Heather Michelin, President
Allen Mendelsohn and Larry Markowitz, Editor(s)

President’s Message

Heather Michelin

Honourable Judges and Colleagues,

The Lord Reading Law Society began its 65th season with an enlightening and informative lecture by The Honourable Mr. Justice Guy Gagnon of the Québec Court of Appeal, who spoke on the topic of “Has the adversarial system in Quebec reached its limits?”. It was truly a privilege having Justice Gagnon address us.  Thank you for participating in such great numbers, your attendance helped to make the evening a resounding success.

Our annual Henry Steinberg Memorial Lecture will take place on November 12th, 2013 when we will welcome three judges from the Municipal Court of Montréal: President Judge The Honourable Morton S. Minc, The Honourable Nathalie Haccoun, and The Honourable Richard Starck. Their topic will be: “The Municipal Court of Montréal – Past, Present and Future”. We are delighted that the Chief Justice of Québec, The Honourable Nicole Duval Hesler of the Québec Court of Appeal will introduce this distinguished panel of judges.  The Municipal Court of Montréal hears a wide variety of cases, and has implemented several important social programs that reflect the needs of urban society.  This promises to be a very interesting evening and I sincerely hope that you will join us.  We have offered twenty dinner reservations to law students at a reduced rate and look forward to continuing to host law students whenever possible.  The lecture has been approved by the Barreau du Québec for 1.5 hours of CLE accreditation.  Special thanks to our generous sponsor, Robinson Sheppard Shapiro.

The Society is in the process of finalizing its programming for the 2013-2014 season, and we invite you to mark the following dates in your calendar: On February 4, 2014 we will hold our Annual Students’ Dinner. Our very own Communications Director, Me Allen Mendelsohn, will address us on the topic “Copyright and creativity on the internet: can they co-exist?”.  This will be a wonderful opportunity to introduce students, stagiaires and new lawyers to the Society in the hope that they will become engaged and involved participants in the Society’s future events.  On June 9, 2014, we will hold our annual Human Rights Lecture.  The Society’s Human Rights Award is given to an individual who has demonstrated a sustained contribution to, or has been influential in the advancement of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  We are delighted to announce that the Society’s Human Rights Award will be bestowed upon The Honourable Morris Fish, who recently retired from the Supreme Court of Canada. At that time we will also have the special honour of being addressed by The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada.

Finally, I thoroughly enjoyed serving on the Young Bar Association of Montreal’s jury panel for the selection of “Les Leaders de Demain” for their upcoming gala. It was an honour to participate, and I was proud to do so as a representative of The Lord Reading Law Society.  I wish all the finalists the best of luck!

I look forward to seeing all of you on November 12th.

Sincerely,

Heather Michelin
President

Guy Gagnon, J.C.A. speaks at the Alan B. Gold Advocacy Lecture

Allen Mendelsohn

On October 3rd, on the occasion of the annual Alan B. Gold Advocacy lecture, the Society was pleased to welcome The Honourable Mr. Justice Guy Gagnon of the Court of Appeal of Québec, who spoke on the topic of “Has the adversarial system in Quebec reached its limits?” The evening was a wonderful success, both in the interesting topic by an engaging speaker and in the very large turnout that has become commonplace at the Society.

After remarks by the President, who welcomed several members of the Gold family, the speaker was introduced by fellow Court of Appeals Justice The Honourable Nicholas Kasirer. Justice Kasirer did a wonderful job linking Justice Gagnon and the late Justice Gold, highlighting the numerous things they had in common, both professionally and personally.

After acknowledging the contributions of the past three female Society Presidents and welcoming many of his fellow justices, Justice Gagnon began his talk with some self-deprecating humour, warning the audience they would have to deal with his “accent du Nord”. He joked that it was ok though, given that another person with the same accent had risen to the ranks of Prime Minister.

Justice Gagnon insisted that despite the title of his talk he would not launch into a full-on critique of the judicial system, and he was true to his word. He did outline several significant issues however, notably the issue of accessibility. He reminded the audience that a good justice system needs to be accessible to all, have reasonable costs, and have acceptable time frames. Chief Justices have constantly examined the issues of costs and delays, and the accessibility issue, probably the most fundamental, is Québec’s principal difficulty.

Justice Gagnon highlighted how certain types of cases, including class action suits, fundamental rights issues, and environmental cases, have become more and more complex and costly thus lengthening trial times and reducing accessibility. He lamented how even for simple issues, two-day trials have become the norm, and that trials that last months are no longer rare; even Court of Appeals hearings can now take days. These issues mean that the justice system should take any steps that would improve the efficiency of the system.

