta. C.A., October 16, 2009) (33558) Oct. 27, 2010

The S.C.C. only wrote 2 paragraphs in this judgment, the sec-ond one being: “We are not persuaded that the jury instruc-


tions, read as a whole and in the context of the issues at tri-al, contained any such error. As the majority in the Court of Appeal concluded, it is our view that the trial judge's ‘charge to the jury was fair, balanced and accurate on the chal-lenged topics of post-offence conduct’" (para. 93). The appeal is dismissed."

CRIMINAL LAW: PROVOCATION

R. v. Tran (Alta. C.A., June 2, 2008) (33467) Nov. 26, 2010

The S.C.C. held:

• provocation is the only defence which is exclusive to homicide

• as a partial defence, it serves to reduce murder to man-slaughter when certain requirements are met; the de-fence, which originated at common law, is codified in s. 232 of the Criminal Code

• the accused's conduct is partially excused out of a compas-sion to human frailty

• it is not sufficient, however, that an accused's sudden reac-tion to a wrongful act or insult may be explained from a purely subjective standpoint

• the provision incorporates an objective standard against which the accused's reaction must be measured - that which may be expected of the "ordinary person" in like circumstances

• not all instances of loss of self-control will be excused.

CRIMINAL LAW: REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

R. v. Gomboc (Alta. C.A., August 21, 2009) (33332) Nov. 24, 2010

The S.C.C. held (with regard to information related to energy consumption at a suspected grow-op):

• considerations relevant to the informational privacy anal-ysis lead to the conclusion that no expectation of privacy in the electricity consumption information was objective-ly reasonable

• disclosing information about electricity consumption is not invasive nor revelatory of the respondent's private life

• it does not yield anything meaningful in terms of bio-graphical core data that attracts constitutional protection

• disclosure was explicitly permitted by the applicable reg-ulatory scheme

• the electricity company had an interest in the information, which was not entrusted to it with any expectation of con-fidentiality, and it employed legitimate means to gather the information

• none of the factors relevant to the informational privacy analysis support a conclusion that the information in question was of the sort that attracts Charter protection.

CRIMINAL LAW: SEXUAL ASSAULT; W (D.) PRINCIPLE

R. v. Lee (Alta. C.A., February 1, 2010) (33575) Nov. 12, 2010

The SCC held:

• the suggestion that the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for unreasonable verdict set out in Corbett 1975, and recently upheld in Biniaris 2000, rather than the test for appellate intervention where there has been a misapprehension of evidence as in Lohrer 2004 is rejected; the majority of the C.A. below considered, with one minor ex-ception, that what the appellant alleged to be misapprehen-sions of the evidence were simply different interpretations of the evidence than those adopted by the judge

• as for the trial judge's application of the W. (D.) principle, a reading of her reasons as a whole does not support the conclusion of the dissenting judge that she erred in her application of the reasonable doubt standard to the whole of the evidence.

DAMAGES IN QUEBEC, WILLS & ESTATES: PUNITIVE AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

de Montigny v. Brossard (Succession) (Quebec Court of Appeal, August 26, 2008) (32860) Nov. 10, 2010

In the context of an individual strangling his former spouse, drowning the couple’s two children, and then committing suicide, the S.C.C. held:

• it is too narrow a view of the role of punitive damages to say that there is no point in awarding them where the per-son who committed an unlawful act is deceased;

• to be entitled to exemplary damages, successors under an estate must first prove unlawful interference with a right; the second criterion involves determining whether the in-terference was intentional; intentionality refers not to the intent to commit the fault but rather to the intent to cause the result thereof.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: JOURNALIST-SOURCE PRIV-LEGE; PUBLICATION BANS

Globe and Mail v. Canada (Attorney General) (December 15, 2008) (32975), (January 30, 2009) (33097), (August 26, 2008) (33114) Oct. 22, 2010

The S.C.C. held:

• there is a basis in the laws of Quebec for a journalist-source privilege or an exemption from the general obliga-tion to give evidence in civil cases



• to require a journalist to answer questions in a judicial proceeding that may disclose the identity of a confiden-tial source, the requesting party must demonstrate that the questions are relevant; if the questions are irrelevant, that will end the inquiry and there will be no need to con-sider the issue of journalist-source privilege; however, if the questions are relevant, then the court must go on to consider the four Wigmore factors and determine wheth-er the journalist-source privilege should be recognized in the particular case; at the crucial fourth factor, the court must balance (1) the importance of disclosure to the ad-ministration of justice against (2) the public interest in maintaining journalist-source confidentiality

• the order below prohibiting the publication of anything relating to the settlement negotiations between the par-ties is quashed.

PRIVATE & INTERNATIONAL LAW: RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Iraq (Que. C.A., April 15, 2009) (33145) Oct. 21, 2010

The S.C.C. held:

• the first step is to review the nature of the acts in issue in the English courts in their full context, which includes the purpose of the acts

• it is not enough to determine whether those acts were authorized or desired by Iraq, or whether they were per-formed to preserve certain public interests of that state

• the nature of the acts must be examined carefully to en-sure a proper legal characterization

• there was no connection between the litigation and the initial sovereign act of seizing the aircraft; as a result, Iraq cannot rely on the state immunity provided for in s. 3 of the State Immunity Act.

REFUGEES/EXTRADITION: ROMA

Németh v. Canada (Justice) (Que. C.A., January 22, 2009) (33016) Nov. 25, 2010

The S.C.C. held:

• the Minister of Justice imposed the burden of showing they would suffer persecution if extradited and by doing so, gave insufficient weight to the appellants' refugee sta-tus and to Canada's non-refoulement obligations

• the Minister did not decide whether the serious crime ex-ception applied to the appellants

• his decision leaves three critical issues unresolved: how the serious crime exception relates to extradition pro-ceedings, what constitutes a "serious non-political crime"

for these purposes and whether the appellants were ac-cused of committing such a crime."

REFUGEES/EXTRADITION: ROMA

Gavrila v. Canada (Justice) (Que. C.A., June 30, 2009) (33313) Nov. 25, 2010


LEAVES TO APPEAL GRANTED

CRIMINAL LAW: COMPETENCE OF WITNESSES

There is a publication ban in this case with regard to the name of the party, where the main issue concerns the com-plainant as a competent witness.R. v. D.A.I. (Ont. C.A., February 19, 2010) (33657) Oct. 28, 2010

CRIMINAL LAW: DANGEROUS DRIVING; CHANGE IN LAW BETWEEN TRIAL AND APPEAL

What is the requisite mental element for a conviction of dangerous driving, and what is the effect of change in law between trial and appeal.Randy Roy v. R. (B.C.C.A., March 16, 2010) (33699) Nov. 24, 2010



CRIMINAL LAW: IMPAIRED

This appeal will deal with Criminal Code amendments pre-cluding testimony with respect to an accused's alcohol con-sumption or rate of elimination or a calculation of blood alco-hol concentration premised on those factors.Samuel Dineley v. R. (Ont. C.A., November 18, 2009) (33640) Oct. 28, 2010

CRIMINAL LAW: SENTENCING; ABORIGINAL OFFENDERS

Did the sentencing judge give adequate consideration to the circumstances of the accused as an aboriginal offender.Manasie Ipeelee v. R. (Ont. C.A., December 15, 2009) (33650) Oct. 28, 2010

CRIMINAL LAW: SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE

There's a publication ban in this case, where the issue con-cerns the evidentiary link between a prior sexual assault conviction and an alleged sexual assault.L.W.J. v. R. (B.C.C.A., March 9, 2010) (33694) Dec. 16, 2010

CRIMINAL LAW: TAX FRAUD

The issues in this appeal arise from a fraudulent scheme in-volving the fictitious sale of heavy equipment, and the HST that was not remitted as required.Ewaryst Prokofiew v. R. (Ont. C.A., June 10, 2010) (33754) Nov. 24, 2010

CRIMINAL LAW: THE 'I-CONSUMED-DRUGS' DEFENCE

Is self-induced intoxication a defence to attempted break and enter, break and enter, assault, and aggravated assault.Tommy Bouchard-Lebrun v. R. (Que. C.A., March 3, 2010) (33687) Oct. 21, 2010

EDUCATION: RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION

Is a Ethics and Religious Culture program mandatory and en-forceable in Quebec schools.S.L., D.J. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes and Attorney Gener-al of Quebec (Que. C.A., February 24, 2010) (33678) Oct. 21, 2010

EDUCATION: SCHOOL FUNDING

Are schools in Nova Scotia differentially funded.Halifax Regional Municipality v. Nova Scotia Human Rights Commis-sion, et al (NS C.A., February 11, 2010) (33651) Oct. 28, 2010

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: CCAA

Is the statutory duty to remediate contaminated lands a “claim” under a claims procedure order or the CCAA. Newfoundland and Labrador v. Abitibibowater et al. (Que. C.A., May 18, 2010) (33797) Nov. 25, 2010

FAMILY LAW: SUPPORT; MATERIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES

There is a publication ban in both the case and parties in this case, where the issues concern variation of both spousal and child support, as well as special expenses.L.M.P. v. L.S. (Que. C.A., April 21, 2010) (33749) Oct. 21, 10

FAMILY LAW: SUPPORT; MATERIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES

There is a publication ban on the names of the parties in this case, where the main issue here concerns material change in circumstances.R.P. v. R.C. (Que. C.A., March 12, 2010) (33698) Oct. 21, 2010

HUMAN RIGHTS: PROMOTION OF HATRED

Is gay-bashing the promotion of hatred pursuant to a provin-cial Human Rights Code.Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott et al (Sask. C.A., February 25, 2010) (33676) Oct. 28, 2010

HUMAN RIGHTS: SEGREGATED CUSTODY

Where one is arrested and charged with sexual activity with a minor, beaten while incarcerated, and then charges dropped, can one sue the public authorities for various negligent acts, including the violation of one’s right to be kept apart.Johan Sarrazin v. Attorney General of Quebec et al. (Que. C.A., May 21, 2010) (33793) Nov. 24, 2010

LABOUR LAW: CASUAL v. PERMANENT EMPLOYEES

In the context of a collective agreement, should vacation entitlement be calculated inclusive of hours worked as a casual employee.Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, et al (Nfld. C.A., February 19, 2010) (33659) Oct. 28, 2010

