BarTalk | April 2016

INDIGENOUS LAWS | THE TSILHQOT’IN DECISION | CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

APR IL 2016 | bartalkonline.org

SQUAMISH LIL’WAT CULTURAL CENTRE WHISTLER, BC, CANADA

Aboriginal Law

news BARTALK EDITOR

Deborah Carfrae

Cover photo: Squamish Lil’wat Cultural Centre in Whistler, BC.

EDITORIAL BOARD CHAIR

Candice Alderson

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Marie Burgoyne Laura Cundari Janine Dethlefs Brandon Hastings David Madani Kirsten McGhee Gurminder Sandhu Dierk Ullrich Vanessa Werden

BARTALK SENIOR EDITOR

Maureen Cameron

STAFF CONTRIBUTORS

Judy Cave Travis Dudfield Tanya Galic Stuart Rennie Karen St. Aubin Jennifer Weber Judy Yen

The BC Branch of the Canadian Bar Association, 10th Floor, 845 Cambie St. Vancouver, BC V6B 5T3 Tel: 604-687-3404 Toll-free (in BC): 1-888-687-3404 bartalk@cbabc.org

BarTalk is published six times per year by the British Columbia Branch of the Canadian Bar Association and is available online at bartalkonline.org. © Copyright the British Columbia Branch of the Canadian Bar Association 2016.

This publication is intended for information purposes only and the information herein should not be applied to specific fact circumstances without the advice of counsel.

The British Columbia Branch of the Canadian Bar Association represents more than 7,000 BC members and is dedicated to improving and promoting access to justice, reviewing legislation, initiating law reform measures and advancing and improving the administration of justice.

BarTalk Publication Sales Agreement #40741008

Letter to the Editor A Response to the February 2016 issue regarding UMP and the Un(der)insured by Brandon Hastings I write with respect to Mr. Hastings’ article in the February 2016 edition of BarTalk, UMP and the Un(der)insured. The two are easy enough to keep straight if one remembers uninsured motorist coverage essentially replaces third party tort coverage, statutorily administered by ICBC for those occasions where someone forgets to renew their vehicle insurance or chooses deliberately not to insure their vehicle. It is limited to $200,000, with certain exceptions. Underinsured Motorist Protection (“UMP”) is first party insurance coverage for those cases when whatever tort coverage is available, be it typical third party legal liability coverage, unidentified driver coverage (aka hit and run coverage) or uninsured motorist coverage, is insufficient.

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

— Kenneth Armstrong

Write Us

Advertising

Send your Letters to the Editor to:

Email: ads@cbabc.org

Deborah Carfrae – BarTalk Editor Email: bartalk@cbabc.org

Change of Address

Subscribe Online

Email: data@cbabc.org

Receive the latest issue of BarTalk directly to your inbox! Subscribe by sending your full name and email address to subscribe@cbabc.org or go to cbabc.org/bartalk/subscribe.

2

In BC, most everyone has a minimum $1,000,000 UMP, anyone can purchase a further $1,000,000 UMP. Typically speaking, an injured person must exhaust their tort coverage (including uninsured motorist coverage) before seeking access to underinsured motorist protection coverage.

Each coverage has its own technical requirements, and each coverage is subject to deductions for other types of insurance, etc. (particularly UMP). However, a person struck by an uninsured driver whose claim exceeds $200,000 does not need to elect one or the other, they have access first to the tort uninsured motorist coverage, through the courts, and then the insurance UMP for any shortfall, through arbitration.

Lawyer Referral Service Email: lawyerreferral@cbabc.org

APRIL 2016

VOLUME 28 / NUMBER 2

Contents

Departments

4

FROM THE PRESIDENT Rethinking ReThink

by Jennifer Chow

5

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR What is Truth? What is Reconciliation?

by Caroline Nevin

6

PRACTICE TALK How Does our Security Measure Up?

by David J. Bilinsky

7 8

DAVE’S TECH TIPS NOTHING OFFICIAL Bring the Trump Dodgers to Canada!

by Tony Wilson

10

SECTION UPDATE Joint WLF & Legal Research Taxation Law Construction Law ADR – Vancouver

11

CHATTER WITH CHAIRS

Sections

Features

12 ENGAGING IN INDIGENOUS LAWS

by Darcy Lindberg 13 THE TSILHQOT’IN DECISION

by Laura Cundari 14 CANADA’S SPECIFIC CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

by Jennifer Griffith 15 ABORIGINAL PARTICIPATION IN

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

by Rob Miller and Sarah Bird 18 TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION IN PRACTICE

by Elin Sigurdson 21 LAW WEEK 2016

Guests 9

A CALL FOR COLLABORATIVE LAW

by Yun Li-Reilly

19 ANIMAL LAW QUICKLY GAINING MOMENTUM

AND RESPECT

by Camille Labchuk and Anna Pippus 20 WHAT LAWYERS DO IN THE COMMUNITY

— HERE AND ABROAD

by Renée & Michael Mulligan and Eric Gottardi

Inside This Issue The creation of Canada’s Specific Claims Tribunal, the Tsilhqot’in decision, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and the Calls to Action resulting therefrom, along with the most recent Nenqay Deni Accord entered into by the BC government and the Tsilhqot’in Nation, all, in their own and varied ways, highlight the importance of aboriginal rights at federal and provincial levels in Canada. This issue explores some of the impacts and changes resulting from such matters and signals to the direction that each of them may take us in the future, within the field of law, education and the economy.

News and Events 2 Letter to the Editor 22 12 Minutes to Shine

Growing Medical Marijuana

Reporting Standards for Climate Change Up in the Air 23 Mental Health Issues and Substance Abuse Among Law Students

Young Lawyers Night – Whitecaps vs. Chicago Fire

5th Annual ALF Retreat 24 Aboriginal Lawyers Forum (ALF) Update 25 CBABC Conference – Whistler 26 CBA WLF News

CLEBC Update 27 BC Legislative Update

Branch & Bar Calendar 28 Tips from Courthouse Libraries BC

What Are Your Top Five’s?

Visit BarTalkOnline.org

16 29 30 31

MEMBER SAVINGS LAW FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DISPLAY ADS

Also In This Issue

32 BAR MOVES 33 NEW MEMBERS

Click here for LEGAL OPPORTUNITIES and ads APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

3

FROM THE PRESIDENT JENNIFER CHOW

Rethinking ReThink

Local autonomy and centralization

S

ince my last column, two new proposed CBA governance models are being circulated for comments – the "Brittania" and the "Dixie" model. Those models replace the earlier proposed governance model I discussed in my last column.

In February, I had the privilege of participating in a smaller ReThink committee. We agreed that any new governance model should maximize local autonomy and centralize only those matters that needed to be centralized.

Do the two new governance models achieve that goal? Not quite. Thankfully, both models leave it to each Branch to decide whether to retain Provincial Council.

There are a number of concerns with each of the two proposed models. The first concern is budgeting. Both models suggest that the new National Board approve (or control) Branch budgets. I do not support National Board control over our Branch’s budget. What if, for example, the BC Branch were to allocate increased funds toward Provincial Council, but a National Board on which BC had no seat disagreed? I would favour a model that rewrites the current funding formula to provide Branches with the majority of their membership fees, rather than CBA’s national office. In BC, we currently retain only 30% of our membership fees.

The next concern is the size of the National Board. Both models reject the current 24 seats. The current National Board consists of 13 Branch presidents and 11 National seats (e.g. for the National table officers and National Sections and Forums).

The “Brittania” model proposes to trim the 24 seats to seven “skillsbased” seats. Under this model, any CBA member could sit on the National Board by applying to a committee composed of Board members, Branch presidents and Section chairs. The National President would be elected by the Board.

4

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

Under this model, the BC Branch is not guaranteed a seat. So, for example, if the National Board were to debate an intervention at the BC Court of Appeal, the BC Branch might not have a vote.

I doubt whether seven volunteer Board members could effectively address national and regional differences and concerns. Additionally, backroom politicking could dominate the Board membership, promoting cronyism and favouritism. A small board governing a national CBA could become a barrier to advancement by racially-diverse members and other disadvantaged groups. Let’s not take that risk.

The “Dixie” model proposes a more democratic National Board, with 14 seats: one for each Branch president (or designate) and one for the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association. This model guarantees BC a seat on the National Board. Since the National President is selected from the elected Branch

presidents, this model is much more democratic. Accordingly, this is the only model I can support.

The “Dixie” model could be tweaked further to allow for the direct election of a National President – either at a new proposed Annual General Meeting (which would replace National Council) or through a mail or electronic ballot process where each member is provided a vote and information on all potential board members. The criteria and election process should guarantee one seat for each Branch and contain minimum mandatory guidelines in regard to gender, racial diversity, skills, volunteer and work experiences.

Truth be told, if possible, I would reject both models and vote for a federation – one that allows our Branch to retain the majority of our membership funds and protects independent decision-making to focus on the needs of our Branch.

Branches are the face of the CBA. Strong Branches make a strong national CBA. In August, National Council is expected to vote on a new governance model. I will continue to push for a strong Branch voice and a governance model that promotes opportunities for all members to become CBA leaders.

Jennifer Chow

president@cbabc.org

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CAROLINE NEVIN

What is Truth? What is Reconciliation?

The reality of being Canadian

I

will say at the outset that I am an immigrant to Canada. I have always felt some emotional distance from the abuses that Canadian First Nations people describe as being perpetrated upon them by people who came many generations before me to this country. And yet, I have come to know in my heart and soul that my future here requires that I understand what happened to those who lived here before me.

My life in this adopted country will be forever tied with the experience and history of those who loved their families and lived as communities long before there was such a concept as “Canada” that I later came to join. I have heard first-hand what the colonization experience has meant many generations later. The impact has been staggeringly negative. And so I strive to learn more.

I have read the Truth and Reconciliation report. If you

haven’t yet, you must. It is required reading for any current or incoming citizen of this great country. Not because it seeks to shame; rather, it is a genuine history that rightfully – and in firstperson accounts – corrects all tellings of Canadian history before it.

