Ontario Attorney General John Gerretsen has announced he will extend the Justice on Target program beyond June, despite ministry data showing the program is having mixed results in some of the province’s criminal courts.

The average appearances to disposition remained flat at 9.3 at the Milton, Ont. Courthouse.

The Ministry of the Attorney General created Justice on Target in June 2008. It was designed to reduce by 30 per cet the provincial average of the number of days and appearances required to complete a criminal case. The program also made criminal court statistics since 2000 publically available for the first time.

Today, every criminal court in the province is taking part in the program and an expert advisory panel has been set up to make recommendations to the province about ways to reach the program’s goals.

As for the reason behind the extension, a quick chat with Gerretsen often turns to talks of the Justice on Target program and its goals.

Gerretsen says the program is working well, he is open to recommendations, and is committed to “making sure all Ontarians can not only access justice, but can do so in a timely way.”

But while the program has seen success, a look at the ministry’s publicly available data shows the results are often mixed.

At the 1000 Finch Ave. courthouse in Toronto, for example, the average days to disposition between January 2008 and December 2008 were 236. Between January 2011 and December 2011, that number had increased to 269. The average appearances to disposition remained relatively flat, decreasing slightly from 9.8 to 9.0 during that same time period. The courthouse implemented the program in November 2008, according to publicly available data.

Similarly, at the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton, the average days to disposition between July 2009 and June 2010 were 252. Between January 2011 and December 2011, that number increased to 258. The average appearances to disposition remained flat at 9.3. The program began relatively late — in September 2010 — at the courthouse, the data shows.

Provincially, the data on a larger scale shows during the first wave of the program’s roll out between November and December 2008, average appearances decreased by 10.7 per cent, while average days to disposition increased by 18.2 per cent.

By wave five between December 2009 and March 2010, when all targeted courthouse in the province became involved in the program, average appearances decreased by an average of 5.6 per cent, while average days to disposition increased by 5.3 per cent.

According to the ministry, the possible reasons behind the mixed results may include significantly large cases making their way through court and cases where more than one charge is laid against the same person or a transfer of charges takes place between communities.

The final data for the 12-month period of July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 will be available in early September.

For more on what’s causing mixed results in province’s criminal courts, see the July 2 edition of Law Times.

Archaeological theft, antiques, and art looted by Nazi probably aren’t filling the minds of many Canadian lawyers today, but according to New York’s Herrick Feinstein LLP lawyer Lawrence Kaye they should be.

The trade of antiquities continues to thrive and a considerable amount of them are trafficked through Canada, says Lawrence Kaye. (Photo: Kendyl Sebesta)

“The sad fact is the trade of antiquities still continues to thrive today and a considerable amount of them are trafficked through Canada,” says Kaye. “But, Canada doesn’t have the type of guidelines that would be necessary to considerably prosecute such thefts. In fact, the FBI often gives many countries the teeth they need to pursue legal action.”

Kaye says artwork looted through war or theft often holds the key to unique aspects of a country’s culture and poses interesting legal questions for lawyers across the globe.

“We should care because this artwork holds the key to our human history,” he added. “If it is stolen and never returned, what will happen to that history?”

Kaye made the comments during a symposium on criminality in the art and cultural property world at Osgoode Hall in Toronto Friday. The two-day event discussed archaeological theft, Canada’s legal framework for art-based law, and managing risk at museums and art galleries.

The session, the first of three on June 15, wrapped up with a discussion on law enforcement and investigations by art crime units across the province, Canada, and the United States. The symposium continued June 16 at Osgoode Hall with discussions on how art museums can manage the risk of theft.

For more on this story, be sure to check out the June 25 edition of Law Times.

A North York, Ont. paralegal who was charged with two counts of assaulting police and possession of hashish will wrap up his misconduct hearing at the Law Society of Upper Canada today.

Junior Ebagua, a paralegal at Ebose Legal Services, was charged with committing an offence under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act in September 2011, but failed to inform the law society of the charges and corresponding recognizance of bail, according to a law society amended notice of application filed in April.

He also failed to “provide a complete and substantive response” to several law society letters, provide “written representations and documents” requested by the law society, and provide and maintain proper books and records, the notice of application notes.

A single-member hearing panel of law society member Paul Copeland in May of last year indefinitely suspended Ebagua, following an additional one month suspension for misconduct.

“Mr. Ebagua, I hope that: (1) you manage to comply with the request for documents; and (2) for your sake, we do not see you back here again,” wrote Copeland in The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Ebagua.