LABOUR LAW: INTERPRETATION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS

How should casual time be counted in the context of a collec-tive agreement.Nor-Man Regional Health Authority inc. v. Manitoba Associa-tion of Healthcare Professionals (Man. C.A., May 18, 2010) (33795) Nov. 24, 2010

LABOUR LAW: WAGE PARITY

Was there wage discrimination against employees a pre-dominantly female group in comparison to that received by a male-dominated group.Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada Post Corporation, Canadian Human Rights Commission (Fed. C.A., February 22, 2010) (33668) Dec. 16, 2010




Similar summary to that above.Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada Post Corporation, Canadian Human Rights Commission (Fed. C.A., February 22, 2010) (33669) Dec. 16, 2010


Similar summary to that above.Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada Post Corpora-tion, Public Service Alliance of Canada (Fed. C.A., February 22, 2010) (33670) Dec. 16, 2010

MUNICIPAL LAW: TAXES

Should tax rates be premised on the assertion that they bear some relationship to the municipal services actually provided.Catalyst Paper Corporation v. Corporation of the District of North Cowichan (B.C.C.A., April 22, 2010) (33744) Oct. 28, 2010

REAL PROPERTY: PURCHASE & SALE AGREEMENTS

This appeal concerns issues arising from an accepted pur-chase and sale agreement, where there was not enough time

to obtain a required severance before the closing date.Southcott Estates inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board (Ont. C.A., May 3, 2010) (33778) Nov. 24, 2010

TAX: GST INPUT TAX CREDITS

What is the tax situation with regard to input tax credits in relation to a municipal transit system.

Calgary v. R. (Fed. C.A., May 21, 2010) (33804) Nov. 25, 2010

TORTS: DEFAMATION

Does the Ontario Superior Court have jurisdiction over six li-bel actions, and is Ontario a forum conveniens for the case.Richard C. Breeden et al v. Conrad Black et al (Ont. C.A., August 13, 2010) (33900) Dec. 16, 2010

Eugene Meehan, Q.C. is the chair of the Supreme Court Practice Group with Lang Michener LLP.

[email protected].


Only WestlaW® Canada Offers a true Quantum serviCe

Estimate the value of your claim in minutes with Westlaw® Canada Litigator Quantum service. Results include award amounts ranked from highest to lowest so you can immediately estimate the value of your claim. You won’t have to read a mountain of digests to find the answers.

Get Better Results Faster with Westlaw® Canadawww.westlawcanada.com or call 1-866-609-5811


In December 2010, I had the honour and privilege of sitting down for a one-on-one discussion with the Hon. R. Roy McMur-try OC, O.Ont, QC to discuss some of the changes he has seen in the legal profession since his Call to the Bar in 1958 and to dis-cuss some of his thoughts on the current state of our profession.

As the Hon. McMurtry has been involved in various roles within the legal profession over the span of his career, I knew he would be able to provide me with interesting insights. During his first seventeen years at the Bar, he practised civil litigation and criminal law. In 1975, he was elected to the Ontario Legisla-ture and, from 1975 to 1985, he served as the Attorney General for Ontario. In 1991, he was appointed Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court and then Chief Justice of that Court in 1994. In February 1996, McMurtry was appointed Chief Justice of On-tario, a capacity in which he served for over 11 years until May 2007. He is currently serving as counsel to Gowling Lafleur Hen-derson LLP and is the chancellor of York University.

exponential growth in the number of Qualified law-yers, the size of law Firms, speciality Practice areas and salaries

Over the past 50 years, McMurtry has witnessed exponential growth in the number of lawyers who are called to the Bar. In addition, the demographic background of lawyers continues to shift, as more women and visible minorities continue to enter the legal profession.

The phenomenon of the national law firm is a relatively re-cent one. McMurtry recalled when “the biggest of the downtown [Toronto] law firms had 25 lawyers” (and was based solely in Toronto) and “lawyers had more generalist practices”. Over time, however, the degree of specialization has continued to grow, as has the size of law firms and the number of separate geographic offices that each firm has. The degree of specialization today is “impressive”, says McMurtry.

The issue of remuneration came up in our discussion. McMur-try recalled that in 1958 the average lawyer’s starting salary in

Toronto was $75 per week; however, lawyers in other centres would make a little bit extra (i.e., the going rate in Sudbury was $125 per week).

mentorship

“When the Bar was smaller in size, the practice of law was less formal and more collegial. Lawyers did not hesitate to ask each other for advice, even if they did not practice within the same law firm”. McMurtry fondly recalled his friendship and the men-tee/mentor relationship he had with the late Arthur Maloney, who was a noted defence lawyer. Even though they practised law in different firms, Mr. Maloney took an interest in McMur-

try, when the latter was a junior lawyer, and provided him with on going mentorship. McMurtry noted, “it was common in those days for older, more experienced members of the Bar to men-tor more junior members”. He observed that today the role of mentorship within the legal profession has regrettably declined.

“Many young lawyers are not getting the same court experi-ence that senior members of the Bar obtained when they were junior lawyers”, McMurtry observed. In his view, this has oc-curred, in part, because fewer cases are being adjudicated in court, a consequence of the rising costs associated with appear-ing before a judge.

law: a Helping Profession or a business?

He went on to discuss how the legal profession has been at a “cross roads for several years now as it attempts to determine whether it is a helping profession or just another form of busi-

bridging the gapOne-On-One with the Hon. R. Roy McMurtry

J. Andrew Sprague

“When the Bar was smaller in size, lawyers did not hesitate to ask each other for advice, even if they did not practice within the same law firm”


ness”. In McMurtry’s view, some of the traditions of the Bar are being lost at the expense of the business of law (i.e., the billable hour). As he lamented that the business pressures of the practice of law are dominating over some of the traditions of the profes-sion, he suggested literature from the United States, which dis-cusses this issue, namely, The Lost Lawyer: Failing Ideals of the Legal Profession by Anthony Kronman, who was the Dean of Yale Law School from 1994 to 2004.

Pro bono legal services

It is apparent that pro bono legal services is an important is-sue to McMurtry. While he was serving as Ontario’s Chief Jus-tice, he was involved in the creation of Pro Bono Law Ontario. He explained to me that “before a fee for service legal aid program came into existence in Ontario in 1967, many leaders of the Bar would take on pro bono work, such as John J. Robinette, G. Arthur Martin, Arthur Maloney and Charles Dubin”.

McMurtry recalled how he took some murder cases on a pro bono basis in his early years of practice and how “it was rare in the 1960s for a murder trial to last longer than five days”. He not-ed that it would be more difficult for a lawyer to take such a case today on a pro bono basis because trial times have increased, which places additional demands upon a lawyer’s time.

McMurtry is proud, and appreciative of, the fact that some members of the Bar have been very giving of their time with re-spect to pro bono legal services as well as to the Ontario Justice Education Network (OJEN). OJEN “focuses on educating high school students about the importance of the law and reaching out to disadvantaged young people who are cynical about the ad-ministration of justice”.

In his opinion, our communities can benefit from the receipt of pro bono legal services and law firms should try to find op-portunities for younger lawyers to participate in a certain num-ber of hours of community service, and, in turn, provide these same young lawyers with sufficient credit within their firms for their contributions.

access to Justice

“The issue of access to justice is the most critical issue facing the legal profession” today, and will continue to be “a major challenge for the profession for the foreseeable future”, says McMurtry.

Recently, McMurtry chaired the Steering Committee of the On-tario Civil Legal Needs Project, an initiative undertaken jointly by the Law Society of Upper Canada, Legal Aid Ontario, and Pro Bono Law Ontario. In May 2010, the committee released the re-search results from the first comprehensive study of the civil le-gal needs of Ontarians. This report found that a high percentage of Ontarians felt that they could not afford legal services. For Mc-Murtry this is troubling as “only the very poor (who have access to legal aid) and the very wealthy can afford to go to court”. In effect, Ontario’s middle class are being shut out and being denied sufficient access to justice.

Also of concern is the decreasing number of lawyers who are servicing smaller centres and rural communities. As many practi-tioners from smaller centres and rural communities are nearing

retirement age, and with many young lawyers seeking opportu-nities in larger centres, Ontarians living in small centres and ru-ral communities will increasingly have a more difficult time be-ing able to access legal services.

concluding thoughts

As I was wrapping up our interview McMurtry spoke about how grateful he is for all of the opportunities being a lawyer has given him. He noted that “the legal profession is grappling with tremendously difficult and complex issues”; however, he believes that “the major problems can be addressed”. In his view, we work in a terrific profession. I concur and I am grateful for the oppor-tunity to discuss our profession with one of its great statesman.

J. Andrew Sprague is a lawyer with Miller Thomson LLP. He is also a member of the Editorial Board of Briefly Speaking, and is the Public Affairs Liaison for the Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Section of the Ontario Bar Association

www.cvpl-veracap.com

Canada’s longest established independent valuation consulting firm providing concise, authoritative expert

reports and testimony in matters involving:• Financial Loss • Business Valuation

• Intangible Asset Valuation • Fairness Opinions• Forensic AccountingErrol Soriano, CA, CBV

[email protected]

Suzanne Loomer, M. ACC, CA, CBV416-597-4525

[email protected]

Kim Jezior, CA • IFA, CFI416-597-4507

[email protected]

Experts In Value™

DAMAGES QUANTIFICATION BUSINESS VALUATIONFORENSIC ACCOUNTING


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


The Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor Gen-eral of Canada recently announced that long time OBA member Beth Symes has been appointed the Order of Canada. Symes has been a member of the OBA since 1979, and is presently active in the Administrative Law, Constitutional, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Feminist Legal Analysis and Labour and Employment Law Practice Sections of the OBA.

OBA President Lee Akazaki responded to the news of Symes’ appointment stating, "Beth Symes is among those rare trailblaz-ers in whose path so many follow, maybe without their knowing she is the one leading us forward. Her work, so important to the advancement of equality rights for women in the last quarter century, has helped chart a course for all equity-seeking groups in Canadian society. As OBA members, we are so proud she is one of us."

When contacted by Briefly Speaking for comment on the De-cember 30th announcement Symes said, “I was thrilled, sur-prised and humbled that my life’s work advocating for women would be so honoured.”

