BarTalk June 2018 | Cannabis and the Law

CANNABIS IN CANADA | MARIJUANA CAFÉS | THE NEW CROP

J UNE 2018 | bartalkonline.org

Cannabis and the Law

news BARTALK EDITOR

Deborah Carfrae EDITORIAL BOARD CHAIR

Kirsten McGhee

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Tina Dion, QC Brandon Hastings Eryn Jackson Kuldip Johal Kevin Kitson Lisa Picotte-Li Donna Turko, QC Sean Vanderfluit

BARTALK SENIOR EDITOR

Carolyn Lefebvre

STAFF CONTRIBUTORS

Travis Dudfield Kent Hurl Christopher LaPrairie Michelle May Sanjit Purewal Stuart Rennie Jennifer Weber Judy Yen

NOTICE TO THE PROFESSION

Practice Direction: Subpoenas Requiring Opposing Counsel to Give Evidence PURPOSE To set out the procedure before a subpoena requiring opposing counsel to give evidence in a proceeding can be issued.

APPLICATION This practice direction applies to all court locations in the province.

DIRECTIONS 1. In the event that a subpoena requiring opposing counsel to give evidence in a proceeding is sought, an application for the issuance the subpoena must be made in writing and spoken to on the record before a judge.

2. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, at least 30 days prior to the making of the application, the proponent of the subpoena must provide written notice to opposing counsel who is the subject of the subpoena.

3. Except with leave of the court, the application must be made at least 30 days prior to the commencement of trial.

DURATION This practice direction is in effect from March 14, 2018 and remains in effect until further direction from the Acting Chief Judge.

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. Š Copyright the British Columbia Branch of the Canadian Bar Association 2018.

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 nearly 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

2 BARTALK / JUNE 2018

CBA NATIONAL MAGAZINE

Proceeds of the Crime Act: Leave Privilege Out of It Money laundering and terrorist financing is on the minds of both policy-makers and regulators this spring as the federal government carries out a statutory review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada proposes amendments to its Model Rules dealing with the subject.

Write Us Send your Letter to the Editor to: Deborah Carfrae – BarTalk Editor bartalk@cbabc.org

The CBA has a long history of advocacy on the issue: it was involved in the development of the first proceeds of crime legislation in Canada and has commented since on proposed legislative and regulatory changes, always asserting that the laws must protect solicitor-client privilege.

Read the full article

bit.ly/2rwNkUW

Membership Enquiries members@cbabc.org

Advertising Opportunities

Info Changes

ads@cbabc.org

data@cbabc.org

JUNE 2018

VOLUME 30 / NUMBER 3

Contents

Departments

4

FROM THE PRESIDENT CBABC’s Truth & Reconciliation Action Plan

by Bill Veenstra

5

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR A Healthy Profession

by Caroline Nevin

6

PRACTICE TALK Bricks and Mortar to Clicks and Order

by David J. Bilinsky

7

DAVE’S TECH TIPS

8

NOTHING OFFICIAL She Blinded Me with Science

by Tony Wilson, QC

12 INDIGENOUS MATTERS

The New Crop

by Merle Alexander and Maya Stano

Sections

10

SECTION UPDATE Employment Law Constitutional Law/Civil Liberties Aboriginal Law – Vancouver and Municipal Law

Features 14 CANNABIS IN CANADA

by John W. Conroy, QC 18 BC’S REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FOR CANNABIS

by Brian K. Beitz 21 CANNABIS IN THE WORKPLACE

by Paul Heisler and Alexander Bjornson 22 MARIJUANA CAFÉS

by Graeme Hooper 23 THE CANNABIS ACT

by Brandon D. Hastings

Inside This Issue With the Cannabis Act slated to come into force July 1, 2018, there is much to learn about the regulation of cannabis by federal, provincial, and First Nations governments going forward.

This month our guest authors discuss what that regulation might look like, and consider the impact of the new laws permitting cannabis use and sale on such sectors as employment, municipal zoning and licensing, and health.

News and Events

2 Practice Direction: Subpoenas Requiring Opposing Counsel to Give Evidence

Proceeds of the Crime Act: Leave Privilege Out of It 13 Bill 26 – Incremental Changes Underway in Indigenous Child Protection by Frances Rosner 24 Can a Machine Produce Copyright Material?

Mental Health: A Factor in Sentencing?

Dial-A-Lawyer Day Stats 25 2018 Law Week Wrap-Up 26 Chief Judge Thomas J. Crabtree Appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Tips from Courthouse Libraries BC 27 BC Legislative Update

Branch & Bar Calendar

BC Legal Directory 28 CBABC WLF News

Amendments to Bill C-45 Good, but More Needed

CLEBC Update

Also In This Issue

Guest

29 LAW FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 30 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 32 DISPLAY ADS

16 PST AUDITS ON THE RISE

by Michael Butterfield

35 NEW MEMBERS

34 BAR MOVES

Click here for LEGAL OPPORTUNITIES and ads JUNE 2018 / BARTALK 3

FROM THE PRESIDENT BILL VEENSTRA

CBABC’s Truth & Reconciliation Action Plan The steps we are taking as a Branch

O

ne of the priorities I identified at the start of this CBABC year was to develop a CBABC response to the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (“TRC”). This is a priority I share with my predecessor, Michael Welsh, QC, and it was during his term as CBABC president that we launched (in January 2017) a Truth and Reconciliation Working Group (“TRWG”). The TRWG is now finalizing its report, including a proposed action plan, for presentation in June.

As we are all aware, the TRC was established in 2008 as part of the settlement of the largest class action in Canadian history, brought by Indian residential school survivors against governments and churches who had operated the schools. The TRC, in its 2015 reports, addressed crimes committed against individual children, while also addressing the intergenerational trauma and broad impact on Indigenous societies and cultures. Ongoing impacts include the grossly disproportionate representation of Indigenous people in the child welfare and criminal law systems, as well as high levels of violence amongst Indigenous peoples and communities. The TRC made a number of calls to action, including several addressed directly to the legal profession. Many legal groups in BC – including CLEBC, the Law Society, and the CBABC – have been working to respond to those calls to action in a substantive way.

The TRC, in its final report, noted that the legal system played, and continues to play, an important role in the inequality of Indigenous peoples within Canadian society. Residential schools were established by law, and the legal system enforced those laws. More generally, traditional legal theory reflects a restricted view of what law is – a view that fails to take full

4

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

account of pre-existing Indigenous societies, laws and legal orders.

As we work toward reconciliation (to use the words of the TRC), we look to come to terms with events of the past in a manner that overcomes conflict and establishes a respectful and healthy relationship moving forward. Reconciliation requires truth-telling about the past as well as a commitment to move forward in a better way with concrete actions that demonstrate real societal change. In so doing, we need to contextualize the provision of legal services and the administration of justice in the spirit of reconciliation.

Some 28 CBABC members stepped forward to join the CBABC’s TRWG, coming from a variety of different practice areas.

Nearly half of the TRWG members were Indigenous, and a key feature of the TRWG was Indigenous and non-Indigenous lawyers working

together to build understanding and to develop a plan. Sub-committees were formed to look at specific areas, including reconciliation in the context of our Section and PD programming, providing resources for law firms, expanding Indigenous leadership in the legal profession, and advocacy.

The final report of the TRWG will propose an action plan to establish goals for the CBABC in upcoming years in several areas, including: integrating cultural competency and reconciliation into PD and Sections programming, and providing resources to Sections and planners of PD sessions;

encouraging and enabling law firms to put in place their own action plans, including through provision of resources;

creating space for Indigenous lawyers to assume leadership roles in the CBABC; and

supporting advocacy aimed at a culturally appropriate and responsive legal system that is focused on improving outcomes for Indigenous people.

Special thanks are due to our TRWG Chair, Tina Dion, QC, who patiently shepherded the various groups forward. I look forward to working together to implement these plans in the years to come.

Bill Veenstra

president@cbabc.org

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CAROLINE NEVIN

A Healthy Profession It takes a village

L

awyers are beset by some incredible hurdles. Not least of which is the drive to be the best and/or perfect – for law school professors, initial hiring firms, subsequent hiring firms, clients, judges, everyone. It’s a powerful, self-propelling and externally-reinforced drive to appear to be all-knowing and in control, because only a select few like you get the keys to a complex and confounding system that affects everyone’s lives. And the key only works if you back up your education with projected competence and confidence. Add to that the expectations of being a business manager, a marketing expert and someone with a high EQ (none of which comes with your LLB/JD degree); it’s a recipe for near 100% failure in terms of being the perfect lawyer you seek to project. And failure is not acceptable in the legal profession.

It’s common knowledge that the profession is riddled with the harmful effects of coping with this kind of impossible stress – the stats on substance abuse, depression, anxiety and suicide within the profession are outrageous. If we were talking about 11-year olds, it would be declared a nationwide crisis and we would swoop in with interventions. Unfortunately, you are not an 11-year old.

You are an adult, and presumed capable both of choosing your environment and pursuing available supports. But there’s a problem with that response: how can you expect someone who invested so much of their money and time in getting here to do something else?

Or, expect someone trained to be impermeable to do anything but smother interfering emotions like fear and anxiety?

OK, so let’s talk about that. Derek LaCroix, QC, head of the Lawyer’s Assistance Program (“LAP”) and tireless proponent of lawyers

“letting go of the perfect” and really enjoying legal practice, would tell you straightup that this is a crisis that demands everyone’s attention. We need to be truly courageous to recognize that this is real, and have honest and authentic discussions with one another. No one else knows and understands what it means to be a lawyer. If you are struggling, or if you see a colleague who looks like they could use a kind word or non-judgmental ear, do NOT hesitate to reach out. We care so much about legal principles – let’s care as much about human principles: the need to feel secure, purposeful and loved for who we are. It often takes so little to move the dial on any of those.

If you feel trapped in a box and not able to talk to someone around you, as a licensed lawyer in BC, you have full and free access to completely confidential experts who know how to help,

especially if you’re feeling embroiled in unhealthy ways of coping with stress. Call the LifeWorks service at 1-888-307-0590 or access it through the Law Society site (bit.ly/2wxdfle). You can also contact LAP directly at 1-888685-2171 or through lapbc.com.

For those who prefer exploring resources on your own, or want to supplement your outreach to a colleague, friend, doctor or counsellor, here are some great resources – check out the CBABC Wellness Page (bit.ly/2jQrNTL), the Ontario Bar Association Mental Health Briefs (bit. ly/2I5Cpgp), the CBA National online Mental Health and Wellness Course (bit.ly/2KdKqwq), the LAP self-tests and resource library (lapbc.com), and the BC Law Society Improving Mental Health (bit.ly/2rz3C0C) page.

What does it take to deal with this crisis in a meaningful way?

Without change, too many people will continue to live in pain or pursue death in one form or another. The change we need lies in cultivating a culture of a caring, aware community that gently and kindly responds to “failings,” that reaches out to help, and that, in turn, asks for help when needed.

