Take part in the relaunch of OBA’s charity!

OBA Foundation is the new name for ALERT (the Advancement of Legal Education and Research Trust).   Established in 1987, we’ve supported many great legal research and education projects over more than 25 years.

To announce the launch of the OBA Foundation Chief Justice of Ontario Fellowships in Legal Ethics and Professionalism, which will be funded and administered by the OBA Foundation, we’re having a party!   “Repartee” is our inaugural fundraiser, taking place on June 13, 2013 from 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm, at 20 Toronto Street, Toronto.  Tickets are $35.00 per person.  “Repartee” will include a silent auction and live auction, featuring some terrific items and services donated by lawyers, law firms and businesses.  

We need your help! We hope that you or your firm or organization can help us by donating items of value such as sporting tickets, experiences, memorabilia, or artwork that we can offer at the silent and live auctions.   We can provide charitable receipts in accordance with CRA guidelines.  Help advance legal ethics and professionalism, by supporting OBA Foundation. 

To make a donation, please fill out the attached Donor Form and send to Valerie Dallas at vdallas@oba.org.  If you have any questions, please contact Valerie at (416) 869-1047.

We look forward to seeing you and your colleagues on June 13^th.   This will be a great opportunity to socialize with colleagues at the bar and members of the judiciary.

Lee Akazaki
Trustee, OBA Foundation

Terms of use / Mentions légales

Terms of use / Mentions légales

Terms of use / Mentions légales

In my April, 2013, Canadian Lawyer column, Respect for Lawyering, I suggest that our profession, once respected for our prowess at thinking, might learn a thing or two from Hagen’s disciplined approach to the actor’s craft.  Whether it is resisting the movement toward commoditization of legal services, or ways of enhancing public confidence in courts, earning respect for our thinking must start with approaching thought as work.  Click on Hagen’s image, right, to link to the column.

~  ~  ~

Chapitre 7 du tome magistral d’Uta Hagen, Respect for Acting, dévoile les techniques de la pensée active des comédiens. Pour eux, penser et un aspect du travail.  Après avoir lu ce livre, peut-être que vous ne supporterez jamais plus les rôles mal joués.  En tant que juriste, c’est un malheur que l’équivalent de ce bouquin n’existe vraiment pas pour nous.

Tant pis.  Dans mon article de l’avril 2013 du Canadian Lawyer, Respect for Lawyering, je propose que les juristes peuvent apprendre l’art de penser en se visionnant comme penseurs actifs.  Si notre travail est dévalué de ces jours, en tant qu’avocats ou en tant que juges, faut-il nous rappeler que le grand public veut nous respecter, et de voir la preuve que nous pensons, comme travail.  Cliquez sur l’image de Uta Hagen, à droit, pour accéder à l’article.

Terms of use / Mentions légales

I may as well have asked a question about Heidegger’s thoughts on the revelation of reality.  The lack, most of the time, of a satisfactory answer to my question comes from the apocryphal nature of the rules of civil evidence in Canada, and from the dearth of actual trial experience among litigators called to the bar in the last 15 years.

(la version française suit)

So much of the practice of civil litigation is now not about evidence but information.  An entire industry called E-Discovery has grown in large firms which has little to do with litigation as it does about searching for dots in complicated constellations of (hoped for) exceptions to the hearsay rule.  Parties in large commercial cases are tempted to settle after shuddering at the size of the bill for a round of E-Discovery.  Very few of the lawyers involved in such matters actually have much sense of what the case is about.  The holy grail is server full of coded productions, whether or not any of it might end up being used by the court as proof of fact or legal theory.

In less lofty circles, I often hear counsel say things like: “I’d sooner believe the police officer’s version of the accident than your client’s.”  In one recent case, I had to point out that the police officer did not speak to the accident victim because (a) he did not speak Punjabi and (b) the victim was taken away in an ambulance and was in no fit state to provide a statement.  Apart from the drawing showing where the cars ended up in the intersection, the police officer’s version of how the accident occurred was entirely based on flawed hearsay and could not be received in evidence at trial.  The victim’s testimony, aided by an interpreter, would be admissible as direct eye-witness testimony.

The simple truth is that you cannot count on persuading another lawyer of the validity of a factual assertion if you cannot refer to the evidence, and demonstrate how it will be adduced at trial.

In an age when few rulings of evidence in civil matters get published, it is important for civil litigators to glance, at least, at the digests of criminal cases.  In criminal law, procedures such as preliminary hearings are real battlegrounds where courts decide whether there is enough admissible evidence to make out a case for the prosecution.  Some of the case law is particular to criminal law, such as the law regarding the application of Charter remedies to evidence obtained from police searches.  Nevertheless, the law of evidence is a shared domain between civil and criminal law.  Crown and defence counsel focus every day on the admissibility and weight of each piece of evidence. If only civil litigators learned some of that disciplined approach to proof in the litigation process.

