University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog

Entering the Dragon's Den

 

We end our political party week by discussing Canada’s founding political party. The Conservative Party adopted its values and policies from the British Tories and governed Canada for 29 consecutive years after Confederation.¹ Since Confederation the Conservative Party has changed substantially. For the purpose of today’s post we will be focussing on the Conservative Party’s merger after the year 2000 and its upcoming leadership race.

Before unifying in 2003, there were two separate and distinct conservative parties: the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.² The two merged in December 2003 with overwhelming support from both parties and a hope of creating a stronger and more unified conservative movement.³ A newly formed party required one more thing: a newly elected leader to bring new life to the campaign. On March 20th, 2004, Stephen Harper became the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.⁴ Harper led the Conservatives to success in the 2006 election, and maintained control of the Canadian government until November 2015.

After the loss of the 2015 election, Harper chose to step down from party leadership leaving Rona Ambrose as the current interim party leader.⁵ This brings us to the current state of the Conservative government. On May 27th, 2017, Conservative Party members will vote to elect the party’s new leader. Fourteen candidates put their names forward almost immediately upon notice of the election, but polls suggest that there are really only three contenders.⁶

With an early lead over the other candidates, polls suggest that Kevin O’Leary with (22.1%) will be the next Conservative leader.⁷ Controversial, outspoken, loud, and critical of Canada’s current Liberal government, O’Leary has certainly created a name for himself. Perhaps Conservative Canadians are unhappy with how Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are running the country, or maybe O’Leary’s name is more recognizable due to his fame from “Dragon’s Den.” Regardless of the reason, O’Leary’s election seems likely.

What platform is O’Leary actually running on when you look past the loud media rants and wild antics? The answer is hard to determine. O’Leary’s campaign page suggests that he wants to support small businesses and hardworking Canadians using his investment background.⁸  He also suggests that it is time for the country to be run by someone who is not a career politician. Sound familiar? I recall a certain Donald Trump making similar suggestions south of the border. While O’Leary may have good intentions of balancing the Canadian budget and providing support to working Canadians he does not make any tangible suggestions as to how he will do this. But he is a businessman so he must know how to deal with the economy, right?

The Conservative Party would head in an interesting direction if O’Leary were elected. If he’s elected I hope O’Leary will make, and keep, tangible promises to Canadians, rather than just rant about Justin Trudeau’s time in office. Who knows though, maybe by May 27th Kellie Leitch or Maxime Bernier will take the vote. All we can do now is stay tuned and leave you with a quote from O’Leary:

"I understand what he is doing with the media, and you can certainly claim I am trying to do the same, but I am not Donald Trump."⁹

 

 

 

¹ Trevor W Harrison, “Conservative Party”, The Canadian Encyclopedia (19 August 2015), online: <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/conservative-party/>.

² Conservative Party of Canada, “Our History” (2017), online: <www.conservative.ca/our-party/our-history/>.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Conservative Party of Canada, “Leadership” (2017), online: <www.conservative.ca/leadership/en>.

⁶ “Conservative leadership candidate Kevin O'Leary says he knows where 'rot' is at CBC: 'We could save billions of dollars'”, Toronto Sun (28 March 2017), online: <www.torontosun.com/2017/03/28/conservative-leadership-candidate-kevin-oleary-says-he-knows-where-rot-is-at-cbc-we-could-save-billions-of-dollars>.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Kevin O’Leary, “Why I’m Running” (2017), online: <https://olearyforcanada.ca/en/why/#0>.

⁹ The Canadian Press, “A selection of quotes from Conservative leadership candidate Kevin O'Leary” Times Colonist (18 January 2017), online: <www.timescolonist.com/a-selection-of-quotes-from-conservative-leadership-candidate-kevin-o-leary-1.7857343>.

To Kill a Mockingbird: When Public Opinion Hurts the Justice Process

 

“Prejudice, a dirty word, and faith, a clean one, have something in common: they both begin where reason ends.”[1]

 

Today’s post explores a fundamental principle of Canada’s criminal justice system: every person on trial must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This determination must be “logically connected to the evidence” and not based on “sympathy or prejudice.”[2] For this reason, the defendant in a criminal trial is afforded additional rights to protect her innocence—unless and until the Crown prosecutor convinces a judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that enough evidence justifies a guilty verdict.

This is contrasted with the civil justice system. In civil court both parties’ rights are considered equally and the result is weighed on a balance of probabilities. In the criminal system the scales of justice are adjusted to reflect the state’s relative power to impose criminal sanction and the individual’s risk of loss of liberty and the stigma associated with a criminal conviction. The bottom line is that our society values the individual’s freedom so highly that it is better to let a guilty person free than to incarcerate an innocent person.

In Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mockingbird, lawyer Atticus Finch defends the wrongfully accused Tom Robinson.[3] Mr. Robinson’s guilt is predetermined by the townsfolk and Mr. Finch faces an uphill battle to persuade the jury of his innocence. Before trial, Mr. Robinson’s reputation is already muddied.

In high profile criminal cases, the court of public opinion can injure the defendant’s reputation before guilt is decided. Recently in Alberta, Travis Vader was found guilty of manslaughter.[4] The judge found that the evidence did not support a first-degree murder conviction but it did meet the lower threshold of a manslaughter conviction. In Ontario, Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty of sexual assault.[5] The evidence against the accused was not reliable enough to support a conviction.

Even before their days in court, both accused were unofficially tried in the court of public opinion and, like wildfire, guilty verdicts spread across social media. When someone is tried for a crime and found not guilty, ideally her life should return to normal, having been acquitted of a crime. This is usually true. Although our courts are almost always open to the public, most trials come and go without much public attention.

However, when a highly profiled case is before the courts, the accused is tried by thousands of opinions—most of which are not framed in an understanding of criminal law. Trial-by-social-media multiplies the impact on the reputation of the person facing trial. Publicizing the accused’s name and face changes her life forever. An accused person who is acquitted will never be truly innocent in the public’s eye when there is a highly publicized case, and a convicted accused in such cases carries the social burden heavier than does a non-publicized accused.