Caroline Nevin

cnevin@cbabc.org JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

5

practicetalk DAVID J. BILINSKY

Bricks and Mortar to Clicks and Order The digital justice movement grows r Going

T

on a future quest, surf the mountain, ride the crest (I’ve been looking in a new direction)... r – Music, lyrics and recorded by Black Lips

he world of law is slowly but surely turning to embrace the benefits of moving online. After all, law is all about communication and the Internet offers myriad ways of communicating, storing, searching, reaching out and disseminating information. It is only logical that tribunals, dispute resolution forums and justice systems should jump onboard and start to realize these benefits.

There are many ways that tribunals can jump online. The following is a list of the Degrees of Implementation that a tribunal can look to when deciding to go online: 1. News and information portal a. Mission, goals and other governing corporate documents b. Directors and personnel c. Contact information d. Employment opportunities e. Lists of mediators, arbitrators f. How to access legal services associated with the tribunal g. Facilitative, Mediation, Med/ Arb, Arbitration, Ombuds and determinative services available 2. Interaction guides a. How-to guides and infographics b. Guided pathways c. Publications d. Library e. Media resources and releases, including how to join the community following the tribunal on social media 3. Online filing 4. Online searching a. Jurisprudence b. Governing legislation and rules c. Forms

6 BARTALK / JUNE 2018

d. All court documents e. Cases and decisions f. Links to related resources, websites, blogs and government services 5. Online case management services for tribunal members 6. Online education services for tribunal members, users and the public 7. Online ombudsmanship services 8. Public accountability and transparency resources 9. Online dispute resolution (“ODR”) services a. User supported b. Mediation c. Arbitration d. Ombudsmanship e. Online dispute resolution As you can see, taking a tribunal online can mean anything from hosting a largely information-only website all the way to offering online dispute resolution services through a portal with online filing, hearings and determinations. The advantages of bridging distances, shortening

times, lowering costs, cutting travel and reducing other associated delays and expenses weigh heavily in favour of moving online. But of course, there is always the discussion of the impact on justice, good or bad, from any change or innovation.

On this theme, the New Zealand Centre for Information and Communications Technology Law, in the School of Law at Auckland University, will host the 18th ODR Forum on November 14-15, 2018. The two key themes for the 2018 Forum are Innovation and Impact.

The first will explore updates and developments in the world of taking dispute and justice systems online. The second theme, for the 15th, will address some of the challenges and critical questions that arise through moving beyond innovation into the disruptions that digital justice can create. (odr2018.org.nz) Taking dispute resolution in a new direction now means surfing the mountain and riding the crest.

It remains to be seen what this new quest will mean.

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 (presently on leave).

Email: daveb@thoughtfullaw.com Blog: thoughtfullaw.com GO ONLINE FOR MORE INFORMATION

dave’s techtips There is a growing list worldwide of online tribunals.

Here is a sampling:

uuu BC’S CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL (“CRT”)

ministrators and volunteers. Using online dispute resolution, the mediators, arbitrators and med/ arbitrators can work with the parties toward a dispute’s resolution.

When in arbitration and med/ arbitration, the arbitrator can render a final and binding decision.

Parties have legal representation and the disputes can often be resolved in a very short time frame.

Until recently, I was a director of the SDRCC.

(civilresolutionbc.ca)

Canada’s first online tribunal currently hears strata property disputes of any amount and small claims matters of $5,000 and under. On April 23, 2018, the government introduced changes that, if adopted, will expand the CRT’s jurisdiction to include motor vehicle accident claims and disputes involving non-profit societies and co-operative associations. These changes, in part, will include assessing liability and quantum for motor vehicle claims below $50,000, allowing lawyers to represent parties in motor vehicle claims and allowing time limits to be set for judicial review proceedings.

uuu SDRCC

uuu CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY OF ONTARIO (“CAO”) (condoauthorityontario.ca/en-US/ tribunal/)

The CAO is a newly established organization that offers online dispute resolution services through the Condominium Authority Tribunal. Ontario’s first online tribunal helps settle and decide condo-related disputes using an online dispute resolution system. Currently, it only accepts disputes over condo records, but I anticipate that this jurisdiction will be expanded in time.

uuu NORTHERN IRELAND’S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S TRIBUNALS ONLINE SERVICES

(crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/home/)

(justice-ni.gov.uk/articles/online-

The Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (“SDRCC”) offers world-class resolution facilitation, mediation, med/arb and arbitration services through its online presence to resolve disputes in the Canadian sport system at the national level for national sports organizations, multisport service organizations, athletes, coaches, officials, ad-

This is a first step by Ireland’s Small Claims Courts and allows you to start a small claim online (debts, unsatisfactory workmanship, faulty goods or claims for damage to property, up to £3000). This is an extension of their Small Claims Court that allows for filing and then progressing the claim online. You can track

services)

the case online and do searches but any court hearing occurs at a regular court house.

uuu NEW ZEALAND DISPUTES RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL (disputestribunal.govt.nz/can-help-with)

The Dispute Tribunal of New Zealand handles small claims disputes for disputes up to $15,000 (or, if everyone agrees, $20,000).

Jurisdiction includes car accidents, house or flat disputes (fences, damage to property, disputes between flatmates), buying goods or services and business deals. Interestingly, you can use the tribunal even if you signed an agreement stating that you would not.

ENGLAND AND WALES These jurisdictions are in the process of digitalising all courts and tribunals. But in terms of finished products they currently have:

uuu THE MONEY CLAIMS Online (moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/ mcol/welcome) is going to be soon replaced by the Online Court Pilot procedure (justice.gov.uk/courts/ procedure-rules/civil/rules/practicedirection-51r-online-court-pilot).

uuu THE UK TRAFFIC PENALTY TRIBUNAL (trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/)

The two tribunals above offer end to end ODR. It is only a matter of time before more and more tribunals and courts turn to online services as part of, or their entire, delivery method.

© 2018 David J. Bilinsky

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

7

nothingofficial TONY WILSON, QC

She Blinded Me with Science

Canada’s new Governor General is a rocket scientist

B

ack in November, some Canadians got their trousers in a tizzy when our new Governor General, Julie Payette, expressed an opinion about “science.”

Ms. Payette has an electrical engineering degree from McGill and a Master of Applied Science degree in Computer Engineering from U of T. But most Canadians know her because she was a Canadian astronaut, and served two separate missions on the Space Shuttle. She clocked 401 orbits of the earth and traveled 17 million kilometres. Like that brilliant comedy sketch by Mitchell and Webb, brain surgeons are overrated when you’re a rocket scientist.

So, at a science conference filled with scientists, she took on the astrology industry, commenting on how strange it was that some people still believed that one’s life could be determined by the positions of the planets relative to the (invented) constellations.

Then she said, to a room filled with scientists, how shocked she was that we were still debating whether the activities of eight billion humans, (not to mention the one billion automobiles we drive and the 23 billion cows, pigs, and other animals we raise to eat), have had any role in changing the Earth’s climate.

Finally, she criticized the “evolution-is-still-a-theory” proponents, and wondered why there was still a debate as to whether life arose from divine intervention or through evolutionary processes. (I only wish she had said that gravity is also still a theory... until one jumps off a cliff.)

I suppose the astrologers didn’t see that zinger coming, which says a lot about astrology. And of course, the climate change deniers never like it when scientists speak about science to other scientists. As for evolution, the manufactured outrage machine went completely gaga, conveniently forgetting the fact that “evolution” is why we need flu shots every year.

8

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

The leader of the opposition, (that fellow who looks like John Diefenbaker) tangentially implied that Payette’s views on evolution offended millions of people of faith. This was interesting in light of Pope Francis’ recent statements that God was not a magician who waved a magic wand to create the universe, and that both the Big Bang and evolution were compatible with church doctrine.

Some outraged media pundits said that she had “overstepped her role” by ridiculing astrology, challenging the climate change deniers and defending evolution.

They called for her immediate resignation, claiming that taking a position on science was somehow “political.” Frankly, I suspect some of them were Russians, stirring up trouble for Moose and Squirrel.

But the more I read, the more the critics/pundits/Russians looked like they were “mansplaining” the job of the Governor General… to the

Governor General. I guess some people can’t accept the fact that the best man for a job is often a woman.

So, to the outraged critics of our new Governor General, I would raise a toast and quote Canada’s other famous space traveler, William Shatner, who said: “get a life.”

Frankly, I’m proud to have a head of state who isn’t afraid to speak her mind about science. I’m also thrilled that our head of state in Canada can be a University Professor, a journalist born in Haiti, a broadcaster born in Hong Kong, a distinguished former politician, or an astronaut. In the UK, the Brits usually get the next in line to the Throne, whoever that is.

We get the astronaut.

Which brings me to the real problem with the Governor General. He or she is still the representative of a foreign country’s monarch; a foreign country Canadians can’t even visit for the weekend without a passport.

Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl, as the Beatles said, but when Queen Elizabeth passes, Canadians should seriously examine our relationship with the United Kingdom, and ask ourselves whether it’s time to cast off the vestiges of the feudal past, and dispense with foreign monarchs altogether.

Tony Wilson, QC is a franchise lawyer at Boughton in Vancouver and a Bencher of the Law Society.

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

I give to my community and with Vancouver Foundation, my giving lasts forever.

75 years ago, a single gift started Vancouver Foundation and that gift is still making a difference in the community today.

We can help you create a fund that gives forever.

Get started at vancouverfoundation.ca/create or call Kristin at 604.629.5186

To find your local community foundation visit communityfoundations.ca

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

9

sections SECTION UPDATE

Keep Current A review of provincial Section meetings Note: These meetings in review had taken place before the recently introduced BC Cannabis Control and Licensing Act (Bill 30), Cannabis Distribution Act (Bill 31), and Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018 (Bill 17). Please refer to these acts for legal reference.

Aboriginal Law – Vancouver and Municipal Law Meeting in Review: April 11, 2018 Speakers: Paul Seaman, Gowling WLG; Sara Dubinsky, Lidstone & Company and Iain Dixon, City of Vancouver Topic: Cannabis Regulation for Local and Indigenous Governments

Constitutional Law/ Civil Liberties Meeting in Review: April 4, 2018 Speakers: John Conroy, QC, Conroy & Company Topic: From R. v. Malmo-Levine to the Cannabis Act: Where Marijuana Laws Have Been and Where They’re Going (also see article on pp. 14-15)

Employment Law Meeting in Review: May 12, 2017 Speakers: Robyn Durling, BC Human Rights Clinic and Carolyn MacEachern, Young Anderson Topic: Legalization of Marijuana – Considerations In The Workplace

10

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

Aboriginal Law – Vancouver and Municipal Law The Aboriginal Law –

uVancouver and Municipal

Law Section led an intriguing discussion on April 11, 2018 with Paul Seaman, Gowling WLG, Sara Dubinsky, Lidstone & Company, and Iain Dixon, City of Vancouver, to discuss cannabis regulation for local and Indigenous governments. Guests heard about considerations for lawyers working for First Nations and municipalities when advising on local business licensing, land use regulation and commercial opportunities ahead of the proposed legalization.

