After taking Ogilvy Renault LLP into the Norton Rose Group and then merging the Canadian arm of the global legal practice with Calgary-based Macleod Dixon LLP, Norman Steinberg is tackling yet another challenge in becoming the chairman of the Norton Rose Group.

Norman Steinberg takes over as Norton Rose Group chairman on May 1.

The move represents the first time Norton Rose will have a group chairman from outside Britain.

Despite the flurry of changes, Steinberg — who will continue in his role as chairman of Norton Rose Canada LLP — tells Legal Feeds he’s excited to take on yet another position. He notes the move reflects the Norton Rose Group’s positive view of its Canadian arm as well as Canada’s economic success more generally.

“We are taking more of a leadership role in the world,” he says, reflecting on Canada’s good economic record given the strength of the banking and resource sectors here.

Steinberg replaces Stephen Parish, who steps down as global chairman today. Steinberg says the move also reflects the importance of showing the former Ogilvys’ clients that the Canadian firm would have a “central role” in the Norton Rose Group’s global management and activities.

“My primary focus will be on the continued business development of our clients internationally and I look forward to working with the global partnership in my new capacity,” he says.

Despite the new role, Steinberg, who has been with Norton Rose and its predecessors since 1976, notes he’s staying put in Canada.

“There’s no necessity to relocate anywhere,” he says.

He adds that while businesses and law firms face greater uncertainty due to the ongoing economic challenges, Norton Rose’s global position allows the firm to expand and set up offices in countries where there are opportunities.

“In changing times, there are often opportunities that are of great interest to us,” he says. “We’re going to continue to grow.”

Canada

Ex-Mountie charged with sexual assault, CBC News

Ont. court to hear appeal on lack of aboriginal jurors, CBC News

New Man. law allows sale of pimps' property to pay victims, Ottawa Citizen

United States

Conrad Black to be freed by end of week, The Globe and Mail

Somali man convicted in U.S. on piracy charges, Reuters

International

Bahrain court orders retrial for hunger striker, Reuters

First Bosnian woman convicted in Sarajevo conflict, Reuters

Hundreds of runners and walkers, many of them judges and lawyers, gathered in Ottawa at lunchtime today to participate in the 17th annual Law Day 5 KM Fun Run/Walk. Proceeds from the run will be donated to the Ottawa Lawyers Feed the Hungry program, which pairs local lawyers with the Ottawa Mission to serve meals to some of the city’s most vulnerable residents.

Supreme Court of Canada Justice Michael Moldaver got things going by firing the starting pistol. As Ottawa Law Day co-chairman Eugene Meehan quipped: “SCC judge points (starting) pistol in air, hundreds of lawyers sent running.” Once pulling the trigger, then Moldaver took off and ran the whole race!

A condo can be purchased through e-mail when certain legal requirements are met, New Brunswick’s top court has ruled.

Setting aside a lower court’s decision, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal determined in Druet v. Girouard that writing requirements under the Electronic Transactions Act and the Statute of Frauds, the price, parties, and property, the assumption of an existing mortgage, the payment of closing fees, joinder, and the intent to create legal relations, can, when taken together, make the purchase of a condo through e-mail legally binding.

“As a matter of general principle, we accept that an exchange of emails can satisfy the writing requirement under the Electronic Transactions Act and, correlatively, the Statute of Frauds,” wrote justices Joseph Robertson and Marc Richard with Justice Wallace Turnbull concurring. “Of course, to reach this conclusion, one must apply the principle of ‘joinder.’ We also accept that the parties reached an agreement with respect to the essential terms (the 3 Ps, namely, price, parties and property) and two other matters: the assumption of the existing mortgage and payment of closing fees.”

But in this particular case, the court ruled that the e-mails did not show sufficient legal intent to create a binding contract.

“In short, the e-mails do not represent the type of detailed agreements which have propelled some courts to conclude the execution of a formal document would serve no valid purpose other than to provide one of the parties with a feeble legal excuse for reneging on an agreement,” says the ruling.

Druet and Girouard appeared to be reaching a consensus on the condo’s sale in 2010, but Druet ultimately withdrew her offer to sell the condo, saying her partner, who was vacationing in Peru, did not agree to the purchase price Girouard and Druet had reached.

Girouard brought a motion under Rule 23 to determine whether or not the e-mails constituted a binding agreement and sought compensation from Druet under the Act of Frauds.

The Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick ruled last year that the e-mails constituted a binding agreement between Druet and Girouard and ordered Druet pay $1,000 to Girouard.

“After reviewing the mail, I am convinced that they constitute a binding agreement. The reference to the agreement of purchase and sale was not an indication that there was agreement regarding the conclusion of another contract. The clauses in e-mails is clear and easy to perform,” wrote Court of Queen’s Bench Justice George Rideout. “There is no indication that it was subject to acceptance from Mrs. Druet. It is recognized that there is no closing date, but, given the other clauses, it is reasonable to argue that a reasonable time to complete the purchase or could be implied that the usual practice in the field property, a closing date in mid to late next month, was implied.”

