Bay Street law firms are (finally) jumping on the diversity bandwagon.

As one of its many diversity initiatives, everyone at Norton Rose Canada's Toronto office participated in the international Day of Pink on April 10 to fight bullying and homophobia.

Sixteen firms announced today they have joined forces to form the Law Firm Diversity and Inclusion Network in an effort to promote these values within the legal profession.

This follows the establishment of the Legal Leaders for Diversity in June 2011, which is an organization of in-house counsel that promotes diversity within the legal departments of corporations across Canada.

Douglas New, a partner at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP in Toronto and co-chairman of the firm’s diversity committee, says LLD has been very active in encouraging major law firms to join their initiative.

“Once we started to meet, we realized that each of the firms is doing some of the same things, some of the firms are doing different things, and there’s a lot to benefit diversity and inclusiveness [at] both the law firms and the community in which we serve by sharing some best practices between the firms,” he says.

The signatories of the network include: Faskens, Norton Rose, Bennett Jones LLP, McMillan LLP, Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP, Goodmans LLP, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Heenan Blaikie LLP, Stikeman Elliott LLP, Dentons Canada LLP, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Torys LLP, and WeirFoulds LLP.

“All of these law firms have their own initiatives going on internally and so this is a way that we can all share best practices and do things more uniformly,” says Andrea Raso Amer, a partner at Dentons Canada LLP in Vancouver and co-chairwoman of the firm’s diversity committee.

“[And] to make it clear not only to the legal community but also to the community at large that diversity and inclusion is something that law firms don’t just give lip service to, it is really something that we want do and improve upon.”

The network’s core values include:

•  Sharing ideas for the promotion of diversity and inclusion in connection with recruitment, retention, and advancement within law firms.
• Working with Legal Leaders for Diversity and other general counsel, law departments, business leaders, and professional associations in their efforts to advance diversity and inclusion.
• Supporting outreach programs in law schools and the broader community.
• Promoting thought leadership and constructive dialogue on issues of diversity and inclusion.
• Evaluating our efforts.

The last point has been a bit of a stickler as not all firms currently track their demographics.

“It’s not good enough to say we have X number of people of this background within our firm,” says Raso Amer. “It’s do they feel included? Do they feel that they have a road to progression? Do they feel that they have the opportunities that everybody else has?”

Dentons, formerly Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP, was the first firm to voluntarily gather metrics about its personell makeup when it conducted its first firm-wide survey in November 2008, which included a portion on self-identification in various equity-seeking groups.

“It was a way of measuring to some extent how we were doing internally,” says Raso Amer, adding working groups were developed as a way to address certain issues that arose as a result of the survey. Dentons conducted a second survey last year.

Douglas Rienzo, a partner at Osler and chairman of its diversity committee, says the firm conducted its first survey last fall to establish a benchmark.

"You can look around and say, ‘Well gee, I think we look pretty diverse,’ but until you actually go out and measure you really can’t say for sure,” he says.

New is of the same mind. “In order to know whether the programs you put in place are working, you have to know where you started,” he says.

Not all 16 firms have conducted surveys to gather diversity statistics, but most said they’re open to the idea.

They say not only will diversity initiatives benefit the firms, but clients as well.

“We try to represent the communities in which we operate,” says Troy Ungerman, a partner at Norton Rose and a member of its Canadian diversity commitee. “So if we have clients that are looking to do business in other jurisdictions, for instance, the extent to which we have a workforce that represents that community can be helpful from a business perspective for the client; it may make negotiations easier, it may make dealing with political or cultural sensitivities a little easier as well.”

“The more diverse we are, then the more understanding we’ll have of various cultures where [our clients] are doing business,” adds Rienzo.

In this short week at the Supreme Court of Canada there are only three appeals scheduled to be heard.

