The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/50196
Law Times • February 28, 2011 McGuinty's human drives. It's a notion underlined T by the current movie, 127 hours, in which the pro- tagonist must hack off his own arm or die alone in a gulley. It's a horrifi c choice that's just as real in the politi- cal world where Premier Dal- ton McGuinty's government is cutting off policy limbs in the slim hope of survival at the polls this October. Recently, they severed those off shore wind turbines on Lake Ontario and Lake Hu- ron, ostensibly because "there's not enough science" to project their environmental impact. Critics also noted the loca- tions of the turbines were stra- tegically close to ridings cur- rently held by Liberal MPPs that the government can't af- ford to lose and where vocal opposition has developed. Th e real issue here is the economics of paying premiums for wind and solar power and why the government is forcing us into accepting these sources. Last week, Energy Minister Brad Duguid held the line by announcing $3 billion in contracts for solar, wind, and hydroelectric power paying between 13.5 and 80 cents per kilowatt hour. But the going rate to buy power is 3.5 cents. In the meantime, a whole in- dustry has sprung up in order to fi nance the installation of wind and solar units supported by a madly generous payment scheme that's 10 times higher than the mid-level rate charged to consumers. Lawrence Solomon, execu- tive director of Energy Probe, also doesn't think it makes good business sense, some- thing that may surprise some folks. But while they're strongly committed to sound and envi- ronmentally responsible energy choices, people like Solomon aren't radical types who climb smokestacks to unfurl banners. Solomon is a lauded environ- mentalist who's eminently sen- sible and pragmatic. "Th ey invented the concept and sold it to themselves," he says, adding the government forced wind and solar on us for purely political reasons that make no economic sense. Th e Green Energy Act is a disaster, he says, adding that phasing out coal-fi red elec- tricity plants to replace them with wind and solar by 2014 isn't only a dumb idea but one that's expensive and self- defeating. It may also be unat- tainable. Coal has become the scape- goat because it allegedly costs us billions of dollars in pollu- tion and the resultant health- care costs. To be fair, there are issues with old technolo- gies. Th en again, automobiles energy flip-flop Inside hey say the sur- vival instinct is the most primal of all By Ian Harvey didn't have smog controls or computer-assisted fuel effi - ciencies 50 years ago either. Th ings change. "Th ere is no fossil-fuel cri- sis," says Solomon. "We have enough fossil fuel in the form of coal to supply our energy needs for a century or more." So-called clean coal has the added bonus of sustaining jobs around its production. When used to drive electrical genera- tors, producers can ramp it up or down with minimal downside. We either consume or lose solar and wind power as we have no way to store it effi ciently if we don't need it. However, to ensure supply when the wind is dead or the sun doesn't shine, we must have other forms of generation on standby. Th at's expensive be- cause Plan B calls for gas. Moreover, our dependence on nuclear energy means we must also have a Plan C if a plant shuts down while the wind and sun aren't co-operating. Th at's C as in coal. While gas can also step up, rising oil prices mean its increasing cost makes it extremely expensive. Bryne Purchase, an adjunct professor specializing in energy policy at the school of policy studies at Queen's University, goes further. Summarizing a conference with leading experts, he wrote: "Premier McGuinty initially made the commitment to exit coal by 2007 — and only in electricity generation, not, for example, in the manufacture of steel or cement. Th e premier appears to have done so on the basis of no published indepen- dent analysis of the feasibility of the timelines or the reasonably estimated economic or envi- ronmental costs and benefi ts of such an initiative compared to alternative policy approaches. Unfortunately, but predictably, all subsequent government analysis has been done simply to justify the initial political de- cision already taken." In other words, there's a lack of data to support the decision to close coal plants and throw money at wind and solar. It's strange how not having enough science is a reason to scrap off - shore wind turbines while the same scenario doesn't seem to have aff ected the decision to close the coal-fi red plants. It all smells of politics of the worst kind. Ian Harvey has been a journal- ist for 32 years writing about a diverse range of issues including legal and political aff airs. His e-mail address is ianharvey@ rogers.com. Queen's Park COMMENT PAGE 7 we often minimize our experiences. By not sharing our thoughts and experiences Is our profession under siege? T BY VICTORIA STARR For Law Times he potential danger associated with the practice of family law is a topic that most practitioners avoid. When it does come up, openly, we have helped to frame this issue both individually and collectively as an isolated and infrequent problem that aff ects only the odd lawyer. We also see the problem as deriving from outside ourselves in the sense that the cause lies in the emotional or mental instability of the per- petrator rather than in any- thing we as individual law- yers or collectively as a pro- fession are doing. Looking at the problem of violence and threats against lawyers in this isolated and highly individualized way has meant that the problem has remained relatively hidden. Existing research on the issue, however, chal- lenges the current understanding and assumptions of Ontario's legal profession. It clearly identifi es that violence in the legal profession is pervasive and not at all random. Th e available data also indicates that family lawyers are at particular risk. Th e fi rst study appears to have taken place in 1997. Th e research by the American Bar Associa- tion consisted of a survey of its family law section conducted by facsimile. Two hundred fi fty-three lawyers responded. Th e survey revealed that 60 per cent of those lawyers had experienced threats by op- posing parties; 17 per cent reported threats by their own client; and 12 per cent stated they were victims of violent acts