Law Times - Newsmakers

2014 top news, newsmakers, and cases 13 top stories CBA's Chevron intervention divides the bar organization reverses course as some members loudly disagree when The Canadian Bar assoCiaTion moved to intervene in Chevron Corp.'s battle against indigenous Ecuadorans at the Supreme Court of Canada, it quickly became a major controversy among mem- bers of the legal profession. Chevron is duking it out at the top court this month with Ecuadoran villagers who argue a $19.5-billion judgment they obtained against the oil company in their country is enforceable against its assets here in Ontario. Before backing out of its plan at the last minute, the CBA wanted to intervene as a neutral party in the matter to put forth its view on what it called "foundational corporate law principles." But the CBA's decision to intervene, especially when its arguments were likely to reflect some of Chevron's position, angered many lawyers who threatened to give up their membership if the organiza- tion didn't withdraw its involvement. Some executive members of the CBA's aboriginal law section resigned over the CBA's decision to intervene while orga- nizations like the Law Union of Ontario urged their members to quit the CBA. As well, 120 lawyers across Canada signed an open letter that urged the CBA not to go ahead with its intervention. "We think corporations have too much power in society, and there are issues around accountability," said David McRobert, a member of the CBA's aboriginal sec- tion executive. McRobert blamed the CBA's decision to inter- vene in Chevron v. Daniel Carlos Lusitande Yaiguaje on the "powerful" wing of corporate lawyers at the organization. Others disputed the appropriateness of the case for a CBA intervention. Judith Rae, another member of the aboriginal law section, told Law Times several people from her firm, Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP, had resigned their memberships as a result of the CBA's decision and noted she was "definitely con- sidering it" before the CBA changed course. "I have two concerns: the first is that I don't think this is a good case for CBA intervening and if they were intervening, I don't think it's the right position to be taking," she said. But on Oct. 16, the CBA backed out of its intervention just a day before the deadline to submit its factum amid amounting pressure from the legal profession. "We confirm that the CBA has decided to withdraw its intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada in Chevron Corporation et al v. Yaiguaje, et al," the CBA said in a statement. "The CBA interven- tion policy requires the legislation and law reform committee to sanction the factum before it can be filed with the court. In this case, the L&LR Committee con- cluded that while the factum was well-drafted and of a high standard of quality, it did not meet the specific requirements of the Inter- vention policy. "The CBA will respect the commit- tee's opinion and the intervention will be withdrawn. The CBA is thankful for the diligence, conscientiousness and pro- fessionalism of its counsel and for the generosity of Blakes in agreeing to under- take this file for the CBA." The withdrawal came as a relief to law- yers like McRobert. "This is the result we hoped for," he said. But others, like civil litigator James Morton, said it was "unfortunate" the CBA had backed out. "I think it would have been valuable and I think it would have been helpful for the bar association to continue and it's unfortunate that they've chosen not to. Having said that, I understand their political pressures," said Morton. By yamri Taddese James Morton was among those lawyers who supported the CBA's intervention. E. V. Litigation & Financial Services Inc. Elaine G. Vegotsky, CPA, CMA, CFE, CFI Assisting you in Litigation & Forensic Accounting, Financial Investigations Suite 900 45 Sheppard Avenue East, Willowdale, Ontario M2N 5W9 Telephone (416) 930-1370 and/or Fax (905) 731-5812 evlitigation@rogers.com EV-Litigation_LT_Splmnt_11.indd 1 11-11-25 10:02 AM

• Cover