The lesson from To Kill a Mockingbird is in Atticus Finch’s influence on his children and, therefore, on the reader. Logic and equality is better than prejudice and bias. Even those accused of the worst crimes deserve “to get a square deal [in the] courtroom.”[6]

 

[1] Harper Lee, Go Set a Watchman (US: HarperCollins, 2015).

[2] R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320, 150 DLR (4th) 733, at para 36.

[3] Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1960) [Mockingbird].

[4] R v Vader, 2016 ABQB 625, 2016 CarswellAlta 2163.

[5] R v Ghomeshi, 2016 ONCJ 155, 2016 CarswellOnt 4246.

[6] Mockingbird, supra note 3.

You Can’t Handle The Truth!

As law students, many of us have that one legal television show or movie that inspired us to become a future lawyer. For the criminal law enthusiasts, maybe it was an episode of Law and Order that stood out. You would witness the New York City Police chase suspected criminals through dramatic and sometimes horrific investigations, then watch them hand over their work to Manhattan District Attorneys to duke it out in court.

For the future corporate lawyers, maybe it was Harvey Specter’s impeccable looks, stylish office, and fantastic style that makes the corporate lifestyle so attractive. I know I have personally watched my fair share of Suits. For others, maybe it was Elle Woods and her quirky route to becoming a Harvard Law graduate, all while mastering the “bend and snap,” that convinced you this degree was something you should and could pursue.

There is a plethora of legal comedies, dramas, and cinematic portrayals, one that has always stood out to me is A Few Good Men. I can still remember the first time I watched a young Tom Cruise losing his cool in court, trying to force Jack Nicholson to admit that he in fact ordered the “Code Red” that killed a Marine Private. Watching the heated exchange followed by Nicholson’s famous line “you can’t handle the truth,” was so exciting and intense all at the same time. Watching this, I knew that I wanted a career filled with that type of intensity and adrenaline rush.

A Few Good Men may have been the movie that inspired me to become a lawyer, but my career will be strikingly different than that of the young Tom Cruise’s character. In the film, Cruise plays Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, a United States Navy lawyer tasked with defending two US Marines accused of murdering their fellow Private. In the film, Kaffee’s clients maintain they were just following orders when they violently disciplined the deceased. The entire investigation is run through military law practices, and ends in military court.

In Canada, the military have their own court system separate and unique from the regular criminal justice system. So what would military court be like for Daniel Kaffee here in Canada?

Similar to the United States, Canada has a parallel and separate military court system. Military justice is administered through the Code of Service Discipline, which is found in Part III of the National Defence Act.¹ The Code allows the military to enforce disciplinary standards on members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to maintain cohesion within military units.² The Supreme Court of Canada recognizes the need for the parallel military system to enforce disciplinary standards that are higher than what is expected of civilians.³

Similar to the procedure in A Few Good Men, Canada has a tribunal system for military justice. The military system acknowledges that CAF members, who are subject to military discipline under the Code, must be afforded fair, just, and transparent justice.⁴ To ensure fairness, military tribunals have two tiers. Summary trials deal with minor offences related to military discipline and unit effectiveness.⁵ These are dealt with quickly so the member can immediately return to duty.⁶

For more serious offences, courts martial are administered. Courts martial are similar to civil and criminal courts but they have an independent military judge overseeing the formal process.⁷ Canada has two forms of court martial, General and Standing. A General Court Martial is similar to a criminal jury trial. This process includes a military judge and five randomly selected CAF members.⁸ The judge acts as the trier of law, deciding the formal sentence, and the CAF members are the triers of fact determining a verdict.⁹ This is the type of formal process depicted in A Few Good Men. In contrast, a Standing Court Martial is similar to a judge-alone criminal trial where the military judge wears both hats.¹⁰

The military court system is imperative to the CAF’s function. The specialized system allows the military to maintain discipline and integrity needed to carry out the dangerous operations for which they are responsible. Although their formal court processes are similar to the criminal court system, it is necessary that people trained in military operations decide punishment. Civilians cannot accurately judge the discipline and enforcement needed to carry out certain orders and operations.

 

 

 

¹ National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5, Part III, ss 66-159.

² Canada, National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Canada’s Military Justice System, (Ottawa: National Defence Headquarters, 2014), online:

<www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=canada-s-military-justice-system/hnea75sh>.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Canada, National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Canada’s Court Martial System, (Ottawa: National Defence Headquarters, 2016), online: <www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law/court-martial-system.page>.

¹⁰ Ibid.

Interview with Provincial Court's Judge Judith Shriar

Today we expand on our Access-to-Justice themed week, with a discussion on Alberta’s court system. Today’s post emphasizes the role that the courts play in helping litigants navigate the legal process once they’ve been introduced to the system. When courts give better access to self-represented litigants, more people can afford to pursue a claim or defend a claim or charge before a judge.

We recently had the opportunity to interview the Honourable Judge Judith Shriar of the Provincial Court of Alberta. She sits in Calgary, as well as in regional areas near the city, on criminal and some civil matters.

Through her time on the bench, Judge Shriar has heard a variety of charges, litigants, and issues, though she noted that she hears a large number of drinking and driving related charges. Judge Shriar observed that men appear in her courtroom more often than women and she sees more younger defendants than older. She made special note that these demographics do not change drastically from urban to rural, or even reserve centres.

In our justice system, there is currently cause for concern for self-represented litigants to represent themselves in court. Judge Shriar noted that courts have implemented programs and resources to help litigants navigate the murky waters of the legal system. The Provincial Court has “done a great job of making tools available online for litigants to access,” Shriar said.  

She further recognized that these resources have allowed self-represented litigants to become better equipped to handle their cases in court.

“I do think that people often do a good job on their own. Especially when people are unrepresented you see that people have really thought through their claim… they’re organized.”

However, there are always those who “slip through the cracks.” Sometimes a self-represented litigant faces an uphill battle during a dispute against a litigant with an experienced lawyer. When asked whether the judiciary has a responsibility to ensure that litigants are on equal playing fields, Judge Shriar confirmed that, though her jurisdiction to intervene is limited, she does what is appropriate within her position as an impartial judge to make litigants aware of the resources available to them, and even to step in when necessary to prevent gross injustices.

