This morning, Statistics Canada released its latest numbers on homicides in Canada and they’re at their lowest level in 45 years.

In 2010, police reported 554 homicides in Canada, 56 less than the year before. The homicide rate fell to 1.62 for every 100,000 population, its lowest level since 1966.

The overall drop in homicides was driven largely by fewer incidents in the western provinces. With 35 fewer homicides in 2010 than in 2009, the rate in British Columbia fell to its lowest point since the mid-1960s. Police in Alberta reported 18 fewer homicides, while those in Manitoba reported 12 fewer.

In the face of these statistics, it becomes even harder to swallow the current Conservative government’s new omnibus crime bill that proports to make Canada’s streets safer.

As Eric Gottardi, vice chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s national criminal justice section has noted: “Criminal law should be based on the most effective policies and best use of public resources.”

In a 100-page submission made last week to a Parliamentary committee and critiquing bill C-10, the CBA says the legislation focuses too much on punishment and not on how to prevent criminal behaviour in the first place, or rehabilitate those who offend. “As most offenders will one day return to their communities, prevention and rehabilitation are most likely to contribute to public safety,” the brief notes.

These recent stats that show some of the most violent crimes are on the decline flies in the face of the so-called safe streets and communities act as well as coming on the heels of the government’s decision to kill the long-gun registry and all documents related to it. Rates of homicide involving rifles or shotguns in 2010 were about one-fifth of those seen 30 years ago, reports Stats Can.

Thunder Bay remains Canada’s murder capital, according to Stats Can with the highest homicide rate for the second year in a row (4.2 per 100,000). The next highest rates were in Saskatoon and Regina, both at 3.7 per 100,000.

With 35 fewer homicides in 2010 than in 2009, the rate in British Columbia fell to its lowest point since the mid-1960s. Police in Alberta reported 18 fewer homicides, while those in Manitoba reported 12 fewer. However, Ontario saw 11 more murders in 2010 than the year before.

Police in several of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas reported substantially fewer homicides in 2010. The rate in Vancouver, with 25 fewer killings, fell 42 per cent to its lowest level since data in metropolitan areas became available in 1981.

Visit Statistics Canada’s web site for the full Homocide in Canada report.

Homocide and other crimes are decreasing and while bill C-10 has some laudable aspects to it — like laws against luring children on the Internet — to lump together nine previous bills into one doesn’t serve Canadians. The bill should be split up to allow for proper examination of the costs and overall value to society and the justice system of many portions of it while separting out measures that are fully supported and would be happily passed by all parties.

Hyperlinks on web sites, in and of themselves, are not considered “publications” and therefore cannot be defamatory, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled this morning.

Justice Rosalie Abella ruled that hyperlinks on web sites are more 'references' than 'publications.' Photo: Heather Gardiner

In the case of Crookes v. Newton, Justice Rosalie Abella writing for the majority of the nine-judge panel, states: “Hyperlinks are, in essence, references, which are fundamentally different from other acts of ‘publication.’

“A hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as ‘publication’ of the content to which it refers. When a person follows a hyperlink to a secondary source that contains defamatory words, the actual creator or poster of the defamatory words in the secondary material is the person who is publishing the libel. Only when a hyperlinker presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content, should that content be considered to be ‘published’ by the hyperlinker,” says the decision.

While dissenters Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and Morris Fish generally agree with Abella’s ruling, they differ on the heart of the matter saying: “However, a hyperlink should constitute publication if, read contextually, the text that includes the hyperlink constitutes adoption or endorsement of the specific content it links to. A mere general reference to a website is not enough to find publication.”

The case involves Wayne Crookes, the president and sole shareholder of West Coast Title Search Ltd., who brought a series of lawsuits against those he claimed were responsible for a “smear campaign” against him and other members of the Green Party of Canada in articles published on a number of web sites in 2006.

Jon Newton has a B.C.-based web site containing commentary about various issues, including free speech and the Internet. One of the articles he posted on it was called “Free Speech in Canada,” which contained hyperlinks to other web sites, which in turn contained information about Crookes.

At both the trial and appellate level, the courts ruled the hyperlinks did not constitute publication of the impugned content.

Abella notes in her analysis that hyperlinks are essentially references. “Hyperlinks thus share the same relationship with the content to which they refer as do references. Both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content,” she writes.

She goes on to point out that: “The Internet cannot . . . provide access to information without hyperlinks. Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression.”

