Law Times

Law Times • JuLy 22, 2013 Page 7 COMMENT Blaney puts friendlier face on Toews' old portfolio V ic Toews was still the federal minister responsible for emergency management in the early hours of July 6 when a runaway freight train wiped out much of Lac-Mégantic, Que., and killed several dozen people. If there ever was a town in need of some immediate emergency management that morning, it was Lac-Mégantic. But instead of rushing out to the scene, Toews quit his job. He walked out on his boss and the town's victims in their time of need even before the cabinet shuffle. Granted, Prime Minister Stephen Harper had probably already told Toews he'd be out of a cabinet job after the floods hit Calgary and Toronto. Harper might even have told Toews he wouldn't be getting an appointment to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. And Toews may have replied that Harper could do what he wanted with his emergency-management duties in Lac-Mégantic. In any case, Toews resigned and there was no trip to Quebec for him. Maybe Toews was still smarting because they laughed at him in Calgary when he showed up for a photo during the flooding. People can be awfully cruel to ministers who show up at disaster sites for photo sessions for public relations purposes, especially when they arrive without their federal chequebooks. We don't really know where Toews went that Sunday and in the following days but we know it wasn't Lac-Mégantic. Toews wasn't the only minister to leave cabinet. A lot of ministers have left in recent weeks. Former environment minister Peter Kent, once considered a bright light in the cabinet, wasted his time fighting environmental groups and finally realized in Harper's cabinet. the shuffle wasn't likely to go in Of course, money that should have gone When Liberal MP Francis to the veterans instead went to one of Harphis favour. The Hill Scarpaleggia questioned a pro- er's War of 1812 projects. But Blaney, the Marjory LeBreton, who was posed law giving cops the right good soldier that he was, took it all in stride. over her head in Senate scanto access people's Internet acdals, quit while the going was Blaney is a frequent guest on political tivities without a warrant, Toews talk shows, especially those in French, his still good. Two Alberta junior shot back that his opponent first language. Unlike Toews or the talkministers, Diane Ablonczy and could "either stand with us or ing puppets sent out by the control freaks Ted Menzies, also announced with the child pornographers." they were leaving. in Harper's office to rattle off memorized Only Toews could turn the talking points, Blaney sounds credible in For a while, the opposition parties were making their Richard Cleroux right to privacy into a child getting the government's position across pornography smear. usual cruel jokes about the dewithout the patented partisan insults Toews had fished a link out many Conservative MPs use. partures of long-tailed furry of thin air. He'd find anything to make an animals on a sinking ship. But the public safety portfolio, the deHarper also lost his chief of staff, Nigel adversary look bad. partment Blaney inherited from Toews, has Adam Carroll, a Liberal aide at the been a tricky area as of late. Soon after the Wright, but that was because of his mistime, was so angry about the smear tac- train derailment, Quebec Premier Pauline placed cheque-writing abilities. Former fisheries and oceans minister tics that he set up a smear account against Marois was at the site of the tragedy with Keith Ashfield had a good reason to leave Toews on Twitter called Vikileaks. It her provincial ministers and their chequefeatured salacious bits from court docu- books as they doled out money to victims. as he's battling cancer. Steven Fletcher left cabinet but in do- ments on Toews' messy divorce. As of last week, federal ministers were In Toews' Mennonite community, it still thinking about it as they tried to get ing so regretfully noted he wished it was for one of the usual reasons: a sex scandal. couldn't get any nastier. their minds around the concept. It could After Toews walked away from cabinet, take months before they hand out any fedHe at least has a sense of humour. Harper put his spin on the departures as Harper luckily found a good replacement eral cheques. Harper's Ottawa is like that. he talked about bringing in fresh, younger in Steven Blaney, the veterans affairs min- Maybe Harper should have told someone faces. That lowered the average age in cabi- ister from Quebec who had been doing a in his office that the residents of Lac-Mégreat job in that difficult department. net to 52 from 55. That's some change. gantic are actually needy senators and sent With Harper's militarization of Canada a staffer there with his chequebook. Harper said he wanted more women LT in cabinet. But having four more women and the several lovely new wars he has in cabinet out of 39 ministers is hardly found for our armed forces, a lot of veterans Richard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and need help. Hundreds have suffered injuries columnist on Parliament Hill. His e-mail overwhelming. Yet it was Toews' sudden departure, leav- and many have died in the line of duty. address is richardcleroux@rogers.com. ing Harper and a devastated Quebec town in the lurch, that drew the most attention. CORRECTION Toews had been something of a rightA July 8 item in The Inside Story incorrectly stated that Ontario lawyers practising wing curmudgeon taking strong stands in Quebec won't have to maintain separate liability insurance from the bar in that on incarceration and criminal justice over province under the national mobility agreement. the years as he delighted in larger prisons, In fact, the requirement to purchase separate insurance doesn't apply only to putting more people in jail, and keeping Quebec lawyers. Ontario lawyers will also need to purchase insurance in both juthem inside for longer periods of time. It risdictions under the mobility agreement.  