Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
Superior Court Justice Ian Nordheimer came up with an appropriate mandatory minimum sentence in a recent child pornography case, but in a twist that has the criminal bar talking about his creative approach, he decided the defendant wouldn’t serve it in jail.
Monday, 17 November 2014 00:08

LawPRO ordered to indemnify Heydary’s victims

Written by
A year after lawyer Javad Heydary disappeared amid client claims for $3.6 million in missing trust money, a Superior Court judge has ordered LawPRO to indemnify them.
Monday, 17 November 2014 00:08

Editorial: Nordheimer’s delicate dance

Written by
If there’s a case that demonstrates the complexities of mandatory minimum sentences, R. v. Donnelly is surely a good example.
The Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers, and the South Asian Bar Association collectively comment on an article in the Nov. 3 issue of Law Times, “Non-white lawyers feel alienated, report finds,” by Julius Melnitzer.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in R. v. Nur concerning the three-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing a loaded prohibited firearm after the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the law as cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is obviously an important case, both for the narrow constitutional point at issue and for what it will say about the court’s approach to mandatory minimum sentences going forward.
In October 2014, the Law Society of Upper Canada introduced a significant revision to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Absent from the update was any new material on lawyers’ obligations with respect to the use of technology. While the LSUC does provide some guidance through its online publications and its technology practice management guidelines, neither of them provides concrete answers on what is and isn’t acceptable when it comes to the use of technology in a law practice.
While none of us knows what will happen with the Jian Ghomeshi matter, let’s assume for the moment that he’s suffering from serious issues. When it comes to the employment law side of his predicament, the irony is that could be his best argument — that he is indeed sick.
Monday, 17 November 2014 00:08

Focus: Greenwashers warned about legal risks

Written by
More than ever, it pays to be green as companies increasingly put out products that claim to be environmentally friendly in order to go after environmentally conscious consumers. But companies that engage in so-called greenwashing could be opening themselves up to lawsuits and regulatory action.
The provincial government has appointed five lawyers as judges of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Frank Crewe, Kate Doorly, Stuart Konyer, Riun Shandler, and Gerri Wong are the latest additions to the provincial court bench and will begin their new roles Nov. 19.

Crewe, a former criminal lawyer in sole practice, taught advocacy at Osgoode Hall Law School and volunteered with the Ontario Justice Education Network. He’ll preside in Toronto.

Doorly is a Crown attorney who has held a variety of positions at the Ministry of the Attorney General over the past 23 years. A volunteer with the Lawyers Feed the Hungry program, she has also been an active fundraiser in her community. She, too, will preside in Toronto.

Konyer, a former criminal defence lawyer at May & Konyer Associates, was also president of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa. He’ll preside in Lindsay, Ont.

Shandler worked as Crown counsel for the last 17 years and has taught mental health and criminal justice at Osgoode Hall Law School. He’ll sit in Toronto.
Wong managed her own law firm as a sole practitioner focusing on child protection matters. She has also practised family law and mediation in the past. A former member of the bench and bar committee for the Ontario Court, Wong taught at the University of Windsor Faculty of Law as well. She’ll preside in Chatham, Ont.

In an interesting decision on the distinction between bank robbery and theft, a Superior Court judge has found a man who told a bank teller to hand over cash committed theft but not robbery.

“When someone walks into a bank and hands a teller a note demanding money, it is usually considered to be a robbery. But in the unique circumstances of this case, it was just a theft,” wrote Justice Gary Trotter in R. v. Oliveiros Ortega.

Trotter found that due to the absence of any threats during the incident, there was no robbery.

The judge made that finding even though the accused, Jorge Luis Oliveiros Ortega, had approached the bank counter and displayed a note that said: “This is a robbery, give me the money, my mother is sick.”

When the teller hesitated, Ortega, speaking in a calm voice, said, “Give me the money.”

“The teller testified that, during the incident, she did not fear for her own safety, or that of anyone else,” wrote Trotter.

“She agreed that she gave the accused the money because he asked for it and also because she felt sorry for him, given that he looked so young and his mother was sick.”

Although the Crown argued the crime in this case shouldn’t be dependent on the subjective reaction of the victim, the judge said that just as the thin-skulled victim argument can advance a prosecution, a person’s resilience could assist the defence as well.

“Far from having a thin skull, the teller in this case had a thick skin. While others might have reasonably been frightened, she did not experience any fear at all. In these unique circumstances, a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could not find that there was an implied threat that was accompanied by a reasonable apprehension of harm. There was no robbery.”

The results of the latest Law Times online poll are in.

The majority of respondents say they’re happy with the province’s recent changes to legal aid eligibility.

Last month, the provincial government announced $95.7 million in funding over three years to increase the eligibility threshold for certificates, duty counsel, and legal clinic services.

According to the poll, 54 per cent of respondents felt the announcement was great news as the changes are long overdue while the remaining participants felt there’s still a long way to go to ensuring people can get legal assistance.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
Page 1 of 227

More Law Times TV...
No Images

Law Times poll

Did the Ontario Court of Justice get it right last week in allowing an aboriginal family to take their daughter with cancer off chemotherapy?