Law Times

Page 6 February 22, 2016 • Law Times www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT ©2016 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, com - pleteness or currency of the contents of this pub- lication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $199.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at ........... 416-649-9585 or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Kimberlee Pascoe ...............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So .............................................416-609-5838 grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Joseph Galea .......................................416-649-9919 joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe ................................416-298-5077 steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Editor in Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabrielle Giroday Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neil Etienne Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yamri Taddese Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adela Rodriguez & Jennifer Wright Acting Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steve Maver Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . .Sharlane Burgess Electronic Production Specialist . . . Derek Welford Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes u EDITORIAL OBITER By Gabrielle Giroday In politics, sometimes those who wait reap rewards P rime Minister Justin Trudeau could be headed for a mess of problems because of a Supreme Court decision last year on assisted dying for the medically incurable. Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) came down in February 2015. That's even before Trudeau came to power. In October last year, his people began working on legislation to deal with the unanimous judgment of the nine-mem- ber Supreme Court on "assisted dying." Trudeau must follow the court word for word. Otherwise, he's leaving the way open for someone who opposes assisted-dying to challenge him in court. Maybe all the way to the Supreme Court once again. As it is now, he has to get his legisla- tion through parliament by the June 2016 deadline the court gave him. That's when everybody in Parliament heads off for summer holidays. Trudeau has no intention of having his new assisted-dying law not proceed. But one wrong move and he could find himself back in court. Even though a solid majority of Cana- dians support assisted dying for the incur- able and terminally ill, provided, of course, there is consent from a medical doctor, that support is by no means unanimous. There are all sorts of MPs from the other political parties, as well as the Lib- erals, who oppose an assisted-dying law, no matter what the court said or what the majority of Canadians want, just as there are MPs who say that we have incurable can- cers that no amount of pray- ing or medicine will be able to stall death. There are doctors' groups who don't want to end up having to make life-or-death decisions on patients, for fear of being sued over "death" decisions that their patients want, and still others who are working on their own miracle cures and need just a little more time to turn a terrible dis- ease into a "curable" illness. Highly respected Ontario Liberal MP John McKay says assisted dying is not the Charter of Rights issue that the Trudeau cabinet makes it out to be. He has prob- lems with the medical consent issue. McKay asks: "What happens if the pa- tient's family is against assisted dying? "It's inevitable," he says. "There will be cases where a doctor gets sued because he whacked Aunt Minnie and nobody in the family wanted Aunt Minnie to be whacked." Some families want to keep loved ones alive just a little longer — at least until they can make sure their name is on the will. For some, religious issues are primor- dial. An association of Catholic bishops from Alberta spoke out publicly earlier this month against assisted dying. Their belief is that only God should decide when it's time for any- one to go, not some doctor or a patient who wants to stay around as long as possible. Dying with Dignity Cana- da supporters say patients with degenerative diseases such as dementia should be given the right to give "advanced" con- sent to their doctors rather than have to stick it out until the bitter end, trapped in their bodies. On the other side of the issue, Dr. Paul Saba, a Quebec family doctor who is president of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice, doesn't think well of as- sisted dying. He's not impressed that most Que- beckers want assisted dying. He says doc- tors should have a right to say "no" when a patient asks for a referral to a doctor willing to take part in assisted dying. Dr. Saba says he will refuse to be part of any assisted-dying procedure and refuse to give a referral to a doctor who would. Trudeau saw the problems coming and has prepared his cabinet. They are all on track with him. Trudeau didn't make things any easier by declaring to his cau- cus that they will all be obliged to vote as he says or out they go. The Supreme Court said in its ruling that only "competent" adults with "griev- ous and irremediable" medical condi- tions that cause "endless suffering" for the patient can make a legal decision to end their lives. Just ref lect on those demands for an instant. What constitutes "competent" adult when the patient is on his last gasps in a hospital bed? Trudeau could have saved himself a lot of trouble by doing what Harper did — just stalling — by waiting an extra year before bringing in a law. Legally, he could have ignored the Supreme Court decision. The court did not change the Criminal Code. It only "suspended" the law against assisted death for a year, to give the politicians time to decide what to do about it. That's why Stephen Harper, who was prime minister back then, never moved on the issue. He didn't have to. He had a choice. He chose to wait. In politics, sometimes those who only stand and wait come out on top. Why risk creating a cri- sis of your own doing? Who knows what Harper would be doing right now about assisted dying if he were still in power? Trudeau is a different kind of politi- cian. No waiting around. Move as soon as you can. Not later. We'll see how it works out after the vote on assisted dying in June. LT uRichard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and columnist on Parliament Hill. His e-mail address is richardcleroux34@ gmail.com. The Hill Richard Cleroux A pardon for the worthy? Law Times reports this week that a disbarred lawyer will have a chance at a pardon for his criminal fraud convictions after a Federal Court judge ruled the Parole Board of Canada acted unreasonably in denying him one. Context, in this case, is everything. Harold Spring, the former lawyer and father of four, has achieved great success in the real estate business. His crimes are more than two decades old, after Spring pleaded guilty in 1990 to one count of uttering a forged document and plead- ed guilty in 1994 to seven counts of fraud over $1,000 in relation to transactions between 1985 and 1993. Spring served time in jail. The decision in Harold Spring v. the Attorney General of Cana- da notes that Spring paid restitution, or otherwise settled with, all but two of the institutional complainants. In his ruling in the Federal Court, Justice Patrick Gleeson noted, "The Parole Board of Canada recognizes that a record suspension would provide a measurable benefit to the applicant and sustain the applicant's successful rehabilitation. "It then expresses that it is concerned that the nature, gravity, du- ration of offending, circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences and the information relating to the criminal history is of such a nature that granting a record suspension would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The concerns in this regard are described as 'credible concerns' but there is no explanation or enu- meration of these concerns." Gleeson also notes, "I am of the opinion the Board's decision lacks transparency and intelligi- bility and is unreasonable." Granting or denying a pardon (or record suspen- sion) can be a controversial choice, especially with a gleaming candidate like Spring. But the point Justice Gleeson makes is a powerful one — that a weighty decision by the Parole Board, especially on the grounds that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, needs substantiating. LT

• Cover