The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/122928
lAw Times • April 22, 2013 COMMENT Page 7 Charter's anniversary should be national holiday L iberal Leader Justin Trudeau sent me an e-mail last Wednesday. He wanted me to know that April 17 was the 31st anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Trudeau charged into the Liberal caucus meeting that day and excitedly told his MPs all about the Charter. It may have helped that his dad had been prime minister in 1982 when that great document became part of our Constitution. The historic document still rings true today in the struggle for equality rights of all Canadians. The words of s. 15(1) on equality rights are a cornerstone of our democracy: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." Whether we call it equality day as the unions do or law day as the Canadian Bar Association does, it still deserves a national holiday. If we were in the United States, Charter day would be a national holiday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be leading all of the parades, and there would have been a big celebration in 2012 instead of the federal government spending millions to celebrate a 200year old war between Britain and our challenge. It had nothing to neighbours to the south in addition to millions more for The Hill do with Toews' messy divorce proceedings or the Vikileaks the Diamond Jubilee. scandal. Trudeau's note to me It was much better, Harper praised the Charter politely: felt, to dress up in costume "Today marks one of the most and celebrate the War of 1812. important days in our counNow that all sounds fun. There try's history: the anniversary would be guns, noise, lots of of the adoption of the Canasmoke, and bright red unidian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was more than Richard Cleroux forms and maybe even the Queen would come over. Who 30 years ago that we set out to identify and enshrine the values that de- needs a dull old Charter? But being a politician and speaking fine our rights and responsibilities as Canadians; the Charter was the result. Three to a room full of Liberals on Wednesday, decades later, the principles of democracy, Trudeau couldn't resist a little partisanequality, and fairness embodied in the ship: "Conservatives talk a good game Charter continue to reflect the very best of about being a party of freedom but they are mistrustful of the mechanisms that Canada and Canadians." The Charter has little meaning for actually ensure those freedoms for CanaHarper. It's something he feels smart-ass dians and that's why they don't celebrate lawyers use every day in courts across the Charter." Even during the 30th anniversary last the country to bring down another of his year, Harper could have done something hardline laws. If there's one thing Harper hates, it's to grand instead of simply cranking out a have one of his precious laws or regula- tepid news release. A few years back on tions overthrown by some judge or com- the 25th anniversary, Harper and his colmissioner on the basis of another Charter leagues missed the big party altogether at the University of Ottawa. challenge. Harper blamed his do-nothing apRemember Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' surveillance law that fell apart proach on Quebec. He passed off the Charamid major opposition not so long ago? ter as "an interesting and important step" It was because of the threat of a Charter but chose to point out "that the Charter Entertainment lawyer reflects on 30 years of practice BY PAUL SANDERSON For Law Times I established artists to keep the doors open. The work can be like going for a swim in a river each day. The currents may be either calm or raging. Most of my client work wraps up within a matter of weeks unless it is a more complicated negotiation or a protracted or contested trademark matter. All law involves resolving conflict at its heart and that ultimately means reducing the resolution of a dispute to the written word. In many ways, an entertainment law office is also like a central nervous system for the industry. All types of issues arise. In fact, I've often noted that my practice can change in a heartbeat just as my clients may not know where they may be from one day to the next. Ultimately, practising entertainment law means being part of a team that includes the artist, the label, the publisher, the publicist, the booking agent, the accountant, and the business manager. It is rewarding to see your clients succeed. It feels good to be part of that success. I enjoy seeing my clients showcase and succeed at various music conferences, award shows, and live performances. But you need a balance between your work and other areas of your life. This is a constant struggle for anyone who operates a business and the practice of law is no exception. People often ask me what life in the fast lane is like. "It's fast," I respond. If you're looking for certainty, security, and a pension, then private practice is probably not your best choice. But if you're looking for a fast-paced environment and enjoy making a difference to your clients' careers, this might be the field for you. LT u SPEAKER'S CORNER have been practising entertainment law since 1983. What I do is a specialty form of commercial practice as I primarily serve people in the music business and arts law clients. You certainly need to know about contract and copyright law, and a lot of the other legal basics that you learn in law school are quite relevant. However, about 90 per cent of my day relates to contract drafting and negotiations. Not unlike the situation facing those who would like to make their living fulltime as musicians, I find that the same degree of commitment is necessary to succeed, survive, and