Page 1

Official Magazine of the Ontario Bar Association - A Branch of the Canadian Bar Association

August 2011 | Vol. 36 No. 4




Riots and the role of lawyers Hockey: A Law Unto Itself New Class Actions Law Section Exploring Youth Law

You can tell a lot about a company by the company it keeps.

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

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.

BRIEFLYspeaking OBA Officers/ Comité directeur de l’ABO R. Lee Akazaki President/Président Paul R. Sweeny 1st Vice President/1er Vice-président Morris A. Chochla 2nd Vice President/2e Vice-président Sean M. Kennedy Secretary/Secrétaire Douglas R. Downey Treasurer/Trésorier Carole J. Brown Immediate Past President/Présidente sortante Steve Pengelly Executive Director/Directeur exécutif Editorial Board/Comité rédacteur James Morton Chair / Président Steinberg Morton Hope & Israel LLP

14 20 24 26

Introducing the 2010/2011 New Calls

Law in Chaos: Toronto’s G20

The Legal Rights Of Minors

Hockey Law

Chantal Brochu Buset & Partners LLP Alastair Clarke York Community Services


Nancy Cooper Nancy E. Cooper Law Office

20 L  aw in Chaos | Nathalie Des Rosiers Lawyers should honour their commitment to the law despite the actions of anarchists or hooligans.

The Honourable Doug Lewis Lewis Downey Tornosky Lassaline & Timpano Jeffrey S. Percival Pallet Valo LLP J. Andrew Sprague Miller Thomson LLP Questions or Comments? / Questions ou commentaires?

Editorial Team, Briefly Speaking/ Rédaction, En bref Catherine Brennan Editor/Rédactrice Spécialiste de communications 416-869-1047 ext/poste 357 Cheryl Crocker Marketing Specialist/ Spécialiste marketing 416-869-1047 ext/poste 309 Filippo Conte Bilingual Public Relations Lead/ Responsible bilingue des relations publique 416-869-1047 ext/poste 346 Janet Weldon Graphic Design/Graphisme 416-869-1047 ext/poste 363

22 T  he Legality of Education | Martha Mackinnon Ontario education is more legalistic than in any other province. 24 T  he Legal Rights of Minors | John P. Schuman and Suzanne Clarke Children must consent to medical treatment, but they may never be heard in family court. 26 Hockey Law | James Morton Hockey has a long history and a terrible legal reputation. 36 The New Human Rights Landscape | Juliet Knapton Examining the latest changes to Ontario’s human rights regulatory regime. 38 P  ublication and Disclosure Under the YCJA | Niamh Harraher “Young offenders circulate anonymously in the community, posing untold risks to public safety” Niamh Harraher explains why this isn’t true.

COLUMNS 2 Nota Bene 4 President’s Message | Message de la président 10 Spotlight On Sections | New Class Actions Law Section | Sylvie Rodrigue 28 Advocacy in Action I Making a Difference | Elizabeth Hall 32 L SUC Update | Law Society Forms Task Force to Address Articling Requirements | Laurie Pawlitza 34 Snapshots | 2010/2011 OBA Awards 40 Queen’s Park Update | The Hon. Chris Bentley 42 Supreme Court of Canada Update | Eugene Meehan, QC

Cover Photo: The Canadian Press/Jake Wright


The opinions expressed by the authors in Briefly Speaking are not necessarily the approved views of the OBA.

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011



Nota Bene nota bene nota bene nota bene nota bene nota bene nota bene nota bene nota bene SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE The Honourable Kenneth L. Campbell, Counsel with the Crown Law Office (Criminal) of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General in Toronto, is appointed Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, to replace Mr. Justice C. Perkins, who was elected to become a supernumerary judge as of May 1, 2011.

Mr. Justice Campbell received a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) from the University of Toronto in 1978 and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from Queen’s University in 1981. He was admitted to the Bar of Ontario in 1983. Mr. Justice Campbell has been Director, Crown Law Office, Criminal, since 2005. He has been Chair of the Ontario Criminal Conviction Review Committee and Director of Asset Management, Criminal since 2006. He has been a representative of Heads of Prosecution of the Supreme Court of Canada Litigation Practice Committee since 2005. He has been with the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario in different positions since 1983. His main areas of practise include criminal, quasicriminal and constitutional law.

Mr. Justice Campbell has participated in a variety of continuing legal education panels for the Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association, as well as educational programs hosted by the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the Ontario Court of Justice Judges, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Judges, the Advocates’ Society, the Ontario Centre for Advocacy Training and others. 2

He has been a member of the Faculty of the National Criminal Law Program since 2001. He was a member of the Faculty of The National Judicial Institute (2004-2008) and of The Ontario Specimen Jury Instruction Committee (1998-2002). He was a sessional professor for the Faculty of Law of the University of Windsor (1994-1996). He is a Life-Time member of the Grant Hall Society, associated with Queen’s University and became a member of the Principal’s Circle of Distinction in 2004. He is also a member of numerous community committees.

The Honourable F. Bruce Fitzpatrick, a lawyer with LLF Lawyers in Peterborough is appointed a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Thunder Bay) to replace Madam Justice B. Warkentin who was transferred to Ottawa to replace Mr. Justice CD. McKinnon, who elected to become a supernumerary judge as of February 20, 2011. Mr. Justice Fitzpatrick received a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in 1983 from the University of Toronto and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from Queen’s University in 1986. He was admitted to the Bar of Ontario in 1988.

Mr. Justice Fitzpatrick has been a partner with LLF Lawyers since 1993. He was an associate at Chernos Conway from 1990 to 1993 and with Hicks Morley from 1988 to 1990, both in Toronto. His main areas of practise were civil litigation involving construction liens, employment and labour relations, commercial law, real estate and family law. Mr. Justice Fitzpatrick has been a representative for the Cen-

August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

NOTA BENE tral East Region of the Ontario Bar Association Council since 2005. He was a member and presenter at the Annual Central East Advocacy Conference from 2001 to 2006 and part-time Vice-Chair (Province of Ontario) Licence Appeal Tribunal from 2000 to 2006. He was a member and Secretary, Central East Region Bench and Bar Committee from 1994 to 1999. He was the recipient of the City of Peterborough Civic Award for Community Betterment in 2006 and of the Peterborough Historical Society Burnham Award for Community Outreach in 2009. He is a member of several community organizations.

On May 2, 2011 Leslie McIntosh, of the Ministry of the Attorney General, was awarded the 2011 OBA Tom Marshall Award of Excellence for Public Sector Lawyers.

On May 16, 2011 Susannah Roth of O’Sullivan Estate Lawyers was presented with the first OBA Heather McArthur Memorial Young Lawyers’ Award. This award recognizes exceptional contributions and achievements by a young lawyer in the field of continuing legal education or development of the law for the benefit of the profession or the citizens of Ontario.

J. Michael Robinson, QC was awarded the 2011 OBA Award for Excellence in International Law. He was presented with the award on June 22, 2011 at a dinner event in Toronto.


The late John M. Hodgson, QC, The Hon. Heather McGee of the Superior Court of Justice and Eugene Meehan, QC of McMillan LLP are the winners of the 2011 OBA Distinguished Service Award. The award was presented to Justice McGee, Mr. Meehan and to Mrs. Joan Hodgson, wife of the late Mr. Hodgson, at the OBA Annual Awards Gala on May 5, 2011. Also presented at the gala were Alayna M. Miller of Sevigny Westdal, who won the 2011 Linda Adlam Manning Award, and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, who were awarded the 2011 OBA President’s Award. Professor Constance Backhouse, of the University of Ottawa, won the Mundell Medal for Legal Writing.

Mary L. MacGregor of Dickson MacGregor Appell LLP is the 2011 winner of the OBA Award for Excellence in Trusts and Estates. She was honoured for her achievements at a special dinner on May 31, 2011. The OBA Insolvency Law Section presented Daniel Dowdall of Faser Milner Casgrain LLP with the 2011 OBA Murray Klein Award for Excellence in Insolvency Law on May 25, 2011.

2011 OBA Award for Excellence in Pensions and Benefits Law Recipient Raymond Koskie, QC was honoured by the bar at an event in Toronto on June 14, 2011.

Robert Boswell of Boswell Chapman Professional Corporation was awarded the 2011 Ron Ellis Award for excellence in workers’ compensation law. Mr. Boswell was presented with the award at the section’s year-end dinner on June 2, 2011. Go to page 34 to view snapshots from the various award events.


On June 1, 2011 Barry Fisher, arbitrator and mediator, was honoured by the OBA Alternative Dispute Resolution Section at a special dinner event. Mr. Fisher was presented with the 2011 OBA Alternative Dispute Resolution Award of Excellence. James Simmons, QC of Weaver Simmons LLP and Barrister and Solicitor Paul Lee, QC were presented with the 2011 OBA Award for Excellence in Insurance Law at two separate events in Toronto (Mr. Lee) on April 28 and in Sudbury (Mr. Simmons) on May 3.

The 2011 OBA Award for Excellence in Family Law was awarded to the late Terrence Caskie and was presented to his wife and family at a special dinner event on June 8, 2011. The Hon. Peter H. Howden of the Superior Court of Justice was the honoured recipient of the 2011 OBA Award for Excellence in Municipal Law at the section’s year-end dinner on June 16, 2011.

The OBA Real Property Section presented the 2011 Award for Excellence in Real Estate to Bradley N. McLellan of WeirFoulds LLP at their June 21, 2011 annual section social cocktail dinner. Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

WANTED Yo ur Jo b

Posti The Le ng g al Care is offe er C r tary se ed as a com entre p of the rvice to mem limenO bers ntari Associ ation o Bar Find u s homep on the OBA Caree age – click ‘ r Cent Legal re’ E-mail

submit ccrocker@ob a caree a r oppo .org to rtunity today.



Lawyers as Canadian Heroes: In Search of Our Burning Building Lee Akazaki

LAWYERS AS HEROES? At last December’s OBA Council meeting, lawyer and politician Tim Murphy reminded us that we don’t save lives, we don’t feed people, and we don’t rush into burning buildings. Instead, we defend those accused of crimes and take on unpopular causes. True enough.

The public’s relationship with lawyers is multi-layered. The lawyer as hero is a common literary archetype who saves the day through law and logic, but people find the work of real lawyers hard to figure out. Ultimately, negativity toward lawyers plunges down the public desire to invest in justice. Awful Branding

Have you ever introduced yourself at a pot-luck supper as a barrister and solicitor? Tell Americans you are a lawyer, and they ask, “You’re an attorney?” (South of the 49th, authors of fine print are called lawyers. Hiring a lawyer is like cheating at cards.)

I have travelled this country exhorting lawyers to counter our profession’s negative brand. I have appeared on TVO’s The Agenda to urge Ontarians to apply the farmers’ slogan, If you’ve eaten today, thank a farmer, to lawyers. If you enjoy living in a free society, thank a criminal lawyer. If you’re married to a same sex spouse, thank OBA Family Law Award winner Martha McCarthy. A woman reporting a date rape may be forgiven for not writing a thank-you note to the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), recipient of the 2011 OBA President’s Award. But thanks to LEAF, judges hearing rape cases think twice before obsessing over the victim’s high heels and makeup. Police lay charges even if victims dress like ‘sluts.’ You can thank lawyers for making our 4

churches and schools safer for children, and public sidewalks safer for pedestrians. Not to mention all the community work we do. Examine lawyers’ public image closely, similar to that of politicians; the public asks both professions to think on their behalf. Criticizing our leaders is fun, but consider what kind of Canada we might have without politicians. Any program requiring short-term pain for long-term gain is met with protest (as John Crosby found out). The same with carbon taxes, HST, and justice. Nothing makes sense if it requires two or more steps of thinking. Whatever complexity may exist in their work, doctors, farmers and fire fighters have the advantage of a one-step causeand-effect between what they do and a desirable end. Ours is the age of Viagra politics. We even talk about public program dollars in terms of ‘bang for your buck.’ Ours claims to be a sophisticated society, and yet we still pick our heroes from the doers of easily understood tasks. Heroism is all a matter of outcome. We, masters of process, don’t stand a chance. We Like Our Lawyers to Be Played by Actors

We do excel in firing the public’s neurons when it comes to lawyers played by actors. For a brief spate in the 1970’s, we had earnest outcome-achieving role models among TV doctors (Marcus Welby, M.D.), farmers (The Waltons) and fire fighters (Emergency!). However, lawyers make ideal dramatic characters because a good story is all about process. Great lawyers of fiction make us nervous no matter what the story’s outcome. August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Not accidentally, the first great character of classical drama is an archetypal lawyer hero. King Oedipus uses his wits to solve the riddle and save Thebes from the scourge of the Sphinx. In the end, thinking and behaving like a lawyer was his downfall. As the play unfolds, he summons and cross-examines witnesses, until finding none other than himself guilty of the parricide and incest that allowed him to become king. In scouring out his own eyes, Oedipus sentences himself to a life of blindness. He is prosecuting attorney, judge and convict, rolled into one—at one level, a cautionary tale out of the conflict of interest rules; at another, an enactment of the jurist’s credo that the public interest must come before personal advantage. Law is integral to tragedy because the well-known device of a hero’s hubris is a crime of heresy, and the outcome of the plot is a sentence imposed by the gods. Although they are not lawyers, Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Milton’s Satan bring about their own downfalls by over-thinking and by asking too many questions. Not by accident, the original literary term for plot is “argument,” what lawyers do.

Whereas the lawyer hero of tragedy is brought down by law, their comedic counterparts employ law to deliver happy endings for others. Debate over anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice has made it hard for modern audiences to embrace the iconic lawyer of comedy, Portia. (Truth be told, much of our ambivalence derives from the portrayal of a woman in the role of jurist.) Rumpole of the Bailey, a lawyer hero in the ha-ha type of comedy, refers to colleague Phyllida Erskine-Brown as ‘the Portia of our Chambers,’ a put-down that has nothing to do with the Bard’s treatment of Shylock. Despite her gruesome logic, what Portia does to arbitrate between the antagonists is simply to restate a principle of contract law. The contra proferentum doctrine requires courts to construe contractual terms narrowly when secured lenders seek enforcement. The fictional lawyer-hero archetype proves that law permeates popular consciousness far more than the public appreciates. Real courtroom drama can keep the planet glued to their sets (the O.J. trial). Here, even a corporate insolvency case will have us cheering for a Canuck (Jim Balsillie’s attempt to buy the NHL’s Phoenix Coyotes). But law as spectacle translates poorly into public policy. It implies a lawyer’s function is to deliver sweeping gestures. Lawyers, unlike Harry Potter, cannot chant something clever in Latin and make problems disappear. Unfair Expectations Hurt, Too

Do not underestimate the harm the denigration our work causes to public policy. Where it hurts most is in Access to Justice. Lawyers take personal risks, work harder than other professionals, and keep working after the money’s run out. Yet we have a reputation of being elitist ‘fat cats.’

Some criticism of the bar and bench is warranted. We have utterly failed to promote leaders who are representative of a diverse Canadian demographic. In its June 7, 2011, editorial, The Globe and Mail rightly decried the lack of racial diversity in the bench and bar and reminded us: ‘The legal profession is one of society’s most important pillars of democracy, as well as a pipeline to other leadership roles, including political office Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

and corporate board appointments.’ Our failure to ignite public support for a justice agenda means governments of all stripes underfund our legal aid plan, our courts and our administrative tribunals. The failure of the bar and bench to be like the public is a source of alienation. A reputation of privilege and power creates the expectation that it falls on lawyers to burden themselves with shortcomings in the justice system. We have heard the message, que la noblesse oblige, as if the legal profession were a feudal estate.1 The fallacy that lawyers decrease access to justice because of a high profession-wide median hourly rate not only alienates the public from the profession, but also diverts attention from the state’s role in providing a working justice system. The fees of Main Street lawyers have very low margins after they pay for rent and support staff. (Should lawyers in business law firms charge legal aid rates to blue chip companies and multinationals?) Our collective failure to invest in the justice system creates backlogs and adjournments, defensive practices and lengthier proceedings. Yet still we are blamed.

Marvel at the public’s reluctance to pay for justice and at the blank cheque written to Medicare. (Although Canadians see the shine coming off the fully public model.2) The health industry’s billion-dollar lobbying power ensures it remains atop everyone’s list of priorities, at the expense of everything else. What is left pays for everything­­—from defending our borders, to filling potholes on the street where you live. Justice, alas, is the classic taken-for-granted girlfriend or boyfriend of Canadian politics. Our belief that the public cares about justice programs like legal aid or court reform is a conceit. What stirs our souls, does not stir theirs. Fear of Needing Lawyers—The Real Reason We Don’t Want Real Lawyer Heroes

If a lawyer entering a burning building could incite the public to start thinking about our crippled justice system, we may even find some volunteers. In many parts of the world, buildings are ablaze with lawyers inside. Lawyers brave and suffer imprisonment, torture or death for performing their work. The existential reality of our calling is that people value an independent bar only when backed into a corner by an oppressive regime, with lawyers standing between and them and arbitrary detention. The Robert Mugabe’s of the world know this. When lawyers are our heroes, we know we’re all in trouble. When the problem is that of our neighbour, or of those who live in communities we do not enter, we like watching lawyers in the theatre or on TV, and ‘get’ what they do. Let us then hope Canadians never have lawyers for heroes. Let us instead invest in law and justice. In the true spirit of heroism throughout the ages, lawyers say: That is all we ask. “Legal system doesn’t work for ordinary people, top judge says,” The Vancouver Sun, February 14, 2011



 nsight, 2011 Post-Election Report: Mind Your Majority, Eh? E May 6, 2011, p. 6



Les avocats en tant que héros canadiens : À la recherche de notre édifice en flammes Lee Akazaki

LES AVOCATS EN TANT QUE HÉROS? Lors de la réunion du conseil d’administration de l’ABO [Association du Barreau de l’Ontario] de décembre dernier, l’avocat et le politicien Tim Murphy nous a rappelés que nous ne sauvons pas des vies, nous ne nourrissons pas des gens, et nous ne nous précipitons pas dans des édifices en flammes. Par contre, nous défendons ceux que l’on a accusés de crimes et nous adoptons des causes impopulaires. C’est assez juste comme notion.

