Canada

N.B. family in court, farm owner in Lebanon jail, CBC News

Federal Court orders more Que. towns to open books, The Gazette

Woman charged in fatal house fire, Global News

United States

Court upholds use of body scanners in airports, Reuters

Judge sets $5K bond for teen charged in man's death, San Francisco Chronicle

International

Former Russian oil manager convicted in absentia, Reuters

Plagiarism case against J.K. Rowling dismissed, Reuters

The provincial government is rolling out family law reforms across Ontario today.

The changes involve an expansion of services already available at some Ontario courthouses up until now. They include the mandatory information program that began as a pilot project at the courts in Milton and Brampton, Ont. The idea is to offer more upfront information to families on their dispute-resolution options and provide essential details on how divorce affects children.

Attorney General Chris Bentley has been championing the changes for some time. They’re part of the so-called Four Pillars of family law reform that Bentley has touted as a cost-effective route to speeding up the justice system while making it less expensive for families.

Making mediation available at courts across the province is also key to the changes. The idea, according to Bentley, is to give families a greater chance of resolving their disputes without going through a drawn-out court process by removing some of the confrontation involved in separation and divorce. As a result, litigants will have free access to limited on-site mediation as well as off-site mediators working on a sliding scale based on income.

Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler, however, has thrown some cold water on Bentley’s reforms. Speaking at the Law Society of Upper Canada’s family law summit last month, Winkler said that while he welcomes the changes, they don’t go far enough to cure an ailing family justice system. In his view, mediation should be a mandatory component of the family law process with litigation reserved for those cases where there’s abuse, an imbalance of power or an unco-operative party.

Harry Kopyto has been sent back to the drawing board by a Law Society of Upper Canada panel hearing his application to become a licensed paralegal.

Harry Kopyto efforts to get licensed as a paralegal have hit another snag.

The former lawyer has so far delayed, with constitutional and procedural objections to the process, a hearing on whether he has the good character necessary to continue the paralegal practice he started after being disbarred in 1989.

But two decisions released last week could pave the way for the hearing to finally begin as soon as this fall.

First, the hearing panel quashed Kopyto’s constitutional challenge to the law society takeover of paralegal regulation. Kopyto argued the LSUC was in a conflict of interest because the lawyer-dominated organization’s move restricted its cheaper paralegal competitors.

But panel chairwoman Margot Blight said in her July 5 decision that the panel lacked the jurisdiction to hear the challenge.

“The hearing panel does not consider itself institutionally competent to conduct the broad constitutional inquiries into such matters as the governance of the Society and the restrictions on paralegal practice,” she wrote.

On the same day, Blight also dismissed another motion of Kopyto’s that would have reversed the onus of proof for the good character hearing. In hearings applicants must prove they have good character at the time of the hearing. Instead, Kopyto wanted the law society to prove that he lacked the good character necessary to practise, but Blight said she saw no reason to change the current standard.

Blight, a partner at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, is chairing the third incarnation of the panel after the previous two collapsed following Kopyto’s attempts to have benchers on the panels recuse themselves.

After taking over paralegal regulation in 2007, the law society grandparented those paralegals already in practice from further educational requirements, as long as they met the good character test. Kopyto’s is one of the few remaining cases in the system.

Kopyto was disbarred in 1989 for overbilling Ontario’s legal aid plan by $150,000. He admits his billing practices were deficient but insisted he never got any more money than he was due from legal aid.

The Supreme Court of Canada says a Manitoba man need not pay his ex-wife an equalization payment for a share of the farm they owned because he went bankrupt, but urged Parliament to re-examine legislation that governed the ruling.

The decision comes in Schreyer v. Schreyer, which involved a Manitoba couple that married in 1980, separated in 1999, and divorced in 2000. The husband filed for bankruptcy — after the split but before a master got started on a valuation of the couple’s assets — and was discharged from it in 2002.

The master eventually ordered the husband to pay equalization of about $41,000, but failed to address the bankruptcy. The Manitoba Court of Appeal determined that the wife’s equalization claim was provable in bankruptcy, but was terminated by the husband’s discharged bankruptcy.

The Supreme Court noted that an equalization claim under Manitoba’s Family Property Act is handled as a debt owed by one spouse to the other. It agreed that the wife held a right to payment both at the time of separation and time of bankruptcy. The only thing left to determine, said the court, was the quantum, which would be established through a straightforward formula.