Paul specifically spoke to the source of First Nations jurisdiction potential and areas of possible conflict. He also gave an overview of federal/provincial division of powers and powers of First Nation’s governments, and the statutory source for potential First Nation jurisdiction (Indian Act, First Nations Land Management Act), Constitution s.35, and the duty to accommodate. Sara spoke to the division of powers between federal/provincial/ local jurisdictions. In discussing who has authority over what, she identified the federal government’s authority to regulate production (potency, packaging, ingredients and advertising), and determine the minimum age, possession limits and criminal offences. Provincial governments are to supplement federal regulations, possibly by increasing the minimum age, lower possession/production maximums, and regulating consumption locations. The province is also

responsible for regulation and license distribution. In discussing the role of local governments, Sara identified the significant control they will have, as retailers will be required to have local government resolution in support after mandatory a public consultation process. In addition to this influence, local governments may regulate the location, distance from other outlets or uses, and number of retail stores, as the province will not regulate permissible locations or number of stores. Iain’s presentation centred on the City of Vancouver’s attempts to regulate prior to legalization, speaking about regulations brought forth in 2016, which dealt with the mass proliferation of dispensaries.

Although the City of Vancouver does not have jurisdiction over production/sale, it does have authority over businesses and land use, which it has used to create a new use under the City’s Zoning and Development Bylaw and a new business license category under the License Bylaw.

Members of the CBA can access the materials for this meeting by visiting: cbabc.org/Sections-andCommunity/Aboriginal-LawVancouver.

Constitutional Law/ Civil Liberties John Conroy, QC, Conroy &

uCompany, joined us on April

4, 2018 during a Constitutional Law/Civil Liberties Section meeting where he led a conversation about the history of constitutional litigation relating to cannabis (marijuana) from R. v. Malmo-Levine up to the present day with the introduction of the Cannabis Act.

In March 1961, Canada became a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Control, a United Nations treaty or convention replacing nine earlier treaties and cannabis was listed among the drugs along with heroin. The 1961 Narcotic Control Act replaced the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. This Act removed the mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment for simple possession, but raised the maximum of two years imprisonment to seven years imprisonment. In 1945, there were 212 drug convictions in Canada, 89% for possession but none for cannabis. In 1956, there was one case of marijuana possession, but by 1972, the number reached a staggering 10,695. By 1977, it was 50,168. Commencing in 1995 and 1996, the cases of R v Caine (BCPC) and R v Malmo Levine (BCSC) started winding their way up through the courts in British Columbia and were heard together in the BC Court of Appeal and then joined with R v Clay, from Ontario, in the Supreme Court of Canada, as a trilogy challenging the constitutionality generally of the prohibition against the possession, production and distribution cannabis.

The court held that the control of a psychoactive drug that causes alteration in mental function raises issues of public health and safety for the user and broader society affected by his or her conduct and was therefore the proper subject matter of the exercise of the criminal law power.

Members of the CBA can access this webinar recording for the complete history lecture by visiting: cbabc.org/Sections-and-Community/ Constitutional-Civil-Liberties.

Employment Law With new federal and provincial legislation slated to overhaul the regulation and legalization of cannabis in Canada, there is much discussion about the workplace environment. With that in mind, on May 12, 2017, the Employment Law Section welcomed Robyn Durling from the BC Human Rights Clinic and Carolyn MacEachern from Young Anderson, who discussed the legal implications associated with this new overhaul and what it means in the context of employment and human rights law.

Robyn Durling focused on whether medical cannabis (marijuana) should be treated as an intoxicant like alcohol or should it be treated like any other prescribed medication/pharmaceutical. He also explored what the courts have done in terms of balancing the rights of the employer with those of the medical cannabis user. From the employer’s perspective, Carolyn MacEachern discussed labour arbitrations and human rights tribunal decisions regarding the use of cannabis in the workplace, in particular, the impact on drug and alcohol policies and the duty to accommodate.

Members of the CBA can access this webinar recording by visiting: cbabc.org/Sections-and-Community/Employment-Law.

u

DID YOU KNOW? As a member of the CBABC you have access to all Section meeting webinar recordings, minutes, materials, news and legislative updates?

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

11

Indigenousmatters MERLE ALEXANDER AND MAYA STANO

The New Crop

An important role for Indigenous governance and business

O

ver the past months, the federal and provincial governments have been busy drafting new laws for the pending legalization of cannabis. Indigenous governments have, however, been sidelined, with a focus on information sharing rather than ensuring these governments have a substantive role in the legislative drafting. This, in an era where Canadian governments repeatedly assert their commitment to reconciliation and its implementation through the framework of the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”) (bit.ly/2HOrBCY).

At the federal level, where cannabis regulation is focused on the production side, Bill C-45 (the proposed Cannabis Act [bit. ly/2HHzYfF]) has been heavily criticized by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

That Committee recently recommended that the coming into force of Bill C-45 be delayed for up to a year to allow time for Canada to reach agreement with Indigenous peoples on various matters – including the sharing of revenues from cannabis produced on Indigenous lands, substantial funding increases for health and related services, and culturally appropriate addiction treatment centres.

In its report (bit.ly/2FJplHm), the Committee also recognized Indigenous peoples’ inherent right of selfdetermination, which the Committee noted includes their law-making

12

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

authority to regulate cannabis. To a certain extent, some provinces have also recognized the regulatory authority of Indigenous governments over the retail side of the business.

For example, under BC’s proposed Cannabis Control and Licensing Act (Bill 30) (bit.ly/2rlAn0e), Indigenous Nations are granted a veto over cannabis retail establishments proposed in their “areas.” As the province expressly used the term “area” instead of “reserve,” and has committed to full implementation of UNDRIP (which recognizes traditional territories as the area over which Indigenous Nations hold rights), it appears that Indigenous Nations will have a veto on proposed cannabis retail facilities located within their traditional territories in British Columbia.

Concurrently, however, British Columbia had previously released a cannabis retail licence guide (bit. ly/2rlBxJ8) that placed onerous requirements on retail applicants that could have a disproportionate effect on Indigenous Nations. These include having fully executed leases in place (which can be a lengthy process for those Nations that have not yet adopted land codes and are thereby bound by federal bureaucratic backlogs) and restrictions on the business relationships between producers and retailers. This latter restriction can create a challenge for Indigenous Nations seeking to

expand their economic development activities by partnering with different businesses. As such, these new cannabis policies could have the effect of disrupting commercially viable operations in a similar manner as early agriculture policies that were used as a form of assimilation

and adversely affected the abilities of Indigenous farmers to compete in the Canadian economy.

The Senate Committee seems alive to this issue and recommended that at least 20% of all cannabis production licences be reserved for producers on lands under the jurisdiction or ownership of Indigenous governments.

This reflects the importance of ensuring that this new crop is only developed with appropriate economic involvement and governance by Indigenous Nations. True reconciliation demands nothing less than a full and fair opportunity for Indigenous Nations.

Merle Alexander and Maya Stano practise Indigenous Law at Miller Titerle Law Corporation in Vancouver, with a focus on empowering Indigenous Nations through Title and Rights affirmation, sustainable economic development and environmental stewardship.

FRANCES ROSNER

Bill 26 The Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act Incremental Changes Underway in Indigenous Child Protection The Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act (“Bill 26”) (“CFCSA”), comprised of 49 clauses, was tabled in the legislature on April 24th, 2018 for first reading.1 Several amendments were proposed as an interim step to improve the Indigenous child welfare system in BC. In a letter to Indigenous organizations2, the government notes that amendments were developed in keeping with the recommendations set out in Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification – From Root Causes to Root Solutions: A Report on Indigenous Child Welfare in British Columbia, prepared by special advisor, Grand Chief Ed John (“Final Report”).3 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action and the Metis Nation Relationship Accord II were also considered in the drafting process.

Aside from appropriate definitional changes, Bill 26 aims to increase the involvement of Indigenous

communities in child protection matters at every stage – prior to removal, after legal proceedings have commenced and following the making of a continuing custody order.

This would be accomplished, in part, by improvements to notice requirements as well as greater information sharing and collaboration between the Ministry of Children and Family Development and Indigenous communities.

Importantly, the proposed changes affirm that Indigenous children are entitled to “learn about and practice their Indigenous traditions, customs and languages, and belong to their Indigenous communities.”

On April 26, 2018, the BC Aboriginal Justice Council (“BCAJC”) issued a statement

Indigenous children are entitled to “learn about and practice their Indigenous traditions, customs and languages, and belong to their Indigenous communities.” in response to Bill 26, expressing concern that it falls short of the transformative change needed to counter the overrepresentation of

Indigenous children in care. The BCAJC further commented that “the proposed amendments to the CFCSA were developed unilaterally, with limited opportunities for Indigenous comments, rather than meaningful active involvement of Indigenous Nations in authoring the legislation.”4 Similarly, in a letter to the Ministry of Children and Family Development on March 22, 2018, the BC Métis Federation raised concerns about the consultation process and asserted that the proposed amendments will “not effect real change for our Métis families and communities.”5 Only 10 of the 85 recommendations from Grand Chief Ed John’s Final Report were utilized in the amendments. In the spirit of reconciliation, clearly the government is making an effort with Bill 26, but significantly more work is needed to change the trajectory of Indigenous children in care.

3rd Sess., 41st Leg, British Columbia, 2018 [Bill 26].

2 bit.ly/2jHYMcR 3 bit.ly/2rsRDkc 4 bit.ly/2jIqTZM 5 bit.ly/2roDHc2 1

Frances Rosner is a Métis lawyer working as a sole practitioner in Vancouver.

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

13

feature JOHN W. CONROY, QC

Cannabis in Canada Background Overview and Links

C

THE PAST AND PRESENT annabis (or marijuana) was added to the schedule to the Canadian Opium and Drug Act (1911) in 1923 based on “Reefer Madness” across the US individual states between 1915 and 1937, initially because of the Mexican influence and then a fear it would become the “new menace” as a substitution for alcohol.

There was no “cannabis problem” in Canada at the time and no debate in Parliament when it was added. In 1929, that act provided for a minimum sentence of six months imprisonment and a $200 fine for simple possession. That continued until 1961. The court had the discretion to also impose whipping and/or hard labour, which was removed in 1954.

In 1956, there was one conviction for possession, 21 in 1960, 112 by 1965 and 447 by 1966, followed by 817 in 1968. In 1972, it jumped to 10,695, and by 1977, it was 50,168. In 1980, there were 54,000. That number dropped down to 27,000 in 1990 and then climbed back up to 45,000 in 2000 and to 59,000 in 2013.

The skyrocketing interest in cannabis by white middle-class young people in the 60s led to the hybridization of the possession offense, enabling the Crown to proceed summarily or by indictment. These two factors led to an increase in the number of charges and a corresponding decrease in the number of people going to prison.

14 BARTALK / JUNE 2018

In 1972, the LeDain Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs recommended, among other things, the repeal of the simple possession offence, and the hybridization of trafficking offences with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment on indictment and 18 months on summary conviction.

Sharing a “joint” would not be an offence.

Every political party in Canada promised some form of “decriminalization.” Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced the sentencing option of absolute and conditional discharges to ameliorate the consequences of a criminal record for simple possession. Various other promises and bills were introduced between 1972 and 1993 by various governments, but were never passed.

The current Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”) came into force on May 14, 1997.

In 2012, the Conservative government amended the Act to provide for mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for production from six months to two years, depending upon the number of plants and if for the purpose of trafficking, and increased the maximum penalty from seven years to 14. Mandatory minimums of one to two years for trafficking offences in certain specified circumstances were also added. The 14-year maximum had the effect of

removing eligibility and thus the availability of absolute and conditional discharges (s.730 CC) to a sentencing court, as well as Conditional Sentence Orders (CSO’s s.742.1 CC) as the last step before actual imprisonment.