But despite Copeland’s warning, Ebagua has appeared before the law society’s panel again this week. His notice of motion requesting information to defend the misconduct allegations against him is subject to a publication ban made by Bencher Virginia McLean on June 5.

But in response to that notice, the law society has filed a notice of motion seeking to strike documents attached to Ebagua’s motion for complete disclosure and his May 23 factum in which he seeks further disclosure.

Motions were heard in the matter June 4, at which Ebagua nor someone representing him was present, and wrapped up today.

On June 8, the hearing panel made a finding of professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming. The penalty phase was adjourned to July 17. The hearing panel has suspended Ebagua’s licence on an interlocutory basis, pending conclusion of the penalty phase of the hearing.

Update June 18: Fixes made to correct errors in original blog post and add information regarding publication ban and hearing finding.

Small firms and sole practitioners who aren’t using Dropbox, cloud computing, and even digital dictation are missing the boat, says Manitoba lawyer Bjorn Christianson.

Manitoba’s Bjorn Christianson says his farmer clients are more tech savvy than many lawyers. (Photo: Kendyl Sebesta)

“Farmers in Manitoba are using more technology and are more connected now than most lawyers. They’re on their sophisticated combines with smartphones that allow them to communicate from anywhere in the field by phone or e-mail,” says Christianson.

“If you’re their lawyer and you want to reach them now all you have to do is use Dropbox to send your files to them and they’ll have it within minutes. The technology we have now is so much better at allowing us to protect our clients, but you as a lawyer have to be on board.”

Christianson made the comments during the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Solo and Small Firm Conference and Expo in Toronto yesterday. The two-day conference discussed technology in law and practice management.

Reid Trautz, a practice management adviser from the United States, joined Christianson to discuss some of the essential technologies the pair felt every small firm should have.

Trautz said apart from Dropbox, small firms and sole practitioners should also consider backing up their information in the cloud, keeping their e-mail current, and using voice recognition technology.

“Get your hands off the keyboard and use voice recognition software to make your practice more effective,” said Trautz. “Productivity will skyrocket and you’ll be able to use the time you saved to actually practise law.”

Christianson added using digital dictation makes it easier for small firms that have less staff helping out with administrative tasks.

“Your practice is not all about you, it’s about your systems too,” he noted. “Make them easy to use and it will be better for everyone involved, including your staff. You should be focusing on the legal work and let someone else worry about the typing.”

For sole practitioners, Christianson pointed out that outsourcing typing and other administrative duties is also an option.

“Get over outsourcing. Use technology to dictate your notes in a digital format and then e-mail it to a company like Speak Write [that] uses local virtual assistants,” he added. “They’ll have it back to you in a typed format in two to three hours for a fraction of the cost it would be to hire someone full-time.”

Reid and Christianson wrapped up their seminar on a light note, noting sole practitioners and small firms should, most of all, know what technology is out there and have fun using it.

The Law Society of Upper Canada released its interim articling task force report yesterday, finding many in the legal community are vying for the slow modification of legal training.

“The task force heard from anxious students and concerned lawyers that the law society should move quickly to respond to the current shortage of articling placements,” the report notes. “The clear consensus was that, at the very least, students currently enrolled in law school and recent graduates who have not passed through the licensing system should not be left to languish within the law society’s licensing program merely because of a shortage of articling placements. At the same time, numerous submissions urged caution and a gradual, considered approach to any departure from the status quo.”

As part of its consultation process, the task force spoke with members of the province’s legal community from January to April. They discussed articling as it currently stands and five additional training options.

Those five options included maintaining articling as it currently stands; replacing a pre-licensing transition requirement with a post-licensing transition requirement; and abolishing articling in favour of a practical legal training course. There is also the option of maintaining the status quo with quality assurance improvements to be determined at a later date, and a choice of either an articling requirement or a practical legal training course requirement that would be taken either after law school or during law school.

The report found many government and equality-seeking organizations wanted articling to be maintained in some form, but felt a secondary practical legal training course may be a viable option.

Many from that group felt the training course would help law students who find themselves in “licensing limbo” and would provide law students with more control over their career paths.

However, the report says many lawyers were strongly tied to current articling methods in contrast and felt the training course would be costly for students and members of law societies.

For their part, law students suggested creating either a co-op legal program or a practical legal training course within law school that would still give students the option of pursuing a three-year academic law program, the report notes.

Almost none of the feedback suggested keeping articling as it currently stands.

The task force is expected to consider the feedback it received over the upcoming months and will release a full report in the fall of 2012.

The Law Society of Upper Canada awarded nine legal professionals the Law Society Medal, the Lincoln Alexander Award, the Laura Legge Award, and the Law Society Distinguished Paralegal Award during a reception at Osgoode Hall in Toronto, Ont. May 23.

