FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OTTAWA, May 13, 2011 – The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada, announced today that Justice Ian Binnie and Justice Louise Charron have written to the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Robert Nicholson, to inform him that they will retire from the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Charron’s retirement will be effective August 30, 2011. Justice Binnie’s retirement will take effect upon the same date or, if there is a delay in the nomination process, so soon thereafter as his replacement is appointed. The Judges Act provides that a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada may, for a period of six months following his or her retirement, continue to participate in judgments with respect to cases heard prior to retiring.

“The departure of Justices Binnie and Charron will leave an important void on the Court. Both have served the Court with great wisdom and dedication and have made significant and lasting contributions to the administration of justice in Canada. They are valued colleagues and friends. We will miss them” said Chief Justice McLachlin.

For his part, Justice Binnie said, “It has been an honour and a privilege to serve on the Supreme Court of Canada since January 1998. Much as I will miss the work and my colleagues, I am now well into my fourteenth year on the Court and the time has come to return to Toronto to pick up some of the threads of an earlier existence. I deeply appreciate the opportunities given to me to participate in the administration of justice in so many different capacities over more than 44 years and I thank those who from time to time made it possible”.

Justice Charron said, “I feel truly privileged to have spent the last years of my judicial career serving the Canadian people as a member of the Supreme Court of Canada. As promised when I took the oath of office, I have brought to this task my best, every day, whatever that could be at the time. I hope that I have lived up to the trust and honour that was bestowed upon me. The reasons for my decision to retire are quite simple. I have recently turned 60. My husband and I both enjoy good health. We have a great family and wonderful friends. I have been a judge for 23 years now and the seventh anniversary of my appointment to the Court, August 30 next, seems like the perfect time to move on”.

Justice Binnie was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on January 8, 1998, after a distinguished career as an advocate in courts and tribunals across Canada and before the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Justice Charron was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on August 30, 2004, after having served on the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) and the District Court of Ontario.

Chief Justice McLachlin concluded saying “I am certain that the Canadian government will give priority consideration to the appointment of two new justices of the Supreme Court with all the care and deliberation that is required in the circumstances.”

Reference: Andres Garin, Executive Legal Officer, (613) 996-9296

* * *

POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE

OTTAWA, le 13 mai 2011 – La très honorable Beverley McLachlin, juge en chef du Canada, a annoncé aujourd’hui que le juge Ian Binnie et la juge Louise Charron ont écrit au ministre de la Justice, l’honorable Robert Nicholson, pour l’informer qu’ils entendent se retirer de la Cour suprême du Canada. Le départ à la retraite de la juge Charron prendra effet le 30 août 2011. Le départ à la retraite du juge Binnie prendra effet à la même date ou à la date de la nomination de son remplaçant si le processus de nomination n’est pas complété le 30 août 2011. La Loi sur les juges précise qu’un juge de la Cour suprême du Canada peut, pendant une période de six mois après son départ à la retraite, continuer de participer aux jugements portant sur les affaires entendues avant la date de sa retraite.

« Le départ des juges Binnie et Charron créera un vide important au sein de la Cour. Ils ont tous deux servi la Cour avec énormément de sagesse et de dévouement depuis leur nomination et ont apporté une contribution substantielle et durable à l’administration de la justice au Canada. Ils sont pour nous des collègues et amis très chers, et ils nous manqueront », a affirmé la juge en chef McLachlin.

Pour sa part, le juge Binnie a déclaré : « C’est pour moi un honneur et un privilège de siéger à la Cour suprême du Canada depuis janvier 1998. Il va de soi que le travail et mes collègues me manqueront, mais je suis à la Cour depuis quatorze ans déjà et le temps est venu de retourner à Toronto et de renouer avec certains aspects de mon existence antérieure. Je suis très fier d’avoir eu la possibilité de participer, à de nombreux titres, à l’administration de la justice pendant plus de 44 années, et je remercie sincèrement tous ceux qui m’ont, au fil des ans, donné l’occasion de le faire. »