Including procedural changes that could be brought, in addition to what’s been accomplished already, Justice Gagnon stressed that the judicial actors, especially attorneys, need to be more conciliatory and open. If they don’t we will probably see more full case management from beginning to end. This would lead to the decline of the principle that the lawyer is master of his file. Justice Gagnon said lawyers should take a more active role in seeking settlements, thus we could avoid the crowded emergency room situation, to use his analogy.

This led to a discussion of a measure Justice Gagnon thought should be part of our justice system, the “pre-action protocol” (le “protocole préjudiciaire”) which has been implemented in England. Its objective is to facilitate exchange of information between the parties at the outset of a litigation file, and encourage settlements, by setting out codes for sensible practices in specific areas of litigation. It would make the system more efficient, settle disputes faster, and reduce costs.

Justice Gagnon ended with a plea to the lawyers in the room to take a more active role in settling disputes. He said this would actually lead to lawyers having better control over their files, and creating a more favourable context for all parties, including their own clients, as costs would be drastically reduced. This would help everyone have a better overall opinion of the justice system.

The Society Mourns a Past President

The Society is deeply saddened at the passing of Arnold Isaacson, President of the Society during the 1999-2000 season. Me Isaacson will be remembered as the first notary to serve as President of The Lord Reading Law Society, and for the numerous initiatives he undertook during his term which include creation of both the newsletter and the Society’s pin, and the initiation of our sponsorship programs. Me Isaacson was also the first President to recognize the need for a Society website, a project which would come to fruition in the years that followed.

Me Isaacson was a valued member of the legal community, a strong supporter of the Society and he will be missed.  The Society extends its sincere condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.

CLE Conference – Trial Practices Do’s and Don’ts on November 7th

The 5th annual “Trial Practice Do’s and Don’ts: Hot Tips from the Experts” CLE  Conference of the English-Speaking Section of the Montreal Bar will take place on Thursday, November 7th from 4:00 – 6:00 pm in Room 5.15 of the Montreal Court House. The theme this year is “The Challenges of Self-Represented Litigants in Our Judicial System”. Self-represented  litigants have become a reality in every area of litigation to-day – a reality which presents new problems for and challenges to the trial lawyer and trial judge alike. The panel of four distinguished jurists – the Honourable Carol Cohen, j.c.s.,  Me Natasha Calixte, Me Martin J. Greenberg, and Me Peter Kalichman – will address these problems and challenges from varying perspectives.

For more information and to register online, please visit the Barreau de Montréal website.

News from the Mishpuchah

Mazel Tov

• To Society Executive member Robert Rapp on the birth of his daughter
• To Society Executive Director Morris Chaikelson on his grandson’s bar mitzvah

Condolences

• To Past President Casper Bloom on the loss of his sister Elissa Brazer

Heather Michelin, President
Allen Mendelsohn and Larry Markowitz, Editor(s)

President’s Message

Heather Michelin

Dear Colleagues and Honourable Judges,

This fall marks the 65th year since the Lord Reading Law Society was established.  I am privileged to be at the helm of the Society for the 2013-14 season, supported by a first-rate Executive and Board of Directors who volunteer their time and effort to ensure that the Society’s future is a bright one. 

Our annual Alan B. Gold Advocacy Lecture will take place on Thursday, October 3rd, 2013 and it promises to be an enlightening evening.  We are honoured to welcome The Honourable Mr. Justice Guy Gagnon of the Court of Appeal of Québec, who will address us on the topic of “Has the adversarial system in Quebec reached its limits?”.  Our application for CLE accreditation has been approved for one hour of CLE credit. The dinner invitation can be downloaded here, or we encourage you to reserve and pay online. We would like to thank Davies and Irving Mitchell Kalichman for the generous sponsorship of the evening.

The annual Henry Steinberg Memorial Lecture will take place on Thursday, November 14th, 2013 when we will welcome a distinguished panel of three judges from the Municipal Court of Montreal. The Honourable Morton S. Minc, President Judge, will address the Society, together with the Honourable Nathalie Haccoun and the Honourable Richard Starck.  An application for CLE accreditation will be submitted, and I encourage you to mark the date in your calendar and take part in this interesting evening. 

The Society counts on your membership dues to continue its activities, and we strongly encourage you to renew your membership for the current season if you have not yet done so. You can download the membership form, or we encourage you to register and pay your membership online.  If you are a law student, please contact the Society for special instructions.