However, the husband was released from the equalization claim due to his bankruptcy proceedings, and the wife’s claim was not proprietary and was not protected from a discharge under parts of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act dealing with support or maintenance claims.

The top court also noted that their farm could not be executed by creditors due to provisions of the province’s Judgments Act. It said the wife would typically be able to apply to the bankruptcy judge using the BIA to seek a claim against the exempt property.

“Since this property is beyond the reach of the ordinary creditors, lifting the stay of proceedings cannot prejudice the estate assets available for distribution,” wrote Justice Louis LeBel, on behalf of the unanimous court. “In keeping with the wording of s. 69.4(b) BIA, this is why it would be ‘equitable on other grounds’ to make such an order.”

The court added that such an approach would be in line with the bankruptcy law policy objective of prioritizing returns to the family unit above those of the bankrupt.

The court said that in such circumstances, a spouse in the same situation as the wife may be best served through spousal support arrangements following the bankruptcy. But the court asserted that such an option should not distract from the fact that the bankruptcy act needs to be revised in light of the apparent loophole.

“The best way to address the potentially inequitable impact of bankruptcy law on the division of family assets would be to amend the BIA,” wrote LeBel. “It seems to me that this matter is ripe for legislative attention so as to ensure that the principles of bankruptcy law and family law are compatible rather than being at cross-purposes.”

Canada

SCC decision will set rules for bankruptcy in divorce deals, The Canadian Press

Air Canada ordered to pay $12,000 to French-language rights crusader, Ottawa Citizen

Ex-cop pleads guilty to drug trafficking and breach of trust, The Province

United States

Non-profit sues Casey Anthony for costly search, Reuters

Clemens lied to Congress about steroid use: prosecutors, Reuters

International

Bahrain places protest poet under house arrest, Reuters

Bangladesh issues arrest warrant against former PM's son, Reuters

Alumnus Peter Allard has donated $11.86 million to the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law.

Peter Allard and UBC law dean Mary Anne Bobinski.

The donation will be used to complete the new law school building, establish a prize for international integrity, and create an online historical archive.

It’s the single largest donation to UBC’s law faculty and one of the biggest donations ever given to a Canadian law school.

“Ever since my days at UBC, I have possessed a strong belief in the enduring and transformative power of a legal education, and I believe this profession provides for the long-term greater good of society,” said Allard Thursday.

Allard obtained his BA in history in 1968 and LLB in 1971. He founded his own law firm Allard & Co. and now runs investment firm Peterco Holdings Ltd. In 1993, he established the Highbury Foundation, which has lent support to medical communities in B.C. and Alberta. The foundation has also made donations to post-secondary institutions in Western Canada.

In honour of Allard’s donation, UBC will name its new law building Allard Hall. The total cost of the building will be $56 million with approximately $10 million coming from Allard, $25 million from private fundraising, and $21 million from the university.

A portion of Allard’s donation will also go towards setting up the annual Allard Prize for International Integrity, which will recognize those who fight for freedom, human rights, and against corruption.

“In looking back over my many years in law, there is no more important class in my mind than the first-year course in ethics,” said Allard. “Honesty, integrity, and the unofficial ‘smell test’ are the hallmarks of the rule of law, and with the rule of law comes justice.”

With Allard’s donation, UBC will also create an online archive of the faculty’s history.

Lawyer rudeness in e-mails is now one of the leading complaints of uncivil behavior grievances filed against lawyers, an article in the summer edition of the British Columbia Benchers’ Bulletin states. And, action has been taken against lawyers who fail to dial down their language in emails.

The LSBC is highlighting the perils of rudeness in e-mails. Photo: iStock

“Disciplinary action has been taken in Canada against lawyers who for example, called opposing counsel ‘clueless,’” Maureen Boyd, the LSBC’s manager of discipline, says in the Bulletin. “Another lawyer advised opposing counsel to take a settlement offer and shove it, including a graphic description of the intended location. And, in written correspondence one lawyer said to another, ‘I don’t have time to read two-page rambling letters. Say what you want to say in a single sentence unless you are paid by the word.’”

Carolyn Anderson, one of two intake and early resolution lawyers at the LSBC offices, said in the past 18 months she had to assist about 60 lawyers dealing with e-mail issues.

