Select Interventions

 



Kapoor v. Kuzmanovski
, Court File No. CV-09-431800

This motion involves the issue of juror bias in motor vehicle accident cases.  Regional Senior Justice Daley of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice invited The Advocates’ Society to appoint counsel to intervene as a friend of the Court for the purpose of rendering assistance to the Court by way of argument on this motion.  Read the endorsement of the Court here. The Advocates’ Society has assembled a Task Force to proceed with this matter. The motion is scheduled to be heard on December 18, 2017.



Alberta v. Suncor Energy Inc., 2017 ABCA 221

This appeal deals with the issue of protecting solicitor-client privilege in the face of statutory disclosure obligations. Read the reasons of the Court of Appeal of Alberta here. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here. Suncor Energy Inc. has applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (S.C.C. Court File No. 37777). The Advocates’ Society is monitoring the progress of the appeal.



Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta v. Board of Governors of the University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53

This appeal dealt with the issue of protecting solicitor-client privilege in the face of statutory disclosure obligations. Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.


Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52

This appeal dealt with the issue of protecting litigation privilege in the face of statutory disclosure obligations.  Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.



Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20

This appeal dealt with the constitutionality of provisions of the Income Tax Act that require the production of potentially privileged documents.  Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.



Trinity Western University Appeals

These appeals deal with the discretion of the provincial regulator to accredit a law school which requires its students to sign a “Community Covenant Agreement” which discriminates against certain groups.  The Advocates’ Society wrote to Convocation of the Law Society of Upper Canada in response to an invitation to the profession to make submissions on the issue.  Read the letter of The Advocates’ Society here. View more information about the decision of Convocation, including transcripts and video of the meetings of Convocation, here.

The Advocates’ Society appeared as an intervener before the Ontario Divisional Court and Court of Appeal for Ontario, as well as before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. The Advocates’ Society has also been granted leave to intervene before the Supreme Court of Canada in the appeals of Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada (S.C.C. Court File No. 37209) and Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University (S.C.C. Court File No. 37318). These appeals will be heard on November 30 and December 1, 2017. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.

Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONCA 518, aff’g 2015 ONSC 4250 (Div Ct)
Read the reasons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario here and the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.

Read the reasons of the Ontario Divisional Court here and the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.

Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society v. Trinity Western University, 2016 NSCA 59
Read the reasons of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal here and the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.

Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2016 BCCA 423
Read the reasons of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia here and the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.



Law Society of Upper Canada v. Joseph Peter Paul Groia, 2016 ONCA 471, aff’g 2015 ONSC 686 (Div. Ct.), aff’g 2013 ONLSAP 41

This appeal addresses the issues of professionalism and civility in the courtroom. This matter has been granted leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada (S.C.C. Court File No. 37112) and The Advocates’ Society has been granted leave to intervene in the appeal. The appeal will be heard on November 6, 2017. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.

Read the reasons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario here and the factum of The Advocates’ Society before the Court of Appeal for Ontario here.

Read the reasons of the Ontario Divisional Court here and the factum of The Advocates’ Society before the Ontario Divisional Court here. The Divisional Court referenced the Society’s Principles of Civility for Advocates in its reasons.

Read the reasons of the Law Society Appeal Panel here and the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.



R. v. Kokopenace, 2015 SCC 28

This appeal involved the issue of representativeness of First Nations persons on juries. Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.



R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, aff’g 2013 ONCA 677

This appeal involved the constitutionality of prosecutorial discretion in mandatory minimum sentencing. Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society before the Supreme Court of Canada here.

Read the reasons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Nur here and the reasons of the Court in the related appeal of R. v. Smickle, 2013 ONCA 678, here.



Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7

This appeal involved the constitutionality of various provisions of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations, as applied to lawyers and notaries in view of ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the protection of solicitor-client privilege.  Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.



Moore v. Getahun et al., 2015 ONCA 55

This appeal involved the practice of counsel reviewing draft reports with experts.  Read the reasons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario here. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here. The Society’s Principles for Communication with Testifying Experts were referred to favourably in the reasons of the Court and appended thereto.



Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, et al. v. Attorney General of British Columbia, 2014 SCC 59

This appeal involved the appropriateness of the Province of British Columbia charging hearing fees for the use of courtrooms for trials.  Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.


Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8

This appeal involved the interpretation of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure regarding summary judgments. Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here. The submissions of the Society on access to justice and the traditional trial process are expressly referred to in the reasons of the Supreme Court in the companion appeal of Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 – read the reasons of the Court in that appeal here.