Law Times

Law TiMes • May 27, 2013 Page 7 COMMENT Parsing the legal implications of Mike Duffy scandal S oon after it broke, the Sen. Mike Duffy Senate scandal made headlines everywhere. Then it went legal. What the Conservatives made out to be nothing more than a harmless little double billing and expense padding suddenly took on a more serious twist. It wasn't something easily corrected just by by giving back the money or offering up an apology. Political commentators began talking about the legal implications and the Criminal Code. It was no longer such a charming scam. NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair asked the RCMP to investigate. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau took the same route as the story continued to develop. Prime Minister Stephen Harper met his caucus last Tuesday and said that anybody in the room who had come to Ottawa to rip off taxpayers should leave the room. Then Harper himself left the room and was off to Peru. There's a big difference between having to leave the room as punishment and what Harper talked about for the politically corrupt back in 2005 before he came to power. Back then, Harper was talking jail time for political crooks. To be fair, he may have had the sponsorship scandal in mind but certainly not his own people. Times change. But talking about the Criminal Code and jail time doesn't mean it has to be dull. Rob Silver, a star TV commentator and partner at the Crestview public relations agency, proved that fact on the CBC's Power & Politics. Silver sketched together in his own warped, sarcastic Liberal view the whole incredible story Harper would have us believe. "As the Duffy expenses audit was going on, nobody was paying attention in the Prime Minister's Office. "And then one day Nigel Wright woke up and went rogue. He went crazy and preferred a different body, Canada Act says senators can't take any decided on his own without talking to a single other person The Hill something closer to the RCMP. compensation or benefit "in relation to any "There's something here bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controverin the PMO: 'I've got to solve that stinks to high heaven and sy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matthis. I've got to write a cheque.' we need to find out about it," ter before the Senate." That just about cov"Stephen Harper found out says Garneau. about it when he watched the ers it all. The penalty is up to a year in jail. Several MPs have compared news one night and he was outWait until you read the Criminal Code Harper's hands-off approach s. 121(1). It covers anyone who "gives, ofraged. He expressed his outrage to his decision to call in the fers or agrees to give or offer" to an official by saying: 'I have full confiMounties in the Helena Guer- or, "being an official, demands, accepts or dence in Nigel Wright.' He did it for days at a time. But then Richard Cleroux gis case. The RCMP cleared her agrees to accept, any loan, reward, advanin the end, but her political ca- tage or benefit of any kind" in return for one day he realized: 'I am so reer was over and we never found out what "co-operation, assistance, exercise of influoutraged I have to fire this guy.'" But NDP MP Charlie Angus says there's Harper thought she had done wrong. ence" in connection with "any matter of The Mounties don't need Harper to business relating to the government." It's all another issue people have been missing. He asks whether there's a crime we should start an investigation into the case involv- very serious. Even loans are off the table, be investigating. "There was an issue of a ing Duffy and Wright. They could do it never mind rewards or benefits. The penbreach of the Parliament of Canada Act, on their own even if Harper doesn't want alty is up to five years in the clink. and that is an indictable offence and it oc- them to investigate. Calling in the cops is a serious matter, The laws are strict when it comes to giv- so it's no wonder Harper hesitates. But curred in the prime minister's office." Angus continues: "There was a cheque ing money to public officials. Section 17(1) that doesn't mean there isn't something for cut in the prime minister's office with a of the Senate's conflict of interest code says them to be looking into. LT promise that a deal had been made. That's senators can't accept any gift or other benefit the bigger issue. Sure, they are going to throw apart from compensation authorized by law. Richard Cleroux is a freelance reportMike Duffy under the bus. At this point, Where does a $90,000 cheque in return for er and columnist on Parliament Hill. His you can see them tweeting the Conserva- keeping silent about something fit in? e-mail address is richardcleroux@rogers. Section 16(1) of the Parliament of com. tive backbenchers saying, 'OK, we're going to ditch Duffy.' But they are not dealing with what was done in the prime minister's office." Liberal MP Marc Garneau also takes issue. "The prime minister says he's unhappy and he's sorry. What does that have to do with breaking the law?" LSUC OWES EXPLANATION FOR GROIA FIASCO Garneau adds: "Stephen Harper is unI understand that the Law Society of Upper Canada spent $750,000 on outside happy that the scandal blew up in his face. counsel to prosecute Joe Groia. We have to get at