Another common area of concern is an increasing strain on limited court resources. Judge Shriar agrees that with respect to both manpower and infrastructure, the scarcity of court resources is an issue. In light of this problem Judge Shriar explained how Calgary’s Provincial Court has implemented programming to combat and mitigate the effects of diminishing resources.

She called Calgary’s Provincial Court a “leader across the province and the country,” when dealing with diminishing resources. For example, to deal with small overburdened rural courtrooms, regional dispositions are sometimes moved to Calgary. Setting aside a day for this purpose has helped to save time and effectively utilize the resources currently in place.

Another example is the Provincial Court's use of technology. For example, the court’s use of CCTV has reduced the need to transport parties and witnesses to courts. This eases the burden on support staff like sheriffs, clerks, and drivers.

When asked about the future of the courts and litigants’ ability to access and navigate them, Judge Shriar is optimistic. Since she was called to the bench, she has noticed many changes that increase both the efficiency of the court system and assist the courts in reaching appropriate verdicts. Specifically, technology and alternative dispute mechanisms have alleviated some of the pressures on the court system, while providing litigants with appropriate tools in which to solve their dispute.

However, more can be done.

We asked Judge Shriar what next steps the courts might take to continue to solve some of the issues individuals face when accessing the justice system. She said that, “the delay issue is critical. There were 15 charges dropped in Edmonton by a crown prosecutor to address these delay issues.”

“The courts do have a role to play in the process of helping to address root causes,” she said, and accordingly, we are likely to see an increase in “therapeutic courts, matrimonial courts, drug courts, and experimental programs.”

These measures will continue to funnel litigants out of the courtrooms while still providing them with the appropriate oversight. Solving disputes before trial, through programs such as mediation or judicial dispute resolution, saves both litigants and the courts time and money.

The Canadian justice system faces obstacles and challenges to provide fair and affordable access to its resources. It is clear at this point that Calgary’s Provincial Court has taken significant steps forward, leading Canada’s courts toward a future with a more accessible and balanced system of litigation and dispute resolution.

Interview: Student Legal Services' Executive Coordinator, Neil Thomson

Today, we explore a unique, local resource that facilitates access to justice.  We met with Student Legal Services of Edmonton's Executive Coordinator, Neil Thomson, to find out more about the organization, what they do, and hear about just how much work they do by the numbers.

 

 

This Should Never Be Necessary and Should Not Have Been Needed: Once Is Too Many

yet it did happen, in my experience, regularly. To lawyers on either side of a case.

Shrugging it off with a "trial judges are human and make mistakes" isn't a good answer.

Equivalent conduct on a football (soccer) pitch would get you at least a yellow card, maybe even a red card.

The hockey equivalent is probably a 10 minute if not a game misconduct for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

Most experienced enough litigators have had trials where one of the grounds of appeal they wanted to make was that the trial judge was biased and the bias affected the result or at least there's a reasonable basis for concluding that the bias may have affected the result.

That's a difficult argument to win except in egregious cases. If one is lucky, there are also significant enough errors of fact and law that will allow the appellate court to to intervene without having to deal with the actual or apparent bias issue at all.

The case below is an apparent example. I have set out excerpts.

 

Someday We'll Find It, The Rainbow Connection

It is important to identify that none of the contributors to The Dominion self-identify as members of the LGBT community. We recognize that, today, we are writing about things that we haven't personally experienced and that our ability to competently write on this issue is limited. We also recognize that the abbreviation “LGBT” is considered by many to be incomplete. We have chosen to err on the side of simplicity and familiarity. It is not our intent to offend. We apologize for any shortcomings that appear below.

 

One might assume that LGBT rights in Canada were worse the further one delves back into our history. This would be incorrect. While LGBT rights in 1867 were nowhere near what they are today, it's important to note that things actually got a lot worse before they got better.

In 1867, there were “buggery” laws on the books,¹ and this crime was punishable by death in British North America. As abhorrent as this is, these were inherited laws from Great Britain and officials on this side of the pond simply didn't see fit to impose the punishment. While there were many people sentenced to death for this “crime,” there are no records of this sentence being carried out. Instead, the convicted were pardoned or had their sentences commuted.

As unjust as this position was, in 1948 the Criminal Code was amended to label gay men as “criminal sexual psychopaths”, as well as to provide for indeterminate prison sentences.² In the 1950s and 1960s, a pseudoscientific device known as the “fruit machine” was employed to identify gay men.  These men were deemed to be ineligible for government jobs, including the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.³ This signified a low point for LGBT rights in Canada.

In 1968, Minister of Justice John Turner introduced The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69, an omnibus bill that decriminalized homosexuality.⁴ His predecessor, Pierre Trudeau, who had introduced an earlier version of the Bill, famously commented that “there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”.

Of course, mere decriminalization was insufficient, and systemic discrimination against LGBT people was still a problem. It still is, but things have started to get better. The advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms⁵ in 1982 brought forth important protection against discrimination for segments of the population that were identified as minority groups.⁶ Sexual orientation was NOT included.

It was not until 1995⁷ that the Supreme Court of Canada “read-in” sexual orientation to s. 15 of the Charter. In 1998⁸ the Court went a step further and ensured that provincial human rights statutes needed to be interpreted as if sexual orientation was deemed to be a prohibited ground for discrimination. This was held to be so, regardless of the intention of the provincial governments when crafting their legislation. The next year, the Court ruled on the landmark case M. v. H.⁹ allowing for same sex marriage in Canada, later resulting in the federal Civil Marriage Act¹⁰ which codified this right.

While these measures have undoubtedly improved life for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people the battle for equality has just begun for those with non-traditional gender expressions and identities. An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code is currently before Parliament to add protections from discrimination on these grounds.¹¹

Legislation is not enough. The systemic discrimination that has resulted in unfair treatment to these minority groups are not going to disappear by the mere stroke of a pen. While good law is indeed necessary, it is not sufficient.

To those of our readers in law school, legal professions, politics, and others who occupy positions of power or are going to in the future, consider this a call to arms. If our country is going to keep advancing against intolerance, we need to help lead the charge. We must decide how we are to use the influence that will invariably be entrusted to us, and we must do so fearlessly.

Intolerance and hate have dominated for far too long. For what it's worth, we're choosing love. We hope that you'll join us.

