David Shannon meets Governor General David Johnston during Friday’s Order of Canada ceremony. Photo: Sgt. Ronald Duchesne

Not long after receiving the Order of Ontario, Thunder Bay, Ont., lawyer David Shannon became one of the newest members of the Order of Canada on Friday.

Shannon received the honour for his championship of the rights of people with disabilities. After suffering a spinal-cord injury at the age of 18, he has since devoted his legal career to promoting and raising awareness of disability rights and accessibility issues, a description from the governor general’s office noted.

Shannon’s advocacy has taken him to many places, including the North Pole. A couple of years ago, Shannon, who has quadriplegia due to the injury, made the journey with fellow Thunder Bay lawyer Christopher Watkins. The trip made him the first person with quadriplegia to achieve the feat. Also in 2009, the pair made a dangerous high-altitude skydive in another effort at raising awareness of people with disabilities.

Shannon practises at Shannon Law Office in Thunder Bay. He received the Order of Canada honour from Gov. Gen. David Johnston during a ceremony at Rideau Hall on Friday. He became a member of the order, an honour that follows his receipt of the Order of Ontario earlier this year.

Other honourees from the legal community on Friday included Tricia Smith, a B.C. lawyer and four-time Olympic rower. Smith is also senior vice president of the Canadian Olympic Committee.

At the same time, Maureen Sabia became an officer of the order for supporting the advancement of women in the corporate sector and strengthening corporate governance.

Canada

'Honour killings' trial resumes Tuesday, The Globe and Mail

Man charged with G20-related offences goes on trial today, Winnipeg Free Press

Rae suggests court challenge over unilingual auditor-general, The Globe and Mail

United States

Mother pleads guilty to murdering son left by Maine roadside, Reuters

U.S. Supreme Court to hear police GPS-tracking case, Reuters

International

Croatia court confirms bribery indictment for ex-PM, Reuters

Soldiers murder trial in Northern Ireland begins today, Reuters

The one-time executive director of the New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission has failed in a wrongful dismissal case against his former employers.

David Potter alleged he was constructively dismissed when he departed his $180,000-a-year job in 2010, four years into a seven-year contract.

But in an Oct. 25 decision, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice William Grant found that Potter was not constructively dismissed but had effectively resigned from his position when he launched his legal action against the commission in March 2010.

The government lawyer had been interim director of legal aid in the province since 1993. After a revolt by private bar lawyers in 2004, the government decided to operate legal aid using staff lawyers to defend cases, cutting off its relationship with the province’s law society and establishing the commission. It then turned to Potter to become the commission’s first executive director shortly after the body’s creation in December 2005.

According to the decision, Potter was the subject of at least three complaints from staff between 2007 and 2009.

“These complaints, while mostly unsubstantiated, consumed a great deal of time for the Board of the Commission. They also took a toll on Mr. Potter,” wrote Grant.

In October 2009, Potter’s doctor told him to take some time off for medical reasons. Over the next few months, Potter and the commission board entered discussions about buying out his contract. In January 2010, the board asked him not to return to work, but informed him that his salary would continue to be paid. In March 2010, Potter launched his action, claiming that the removal from duties amounted to a repudiation of his contract.

But in Grant’s view, “the Commission did not do or say anything that would lead an objective observer to conclude that they had removed those duties from him permanently.

“I find that when Mr. Potter began this legal action he was the one who took the unilateral step that made the continuation of the employment relationship untenable and that by starting this action he resigned his position,” Grant wrote.

Grant said Potter could not use a letter sent by the board to the province’s minister of justice as evidence of its intent to dismiss him, since he was unaware of the letter until after launching his action.

In the letter, sent in January 2010, the board recommended Potter’s termination for cause, although that was not a claim they made at trial:

“The Board considers that cause for his dismissal exists based upon the following issues, namely:

1.   Mismanagement of public funds;
2.   Mismanagement of staff/staff relations;
3.   Undermining/failing to respect the Board’s authority;
4.   Abuse of authority;
5.   Failing to ensure that the case management system and other  assigned duties were performed in a timely manner,” the letter reads.

Grant did rule in Potter’s favour, however, on his entitlement to retirement allowances worth $170,000, as well as vacation pay of $15,000 owed when he left the commission.