Symes practises administrative law and civil litigation in the areas of equality rights, professional regulation, labour and em-ployment law and human rights with Symes and Street, Bar-risters and Solicitors. She is a graduate of the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University and was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1978. In 1988, Symes was appointed as the first Chair of the Pay Eq-uity Hearings Tribunal. She was a member of the Board of Direc-tors of the Canadian Council of Administrative Tribunals (CCAT), was a founder of the Conference of Ontario Boards and Agencies (COBA) and is a founding member of the Society of Ontario Ad-judicators and Regulators (SOAR).

She is one of the founding members of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and served on its National Legal Committee.

Symes co-authored Women and Legal Action and Juggling: Women, Work and Parenting and has written numerous ar-ticles on administrative law and equality issues. She served on the Board of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice as the first vice chair and the chair of the Member-ship Committee.

Symes was awarded the Law Society of Upper Canada Medal in 1996 and was the Gordon F. Henderson Lecturer in Human Rights in 2003.

She is a Bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada and is the chair of the Audit Committee, Vice Chair of the Proceedings

Authorization Committee and serves on the Task Force for the Retention of Women in the Legal Profession.

Symes has also written and spoken extensively in the areas of administrative law, equality and employment issues. She in-structed at Osgoode Hall Faculty of Law in Trial Practice, as a team leader in the Intensive Trial Advocacy Program, taught Economic Regulation in the LLM program at Osgoode and taught Constitutional Litigation for the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario.

The Order of Canada, one of the nation’s highest civilian hon-ours, was established in 1967, during Canada’s centennial year, to recognize a lifetime of outstanding achievement, dedication to community and service to the nation. Over the last 40 years, more than 5,000 people from all sectors of society have been in-vested into the Order.

OBA Member Beth Symes Appointed Order of Canada


Friday, February 25th

Half Day Civil Litigation, Young Lawyers’ Division (YLD) Your First Civil Trial (YLD) (am)

Friday, February 25th

Half Day Civil Litigation, YLD Your First Small Claims Court Trial (YLD) (pm)

Tuesday, March 8th

Half DayAdministrative Law Current Issues in Tribunal

Adjudication: An Update for Advocates and Members

Monday, March 28th

Half Day Public Sector Lawyers Public Private Partnerships (P3): What You Need to Know - A Primer Part II

Wednesday, March 30th

Half Day Business Law, YLD Commercial Agreements (YLD) (am)

Wednesday, March 30th

Half Day Taxation Law, YLD Tax Litigation Essentials (YLD) (pm)

Thursday, March 31st

Half Day Family Law When the State has Business in the Bedrooms of the Family: The Intersection between Family Law and Government

Wednesday, April 6th

Half Day Civil Litigation, YLD Your First Judicial Review (YLD)

Tuesday, April 12th

Half Day Health Law Mental Health Law in Ontario

Wednesday, April 27th

Half Day Business Law Corporate Governance Update - Shareholder Activism and Other Developments

Thursday, April 28th

Full Day Labour & Employment Law 10th Annual Employment Law Issues

Monday, May 2nd

Half Day Civil Litigation Summary Judgment Motions: Persuasive Advocacy- Winning Tactics

Tuesday, May 3rd

Half Day Family Law, YLD Family Law Fundamentals: Everything You Need to Know About Child Support (YLD)

Friday, May 6th

Half Day Civil Litigation Strategic Legal Writing

Tuesday, May 10th

Half Day Trusts & Estates Law Will & Estate Planning Essentials (am)

Tuesday, May 10th

Half Day Trusts & Estates Law Beyond Will and Estate Planning Essentials (pm)

Thursday, May 12th

Half Day Environmental Law Environmental Law Issues

Monday, May 16th

Half Day Real Property Renewable Energy Projects for Real Estate Lawyers

Tuesday, May 17th

Half Day Pension and Benefits Law 9th Annual Pension and Benefits Hot Spots: Essential Updates on Key Legal Issues

Wednesday, May 25th

Full DayWorkers’ Compensation Law Workplace Safety and Insurance Law:

Practice and Professionalism

Wednesday, June 1st

Full DayBusiness Law MBA Concepts for Lawyers

Friday, June 10th

Half DayConstitutional, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Administrative Law

Human Rights Update

For more information and to register for these or any other OBA Professional Development

Programs, please go to www.oba.org/pd

Programs take place at the OBA Conference Centre 20 Toronto Street, 2nd floor Toronto, unless otherwise indicated.

OBA | Professional Development UPCOMING PROGRAMS


Generation Y

Born between 1979 and 1999, it has been suggested that Generation Y has been coddled since birth and sheltered by overprotective parents. This is likely true, given the majority of Generation Y’ers continue to prize their collections of purple “Participant” ribbons.

Retaining or employing a Generation Y lawyer has risks and benefits. On the downside, they have difficultly with traditional modes of communication and are often exasperated by oppos-ing counsel who indicate their correspondence has been deliv-ered by “Telefax”, as a Generation Y’er is not familiar with this historic means of communication. On the other hand, Genera-tion Y lawyers are typically quick and efficient at research, hav-ing never practised without Quicklaw.

Generation X

Born between 1965 and 1978, Generation X’ers are charac-terized by individualistic attitudes and a subtle distain for au-thority. These are often the lawyers who refuse to iron their court shirt because to do so would undermine the purpose of the robe. Although untraditional, Generation X’ers are hard workers and effective multi-taskers. In the name of efficiency, they have mastered the no-vowel Blackberry reply, ignoring the fact it takes the reader twice as long to decipher the mes-sage. Thx.

Baby Boomers

More simply referred to as “Boomers”, this generation was born between 1946 and 1964. There is some authority for the proposition that Boomers evaluate themselves based on their work ethic, rather than efficiency, typically measured in hours spent on the job. Accordingly, face time is important for Boom-ers which is bad news for students and associates.

However, somewhat paradoxically, Boomers will also readily em-brace technology in the name of efficiency and particularly enjoy driving with the GPS on full volume to and from familiar locations.

The Silent Generation

This generation was born between 1929 and 1945. Their offices may be readily identified by the abundance of natural light, personal photographs and memorabilia. In the work-place, the Silent Generation ought to be respected and treated with the appropriate deference. However, a counsel from the Silent Generation often has a weakness for sweets, including butter tarts, which can be strategically used by all the other generations to leverage superior results for their client.

Kyle Magee, Associate, Gowlings

The Generation Gap: Who’s Who?Kyle Magee

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

OBA Briefly Speaking ad_Final.indd 1 10-10-01 10:10 AM

geNeratioN GAP


QueeN’s Park uPDATE

It was with disappointment that I read the government’s Bill 122, Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 which passed third reading on December 2, 2010.

On its face the intent of Bill 122, to improve financial account-ability in the public sector, was uncontestable; but, a more de-tailed examination quickly revealed that Bill 122 fell well short of what is required to ensure value for your tax dollars.

In the past year, scandal after scandal have shaken Ontarians’ confidence in this government. Your money, entrusted to the government, has been squandered.

Last year, the eHealth scandal revealed that up to one billion tax dollars were wasted for an electronic health records system that is still not fully operational. Unfortunately, this was not an exception. Subsequent scandals were exposed at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG), Cancer Care Ontario and in Ontario hospitals which were diverting front line health care dollars to consultants.

Most recently, December’s scandal revealed more waste at the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) where mil-lions of dollars have been paid in untendered contracts, undocu-mented purchases of goods and services and “promotional gifts” such as golf clubs.

As these scandals unravel, our justice system has become in-creasingly stressed. Charges have been withdrawn in part due to strained court resources. Court orders have been contravened because hospitals lack the resources to address the mental health needs of offenders who are moved to jails. A lack of court interpreters could see a cases stayed due to delay.

These examples are only the tip of the iceberg.

We are left to imagine what the billions of wasted tax dollars could have done to strengthen our justice system.

Regular revelations of such outrageous scandal have erod-ed public trust. They have exemplified how, over the past sev-en years, a feeling of entitlement and waste have become en-trenched under this government.

Now, more than ever, transparency and accountability are needed.

Unfortunately, this government’s tendency to promise ac-countability and then to walk away from it leaves the adequacy of Bill 122 questionable at best.

Provisions the Local Health Systems Integration Act, 2006, which required a Legislative Committee to review Ontario’s con-troversial LHINs in March, 2010 were repealed. As I write, the Attorney General and a majority of ‘designated agencies’ have not posted their travel and hospitality expenses on the Internet, despite a government promise they would do so.

How can we be confident Bill 122 will not follow a similar pattern?

Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak has gone further than this gov-ernment and called for a mandatory “Sunset Review”. This re-view will require all ministries, agencies, boards and commis-sions to demonstrate their pubic value and necessity to help ensure your tax dollars support high quality front line services.

The need for improved accountability was also the impetus behind PC MPP Lisa MacLeod’s Bill 39, Truth in Government. It too went further than Bill 122. Among other things, it would have expanded the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to improve transparency. It would also have required all public sector bodies to disclose contracts for goods or services over $10,000, travel and hospitality ex-penses, and grants over $10,000.

The government has not undertaken a review remotely simi-lar to a “Sunset Review” and they voted against Bill 39 before introducing their own weaker legislation, Bill 122.

Where does this leave us?

Billions of dollars which could have been used to strengthen our justice system have been needlessly misspent. In light of current trends under this government I, for one, lack confidence that Bill 122 will change matters anytime soon.

The Queen’s Park Update provides a forum, on a regular

rotation, for the views of the Attorney General and the

Opposition Justice Critics.

Questioning the Impact of Bill 122Ted Chudleigh

Ted Chudleigh is the M.P.P. for Halton and the Progressive Conservative Critic to the Attorney General.


C’est avec déception que j’ai lu le Projet de loi 122, la Loi de 2010 sur la responsabilisation du secteur parapublic du gouverne-ment qui a été adopté en troisième lecture le 2 décembre 2010.

À première vue, le but du Projet de loi 122, soit celui d’améliorer la responsabilisation comptable du secteur public, est incontestable. Par contre, une vérification approfondie a rap-idement démontré que le Projet de loi 122 ne répond pas aux exigences nécessaires pour assurer une valeur à vos impôts.

Au cours de la dernière année, scandale après scandale ont perturbé la confiance des Ontariens et Ontariennes envers le présent gouvernement. Votre argent, confié au gouvernement, a été jeté par la fenêtre.