LSUC treasurer Laurie Pawlitza with the 2012 Law Society Award winners. Seated (l to r): Vern Krishna, Mary Weaver, Mary Fox, and Keith Jobbitt. Standing: Brian Lawrie, Margaret Bloodworth; Pawlitza; James Caskey; and Doug Lewis. (Photo: Tim Fraser)

This year’s medal winners are University of Ottawa law professor Vern Krishna; Ottawa lawyers Margaret Bloodworth and Bruce Carr-Harris, who received his medal in April during Convocation; Windsor family lawyer Mary Fox; James Caskey of London, Ont.; and former Orillia justice Doug Lewis.  

The Law Society Medal honours lawyers who have excelled in their practice or academic area.

“Throughout their careers, these nine outstanding individuals have continued to enrich their profession, as well as their communities,” said Law Society of Upper Canada Treasurer Laurie Pawlitza. “They serve as true role models for the province’s lawyers and paralegals and we are extremely pleased to honour them with the law society’s highest awards of recognition.”

Thunder Bay practitioner Keith Jobbitt was also named this year’s Lincoln Alexander Award winner and was honoured for his commitment to the public and the legal community.

The Laura Legge Award was given to Sudbury’s Mary Weaver, who was honoured for her work in the legal profession.

Brian Lawrie was named this year’s first Law Society Distinguished Paralegal Award winner for his professional achievements and commitment to the practice of law.

Bernard Amyot has strongly criticized the barreau’s position on the Quebec government’s bill.

The Barreau du Québec has ruffled the feathers of some members of the bar after it sent a letter to the Quebec government criticizing legislation that would give police more control over student protesters and public gatherings.

The letter, published on the barreau’s web site on May 16 by president Louis Masson, expressed concerns about the bill that it said could unduly limit freedom of expression and requires more debate before its adoption.

“The proposed regulation raises serious issues related to respecting fundamental freedoms of expression and of peaceful assembly and it is therefore likely to be subject to judicial debates,” the letter reads.

The letter continues: “In addition, the provision, as drafted, might give rise to charges against individuals who wished to participate in an event without being identified and having no intention to offend.”

Once adopted, the bill would requie the exact location and itinerary of a meeting, parade, or other gathering to be shared with the director of police; stop anyone involved at meetings, parades or public gatherings from having their faces covered without reasonable cause; and institute a range of penalties depending on the number and severity of the offences.

Some barreau members have balked at the letter, saying the bill is necessary given the continued rioting by student protesters that has rattled the province over the past three months.

“I have just read your press release this evening with the deepest distress and most complete disbelief," former Canadian Bar Association president Bernard Amyot wrote to the barreau president on Thursday evening, according to a La Presse report. “Silence would have been less damaging than the total abdication to anarchy in defiance of the rule of law, which you falsely claim to defend, from the authority of elected parliamentarians and authority of the judiciary and its independence. Shame to the Quebec Bar and to the president Masson.”

Massive protests have raged in Quebec for more than three months, particularly in Montreal, as the Quebec government goes head-to-head with students protesting college and university tuition-fee hikes.

Among bill 78’s proposals, student protesters would be barred from demonstrtating inside and within 50 metres of college and university buildings. The legislation would also fine protesters found guilty of an offence that forces the cancellation of classes. The fines would range from $1,000 to $5,000 depending on the offence. They could go up to $125,000 if the offence is committed by a senior officer or representative of a student group or federation.

Today, the Quebec legislature is continuing its section-by-section consideration of the law.

Thomas Conway has been elected treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Conway will begin his term following Convocation proceedings on June 28 and will serve as the law society’s top elected official.

Thomas Conway was acclaimed as the new LSUC treasurer last week.

He will replace current law society treasurer Laurie Pawlitza, who has held the position since June 2010.

“I’m very humbled and honoured to be elected and I hope to continue the really great work of the treasurers before me,” Conway tells Legal Feeds. “I have big shoes to fill and I hope I am able to help ensure the law society meets its core responsibilities.”

While Conway says he doesn’t plan to make any drastic changes to the law society in his new role, he says he does hope to listen to the needs of Convocation and focus on key areas like articling and tribunal reform.

“I think this Convocation has been particularly vocal about wanting to focus on improving the law society’s commitment to its core responsibilities, particularly in light of these challenging economic times,” says Conway. “They want to ensure law society dues are spent judiciously and wisely and I intend to carry that forward.”

Conway is a partner at Cavanagh Williams Conway Baxter LLP in Ottawa where he practises civil and commercial litigation.