May 21 — Quebec — R. v. McRae

Criminal law: While in prison awaiting trial, Stéphane McRae and another inmate conspired to attack the Crown prosecutor, a police investigator, and four witnesses. After finding out about this plan, investigators placed a listening device on a third inmate. McRae was charged with conveying a threat to cause death or bodily harm. The main issue is that the threatening remarks were made in a place where it’s assumed that confidentiality exists.

Read the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision.

May 22 — New Brunswick — A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd.

Torts: A family owned and managed an apartment building in Moncton, N.B. In 2000, four of the five family members decided to sell the building but the managing member disagreed with the sale. They were unable to sell the building to interested third parties so the managing member eventually purchased the property. The other members argued the managing member breached their obligations and acted unlawfully, and committed an economic interference that caused losses so they sought damages. The trial judge found the economic tort of interfering with contractual relations by unlawful means had been established and awarded damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Read the New Brunswick Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related articles:
Do equitable ends justify expanding “unlawful means?” The Supreme Court of Canada grants leave in A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., Canadian Appeals Monitor

May 23 — Nova Scotia — MacDonald v. R.

Criminal law: Erin Lee MacDonald was convicted of several firearms-related offences. He was entertaining friends at his condominium and was repeatedly asked to turn down the volume of his music. When police appeared at his door, he was carrying a loaded restricted firearm. McDonald argued the police’s search violated his Charter rights but the trial judge ruled the search was justified. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

Read the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal’s decision:

Other related articles:
Appeal court overturns gun charge conviction, upholds two others, The Chronicle Herald

The French are joining forces.

Welch Bussieres managing partner Jean-François Welch says the partnership with DS Avocats will help the firm compete with larger national firms.

International business law firm DS Avocats, based in Paris, France, is partnering up with Welch Bussieres, a 30-lawyer business law firm that has offices in Quebec City and Montreal.

DS Avocats has five offices in France along with offices in China, Vietnam, and Singapore.

Jean-François Welch, managing partner at Welch Bussieres, says this move will help the firm compete with larger national firms.

“Our competitors, which are the national firms, have been growing outside of Canada with a variety of partnerships and mergers, and we’re just trying to be able to follow our clients all the way to China and Europe and be able to offer them the service that they would get in a national or international law firm,” he tells Legal Feeds.

“Multinational corporations have access to seamless services across the planet, we just try to offer the same thing to small and medium businesses,” he says.

DS Avocats has a strong global connection as a founding member of the DS Network, a group of firms in Barcelona, Brussels, Milan, Buenos Aires, and soon Brazil.

François-Xavier Simard Jr., one of the firm’s partners, had a strong influence on the partnership with DS Avocats. Simard conducts a lot of business in Europe and with the new comprehensive economic and trade agreement, currently being negotiated by Canada and the European Union, he convinced the firm to go global in order to take advantage of it, says Welch.

In addition, the firm already does a fair bit of work with the United States so it made sense to seek access to the European and Chinese markets as well, he says.

“We need to be able to follow our clients outside of the borders,” says Welch.

It’s going to be a busy week at the Supreme Court of Canada with nine appeals scheduled to be heard.

May 13 — Federal Court — Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.

Intellectual property law: This case relates to a patent dispute over the medicine olanzapine, which could potentially be used to treat central nervous system diseases like schizophrenia. Eli Lilly applied for the patent and then Novapharm sought to bring a generic version of olanzapine to market. The central question is whether the Federal Court of Appeal’s creation of a new non-statutory test for utility is a matter of public importance.

Read the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related articles:
Federal Court of Appeal upholds invalidity of olanzapine selection patent, Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh

May 13 — Ontario — Attorney General of Canada v. Zajicek

Criminal law: The Czech Republic sought Bretislav Zajicek’s extradition to stand trial on charges of robbery and property offences from nine years prior. Zajicek had confessed to Czech authorities but he claims the confession was obtained through torture. The minister of Justice wasn’t convinced that his allegations of torture established an abuse of process and therefore issued a surrender order.