made him the most controversial minister Lippa provides important guidance for legal profession Recent ruling lets judicial officers decide how to manage courtroom effectively BY nAtHAn BAKer For Law Times T the independence of the court and its ability to control its own procedure. The effective management of the courtroom is a core responsibility of the judicial officer. The judicial officer should work with the other interested parties in the courtroom, especially Crown counsel and the other barristers and solicitors, but the final determination regarding the most effective administration of the court must lie with the person presiding. Two of the most interesting aspects of this case relate to how rarely parties litigate such issues and the precedential impact it may have. Cases of this kind allow for a review of the history of the legal profession along with the rules and laws that govern us. It is as interesting for its historical review of how matters are dealt with as it is for the legal principles it engages. The interpretation of the Barristers Act is of particular interest to the legal historian. The provisions contained in it have existed in some form or another for more than a century yet they are very rarely subject to litigation. The provisions date back to a time of mixed lists, circuit courts, and even fewer juridical resources than we have today. The endurance of the principles contained therein and the fact that the courts continue to apply them, even in spirit, recognizes the efficacy of such provisions and the manner in which they promote a fair and efficient use of resources. As our courts continue to get busier and they face the challenge of dealing with matters more efficiently, it will be important to provide an increasingly educated populace, as Superior Court Justice Michelle Fuerst put it in Lippa, with a "sufficient explanation of the process and the rationale for it" in order to allow the justice system to act more expeditiously. LT u SPEAKER'S CORNER he recent decision in R. v. Lippa highlights the importance of the differences between lawyers and paralegals. As the court stated in its ruling on an application by paralegal Marian Lippa, "licensed paralegals are not barristers and solicitors." This is an important point as the regulation of paralegals moves out of its early infancy. The Law Society of Upper Canada has governed lawyers in Ontario since 1797. This has allowed for the regulation of the practice of law in the public interest for quite some time. It has allowed for the establishment, assessment, and revision of standards as necessary. The licensing of paralegals has been extant for just over five years. The law society's five-year review of paralegal licensing highlights the fact that, "in spite of extensive communications work by the law society, public awareness has not kept pace with changes in the legal services market, particularly with respect to awareness of the distinction between services provided by lawyers and services provided by paralegals." The court in Lippa recognized this important distinction and the dynamic that exists between the two types of licensees, in particular the fact that the ability "of licensed paralegals to act for accused persons in summary conviction matters is not co-extensive with that of lawyers." The importance of noting the fact that paralegals don't have recognition as officers of the court in the same way as lawyers further stresses the differing expectations placed upon the two levels of licensees. Calling lawyers' matters first recognizes the fact that "as lawyers enjoy a wider audience than licensed paralegals in the criminal courts, such a direction was not arbitrary, discriminatory or unfair. The fact that it inconvenienced Ms. Lippa and caused her to feel slighted when her matters were held down does not mean that it was contrary to the principles of natural justice or otherwise an excess of jurisdiction on the part of the justice of the peace." While Lippa clearly wished for direction mandating an equivalency between paralegals and lawyers before the court, the decision reiterates each court's power to control its own process. The decision allows for local practice to recognize the unique circumstances that may exist in each jurisdiction to provide for a fair and efficient operation of the court, both in seating arrangements and the manner in which it calls the list. Criminal courts are busy places and judicial officers need to be able to make decisions to promote the effective use of the limited resources available. Imposing a requirement on judicial officers to hear from people on management issues would be contrary to the efficient use of resources and, as stated in the case, "would grind the business of the courts to a halt." The suggestion given by the court that "it may well be appropriate, particularly in small or crowded courtrooms, to reserve the limited number of seats in front of the bar for lawyers who have been called to the bar and have the widest right of audience in the courts" allows for a clear division so that arrangements are not random or capricious. This approach allows each court to set its own rules based on the circumstances that most directly affect it. What works in Peterborough, Ont., may not work in Toronto and vice versa. While the decision does not provide hard and fast rules about what must happen, people will look to the guidance it provides for quite some time. It emphasizes www.lawtimesnews.com Nathan Baker, a lawyer at Aitken Robertson Professional Corp. in Peterborough, Ont., acted for the York Region Law Association as an intervener in Lippa.

• Cover