Le rapport du public avec les avocats incorpore plusieurs niveaux. L’avocat comme héros est un archétype littéraire qui trouve une solution au moyen du droit et de la logique, mais les gens trouvent que le travail de vrais avocats est difficile à comprendre. Ultimement, la négativité envers les avocats fait baisser la volonté du public d’investir dans le système judiciaire. Une stratégie de marque épouvantable

Vous est-il jamais arrivé de vous présenter aux invités lors d’un souper à la fortune du pot comme un avocat-procureur ? Si vous dites aux Américains que vous êtes avocat, ils vous demanderont, « Vous êtes un avoué [« attorney » aux États-Unis]? » (Au sud du 49 e parallèle, on nomme les auteurs des clauses de contrat écrites en petits caractères des avocats. Engager un avocat ressemble à l’action de tricher aux cartes.) J’ai voyagé partout dans ce pays à pousser les avocats à contrer la marque négative de notre profession. J’ai fait une apparence au programme télévisé de TV Ontario « The Agenda [l’Ordre du jour] » pour inciter les Ontariens à appliquer le slo6

gan des agriculteurs, « Si vous avez mangé aujourd’hui, remerciez un agriculteur, » aux avocats. Si vous aimez vivre dans une société qui est libre, remerciez un avocat spécialisé en droit criminel. Si vous êtes marié à un conjoint de même sexe, remerciez la gagnante du prix d’excellence en droit de la famille de l’ABO Martha McCarthy. On pourrait pardonner à une femme qui signale un viol commis par une connaissance de ne pas vouloir écrire une note de remerciement au Fonds d’action et d’éducation juridiques pour les femmes (FAEJF), qui est le récipiendaire du prix du président de l’OBA de 2011. Mais, grâce au FAEJF, les juges qui président les cas de viol réfléchissent deux fois avant d’être obsédé par des talons hauts et le maquillage de la plaignante/de la victime. La police dépose des accusations même si les victimes s’habillent comme des « putains ».Vous pouvez remercier les avocats d’avoir rendu nos églises et nos écoles plus sécuritaires pour les enfants, et les trottoirs publics plus sécuritaires pour les piétons, sans mentionner tout le travail communautaire que nous faisons.

Examinez l’image publique des avocats, et elle ressemble à celle des politiciens. Le public demande aux deux professions de réfléchir de sa part. On s’amuse à critiquer nos leaders, mais considérez quel genre de Canada nous pourrions avoir sans les politiciens. Tout programme exigeant que l’on accepte la douleur à court terme contre un gain à long terme provoque des protestations (comme l’a découvert John Crosby). Il en va de même pour les taxes sur les émissions de carbone, la TVH, et la justice. Rien ne donne sens s’il faut deux ou trois étapes de penser pour traiter de la question. August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

MESSAGE DU PRÉSIDENT Quelle que soit la complexité qui pourrait exister dans leur travail, les médecins, les agriculteurs et les pompiers ont l’avantage de jouir d’une relation de cause à effet en une seule étape entre leur profession et un résultat désirable. Notre âge est celui de la politique du Viagra. Nous parlons même du financement des programmes publics en termes de « rendement de l’investissement ».Notre société prétend en être une société qui est sophistiquée, et pourtant nous continuons de choisir nos héros parmi les performeurs des tâches qui sont facilement saisissables. En ce qui concerne l’héroïsme, il s’agit du résultat, en fin de compte. Nous, les maîtres des processus, n’ont aucune chance de nous en sortir. Nous voulons que le rôle de nos avocats soit joué par des acteurs

Nous excellons à allumer les neurones au public lorsqu’il s’agit des avocats joués par des acteurs. Pendant une brève période dans les années soixante-dix, parmi des médecins des séries télévisées, nous avons eu des modèles de fonction professionnelle sincères qui ont réussi à obtenir des résultats : le Dr Marcus Welby, des fermiers (Les Walton) et des pompiers Emergency [Cas d’urgence]!). Cependant, les avocats font des personnages dramatiques idéaux, car une bonne histoire porte principalement sur les processus. Les grands avocats des romans nous rendent nerveux, peu importe le résultat de l’histoire. Pas par accident, le premier grand personnage du drame classique est un héros avocat archétype. Le roi Oedipe emploie son intelligence pour résoudre l’énigme et pour sauver Thèbes du fléau du Sphinx. En fin de compte, penser et se conduire comme un avocat a entraîné sa ruine. À mesure que la pièce se déroule, il assigne à comparaître et contre-interroge des témoins, jusqu’à trouver personne d’autre que lui-même qui est coupable du parricide et de l’inceste qui l’ont permis de devenir roi. En s’arrachant ses propres yeux, Oedipe se condamne à une vie de cécité. C’est le procureur, le juge et le détenu, ce qui constitue une entité —à un niveau, c’est un avertissement provenant des règles du conflit d’intérêt; à un autre niveau, c’est une représentation du crédo du juriste que l’intérêt du public doit supplanter l’avantage personnel. Le droit est intégral à la tragédie, puisque l’expédient bien-connu de l’orgueil démesuré du héros est un crime d’hérésie, et le dénouement de l’intrigue est une peine imposée par les dieux. Bien qu’ils ne soient pas des avocats, les personnages d’Hamlet de Shakespeare et de Satan de Milton entraînent leurs propres chutes en sur-pensant des idées et en posant trop de questions. Pas par accident, le terme originel pour l’intrigue est « argument », (infinitif « argumenter »), ce que font les avocats. Alors que le héros avocat de la tragédie est abattu par le droit, ses homologues comiques emploient le droit pour livrer des fins heureuses pour d’autres. Le débat sur l’antisémitisme dans Le Marchand de Venise a rendu la tâche difficile au public moderne d’accepter l’avocate iconique de la comédie, Portia. (À dire la vérité, beaucoup de notre ambivalence provient de la représentation d’une femme dans le rôle d’un juriste.) Rumpole du Bailey, un héros avocat dans le genre de comédie rigolote, appelle sa collègue Phyllida Erskine-Brown « la Portia de notre cabinet », une insulte qui n’a rien à faire avec le traitement de Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

Shakespeare relativement au personnage de Shylock. Malgré sa logique horrible, pour arbitrer entre les antagonistes, Portia ne fait que reformuler un principe de droit des contrats. La doctrine de « contra proferentem »exige que les tribunaux interprètent étroitement les dispositions contractuelles lorsque les créanciers garantis recherchent l’exécution des lois.

L’archétype du héros avocat fictif prouve que le droit pénètre dans la conscience du peuple beaucoup plus que le public ne l’apprécie. Le drame réel de la salle du tribunal pourrait tenir les habitants de la planète collés à leur siège (p. ex., le procès d’O. J. Simpson). Ici, même une action d’insolvabilité d’une entreprise nous fera applaudir un Canadien (p. ex., la tentative de M. Jim Balsille d’acheter l’équipe des Coyotes de Phoenix de la LNH [Ligue nationale de hockey]. Mais le droit comme spectacle se traduit mal en politique publique. Cette notion implique que la fonction d’un avocat est de livrer des gestes symboliques. Les avocats, à la différence de Harry Potter, ne peuvent pas psalmodier quelque chose en latin pour faire disparaître des problèmes. Des attentes injustes font mal également

Ne sous-estimez pas le mal que l’action de dénigrer notre travail entraîne à la politique publique. Là où ce concept nuit le plus est relativement à l’accès à la justice. Les avocats prennent des risques personnels, travaillent plus fort que d’autres professionnels, et continuent de travailler après que l’argent s’épuise. Pourtant, nous avons une réputation d’être des « gros chats » élitistes.’

On pourrait justifier certaines critiques du barreau et de la magistrature d’assise. À ce titre, nous avons échoué complètement à promouvoir des leaders qui sont des représentants d’une démographique canadienne diverse. Dans son éditorial du 7 juin 2011, The Globe and Mail a correctement décrié le manque de diversité à l’assise magistrale et au barreau et nous a rappelé que : « La profession juridique est un des piliers les plus importants de la démocratie qui sert de passage vers d’autres rôles de direction, y compris l’instance politique et les nominations aux conseils d’administration des entreprises. » Le fait que nous n’avons pas réussi à susciter du soutien public pour un programme justice signifie que les gouvernements de tous les types sous-financent notre régime d’aide juridique, nos tribunaux et nos tribunaux administratifs. Le fait que le barreau et la magistrature d’assise au public ne ressemblent pas au public constitue une source d’aliénation.

Une réputation de privilège et de puissance crée l’attente qu’il incombe aux avocats de s’accabler de traiter des insuffisances dans le système judiciaire. Nous avons entendu le message que la noblesse oblige comme si la profession juridique était un état féodal. L’idée fausse que les avocats diminuent l’accès à la justice en raison d’un taux horaire moyen partout dans la profession, en plus qu’aliéner le public de la profession, distraie l’attention du rôle de l’état à fournir un système juridique fonctionnel. Les honoraires des avocats de la rue Principale ont des marges très basses après qu’ils ont payé le loyer et le personnel de soutien. (Les avocats des cabinets juridiques en droit des affaires devaient-ils demander des taux d’aide juridique aux sociétés de premier ordre et aux multinationales? 7

MESSAGE DU PRÉSIDENT Notre manque collectif d’investir dans le système judiciaire crée des arriérés et des ajournements, des pratiques défensives et des instances plus longues. Pourtant, on nous blâme toujours.

Émerveillez-vous de la répugnance du public à payer la justice et du chèque en blanc à l’ordre du régime d’assurancemaladie Medicare (même si les Canadiens voient la brillance se détacher du modèle qui est totalement public. ) Le pouvoir de manœuvres de couloirs, valant des milliards de dollars du secteur de la santé, s’assure que la santé reste en tête de la liste de priorités de tout le monde, aux dépens de toute autre chose. Ce qui nous reste paie tout – de la défense de nos frontières au remplissage de nids-de-poule dans la rue où vous habitez. La justice, hélas, est l’ami ou l’amie classique de la politique canadienne que l’on tient pour acquis. Notre croyance que le public se soucie des programmes judiciaires tels que l’aide judiciaire ou la réforme de la cour est, en fait, une vanité. Ce qui remue notre âme ne stimule pas la leur. La peur d’avoir besoin des avocats – La vraie raison pour laquelle nous ne voulons pas de véritables héros avocats.

Si un avocat qui entre dans un édifice en flammes pouvait inciter le public à commencer à penser de notre système juridique paralysé, nous pourrions peut-être trouver des bénévoles.

Dans plusieurs endroits au monde, des édifices sont en feu alors que les avocats en sont à l’intérieur. Les avocats affrontent et subissent l’emprisonnement, la torture ou même la mort en effectuant leur travail. La réalité existentielle de notre vocation est que les gens ne valorisent un barreau indépendant que lorsqu’un régime oppressif les met dans une situation difficile, des avocats leur servant de barrière contre la détention arbitraire. Les Robert Mugabe du monde le savent bien. Lorsque les avocats sont nos héros, nous savons que nous sommes tous en difficulté. Lorsque le problème est celui de notre voisin, ou de ceux qui habitent des communautés où nous n’entrons pas, nous aimons regarder les avocats dans le théâtre ou à la télé et nous « saisissons » ce qu’ils font. Espérons que les Canadiens n’auront jamais des avocats pour héros. Investissons plutôt dans le droit et la justice. Dans l’esprit véritable d’héroïsme depuis toujours, les avocats disent : « C’est tout ce que nous demandons. » Legal system doesn’t work for ordinary people, top judge says, [Le système juridique ne fonctionne pas pour les gens ordinaires, le plus haut juge dit-il » The Vancouver Sun, le 14 février 2011 1

Ensight Canada, 2011 Post-Election Report: Mind Your Majority, Eh? [Rapport postélectoral de 2011 : Occupez-vous de votre majorité, hein?], le 6 mai 2011, p. 6 2

McKellar introduced the concept of structured settlements in Canada in 1979. With almost 40 people at your disposal, we continue to set the standard today, providing safe, reliable, tax-free investment options for injured parties, while lowering claims costs.

McKellar... now you’re sure.

Billions of dollars invested, not a penny lost. The McKellar Structured Settlement™

McKellar__Penny_7.5 x 4.5.indd 1










4/28/11 9:38:56 AM

August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

SAVE THE DATE FOR: November 18, 2011 | 1pm-5pm The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto

Register Online:

• law Are students you hopingtotoexplore one dayopportunities retire and actually sell your practice? Symposium and Career Fair for new lawyers and in smaller firms and communities across the province. • Do you want to hire a law student or build your practice with a ne • Do you live in a wonderful community and want to encourage its success?

Why Should an Established Lawyer Like Me Attend? What is it?

• Promote the wonderful community you live and practise in. A Symposium and Career Fair for Law Students and New Lawyers to • Meet young lawyers interested in helping your practice grow or even buying it. with information and contacts to help them explore opportunities in • Watching your budget? It won’t cost you a penny – the event is FREE. and smaller communities throughout the province.

When and Where?

Why Should a New LawyerNovember Like Me Attend? 18, 2011 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. at The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto • Learn about work-life balance options available to you. Look for registration details in September. • Explore paths to success beyond Bay Street and closer to the cottage. • Did we mention, it’s FREE?

Why Should YOU Attend?

Presented by:

Workshops, networking, and attractive lifestyle options in fantastic Ontario communities await you.

It’s a great opportunity to connect with law students and young law across Ontario. It’s your chance to promote your practice, your com all of the reasons why you and your colleagues work and live there. Presented by:

Join us on Facebook (search Articling and Beyond) to take part in our exclusive programming poll and to find out about the programs on offer, the firms and practitioners attending, and other special updates.

Last year, registration sold out weeks in advance. Don’t be left out! Register Online:

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011



New OBA Class Actions Law Section Sylvie Rodrigue

I am thrilled to announce the creation of the OBA Class Action Law Section, and encourage everyone interested by this fascinating practice area to join. Since the Class Proceeding Act was enacted in 1992, ours has been among the fastest growing areas of law in Ontario. Almost all mass torts, product liability, securities and anti-trust cases are litigated through the class actions process and not on an individual basis.

Recent cases include damage awards as high as $400 million. Although most cases used to settle after a certification order, a growing number of cases are now going to trial giving rise to new procedural and substantive law issues. The judiciary and the bar are developing experience in the manageability of large scale disputes through the class actions vehicle. This area of the law is constantly evolving. Decisions are being rendered on a weekly basis affecting the strategy that parties may want to adopt in their pending cases. The OBA’s newest section has grown out of the Class Actions Subcommittee of the Civil Litigation Section. In two short years, the subcommittee grew to include over 300 members. Recognizing the strong demand for professional development, networking and advocacy specific to this area of law, in March 2011 the OBA Board of Directors approved our proposal to mature into a full fledged section and we are now accepting our first official members.

Our section provides an important forum for members of the plaintiff and defence bar, as well as in-house counsel, and the judiciary to exchange insights and opinions on the development of class actions law.


Interest in class actions risk and exposures is not limited to litigation lawyers. Class actions present significant business and enterprise risks to many corporations. These cases often

involve issues of substantive law studied by lawyers practising in business, pensions and benefits, aboriginal, citizenship and immigration, health, securities, product liability, environmental, competition, labour and employment, constitutional, civil liberties, human rights, and franchise law. A dedicated class actions law section brings together all these lawyers and fosters a more focused dialogue on the issues unique to this area of practice.

Although class actions are litigated by a number of specialists, there are many lawyers whose class actions practice is a markedly smaller proportion of their practice. Our section will promote accessibility for new practice entrants whether young lawyers or more experienced lawyers. In-house corporate counsel have been asking for more continuing education and professional development in this area as most of them need to manage these massive, often multi-jurisdictional cases, on a daily basis. To date, one of the highlights of our continuing professional development programming has been the Annual OBA Class Actions Colloquium. This event has quickly developed into one of the two premier class actions conferences in Ontario, showcasing national and international speakers, and delivered at modest rates that guarantee greater access to OBA members compared to conferences provided by profit-making organizations. We are in the process of organizing the 2011 Colloquium, to be held on December 1st. Save the date as it will be a fantastic program! If you find yourself dealing with these issues, I would encourage you to join our section and begin benefitting from all we have to offer.

Sylvie Rodrigue practises primarily in commercial and civil litigation and has extensive experience in class action litigation. She is a partner with Norton Rose LLP in Toronto.

August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

Have your OBA Membership…and Sections too

Why Join Sections? It’s All About You. Advocacy Education Expertise Newsletters Awards Leadership

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

See page 12 for registration form

 11


2011-2012 Sections Renewal Join online at Discount pricing for 4 or more Sections see Full Name ____________________________________________________________ Organization __________________________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ SECTIONS

Aboriginal Law Administrative Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Business Law CCCA Toronto Chapter (Corporate Counsel) Charity and Not-For-Profit Law Citizenship and Immigration Law Civil Litigation Class Actions Law Constitutional, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Construction Law Criminal Justice Education Law Entertainment, Media and Communications Environmental Law Family Law Feminist Legal Analysis Franchise Law Health Law Information Technology and E-Commerce Insolvency Law Insurance Law International Law Labour & Employment Law Law Practice Management (LPM) Municipal Law Natural Resources and Energy Pensions and Benefits Privacy Law Public Sector Lawyers Real Property Law Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Sole, Small Firm and General Practice Taxation Law Trusts and Estates Workers’ Compensation Young Lawyers’ Division (YLD - $30 )




CBA-OBA # _______________________________________ Phone ____________________________________________ Fax _______________________________________________ Email _____________________________________________ NOTE: • You must be a CBA-OBA member in good standing to enroll in Sections • Section enrollment fees are non-refundable, nontransferable, and will not be pro-rated • Section benefits and activities begin in September and conclude in June CBA NATIONAL SECTIONS / CONFERENCES (NO CHARGE) ‰ Air/Space Law ‰ Competition Law ‰ Elder Law ‰ French Speaking Lawyers ‰ Intellectual Property ‰ Legal Profession Assistance ‰ Maritime Law ‰ Military Law ‰ Commodity Tax, Customs & Trade

* * * PRICES * * *

EACH SECTION (except YLD): $50.00 + $6.50 (HST) YLD SECTION ONLY $30.00 + $3.90 (HST) 40 years of age or younger or called to the Bar 10 years or less

HST# R100760495


Confused about your discount pricing? Complete our secure online enrollment form at for a correct calculation. You have the option of submitting online or printing a hard copy and sending by mail.

OBA’s Membership Directory: The Ontario Bar Association’s secure, online Membership Directory has been developed to further support the work of the association and to help Members find other Members, and is accessible to Members only by logging in behind the OBA “Members Only” wall at This directory includes Member name, firm, address, phone, fax and e-mail address (as indicated on this form), plus county and any registered Sections and active Committee affiliations. A print directory of key volunteers may also be produced for limited distribution and internal use. For further information about CBA’s and OBA’s treatment of personal information, please see our Privacy Policy at or By checking this box ‰, I DO NOT wish to be listed in OBA’s secure, online Membership Directory, accessible only to Members.