Read the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related articles:
Ottawa: Bretislav Zajicek facing extradition over allegations of robbery and property damage in his native Czech Republic, CIReport

May 13 — Alberta — Mian v. R.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Mohammad Hassan Mian was charged with drug-related offences but the trial judge found his Charter rights had been breached and excluded the evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. Mian was acquitted. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Read the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision.

May 14 — Ontario — Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

Health law: Shoppers Drug Mart and the Katz Group, which own, franchise, and operate pharmacies in Ontario, applied to quash provincial regulations that prohibit private label generic drugs from being sold. Shoppers and the Katz Group wanted to use their own private label generic drugs instead of purchasing them from an arm’s-length third party, however amendments to the regulation of prescription drug sales in 2010 prevent them from doing so.

Other related articles:
Supreme Court to hear appeal of Ontario generic drug rules, The Globe & Mail 

May 14 — Ontario — Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. v. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

Health law: This case is related to the one above. The main question is whether the Ontario government can lawfully ban private label generic drugs by regulation or if it has to receive approval from the legislature.

Read the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related articles:
What’s in a Name? Ontario Pharmacies Fight to Substitute Brand-Name Drugs with Private-Label Equivalents, Canadian Appeals Monitor

Will Ontario drug victory be a boost for Shoppers Drug Mart? Financial Post

May 15 — Quebec — Ibanescu v. R.

Criminal law: Mihai Ibanescu was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit and impaired driving. The central issue is whether the Court of Appeal erred by not complying with the stare decisis rule.

Read the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision.

May 16 — Manitoba — Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.

Pensions: When the Manitoba Telephone System was no longer a Crown corporation, employees and retirees became members of a new pension plan. The pension assets and liabilities attributable to members under the old plan were transferred to the new plan. The difference in value was determined to be approximately $43.3 million. The employees and retirees launched an action for payment of the surplus and sought declarations relating to the governance of the new plan. The Court of Queen’s Bench allowed the action in part and ordered MTS to pay the surplus to the applicants. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Read the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related articles:
MTS employees taking pension money case to Supreme Court, Metro News

May 16 — Alberta — Vuradin v. R.

Criminal law: Fabian Vuradin was convicted of the sexual interference of an 11-year-old girl along with the sexual assault of two others. Vuradin appealed to have his pretrial custody count towards his sentence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. There is a publication ban on the victim’s name.

Read the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision.

May 17 — Ontario — Castonguay Blasting Ltd. v. R.

Environmental law: Castonguay Blasting was the subcontractor at a highway construction site when rock debris damaged a house and a vehicle on neighbouring private property. The property owners were compensated for the damage but Castonguay was charged one and a half years later for failing to report the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment contrary to the Environmental Protection Act. The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted Castonguay, but that decision was reversed by the Superior Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Read the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related articles:
Castonguay Blasting Limited fined $25,000 for fly rock discharge, Ministry of the Environment

Castonguay Blasting — A Case Comment, Gowlings

In a long-standing battle with the Law Society of Upper Canada, former lawyer Harry Kopyto took his case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and ultimately lost.

Harry Kopyto has been denied the chance to argue his case at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Today the SCC dismissed his application for leave to appeal.

Kopyto sought to be grandfathered as a paralegal in Ontario after he was disbarred as a lawyer in 1989 for overbilling legal aid. The law society initiated a good character hearing, which Kopyto used to challenge the LSUC’s jurisdiction to regulate paralegals, arguing it violates the Constitution and federal competition laws.

The law society began regulating paralegals in May 2007.

“It actually restricted access to justice by giving lawyers a monopoly for legal services and legal advice and eliminating the more affordable competition, the paralegals,” Kopyto told Law Times in February 2011.

“They claim they took over because paralegals were committing criminal acts and were incompetent. I want to see that evidence but I don’t think it exists. It was no worse with paralegals than it was with lawyers. The real reason they did it was to advance their own economic agenda.”

