Canada

Ont. judge rejects accused carjacker's abuse claims, Ottawa Citizen

Ex-boyfriend of murdered B.C. student to face trial in China, The Vancouver Sun

Accused admits to 'stupid' manoeuvre in B.C. road rage case, CBC News

United States

Court unfreezes $18B damages award against Chevron, Reuters

Al-Qaida supporter's 17-year sentence too lenient: court, Reuters

International

Court upholds $2B claim over Congo copper project, Reuters

German gov't to appeal ruling on nuclear fuel tax, Reuters

Canada

N.B. judge rejects man's plea to wear dog collar, Telegraph-Journal

Que. court to decide fate of dogs seized from kennel, CTV News

Harper to introduce controversial crimes laws early on, The Gazette

United States

Mont. court approves $43M asbestos settlement: newspapers, Reuters

Appeals court to hear Ark. desegregation case, Washington Post

International

Madagascar to arrest exiled president if he returns, Reuters

Kenyan man charged in British couple's murder, abduction, Reuters

A lawyer has been suspended for breaching ethical standards in September 2005 while he was acting for a couple selling their property.

The Law Society of British Columbia has suspended Gerhard Schauble of Kelowna, B.C., for four months and issued $10,000 in costs to be paid by Aug. 1, 2012.

The breach occurred when the couple had a dispute over the division of proceeds from the sale and Schauble offered to mediate. In siding with the male client, Schauble reduced his legal fees without telling the female client. He later repaid her.

According to the law society decision, Schauble “received net sale proceeds of approximately $451,390.31 on [the couple’s] behalf, but failed to provide an accurate account in writing to [the female client] of the disbursement of those funds to her, in that he failed to disclose that he had reduced the amount of legal fees payable by [the male client], contrary to Rule 3-48 of the Law Society Rules.”

He also did not get consent from the female client to act as the couple’s mediator.

The law society panel also said “a person might reasonably find it difficult to determine whether [Schauble] was acting as a lawyer or a mediator, contrary to Chapter 7, Rule 6 of the Professional Conduct Handbook.”

In addition, the panel noted this was not Schauble’s first ethical breach. According to the ruling, he “was previously cited for knowingly or intentionally misappropriating funds. On October 2, 2009 the panel hearing that citation ordered that [Schauble] be suspended for three months commencing December 1, 2009 and pay costs in the amount of $32,000.”

Update June 28, 2012: After selling his law practice, Schauble completed his suspension in early 2012 and has since returned to active practice as in-house counsel for a number of companies.

At the moment, his main focus is on a company he founded, GES Aviation. The company aims to develop electric hybrid propulsion systems that would allow smaller aircraft to take off and land in pure electric mode, and match the performance of internal combustion engines in hybrid mode.

“It’s an exciting place to be right now. We’re probably the only company in Canada right now that’s doing this,” Schauble tells Legal Feeds.

He also runs GES Group, a consulting firm with a focus on mergers and acquisitions.

Canada

N.L. man sentenced to 5 years for baby's death, CBC News

Sentencing review delayed for Alta. girl who killed family, Edmonton Journal

European court rejects Canada's seal ban challenge, CBC News

United States

N.Y. man who wanted brother at robbery trial denied appeal, Reuters

Security questions raised after Ark. man opens fire in courthouse, Reuters

International

ICC fails to prosecute worst war criminals: Human Rights Watch, Reuters

Grolsch won't have to pay $32M-euro antitrust fine, EU court rules, Reuters

The issues surrounding conflict of interest were brought to the forefront in a recent case before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

In Dow Chemical Canada Inc. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., Nova retained Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP and Macleod Dixon LLP. Dow initially retained Burnet Duckworth & Palmer LLP and then sought Bennett Jones LLP. The question regarding a possible conflict of interest arose after Andrew Little, then a partner at Oslers in Calgary who was responsible for representing Nova’s interests, joined Bennett Jones in Toronto.

“When I engage a lawyer to prosecute a dispute on behalf of NOVA Chemicals, I do not expect that lawyer to join our enemy’s law firm,” Nova stated in an affidavit. “It should be important that not only justice should be done, but that justice should be seen to be done.”

The court said the larger question is whether the public would be satisfied that there would be no use of confidential information.

In his judgment issued Aug. 12, Chief Justice Neil Wittmann recognized that Little was in possession of confidential information that would be prejudicial to Nova if disclosed to Bennett Jones. He found that Little signed an undertaking before joining Bennett Jones swearing to keep the details of Nova’s retainer confidential, but that alone was not sufficient.