thrive in this area of law, particularly if you're looking to be an entertainment lawyer in private practice. It is helpful if you have industry contacts and clients, but as a bare minimum you need three specific attributes to succeed as an entertainment lawyer: a rapport with and the ability to attract clients in your specialty area; the ability to negotiate; and knowledge of the industry you serve. I believe it is important to have a commitment to the field over and above your desire to earn your living from practising law. If it's just about the money, you certainly would not be practising the way I do. I could have made much more money practising in another field, as in-house counsel or in the United States. You learn there is no perfect agreement. I recall a family law practitioner in my bar admission course saying, "Each side has to hurt a little for the deal to stick; otherwise it is likely that contract will find its way into court." These are words you can live by. It is difficult to understand the wisdom in these words until you experience it first hand. What we often see is the media's version of the law through a glamorous winner-takeall system. While the work is adversarial, court is expensive, and as a solicitor you try to help your clients avoid litigation whenever possible. All types of legal training are valuable to the practice of law generally and the entertainment field is no exception. For example, I am grateful for my mentors and my articling principals. I had strong articles in litigation. In fact, when I started articling, my first job for my articling principal was to prepare the Court of Appeal books in August and then by December research and prepare books for the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. You can apply that experience to contracts. Why? Ultimately, the contract will end up in court if it is in dispute. You need to know and anticipate how a judge might interpret a contract in court. Not unlike the record industry, my practice depends on volume and numbers. You need many clients in the arts and entertainment field in order to make a living as a practising lawyer. You can achieve that through networking, going to conferences, and being thoroughly knowledgeable about the music business, often to the point where you can help if your clients require business advice. I am well aware that as lawyers, we don't have insurance to give business advice. But it is impossible to practise law in the music industry or in the arts and entertainment field without a significant understanding of the business aspects of such specialty areas. I often equate practising entertainment to running a recording studio. That is, a recording studio, like a law firm, needs small clients as well as the large corporations and Paul Sanderson practises at Sanderson Entertainment Law in Toronto. www.lawtimesnews.com remains inextricably linked to the patriation of the Constitution and the divisions around that matter, which as you know are still very real in some parts of the country." So Harper went off to Chile for a meeting when he should have been leading the Charter parade back home. Yet even the most nationalist Quebecker would never pass up using a Charter argument to win a case at the Supreme Court. Others took a different approach. During the 30th anniversary celebrations, former prime minister Jean Chrétien proudly proclaimed: "We're not here as Liberals. We're here as Canadians." Bob Rae, the interim Liberal leader at the time, reminded everyone that Pierre Trudeau had "not done it alone" and all of our political parties had taken part in an effort to ensure there would be no secondclass Canadians and everyone would have the same rights whether they arrived in Canada yesterday or 300 years prior. "So we say to Mr. Harper, 'This is your Canada. Get used to it, Mr. Harper.'" Trudeau gets it. Harper, however, remains focused on 200-year-old wars. LT Richard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and columnist on Parliament Hill. His e-mail address is richardcleroux@rogers. com. u Letter to the editor LAWYER PINES FOR BETTER FACILITIES IN NORTHERN CITY In response to a recent Law Times article (see "CDLPA head worried about northern Ontario justice system," April 8), let me say I have less to complain about than most citizens of Sudbury, Ont. From my office, although I have not tried, I can hit every window on the street side of the main courthouse and the jail is only 15 metres further away. I am more convenienced than most of the bar. However, courts are held in three buildings within a two-kilometre area. Crown attorneys and prosecutors have their offices in those three plus one other. Geography makes good use of their time possible. It is not just defence counsel who are inconvenienced. Judges and justices of the peace are in the same two-kilometre setting travelling from courtroom to courtroom, office to office. Police witnesses are often required in two settings at the same time. Witnesses are often lost between buildings. Court officials and reporters do not escape the geography. When I travel to attend court, in at least two instances, new courthouses have been replaced with newer courthouses. Not so here. I have sat in court in churches, legion halls, arenas, furniture stores, municipal council chambers, and once on the lawn of a courthouse. Thus, I congratulate myself on being flexible. However, I, like all of the participants in the justice system in Sudbury, waste hours each and every week. Land is presently owned by the province and already three sets of plans have been circulated. While I am only 80, I do fear I shall not see the dire need of unified premises met in my lifetime. Edward Conroy, Conroy Trebb Scott Hurtubise LLP, Sudbury