The case has been through three separate hearing panels, beginning in late 2009, after Kopyto made repeated accusations of bias.

Kopyto filed a motion to stay the good character hearing, claiming the regulatory regime was unconstitutional. The law society then sought to have the motion quashed, which was granted by the hearing panel on the basis that the panel wasn’t competent to hear constitutional challenges as they are better suited for the courts.

Kopyto sought judicial review of this decision, but the Divisional Court sided with the hearing panel. So Kopyto took his statement of claim to the Ontario Superior Court seeking five declarations:

• that bylaw 4 of the Law Society Act constituted an “anti-competitive act” as defined in the Competition Act;
• that the LSUC had abused its position by restricting access to justice due to its assumption of regulatory jurisdiction over paralegals;
• that the LSUC acted in bad faith and was in a conflict of interest by dealing with the paralegal profession;
• that bylaw 4 was not in the public interest because it restricted paralegals’ practice, contrary to the enabling statute; and
• that bylaw 4 violated the constitutional right of access to affordable justice.

The court ultimately ruled against him. In November, the Ontario Court of Appeal also dismissed Kopyto’s appeal.

“[W]e see no possibility that the appellant’s attack on the constitutionality of the legislation can succeed,” stated the appeal ruling. “It is plain and obvious that this claim, no matter how drafted, is doomed to fail.”

For more on this story, read “Kopyto’s long battle with LSUC."

“Follow your heart.”

This was one of the main messages from last night’s Diverse Careers for Women in Law panel discussion at the Law Society of Upper Canada.

(l to r) Panellists Susan Lightstone, Elizabeth Jordan, moderator Ronda Bessner, Senator Elaine McCoy, Marla Burstyn, and Justice Miriam Bloomenfeld discuss diverse careers for women in law. (Photo: Heather Gardiner)

Hosted by the Women’s Law Association of Ontario, the panellists at this annual event shared their thoughts on issues women face in the legal profession, such as finding your career path, mentorship, and leaving private practice.

Ontario Court Justice Miriam Bloomenfeld told the audience to “remain true to your inner compass.” As a shy student, she said she hated law school but stayed the course and ended up finding her calling as a Crown attorney.

When she was appointed to the bench in December 2005, she said it was difficult to find a place for herself and remain who she was in this new environment, but she persevered and now has great relationships with the other judges, especially other female judges with whom she has built personal connections.

“Don’t do anything because you think it’s something you should do,” said Bloomenfeld.

On the other hand, don’t be afraid to take chances, they advised.

“Just say yes,” said Senator Elaine McCoy. “It’s a great way to move forward in life.”

When McCoy was a young woman, she said she didn’t know what she wanted to be but an older male lawyer suggested she go to law school. So she enrolled and it was one of the best decisions of her life.

Elizabeth Jordan, director at RBC Capital Markets Compliance, encouraged women to get into business, adding that a legal degree provides so many transferable skills that can be applied to other industries.

The women had differing opinions on how to get a mentor, but they all agreed it’s important to have mentors for every stage of your career.

Susan Lightstone, the senior educational consultant at the Ontario Court of Justice, said mentors will help push your career forward but you have to earn the right to be mentored. Don’t complain to your mentor, she advised, instead come to them with focused questions about your career.

Jordan said you should be strategic about the way you ask someone to be your mentor.

The panellists also acknowledged that for many women, it’s difficult to maintain a work-life balance in private practice. Marla Burstyn, vice chairwoman of the Ontario Health Services Appeal and Review Board, said she left private practice after having two children because she wanted more flexibility.

When considering leaving private practice, she said it’s especially important to network.

“The only way to land on something is to know what’s out there, to know your options,” she said.

For women contemplating leaving the legal profession altogether, Lightstone said “Don’t do it!”