In the end, Abella says this ruling does not necessarily apply to all types of links on the Internet, particularly as it is constanlty changing.

“The reality of the Internet means that we are dealing with the inherent and inexorable fluidity of evolving technologies. As a result, it strikes me as unwise in these reasons to attempt to anticipate, let alone comprehensively address, the legal implications of the varieties of links that are or may become available. Embedded or automatic links, for example, may well prove to be of consequence in future cases, but these differences were not argued in this case or addressed in the courts below, and therefore need not be addressed here.”

Labour and employment law is the top area business leaders will look to lawyers for their advice over the next year, according to a survey released yesterday by law firm Miller Thomson LLP.

The survey, conducted in the second half of August, polled 200 senior business executives from a broad spectrum of the Canadian economy, including manufacturing, financial services, retail, forestry, agriculture, and mining.

The poll asked what issues were most likely to keep those business leaders up at night. Profitability, a high Canadian dollar, and attracting talent topped their list of worries.

“What we are hearing from Canadian business leaders is that external economic forces are clearly taking a toll on corporate bottom lines,” says Gerald Courage, chairman of Miller Thomson. “There is no doubt that a high Canadian dollar has been a major factor, so it is reassuring to see some recent relief in this area.”

But as it was conducted by a law firm, the survey also asked what type of legal advice those business leaders would most likely seek out. Over the next 12 months, 73 per cent of those polled will be looking for labour and employment advice: 57 per cent will need assistance with mergers and acquisitions; followed by 56 per cent looking for tax law help, 55 per cent probably requiring assistance with litigation, 33 per cent with intellectual property protection, 31 per cent with succession planning, and 28 per cent with environmental law.

For 79 per cent of execs in the areas of mining, oil and gas, and exploration industries, as well as the finance, insurance and real estate industries, M&A advice is likely what they’ll be seeking out the most over the next 12 months.

Click here for Miller Thomson’s regional breakdown of the results in the areas of business issues, issues of national importance, and legal advice sought.

Miller Thomson’s survey was conducted by Research House. A sample of 200 senior and C-level executives were surveyed (157 males and 43 females). With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate to within ± 6.9 per centage points, 19 times out of 20.

This building at 309 Duckworth St. is home to the fourth permanent courthouse in St. John’s. The first opened in 1730 on almost the same spot but burned down as did the others. The plans for this grand courthouse began in 1899 and the cornerstone for the new building was laid by the Duke of York, who who would late become King George V, with a 14-karat gold trowel made especially for the occasion.

Construction of the new courthouse continued throughout 1902 and 1903. The building was officially opened May 2, 1904, at exactly noon when Chief Justice Sir William Horwood, together with justices George Henry Emerson and George MacNess Johnson took their places on the bench. On June 18, 1988, the courthouse was declared a national historic site.

Today the Courthouse is used exclusively by the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, except for a portion of it in its basement area which houses the city lockup.

Read more of the court’s history here.

This is the second in our occasional photographic series of the courthouses of Canada. If you have a photo and story of the courthouse in your city or town that you’d like to share, e-mail it to editor This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Canadian courts could strike down the country’s anti-prostitution laws if judges follow the logic of a landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling on drug policy that came out last week.

Experts say the biting unanimous decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society preventing the closure of North America’s only safe-injection site for drug addicts has implications for the challenge to Canadian adult prostitution laws that is working its way through the courts.

The court said closing the Insite clinic violated addicts’ basic rights to life and security, given evidence that the clinic reduced the risks from drug addiction.

“I think it’s going to be cited in many, many cases,’’ said Errol Mendes, a law professor at the University of Ottawa. He said the ruling’s logic can apply in Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General), the prostitution case likely to end up at the Supreme Court.

Prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada, but most related activities, such as advertising services or living off the proceeds of prostitution, are against the law.

The recent case, brought by dominatrix Terri Jean Bedford and other sex workers, argues that these laws put sex workers in danger. Judge Susan Himel agreed in a ruling that struck down the laws, noting, for example, that the laws make it illegal for sex workers to hire body guards.

Ontario’s Court of Appeal is expected to rule on the case soon. If it and then the Supreme Court uphold Himel’s decision, the federal government will have to find another way to restrict prostitution, or perhaps accept legalized brothels of the sort found in Nevada.

Both Himel’s ruling and the Insite decision found government actions did not meet the “principles of fundamental justice’’ that underpin Canadian legislation. Carissima Mathen, a law professor at the University of New Brunswick, said Himel’s ruling seemed bold at the time, but the Insite decision “suggests that it may not be such an outlier.’’

