Law Times

LAW TIMES 6 COVERING ONTARIO'S LEGAL SCENE | MARCH 18, 2019 www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT T he unusual aspect of tack- ling problems is that we usu- ally do not engage with them unless we have a self interest to do so or we're told why the issue needs to change and understand it on a deeper level. That is, to some, the point of some journalism (or consum- ing it) — learning about the per- ceived threats on the horizon, harkening to our evolutionary impulses for self-protection. This brings me in a roundabout way to the law and different approaches by lawyers to areas that need new thinking and could potentially drive significant growth. Take this week's story on family law and the ongoing de- bate between family lawyers and paralegals on how the provision of services by paralegals could help with Ontario's sizable ac- cess to justice issue. As Law Times reporter Anita Balakrishnan notes, the upcoming election for benchers on April 30 will be the first to elect lawyers and paralegals at the same time, with a total of 44 remaining seats available (39 for lawyers and five for paralegals). Her story notes that the number of paralegals in the province has nearly quadrupled since they were first regulated and that some say a larger scope of prac- tice for paralegals in family law could be a momentous move. "I've been a bencher for nine years and I've been hearing about family law being a crisis situation. And this makes sense to me," says Cathy Corsetti, a paralegal who is running for re- election. But this move would be one that would certainly be opposed by some family lawyers. Take Murray Maltz, one law- yer who has proposed other al- ternatives in the past that he said could help. "Bringing paralegals into a broken court system is not the solution to providing efficient, cost-effective access to the legal system," said Maltz in a 2017 col- umn. "The court system is com- plicated and arduous. There are too many rules, steps and delays, leading litigants to feel they are simply involved in a jumble of procedures without dealing with the substance of the problem." With complex problems, there is no single solution. What is important to keep in mind is that the mandate of the Law So- ciety of Ontario is to protect the public interest, which means any steps forward need to have that ultimate goal in mind. LT BY K ADY O'MALLEY G reetings from ground zero of the sprawling SNC-Lavalin scandal, which recently marked a full month since its incendiary debut on the front page of the Globe and Mail and, at least at press time, is still gobbling up every molecule of political oxygen on the pre- election political circuit with no appar- ent — or, at least, obvious — endgame in sight. I had previously predicted that what was then the still very much unfolding controversy involving former justice min- ister Jody Wilson-Raybould would "either peter out due to lack of fresh evidence or specific allegations" or, alternately, "coast right into a full-blown public inquiry of Gomery-esque proportions." There's still an outside chance that L'affaire SNC-Lavalin will eventually re- turn to the now traditional script before the final curtain. At the moment, though, it's difficult to see how either the governing Liberals or adversaries across the aisle can extricate themselves from the current standoff. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is, it seems, willing to express regret over what he described as an "erosion of trust" between himself and his erstwhile attor- ney general, but he remains avowedly unapologetic about what he insists was an entirely appropriate push to get her to reconsider her refusal to wade into the SNC-Lavalin case. For his part, Conserva- tive leader Andrew Scheer has been calling on Trudeau to step down since Wilson-Raybould's appearance before the House justice committee. Meanwhile, the New Democrats have re- frained from echoing Scheer's demand that Trudeau resign in favour of a contin- ued push for a full public inquiry. The underlying dilemma for all sides of this stalemate, of course, is that, bar- ring fresh revelations or primetime dra- ma-worthy plot twists, it's not clear that there's much more to come out, at least as far as the main storyline goes. During her appearance before com- mittee, Wilson-Raybould provided a de- tailed — although not entirely first-hand — account of what she described as a "consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of pros- ecutorial discretion," including names, dates and details of what transpired dur- ing what she estimated were approximately 10 meetings and 10 phone calls to discuss the specifics of the SNC-Lava- lin case. The committee also heard from two of the most high- ranking government officials f lagged in her testimony — the prime minister's former prin- cipal secretary, Gerry Butts, and Privy Council Clerk Mi- chael Wernick, both of whom concurred that such interactions had taken place while offering markedly dif- ferent versions of both the conversations on SNC-Lavalin and the justice minister's apparent disposition toward having them. A telling example: Wilson-Raybould insisted that she had made it clear to both men — as well as the prime minister and anyone else who approached her on the file — that her mind was made up; she wasn't prepared to reconsider her decision not to get involved. Butts, however, told the committee that the first time he'd heard that was dur- ing Wilson-Raybould's committee ap- pearance and that he had been operating under the presumption that she would be open to new arguments or evidence. It's a difference of perspective that goes to the heart of the dispute: If Wilson- Raybould had, in fact, made her posi- tion clear, for Butts and other officials to continue to browbeat her over the SNC- Lavalin file would indeed constitute inap- propriate pressure. But if she hadn't — or, at least, hadn't done so explicitly, in writing — it's not hard to imagine a scenario where Butts and other officials might view such dis- cussions as part of the usual back and forth of cabinet-style government. Now that both sides have had the op- portunity to share their version of events, it's up to the Canadian public, collectively and as individuals, to figure out which version of events seems most plausible. Alternately, they could, in typically Canadian style, conclude that, in this case, it's impossible to render judgment based on this one episode and instead file it away as just another factor to take into account when they head to the polls this fall. LT Kady O'Malley is a member of the parliamen- tary press gallery in Ottawa and writes about politics, procedure and process for iPolitics. She also appears regularly on CBC television and radio. JWR controversy continues Tackling giant problems Editorial Obiter Gabrielle Giroday Gabrielle.Giroday@thomsonreuters.com ©2019 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written permission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 | ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $205.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circu- lation inquiries, postal returns and address chang- es should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact: Keith Fulford - (416) 649-9585 | Fax: (416) 649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com SALES AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Sales Manager: Paul Burton - (416) 649-9928 paul.burton@tr.com Consultant, Strategy and Business Development: Ivan Ivanovitch - (416) 887-4300 ivan.ivanovitch@tr.com Business Development Consultant: Kimberlee Pascoe - (416) 996-1739 kimberlee.pascoe@tr.com Account Executive: Steffanie Munroe - (416) 315-5879 steffanie.munroe@tr.com Law Times Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Managing Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jennifer Brown jen.brown@thomsonreuters.com Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gabrielle Giroday Gabrielle.Giroday@thomsonreuters.com Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anita Balakrishnan Anita.Balakrishnan@thomsonreuters.com Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laura Crawford Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phyllis Barone Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . . . . Jacqueline D'Souza Electronic Production Specialist . . . . . . . Derek Welford Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON M1T 3V4 | Tel: 416- 298-5141 | Fax: 416-649-7870 | lawtimesnews.com LT.editor@thomsonreuters.com | @lawtimes The Hill Kady O'Malley

• Cover