Total Charge:________________

Card# __________________________________________________________ Expiry: __________ Signature: _______________________________________________________________________ Faxed forms will not be processed unless accompanied by valid credit card number and expiry date. ‰ Cheque Enclosed (make cheque payable to Ontario Bar Association) Enquiries: 1-800-668-8900 or 416-869-1047 x 314 or x 315



Three ways to Enroll:

1. Join online at 2. By Fax to 416-869-1390 or 1-888-833-2580 3. By Mail: Ontario Bar Association 300-20 Toronto St - Toronto, ON M5C 2B8 Website:

August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

FOCUSED ImpaCt Companies 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 for a complete listing of private investigator licenses.

26 Briefly Speaking (Multi-tool)


2:51 PM

Page 1

Everything you need Together we have all the tools The TitlePLUS® Program works with you to help protect your clients from title risks.1 With the right tools we assist you, through our legal services coverage2, by reducing the inconvenience of dealing with a loss as the result of an error or omission in your real estate transactions. To ensure your clients get the most comprehensive coverage in one policy, take a look at the TitlePLUS Program, your Bar-related® real estate partner! PROTECTION AS GOOD AS IT GETS


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 for brokers 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.

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011


Congratulations to the June 2011 Calls to the Bar


August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

LImtenan Sobhy Mohamed Abd El Razik

Kathryn Lauren Beck

Idiat Afolake Busari

Cara Ann Cornacchia

Bekhzod Abdurazzakov

Shannon Elizabeth Beddoe

Jennifer Erin Butcher

Carolyn Ruth Cornford

Daniel Steven Ableser

Michael John Arthur Beeson

Jennifer Polina Butkus

Rosemary Deborah Cosentino

Chad Nicholas Aboud

Samreen Rabbani Beg

Erik William Bylsma

Eric George Costaris

Roberto David Aburto

John Stephen Beke

Bernard Clint Cadden

Julien Joseph Robert Maxime Côté

Pavlos Achlioptas

Darcy Keith Mathew Belisle

Nicholas Alexander Cake

Brian Evert Cox

David Adanja

Joel Gregoire Belisle

David Andrew Campbell

Michael Brandon Craig

Oluwabukola Oluwarotimi Adeoye

Keri Lynne Bennett

Fiona Francis Campbell

Hilary Robin Crangle

Nina Aggarwal

Steven Duane Bennett

Ryan Douglas Campbell

Joanna Leigh Creed

Shafaq Ahmad

Brittany Leigh Benning

Tiffany Noelle Ciarallo Canzano

Christopher Michael Crighton

Robert Mark Akman

Harley Edward Bernard

Andrew Omar Captan

Dylan James MacLeod Crosby

Daniel Albahary

Daniel Adam Bernstein

Liam Christopher Michael Nicholas Cardill

Eric Scott Crowe

Rebecca Zora Aleem

Rashmi Ramachandra Bhat

Julie-Anne Claudine Lise Cardinal

Gadhi Cruz

Maria-Antonietta Alfano

Domenic Nicolas Bianchi

Milena Cardinal

Xue Xun Cui

Kristen Farida Ali

Adrian Taras Bilyk

Avril M Cardoso

Ying Fang Cui

Maryla Ali

Heather Jane Bird

Timothy John Carre

Lisa Jean Culbert

Shelina Ali

Mark William Birdsell

Madeleine Anna Daisy Carter

Katherine Alicia Culver

Jacob Benjamin Allen

Danielle Celine Bisnar

Guillermo Andres Carvajal Gomez

Christopher William Cummins

Bradley Alexander Allgood

Rene Joseph Sanderson Bissonnette

Tyler Steven Leonard Casselman

David Albert Curry

Victoria Heather Allsopp

Christopher Patrick Harbour Bitonti

Rami Camille Chalabi

Amanda Pamela Dakouré

Sarra Hafidh Alsamarrai

Andrew Nicholas Black

Patrick Park Hay Chan

Alana Marie Daley

Ansam Al-Sarraj

Michael Gibson Blackburn

Theresa Suk-Ting Chan

Daniel Daniele

Byron Xavier Alvares

Ovidiu Cristian Blidariu

Victoria Caroline Esther Chapman

Natasha Simone Danson

Aisha Amjad

Diana Rebecca Bloom

James Kofi Chapman Nyaho

Sindura Mehnaz Dar

Darcy June Edith Ammerman

Sarah Joann Bode

Sarah Elizabeth Tinkham Charles

Jasmeet Kaur Dara

Arash Amouzgar

Jessica Marie Boileau

Aurina Arnab Chatterji

Cara Elizabeth Davies

Behrouz Amouzgar

Andrea Marie Bolieiro

Sunira Chaudhri

Elena Maryann Davies

David Andrew Anderson

Gillian Hope Bookman

Alfred Wing Fai Cheng

Jonathan Christopher Despres Davies

Devin John Halton Anderson

Harpinder Singh Boora

Grace Tin Wai Cheng

Jill Christine Davis

Sherri Ann Anderson

Corinne Hailey Bordman

James Roger Cheng

Kathleen Marie De Block

Roberto Salvatore Andreacchi

Morgan Clayton Borins

Harry Samuel Cherniak

Tasha Leinore De Freitas

John Albert Annen

Jonathan David Born

Anthea Yuen Ting Cheung

Adam Christopher De Luca

Jessica Crystal Antoine

Kathryn Ann Bortolussi

Sarika Chhabra

Emilia Anna De Somma

Kiel Pall Steinthorsson Ardal

Christine Youssef Rizk Boulos

Jamie Lynn Chiang

Heidi Faith de Vries

Tobi Laraba Aribido

Joe Warren Richard Bowcock

Jin Chien

Alexander James Reginald Dearham

Varoujan Chasins Arman

Janelle Ann Bowman

Nadia Sarah Chiesa

Jennifer Del Vecchio

Jonathan Mark Armitage

Cheryl Anne Boyd

Elmira Chimirova

Justin Joseph Dela Pena

Matthew Edgar Armstrong

Danielle Lee Boyd

Hoori Nora Chitilian

Mathieu Delorme

Melissa Lorie Arruda

Christopher Darren Boyko

Peter Cho

Varsha Nita Deokaran

Noah Michael Arshinoff

Ian Killoran Bradley

Gargi Chopra

Jean Benoît Joseph Jean Fernand

Ariane Joan Asselin

Amanda Nicole Branch

Joel David Chrolavicius

Dominique Deschamps

Troy Erin Robert Asselin

Craig Anthony Brannagan

Benjamin Chia Ming Chu

Michelle Lynne Desroches

Deepti Asthana

Adam Joshua Braun

Jillian Amanda Chuchryk

Amaninder Kaur Dhaliwal

Daniel Edward Attwell

Laura Dryden Brazil

Shelby Chung

Jagdeep Singh Dhaliwal

Vickramjeet Aujla

Julie Danielle Breau

Susannah J S Chung

Navjot Kaur Dhaliwal

Katherine Helena Aukema

Mathew Drew Brechtel

Robert Michael Church

Navnit Kaur Dhillon

Samuel Stephen Kenneth Ault

Geoffrey Hanson Breen

Brendan James Clancy

Stefania Antoniella Di Girolamo

Karen Olufunlola Ayanbadejo

Kevin Robert Bridel

Katherine Elizabeth Grace Clarey

Stephanie Elizabeth Di Giuseppe

Andrew Michael Sangster Baerg

Gordon Alexander Henry Bridge

Kyle Daniel Cleaver

Peter Adrian Di Lullo

Shahram Bahmadi Moghadam

Joelle Humphrey Briggs-Sears

Marie Theresa Clemens

Ana Filipa de Matos Dias

Michelle Janice Bain

Laura Suzanne Brittain

Rebekkah Ann Coburn

Steven William Karn Dickie

Nicholas Charles Baker

Emilie Rafaelle Brouzes

Anne Louise Cole

Eleonora Dimitrova

Marta Natalia Balcewicz

Fiona Sioban Brown

Jenna Lacey Colle

Feruza Djamalova

Christopher Ball

Patrick McDonald Bruce

Aimee Frances Collier

Matthew Ryan Dobbie

Lindsay Karla Bandini

Lia Joyce Bruschetta

Antoine L Collins

Gregory Frank Dobney

Shazia Banduk

Robert Paul Brykman

Kristi Janene Collins

Karma Phintso Dolkar

David Edwin Lightfoot Barbaree

Erin Lynn Buchner

Raffaela Commodari

Mesha-Gaye Roseanne Donaldson

Ashlee Lorraine Barber

Ren Richard Bucholz

Serban-Alexandru Constantin

Brendan Christopher Sean Donovan

Meital Bar-Dayan

Jonathan Joseph Roger Paul Bujeau

Javier Gonzalez Consuegra

Brian Myles Doody

Jennifer Sarah Barnes

Sharon Ashley Burnett

Michael Alexander Cook

Caitlin Elizabeth Ann Dooley

Timothy Charles Barrett

Jason Alexander Robert Burns

Andrew Kenneth Cooley

Norah Gail Dorcine

Yulia Barsky

Laura Jane Bursell

Niall Eoin Cooney

Valérie Suzanne Doré

Cecilia Marion Bastedo

David Alexander Burton

Jean-Michel Louis Corbeil

Kevin Luke Dorgan

Lyne Claire Marie Beauchamp

Christopher James Bury

Beverley Gayle Cormier

Christina Iva Doria

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011


David Baptista dos Reis

Oliver Adrian Fleck

Nathan Hayden Green

William Lee Hooper

Daniel Adam Doubilet

Yadira Ileana Flores Flores

Jonathan Ira Greenwald

Alison Michelle Hopkins

Eric David Doucet

Neil Louis Foley

Lucan Jay Gregory

Patricia Elyse Horak

Lindsay Susan Doyle

Erin Christine Fordyce

Avneet Kaur Grewal

Ismar Horic

Nigel Gregor D’Souza

David Wilson Foster

Rita Grewal

Malgorzata Gloria Horoszko

Eric Ludger Laurier Dube

Jessica Ashlin Foster

Lawrence Alexander Gridin

Daniel Israel Horovitz

David Mark Dudkiewicz

Sarah Irene Fountain

Lauren Leigh Grimaldi

Mahbod Hosseinian

Peter James Dueck

Matthew Jamie Fox

Peter Arthur Gross

Genevieve Anie Houle

Evan Clarke Duffy

Elizabeth Toy Win France

Colin Christopher Neil Grosskurth

Leigh Alexandra Elizabeth Hudson

Yolande Gisele Marie Dufresne

Stephanie Marguerite Franklin

Rebecca Carolyn Leibovici Grosz

Heather Chi-Wah Hui

David William Andrew Duggins

Ashley Lauren Frazer

Ajeet Kumar Grover

Samuel James Humphrey

Owen James Duguid

Eric Charles Freedman

Russell Donald Groves

Allison Laura Hune

Laurie Nadine Duke

Jessica Lynn Freedman

Viktoriya Gryshyna

Christine Grace Hunter

Diana Renuka Dukhia

Nathalie Freiman

Jesse Mark Guberman

James Patrick Hunter

Yuliya Dumanska

Jacob Nisson Friedman

Mary Auxi Guiao

Kevin James Alexander Hunter

Ashley Maria Dumouchel

Jonathan David Frydman

Sara Maude Eve Guillaumant-Fitzgerald

Jonathan Paul Hureau

Carolyn Lena Dunlop

James Duen-Nan Fu

Dustin Michael Gumpinger

Nawaz Hussainaly

Jonathan Mackenzie Dunlop

Stephanie Susanne Bauder Fujarczuk

Madhu Mitta Gupta

Joseph Matthieu Stéphane Hutt

Rebekah Catherine Dunsmore

Maddalena Louise Giovanelli Fuller

Adam James Guy

Kimberly Diane Hyslop

Marie-Frances Dupuis

William Eugene Hamilton Fyfe

David Alexander Hainey

Sharon Pamela Ilavsky

Torwoli Silverine Dzuali

Ryan Davis Bentley Gaikis

Shaheen Haji

William Mac Donald Chase Irwin

Graydon Andrew McLean Ebert

Mark Anthony Galati

Erin Ashley Hallock

Ilan Ishai

Andrew Julian Eckart

Andrew Nicholas Gallo

Anikka Hammett-Pugh

Atif Islam

Kelly Elizabeth Eckert

Iwona Ganczak

Rebecca Talia Hamovitch

David Stanislaw Jachimowicz

Megan Manon Sullivan Edmiston

Ratika Gandhi

Ioana Daniela Hancas

Christine Ann Victoria Jackson

Michael Julian Edmonds

Robert Justin Garay

Eti Hankin

Colin Alexander Jackson

Maureen Ruth Anne Edwards

Anthony-Daniel Garber

Carla Valarie Hanneman

Sarah Louise Jackson

Joshua David Elcombe

Adam James Garetson

Vanessa May Hansford

Jasmine Jadubir

Marie-Christine Nancy Eldridge

Leah Christine Garvin

Stephanie Moira Penelope Hare

Jason Jaspreet Singh Jagpal

Waleed Mohamed Medhat Elgohary

Porsha Lee Gauthier

Omar Ben-Asuf Ha-Redeye

Sanam Jalali- Naeini

Liam Hawrylo Soyko Ellis

Jeffrey Philip Gebert

Rishi Hargovan

Kathryn Meredith James

James Kurt Elsley

Jennifer Marie George

James Patrick Harnum

David Bruce Jamieson

Kevin Carwei Eng

Carolyn Maureen Gerbac

Meredith Amanda Harper

Kristin Julia Irene Jeffery

Karen Anna Barbara Ensslen

Amir Ghadaki

Gregory Phillip Harris

Laura Kathleen Jeffrey

Adam Jay Epstein

James Wolverton Gibson

Kelly Elizabeth Harris

Madison Elizabeth Anne Jeffrey

Daniel Ighogboj Etoh

Libby Frieda Gilbert

Chelsea Ann Harron

Stephanie Nicole Jeronimo

Lisa Germaine Anne Evans

James Alexander Gildiner

Salman Mahmood Hashmey

Natasha Lei Jimeno

Brandon Leigh Evenson

Gregory Casimir Gilhooly

Emily Dawn Hassin

Aidan Edward Johnson

Gillian Catherine Fahy

Kiran Gill

Carr Hatch

Jacquelyn Rae Johnson

Natalie Yolanda Falcomer

Kristina Dawn Gill

James Gregory Hawkins

Laura Anne Marguerite Johnson

Emily Lok-Yan Fan

Jonathan Michael Giraldi

Caitlin Elizabeth Healy

Matthew Allan Johnstone

Emily Yee-Chi Fan

Daniel Girlando

Aarika Cheryl Heath

Melissa Morgan Johnstone

Chi Lan Fang

Olivia Lisa Gismondi

Sean Douglas Richard Heeley

Cynthia Amanda Jones

Ahmed Nabil Farahat

Elena Gladkykh

Michael Douglas Heikkinen

Janice Sharon Joo

Arezou Farivar-Mohseni

Benjamin Matthew Gliksman

Joseph Kupfert Heller

Jennifer Ju

Claire Kathryn Farmer

Helena Gluzman

Blaine Joseph Thomas Henderson

John Michael Juba

Erin Dawn Farrell

Maria Anna Golarz

Joel Daniel Henderson

Joseph Juda

Alanna Justine Fedak-Tarnopolsky

Elie Kevin Goldberg

Bradley Michael Hennick

Tyler Anthony Kaczmarczyk

Melissa Jeanette Fedsin

Joshua Michael Goldberg

Pierre-Alexandre Joseph Carol Daniel Henri Catherine Rebecca Kahn

Lisa Rachel Feldstein

Raquel Elizabeth Kaplan Goldberg

Jesse Ryan Herman

Andrew Anthony Kalamut

Caitlin Elizabeth Fell

Kelly Ngoc Phuong Goldthorpe

Stephanie Susanna Hermans

Christine Joanne Kallikragas

David Alexander Fenicky

Laura Elizabeth Gomez

Robert Neil Hester

Kostantinos Kalogiros

David Fenig

Mathew Patrick Good

Natalie Daria Hetmanczuk

Susanna Margaret Kam

Jessica Emily Fenson

Patricia McDonnell Goodman

Don Romesh Hettiarachchi

Sébastien Armand Kamayah

Christopher Donald Francois Ferguson

Sarah Nicole Goodman

James William Hinton

Sepideh Kamyabi-Nassabi

Donald David Stewart Ferguson

Heidi Alicia Gordon

Carl Hinzmann

Jeffrey Jie Kang

Michelle Sharon Fernandes

Boris Goryayev

Gabriel Hin-Fung Ho

Maxim Kaploun

Laura Fernandez

Caitlin Eloise Gossage

Tracy Nicole Hobson

Sofia Karantonis

Danna Samantha Fichtenbaum

Amara Nicole Gossin

Peter William Chapman Hockin

Canni Paula Kargas

Carly Jessica Fidler

James Alexander Gotowiec

Steven Justin Hoffman

Christopher George Peter Karpacz

Lisa Lynn Fineberg

Jason William Norris Gottlieb

Pamela Cecilia Hofman

Benjamin Marc Kates

Thomas Sinclair Finlay

Jessica Clare Grant

Daniel Charles Hohnstein

Bram Solomon Kaufman

Trevor Stephen Fisher

Nicholas Steven Gray

Gavin Nicholas Craig Alexander Holder

Jacob Benson Kaufman

Christina Wray Fitzmaurice

Simon Alexander Gray-Schleihauf

Asher George Honickman

Katherine Sarah Hobbs Kaufman


August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

Pamindar Kaur Hayer

Andrew Michael Lanouette

William Adam Loyens

Carolyn Lucy Mc Kenna

Heather Kathleen Hamilton Keachie

Jordana Michelle Laporte

Kevin Peter Ludgate

Heather Jaclynn Mc Knight

Eileen Mary Keast

Melanie Anne Larock

Brian Matthew Ludlow

Emilie Elizabeth Mc Lachlan

Rajan Kehar

Jessica Aileen Latimer

Christina Licursi Luison

Alexander Nicholas Mc Nabb

Catherine Maura Kehoe

Annie Shuk-Ying Lau

Tamarah Louise Luk

Kenneth Andrew Mc Nair

Colin James Kelly

Jennifer Kar Yan Lau

Birute Luksenaite

Ryan Paul Robert Mc Neil

Matthew Thomas Kelly

Tiffany Sarah Wai-May Lau

Patrick Wojtek Lupa

Tyler Blair McAuley

Gerard Joseph Kennedy

Mercedes Margaret Dorner Lavoy

Caroline Sheila Lutes

Michelle Lee McBride

Alyssa Keon

Andrew Stephen Law

Naomi Mary Lutes

Daniel James McCabe

Courtney Lauren Keystone

Matthew Robert Law

Jennifer Cassandra Luu

Donald Norman McClean

Ali Zamir Khan

Alanna Inga Lawson

Jessica Nicole Lyn

Joel Philip McCoy

Hajra Fatima Khan

Jonathan Erik Laxer

Daniel John Lynde

Kerry Kathleen McGladdery Dent

Janelle Antoinette Khan

Linh Hong Le

Douglas James Mac Con

David John McKenna

Shahana Khan

Flora Thi Nhân-Trung L

Megan Keely Wellsman Mac Donald

James Christopher McKeown

Angela Julie Khoury

Meagan Thelma Le Page

Peter Lauchlin Mac Innes

Jeffrey Robin McLaughlin

Christina Khoury

Michael Richard Kenneth Leaver

Ian Bryce Mac Leod

Colin Daniel McMorrow

David Hyun Kim

Larry Martin Lebovits

Gillian Elizabeth Mac Neil

Angus James McNeil

Melissa Min Seon Kim

Kimberly Meghann Lederri

Paul Macchione

Lindsy Kay McNicoll

Stephanie Elizabeth King

Margot Marie Genevive Leduc

Robert Bruce Macdonald

Lindsay Megan McPhee

Natalie Victoria Kingston

Cheng Ning Lee

Thomas Michael MacKay

Kerry Lee McVey

Megan Elise Kinsella

Soo Jin Lee

Jonathan Maurey Mackenzie

Carol Setrak Mechedjian

Daniel John Kirby

Chantal Joanne Lefebvre

Jennifer Ashley Macko

Ian Francis Henry Medcalf

Ashleigh Breann Kirincich

Julia Lauren Lefebvre

Eden Charmaine Maher

Esmaeil Mehrabi

Jennifer Wai-Cee Kirton

Thomas Joseph Louis Legault

Jian Yu Mai

Andrew Lawrence Mercer

Ilya Kirtsman

Patrick Douglas LeGay

Sandra Maria Maio

Danielle Megan Buhay Mercredi

Reshma Prem Kishnani

Fiona Elizabeth Legere

Candace Man-Ying Mak

Kaitlin Julia Watson Meredith

Robert Martin Kleinman

Jonathan Gary Leibtag

Ryan Johnathon Mak

Annie Messerkhanian

Christie Jeannine Kneteman

Corwin Raymond Leifso

Georgette Makhoul

Pawel Mielcarek

Rachel Kocsis

Serena Mary Lein

Michelle Marie Malecki

Cristina Gratiela Mihalceanu

Joy Kohli

Ryan Christopher Lennox

Paras Malhotra

Chelsea Anne Miller

Hannah Kohn

Anne Carina Lentsch

Jason Philip Mallory

James Michael O’Hara Miller

Brian Kolenda

Molly Claire Leonard

Nicholas Patrick Malone

Jonathan Paul Miller

Lindsay Brooke Jusko Konkol

Ashley Dawn Lepine

Kirandeep Mand

Tara Marie Mimnagh

Robin John Koshy

Andrea Starr Levans

Rashesh Mandani

Maryam Mirkhond Chegini

Adam Joseph Kosnick

Karen Deborah Levin

Michael Anthony Mandarello

Ahsan-Uddin Mirza

Christopher Bradley Joseph Coughlin Kostoff Laura Felicia Levine

Alexandra Anna Marie Mann

Melody Mirzaagha

Jacqueline Rae Kotyk

Jonathan Adam Levitan

Jennifer Joanne Mannen

Michael Robert Misener

Olga Olegovna Koubrak

Zohar Rebecca Levy

Alexandra Louise Manthorpe

Gregory Dale Miskie

Lisa Jennifer Koverko

Hoi Kay Li

Zaynah Marani

Christopher Paul Missiuna

Aaron Loren Kreaden

Hongbin Li

Jared Daniel March

Timothy Michael Mitchell

Arun Sainath Krishnamurti

Jeff Jiehui Li

Victoria Margolin

Maja Mitrovic

Jennifer Alexis Krob

Pei Li

Jonathan Joseph Marin

Juliet Soraya Mohammed

Harley Marc Kruger

Simon Li

Michael David Marin

James Stephen Monier-Williams

Brian Lewis Kuchar

Matthew Vincent Liberatore

Christina Maria Martin

Andrew John Montague

Michelle Rachel Kudlats

Michael Jonathan Lieberman

Shane Christopher Martinez

Elizabeth Frances Montpetit

Shambavi Kumaresan

Stefanie Ann Ligori

Jacqueline Louisa Masse

Daniel Bernard Moore

Priya Natasha Kunan