“Five years ago,” she said, “ Most rudeness complaints were about things that were said in conversation. There is no doubt that e-mail is requiring more attention from lawyers but the basic standard for lawyers’ behaviour haven’t changed for e-mail or otherwise.”

In the Bulletin article, lawyer Leslie Muir, who has written and lectured on professional responsibility issues, talks about the perils of responding too fast to client concerns. “Many more people expect instant results, instant responses, and demand instant options. Many people say things in text messages and e-mails that they will, or at least should, regret. I do not allow these types of expectations to prevent me from fully considering the facts and the law prior to giving advice or taking steps. And, I tell lawyers at my lectures that if you do, it is at your peril.”

The LSBC recommends that lawyers set out a policy when accepting a retainer that outlines the communications between lawyer and client and the time involved in getting back to a client.

However, lawyers are getting some advice in B.C. so they can resist sending off that flippant text message or hurried email, which could land a complaint before the discipline committee. The LSBC has launched a series of discipline alerts. “The idea behind the new alerts is to provide lawyers with information so they can avoid conduct that leads to complaints,” says Deborah Armour, the LSBC’s chief legal officer for.

The first alert sets out recommendations for communications to prevent “two aspects of incivility — tone and content.” Lawyers should avoid using obscenities, avoid adjectives or adverbs in correspondence, particularly when they editorialize and do not add material content, recognize anger or frustration and avoid communicating until the feelings are resolved, have another lawyer review and edit letters before sending them, and adopt a practice in difficult matters of corresponding by letter and reviewing the letter a day later and editing it before sending it.

Canada

Man accused of attacking raccoons to appear in court, CBC News

B.C. woman could face cruelty charges over dog breeding, The Province

Woman charged with second-degree murder of spouse, The Vancouver Sun

United States

'Sister Wives' to challenge Utah polygamy laws, Reuters

Women sue N.J. cemetery over grave mix-up, Reuters

International

Ex-detective to sue News of the World for harassment, Reuters

Mitsubishi, Toshiba win appeals against EU fines, Reuters

As the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission considers Bell Canada’s proposal for aggregated volume pricing for its wholesale customers, the regulator is also planning on a new interim cost structure that some critics fear will lead to bill increases in the meantime.

The interim solution, which would apply while the CRTC considers the broader issue of how the big telecommunications companies bill their wholesale customers, would set network access rates based on the provider’s lowest retail prices for the corresponding speed options minus $7.50. There would be no usage-based fee.

Photo: Shutterstock

“No inferences of any kind should be drawn from the fact that this interim tariff, given its short transitory nature, contains no separate usage component,” the CRTC said in announcing the interim rates.

The regulator says the change would allow the wholesalers access to new speeds to offer to their customers, but groups like the British Columbia Broadband Association said they were concerned about possible price increases for some users. At the same time, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre warned about the effects of any proposal to apply the interim rates retroactively, something it said “could have a disastrous effect upon competition and customer choice in the retail high-speed Internet services marketplace.”

In the meantime, Bell has been arguing in favour of its proposed aggregated volume pricing model after cancelling plans for usage-based billing following a public outcry. Under Bell’s proposal, wholesalers would pay for its services according to two components: a flat-rate access fee and one based on their customers’ total usage. Wholesalers could buy bandwidth in one-terabyte blocks in advance from Bell. In its submissions, it argues aggregated pricing doesn’t prevent high bandwidth usage, allows wholesalers to devise their own business models, and ensures that those who use the least bandwidth aren’t subsidizing people who use the most.

The CRTC hearings began yesterday and are expected to continue at least through this week. Already, CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein has rejected calls to broaden the scope of the hearings by considering the prices Canadians, including those who are direct customers of the big telecommunications companies, pay in general for Internet services.

“We believe that retail rates . . . are best set by the market,” he said as the hearings began.

Canada

Ex-solicitor general admits campaign overspending: court docs, The Vancouver Sun

Florist's killer sentenced to 12.5 years, Toronto Star

B.C. men seek murder appeals from U.S. court, Toronto Star

United States

Court tells gov't to clarify position on gays in military, Reuters

Former IMF chief's court date postponed, Reuters

International

WikiLeaks founder back in court to fight extradition, Reuters

eBay may be liable for trademark abuse: EU court, Reuters