Law Times

Page 4 NEWS Long-standing battle Continued from page 1 the option of taking the in-court record and not producing the transcripts; doing the in-court work and performing transcription duties as independent contractors; or becoming completely independent and just doing the transcript work. The changes resulted from a plan developed after a grievance launched by OPSEU against the provincial government's treatment of court reporters before the Grievance Settlement Board. In its latest appearance before the board, OPSEU accused the province of being in violation of the collective agreement by not applying it to court reporters who prepare and certify transcripts. The union sought and got a cease-and-desist order aimed at applying the terms and conditions of the collective agreement. The issue of the scope of the work covered by the bargaining unit has long been in dispute. The board had earlier found that the duties court reporters perform in typing and certifying transcripts of court proceedings was bargaining-unit work rather than additional freelance-type duties beyond their regular courtroom activities. The issue has lingered because the parties have struggled over how to implement a decision in the matter that already dates back several years. But in a March decision, board vice chairman Nimal Dissanayake ordered the province to apply the collective agreement to all of the work the court reporters do. "The employer shall forthwith cease its violation of the collective agreement by failing to apply the collective agreement to court reporters, who the board has declared to be employees performing bargaining unit work when producing transcripts," wrote Dissanayake in Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Attorney General) on March 1. OPSEU says the province's current plans to privatize the transcription work circumvent the collective agreement. "That flies in the face of the arbitrator's ruling," says Jim Jurens, OPSEU chairman for the Ministry of the Attorney General employee relations committee. "It totally divorces the taking of the record from the producing of the record. Members of the legal community should be very concerned." Jurens says that by dividing transcript creation from the recording of the proceedings, there will be a loss of continuity that could affect the quality of the end product. OPSEU is now asking the Superior Court to find the province in contempt of court with an expected hearing on March 17, 2014. In the interim, both parties are to return to the Grievance Settlement Board in October to follow through with its recent decision. There are also three outstanding individual grievances involving court reporters. LT CHOOSE FROM CANADA'S TOP MEDIATORS AND ARBITRATORS mediator & Arbitrator Randy A. Pepper Randy conducts timely and effective mediations and arbitrations. Randy specializes in resolving franchise, partnership, product liability, professional liability, securities, employment and libel and slander disputes. He is the co-author of the Osler Guide to Commercial Arbitration in Canada and Canadian Defamation Law and Practice. adrchambers.com 800.856.5154 Untitled-3 1 June 17, 2013 Law Times • Phone tapping alleged Continued from page 1 Gardiner Roberts LLP, and Hodder Solicitors, according to a ruling last year in Teplitsky Colson LLP v. William Malamas. The June 2012 court decision that declared Malamas a vexatious litigant notes he sued a total of 16 lawyers over a span of six years. That number doesn't include the lawyers who were once the owners of a building adjacent to his Danforth Avenue property. The Stanoulises and DiBiases, some of whom are lawyers, accused Malamas of encroaching on their property through new construction in the area. Malamas has since maintained an acrimonious relationship with the family. To this day, Malamas believes lawyers are tapping his phones and hacking his e-mail. Nick, Donna, Christina, Gary, and Thomas Stanoulis are five of the 26 parties who filed an application to have Malamas declared a vexatious litigant. The total damages Malamas sought from all 26 parties exceeded $300 million. According to Superior Court Justice Frank Newbould, who barred Malamas from bringing any further applications, his allegations of fraud against all of the lawyers he has sued are based on no evidence. Newbould also found Malamas "has caused an inordinate amount of time to be spent in the court process." "In nearly every action commenced by Mr. Malamas over the last 20 years, he has claimed that each of the defendants in each of the proceedings were the 13-06-07 12:44 PM CLE EVENTS DESIGNED FOR CORPORATE COUNSEL AND CORPORATE LEGAL TEAMS West LegalEdcenter® is the leading provider of CLE events for corporate legal departments. Below you'll find upcoming live conferences that might be of interest to you and your team. You can register for yourself and any members of your department. Registration can be applied to anyone in your company – a different person could attend each event. Drafting Clearer Contracts 2013 Locations – New Jersey, Boston, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco $845 CLE – up to 6.0 credits available* Managing Litigation 2013 Chicago, IL – September 11 $495 CLE – up to 6.0 credits available* Patent Disputes Forum 2013 Santa Clara, CA – November 5 $495 CLE – up to 6.0 credits available* 2013 Southeastern M&A/Private Equity Forum/2013 Western M&A Forum Atlanta, GA – October 8 Untitled-6 1 Santa Clara, CA – November 6 $595 CLE – up to 4.0 credits available* 26th Annual ERISA Litigation Chicago, IL – October 16 New York, NY – December 4 $875 CLE – up to 6.0 credits available* 2013 Corporate Whistleblowing Forum New York, NY – September 26 $595 CLE – up to 5.0 credits available* DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE Individual Discount – Receive 15% off any individual program. Use promo code 15CORPORATE at checkout. Group Discounts – We have great group discounts available for you and your colleagues. The more events you purchase, the more you save: Call 1-800-308-1700 for more information or to register. Institute for Corporate Counsel New York, NY – December 6 $295 – Corporate $1,595 – Law Firms CLE – up to 4.0 credits available* www.lawtimesnews.com 13-06-07 1:18 PM direct cause of his personal and financial ruin," Newbould wrote in Teplitsky Colson last year. At times, judges have been rather blunt in their opinions of Malamas. "Mr. Malamas' behaviour is quite extraordinary, to the extent that one suspects he would benefit from a visit to a psychiatrist," one judge said in 1995 after Malamas was charged with assaulting the Stanoulises. For Malamas, his cases are "controversial" because he's bringing actions against lawyers who he believes are trying to cover up their misconduct by "throwing [him] out of court" through a vexatious litigant declaration. In court last week, Malamas spoke of what he later described as one more "dishonesty" by the lawyers involved. The counsel who wrote the affidavit to declare him a vexatious litigant, William O'Hara, had no authority to write it on behalf of all 26 parties, Malamas argued. His main argument, he says, was that O'Hara didn't have instructions from all 26 parties, which include corporations, to write the affidavit. Had O'Hara obtained instructions, he would have produced a resolution by the board of directors from the corporate applicants, according to Malamas, who suggests that didn't happen. Malamas digs into the box carrying his affidavits and fetches a piece of paper outlining the rules of representation by a solicitor. They state: "If the lawyer has commenced a proceeding without the authority of his or her client, the court may, on motion, stay or dismiss the proceeding and order the lawyer to pay the costs of the proceeding." Ray Thapar, one of the lawyers representing the parties who brought the vexatious litigant application, says he first started doing work on the case as an articling student 13 years ago. His office has many boxes full of documents relating to the Malamas case, he adds wearily. He describes the decades-long legal drama as being the result of "an overwhelming obsession with conspiracy." As to Malamas' latest appeal, the affidavit O'Hara wrote relied on established facts, such as the number of actions Malamas brought and the decisions that followed, Thapar notes. "There was really nothing contentious in the affidavit. It wasn't hearsay. It was all information that was in the written decisions, " he adds, noting that particular procedural step doesn't have a huge impact. But for Malamas, it makes all the difference. "The lawyers are abusing the court process," he says. "They don't respect the rules of their profession. They take advantage of being officers of the court." The appeal court has reserved its decision in the case. Both parties have made cost submissions in the $30,000-$40,000 range. LT

• Cover