The Society has a rich and storied history, is deeply engrained in Montreal’s legal landscape and continues to evolve.  I invite you to be part of the Society’s future and its continued success and to personally experience the warmth and collegiality of a Lord Reading Law Society dinner-meeting.  I look forward to seeing you at the opening dinner on October 3rd and at other meetings throughout the 2013-2014 season. 

Sincerely,
Heather Michelin

Madam Justice Marie Deschamps: “Public Interest Advocacy in Constitutional Litigation”

Larry Markowitz

In keeping with the Lord Reading Law Society’s reputation as one of the premier venues for speaking engagements in Montreal’s legal community, the Society was honoured to welcome recently-retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marie Deschamps on June 3rd.  She spoke to us about “Public Interest Advocacy in Constitutional Litigation”.

Despite her recent retirement from our nation’s highest court after 10 years (and 22 years in total as a judge), Madam Justice Deschamps is by no means idle these days. She is now teaching at McGill University’s Faculty of Law, as we learned in an informative introduction by her former law clerk, Maître Valerie Scott, who described Madam Justice Deschamps as having “un esprit sain dans un corps sain”.

In a well-structured dissertation, Madam Justice Deschamps explained to us how the definition of who has standing to bring a case before the courts “in the public interest” has evolved over the history of our country, particularly since the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

The basic difficulty in gaining status to bring a case based on “public interest” has traditionally been that the plaintiff must have suffered an “exceptional prejudice”.

Smith v. The Attorney General of Ontario, [1924] SCR 331

Madam Justice Deschamps began by citing this 1924 Supreme Court Case, in which an Ontario-based activist named John T. Smith wished to challenge the validity of the Ontario Temperance Act.   Mr. Smith was not prosecuted under the Act. He had merely attempted to ordered whiskey from Quebec, where the sale of alcohol continued to be permitted. Yet he yet still wished to challenge the act’s validity “for the public good”.

“He has no other foundation for his action against the Attorney General than that he wrote several dealers in Montreal requesting each of them to supply him, in Toronto, with such liquors, by shipment from Montreal, in the province of Quebec, and their respective refusals on the ground that doing so would be illegal.

The respondent had taken no steps in such matter, nor threatened to do so. Nor had any one on his behalf done so.“

While Mr. Justice Duff of the Supreme Court was sympathetic to the plaintiff’s arguments, the Court still refused Mr. Smith’s application for standing, since to allow a person who had not suffered an exceptional prejudice or been directly affected by the issue at hand risked opening the floodgates to many more public interest court challenges.

Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138

The next case cited by Madame Justice Deschamps was the challenge to the Official Languages Act by another activist, Joseph Thorarinn Thorson, in this 1974 case. In his analysis, Mr. Justice Laskin, who had not then yet been named Chief Justice, stated that the Thorson action was based on a UK law that allowed a citizen to challenge a law for “public nuisance”. However, the Official Languages Act was being challenged based on Canada’s constitutional division of powers, which differs from the unitarian structure of the United Kingdom. However, the Supreme Court nevertheless granted standing to Mr. Thorson as “The citizenry [has the right] to constitutional behaviour by Parliament” and Mr. Thorson was a member of that citizenry:

“A question of alleged excess of legislative power is a justiciable one and it is open to the Court, in the exercise of a discretionary power, to allow a taxpayer to have such a question adjudicated in a class action – being in effect a class action by a member of the public – when the question otherwise could be immune from judicial review because there is no person or class of persons particularly aggrieved and because of the unwillingness of the Attorney General to institute proceedings or of the Government to direct a reference.“

Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265

In this subsequent case, Mr. McNeil wished to challenge the film censorship law of the province of Nova Scotia on the basis that it constituted criminal law, a subject matter upon which only the  federal government was empowered to legislate. The Amusement Regulation Board of Nova Scotia had prevented the infamous film “Last Tango in Paris” from being shown in theatres and Mr. McNeil was not happy about this.

Mr. Justice Laskin, by then Chief Justice of Canada, justified his ruling by reasoning that there was no other practical way for Mr. McNeil to challenge the Amusement Board’s ruling:

“[M]embers of the public arguably also had a direct interest. It arose from the power given to the Board to determine what members of the public may view in theatres or other places of public entertainment. In view of the fact that there was no other way in practical terms to subject the challenged Act to judicial review the Court was justified in the circumstances in exercising its discretion to grant standing to the respondent.”

Slowly but surely, a uniquely Canadian framework was being developed to determine who could bring a court challenge in the public interest.

