I’m pleased to be able to tell you that this coming week we have a firm guest blogger joining us. Bereskin & Parr is a leading Canadian IP firm with offices in Toronto, Montréal, Mississauga, and the Waterloo Region. They’ve provided us with the following description:

Founded in 1965, Bereskin & Parr LLP serves clients in over 100 countries worldwide. With more than 260 people, including more than 70 lawyers, patent and trade mark agents, Bereskin & Parr and its award-winning professionals are consistently rated in Canada as the benchmark for intellectual property law.

The firm has dedicated practice groups

♫ I’ve got a wealth of new ideas
I’ve got so many new ideas
I’ve got so many new ideas
I’ve got so many new ideas
(Show me, show me, show me all your new ideas)…♫

Lyrics, music and recorded by The Dykeenies.

In Nicole Garton-Jones’ post on “A Different Way to Look at Law Firm Strategy” we delved into the issue of trying to promote innovation within a law firm.

I was pleasantly surprised to receive the Ohio State University Leadership Center’s latest Leadership Newsletter by Beth Flynn, M.S. on this very issue. I sought and . . . [more]

[QUIZZIN 1] . . . [more]

Of the many challenges facing trial judges, one of the greatest is conducting proceedings with a self-represented accused. Invariably the self-represented accused comes to court with only a rudimentary knowledge of the trial process, often influenced by misleading depictions from television shows and the movies. He or she is unfamiliar with the substantive law, is confused by procedural requirements, and has difficulty grasping concepts such as relevance.

The burgeoning number of self-represented accused in the criminal courts may be explained by cut-backs to legal aid funding across the country, the cost of legal services, mental health problems that make it . . . [more]

Many lawyers assume that the Court process is unable or unwilling to take advantage of available electronic technology. Sometimes they are correct.

The problem is often one of communication. In many Ontario centres the lawyers are unaware until the last moment of who will be presiding over their case; and most often judges are unaware of the cases they will be asigned until the day before the hearing or trial. Many judges (myself included) will ask during a pre-trial or management session just what preparation has been made by the parties to reduce the use of paper. Too often that . . . [more]

At issue in the GasTOPS trial was the development and sale of a software program for the computerized maintain of jet engines and aircraft. The benefits of a Computerized Maintenance Management System are that it reduces maintenance mistakes while at the same time reducing labour costs.

When I fly on an airplane or ride on a train I am encouraged to buy my ticket online. I recently was at my family doctors office and instead of a thick file of handwritten notes covering 35 years of attendances, test results and prescriptions, she brought up my file on a monitor in . . . [more]

I have been a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for 4 1/2 years. In that capacity, I am asked to preside over a wide variety of cases and hearings which include criminal jury trials, criminal non jury cases, family law trials and motions, civil motions and trials, and a number of other issues.

From the outset, I decided to use my computer in all judicial proceedings where I was presiding for a number of reasons. First, I am left handed and do not write quickly. When I was a lawyer, note taking was always problematic for me because . . . [more]

On the 22nd of October 2002 the evidentiary phase of GasTOPS v. MxI commenced in a regular courtroom in Ottawa Ontario. On March 23, 2006 after approximately 300 days of hearing and after approximately 2800 exhibits (70,000 pages) were entered into the record I reserved my decision. Over the next 20 months counsel submitted their written submissions (3500 pages). On September 25, 2009 I released my Reasons for judgment wherein I granted the plaintiff judgment against the defendants in the amount of approximately $11.1 million dollars.

The trial was conducted in a paperless environment and the trial record consists of . . . [more]

This month our guest blogging institution isn’t a firm, but a group of judges from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. As always, when we have an institutional guest blogger, we’ll identify the guest posts with a banner. You’ll see the one below starting tomorrow, Monday:

We hope you’ll join in and give our guest the benefit of you opinions. . . . [more]

Fifty years ago, if we were to ask Canadians, “What are your expectations of government?” the answer would likely be: “I expect that my government should make good decisions.” Meeting this expectation by making laws, regulations and policies that treated everyone the same seemed an acceptable standard of fairness.

Within the next 20 years, provincial ombudsman offices came into being in Canada and began responding to complaints about instances where those good substantive decisions were not being made – but something else was happening too. As Canada’s population grew and society became more complex, governments at the federal, provincial and . . . [more]

The quintessential work of a parliamentary ombudsman requires the application of fairness principles to the decisions, actions and general conduct of the public service. These principles require that those decisions, actions and conduct be reasonable; consistent with law; just; and not oppressive or improperly discriminatory.

As a practicing lawyer for over twenty years, I am constantly reminded of the benefits of judicial and quasi-judicial avenues to determine citizens’ legal rights. These benefits include a structured procedure to determine legal rights; access to and the application of established precedents, a rich and sometimes codified body of principles to determine what evidence . . . [more]

Representing the best interests of the client, the adversarial system, and legally enforceable court decisions — these are the signposts on the well-travelled road to justice in the common law system. All you need is access to the resources necessary to pursue a case through to the end of the process.

But what if you lack those resources?

In the arena of administrative justice, the ombudsman’s office is a sort of “soft-power” alternative to the “hard-power” of the legal system. Accessible via a 1-800 phone call and available free of charge, this route may be the only option available to . . . [more]