Challenge to Cannabis Prohibition in Canada

R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine [2003] 3 SCR 571 from British Columbia and a companion case from Ontario R v. Clay [2003] 3 SCR 735 were heard together by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court upheld Parliament’s power to prohibit cannabis under its “criminal law” power and found that it did not violate s.7 of the Charter. While “liberty” was engaged in that people were charged with criminal offences, they were not deprived thereof in violation of a “principle of fundamental justice” as the “Harm Principle” (John Stuart Mill) was not such a “principle” and the matter was for Parliament and not the courts. uuu R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v.

Caine: bit.ly/2w1YdDW uuu R v. Clay: bit.ly/2jjdXcj Challenges regarding medical use and reasonable access to cannabis

The BC Compassion Club Society emerged in 1997 to supply “medically approved patients” (authorized by a “practitioner” under s. 53 of the Narcotic Control Regulations).

In Ontario, the medical access issue proceeded in the courts. On July 31, 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in R v. Parker [2000] O.J. No. 2787 ruled that our laws prohibiting the possession of cannabis (marijuana) were unconstitutional to the extent that they did not

provide for reasonable access by medically approved patients requiring cannabis for their health. uuu bit.ly/2I4pDhm The federal government did not appeal that decision and initially “medically approved patients” were granted exemptions pursuant to s. 56 of the CDSA. Then the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (“MMAR”) were promulgated allowing such patients to produce for themselves or have a designated grower do so for them but with no government source of supply.

Ultimately, due to further litigation in Ontario and BC, the government was compelled to turn its research supply, being produced in a mine in Flin Flon, Manitoba, as the medical source. The Conservative Harper government then promulgated the Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (“MMPR”), repealing the MMAR and the right to produce for oneself or have a designated grower do so and compelling all patients to be supplied by “Licensed Producers.” That development led to further litigation in the Federal Court Trial Division.

First, in Allard et al. v. Canada, 2014 FC 280 on March 21, 2014, an injunction was granted grandfathering some 28,000 MMAR permit holders whose permits to produce were valid on September 30, 2013 and to possess on March 21, 2014, pending trial. uuu bit.ly/2KsTAFU While the trial in Allard took place between February and May of 2015, the final decision was delayed because the case of Owen Smith, the baker for the Cannabis Buyers Club in Victoria, BC, who was charged with trafficking, challenged the limitation in the MMAR to “dried marijuana” and was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada March 20,

2015. That case was decided June 11, 2015, and held that the limitation was unreasonable and that patients can possess cannabis in any of its forms immediately. R. v. Smith [2015] 2 SCR 602 (SCC). uuu bit.ly/2rgIRXx Further submissions were then made in Allard and a final decision was rendered February 24th, 2016 finding and declaring the MMPR to be unconstitutional as unreasonably restricting patient access and giving the government six months, to August 25, 2016, to fix things up. That led to the creation of the current Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (“ACMPR”) and the injunction was ordered to continue “until this court orders otherwise,” and continues to date.

Allard v. Her Majesty the Queen 2016 FC 236 (FCTD): uuu bit.ly/2r9DY27 Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations. The current medical regulations under the CDSA that will become regulations under the proposed Cannabis Act as the continuing medical process: uuu bit.ly/2r9WmYD

THE FUTURE: FEDERALLY In the Canadian Senate, the Cannabis Act after “2nd Reading” in March 2018, is now at the Committee stage where submissions will be made with respect to potential amendments. It then goes to “3rd Reading,” with a vote on June 7, 2018. It then goes back to Parliament to be enacted into law by July 1, 2018, but will then take several months to implement in conjunction with the provincial/territorial legislation.

The Cannabis Act will “legalize” the production of four plants per household, with no limits on storage

and a 30g possession limit when out and about, and will “decriminalize” minor violations. uuu bit.ly/2HHzYfF The Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cannabis – Discussion Paper for Consultation Purposes regarding federal regulations: uuu bit.ly/2HKKy5m A summary of the results of the Consultation with respect to the Proposed Regulations: uuu bit.ly/2JEzfMJ

THE FUTURE: THE PROVINCES AND THE TERRITORIES Each province and territory will be enacting its own provincial or territorial Cannabis Act and regulations governing distribution, subject to some provisions in the federal Cannabis Act with respect to promotion and advertising like tobacco and alcohol regulations.

What is going on in each province and territory, as of April 2018: uuu bit.ly/2HPlcDH

BC Cannabis Regulation – The Cannabis Private Retail Licensing Guide: uuu bit.ly/2vZ41xV The BC Liquor Distribution Branch establishes retail brand for nonmedical cannabis: uuu bit.ly/2I8FWcI Proposed BC Legislation: uuu bit.ly/2KuuDKw uuu bit.ly/2JMJuP4

John W. Conroy, QC (johnconroy.com) was called to the Bar in 1972 and is now semi-retired as an International Cannabis Consultant. He has been involved in cannabis cases of all kinds at all levels of courts, including Caine and as Co-Counsel in Smith in the Supreme Court of Canada and as lead counsel in Allard v Canada referred to in the article.

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

15

guest MICHAEL BUTTERFIELD

PST Audits on the Rise

Audits can be time consuming and frustrating. The best defence is preparation

A

udits can be scary – especially for small practices that may not have a sophisticated financial management structure. While most firms are familiar with trust audits, a growing number of firms are facing PST audits as well.

DO YOUR SERVICES ATTRACT PST?

The growth in PST audits among law firms is fueled by the development of mixed service practices.

Not all services provided by lawyers now attract PST. The largest change has been in relation to alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) services. Where a lawyer acts in the capacity of an independent third party (i.e. not providing legal advice), these services likely do not attract PST. Mediation and arbitration are clear cut examples. However, the issue becomes more difficult when the lawyer’s role is less clear.

For example, workplace investigation covers a multitude of different circumstances. A purely independent investigation is unlikely to attract PST, while one that provides legal advice, or draws a legal conclusion, will likely attract PST. When in doubt, it is wise to contact PST Taxpayer Services for clarification, toll free at 1-877388-4440. You can also review the latest PST tax bulletin for legal services at bit.ly/2FzomJL. 16

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

THE AUDIT

Audits are triggered by PST irregularities, complaints or random selection.

An auditor will contact you for a pre-audit discussion. They will ask questions about your practice and how you maintain your records. This process allows the auditor to determine how they will approach your audit. You will receive a letter confirming the audit process and the records required. You will also be provided with a copy of the Taxpayer Fairness and Service Code.

Most audits cover a three-year period. The auditor will select certain months for review. They will focus on the services provided, the PST charged, and the remittance to the government. If concerns arise, they will expand the scope of the review. It makes sense to provide the auditor with direct contact with your bookkeeper or accountant.

The auditor will likely ask to see computerized financial records. It is unlikely that they will want to see specific client invoices. However, they can make that request.

It is essential to redact privileged information from these records.

This can be a challenge if the auditor is trying to determine if a

service attracts PST. Your best defence is a clear retainer agreement.

Many ADR practitioners delineate between ADR and legal advice services by using separate contracts. In their ADR contracts, they clearly articulate the basis for not applying PST. Such a contract is often sufficient for the auditor.

Lawyers generally do well with the collection and remittance of sales tax. Most errors arise from bookkeeping mistakes. However, failing to collect or remit sales tax can result in Law Society scrutiny.

This is especially serious when tax is collected, but not remitted. In these situations, you should get advice from a practice advisor, or discipline counsel, as soon as possible.

An area where many people get into difficulty is in relation to purchases. If you purchase an item and you do not pay the requisite PST on the purchase, you have to selfremit that tax. This is a growing problem for purchases made online where the sellers do not collect PST. As a rule, you should always confirm that appropriate tax is paid on any out of province or online purchases. This also applies to GST. Any audit can be intimidating.

PST audits can be time consuming and frustrating. The best defence is effective record keeping and regular reviews of your practice’s returns. Co-operation with the auditor will expedite the process.

If in doubt at any point in the process, seek professional advice.

Michael Butterfield is a collaborative lawyer, mediator and arbitrator.

INVESTMENT & INSURANCE SOLUTIONS Exclusively for the Legal Community

High-value, low-cost financial products designed specifically for lawyers and their families, law firms, their employees and families.

Investments • Investment Funds • Guaranteed Interest Products • Individual & Firm Plans • RRSPs • TFSAs • RRIFs • Non-Registered Accounts • Pensions

Insurance • Life • Critical Illness • Disability/Business Expense • Health & Dental • Employee Benefits • Commercial Office • Home & Auto • Travel

Connect with your local Lawyers Financial Advisor today.

David Hodgson 604.247.8007 Toll Free: 1.888.477.5630 lawyersfinancial.ca Lawyers Financial products and plans are sponsored by The Canadian Bar Insurance Association (CBIA). Lawyers Financial is a trade mark of CBIA.

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

17

feature BRIAN K. BEITZ

BC’s Regulatory Framework for Cannabis Local government’s role in retail

A

battle of wills ensued in Langford, BC recently, as a local business owner fought to keep his medical cannabis dispensary open despite the municipality’s refusal to grant him a business license (and frequent police raids). The business owner’s position was simple: people need the product and it will be legal soon anyway, so let me run my business. Many cannabis businesses have been opened around BC in similar circumstances, ignoring the requirements for a municipal business license with the expectation that legalization would remove many obstacles.

When the proposed federal Cannabis Act was introduced on April 13, 2017, it became clear that it would be left to the provinces and territories to create the regulatory framework for the distribution and sale of cannabis in their respective jurisdictions. Much of what that regulation will look like for British Columbia has been answered in recent months, culminating in April 2018 with the introduction of the proposed Cannabis Distribution Act1 and Cannabis Control and Licensing Act (the “CCLA”)2.

Of great note (and much to the chagrin of entrepreneurs like the one noted above) is the amount of control that has been left in the hands of local government when it comes to the control of retail cannabis.

18

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

Licensing for cannabis businesses will fall under the purview of BC’s Liquor Control and Management Branch. The province will have a public wholesale distribution monopoly and operate public retail stores, while the CCLA will also create a private retail licensing scheme, similar to the current liquor system. Local governments, including First Nations, will play a significant role, with control over business licensing, zoning, public consumption, and distance requirements.3 More importantly, local governments will be able to cap the number of cannabis stores or even prevent cannabis sales within their respective jurisdictions altogether.

Section 33 of the CCLA provides that a license must not be issued to a cannabis retailer unless the local government for the relevant area “gives... a recommendation that the licence be issued.”4 In giving said recommendation, the local government must gauge the public’s interest in the cannabis business being opened in their region, potentially by referendum or public hearing; however, there is no requirement that the local government gauge public interest when refusing to recommend a licence or that it take any action at all, meaning a board or council could unilaterally block any licensing applications.

Unfortunately for those who rushed to open a retail store prior to legalization (throw a rock in Victoria if you want to find one), the province will not be “listening” to the local governments in every sense, as a recommendation to grant a license need only be “taken into account” by the province, and businesses with preexisting licenses unlikely to be given favourable treatment in the application process. Existing cannabis stores should also expect increased license fees and more stringent requirements for security and public safety, among other things.