Minister of Justice (Canada) v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575

Borowski is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the standard for allowing public interests to gain standing to challenge a law. The Court developed what is known as the “Borowski Test” for public interest standing.

In this case, an application was made by an anti-abortion activist named Joseph Borowski, who wished to challenge the constitutionality of the Criminal Code using the Canadian Bill of Rights, a quasi-constitutional law that predates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Applying the principle in Thorson, the Supreme Court found that Borowski had standing to challenge the law, reasoning that a plaintiff seeking to have law declared invalid must demonstrate either that they are directly affected by that law or that they have a genuine interest as a citizen and there is no reasonable and effective alternative means to challenge the law.  Mr. Borowski was found to meet this latter requirement, as it would be difficult to bring such an issue to court without having an interest group make a challenge.

The court laid down three criteria:

1. Is the question a serious one?
2. Does the person have a genuine interest in the issue?
3. Has it been demonstrated that there is no other practical means by which to bring the case before the court?

Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607

The first case on standing in the public interest following the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 was Finlay, a division-of-powers dispute in which the plaintiff challenged the right of his home province of Manitoba to deduct a portion of his social security allowance.  The Court refused him standing, on the basis that this was a matter for the legislator rather than the judiciary.

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236

The test to determine standing in the public interest was later re-articulated more narrowly in the Canadian Council of Churches decision, in which Mr. Justice Peter Cory did a thorough review of the test’s factors, which he articulated in the following manner:

1. Is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question?
2. Has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or, if not, does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity?
3. Is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the Court?

Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United against Violence Society, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524

All of this brings us to the procedural aspect of the Downtown Eastside Sex Workers case, the substance of which is still before the Court. In 2012, the Supreme Court considered whether the group known as the “Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United against Violence Society” should be granted public interest standing to bring this case before the courts.

The objects of the group include improving conditions for female sex workers in the Downtown Eastside area of Vancouver.  The group launched a Charter challenge against the prostitution provisions of the Criminal Code.

In its decision on this question of standing, the Supreme Court held that there was basically no other efficient way to bring the case before the courts than to allow the plaintiff group to bring the case.

The key question for the court was whether allowing the case to be brought by the activist-plaintiff was a “reasonable approach”.

In determining whether to grant standing in a public law case, the Court considered the by-now-familiar three factors, which it articulated as follows: 

1. whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue;
2. whether the party bringing the case has a real stake in the proceedings or is engaged with the issues that it raises; and
3. whether the proposed suit is, in all of the circumstances and in light of a number of considerations, a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court.

This third factor has often been expressed as a strict requirement that a party seeking standing persuade the court that there is no other reasonable and effective manner in which the issue may be brought before the court.  However, the decision in Downtown Eastside Sex Workers introduced some nuance to this rule, stating that this third criterion would be better-expressed as requiring that the proposed suit be, in light of the circumstances, a “reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court”.

Sources of Law

After concluding her review of the relevant jurisprudence on public interest standing, Madam Justice Deschamps ended her speech by mentioning that an important source of the evolution of public interest advocacy in Canada is the bi-juridical nature of our legal system:

• The Civil Law tradition has traditionally been less open to allowing public interest challenges before the courts. In fact, it was only in 2008 that the courts in France were finally allowed to decide whether a law is valid.
• Common Law jurisdictions Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, more resemble the United Kingdom, where courts are more open to allowing citizens to challenge any “public nuisance”.

Other interesting comparisons are to India and Israel, where it is relatively easy for citizens to gain direct access to their country’s highest court to challenge a law’s validity. As an illustration: Some 50,000 cases are heard annually by The Supreme Court of India, while well over 10,000 cases are heard each year by the Supreme Court of Israel.  Thus the relative paucity of public interest cases permitted in Canada raises an interesting discussion on the topic of access to justice in the public interest.

*******************

In recognition of her years of service to the Canadian justice system and her longstanding devotion to the Lord Reading Law Society, Madam Justice Carol Cohen presented our guest speaker with an honourary lifetime membership to the society “on condition [she] promise[s] to come back”.

Lord Reading Members Honoured at the Barreau

Allen Mendelsohn

The Society is pleased to recognize the honours bestowed by the Barreau du Québec on some of our family for their many years of service as members of the Barreau or as Advocatus Emeritus, and we wish all the recipients a hearty Mazel Tov.

• Society member Jonathan Robinson, on 60 years;
• Past President Alan Stein, on 50 years;
• Members and past members Edward Druker, David Schatia, Martin Bogante, on 50 years;
• Society Board Member Eric Maldoff and The Hon. Joseph Nuss on being named Advocatus Emeritus.

