DOCSLIB.ORG

The Mclachlin Court by Numbers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The McLachlin Court by Numbers Stephen Bindman February 2013 HERE COME DA JUDGE 1 The Right Honourable Madam Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, P.C. Appointed: March 30, 1989 Retirement: September 7, 2018 2 The Honourable Mr. Justice Louis LeBel Appointed: January 7, 2000 Retirement: November 30, 2014 3 The Honourable Mr. Justice Morris J. Fish Appointed: August 5, 2003 Retirement: November 16, 2013 4 The Honourable Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella Appointed: August 30, 2004 Retirement: July 1, 2021 5 The Honourable Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein Appointed: March 1, 2006 Retirement: December 25, 2015 6 The Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas Albert Cromwell Appointed: December 22, 2008 Retirement: May 5, 2027 7 The Honourable Mr. Justice Michael J. Moldaver Appointed: October 21, 2011 Retirement: December 23, 2022 8 The Honourable Madam Justice Andromache Karakatsanis Appointed: October 21, 2011 Retirement: October 3, 2030 9 The Honourable Mr. Justice Richard Wagner Appointed: October 5, 2012 Retirement: April 2, 2032 10 Average age and experience at appointment of justices on the Supreme Court of Canada, 1970-2006 Source: Songer. (2008) The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada. University of Toronto Press: Toronto. 11 NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK 12 Decisions written by Mr. Justice Moldaver and heard on appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada Case name and citation Disposition Involvement of Moldaver J.A. R. v. V. Y., 2011 Appeal Moldaver J.A. wrote SCC 22 Dismissed dissenting reasons of the Court of Appeal Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Appeal Allowed Moldaver J.A. wrote the Demolition Corp., 2006 SCC 36, decision of the Court of [2006] 2 S.C.R. 189 Appeal Penetanguishene Mental Health Appeal Allowed Moldaver J.A. wrote the Centre v. Ontario (A.G.), 2004 decision of the Court of SCC 20, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 498 Appeal R. v. Find, 2011 SCC 32, [2001] 1 Appeal Moldaver J.A. wrote S.C.R. 864 Dismissed dissenting reasons of the Court of Appeal Source: Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada 13 Decisions written by Madam Justice Karakatsanis and heard on appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada Case name & citation Status Breeden v. Black, 2010 ONCA 547 Appeal Heard March 22, 2011: judgment rendered April 18, 2012. Appeal dismissed. R. v. Cole, 2011 ONCA 218 OVERTURNED October 19,2012. (reasonable expectation of privacy on office computer) Source: Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada 14 WHISTLE WHILE YOU WORK 15 Source: SCC, Statistics 2001 to 2011 16 Source: SCC, Statistics 2001 to 2011 17 Source: SCC, Statistics 1999 to 2009 18 Source: SCC, Statistics 2001 to 2011 19 Source: SCC, Statistics 2001 to 2011 20 Appeals Heard 1999-2011: Origin Source: SCC, Statistics 1999 to 2011 21 Source: SCC, Statistics 2001 to 2011 22 Source: SCC, Statistics 2001 to 2011 23 • Source: SCC, Statistics 2001 to 2011 24 • Source: SCC, Statistics 2001 to 2011 25 Source: SCC, Statistics 2001 to 2011 26 • WHAT, ME DISAGREE? 27 • Source: SCC, Statistics 2001 to 2011 28 The Quantity and Unanimity of the Supreme Court of Canada The Court Quantity Unanimity (%) of: Dickson + ↑ 113 Average + ↑ 70.7 Average (1984-1990) + ↓ 71 84.3 + ↓ 40.7 56.6% Lamer + ↑ 93 Average + ↑ 57.9 Average (1990-2000) + ↓ 57 71.3 + ↓ 28.9 43.6% McLachlin + ↑ 77 Average + ↑ 70.1 Average (2000-2008) + ↓ 46 65.4 + ↓ 39.1 60.0% Source: Marie-Claire Belleau, les décisions unanimes et divisées de la Cour supreme du Canada: une analyse comparative 29 Unanimous and Split Decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada SCC 2000-2008 SCC 1982-2008 McLachlin All decisions issued and reported Unanimous 54% 60% decisions Divided decisions 46% 40% Non-unanimous decisions Judges with the 61% 67% majority Judges with the 38% 33% minority Source: Marie-Claire Belleau, les decisions unanimes et divisées de la Cour supreme du Canada: une analyse comparative 30 Decisions Reported from the Supreme Court of Canada, 1982-2010 (December 31 2010) Judge Unanim Non- Participate With With With the With the ous unanimou d in the the dissent on dissent Decisio s Writing Majorit dissent the result (%) ns Decisions (%) y (%) on the (%) reasons (%) Rothstein 99 24.2 70.7 14.1 13.1 29.3 Binnie 308 27.6 67.9 12.0 17.5 32.1 Abella 143 34.3 64.3 12.6 20.3 35.7 Charron 146 25.3 73.3 11.0 12.3 26.7 Fish 171 35.1 57.9 14.6 25.2 42.1 Deschamps 198 33.3 58.6 13.6 23.7 41.4 LeBel 252 40.9 56.4 17.5 21.4 43.7 McLachlin 641 41.7 56.0 22.6 17.9 43.2 Cromwell 31 19.4 74.2 0.0 19.4 25.8 31 -Degrees of Agreement – Concurrence at the Supreme Court of Canada: The 100 Most Recent Cases (January 2011 - June 30 2012) Source: Simon Fodden, SLAW.CA 32 -Degrees of Agreement – Concurrence at the Supreme Court of Canada: The 100 Most Recent Cases (January 2011 - June 30 2012) Source: Simon Fodden, SLAW.CA 33 ON YOUR OWN 34 Percentage of leave applications filed by self represented litigants Year Leave applications filed by Leave applications filed by % filed by self Granted self- s all litigants self represented litigants represented represented litigants applications 200 642 117 18% 0 0 200 621 117 19% 1 1 200 523 106 20% 0 2 200 550 92 17% 2 3 200 568 114 20% 0 4 200 544 103 19% 0 5 200 506 115 23% 0 6 200 602 150 35 Source: Supreme25% Court of Canada 0 7 200 528 128 24% 0 8 200 542 143 26% 0 9 201 488 122 25% 0 0 201 557 157 28% 0 1 Leave applications filed by self represented litigants by case type Source: Supreme Court of Canada 36 .
Recommended publications
  • COURT JUSTICES, 1985-2013 Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin

    COURT JUSTICES, 1985-2013 Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin

    Paper prepared for the 2018 CPSA Annual Conference – Please do not cite nor circulate without permission HOW MUCH FRENCH DO THEY SPEAK ANYWAY? A BILINGUALISM INDEX FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, 1985-2013 Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin & Tiago Rubin Draft paper prepared for the CPSA 2018 Annual Conference. Please do not cite nor circulate without permission. Mandatory bilingualism for Supreme Court judges tantalizes Canadian politics for at least ten years now. The advocates of judicial bilingualism have repeatedly tried (and failed) to enshrine into law the requirement for Supreme Court justices to be functionally bilingual, i.e. the ability to “read materials and understand oral argument without the need for translation or interpretation in French and English”. For them, integrating mandatory bilingualism as a legislative requirement in the appointment process is a panacea. Their opponents argue that language proficiency in French should not be a sine qua non condition for Supreme Court justiceship and that requiring it would prevent excellent candidates from being appointed. However, despite the fact that empirical statements abound on both sides, there is very little empirical evidence regarding the actual impact of unilingualism and bilingualism on Canadian judicial institutions and simply no evidence whatsoever about its impact on individual judges’ behavior. Building on our ongoing research on judicial bilingualism, in this paper we try to evaluate the level of bilingualism of individual justices. What our findings suggest is that the behavior of Francophone and Anglophone bilinguals is influenced by the linguistic competency of their colleagues. Our findings also suggest that some Anglophone justices that are deemed to be bilinguals do not behave very differently from their unilingual colleagues.
  • Special Series on the Federal Dimensions of Reforming the Supreme Court of Canada