~   ~  ~

Dans l’intimité des salles de médiation, j’entend souvent des affirmations faites par les avocats à propos de certains faits, puis je leur demande: Comment allez-vous le prouver?

J’aurais pu aussi bien avoir posé une question au sujet des pensées de Heidegger sur la révélation de la réalité.  Le manque, la plupart du temps, d’une réponse satisfaisante à ma question découle de la nature apocryphe des règles de la preuve civile au Canada, et à partir du manque d’expérience parmi les ‘jeunes’ avocats.

Une grande partie de la pratique du contentieux civil est maintenant pas de preuve, mais l’information.  Mais les données n’égalent pas la preuve. Toute une industrie appelée E-Discovery s’est développée dans les grands cabinets. Très peu d’avocats impliqués dans ce domaine savent vraiment le vrai enjeu dans ces dossiers.

Dans les milieux moins élevés, j’entends souvent dire des choses comme: « Je préférerais croire la version de l’agent de police, et non pas la version de votre client. » La plupart du temps, les policiers n’ont rien vu, et leur témoignage serait rejeté.  Entre la preuve et rien, il n’existe aucun conflit.

Il est fort évident que vous ne pouvez pas convaincre un autre avocat de la validité d’une affirmation de fait, si vous ne pouvez pas identifier la preuve, et de montrer comment elle sera présentée devant le jury.

Dans une époque où très peu d’arrêts de la loi de la preuve en matière civile se font publier, il est important que les avocats civils suivent les recueils de la jurisprudence d’affaires pénales. En droit pénal, les procédures telles que les audiences préliminaires sont de véritables champs de bataille où les tribunaux décident s’il y a suffisamment d’éléments de la preuve admissibles pour établir une preuve de la poursuite. Le droit de la preuve est un domaine partagé entre le droit civil et pénal.  Donc, dis-je: faîtes attention au droit pénal!

Terms of use / Mentions légales

Now, once again, Memorial University is considering a law school.  (Click on the Memorial logo – above right – to read the story.)

A law school is a living monument to hope and the rule of law.  It is a statement that localism can co-exist with an international perspective.  It is so many things, but above all: a recognition that the lawyers trained in a distinct community can, through national mobility, add to the legal diversity and dialogue of a wide and vast country.  A law school on the Rock will be good for Newfoundland and Labrador, but lawyers trained in Newfoundland and Labrador will also be good for Canada.

Terms of use / Mentions légales

It turned out the only one who demurred was the lawyer from the Crown, who was not a party but who had standing as an intervenor because of a Charter issue.  Eager to avoid an adjournment, I turned around, spoke to the lawyer in French and ascertained that he could in fact speak French.  I avoided the adjournment.  The hearing continued in French only, and the young lawyer from the Crown Law Office prevailed against me.  (Belende v. Patel [Eng.]; Belende c. Patel [Fr.])

If success in the Court of Appeal could not spur the lawyer to use more French in his practice, I cannot think what could.  Alas, there is a tremendous amount of bilingual capacity in Canadian law offices which we will eventually lose through lack of use.  A quarter of a century ago, a common task for me as an articling student was to summarize case law from Québec courts.  As the only francophone professional in the office, it was nevertheless a daunting task.  First, judgments concerning the application of the Civil Code involved legal concepts with which I was wholly unfamiliar.  Second, Québecois legal writing tends to have been slower than English Canada in embracing the Plain Language revolution of the 1970′s.  Today, apart from the odd piece of translation, private law firms in English Canada have little use for French-Speaking lawyers.  In contrast with government, where bilingualism attracts economic and status incentives, there is even tacit discrimination against francophones.

According to UNESCO, half of the 6,000 languages spoken worldwide will disappear by the end of this century.  The commonly understood consequence of language extinction to our planet is the loss of world heritage.  For example, as the reach of industrialized cultures extends ever more into the lands of indigenous peoples, the local knowledge of plant, animal and geological phenomena collected over millennia stand to be lost.

Law’s loss from the decline of our profession’s linguistic pluralism is most pronounced, because the world of law is populated entirely by words.  Throughout Anglo-American history, cultural depth and linguistic sensitivity have been integral elements of lawyering.  Values coming from diverse cultures and languages have inspired Anglo legal monuments from Magna Carta (via Old French) to the American Constitution (Iroquois Confederacy).  The signposts of English law come from French (tort, contrat, mortgage, autrefois acquit, renvoie - the list goes on.)

French, both as a mother tongue in Québec and as a minority language in the rest of Canada, is endangered. But English itself is a composite language, not a native language.  Borrowing words and phrases from other languages is the way English evolves.  When English speakers no longer learn other languages, the unhealing wound is on the body of English.  When Canadian lawyers live in a an official bilingual country but do practice in two unilingual solitudes, we contribute to the great historical rift in Confederation.