News from the Mishpuchah

Mazel Tov

• To Past President Ted Goloff on the birth of his granddaughter;
• To Past President Ron Levy on the marriage of his daughter in Mallorca, Spain;
• To Hanne Ellingsen on the birth of her son Levi.

Get Well

• To Past President Ian Solloway following his recent surgery.

Condolences

• To Society Board Member Elliot Lifson on the loss of his father Mac;
• To the family of Justice Roger Baker.

Mara Greenstone, President
Allen Mendelsohn and Larry Markowitz, Editor(s)

President’s Message

Mara Greenstone

Dear colleagues and honourable judges,

This has been a very exciting year for the LRLS and we were privileged to welcome an outstanding lineup of speakers.

It has been an honour for me to serve as your President and I could not have done it without all of the dedication and support of our board and executive. I thank you all for everything you have done to make this year so successful.

I am particularly proud of the increased involvement of new members and young lawyers. You are the future of our society and I encourage all of you to stay involved.

For our closing dinner, being held on June 3rd, we are privileged to be welcoming the Honourable Marie Deschamps whose talk is entitled Public Interest Advocacy in Constitutional Litigation. You can register and pay online or download the dinner-invitation.

Special thanks to our sponsors for the evening, Borden Ladner Gervais.

I look forward to seeing all of you there.

Sincerely,

Mara Greenstone

Lawfare or War Crimes? The case of Village of Bil’in v. Green Mount International: An Inside Account

Larry Markowitz

On April 4th at the annual LRLS Human Rights Dinner, our Past President Ronald H. Levy made a return to the dais of the Society to give us a behind-the-scenes account of a landmark case in Canadian human rights law in which he played a key role.

In a dynamic talk, occasionally infused with humour and animated by an eye-catching slide presentation, Me Levy recounted how he successfully fought against the jurisdiction of the Québec Superior Court in an Israeli land claim. Residents of Bil’in, a Palestinian farming village in the West Bank, sued two Montreal-based companies, represented by Me Levy, for allegedly violating international law by building condominiums for Israeli settlers on disputed land just outside Jerusalem. The plaintiffs argued that Québec courts should have jurisdiction because the companies were incorporated here in Montreal.

In rejecting jurisdiction, Mr. Justice Louis-Paul Cullen ruled that this was an inappropriate case for a Canadian court. He stated that Israel’s High Court of Justice was “clearly […] the logical forum and the authority in a better position to decide” on the complaint. He further affirmed that the Israeli High Court of Justice is an “independent tribunal” that would “try the Action fairly and impartially”.  Mr. Justice Cullen’s decision contained an implied statement of satisfaction with the high quality of justice meted out by the Israeli court system.

The plaintiffs also wanted their lawsuit to be considered in light of Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.  Bil’in sought two million dollars in damages and requested an injunction to demolish the apartment buildings that had already been built. Many viewed this action as a publicity stunt, including our guest speaker.

The lawsuit was brought by the family of the late Ahmed Issa Abdallah Yassin, the alleged title-holder of the plot of land.  Among other things, they alleged violations of numerous international treaties, the Civil Code of Québec and the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms – indeed they invoked “everything short of the municipal by-laws of Cote St. Luc”, joked our guest speaker. The plaintiffs alleged that the client was the “agent of an occupying power” as defined in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

There were a couple of major holes in the plaintiffs’ case:  First, the condominium project was nowhere near Québec. Second, there was no actual title deed demonstrating that Mr. Yassin had ever owned the land.

Me Levy argued forum non conveniens pursuant to Article 3135 CCQ. The State of Israel’s courts were best placed to decide this land dispute. In fact, several similar lawsuits had previously been heard by the Israeli High Court of Justice.  The Israeli HCJ is a division of the Israeli Supreme Court that allows direct access to justice by plaintiffs, including West Bank Palestinians, when matters of property ownership are at issue. (In contrast, in Canada, we only have direct access to the “high court of public opinion”, quipped Me Levy).

The plaintiffs countered that this was not really a land claim, but rather a human rights dispute. Me Levy countered this argument by pointing out that the basis for the action at bar was ownership of the land. As Mr. Yassin’s heirs could not prove such ownership, they did not have a case. Evidence presented before the Court by Me Levy on this issue went back as far as the Ottoman Land Code and Registration Laws of 1858 and 1859!