    Special Series on the Federal Dimensions of Reforming the Supreme Court of Canada

    SPECIAL SERIES ON THE FEDERAL DIMENSIONS OF REFORMING THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA The Supreme Court of Canada: A Chronology of Change Jonathan Aiello Institute of Intergovernmental Relations School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University SC Working Paper 2011 21 May 1869 Intent on there being a final court of appeal in Canada following the Bill for creation of a Supreme country’s inception in 1867, John A. Macdonald, along with Court is withdrawn statesmen Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Mackenzie and Edward Blake propose a bill to establish the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the bill is withdrawn due to staunch support for the existing system under which disappointed litigants could appeal the decisions of Canadian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) sitting in London. 18 March 1870 A second attempt at establishing a final court of appeal is again Second bill for creation of a thwarted by traditionalists and Conservative members of Parliament Supreme Court is withdrawn from Quebec, although this time the bill passed first reading in the House. 8 April 1875 The third attempt is successful, thanks largely to the efforts of the Third bill for creation of a same leaders - John A. Macdonald, Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Supreme Court passes Mackenzie and Edward Blake. Governor General Sir O’Grady Haly gives the Supreme Court Act royal assent on September 17th. 30 September 1875 The Honourable William Johnstone Ritchie, Samuel Henry Strong, The first five puisne justices Jean-Thomas Taschereau, Télesphore Fournier, and William are appointed to the Court Alexander Henry are appointed puisne judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
  • Youth Activity Book (PDF)

    Youth Activity Book (PDF)

    Supreme Court of Canada Youth Activity Book Photos Philippe Landreville, photographer Library and Archives Canada JU5-24/2016E-PDF 978-0-660-06964-7 Supreme Court of Canada, 2019 Hello! My name is Amicus. Welcome to the Supreme Court of Canada. I will be guiding you through this activity book, which is a fun-filled way for you to learn about the role of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Canadian judicial system. I am very proud to have been chosen to represent the highest court in the country. The owl is a good ambassador for the Supreme Court because it symbolizes wisdom and learning and because it is an animal that lives in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada stands at the top of the Canadian judicial system and is therefore Canada’s highest court. This means that its decisions are final. The cases heard by the Supreme Court of Canada are those that raise questions of public importance or important questions of law. It is time for you to test your knowledge while learning some very cool facts about Canada’s highest court. 1 Colour the official crest of the Supreme Court of Canada! The crest of the Supreme Court is inlaid in the centre of the marble floor of the Grand Entrance Hall. It consists of the letters S and C encircled by a garland of leaves and was designed by Ernest Cormier, the building’s architect. 2 Let’s play detective: Find the words and use the remaining letters to find a hidden phrase. The crest of the Supreme Court is inlaid in the centre of the marble floor of the Grand Entrance Hall.
  • The Quintessential Trusted Advisor