La juge Charron a dit ceci : « Je me considère très privilégiée de pouvoir terminer ma carrière judiciaire en servant les Canadiennes et les Canadiens comme juge de la Cour suprême du Canada. Ainsi que j’avais promis de le faire lorsque j’ai prêté le serment d’office, j’ai exercé mes fonctions en y apportant chaque jour le meilleur de moi-même. J’espère avoir été à la hauteur de la confiance et de l’honneur qu’on m’a accordés en me confiant ces fonctions. Les raisons pour lesquelles je me retire sont très simples. J’ai eu 60 ans récemment. Mon époux et moi sommes en bonne santé. Nous avons une famille extraordinaire et des amis merveilleux. Je suis juge depuis 23 ans et le septième anniversaire de ma nomination à la Cour, le 30 août prochain, me semble le moment idéal pour passer à autre chose. »

Le juge Binnie a été nommé à la Cour suprême du Canada le 8 janvier 1998, après une distinguée carrière comme avocat devant de nombreux tribunaux judiciaires et administratifs aux quatre coins du pays ainsi que devant la Cour internationale de Justice à La Haye. La juge Charron a pour sa part été nommée à la Cour le 30 août 2004, après avoir été juge à la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, à la Cour de justice de l’Ontario (Division générale) et à la Cour de district de cette province.

La juge en chef McLachlin a conclu par ces mots : « Je suis certaine que le gouvernement canadien fera de la nomination des deux nouveaux juges de la Cour suprême une priorité et agira avec tout le soin et toute la diligence nécessaires dans les circonstances. »

Renseignements : Andres Garin, Adjoint exécutif juridique (613) 996-9296

If this view is correct, then the real issue is political. It would be up to the Federal Government to negotiate with the provinces to ensure that regulation becomes unified and not multiplied. This would be difficult, to say the least. Arguably, with Ontario on-side the Feds could go “go it alone” and let the other provinces face the screams of protest from their local investment communities. Meanwhile, the possibility of the London Exchange buy-out adds yet another complicating factor to the politics. This might not be a “Canadian” industry for long.
My prediction: Regardless of the outcome of the reference to the SCC, this issue is far from settled.

First, what does “No one may wear in public places clothes that are aimed at hiding the face” actually translate to in real life?  Is this really practical?  So does this cover wearing a ski mask when you’re on vacation or your Halloween costume?  What about makeup or filming a movie in a public location?  What about hats, scarves, sunglasses, goggles, wigs or veils?  And what constitutes ‘forcing’ a woman to wear a burqa?  What if the aim is not to hide her face?

And how is a burqa an affront to the nation’s values?  I thought its values were freedom, equality and brotherhood (liberté, egalité, fraternité) – France’s national motto.  Where exactly does racial, ethnic and religious discrimination fit into that?

Second, should we honestly believe that this law is well-intentioned?  European countries have been increasingly hostile to Muslims and “outsiders” in general over the last few years. Belgium has outlawed burqas with France close behind, the Swiss have outlawed Islamic architecture, there have been scandals including anti-semitic remarks from a British diplomat, a Polish person declaring that Auschwitz was not a death camp, Grecian attacks on synagogues and other problems in Denmark and Hungary.  In spite of the French President denouncing this bill, we are actually expected to believe that not only is it NOT racism, but that this is really about women’s rights!  When was the last time anyone was really that concerned about women’s rights?

Third, as I’ve pointed out, the French are going to be hard-pressed to enforce this fairly and rationally.  I foresee this turning into state-sponsored persecution of Muslims and particularly, Muslim women.  Clearly, professionals are courageous enough to start attacking people in public already!

Finally, how exactly is this law going to achieve the supposed ‘equality’ for minority women that proponents are hiding beneath?  Muslim women won’t be able to leave the house.  They will be completely cut off.  If they leave the house, they will be fined.  But they won’t be employed (because they can’t leave the house and won’t pass a headshot, therefore they can’t work), so how will they pay the fine?  And how will their husbands feel when their wives go out and get fined (and when they subsequently get fined for “inciting” their wives to cover their faces)?  And how will women be able to leave their countries for Europe at all?

Furthermore, what if women CHOOSE to be Muslim and adopt the burqa?  Why should they be discriminated against for this practice?  And why should their husbands be viewed with suspicion for a choice their wives freely make?  Not all Muslims are like this; not all Muslims are extremists and terrorists and wifebeaters.  And again – I don’t see any sort of sexual assault or domestic assault law reform going on here.  Nor do I see policy that will have the result of a fairer, more civil and more inclusive society.