perpetrated by either a client or an opposing party at least once. To date, there has been only one study in Canada on this issue. Th e data stemmed from an Internet survey conducted on 5,539 practising members of the Law Society of British Columbia. Of the rough- ly 1,150 lawyers who responded, 59.2 per cent re- ported varying degrees and numbers of threats. Th e researchers, Karen Brown and David MacAlister, summarize some of the fi ndings as follows: • It can be stated with certainty that lawyers are experiencing abuse, threats, and injuries as a re- sult of discharging legal responsibilities. • Th e idea of random violence can be nullifi ed. • Substantiating the American literature on this subject, family lawyers, prosecutors, and criminal defence lawyers are vulnerable to en- hanced threats. What these studies illustrate is that lawyers in several diff erent jurisdictions are experiencing abuse, threats, and injuries while acting in their professional capacity. Th is raises the very real possibility that lawyers in Ontario may also be facing similar abuse at a similar rate as those who participated in the studies. Th ere are likely many reasons why the matter of violence against family lawyers has met with reticence. First, family lawyers have become accus- tomed to violence and threats to the extent that they do not consider these factors to be risks at all but merely components inherent in their profession. Second, because family lawyers deal with misery, anger, and pain on a daily basis, they tend to under- estimate the emotional toll a separation or divorce can take and discount the signifi cance of an angry gesture or threatening remark. In addition, many see it as just part of the cost of doing business. Th e combination of lawyers' false bravado and distorted perception of the problem all conspire to create a climate of minimizing and individualizing threats and violence. Consequently, it is not at all surprising to learn that what little action there has been by our professional organizations in Ontario to address the issue has focused on off ering lawyers tips on how to protect themselves. If violence is systemic in Ontario, as it appears to be in other jurisdictions, and if family lawyers are at particular risk, then ensuring an appropri- ate response should be a priority for them and their professional associations. Th e fi rst step in www.lawtimesnews.com Speaker's Corner crafting a solution is to gain some understanding of the possible motives for violence. A number of theories examine the possible mo- tives. While each one looks at diff erent factors, there is a common thread in all of them: perpetrators who are angry with the way the system copes with their matter act out with physical or verbal violence against one of the lawyers involved in the case. Th e sources of anger may be diff erent in that some are upset because of perceived or real defi ciencies in the legal system; some due to real or imagined prob- lems in the legal profession; and others because they feel harmed or wronged by the particular lawyer. Regardless of the source of the anger, if what we do as individual lawyers and collectively as a profession can infl uence the degree of risk we face, then our cur- rent response to the problem is inadequate. Individual lawyers and professional associations need to take the issue of violence seriously. Th e fi rst step individual law- yers can take is to have a zero-tolerance policy to- ward violence. Th at means never ignoring physi- cal threats and taking all of them at face value. Lawyers need to become aware of safe practice tips and develop and implement individualized safety protocols and plans while working on im- proved civility and client service. Responding as a profession must include work- ing to modify the defi ciencies in how the public perceives it. Th e Law Society of Upper Canada is already exerting much eff ort in this regard as both it and many lawyers see the public's negative per- ception of lawyers as a real threat to our ability to continue as a self-regulating profession. Continu- ing these eff orts will indirectly benefi t the cause of eradicating violence against lawyers. Raising lawyers' awareness of the problem and the measures they can take is another logical step as this builds upon what we already have. Th e Ontario Bar Association publishes a personal safety handbook that is available for less than $15. Th ese handbooks should not only be free but should be accessible on all of our professional association web sites and distributed to members of the bar regularly. Th is latter step should com- mence with a lawyer's call to the bar. Our associations should also be developing education modules that deal with personal safety tips and protocols and with what it means in practical terms to interact with opposing parties and lawyers in a civil and courteous way. Some of these materials already exist. But it is impor- tant to go further by incorporating training on safety protocols, tips, civility, and courtesy into our continuing education programs as well as in- cluding some training at the law school level and as part of the bar admission program. Our associations should also be advocating for adequate supports for lawyers targeted by threats and violence. For example, it would be helpful to provide improved court security for lawyers. One critical way in which the law society could help is by having staff whose job would be to act as liaison between the lawyer and police. In addition, given that there's little empirical data on the issue of violence against lawyers in On- tario, perhaps one of the fi rst things we need to do is gather data. We could do this, for example, by including key questions as part of annual member reports to the law society. Given that the safety of family lawyers in par- ticular is likely at stake, it is time that they and their professional organizations take the problem seriously. We need to fi nd a way to shift the burden for coping with violence from the individual lawyer and instead take on a shared responsibility in which practitioners, organizations, and professional societies are active participants in the process of thoughtful consider- ation, development, and implementation of eff ec- tive measures to protect family lawyers. Victoria Starr practises in the areas of family and child-protection law and is a mediator and arbitrator at Starr Family Law in Toronto.