Life wasn't necessarily perfect before colonization. We are all human, with conflicts both large and small, no matter how idyllic the societal structure. There were disputes, violence and abuse before us. But no-one could argue with the very real TRC stories of people who grew up close to nature and family in this beautiful land, and no-one could honestly think that “civilization” and “assimilation” produced better results for those who were here before us.

As Canadians, we say with great pride, if not smugness, that we are a multicultural quilt rather than the American melting pot. We hold up all of the food,

dances, costumes and crafts of those who have come from other places, through our multi-cultural events in schools and communities. But what about the cultures that were here before any of those were imported and imposed? We may not wish to

This is a land that we share as both indigenous people and as immigrant people.

I have faith that we will learn a new way to govern our society together in a way that involves us all. shoulder the blame of those who acted wrongly before us, but in celebrating our immigrant stories can we not also acknowledge that they came at a cost to those we displaced? Not just in land, but in family strength, a sense of

community, and in places of leadership and government.

We are at a turning point. Our courts, our leaders and our own sense of what is right is shifting – for all of us. This is a land that we share as both indigenous people and as immigrant people.

I have faith that we will learn a new way to govern our society together in a way that involves us all.

History is important, and the TRC is a real gift in that sense, but what is even more important is how we choose to move forward. My advice to my children is the same advice I will share with you: Learn more.

Ask questions. Think about how you can contribute, and do it. And question everything you take for granted about your own sense of privilege and entitlement, whether you are among the first or late in generations of living in this land.

Our future as a country depends on acknowledgement and forgiveness on many levels. Reconciliation is really about a collective choice to meet as equals and loved ones, with full acknowledgment of the past and a genuine desire to make a better future. I have faith that we will get there.

Caroline Nevin

cnevin@cbabc.org APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

5

practicetalk DAVID J. BILINSKY

How Does our Security Measure Up? Looking at the numbers

ABC Easy as 1-2-3 Or simple as Do re mi... r r

I

– Music, Lyrics by A. Mizell, B. Gordy JR, D Richards, D Lussier, F Perren, recorded by the Jackson 5.

t is always informative to check yourself against a benchmark to see how you are doing. The American Bar Association has been conducting the Legal Technology Survey for many years. In 2015, they sampled 90,000 lawyers in total, divided between six questionnaires. Demographics: 30% of the lawyers are solos, 30% at firms 2-9 lawyers, 16% at firms 10-49, 7% at firms 50-99, 9%

were at firms 100-499 and 9% 500+. This is a look at a few of the stats pulled from the 2015 Survey.

While the results are American, I know of no equivalent Canadian survey, I believe they are very useful given the broad sample base and believe they would be similar to results obtained in Canada.

In terms of legal tech, on average, respondents spent $4,673 per lawyer on law firm software, compared with $4,497 in 2014, $4,650 in 2013, and $4,203 in 2012. Thirteen per cent report annually spending $10,000 or more.

Respondents are asked what percentage of their law firm’s IT (information technology) function (e.g., maintenance, administration, infrastructure, resolving computer problems) does their firm outsource. On average, respondents’ firms outsource 46% of their IT function, compared with 49% in 2014, 51% in 2013, and 45% in 2012.

Considering the number of viruses and threats to IT systems,

6

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

it is very interesting to look at the security and tools in place at firms.

Forty-two per cent reported being infected with a virus, spyware or malware.

Twenty-three per cent said they didn’t know. Forty-seven per cent did not have a security breach incident response plan in place.

Seventeen per cent stated that they had experienced a natural or man-made disaster such as a fire or flood.

Yet, when it comes to protecting the firm, the results are surprising.

Encryption is in use at 41% of the firms; a Firewall (hardware) in 52%, Virus scanning (network) in 61%, Virus scanning (email) 68%, Anti-spyware 78%, Firewall (software) 79% and spam filtering in 87%. Mandatory passwords use is only 65%. It is simply unbelievable that these numbers are not much closer to 100%.

Eight-one per cent of firms allow BYOD [bring your own device] with only 52% having access

restrictions; 29% have no restrictions at all when connecting a personal device to the office network.

Not surprisingly, 15% of respondents report that they have experienced a security breach at their firm; 23% said they didn’t know.

Of those who have experienced a breach, 30% reported downtime/loss of billable hours, 29% reported replacing hardware or software, 22% paid consultant fees for repairs and 18% had resultant destruction or loss of files. Seven per cent experienced unauthorized access. Only 5% of respondents notified clients of the breach. Forty-nine per cent of respondents stated that they had a disaster recovery plan/ business continuity plan in place. On the good news front, less than 1% of respondents stated that their firms didn’t back up their computer files in one way or another. However, 13% only backed them up weekly, 5% monthly and 2% quarterly.

The numbers tell a story; in this case it is that we could be doing a Continued on page 7 >>> The views expressed herein are strictly those of David Bilinsky and do not reflect the opinions of the Law Society of British Columbia, CBABC, or their respective members.

David J. Bilinsky is the Practice Management Advisor for the Law Society of British Columbia.

Email: daveb@lsbc.org Blog: thoughtfullaw.com

GO ONLINE FOR MORE INFORMATION

Average Percentage of Fees Based on Specific Methods

dave’s techtips Here is a Selection of a Few Graphs From the Legal Technology Survey Has Your Firm Had a Full Security Assessment Conducted by an Indpendent Third Party?

Does Your Firm Budget for Technology?

Change in This Year’s Technology Budget Compared to Last Year

Continued from page 6

lot more to protect those valuable office systems and the confidential client and sensitive office data therein. Its as easy as 1-2-3.

The full survey of six volumes: Technology Basics & Security, Law Office Technology, Litigation and Courtroom Technology, Web

and Communications Technology, Online Research and Mobile Lawyers can be bought individual or as a set from: lawtechnology.org.

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

7

nothingofficial TONY WILSON

Bring the Trump Dodgers to Canada!

Time to add a new class of refugees. Americans!

Y

ou have to believe me when I say I’ve tried desperately to avoid writing about Donald Trump, but given my respect for civil society, the rule of law, diversity, and indeed, all the good things about the United States, I just have to wade in to the fray.

As lawyers, we should be outraged by any opportunistic, xenophobic fascist politician (George Clooney’s words, not mine) advocating racism, torture, and even war crimes in order to appeal to a very base base that includes the KKK and neo-Nazi groups. Trump has done that, and more. Even Mitt Romney has called him a fraud and a con man. Although Trump’s oratorical style mirrors the bombasity of Mussolini (with hair), or Berlusconi (Bunga Bunga!), it’s better to just think of him as “Rob Ford with Nukes.”

Trump accuses Mexicans of being criminals and rapists and claims that a wall should be built to “keep them out.” He calls Muslims “terrorists” and says he’ll ban them from entering the United States.

He has advocated the torture of captured prisoners. Waterboarding isn’t strong enough, which makes me wonder what sort of torture methods he would advocate as Torturer-in-Chief. Fingernail extraction? Flaying? The Rack? Advanced testicular electrocution?

He throws people out of his rallies (“Throw’em out into the cold…. Keep his coat.”). He believes the US should kill the families of ISIS fighters despite the fact that this constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. When they aren’t roughing up people at his rallies, some Trump supporters taunt black basketball players yelling “Trump Trump Trump.”

If there is anything funny about Trump, it’s the fact that he has sided with nutbar conspiracy theorists who believe the attack

8

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

on the World Trade Center was an inside job. He’s also an anti-vaxxer, despite the fact that he avoided polio, smallpox and other diseases because he was vaccinated.

The perception among his supporters that Trump is a successful businessperson is at odds with his string of corporate failures: Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Plaza Hotel, Trump Entertainment Resorts, Trump Air, Trump Vodka.

Even Trump University is being sued for fraud.

Perhaps the good news in all this is that a sizeable number of smart, talented and entrepreneurial Americans may well be looking to move themselves, their talents, and their businesses to Canada. Immediately after “Super Tuesday,” the search topic “how can I move to Canada” increased 1150% on Google.

Trump will likely get the nomination, and has a chance of winning in November’s U.S. election.

So if Trump does become the next President, let’s do what Canada does so well. Let’s welcome refugees of Trumpism like we welcome refugees of other dangerous ideologies. To misquote the engraving on the Statue of Liberty, let’s encourage the tired, huddled, tempest-tossed masses of Trump Refugees yearning to breathe free, to move to our teeming shores- particularly if they bring their corporate head offices (like say Apple or Google) with them.

We have welcomed 25,000 Syrian refugees in the past six months.

We welcomed 37,000 Hungarians after the failed revolt of 1956, 11,000 Czech refugees after the Soviet invasion of 1968, and more than 7,000 Ismaili Muslims from East Africa in the 1970s. We welcomed more than 60,000 Vietnamese boat people in 1979. We welcomed more than 7,000 Chilean refugees after the fall of Salvador Allende’s government in 1973. And we can’t forget the Bosnians, the Bhutanese, and of course the 40,000 American draft dodgers who came to Canada to escape the unwinnable Vietnam War. So let’s lift a lamp beside our golden door and create a special category of immigrant: Trump Dodgers.

The views expressed herein are strictly those of Tony Wilson and do not reflect the opinions of the Law Society of British Columbia, CBABC, or their respective members.

guest YUN LI-REILLY

A Call for Collaborative Law In estate disputes

C

ollaborative law is a method of alternative dispute resolution whereby the parties enter into a contract to engage in earnest, interestbased negotiations instead of commencing litigation. The process is accompanied by voluntary disclosure, consent to disqualify counsel if negotiations are unsuccessful, and quite often, third party professionals such as financial experts. This cousin to mediation was conceived in the early 1990s, and is now widely used in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand in the context of matrimonial disputes.

WHY COLLABORATIVE LAW WORKS IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES

Collaborative law works for divorces for three main reasons.

One, quite often the parties are working with one pool of family assets, and are thus collectively incentivised to minimize its depletion through prolonged litigation. Two, the parties are likely to have ongoing ties such as children after the divorce, and are therefore interested in reducing emotional distress and preserving an ongoing relationship.