Regardless of the intricacies of Ottoman era property laws that were invoked, the essential point of this lawsuit is that it was a classic case of “lawfare”, whereby the language of human rights is employed to achieve political and military goals. The most telling evidence of this was when a member of the plaintiff group said to Me Levy upon the conclusion of the case, “Just by filing this lawsuit, we achieved success.”

Me Levy was thanked for his compelling presentation by Me Ron Stein, who commended Me Levy on his wisdom and his dedication to clients, and pointed out that we are fortunate to have Me Levy as a Past President and active member of the Society.

Society Humour

News from the Mishpuchah

Mazel Tov

• To Society President Mara Greenstone on the birth of her daughter Sophie Charlotte
• To Society Board member Les Erdle on the birth of his granddaughter

Condolences

• To Society Past President Ian Solloway on the loss of his mother Mavis

Mara Greenstone, President
Allen Mendelsohn and Larry Markowitz, Editor(s)

President’s Message

Mara Greenstone

Dear Colleagues and Honourable Judges,

I am happy to report that our Annual Students’ Dinner was a huge success and we were thrilled to be able to meet and greet the future members of our Society.

Our next event, which will be taking place on Thursday April 4th, is our Annual Human Rights Lecture.  You can download the dinner invitation here or reserve online here.

On this occasion, we will have the honour of welcoming one of our own past presidents, Me Ronald Levy from De Grandpré Chait LLP, who will address us on the landmark case he won at the Court of Appeal: “Lawfare or War Crimes: The case of Village of Bil’in and the Late Ahmed Issa Abdallah Yassin v. Green Park International Inc., Green Mount International Inc. et al”.

Special thanks to our generous sponsor for the evening DeGrandpre Chait LLP.

I would like to wish all of you and your families a very happy Passover and I look forward to seeing all of you on April 4th.

Employment Law for the Facebook Generation

Larry Markowitz

On January 31st, the Lord Reading Law Society was honoured to welcome as its distinguished guest speaker Me Lukasz Granosik of Norton Rose.  In addition to being a well-known labour and employment law expert, Me Granosik is also past-president of the Canadian Bar Association – Quebec Branch.

While introducing our guest, Society communications director (and internet law expert) Me Allen Mendelsohn set the tone for the evening by waving his iPhone in the air and pretending he had just posted an insulting comment about his “boss” on Facebook, while stating with mock assuredness that “nobody [would] notice”!

Indeed, it was this theme of expectation of privacy surrounding messages posted on the internet that permeated Me Granosik’s presentation.

Essentially, when you have hundreds of “friends” on Facebook, you should not expect your comments to remain private among only those hundreds of friends. It is more-likely-than-not that some of your “friends” will share your comments with others – including possibly the boss that you just insulted. And if your comments posted on a Facebook wall do damage to your employer’s reputation, your having expressed those words could constitute a firing offence – as though you had published them in the local newspaper or spoken them aloud in a public assembly.

Ontario case law has established that a defendant with a “mere” 67 friends on Facebook had an expectation of privacy, while someone else who had 366 “friends” should not have expected his online comments to remain private. That said, the precise number of Facebook friends that constitutes the cut-off between public and private has yet to be clearly determined.

These sorts of reputation-damaging firing offences are not confined to Facebook. Me Granosik risked ruining our appetites with his pre-dinner description of a video posted on YouTube by two Domino’s Pizza pizza-makers in North Carolina who had filmed themselves spitting on pizzas. (In the end, there was no harm done to our appetites; dinner at Lord Reading is too tasty to be overshadowed by mental images of bad pizza!)

The Domino’s Pizza incident teaches us several lessons. First, company brands are more vulnerable than ever:  Nowadays, two renegade employees with a video camera and an internet connection can easily wreak havoc on the reputation of a major multi-national corporation. Second, a negative message cannot be recalled once posted to the internet. To this day, that Domino’s Pizza video is still somewhere on the internet. In fact, a simple Google search will lead you to the video. Third, companies need to be proactive in safeguarding their reputations. Domino’s apparently did a good job of conveying the message that this had been an isolated incident (and that the rogue employees had been dismissed!). Finally, companies have to be sensitive to the power of social media – both to its positive and negative powers.

Me Granosik cited the positive power of Facebook in the context of the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riots.  Numerous tips and videos were posted to a special Facebook page, leading to over 1,000 criminal charges to date – with more to come.

Facebook evidence has also been allowed in court for the purpose of demonstrating a pattern of employee harassment. However, when a fake Facebook account was created in order to entrap an employee, the evidence was not allowed by La commission des lésions professionnelles (CLP), because this tactic was considered to be deceitful (“Facebook fait partie de la vie privée”, stated the CLP).