Certainly, applicants should expect to bear the cost of whatever public hearing a local government holds.

As the province prepares for cannabis legalization in the summer, there will be a scramble at the local government level as councils and boards develop their own bylaws and policies surrounding the sale of cannabis in their communities.

In doing so, it seems inevitable that clashes like the one in Langford will continue.

Bill 31, Cannabis Distribution Act, 3rd Sess, 41st Leg, British Columbia, 2018.

2 Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, 3rd Sess, 41st Leg, British Columbia, 2018.

3 For a clear indication that some local governments intend to enforce minimum distance requirements, see Green Dragon Medicinal Society v. Victoria (City), 2018 BCSC 116.

4 CCLA, cl 33. See note 2.

1

Brian K. Beitz is a solicitor with Jones Emery Hargreaves Swan LLP in Victoria. He practises in the areas of corporate, commercial, and real estate law.

CBA

LEN

VO ENE

)B (BC

ETY UAL ANN TH ATTLE B THE OF

CI T SO

17

BARDS BAN

Thank You!TO OUR SPONSORS PLATINUM SPONSORS

MADAISKY & COMPANY Business Lawyers

MAINLAND REPORTING SERVICES INC.

R E S P E C T. R E L AT I O N S H I P S . R E S U LT S .

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

19

CBA

LEN

VO ENE

)B (BC

ETY UAL ANN TH ATTLE B THE OF

CI T SO

17

BARDS BAN

Thank You!TO OUR SPONSORS GOLD SPONSORS

SILVER SPONSORS Affinity Law Group Al Heaps & Associates Inc Belvedere Care Corporation BMC Networks Inc. Chandler Fogden Aldous Charest Reporting Inc. Colin Scarlett Colliers International dentalcorp Dentons Devencore Dr. Mehr Poulad Dye & Durham

Fairmont Vancouver Airport Forte Law Corporation Hamilton Duncan Hamilton Fabbro Lawyers Leslie J. Mackoff Law Corporation LK Law LMS Reinforcing Steel Group North Shore Bar Association OnPoint Legal Research Owen Bird Simpson, Thomas & Associates Synergy Business Lawyers LLP

PRESENTING SPONSOR

R E S P E C T. R E L AT I O N S H I P S . R E S U LT S .

20

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

feature PAUL HEISLER AND ALEXANDER BJORNSON

Cannabis in the Workplace Too high for duty?

C

annabis will soon be legal in Canada. For many Canadians, including the nearly 50% of British Columbians who report using the drug, the right to purchase and consume cannabis recreationally without fear of reprisal may bring relief. For many lawyers and policy-makers, however, the Cannabis Act (“the Act”) will likely lead to new complex issues. Notably, the Act gives rise to legal and technical questions about the ability of police to effectively measure impairment given the lack of a reliable correlation between the level of THC (i.e. the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis) and impairment. In the labour and employment context, courts and arbitrators have grappled with this same issue.

Workplace alcohol and drug testing has long been a legal minefield for employers in both union and non-union settings in Canada; policies often run afoul of privacy and human rights interests. However, testing is permissible in a safety-sensitive workplace in some circumstances, such as where reasonable cause exists to believe an employee is impaired at work, an employee is involved in a workplace accident, or a test is used as a condition of employment for a safety-sensitive position. Courts and arbitrators in many cases

have recognized the distinction between alcohol and drug testing, and often set a higher bar for justifying the latter.

In contrast to alcohol consumption, there is little consensus on how to measure impairment arising from cannabis use.

Indeed, the federal Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation notes that “the current scientific understanding of cannabis impairment has gaps and that more research and evidence, investments in law enforcement capacity, technology and tools, and comprehensive public education are needed urgently.” To some extent this problem has been mitigated by technical advances (e.g. oral fluid tests) that provide a better indicator of recent cannabis consumption. Recent case law reflects some of the issues that arise from this reliance on correlation, rather than proof of impairment.

In Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2017 ONSC 2078, the court dismissed an injunction application to restrain random drug and alcohol testing of employees of the Toronto Transit Commission. Despite acknowledging the unsettled debate over the correlation between positive THC test results and impairment,

the court was satisfied that oral fluid testing for cannabis using a high cut-off level will detect persons whose cognitive and motor abilities are likely impaired at the time of testing. In BC, a union recently raised this point as well, arguing that THC levels only indicate past use rather than impairment, and therefore termination for a positive THC test result was improper.

The issue is not yet decided (Tolko Industries Ltd. v. United Steel Workers, [2017] BCCAAA No. 60).

It remains to be seen whether the implementation of the Cannabis Act will increase the number of Canadians showing up for work too high for duty. It is reasonable to anticipate, however, that the law on workplace alcohol and drug testing will evolve as courts consider the relationship between THC levels and impairment. Employers in safetysensitive industries would be welladvised to stay up to date on this area of law in the coming years.

This article is for information purposes only and may not be relied upon for legal advice. Paul Heisler and Alexander Bjornson are lawyers at Hunter

Litigation

Chambers,

practising

employment law on behalf of both employers and employees, and also maintain civil litigation practices.

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

21

feature GRAEME HOOPER

Marijuana Cafés

A new meaning for 4.20?

C

offee retailer Second Cup announced in April that it was going to be investing in marijuana dispensaries.

With that announcement, one could be forgiven for thinking that Vancouver style coffee shops may soon turn into Amsterdam style “coffee shops.” Indeed, the province’s public consultation showed that British Columbians want marijuana smoking establishments like those in Amsterdam. But will they be permitted?

Smoking tobacco in bars, restaurants, and coffee shops was prohibited in 2001 when WorkSafeBC amended the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. This was done to protect workers in those premises from second hand tobacco smoke, and applied to all workplaces indiscriminately. What this meant was that even smoking on restaurant patios or other outdoor workplaces was prohibited.

However, that prohibition never applied to marijuana. The province signaled its intention to close that gap with the recent release of Bill 30 – Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. Bill 30 includes a prohibition on smoking and vaping in workplaces, but is not as strict as WorkSafeBC’s prohibition on tobacco.

The new prohibition only applies to workplaces that are “fully or substantially enclosed within the meaning of the regulations.” Further, Bill 30 restricts smoking or 22

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

vaping within a “prescribed distance” from doorways or other air intakes into workplaces.

Interpreting exactly what the above means will depend on the yet to be released regulations.

Some insight may be taken from the Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Regulation, which defines “fully or substantially enclosed” as meaning a structure with a roof and half or more of the wall space covered. The prescribed distance is six meters (or 20 feet). If these same definitions are used for Bill 30 it would appear that marijuana will be permitted in some workplaces, such as a patio area 20 feet or more from air intakes.

One could be forgiven for thinking that Vancouver style coffee shops may soon turn into Amsterdam style “coffee shops.”

One reason to be cautious in interpreting Bill 30 is that WorkSafeBC operates and regulates largely independent from the provincial government. When the province regulated e-cigarettes in workplaces, WorkSafeBC nonetheless stepped in with its own provisions. Similarly, tobacco is regulated under both

the province’s Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Regulation and WorkSafeBC’s Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.

In January of this year – well before the release of Bill 30 – WorkSafeBC indicated that it was not amending its Regulation to respond to legalization of marijuana.

Instead, WorkSafeBC pointed to the ironically numbered section 4.20 of the Regulation as sufficient.

This section prevents impaired individuals remaining in the workplace, but it is only triggered when the level of impairment is sufficient to create an undue risk to workers. In other words, it is not a prohibition on exposing workers to marijuana smoke. With the release of Bill 30, what remains to be seen is whether WorkSafeBC will now amend the Regulation to specifically address smoke exposure, similar to tobacco.

All of the above shows the uncertainty ahead for businesses. It is an uncertainty that is inevitable when a century old federal prohibition is lifted on what will largely be a provincially regulated area of business. It is an uncertainty exacerbated by British Columbia’s delay in getting out the regulatory gate.

Even with Bill 30 much is left to regulation, and other regulatory bodies such as WorkSafeBC may still enter the field. Employers looking to enter the marijuana business will need to stay up to date. One amendment may be all it takes for an investment to go up in smoke.

Graeme Hooper is a litigator with Ascendion Law; his practice areas include matters before WorkSafeBC.

feature BRANDON D. HASTINGS

The Cannabis Act High time for change?

P

ossessing any amount of cannabis, except for prescribed purposes, is an offence under section 4 and Schedule II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19 (“CDSA”). Despite the CDSA, the Globe and Mail says there are more than 100 organizations selling cannabis satvia (cannabis) in Metro Vancouver,1 all of which are illegal because they operate outside of the federal government’s medical marijuana program.2 In summer of 2015, the City of Vancouver became the first city to regulate dispensaries in Canada,3 despite their illegality. Dispensaries, therefore, are manifestations of deliberate, systematic, and government-sanctioned lack of rule of law.

Perhaps this shouldn’t be so surprising in Vancouver – a city whose international criminal supercluster,4, 5 is so advanced that Australian authorities have coined the “Vancouver Model” of transnational crime.6 Rule of law advocates be at ease, though, because the province will get serious about enforcing cannabis laws, around the same time as the federal Cannabis Act 7, 8 is expected to pass, which will create a framework for a Canadian recreational cannabis industry and give the province a better avenue to take its cut. As cannabis becomes commonplace, it’s important to understand a few things about the drug itself, and the global industry that will soon surround it.

NOT ALL POT IS CREATED EQUAL

Scientific understanding of cannabis is generally naive. The number of identified compounds in cannabis increased from 489 to 537 from 2005 to 2009, and the number of identified cannabinoids (compounds that interact with the brain) increased from 70 to 109 (56%) during that same period.9 THC and CBD are traditionally cited as the major cannabinoids, and though their primacy is by no means unanimous,10, 11 they are well studied and well understood.

What we do know suggests important differences.

THC can cause intoxication, memory impairment, anxiety, sedation, cravings, dependence and withdrawal, though these effects are mostly observed through anecdotal or correlative evidence in heavy recreational users.12 CBD, conversely, may be able to minimize THC’s negative effects, does not make the user feel “high,” and has no known negative side-effects.13 As of this writing, there are 104 medical marijuana producers in Canada.14 One such producer, CanniMed, lists the CBD and THC concentrations available in its products,15 and others do similarly.16, 17 Under the Cannabis Act, the medical marijuana program will continue, so medical users’ supply will continue untainted. Cannabis Act provisions

around recreational pot include information-type advertising (THC and CBD concentrations), a required “THC” symbol, and a standard or maximum amount of THC “per serving.” The Cannabis Act also allows for up to four cannabis plants per residence. The minimum age for purchasing cannabis will be 18, though experts recommend a minimum age of 25. Legislators say this is a response to the already chronic use of young people, and a desire to steer them away from black market weed.18 Provinces can of course legislate alongside the federal framework, within their own bailiwicks.

Canada is blazing a trail in the recreational cannabis industry. As with any experiment, there will be bumps along the road. How to effectively police roadways against cannabinoid-intoxicated drivers, for example, remains an open question. At the same time, we are enticed by exporting to a global cannabis industry, which is expected to present an over $34-billion USD opportunity by 202119 (about 2% of the global oil industry20), and a pragmatic first step is domestic legalization. Whether Machiavellian, pragmatic, or otherwise, maybe Vancouver played it right all along21 – one could be forgiven for thinking that Ottawa is now following Vancouver’s lead.