After having her second child, she could only get four months of maternity leave and was forced out of the law due to health issues. To make ends meet, she became a freelance legal writer. It’s hard to get back into the legal profession once you leave, she said. So rather than leaving the law, “think about how you can work as a lawyer in a different way,” she told the audience.

“I always thought of myself as a lawyer [and] I am damn glad I never gave it up,” said Lightstone.

In ongoing legal wrangling in the Canadian Judicial Council’s inquiry committee into a sexual harassment and discrimination complaint against Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas, two Federal Court orders [1 and 2] were released yesterday, which dismissed several motions brought forward by parties in the inquiry.

Since the release of these court orders, CJC communications director Johanna Laporte says they are expecting the Federal Court to set a hearing date for the judicial review application.

Laporte also tells Legal Feeds the inquiry committee planned to resume hearings in late July but Douglas has filed a motion for a stay of the proceedings until the Federal Court motions are heard. Now the inquiry committee has to decide if it will proceed with the hearings despite the judge’s motion for a stay.

“It’s regrettable that there have been delays,” she says.

The inquiry has been plagued by multiple delays, including the resignation of independent counsel Guy Pratte in August and most recently the motions dismissed by the Federal Court.

The first motion, submitted by Canada’s Attorney General Rob Nicholson, sought to have him removed as a party respondent due to the fact that he holds the position of AG and minister of Justice. The minister argued his separation from the inquiry is “necessary to preserve the independence of the judiciary and to avoid the perception that the minister may have pre-judged the outcome of the process when he receives and acts upon the CJC’s recommendation with respect to the removal of a judge.”

In dismissing Nicholson’s request for removal, Federal Court Prothonotary Mireille Tabib wrote: “Parliament has indeed empowered the CJC to investigate complaints and allegations made against judges, including those sufficiently serious to warrant their removal. However, as s. 71 of the Judges Act makes abundantly clear, neither the creation of the CJC’s inquiry process nor the CJC’s exercise of its investigative powers in any way detract, remove or constrain the constitutional rights, powers or duties of the Minister of Justice, or of the Houses of Parliament, in the removal of judges.”

Another motion was submitted by Alex Chapman — the client of Douglas’ husband, Winnipeg lawyer Jack King, who launched the complaint claiming King showed him nude web photos of Douglas performing sexual acts and pressured him to have sex with her.

Chapman wanted to be named a necessary respondent to the application from Douglas seeking a review of the inquiry committee’s decision not to step down after Douglas’ counsel tried to disqualify the committee over alleged apprehension of bias. Chapman claimed he was a party to the hearings before the inquiry committee, which makes him a necessary party to the judicial review.

But Tabib wasn’t convinced. “[T]he general understanding that parties to the original proceedings are automatically to be named as respondents when these proceedings are subject to judicial review was developed in the context of adversarial proceedings, in which the competing rights of two or more parties are adjudicated, and not necessarily where the proceedings, as here, are in the nature of an inquiry,” she wrote.

In addition, she noted Chapman was not granted standing as a party in the proceedings before the inquiry committee and therefore he is not directly affected by any order sought in the application.

Chapman also sought an order staying and/or quashing the judicial review, which was also dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear six appeals this week including a notorious sex assault case from Nova Scotia involving businessman and hockey executive Ernest MacIntosh.

(Photo: Reuters)

April 22 — Nova Scotia — R. v. MacIntosh

Criminal law: Many complaints of indecent assault and gross indecency in the 1970s were made against Ernest MacIntosh from 1995 to 2001. MacIntosh moved to India in 1994 and the Crown sought to have him extradited, which India agreed to. MacIntosh applied for a stay of the proceedings, claiming his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated. The motion was dismissed. Tried before a judge alone, MacIntosh was convicted of some of the charges. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, his convictions were quashed and the proceedings were stayed. There is a publication ban in the case.

By noon today, the Supreme Court had already dismissed the case. Oral judgment should be out within 48 hours.