A nascent trend is the service of legal procedures via social media. For now, this mode of service is only allowed when all traditional approaches have been exhausted.

Me Granosik pointed out that the United States has, not surprisingly, had many more employment law decisions relating to the internet than has Canada, including one interesting example that revolved around whether hitting the “Like” button on Facebook was protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution safeguarding freedom of expression.  At first instance, the Virginia district court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant,  based on the ground that “liking” a Facebook page is “insufficient speech” and not “substantive” enough to guarantee constitutional protection.  However, the decision has been appealed and both the ACLU and Facebook have intervened.

Me Granosik ended his fascinating presentation by reminding us that, in this age of social media, we risk having our private pictures and statements used against us.  So be forewarned!

Me Granosik was thanked by Society board member Me David Ettedgui, following which Society president Me Mara Greenstone presented the Lord Reading Law Society Student Prizes to deserving recipients Iris Graham of McGill University, Ariane Lefrançois of l’Université de Montréal and Marie-Lou Laprise of l’Université de Sherbrooke in recognition of their academic achievements.

Talmudic Law Moot Competition at McGill

Rabbi Michael Whitman

On behalf of Dean Daniel Jutras and the McGill University Faculty of Law, I am honoured to invite you to an event celebrating Talmudic Law at McGill, presented with the philanthropic support of the Lederman Foundation.

I am a Sessional Instructor at McGill Faculty of Law, and this semester my Talmudic Law course ends with a Talmudic Law Moot competition, the first of its kind at McGill. The students have a case relating to a dispute over inheritance and we are studying the Jewish Law sources that relate to it. Student teams are required to write a Brief and present Oral Arguments on behalf of their client before a Bet Din (a panel of three rabbinic judges), based on classical sources in Jewish Law.

The final competition between the two top teams will take place on Thursday, April 11, at 6 p.m. and will be followed by a reception. We are privileged to have three outstanding legal personalities as Dayanim (rabbinic law judges). 

It promises to be a stimulating evening of debate and legal analysis, an appreciation of the sophistication and relevance of Talmudic Law, and a celebration of our brightest students. I hope you will join us.

Maxwell Cohen Moot Court (room 100)
Faculty of Law, McGill University
3644 Peel Street, Montreal (entrance via 3660 Peel)

Please RSVP by April 5 to alumnioffice.law@mcgill.ca

Legal Humour

News from the Mishpuchah

Mazel Tov

To Past President Me Ian M. Solloway who has been re-elected by acclamation to a fifth consecutive term as Chair of the English-Speaking Section of the Bar of Montreal for 2013-2014, at its Annual General Meeting held on March 14, 2013.

Condolences

To Justice Joel Silcoff on the passing of his father, Maurice.

Mara Greenstone, President
Allen Mendelsohn and Larry Markowitz, Editor(s)

President’s Message

Mara Greenstone

Dear Colleagues and Honourable Judges,

I would like to wish all of you and your families the very best for a happy and healthy 2013.

Our last lecture of the 2012 season was a huge success. We were privileged to welcome the Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. We were thrilled that our guest speaker was able to mingle with our members at the cocktail and learn more about the Society.

Our next event, which will be taking place on Thursday January 31st, is our Annual Students’ Dinner.  You can download the dinner invitation here or reserve online here.

On this occasion, we will have the honour of welcoming Me Lukasz Granosik from Norton Rose LLP, who will address us on the topic of “Work and Social Media: Conflicts, Tensions and Co-Existence”. I am happy to report that we have received certification for one hour of CLE credits.

Our Students’ Dinner always attracts a large number of law school students, stagiaires and young attorneys and I encourage you all to attend to show your support for the future of our Society. We will also be presenting deserving recipients from McGill, Université de Montréal and Université de Sherbrooke with the Lord Reading Law Society Prizes in recognition of their academic achievements.

Please note that the evening’s schedule will begin with cocktails, followed by Me Granosik’s speech, and then dinner immediately thereafter.

Special thanks to our generous sponsor for the evening, Norton Rose LLP.

I look forward to seeing all of you on January 31st.

Sincerely,
Mara Greenstone
President

Rob Nicholson, Canada’s Minister of Justice: “Standing up for Victims of Crime”

Larry Markowitz

The Lord Reading Law Society had the good fortune of hosting the federal Minister of Justice, the Honourable Rob Nicholson, on Thursday, November 22, 2012.