But the appellant court ruled while the Court of Queen’s Bench was correct to determine most of the legal requirements to establish the purchase of the condo had been met, the court was ultimately wrong to dismiss that a formal contract was necessary to make the e-mail agreements legally binding, and allowed Druet’s appeal.

“Moreover, we have concluded Mr. Girouard’s reference to the future preparation of a draft agreement for Ms. Druet’s review is normally interpreted to mean that the parties did not intend to create a binding contract until such time as a formal agreement was prepared and executed,” says the appeal decision. “The reasonable bystander also knows that the exchange of e-mails represents a skeletal contractual framework worked out without the assistance of professional advice . . . more importantly, neither Mr. Girouard nor Mrs. Girouard had ever viewed Ms. Druet’s condominium unit.”

The ruling continues: “Frankly, there is more legal formality surrounding the millions of transactions that occur daily on eBay than what occurred in the present case. Parties to a real estate transaction who are strangers usually fix a closing date, obtain a deposit and, most importantly, sign a formal purchase and sale agreement.”

As a result, the appellant court allowed Druet’s appeal and set aside the motion judge’s order. The court also awarded $3,500 to Druet on the motion in the Court of Queen’s Bench. With regard to Druet’s appeal, the Court of Appeal found Druet is entitled to disbarments only, fixed at $1,500.

Update: May 3, 2012 to change headline and clarify aspects of the ruling.

Phil Rankin, co-chairman of the Trail Lawyers Association of B.C.’s legal aid action committee is recommending that legal aid lawyers withdraw from handling any of the Vancouver riot cases as the next step in what is now a four-month battle to increase provincial legal aid funding.

Phil Rankin says the move to withdraw from the Vancouver rioter cases should be in place by early May.

Rankin says that the short-term move to withdraw from handling any of the Vancouver rioter cases should be in place by early May.

A second longer-term recommendation to go before the association’s board of governors would see the legal aid lawyers in the province withdraw duty counsel services completely. Legal aid lawyers would also refuse to co-operate with the Crown on matters such as “deals, admissions, agreements — no we don’t need that expert and appearances we are not paid for,” says Rankin. This move would occur later in 2012.

Last November, B.C.’s legal aid lawyers started an escalating job action that saw duty counsel services withdrawn at 50 courthouses for increasingly longer periods over each of the four months. In April, there was a complete withdrawal. Rankin says the withdrawal of duty counsel has resulted in further delays in processing court cases, as now 25 to 30 per cent of individuals today are self-represented.

“This is taking quadruple the time it normally would for these cases,” he notes.

The proposal to withdraw services province-wide was reached after no agreement was forthcoming on increased government funding to restore legal aid services. Rankin estimates that full recovery of the system will take $40 million. On April 10, a small meeting of 35 Vancouver legal aid lawyers was held to determine new job actions.

“We asked what should we do next?” Rankin says, adding there was unanimous support to withdraw from rioter cases but also to stop taking on legal aid cases and co-operating with the Crown.

While he says Vancouver lawyers were ready to “work to rule” immediately, there is still groundwork to be done to ensure other B.C. lawyers want to follow the same course.

“We want to see whether Vancouver is an anomaly,” he says.

He expects the meeting to take place over summer with lawyers throughout B.C. and once a consensus is achieved, the proposal will go before the board of governors. Job action would come some time in October.

Canada

B.C. court denies man access to son due to criminal associations, The Province

Parole board denies freedom for man who killed RCMP officer in 1987, Calgary Herald

Ottawa drug dealer gets new trial after writing appeal from jail cell, Ottawa Citizen

United States

Texas executes man for 2002 murder, Reuters

Practical joke to 'kill Obama' lands man in touble with authorities, London Free Press

International

KFC to pay $8M to Australian girl brain damaged by chicken wrap, Toronto Star

Dutch court upholds ban on sale of cannabis to foreigners, Ottawa Citizen

After practising for 37 years, Winnipeg lawyer James Richard Smith lost his final bid to re-enter the profession after the Supreme Court of Canada today dismissed his application for leave to appeal.

Smith was disbarred after a routine audit in 2007 revealed that he had swindled clients out of thousands of dollars.

One client, a woman identified as C.B., designated Smith the sole executor and trustee of her estate, which included a house valued at $90,000. Her two sons and the Winnipeg Humane Society were named as beneficiaries.

Following C.B.’s death, her sons sought to distribute the estate’s cash. Smith informed them that he had found an investor who was willing to buy the house for $50,000. He told them that selling the house on the open market would be time-consuming and various fees and costs would reduce their profits. So the sons agreed to the private sale.

But Smith left out one major detail — the investor was his wife.

He also did not inform the Humane Society of the sale.

In the case of another estate — that of a man identified as J.T., C.B.’s common-law husband — there were unpaid students loans of $4,600 and the estate only held $2,200 in assets. In a letter to Social Development Canada, Smith claimed that the estate assets “were applied to final expenses,” when in fact the money was in his firm’s trust account.