Three, collaborative law allows the discrete resolution of these very private disputes – often encompassing a family’s deepest and darkest secrets.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN FAMILY DISPUTES AND ESTATES DISPUTES

The BC Courts heard a number of disputes regarding wills and estates in 2015. One such dispute was Bull Estate v. Bull, 2015 BCSC 136, involving a mother who anticipated that her son would challenge her will, and as such prepared a very private letter – to be opened only if her son contested the will – which included embarrassing details about her son’s flirtations with drugs and crime.

More often than not, estate litigation involves the same stripes that make collaborative law so appropriate for matrimonial disputes. Preservation of one pool of estate assets. Feuding family (or blended family) members with high emotions. Family secrets and indiscretions.

So why don’t we have an active collaborative law practice community for estate disputes in BC? One explanation is that in estate disputes, there is often an existing will to indicate how the deceased wanted to distribute his or her estate. Family members may feel strongly about ensuring that their loved one’s testamentary wishes are carried out post-mortem. “I do not want to make a deal with my step-brother because it is not what my mother wanted in her will.”

However, considering the various layers of potential litigation under WESA and the amended Supreme Court Civil Rules, a full-blown trial only makes sense financially where estate assets are substantial. Many estate litigants would agree that at the end of the day, an expensive and public trial is not what the deceased wanted. Participation in a collaborative process is always optional, and when used in the appropriate cases, may shift the approach away from positional bargaining and personal attacks, toward interest-based discussions in the best interests of the estate, the beneficiaries and the family. Future will-makers may even indicate a preference for this alternative to litigation in their wills.

Of course, there are kinks that would have to be straightened out.

For example, in estate matters where the Public Guardian and Trustee is involved, it is unclear what its participation would look like in a collaborative process. Further, only time will tell whether there is enough demand for collaborative law in the estate context to sustain a group of like-minded practitioners certified to act as collaborative counsel.

Nevertheless, it is time for estate lawyers in BC to seriously consider this as an option to offer to clients, especially those interested in preserving estate assets, as well as the relationships and confidences of those involved.

Yun Li-Reilly is a litigation associate at Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP, currently pursuing an LL.M. at Harvard Law School.

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

9

sections SECTION UPDATE

Keep Current A review of provincial Section meetings Joint CBABC Women Lawyers Forum & Legal Research Meeting in Review: January 21, 2016 Speaker: Maureen F. Fitzgerald, PhD, JD, LLM, BComm Topic: Lean Out, Not In

Taxation Law Meeting in Review: January 27, 2016 Speaker: Sherra Profit, Taxpayers’ Ombudsman Topic: Maximizing Service – Assisting Taxpayers in Resolving Their Service Complaints

Construction Law Meeting in Review: February 10, 2016 Speaker: John Logan, Jenkins Marzban Logan LLP Topic: Construction Arbitration: Be Careful What You Wish For

Joint WLF & Legal Research F. Fitzgerald, PhD, uMaureen JD, LLM, BComm gave a presentation to a joint meeting of the Legal Research Section and the CBABC Women Lawyers Forum based on her new book, Lean Out – Shatter the glass ceiling to success, happiness and work-life balance. Maureen discussed the fact that despite years of climbing corporate ladders, women are still lagging behind. Many are stalling at mid career while others are leaving to find more balanced and meaningful work. Most are working way too hard simply trying to have fulfilling lives both at home and at work at the same time.

While men continue to move into the upper levels, women are told that they simply need to be more courageous or work harder to get to the top. In an intelligent and humorous presentation, Fitzgerald refused to blame women and shifted the focus to the barriers that hold women back, including double standards and the 24/7 workplace. In doing so, she not only opened eyes but provided practical tools for both men and women who want to dismantle the glass ceiling – once and for all.

Taxation Law On January 27, 2016, the

ADR Vancouver Meeting in Review: February 16, 2016 Speakers: Camille Karlicki; Erin Berger, Staff Lawyers, Professional Conduct, Law Society of British Columbia; and Kari Boyle, Mediate BC Roster Society Topic: Ethical Dilemmas, Practical Problems and Avoiding Complaints

10

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

uTaxation Law Section wel-

comed special guest Ms. Sherra Profit, the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman. Ms. Profit presented to the Section while in Vancouver raising awareness of the Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman (OTO) and its role, including how the Ombudsman can assist tax practitioners. The OTO is an independ-

ent body reporting to the Minister of National Revenue in respect of service related issues involving the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Attendees were treated to an entertaining “tour” of the OTO with illustrative examples that addressed the composition of the OTO, the scope of the OTO’s mandate in relation to individual taxpayers, the service complaint process, and the conduct of OTO investigations into systemic service issues at the CRA. Stay tuned for Taxation Law Section meeting announcements for spring 2016 – more great presentations are in the works for April and May.

Construction Law On Wednesday, February

u10, John Logan of Jenkins

Marzban Logan LLP presented to the Construction Law Section on Arbitration of Construction Disputes: Be Careful What You Wish For. John discussed some of the pitfalls associated with arbitration from the perspective of an arbitrator, and emphasized the need for counsel to be prepared for the differences between litigation and arbitration. In particular, John stressed that counsel need to be prepared for the initial pre-arbitral meeting, in which many of the rules of the game will be set, often to the detriment of unprepared counsel. The talk was well attended and there were many questions asked and answered, along with an interesting discussion around the advantages and disadvantages of having a construction lawyer appointed as an arbitrator as opposed to a judge who may or may not have that same level of experience in the industry.

ADR Vancouver Ms. Karlicki and Ms. Berger

ustarted by giving the Section a

brief outline of the complaints and discipline process, including both early resolution and disposition by the Discipline Committee. Typical sources of complaints include complaints by opposing parties, many of whom are lay litigants.

At the beginning of 2015 there were three hundred and sixty-three outstanding complaints against lawyers in all areas. There were no complaints against lawyers acting in the role of mediator. New complaints during 2015 totalled six hundred and twenty-eight. Of the total nine hundred and ninety-one complaints in 2015, the Law Society had no jurisdiction with respect to twenty-nine. Sixty-four were resolved at the staff level without further action. One hundred and fifty-seven were not valid. Fortyfive were withdrawn or otherwise

did not continue. Twenty-four were referred to the practice standards committees and seventy-five were referred to the Discipline Committee, leaving three hundred and ninety open complaints in all areas at the end of 2015.

To avoid complaints, manage expectations. Endeavor to use clear, accurate and professional communications. Seek assistance early, don’t dabble in unfamiliar areas and understand professional and regulatory obligations. When responding to the Law Society, the response should be timely and substantive. Communication should be respectful, and counsel should be consulted early.

Kari Boyle closed the meeting with a few comments from Mediate BC’s perspective.

For CBABC members, more detailed information and available minutes from the Section meetings are online at cbabc.org under CBABC Sections & Forums.

Chatter with the Chairs

Ritchie Po, Co-Chair, Freedom of Information and Privacy Law Section

After the success of last year’s sold-out event, the Freedom of Information & Privacy Law Section will be partnering with CBABC Professional Development, and holding another all-day conference on June 2, 2016. This year’s conference will build on last year’s agenda, and emphasize cybersecurity. With privacy encompassing everything in our lives, from civil liberties to security surveillance to e-commerce (and thanks to Ashley Madison our romantic lives, but I’m not naming names), it’s more than a buzzword and has long transcended being a legal “fad.” We will once again welcome BC Information & Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham as our keynote speaker, and are inviting other privacy and technology professionals to join us this year. Topics will include issues in data governance, IT security outsourcing, cybersecurity risk mitigation and nation-to-nation information exchange. My dream guest speaker, Edward Snowden, is unavailable to attend but we hope the CBA will join us!

Conference and registration details

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

11

feature DARCY LINDBERG

Engaging in Indigenous Laws

Therein lies the many meanings of witiskiwin

I

WITISKIWIN AND RECONCILIATION

ncluded in the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (“TRC”) are significant obligations for the legal profession. The TRC calls for the recognition and implementation of Indigenous laws and legal traditions in all areas of work we do as legal practitioners. Indigenous legal principles offer us a guide into how such reconciliation can be approached. Take the place-name of the area where I grew up, Wetaskiwin, Alberta.

A variation of the Cree word witiskiwin, it translates into “the place where peace is made,” or “the place where we live on the land together.” A close variation is the word witiscasau, “the place where we become friends.”

More than just a name, witiskiwin is living Cree legal principle.

This area is witiskiwin because it is a place where Blackfoot peoples and Cree peoples came together and set out legal obligations on how to live on the land together. It is a place of treaty.

Committing to look closely at the story of witiskiwin, there is much to learn about the disputative and resolution legal processes that still exist within Cree and Blackfoot legal orders. This simple act of looking is a small form of reconciliation that opens the imagination to how to further engage in this work.

12

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

INDIGENOUS LAWS AND LEGAL PRACTICE

Making room for the implementation of Indigenous laws in legal practices and legal landscapes is a complex yet exciting task. Like the dedicated practice and commitment made in studying broader Canadian law, Indigenous legal orders require this dedication as well. In doing so, the laws of Indigenous communities offer much wisdom and knowledge that enriches law practice.

Many law schools in Canada have committed to this work.

The University of Victoria’s Faculty of Law (“UVic”) is engaged in two projects focused on the resurgence of Indigenous legal traditions. It is currently developing a Juris Indigenarem Doctor program, to offer a joint common law and Indigenous law degree program.

Understanding the limitations of teaching Indigenous laws within a classroom setting, part of this proposed degree will be community-based, where students will work within Indigenous communities on projects specific to these communities legal orders. Similarly, UVic’s Indigenous Law Research Unit (“ILRU”) has been engaged in ongoing work with Indigenous communities to

substantively explore their legal orders. The ILRU examines legal precedents within Indigenous communities to draw out their deliberative legal traditions.

Of course it must be acknowledged that through their stories, songs, ceremonies, place names, land, art and kinship relations, legal practice has never ceased within Indigenous communities.

As the legal profession is invited to engage in this work, we must acknowledge that it can sometimes be challenging, messy and confusing. Indigenous legal or-

ders challenge our concepts of law, legal precedents, and the purposes of the laws themselves.

Yet within the burden and excitement of encountering challenges within understanding Indigenous legal practices, lies the many meanings of witiskiwin. Engaging with Indigenous laws allows us to understand new ways of thinking about how to live on and with the land, and how to live with each other.