Click on footnote number for more information.

8 Or more properly, Bill C-45: “An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts.”

1-7, 9-21

Brandon D. Hastings (bhastings.com) is a lawyer and mediator at Quay Law Centre, CBABC Provincial Council member, and co-founder of Vancouver Legal Hackers.

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK 23

news&events LAW WEEK 2018 RECAP

Dial-A-Lawyer Day Stats

CBA NATIONAL MAGAZINE

Can a Machine Produce Copyright Material?

As businesses across all industries set their sights on a future built on artificial intelligence, there is a growing sense that policy makers are going to have to get serious about thinking through the impact of AI on intellectual property. James Hinton and Peter Cowan wrote a piece about this last year (tgam.ca/2I9SygR), rightfully pointing out that most entrepreneurs in tech innovation have a limited understanding at best about IP in general. Most of the concerns tend to focus on patents (bit.ly/2ru3uQ5), particularly as Canada has set out to position itself as a hub of AI initiatives (bit.ly/2I6QYw7).

Read the full article

bit.ly/2G01PWU

CBA NATIONAL MAGAZINE

Mental Health: A Factor in Sentencing?

A new bill, if passed, will require the courts to take into account offender’s mental health status before sentencing.

Bill C-375 came before the House of Commons justice committee on April 27, 2018 for the first time, and MPs seem set to push ahead on the bill.

At present, pre-sentencing reports only include the offender’s “age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude and willingness to make amends,” as required in the Criminal Code.

Read the full article

24

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

bit.ly/2wsY78E

As part of Law Week 2018, Dial-ALawyer Day (“DALD”) operators answered 279 calls, and of those, 17 lawyers picked up a record of 188 calls and provided free legal advice.

SYSTEM STATS

Total Incoming Calls Total Directed Calls

2017 2018 438 325

SURVEY STATS* 358

279 188

Total Callers Male Female

161 197

255 112 143

Areas of law Family Wills, Estates & Trust Immigration Tort & MVA Employment Business Real Estate Collection Taxation Condo/Strata Criminal Other

112 78 35 31 27 21 17 11 9 8 4 13

50 67 16 14 22 11 21 3 1 2 10 38

104 96 52 24 20 17 13 32

64 70 43 20 28 4 3 23

How the callers heard about DALD Media Paper Word of mouth Website LRS/CBABC Facebook/Twitter SUCCESS Other (Courthouse,

Library, LSS, etc.)

*Stats are based on CASH+ reports and operators’ notes.

2018

WRAP-UP

Here’s a snapshot of some of the activities that took place during Law Week 2018 in BC:

FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION CLASSES

412 people attended

Coordinated by:

18 classes in 9 cities across BC

DIAL-A-LAWYER DAY 2018

17 volunteer lawyers answered

188 calls covering 11 areas of law in 4 hours

THE BARRY SULLIVAN LAW CUP

MEET THE CHIEFS

36 students competed in the competition this year.

Congratulations to Vivian Zhang, West Point Grey Academy who took first place (pictured above).

And to runner-ups: Catherine Cho, York House School and Elise LaFleur, Little Flower Academy.

Dozens of students from North Delta Secondary and Vancouver Technical schools had the unique opportunity speak directly with the Chief Justices from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Provincial Court.

REGIONAL EVENTS TOOK PLACE IN: NANAIMO | KAMLOOPS | VICTORIA | KELOWNA | TERRACE | FORT ST. JOHN THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS

BarTalk_LawWeek_Post_V1.indd 1

5/10/2018 11:22:48 AM

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

25

news&events NEWS

Chief Judge Thomas J. Crabtree Appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada announced May 4, 2018 that Thomas J. Crabtree, Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, has been appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Chilliwack.

Chief Judge Crabtree has served the people of British Columbia for 19 years as a Provincial Court Judge, and as the Court’s Chief Judge for the past eight years.

His accomplishments in that role include working with communities around the province to support the development of five

TIPS FROM

new Indigenous and First Nations sentencing courts in North Vancouver, Duncan, Kamloops, Merritt and Prince George, and Aboriginal child protection case conferences in New Westminster.

Committed to improving the public’s access to justice, Chief Judge Crabtree oversaw the development and implementation of a new trial scheduling model and served on the executive of Access to Justice BC. He has also been a leader in Canadian judicial education, serving on the board of directors of the National Judicial Institute and as a frequent speaker at education programs for judges and others.

Chief Judge Crabtree demonstrated his commitment to openness, accountability, and public access to information by hosting two

live Twitter town halls. The first judge in Canada to engage directly with the public in this way, during each of these events he responded to tweeted questions for a twohour period. Under his leadership the court became a justice system leader with its online communications, including an expanded plain language website, bi-weekly news articles, and an active Twitter account with a conversational tone.

Associate Chief Judge Melissa Gillespie said, “I know the Court’s Judges, Judicial Justices and staff join me in congratulating Chief Judge Crabtree on his appointment.

We wish him the very best in his new role, but we will miss his thoughtful leadership, endless energy, and openness to innovative solutions to the challenges facing the court.”

TRACKING MARIJUANA’S LEGAL METAMORPHOSIS USING QUICKSCRIBE

The shift from prohibition to legalization and regulation of marijuana means tremendous system-wide legislative, regulatory and policy reform at all levels of government. In BC alone, the proposed Cannabis Distribution Act and Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, both in first reading, will affect other domains ranging from agricultural land reserve use to policing, sales tax to tenancy, motor vehicle to pharmacy operations, protection of privacy to workers compensation.

How can you expect to parse these cannabis law changes and understand them overall — let alone track when legislative changes come into force?

Thankfully, Courthouse Libraries BC works closely with Quickscribe Services Ltd. We’ve worked with the legislation service to develop a customizable emailbased service for informing you about recent and upcoming changes to laws.

We license a full suite of Quickscribe’s legislative research tools in our branches, so you can find “cannabis” and/or “marijuana” keyword references in any BC act, regulation, bill, OIC, Hansard debate, etc. You can also configure email alerts to track as laws enter different readings and take effect. That’s something that will work for you even when you can’t come into a branch. Let us know if it’s something you’d like to explore.

26

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

BC LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

ACTS IN FORCE Current from February 27, 2018 up to and including April 24, 2018 The full version of Legislative Update is now only published online and is available exclusively to CBA members at cbabc.org.

BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2017, S.B.C. 2017, C. 12 (BILL 2) Sections 2 to 6 and 8 are in force April 1, 2018

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2017, S.B.C. 2017, C. 20 (BILL 3) Section 49 is in force March 5, 2018

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2017, S.B.C. 2017, C. 19 (BILL 8) Act is in force May 1, 2018

MEDICARE PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2003, S.B.C. 2003, C. 95 (BILL 92) Sections 1 to 9, 12 and 15 are in force October 1, 2018

NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, S.B.C. 2015, C. 40 (BILL 40) Sections 1, 3 to 9, 11 to 19, 21 and 23 are in force March 20, 2018

BRITISH COLUMBIA

BRANCH & BAR

Calendar

JUNE

6 The Lawyers Assistance Program – Boundaries for Lawyers — Vancouver 6 CBABC Equality & Diversity Committee Event – Diversity on the Bench — Vancouver 8 17th Annual Battle of the Bar Bands — Vancouver 15 The Lawyers Assistance Program 8th Annual Gratitude Lunch — Vancouver 21 Vancouver Bar Association Annual Judges’ Lunch — Vancouver 22 CBABC Aboriginal Lawyers Forum 7th Annual Retreat & 11th Annual National Aboriginal Day Auction Reception — Richmond 22 Special Sitting of the Court of Appeal for BC — Vancouver 23 Provincial Council — Richmond 26 2nd Annual Westminster County Bar Association’s Golf Tournament — Surrey

JULY

1 Canada Day

BC LEGAL DIRECTORY

ACCESS SEARCH DISCOVER BEGIN

Update your profile BCLegalDirectory.org

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

27

news&events NEWS

WLF BC Update WLF BC hosted a Section Meeting: 10 Tools to Unleash Our Collective Genius on May 8, 2018 at Clark Wilson LLP, where guests heard from author and executive coach, Kate Sutherland.

On June 7, 2018, WLF BC hosts its second Fraser Valley networking event, the Fraser Valley Spring Mingler at the Glass House Estate Winery.

Registration is now open via the CBABC website.

For more details, contact WLF BC Executive member Sara Forte: sara@fortelaw.ca.

On June 12, 2018, WLF BC is holding its Annual General Meeting at the Law Courts Inn. A keynote speaker will be announced in due course.

NEWS

CLEBC Update RESOURCES FOR ADVISING CANNABIS BUSINESSES AND START-UPS Advising cannabis businesses and start-ups can be overwhelming. Your client may request advice on tax issues one day and employment issues the next.

CLEBC’s Advising BC Businesses practice

28

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

CBA NATIONAL NEWS

Amendments to Bill C-45 Good, but More Needed Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, set to become law this summer, is making its slow way through the approvals process, arriving in mid-April at the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The CBA made a submission (bit. ly/2KMNeS8) on the bill earlier in the process. For this Senate Committee hearing the Criminal Justice Section sent a letter (bit.ly/2I3zxwf) acknowledging that they generally support amendments made to the bill in the House, but emphasizing that the CBA still has serious concerns.

Amendments to the bill, since their submission last fall, include removing the height-restriction for home-grown plants, setting $200 as the maximum fine and specifying that probation is not to be imposed for ticketing offences, and adding certain immunities from prosecution for possession offences in the context of medical emergencies.

The House also added a mandatory review of the law after three years, and the CBA suggests that

manual is specifically designed to address the wide range of issues that arise when advising businesses.

This pragmatic, BC-focused manual covers all stages of advising a business, from incorporation to bankruptcy, and provides detailed guidance on topics such as: Organizing, operating, and financing a business; Business acquisitions, due diligence, and legal opinions; Tax, IP, employment, real estate, and insurance issues; and

this review be coordinated with a review of the Criminal Code amendments for drug-impaired driving under Bill C-46. “The science in the area of drug detection and understanding of the impact of THC levels on impairment is continually developing,” the letter says.

The CBA continues to have serious concerns about other parts of the bill, including the number of offences that carry a maximum sentence of 14 years, for which conditional sentences and discharges would be unavailable.

“If reducing court delay is a government priority, we suggest those sentences be set at a level consistent with sentences for tobacco and alcohol,” the letter says. “We also suggest encouraging use of judicial discretion which leads to earlier resolution of cases, removing them from the justice system before trial dates are even set.”

As well, the lack of a legal market for youth to obtain marijuana, and the continued stiff penalties for offences involving youth, mean illicit production and distribution is likely to continue.

Paul Calarco represented the Criminal Justice Section at the Senate Committee hearing on April 18, 2018.

Resolving

disputes, estate planning, and bankruptcy.

This award-winning manual also features 60 first-class precedents for business law letters, agreements, and court documents to save you time.