A lawyer in the prostitution case agreed that the Insite case was significant for his challenge.

“I think this case strongly supports what we set out to achieve,’’ said Alan Young. “But obviously the Court of Appeal will read the case how they see fit and perhaps they will see a different interpretation.’’

Both the federal and Ontario governments said it would be inappropriate to comment on a matter currently before the courts.

Experts said the Insite decision showed that the government could not ignore scientific evidence to push a legal agenda that opposes drug use or prostitution.

Significantly, the Supreme Court did not examine whether the trial judge was right to conclude that Insite saved lives, focusing on how the government had to react to that evidence.

This might make it easier for the Ontario court to dismiss requests from government lawyers to re-examine the facts of the the prostitution case, said Hamish Stewart, a law professor at the University of Toronto.

Cases like the prostitution one will determine how widely the Insite ruling can apply. The Insite text zeroes in on Insite’s neighbourhood, Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, probably Canada’s most deprived urban area.

Young said the government may argue that Insite’s precedents apply only to the Downtown Eastside, but his case is also grounded in that neighbourhood .

The debate over prostitution laws in Canada is haunted by the specter of Robert Pickton, who was convicted of six murders but charged with many others. Many of more than 60 missing women were sex workers from the Downtown Eastside.

Some advocates for legal prostitution say anti-prostitution laws forced Pickton’s victims underground, putting them at greater risk.

Former Conservative cabinet minister Lawrence Cannon will be joining Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP’s Ottawa office as a strategic adviser and chairman of its government affairs group.

Lawrence Cannon

The firm is bringing in the former minister of foreign affairs and transporation to leverage his ties with all levels of government here and abroad.

“Lawrence’s expertise in federal, provincial and municipal levels of government offers unparalleled insight to our existing Canadian and International clients and to those seeking to establish themselves in Canada,” said Gowling’s managing parnter Scott Jolliffe. “This announcement also reinforces our commitment to provide a worldwide perspective to our clients, as their business objectives become increasingly global in nature and scope.”

Cannon was first elected to the House of Commons in 2006 but was defeated in the orange wave in the spring election, losing his Western Quebec riding of Pontaic to rookie New Democrat Mathieu Ravignat.

Like many politicians — lawyers and non-lawyers alike — who have “moved on,” Cannon has found a home at one of Canada’s large law firms. At Gowlings, Cannon joins former Liberal Justice minister Martin Cauchon, who is at the firm’s Montreal office.

Others who have taken up residence at Bay Street law firms in their post-political careers, mostly to act as deal-makers and door openers around the world, include: Stockwell Day, who joined McMillan LLP in July; former Toronto mayor David Miller is now at Aird & Berlis LLP. Heenan Blaikie has quite a few former politicos on board with former prime minister Jean Chrétien topping the list that also includes Geoff Plant, former attorney general of British Columbia, and former premier of Québec, Pierre Marc Johnson. Norton Rose OR LLP can boast of having Brian Mulroney and former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant in its pool. The chairman of Cassels Brock and Blackwell LLP is former Ontario Liberal premier David Peterson who has Ontario Tory Mike Harris working alongside. As well Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP counts former federal cabinet minister and premier of Quebec Lucien Bouchard as on of its partners.

Yesterday’s rumours about the merger of Norton Rose OR and Calgary-based Macleod Dixon turned out to be spot on. The global law firm’s foothold in Canada has increased dramatically as has its reach into the area of energy and mining law.

Norton Rose Group chief executive Peter Martyr, Macleod Dixon managing partner Bill Tuer, and Norton Rose OR managing partner John Coleman.

The two firms will be joining forces officially on Jan. 1, 2012. The new firm will be renamed Norton Rose Canada and with close to 700 lawyers, including those from Macleod Dixon in Calgary, Montréal, Ottawa, Toronto, Québec, Caracas and Bogotá, the new firm will become one of the three largest in the country.

This merger significantly increases Norton Rose’s resources across its six key sectors in Canada, particularly energy and infrastructure and mining and commodities. This also now gives Norton Rose a solid team in Calgary, which had been somewhat of a hole after the initial merger with Ogilvy Renault earlier this year.

For Macleod Dixon, which has always had a strong stable of large international energy clients, the merger allows for more global scope to serve them.

