Law Times

February 28, 2011

The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 0 of 19

Follow on Subscribe to Law Times And receive: • Unlimited access to the Law Times digital editions and to our digital edition archives...FREE • Canadian Legal Newswire, a weekly e-newsletter from the editors of Law Times and Canadian Lawyer...FREE $4.00 • Vol. 22, No. 7 Untitled-3 1 5/5/10 3:55:30 PM Covering Ontario's Legal Scene earlug.indd 1 How will TMX deal affect big firms? Those with U.K. presence likely have advantage in stock merger BY JULIUS MELNITZER For Law Times TMX Group Inc. will look like when the details of the deal emerge or whether it will overcome regulatory hurdles and take place at all. Equally unclear is the merger's impact N on Canada's legal market generally. But it stands to reason that the diff erent inter- national expansion strategies followed by the major Canadian law fi rms will produce varying consequences. It's hard to imagine, for example, that fi rms with a signifi cant working presence in London, England, don't stand to benefi t most or at least lose the least. If, as some predict, potential Canadi- an issuers gravitate to the LSE over time, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP would seem to be very well placed. In 2007, the fi rm merged with Stringer Saul LLP, a 30-year-old commercial fi rm in London ranked 10th among British fi rms by num- ber of clients in the then-booming alterna- tive investment market. In one stroke, the move created the fi rst full-service and integrated Canadian-British law fi rm. It consolidated Faskens' position as one of the world's premier mining fi rms and positioned it to become the most signifi cant Canadian player in London's still-hot alter- native investment market. Th e merger also gave it the highest profi le a Canadian law o one knows what the proposed $7-billion merger of the London Stock Exchange and Canada's "I'm not saying that the LSE-TSX deal is good for Canadian markets or for people working for the TSX and I do suspect we're going to see a shift of legal work in the se- curities fi eld and corporate fi nance to the U.K. largely because London is considered the more prestigious venue." If that's the case, Faskens will be in a good position to pick up work, certainly from its own clients and perhaps from those of other Canadian fi rms, at its Lon- don offi ce. Ogilvy Renault LLP, which has a repre- sentative offi ce of two lawyers in London, is in a diff erent position. When it joins the Norton Rose Group in June, it will enjoy ready access to the international legal prac- tice's considerable resources in the British capital. So if Norton Rose's (as Ogilvys will be Jonathan Levin expects a shift in legal work to London should the TMX-LSE merger go through. fi rm has ever had in Britain. At the time, Andrew Smith of RBC Capi- tal Markets in London predicted the merger would bring Faskens "the kind of deal fl ow that ordinarily wouldn't come to them." Th at appears to be precisely what hap- pened. "We have picked up decent work because of our presence in London," says Jonathan Levin of the fi rm's Toronto offi ce. called after the merger) Toronto clients want to list in London, they can stay with the same fi rm. Th at might get the Toronto of- fi ce referral points, but the fi nancial impact is uncertain as the Norton Rose Group op- erates under the concept of non-integrated individual profi t centres. Ogilvys wouldn't comment on the TMX-LSE issue. Other Canadian fi rms in London in- clude Stikeman Elliott LLP and McCarthy Tétrault LLP. Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP has a small contingent of fi ve lawyers. But not all of Canada's major law fi rms have offi ces elsewhere. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, for example, has long eschewed interna- tional expansion by merger or greenfi elds. See Nimble, page 4 a Divisional Court panel found a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Professional Engineers Ontario's disciplinary committee in a case involving the "overbear- ing" interference by a lawyer on its staff . Th e decision ended a two-year 'Overbearing' lawyer criticized in discipline case A BY MICHAEL McKIERNAN Law Times n engineer has had a complaint against him permanently stayed after proceeding against Paul Lim that called into question the inde- pendence of PEO's disciplinary process. Th e case, described by the court as a "bizarre tale," revolved around Sal Guerriero, PEO's manager of legal and regulatory aff airs. As a staff member in the tribunal offi ce, his function was to provide administrative sup- port to the discipline committee. Instead, during a dispute over scheduling, Guerriero, who is an engineer as well as a lawyer, at- tempted to have his staff added as a party to a motion and gave legal advice to the chairman of the dis- ciplinary committee. Guerriero "ignored" the limitations of his role, while the committee chairman, Nick Monsour, displayed "no under- standing of the independent roles of the discipline committee and its staff ," according to the Divisional Court ruling. Th e disciplinary committee, comprised of engineers, would normally retain independent legal counsel for advice on its adjudicative functions. Never- theless, a string of "overbearing" correspondence from Guerriero to Lim's lawyers indicated his bias against the engineer, the court found. Still, that wouldn't have been enough on its own to grant the stay. "His conduct, however unfor- tunate, would not have resulted in a stay," wrote Justice Lee Fer- rier in the Feb. 8 decision. "Th at said, his conduct in giving advice to the chair (and therefore to the discipline committee), and in usurping the role of the chair, which the chair tolerated and with which the chair concurred, created the problem." At one stage, Monsour over- turned a ruling by one of his February 28, 2011 11/10/09 11:20:32 AM Inside This Issue 3 Thick Skins 6 Philosophical Roots 10 Focus On Labour & Employment Law Quote of the week "More and more companies, HR professionals, and governments want HR professionals to have a bigger role at the table in the sense that they see them as a strategic and vital piece to corporate planning." — Scott Allinson, Human Resources Professionals Association, See Bill, page 11 own committee members who ordered that the motion should continue without making PEO's administrative staff a party. "As- tonishingly, despite having ap- pointed a pre-hearing confer- ence to address the issues raised . . . the chair of the discipline committee ignored the decision of his delegate," Ferrier said on behalf of the three-judge panel. William McDowell, a partner at Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffi n LLP who acted for Lim in the matter, says he couldn't fi nd a similar example in Canadian law. "We were kind of relieved because the order straightened things out," he says. "Th en you immediately get a fax with an- other order that purports to undo See Ruling, page 4 COMPUTER SERVICES INC. 28-2901 Steeles Avenue West, ABTRON COMPLIMENTARY DIAGNOSTIC T O P N O T C H S E R V I C E LT Digital version.indd 1 Est 1994 OF ONE OF YOUR FIRMS COMPUTERS. One coupon per fi rm. Valid till March 31st 877-4AB-TRON 416-661-7503 Contact: or Abtron_LT_Feb28_11.indd 1 Hard Drive Destruction on Our Premises or On-Site Authorized for: IBM, Lenovo, HP, Lexmark, Samsung 2/24/11 11:04:26 AM 6/25/10 12:59:47 PM Click here to subscribe today to LAW TIMES Includes a FREE digital edition! Go to:

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Law Times - February 28, 2011