“Perhaps the test might be better stated by suggesting that statements under oath or affirmation are an essential part of the continuance of a retainer or acceptance of a new retainer in the circumstances of a moving lawyer with prejudicial confidential information, but that alone is not enough,” said Wittmann. “Screening devices are also necessary, absent consent of the other party or parties.”

After consideration of Bennett Jones’ additional safeguards — which included all team members signing undertakings not to disclose information, making electronic files accessible only to those working on the case, and putting an ethical wall in place — and the circumstances of the case, Wittmann ruled there was no conflict of interest.

“Further, [Dow’s general counsel] stated that at the time Dow retained Bennett Jones, it was unaware that a former counsel to Nova in the litigation was a current partner in the Toronto office of Bennett Jones, that no representative of Dow has had any contact with Andrew Little with respect to Nova since he joined Bennett Jones, nor would they contact him in the future,” Wittmann said in the ruling.

On the University of Calgary Faculty of Law’s blog, professor Alice Woolley provides more detail on the case: “Specifically, Chief Justice Wittmann’s judgment provides new analysis of the principles governing what is necessary for a client to consent to a conflict in advance, how imputation rules operate in national firms, lawyers transferring between law firms, and the intersection between law society rules and judicial determinations in assessing conflicts.”

Canada

Livent co-founders' fraud convictions upheld, Reuters

Ont. couple takes wind-farm health concerns to court, CTV News

N.B. court orders new trial for man convicted of spanking, The Globe and Mail

United States

Men sue Boy Scouts over alleged child sex abuse, Reuters

Criminal probe launched against eBay employees, Reuters

International

Suspects plead guilty in Uganda bombings, Reuters

U.S. citizens' release not imminent: Iran judiciary, Reuters

Canada

Sask. judge rules surrogate not legal mother of baby, National Post

Accused G20 conspirators' preliminary hearing begins, The Globe and Mail

N.S. politician charged in spending scandal back in court, The Chronicle Herald

United States

N.Y. lawyer challenges use of dogs in courtrooms, Reuters

Importer of Chinese drywall could face more lawsuits, Reuters

International

Judge halts work on new terminal at Brazilian airport, Reuters

Lawyers for sex abuse victims urge ICC to investigate Pope, Reuters

Canada

B.C. man charged in wife's murder, CBC News

Ex-psychiatrist pleads not guilty to sex assault charges, Calgary Herald

Livent co-founders to spend night in jail awaiting appeal ruling, The Globe and Mail

United States

Mass. Hells Angel charged with killing 3, Reuters

Power company in court over Vermont nuclear plant, Reuters

International

South African youth leader convicted of hate speech, Reuters

Germany, Italy in legal battle over WWII compensation, AFP

Canada

Fate of N.S. paper mill to be decided by court, CBC News

Calgary teacher jailed for sexually assaulting student, Calgary Herald

Animal rights groups want to take zoo debate to SCC, Toronto Star

United States

Conn. man admits to stealing $2M through ATM network, Reuters

Judge permits wiretap evidence in NYC subway plot case, Reuters

International

EU court upholds Italian cartel whistleblower fine, Reuters

Interpol seeks arrest of Gaddafi, son, intelligence chief, Reuters

Photo: Zolwiks/Dreamstime.com

The Supreme Court of Canada will have to answer that question in the case of Re: Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre Association of Canada after it was granted leave to appeal with costs.

The case arose when the applicant, Sound, filed two proposed tariffs for public performance of published sound recordings when used in movies shown in movie theatres and TV broadcasts. The respondents argued that the definition of “sound recording” in the Copyright Act excludes soundtracks from movies and TV shows: “‘a recording, fixed in any material form, consisting of sounds, whether or not of a performance of a work, but excludes any soundtrack of a cinematographic work where it accompanies the cinematographic work.”

The issue was taken to the Copyright Board, which ruled against the following question on Sept. 16, 2009: “Is anyone entitled to equitable remuneration pursuant to section 19 of the Copyright Act . . . when a published sound recording is part of the soundtrack that accompanies a motion picture that is performed in public or a television program that is communicated to the public by telecommunication?”

On Feb. 25, 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the board’s decision. In her ruling, Justice Johanne Trudel said: “According to the applicant, what is excluded from the definition of sound recording is the soundtrack as a whole, not its individual elements . . . the applicant believes that although no one can claim equitable remuneration for the whole soundtrack, the makers and performers of separate sound recordings embedded in the soundtrack can.”

In the midst of the dispute over the meaning of sound recording versus soundtrack, it will be up to Canada’s top court to work out this copyright tussle.