 

¹ Consolidated Statutes of Canada 1859, c 91, s 22.
² RSC 1927, c 36.
³ Gary W Kinsman, Dieter K Buse & Mercedes Steedman, Whose National Security?: Canadian State Surveillance and the Creation of Enemies (Canada: Between the Lines, 2000).
⁴ SC 1968-69, c 38.
⁵ Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].
⁶ Ibid at s 15.
⁷ Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513.
⁸ Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493.
⁹ [1999] 2 SCR 3.
¹⁰ SC 2005, c 33.
¹¹ Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, 1st Sess, 42nd Parl, 2016.

Breaking a New Year's Resolution: An Alternative Facts Version

*updated 8 Feb 2017

Or, that didn't last very long, did it?

One of my New Year's resolutions was to avoid commenting on any social media platform, even my own blog, about any silliness from any Canadian court below the Supreme Court on any subject having even the remotest connection to causation or contribution issues in any area of Canadian law. I'm about to break that resolution here and I've just broken it elsewhere for the same reason.

The Thrill Is Gone: Sardonicism ‘R Us, Part Deux

Or, "what's wrong with the facts of this case, not the result".

You'll find Part One on Slaw.

In this case, the sardonicism will be a bit wryer. Or a bit more ferocious.

As I told a friend, I've decided to adopt his "it is permissible to care (much) less" attitude starting on January 1, 2017. That doesn't mean I'll always live up to the letter of that attitude.

The substance of this note was written late last year. I decided to wait until this year to finish it.

Purposive Dancing With The Stars - Part 5

This part continues the Purposive Dancing article from where it ended in Part 4. When the part stopped, I'd finished providing the background for a scene that takes place in an imaginary version of Alberta, which I called AlberDum. (After all, folks, if Norway, that's right, Norway, could find a way to save a whole chunk of its North Sea oil revenue for rainy day, how smart does one have to be to save even a small but good chunk of Alberta's? Even a good car salesman could figure that out, let alone an Ontario self-exile from the Leaside and Rexdale areas of Toronto (even if he wasn't ever formally a part of the Alberta gov't.) I realize that Alberta's oil wasn't North Sea oil, so maybe it wasn't quite as clean as the European stuff - maybe had a whiff of sulphur or two; if not that then not quite as pure as the European stuff so it required more processing before becoming "saleable" -  but the stream of revenue Alberta got during at least two oil booms was just as "clean".  

 

Supreme Court of Canada Appointments

Dear Sir or Madam,

Yesterday we  outlined the structure of Canada’s court system. Today we move on to Canada’s highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

Sections 4-6 of the federal Supreme Court Act specify the composition of the SCC. The Governor in Council (the governor general, on advice from the Prime Minister’s Cabinet) appoints an individual who has been a judge of a provincial superior court—the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta or Supreme Court of British Columbia for example—or who has been a lawyer for at least ten years standing at the bar of any province.[1] Three of the SCC judges must be from Quebec, which  is likely to ensure that the SCC bench is sufficiently experienced with Quebec’s civil law system. It is also customary to include judges from across Canada’s geographical regions: three from Ontario, one from British Columbia, one from the Prairie provinces, and one from the Maritimes.

In August this year, Prime Minister (PM) Justin Trudeau announced a new nomination process for selecting SCC judges in an attempt to ensure that the process is “transparent, inclusive, and accountable.”[2] Before the new selection process, the PM appointed SCC judges through a simpler but arguably less transparent process. Before August 2016, the Prime Minister’s Office could nominate any superior court judge or lawyer in accordance with the SCA and the Constitution Acts, 1867-1982.[3] Customarily, this included conferring with provincial Attorneys General and with the Chief Justice of the SCC. Usually, this process resulted in a bench comprised of Justices with similar political and social values to the sitting government’s views. The nominees will probably continue to be politically aligned with sitting governments, but PM Trudeau’s intention is to demonstrate to the public that the nominees are selected for more than their political views.

The new Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments, chaired by Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell, convened to “provide non-binding, merit-based recommendations” to the PM.[4] By August 24, the Board had received 31 applications. It provided a short-list of 5 candidates to the PM, who nominated Hon. Malcolm Rowe. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, explained that the PM chose Rowe J. from the short-list “because of his legal and judicial acumen, public service background, ability to work in French, and ‘depth of understanding’ of Canada’s ‘diversity.’”[5] It also helped that Rowe J. fills retiring Justice Thomas Cromwell’s Atlantic region seat. As a result of this more transparent process, the public can review Justice Rowe’s application questionnaire here.

On October 25, 24 parliamentarians convened in Ottawa in a new question-and-answer session to determine Justice Rowe’s proficiency in French, his attention to diversity in Canada, and his commitment to access to justice. Inquirers included the leaders of the NDP, Green Party, and Bloc Quebecois, senators (including Hon. Murray Sinclair, first Manitoba Indigenous judge and former chair of the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission), and other members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. You can view the question-and-answer session here.

Section 41 of the Constitution provides the standard procedure to amend the “composition of the Supreme Court of Canada”.[6] It is the same as amending the office of the Queen or the Governor General and Lieutenants General of the provinces. In 2014, former PM Harper nominated Justice Marc Nadon from the Federal Court of Appeal, the Governor General appointed him, and he was sworn in according to the SCA.

Unfortunately, despite Nadon J.’s experience, expertise, and suitability to sit as puisne justice of the SCC, he was ineligible to be appointed.[7] The SCC decided with a 6-1 majority in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 that the correct interpretation of ss. 5 and 6 of the SCA excludes current judges of the Federal Court of Appeal from sitting on the SCC.[8]

The Supreme Court Act does not state that a Military Court judge, a Tax Court judge, Federal Court judge, or a Federal Court of Appeal judge can be appointed to the SCC. Other sections in the act do refer to judges of the Tax Court, Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeal,[9] so it is unlikely to be an error in drafting.

The new process for selecting SCC judges does not change the ultimate appointment process, so it is not necessary to amend the SCA or the Constitution. It merely suggests appropriate candidates to the PM and, hopefully, would prevent an incident like that in 2014 because there are more experts reviewing the candidates.

Humble regards,

The Dominion

 

[1] RSC, 1985, c S-26 [SCA].