For more information, call CLEBC customer service at 604893-2121 or visit cle.bc.ca today.

grantsapproved LAW FOUNDATION LAW FOUNDATIONOF OFBRITISH BRITISH COLUMBIA COLUMBIA

$90,000 BATTERED WOMEN’S SUPPORT SERVICES Legal Advocacy Program $90,000 DZE L K’ANT FRIENDSHIP CENTRE SOCIETY Legal Advocacy Program

Outlined below is a list of grants adjudicated at the March 10, 2018 Board of Governors’ meeting.

Funding totalling $5,859,000 was approved for the following 33 continuing programs: COMMUNITY LEGAL ASSISTANCE SOCIETY $960,000 – Major Programs $60,000 – David Mossop, QC, Public Interest Articling Fellowship $470,000 WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION Programs and the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund

KI-LOW-NA FRIENDSHIP SOCIETY $90,000 – Family Law Advocacy 2018/2019 Pilot Project $90,000 – Family Law Advocacy 2019/2020 Pilot Project $90,000 MAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWS COMMUNITY SERVICES Poverty Law Advocacy Program $90,000 NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY RESOURCES SOCIETY North Shore Legal Advocacy Program $90,000 POVNET SOCIETY PovNet Program $90,000 QUESNEL TILLICUM SOCIETY Legal Advocacy Program

$450,000 ACCESS PRO BONO SOCIETY OF BC Major Programs

$90,000 SENIORS FIRST BC SOCIETY Legal Advocacy Program

$400,000 BC LAW INSTITUTE Program Grant

$90,000 SHARE FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Poverty Law Advocacy Program

$380,000 JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF BC Major Programs $365,000 PEOPLE’S LAW SCHOOL SOCIETY Major Programs $265,000 TENANT RESOURCE AND ADVISORY CENTRE SOCIETY Tenants’ Legal Advocacy Program $190,000 BC PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE Social and Regulatory Justice Program $190,000 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTRE SOCIETY, UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA Environmental Law Centre Clinic Program $190,000 WEST COAST LEAF ASSOCIATION Litigation & Law Reform Program $145,000 MIGRANT WORKERS CENTRE BC SOCIETY Migrant Workers Centre Legal Advocacy Program $100,000 COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS SOCIETY OF SOUTHEAST BC Travelling Poverty Law Advocacy Program $90,000 ATIRA WOMEN’S RESOURCE SOCIETY Legal Advocacy Program

SOURCES COMMUNITY RESOURCES SOCIETY $90,000 – Poverty Law Advocacy Program $90,000 – Legal Information and Advocacy Program $90,000 TERRACE AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY SERVICES SOCIETY Poverty Law Advocacy Program $90,000 WACHIAY FRIENDSHIP CENTRE Wachiay Advocacy Outreach Program $90,000 WATARI RESEARCH ASSOCIATION System Negotiator Program $75,000 UPPER SKEENA COUNSELLING & LEGAL ASSISTANCE SOCIETY Advocacy Program $70,000 MEDIATE BC SOCIETY Major Programs

Funding totalling $740,000 was approved for the following six grants: $220,000 SENIORS FIRST BC SOCIETY Elder Law Clinic $190,000 PIVOT LEGAL SOCIETY Homelessness and Police Accountability Programs $100,000 WEST COAST PRISON JUSTICE SOCIETY Prisoner Human Rights, Health Care and Charter Rights Program $90,000 OKANAGAN ADVOCACY AND RESOURCE SOCIETY Legal Advocate Program for the North Okanagan Regional District $90,000 QUESNEL TILLICUM SOCIETY Family Law Advocacy Program $50,000 UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA Access to Justice Centre for Excellence Funding totalling $325,000 was approved for the following seven projects: $150,000 THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY Entrance Scholarships Fund PEOPLE’S LAW SCHOOL SOCIETY $60,000 – Plan for Later Life: Personal Planning Resources for British Columbians $50,000 – Working in BC: Everyday Legal Problems $20,000 – PLEI Publishing Best Practices Implementation $20,000 VANCOUVER LEGAL HACKERS Legal Hackers Hackathon/BC Justice Hack 2018 $15,000 GREATER VANCOUVER LAW STUDENTS’ LEGAL ADVICE SOCIETY Brian Higgins Scholarships Fund $10,000 VANCOUVER SUMMER MENTORSHIP SOCIETY Summer Mentorship Program Funding totalling $480,000 was approved for the following four Public Interest Articling Fellowship projects: $120,000 BC CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Public Interest Articling Fellowship

$25,000 UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN Native Law Centre

$120,000 UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Law Foundation Public Interest Articling Fellowships – Indigenous Community Legal Clinic

$84,000 LAW FOUNDATION GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS Alan Hanna, Alison Yule, Brittany Goud, Jennifer Doreen Bergman, Moira Aikenhead, Sarah Jean Runyon and Shannon Russell

$120,000 WEST COAST LEAF ASSOCIATION Public Interest Articling Fellowship

$120,000 UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA Law Foundation Public Interest Articling Fellowship – UVic Law Centre

JUNE 2018 / 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 and advance one’s career, practice and business. We pride ourselves on bringing courses to lawyers that will provide the required components of professional responsibility and ethics, client care and relations, and practice management components for 2018 Law Society reporting.

Featured PD Webinar Repeat Budding New Law: The Cannabis Potential Purchase a viewing of this webinar repeat for a review of the landscape of the proposed cannabis laws, their regulation and control. The proposed cannabis law in BC and other jurisdictions will be examined.

Industry issues of what firms can and cannot do, will be canvassed with an emphasis on local government and business.

Date: Based on your availability Location: Your home or office

CBABC Criminal Justice – Vancouver Annual Dinner Our special guest of honour this year is Dennis Edney, QC, who is widely known for his commitment to the Omar Khadr case and the fight for access to justice and human rights. Space is limited for this special event.

Get your ticket early and secure your seat.

Date: June 20, 2018 Location: Sutton Place Hotel, Vancouver Speaker: Dennis Edney, QC

Crossing the Border: Protecting your Client’s Confidentiality and Your Privacy

Upcoming In-Person Seminars Ethics in Action: Practice & Community – Victoria IV Join the CBABC and the Victoria Bar Association for its final installment of Ethics in Action in Victoria for the 2017/2018 term, as we delve into the subject of ethics in an engaging way. Our speakers will identify relevant ethical codes and conduct, put ethics into action by working together on realistic case studies, and highlight emerging ethical problems.

Date: June 18, 2018 Location: The Union Club of BC, Victoria BC Speakers: Dean Lawton, QC, Victoria County Bencher, Carfra Lawton LLP and H. William Veenstra, 2017-2018 CBABC President, Jenkins Marzban Logan LLP

30

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

and how you can employ the options creatively and work with your clients as they strive to pay for their litigation.

Date: June 6, 2018 Moderated by: Stuart Rennie, CBABC Legislation & Law Reform Officer Speaker: Kathleen Cunningham, British Columbia Law Institute; Doug Munro, Law Society of British Columbia; Thomas L. Spraggs, Spraggs & Company and H. William Veenstra, CBABC President 2017-2018, Jenkins Marzban Logan LLP

Upcoming Webinars Increased Access to Justice: Financing Litigation Exploring BCLI’s Study Paper on Financing Litigation and its six options for paying for legal services and funding litigation, learn what these financing options are

This webinar will focus on crossing the border with electronic devices: travelling to the United State and other countries and returning to Canada. Expert practical tips, including managing your reputation, how to prepare to cross the border, what to do if border officers ask to search your electronic devices, and more?

Date: June 12, 2018 Moderated by: Stuart Rennie, CBABC Legislation & Law Reform Officer Speakers: Michael D. Lucas, Law Society of British Columbia; Christopher A. McPherson, QC, Crown Counsel and Tony C. Paisana, Peck and Company

JOIN US! TICKETS & PARTNERSHIPS wineprobonobc.com

GREAT WINES GREAT CAUSE OCTOBER 3 2018 STEAMWORKS BREW PUB

A unique wine tasting and auction to raise funds for Access Pro Bono

VA N C O U V E R | 7 P M - 1 0 P M

In Support of

Presented by

wineprobonobc.com info@wineprobonobc.ca

HIRING NEEDS? We’ve got you covered.

PARENTAL LEAVE

Don’t have the budget or headcount authorization for a permanent hire, but need internal legal coverage or an experienced legal project manager for an important duration?

MANAGING A LITIGATION PROJECT OR MERGER PROCESS

Choose from thousands of candidates.

GENERAL COUNSEL FOR HIRE FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD

lexlocom.ca

855.258.0277 info@lexlocom.ca V

A

N

C

O

U

V

E

R

•

C

A

L

G

A

R

Y

•

T

O

R

O

N

T

O

•

M

O

N

T

R

E

A

L

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

31

displayads

EMAIL: ADS@CBABC.ORG \\

Click here for LEGAL OPPORTUNITIES and ads

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

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

Warren Dueck FCPA, FCA, CPA (WA) Steven Flynn CPA, CA, CPA (WA) Candace Doig CPA, CA, CPA (IL)

CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS VANCOUVER • RICHMOND • CALGARY • EDMONTON

T: 604.448.0200 • Toll Free: 1.855.448.0200 • wldtax.com Collaborating with Andersen Global

WCB & CPP

DISABILITY APPEALS

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

info@gosalandcompany.com www.gosalandcompany.com

l

www.progroupbc.ca 1/10TH AD SIZE - 3.8”W X 3”H, CMYK EXPERIENCED. CREATIVE. PRACTICAL.

Terra Law Corporation welcomes Virginia Wigmore as associate counsel, the newest member of its dynamic, talented team. Virginia previously practiced in the commercial real estate group in the Vancouver office of a large national law firm. She looks forward to continuing her career with Terra Law.

www.terralawcorp.ca

32

604.591.8187

Preferred Supplier of:

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

GC

GOSAL & COMPANY BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS

Sarj Gosal B.A., LL.B.

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

JOB BOARD & NEWS + JOBS

CBABC members have access to BC’s #1 destination for legal careers.

They also receive News+Jobs every week featuring the latest job postings. cbabc.org/JobBoard

BRITISH COLUMBIA

career opportunities GENERAL COUNSEL – ENERGY INDUSTRY | 8 – 20 YEARS | VANCOUVER

A Vancouver-based company in the energy and resources industry have engaged us to find them a General Counsel.

They hold a unique position in their space, and now have a need for a lawyer who can not only handle their commercial legal work, but is also experienced enough to support the company’s leadership on the strategy side. If you have significant background working on major projects in the energy or resources sector, whether gained in private practice or in-house, this could be an outstanding opportunity to head up the legal function at a truly innovative player.

For more information or to apply, please contact Mike Race at mrace@zsa.ca, quoting reference #BT27994.

IN-HOUSE COUNSEL - REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY | 5 – 12 YEARS | VANCOUVER We are working with a successful and rapidly growing Vancouver-based real estate development company, now looking to hire an experienced lawyer to take on the role of sole legal counsel for the business. You will ideally have a mix of experience touching upon complicated real estate sale and purchase deals, real estate development, construction contracts, etc. Beyond these areas, this is truly a broad in-house legal role. You’ll be working closely with the executive team to work through complicated problems, set strategy, and execute. Your ability to thrive in a fastpaced, collaborative, casual yet professional culture with a fairly flat structure will be paramount.