So when you start your day with your favourite breakfast cereal, read the bilingual nutritional label.  At the office, zigzag between the left and right columns of the Supreme Court Reports every other paragraph (try it – it’s better brain exercise than Sudoku).  At home, Channel-surf between The National‘s Peter Mansbridge and Le Téléjournal‘s Céline Galipeau and make up your mind which newscast is better.  (Hint – there is a clear choice.)  Open your eyes. You live and work in Canada, a young officially bilingual country inspiring model laws around the planet.

Related post: La Profession juridique en français en Ontario

Terms of use / Mentions légales

In 2011, I met with the leaders of the American Bar Association during their annual conference in Toronto.  I was impressed with how more reflective of our general community the delegates were, compared to senior members of our bar.  They seemed to have got over the barrier from diversity as prototype to diversity as integral professional culture.  Even to the point that, it was pointed out to me, the seven members of the California Supreme Court included four women and four Asians.  The American Civil Rights Movement has always been about participation and integration, and less about preservation of diasporic customs.

Could the American approach to diversity have led to more successful promotion of lawyers from newcomer groups?  An interesting topic deserving of in-depth research, perhaps.  For the fleeting moments you might spend on this blog, though, I propose to apply Occam’s Razor and assume provisionally the answer is yes.  The purpose?  Nothing less than testing a hypothesis that Canadian lawyers coming from diverse communities must also learn about the established culture.  Read the February 2013 installment of The Accidental Mentor, and leave feedback either here or on the Canadian Lawyer page.  (Or click on the image of the graph, above-right.)

(The graphic top-right explains how most real life solutions come from bold assumptions – why Occam’s Razor is a handy philosophical tool in the oversimplified planet of the blogosphere.)

Terms of use / Mentions légales

En 2011, j’ai rencontré les leaders du barreau américain durant leur conférence annuel à Toronto.  Ce qui m’a vraiment frappé, c’est qu’aux É.-U., on a franchi le seuil entre la diversité comme prototype et la diversité comme processus intégral de la culture professionnelle.  Même au niveau que les sept membres de la Cour suprême de la Californie comprennent quatre femmes et quatre asiatiques. Aux É.-U., les batailles historiques à venir à ce point furent toutes à propos de la participation ou de l’intégration.  Non pas de la préservation des coutumes des immigrés.

J’ai donc pensé que le succès de nos cousins et cousines américain(e)s aurait pu être aidé par cette idée de la diversité radicalement opposée à la notre.  Cela doit être le sujet d’une enquête plus profonde.  Dans un blogue, nous n’avons que quelques moments.  Essayons le Rasoir d’Ockam et présumons pour le moment que l’expérience américaine a mené mieux à l’intégration des avocats minoritaires.  Alors, peut-on imaginer la cause du manque de l’épanouissement au Canada des juristes du patrimoine étranger?  Peut-on y trouver une hypothèse pour résoudre notre problème?  Ce qui fait le sujet de l’article de février 2013 de The Accidental Mentor.  (Cliquez sur l’image en haut et à droite pour y accéder.)

(L’image à droite explique que la plupart de l’expérience réel peut être compris avec l’aide du minimum de donnés présumés.  Enfin le Rasoir d’Ockam est l’ami de la planète sursimplifiée des bloguers.)

Terms of use / Mentions légales

Since 2001, the Commentary to the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Rules of Professional Conduct, s. 1.03, has set out this requirement as part of the standards of the legal profession.  In practice, it is rarely observed.  In litigation in particular, I have encountered cases where opposing lawyers for francophone parties have neglected to opt for bilingual court proceedings to their clients’ prejudice.

Bilingual does not mean French-only.  That means your clients can still employ you as counsel of choice, but if they wish to give testimony in French, they can do so on the basis the court will also understand them.  It goes beyond linguistic rights.  In the right case, opting for a bilingual proceeding can provide your client with an advantage.  Failing to consider that advantage can also be considered a departure from the standard of care.

Bringing to a client’s attention a new web portal, CliquezJustice.ca (ou cliquer sur l’image à droite en haut), can start you and the client on the right foot.  According to CliquezJustice:

CliquezJustice.ca, the legal information portal for minority francophone communities, is also helpful for lawyers since it facilitates the lawyer-client relationship.  …  [It] is a Web portal that provides simplified and accessible legal information in French. It was designed for out-of-Quebec Canadian Francophones. This includes kids, teenagers, teachers and the general public. It offers simplified, accessible and adapted legal information on various legal topics (family law, employment law, immigration law, contracts, etc.), on careers in the justice sector and on the workings of the judicial system.

Don’t let the topic of Canadian minority language rights intimidate you.  Moreover, if you are able to plead and make submissions in French, employ your ability to your client’s advantage.  All those “French without Tears” classes will definitely pay off!

Terms of use / Mentions légales