Law Times

PAGE 2 Schools may get big bucks ethics among lawyers, made available in a $55-million class action settlement. Th e money will be available to the C anadian law schools could soon be salivating over $14 million for the promotion of professionalism and country's common law faculties if Supe- rior Court Justice Maurice Cullity signs off on a proposed settlement following an April 24 fairness hearing. Th e class action involves allegations the Toronto-Dominion Bank charged TD Visa cardholders "undisclosed, inadequately dis- closed, or unauthorized fees or charges in re- spect of debits and credits incurred on their TD Visa accounts in a foreign currency," ac- cording to information in a hearing notice. Th e Law Foundation of Ontario also stands to gain from the settlement, with $4.3 mil- lion earmarked for its uses. Lawyers who acted on behalf of class members would receive up to $11 mil- lion, while as much as $11 million also would go to the class members. Other charitable organizations would get no more than $14 million. An ad- ditional $60,000 would be set aside for administration costs. — RT NEWS CBA takes diplomatic position Continued from page 1 languages should be among the factors taken into consideration for appointments. "I don't want to get into the politics of it; it's not my place as president of the Cana- dian Bar Association," Guy Joubert tells Law Times. "Leave that discussion or that debate to the politicians. "Th ere are a number of criteria," he goes spoke on Godin's bill in the Commons. Th ey praised its goals, but did not stake out a position on mandatory bilingualism. "Th e government clearly accepts that lin- on. "You've heard this before, like high moral character, experience in the law, intellectual ability, judgmental ability, good work habits, good health, human qualities, someone who's sympathetic and patient, and just a good judge. "You always want to make sure that you've always got the best people there and you also want to make sure, from an access to justice point of view, that Canadians can access the courts and receive services in both offi cial lan- guages. We've always advocated that when we select a member or appoint a member of the Supreme Court of Canada, there are a number of important criteria, and we've always advocat- ed that bilingualism is one of those merit crite- ria, albeit an important element in the criteria." Th at delicate position — supporting the goal of linguistic fl uency on the court while ducking a direct stand on whether it should be mandatory — is obviously what the gov- ernment had in mind when two of its MPs guistic ability is an important factor in se- lecting judges of the Supreme Court," Con- servative MP Mike Allen, who, like Godin, represents a New Brunswick riding, told the House of Commons. "I am aware of no suggestion that the court has failed to consistently provide all Canadians with the highest quality of justice they expect and deserve," said Allen. But youthful Heritage Minister James Moore departed from the government script when he responded to questions from Godin at a meeting of the Commons committee on offi cial bilingualism. "We will have a vote in the House on your march 30, 2009 • Law Times Behaviour must be 'curbed' Continued from page 1 private member's bill and you will lose your de- bate," Moore said. "If someone cannot speak both offi cial languages perfectly, this should not be criteria that would prevent them from submitting their candidacy for the court." Th e court currently provides simultaneous interpretation during hearings, while special- ly trained "jurilinguists" translate decisions. It is up to each judge to arrange translation of court documents within his or her chamber if necessary. LT February 2008 work of diff erent approaches to the issue," he says. Boni says that in exceptional cases, jurors' Internet-capable cellphones should be confi s- cated, and that jurors should be sequestered in some instances. "It would be a shame if it had to get to that point," he says. "A lot of people would fi nd those steps to be draconian, however, this behaviour has to be curbed, because it is truly threatening to the credibility of a jury verdict." Criminal "What we don't want is a patch- The 2009 Canadian Lawyer LEGAL FEES SURVEY Schreck of Schreck & Greene Barristers in Toronto says he has never encountered a "Google mistrial" in his practice. He notes that while jurors in the U.S. are permitted to and often make a point of discussing their delibera- tions following a decision, doing so is illegal in Canada. Th ere is a strong presumption in Canadian courts, says Schreck, that jurors will follow their instructions. But he concedes that it's impossible to know whether that presumption holds water, as jury secrecy rules prevent any "meaningful research" into how juries operate. He lawyer Andras $7.00 The Canadian Lawyer Legal Fees Survey is back and more convenient than ever. Fill out the short survey online at www.canadianlawyermag.com/surveys, and let us know what you are charging for various legal transactions and services in multiple practice areas. Our most requested survey takes just minutes to complete and will provide valuable information about what the nation's lawyers are charging for many common transactions and services, both nationally and regionally. Results will be published in the June issue of Canadian Lawyer. Survey closes on April 15 Two lucky participants will each win a swanky pair of legal-motif cufflinks provided by cuffwear.com provide specifi c instructions that jurors not search the Internet, it is "really hard to discover" such abuses unless a juror admits to it. "If the jury doesn't want to obey says while judges may [instructions] there's not a whole lot you can do about it," says Schreck. "I mean, you can take away their BlackBerrys, but the juror can go home and get his wife's BlackBerry, go on his computer at home and do his Google search." He suggests that sequester- ing jurors is "just not practical, I don't think. It would be costly and it would also cause a real hardship to the jurors, especially in long trials." Adds Schreck: "I'm not sure what anyone can do about it, oth- er than for the trial judge to really drive home to the jury that they shouldn't do this, and explain the reason why they shouldn't do it." Criminal lawyer Peter Zaduk says he often assumes during jury trials that jurors are conducting Internet research. He suggests that publication bans are ineff ec- tive because many web sites that include relevant information originate from other countries and can't be monitored. He concedes that the only protection against such activity is a judge's order that jurors not look at newspapers and web sites. "Curiosity being curiosity, you wonder how eff ective that would be," says Zaduk. Boni says the issue highlights the need for proper jury moni- toring by court offi cials. "Otherwise what we're going to www.canadianlawyermag.com/surveys www.lawtimesnews.com Legal fees ad.indd 1 3/26/09 4:47:33 PM end up with is a degree of uncer- tainty surrounding jury verdicts that will totally undermine the validity and integrity of verdicts, and we can't aff ord that," he says. "From a pure cost perspective, we cannot aff ord for this to become the next fl avour of the month in our Court of Appeal." LT WIN!

• Cover
• Go Digital
• Electoral Reform
• Focus On Energy/Environmental Law