Law Times

PAGE 4 NEWS Former prez to lead in interim Continued from page 1 opportunity to begin a new dialogue on how to create an organization that will allow us to realize our values and com- mitment to the in-house coun- sel community more effectively and efficiently," they wrote in a joint statement. But Foy says she still has no specific plans for her next steps. "I belonged to the CCCA because I care about the in-house counsel commu- nity and I'm still committed to helping support corporate counsel in Canada. I just don't know how exactly." Hoyles, however, isn't wor- ried by the prospect of a new competitor. "It's open to any- one to set up a new organi- zation, and they're perfectly entitled to do that, although it's interesting to note there's only three out of 23 board members," he says, adding he expects some members of the old board to return when the new appointments are named. He has already appointed an interim executive committee and outlined the case for even closer ties between the CBA and CCCA. "With a close working relationship, there are a lot of support services the CBA can provide that will free up money for the CCCA in program de- livery. We're still committed to providing more money and we're going to be enhancing the offerings for in-house counsel." The person tasked with transitioning the CCCA to its new structure is Robert Patzelt. The former CCCA president who will head up the interim executive committee says he's honoured to get the job. "I'm looking, like a good boy scout, to make the campground better than I found it. We're creating a structure that is consistent with the highly successful differ- ent groups we have within the CBA. We're looking forward to having additional resources and synergies to deliver more and more to in-house counsel." But George Bass, general counsel at Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., isn't so sure Patzelt can deliver. He be- longs to both the CCCA and its U.S.-based rival, the Asso- ciation of Corporate Counsel. He says he gets more services for less money from the ACC and notes this move has made him reconsider his member- ship with the CCCA. "I was quite prepared to continue in the CCCA be- cause I knew Silvie Kuppek was working hard to get the CCCA adequately resourced," he says. "My concern is that the CBA does not understand the needs of in-house counsel. I was in the private bar for many years, and we have very differ- ent needs. I think we will see a move away from the CBA." Sanjeev Dhawan, presi- dent of the ACC's Ontario chapter, says the swiftness and drastic nature of the change at the CCCA caught him by surprise. "We're almost going back in time in the evolution of what an in-house organiza- tion needs to be, especially in terms of independence. The in- house lawyers have been shut out by the larger organization, and that can't be good." The ACC has been grow- ing in Canada in recent years and is currently looking to add another chapter in Alber- ta and British Columbia. "For several years, we've been asking people to take a look at us," Dhawan says. "This might allow them to fo- cus in on us and some of our offerings." LT January 24, 2011 • Law Times Condo dispute put career in jeopardy Continued from page 1 Phillips & Vineberg LLP snapped him up to work at its New York office as a summer student. Manilla returned there after graduation. When he came back to Canada, his articles were abridged on the basis of his New York experience. He then completed them with criminal law firm Pinkofskys in April 2009. But by that time, the condo dispute was at its height, and Manilla's entire legal career was suddenly in jeopardy. In September 2008, Manilla found himself fighting a losing battle against his fellow board members over a fee hike that he strongly opposed. "A 12-per-cent raise will spark outrage. You will be painting a large target on your back and won't be able to leave ur [sic] unit. I'm also worried about our cars," Manilla wrote in an e-mail to the other four board members. Two months later, Manilla was replaced as president but remained on the board while continuing to fight the proposed budget. Accord- ing to the law society decision, he admitted during one board meeting that he enjoyed making his colleagues "squirm" over the fee hike. In December 2008, Manilla stepped up his campaign against the board members by falsifying a letter, apparently from an off- site unit owner called Carinci Daria, who claimed to be a private investigator. In it, Manilla concocted allegations that two of the board members were taking kickbacks from the condo's manage- ment company and developer. Another was falsely accused of do- mestic assault against his wife. In the letter, the purported private investigator found no wrongdoing against two of the board mem- bers, including Manilla, but did against the other three. "This was clear character assassination," the majority on the panel wrote. They were particularly troubled by Manilla's late admission just five days before the hearing was scheduled to begin that he had au- thored the letter. Previously, he had denied doing so. In January 2009, Manilla also sent a text message to a friend saying he intended to report three of the board members, who were snowbirds who spent the winter in Florida, as drug smugglers to U.S. authorities. Manilla told the panel he never meant the com- ments and claimed he made them out of frustration and stress. He said the board members had threatened to report him to the law society and felt his career was at risk. In February of that year, the four complainants finally presented their budget to unit owners, but a month later a majority of them re- moved them from their posts and reappointed Manilla as president. A short time later, York Regional Police charged Manilla with four counts of criminal harassment. He responded by levelling his own accusations of threatening death, defamation, and harassment against the four complainants. Police laid no charges against them. In an effort to defend himself, Manilla then approached the condo's property manager and security providers for character let- ters. He suggested their contracts would be in jeopardy if they didn't agree to write one. He also approached Warren Kleiner, counsel to the condo cor- poration, for advice about how to resist attempts by the board to remove him as president again. According to the panel decision, Kleiner rebuffed the approach, telling Manilla it was "improper for him to seek a legal opinion that was self-serving and not re- lated to board business." Manilla was removed from the board in May 2009 and had his charges withdrawn in June of that year after he agreed to sell his condo and stay away from the complainants. He also wrote letters of apology to them and made $250 donations in their names to charity. Manilla has since married and has a young child. He attended anger management and began seeing a psychotherapist last January. Several lawyers from the now former Pinkofskys law firm have said they would mentor him if and when he returns to practice. But the majority on the panel suggested Manilla had, "to some ex- tent, pulled the wool over the eyes" of his anger-management instructor due to his original failure to own up to writing the letter from the pur- ported private investigator. "Why did he wait that long?" they ask. But in a factum filed with the appeal, Downes says the panel's deci- sion fails to answer that crucial question. "It leaves 'up in the air' the question of whether the appellant's admission was motivated by gen- uine rehabilitation or by a resignation to the inevitable," he wrote. According to the factum, the decision was inconsistent with Untitled-4 1 1/19/11 2:34:55 PM the evidence it heard from Manilla's psychotherapist, John Gotz- iaman, who described the admission as "really positive" when he appeared before the panel. In the decision, the majority questioned whether enough time had passed for Manilla's therapy to truly change his character. "As a witness, he appeared to be forthright and convincing," they wrote. "But was he being merely manipulative?" But in the appeal factum, Downes describes that statement as "bizarre." "The majority thus finds that his testimonial demeanour is favour- able but then proceeds to simply pose a question that it leaves unan- swered. There is no finding that he was manipulative. There is no rea- sonable basis for the majority's implicit conclusion that the appellant's evidence demonstrates that he is still of poor character." LT www.lawtimesnews.com

• Cover
• Public Call
• Transit Solution
• Focus On Privacy Law