Darcy Lindberg is a graduate student at the University of Victoria’s Faculty of Law. He is non-status Cree whose relations come from Samson Cree Nation.

feature LAURA CUNDARI

The Tsilhqot’in Decision

What has changed and what is next?

I

t has been almost two years since the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released its decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, upholding the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s claim to aboriginal title and rights over a portion of its traditional territory. The decision was quickly identified as a landmark decision, as it was the first case from the SCC to confirm aboriginal title over specific areas of land. It was predicted to have significant and long-lasting implications for those in development and resource industries, and of course for First Nations themselves.

The Tsilhqot’in decision has been judicially considered numerous times since it was issued, and has moved the law forward in a number of areas such as division of powers and the assessment of pleadings in aboriginal cases. In some areas, the impact has been less apparent. As Tsilhqot’in confirmed, the Haida test for consultation and accommodation continues to apply, and the duty to consult cases continue to be assessed on that basis. From a purely legal perspective, Tsilhqot’in

did not significantly change the law regarding consultation. However, practically speaking, the case has had a real impact on the expectations of parties involved. The SCC’s confirmation in Tsilhqot’in that aboriginal title can be established on a territorial basis has shifted the parameters somewhat, as has the emphasis in the decision on aboriginal title giving the title-holding group the exclusive right to decide how the land is used and the right to benefit from those uses. The word “consent” has gained prominence.

With regard to actually proving title, there have been no subsequent decisions assessing title claims at trial. Observers will have to wait for further judicial guidance in this area. Title claims are expensive and time-consuming to prove and it may be some time before the application of this case to other First Nations' claims will be considered.

Looking then to the Tsilhqot’in Nation specifically, negotiations are underway. In February, the BC government and the Tsilhqot’in Nation signed a five-year framework agreement, named the Nenqay Deni Accord (the “People’s Accord”) for negotiation of a comprehensive and lasting reconciliation between the Nation and the province (left photo). The Nenqay Deni Accord is intended to clarify the next steps in transitioning title lands to Tsilhqot’in management and control. The parties have agreed to negotiate the transfer of additional Crown land areas, beyond those established in the SCC decision. The role of broader stakeholder engagement throughout the process is yet to be determined, which has caused some initial concern from industry and in particular those with subsurface rights on Crown land.

Attention may now shift to the immediate and practical impact of Tsilhqot’in on lands within Tsilhqot’in territory, with an eye to the precedent that may be set.

The impact of Tsilhqot’in has been significant, but the long-term implications will not be apparent for some time. Negotiations pursuant to the Nenqay Deni Accord will unfold over the next several years, title cases will slowly work their way through the courts, and the law surrounding consultation and accommodation will continue to evolve.

Laura is a partner in the Vancouver office of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP practising in the areas of aboriginal law and commercial litigation.

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

13

feature JENNIFER GRIFFITH

Canada’s Specific Claims Tribunal At a glance

C

anada’s Specific Claims Tribunal has been open for business for almost five years. The first claim was filed on June 7, 2011 and the first ruling on liability was issued on July 4, 2012.

To date, 75 claims have been filed with the Tribunal. Over one third of these originate in British Columbia. The Tribunal has issued rulings on liability for ten of these claims.

A Specific Claim is a claim by a First Nation that Canada failed to fulfill a historic treaty or mismanaged the First Nation’s land or other assets.

In 1973, Canada established a process which allowed First Nations to submit their Specific Claims to Canada for assessment of liability and negotiation of compensation. These claims are assessed through a special process in which the Crown does not rely on the passage of time to bar claims.

Until 2008, Canada was the ultimate arbiter of Specific Claims against itself. In 1983 the Indian Specific Claims Commission was established to conduct inquiries into the validity of claims already rejected by Canada. This Commission, however, was not authorized to issue binding decisions, and was limited to making recommendations. Often those recommendations went unheeded.

On October 16, 2008, in response to ongoing criticism about unfairness and unreasonable delays

14

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

in its Specific Claims process, Canada established the Specific Claims Tribunal,1 an administrative tribunal with the authority to make binding rulings on liability and compensation for Specific Claims.

The purpose of the Specific Claims Tribunal is to resolve Specific Claims. The Tribunal is designed to adjudicate Specific Claims in accordance with law in a just and timely manner and to create conditions that are appropriate for resolving valid claims through negotiations.

The claims filed with the Tribunal raise a number of allegations that Canada breached its legal and fiduciary obligations to the claimants and that this conduct caused losses that require compensation. They include allegations that Canada failed to comply with Indian Act surrender requirements, mismanaged reserve lands and timber, failed to meet treaty commitments, failed to obtain adequate compensation for the taking of reserve lands, and failed to set aside important lands as reserves.

The Tribunal has issued rulings on a number of matters, including procedural issues relating to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, claim eligibility, evidence, intervener status, and costs.

The Tribunal has also made binding findings on liability and in one

case on compensation. In keeping with the goal of supporting resolution of claims through negotiations, the Tribunal has adopted a practice of bifurcating the validity of a claim from compensation issues, which is specifically provided for in the Tribunal’s Rules.2 Specific Claims Tribunal decisions are final, subject to the right to seek judicial review by the Federal Court of Appeal. Three tribunal rulings have been judicially reviewed by Canada and another one is being reviewed by the First Nation claimant. Two of the judicial reviews brought by Canada have been dismissed. The third judicial review brought by Canada resulted in the Federal Court of Appeal overturning the Tribunal’s ruling and substituting its own decision.

Links to all of the Tribunal’s decisions and the Federal Court of Appeal decisions can be found on the Specific Claims Tribunal website.

The Specific Claims Tribunal’s rulings on liability and compensation create Tribunal precedents and are expected to influence the expedient resolution of Specific Claims. As the Tribunal continues to issue rulings, it is anticipated that more claims will be resolved through negotiated settlements, guided by those rulings.

Specific Claims Tribunal Act, SC 2008 c 22 Specific Claims Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (SOR/2011-119)

1

2

Jennifer Griffith, Donovan & Company, Vancouver represents Indigenous Nations on aboriginal rights and title, regulatory and consultation issues and Specific Claims.

feature ROB MILLER AND SARAH BIRD

Aboriginal Participation in Project Development Emerging (and lost) opportunities

T

he role of Aboriginal people in the Canadian economy is coming full circle.

From time immemorial, vibrant Aboriginal economies supported a strong trade network throughout North America. In fact, the Fraser River was a major trade corridor. This changed with the arrival of Europeans: fur economies centralized trade and communities around outposts and forts; disease decimated the Aboriginal population; racist government policies led to internment on reserve; and many instruments of the Aboriginal economy became illegal (the Potlach Ban, for example, was Canadian law from 1885-1951).

While many of these wrongs have yet to be adequately addressed, Aboriginal economies are once again dominating the Canadian economic landscape. Decisions such as Delgamuukw and Haida created room for Aboriginal groups to lever the doctrines of consultation and accommodation into meaningful participation in development.

The historic Tsilhqot’in decision, by confirming that Aboriginal jurisdiction and resource ownership are important parts of the law of Canada, provided even stronger tools to support the Aboriginal economy.

All of this means that many Aboriginal groups now have meaningful own-source revenue that can be deployed as project owners and developers. However, many legal

barriers to project development still confront Aboriginal organizations.

Section 89 of the Indian Act limits the type of property that Indians and Indian bands (we use those terms here as they are used in the Indian Act) can pledge as security.

Despite the recent ability of a band to exercise control and jurisdiction over reserve land through the implementation of a land code, the Indian Act still limits third party reserve land interests.

Outside of the Indian Act, many lenders still seek to include funding received for social programs, such as health and education, in loan security – meaning Aboriginal governments often face the difficult choice of placing important social dollars at risk or receiving no financing. Moreover, because of the history described above, many Aboriginal groups do not have a resumé of successfully completed large projects. This often forces Aboriginal developers to seek partners that can satisfy lender “track record” requirements, placing a number of risks on the Aboriginal developer: the credibility and ability of their partner; the commercial and management arrangements of the partnership relationship; and the potential of failed project execution by a third party.

Even once these barriers are overcome and projects are successfully

developed, own-source revenue can cause issues for Aboriginal communities. The federal government provides funding for government initiatives to many Aboriginal communities just as it provides health funding to provinces. Often, federal funding agreements include claw-backs if the community develops meaningful own-source revenue – meaning that generating income through business can cause the loss of funding for other important initiatives.

None of these are new issues.

In fact, many of these issues were

canvassed in a 1969 federal government White Paper and the 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. However, as the leadership role of Aboriginal groups in Canada’s economy grows, so does the scope of the lost opportunities caused by these barriers. For those of us who practise commercial law for Aboriginal clients, our role must be to understand these issues and provide advice that mitigates economic barriers to help Aboriginal economies prosper.

Rob is a founding and managing partner of Miller Titerle + Company LLP and the leader of their Aboriginal law team. Sarah is a partner at Miller Titerle + Company LLP with a focus on project development and project finance.

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

15

membersavings CBABC Members Can Take Advantage of Great Discounts, Special Offers and Exclusive Promotions Following are some of the offers from our partners. Visit cbabc.org/Membership/MemberSavings for all activities and promotions. Check the CBABC News & Jobs weekly e-newsletter for seasonal promotions and special offers.

EXCLUSIVE OFFER FROM MERCEDES-BENZ CANADA! Mercedes-Benz Canada is pleased to offer members of the CBABC discount of up to $1,500 off the purchase of a new Mercedes-Benz, Smart or AMG vehicles.

2016 VANCOUVER WHITECAPS FC AND CBA MEMBER PROGRAM

Come be a part of Vancouver’s best sporting experience by taking advantage of specially priced tickets. Save up to 30% off single-game tickets during the 2016 season.

SUPREME BASICS

Supreme Basics, The New Dye & Durham, is Canada’s largest independent office and learning product supplier dedicated to providing high-quality products and world-class, local services to the legal community.

ONPOINT LEGAL RESEARCH L.C. is a firm of research lawyers that has been completing research and writing projects for other lawyers in British Columbia for more than 13 years.

Call 1-888-687-3404 for information on how to partner with CBABC!

Not everything makes sense.

Fortunately, hiring us does.