[2] Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, “New process for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada”, News (Ottawa: 2 August 2016), online: <pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/08/02/new-process-judicial-appointments-supreme-court-canada>.

[3] 30 & 31 Victoria, c 3 (UK), s 41(d) [Constitution].

[4] “The Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments”, Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada (2 August 2016), online: <www.fja-cmf.gc.ca/scc-csc/index-eng.html>.

[5] Tonda Maccharles, “Supreme court nominee’s sex assault ruling no concern for Kim Campbell”, The Toronto Star, online: <https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/10/24/supreme-court-nominees-sex-assault-ruling-no-concern-for-kim-campbell.html>.

[6] Constitution, supra note 3.

[7] Justice Thomas Cromwell, as quoted by Laura Stone and Sean Fine, “Nadon appointment rejected on technicality, Justice Cromwell says”, The Globe and Mail (Ottawa: 14 September 2014), online: <www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nadon-appointment-rejected-on-technicality-justice-cromwell-says/article31891826/>. For more information see <www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marc-nadon-s-failed-journey-to-the-supreme-court-1.2636403>.

[8] 2014 SCC 21, [2014] 1 SCR 433 at para 4.

[9] See, for example, SCA, s 30.

Interview with Professor Craig Jones about Insite's Charter Challenge

Dear Sir or Madam; today finishes our discussion of vices falling under constitutional law.

Professor Craig E. Jones, Q.C., of Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Law, worked as lead counsel for the British Columbia Ministry of Justice and Attorney General from 2006 to 2012. In 2011, he argued on behalf of the Ministry at the Supreme Court of Canada on the Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society.[1] This case is sometimes referred to as the "Insite" case because it concerned the legality of the Insite clinic, PHS Community Services Society's operation of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside safe-injection site.[2]

The Dominion was grateful to speak with Professor Jones on this issue that he has always been passionate about. He has an incredible background studying, teaching, and practicing in several areas of law. He earned his law degree at UBC, his Master's Degree in Law at Harvard, and now teaches law at Thompson Rivers University, where he also earned his bachelor's degree. He has taught courses in torts, civil procedure, advanced advocacy, class actions, and ethics. Professor Jones maintains his law practice as an active member of the Law Society of British Columbia, working in legal consultation and litigation with a Vancouver firm. He is an expert in constitutional law and has litigated and consulted on other notable constitutional issues including British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco, the Braidwood Inquiry into the YVR Airport death of Robert Dziekanski, the Polygamy Reference, the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, and the “Occupy Vancouver” courthouse-access case.[3] 

PHS Community Services Society (PHS) and Vancouver Coastal Health, under the authority of the Ministry of Health, opened the Insite safe injection clinic in 2003. It provides a safe, clean location in a troubled neighbourhood where people with drug addictions can self-inject narcotics with clean, fresh needles. The clinic serves to combat drug overdoses on the street and rates of intravenous drug-use infections. Typically, possessing illegal narcotics is a crime and allowing individuals to use illegal narcotics in a medical facility is as well. But section 56 of the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) allows the federal Minister of Health to issue an exemption for valid health purposes, allowing the clinic to oversee safe narcotic injections and provide immediate medical intervention.[4] 

From 2003 to 2008, the federal Minister of Health continued to issue this exemption. But in 2008, under the Conservative government, a new Minister declined to renew the exemption. This resulted in Insite's operations being deemed illegal. To continue operating, PHS launched a constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the federal government to continue to renew the exemption.

PHS and the Attorney General for British Columbia (with Professor Jones as lead counsel) challenged the federal government's decision based on two points of constitutional law. One was Interjurisdictional Immunity, advanced by both PHS and the Attorney General. The other was PHS's Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 7 argument.

In Canada's federal system, ss. 91 and 92 divide the distribution of powers to the federal and provincial governments, respectively. The goal is to avoid the federal government asserting authority over a provincial mandate (and vice versa). PHS and the Attorney General of British Columbia advanced the argument that the federal government's criminal power was encroaching on the province's health power. This Interjurisdictional Immunity argument failed at the Supreme Court because the Court declined to narrow the core of the federal criminal power and the provincial health power such that the two cannot overlap. Therefore, the Court found in favour of another constitutional law principle: that, in this case, the more flexible doctrines of double aspect and flexible federalism are more applicable to managing health care that comes in contact with criminal law. 

Fortunately for the users of Insite, the Court found in favour of PHS's s. 7 Charter argument; that the federal Minister's decision breached the fundamental principles of justice with no reasonable justification. Section 7 protects the life, liberty, and security of the person of individuals who depend on the clinic. Insite operates to advance valid health concerns; it reduces harm and medical emergencies to individuals and the community. Because Insite operates under the same purpose as the CDSA, to maintain and promote public health and safety, the federal Minister of Health had inappropriately arbitrarily condemned it.

What are your thoughts on harm reduction initiatives in our communities? Do you agree with the government's decision to criminalize Insite's operations? Comment below!

With humble regards,

The Dominion

 

[1] 2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3 SCR 134.

[2] Supervised Injection, Vancouver Coastal Health, online: <www.vch.ca/your-health/health-topics/supervised-injection>.

[3] Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Law, "Craig E Jones, QC," Faculty, online: <www.tru.ca/law/faculty-staff/faculty/jones.html>.

[4] SC 1996, c 19.

Law and Social Media - Meet the Team - Leri Koornhof

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

There are but four working and schooling days in this week following Labour Day (which was first celebrated in the spring five years after first creating the Dominion). Therefore, this post is the first of two today to introduce all five bloggers in the Law and Social Media course.

We are pleased to introduce the gang’s second oldest member, and the only one born in the 1980s (which were so much better than the 1970s, we’ll have you know, Mr. Welke). Leri Koornhof is a third-year student at the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta. She is the only blogger who was part of this course last year and is excited to continue the standard of research, writing, and connecting history with interesting modern concepts which may relate to the study of law.

Ms. Koornhof has an educational background in Humanities and her work experience includes writing and editing for a former Minister of Justice Canada, serving tables at both elegant and non-elegant establishments, selling sports cars on the west coast, and tutoring and mentoring children and youth with special needs. Despite her advanced age (of which LSA President Nick Todd often is apt to remind her), Ms. Koornhof has learned to use these novel instruments with microchips and invisible rays to share her thoughts on historical events and how they interact with current legal analyses and social issues.