Justin Paolo Cortes Lim

Dino Gianfranco Massimi

Eli Kae Moore

Fahreen Kurji

Jennifer Marie Lin

Darrell Brandon Mast

Jordan Garth Angelo Morelli

Michael David Kutner

Joanna Lindenberg

Giselle Mary Matin

Andrew James Richards Morgan

Stephanie Sim Man Kwan

John Hugh Frederick Lindsay

Francesca Eugenia Mattacchione

Cynthia Monica Morgan

Daniel La Gamba

Eli Isaac Lipetz

Tamara Rosemary Maurer

Eric Douglas Wilton Morgan

Anthony James LaBar

Matthew Nicholas Lippa

Helen Mayer

Tamara Andrea Morgenthau

Anas Maritza Labelle Lussier

Aleksandra Lipska

Cornelia P Mazgarean

Karen Fujiko Morimoto

Alexandra Patricia Lacko

Thomas Rounthwaite Lipton

Barbara Agnieszka Mazur

David Michael Watson Morlog

Neil Francois Louis Lacroix

Adam Christopher Lis

Marcus Finley Mazzucco

Kristen Anne Marion Morris

Danielle Francine Marie Lafleur

Laura Kathleen Little

Carolyn Marie Mc Carney

Adriana Marisa Morrison

Ryan Michael Johnathan Lake

Shane Blair Litvack

Michael James Douglas Mc Clurg

Megan Johanne Mossip

Safina-Zareen Lakhani

Teri Yuen Tung Liu

Melissa Dawn Mc Cormick

Meva Vasant Motwani

Chau Yee Lam

Jennifer Ka Ming Lo

Fraser Austin Mc Cracken

Qian Mou

Harvey Hoi-Wai Lam

Rudi Morris Lof

Brendan John Mc Cutchen

David Mousavi

Hay Man Laura Lam

Amy Margaret Long

Mark Lyndon Mc Dermid

Robert James Acram Moyse

Soloman Lam

Catherine Joanne Longo

Meaghan Elizabeth Mc Dermid

Ahmad Nosrat Mozaffari

Monique Claire Lampard

Matthew Grant Longo

Derrick Bradford Mc Intosh

Danielle Natalie Mulaire

Justin Peter Daniel Lang

Guylaine Marie Monique Loranger

Ryan Robert Mc Keen

Bradley Glen Mullen

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011


Johanna Elizabeth Murdock

John Andrew Pankiw-Petty

Steven Bram Raphael

Maria Sagan

Noorin Murji

Sig Pantazis

Nazanin Rassouli

Maithili Sagar

Samir A Murji

Katherine Park

Mohammad Omar Raza

Sabha Sajjad

Shane Patrick Murphy

Sarah Jane Parkinson

Maxmillian James Reede

Stephanie Alexandra Sales

Shannon Lyndsey Murphy

Anthony William Paslat

Mehreen Rehman

Candace Rose Salmon

Blake Sanford Riley Murray

Michael Joseph Pass

Darnette Petrina Reid

Laura Elizabeth Salvatori

Stuart Cameron Murray

Samir Chandrakant Patel

Terry Adam Reid

Michael Helmy Sami

Roman Jurij Myndiuk

Sheryl Patel

Vanessa Diane Reid

Esra Samli

Kendra Ann Naidoo

Alisa Renée Patterson-Lombard

Alexander Scott Reyes

Robert Sampson

Sheena Leisha Naidoo

Devon Michael Paul

David Paul William Reynolds

Claude Marie Annie Samson

Sharon Andrea Naipaul

Faith Paul

Sarah Brigitte Reynolds Repka

Guy Joseph Sanders

Christopher Sunghyun Nam

Kimberley Dawn Pearce

Sam Rezvani

James Richard Sanders

Ryma Nasrallah

David-Mordechai Pearl

Yalda Riahi

Dilraj Singh Sandhu

Christina Iskandar Nassar

Jeffrey Alexander Peck

Marie-Andrée Jolne Richard

Maithri Manoharan Sanmugam

Maya Ann Hall Nathwani

Margaux Anne Peck

Patrick Ryan Riesterer

Francesco Salvatore Santaguida

Stephen James Nattrass

Gary Marc Peires

Andrea Danielle Rigobon

Jordan Matthew Louis Saperia

Kubeskaran Navaratnam

Eric Pascal Pelot

Neil Walter Riley

Alexander Edward Lamont Sarabura

Tanya Elise Nayler

Colin David Pendrith

Andrea Richard Rinaldi

Stephen William Sargent

Katherine Mary Nelson

Alison Lee Pengelley

Liliana Ripandelli

Dharsa Sathiananthan

Avrum Isaac Neuwirth

Kanata Ann Penn-Maracle

Darlene Miranda Rites

Malcolm Johannes Cornelis Savage

Debra Anne Newell

Jeffrey Michael Simon Petermann

Andrew Montgomery Robb

Daniel Steve Savoie

Catherine Mary Newnham

Kelly Donzelle Peters

Katelyn Luanne Robertson

Pierre-Olivier Stanislass Savoie

Zachary Jacob Newton

Sarah Patricia Petersen

Laroux Peoples Robertson

Tamara Paulina Scarowsky

Emily Yun-Yun Ng

Paula June Pettit

Sarah Ann Robicheau

Claudia Anne Schmeing

Lizbeth Patricia Ng

Clara Tu-Anh Xuan Pham

Kathryn Mary Robinson

Tasha Prasad Schmidt

Hue Nguyen

Ellen Phan

Laura Elizabeth Robinson

Ariel Schneider

Thi Hoang Mai Nguyen

Diane Phatsaphaphone

Heather Erin Robson

Jessica Sarah Rose Schnurr

Razvan-Laurentiu Nicolae

Josianne Marie Claudine Phénix

Gianfranco Rocca

Tara Helen Schuck

Adrian Alexander Nicolini

Bradley Peter Phillips

Joseph Brian Rochon

Melissa Stefanie Schulman

Brady Daniel Nielsen

John Stuart Philpott

Rebecca Nehama Rivka Rodal

Christopher Wilhelm Schulz

Richard Arthur Niman

Sherilyn Joy Pickering

Natalia Ula Rodriguez

Sylvia Schumacher

Robert James Ninham

Kenneth Pimentel

Anna Rolbin

André Marshall Schutten

Edward James Noble

Sabrina Frances Pingitore

Kylee Michelle Ronning

Neil Alexander Schwartz

Shana Elaine Nodel

Carlos Miguel De Araujo Silva Pinho Da Cruz David Anthony Vincent Rosati

Adrian Jeffrey Scotchmer

Jennifer Lindsay Normand

Sevinge Sigal Pinkhasov

Michelle Alanna Rosenstock

Peter Christopher Joseph Scotchmer

Mark Robert John Northcott

Laura Mical Pizzale

Richard Terry Roskies

Dylan Michael Scott

Stephen Nicholas Oakey

Carole Plourde

Genevieve Leila Ross

Lindsay Sarah Scott

Stephanie Jennifer O’Brien

Tara J Pobihushchy

Isaac Caley Ross

Michaelin Daria Kiperchuk Scott

Shannon Sheleyne Wein O’Connor

Gabriel Christophe Poliquin

Jordan David Ross

Samantha Lee Scott

Lindsay Dawn Offner

Silas Roy Polkinghorne

Matthew James Ross

Samantha Charlotte Seabrook

Sarah Margaret O’Grady

Kristen Hallyburton Pollock

Andrea Christine Rossanese

Paul Charles Rickey Seaman

Bolajoko Olufunmilayo Ogunmefun

Kamila Barbara Polus

Benjamin James Rossiter

Joel Alexander Secter

Meghan Elizabeth Wynter O’Halloran

Michael Geoffrey Onelio Polychuk

Dana Beth Rotenberg

Mandeep Kaur Sehmbi

Thomas Ernest O’Hara Kimball

David Alexander Potter

Stuart Michael Rothman

Amanda Jeanette Sellers-Mc Caw

Okechukwu Princeton Ojiegbe

Jeffrey Scott Potter

Nardine Nashaat Magdy Naguib Roufaiel

Kamaldeep Singh Sembi

Conor Thomas O’Keefe

Kimberly Ellen Potter

Mélanie Marguerite Marie Roy

Anastasia Semenova

Orla Josephine O’Kelly

Alissa Honey Powell

Sanjay Roy

Waragoda Mudalige Seneviratne

Tatsiana Okun

Wade Reginald Poziomka

Alexander Rozine

Sumir Sennik

Alaba Olabisi Olalere

Andrew Jeremy Prevost

Jessica Avra Rubin

Allison Diane Sephton

Erin Michelle OLeary

Lia Anne Marie Preyde

Ori Jeremiah Samuel Moshe Rubin

Miranda Eeva Serravalle

Adeyinka Oluwagbemisola Olusoga

Galyna Viktorivna Pribytkova

Jonas David Rubinoff

Ashley Ophira Shaffer

Sean Francis Oostdyk

Jennifer Prieto

Jenna Nicole Rucas

Shayan Shaffie

Paul Philip Opolski

Jessica Heather Wallace Prince

Charu Bharat Ruparelia

Nathan Joseph Shaheen

Jeremy Robert Opolsky

Viktoria Prokhorova

Joelle Davida Ruskin

Anna Abu Shahid

Matthew Albert Orchard

Nidhi Nandu Punyarthi

Nadine Catherine Russell

Sumaira Shahid Shaikh

Juan Diego Lopez Orellana

Anne Louise Pyke

Diana Russo

Miaomiao Shan

Michael Morris Orfus

Meredith Helen Rady

Tanya Marion Ryan

Sarah Ellen Shannon

Andrew Hugh Ottaway

Christopher Judd Rae

Shilpa Sabharwal

Maxim Gabriel Shapiro

Bernadine Adekemi Oye-Adeniran

Saran Ragunathan

Anne Sabourin

Anju Sharma

Alexandro Pace

Manraj Singh Rai

Michael David Saccucci

Rahul Varun Sharma

Palma Jean Paciocco

Ajay Ramkumar

Karin Sachar

Megan Louise Shaw

Margaret Sophy Pak

Anne Forrester Ramsay

Kenneth William Saddington

William Douglas Shaw

Mimi Ruth Palmer

Sanjaya Ruwan Ranasinghe

Alexandra Lauren Sadvari

Michael Jared Shedletsky

Francois Louis Paltrinieri

Sirpaul Kaur Randhawa

Michael Donald Saelhof

Shaan Zehra Sheerazi


August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

Kwang Hoon Shin

Leanne Catherine Storms

Essien Okon Udokang

Meghan Elizabeth Wilson

Michel Beth Shneer

Carly Marie Stringer

Sara Christine Ulmer

Neil George Douglas Wilson

Sanveer Singh Shoker

Junaid Kaleem Subhan

Uzondu Ruby Umoren

Nicholas Bryson Wilson

Alysha Faith Shore

Radha Lakshmi Subramanian

Matthew Shane Urback

John David Holmes Wires

Robert Jonathan Shore

John Douglas Sulman

Alexandra Maria Urbanski

Rebecca Lynn Wise

Pamela Jeanette Martin Sidey

Crystal Xue Han Sun

Mercy Itohan Uwabor

Mieszko Jozef Wlodarczyk

Gagan Sikand

Yi Sun

Adriana Maria Vaduva

Serena Jenna Wolfond

Daniel Wayne Simard

Murugha Sundararajan

Radhika Vaidyanathan

Melissa Ann Won

Nicole Catherine Simes

David Murray Sundin

Michael Asher Valo

Jody Joyce Wong

Brianne Lynn Simionati

Tatha Michelle Carolyn Swann

James Joannes van Diepen

Lindsay Julia Wong

Taryn Lee Simionati

Lynne Erica Sweeney

Eric Adrian van Eyken

Vivien Man Li Wong

Iris Simixhiu

Brian William Sweigman

Michael William Vanoostveen

Christine Wong-Chong

Marc Alexander Simonik

Patricia Mary Swerhone

Ioana Vatavu

Peter Michael Woods

Heather Lynn Simpson

Alison Carita Sykora

Karine Amélie Lorraine Veilleux

Jason Joseph Woolmer

Trisha Nicole Simpson

Barbara Ann Tanya Madeleine Symianick Stacey Jean Venasse

Matthew Evelyn Wright

Amardeep Singh

Katherine Marie Carroll Symonds

Stephanie Lynn Venne

Samantha Ellen Wu

Angad Dev Singh

Zuzana Szasz

Cindy Lee Vergara

Fadi Yachoua

Shereen Kaur Singh

Lukasz Szymura

Sanjay Kumar Verma

Tina Qi Yang

Aarani Sinnadurai

Jack Ira Tadman

Nicole Anne Vigneault

Robert Benjamin Yasskin

Ananthan Sinnadurai

Heley Taitlbaum

Miriam Villamil

Lianna Yeung

Andrea Yuen-Ting Siu

Anthony Chun-Pong Tam

Joanna Christina Eva-Marie Vince

William Yoon

Daniel Lim Siu

Joyce Choi Sei Tam

Danielle June Marie Vincent

Aliki Yorgiadis

John Andrew Siwiec

Arthur Liangfei Tan

Okechukwu Benjamin Vincents

Kun Yue

Cara Breanne Sklar

Eileen Priscilla Tan

Julia Lauren Virzi

Pulat Yunusov

Thomas St John Gordon Slade

Isaac Kwok Lam Tang

Jelena Vlacic

Shushanik Zakaryan

Steven Bret Slavens

Tushar Tangri

Andre Michael Vogl

Bradley Douglas Gunnar Zander

Amanda Cristen Smallwood

Robert David Tarantino

Terrance Grant Wagman

Jan-Wojciech Zawisza

Aileen Katherine Smith

Laura Claire Tausky

Eric David Otto Wagner

Rachel Leah Zeliger

Nathaniel Bruce Erskine Smith

Parham Tavajohi Fini

Laura Michelle Wagner

John Warren Eugenio Zerucelli

Nathaniel Peter Adam Smith

Andree Danielle Taylor

Rachel Fern Waks

Chun Wai Zhang

Scarlet Laurie Smith

Shaneka Taylor

Erin Jennifer Wallace

Yu Heng Zhang

Kathryn Leah Smithen

Mary Elizabeth Tersigni

John Benjamin Tyler Wallwork

Sandra Xue Zhao

Jessica Anne Smuskowitz

Justin David Tetreault

Adrian Diane Walrath

Zahra Ziaie Moayyed

Yana Rae Sobiski

Bobby Thomas Thakolkaran

Caihong Wang

Dominique Giselle Zipper

Ryan Kevin Solomon

Caroline Marie Claudette Théberge

Pema Choden Wangdi

Matthew Justin Zuk

Shalinder Singh Somal

Caroline Marie Theriault

Jennifer Sarah Warford

Christopher James Somerville

Jennifer Anne Thomas

Carolyn Tiffany Michelle Warner

Gloria Mee-Rang Song

Anne Elizabeth Thompson

Renata Watkin

Samantha Dru Sonshine

Natalie Anne Thompson

Karen Claire Watters

Giancarlo Soppelsa

Colin James Thurston

Matthew Alexander Way

Jennifer Ashley Sorge

Anthony Christopher Tiberini

Lillian Ashley Christine Waye

Benjamin Yves Sormonte

Daniel Alexander Tiberini

Linsay Morgan Weis

Carolyn Michelle Sowerby

Jenna Michele Tiffin

Maya Weiss

Catherine Louise Spafford

Russell Grahame Tilden

Patrick Gregory Welsh

Chantelle Teresa Marie Spagnola

Emily Kang Yu Ting

Lindsey Katherine Weppler

Katharine Irene Spear

Nathan David Tischler

Jessica Esther Wertman

Miranda Elizabeth Spence

Carlo Christopher Tittarelli

Courtney Jennifer West

Josef Keenan Sprague

Sie Lung Tjew

Christine Natalie Westlake

Sheri Michelle Spunt

Jason Wayne Todoroff

Amanda Jane Wheat

Cynthia Jane Squire

Michael Danny Toshakovski

Emily Ann Gizhab Whetung

Erin Aileen St. James

Susan Tran

Jennifer Anne Whincup

Jonathan Crawford Stanley Stankiewicz

Alexandra Jennifer Tratnik

Patrick Francis White

Christopher William Statham

Claire Maree Tremblay

Kenneth Murray Whitelaw

Signy Diana Steckel

Lindsey Elizabeth Trevelyan

Gregory Paul Whitelock

David William Steele

Matthew Edward Trim

Chloe Dupuis Whitfield

Laura Andreea Stefan

Jonathan Avery Troniak

Brian Richard Whitwham

Miriam Cara Stein

Melissa Wynne Tummon

Lauren Marie Wilhelm

Laurence Marie Cécile Madeleine Ste-Marie Eric Uri Turkienicz

Monika Wilk

Rachel Kathleen Stephenson

Caitlin Mary-Faith Turner

Kelda Jayne Williams

Erin Leigh Stevens

Oksana Turner

Meghan Alexandra Willis

Jennifer Maryon Stewart

Julia Elizabeth Turvey

Elliott Franklin Willschick

Mitchell Brian Stoddard

Caroline Twiss

Daniel Robert James Wilson

Annette Marie Stoehr

Trevor Joseph Tynan

Jacqueline Frances Wilson

Barry Steven Stork

Nickolas Nektarios Tzoulas

Matthew John Wilson

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011



LAWLESS Riots and the Role of Lawyers Nathalie Des Rosiers


here are some similarities between what happened in Vancouver after the crushing defeat of the Canucks and the fateful G20 weekend in Toronto just a year ago: a minority of people ruined it all for the others. Breaking windows is breaking the law and the offenders should be prosecuted, no matter what the event.

by a similar toxic combination of alcohol, violent rhetoric and bravado, a peaceful crowd can turn ugly and a riot emerges.

Unfortunately, riots are part of a certain sports culture. While inviting hockey fans to gather together downtown certainly brings revenues to local businesses, it also presents risks. Counting on the benefits of anonymity in a large crowd, hooligans can cause mayhem. Because of alcohol and adrenaline, they may succeed in precipitating a riot. The crowd loses control and a mob mentality ensues. This seems to have been the case in Vancouver.

Political protests are also infiltrated by people set on causing property damage. And at times, mobilized by anger, sustained 20

The Canadian Press/Christian Lapid

Nevertheless, there are important differences between the two events that ought not to be forgotten: both the events and the crowds were dissimilar and the policing was certainly of a different order.

This was not the case in Toronto. The large crowds never turned on the police and indeed often sat down, chanted and August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

FEATURE held peace signs. The property damage was extensive but it was perpetrated by a defined group of people. But the crowd could have lost it, say the defenders of the massive and punitive policing strategy.

Indeed, the most important difference between June 2011 in Vancouver and June 2010 in Toronto was the policing strategy. While the Vancouver police dispatched hundreds of police officers, there were close to 20,000 police officers in Toronto. More importantly, in Toronto, the police engaged in mass arrests, mass detentions, mass searches and violent disruptions of peaceful crowds. Even individuals on the streets as part of their daily routine were treated with suspicion and subjected to violations of basic rights. We do not know yet the full measure of the policing in Vancouver (a public inquiry has just been announced), but there were no large scale mass arrests.

The Canadian Press/Frank Gunn

The reason why policing at the G20 should be denounced is not only that it involved unconstitutional tactics such as mass arrests and mass detentions, but also that it was harsher and more punitive than other mass events. It is both ironic and frightening to think that people who have a political message are exposed to worse treatment at the hands of the authorities than other participants in large scale public events such as hockey celebrations or parades. Many protesters during the G20 wanted to express their disagreement over the lack of concern to poverty or environmental issues in the austerity message of the leaders. That they were subject to mass arrests, mass detention, illegal searches and violent disruptions of their peaceful activities is shocking. This is unacceptable in a democracy: the peaceful expression of dissent should be welcome, not silenced or policed out of existence. In highlighting the harsh treatment given to protesters, I am not advocating mass arrests for hockey riots, or that other violent police tactics should be used on fans. Rather, the policing approach ought to reflect the nature of the event, but always be bound by law. Respect for the law is essential to good policing and is the only guarantee of its legitimacy. There is no reason to abandon commitment to law and proportionality because of the actions of anarchists or hooligans: that is what they want.

The legal profession has a role in ensuring the continuing protection of the rule of law. It is one of its core responsibilities. Although a large group of lawyers are working to bring truth and accountability to policing excesses and abuses, it may be time for the profession to take a stand on these issues. If we tolerate police abuses when we see them, we are condoning their perpetration when we don’t. Unlawful actions by police officers cannot be left unchecked; it sends a message that the ends justify the means; that police can simply ask for forgiveness instead of working within the law. It is often the lawyers who must ask for this accountability, no matter how difficult, bureaucratic and unresponsive the process may be. The rule of law demands no less. Nathalie Des Rosiers is the general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

