Commentary

Monday, 07 January 2013 08:00

Judging civility

Written by
This month’s cover story looks at the thorny issue of how discipline is doled out in the profession. There will continue to be disagreement over whether certain members of the bar are treated differently than others, but it is fairly undisputable that small firm and sole practitioners end up in the crosshairs of regulators more often than big firm, government, or in-house lawyers. One of the most controversial discipline proceedings in recent memory is that of the Law Society of Upper Canada’s prosecution of Joseph Groia for incivility, the details of which are covered in the article “Discipline dichotomy.”
Monday, 12 November 2012 08:00

Making a quick exit

Written by
Image: Jacqui Oakley
Image: Jacqui Oakley
There’s something odd going on at the Supreme Court of Canada. Three of the last four justices who retired could have stayed on for another 15 years. Instead, they chose to leave early — very early. Michel Bastarache was 61 when he went in 2008. Louise Charron was 60 when she retired in August 2011. Marie Deschamps resigned this past summer at 59. The mandatory retirement age for a Supreme Court judge is 75. Being a Supreme Court judge is the job every Canadian lawyer wants — until, apparently, she gets it.
Monday, 12 November 2012 08:00

To article or not to article

Written by
As we go to press, the Law Society of Upper Canada has decided to put off a debate and vote on the future of articling in Ontario. In mid-October, the LSUC finally released its long-awaited task force report on the future of articling. The issue is so divisive and challenging even the task force could not agree on a single course of action to recommend to Convocation to vote on.
Monday, 01 October 2012 09:00

Where to go now?

Written by
Last month, the Access Pro Bono Society of B.C. organized Pro Bono Going Public, a free legal advice-a-thon with volunteer lawyers doling out legal advice in several local parks to those unable to afford legal services. The now-annual B.C. event is one of many pro bono activities running across the country. Pro bono legal work has become widespread, from Big Law to law school, and it’s a great way for lawyers to give back as well as get the chance to practise types of law they may not otherwise be involved in. All of this is good.
Monday, 03 September 2012 09:00

The inner workings exposed

Written by
For this month’s cover story, we convened a panel of experts on law firm management with representatives from firms of different shapes and sizes as well as lawyers and non-lawyers. We gathered in Toronto in late June to discuss the hottest topics — vexing issues, even — on the minds of law firm leaders. Some of them resonated across all the firms, including that of transparency within the firm. Law firms are partnerships and one thing everyone at the table agreed on was the need for openness, particularly the sharing of financial information and strategies. That doesn’t mean everyone has to know how much everyone else makes, but being open about how it works so everyone from articling students to senior partners feel they understand the system, where they fit into it, and what to expect.
Monday, 03 September 2012 09:00

Times have changed

Written by
b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_2012_September_times_changed_red.jpgAssisted suicide — the issue that rips everyone’s heart out — is headed back to the Supreme Court of Canada. What will the court do this time?
Monday, 06 August 2012 09:00

Celebrating excellence

Written by
My favourite aspect of putting together Canadian Lawyer’s annual Top 25 Most Influential is receiving nominations for it. Some nominators are very brief, providing simply a name and one or two other bits of information. Others wax poetic for hundreds of words describing the work and accomplishments of the person whose name they have put forward. But no matter how they come in — and I urge readers to keep their eyes open for the request for nominees next spring — I’m always impressed by their variety and quality.
Monday, 06 August 2012 09:00

Bringing value to the client

Written by
In 25 years of writing, I have interviewed thousands of lawyers, in private practice and in-house. What strikes me about in-house lawyers is they think differently than their private-practice counterparts.They see their primary task as risk managers and they ask two key questions: how can I help my company and what value does the legal department bring?
Monday, 02 July 2012 09:01