L’an dernier, le scandale du cyberSanté a révélé que jusqu’à un milliard de dollars, provenant des contribuables, ont été gaspillés pour l’élaboration d’un système de dossiers de santé électronique qui n’est toujours pas pleinement fonctionnel. Mal-heureusement, ceci n’était pas une exception. Des scandales subséquents ont été découverts aux niveaux de la Société des loteries et des jeux de l’Ontario, d’Action Cancer Ontario et des hôpitaux de l’Ontario qui dérivaient des fonds destinés aux soins de santé vers des consultants.

Plus récemment, le scandale de décembre a révélé encore plus d’argent gaspillé par la Société d’évaluation foncières des mu-nicipalités (SÉFM) où des millions de dollars ont été déboursés envers des contrats sans soumission, envers l’achat non-docu-menté de biens et services et envers des « cadeaux promotion-nels » tel que des bâtons de golf.

Alors que ces scandales se découvrent, notre système ju-ridique est devenu de plus en plus perturbé. Des accusations ont été retirées partiellement en raison des ressources épuisées de la Court. Des ordonnances judiciaires ont été enfreintes parce que les hôpitaux manquent de ressources pour s’attaquer aux besoins de santé mentale des contrevenants qui se font relocali-sés dans des prisons. Un manque d’interprètes judiciaires pour-rait entrainer des cas en sursis en raison des délais.

Ces exemples ne sont que de faibles manifestations.

Nous sommes laissés à s’imaginer ce que ces milliards de dol-

lars gaspillés, provenant des contribuables, auraient pu faire pour rendre notre système juridique plus résistant.

Ces divulgations régulières de scandales ont rongé la confi-ance du public. Ces scandales expliquent comment, depuis les sept dernières années, un sentiment de droit et de gaspillage a été inscrit sous le présent gouvernement.

Maintenant, plus que jamais, la transparence et la responsabi-lisation sont nécessaires.

Malheureusement la tendance du présent gouvernement, soit celle de promettre la responsabilisation pour ensuite ne pas s’en tenir, laisse, de façon la plus optimiste, la pertinence du Projet de loi 122 interrogeable.

Les provisions de la Loi de 2006 sur l’intégration des systèmes de santé locale, qui exigeaient qu’un Comité législatif révise le RLISS litigieux de l’Ontario en mars, ont été révoquées. Alors que j’écris, le procureur général et une majorité « d’agences dé-signées » n’ont toujours pas publiés leurs frais d’accueil et de dé-placement sur Internet, malgré leur promesse gouvernementale de rendre cette information accessible.

Comment pouvons-nous être confiants que le Projet de loi 122 ne subira pas des conditions semblables?

Le chef du Parti PC de l’Ontario, Tim Hudak, a été plus loin que le présent gouvernement en demandant un réexamen obliga-toire. Cette révision exigera à tous les ministères, les agences, les conseils et les commissions de démontrer leur valeur ainsi que leur nécessité afin d’assurer que vos impôts appuient des ser-vices nécessaires et de haute qualité.

Le besoin pour une meilleure responsabilisation était égale-ment l’élan derrière le Projet de loi 39, Loi de 2010 sur la vé-rité au sein du gouvernement, de Lisa MacLeod, députée pour le Parti PC. Ce dernier allait plus loin que le Projet de loi 122. Parmi d’autres choses, le Projet de loi 39 aurait élargit l’application de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée, afin d’améliorer la transparence. Il aurait également exigé de tous les entités du secteur public de révéler tous les contrats de biens et services au-delà de 10 000 $, les frais d’accueil et de dé-placement ainsi que les subventions de plus de 10 000 $.

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.

Remise en question de l’impact du Projet de loi 122 Ted Chudleigh


Ted Chudleigh est Député pour la région de Halton et le Porte-parole de l’opposition pour le Procureur général.

Le gouvernement n’a pas entrepris une révision qui approche même un réexamen et il a voté contre le Projet de loi 39 avant d’introduire leur propre loi implicite, le Projet de loi 122.

Où sommes-nous dans tout cela?

Des milliards de dollars mal gérés qui auraient pu être utilisés pour rendre notre système juridique plus résistant. À la lueur des tendances du présent gouvernement, pour ma part, je ne suis pas confiant que le Projet de loi 122 changera ces situations dans un futur proche.

QueeN’s Park uPDATE

STRATEGIC THINKINGNo matter where along the processyou start from...

We can help bring your case home.

For us, the idea of bringing your case

home means that we can help you feel

at ease as you navigate through the

complexities associated with eDiscovery.

When you work with us, you are supported

by the largest and most experienced

Professional Services Team in Canada with

over 75 years of combined experience

in litigation support. You can trust us to

guide you through the litigation maze.

Excellence in Evidence Management

1-866-529-7226www.commonwealthlegal.com

5860_MazeAd_OBA_News01F_Layout 1 9/17/10 2:21 PM Page 1


ADVOCACY iN aCtioN

Four Pillars of Family Law Reform to Support Every Court in Ontario

On December 9th, the Attorney General of Ontario visited the OBA Conference Centre to announce that early information sessions, mediation services and information and referral co-ordinators will be provided in every family court in the prov-ince. All of these services form part of the four pillars of family law reform that were recommended in the Home Court Advan-tage Report co-authored by the OBA. The Report was highlight-ed in the December 2010 issue of Briefly Speaking.

OBA’s Submissions on Privilege and Pension Reform Yield Legislative Amendments

In both discussions with the Ministry of Health and a sub-mission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy, the OBA identified the need to protect privileged information from the disclosure requirements of the new Public Sector Accountabili-ty Act. We advocated for an amendment to accomplish this pro-tection. The OBA’s position was accepted and the Act, which was passed in December, included an exemption for informa-tion subject to solicitor/client, litigation and settlement privi-lege. The OBA has been invited to work with government on the formulation of the relevant disclosure directives that will be made under the Act. The OBA’s submission can be found at: http://www.oba.org/En/publicaffairs_en/PDF/OBABill-122Submission.pdf

The OBA’s Pensions and Benefits Sec-tion made a submission to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Af-fairs regarding Bill 120, Securing Pension Benefits Now and for the Future Act, 2010 and met with the Ministry of Finance to discuss proposed changes to the Bill. Sev-eral of the OBA’s suggested amendments were accepted and formed part of the Act, which was also passed in December. The Submission can be found at:

http://www.oba.org/En/publicaffairs_en/PDF/OBASubmission-Bill120.pdf

OBA President and Other Representa-tives Meet with the Honourable R. Roy McMurtry on Civil Rights Issues

A multi-section OBA working group, including representatives from the: Con-stitutional and Human Rights; Interna-tional Law; Civil Litigation; Criminal Law;

Public Sector Lawyers; and Municipal Law sections, as well as the Young Lawyers Divisions, prepared a submission for Mr. McMurtry’s review of the Public Works Protection act (the Act under which the G-20 security regulation was made). On December 20th, President Akazaki and representatives of the working group met with the former chief justice to discuss the OBA recommendations. Mr. McMurtry’s report is expected ear-ly this year. The OBA submission can be found at

Working Groups and Submissions Underway:

• A multi-section working group is preparing a submission to the Law Society of Upper Canada concerning LSUC”s pro-posed changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct to ad-dress limited-scope retainers;

• The Criminal Law Section is working on a submission to ACJO Griffiths concerning proposed changes to the Ontario Court of Justice criminal proceeding rules;

• The Insurance Law and Civil Litigation Sections will be prepar-ing a submission for the Civil Rules Committee regarding rules providing for discounts and interest in personal injury cases.

OBA Professional Development | Section Programs - OBA Exclusive

FEATURES• CPDeligible• Practicespecific• Quick–breakfast,lunchordinner• Greatspeakers• Currenttopics

Just a sample of some of the upcoming Section programs

“EthicalIssuesforFranchiseLawyers”–FranchiseLaw

“�UpdateonCostsandtheRulesofCivilProcedure”–CivilLitigation

“WorkReintegrationEvent”–Worker’sCompensation

www.oba.org/pd foracompletelistingofprograms

Attorney General Announces Family Law Reforms at OBA


Recollections in a Rearview MirrorMarcel Strigberger

I was called to the Bar in 1974. I guess that makes me a baby boomer. I have been pondering the changing landscape and some of the following thoughts come to mind.

Q.C. or not Q.C.

Remember these? I don’t know if the honour came with any perks. In fact there was one downside. A freshly minted Queen’s Counsel had to toss out his cotton robe and buy a silk one. These cost a fortune. Good.

Q.C.s however did get to sit at the front of the courtroom, on a bench reserved for these distinguished advocates.

But were they all advocates? Maybe initially, in the days of Lord Coke. I knew many Q.C.s who were actually commercial/real es-tate lawyers. What did their reference read like?

“I highly recommend James Campbell Dartmouth for appoint-ment as Queen’s Counsel. He would look just great sitting in the front row at the Registry office.”

I guess now we’ll all just have to hang onto those cotton robes.

Civility Now

I cannot say that civility amongst lawyers has eroded. If any-thing, I would say it has improved likely because the issue has be-come so prominent. For example in 1974, to bring a motion, all lawyers had to do was serve a Notice of Motion on two day’s no-tice. We did not have to clear the date with opposing counsel.

The other side’s student would generally appear at your office and ask you to admit service on the Notice. This practice some-times psyched out the student, as some irate lawyers would shoot the messenger. I once served a notice for summary judgment on a senior counsel, a Q.C. actually. He took one look and said, “Does your principal think I don’t have a triable issue? What kind of mo-ron do you work for? Do you know who I am?

I really did not know the answer to any of these three ques-tions. I go a bit flustered and thought it prudent not to ask the guy to admit service. My decision to waive this request was in part determined by that thick edition of Salmond on Torts in his hand, which he seemed ready to propel it in my direction.

It’s Research

In Toronto I would go to the Great Library.

That library had an interesting method of advising lawyers whether a decision was still binding. Lawyers would make pencil notes on the pages of the DLRs, CCCs etc, alerting others of ap-peals. The note might read, “Reversed by C.A. March 13, 1947.” I did, however, wonder about some of these entries. One looked a lot like the desperate writings of a shipwrecked sailor’s message in a bottle. It read, “Appeal allowed; tell my wife I love her. George R. Henderson Q.C.”