Smith also used money from C.B.’s estate to retain counsel following the Law Society of Manitoba’s investigation.

The LSM discipline hearing panel found Smith guilty of seven counts of professional misconduct. He was disbarred and ordered to pay $24,500 to the law society. The Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld the penalty.

The law society found that Smith lacked integrity. “As the executor of the estate, Mr. Smith owed a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries to act in their best interests. Instead, in his capacity as legal counsel to the estate, he wrote a letter that was misleading in order to obtain a financial benefit for his family,” the panel wrote.

“It is critical to recognize that Chapter 1 of the [professional code of conduct] demands of all lawyers a duty of absolute honesty, not only with justice system participants, but with the public at large,” states the ruling.

Throughout the proceedings, Smith maintained his innocence and insisted that his conduct was not improper. The Court of Appeal found this to be further justification for his disbarment.

“Had the appellant recognized that his conduct, especially regarding the sale of the property to his wife, was seriously improper and unprofessional, the sanction might well have been a suspension because the panel would not likely have had the concerns it expressed about future protection of the public,” Justice Martin Freedman wrote in Smith v. Law Society of Manitoba.

“But his insistence that his conduct was not improper, a position he maintained in argument before us, coupled with the finding of a pattern of dishonesty, led the panel to conclude that the public interest could only be protected in future by permanently removing the appellant from the practice of law.”

A long-running Canadian legal battle ended on Thursday when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear a challenge to a government decision to allow Globalive to offer wireless services in Canada despite its close ties to a foreign company.

The decision in Public Mobile v. Globalive Wireless Management Corp. was a setback for Public Mobile, a Globalive rival that also offers a low-cost wireless service, and Canada’s telecoms regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

Public Mobile had contended Globalive was under the control of Egypt’s Orascom Telecom Holding SAE, making the upstart provider ineligible to operate in Canada, which currently limits foreign ownership and control of telecoms firms.

Orascom has since sold most of its assets, including its interest in Globalive, to Russia’s Vimpelcom Ltd.

In a seesaw battle, the government overruled the CRTC, the Federal Court overruled the regulator, and the Federal Court of Appeal overturned that decision last year, siding with Globalive and the government.

The case is close to being moot because of a government announcement on March 14 that it would soon allow non-Canadians to take control of telecoms carriers with a market share of 10 per cent or less. That would cover Globalive, which owns Wind Mobile, a newcomer to the wireless business.

Three carriers — Rogers Communications Inc., BCE Inc. and Telus Corp. — now dominate the Canadian wireless industry. The government is eager to encourage competition in Canada’s wireless industry, which boasts some of the world’s highest rates. It set aside airwaves for new entrants in the 2008 auction that brought in Globalive’s Wind Mobile, Public Mobile and third upstart Mobilicity.

Vimpelcom does not directly own shares in Globalive, but has a third of the voting shares and two-thirds of the equity in a holding company that the courts consider Canadian.

Canada

Canada to appeal ruling legalizing brothels, Reuters

G20 activist to launch $4M suit against officer, police forces, province, The Globe and Mail

Crown to call final witness in Tori Stafford trial, The Province

United States

Supreme Court restrains IRS in tax shelter case, Reuters

New York judge denies dismissal of Brazilian kickback case, Reuters

International

Pakistan PM found guilty of contempt of court, Reuters

Japan's Ozawa acquitted in funding scandal, Reuters

The federal government will seek to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada an Ontario ruling that effectively legalized brothels across the country, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said on Wednesday.

In Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, the Ontario Court of Appeal last month struck down a section of the Criminal Code that bars brothels, saying that forcing sex workers to stay on the street made it hard for them to take safety precautions.

The judges also upheld a section of the code that restricts street prostitution. Accepting money in return for sex is not illegal in Canada, but most related activities are. The safety of sex workers played a large part in the appeal court’s decision.

“The state response is out of all proportion to the state objectives,” the judges wrote. “While the provision is ostensibly aimed at protecting prostitutes from harm, it prevents them from taking measures that could reduce harm and at worst drives them into the hands of the very predators that the law intends to guard against.”

The federal Conservatives say the Criminal Code sections in question are sound. The Supreme Court of Canada will now have to decide whether to hear the appeal.

Nicholson told the House of Commons that Ottawa felt a “binding, national decision” was needed on the constitutionality of the laws on brothels and living on the avails of prostitution.

“Prostitution is harmful for society as it exploits Canada’s most vulnerable people, especially women,” he said.

Nicholson was reacting to a question in the House from Conservative MP Roxanne James, who said she was “absolutely horrified and saddened” by the Ontario ruling.

“Canadians . . . right across our great country are very concerned about this ruling and the impact it will have on women, families and our communities,” she told legislators.

The safety of sex workers has become a high-profile social issue in Canada since the trial and 2007 conviction of serial killer Robert Pickton, who preyed on prostitutes in Vancouver.

If the Ontario court’s decision stands, Ottawa may have to find new ways to regulate prostitution, perhaps by accepting legalized brothels of the sort found in Nevada.