Read the N.S. Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
MacIntosh case heading back to court, The Chronicle Herald
MacIntosh sex-abuse convictions overturned, CBC News

April 23 — Ontario — Hay v. R.

Criminal law: One man was killed and another injured after two gunmen opened fire in a Toronto nightclub. Leighton Hay was accused as one of the shooters based on an eyewitness’ identification of him and circumstantial evidence.

Read the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
Supreme Court allows appeal of conviction in 2002 Toronto murder, Toronto Star
Defence, prosecution split on need for forensic hair testing, The Globe and Mail

April 24 — Quebec — Vivendi Canada Inc. v. Dell’Aniello

Class actions: Michel Dell’Aniello is a former employee of Seagram Co. Ltd. and vice president of a Seagram subsidiary. In 2000, Vivendi acquired Seagram. The dispute revolves around changes Vivendi made to the health insurance plan’s benefits for all retirees and their spouses.

Read the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
La Cour autorise le recours collectif d’un Longueuillois, TVA Nouvelles
Class Actions: The Court says no to retirees, Lavery de Billy

April 25 — Newfoundland & Labrador — R. v. G.M.

Criminal law: G.M. was convicted of incest and sexual assaulting his daughter. He appealed on the basis that his lawyer failed to provide him with effective assistance. He submitted eight affidavits proffering fresh evidence. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the lawyer’s decisions and omissions undermined the reliability of the judge’s conviction, causing a miscarriage of justice. There is a publication ban in the case.

Read the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal’s decision.

April 26 — Alberta — Pappas v. R.

Criminal law: Bill Pappas was convicted of second-degree murder. During a police interrogation, he confessed to shooting the victim. At trial, the Crown used Pappas’ post-offence conduct to argue against the defence. Pappas objected and the judge told the jury that the post-offence conduct wasn’t relevant to the issues it had to decide. Pappas appealed his conviction but it was dismissed by the majority of the Court of Appeal.

Read the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
Killer Bill Pappas gets 18 years, Calgary Sun

April 26 — Alberta — Cairney v. R.

Criminal law: After an altercation, Michael Cairney shot and killed his longtime friend Stephan Ferguson, who was the common law spouse of Cairney’s cousin. The defence of provocation was left with the jury. Cairney was acquitted of second-degree murder and convicted of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Read the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
Nine years for shotgun slaying, Edmonton Sun

Update 12:24 pm: SCC decision in MacIntosh.

McGill University Faculty of Law has a new resource for women. This month, first-year law students Charlotte-Anne Malischewski and Erin Moores launched Contours, a magazine for women in law.

McGill law’s Contours magazine will come out once a year.

“We witnessed many women in the faculty express concerns about reconciling their careers with family life, succeeding as women in a variety of public and private legal fields, and overcoming discrimination in the workforce,” says Malischewski.

So she proposed a publication to address her fellow female classmates’ interests and concerns, and has received a great deal of positive feedback since. The law school’s dean’s discretionary fund also provided some funding for the magazine.

Malischewski says it’s important for the women at the law school to have an outlet to express themselves.

“[W]omen are too often told what to think and how to act by men around them,” she says. “Male voices still dominate classroom discussions, men still outnumber women in positions of power in legal firms, and the law itself continues in many ways to represent and protect patriarchy.

“I think it’s important for women to have a safe space in which to express themselves that allows for conversations often limited to private interactions to be brought into the public discussion. We share a lot of similar concerns, but we are also each aware of different aspects of the intersection of women and the law and unaware of others.”

For the April 5 inaugural edition of Contours, to be published annually, Malischewski says they received a wide range of submissions from female students and faculty members.

“We welcomed all responses — argumentative or emotional, academic or experiential, in writing or art — because we believe that all of these expressions are valuable to our understanding of each other and of women’s experiences in relationship with the law in all its forms,” she tells Legal Feeds.

Included in the first edition are profiles of female professors and lawyers, a feature on how the justice system in Canada is failing migrant workers, and a how-to article on creating student-initiated seminars around gender issues and the law.