A L L O F O U R R E S E A R C H L AW Y E R S H AV E C O M P L E T E D C L E R K S H I P S A L L H A V E P R A C T I C E D A S L I T I G AT O R S AT M A J O R F I R M S FA C TA , P L E A D I N G S , M E M O R A N D A , L E G A L S T R AT E G Y

op www.onpointlaw.com

16

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

ONPOINT

LEGAL RESEARCH

604.879.4280

Lawyers helping lawyers for over 15 years

info@onpointlaw.com

EMAIL: MEMBERS@CBABC.ORG \\

Ad spot 8.25 in x 10.75 in

Driven by the driven.

The 2016 C-Class. Total price starts at $46,860.* As a member of the CBABC, you are entitled to an exclusive offer.

For more details, visit bitly.com/mbcorporate.

©2016 Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. ©2016 Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. Shown above is the 2016 C 300 4MATIC™ with optional Sport package and optional Active LED High Performance Lighting System for a total price of $49,560. MSRP of advertised 2016 C 300 4MATIC™ Sedan is $43,800. *Total price of $46,860, includes freight/PDI of $2,295, dealer admin fee of $595, air-conditioning levy of $100, PPSA up to $45.48 and a $25.00 fee covering EHF tires, filters and batteries. Vehicle options, fees and taxes extra. Vehicle license, insurance, and registration are extra. Dealer may lease or finance for less. See your authorized Mercedes-Benz Vancouver dealer for details or call Randall Desbrisay at 604-351-5290. Offer ends March 31, 2016.

For more information on Special Corporate Sales Offers, call Randall Desbrisay at 604-351-5290 or email randall.desbrisay@mercedes-benz.ca Mercedes-Benz Vancouver 550 Terminal Avenue, Vancouver | D#6276 Open Sunday: 12pm – 5pm

Mercedes-Benz Boundary 3550 Lougheed Highway, Vancouver | D#6279 Open Sunday: 12pm – 5pm

Mercedes-Benz North Shore 1375 Marine Drive, North Vancouver | D#6277 Open Sunday: 11am – 5pm

Mercedes-Benz Richmond 5691 Parkwood Way, Richmond | D#6278 Open Sunday: 11am – 5pm

Mercedes me Aberdeen Centre, Richmond | D#6278 Open Sunday: 11am – 7pm

Mercedes-Benz Surrey 15508-104 Avenue, Surrey | D#11013 Open Sunday: 11am – 5pm

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK FILENAME

2016-01-2041-MB-January-C-Class-Print_Ad-BarTalk.indd

INTERNAL REVISION

CLIENT

Mercedes-Benz

TRIM

8.25" x 10.75"

CLIENT REVISION

CREATION DATE

02/16/15

BLEED

9.25" x 11.75"

OPERATOR

2 2 GH

C

M

Y

K

Bar Talk

17

Material: January 13, 2016 Insertion: January 15, 2016

feature ELIN SIGURDSON

Truth and Reconciliation in Practice Calling lawyers to action

T

he Truth and Reconciliation Commission (“TRC”) had a twopart mandate: uncover and record the Truth, and chart a way forward for Reconciliation. With a formidable report documenting Canada’s legacy of attempted cultural genocide, with 94 Calls to Action, the Commission leaves us with both a record and a roadmap.

The Calls to Action articulate what must be done to begin to address the legacy of Canada’s residential school program, including detrimental and discriminatory effects faced by indigenous communities in areas such as health, child welfare, education, and justice. They also prescribe the first steps on a path toward a relationship of respect and reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, requiring “awareness of the past, acknowledgment of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour.”1 Lawyers are called upon throughout the Calls to Action.

Actions 27 and 28 relate to the legal profession and our education as lawyers. Many others call on us to advance legal change, including: addressing overincarceration of indigenous people; responding to the victimization of indigenous people, especially women; and changing how the Crown deals

18

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

with claims of Aboriginal rights, including title. Numerous Calls to Action require structural changes in policy and law, which lawyers will be charged to advance.

All of the Calls to Action require Canadians to face the tragedy of our past, change our attitudes, and commit to real change.

This means committing to reconciliation “in our everyday lives – within ourselves and our families, and in our communities, governments, places of worship, schools and workplaces.”2 Both individuals and organizations in the legal world and elsewhere have the opportunity to take up these calls. Some law firms are embracing the Calls to Action by developing Reconciliation Action Plans. Law professors have started a blog, Reconciliation Syllabus, a space to share materials and ways of promoting reconciliation in law teaching.3 Municipal bodies such as the Vancouver Park Board have performed internal audits and developed plans for implementation of Calls to Action. Canada has taken some early steps called for by the TRC, by announcing an inquiry into the national epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women, and deciding not to appeal a decision that concluded

child welfare services are provided to indigenous families in a manner that is discriminatory.

The work to take up the Calls to Action is just beginning.

Michif, Métis Artist Christi Belcourt recently expressed she does not hold out hope for reconciliation because, while some nonindigenous people have genuine good intentions, not many are committed to being allies, and racism in our culture persists.4 Her words are a paramount call to action: we must all take up the responsibility of becoming respectful and genuine allies, and do the hard work required to build a renewed relationship.

As the TRC concluded: “The Survivors acted with courage and determination.

We should do no less.

It is time to commit to a process of reconciliation. By establishing a new and respectful relationship, we restore what must be restored, repair what must be repaired, and return what must be returned.”5

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015), at 6 [Summary Report] 2 Summary Report, at 21 3 reconciliationsyllabus.wordpress.com 4 Ryan McMahon, Red Man Laughing, podcast interview with Christi Belcourt, (March 1, 2016) redmanlaughing.com/ listen/2016/3/red-man-laughing-reflections-on-reconciliation-christi-belcourt 5 Summary Report, p. 6 1

Elin Sigurdson practises aboriginal and constitutional law at JFK Law Corporation in Vancouver.

guests CAMILLE LABCHUK AND ANNA PIPPUS

Animal Law Quickly Gaining Momentum And respect

I

f you open a newspaper or watch the nightly newscast these days, there’s a good chance of seeing a story that gets at the relationship between animals and the law. Animal law issues regularly make headlines, whether it’s the groundbreaking animal cruelty charges laid against a Chilliwack dairy farm after undercover footage revealed cow abuse; the recent spate of BC puppy mill busts and a provincial promise of new standards for breeders; or MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith’s important new private member’s bill to modernize federal animal protection laws.

Animal law may be a new kid on the block as an area of legal practice, but it’s emerging as a fast-growing and respectable area of law. Most Canadian law schools now offer animal law courses, and many students are hoping for careers in animal law.

Canada’s first animal law-focused organization, Animal Justice, is expanding rapidly and sparking conversation about how our legal and political institutions treat animals.

We now know more than ever before about the incredible cognitive, social, and emotional capacities of animals. Most Canadians understand that animals are sentient beings who deserve respect, but societal attitudes toward them have changed much more quickly

than our laws. The result is a legal system that fails to protect animals and reflect societal values.

That’s why animal law is focused squarely on the interests of animals themselves, rather than the humans who use them. Animals are still considered property under the law.

While animals don’t yet have legal rights (despite a push to give them such rights) they do benefit from protections in connection with unnecessary suffering or distress.

But animals don’t yet have legal standing to seek a remedy in court when those protections are violated.

This forces animal lawyers to get creative, and search out novel ways to use existing laws to get cases before the courts. Sometimes this means advocating for stronger law enforcement and more prosecutions. Animal protection laws are woefully underenforced and under-prosecuted in every corner of the country, usually due to a combination of lack of political will and under-resourced enforcement agencies.

Other times, animal lawyers file suit directly, such as a recent Pacific Wild application to judicially review BC’s unpopular and unscientific wolf cull. They also seek opportunities to get involved in existing litigation, such as a

historic Animal Justice intervention last November in R. v. D.L.W., a Supreme Court of Canada case that has the unnerving potential to weaken criminal bestiality laws and legalize some forms of sexual abuse of animals.

Animal lawyers also push for new legislation to set higher standards for animal care, and ban outright some of most abusive things we do to animals. Mr. Erskine-Smith’s proposed Modernizing Animal Protections Act fixes loopholes in animal cruelty laws, bans shark fin and cat and dog fur

use and trading, and makes fur labels mandatory. After decades of stalled progress at the federal level, it stands an excellent chance of passing through Parliament and becoming law.

Our legal system still has a long way to go before it adequately considers animals’ interests, but with the field of animal law gaining momentum, attention, and respect, progress is being made.

Camille Labchuk is an animal rights lawyer and executive director of Animal Justice, a non-profit working to secure legal protections for animals in Canada. Anna Pippus is a Vancouver-based animal rights lawyer and director of farmed animal advocacy for Animal Justice.

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

19

guests What Lawyers Do in the Community Here and abroad

Victoria lawyers Renée Mulligan (Ministry of Justice) and Michael Mulligan (Mulligan Tam Pearson) with their children and staff of the SDC school, near Nai Soi village, December 2015

This past December I, Renée Mulligan, travelled with my husband Michael and our two children to an organization called the Karenni Social Development Center (“SDC”) that runs a school near Mae Hong Son, Northern Thailand. The students and many of the teachers at the school are refugees from Karenni State in Burma. They live in refugee camps located along the Thai/Burma border.

SDC provides young adults with the opportunity to produce non-violent change within their communities and to create a democratic society, by teaching subjects such as democracy, human rights, and international law, as well as English and computers.

The journey to SDC was quite an adventure! Michael drove us in a 4x4 from Chiang Mai to Mae Hong Son over a six-hour switchback mountain road, and from there, over very rough dirt roads and across a river to get to the school, which is located near Nai Soi village.

It was truly inspiring to meet the new group of students at SDC, and to see their resilience and courage.

Many of the students have been severely marginalized by violence and poverty, and have lived difficult lives with few chances for education. When asked what their favourite subject was, the students all said “law!”

Dragging the whole family across the world for the visit was my idea, as I’ve been assisting SDC with developing training materials and fundraising. The donations from the Victoria legal community over the last two years have allowed the school to purchase four laptop computers and a router, as well as providing English language books. It was an incredible experience to see how this technology and information has benefited the students. I would like to pass on a huge thank-you from SDC to everyone who has kindly donated.

