Law Times

EXPERT MATERIALS LEGAL ADVICE Greenspan tells students about his career Follow LAW TIMES on www.twitter.com/lawtimes $4.00 • Vol. 24, No. 9 P5 Doctor's friendly advice to lawyers FOCUS ON P7 Litigation L aw TIMes P8 CO V E R I N G O N TA R I O ' S L E G A L S C E N E • W W W. L AW T I M E S N E W S . CO M ntitled-4 1 March 11, 2013 12-03-20 10:44 A Deal opens Quebec doors to Ontario lawyers Conway hails 'last piece of the national mobility agreement' BY YAMRI TADDESE Law Times See Barriers, page 4 Plaintiff in landmark privacy case sued for not paying legal bills BY YAMRI TADDESE Law Times I Christopher Du Vernet provided professional and competent representation, the Superior Court found. Childview_LT_Dec3_12.indd 1 n a series of ironic twists, the lawyer who succeeded in bringing about the tort for invasion of privacy in Ontario has been facing accusations of incompetence by the victorious plaintiff who has now found herself incurring more costs than gains from the groundbreaking case. Lawyer Christopher Du Vernet, counsel for Sandra Jones, the plaintiff in the landmark privacy ruling in Jones v. Tsige, successfully sued his former client after she failed to pay her legal tab. In return, Jones unsuccessfully accused Du Vernet of failing to represent her properly. The appeal court created waves last year when it recognized the new legal tort of intrusion upon seclusion that came out of Jones' lawsuit against her colleague, Winnie Tsige. Tsige, who was in a common law relationship with Jones' former husband, was snooping on her colleague's financial information from a work computer. She and Jones' ex-husband had a money-related dispute and she was seeking details of his finances. When Jones first brought a claim for invasion of privacy against Tsige with Du Vernet's help, the Superior Court rejected it. But Jones and Du Vernet took the case to the appeal court, which set aside the Superior Court's decision in January 2012 and ruled that privacy is a legitimate ground for a civil claim. Jones received $10,000 in damages, but the appeal court didn't award costs against Tsige after reasoning that the case was a novel one. Jones had sought $90,000 in damages, a permanent injunction, and costs, according to Du Vernet's factum. Later in February 2012, things took a different turn when Du Vernet brought a case against Jones for her unpaid legal bills. He had represented Jones on a deferredfee basis pending a decision or a settlement in the case, according to a Feb. 19 Superior Court ruling in his lawsuit against her. While the PM #40762529 Illustration: Shutterstock/Savelyev - Quebec Illustration: Shutterstock/Atlaspix - Ontario T he Law Society of Upper Canada has become the first legal regulator to ratify the 2013 national mobility agreement that will allow lawyers "full and permanent" mobility between common and civil law jurisdictions. The mood was jubilant at Convocation on Feb. 28 after benchers unanimously voted to adopt the agreement that gives Ontario lawyers broader access to practising law in Quebec. Currently, the difference between common and civil law means limited practice opportunities for Ontario lawyers who want to do work in Quebec. The existing provisions under the Quebec mobility agreement allow lawyers from common law provinces to practise in areas "only with respect to matters under federal jurisdiction." The 2007 agreement also permits them to provide legal advice involving matters from their own province, the Criminal Code or public international law. The new arrangement will replace those conditions and allow Ontario lawyers to practise in any province, including Quebec, in any area of law they're competent in. LSUC Treasurer Thomas Conway says the unanimous ratification of the new agreement was "the proudest moment" during his time in his current role at Convocation. Conway is touting the 2013 document the "last piece of the national mobility agreement." "I think there is a recognition by all of us that although there are and continue to be differences between the civil law system in Quebec and the common law system in the rest of Canada, our legal history has shown that more and more of those differences are less significant than they once were," he says. "There is a lot more in common that the two systems have as they evolve in this country." Conway emphasizes, however, that all transferring lawyers have an ethical obligation to not practise in areas they're not competent in. The law society has suggested that the Federation of Law Societies of Canada create an information package outlining differences between the common and civil law systems that lawyers need to be aware of. Before the agreement comes into effect, the Barreau du Québec must ratify it. It will vote on the agreement this month. Barreau president Nicolas Plourde was a guest of honour at Convocation last month. He congratulated benchers on their decision in favour of the agreement and called the difference between common and civil law jurisdictions "more apparent than real." By ratifying the agreement, the law society "has sent a strong message that the train of full and total mobility has left the station and that it will not stop until all Canadian law societies have embarked upon the journey," said Plourde. "We need, more than ever, to work together to find common solutions and foster our regulatory standards. This is crucial if we wish to further earn and maintain public trust and also be ready to meet the challenges that we face ahead with See Ruling, page 4 12-11-26 11:24 AM

• Cover