Social Media: The People are Watching Adam Nobody One of the highest profile cases of the Toronto G20, Adam Nobody was allegedly assaulted on two occasions by police at the June 26, 2010 G20 Queen’s Park demonstration. In the first incident, famously captured on film and posted to Youtube, Nobody is seen being brutally tackled to the ground then beaten by riot police. The province’s Special Investigations Unit inspected the video, and along with supporting evidence, identified Constable Babak Andalib-Goortani as one of the officers dressed in riot gear. In December 2010 Andalib-Goortani was charged with assault with a weapon.

Dorian Barton Toronto Police Const. Glenn Weddell was charged with assault causing bodily harm against Dorian Barton at the June 26, 2010 G20 Queen’s Park demonstration. While taking photos of police officers, Barton was allegedly struck by a police riot shield, knocked to the ground and then hit with a baton. His arm was broken. Video footage and several photographs were taken by civilian witnesses and submitted to the Special Investigations Unit. Eleven witness officers were asked to view the photographs, however none could identify the one officer whose face is visible, despite their close proximity. Due to a lack of identifying evidence, the case was dropped. In January 2010 the Toronto Police Service provided the name of the offending officer after zooming in on the badge number on the chest of his uniform. The SIU did not have the technology to perform this operation. Due to a lack of supporting evidence, the case was closed. In May of 2011, the SIU re-opened the case when the Toronto Police Service provided them the name of the identifying witness. With the statement from this witness, the SIU obtained reasonable grounds for charges. Disagree? Have your say. Write to the Editor. 21

The Legality of Education Martha Mackinnon


often observe the shock and dismay of lawyers starting their first education cases at what seems to them to be a system run for the convenience of board employees rather than for the benefit of students. Why are they so surprised? Surely lawyers remember their own school days when students were simply told to drop out—and they did. If lawyers are surprised by the limits of legal processes in Ontario schools, they can take comfort from the fact that some processes are more legalistic and formal in Ontario than in any other province.

In the case of Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board v. Grant 101 O.R. (3d) 252, a decision of the CFSRB was judicially reviewed and upheld. The divisional court decided to hear the application for judicial review despite the fact that the young person had completed high school by the time the matter reached the court, because of the guidance its decision would

Ontario badly needs more lawyers willing to act for parents and students in discipline matters.


In the “olden days” it was almost inconceivable that a family would seek an appeal or judicial review of a principal’s decision to suspend or to recommend expulsion. The Education Act now requires written notice of suspensions or proposed expulsions, including the right to appeal. The appeal process for suspensions and the hearing process for board expulsions is in the control of each school board although school board counsel will always have advised administrative law fairness. Expulsions can only result from a hearing held by the school board (trustees) or a committee of at least three members of the board. There is an appeal to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) which often takes the position that an appeal should be a hearing do novo, in part, at least because school board processes do not always seem fair, and in part because the young person’s life may have changed significantly since the time of the original suspension/expulsion decision. 22

provide to school boards across Ontario. In that case, the CFSRB and the court were critical of the principal’s investigation, speculations and process. The school board argued that deference was owed to the principal by the board and by the court when it conducted the expulsion hearing.

This argument was unsuccessful, with many of the court’s criticisms related to fairness. In addition, the court determined there must be limits to a principal’s capacity to discipline a student for off-school conduct. Section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act says that a principal can refuse to admit to a school or classroom a person whose presence would “in the principal’s judgement” be detrimental to the well-being of the students. This power to exclude students is subject to an appeal to the school board, but is not circumscribed by express criteria or a legislative code. My experience is that the provision is used much too widely, but boards August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

do not have to report exclusions to the Ministry of Education, as they do suspensions and expulsions, so the scope of the problem is not known with certainty.

Of the lawyers who practise in this area, all but a very few represent school boards. Parents and students frequently complain that “their” tax dollars pay for the school board to be represented, and often both the school board and the principal, but no representation is provided to the student. This imbalance adds to their perception that the process is skewed in favour of the school and nothing can be done about it. Ontario badly needs more lawyers willing to act for parents and students in discipline matters. The challenge, apart from comfort with the area of law, is that the majority of parents who feel empowered enough to be upset about the treatment of their children are of middle income and sometimes feel that lawyers are unaffordable.

posed to provide according to the IEP. While identifications and placements are appealable, services and programs are not. There are some Special Education Tribunal decisions that indicate if a service is truly integral to the appropriateness of a placement, it becomes part of the placement and, therefore, appealable. Human Rights

Human rights law frequently affects both student discipline and special education decisions. Education is a service which must not be delivered in a discriminatory way. Because a discriminatory effect is as prohibited as a discriminatory intent, it may be unlawful to punish a student with an Attention Deficit Disorder diagnosis for failing to pay attention in the same way as a student with no disability diagnosis.

Special Education

Ontario has the most formally legislated, regulated, multitiered approach to special education in Canada. The process begins when a parent or principal asks for an Identification Placement Review Committee (IPRC) to determine whether a child is exceptional. An IPRC consists of at least three people appointed by the board. It decides whether a pupil is exceptional and if so defines the exceptionality. It also decides the placement (educational setting) for the child. If asked, it will also make recommendations with respect to the programs and services needed by the student. If the parent agrees with the decisions (or is silent), the principal (or designate) will develop an Individual Education Plan (IEP) which will set out the programs and services the school will deliver to support the student’s needs.

If the parent (or student 16 or older, living independently) does not agree with the decisions, there is an appeal to the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) which consists of three people appointed by the parents and board. The SEAB does not make decisions, but rather, recommendations to the school board. If the parent does not agree with the school board’s decision with respect to the SEAB recommendations, there is an appeal to Ontario’s Special Education Tribunal. Its decisions are final and binding on the school board. Despite the apparent justiciability of special education issues, most conflicts between home and school do not relate to the identification of a student. Usually there is a psycho-educational assessment diagnosing a student as having a learning disability or ADHD. Sometimes school boards are reluctant to convene an IPRC and formally identify a child, either because they think an identification is a stigmatizing label or because they do not wish to be held to all of the requirements of the formal process, including reviews at least annually, or because they have a wait list for assessments and the services expected to be necessary when identification is complete. But the legislation is clear; if a parental request for an IPRC is made, it is the board’s legal obligation to hold one and to provide appropriate services in the meantime. The decision about classroom placement can be contentious, however the majority of disputes between school boards and families relate to the services and supports the school is supBriefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

Education is the day job of young people; it is their work. They do not get paid for it and are required by law to attend. Lawyers have a role to play in ensuring that young people in our schools are recognized as true stakeholders in the education system, and that they are provided with the opportunity to realize their potential and develop into highly skilled, knowledgeable, caring citizens. Martha Mackinnon is the executive director of Justice for Children and Youth and the chair of professional development of the OBA. She has been practising education law for almost 25 years.


“I Have to OK My Surgery, But Nobody Asks Where I Want to Live” John P. Schuman and Suzanne Clarke

Children must consent to medical treatment, but they may never be heard in family court For at least fifteen years, Ontario Law has required doctors and other health care providers to get consent for treatment of children. Throughout the province of Ontario, some medical teams have consulted with young children about their medical issues, in order to obtain their consent for medical procedures. However, decisions regarding the child’s care are not easy. They are tough decisions about complex illnesses and injuries. But, even young children receiving treatment in hospitals may know more about their illness and treatment, than most adults. Therefore, many health care professionals expect that they will work together with children to make the treatment decisions. Compare that approach with that taken in family court, where even though the governing statutes require the court to consider a child’s views and preferences, there is strong reluctance to do so. Children know their parents, their homes and their family situation. However, most people assume that children understand those family concepts more readily than medical procedures such as chemotherapy, catheterization and blood transfusions. Therefore, although Ontario Law requires children to participate in their health care decisions, children are often placed at the periphery of other important decisions such as with which parent they will reside. Children’s Role in Health Care Decisions

Outside of hospitals and pediatricians’ offices, many people assume that parents, and not kids, make the decisions regarding health care. But, the opposite is true. In fact, some medical 24

teams view it as critically important to the treatment process that children be informed participants in the decision making processes. That same belief is reflected in the law, which mandates that kids who are able to direct their treatment do so. Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, SO 1996, c-2. (“Consent Act”) does not impose any age restrictions on making medical decisions. Instead, the ability to understand the treatment is the critical determinant. Section 4(1) of the Consent Act states,

A person is capable with respect to a treatment, admission to a care facility or a personal assistance service if the person is able to understand the information that is relevant to making a decision about the treatment, admission or personal assistance service, as the case may be, and able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.

Sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Consent Act creates the presumption that people, including children, are able to direct their own treatment unless there is evidence to contrary. Further, not understanding a complex medical decision, and therefore not having capacity in that instance, does not mean a child cannot make other treatment decisions. In fact, section 15(1) of the Consent Act states that children are entitled to direct the treatment they do understand, even if they cannot direct the treatment they do not understand. Further, section 15(2) states that as children gain better understanding as they grow, they are entitled to have their capacity to direct treatment reassessed. August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

The issue of children directing their medical treatment was addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision of A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services, 2009 SCC 30, [2009] 2 SCR 181. In that case, a fourteen year old girl and her parents appealed the order that the girl receive a blood transfusion despite the fact that she signed a medical directive containing her written instructions not to be given blood under any circumstances. After the girl refused to consent to the receipt of blood, the Director of Child and Family Services apprehended her as a child in need of protection, and sought a treatment order from the court under s. 25(8) of the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act, CCSM 1985, c. C-8. Section 25(8) allows the Court to authorize a medical treatment that the court considers to be in the best interests of the child.

At first glance, this may seem like a “no brainer” to some readers- shouldn’t the hospital’s decision be given precedent considering the girl is a minor, and may not fully understand the implications of her decision? To these readers, the Supreme Court would respond, “not necessarily”. Justice Abella writing for the majority of the Court explained that when dealing with medical decisions of children under the age of 16, emphasis should be placed on the child’s maturity. She stated that when dealing with children under 16, the more a court is satisfied that a child is capable of making a mature, independent decision on his or her own behalf, the greater the weight that will be given to his or her views when a court is exercising its discretion under s. 25(8) of the Act. Furthermore, when considering the best interests of the child, Justice Abella held that the court should evaluate the following factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

 he nature, purpose and utility of the recommended medT ical treatment and its risks and benefits; The adolescent’s intellectual capacity and the degree of sophistication to understand the information relevant to making the decision and to appreciate the potential consequences; The stability of the adolescent’s views and whether they are a true reflection of his or her core values and beliefs; The potential impact of the adolescent’s lifestyle, family relationships and broader social affiliations on his or her ability to exercise independent judgment; The existence of any emotional or psychiatric vulnerabilities and the impact of the adolescent’s illness on his or her decision-making ability and, Any other relevant information from adults who know the adolescent.

Therefore, once a child demonstrates that they appreciate and understand the implications of their decision, a court could endorse their decision even if the decision is contrary to that of the relevant medical personnel. But With Simple Family Law Decisions, Kids Have Less Say

understands medical decisions and follow their direction if the child does. Similarly, the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 64 states that Ontario judges making custody and access decisions have the authority to meet with children. However, this is rarely done. In fact, in his article titled, “Representing Children in Custody & Access Proceedings”, Family Law: The Voice of the Child (Toronto, LSUC, 2009), Dan Goldberg explained that The Office of the Children’s Lawyer does not believe that meeting with children is appropriate, despite the requirement that the judge consider the child’s views and preferences under the Children’s Law Reform Act. Consider the divergent case law on whether a child’s view matters in family court:

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. K ., 2005 CanLII 16595 at para 12: The trial judge ordered custody to a parent with whom three children, ages 13, 9 and 7 did not want to live. The 13-year old was found to be a “parentified child” whereby his needs were sacrificed in order to take care of the needs of his parents. This factor combined with his special needs, led the judge to determine that he was not mature enough to understand the impact of his decision. Kincl v. Malkova, 2008 ONCA 524 (CanLII) at para3: The Ontario Court of Appeal, based upon fresh evidence introduced at the appeal, concluded that a 14-year old daughter, who had not seen her father since November of 2005, did not want to have access, and observed, “ … Veronica is almost 14 years of age and her views are entitled to considerable weight; in reality she will do what she wishes in any event and the absence of access over the past almost three years seems to confirm her views in that regard, at least for the present time.” Walker v. Baker, 2010 NSSC 440 (CanLII) at para 25: Justice Dellapinna refused to order a “strong willed” 12-year-old to see her father, and also refused to order the mother to provide further mental health treatment to address the breakdown of the child’s relationship with her father, even though such treatment might have been helpful.

Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII) at para 130: Justice Quinn refused to order access against the wishes of a 13-year-old, finding that the mother and her new partner “have engineered an alienation that is so complete as to leave the court with no feasible option.” Justice Quinn also declined to order counseling to repair the relationship between father and daughter. In hospitals, and other places where the Consent Act applies, if a child understands the decision, regardless of its complexity, that child’s decision carries the day. That is true even when the child’s parents and health care providers try to influence the child’s decision. In family law cases, where the decisions are usually much more straightforward, why does it appear that children’s wishes so much less important? John Schuman is head of the Family Law Group at Devry Smith Frank LLP in Toronto. Suzanne Clark is a student at Devry Smith Frank LLP.

Doctors and other health care professionals are required to at least meet with a child and consider whether that child Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011


Hockey—A Law Unto Itself Violence, racial slurs, underage drinking; James Morton explores the legal boundaries within our nation’s beloved sport.

James C. Morton Fifty-eight years ago a rookie teenaged defenceman died after a vicious hit from behind launched him head first into the boards. Just hours later his heartsick mother said: “It’s murder on ice.” The death of Bob Gillies led to a sensational trial in 1953; many thought it would change the culture of violence that often accompanies hockey. It did not. From racial slurs, to wrongful hits (remember Aaron Rome in the Stanley Cup), to out and out violence both on the ice and off, hockey has a terrible reputation. Smithers v. R. [1978] 1 S.C.R. 506 is the leading Canadian case on causation in manslaughter. Smithers is a hockey case.

On February 18, 1973, Smithers played in a hockey match during which he was subject to numerous racial slurs by Cobby. 26

Smithers and Cobby had a history on ice and after the game Smithers attacked Cobby. Cobby died, although the attack was not the type one might expect would lead to death. The Chief Justice noted: There was substantial evidence before the jury indicating that the kick was at least a contributing cause of death, outside the de minimis range, and that was all that the Crown was required to establish. It was immaterial that the death was in part caused by a malfunctioning epiglottis to the malfunction of which appellant may, or may not, have contributed. A person commits homicide when directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being and it was therefore no defence that appellant did not expect that death would ensue.

Hockey’s reputation for violence is not new. At the turn of the last century hockey was so violent that, according to Mi-

August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

chael McKinley, there were calls for hockey to be banned in much the same way as cockfighting and bearbaiting. Certainly injury and death were not unheard of and two players were killed in three years during brawls on ice. A modicum of restraint started around the time of the First World War and since then hockey’s violence has been somewhat more muted.

As a legal matter, of course, violence in hockey is generally unlawful. The Court in R v. Henderson [1976] 5 W.W.R. 119 pointed out “where there are obvious infractions of the criminal law, the authorities are duty bound to take whatever action is necessary to prevent a repetition of such conduct.” Checking is lawful in hockey, based on the principle of consent. Players agree to physical contact and agree to be checked in much the same way as boxers agree to be hit. The intentional infliction of violence is, in this sense, proper in hockey. But there are limits.

An intentional hit not justified as a check falls outside of the consent implied in playing hockey. Such a hit is an assault and can be prosecuted as such. Similarly, racial slurs or, more generally, defamatory remarks, are not within the scope of normal play or the rules of hockey, and claims for damages are (at least in theory) available.

On the other hand, a miscalculation leading to an otherwise improper hit does not become an assault. In Agar v. Canning, (1965), 54 W.W.R 302 (Man. Q.B.) affd. (1966), 55 W.W.R. 384 (Man. C.A.), a civil case, Canning struck Agar in the face with his stick during a hockey game. The blow was not a premeditated hit but was, in some sense anyway, accidental. The Court held someone playing hockey must assume to accept the risk of accidental harm and it would be “inconsistent with this implied consent to impose a duty on a player to take care for the safety of other players corresponding to the duty which, in the normal situation, give rise to a claim of negligence.” The broader issue of why hockey often leads to violence goes beyond legal questions. Hockey, like many sports, engages very strong emotions. Tie those emotions to a game where physical force is an accepted part of play and it is easy to see how illegal violence can occur. Unfortunately there is little that can be done, beyond vigilance by the referees, to limit violence on ice. Off ice violence falls to the police and Crowns to deal with.

James Morton practises with Steinberg Morton Hope & Israel in Toronto. He is a past presi-

dent of the OBA and is chair of the Briefly Speaking Editorial Board.

Disagree? Have your say. Write to the Editor.

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011



Making A Difference Elizabeth Hall

OBA at the Court of Appeal: A Summary of Our Submissions on Rule 20. At the invitation of the Court of Appeal, the OBA acted as amicus curiae on a series of summary judgment appeals heard together on June 21, 22 and 23rd. The OBA’s role was to assist the court in interpreting the scope of the new summary-judgment rule. The OBA defined the issues this way:

Left to Right: Robert van Kessel, David Sterns and incoming OBA President Paul Sweeny appeared before the Ontario Court of Appeal to address summary judgment motions on June 23rd

The question to be addressed by the OBA is, in light of the amendments to Rule 20 that came into effect pursuant to the Regulation, under what circumstances is rule 20 the appropriate procedure for determining whether a party is entitled to judgment?

The two key issues addressed by the OBA were:

(a) Whether the rule amendments changed the test for summary judgment; and (b) The circumstances in which it is appropriate for the motions judge to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility and draw reasonable inferences under rule 20.04 (2.1) in order to grant or refuse summary judgment.

Left to Right: Shahidul Haque, Tayeba Islam, David Wright, Minister Kamrul Islam, Rahat Bin Zaman, OBA President Lee Akazaki, Shaun O’Brien

Essentially, the OBA’s position was that the test for summary judgment has changed from whether there are triable issues of fact to whether a determination of those issues requires a regular trial to achieve a just result. In cases where there are no issues of credibility and the evidence, on its face, clearly entitles a party to judgment, the operation of the rule has not changed as a result of the amendments­­— judgment should be granted. In other cases, a judge now has the power to assess credibility, weigh the evidence and draw inferences, unless it is in the interest of justice that such powers only be exercised at a trial. In determining whether it is “in the interest of justice” to proceed with the summary judgment motion and to exercise


August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

ADVOCACY IN ACTION these powers, the OBA argued that a motions judge must consider three categories of factors. The first and most critical category is the reputation of the administration of justice: a just substantive result and the appearance of justice. The second two categories relate to the crucial access to justice issues of affordability and effective use of judicial resources. More specifically, they were: whether proceeding with the motion is the most expeditious and least expensive way of justly determining the matter on its merits; and whether the time and expense related to exercising these powers is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues and the amount involved. The OBA’s exceptional legal team included Incoming President Paul Sweeny, Robert van Kessel, author of the book Summary Judgments and Dispositions Before Trial and Civil Litigation Section Chair David Sterns. You can find the OBA’s factum at Making a Difference at Home:

The OBA has the following task forces hard at work:

1. The Task Force on Family Shares in Legal Professional Corporations will advocate on behalf of lawyers to amend the Ontario Business Corporations Act to allow lawyers in a professional corporation to split their income with family members. 2. The Task Force on Judicial Mediation is looking at the many aspects of this emerging trend, including procedural requirements, improving access to justice and the need for facilitative expertise.

3. The Task Force on Roster Mediator Rates is working on issues affecting the availability of mediators and the consequences for access to justice.

4. The Task Force on Automobile Insurance fraud is examining strategies to deter and otherwise prevent insurance fraud. The OBA is leading its expertise to this issue in an effort to lower premiums for Ontarians without compromising coverage. Making a Difference Around the World

The Ontario Bar Association assisted in the Bangladeshi Minister of Law’s effort to improve justice system effectiveness and access to justice in his country. OBA President Lee Akazaki, Shuan O’Brien from the OBA Constitutional and Civil Liberties Section Executive, David Wright, chair of the Ontario Human Right Tribunal and Michael Gottheil, executive chair of the Social Justice Cluster, met with Mr. Kamrul Islam, Minister for Law, Mr. Shahidul Haque, parmanent secretary and Mr. Rahat Bin Zaman, first secretary, Bangladesh High Commission on June 10, 2011.

The delegation was interested in the role played by the OBA in the legal structure of Ontario as well as reforms to Ontario’s administrative, criminal and civil justice systems. They were particularly interested in the OBA’s role in advocating for legal aid sustainability and other access to justice issues. Elizabeth Hall is the director of government and stakeholder relations for the OBA.

CCH CANADIAN LIMITED Your first choice for secondary source information!

Thank you for visiting CCH at the 2011 Institute in Toronto, Ontario. If you would like to find out how CCH’s expert legal resources will enhance your library collection, call your Account Manager today at 1.866.750.7467. CCH provides you with the latest and most reliable Legal resources on the following specialty practice areas:  Family  Insurance  Labour and Employment Law  Progress of Legislation

 Real Estate  Securities  U.S. and International  Tax

For more information or to register for a complementary training session visit:

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011


 ADR  Civil Litigation  Corporate/Commercial  Environment  Estate


Custody ... Access Taking the Combat Out of Co-Parenting Elizabeth Mourao

It is time to dispose of the terms “custody” and “access” from our legislation. As an associate in my sixth year of family law practice and as a mother of a toddler, the impact that ordinary words, words that we took for granted while in law school, our bar admission course and in our everyday lives, astound me.

“Custody” and “access” are terms that family law practitioners encounter daily. “Custody” is the term granted to a parent who will have decision-making authority over their children, while “access” is the term used to refer to the time non-custodial parents spend with their children. When our family courts determine that parents are unable to communicate and make decisions that are in the best interest of their children, one parent will be granted sole custody, thereby having sole decision-making authority. In cases where parents are found able to communicate and cooperate, our 30

courts will implement a custodial regime wherein decisions on major issues like education, mobility, religion and medical care are to be made jointly. A custody trial has a winner and a loser. If there was ever a need for confirmation of this fact, simply ask the parent who didn’t get custody. Unfortunately, our present system feeds this

Parents become so focused on the absolute need to be granted custody that they set out on a path that invariably damages the immediate and long term interests of their children win/lose mentality, and we do a disservice to children and parents by employing language that has, at its core, the concept of winners and losers. By awarding custody to the winner, we give parents a completely unnecessary objective to fight for and about. Parents become so focused on the absolute need to be granted custody that they set out on a path that invariably August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

damages the immediate and long term interests of their children, and unknowingly in many cases, destroys any chance of future co-operation with the other parent.

What we often see as family law practitioners are parents who want to be granted custody of their children, but who also do not truly understand what custody and access mean. Some,

Do away with the concept of winners and losers in family law

who have read up on these terms and who understand that a prerequisite to an award of custody is an inability to communicate with the other parent, all too often proceed to engage in a combative fashion so as to bolster their claim for custody.

Police involvement in family law files, in what are often unfounded allegations that result in automatic criminal assault charges and restraining orders, is not uncommon. These orders often carry a no contact/communication condition with the other parent. Similarly, contacting police is often a successful tool in having one parent removed from the home if the parties continue to reside separated but under the same roof. It is disconcerting, but a reality, that this tactic is used by some to suggest that the parties are unable to communicate and that a sole custodial arrangement is the only viable option.

such cannot be obtained because of the nature of the relationship between parents, then decision making is divided.

If an agreement cannot be reached, after consultation with the other parent, one parent will have final say over certain matters impacting their children, as for example their education, while the other parent while have authority over other matters, as for example medical care. Such arrangements are indistinguishable from an award of custody and access and do away with the concept of winners and losers in family law. As I stated at the beginning of this paper, now a parent myself, I question what self worth I would have if I was stripped of decision making authority as it related to my own child. I imagine a sense of shame in having a separation agreement or court order that provided an “access” regime with my own child.

While I acknowledge that changing legal terminology cannot alter attitudes or force parties to abandon confrontation, it may do away with the distracting battle over terms. It would make parents feel like valued individuals in their children’s lives and assist them in focusing on what really matters: the best interest of their children. Elizabeth C. Mourao is an associate with Ricketts, Harris LLP and a member of the OBA Family Law Executive. Her practice is restricted to family law.

It is time to dispose of the terms “custody” and “access” from our legislation. The damage that is being done to children and parents as a result of increased conflict over these labels has been researched and remedied in various US States and in other common-law countries. It’s time for Canada to follow suit.

An effort to rectify these issues was considered in December 2002 with Bill C-22, An Act to Amend the Divorce Act. Bill C-22 considered the replacement of the “custody” / “access” terms with ones that did not carry such negative connotations. Unfortunately, Bill C-22 died in November 2003 and has not been re-introduced since. The only recent advancement on this front has been in British Columbia, where the provincial government attempted to tackle the problematic nature of these terms, amongst other issues in family law, with the introduction of their “White Paper”. Their White Pater proposes a complete overhaul to British Columbia’s provincial Family Relations Act, including a replacement of “custody” / “access” language with terms like “parenting time” and “guardianship”. In day-to-day practice, a shift away from use of these terms already appears to be occurring. Seeing that unnecessary conflict and litigation can easily be minimized, if not avoided, we are increasingly seeing matrimonial lawyers, members of the bench and third party professionals crafting separation agreements, court orders and parenting plans that are silent as to “custody”. Separation agreements, court orders and parenting plans that provide for shared parenting and contain provisions allocating children’s time with each parent, while also allocating decision making authority, are becoming more prevalent. While the goal remains that decision making occur jointly, if Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

excellence ADVICE. REPRESENTATION. OUTCOME. You want us on your side. Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP 365 Bay Street, Suite 200, Toronto, Canada M5H 2V1 T 416.360.2800 F 416.360.5960 Excellence in Commercial Litigation and Competition Law


LSUC Update Law Society Forms Task Force to Address Articling Requirements Each year, licensing candidates face the challenge of securing and completing articles as the final phase of the Law Society’s licensing process. Traditionally, the articling process has provided candidates with 10 months of practical skills training. The Law Society recently formed an articling task force to look at the objectives of the articling requirement and the challenges to completing articling. “As the regulator, the Law Society needs to take a closer look at and consider how we can best address the licensing needs we see entering our system now,” says Law Society Treasurer and Task Force member Laurie H. Pawlitza. “We need to ensure that all of the components of the licensing process are accessible and fair. At the same time, we also need to make sure that our licensing criteria ensure that all candidates can demonstrate the entry-level competencies required to competently serve their clients immediately after being called to the bar,” she adds. Established by Convocation on June 23, the 12-member Articling Task Force will: • • • •

examine the competency-related principles that articling is intended to address—as well as the program’s effectiveness in addressing those principles; examine the historic and current approaches to articling;

identify the challenges facing the current program, including the increasing number of unplaced candidates; consider additional or alternative approaches to articling; and

make recommendations to Convocation about the future of the articling system.

Growing number of licensing candidates

In recent years, there has been a growing number of licensing candidates, due to a number of factors, including increasing law school enrolments, and more national and internationally trained candidates seeking placement in Ontario.

Currently, there are approximately 200 licensing candidates from the 2010 – 2011 licensing period who are seeking but cannot find articling positions. This is further compounded by those unplaced from previous years who are also still seeking placements. Recent efforts

“We’ve been monitoring articling issues for several years now and we’ve invested significant resources in trying to help the profession support the current articling process,” the Treasurer explains. 32

Most recent changes were made in 2008, following consultation with the profession and recommendations from the Licensing and Accreditation Task Treasurer Laurie H. Pawlitza Force. These included simplifying the administrative requirements of the articling process, encouraging flexibility through joint articling and part-time articling, and allowing an exemption from the articling requirement for lawyers who have practised for more than 10 months in a common law jurisdiction outside of Canada.

The Law Society has also hosted an articling symposium and career fair for law firms and candidates and another is scheduled for November 18. As well, an articling registry is available on the Law Society website, enabling employers and candidates to post and search for articling positions. The Law Society also continues to provide training to licensing candidates looking for assistance with their resumes and job interview skills. “Unfortunately, all of these efforts do not appear to have altered the situation. We have an increasing number of candidates who cannot fulfil the articling requirement because they can’t obtain a placement,” says Treasurer Pawlitza. She notes that in 2009 – 2010, the Law Society also conducted an extensive survey of law firms throughout Ontario to assess the scope of the articling market and encourage firms to consider the possibility of undertaking joint or part-time articles.

“Through the survey, it became very clear that, at this time, under the current circumstances, the profession does not appear to be willing or able to expand articling opportunities within the market,” the Treasurer explains. The Task Force’s next steps

The task force has begun meeting over the summer to discuss all of the issues, benefits and risks associated with the articling component of the licensing process, with a view to developing options. The task force is expected to provide a brief report to Convocation in September, followed by a full report in May 2012. Articling Task Force members are: Treasurer Laurie H. Pawlitza, and benchers Tom Conway (Chair), Raj Anand, Adriana Doyle, Jacqueline Horvat, Vern Krishna, Dow Marmur, Janet Minor, Barbara Murchie, Paul Schabas, Joseph Sullivan and Peter Wardle.

August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

Miso à jour du Barreau du Haut-Canada Le Barreau forme un groupe d’étude pour aborder l’exigence de stage Le Barreau forme un groupe d’étude pour aborder l’exigence de stage

Chaque année, les candidats et candidates au Processus d’accès à la profession doivent se trouver un stage pour terminer la dernière phase du processus d’admission au Barreau. Le stage a toujours offert aux candidats dix mois de formation pratique. Le Barreau a récemment formé un groupe d’étude sur le stage pour analyser les objectifs de l’exigence de stage et les difficultés d’y satisfaire. « Comme organe de réglementation, le Barreau doit regarder de plus près les façons d’aborder les besoins liés à l’accès à la profession qui se manifestent dans notre système, » affirme la trésorière du Barreau et membre du groupe d’étude Laurie H. Pawlitza.

« Nous devons nous assurer que toutes les composantes du processus d’accès sont accessibles et justes. Cependant, nous devons également nous assurer que, selon nos critères d’accès à la profession, tous les candidats peuvent démontrer les compétences requises en début de carrière pour bien servir leurs clients dès qu’elles et ils sont inscrits au Barreau, » ajoute-t-elle. Constitué par le Conseil le 23 juin, le groupe de 12 membres aura les tâches suivantes : • • • • •

Examiner les principes de compétence que le stage vise à aborder – ainsi que la façon dont le programme applique ces principes; Examiner les approches historiques et actuelles au stage;

Reconnaître les difficultés au sein du programme actuel, dont le nombre croissant de candidats sans stage; Tenir compte d’autres approches au stage;

Faire des recommandations au Conseil quant à l’avenir du système de stage.