Environmental law runs afoul

Written by
It is very hard to avoid puns when writing about environmental law issues. The issues, and positions taken, are often polarizing, and the themes and perspectives articulated are commonly recycled. Hopefully this lowest form of wit will not seep into, and unduly contaminate, this column.
Recently, regulators in Ontario have reached decisions, made orders, and issued (emitted?) statements indicating they are prepared to greatly expand the scope of persons against whom environmental remediation orders can and will be made. In isolation that is not a bad thing — maintaining a clean environment is indisputably a laudable objective. Expanding that scope raises certain questions, naturally, such as whether the expansion of that scope is fair and is properly focused to achieve its intended results. Environmental law is largely designed to force individuals and businesses to take account of an externality: the effect of their activities on the environment. The irony is that, in expanding the scope of remedial activity in the manner recently witnessed, regulators may themselves be creating very significant externalities.
At a panel discussion this winter on the intersection of insolvency and environmental law, a representative of the Ministry of the Environment stated that, in seeking orders under the Environmental Protection Act (Ontario), the ministry is willing to look beyond the polluter, where the polluter is a corporation, not only to its directors and officers but to its shareholders. The EPA contains a mechanism to do this where the “management and control” of the polluter is not confined to the polluter itself. But the speaker went beyond those words to invoke a concept that touches the hearts of corporate lawyers: she said, “we think of it as truly a piercing of the corporate veil.”
There is very limited precedent to interpret the meaning of “management and control” in the EPA. However, recent enforcement initiatives, in addition to the comments cited above, suggest the ministry intends to interpret these words broadly. It recently issued an order against Tembec Industries Inc., a non-controlling, indirect shareholder of a bankrupt polluter, to step into the polluter’s shoes at significant cost to address historic contamination. Tembec had only been a shareholder (and an apparently passive one) over a period during which the polluter was compliant. The Environmental Review Tribunal has been reading from the same script. In 2009, the tribunal ordered a municipality to pay for a cleanup to the extent that a private polluter’s insurance was insufficient because the pollution had travelled through the municipality’s sewers. Then last year, the tribunal ordered a former director of a former owner of a polluted site to fund a remediation.
While the words “management and control” in the EPA have not been subjected to much judicial consideration, the doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil” is established law in Canada, and has been so for over a century.
The fundamental concept of the “corporate veil” is that a corporation is a separate legal entity, distinct from its owners, and therefore liable for its own actions. From a policy perspective, limited shareholder liability is integral to encouraging public participation in the capital markets and to facilitating the risk-taking that is the seed of growth in capitalist economies. Without limited liability there might not have been the capital to fund the first railroads, the Ford Motor Co., Apple, nor, more recently, Facebook.
There will be cases where justice requires a remedy, but they are by necessity outliers. In Kosmopoulos v. Constitution Insurance Co., the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the best that can be said is that the ‘separate entities’ principle is not enforced when it would yield a result ‘too flagrantly opposed to justice, convenience, or the interests of Revenue.’” The corporate veil, in other words, is not to be lifted as lightly as Zsa Zsa Gabor’s. Other cases have found that the veil can be lifted where the corporation is acting merely as an agent, otherwise known as a “sham” or “alter ego” corporation, where it was incorporated to facilitate an illegal or improper purpose, or where there is inadequate capitalization of the corporation by the shareholder such that it cannot meet its anticipated obligations.
Or, more salient to the EPA, where provided by statute. This is where the concept of “management and control” in the EPA intersects with the construct of the corporate veil. As noted, the EPA certainly furthers an important policy. So does the corporate veil. There are lots of cases where balancing competing policies is near impossible, but here it is not. There’s a balanced jurisprudence already established as to when a shareholder can be liable for a corporation’s actions. Furthermore, subordinating the significance of fairness as a criterion for imposing liability in favour of casting a very wide net may lead to unintended results. Bottom line, in seeking to protect our verdant vales, consideration should be given to our corporate veils (if I have to stay away from puns I have to be permitted weak wordplay).
b_150_0_16777215_00___images_stories_01-CANADIANLawyer_2012_July_neillmay.jpgIt is very hard to avoid puns when writing about environmental law issues. The issues, and positions taken, are often polarizing, and the themes and perspectives articulated are commonly recycled. Hopefully this lowest form of wit will not seep into, and unduly contaminate, this column.
Monday, 02 July 2012 09:00

The future of law

Written by
In 2009, I embarked on a major project to look at the state of diversity in the law in Canada. At the time, there were perhaps one or two women managing partners of law firms of any size across the whole country; the number of black lawyers who were partners in Bay Street firms could be counted on one hand; and while many law firms had diversity initiatives, they often consisted of nothing more than a “muliticultural calendar.” In another issue, we wanted to write a story about being gay or lesbian in Big Law. Not one Bay Street lawyer would put their name to the story and talk about the issue. We had an associate from a national firm’s Calgary office on the record, but that’s as close as we could get even though law firms insisted that they were welcoming to all diverse groups.
That year, I attended my first Pride at Work gathering in Toronto. The organization brings together LGBT professionals and their allies from businesses all across the country and every year it holds a big bash during Pride Week in Toronto. In 2009, only one law firm — Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP — was willing to openly support the organization and is considered one of its founders. Looking at this year’s event, Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Norton Rose Canada LLP, and Thornton Grout Finnigan LLP have joined FMC as law firm sponsors of the event.
In mid-June this year, at the Canadian General Counsel Awards, Douglas Stollery, general counsel at PCL Constructors Inc., was honoured with a lifetime achievement award. He got a bit teary-eyed at the end when he thanked his same-sex partner for all his support over the years. It was all so normal. No gasps from the black-tied crowd, no whispers of shock at the tables full of in-house counsel.
Also over the last few years organizations promoting diversity in the legal profession have been increasing and growing. One of the most active is Legal Leaders for Diversity, a group of in-house counsel committed to increasing diversity in their ranks as well as in the law firms that serve them. It’s really still just a start. Canada is years behind other countries in its promotion and embracing of diversity, which is not just right but makes business sense, particularly in the global economic environment.
I’ll conclude by saying when I attended the year-end gala for the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers in the spring, what struck me the most, beyond the incredibly varied backgrounds of the attendees, is that most of them were young. Sitting beneath the stained-glass windows and wood panelling in the University of Toronto’s Hart House was quite a striking visualization of the future of law — young, diverse, engaged, and ready to take on the world.
In 2009, I embarked on a major project to look at the state of diversity in the law in Canada. At the time, there were perhaps one or two women managing partners of law firms of any size across the whole country; the number of black lawyers who were partners in Bay Street firms could be counted on one hand; and while many law firms had diversity initiatives, they often consisted of nothing more than a “muliticultural calendar.” In another issue, we wanted to write a story about being gay or lesbian in Big Law. Not one Bay Street lawyer would put their name to the story and talk about the issue. We had an associate from a national firm’s Calgary office on the record, but that’s as close as we could get even though law firms insisted that they were welcoming to all diverse groups.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
Page 5 of 17

Latest Videos

More Canadian Lawyer TV...

Digital Editions