The ISRCL and Edinburgh: A Bonny Legal Experience Abroad

This past summer, I (Eric Gottardi) was invited to give a brief presentation at a conference in Edinburgh, Scotland hosted by the International Society for the Reform of the Criminal Law (“ISRCL”). The ISRCL is an international non-governmental association of judges, legislators, lawyers, academics, governmental officials, police and corrections professionals who come together to work actively on the administration of criminal justice both in their own jurisdiction and internationally. Last year’s conference was entitled, “Crossing Boundaries: Exploitation, e-Crime, Evidence, and Extradition” and a variety of speakers from around the world discussed several challenges associated with cross-border investigations and enforcement. The panels also discussed human trafficking, cyber-bullying and extradition. Having attended other conferences organized by the ISRCL in the past, I am always impressed by the quality of the speakers and the variety of topics covered.

This occasion also allowed my wife and I to visit Edinburgh. What an amazing city! From the Royal Mile and Edinburgh Castle in Old Town to the shops and eateries of New Town, Edinburgh had something for everyone.

We also were able to take a one-day road trip through Sterling, out west to Oban and then North to Glen Coe before heading home to Edinburgh. We saw amazing vistas and we approached the Highlands and managed to get stopped by a Highland Coo (cow) or two. A ghost tour, a kilt-fitting and a scotch tasting (or three), and our week in Edinburgh had evaporated. I would be remiss if I neglected to highlight a wonderful day trip to Glasgow as well. One day wasn’t enough for a shopping mecca, dressed up as a working class town of old. I hope some of you will join us and the ISRCL in Halifax this coming June for a new adventure!

(L-R) Photo is of lawyers Samantha Hulme, Lesley Gottardi with Eric Gottardi, David Butcher, QC and Jeff Campbell, QC at a local Charcuterie in Edinburgh!

20

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

Law Week 2016

BCLAWWEEK.ORG

u The theme of 2016 Law Week is Access to Justice. This year, twelve locations across British Columbia are participating in Law Week activities celebrating the 34th anniversary of the Charter of Rights on Law Day, April 14. Check out BCLAWWEEK.ORG for all the details!

Join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter (@bclawweek) using hashtag #bclawweek.

Regional Activities

NANAIMO April 14

CRANBROOK April 13

Activities include: Mock Trial with information session Estate planning session

Activities include: Presentation on Wills & Estates

DUNCAN, COWICHAN VALLEY April 14 Activities include: Wizard of Oz Mock Trial Courthouse tours Chat with legal experts

FORT ST. JOHN May 14 Activities include: Mock Trial – R. v. Luke Skywalker Courthouse tours Emergency vehicle displays Justice System Partner information tables

MASSET, HAIDA GWAII April 11

Activities include: Courthouse tours Community displays Ask a Lawyer/Ask a Clerk/ Ask a Judge rooms

KAMLOOPS April 12 Activities include: Mock Trial RCMP K-9 Unit demonstration Sheriff’s cell tours Information kiosks Courthouse tours

KELOWNA April 14 Activities to be announced

NELSON April 23

Activities include: Courthouse and jail cell tours Colouring contest Law enforcement

displays

PENTICTON April 15 Activities include: Mock Trials

TERRACE May 13 Activities include: Community displays

VANCOUVER Throughout April Activities include: “Meet the Chiefs” forum with the three Chiefs, CBC’s Ian Hanomansing, and local high school students Tours of the courthouse Free public law classes throughout the Lower Mainland, with the support of the People’s Law School Barry Sullivan Law Cup public speaking competition for secondary school students from across BC

VICTORIA April 16

Activities include: Mock trial Courthouse open house/tours “Passport to Justice” contest with prizes Community groups/organizations information booths K9 demonstration Judges’ speeches

Province-Wide DIAL-A-LAWYER DAY April 16, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm 604-687-3221 or 1-800-663-1919 Residents in British Columbia are invited to call and speak with a lawyer for up to 15 minutes at no cost in the following areas of law: Family, Wills & Estates, Tort & MVA, Immigration, Business, Criminal and Employment

JOIN CHIEF JUDGE CRABTREE for the first ever Twitter Town Hall from the BC Provincial Court on

Thursday, April 14 at 1:00 p.m.

Submit your questions with hashtag #AskChiefJudge.

LAW WEEK 2016

Partners

vancouver bar association

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

21

news&events

CBA LEGAL FUTURES

CBA NATIONAL NEWS

CBA NATIONAL NEWS

12 Minutes to Shine

Growing Medical Marijuana

Reporting Standards for Climate Change Up in the Air

Whether you’re in a classroom, a conference seminar or logged on to a webinar, what you learn has a lot to do with how the learning experience is structured.

For example, talking heads can only be guaranteed their audience’s attention for 12 minutes, studies suggest, after which all bets are off, unless the instruction has some other component that will ensure participants’ continued interest.

That other component could be interactivity, a requirement to participate in breakout groups, an engaging instructor, or even having to show you learned something.

Continuing education was part of the discussion at a workshop on legal education held on March 4.

In the wake of last month’s Federal Court ruling that the Marihuana for Medical Purposes regime is unconstitutional, the critical question for lawyers and lawmakers is: Now what?

Will the government tinker with the regime to try to limbo under the fairly nebulous bar set out in the ruling, and risk another court challenge? Or will it appeal the ruling, buy itself some time and overhaul the regime? Or might it accept the death of the system, crafted by its predecessor, and forge on with legalizing the drug outright?

The only sure thing is that, over the next six months, not a lot will change.

The decision in Allard v Canada largely looked at the provisions in the MMPR that essentially banned medical marijuana users from growing the plant at home – a practice permitted by the previous regulatory framework.

Like the hangover that follows the night before, media coverage of the Paris COP 21 climate accord in late 2015 seemed to shift suddenly from euphoria to pessimism, as critics turned their attention from the scope of the deal to its limits.

“Don’t worry,” one U.S.-based NGO tweeted on Dec. 14, “the Paris climate deal is non-binding – and ergo, toothless.”

Not entirely. It’s true that, unlike the Kyoto accord, the Paris accord includes no penalties for countries that fail to meet their commitments to reduce carbon emissions. But Kyoto’s penalties were effectively toothless as well; the Paris accord is a political document, and the mechanism, says Stepan Wood, professor of environmental law at Osgoode Hall, is “naming and shaming.”

Enforcement under Kyoto was top-down. If the Paris targets are to succeed where Kyoto failed, the approach must be bottom-up – which is where the courts come in.

Read more

Read more

Read more

22

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

CBA NATIONAL NEWS

SAVE THE DATE

Wednesday, May 11 at 7:00 p.m.

The ‘Caps and CBABC are partnering for an exciting experience.

vs.

Proceeds will beneďŹ t the CBABC Law Student Awards.

Mental Health Issues and Substance Abuse Among Law Students A survey report published by the Bar Examiner reveals that a growing number of law students in the U.S. are struggling with mental health and substance abuse issues. Here are the top cited factors discouraging students from seeking help from a health professional: 1. Potential threat to Bar admission (63%), 2. Potential threat to job or academic status (62%), 3. Social stigma (43%), 4. Concerns about privacy (43%), 5. Financial reasons (41%), 6. The belief that they could handle the problem themselves (39%), and 7. Not having the time (36).

Read more

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

23

news&events ABORIGINAL LAWYERS FORUM UPDATE

The Aboriginal Lawyers Forum (ALF) would like to recognize the work and commitment of the Executive for 2015-2016: Adam Munnings, Chair; Tina Dion, Vice-Chair; Guuduniia LaBoucan, Treasurer; Nicole Iaci, Secretary; Danielle Mercredi, Policy & Communications Officer; Michelle Casavant, Member at Large; Jennifer Duncan, Member at Large; Isabel Jackson, Member at Large; Stephen Mussell, Member at Large; Miranda Schmold, Member at Large; Christopher Gall, TRU Student Representative; Mark Stevens, UBC Student Representative; and Adrienne Macmillan, UVic Student Representative.

Awards

Last autumn, Adam Munnings, Chair for 2015-2016, announced the ALF would bestow its first Student Appreciation Award. The award would go to a law student or articling student of Aboriginal ancestry who demonstrates consistent dedication to Aboriginal people in the field of law. The award also recognizes an individual’s specific contribution to ALF in helping to address the various issues facing Aboriginal law students.

The ALF found their worthy recipient: Catriona Dooley, UBC Law Class of 2016. Ms. Dooley, an Oji-Cree and a band member of St. Theresa Point First Nation in Treaty 5 territory of Manitoba, received the award at the ALF

24

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

Holiday Banquet. During her time at Allard Law, Ms. Dooley was an Executive member of the Indigenous Law Student’s Association (ILSA) during her first year and has been actively involved with the inaugural Indigenous Awareness Camp and Indigenous Awareness Week.

Student Activities

Keeping with the student focus, the TRU and UBC Indigenous Law Students Associations (ILSA) are very active on campus and their respective communities. In addition to their main events like Indigenous Awareness Week and the annual golf tournament, the UBC ILSA, represented by Jessica Buffalo as president, organized a team in the East Side 10K and raised $1000 for the Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre. At TRU, the ILSA has a brand new Executive Committee with Dustin C. Gagnon as president. They are working hard to grow their numbers and gather support from current students. The TRU ILSA plans on hosting smudging ceremonies before final exams and they hope to bring meaningful presentations to the campus to address ongoing issues within their Indigenous communities.

5th Annual ALF Retreat

Now we look ahead to the 5th Annual ALF Retreat on April 29–30 at Tigh-Na-Mara Resort in Parksville on Vancouver Island (photos above).

The two-day event titled “Not Just Aboriginal Law: The B-Z of Practice,” features the Honourable Judge Alexander M. D. Wolf as the keynote speaker. Judge Wolf, a member of the Kwikwasut’inuxw Haxwa’mis First Nation from Gilford Island, was recently sworn in as a Provincial Court Judge in BC and has been assigned to the Office of the Chief Judge of the province. Judge Wolf has 20 years of experience as both a Crown prosecutor and a defence attorney; and was the Legal Director of the Indigenous Community Legal Clinic at Allard School of Law at UBC. Registration is now open, but closes on Friday, April 22, so act fast.