At least George Henderson Q.C. did spend his time in court.

As for the Ontario Reports, (remember these?), the court’s deci-sions were reported months after pronouncement. Imagine the newspapers doing this. An election result would look like, “Ste-phen Harper wins minority government six months ago.”

Technology

Before computers hit the office, the workhorse of a law practice was a good typewriter. (Remember those?) If the secretary (as they were once called), made an error, she would apply the white out, let it dry, and continue.

In 1977, I was the first to buy an IBM Selectric with auto correc-tion, namely an internal erasing tape. Upon delivery, the IBM man tested it. A crowd gathered. The scene looked like that historic morning in 1903 at Kitty Hawk. The IBM guy misspelled, “Banan-na” and then backtracked and corrected it in a split second. An audible “ahhhh” filled the room.

In all the excitement I neglected to ask the IBM man about Blackberries.

No Trial for You

What has not changed is the inability of lawyers to be able to count on having their cases heard when scheduled. All the tech-nology has failed to solve this problem.

The one exception used to be in Toronto’s County Court (re-member it?) where a gentleman called Bill Sheehan was trial co-

Just for LAuGHS


ordinator. You always got reached as scheduled. He worked his trial list using a blackboard and index cards. It worked like magic. At around 3:30 the day before trial he’d call you and say, “Sheehan speaking.” He’d give you the time, courtroom number and name of the judge.

He was so efficient that if Nick the Greek were taking bets, you’d have to give Nick 25-1 odds if you bet on Bill Sheehan delivering.

Oscar Wilde could easily have added a Bill Sheehan confirma-tion call as a third certainty, after death and taxes.

Where do we go from here on court efficiency? I think I’ll leave the solution to that one with the Generation Xs, Ys or Zs. I’m just a baby boomer.

Marcel Strigberger is a humourist trapped inside the body of a civil litigation lawyer – see www.legalhumour.com

At Stewart Title, it’s how we work that sets us apart. We deal in title insuranceand related products, undertaking no part of the transaction that has traditionallyfallen to lawyers/notaries.

Since our inception into the Canadian market, you will find that we have consistentlycombined comprehensive coverage with unparalleled support for lawyers/notaries.We are dedicated to streamlining your practice and increasing your revenue throughour programs and innovative technology solutions.

At Stewart Title, we know it’s our relationship with our customers that determinesour success. That’s why service is the foundation of our business and integrity,the keystone in all our dealings.

Call us today at (888) 667-5151 or visit www.stewart.ca.

Keeping real estate transactionswhere they belong – in your office.

Keeping real estate transactionswhere they belong – in your office.[ ]

STG_OBA_hfpg_287c_09_09 9/23/09 10:35 AM Page 1

JuST FOR Laughs


Briefly Speaking recently sat down with Canada’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Rob Nicholson, and his son Peter to talk about the legal profession from the perspec-tive of one generation to another. Peter Nicholson is a graduate of the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario and was called to the bar last year. He is currently an associate at Chown Cairns LLP. Peter’s father attended law school at the Uni-versity of Windsor, Ontario and was called to the bar in 1979. He was first elected as the Member of Parliament for Niagara Falls in 1984.

Minister, what were your first thoughts when Peter told you he was going to go to law school?

I was very proud of Peter’s decision to go into law. I believed that he would be a natural for it, after growing up in our family, hearing so much about the law and legal issues over the years,

What do you think Peter’s best class was–and why?

I believe that business law was a great course for Peter, in as much as he obtained a Bachelor of Commerce degree from Queen’s University. I think it was a good fit and coincided with his long-standing interests.

How do you think law school was different for Peter, from when you attended?

There was certainly a great emphasis on the Charter when I attended, particularly with respect to criminal and constitution-al law. This is certainly a change. On the other hand, most of the courses and approaches are very similar. That’s one of the great characteristics of our legal system. It wasn’t invented overnight.

When you were in law school, what was your worst/most challenging class?

Some of the concepts in property law, such as shifting trusts and the rule in Shelly’s Case, I remember as being challenging; I was very fortunate to have had outstanding professors through-out my time at law school at the University of Windsor.

Now that Peter is a practising lawyer, what do you think is the biggest change in the profession from when you were in law school?

I believe that more specialization is required. I think it would be impossible for a lawyer to practice in all areas of the profes-sion and the process and emphasis on specialization has been a continuing one over the last 30 years.

What do you think are some of the challenges a young lawyer faces today that might be different from when you were starting your practice?

I think the challenges are similar to the ones that I faced. Cer-tainly, time management has always been an issue, balancing commitment to the profession and to family life.

When you were in law school, what would you have said if someone told you that you would one day be Canada’s justice minister and the federal attorney general?

I would thank them for the compliment. It’s been a dream of mine since elementary school to be the member of Parliament for Niagara Falls, and my success in political life underscores the great opportunity that exists for all Canadians who want to make a contribution to this great country.

In closing, what is the one piece of advice you gave Peter that would you give to all young lawyers and law students about to embark on their careers?

Maintain a balance, keep a perspective on your career and life, and above all, be true to yourself.

Peter, now that you are a practising lawyer, is the pro-fession what you thought it would be?

Growing up, I viewed the profession as an opportunity to help others and as a way to contribute to the community. Thankfully, my opinion, since then, has not changed.

nicholson & sonFollowing in Father’s Footsteps

geNeratioN GAP


Law Society Medal The Law Society Medal was established in 1985. Thepurpose of the award is to recognize outstandingservice within the profession, whether in a particulararea of practice, the academic sphere or in some otherprofessional capacity. The award may be made fordevotion to professional duties over a long period orfor a single outstanding act of service in accordancewith the highest ideals of the legal profession.

Lincoln Alexander AwardThe Lincoln Alexander Award is awarded annually inrecognition of an Ontario lawyer who has demonstratedlong-standing interest and commitment to the public andto the pursuit of community service on behalf ofresidents of Ontario. The award was created in 2002 inhonour of The Honourable Lincoln M. Alexander, P.C.,C.C., O.Ont., Q.C., former Lieutenant Governor of

Ontario, Member of Parliament, federal CabinetMinister, and 2002 Law Society Medal recipient,

to reward his dedication to the people of Ontarioand the legal community.

Nominations for these awards should be submitted in writing with a currentcurriculum vitae and letters of support to:

Office of the Treasurer, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. West, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N6

Those nominated in past years but not recognized may be nominated again. The deadline for nominations is February 25, 2011.

2011 Nominations Requested

Laura Legge AwardIn May 2007, Convocation approved the establishmentof the Laura Legge Award. This award is to be givenannually to a female member of the Law Society whohas exemplified leadership within the profession.Laura Legge was a member of the Law Society ofUpper Canada for more than 60 years. She becamethe first elected female bencher, the first woman everto serve as Treasurer and was a senior partner of thefirm of Legge & Legge. This award will continue tocommemorate her exemplary professional career, hermentorship of other lawyers, her long-standing serviceto the Law Society and her admirable contribution tocommunity service.

2011Nominations:OLG_winter_final 12/7/10 11:12 AM Page 1

How do you think law school was different for you than when your father attended?

Well, from a practical standpoint, technology is much more prevalent in today's classrooms then in my father’s time. Profes-sors are increasingly using PowerPoint presentations and nearly every student has a laptop.

What do you think your dad's best class was in law school, and why?

Definitely constitutional law. Constitutional law provides a basic understanding of how our country was created and how it developed over the decades. I believe this course would have been a nice fit for my father's love of history and political science.

What was your worst or most challenging class in law school?

While I wouldn't describe it as my worst class in law school, my most challenging class was certainly income tax law. I worked harder in this class than any other class in law school. Not sur-prisingly, it was an extremely rewarding learning experience.

Did you have to study or present on any of your fa-ther's legislation during law school? If so, what was that like?

I was involved in various discussions involving recent legisla-tive changes and in particular, the government's law and order agenda. I found these discussions thought-provoking and infor-mative and always approached such debates with an open-mind. I found them to be great learning experiences.

What are some of the challenges a young lawyer faces today that might be different from when your father was starting his practice?

Given the nature of legal practice today and its increasing complexity, young lawyers naturally make the decision to spe-cialize very early on in their careers.

I think it's especially important for law students to seek out an articling experience/employment where they can obtain mean-ingful career advice from more senior members of the bar and try out various areas of law so ultimately, they can pursue a field of law that best fits their interests and abilities.

You chose to start your practice away from the bright lights of Bay Street. Tell us what you enjoy most about starting your practice in the Niagara region.

I am very pleased with my decision to return to the Niagara area. The practice of law can involve long hours; as such, I think it's especially important to practice in an area that you enjoy. Similar to my father, I grew up in Niagara Falls and quickly de-veloped an appreciation for the quality of life and opportunities that the Niagara Region has to offer, I also have the added benefit of being close to family and friends.

Did your father attend your convocation?

My father attended my Call to the Bar and law school gradua-tion ceremonies, along with various other members of my fam-

ily. I was proud to have them there to share in those special days with me.

Growing up with a “politically famous” father, do you ever see yourself going into politics?

I spent quite a bit of time at my father's law office growing up and always envisioned myself entering the practice of law. I be-lieve the practice of law is a good fit for my personality, interests and abilities. While I have tremendous respect for our political system and enjoy engaging in political discussions and follow-ing recent developments in the news, I have no plans to enter politics myself.


sPotLight ON SECTIONS

Who We are

The OBA’s Student Division (SD) is a group of dedicated soon-to-be-lawyers representing all six Ontario law schools as well as the Southwest, Toronto and Ottawa areas. Each law school has a student ambassador who acts as a liaison between the OBA and the student population, with the exception of the University of Ottawa, which has an ambassador for both the civil and com-mon law programs. Articling ambassadors represent Southwest Ontario, Toronto and Ottawa regions.

What We do

The SD works hard to ensure the student voice is heard at Council and Board of Directors meetings and strives to repre-sent the interests of over 2,400 OBA student members.

Law student and articling ambassadors play a vital role with-in their legal communities and host various events throughout the year. This year, our major goal is to encourage a closer re-lationship between students and the local bar. Over the next few months, law student ambassadors will chair Life After Law School panel discussions at each school. Local lawyers will speak about the experience of moving from the study of law to the practise of law and help students understand what to expect after graduation.

