In November 2005, Helena Munroe was whisked away, under false pretenses, from her Nova Scotia home by her brother. Claiming his sister was unhappy, he secretly took Helena, suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, back to his home in Scotland. It would be 19 months before her husband, Sandy Munroe, would be able to see her again. And even now, it will be at least two years — and a long and arduous battle — before she returns home to Nova Scotia. Just days before we went to press, it was announced that Helena would soon be returning to Canada on the heels of a British panel, formed under a law designed to protect vulnerable adults, determining Sandy to be her official caregiver and decision-maker.
As a psychologist specializing in Alzheimer’s, Helena knew what lay ahead when she was diagnosed with the disease. She did the right thing: drew up papers designating her power of attorney and preparing a health-care directive long before she was declared mentally incompetent, in May 2005. Her husband would be the one to take care of her, with a close friend as an alternative. Her wishes were set out in official documents. That would have been fine, if her brother hadn’t swooped in and jetted off with her to the U.K. Once Helena was moved beyond Canada’s borders, her wishes, as outlined in those documents, essentially became unenforceable.
Her husband pleaded to have the brother charged criminally with kidnapping. Nothing happened. He fought in Canadian and British courts to get her back. Nothing worked. Sandy, along with the help of Canadian diplomats, finally located her again in a psychiatric hospital in northern England in February 2006.
It was still months before he could see Helena. And still, he had to prove to the panel and an independent mental capacity advocate to prove that he was her official caregiver. An arduous and lengthy process that shouldn’t have been necessary if the power of attorney and health-care directive documents prepared in Nova Scotia carried any weight across borders.
The case, as outlined in our Legal Report on Wills and Estates on page 49, highlights the need for changes in legislation to protect vulnerable adults from ending up in similar situations, particularly as the number of elderly people in society is increasing. Within Canada there is a trend toward having documents created in one jurisdiction recognized in another, but outside the boundaries of Canada, there’s practically no protection.
The Hague Convention on International Protection of Adults was struck in 2000 yet very few countries in the world have signed on — Canada is not one, neither is the U.S. — even though 40 countries were part of the negotiations leading to the agreement. So far, ratification of the convention has not been much of a priority for the “new” Conservative government. Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who is from Nova Scotia, has taken a personal interest in Helena Munroe’s case. He is a powerful member of the current government and perhaps his involvement in the resolution of this affair will prompt him to push for more action on the federal front.
With Canada being a nation of immigrants who have family all over the world, and the numbers of older people growing, Canada needs to create legislation to protect vulnerable adults that put into law the recognition of their written wishes so they are applied evenly across the country, but also move forward on international agreements that would extend those same protections.
It may not be the sexiest issue out there, but our mother and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers deserve at least that much from our politicians.
The Supreme Court’s 1985 Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration decision gave any foreigner who set foot in Canada all the procedural rights that the Charter grants to full-fledged Canadian citizens. In that ruling, the word “entitle” appears 24 times in relation to would-be Canadians. The word “responsibility” appears just once.
Nobody wants to be insulted. Nobody wants to think or feel that they or their colleagues are not worthy. It’s human nature to react when you’re feeling threatened. But the reaction to Maclean’s magazine’s “Lawyers are rats” interview with author Philip Slayton is quite amazing.
I do believe that law associations and law societies should rightfully stand by their members and not let lawyers’ names and reputations be tarnished. But the reaction to the Maclean’s interview is over the top. First of all, the magazine itself completely torqued the comments and, as Law Society of Upper Canada Treasurer Gavin MacKenzie noted, “has decided to fill the yellow journalism void created by the decision of Weekly World News to cease publication.” Over the last few months, all of the magazine’s covers have been sensationalist. This particular one, with its series of clip-art faux lawyers on the front with captions like “I pad my bills,” “I’m dishonest,” and “I take bribes” is just another in a parade of tabloid-inspired covers.
But many of the responses by lawyers, and their associations, have simply added fuel to the fire. Ontario Bar Association president James Morton’s op-ed piece in the National Post was too much when he brought in a comparison to a 1940’s Nazi anti-Jewish movie. He calls the Maclean’s article sensationalistic, but any comparisons to the Holocaust are themselves sensationalistic and entirely overboard. Almost all the official reactions from the legal profession called the Maclean’s interview one-sided and unbalanced. Well, it is an interview with one man about his opinions; it’s not supposed to be balanced.
