Law Times

Page 6 June 6, 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 Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yamri Taddese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alex Robinson Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adela Rodriguez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . & Jennifer Wright 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 Tim Hudak's Quixotic Quests F ormer Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak doesn't look much like Don Quixote. There's no horse, no armour, no faithful sidekick Sancho, and no lance to tilt at windmills. However, Hudak's like the hero of the two volumes titled The Ingenious Gentle- man Don Quixote of La Mancha by Spanish writer Miguel de Cervantes Saa- vedra published in 1605 and 1615. He takes a beating, picks himself up and moves on. Hudak — first elected at the tender age of 27 in 1995 and who now repre- sents Niagara West-Glanbrook — is an amiable guy you could sit down with and share a glass or two of local Niagara wine, a microbrewery beer, or even some rye whiskey from a local distillery. Which bring us back to Hudak's Quixotic Quests, his most recent being his sponsorship of Bill 157, The Micro- distillers Act, which would amend the Liquor Control Act and Liquor Licence Act to add a definition of a micro-distill- ery and allow them to sell visitors a shot of their spirits in the same way wineries and craft breweries sell a glass of wine or beer at their premises while also bet- ter positioning them to market and sell their products. It's valiant because pri- vate members' bills don't usually do well, but he's on a quest here. Hudak's inter- est in the issue isn't new. He's long sup- ported sales of beer and wine in supermarkets and local wineries and craft brewer- ies. He also picked up on a lawsuit launched by the To- ronto Distillery Co., makers of whiskey and gin from rye, corn, wheat, and beets, which challenged Ontario's "taxa- tion" of its products. Owners Jesse Razaqpur and Charles Benoit, lawyers by training, lost their fist skirmish, which claimed the contract they were forced to sign with the LCBO improperly directs funds from sales to the agency. "As it stands, the Liquor Licence Act says we can sell to licensees and they can buy from us, but the contract says we can't," says Benoit. "So Alcohol and Gaming Control Ontario wouldn't have a problem, but the LCBO would have a problem if we did." The LCBO levy, for example, is an ille- gal tax, Razaqpur and Benoit argue, with a bottle of their whiskey selling for $33.34 netting them just $13.83. The rest is a levy from the LCBO, HST, bottle deposit and levy, excise tax, and environment fee. The LCBO's levy — not called a tax — is re- quired by the contract, but it was never voted on in the Legislature, something that, they argued, violates s. 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867: "to quote the Supreme Court of Canada, section 53 is central to the principle of no taxation without representation." In an April decision, Jus- tice Suhail A.Q. Akhtar ruled that the markup was not a tax but a proprietary charge and dismissed the application. Nonetheless, the distillers are claiming victory because the 2016 Ontario budget that followed announced that the government would formally introduce a tax regime to replace the pro- prietary markup fee and recognize the growth of micro-distilleries "by allowing direct delivery to bars and restaurants and to permit on-site distillery stores, re- ducing charges and allowing an exemp- tion for promotional distribution." Still, the distillers have filed a Notice of Appeal suggesting the court failed to take in the "pith and substance argu- ment" around what constitutes a tax and made some other errors in fact. So it would seem the fight is over, right? Not so fast. Look how long it took just to get beer in some supermarkets and how long it's taking to get wine there. Hudak's bill is intended to be a thorn in the government's side, a not-so-gentle reminder to hold politicians to their words. It has passed first reading. There are many issues with the liquor laws in Ontario, but the reason liberal- ization has failed to progress is that this government has clearly shown again and again that, when it comes to booze, slow or never is the unwritten policy despite the public rhetoric. "The problem is that the Liquor Con- trol Act has been revised so many times it really just needs to be written again from scratch," says Benoit. "What we have had are laws and regulations passed by execu- tive fiat and we can't have that continuing." Let's remember that booze production is the last manufacturing step in a chain fed by Ontario's rich agricultural sector. Ontario's food and beverage sector gener- ates $41 billion in revenues and 130,000 direct jobs and exports $7.6 billion worth of products. In 2012, Ontario F&B was the second largest in North America and the second-largest manufacturer by ship- ment and employment in Ontario. In a job-hungry province, supporting that sector and the entrepreneurs driving it should be a priority. At least one would think so. LT u Ian Harvey has been a journalist for more than 35 years writing about a di- verse range of issues including legal and political affairs. His e-mail address is ianharvey@rogers.com. Queen's Park Ian Harvey Duty to report Law Times reports new Law Society of Upper Canada rules will mean lawyers and paralegals must report other legal professionals whose conduct raises "substantial questions" about their honesty, trustworthiness, or competency. In my experience, people are loath to tattle on their neighbours if they must continue living next to them. It is a fundamentally human instinct to know that throwing mud on another can mean you end up getting dirty, even if you have well-placed suspicions or knowledge of wrongdoing by another. Same goes for professional communities. In these occupational "small towns," professionals — even moral, just, and ethical ones — will often pause long and hard before accusing a peer of wrongdoing. It's why when some scandals finally come to light, people ask how it stayed silent for so long. The answer is usually because people had a vested interest in keeping quiet. Lawyer William Trudell says the language in the new expanded rules does little to elucidate whether a legal professional should report another licensee, and he has called on the law society to create an ombudsman or office to help licensees figure out when to report a colleague. Trudell has a point. Clarity matters. In the rules, lawyers have a duty to report "unless to do so would be unlawful or would involve a breach of solicitor-client privilege." With the new wording, lawyers are required to report "conduct that raises a substantial question as to another licensee's honesty, trustworthiness, or competency as a licensee" or "conduct that raises a substantial question about the li- censee's capacity to provide professional services." The old rules also stated "a lawyer counselling another lawyer has an ethical obligation to report to the Law Society upon learning that the lawyer being assisted is engaging in or may in the future engage in serious misconduct or criminal activity related to the lawyer's practice," and, now, must report if "there is a substantial risk that the lawyer may in the future engage in such conduct or activity." What? Assessing risk posed by another practi- tioner is an entirely subjective experience, and the terms used in these definitions — like "substantial risk" — may very well lead to more confusion. LT

• Cover