Canada

Saskatoon bus driver wins seatbelt case, The Vancouver Sun

B.C. man gets life sentence for 1998 murder, The Province

Ont. court dismisses ex-Norshield executives' appeals, Financial Post

United States

Occupy Wall Street protesters to fight charges, Reuters

N.Y.C. bar association suggests spousal support changes, Reuters

International

Indian court grants bail to Satyam founder, Reuters

Carlos the Jackal returns to French court over 1980s bombs, Reuters

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada blocked on Thursday the extradition to the United States of Abdullah Khadr, a Canadian wanted by Washington on terrorist charges.

Khadr, 30, who told CBC-TV before being detained in Islamabad in 2004 that every Muslim dreams of being a martyr for Islam, is accused by Washington of supplying missiles to al-Qaida in Pakistan and conspiring to murder Americans abroad. His brother Omar is in prison at Guantanamo.

The Supreme Court refused on Thursday to hear an appeal — launched on behalf of the United States — of lower court decisions that had stopped proceedings for his extradition. That brings the United States to the end of the legal road in Canada.

The high court did not give a reason for its decision. But the Ontario court that first quashed his extradition had ruled that Khadr's human rights, including access to Canadian diplomatic counsel, had been unjustifiably violated after his arrest by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate.

The United States paid $500,000 to the Pakistanis to abduct him in Pakistan in October 2004. For 14 months he was held secretly in that country, where he alleges he was tortured.

According to documents before the Supreme Court, after the Pakistanis had exhausted Khadr as a source of anti-terrorism intelligence, they were ready to free him. But Washington insisted they hold him for another six months, while it held an investigation and started the extradition process.

He was allowed to return in December 2005 to Canada, where he was soon arrested at the request of the United States.

The Canadian government was the actual party that appealed the lower court decisions to the top court, acting on behalf of the United States.

The Khadr family had close ties to Osama bin Laden, living at his compound in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Abdullah's father, Ahmed, was arrested in Pakistan in 1995 in connection with a bomb at the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad, then freed at Canada's request. He was killed in a gun battle in Pakistan in 2003.

Abdullah's brother, Omar, pleaded guilty in October 2010 to a series of charges, including an admission under a plea deal that he was an al-Qaida conspirator who murdered a U.S. soldier. Under a deal agreed at his sentencing, he is eligible to be sent home to Canada at some point to serve his sentence.

Canada

Judge Rothstein rebukes NDP MPs for claiming he broke promise to learn French, The Globe and Mail

Publication ban prevents release of info on Ont. lawyer charged with possession of child porn, Toronto Star

Dartmouth woman admits abusing daughter 17 months after charge, The Chronicle-Herald

United States

U.S. Supreme Court hears eyewitness identification case, Reuters

Accused gunman contemplated killings while at the beach: affidavit, Reuters

International

U.K. court rejects WikiLeaks's Assange's appeal against extradition, Reuters

No sympathy for Pakistani cricketers involved in bribery scandal, Reuters

Nova Scotia Provincial Court Judge Robert Stroud was officially removed from a case by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia yesterday. It ruled Stroud had showed a “reasonable apprehension of bias” in favour of one of the parties.

The case involved Robert Moses Truckair, who faces six charges of violating the federal Fisheries Act.

Prior to pre-trial arguments in March, defence lawyer Ralph Ripley challenged several comments made by Stroud.

According to the Cape Breton Post, on a jurisdictional question over excluding certain documents, Stroud had said: “But I must say, I read the Crown’s brief and I was very impressed with that and I am inclined to think the Crown is right that I don’t have jurisdiction here. I mean I wouldn’t want to say it with your client being here but since he’s not here, I think it would be a waste of your client’s money to proceed with this. I just think, I am convinced by the Crown’s argument that you have no basis for this.”

The Post reported when defence counsel asked if he should continue to present argument, Stroud said he wanted Ripley to try to “unconvince” him. “After 24 years on the bench, I think I am capable of being unconvinced. Maybe I was a little too strong in saying I was convinced,” said Stroud.

Stroud declined to recuse himself from the case and suggested Ripley was judge-shopping in a bid to get his client a better decision.

Ripley filed an application for Stroud’s removal before the Supreme Court and argued at the hearing last month in Sydney that viewed collectively Stroud’s comments amounted to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In her 21-page decision yesterday removing Stroud, Justice Cindy Bourgeois noted: “The comments would certainly contribute to a reasonable person concluding there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the provincial court judge’s mind was not ‘perfectly open’ to the positions of both parties.”