“Maclean’s allows these few stories to stand unquestioned as representative of the legal profession,” says MacKenzie. Again, it was an interview about Slayton’s books and his opinions. A one-on-one interview is inherently one-sided. There were no libels or smears against individuals; it was simply a portrayal of opinion. The questions were leading and some of the answers quite provocative, but there’s nothing wrong with that.
Slayton’s book, Lawyers Gone Bad, isn’t about the lives of everyday lawyers who do real estate transactions or write employment contracts. Neither did he choose to write about lawyers who get suspended for not filing their annual fees or those whose fiddle with their trust accounts. Nobody would want to read that. Of course he cherry-picked the sexiest, most lurid stories. It’s not an overview of the profession. It’s a deliberate look at some of the seamiest lawyers out there. And none of it is really an exposé, as many commentators and mainstream media have called it. The tales he tells are all on the public record, in court documents, in discipline proceedings. He’s rounded them out with interviews and other research, but none of it is secret. It’s now simply all collected in one place.
The reality is there are lawyers who go bad, sometimes of choice and sometimes through circumstance. This month’s cover story on Peter Shoniker illustrates just that. But the same way as there are honest and dishonest mechanics, there are honest and dishonest lawyers. What Slayton does try to bring to the fore are some of the issues that can be instrumental in why some lawyers go “to the dark side.” The pressures of billing and profits are relentless, particularly in large firms. Law societies are relatively conservative and the discipline processes are not as transparent, effective, and as even across the country as they could be. And, as even I’ve heard through conversations with many law students, law schools tend to focus on business law (and big law firms), generating money, and working with the wealthy.
Slayton has said many things that lawyers themselves say. He’s been attacked by critics but at the same time lauded by many practitioners who agree with him. Instead of hurling insults, the profession should take note and engage in debate about the issues Slayton has brought to light. He is not some fly-by-night operator, but a former law school dean and Bay Street lawyer who has keenly observed the profession for decades. Everyone may not agree with him and, of course, the increase in sales of his book resulting from this brouhaha is benefiting him, but his opinions shouldn’t be dismissed. Canadian Lawyer will still run his columns and give him the freedom to express his opinions in our pages.
For a little over a year and half now, I’ve been in the background at Canadian Lawyer as the associate publisher, essentially working with the editors and helping to set the tone and agenda for the magazine, as well as working with the art director and publisher to ensure the continued success of an attractive and high-quality product. But with this issue of the magazine, I’m moving into the driver’s seat and taking over as the editor of Canadian Lawyer.
For the last 10 years, I’ve been working mainly on Law Times, our sister newspaper that covers the newsy goings on of the legal profession in Ontario. As with many others who’ve become legal journalists, I was fortunate enough to have come under the tutelage of previous editors Jim Middlemiss and Michael Fitz-James, both of whom essentially held my hand in those early days when a young non-lawyer like myself was finding her sea legs in this somewhat daunting area of coverage. (You can only imagine how many times this young scribe was asked by multitudes of members of the bar if I was a lawyer. Thankfully, those days are long gone.)
Over the past few years, this magazine has undergone some changes, both in look and content (though nothing too radical!) and our team has grown and evolved. With this issue, former managing editor Kirsten McMahon will take over the full-time editorship of our growing sister magazine Canadian Lawyer InHouse. Since its launch last year, InHouse has garnered great interest from both inside and outside counsel and the magzine now deserves to have its own dedicated editor to oversee its growth. Kirsten will continue to write for all four of our CLB Media legal publications.
As readers may also have noted, we’ve increased our bench strength, bringing in staff writer Jennifer McPhee, who has managed a steep learning curve over the last eight months, and is also making a great contribution to all four of our law books. Rounding out the writing squad is Law Times associate editor Helen Burnett, who’s work mostly appears in the newspaper and online but will also be found in the pages of each issue of Canadian Lawyer 4Students and soon more frequently in the regional roundup of this magazine.
The next few months will bring some changes and tweaking to the magazine as I get more comfortable and set the agenda for the coming year. As always, I welcome input from readers in all areas ranging from story ideas to letters to commentaries and anything in between. Feel free to contact me at any time via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org or by phone at 905-713-4385. I look forward to hearing from you and to this new and exciting endeavour.