Contrary to Mr. Todd’s insistence, Ms. Koornhof is not a contemporary of the The Dominion. However, what she lacks in first-hand experience she vows to meet by researching and analyzing interesting facts to keep The Dominion’s readers glued to their brightly lit technology screens. For example, one major change in law from the 19th century to the 20th century was granting women and non-European men the right to vote. Ms. Koornhof’s work with the Ms. Suffragette team in the 2016 Winter semester explored the history of the suffrage movement in Canada. Click here for a #FBF from this Friday to another Friday past (a bit like virtual time travel!) where Ms. Suffragette explored the famous Persons Case of 1929.[1] Until the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC)[2] interpreted it differently the BNA Act stood in the way of women being considered legal persons for the purpose of becoming senators. Thus, in the words of the JCPC, the BNA Act was to be seen “a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits” (tip: if you are just starting law school, you will probably see this doctrine of constitutional law on your exam) so as to accommodate the changing needs of Canadian society.

 

Your Humble Servants,

The Dominion

 

[1] [1930] AC 124, 1929 UKPC 86.

[2] One of the major changes during the evolution of Canada’s independence during the 20th century following the BNA Act was ceasing to appeal court cases to England’s JCPC; instead, we rely on our Supreme Court of Canada for the ultimate interpretation of legislation.

Law and Social Media - Meet the Team - Paul Welke

Dear Sir or Madam,

We write to you today in order to introduce our oldest member, Paul Welke. Paul has the dubious distinction of being our only member to have been born in the 1970s.

Born and raised in Edmonton, he joined the Canadian Forces at 17, and transferred to the Intelligence Branch shortly after, which gave him both the opportunity to do two NATO peacekeeping tours to Bosnia-Herzegovina with the Royal Canadian Air Force, as well as an excuse for taking seven years to complete his Bachelor of Arts.

As is the case with many BA grads, Paul soon found that creativity would be required to secure gainful employment. After leaving the Canadian Forces, he started work as a Communications Technician with a major telecommunications company and earned his Journeyman ticket in that trade.

Eventually, he found the actual work that accompanied a job in the trades to be somewhat objectionable. Along with his family, he made the decision to pursue a career in Law, which had been a dream of his for some time. He commenced his legal education at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC, but transferred back home after his first year. While he found that Kamloops can be surprisingly picturesque and he was saddened to leave the friends that he found within the students and faculty at TRU Law, Edmonton has always been home, and Paul was excited to be able to complete his legal studies at his alma mater, the University of Alberta. Even more importantly, he was elated to discover that he would not have to spend two more school years away from his wife and son. They, on occasion, share in this joy at having him back home.

Paul has always had a love for criminal law and related constitutional law issues. He is currently seeking an articling position with a firm that shares his passions for access to justice and civil liberties. In addition to this, Paul is a volunteer and supporter of the Criminal Law Project of Student Legal Services of Edmonton, as well as the Founding Director of Innocence Alberta, a project that shared the dedication of their parent organization, Innocence Canada, to identifying, advocating for, and exonerating individuals convicted of a crime that they did not commit and to preventing such injustices in the future through legal education and justice system reform.

Outside of school, Paul enjoys playing board games and using his eight year old son as an excuse to do nerdy things, such as dressing up in matching Marty McFly costumes for Edmonton Expo. He has also kept a blog for the past two years detailing his misadventures as an older law student, which due to its rather liberal use of naughty words, will not be linked here. You are welcome to try to find it on your own. Aside from finishing his studies this year, Paul has resolved to pick up two of his old hobbies by ceasing to neglect his camera and his beer- and wine-making equipment.

 

Any queries for Paul can be sent to TheDominion1867@gmail.com, @Dominion_2017 on Twitter, or /Dominion2017 on Facebook.

 

Your Humble and Obedient Servants,

The Dominion

He Said / She Said: Voting, Voicing, and Testifying

Studying the history of the women’s suffrage movement reveals many social factors that affected and continue to affect Canada’s legal system. As readers of the Ms. Suffragette blog are aware, 2016 celebrates one hundred years of women’s voting rights in Canada. Significant progress in this area has been made over the last century, as women and men now represent approximately equal numbers of voters [1].

By enacting voting rights for women, Canadian society recognized that women and men had equal voices in the political sphere. The ability to express one’s voice in a political forum reflects the fundamental right to express one’s personal opinions on important, public matters.Therefore, the right to vote is tied to the core of personhood. However, it is essential that equality between men and women extends outside the political sphere. Just as women are considered equal to men politically, they must also be considered equal to men individually, in social situations, and under the law.

In Canadian courts, the evidentiary testimony of a witness is presented through viva voce evidence, which is the legal term referring to oral testimony in court. In the search for the truth, a witness’s factual views on an event can be compared to another’s understanding of the same event. This comparison of views often occurs in the context of sexual assault trials. A complainant of sexual assault can relay the events as he or she views them, and the accused can also testify as to his or her version of the events in question. Courts are sometimes presented with a diametrically opposed, he-said/she-said version of events. In assessing the truth, the court will consider the credibility of the witnesses. In the Canadian legal system, the testimony of women and men is assessed equally, irrespective of their gender [2]. However, in countries that include Islamic Shari’a law in their legal systems, a woman's testimony is not accorded equal weight to a man’s testimony. For example, in countries such as Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates, women are not perceived to be as credible as men in regards to their testimony [3].

Further, sexual violence tends to be perpetrated by men upon women, and this gender-based trend is fairly uniform globally [4]. In legal systems where women are viewed as having equal voices to men, victims of sexual violence may have better access to justice, and perpetrators are more likely to be reprimanded or rehabilitated. However, in countries that incorporate Shari’a law into their legal systems, victims have less opportunities to have their voice heard under the law. As women are more likely to be victims and as men are more likely to be perpetrators, women have less chances to effect retribution against male perpetrators.