To assist in the transition from classroom to courtroom, the OBA runs Excelling at Articles in Toronto, London and Ottawa. Each year, at the end of August, hundreds of students attend the highly informative and entertaining sessions. From the ins

and outs of motions court, to tips on effective practice manage-ment, the event leaves students better prepared to tackle the challenges of articling.

OBA students are able to meet lawyers and learn about prac-tice areas they might pursue by enrolling in two free practice sessions. Students are also automatically enrolled in the Young Lawyers’ Division. With the demand for articling positions growing greater every year, participation in practice sections can provide networking connections which may go a long way to securing meaningful future employment.

How to get involved

Law students interested in joining the Student Division Exec-utive should watch for the call for candidates coming up at the end of January. In the meantime, ask your ambassador about events in your community. Check out the Student Division sec-tion of the OBA website for details: www.oba.org/students.

Student DivisionCrossing the Line From Classroom To Courtroom

Julia Lefebvre

Julia Lefebvre is the chair of the Student Division Executive and Student-at-Law at Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP.


The global recession has had a resounding impact on the world’s economy. The legal profession has not been immune. In the United States, the results have been particularly noticeable, especially in

recruiting volumes for new lawyers. South of the border, the NALP, The Association for Legal Career Professionals, estimates that the recruitment of new lawyers is not expected to show signs of recovery until the graduating class of 2012. Can the same be assumed here in Ontario? Will we witness the “lost generation” that is occurring in the U.S.?

Generally, Ontario lawyers have weathered the recession relatively well. Although decreased workflows and downsiz-ings occurred, Ontario lawyers did not experience the massive bloodletting seen in other international markets (e.g. London, New York, etc.). As things improve, law firms are hiring again and it appears that the profession as a whole is recovering. What, however, are the residual effects on those law students who graduated during the recession?

During the economic downturn, applications and admissions to Ontario law schools increased. Perhaps, Generation Y envi-sioned staying in school and entering the legal profession (one traditionally seen as offering strong career stability and com-pensation) as a way to combat the soft economy. The Ontario Law School Application Service (“OLSAS”) shows that in 2010, the number of Ontario law school applicants rose to 4,609 from 4,091 in 2009 and 4,071 in 2008. While not as dramatic an in-crease, the OLSAS numbers indicate actual registrants increased to 1,405 from 1,350 in 2009 and 1,287 in 2008.

Most law students complete articles after they graduate from law school. Despite an increase in articling candidates flowing from increased registrations, the articling placement rates re-main high, albeit with a slight reduction from pre-recessionary years. The most recent Law Society of Upper Canada Placement Report found that 93.1% for the 1,484 candidates in the 2009 graduating class secured articles. By contrast, between 2003 and 2006 and prior to the global recession, the placement rate fluctuated between 94.8% and 98.3%.

Securing articles is not, however, an accurate measure of post-Call employment. A clearer barometer of market trends comes from hire-back statistics and employment numbers upon Call. These numbers initially appear sobering, but when compared with historical data the statistics are not as dramatic. Times are tough, but not as bleak as might be expected. Law is a competi-tive profession and little has changed in that regard.

The Law Society of Upper Canada’s annual Placement Report, includes the results of a voluntary survey (with a consistently high response rate) determining employment rates as of the Call to the Bar (either by hire-back or otherwise). The most re-cent Report shows that for the last three years there has been a

steady decline in the number of articling hire-backs: in 2008 it was 49.4% (before the effects of the recession were fully felt); in 2009 that number was 44.3%; and, in 2010, it fell to 42.8%. While the numbers may seem low, it must be borne in mind that, by comparison, the pre-recession hire-back rates for 2006 and 2007 were 49.1% and 49% respectively.

The Law Society Report also highlights annual employ-ment percentages as of Call date. In 2010, that percentage was 55.5%, down 2.1% from 2009. In 2008, the employment statis-tic was 65.7%. While the drop between 2008 and now is sig-nificant, it also needs to be noted that the average percentage between 1995 and 2008 was also 65.7%. This average excludes the anomalous “guaranteed hire-back” years of 2001 and 2002.

Another indicator of market strength for new Calls (at least in Toronto) is the Hireback Watch, an online survey conducted

“Y” Enter Practice in Today’s MarketChristopher Williams & Trevor Branion

geNeratioN GAP

“The statistics show a large number of 2010’s new lawyers were unemployed at their date of Call”

Will we witness the “lost generation” that is occurring in the u.S.?


by Melissa Kluger and the staff of Precedent Magazine. The sur-vey has monitored hire-back numbers for the major Toronto law firms over the past two years. The 43 respondents to the 2010 survey advised that 296 out of 443 articling students were hired back, with 48 students opting out from hire-back. This provided a survey-wide hire-back rate of 66.8%, an in-crease from 61% in 2009.

The statistics show a large number of 2010’s new lawyers were unemployed at their date of Call. It is not surprising, therefore, that legal recruiters receive numerous applications from new Calls seeking to secure employment. At Branion Wil-liams, approximately 30% of the curriculum vitae received in the last year were from new Calls.

The abundance of new lawyers in the market, firms’ resource commitments to assimilating those lawyers who were hired back, and the premium recruiters charge for their placement services, combine to make it difficult for recruiters to place un-tested new lawyers. At Branion Williams, we meet with new Calls regardless. Although new Calls may be difficult to place, we are happy to provide career advice and search strategy sugges-

tions, as we understand the challenges young lawyers face and know that a little help goes a long way during uncertain times.

So, is the current marketplace particularly dire for newly minted Generation Y lawyers? While the numbers indicate that the market is softer than it was pre-recession and a 10% drop in employment for new Calls is significant, the historical data for the last fifteen years show that the marketplace has tradi-tionally been challenging and competitive for new Calls. This may offer little consolation for those who are currently unem-ployed, but it should add a measure of reassurance that the On-tario legal market remains substantially consistent.

Branion Williams is a legal recruitment firm servicing law firms, public entities and in-house legal departments.www.branionwilliams.com

32 December 2010NATIONAL

C’était une coïncidence,

mais le jour où Victor

Butsky nous a accordé

une entrevue sur le rôle

essentiel du droit des brevets dans la nou-

velle économie du savoir, la Cour fédérale

du Canada a rendu une décision impor-

tante : les procédés d’affaires sont breveta-

bles en droit canadien.

La méthode en question était le proces-

sus en « un clic » de amazon.com, pour les

achats en ligne. « Il s’agit certainement

d’une clarification bienvenue », a commen-

té Me Butsky, un ingénieur chimique devenu

avocat, et qui a fondé la firme de Toronto

Deeth Williams and Wall, qui se spécialise

Brevets en demandeDans un marché ultracompétitif, les compagnies qui misent sur l’innovation doiventêtre promptes à protéger leur propriété intellectuelle.

dans les technologies de l’information.

L’innovation est le moteur de la nouvelle

économie, selon Victor Butsky. Et les com-

pagnies qui ne protègent pas leur propriété

intellectuelle risquent d’être laissées sur les

lignes de côté dans un environnement glo-

bal ultracompétitif.

Cette réalité n’échappe pas aux plus

grandes multinationales : « Les IBM, les

Sony, les Samsung, sont tous des deman-

deurs de brevets à grande échelle », note

Matthew Zischka, un ingénieur électrique

et associé chez Smart & Biggar à Toronto.

Mais il n’y a pas que les géants du monde

des affaires qui bénéficient du système,

estime Micheline Gravelle, une ancienne

chercheuse dans le domaine du cancer qui a

changé de carrière pour le droit, et qui

dirige maintenant la division de biotech-

nologie et de pharmaceutique chez Bereskin

& Parr, à Toronto.

« Pour les petites compagnies, le finance-

ment est le nerf de la guerre, fait-elle remar-

quer. Elles ne peuvent même pas se rendre

au stade des essais cliniques sans argent, et

personne n’investira dans leurs projets si

elles n’ont pas appliqué pour un brevet. »

Même chose pour les universités. « Elles

n’ont pas nécessairement les ressources ni

les infrastructures pour mettre un produit

en marché, explique l’avocate. Mais les

grandes compagnies pharmaceutiques ne

CBIA moves to new insurerfor Home & Auto program

Àcompter du 1er janvier 2011, La Personnelle, assurances générales inc. (LaPersonnelle) remplacera TD Assurance Meloche Monnex à titre d’assureurdu programme d’assurance auto et habitation parrainé par l’Association

d’assurances du Barreau canadien (AABC).L’AABC est convaincue que vous paierez des primes beaucoup moins élevées

pour votre assurance auto et habitation grâce à nos rabais négociés. Les membrespourront aussi bénéficier d’un service à la clientèle exceptionnel, de notre assis-tance, et de la possibilité de partager les résultats financiers positifs qui surpassentles exigences de ce programme.

Que vous ayez une assurance en vertu de notre ancien programme avecMeloche Monnex ou par le biais d’un autre assureur, nous vous incitons à com-muniquer avec La Personnelle pour obtenir une soumission comparative sur vospolices arrivant à échéance le 1er janvier 2011 ou après. Ou encore, soumettezvotre date d’échéance à La Personnelle dès aujourd’hui et ils vous enverront unenote amicale 60 jours avant votre renouvellement de 2011 pour vous rappelerqu’il est temps d’obtenir une soumission. Les membres qui obtiennent une soumis-sion ou qui soumettent leur date d’échéance avant le 30 juin 2011 seront éligiblespour participer au tirage d’un prix : un voyage pour deux aux Jeux olympiques deLondres 2012.

Composez le 1-877-314-6274 ou visitez le www.assurancebarreau.com.

Effective Jan. 1, 2011, The Personal General Insurance Company (ThePersonal) will replace TD Insurance Meloche Monnex (Meloche Monnex)as the insurer of The Canadian Bar Insurance Association (CBIA) sponsored

Home & Auto Insurance program.CBIA believes that members could pay substantially less for home or auto

insurance because of its negotiated rate discounts. Members can also benefit fromexceptional customer service, CBIA’s involvement if assistance is ever required,and the ability to share in positive financial results that exceed the requirementsof the program.