The articles “remind us that no matter what, women must keep raising our hands in class and keep making our voices and stories heard,” says Malischewski.

The Supreme Court of Canada starts its spring session today. The court will hear six appeals this week.

April 15 — British Columbia — Conseil Scolaire Francophone de la

(Photo: Heather Gardiner)

Colombie-Britannique v. R.

Civil litigation: At the heart of this matter is a language dispute. Conseil Scolaire Francophone de la Colombie-Britannique and others brought an action against the Province of British Columbia and the minister of Education over linguistic rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to protect French-language education and culture in B.C., and sought a declaration to have the French-language exhibits it submitted be considered by the court without a certified translation.

Read the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
Documents en français acceptés devant un tribunal de C.-B.? Radio-Canada

April 16 — Quebec — Lévesque v. R.

Criminal law: The appeal in this case relates to instructions to the jury. Pierre Lévesque and an accomplice had planned a theft involving weapons to be used only to secure the victims and conduct the theft. A jury found Lévesque guilty of first-degree murder after two victims were found murdered. In dispute is whether the Court of Appeal erred in minimizing the extent to which the jury’s deliberations and verdict were affected by the absence of additional instructions regarding the knowledge element of being an accessory to murder.

Read the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
La Cour suprême entendra Pierre Lévesque, Le journal de Québec

April 16 — Nova Scotia — Murphy v. R.

Criminal law: Matthew James Murphy was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder. Several people in the Halifax drug trade had conspired to kill a rival and Murphy was in a car with one of the co-conspirators at the scene of the crime. Murphy testified at trial that he had no knowledge of the conspiracy. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal except for one judge who would have acquitted him.

Read the N.S. Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
Man gets bail pending appeal of IWK shooting convictions, The Chronicle Herald

April 17 — Quebec — Régie des rentes du Québec v. Canada Bread Company Ltd.

Legislation: In April 2008, the Court of Appeal reversed a decision of the Régie des rentes du Québec and ruled that certain clauses of a private pension plan that allowed the employer to reduce pensions after shutting down were unlawful. The Régie sought leave to appeal. In June 2008, the Quebec legislature enacted a statute that imposed the Régie’s interpretation of the statute and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. In August 2009, the Régie made its new decision and applied the statute. The employer challenged the decision, claiming the case was no longer pending when the statute came into force.

Read the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
How Clear Must the Legislature Be to Set Aside a Final Judgment? Canadian Appeals Monitor

April 18 — Ontario — AIC Ltd. v. Fischer

Civil procedure: A group of mutual fund managers were investigated by the Ontario Securities Commission for “market timing,” which caused long-term investors to lose money on their investments. The managers settled with the commission and were required to pay more than $200 million to investors. Some of those investors sought certification of a class action for the same conduct. The various courts did not agree on whether it should be certified. The main question is what are the temporal, procedural, and substantive elements that a court can consider in relation to the preferable procedure criterion?

Read the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
Supreme Court Will Hear Appeals on Issues of Settlement Privilege, Test for Class Certification and Test for Summary Judgment, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
CI Mutual, AIC lose market timing scandal appeal, The Financial Post

April 19 — Ontario — Wood v. Schaeffer

Right to counsel: In June 2009, the Special Investigations Unit was asked to investigate the conduct of two police officers involved in two separate incidents where civilians had died at the hands of police. In both cases, the subject officer and the witness officers were told not to make notes until they had spoken to counsel and not until the end of their shift. In November 2009, the families of the civilians asked the court to interpret the regulatory regime of the rights and duties of police officers involved in SIU investigations, but their application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and made a declaration about the parameters of the regulatory regime.

Read the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision.

Other related news articles:
Family of Peterborough man shot by OPP returning to court next week to appeal ruling on SIU investigations, Peterborough Examiner
Police notes questioned after man fatally shot, Toronto Star