In traditional Shari’a religious courts “the testimony of two women is required to match the value of one man’s testimony” [5]. In Jordan, for example, a woman who applies for a divorce on the basis of domestic violence must provide the court with “two male witnesses” because her own evidence is insufficient [6]. Lebanon, Kuwait, and Syria have civil and criminal court systems for most claims and offences. However, the systems are supplemented with a Shari’a court system [7]. The Shari’a courts, where a woman’s testimony is worth only half of a man’s testimony, prosecute moral crimes. Moral crimes in these religious courts include adultery, marital rape, and “honor” [sic] crimes. An example of a potential honour crime is “the murder or beating of [a woman] for alleged sexual misconduct” [8].

Due to international pressure, especially from the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”), many countries have moved away from purely Shari’a-based legal systems in order to increase the legal and political rights of women [9]. Bahrain ratified CEDAW in 2002, but with reservations concerning “family law, equality, freedom of movement, and residence” [10]. Generally, women in Bahrain are equal to men in the legal courts, but Shari’a courts still “state that a valid witness should be two men, or two women and one man” [11]. Egypt ratified much of CEDAW in 1981, and a woman’s testimony is legally equal to that of a man [12]. However, conservative power structures still make access to justice difficult for women when bringing assault claims to the courts [13]. The United Arab Emirates ratified many of the CEDAW Articles in 2004, but retain “precepts of Shari’a regarding [certain traditional] rights” [14]. For example, despite Dubai’s international appeal, in the absence of a confession to sexual assault, four adult male witnesses must supplement a female complainant’s testimony in order for a court to proceed with a conviction [15].

In Canada’s legal system, a woman’s voice is equal to that of a man in regards to court testimony. However, female complainants of sexual assault still face a stigma that is not attributed to complainants of non-sexual violence. Since sexual violence is a gender-based phenomenon, women are often disproportionately affected and negatively treated when they allege that they were sexually assaulted. The highly-publicized Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial was completed last week, and the judgment will be released on March 24th. Check back tomorrow for Ms. Suffragette’s analysis of the treatment of the female complainants and why the history of women’s positions in society is so important to the study of law.

 

[1] “Estimation of Voter Turnout by Age Group and Gender at the 2011 Federal General Election” (17 February 2016), online: <http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/estim/41ge&document=report41&lang=e>.

[2] Sameena Nazir & Leigh Tomppert, Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa: Citizenship and Justice (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005) [Nazir].

[3] Ibid.

[4] “The Facts: Gender Inequality and Violence Against Women and Girls Around the World” (17 February 2016), online: <http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/1556-the-facts-gender-inequality-and-violence-against-women-and-girls-around-the-world>.

[5] Nizar, supra note 2 at 44.

[6] Ibid at 114.

[7] Ibid at 44, 128, 278.

[8] Ibid at 278.

[9] Ibid at 54.

[10] Ibid at 52, 54.

[11] Ibid at 53.

[12] Ibid at 73.

[13] Ibid at 71.

[14] Ibid at 317.

[15] “Dubai sentences Norwegian woman who reported rape” (17 February 2016), online: <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23381448>.

The international reach of mareva injunctions: Talisman Energy Inc v Flo-Dynamics Inc

Lawyers practicing creditor-debtor law in Canada will want to take note of a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Talisman Energy Inc. v. Flo-Dynamics Inc, 2015 ABQB 340.  The Court held it could order a defendant to an Alberta lawsuit to transfer money located in another country back to Canada, pending trial.  The Court ultimately declined to exercise this power, but by finding that it could order such relief, the Court has provided plaintiffs with an important pre-judgment remedy when suing sophisticated debtors, who have assets located in other jurisdictions.  At the same time, the Court has indicated that this remedy is onerous, and will only be granted when less intrusive alternatives are not available to preserve assets, pending trial.

The Factual Background

Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty

One of the individual defendants in the lawsuit was a former employee of Talisman Energy Inc. (“Talisman”). Talisman alleged that the individual defendant directed valuable contracts to companies, in which he had undisclosed financial interests.  Talisman sued the individual defendant for breach of fiduciary duty (amongst other causes of action).[1]

Transferring Money to Austria

Three weeks after being served with Talisman’s Statement of Claim, the individual defendant transferred $4 Million USD out of a corporate defendant’s account, through a number of intermediary accounts, and finally into a bank account in Austria.[2] He jointly held the Austrian account with another defendant.  The individual defendant’s only asset of significant value remaining in Canada was a house in Calgary, worth $1.7 million.[3]

The Procedural Background

Talisman applied for a “mareva type” order requiring that the funds be transferred back to Canada and placed in a lawyer’s trust account. In the alternative, Talisman asked the Court to grant a worldwide mareva order, prohibiting any person from dealing with the funds in the Austrian bank account.[4] Pending a full hearing of Talisman’s application, the individual defendant agreed to an Interim Order, pursuant to which he would provide Talisman with 15 days notice before dealing with the funds in the Austrian account.[5]

The Court’s Decision

Despite finding that it had the power to grant an order requiring that the funds be transferred back to Canada, the Court declined to do so, and instead ordered that the funds be placed in a solicitor’s trust fund in Austria.  The defendant continued under an obligation to give Talisman notice before withdrawing the funds.[6]

The Test for a Mareva Injunction

A mareva injunction is an “interlocutory order restraining a civil defendant from disposing of or handling assets in a specific way prior to trial.”[7] To obtain a mareva injunction, the plaintiff must show:

1. A strong prima facie case, and
2. A real risk that the respondent will remove the assets from the jurisdiction, or dissipate them to avoid execution.[8]

The Court was satisfied that both elements of the test had been met.

1. Talisman had a strong prima facie case. The individual defendant admitted that one of his companies received significant payments (>$27 million) from Talisman, some of which he approved in the course of his employment at Talisman. He in turn received dividends and other income from that company. He did not disclose his interest in the company to Talisman, in breach of Talisman’s Policy on Business Conduct and Ethics.  The Court held that Talisman had established a prima facie case sounding in breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.[9] 
2. The risk of the defendant dissipating his assets to avoid execution was high. He moved the funds out of Canada shortly after being served with a Statement of Claim. He subsequently concealed the existence of the Austrian account for over a year, and only revealed it when questioned as part of the lawsuit.[10]

The Court’s in personam jurisdiction over the defendant

The Court was also satisfied that the mareva injunction could be used to order a defendant to transfer assets held in another country back to Canada, because the Court had in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.[11]

The Court’s reasons for not granting the mareva injunction

The Court declined to grant the requested order because the risk of the assets being dissipated could be mitigated with a less onerous order. Courts are cautious when granting mareva injunctions, because they are granted before the plaintiff’s claims have been substantiated.[12] The Court cautioned that it would not assist plaintiffs in “paralyzing the activities of any person or firm against whom he makes his claim by freezing assets” so that the plaintiff is guaranteed recovery if its claim succeeds.[13]  The Court saw no compelling reason to order the transfer of the funds back to Canada.[14] Neither the fact it would be difficult to enforce a judgment in Austria, nor that the defendant had few other assets in Canada swayed the Court.