“Our decision to merge was the result of a detailed strategic review. Joining Norton Rose Canada is a major global step in serving our clients through a broader and more sophisticated international practice,” said Bill Tuer, Macleod Dixon’s managin partner. “We have had offices in emerging markets for 20 years and investment is flowing into and out of Canada more than ever before. This merger will allow us to assist our clients in most of the important markets around the globe.”

With the merger between Ogilvy Renault and Norton Rose Group, John Coleman has already been instrumental in changing the legal landscape in Canada. This latest announcement rocks the establishment even further.

“This is about creating a new Canadian powerhouse that can serve clients through its international platform,” said Coleman, managing partner of Norton Rose OR. “We will have unmatched strength and reach in the mining and energy business in Canada and throughout the world including Latin America. This merger also bolsters our operations in Calgary making us the market leader in western Canada.”

Coleman also noted the two Canadian firms have highly complementary strengths as well as similar cultures and values.

"We will remain proudly Canadian and the way we serve you locally will not change," said Coleman, who will continue as the managing partner of Norton Rose Canada's enlarged operations. Tuer will join the executive committees of both Norton Rose Canada and the international group.

The merger will also make Norton Rose Group one of the five largest international legal practices by number of lawyers, with more than 2,900 lawyers in 43 offices throughout Europe, Asia Pacific, Canada, Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

“This is another very exciting move for the group and constitutes a significant step towards realizing our ambition of becoming one of the world’s leading providers of legal services,” said Peter M. Martyr, chief executive of Norton Rose Group.

Macleod Dixon’s origins date back almost 100 years in Calgary, an important energy capital. The firm also has offices in Toronto, Caracas, Bogotá, Moscow, and Almaty, Kazakhstan. It was the first Canadian law firm to open an office in Latin America in Caracas in 1997, where it is a top-ranked practice. Macleod Dixon also opened its first international office in Moscow in 1991, and in Kazakhstan in 1994.

Yesterday’s release of the Conservative government’s proposed omnibus crime bill, relatively benignly named the safe streets & communities act, wasn’t exactly met with resounding approval by either the legal profession or the Canadian public in general.

Shortly after the bill’s multipronged release in Toronto and Montreal, the Canadian Bar Association came out swinging, saying “the bill’s approach is contrary to what is known to lead to a safer society.”

Photo: banspy

The CBA takes issue with several aspects of the proposed bill, including mandatory minimum sentences and overreliance on incarceration, constraints on judges’ discretion to ensure a fair result in each case, and the bill’s impact on specific, already disadvantaged groups.

The CBA and other critics also feel that lumping so many crime bills together, many of which have failed in Parliament before in the last five years, is a bit of an end run around the democratic process. Dumping such a wide range of issues together in one bill means careful parliamentary study of the bill’s component parts is highly unlikely. As well, if there are parts that other parties agree are good, they still have to pass what they don’t agree with because of the all-or-nothing aspect omnibus legislation.

On Monday, Law Times will provide an in-depth analysis of the reaction to the bill from the legal community. But overall, the costs, increased incarceration while crime levels are decreasing, and doing away with judicial discretion on sentencing seem to be the main sticking points.

Groups representing victims of crimes appear to be the only ones really pleased with aspects of the legislation. Electronic privacy advocates expressed relief that the bill does not include anything on online spying, but they expect it to come, possibly in copyright legislation.

There has been quite a lot of reaction in the Twittersphere. Here’s a few choice ones, some from members of the legal profession plus a few others.

Brenda Cossman (@brendacossman), a law professor at the University of Toronto: Safe Streets & Communities Act - I’m worried, about many things, but 1 of them, is how it might capture teens and sexting.... Tweens, teens and sexting. Stay tuned for my critique of criminal omnibus bill....the more I read, the more nervous i get.

KirkTousaw, (@kirktousaw), a lawyer and advocate for cannabis policy reform in Abbotsford, B.C.: #omnicrime does not target org crime, will affect mostly small timers, addicts, medpot patients. Expensive failure not a Canadian priority. New Tory “crime” bills do not target organized crime, will not make us safer. Could media stop uncritically regurgitating CPC talking points

Justin Samlal (@justinsamlal), a conservative political and government relations consultant working with Pure Strategy Group: Thank the Universe that “Lawful Access” was omitted from #omnicrime. What garbage that was.