The NAD Online Auction

Don’t forget to circle Friday, June 17 on your calendars as it marks the 9th Annual ALF Aboriginal Day Online Auction Fundraiser.

Always a popular event in the legal community, last year’s fundraiser raised more than $6,700 in support of the ALF and featured incredible art works from several different artists and artisans. The event also includes a showcase of rising talent in the Aboriginal community. In 2015, attendees experienced Young Buffalo, a duo featuring UBC ILSA President Jessica Buffalo.

You must stay tuned if you want to know who will be this year’s rising talent or if you want to participate as we will announce details soon.

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

25

news&events CBABC WLF NEWS

CBABC Women Lawyers Forum (WLF) Mentorship Program

Photos taken at the most recent Mentoring Luncheon.

The WLF Mentorship Program began its new year in February with record numbers of matches between mentors and mentees! The one-of-a-kind mentorship program for women lawyers received more than 200 applications this year and made an astounding 109 mentoring matches, which includes six peer matches. While the majority of the applicants to the program were from the Lower Mainland, matches were made in cities across the province, including Victoria, Prince Rupert, Trail, Kelowna, Kamloops and Nelson.

Mentors and mentees – stay tuned for upcoming mentoring events, including a potluck to be held in April, Hot Tips at the annual WLF Launch in September, and the final wrap-up event in November. We look forward to an incredible year of mentorship!

Senior Women Lawyers’ Dinner On February 24, 2016, the WLF held its annual Senior Women Lawyers’ Dinner at Cactus Club in Coal Harbour. The event offered a chance for our senior members of the Bar to connect with their peers over food and drinks, and gave them an opportunity to discuss unique issues related to their level of practice.

The dinner was also attended by Shelley Fralic, a columnist with the Vancouver Sun, who spoke to the group on the topic of “Newspapers: The Reports of Our Death Are Greatly Exaggerated.” Thank you to all the attendees for making this another enjoyable evening for senior women lawyers!

Junior Women Lawyers’ Networking Event The WLF also held its annual networking event for junior women lawyers on February 16, 2016 at The Blackbird in Vancouver. This annual event gives junior women lawyers a chance to meet their peers and build connections in a fun atmosphere, all while enjoying great food and drinks. Thanks for attending!

NEWS

CLEBC Update UPCOMING COURSE — FIRST NATIONS GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Having a sound understanding of the options and context for Indigenous business assists industry, government, and Indigenous leaders to form effective business and governance structures and successful business partnerships.

The upcoming CLEBC course, First Nations

26

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

Governance and Economic Development, delves into different governance structures among Indigenous nations. You will explore how to develop best practices for economic development models and structures in the context of industry, technology, services, construction, land development, and finance sectors. Learn from experts in the field in Indigenous governance, economic development, and industry-Aboriginal partnerships, and hear them discuss their challenges and experiences.

All commercial and Aboriginal law lawyers in private practice,

industry, and government will benefit, as will others who focus on Aboriginal law issues, including First Nations and industry leaders, and employees of First Nations or First Nations organizations.

First Nations Governance and Economic Development will be held on Friday, June 3, 2016; the course is available either as a live program or a live webinar. To register, contact CLEBC customer service at cle.bc.ca.

BC LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

ACTS IN FORCE

Current from December 2, 2015 to February 23, 2016 The full version of Legislative Update is now only published online and is available exclusively to CBA members at cbabc.org.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, S.B.C. 2015, C. 10 (BILL 18) Sections 1 to 38, 40 to 43, 45 to 56, 60 to 104, 107 to 114, 119, 120, 138, 139, 143 to 160, 165, 166, 184 to 198 and 200 are in force December 18, 2015

BUILDING ACT, S.B.C. 2015, C. 2 (BILL 3) Sections 5, 7, 9 and 43 are in force December 15, 2015

GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT, S.B.C. 2014, C. 29 (BILL 2) Except Division 4 of Part 4, section 53(1)(f) and item 1 of the Schedule are in force January 1, 2016

GUIDE DOG AND SERVICE DOG ACT, S.B.C. 2015, C. 17 (BILL 17) Act is in force January 18, 2016

JUSTICE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, S.B.C. 2015, C. 6 (BILL 6) Sections 1 to 13 are in force April 1, 2016. Sections 18 to 27 are in force December 18, 2015

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, S.B.C. 2015, C. 13 (BILL 15) Sections 1, 3, 6, 9, 20, 25, 35, 44 and 58 are in force February 3, 2016. Sections 21, 32, 46, 48 and 57 are in force April 1, 2016

SPECIAL WINE STORE LICENCE AUCTION ACT, S.B.C. 2015, C. 20 (BILL 22) Act is in force February 18, 2016

STATUTE REVISION ACT, R.S.B.C 1996, C. 440 The revised Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 2015, c. 1 is in force January 1, 2016

TLA’AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT ACT, S.B.C. 2013, C. 2 (BILL 4) Sections 1 to 3, 5 to 10, 13 to 17, 19 and 20 and the Schedule except (Eligibility and Enrolment) and 23 (Ratification) are in force April 5, 2016

YALE FIRST NATION FINAL AGREEMENT ACT, S.B.C. 2011, C. 11 (BILL 11) Sections 30, 31, 32(a), 40, 42, 43 and 48 to 59 are in force April 5, 2016

BRANCH & BAR

Calendar

APRIL

1 Victoria Battle of the Bar Bands — Victoria 1-2 Executive Committee Meeting — Vancouver 8-9 CBABC Branch Conference — Whistler 14 Law Day 2016 — Across BC 14 CBABC PD Webinar: Litigation Skills Series 2016 – Module 2: The XFD Files – Examination for Discovery, the Truth is out There 16 Dial-A-Lawyer Day — Across BC 18 CBABC PD Seminar: Civility in the Legal Practice — Vancouver 29-30 5th Annual CBABC Aboriginal Lawyers Forum Retreat — Parksville

MAY

4 CBABC PD Webinar: Harness the Magic – Tips for Legal Writing Online 4-7 The Lawyer Show 2016 – Hairspray — Vancouver 10 CBABC PD Webinar: Litigation Skills Series 2016 – Module 3: Trial without Error – Top Trial Preparation Tips & Techniques 11 Young Lawyers Night — Vancouver 19 Executive Committee Meeting — Vancouver

JUNE

2 CBABC PD Seminar: CBABC Freedom of Information & Privacy Law Professional Development Conference 17 9th Annual ALF Aboriginal Day Online Auction 18 Provincial Council Meeting — Richmond APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

27

news&events TIPS FROM

Did you know that Courthouse Libraries BC (“CLBC”) offers free CPD courses? CLBC training is delivered through a combination of in-person sessions and webinars, allowing us to reach more lawyers working in rural and remote areas of BC. CLBC CPD offerings have been gradually expanding to include more substantive law topics and to address training requests from BC lawyers. This year, CLBC is further expanding their course offerings to include some of the topics recommended for lawyers in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report.

Below are a just a few of the courses CLBC will be offering this spring — watch for more to come in the future.

THE

HISTORY AND LEGACY OF RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS This presentation is designed to provide an overview of the history of residential schools in Canada, the ongoing intergenerational effects and the re-traumatization that may arise out of present day legal processes.

MATRIMONIAL

PROPERTY ON RESERVE: CLBC will be offering a two-part webinar, looking at the division of real property on reserves, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, and other legislative schemes that may apply on reserves.

ADDITIONAL

TOPICS will include: Reports, Child Apprehensions in Indigenous Families and Communities, and Understanding the Division of Powers.

Gladue

For more information on CLBC course offerings, please visit the CLBC training page where you can sign up for email updates and register for upcoming courses: courthouselibrary.ca/training.

WHAT ARE YOUR TOP FIVE’S? BarTalk’s Editorial Board starts off with their top five lists.

TOP FIVE BOOKS: 1. To Kill a Mocking Bird – Harper Lee 2. Runaway Jury – John Grisham 3. Presumed Innocent – Scott Turow 4. Prime Witness – Steve Martini 5. The Crucible (technically a play) – Henry Miller

TOP FIVE MOVIES: 1. To Kill a Mocking Bird 2. Witness for the Prosecution 3. From the Hip 4. Anatomy of a Murder 5. My Cousin Vinny

Send bartalk@cbabc.org your top five list(s) e.g. top five authors, law T.V. series, law songs, productivity apps, management apps, etc. and we will publish them in an upcoming issue.

Don’t forget to check out BARTALKONLINE.ORG for exclusive online-only content.

We welcome new authors, contributors and content suggestions — simply send your request to bartalk@cbabc.org.

28

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

grantsapproved LAW FOUNDATION LAW FOUNDATIONOF OFBRITISH BRITISH COLUMBIA COLUMBIA

$90,000 POVNET SOCIETY PovNet Program $20,000 UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN Native Law Centre $60,000 LAW FOUNDATION GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS

The Board of Governors adjudicated the following grants at the March 5, 2016 meeting.