What Would it Take to Get the Order?

What more could Talisman have done to convince the Court to exercise its jurisdiction to order the repatriation of the funds? The Court’s reasons point to one possible answer.  Talisman had relied on the English case of Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 6).[15]  The Court quoted a passage from Derby.  One of the English judges, in concurring reasons, had opined “the exercise of authority to transfer assets may be appropriate where the assets are in a country ‘which has no effective system of law...’”[16]

The Alberta Court was concerned with preserving the defendant’s assets, pending the outcome of the trial, as opposed to facilitating enforcement, in the event the plaintiff succeeded at trial.  Because Austria’s legal system provided sufficient safeguards to preserve the funds, the Court did not deem it necessary to have them returned to Canada. The result may have been different if the funds had been transferred to a country without a robust legal mechanism for preserving the assets.

 

---

[1] Talisman Energy Inc v Flo-Dynamics Systems Inc, 2015 ABQB 340 at para 4 [“Talisman”].

[2] Ibid at para 5.

[3] Ibid at para 13.

[4] Ibid at para 6.

[5] Ibid at paras 2, 7-8.

[6] Ibid at paras 2, 7-8.

[7] Ibid at para 21, citing Aetna Financial Services v Feigelman, [1985] 1 SCR 2 at para 1, 15 DLR (4th) 161 [“Aetna"].

[8] Talisman, ibid at para 23.

[9] Ibid at para 39.

[10] Ibid at paras 40-43.

[11] Ibid at para 25.

[12] Ibid at paras 46-48.

[13] Ibid at para 24, citing Aetna, supra note 7 at 8.

[14] Ibid at paras 48-49.

[15] Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 6), [1990] 3 All ER 263.

[16] Talisman, supra note 1 at para 29, citing Derby & Co Ltd, ibid at 276. 

Professor Lettow Lerner on Civil Juries

My former colleague and now Justice Russ Brown used to write about civil juries. We liked (I say liked because I still do but I am not sure what Justice Brown thinks today) them.

Professor Renee Lettow Lerner, one of American's eminent legal historians and Professor of Law at George Washington Law School, is guest blogging over at the Volokh Conspiracy. That is very cool.

What is even more cool is that she is blogging about the origins of civil juries.

She has so far blogged three parts:

1. America's misplaced sentiments about civil juries.

2. The unromantic origins of the jury and the search for alternatives.

3. The efforts to control civil juries due to their unpredictable nature.

Here is an excerpt from part 3:

The previous post stated that the jury was originally self-informing. Jurors came to court knowing their verdict, without any instructional proceeding. This was possible because almost all jurors came from small, tight-knit villages in which everyone knew everyone else’s business.

That state of affairs did not survive the greatest catastrophe of the age: the Black Death. In little over a year, from 1348 to 1349, the bubonic plague is estimated to have killed between 30 and 40 percent of the population of England. [See John H. Langbein, Renée Lettow Lerner, and Bruce P. Smith, History of the Common Law: The Development of Anglo-American Legal Institutions 225 (2009).] In the aftermath of this almost unimaginable death, to put it gently, society changed. The mobility of labor greatly increased; persons were no longer tied to the land and didn’t necessarily know their neighbors or local events well. Jurors could no longer be counted on to come to court knowing what to say.

So a method had to be found to instruct the jurors about what had happened. That method was oral trial, presided over by a royal judge. The method could hardly have been written evidence, as in Chancery or on the continent, because few jurors could read. 

This is very cool stuff for civil jury nerds. You should read all three posts and stay tuned for more, if you are also a civil jury nerd.

Interview with Justice Clackson on the Most Important Sentence Ever Written

On Friday you got to read Ms. Magna Carta’s take on Clause 39. Now tune in to hear what Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Clackson has to say about the famous chapter of the Magna Carta!

 

You can't sue Iran

unless Parliament says you can, so said the Supreme Court today in Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2014 SCC 62.  I always thought state immunity meant that, so good to see that my knowledge of the law is still good. But what do I know about this stuff? Not much.  

The person who does know a lot about this is my colleague Joanna Harrington who wrote the book on the subject. She and (three others) are co-authors of International Law:  Doctrine, Practice, and Theory, 2nd ed.  Toronto:  Irwin Law, 2014.

She was also cited today by both the majority and the dissent in Kazemi. Four times by LeBel's majority and once by Justice Abella in dissent.

Congratulations!!

Bouck on SCC on Court Fees

The late Justice Bouck of the BC Supreme Court was a friend of this law school. He was very kind to myself and (now Justice then professor) Brown. Among his passions was the question of civil procedure and its fairness.

A few days the Supreme Court struck down BC's court fees' structure in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59. The Court held that when fees deprive litigants of access to the courts, the fees are too high.

Bouck would have gone farther than the SCC did.  In his book, Exploding the Myths (Juriliber 2006) at 69, 71:

 

"Words often quotes from Magna Charta declare: 'To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.'  Nonetheless, the executive is deep into the business of selling ... justice.  It imposes punitive filing fees on litigants for processing a civil case through the court system.  It forces litigants to pay hearing fees for the services of a justice. ...

 

...

 

"As to all court filing and hearing fees, it seems wrong in principle to charge litigants anything.  Without paying filing and hearing fees, individuals may obtain the services and advice from politicians in the legislative branch of government.  they may also receive free advice and many governmental services from public servants in the executive branch.  These two branches are part of the law making machinery.  Since the public can obtain services free from the laws' makers, why should they have to pay any filing or hearing fees for the services of judges as the laws' interpreters?"