People can hide in all sorts of ways – the burqa is just one way.  Terrorists and other criminals will find other methods to hide.  And airports shouldn’t have much difficulty accommodating women – all they need is a separate room with a female guard to show their faces.  Therefore, it seems that this is really just codifying xenophobia, fuelling the fire of hatred and setting people up for battle.  And with the French climate the way it’s been for the past few years (think Paris on fire), things may erupt sooner rather than later.  Do they think this will solve the country’s problems?  The last time I checked, systematic public persecution led to tension, strife, terrorism, violence, civil war and genocide.

The pendulum seems to have reached its limit.  We’re in for a bumpy ride backwards.  Captivité, disparité, et inimitié?

Speakers are Colin Brown, Heather Sagar and Joy Wakefield of Queen’s University.  Thank you to Omar for the permission and to CFRC for the mics.

Enjoy!

With the conflict in Libya and throughout the Middle East escalating every day, we must keep conscious of the inherent bias of our news outlets. While our hearts go out to civilians caught in the line of fire in this wave of unrest, collective international reaction must be carefully planned and scrutinized, as the possible consequences could be devastating with regards to human rights and casualties.  

If the course of the international intervention in Libya is anything to go by, we seem to have forgotten some of the important humanitarian lessons learned in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. So far, several hundred missiles have been deployed, with the total civilian casualties remaining unknown. There have even been reports of child soldiers being recruited. Regardless of one’s stance on the general legality of this intervention, with no end in sight, the events are becoming more troubling each day.

UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized “all necessary measures” to protect the civilian population in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces. The resolution demands an immediate ceasefire and a political (rather than military) resolution to the conflict. While the resolution clearly states in paragraph 4 that “all necessary measures” are to be taken to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack, it explicitly excludes sanctioned occupation. This statement is, without a doubt, an admirable ambition. The document also recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States to the legitimacy of this international response. This recognition is a significant acknowledgment of the complex regional tensions and geopolitics on a grander scale. Despite these attempts at added legitimacy, the document lacks in several areas. It does not provide for any definition or limitations on what course of action may be followed, it does not state which countries should take leadership roles  or even which will participate, and the only limiting criteria within the resolution is the exclusion of sanctioned occupation. (For more on the Resolution, click here)

International intervention is now nearing its second week in Libya, with no end in sight. Some have even speculated that it may be months before an end is reached. If we are to prevent a new generation of child soldiers from being used for civil war, countless casualties and the further displacement of large groups of people, decisions must not be rash and must be carefully scrutinized. While we may want to help those being abused by a brutal dictator, the outcome of our response must not result in a prolonged civil war. While revolutions provide exiting headlines for Western news outlets, the West quickly becomes bored as new crises appear. Societal and social infrastructure problems are not solved by brief limelight and donations for the ‘cause of the day’, the problems must be solved with careful social building blocks that take years to reinforce. Only then can the issues be solved, and hopefully children be spared from the dim future they likely face.

For further reading, you may find this and this interesting.

—-
David Olevson and Ekaterina Perchenok are first year law students at the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University. David received his undergraduate degree from Huron University College at the University of Western Ontario, majoring in Political Science. Ekaterina completed her degree at York University, specializing in Global Political Studies. 

However, that list is currently missing an important use of the internet that law students should (arguably) have access to: online lectures of law school classes (in audio, video, or both).

If law students had the option of physically attending class or virtually attending class, which do you think they would prefer? Think both. Why should law students be “falsely imprisoned” into choosing how to attend class. The real issue here is that law students should have the CHOICE of attending class either virtually or physically.

The technology to enable this important choice is prevalent throughout our society. Podcasts, YouTube videos, and even online universities have allowed online learning and education to become reality – just three clicks away – instead of three kilometres away.

But who would benefit? Many mature students have revealed to me that law school is like an insatiable hunger that ravishes their time. I would even assert that the same comment applies to traditional students straight out of university. Law school undoubtedly sprints by and the pace can approach the speed of sound; hence, online lectures would allow students (mature or traditional) to choose the pace at which they can run (or walk) through the lectures. How I wish I could pause the professors in some of my classes and press rewind! Moreover, online lectures would offer students the flexibility to “attend” class according to their preferred time. Many nocturnal students would agree. Even the law school administration would potentially benefit from admitting more students, albeit some law students currently looking for jobs would raise an eyebrow to this.

While there is a plethora of advantages and disadvantages to carving out this choice for law students, the discussion should begin to take place and not be left to future law school administrations or students to tackle.