Bourgeois removed Stroud and also ordered the case be heard by another Provincial Court judge.

“With respect, the Provincial Court judge’s subsequent comments that he had not made a final determination and that his previous comments may have been expressed too strenuously, do not serve to unring the bell,” wrote Bourgeois.

Ripley said he was pleased with the Supreme Court decision, adding that it’s unusual for a judge to be recused from a case that way.

Truckair is now scheduled to appear in provincial court Nov. 21 when it is expected his case will be formally assigned to a new judge, reports the Post.

Canada

Former N.B. priest files appeal to SCC, CBC News

Man receives life sentence for 1995 double murder, CBC News

Brampton trial tossed after key witness killed at Ottawa mall, National Post

United States

L.A. Dodgers, MLB agree to sell baseball team, Reuters

Judge tosses most of $19.9B Madoff case against JPMorgan, Reuters

International

British court orders WikiLeaks founder's extradition, Reuters

South Korean court sentences U.S. soldier to 10 years in rape case, Reuters

When it comes to trying to avoid getting caught up in the proliferation of anti-corruption legislation worldwide, the Royal Bank of Canada is opting to follow the U.K. Bribery Act and embedding it as part of its global anti-money laundering process.

RBC’s Thomas Smee says it is adopting the most onerous anti-corruption statue as its standard. Photo: Jennifer Brown

“When the U.K. Bribery Act came out we decided to migrate to the highest common standard,” said Thomas Smee, senior vice president and deputy general counsel, RBC Financial Group speaking on a panel on Canadian securities regulations at the recent Association of Corporate Counsel annual meeting in Denver. “My approach is to go across all of the legislation and go to the highest common standard.”

RBC does business in about 50 different countries in different ways around the world and when the U.K. Bribery Act came out, Smee said the bank decided to find the most onerous piece of legislation and follow it’s recommendations.

“We now ban facilitation payments globally — it’s a good example of how you have to surf the world for the most onerous thing and then adopt that as the standard,” said Smee. “You have to assess the risk of corruption across your organization and the type of risks you might encounter.”

Smee explained that the U.K. Bribery Act has a compliance defence. If you had a tough compliance policy and were following it, when the company, which might otherwise be blameless, is caught in an act committed by an isolated employee it can demonstrate that steps were taken to try and prevent anything from happening.

“It starts at the board level, senior management, approval of policies, escalating reporting hotlines and then you assess the risk of corruption across your businesses in terms of the type of business and where you’re doing business,” said Smee.

“It takes a huge amount of time and attention if you do have a large amount of international business, but you just can’t afford to get caught up in it. My general theme is to say, ‘What can we do so this doesn’t happen?’ Or, if it does happen we can say we did everything possible to make sure it didn’t happen.”

However, some attending the session argued that in some countries there remains a strong need for things like facilitation payments, especially in resource-based industries, often in developing countries where it is considered common practice.

“You’re dealing in many cases with individuals you need an association with to build a business, but they operate under different tolerances and cultural norms than we do. You have to educate and monitor and it can be very difficult,” said David Kohlenberg, deputy general counsel of corporate development and finance law with TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., who also spoke on the panel.

Whatever piece of anti-corruption legislation or policy is developed, it needs to be communicated to all employees, said Kohlenberg. “Special attention needs to be paid to people in your organization most likely to encounter these things.”

According to the U.K. Bribery Act, even failing to prevent a bribe may trigger liability.

“Facilitation and hospitality payments are not permitted whatsoever,” said Kohlenberg. “What I think is going to happen with this proliferation of corruption statutes is there is a significant amount of work that has to be done up front by companies who do work around the world.”

That work, he said, should involve investigating the nature of the business and people they are getting involved in, and it must be monitored on a regular basis.

“When it involves people and places from far flung places in the world it gets very expensive and complicated,” he said. “You may see some companies say it’s too difficult to keep on top of.”

Canada

Raptors season-ticket holder sues MLSE for $1.6M, Toronto Star

Truck driver in 5-hour police chase to appear in court, Hamilton Spectator

Vancouver's Stanley Cup riot cases to be in court by late Nov., The Globe and Mail

United States

Judge blocks H&R Block's bid to buy rival, Reuters

Ex-attorney sues law firm for alleged race discrimination, Reuters

International

Nigerian court rejects election challenge, Reuters

Ex-South African police chief appeals jail sentence, Reuters