In the past, he has served as president of the Carleton County Law Association and an adjunct Faculty of Law professor at the University of Ottawa.

Conway was first elected as bencher of the law society in 2007 and has served as chairman of the professional development and competence committee and co-chairman of the retention of women in private practice working group. he is also chair of the law society’s articling task force.

Conway says he hopes to carry on the work of those initiatives in his new role.

“I certainly intend to continue the very important work of those programs and I will see them through to the end,” says Conway. “Certainly if the Articling Task Force makes recommendations and Convocation accepts them, I’ll be intent on ensuring articling reforms are implemented in a timely way.”

Conway was elected by acclamation and will be the law society’s 64th Treasurer.

Read more on this story in next week’s Law Times.

More than 50 Law Society of Upper Canada members showed up at the regulator’s annual general meeting last night and overwhelming showing their support to keep its 215-year-old name.

Federal government lawyer Thomas Vincent makes his argument for the LSUC to change its name to the Ontario Law Society last night. (Photo: Omar Ha-Redeye)

The lively debate at Osgoode Hall last night was mixed with passionate comments and bursts of laughter to discuss Federal government lawyer Thomas Vincent’s formal motion in a battle that saw traditionalists and modernists divided.

“I didn’t expect the motion to go forward. But I do think it was important to have that discussion,” says Omar Ha-Redeye, a family lawyer in Toronto and one of the few who supported Vincent’s motion. “From my impression of the debate, the vote wasn’t actually based on merits but rather on tradition, which is disappointing, given lawyers are trained to debate issues on their merits. “

The formal motion to change the law society’s name to the Ontario Law Society was brought by Vincent last month and has been a hotly contested issue among members of the bar ever since.

Vincent argued the law society’s current name created confusion among the public and needed to be modernized to reflect Canada’s current geography.

“Typically law society members are dealing with highly educated and sophisticated individuals and so they may not be aware of people in the general public who might be confused by the name,” says Ha-Redeye. “In this case, I would say the absence of information doesn’t lead to a conclusion and we should study the issue further to see if there truly is a problem and then find the best way to address it.”

Still, Alan Heisey, a lawyer at Papazian Heisey Myers who has been following the debate and opposes the name change, says he was encouraged by the debate.

“I thought the debate was very healthy and it was encouraging to see so many people who knew about the law society’s history,” says Heisey. “I learned quite a bit and I think those who were dissatisfied with the name perhaps didn’t know the law society had such a history. Maybe there should be a component in the bar admission course related to that.”

A formal vote was not taken at the annual general meeting, however, of the more than 50 members who attended, three supported the motion. Those three were Vincent, Ha-Redeye, and past Ontario Bar Association president Lee Akazaki.

During the meeting, it was estimated the cost to the law society to change its name would be between $1.4 and $1.5 million — a figure that would likely come have to come from increases to member’s annual fees.

See Monday’s issue of Law Times for more on this story.

Update: 4:39 p.m. - Clarify that Alan Heisey was not at the LSUC meeting.

The Ontario Court of Justice released a new set of rules for criminal proceedings this month in a move that its says will help make court proceedings simpler and quicker for self-represented clients.

Jeff Hershberg says he hopes unrepresented litigants will be directed to the new rules.

The Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice will come into effect July 1 and will govern conduct in all criminal proceedings at the court. They will replace the current Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice in Criminal Proceedings.

“The new criminal rules are brief, written in plain language, and contain extensive commentary regarding their interpretation and application,” states the Ontario Court of Justice. “This reflects the reality that many accused today do not have legal counsel or are unrepresented.”

But some criminal lawyers in Toronto say the rules, while laudable, may require more effort from the court if they hope to have an impact, particularly when it comes to helping self-represented litigants in court.

“While easier to read, self-represented individuals often have trouble understanding the rules even when explained in court in as plain language as one can imagine. The court process is often a scary one for those charged with offences [who] cannot afford a lawyer and are denied legal aid for whatever reason,” says Jeff Hershberg, a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto.

“They are rarely directed to these rules and are not provided a copy in court. Hopefully, with the new rules will come new procedures for making sure self-represented individuals are made aware of them; including providing a copy of the necessary forms.”

Some of the most notable changes to the rules include a 60-day time limit before the scheduled trial date for the hearing of pre-trial matters and a requirement that parties that have decision-making authority attend judicial pre-trial. Additionally, counsel who will conduct the preliminary hearing or a designated counsel with decision-making authority must attend focus hearings. The changes also mean five new criminal rules and three new forms will replace 32 old rules and 15 forms.