In essence, why not allow law students the freedom to choose how they want to attend lectures (virtually or physically) and learn the curriculum in law school? Just because something has been engraved in the past for centuries, logic (appeal to tradition) dictates that old is not always gold.

What inspires you to go to law school? Are you sure it’s the right move for you? If you’re considering law school, take a look at some of these helpful online resources. There are also useful links for those who already have made the decision to attend law school.

Law School Admission Council’s (LSAC) Guide to Canadian Law Schools

This is hands down one of the best online resources for prospective law students. It’s official Guide to Canadian Law Schools offers a plethora of useful information. It’s a highly recommended resource for anyone pondering whether or not law school is right for them.

Law School Details

Canadian-universities.net offers links to every law school admissions department. The website also has a page about law school scholarships and awards, in case you would like some help in paying for law school. Chances are you would!

The Council of Canadian Law Deans provides links to every law school or law department in the country.

Jurist Canada is another great resource offering a comprehensive list of Canadian Law Schools. Besides links to law school homepages, it also provides links to the following useful sections of each school’s site:

• Faculty
• Law Journals
• Library
• Admissions
• Curriculum
• News & Events

Legal Specializations

Some people attend law school simply because they don’t know what else to do after obtaining an undergraduate degree.

Perhaps this is a poor choice, giving the cost, rigorous coursework, and amount of time spent in law school. To avoid making this mistake, check out these resources below, each of which provides concise descriptions of legal areas of specialization. If you’re not inspired, perhaps another profession will better suit you.

CampusAccess.com offers a short, concise description of law specialization areas. The website also offers a short, easy-to-understand article about Getting a law degree.

The University of Calgary Faculty of Law offers a very useful career advice web page which provides thorough profiles of different practices.

Canada Law School Rankings

Macleans’ law school rankings are based 50% on faculty quality and 50% on graduate quality. Graduate quality focuses on the success each law school has in producing graduates who obtain the most competitive jobs. The indicators used for this statistics include elite firm hiring, national reach, supreme court clerkships, and faculty hiring. Quality of faculty is based on faculty journal citations. Based on this model, the top 10 ranked common law schools for 2010 are as follows:

1. 1. Toronto
2. 2. Osgoode
3. 3. McGill
4. 4. Queen’s
5. 5. UBC
6. 6. Dalhousie
7. 7. Victoria
8. 8. Western
9. 9. Ottawa
10. 10.Alberta

The top ranked civil law schools are:

• 1. McGill
• 2. Montreal
• 3. Laval
• 4. Ottawa
• 5. UQAM
• 5. Sherbrooke

Should these rankings be a major factor in selecting a law school? Take the time to read the comments underneath the rankings.

The Canadian Lawyer Magazine has a section on its website called 4STUDENTS

Julia McDonald, a counselor at Athabasca University, has written a helpful piece called How to Become a Lawyer. Included in the article are solid pieces of advice and some other good links to peruse.

Vancouver Island University has put out an article called Are You Considering Law School? Well, considering the fact that you’re reading this article, this might be a rhetorical question!

Canadian Law School Forum

The Law Students forum is for Canadian law school students and prospective law students. Don’t be shy, ask some questions. You may get some astute advice. Yes, there’s a slight possibility you may get a snarky response.

Finally, if you’ve decided to go to law school but are still pondering what area of law to specialize in, here’s a sobering comment from Frank Addario, president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) from a September 2009 article: “If you graduate law school with some idealism regarding the public service aspect of legal practice it’s a terrible time to choose that path. It’s very hard to watch your classmates make two, three, or four times what you’re making”.

The article’s author, Jeff Rybak, says, “The income gap between lawyers working in areas of public law and those in the corporate-commercial sector has never been wider. That pits the very motives that led many people to law school in the first place against the need and desire to earn a reasonable living.”

For aspiring lawyers, here’s a simple, yet vital question to answer: What’s more important to you: money or job satisfaction?

Brian Jenkins writes about careers in law, among other college and career topics, for BrainTrack.com.

I think this is very important for people to know… especially in Ontario.  Read this, and you can save a life.

If you do not want to read the post, just know this.

In Ontario, please pull over and yield for vehicle with a flashing green light.  They are voluntary first responders, usually in rural areas where the community operates with a volunteer fire department.  By not yielding to them, you could be costing precious seconds or minutes to somebody in a life threatening situation.

