One of the highlights of the CBA’s Envisioning Equal Justice Summit, now about six weeks ago, was a lunchtime debate on the merits or demerits, the feasability or impracticality of a national justice care system. The exchange was witty and entertaining, and solid, thoughtful, substantive arguments underlay the edgy discussion.

Beverly Spencer posted a superb summary of the debate in the CBA National Magazine’s Legal Insights & Practice Trends: Should there be a national “justice care” system in Canada?, and it is worth a read to get a flavour of the issues and arguments on either side . . . [more]

I recently wrote a post that sparked a firestorm of comments; most felt that I had overstepped myself for daring to suggest that the Law Society of Upper Canada ignores obvious conflicts in connection with its operations. This week we have another LSUC conflict issue.

Canadian Lawyer Magazine has reported on the ongoing proceedings between LSUC and Joseph Groia. As you are aware, Joseph Groia was found guilty of misconduct by a LSUC disciplinary panel last summer and he is appealing that decision.

The panel that will hear the appeal is comprised of 5 benchers – one of which . . . [more]

Here’s a sad bit of reading — seven paragraphs of an appellate judgment concerning children handed down by an excellent bench (Noah v. Bouchard, 2013 ONCA 383).

[1] The appellant Johnny Bouchard appeals from the order of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 5, 2012, dismissing the appellant’s claim for custody of the parties’ two children, Tyler (age 10) and Nicholas (age 8). The application judge ordered that the custody and access arrangements in existence at the time of trial pursuant to the earlier order of Judge MacKenzie of the Ontario Court of Justice should continue

. . . [more]

Later this month, I’ll be speaking to a group of women on the topic of representing yourself in legal proceedings. The focus of my presentation will be on what you need to know and can expect from the courts if you’re choosing to represent yourself.

In preparing for that presentation, I’m on the lookout for comments from courts across the country on what is expected of the self-representing litigant and conversely, what won’t be tolerated from a self-representing litigant. For example, in the recent decision in Delichte v Rogers, 2013 MBQB 93 (CanLII), the Court plainly and strongly criticized . . . [more]

It’s a big week at the Supreme Court for our professional and personal communities. As most of us are already aware, tomorrow the SCC will hear arguments in the Bedford case and will ponder the criminality of certain acts related to sex work, namely communicating for the purposes of prostitution, being found in a common bawdy house and living off the avails of prostitution.

At the heart of the decision are questions of constitutionality, specifically whether these three Criminal Code provisions violate section 2 and 7 of the Charter. Both the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada maintain . . . [more]

It now seems clear that any and all electronic communications are grist for the NSA’s mills. Only a fool would imagine that something expressed directly and plainly by phone, email, or SMS would remain private between sender and receiver. Of course, most of what we say to each other these ways is utterly trivial and inconsequential as far as the spy agencies are concerned, which doesn’t mean, of course, that we are happy or even content to have our private communications, however mundane, so casually and routinely raked through. 

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to go: we can, as . . . [more]

Earlier today, Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, presented her office’s annual report on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) for 2012. Last month, she was making her case for reforming and strengthening the Act to better protect Canadians’ privacy in the digital age.

All of these activities will not surprise anyone.

What is less well known is that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner also funds a whole series of research initiatives. Recently, it published a compendium of results from many of these projects:

From tapping our smart phones to transfer funds, to

. . . [more]

Whistleblowing occurs when employees reveal corporate wrongdoing, usually in their organization, to law enforcement. Unfortunately, it is common for whistleblowers to experience demotion, dismissal and otherwise negative treatment from their employers after they disclose the malfeasance or corruption. In order to deal with this serious issue, some companies have created codes of ethics to ensure that their directors, officers and employees are aware of and adhere to standards of conduct that ensure the company performs and is represented in an honest and responsible manner. However, it is necessary for laws to exist to protect employees who feel, in good faith, it is necessary to disclose wrongdoing. In addition to provisions in the Criminal Code that aim to protect employees who make disclosures, some jurisdictions have enacted specific whistleblower laws to provide these protections in the public and private sectors. As well, workers already receive some form of protection under the local Occupational Health and Safety Act, which protects them where they seek enforcement or give evidence in respect of the enforcement of that Act. So what is the state of the law on whistleblowing?

Someone is conspicuously absent from the current debate about the future of legal practice. I have not yet noted anyone seriously asking clients the very relevant questions about what the profession should look like 10, 20 or 30 years from now.

This is not surprising given there is a great disconnect between legal professionals and most clients. That divide is evident whether looking at sophisticated corporate clients or the clients of any small or mid-sized law office.

I first became aware of the disconnect early in my career when I began work in the area of public legal education. At . . . [more]

There’s some good stuff happening over on Osgoode Hall Law School’s IFLS blog, which is managed by the impressive Sonia Lawrence. I’m referring to a “roundtable” discussion about the recent Supreme Court of Canada case Quebec (Attorney General) v. A, 2013 SCC 5, otherwise known as Eric v. Lola. The old song says “whatever Lola wants, Lola gets” — but not this time. The majority of the court supported the exclusion of de facto spouses from the provisions of the Civil Code governing spousal support and division of property, making Québec (yet again) unique among the provinces. This, . . . [more]

Last month I participated in the CBA Equal Justice Summit, and previously I wrote about its highly effective opening evening simulation.

I found the plenaries and parallel workshops equally stimulating. Indeed, they seemed to diverge in character from traditional conference sessions. The plenaries engaged participants with multimedia, debate, and even theatre. The workshops I attended were interactive, beyond a handful of questions post-presentation, and some drew from the diverse thoughts of panels larger than I often see in conferences.

The pursuit of equal access to justice is manifold, and Summit organizers, presenters, and many participants are active in . . . [more]

The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (known as CPSR) has decided to wind up, having pushed for responsible – and notably peaceful – uses of information technology for over 30 years. As they say in their notice, back in 1981 there was no one else with their message. Now there are many – though the task remains to be done.

As the official announcement states:

CPSR was launched in 1981 in Palo Alto, California, to question the
computerization of war in the United States via the Strategic Computing
Initiative to use artificial intelligence in war, and, soon after, the

. . . [more]