Parliament Hill reporter Kady O’Malley (@kady): [NDP MP Joe] Comartin doesn’t think anything in the #omnicrime bill will deter crime; it’s ideological, not based on evidence. #hw

Kevin Kindred (@KevinKindred), lawyer, activist, cruciverbalist, bon vivant in Halifax: Oh, crime. If only there were more of you to be tough on. #omnicrime

Daniel Brown, (@DanielBrownLaw), Toronto criminal defence lawyer: The crime rate is on a 20 yr. decline, yet sweeping Tory #crime bill promised to be only ‘the beginning.’

Sean Krausert (@thatpovertyguy), a social justice activist in Canmore, Alta.: Less $ re social services + less judge discretion + mandatory min. + creating more criminals = MORE #poverty in Canada.

Chris McLaren (@mistermclaren) in Cambridge, Ont: Omnibus crime bill: fact-ignoring ideological symbolism or cynical diversion of public funds to impending corporate prisons? #whypickjustone

A member of the Twitterati in St. Eleanors, P.E.I. masquerading as William Henry Pope, the former editor and judge (@williamhenrypope): Incensed about the omnibus bill? Why!? They didn’t even re-introduce the death penalty or prison torture. Yet.

The Fake Steve Harper (@ThePMSaidSo): Everyone is so surprised by my crime omnibus. Don’t you remember I told you that you wouldn’t recognize the place when I was done with it?

What do you think about the proposed omnibus bill?

I’m a big fan of taking pictures of courthouses and having been doing so whenever I see one while travelling to other parts of Canada. I thought it would be entertaining to start posting some photos of the various beautiful — and even those not-so-beautiful — courthouses from across Canada. I would also encourage readers to send in photos of the courthouses in your cities and towns to Legal Feeds and we’ll post them. If you have any you’d like to share — particularly of some of the country’s older courthouses that may be disappearing (or are already gone) — e-mail them to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and I’ll start posting them. Include information on age, architects, or any other interesting tidbits you may be aware of. Let’s see how many we can catalogue on this blog.

I’ll start off with one from Nova Scotia that I took last month while visiting the province prior to the Canadian Bar Association and Canadian Corporate Counsel Association’s annual meetings.

The Annapolis County courthouse in Annapolis Royal, N.S., is one of the oldest in Canada. It was designed by Francis LeCain and built in 1837 and later enlarged. Still in use, it continues the local presence of the British-based judiciary, which dates from 1721.

The Canadian Judicial Council today announced who would be sitting on the inquiry panel looking into complaints against Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas.

Guy Pratte will serve as independent counsel to present the case to the inquiry committee.

The inquiry committee includes three chief justices appointed by the CJC and two lawyers appointed by the minister of Justice. The members are: Chief Justice of Alberta Catherine Fraser, (Chairperson); Chief Justice of Ontario Warren Winkler; Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island Chief Justice Jacqueline Matheson; Barry Adams of Chown Cairns in St. Catharines, Ont.; and Marie-Claude Landry Landry Boucher & Associés in Cowansville, Que.

Douglas stepped aside from her courtroom role in the summer of 2010 after the complaint arrived at the CJC regarding Douglas’ behaviour. The allegations come from Alex Chapman, who was a client of the judge’s husband, Winnipeg lawyer Jack King. Douglas could face removal from the bench.

King was reprimanded by the Law Society of Manitoba in March after pleading guilty to three counts of professional misconduct, including sexual harassment of a client, conflict of interest, and failing to act with integrity. He admitted to trying to get Chapman to sleep with his wife as well as sending raunchy pornographic photos of Douglas to Chapman in 2003. King publicly apologized to his wife and holds that Douglas was unaware both of the photos being posted online and his actions with Chapman.

Essentially, the committee will decide if the judge knew of her husband’s scheme and if the naked photos were posted online when she applied to become a judge and whether she should have disclosed that in her application. It all comes down to the question of whether private actions “could reflect negatively” on herself or the judiciary.

Guy Pratte, of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, will act as independent counsel to present the case to the inquiry committee. The mandate of the independent counsel is to act in the public interest to present the case to the inquiry committee.

Under the Judges Act, the inquiry committee is deemed to be a Superior Court. Over the next few weeks, it will decide when to convene to hear the matter. Generally, these hearings are held in public, but may be held behind closed doors althoug “if required in the public interest and the due administration of justice.” The Committee will also decide on the scope of its inquiry.

The inquiry committee will review the issues, then submit a report to the CJC that includes it recommendation of whether Douglas should be removed from office. The CJC will then make a recommendation to Justice minister regarding the judge’s ability to remain in office.