This was the case tonight when I encountered after I yielded to a vehicle with a flashing green light and the vehicle in front of me did not.  This was what he was going to:

Although there were little to no injuries, it is needless to say the result could have been a VERY different story.  So PLEASE pull over for vehicle with green lights.

The Educational Institution shall give Access Copyright, on reasonable notice, right of access through-out the Educational Institution’s premises in order to organize and carry out an audit, including full access to the Secure Network and all Course Collections.

This would include access to university email accounts.

There are a number of problems with the Access Copyright regime. First of all, every university student is presumed to be infringing copyright and this seems very unlikely given the Fair Dealing rights in the Canadian Copyright Act that expressly permit the copying of non-substantial portions of a work for the purpose of private study. As well, the university is presumed to be responsible for the presumed copyright infringement by students. This is contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in CCH Canadian Limited v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339.CCD, which held that a library is NOT responsible for copyright infringement merely by providing access to photocopiers.

What is more troubling, though, is that by paying Access Copyright, our fair dealing rights become meaningless.

We are paying even though there is probably not much substantial copying taking place, and if this becomes the norm, fair dealing rights could be removed from the Copyright Act for the simple reason that no one behaves as if there is such a thing. Access Copyright denies flatly that they want to charge for non-substantial copying, but this does not square with the section 3 of the proposed licence agreement:

3. Subject to compliance with each of the conditions in Sections 4 and 5, this tariff entitles an Authorized Person for Authorized Purposes only, to
(a) make a Copy of up to ten per cent (10%) of a Repertoire Work;
(b) make a Copy of up to twenty per cent (20%) of a Repertoire Work only as part of a Course Collection; or
(c) make a Copy of a Repertoire Work that is

(i) an entire newspaper or periodical article or page,
(ii) a single short story, play, poem, essay or article,
(iii) an entire entry from an encyclopaedia, annotated bibliography, dictionary or similar reference work,
(iv) an entire reproduction of an artistic work (including a drawing, painting, print, photograph and    reproduction of a work of sculpture, an architectural work of art and a work of artistic craftsmanship), and
(v) one chapter, provided it is no more than twenty per cent (20%) of a book.

How else can this provision be interpreted? The university would be paying for permission to make non-substantial copies which are permitted without payment under the Copyright Act. We would be paying for our Fair Dealing rights.

Another problem is the bully-factor. This organization is not negotiating in good faith with the University, but threatening law suits instead and negotiating via an application to the Copyright Board – a rather passive-aggressive manoeuvre. By paying this organization, we are enabling it with massive financial resources and providing an enormous financial incentive to ‘discover’ new ways to ‘extort’ funds from university students … and the justifications can be based upon the results of spying on our email accounts.

The Access Copyright regimes treats scholarly works as if they were pop-songs broadcasted on the radio for a big fat profit when in fact University libraries are expensive, profitless resources for private study. The vast majority of scholarly works in these libraries are written by university professors and graduate students who aren’t looking for royalties. The main policy reason behind Fair Dealing rights is to prevent copyright law from inhibiting the intellectual development and sharing of knowledge within our society. The entire Access Copyright regime is an effort to push back against this reasoning. It is a kind of intellectual enclosure movement.

The University of Western is committed to this regime going forward. It proactively collected $15 per student last September on the assumption that the Copyright Board would ordain a fee of something less than $45 per student but substantially more than the $3.38 under the expired agreement. By doing so, UWO demonstrated its willingness to accept the surveillance, and the presumption of copyright infringement and the presumption of legal responsibility for the infringement.

The university has a choice. The licence agreement is optional and UWO can walk away from it. It would make much more sense to charge students a modest fee which would go to the libraries to implement procedures and negotiate licence agreements with publishers to ensure that students have the resources they need without exposing the University to the risk of law suits. If CCH has any force, Access Copyright is on very shaky legal ground. Quite simply, we don’t need Access Copyright.

NOTE: Access Copyright is trying to force all universities to sign on. Get informed & get involved. Join the FaceBook group ‘Fair Copyright Western’

For more information:

• The Access Copyright home page
• Access Copyright proposed licence agreement/tariff
• U of Manitoba  chooses not to renew their agreement with Access Copyright
• Canadian Library Association’s position
• UBC is saying “no” to Access Copyright

What legal scholars are saying:

• Michael Geist
• Samuel Trosow (of Western Law)
• Howard Knoff