Nombre croissant de candidats

Le nombre croissant de candidats à la profession observé ces dernières années est attribuable à plusieurs facteurs, dont un plus grand nombre d’inscriptions aux facultés de droit et davantage de candidats formés hors de l’Ontario ou du Canada et qui cherchent un stage en Ontario. Actuellement, environ 200 candidats à la profession pour 2010 – 2011 cherchent un stage, mais n’en trouvent pas. Cela s’ajoute à ceux qui n’ont pas trouvé de stage dans les années passées et qui cherchent encore.

essayer d’aider la profession à soutenir le processus actuel, » explique la trésorière.

Les changements les plus récents ont été faits en 2008, après une consultation de la profession et des recommandations du groupe d’étude sur l’accès à la profession et l’agrément. Parmi les changements, nous avons simplifié les exigences administratives du processus, encouragé la flexibilité en permettant des stages conjoints et à temps partiel, et en permettant une exemption de l’exigence de stage pour les avocats qui ont exercé plus de 10 mois dans un ressort de common law à l’extérieur du Canada. Le Barreau a aussi tenu un symposium sur le stage et une foire d’emplois pour les cabinets et les candidats, et en prévoit un autre le 18 novembre. De plus, un registre de stages est offert sur le site web du Barreau, permettant aux employeurs et aux candidats d’afficher et de chercher des postes. Le Barreau continue d’offrir de la formation aux candidats qui ont besoin d’aide avec leur curriculum vitae et leurs entrevues d’emplois.

« Malheureusement, tous ces efforts ne semblent pas avoir changé la situation. Un nombre croissant de nos candidats ne peuvent pas remplir l’exigence de stage parce qu’ils ne se placent pas, » indique la trésorière Pawlitza.

Elle dit qu’en 2009 – 2010, le Barreau a également mené un grand sondage auprès des cabinets juridiques en Ontario pour évaluer la portée du marché du stage et encourage les cabinets à considérer la possibilité d’offrir des stages conjoints ou à temps partiel. « Grâce à ce sondage, il nous est apparu clairement qu’à ce temps, dans les présentes circonstances, la profession ne semble pas vouloir ni pouvoir élargir son offre de stages dans le marché, » explique la trésorière. Prochaines étapes

Le groupe d’étude a tenu ses premières réunions cet été pour discuter de tous les enjeux, avantages et risques associés à la composante de stage du Processus d’accès à la profession, en essayant de trouver des solutions. Le groupe d’étude devrait remettre un bref rapport au Conseil en septembre, et un rapport complet en mai 2012. Les membres du groupe d’étude sont : la trésorière Laurie H. Pawlitza, et les conseillers Tom Conway (président), Raj Anand, Adriana Doyle, Jacqueline Horvat, Vern Krishna, Dow Marmur, Janet Minor, Barbara Murchie, Paul Schabas, Joseph Sullivan et Peter Wardle.

Efforts récents

« Depuis des années, nous surveillons les problèmes reliés au stage et nous avons investi beaucoup de ressources pour Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011



Top Row: Award of Excellence in Alternative Dispute Resolution winner Barry Fisher with Deborah Anschell; 2011 Award for Excellence in Insolvency Law winner Daniel Dowdall with wife Sharon Dowdall and Joseph Marin; Pensions & Benefits Award winner Raymond Koskie, QC with wife Rochelle Koskie.

Second Row: Barbara Caskie (centre) and sons (back row) accept the 2011 Award for Excellence in Family Law on behalf of the late Terrence Caskie; OBA Incoming President Paul Sweeny (left) with Heather McArthur Memorial Young Lawyers Award winner Susannah Roth and husband James Roth.

Third Row: 2011 Insurance Law Toronto Award Dinner; 2011 Ron Ellis Award winner Robert Boswell with mother Patricia Boswell; Bradley N. McLellan, winner of the 2011 Award for Excellence in Real Estate Law (centre) with family and colleagues.

Bottom Row: 2011 OBA Award for Excellence in Insurance Law winner Paul Lee (second from right) and wife ___ with colleagues; 2011 Award for Excellence in International Law winner J. Michael Robinson (with plaque) and Kevin A. Johnson; 2011 Tom Marshall Award winner Leslie McIntosh (centre) with Attorney General Chris Bentley.


August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011


Are You Ready for the New Human Rights Landscape? Juliet Knapton


an you run a job ad requiring candidates to have a driver’s license? Do you have to accommodate your employee’s time off to tend to a sick child? Can comments made in a confidential mediation be subject to the Human Rights Code? Do you need to accommodate a lawyer who is unable to meet a billable hour target because of a disability? How do you approach a complaint of body odour within the office environment? There are changes afoot in the regulatory regime of the human rights landscape that will affect legal obligations within our firms, to our clients and to others to whom we provide service. These changes will affect all lawyers in all areas of law, whether they practise in sole, small, mid-sized, large or national firms. Josée Bouchard, equity advisor at the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), and Cynthia Petersen, discrimination and harassment counsel at the LSUC, recently presented a diversity workshop with the OBA Equal Opportunity Committee to inform us of this changing legal landscape and to answer many of the questions above. Firms of any size must comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct (lawyers and paralegals), the Human Rights Code of Ontario (Code), the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005 (and the coming Accessibility Standards for Customer Service) and the Ontario Health and Safety Act (OHSA). As you are aware, the Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 5.04, 5.03) place special responsibility on lawyers and paralegals to respect human rights laws in Ontario. The Rules on discrimination and harassment apply to a lawyer or paralegal in their employment of lawyers or paralegals, students or other person in professional dealings. 36

Discrimination Differential treatment, whether intentional or not, that imposes a disadvantage or a burden on a person or group of persons, or that results in the denial of a benefit to a person or group of persons, based on one or more of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Code applies in the following contexts: employment, provision of services, contractual relationships, accommodation and vocational associations. Of particular interest to law firms is the recent decision McCormick v. Fasken Martineau Dumoulin (No. 2), 2010 BCHRT 347 (Can LII), where the Tribunal found that the Code applies to law partnerships. Duty to Accommodate

The duty to accommodate requires an employer or service provider to accommodate employees, customers or clients on all of the grounds listed in the Code. The duty requires accommodation to the point of undue hardship. This means that some hardship to the employer is acceptable and to be expected, however, someone who requires accommodation also has an obligation to facilitate reasonable offers of accommodation. Any failure to provide reasonable accommodation based on human rights grounds constitutes discrimination. The OHSA will see changes under Bill 168: wording that mirrors the Code will be in effect for issues of harassment. It also requires employers to develop and post written policies on workplace harassment and workplace violence (including a complaint mechanism) and to provide instructions to employees regarding the policies.

August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

In January 2012, the new Customer Service Standard for the AODA will come into effect for all law firms. In the case of a firm with 20 or more employees, written policies, practices and procedures should be in place to address services to clients with disabilities. In all cases, training is mandated for every person who deals with members of the public or third parties on behalf of a provider.

The Standard requires that persons with disabilities be given an opportunity equal to that given to others to obtain, use and benefit from goods and services. The goods and services must be provided in a manner that respects the dignity and independence of persons with disabilities. Generally, the services should be integrated unless an alternate measure is necessary to enable a person with a disability to benefit from the good or services. The Standard will also come with enforcement measures and inspectors may attend to review a particular firm and have the power to levy administrative fines for non-compliance. As well, their orders may be sent to Superior Court for enforcement. Avenues of Recourse for Employees or Clients • an internal complaint • contact the Discrimination and Harassment Counsel of the LSUC 1-877-790-2200 or • a complaint to the LSUC • an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario • civil recourse (e.g. wrongful dismissal) Protecting Employers from Liability • ensure awareness and training for all staff and management • have a complaint mechanism

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

• • • •

act promptly when handling complaints deal with complaints seriously meet obligations to provide a healthy work environment keep parties informed of outcomes

In general, aDiscrimination and Harassment Policy should: • contain a strong statement of the employer’s commitment • define discrimination and harassment • have a redress mechanism • establish a safe counsel/advisor or refer to the DHC • have penalties and remedies • have an implementation plan Are you ready?

The Law Society has resources for developing a harassment and discrimination policy on its website. The OBA Equality Committee also offers resources to its members at Juliet Knapton practises plaintiff-side civil litigation at Connolly Obagi LLP in Ottawa. She is Past Chair of the OBA Young Lawyers Division and Co-Chair of the OBA Equality Committee.

The author would like to thank Josée Bouchard, equity advisor at the Law Society of Upper Canada, and Cynthia Petersen, discrimination and harassment counsel at the Law Society of Upper Canada and partner at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, for sharing their work in regards to this article.


Publication and Disclosure Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act Niamh Harraher Youth crime, violent youth crime in particular, seems to be a source of concern for many Canadians. Fed in part by high profile media incidents that involve young people, a mistaken impression exists amongst some members of the public that youth crime is on the rise. A further baseless suggestion from some people in positions of power is that young offenders circulate anonymously in the community, posing untold risks to public safety whilst their identities remain concealed due to the overly lax provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). Those of us who work in the area of youth criminal justice know that this nightmarish scenario of the public imagination could not be further from the truth. According to Statistics Canada, overall youth crime continues to fall, and rates of violent youth crime have remained stable for a number of years. Moreover, the majority of young people that do, in fact, commit crimes are committing non-violent property related offences. Thus the majority of young people coming into conflict with the law are those for whom the YCJA’s aims of reintegration and rehabilitation are eminently achievable; particularly if they are able to put their history of youthful offending behaviour behind them. Protection of their privacy is therefore critical to their ability to move on with their lives.

We at Justice for Children and Youth regularly see the privacy provisions of the YCJA being flouted but not in the high profile way one might expect, where the name of a young person is unlawfully splashed all over the newspapers or the television. Very specific criteria have to be met in order for the identity of a young person dealt with under the YCJA to be made known by the media. In this realm of privacy protection, the YCJA generally operates effectively. Where the YCJA fails to adequately protect youthful offenders, and indeed facilitates an insidious erosion of their privacy, is through the YCJA’s regime governing youth record disclosure In its introductory Declaration of Principle, the YCJA recognizes that the criminal justice system for young persons must 38

be separate from that of adults and emphasises the need for “enhanced procedural protections to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected” (s.3(b)). The safeguards to prevent identifying young people dealt with under the YCJA are believed to promote rehabilitation by avoiding the stigmatization or premature labelling of a youthful offender while still in their formative years. According to Prof. Nicholas Bala, in his book Young Offenders Law, “[p]ublication increases a youth’s self-perception as an offender, disrupts the family’s abilities to provide support, and negatively affects interaction with peers, teachers, and the surrounding community.” There are two different and important concepts to understand in relation to the protection of a youthful offender’s privacy: “publication” and “disclosure”. Both terms are defined in s. 2(1) of the YCJA. “Publication” means the communication of information by making it known or accessible to the general public through any means, including print, radio or television broadcast, telecommunication or electronic means. “Disclosure” is defined as the communication of information other than by way of publication. Publication

The general rule is that publication of a young person’s identity that has been dealt with under the YCJA is prohibited. Exceptions to this rule exist in the circumstances set out under s. 110 of the YCJA and are relatively straightforward (with the exception of “presumptive offences” dealt with in s. 110( 2)(b)). Publication is allowed, for example, when an adult sentence is imposed on a youth (s. 110 (2)(a)It is also permitted under s. 110(4) which allows a youth court judge to order publication (which lasts for a period of 5 days) in a situation where a dangerous youth escapes and must be apprehended. A young person themselves can also apply to a youth court to have their identity published under s.110 (6). August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

Presumptive offences are defined in s. 2(1) of the YCJA and include offences such as first and second degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, and “serious violent offences”, which are offences where a young person causes or attempts to cause serious bodily harm. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. D.B. [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3, held that in these kinds of serious cases the burden of proving that an adult sentence is justified falls to the Crown. The YCJA provides that if a young person is charged with committing a presumptive offence and the Attorney General provides notice that an adult sentence will not be sought, then the Court will order a publication ban (s.65). Under s. 63 of the YCJA, a young person charged or found guilty of a presumptive offence may apply for an Order that he or she is not liable for an adult sentence so that a youth sentence can be imposed. If the youth is successful in obtaining a youth sentence, the youth court judge is obliged by s. 75 of the YCJA to ask if either the young person or the Attorney General wishes to make an application for a publication ban. The judge in deciding whether or not to order a publication ban must balance the importance of rehabilitating the young person with the public interest. Again, the case of R. v. D.B. is instructive because the SCC, in finding that s. 7 of the Charter was engaged by this section of the legislation, held at paragraph 87 that “lifting a ban on publication makes the young person vulnerable to greater psychological and social stress … it renders the sentence significantly more severe.” As a result, as with the imposition of an adult sentence, the onus remains on the Crown to justify why the protection of a publication ban to which the young person is presumed to be entitled should be lifted. Disclosure

A record is anything that contains information created or kept for the purposes of the YCJA or for investigating an offence that could be prosecuted under the YCJA. Almost any contact with the justice system creates a record. This includes arrests, charges and sentences. Importantly, it also includes extrajudicial measures (EJM), which are measures other than judicial proceedings used to deal with a young person alleged to have committed an offence. For example, a police caution or a warning to a young person detained during an investigation is an extrajudicial measure. In the case of R. v. R.L., 2008 ONCJ 29, Justice Cohen pointed out that records of EJM’s are records of mere allegations that have never been tested in court and for which a young person has not accepted responsibility. They are “inherently unreliable”.

Part 6 of the YCJA regulates access to and disclosure of youth records, including records held by the youth court, the police services, or other government agencies (e.g. records created for the purpose of administering a youth sentence) during and after the young person’s involvement in the justice system. Sections 119 – 124 outline permissible access to youth records, and sections 125 – 129 provides for permissible disclosure and required destruction of records. The YCJA distinguishes between access to a record and disclosure of a record. Many of the people allowed access to a record under s. 119(1) and 123 of the YCJA are not specifically Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

dealt with in the disclosure provisions (ss.125 and 127), In fact s. 129 prohibits anyone who has lawful access to youth records from disclosing the information to anyone who is not authorised under the YCJA to have access to that record.

Contravention of this section is considered a hybrid offence under s.138. This may create some confusion in that sometimes the YCJA sometimes does, and sometimes does not specify the purpose for which access to a record may be granted For instance s. 119(1)(a), which allows a young person access to their own record, does not specify any purpose, and does not permit disclosure except to others who are also permitted access under the YCJA. In some cases, the purpose for which access is sought under s. 119(1) may not require further disclosure. In others, the purpose for which access is sought does require further disclosure. In the example above, the young person may get access to their record and then proceed to violate the YCJA by disclosing the record, without knowing that such disclosure is a violation of the YCJA. If the purpose of seeking access to the record is in a formalized context, such as litigation, the matter will generally proceed as provided for in the YCJA—an application can be brought to a youth court judge seeking access to and disclosure of the record. Courts and judges have structured various ways for acceptable disclosure of the records to take place. This has been the case for young people who have sought to access records for use in complaints to the Human Rights Tribunal about their treatment by the police or cases in which a party to a civil action for negligence wishes to use a youth court record for use in that proceeding. In contrast, young people who have been dealt with under the YCJA are often requested to provide police record checks when applying for part-time jobs, volunteer opportunities, or to participate in work placements for certain post-secondary programs. Providing the record to the young person for the purpose of employment, volunteer screening, or any purpose other than the young person’s own information runs contrary to the letter and the spirit of the YCJA. The police may be seen to be assisting in the commission of a s. 138 offence if the young person goes on to disclose that information (which they often feel they have no option but to disclose).

It is troubling to contrast the high level of Charter analysis that has taken place in relation to publication bans with the day to day operation of the YCJA’s youth record disclosure provisions, as the same privacy interests of young people are engaged with a significantly different outcome. If we accept that protection of a young person’s privacy in order to foster rehabilitation is a legitimate societal aim, then we should care about records of youthful misdeeds circulating in a poorly controlled and inconsistent way. The Supreme Court has found it to be a principle of fundamental justice that young people are entitled to a presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability flowing from the fact that, because of their age, they have heightened vulnerability, less maturity and a reduced capacity for moral judgment. The glare of the media is not the only unwelcome light that needs to be kept away from them. We all have a vested interest in the rehabilitation of young people. Niamh Harraher is a staff lawyer at Justice for Children and Youth.


QUEEN’S PARK UPDATE The Queen’s Park Update provides a forum, on a regular rotation, for the views of the Attorney General and the Opposition Justice Critics.

The Hon. Chris Bentley

One of my priorities as the Attorney General of Ontario is to ensure that our courts work for the people they serve. We have a very strong justice system that is the envy of the world. It is one of the reasons that people come to Ontario from all over. Unfortunately, for many years our justice system has been challenged by cases that take longer and use up more resources than they used to. The Justice on Target (JOT) strategy was launched with the goal of making our criminal justice system faster by using existing resources more effectively. The key to JOT’s success is collaboration at the local level among the judiciary, Crown attorneys, defence counsel, police, corrections officials, court staff, victim service workers, Legal Aid Ontario and other organizations.

When we launched JOT in June 2008, the average number of appearances needed to complete a criminal charge was on the rise and almost double what it was in 1992. Now, we have reversed the upward trend. For the first time in nearly twenty years the number of appearances has started to consistently go down instead of up. Data from January to December of 2010 shows the average number of appearances needed to complete a criminal charge has fallen nearly 6 % since the strategy was launched. There have been more than 325,000 fewer court appearances in non-complex, non-violent cases (Class I and Class II) since the strategy began. This means courtrooms are not being used to adjourn cases but to resolve them. The people in those courtrooms are able to use their time and effort to resolve or try cases.

Justice on Target is a four year strategy that was rolled out in successive waves to ensure that every court site can learn from the experiences of earlier sites and implement initiatives relevant to local needs. The first wave of courthouses began implementing JOT initiatives in 2009. In the past year, all remaining court sites of the Ontario Court of Justice were engaged. Where 40

new initiatives have been in place the longest, we are seeing the most progress. This is creating the capacity to direct more attention to more serious and difficult cases, and to better serve victims, witnesses and the public. Change is not easy, but through hard work and focused collaborations, we’re moving in the right direction.