Members with insurance under the old program with Meloche Monnex orthrough a different insurer are encouraged to contact The Personal for a compar-ison quote on any policies renewing on or after Jan. 1, 2011. Members who wantto wait can give The Personal their current policy expiry date and they’ll be con-tacted 60 days prior to their 2011 renewal with a reminder that it’s time to get aquote. Members who obtain a quote or provide their expiry date before June 30,2011, will be entered into a draw for a deluxe trip for two to see the 2012Olympics in London, England.

Call 1-877-314-6274 or visit barinsurance.com/homeauto.

L‘AABC change d’assureur pourson programme d’assuranceauto et habitation

CBA ANNOUNCES • L’ABC ANNONCE

08-IP-PatPending:NATIONAL 11/11/10 11:32 AM Page 32


Richard Bruce Lawson, Q.C.As Remembered by Lynne Lawson

Claude Renwick Thomson, Q.C.As Remembered by Lee Akazaki

From a young age Bruce dreamed of being a lawyer, and pur-sued that goal with commitment and passion. After attending the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall Law School, he was admitted to the Law Society of Upper Canada in 1953. In 1956, he became a founding partner of Bassel, Sullivan, Holland and Lawson. After being appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1965, he be-came a founding partner of Lawson, McGrenere, Wesley, Jarvis & Rose in 1978.

He was an OBA member, chairman of the Bench and Bar Committee of The Advocate’s Society and a representative of the Society on the Bench and Bar Counsel. He also taught in the Law Society’s and The Advocates Society’s continuing educa-tion programs. As a fine mentor, he demanded excellence from his associates, demanding nothing less from himself.

His success was founded upon his knowledge of the law, at-tention to detail, hours of preparation, and the ability to clearly identify and concisely state issues. He had a fine legal mind and was always one or two steps ahead. He was a formidable oppo-nent. His colleagues sought out and relied upon his sound advice

and good counsel. His reputa-tion as a trial lawyer garnered respect from Bench, Bar and the wider insurance industry.

Bruce was more than just a skilled barrister. He was a man of his word, known for his fair-ness and integrity. Though often reserved, he had an ex-tremely dry, funny wit.

Bruce would not have been able to enjoy such a gratifying professional life without the love and support of his wife, Marian, and his three children, Lynne, Doug and Nancy, who mourn his passing.

Lynne Lawson, Daughter

He charmed our world of law, with elegance, compassion and intelligence.

At the urging of the Honourable Bud Estey, Claude Thomson became chair of the Administrative Law Section of the CBAO (now OBA). As chair, Thomson was instrumental the associa-tion’s contribution to the creation of the Federal Court of Cana-da. He rose within our ranks to become national president of the CBA in 1984, and later rose to prominence beyond our shores as president of the International Bar Association in 1993.

The Bar will remember Thomson for his leadership. Most of all, he stood as a beacon of hope for a profession mired in lo-cal and day-to-day challenges. His adventurous spirit and love of nature took him and his fishing rod to far-flung vistas. He would return home to Ontario with the message that the way we do things here does not have to be the only way.

Asked what advice to give to a litigation lawyer starting out in practice, Thomson replied, “The single most important qual-ity of a top advocate is a well-earned reputation for integrity. That reputation will help attract clients, allow one to engage in productive and efficient dealings with other members of the profession, and perhaps most importantly, will help to pry open the sense of justice in the most closed-minded judge.”

Thomson graduated from Osgoode Hall in 1958 and practised for many years as senior litigation counsel with Fasken Martineau. He later became an interna-tionally-renowned commer-cial arbitrator and mediator. Along the way, he stopped to collect numerous honours, including the World Lawyer Award and a Doctor of Laws from the Law Society of Up-per Canada.

Mr. Thomson is survived by his adoring wife, Rose-mary, his five children and their spouses, as well as 11 grandchildren.

Remember Claude Thomson. He was the mentor we all wanted, and strive to become.

Lee Akazaki, OBA President

iN MEMORIAM


the choice is ours

Everything we say, every action we take, is a matter of personal or professional choice. When someone says or does something negative to you, how you react is up to you—you have that choice. It’s always up to us—whether in our law offices, at home, or out in the street. We can hold the door open for someone, we can take a moment to check in on a younger colleague who’s hav-ing a rough time on a file, we can empty the dishwasher, we can get to know the names of the cleaning staff—or we can just walk past everything—because we’re busy; we’re important. We get a ‘I’m-shocked-and-appalled-and-will-report-you-to-the-Law-Society’ letter from the other side, and we can write the same back—or, simply acknowledge receipt, or do nothing. The choice is always ours, and all choices have consequences.

my theory

My (dual) theory is this:

• Every single choice we make has consequences—so choose well.

• Don’t be civil just because it’s the right thing to do. Be civil because it’s the strategic thing to do.

A couple of recent examples of incivility I was on the person-al receiving end of tell me civility/incivility isn’t an artsy fartsy concept—it’s something we live with daily:

• I send some draft motion materials to the other side for their consideration before filing, and the response I get back: F*** you (the individual unasterisked it for my per-sonal benefit).

• I put out my hand to opposing counsel before a Court of Ap-peal hearing, and wish them the best—the other counsel pulled their hand back like I have a communicable disease.

getting Practical: ten tactical techniques that will help you stay civil in the face of incivility

1. To most judges, bad behaviour makes bad advocacy

Points are won by being personally attacked, and afterwards standing your ground, saying little or nothing, and instead of re-sponding to the attack, responding only to the issues.

2. Incivility has a price

In the case of 1013952 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Sakinofsky, Ros-so, Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company et al., (January 15, 2010), the Ontario Superior Court gave a costs order of $25,000 (inclusive of fees, disbursements, and GST) on the basis that “substantial indemnity costs are reserved for cases in which the court demonstrates its disapproval of the party’s conduct”, con-cluding “this is one of those rare cases”.

3. Be flexible

Make efforts to avoid scheduling conflicts. Agree to reason-able requests for scheduling changes. Do not attach unfair condi-tions etc. etc. Remember: what goes around comes around. You smack someone today, you’ll get smacked later. One day you’re the pigeon, next day the statue.

4. When someone’s talking over you

When a lawyer consistently talks over you, wait until they take a breath, then say: Listen, let’s make a deal: when you’re talking, I’ll listen and not interrupt; but when I talk, the deal is you too listen and not interrupt. If, when they don’t (inevitably) abide by the deal, simply remind them (on the record).

5. When you get shouted over

When a lawyer I know gets shouted over in discoveries her standard response is to say on the record: Shouting your ques-

Civility v. Incivility The A-Hole Factor in the Practice of LawEugene Meehan, Q.C.

geNeratioN GAP


tions and your responses doesn’t give the force of your statement additional weight beyond that of additional noise. Madame Re-porter, we’ll take a 10 minute break so Mr. X may compose himself, and walks out with the client. And the transcript so records.

6. Preparing for objections/preparing to object

Another lawyer I know tries to figure out in advance each ob-jection he thinks the other lawyer will make during the discov-ery/exam-on-affidavit, whether his client is being examined or vice versa, whether the objections are polite or impolite, then types his detailed responses into his laptop, and when the ob-jection comes, he reads it (with case names, citations, quotes, name(s) of judge(s)) into the transcript. When the inevitable mo-tion to produce/answer comes, the transcript always makes him look like a star. When appropriate he asks for costs, sometimes on a personal basis (again, where the behaviour is particularly uncivil and intemperate), and sometimes gets them.

7. Responding to extreme hostility and baiting

Respond to extreme hostility and baiting—as one Alberta judge did when called a mother******* b*****d by an accused—with “lucky guess.”

8. When someone tells you they are ‘none the wiser’

Hope for the opportunity that once in your legal career an-

other lawyer (or perhaps a judge) will say to you: “Mr./Ms. ____, I have read your material and I must tell you I am none the wiser” – just so you can respond: “Perhaps, Your Honour, but certainly better informed.”

9. Never respond in kind

Remember the two Pig Rules:

Pig Rule #1: Never wrestle with a pig — you only get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

Pig Rule #2: Never try to teach a pig to dance — it wastes your time and it only annoys the pig.

10.Take your Mother’s advice

My mother was right 50 years ago when I was eight (me, not my mother): Eugene, if you’ve nothing nice to say, don’t say it. Fifty years later, as a strategic response to incivility, it still works.

Eugene Meehan, Q.C. is the chair of the Supreme Court Practice Group with Lang Michener LLP.

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


Circuiting Toronto Masters to Central East and Central WestRule 76 Amendments Get Some HelpAudrey P. Ramsay and Brian M. Bangay

The Ontario civil justice system has recently undergone sig-nificant changes; the most heralded being the amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, which signified, arguably, the most comprehensive changes since 1985. On the heels of those changes, however, came other initiatives with less fanfare to cope with anticipated consequences of civil justice reform. One such initiative was the introduction of a pilot project involving circuiting Toronto Masters to the Central East region and Cen-tral West region.

the Pilot Project

The pilot project was initiated in the spring of 2010, largely in response to amendments to rule 76, the Simplified Procedure regime. It will run until June 2012. The amendments to rule 76 may result in an increase in cases brought pursuant to the Sim-plified Procedure. Effective January 1, 2010, the monetary juris-diction of rule 76 was increased from $50,000 to $100,000; two hours of pre-trial examination for discovery was permitted, and the right to discovery motions granted. At the moment, simpli-fied procedure includes claims between $25,000 and $100,000.

According to Chief Justice Heather Smith, rule 76 is aimed at facilitating summary trials. She notes the project was initiated to address changes to the simplified procedure, and the anticipated increase in rule 76 proceedings. Chief Justice Smith commented that: “the goal of the pilot project is to promote efficient, effec-tive and affordable civil proceedings under Rule 76 of the Rules Civil Procedure.”

It is not surprising that Central East and Central West would be selected for the pilot project. The Court Services Division An-nual Report 2008-009 noted that the population growth in Cen-tral East was one of the highest in the country, increasing at a rate of 15% over the preceding 5 years as compared to the provincial population growth average of 6.6%. The same report indicated the Central West Region “has the highest population of the seven Court Services Division regions.” Additionally, in a communiqué entitled “Judicial Resources”, the Ministry of the Attorney Gen-eral’s website cites Statistics Canada to show that between 1996 to 2006, while the population in some locations have remained constant or is decreasing, the populations in other areas such as Barrie (31%), Brampton (21%), and Newmarket (15%), to name a few, have increased significantly.

rationale for the Pilot Project

Chief Justice Smith commented on the rationale for the pilot project in these selected sites. She states:

“The Central East and Central West regions are two of the busiest regions in the province, with ever-expanding demographics, and which already have a high volume of simplified procedure cases. They are both judicial regions where civil matters are not subject to mandatory media-tion. With the recent amendments to Rule 76, the Court anticipates a significant increasein simplified procedure cases in these regions.