For more information or to apply, please contact Mike Race at mrace@zsa.ca, quoting reference #BT27993.

BUSINESS IMMIGRATION SENIOR ASSOCIATE OR PARTNER | 5+ YEARS | VANCOUVER A major national law firm is currently seeking an experienced Business Immigration lawyer to join their Vancouver office. You will be working closely with local partners and the firm’s existing Vancouver client base in order to continue to build and develop the business immigration practice, taking it to the next level. If you are a business immigration professional with at least 5 years of experience and a knack for client development and practice-building, this is a terrific opportunity to be part of a friendly and collegial group of high-performing lawyers.

For more information or to apply, please contact Mike Race at mrace@zsa.ca, quoting reference #BT27894.

INSURANCE LITIGATOR | 3-8 YEARS | VANCOUVER We are working with a top-tier law firm in Vancouver; they are looking to add an insurance litigator to their growing team. The successful candidate will have 3-8 years’ experience in insurance tort liability and complex insurance claims.

Our client offers a competitive compensation and benefits package.

For more information, or to apply, please contact Amrit Rai at arai@zsa.ca, quoting reference #BT27969.

CORPORATE/COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATE | 3 – 7 YEARS | NORTH VANCOUVER Calling all North Shore lawyers. Are you tired of commuting downtown but don’t want to risk losing access to top calibre work? Our client, a boutique firm in the heart of the North Shore, can provide you with the best of both worlds.

They are looking to hire a 3+ year corporate/commercial lawyer to assist with their busy practice. This individual must be a team player who is ambitious and has a sense of humour. In return, our client can provide career growth, work-life balance and a fantastic work environment.

For more information or to apply, please contact Amrit Rai at arai@zsa.ca, quoting reference #BT27991.

zsa.ca

C

A

N

A

D

A

’

S

L

E

G

A

L

R

E

C

R

U

I

T

M

E

N

T

F

I

R

M

T

M

© 2007-2018 ZSA Legal Recruitment Limited. ZSA, the ZSA logo, and CANADA’S LEGAL RECRUITMENT FIRM are trade-marks of ZSA Legal Recruitment Limited.

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK

33

barmoves Who’s Moving Where and When

34

Andrea (Verwey) Rayment

Victoria Wu

joined Clark Wilson LLP as the firm’s Director of Professional Development.

joined Miller Thomson’s Vancouver office as an associate. Victoria practises primarily in commercial real estate law and represents clients in all aspects of real estate transactions and developments.

Avery Saunders

Mary Locke Macaulay

joined Clark Wilson LLP as an associate of their Private Company Mergers & Acquisitions, Commercial Real Estate and Infrastructure, Construction & Procurement groups.

joined Mandell Pinder LLP as a partner and brings twenty five years of civil litigation experience. She is the author of a leading textbook on Aboriginal litigation practice.

David Ford

Mary Mollineaux

joined Clark Wilson LLP as partner with their Private Company Mergers & Acquisitions, Information Technology and Venture Capital groups.

joined Mandell Pinder LLP. Mary is Secwepemc from the Tsq’escen’ Nation. Mary joins the corporate, commercial and real estate team.

J. Geoffrey Howard

Elisa Penn

joined MEP Business Counsel as employment counsel. Geoffrey brings experience in representing employers and employees in solving complex workplace issues.

joined Mandell Pinder LLP. Elisa brings a background in community planning, governance and advocacy. Elisa clerked at BC Supreme Court and has an MSc from LSE.

Ken Chow

Kendra Shupe

joined Miller Thomson’s Vancouver office as an associate in the business law group. Ken advises public and private companies on a variety of corporate finance transactions, general corporate governance and securities law.

joined Mandell Pinder LLP. Kendra clerked at BC Supreme Court and joins the litigation team, with a focus on Aboriginal, administrative and fiduciary law.

BARTALK / JUNE 2018

Bar Moves space is at a premium and available for free to members on a first-come first-served basis, so send your Bar Move (max. 30 words) and a high-resolution headshot photo to bartalk@cbabc.org now.

TO VIEW ALL BAR MOVES GO TO CBABC.ORG/BT/BM_1806.

J. Reilly Pollard joined Lindsay Kenney as an associate in the Vancouver Litigation group practising bankruptcy and insolvency, commercial litigation, fraud, and real estate litigation.

newmembers March & April 2018 Associate Maken Mashhour Vancouver

Lawyers Nadine Armstrong Electronic Arts Inc Burnaby Sarah Fullbrook Surrey

Monica Monroy joined Hamilton Duncan as associate counsel, where her practice will consist primarily of insurance defence.

Warren Godfrey Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP Vancouver Benjamin Hagen Richards Buell Sutton LLP Vancouver Grant Hatley Horne Coupar Victoria Sebastian Lipnicki Richmond

John Forstrom joined Hakemi Ridgedale as associate counsel. He is a commercial litigation lawyer with more than 30 years experience advising and representing a wide variety of clients.

Roland Luo Roland Law Corporation Vancouver Gurjinder Manhas Kinsman Law Group Richmond Nicholas McKnight Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP Vancouver Aikay Oduoza Vincent Mark Law Office Burnaby

Juliana Cliplef joined Embarkation Law Corporation.

Juliana practises in all areas of Canadian immigration, refugee and citizenship law and helps businesses and individuals to achieve their Canadian Immigration goals.

Gopi Dhillon joined Embarkation Law Corporation as associate counsel, practising in immigration and refugee law.

James P. Parker Nathanson Schachter & Thompson LLP Vancouver Honveer Randhawa Randhawa Law Centre Surrey Kay Scorer Scorer Law Corporation Vancouver Jacqueline Shorter Jabour Sudeyko Lucky North Vancouver Cathryn Smith Magellan Law Group LLP Langley Agnes W. Tong Acumen Law Corporation Richmond Joelle Walker Miller Titerle Law Corporation Vancouver

Bruce Walkinshaw Paine Edmonds LLP Vancouver Su Ji Yim Richards Buell Sutton LLP Vancouver

Articling Students Maria Campos Ozaine Davison Law Group Vancouver Ben Eshref Golbey Law Port Moody Graham Hallson Pender Litigation Vancouver Alan Jordan Horne Coupar Victoria Akingbade Oluwarinu Anniko, Hunter Victoria Millad Ossudallah Pender Litigation Vancouver Howard Sham Vancouver Harnimrit Sian Bennett Jones LLP Vancouver Olja Simic Lonsdale Law Burnaby Sarah Sohn Vancouver Xenia Wong Bennett Jones LLP Vancouver Stuart Wright Williams Lake Shira Zucker Kornfeld LLP Vancouver

Law Students Rajan Bains Surrey Georgia Borg Vancouver Emily Creighton Vancouver To view all new members, please visit

cbabc.org/bt/nm_1806.

JUNE 2018 / BARTALK 35

AME

Go places. Lots of places.

Go places. Lots of places.

The 2018 GLC 300 4MATIC. Total price starts at $49,165.* As a member of the CBABC, you are entitled to an exclusive offer.

For more details, mbvancouver.ca/corporate-fleet The 2018 GLCvisit 300 4MATIC. Total price starts at $49,165.* As a member of the CBABC, you are entitled to an exclusive offer.

For more details, visit mbvancouver.ca/corporate-fleet

For more information on Special Corporate Sales Offers, call Randall Desbrisay at 604-351-5290 or email randall.desbrisay@mercedes-benz.ca Mercedes-Benz Boundary Mercedes-Benz North Shore Mercedes-Benz Richmond Mercedes me Mercedes-Benz Vancouver 3550 Lougheed Highway, 1375 Marine Drive, 5691 Parkwood Way, Aberdeen Centre, 550 Terminal Avenue, Vancouver | D#6279 North Vancouver | D#6277 Richmond | D#6278 Richmond | D#6278 Vancouver | D#6276 For more information on Special Corporate Sales Offers, call Randall Desbrisay at 604-351-5290 or email randall.desbrisay@mercedes-benz.ca Open Sunday: 12pm – 5pm Open Sunday: 12pm – 5pm Open Sunday: 11am – 5pm Open Sunday: 11am – 5pm Open Sunday: 11am – 7pm ©2018 Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. Shown above is the 2018 GLC 300 4MATIC with optional equipment andNorth wheels.

National MSRP startsMercedes-Benz at $45,900. TotalRichmond price starts at $49,165, which includesme freight/PDI of Mercedes-Benz Boundary Mercedes-Benz Shore Mercedes Mercedes-Benz Vancouver $2,595, documentation of $75.Highway, Vehicle options, fees and taxes Vehicle are extra.Way, Dealer may lease or financeAberdeen for less. Offer may change 3550 Lougheed 1375extra.

Marine Drive,license, insurance, and registration 5691 Parkwood Centre, 550 Terminal Avenue, fee of $595, and fuel surcharge without notice.

Visit mbvancouver.ca or your local Mercedes-Benz full details| or call the Mercedes-Benz Vancouver Care at 604-351-5290. Richmond | D#6278 | D#6276 | D#6279Vancouver Retail Group store | D#6278 Vancouver Northfor Vancouver RichmondCustomer Vancouver D#6277 Open Sunday: 12pm – 5pm Open Sunday: 12pm – 5pm Open Sunday: 11am – 5pm Open Sunday: 11am – 5pm Open Sunday: 11am – 7pm ©2018 Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. Shown above is the 2018 GLC 300 4MATIC with optional equipment and wheels. National MSRP starts at $45,900. Total price starts at $49,165, which includes freight/PDI of $2,595, documentation fee of $595, and fuel surcharge of $75. Vehicle options, fees and taxes extra. Vehicle license, insurance, and registration are extra. Dealer may lease or finance for less. Offer may change without notice. Visit mbvancouver.ca or your local Mercedes-Benz Vancouver Retail Group store for full details or call the Mercedes-Benz Vancouver Customer Care at 604-351-5290.

2018-01-2905-MB-January-GLC-Class-Sedan-Print_Ad-CBABC.indd 1

2018-01-05 2:14 PM

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

2018-01-2905-MB-January-GLC-Class-Sedan-Print_Ad-CBABC.indd 1

T

2018-01-2905-MB-January-GLC-Class-Sedan-Print_Ad-CBABC.indd

INTERNAL REVISION

Mercedes-Benz

9.25" x 11.75"

CLIENT REVISION

9.5" x 20.0"

OPERATOR

36

TRIM

BARTALK / JUNE BLEED 2018

TION DATE

02/16/15

ION DATE AME UT DATE T

FOLD January 4, 2018 3:04 PM 2018-01-2905-MB-January-GLC-Class-Sedan-Print_Ad-CBABC.indd LIVE 01/05/18 TRIM Mercedes-Benz 9.25" x 11.75" SAFE 8.75" x 11.25"

T: 604.417.7865 INTERNAL REVISION E: horsman@123w.ca CLIENT REVISION APPROVALS

1 1

C

M

Y

K

BC Legal Directory

K

BC Legal Directory

RH

1 1

C

TRAPM AT FINAL OUTPUT Y SEEN

APPROVED

2018-01-05 2:14 PM

Material: January 10, 2018 Insertion: 2018 Material:

January 10, 2018