the root of the problem. The disposition on penalty was to suspend him for two months (see "CLA A $90,000 cheque was cut in the prime slams Groia suspension decision," Legal Feeds, April 22). This case has cost each minister's office which allowed him to say, and every lawyer in Ontario $25. In addition, there would be untold hours 'I don't have to co-operate with the forenspent by LSUC staff that could have been directed to more worthwhile pursuits. sic audit being done by Deloitte. I paid my It cost $12,500 for each day of suspension. money. I've been honourable. I've been These numbers do not even include what Groia spent on his own defence. courageous. Go away!'" We deserve a complete explanation from our benchers and the administration. Garneau is unhappy that the same What a fiasco. Conservative-controlled Senate board of Michael Clarke, internal economy that found Duffy did Law Office of Michael P. Clarke, nothing wrong "is going to start investiHamilton, Ont. gating all over again." Garneau would have u Letter to the editor First family law moot organizers seek recognition of profession's poor cousin BY PATTI CROSS P For Law Times arriving at Osgoode Hall were brimming with excitement. The students and their supervisors arrived early as they were anxious to start the day. Every single volunteer showed up. Walsh and his wife Mary arrived to observe the moot teams. Participants practised real law that day. The teams argued twice in front of different judges. The panel of three judges scored the mooters according to preset guidelines, including speaking ability and delivery, organization of their argument, questions from the bench, and preparation and development of their case. Chief Justice Annemarie Bonkalo of the Ontario Court of Justice joined Walsh to present the awards. Osgoode Hall Law School took home the cup this year. In addition, Osgoode took first and second place for appellant and respondent teams. There was a valuable lesson here. In 1989, an actor playing a farmer walked onto his field and heard a voice that whispered, "If you build it, they will come." It took a long time to hold the first family law moot in Ontario. Thankfully, it will not take long at all to hold the next one. Plans for the 2014 Walsh family law moot are underway. We plan to keep building on our efforts to acknowledge the importance of family law. LT u SPEAKER'S CORNER eople too often think of family law as the poor cousin of the profession. To compound the problem, law students seldom get exposure to it, resulting in fewer and fewer graduates becoming family lawyers. As professor Nick Bala of the Queen's University Faculty of Law stated, "Family law is often viewed as being at or near the bottom of the 'academic pyramid' within law schools." A 2009 report that considered law students' perspectives on family law practice by the West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund confirmed Bala's view. The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts' Ontario chapter is seeking to change that attitude. One of its many efforts was Canada's first provincial family law moot competition, the Walsh family law moot, in Toronto on March 16, 2013. The question to ask, of course, is why was our moot the first provincewide family law moot in Canada? After all, there are a number of different moots dealing with areas such as corporate law, tax, intellectual property, aboriginal rights, criminal practice, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and public international law. Why did this take so long? It seems people often consider family law more like social work and, as a result, law students are not that interested in it. None of the Walsh family moot participants would have agreed with that sentiment. Judges from all three levels of courts and experienced family law practitioners came out to support and judge the law students' first foray into the world of family law mooting. Various law firms from across Ontario as well as DIVORCEmate and MySupportCalculator helped fund the moot. Scores of family lawyers contacted us to volunteer their services and skills to assist with the day. All in all, the day offered a tiny glimpse into the collegiality of the family law bar and the judiciary. It is only fitting that the moot is named after former justice George Walsh, a pioneer in family law. Walsh was the leader of the family law division of the Toronto region's Superior Court of Justice and very involved in family law reform and alternative dispute resolution. He developed a team approach to adjudicating family law cases that was the envy of every other jurisdiction. For example, he was a pioneer in early case management. He also helped establish the first mediation service at the Superior Court of Justice. It is only apt, then, that the establishment of a moot to try to encourage law students to choose family law would acknowledge Walsh's work. When it came time to invite the law schools to participate, the responses were overwhelmingly in favour. Similarly, on the day of the moot, the participants www.lawtimesnews.com Patti Cross is family counsel with the Ontario Court of Justice. She's also a board member of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. Those interested in the moot can contact the association at afccontario@ gmail.com.

• Cover