Revisiting the Civility Debate, with The Hon Madame Justice Katherine Swinton

Saturday, March 15, 2014

By K. Elhatton-Lake

The Hon. Madam Justice Katherine SwintonDoes civility matter in the practice of law? On March 6, 2014, The Hon. Madam Justice Katherine Swinton challenged the audience, at the Program on Ethics in Law and Business lunch time session on "Revisiting the Civility Debate," to consider how the legal profession should approach the incivility among its members.

Webcast: "Ethical Issues in the Law Firm Setting" - Program on Ethics in Law & Business conference

Thursday, March 13, 2014

If you missed the first annual conference of the Program on Ethics in Law and Business, on the subject of "Ethical Issues in the Law Firm Setting," or if you want to remind yourself of some of the insights of the conference speakers, you can now watch the entire conference, or any part of it, on YouTube.

Watch the conference on YouTube (2 hours 45 minutes).

Is Administrative Law Only for Losers? Lessons from Gomery

Administrative Law (and the same might be said of Constitutional Law) is for losers. People who receive decisions from government that they like do not challenge them in Court. Principles of fairness and reasonableness are developed in the context of procedural fairness to losers in public decision-making - the student expelled from school, the professional denied a license to practice, the company fined for regulatory infractions, the vanquished in a labour dispute. This is, in some respects, as it ought to be. Persuading losers that an adverse decision was fair and reasonable is one of the central characteristics of the rule of law. But seen from another perspective, that of the integrity of public decision-making, whether a decision is positive or negative for a particular party is beside the point.

For example, since Roncarelli v. Duplessis, the rule of law in Canada has come to mean protection from arbitrary public decisions and public decisions based on ulterior and improper motives and public decisions made in bad faith. Such decisions might as easily be positive determinations grounded in corruption and favourtism as negative determinations which are punitive or discriminatory. Is the decision to grant a license based on the political stripe of an applicant any less offensive than the decision to deny a license on the same basis? 

Veils, Isotopes and the Meaning of “Independence”

There have been a considerable number of allegations of late that the Federal Government has been improperly interfering with independent Federal Agencies, Board and Commissions (or, for short, Federal ABCs). From a dispute about veiled women voting to a dispute about shutting down a nuclear facility, both the diversity and the importance of independent administrative ABCs has been on display. But just how independent are they? When we refer to a body as at “arm’s length” from the Government, does that imply it still may be within the Government’s grasp. Below I suggest these administrative bodies may not be as independent as we think they are, but that their vulnerability to government interference is precisely what is intensifying public scrutiny of government and enhancing public support for administrative justice.

In September, Prime Minister Harper said he “profoundly disagreed” with the decision of  Elections Canada not to require veiled women to submit to visual identification before being able to vote in federal elections. Harper added:

Discussion of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick

Friday, June 13, 2008

On June 4, 2008, a Roundtable was held at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto on the Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick decision from the Supreme Court of Canada (handed down in March of 2008).  The aim of the Roundtable was to explore the implications of this decision for the development of Administrative Law, and in particular the Court's wide-ranging discussion of the standard of judicial review of administrative action, deference, and the applicability of procedural fairness to public office holders.

The background material for the Roundtable, including the Dunsmuir case, the facta filed at the Supreme Court, and some early commentaries are available for download at: http://www.law.utoronto.ca/conferences/dunsmuir.html.

Below, we have prepared a summary (in PDF format) of the themes, ideas and arguments raised during the Roundtable in the hopes that it will serve as a catalyst for further discussion and debate.  We invite comments on any aspect of the discussion which might interest readers of this blog.

 

Is Bigger Always Better? On Optimal Panel Size with Evidence from the Supreme Court of Canada

I have recently posted a new paper on SSRN entitled, Is Bigger Always Better? On Optimal Panel Size, with Evidence from the Supreme Court of Canada. It is work coauthored with Andrew Green and Ed Iacobucci.  In the paper we model how panel size should be determined by High Courts that provide for this kind of flexibility (and most do).  Our model supports the following predictions: (a) all else the same, more important appeals should be heard by larger panels; (b) all else the same, very easy and very difficult appeals should be heard by smaller panels; and (c) all else the same, appeals of intermediate difficulty should be heard by the largest panels.  We find that the predictions of our model are borne out by an analysis of the panel assignments at the Supreme Court of Canada from 1984-2005.

 

Promotion of Federally Appointed Judges and Appointment of Chief Justices: The Unfinished Agenda

Thursday, November 6, 2008

The following paper is a chapter in a book on JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, edited by Lorne Sossin and Adam Dodek, and expected to be published by the University of Toronto Press in 2009. The paper will also be discussed at a Faculty Seminar to be held on November 24, 2008. Comments and suggestions will be very welcome.

 

YES: PR is More Democratic

This commentary was first published in the Toronto Star on November 1, 2008.

The days and weeks following a national election are invariably a time of reflection and recrimination.

The Liberals in particular are in for a period of intense soul-searching as they begin yet another leadership campaign.

But it is not only Liberals who should reflect on the recent election.

All Canadians should be disturbed by the results because once again we have gone to the polls and ended up with a government that almost two-thirds of the country opposes.

The flaws in this election go way beyond party politics and political egos. The way we count votes and award seats in the House of Commons, it turns out, deserves much more of the blame.

The fact is that Liberals suffered more from the Canada Election Act than anything Stéphane Dion said or did. Even though the Liberals trailed the Conservatives by only 12 percentage points in the popular vote (38-26), they got barely half as many seats (143-76).

If seats had been awarded to the parties in the same proportion as the votes they received, the Conservatives would have won 116 compared to 80 for the Liberals.

Canada's Constitutional 'Black Box'

In a commentary in the National Post, Professors Lorraine Weinrib and Lorne Sossin argue that the Governor-General's decision-making should be public and transparent in situations such as the recent request by the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament ("Canada's constitutional 'black box'," December 11, 2008).

Last Thursday, Governor-General Michaelle Jean granted a request from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to prorogue Parliament until late-January. She thus protected the Conservative government from a confidence vote that would have likely toppled the minority government, and perhaps prompted her to invite a Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Quebecois, to form a government. We would like to be in a position to share with you the arguments that the Prime Minister submitted to the Governor-General and her reasons for accepting them.

Pages