Drama and Irony in a Canadian Courtroom?

With the nation riveted to news reports from a fraud, breach of trust and bribery trial in an Ottawa courtroom, Canada reaches a milestone in its legal history.  Behold, Canadians as mass spectators of our justice system “get” the role of dramatic irony, the narrative device used by playwrights to exploit the discrepancy between audience knowledge…

Latest articles

Early Lesson from the Duffy Trial: The Bar needs to focus, not wince at a “bright line” rule

Amid the media frenzy over the morality play unfolding in an Ottawa courtroom, the bar has a lesson to glean from the argument over the interaction between the Canadian Senate’s expense rules and the Criminal Code.  (“Blame the rules, not Mike Duffy, defence says“; “Mike Duffy trial: Defence to continue attack on vagueness of Senate rules.”) Mr. Duffy’s defence lawyer contends the Senate’s self-imposed rules permitted practices such as claiming housing expenses for property in the province of a senator’s appointment, even though the senator resided in another province most of the time.  The Crown argues strict observance of this expense rule, to satisfy a questionable…

What if … counsel had adduced better evidence? Deguise v. Montminy showed us the ‘What if’

Last July, in Deguise v. Montminy, 2014 QCCS 2672 the Québec Superior Court had occasion to revisit these issues from in Alie v. Bertrand & Frere Construction Co. Ltd., 2002 CanLII 31835, applying the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in that 2002 case to civil law concepts relating to allocation of responsibility among insurers in complex construction and property damage cases.  Many of the rulings in the decision were specific to Québec civil law. In one aspect, however, the case provided an opportunity to test the writer’s hypothesis that the Alie court called on parties and counsel to present expert…

Abolition of the 5% PJI rule in MVA cases, prospective or retroactive?

In the past weeks, have received numerous inquiries and feedback from the bar and the bench on my Gilbertson Davis LLP litigation blog post on s. 258.3(8.1) of the Insurance Act, regarding the abolition of the special 5% rule on prejudgment interest in motor vehicle tort actions.  Many colleagues in the civil defence bar have told me they have printed it out and used it as leverage at mediations and pretrial conferences.  The plaintiff bar has, as expected, argued the opposite, but the argument against retroactivity fails because the 5% rule has always been arbitrary.  It cannot be argued that 5% is…

AlbersA21

ABCD’s of Litigation Prevention

No one, apart from litigation lawyers and patent trolls, likes litigation.  Or derives much happiness from it.  Then why do we offer ourselves to the public as litigation lawyers?  It is escape from litigation that our clients want, and these days we offer the escape only after costly proceedings and discovery.  What, then, if we started…

15991754744_e451dcaf92_k

Post-Mortem, CBA Futures Debate on ABS

On February 21, I participated in the panel debate on Alternative Business Structures (ABS) at the plenary CBA meetings in Ottawa, for which I had provided my preliminary speaking notes on this blog.  I left the debate feeling there is no business plan for allowing non-lawyers and corporations to share in the delivery of legal services: in…

IMG_398387051

How origins of ABS in U.K. and Australian Law differ from Canada

“Everything you want to know about ABS but are afraid to ask.”  That is the name of the panel discussion at the Mid-Winter Meeting of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) on February 21, in which CBA has asked me to represent a skeptic’s perspective on the Alternative Business Structures (ABS) recommendations of the CBA Futures Committee.…