For example, some courts are now coordinating recess times so that the people who need to connect, such as Crown and defence counsel, have an opportunity to resolve matters quickly. Some sites are looking at processes for setting trial dates to reduce the administrative burden for court staff, police, Crown and defence counsel. Still other locations have enhanced the bail court process to ensure defence counsel have access to the Crown position on bail, and time to confer with clients before bail court is in session. This in turn benefits corrections staff and police, who spend less time transporting the same prisoners to and from court, day after day. Police officers are spending less time waiting in court and more time in the community. From the beginning we let people see the progress by putting all the information online. The criminal court statistics are available on the ministry’s website so that everyone can follow the progress of the strategy and see the impact on courthouses in their local communities. Justice on Target is working. Together, through collaboration and innovation we have developed a strategy that is making our justice system better and stronger.

The Hon. Chris Bentley, MPP, is the Attorney General of Ontario.

August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

UPDATE QUEEN’S PARK La mise à jour de Queen’s Park fournit un forum, en rotation régulière, pour les opinions du procureur général et les porte-parole de justice de l’opposition.

L’ honorable Chris Bentley

En tant que Procureur général de l’Ontario, l’une de mes

priorités consiste à m’assurer que nos tribunaux remplissent leur rôle auprès des personnes qui les utilisent. Nous possédons un système judiciaire bien établi que le monde entier nous envie. C’est l’une des raisons pour laquelle l’Ontario accueille des gens des quatre coins du monde. Malheureusement, depuis de nombreuses années, notre système judiciaire est mis à l’épreuve par des affaires qui prennent plus de temps et qui demandent davantage de ressources que par le passé.

La justice juste-à-temps (JJAT) est une stratégie qui a été mise en place dans le but de faire progresser le système de justice pénale plus rapidement à l’aide de ressources existantes utilisées plus efficacement. La clé de la réussite de la JJAT réside dans un effort de collaboration à l’échelle locale entre le pouvoir judiciaire, les procureurs de la Couronne, les avocats de la défense, la police, les officiers des services correctionnels, le personnel des tribunaux, les représentants du programme d’aide aux victimes, Aide juridique Ontario et d’autres organismes. En juin 2008, lorsque nous avons mis en place la stratégie Justice juste-à-temps, le nombre moyen de comparutions requises pour mener à bien une accusation criminelle était en augmentation et avait presque doublé depuis 1992. Nous avons désormais renversé cette tendance à la hausse. Pour la première fois en près de vingt ans, le nombre de comparutions requises a commencé à diminuer de façon constante au lieu d’augmenter.

Les données recueillies entre le mois de janvier et le mois de décembre 2010 indiquent que le nombre moyen de comparutions requises pour mener à bien une accusation criminelle a chuté de presque 6 % depuis le lancement de cette stratégie. Il y a eu plus de 325 000 comparutions devant les tribunaux en moins pour les dossiers simples et non-violents (catégorie I et catégorie II) depuis la mise en œuvre de la stratégie. Cela signifie que les salles d’audience ne sont plus utilisées pour ajourner les affaires mais bien pour les résoudre. Les personnes présentes dans ces salles d’audience sont à même de mettre leur temps et leurs efforts à profit pour clore des dossiers ou les instruire. Justice juste-à-temps est une stratégie qui s’étale sur quatre ans et qui a été mise en œuvre par étape, en vagues successives afin de s’assurer que chaque palais de justice peut bénéficier de l’expérience des autres avant lui et prendre des initiatives qui correspondent aux besoins locaux. En 2009, une première vague de palais de justice a eu recours aux initiatives de JJAT. Depuis un an, tous les palais de justice de la Cour de justice de l’Ontario les Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

ont adoptées. C’est là où les initiatives ont été adoptées en premier que les progrès réalisés sont le plus notables. Cela permet de recentrer notre attention sur des dossiers plus graves et plus complexes, et de mieux subvenir au besoin des victimes, des témoins et du public. Changer n’est certes pas chose aisée, mais grâce à un travail assidu et des efforts de collaborations ciblés et continus, nous faisons un pas dans la bonne direction.

Par exemple, certains tribunaux ont commencé à faire coïncider les suspensions d’audience de sorte que ceux qui ont besoin de se rencontrer, comme le procureur de la Couronne et l’avocat de la défense, peuvent le faire et ont alors l’occasion de résoudre les litiges promptement. Sur certains sites, on examine des processus destinés à établir les dates de procès afin de réduire le fardeau administratif qui affecte le personnel des tribunaux, la police, les procureurs de la Couronne et les avocats de la défense. Dans d’autres sites, le processus lié aux séances de libération sous caution a été amélioré pour s’assurer que les avocats de la défense connaissent les dispositions de la Couronne et ont le temps de s’entretenir avec leur client avant l’ouverture de la séance de libération sous caution. Par ricochet, le personnel des services correctionnels et la police en récoltent également les fruits car ils passent moins de temps à faire des allers-retours de la prison au tribunal pour y conduire les mêmes personnes jour après jour. Les officiers de police passent moins de temps dans les tribunaux et plus de temps au sein de la communauté. Nous permettons aux gens de suivre la progression dès le départ en mettant à leur disposition tous les renseignements en ligne. Les statistiques portant sur les tribunaux criminels sont affichées sur le site Web du ministère afin que tout un chacun puisse suivre les progrès réalisés depuis le lancement de la stratégie ainsi que l’impact de cette dernière sur les palais de justice au sein de leurs communautés. La justice juste-à-temps fonctionne. Ensemble, dans une optique de collaboration et d’innovation, nous avons développé une stratégie qui améliore notre système judiciaire et qui le rend plus fort.

L’hon. Chris Bentley, Député, est Procureur général de l’Ontario



Summaries Eugene Meehan, QC


he following is a summary of all appeals and all leaves to appeal between April 12, 2011 – June 9, 2011. Leaves specifically include both the date the SCC granted leave and the date of the CA judgment.

Supreme Court of Canada Update APPEAL JUDGMENTS ACCESS TO INFORMATION: ACCESS TO RECORDS Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) (Fed. CA, May 27, 2010; May 29, 2010) (33296, 33297, 33299, 33300) May 13, 2011

Records located within the offices of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport, and those parts of the Prime Minister’s agenda in the possession of the RCMP and the Privy Council Office are not subject to disclosure under s. 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. CIVIL PROCEDURE: ANTON PILLER ORDERS

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik (BCCA, May 7, 2009) (33266) April 21, 2011

In the context of an Anton Piller order authorizing search of business and residential properties, a Superior Court judge hearing an ex parte application may admit into evidence the findings and conclusions of a prior judicial decision (here a Rowbotham proceeding). 42

CLASS ACTIONS, CHARTER: GOVERNMENT LIABILITY; FIDUCIARY; NEGLIGENCE; BAD FAITH/UNJUST ENRICHMENT; S. 15 Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society (Alta. CA, December 4, 2009) (33551) May 12, 2011

Alberta is responsible for the cost of medical care required by residents of nursing homes and auxiliary hospitals, but patients may be asked to contribute to costs of their housing and meals through the payment of accommodation charges. A class of elderly residents of Alberta’s long-term care facilities alleged the government artificially inflated the accommodation charges to subsidize the cost of medical expenses. Breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and bad faith in the exercise of discretion were struck from the statement of claim; unjust enrichment and the s. 15(1) Charter claim allowed to proceed to trial. CORPORATE COMMERCIAL LAW: SECURITIES DISCLOSURE; FIDUCIARY DUTIES

Sharbern Holding Inc. v. Vancouver Airport Centre Ltd. (BCCA, May 22, 2009) (33280) May 11, 2011

Justice Rothstein: “When securities are offered to the general public, the rule of caveat emptor no longer applies. Securities legislation imposes on issuers a statutory duty of disclosure. August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA UPDATE That duty may vary in detail from one Act to another or from one jurisdiction to another … Rather than issuers being required to provide unlimited disclosure, disclosure obligations have been enacted to provide a balance between too much and too little disclosure”. The SCC held (upholding the BCCA): sufficient disclosure on the facts of this case; no negligent misrepresentation; no breach of fiduciary duty. CRIMINAL LAW: CHARACTER EVIDENCE R. v. O’Brien (NS CA, July 14, 2010) (33817)

The SCC held: • • •

“The trial judge said in his reasons that he relied “entirely” on the DNA evidence; that meant that he did not rely on the character evidence”;

“A trial judge has an obligation to demonstrate through his or her reasons how the result was arrived at; this does not create a requirement to itemize every conceivable issue, argument or thought process”;

“Trial judges are entitled to have their reasons reviewed based on what they say, not on the speculative imagination of reviewing courts.”


R. v. Reynolds (Ont. CA, September 8, 2010) (33919) April 28, 2011

The SCC upheld the dissenting judge (Blair J.A.): “[s]uggesting a facile, albeit deceitful, way of accomplishing the desired objective is just as much a part of the “persuasion package” as providing the incentive to carry out the desired objective in the first place.” CRIMINAL LAW: REASONABLE DOUBT R. v. VY (August 5, 2010) (33841) May 6, 2011

Convictions for sexual assault and forcible confinement were set aside by a majority, and the SCC, based on their review of the trial judge’s reasons as a whole, agree that he erred in law by failing to give adequate consideration to the question of whether the evidence raised a reasonable doubt. CRIMINAL LAW: SEARCH & SEIZURE; SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; s.24 (2) R. v. Loewen (September 7, 2010) (33914) May 5, 2011

After stopping the accused for speeding, a police officer smelled freshly burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle and found $5,410 in the accused’s pocket. He arrested for possession, searched the vehicle, and found 100 grams of crack cocaine. The trial judge admitted the evidence of cocaine. The accused was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. A majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The SCC dismissed the appeal. CRIMINAL LAW: SEXUAL ASSAULT

R. v. JA (Ont. CA, March 26, 2010) (33684) May 27, 2011

The definition of consent for sexual assault requires the complainant to provide actual active consent throughout every phase of the sexual activity. It is not possible for an unconscious person to satisfy this requirement, even if she expresses her consent in advance. Any sexual activity with an individual who is incapable of consciously evaluating whether

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011

she is consenting is therefore not consensual within the meaning of the Criminal Code. DEBTOR/CREDITOR: PPSA; TRUST; BFPFV

Trade Finance Inc. v. Bank of Montreal (Ont. CA, August 18, 2009) (33394) May 20, 2011

The transaction herein by which BMO acquired its enforceable PPSA security interest made it a “purchaser” within the meaning of the words “bona fide purchasers for value without notice”. BMO therefore fell within the exception to the tracing order previously given. LABOUR LAW: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser (Ont. CA, November 17, 2009) (32968) April 29, 2011

The Ontario Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which excluded farm workers from the Labour Relations Act, but crafted a separate labour relations regime for farm workers, is constitutional. TRADEMARKS: CONFUSION

Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. (Fed. CA, October 13, 2009) (33459) May 26, 2011

Consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including the factors set out in s. 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act and particularly that Alavida’s trade-mark “Masterpiece Living” and Masterpiece Inc.’s “Masterpiece the Art of Living” are very similar, lead the SCC to a finding that Masterpiece Inc. has proven that the use of Alavida’s trade-mark in the same area as those of Masterpiece Inc.’s would be likely to lead to the inference that the services associated with Masterpiece Inc.’s trade-marks were being performed by Alavida. Because Masterpiece Inc.’s use preceded Alavida’s proposed use, Alavida was not entitled under s. 16(3) to registration of its trade-mark.


CIVIL PROCEDURE: FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES Are the choice of forum and arbitration clauses in this case valid? Corporation, et al v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd., et al (Ont. CA, October 29, 2010) (33999) May 19, 2011


What is fair dealing in the Copyright Act, and what comes under the exception under s. 29.4 of the Act?

Province of Alberta as represented by the Minister of Education, et al v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency Operating as “Access Copyright” (Fed. CA, July 23, 2010) (33888) May 5, 2011


There is a publication ban in this case involving alleged failure to disclose HIV-positive status. R. v. CLM (Man. CA, October 13, 2010) (33976) May 5, 2011


SUPREME COURT OF CANADA UPDATE INSURANCE & MUNICIPAL LAW: “DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN AUTOMOBILE” When a municipally-owned tree falls on a car and kills an occupant, is this “damage caused by an automobile”?

City of Westmount v. Richard Rossy, Sharon Rossy, Justin Rossy, Luke Rossy, Nicholas Rossy and Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (Que. CA, November 22, 2010) (34060) May 19, 2011


In what circumstances can there be contribution holidays and/or withdrawal of surplus in mandatory contributory defined benefit pension plans?

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, et al v. Attorney General of Canada (Ont. CA, October 8, 2010) (33968) May 5, 2011

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


This generic Viagra test case comes up to the SCC for review, the generic alleging Pfizer’s patent is invalid for obviousness, lack of utility, and insufficient disclosure. Teva Canada Limited v. Pfizer Canada Inc., et al (Fed. CA, September 24, 2010) (33951) May 5, 2011

Eugene Meehan, QC, is a partner with McMillan LLP in Ottawa.

Farley Cohen • Ross Hamilton • Peter Steger • Paula Frederick • Prem Lobo 416 304 1595


August2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

Expedited Arbitration ADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration is designed for people who want a fast and inexpensive arbitration. Expedited arbitrations are fixed fee arbitrations (usually less than $6,500 per party including taxes and room fee) with strict time frames and limitations on number of documents, length of briefs and time for the hearing. The process takes less than 90 days from the appointment of the arbitrator to the issuance of the award, and there is only one hearing day.

Evideo Mediation eVideo mediation services allow you to conduct mediations seamlessly, in real time, when people are in different cities. Participate in a mediation as you normally would: see and hear everyone, conduct private caucuses by making use of virtual private rooms, present and share documentation, and collaborate on settlement agreements. Participants only need a computer with Internet access.

CAnAdA’s MEdiAtion And ArbitrAtion lEAdEr 416.362.8555

Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011


OBA Notic e Board

OBA Institute 2012!


February 9-11, 2012


The Westin Harbour Ca stle Conference Centre and the Conference Centre at the OBA, in Toronto


em of the g e h t s is Don’t m lendar! a c l ia c o s autumn

3 Days of Fantastic CP D Programs - Earn Those Mandatory Hours!

tion Civil Litiga in e c n e ll e c at 25th, 2011 ward for Ex r A e A b B to O c e O , h T ay nto. ce on Tuesd will take pla oyal York Hotel, in Toro nt R the Fairmo y will be d ceremon n a r e n in d formal cipient This year’s 11 award re 0 2 e erg LLP. h t g in utts, Strosb S honour f o C Q , sberg Harvey Stro

line today Register on . /pd at

Are you a new l awyer, for gui looking dance?

Are you an estab lished p ractitio interest ner, ed in sh aring yo u r experien a young ce with colleagu e? Let t h e OBA Ment Program orship connect you. Men torship transiti successf ons new ully lawyers into the professi legal on and c ommunity and help the path s them fi to succe nd ss. Interes ted?

Find ou t more at oba. org/m

entorsh ip


August 2011 | Briefly Speaking • En Bref

ale p to 75%! S e it h W s n io Publicsaoutt on your chance to save – savings u Don’t mis

ations e of our public m o s n o e c n ra a clea ats. Visit our rm fo y p We are having o c rd a s in loadable or h variety of title e id w in either down a d n fi d ns store an new publicatio for only $25. e ic t c ra p f o a your are

s online today n io t a c li b u p r Order you lications at

Upcoming Fall 2011 CPD Programs



Web ca



Briefly Speaking • En Bref | August 2011


Local. Affordable. Festive. It’s Not too Early to Think About the Holidays Book Now and Save 15%*

Let The Conference Centre at the OBA host your holiday celebration. Whether you’re gathering with colleagues and co-workers, or family and friends, we can accommodate your every need.

The Conference Centre at the OBA 200-20 Toronto Street, Toronto, M5C 2B8 Contact Annette Wing 416.869.1047 ext.321 *15% discount applies Sat & Sun only, from Dec. 3 – 18, 2011


Judge for yourself 4 7 2

-6 4 1 -3

7 7 8 1-

Introducing the new home and auto insurance program for all members of the legal profession. CBIA Insurance Services offers home and auto insurance, complete with additional features and options that go beyond standard protection – all at exceptionally great rates.

GET A HOME OR AUTO INSURANCE QUOTE See how easy it is to switch your insurance company‌and save money. CALL OR CLICK


The Canadian Bar Insurance Association Sponsored Home & Auto Insurance is underwritten by The Personal General Insurance Inc. in Quebec and by The Personal Insurance Company in all other provinces and territories. Certain products and services may not be available in all provinces and territories. CBIA Insurance Services is a division of 3303128 Canada Inc., a licensed insurance broker.

Estate trustees need good counsel – and risk protection. New ERAssure is the only errors and omissions insurance available for estate trustees.


Today’s estate trustees take on what has always been a complex role in an increasingly complicated environment. There are a larger number of blended families, the economy continues to be volatile and every beneficiary with internet access can feel like an expert about estate administration. The decisions estate trustees make – with or without the benefit of your advice – are coming under increasing scrutiny, in a context where litigation is readily used to resolve disputes.


You already provide estate trustees with experienced legal advice. Now recommend protection. ERAssure is a trademark of Estate Risk Protection Plan Inc.

3117-7 ERAssure Ad OBA Newsletter.indd 1

Learn more at

11-02-22 2:35 PM

Great coverage when it matters most.



*Associated Office











Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

STG_OBA_hfpg_287c_04_11_Layout 1 4/14/11 12:39 PM Page 1

Putting the legal community front and centre has made us the #1 choice with Canadian legal professionals for over a decade. While other title insurers go head to head with you for your business, Stewart Title does not support programs that reduce or eliminate the legal professional’s role in real estate transactions. Instead, we focus on what matters to you: • unsurpassed policy coverage • competitive pricing • underwriting expertise

The title insurer that puts you front row, centre

At Stewart Title, we keep real estate transactions where they belong – in your office!

1-888-667-5151 or

Do you sometimes wonder how life got so out of control? Depression/Anxiety Drug or alcohol misuse Stress/Burnout Family problems Job loss/Career changes Financial pressures

Confidential Professional Help and Peer Support

Need Help? Call

Greater Toronto Area: 905•238•1740 Toll-free: 1•877•576•6227

Ontario Lawyers' Assistance Program We Understand Lawyer Stress

Now is the perfect time to join the movement online Move to a better real estate transaction platform with

RealtiWeb ®.






inefficient software, with the help of our expert support work






migration make




We as

seamless as possible. Call us today for your no-obligation consultation ®

1 800 363 2253

RealtiWeb, RealtiWeb and design and LawyerDoneDeal and design are registered trademarks of LawyerDoneDeal Corp.

real estate • wills • corporate

2011 - August  

2011 - August

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you