Legal advocacy programs for the following groups:

$4,925,000 was approved for the following 28 continuing programs:

$85,000 COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS SOCIETY OF SOUTHEAST BC

$2,955,000 LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY Legal Information and Legal Assistance Program COMMUNITY LEGAL ASSISTANCE SOCIETY $870,000 – Major Programs $60,000 – David Mossop, QC, Public Interest Articling Fellowship $450,000 BC PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE Social and Regulatory Justice Program $425,000 WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION Programs and the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund $415,000 ACCESS PRO BONO SOCIETY OF BC Major Programs $360,000 BC LAW INSTITUTE Program Grant $330,000 PEOPLE’S LAW SCHOOL SOCIETY Major Programs $225,000 TENANT RESOURCE AND ADVISORY CENTRE SOCIETY Tenants’ Legal Advocacy Program $190,000 JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF BC Major Programs $175,000 WEST COAST LEAF ASSOCIATION Litigation and Law Reform Program $160,000 MEDIATE BC SOCIETY Major Programs $125,000 WEST COAST DOMESTIC WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION Legal Advocacy Program

$75,000 ATIRA WOMEN’S RESOURCE SOCIETY $75,000 BATTERED WOMEN’S SUPPORT SERVICES

$75,000 VERNON WOMEN’S TRANSITION HOUSE SOCIETY North Okanagan Legal Advocacy Program $75,000 WATARI RESEARCH ASSOCIATION System Negotiator Program $65,000 WACHIAY FRIENDSHIP CENTRE Wachiay Advocacy Outreach Program

CBABC Appointee to The Law Foundation of BC Board

$75,000 BC CENTRE FOR ELDER ADVOCACY AND SUPPORT $75,000 DZE L K’ANT FRIENDSHIP CENTRE SOCIETY $75,000 MAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWS COMMUNITY SERVICES $75,000 NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY RESOURCES SOCIETY $75,000 QUESNEL TILLICUM SOCIETY $75,000 SHARE FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES SOURCES COMMUNITY RESOURCES SOCIETY $75,000 – Poverty Law Advocacy Program $75,000 – Legal Information and Advocacy Program $75,000 TERRACE AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY SERVICES SOCIETY $60,000 UPPER SKEENA COUNSELLING & LEGAL ASSISTANCE SOCIETY $590,000 was approved for the following five grants: $200,000 BC CENTRE FOR ELDER ADVOCACY AND SUPPORT Elder Law Clinic $175,000 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTRE SOCIETY, UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA Environmental Law Centre Clinic Program

Mr. Don Kawano, QC, was appointed to the Board by the BC Branch of the Canadian Bar Association in January 2016. He is with Rella, Paolini & Rogers in Cranbrook as their senior civil litigator with more than 35 years of legal experience. A collaborative family law lawyer and an accredited family law mediator, Mr. Kawano was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2012. He is a member of the CBA Law Week Regional Committee, the CBA Court Services Committee, the Law Society Discipline Advisory Committee and the Cranbrook Rotary Club. A director of the Cranbrook Restorative Justice Society, he is also an editor of the JP Boyd Wikilaw project.

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

29

professionaldevelopment

WEBSITE: CBAPD.ORG \\EMAIL: PD@CBABC.ORG \\

CBABC Professional Development courses are designed to meet the needs of lawyers while still maintaining the opportunity to network, advance one’s career, practice and business. We pride ourselves bringing courses to lawyers that will provide the required professional responsibility and ethics, client care and relations, and practice management components for 2016 Law Society reporting.

Upcoming In-person Seminars

Upcoming Webinars

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CBABC ABORIGINAL LAWYERS FORUM

Harness the Magic: Tips for Legal Writing Online

5th Annual ALF Retreat

Date: April 29-30, 2016 Location: Tigh-Na-Mara Resort & Conference Centre, Parksville Keynote Speaker: The Honourable Judge Alexander M.D. Wolf, Office of the Chief Judge, Provincial Court of British Columbia IN PARTNERSHIP WITH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Civility in the Legal Practice Date: May 18, 2016 Time: 9:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

Location: Best Western Plus Chateau Granville Speakers: Madam Justice Mary E. Saunders, British Columbia Court of Appeal; Neil Hain, Law Society of BC; Richard C.C. Peck, QC, Peck and Company; Harry Wruck, QC, Ecojustice

In this webinar you will learn how to increase your competency in communicating online. Our expert presenters will show you how to apply effective writing rules, using practical examples.

Date: May 4, 2016 Time: 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Speakers: Heather Gray-Grant, Heather Gray-Grant Consulting; Doug Jasinski, Skunkworks Creative Group Inc.

CBABC Freedom of Information & Privacy Law Professional Development Conference

Date: June 2, 2016 Time: 9:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Location: TELUS Garden, Vancouver Keynote Speaker: Elizabeth Denham, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia

LITIGATION SKILLS SERIES 2016

Module 2: The XFD Files – Examination for Discovery, the Truth is out There Practical tips and strategies to prepare and conduct your Examinations will be discussed, including pitfalls to avoid and how to best prepare your client for the process.

Date: April 14, 2016 Time: 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Speakers: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kenneth N. Affleck, Supreme Court of British Columbia; Meghan J. Selinger, Hamilton Fabbro; Jonathan J. Weisman, Holmes & King

Module 3: Trial without Error – Top Trial Preparation Tips & Techniques Topics in this webinar will include: how to avoid common errors and pitfalls, how to analyze your case and your opponent’s case for strengths and weaknesses, what order to call your witnesses and strategies in preparing your openings, direct exam, cross-examination and closing arguments to maximize effectiveness.

Date: May 10, 2016 Time: 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Speakers: The Honourable Judge Patricia M. Bond, Provincial Court BC-Surrey; Janette E. Kovacs, Waterstone Law Group LLP

On Demand CPD Missed the live webinar? Check our library for available on-demand webinar repeats and e-learning modules.

RECENTLY ADDED WEBINAR REPEATS: The It’s

Inconvenient Truth – Not all Affidavits are Created Equal

A New Dawn, It’s A New Day: Life Interest Trusts

Advocacy

30

Gone Bad: Lawyers Bullying Lawyers

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

displayads

EMAIL: ADS@CBABC.ORG \\

Click here for LEGAL OPPORTUNITIES and ads

Sidhartha Rao JD, LLM Warren Dueck CPA, FCA Lori Lui CPA, CGA Steven Flynn CPA, CA

US AND CROSS-BORDER TAX IS OUR BUSINESS. LET US HELP YOU WITH YOURS.

• • • •

US citizens in Canada Cross-border business Investing in the US US tax return preparation

VANCOUVER • RICHMOND • CALGARY

T: 604.448.0200 • Toll Free: 1.855.448.0200 • wldtax.com

WCB & CPP

DISABILITY APPEALS

GC 390 Howard Ave. Burnaby, B.C. V5B 3P8 Canada

604.591.8187

Preferred Supplier of:

info@gosalandcompany.com www.gosalandcompany.com

l

www.progroupbc.ca

GC

GOSAL & COMPANY BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS

Sarj Gosal B.A., LL.B.

254 - 12899 76th Ave. Surrey, BC V3W 1E6

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

31

barmoves Who’s Moving Where and When

32

Mandy Cheema

Jeff Scouten

joined Synergy Business Lawyers where she will continue her corporate and real estate practice.

joined Hakemi Ridgedale LLP as associate counsel. Jeff represents corporate and individual clients in complex litigation, arbitration, and mediation. He also advises clients before administrative tribunals, including in disciplinary matters.

Leisha Murphy

Sim Harry

has opened Connect Family Law with business partner Simon Kent, where she continues to advise clients on all aspects of family law, focusing in particular on matters involving complex and substantial assets and business interests.

joined Branch MacMaster LLP, practising primarily in the areas of insurance defence, personal injury and medical malpractice. Prior to joining Branch MacMaster, Sim was a litigation associate at Harris & Brun.

Rory Morgan

Vin Chahal

joined Hamilton Duncan as associate counsel with their Personal Injury group, focusing primarily on motor vehicle/ICBC claims. Rory was called to the BC Bar in 1999.

joined Hammerberg Lawyers LLP as an associate and will be practising in the firm’s Strata and General Litigation group.

BARTALK / APRIL 2016

SPACE IS AT A PREMIUM AND AVAILABLE ON A FIRST-COME FIRST-SERVED BASIS SO SEND YOUR BAR MOVE (MAX. 30 WORDS) AND A HIGH-RESOLUTION PHOTO TO BARTALK@CBABC.ORG NOW. TO VIEW ALL BAR MOVES GO TO CBABC.ORG/BT/BM_1604.

newmembers January & February 2016

The Honourable Edward C. Chiasson, QC

Associate

Former Court of Appeal judge returns to Borden Ladner Gervais. Mr. Chiasson earned an impressive reputation as one of Canada’s leading litigators and internationally-renowned arbitrator.

Vancouver

Scott Marescaux joined Hakemi Ridgedale LLP as an associate. Scott represents corporate and individual clients in a variety of commercial litigation matters in the courts and in mediation and arbitration.

Christopher Bettencourt joined McQuarrie Hunter LLP as partner. Bettencourt joined the firm in 2009 and provides clients with legal advice and expertise for their real estate and business needs.

Declan Tormey

Lawyers Cecilia Barnes

Ryan J. Pratt

Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP Vancouver Andrew Ross

Sheena J. Clarkson

Pawan Kaur Sandhu

Sandeep (Sandy) Gadey

Law Students

WorkSafeBC Richmond

Viba Panchmatia, Law Corporation Abbotsford Dave Heffernan

Lawson Lundell LLP Vancouver Delta

Kevin Birch

Penticton

Acheson Whitley Sweeney Foley Victoria

Jamin Chen

Sofia Hirji

North Vancouver

Miller Thomson LLP Vancouver Margaret MacDonald

Dentons Canada LLP Vancouver Jami Makan

Teddy T. McDonald joined Beacon Law Centre, practising real estate, wills & estates, and business law from all three office locations – Sidney, Royal Oak and Brentwood Bay. Victoria speaks fluent Ukrainian and Russian.

Sehon Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Vancouver

Benchmark Law Corporation Vancouver

Ritchie Sandford Vancouver

Victoria Byelorus

Caitlin M. Johnson

Vancouver

Judy A. Cheung Parker Elliot

Burlington

Cole L. Ferencz

Chilliwack

Jenny E. Ho

Vancouver

Matt CD Janssen

Victoria

Westerkirk Capital Inc. Victoria

Michelle Kerluke

Laila Rasheed Rana

Matthew Koltes

Burnaby

Tal K. Wolf

Surrey

Vancouver

Katherine Nasato

MacLean Law Vancouver

New Westminster

Articling Students

Richmond

Thomas D. Boyd

Satkaran Sandhu

Lawson Lundell LLP Vancouver Faron H. Cosco

Egan LLP Vancouver

Flora Griffith

Lawson Lundell LLP Vancouver

Chung La Ken Ng Pejman Pirgheibi

North Vancouver Delta

Jordan M. Schroeder

Vancouver

Wilson Scott

Vancouver

Priscilla L. Wingenbach

Surrey

APRIL 2016 / BARTALK

33

RETURN REQUESTED TO: The Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch, 10th Floor, 845 Cambie Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 5T3