LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

By R.C. Tino Bella*

Dear Editor,

Re: Bruce Woolley, K.C., “The Solicitors’ Legal Opinions Committee (Fondly Known as ‘SLOC’)” (2023) 81 Advocate

209, and various other matters

As usual I read with great interest the latest Advocate. Some articles I read with great interest and some I skim. Often I skim an article to see if it may be interesting generally or with respect to my specific area of law. As I know you know I have primarily been involved in the practice of what is generally referred to as criminal law. I prefer to describe my practice as (to paraphrase the late Larry Hill) ensuring the rights and appropriate liberties of His Majesty’s subjects. Often the “Crown” has alleged that I am overly enthusiastic in ensuring the rights and liberties of my clients, but that is a cross I will have to bear. I am writing today, however, in regards to the very well written article in the most recent Advocate by Bruce Woolley, K.C., “The Solicitors’ Legal Opinions Committee (Fondly Known as ‘SLOC’)”. It seems that lawyers, both solicitors and litigators, are attracted to acronyms. I noticed in the great article [“On the Front Cover” (2023) 81 Advocate 177] about Chris Harvey, Q.C., a noted litigator, that he was a founding member of SSCC [the Shadowy Secret Central Committee]. That aside I am writing this letter hoping that you can send it on in some way as a recommendation that all litigators should read Mr. Woolley’s article. Especially those litigators who are having some second thoughts as to whether they wish to continue in litigation and are entertaining thoughts of becoming a solicitor. Those, I strongly recommend read Mr. Woolley’s article.

Having read that article I have no doubt that all litigators who do so will finish the article feeling extremely glad that they are litigators and not solicitors. Solicitors have it way too hard.

I note in the latest Advocate that there are no Letters to the Editor and, even more surprising, no Grumbles. I acknowledge that with the demise of Gerald Lecovin, Q.C., Grumbles may not be as plentiful or as entertaining, but still, I feel that lawyers should have a space in which to express our “grumbles”. Perhaps this latest edition was simply an anomaly and no lawyers had anything to grumble about or at least worth grumbling about. In any event this email to you is not a grumble, while perhaps sort of, but more recommendation for all litigators to read Mr. Woolley’s article.

Regards, Glen Orris, K.C.

Parliament. This comparison is irrelevant. The rights and freedoms in the Charter belong to all Canadians, not to Parliament or to the provincial legislative assemblies who are merely their custodians.

I have therefore considered it necessary to provide the following corrigendum, as in the bolded passages, for this section of the article:

The Unconstitutionality Of Notwithstanding

Section 31 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides: “Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority”. Thus, Parliament and the provincial legislative assemblies are left with the legislative powers set out in the Constitution Act, 1867, which for the legislatures are set out in s. 92 and for Parliament in s. 91. As reviewed earlier, the constitutionality of enactments from these assemblies was maintained with the assistance of the disallowance power set out in ss. 50 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and since the 1940s by Canada’s superior courts.

Dear Editor,

Re: Darrell W. Roberts, K.C., “Disallowance Is the Paladin of the Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Charter ” (2023) 81 Advocate 197

In the passage of the article headed “The Unconstitutionality of Notwithstanding” on page 204, a comparison is made between the rights and freedoms in the Charter and the broad legislative powers of

However, the Constitution Act, 1982 substantially broadens the constitutional law of Canada by embedding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Section 32 provides that the Charter applies to the Parliament of Canada and to all legislatures and governments of each province, and can only be changed or withdrawn by the difficult amending procedure set out in s. 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

But yet, there in s. 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is the sword of notwithstanding allowing the provincial legislatures and Parliament itself, custodians of the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Charter, to sever those rights by an enactment and the simple filing of a declaration and thereby, by reason of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Ford case earlier considered, bar the courts from any review and suppression of such offending enactment.

Thank you for permitting this correction by way of a letter.

Very best regards, Darrell W.

Dear Editor,

Re: “Entre Nous”

Roberts, K.C.

(2023) 81 Advocate 9

Thank you for this issue’s Entre Nous. It is a welcome respite from what seems to be consistent justifications for intolerable behaviour.

As for Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond: When the rose petals were being strewn and the accolades pouring in, where were those who knew her in the past? Her family, friends, childhood classmates? Why did no one stand up and scream “J’accuse!”?

Steven Cope

Fort St. John and Dawson Creek didates for admission to any law society, anywhere, would cheat on their bar admission exams. Nor did I think for a moment that it might be necessary to check the stated credentials of a highly respected member of the bar, let alone a former member of the judiciary. When one cheats, it means that such person believes that to do something correctly, or properly, is “too difficult, too hard”, or that one’s chances of success are very restricted given the number of spaces or positions available to candidates or applicants. Or the person believes that the process is “unfair”, and that they must do anything possible to succeed.

Perhaps the discovery of cheating by the ones who hope to become lawyers in Ontario should not have surprised me, given the “pay for university admission” frauds in the U.S.A., which included at least one prominent B.C. parent. The even greater harm stems from the fact that the cheating did not originate from the student, but from their parents. What pathetic role models. Their “golden parachute” parenting has not been of any assistance to their children. They have done them lasting irreparable harm.

Dear Editor,

Re: “Entre Nous”

(2023) 81 Advocate 9

During my 40-year career at the bar, I never imagined that 147 can-

It is trite, but unfortunately necessary, to remind all members of the bar of our cardinal obligation to the bar, the courts and society: “our word is our bond”. Such a simple statement is often overlooked for personal and professional gain. Our profession and the courts demand the highest level of integrity. Many members of our profession have paid the price for forgetting or ignoring that obligation. Failing to abide by undertakings (no matter how trivial they might be considered), misleading the court by not disclosing relevant facts or not bringing to the court’s attention case law that does not favour the lawyer’s client, not disclosing to opposing counsel obvious mistakes, taking advantage of them, failing to keep in confidence communications received in error from other counsel, stealing from clients, inflating billing sheets to meet billing targets, enabling or assisting witnesses to lie in court or on affidavits, misstating facts in order to obtain adjournments of court dates. In many situations, it is very easy and perhaps tempting to overlook the ethical obligations. A simple rule is “don’t do it”, even if the transgression seems minor. An example is not refunding a small balance of retainer funds held in trust, charging the balance to “photocopying” or to “office essentials” not logged as such. A balance of $1.00 remaining in trust is not “your money”. It is the client’s money.

In the case of the subject of the latter part of the article, it is not only pride that went before their fall. It is outright dishonesty, lying, fraud. What a sad ending to an illustrious career. Going forward, in situations where previously one would not think to question or verify one’s stated cultural or educational background, professional accolades or achievements, application processes will take much more time and will require far more inquiry and investigation. An article about a notorious con man states: “he [Frédéric Bourdin] acknowledged what any con man knows but rarely admits: it is not that hard to fool people. People have basic expectations of others’ behaviour and are rarely on guard for someone to subvert them … Bourdin, who generally tapped into a mark’s sense of goodness rather than some darker urge, says, ‘Nobody expects a seemingly vulnerable child to be lying’”.1

The subjects of the Entre Nous article have not only harmed themselves. They have harmed countless others whose words are no longer going to be taken at face value, as well as institutions that had no reason to question their bona fides.

Respectfully, Donald Kawano, K.C. (retired) Cranbrook

Endnote