For these reasons, the Superior Court has directed that the specialized skills of four Toronto case management masters be applied to the Rule 76 cases at specific sites in these regions. The project has been carefully scoped to address the case management needs at these sites, while ensuring that Toronto's case management needs are met.”

Four Masters are involved in the project, two assigned to Central East region and two to Central West. Each Master sits one week per month in their assigned region, ensuring a total coverage of two weeks per month in each region. Masters as-signed to the pilot project preside over all rule 76 pre-trials in the designated sites in the Central East and Central West region, Newmarket in the case of the former, and Milton and Brampton in the case of the latter.

Chief Justice Smith believes case management Masters are well suited for the role. She states:

“Given their expertise in mediation and ADR, the case management masters can have a significant impact on settling cases at the pre-trial stage and, thereby, facilitat-ing effective resolution of cases on an efficient timeline. This should also reduce the overall pending civil caseload in Brampton, Milton and Newmarket - three of the busi-est centres in the province. Given the masters' familiarity with the civil justice system and their proactive and com-prehensive case management skills, they can effectively ready matters for trial - and preferably, summary trial- in cases where matters cannot be settled.”

early results and Future of the Pilot Project

Chief Justice Smith recognizes that the success of the pilot project will depend on the “buy-in” by the local bar. However she is confident and states that judges and case management Masters are fully committed to the initiative. She notes: “Part of the project's aim is to promote efficiency in civil litigation mat-ters through a readily accessible, settlement-focused pre-trial process followed by a timely summary trial or regular trial pro-


cess.” It is anticipated that as the project progresses, cases that are summary trial ready will be placed on a discrete trial list.

Lawyer Kenneth Hill (Hill Hunter Losell Law) practices civil litigation in Newmarket and was present at the outset to be in-troduced to the Masters. He commented: “I haven’t had any di-rect experience as to how it’s working, but I support the idea in principle because of the lack of judicial resources.”

The pilot project has brought certain benefits, says Chief Jus-tice Smith, for example in the scheduling of judicial resources in the participating regions. She notes: “The involvement of the specialized case management masters to hear all Rule 76 pre-trials in these regions allows the judges to be scheduled else-where, helping to optimize efficiencies in the civil litigation stream.” The upshot is that parties have access to a speedier pre-trial conference. Chief Justice Smith commented that: “Faster ac-cess to pre-trial conferences and more proactive, comprehensive and consistent case management of Rule 76 matters has started to facilitate early resolution and reduce the time needed to make matters trial-ready.”

As the pilot project moves forward, while early responses have been positive, there are some challenges identified by Chief Justice Smith. The case Management masters assigned to Central East and Central West region have capacity to hear many more pre-trials. The success of the pilot project will require the sup-port and buy-in from the local bar. Chief Justice Smith notes: “It is recognized that adoption of the Rule 76 process may require changes to the prevailing legal culture in the civil litigation bar.”

Despite the challenges, Chief Justice Smith notes the response from the judiciary has been positive and very enthusiastic from the local bar.

As for the future of the project, Chief Justice Smith notes that the project is in its early stages, but “consideration may be given to extending or expanding the program depending on the suc-cessful uptake of this Rule 76 case management master initia-tive, the needs of the particular judicial regions, and the re-sponse and participation of the local bar.”

The success of the program will be measured, in part, by the level of participation in the streamlined procedure. The pilot project will run until June 2012 to permit time for uptake and participation. Chief Justice Smith notes the project has been and continues to be monitored and evaluated on an ongoing basis. At the end of June 2012, the pilot project will be evaluated and deci-sions made based on the results.

Audrey P. Ramsay is the chair of OBA Sections, past chair of the Civil Litigation Section, and a lawyer with Withrow & Associates, Staff Counsel of the Corporate Law Depart-ment of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

Brian M. Bangay is a lawyer with Withrow & Associates, Staff Counsel of the Corporate Law Department of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily

reflect the opinions of Withrow & Associates or the State Farm Companies.



Smartphone EtiquetteA Light-hearted Look at a Burgeoning ConceptJ. Andrew Sprague

I recently encountered several events that have caused me to think about smartphone etiquette, both in my personal and professional life.

The first event occurred when I was hosting a formal dinner party for nine friends. One of my friends was at the opposite end of the table from me. Throughout dinner, her hands were underneath the table and she kept looking down. I repeatedly asked her to put her BlackBerry away and at one point asked

her to leave the table if she needed to be with her device. She ignored me (we have that kind of relationship)! After dinner, one of my other guests asked me if she is a cardiac surgeon. She’s not.

The second event happened a couple of days later, when I saw a television advertisement for the new Microsoft Windows Phone 7. In the ad, various actors are so pre-occupied with their smartphones that they are oblivious to the world around them, and are often ignoring important people in their lives or are bumping into people in public. Mid-way through the ad, when one actor is using his smartphone in the washroom, an-other actor asks “Really?!” If you haven’t seen this wonderfully creative ad, it’s worth looking up on the Internet.

A few weeks later, the third event occurred. I was having din-ner with a friend and her parents at a nice Italian restaurant. Again, I couldn’t see her hands and she kept looking down. I decided to call her with my smartphone. It turns out she has a special ring tone for me (you learn something new every day) so she muted the ring and looked up at me. This in turn led to a discussion at the table about smartphone etiquette.

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, “eti-quette” is defined as “the conduct or procedure required by good breeding or prescribed by authority to be observed in social or official life”. I think the etiquette rules for smart-phones have yet to be clearly defined and one’s breeding is not necessarily indicative of one’s ability to ‘properly’ use a smartphone. For the record, I think most of my friends and colleagues were well bred by their parents; they just have “smartphone issues.” Also, I’m not entirely sure who the “au-thority” is supposed to be.

Here are my thoughts on smartphone etiquette.

1. In my view, open communication is one of the corner-stones of human interaction. When we communicate well with each other, we tend to interact well too. If someone’s smart-phone use is interfering with your ability to effectively com-municate with them, let them know. Sometimes, people need gentle reminders and, more often than not, they will appreci-ate the constructive feedback. When I’ve been in client meet-ings and I can see that they are being distracted by their smart-phones (in non-emergency situations), I’ve politely suggested that they focus on our time together and they’ve responded well. Clients appreciate that it’s more cost-effective for them.

2. Smartphones have caused some clients, colleagues and friends to expect instantaneous, or near-instantaneous, replies to messages. For some smartphone users, this is okay with them and has become a part of their lives. Others prefer to choose when they will respond to a message. By having a discussion

with people about how you prefer to use your smartphone, you can take proactive steps to better manage expectations.

3. I’m shocked at how many people do not password protect their smartphones. When I ask them if someone was able to ac-cess their email, calendar and contact list on a computer, would they be concerned? There is unanimous concern. When I sug-gest that if they lose their smartphone, they are potentially giv-ing someone the same access, some of them are stunned. In my opinion, all smartphones should be password protected.

4. Smartphones can be set to vibrate instead of ring. This fea-ture is often handy and appropriate for the environment one finds oneself in.

Smartphone etiquette is very much a burgeoning concept. I anticipate that within a few years, we will have clearer rules of engagement for smartphones, which should be of benefit to all of us.

“Set to vibrate instead of ring”

“Politely suggest that they focus on our time together”

J. Andrew Sprague is a lawyer with Miller Thomson LLP. He is also a member of the Editorial Board of Briefly Speaking, and is the Public Affairs Liaison for the Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Section of the Ontario Bar Association.

geNeratioN GAP


The OBA’s 2010 Holiday Food Drive in support of the Daily Bread Food Bank was a rousing success. Throughout the month of December, OBA members and staff generously collected nearly 1,000 lbs of non-perishable food items. The OBA wishes to extend a huge thank you to all those who contributed to help fight hunger in our community.

The OBA congratulates Attorney General Chris Bentley and his staff, who were honoured with the Gold 2010 IPAC/Deloitte Public Sector Leadership Award for their Justice on Target Strategy.

OBA Tips the Scales to Fight Hunger

MAG Recognized for Justice on Target Strategy

sNaPSHOTS

Back row (L to R) Paul Macmillan, Deloitte Canada; James Cornish; Ken Anthony; Jim Andersen; Colleen Montgomery (partially obscured); Mark Langdon.

Front row (L to R) Debra Whittall; The Hon. Chris Bentley, Attorney General; Stephen Rhodes, Associate Deputy Minister; Murray Segal, Deputy Attorney General; The Hon. Mr. Justice Bruce Durno; Kelly Donaher; Sue Miehm; Lynne Wagner; Robert Lecour; Shelly Jamieson.


Rosenberger & Weir Inc .Rosenberger & Weir Inc .

Certified Court Reporters

Wireless access availableSame day cancellation fee onlyCompetitive rates for all servicesLunch items and refreshments includedTranscripts provided accurately & expedientlyPleasant, quiet surroundings for your discovery or mediation

What can We offer you?

www.rosenbergerwei r.comTel. 416 367 1760

&

A

R

W&

The Court Reporters Of Choice In Toronto Since 1961

40 February 2011 | Briefly Speaking • en Bref

DO E SY O U RC I T A T O R

Y O U S T A T U T E S ?

J U S T G I V E

Only KeyCite® goes beyond statutes to offer a complete legislative Citator service. KeyCite gives you Rules and Regulations plus International Treaties and Canadian as well as Foreign Legislation. Narrow your results by key terms using KeyCite Locate. Use KeyCite Alert to track and receive e-mail notification of new developments in selected legislation.

Get Better Results Faster with Westlaw® Canadawww.westlawcanada.com or call 1-866-609-5811

OnLy WestLAW® CAnAdA KeyCite® nOtes-up stAtutes AND RuLes AND ReguLAtiOns

® 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

Documents

February 2011 Briefly Speaking