In introducing our guest, Society member Richard Yufe pointed out that Minister Nicholson now has the distinction of being Canada’s longest-serving Minister of Justice since the time of former Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper named Minister Nicholson to his post on January 4, 2007.

In his allocution, delivered in a friendly and dynamic tone, Minister Nicholson reminded us how fortunate we are to live in Canada. It’s a country where a hard-working individual, regardless of their socio-economic background, has a realistic chance of being elected to Parliament without the need to raise (or to have) millions of dollars – like candidates for the US Congress; or the de facto need to hail from the aristocracy, like many UK political seatholders, who essentially inherit their “right” to stand for election for a given seat from their fathers and grandfathers.

Minister Nicholson ran through a sometimes humourous list of antiquated laws that the Tories have modernized, including an old arson law that prohibited the burning of vegetables and a law that specifically made it illegal to steal a cow (not to worry; stealing cattle remains a crime, but it is no longer the subject of its own special legislative clause!).

Our guest speaker then enumerated certain provisions that the Tories have added to the Criminal Code, such as several dealing with child pornography and human trafficking, along with crimes that utilize Internet technologies (e.g. luring minors online). The Minister also boasted of funding Canada’s innovative Child Advocacy Centres, which offer a child-friendly setting for young victims of crime or child witnesses.

Minister Nicholson concluded his talk by stating that Canada is an example to the world.  This is a country where there is opportunity for all.  “It doesn’t get any better than this!” he proclaimed in his concluding remarks. 

Unfortunately, our audience did not have the opportunity to ask Minister Nicholson about these issues, as he had to rush out before the main course was served to catch an evening flight back to his Niagara Falls riding.

In appreciation of his visit, our guest speaker was presented with an official Lord Reading Law Society pen by Society First Vice-President and Program Chair Heather Michelin – “to sign important legislation”, as Maître Michelin put it. Minister Nicholson coyly replied he would use it to sign judicial appointments.

Irwin Cotler at McGill

Allen Mendelsohn

The Society is pleased to announce that its members have been invited to hear Irwin Cotler speak at the Faculty of Law of McGill University on February 6th. The occasion is the annual René Cassin lecture on human rights, and The Hon. Mr. Cotler will be speaking on the topic of “The Genocide Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: What have we learned? What must we do?”. For more information and to RSVP, please visit McGill’s website.

UdeM JLSA, McGill JLSA and Hillel Annual Shabbat Dinner

Allen Mendelsohn

The Université de Montréal’s Jewish Law Students’ Association, in collaboration with Spiegel Sohmer, Hillel and JLSA McGill, is hosting its 2nd annual Shabbat Dinner on January 25th, 2013. The goals of this event are two-fold. First, the Shabbat dinner provides both Jews and non-Jews the opportunity to learn about Jewish life and traditions. Second, the dinner is an important networking event for both students and legal practitioners.

The dinner, preceded by a cocktail, will be held at the Tifereth Beth David Jerusalem Synoagogue where the Honourable Michel M.J. Shore will be the guest speaker. Tickets are $20 and are  now available online at http://www.hillel.ca//en/jlsa++aejd+shabbat+dinner/ or by emailing aejd@aedmontreal.com.

Looking for Materials on Lord Reading for a New York City Exhibition

Allen Mendelsohn

Recently, the Society was contacted by Dr. Kenneth Robbins, an expert on the history of Jews in India. Dr. Robbins is putting together an exhibition, tentatively entitled “Jews in India”, for the Rubin Museum of Art in New York City. Lord Reading (Rufus Daniel Isaacs) will feature prominently in this exhibition, and Dr. Robbins contacted us in the hope that we might assist him by providing any documents, paintings, or any other objects relating to Lord Reading. If you are in possession of any items that might help Dr. Robbins and are willing to loan them for the duration of this important exhibition, please contact him via email at rajanawab@comcast.net.

Society Humour

News from the Mishpuchah

Mazel Tov

• To Society Executive member Jonathan Gordon on the birth of his son;
• To Society Board member Elliot Lifson, a Professor of Practice at the Desautels Faculty of Management of McGill University and Vice-Chairman of Peerless Clothing Inc., for being awarded a 2012 Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal on June 22, 2012 for his dedication to his peers, to his community, and to Canada.

Condolences

• To Past President Lynne Kassie on the passing of her father, Humphrey;
• To Society Board member Stephanie Lipstein on the passing of her grandmother Sylvia (Sandy);
• To Society member Robert Vineberg on the passing of his mother Miriam.