Select Interventions

Auditor General of Ontario v. Laurentian University of Sudbury – Court of Appeal for Ontario File No. C70333

This appeal from a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (2022 ONSC 109) concerns whether Ontario’s Auditor General Act requires audit subjects to produce, or allow the Auditor General to access, information and records subject to solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege, and settlement privilege. On July 11, 2022, The Advocates’ Society filed a motion for leave to intervene in this matter at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Read The Advocates’ Society’s motion materials here. The Advocates' Society was granted leave to intervene on September 12, 2022. Read the Court of Appeal's order here. Read the Advocates' Society's intervener factum here. The Advocates’ Society argues that privilege plays a fundamental role in ensuring access to justice and the proper functioning of our legal system; and that the Auditor General Act does not contain the clear, explicit, and unequivocal legislative language necessary to abrogate these important legal privileges. The appeal is being heard on November 15, 2022.

Anderson v. Alberta (Attorney General) – 2022 SCC 6

This appeal from a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal (2020 ABCA 238) concerns the test for advance costs in the context of a First Nation's litigation of constitutional claims against the federal and provincial governments. On May 12, 2021, The Advocates' Society filed a motion for leave to intervene in this appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada. Read The Advocates' Society’s leave motion materials here. The Advocates' Society was granted leave to intervene on June 14, 2021. Read the SCC's order here. Read The Advocates' Society's intervention factum here. The Advocates' Society submits that access to justice should be at the forefront of the advance costs framework; the requirement that the applicant for advance costs be impecunious should be clarified to examine whether it would be unduly onerous for the applicant to fund the litigation; and the impecuniosity requirement should be analyzed contextually. The appeal was heard on November 4, 2021. Read the SCC's decision here.

Blake v. Blake – 2021 ONSC 7189

This appeal from an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision (2019 ONSC 4062) concerns the scope of an advocate’s duty to bring case law to the Court’s attention, including while a decision is under reserve. On April 9, 2021, The Advocates' Society applied for leave to intervene in this appeal at the Ontario Divisional Court. Read The Advocates’ Society’s motion for leave materials here. On April 21, 2021, The Advocates’ Society was granted leave to intervene. The Advocates’ Society assisted the Court by providing submissions on the following issues: the scope of an advocate’s duty to bring case law before the Court, the standard for assessing whether an advocate has breached this duty, and the proper procedure for finding an advocate has breached their duty to the Court and for imposing cost consequences on the advocate’s client as a result. Read The Advocates' Society's intervention factum here. The appeal was heard on June 18, 2021. The Divisional Court released its decision on November 1, 2021. As argued by The Advocates' Society, the Divisional Court held that if a court intends to sanction a lawyer's conduct, it is fundamental for the court to provide notice to the lawyer and provide the lawyer with an opportunity to be heard. Read the Divisional Court's decision here.

R. v. Chouhan – 2021 SCC 26

This appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (2020 ONCA 40) concerns whether recent legislative amendments to the jury selection process in the Criminal Code are constitutional, and if so, whether they apply retrospectively or prospectively. On August 4, 2020, The Advocates’ Society filed a motion for leave to intervene in this appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada. Read The Advocates’ Society’s leave motion materials here. The Court granted The Advocates' Society leave to intervene on August 24, 2020. Read the Court's order here. The Advocates' Society is arguing that the elimination of peremptory challenges to jurors violates s. 11(f) of the Charter, and although preventing the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges is a pressing and substantial objective, the repeal cannot be saved under s. 1 of the Charter. Read The Advocates’ Society's factum here. Read the SCC's decision here.

4352238 Canada Inc. v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. – 2020 ONCA 303

On May 13, 2020, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released a decision in 4352238 Canada Inc. v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 303, that directed the appeal be heard in writing over the appellant’s objection. The appellant filed a motion to set aside the order. The Advocates’ Society was granted leave to intervene in the motion to argue that if the Court has jurisdiction to order that an appeal be heard in writing over a party’s objection, it should only do so in exceptional circumstances. The appeal was abandoned before the motion was heard. Read The Advocates’ Society’s leave motion materials here.

Crowder and TLABC v. British Columbia (Attorney General) – 2019 BCSC 1824

This petition challenges provisions of the British Columbia Supreme Court Rules which purport to limit the number of experts that a party may tender at trial on the issue of damages arising from personal injury or death. Read the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.

The British Columbia Supreme Court delivered its reasons on October 24, 2019. The Court agreed with The Advocates' Society's submission that the impugned Rule is ultra vires and not authorized by the Court Rules Act, R.S.B.C. 1996. The Court also agreed with the Society's submission that the impugned Rule offends Section 96 of the Constitution Act in that it infringes on the court’s core jurisdiction to control its process. Read the reasons of the Court here.

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 was heard on April 26-27, 2018. Read the factum of The Advocates' Society here. Read the reasons of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice here.

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. On May 3, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Suncor Energy Inc.’s application for leave to appeal (S.C.C. Court File No. 37777).

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.

Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, rev’g 2016 BCCA 423
Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here and the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.

Read the reasons of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia and the factum of The Advocates' Society here.

Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 33, aff’g 2016 ONCA 518, aff’g 2015 ONSC 4250 (Div Ct)
Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here and the factum of The Advocates’ Society here.

Read the reasons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario 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 Upper Canada v. Joseph Peter Paul Groia, 2018 SCC 27, rev’g 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. Read the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada here and 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.