    The Quintessential Trusted Advisor

    « THE VOICE OF MONTREAL ENGLISH-SPEAKING LAWYERS » Vol.1, No 4 $4 The quintessential trusted advisor Me Monique Mercier, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, TELUS Suzanne Côté appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada Cross-examination of plaintiffs lost-profits damages expert-Part 1 By Richard M.Wise of MNP Made in Court Supreme Court Decisions that shaped Canada By Richard W.Pound of Stikeman Elliott The Eternal Beauty of the Jewelry of Carl Fabergé By Olga Shevchenko, FGA — Certified Gemmologist The new covered terrace DISCOVER THE SINCLAIR WORLD DISCOVERY MENU | WINE PAIRING BUSINESS LUNCH | URBAN BRUNCH TAILORED CORPORATE EVENTS BANQUET HALL | WEDDINGS [email protected] | RESTAURANTSINCLAIR.COM 514 284.3332 | 414, RUE SAINT-SULPICE Monique Mercier, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, TELUS “General Counsel Emeritus of the Year 2014” “The quintessential trusted advisor” By André Gagnon onique Mercier, a corporate lawyer who prac- ticed at Stikeman Elliott in Montreal, with Mfiscal law stars such as Guy Masson and Mau- rice Régnier who introduced her to intricate tax and corporate matters, moved to become General Counsel of Bell Canada International and later on Executive Vice- President of Legal Services of Emergis and TELUS. According to Norm Steinberg, Global Vice Chair and Chair- man –Canada of Norton Rose Fulbright, who knows Mo- nique well (and from whom we borrowed the phrase) “She is the quintessential trusted advisor.” Norm praised her Report that may be consulted at http://about.telus.com/ legal talents at a recent recognition dinner held in her investors/ammialreport2013/files/pdf/en/ar.pdf honour at the Montreal University Club.
  • Carissima Mathen*

    Carissima Mathen*

    C h o ic es a n d C o n t r o v e r sy : J udic ia l A ppointments in C a n a d a Carissima Mathen* P a r t I What do judges do? As an empirical matter, judges settle disputes. They act as a check on both the executive and legislative branches. They vindicate human rights and civil liberties. They arbitrate jurisdictional conflicts. They disagree. They bicker. They change their minds. In a normative sense, what judges “do” depends very much on one’s views of judging. If one thinks that judging is properly confined to the law’s “four comers”, then judges act as neutral, passive recipients of opinions and arguments about that law.1 They consider arguments, examine text, and render decisions that best honour the law that has been made. If judging also involves analysis of a society’s core (if implicit) political agreements—and the degree to which state laws or actions honour those agreements—then judges are critical players in the mechanisms through which such agreement is tested. In post-war Canada, the judiciary clearly has taken on the second role as well as the first. Year after year, judges are drawn into disputes over the very values of our society, a trend that shows no signs of abating.2 In view of judges’ continuing power, and the lack of political appetite to increase control over them (at least in Canada), it is natural that attention has turned to the process by which persons are nominated and ultimately appointed to the bench.
  • Mclachlin's Law: in All Its Complex Majesty

    Mclachlin's Law: in All Its Complex Majesty

    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 88 (2019) Article 14 McLachlin’s Law: In All Its Complex Majesty Jamie Cameron Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr Part of the Law Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Cameron, Jamie. "McLachlin’s Law: In All Its Complex Majesty." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 88. (2019). https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol88/iss1/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Part VII The Legacy and Contributions of Beverley McLachlin McLachlin’s Law: In All Its Complex Majesty Jamie Cameron I. INTRODUCTION Beverley McLachlin was a member of the Supreme Court of Canada for 28 of the Charter’s1 first and most formative 36 years — for 10 years as a puisne judge (1989 to 1999) and another 17 as Chief Justice (2000 to 2017). No other judge has had as distinguished a career on the Court, and it will be a long time, if ever, before another jurist has as much impact on the Charter. She was an exemplary Chief Justice, one of Canada’s finest, and is deeply respected as a jurist.
  • For Immediate Release – June 19, 2020 the ADVOCATES' SOCIETY

    For Immediate Release – June 19, 2020 the ADVOCATES' SOCIETY

    For immediate release – June 19, 2020 THE ADVOCATES’ SOCIETY ESTABLISHES THE MODERN ADVOCACY TASK FORCE The Advocates’ Society has established a Modern Advocacy Task Force to make recommendations for the reform of the Canadian justice system. The recommendations of the Task Force will seek to combine the best measures by which Canadian courts have adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic with other measures designed to ensure meaningful and substantive access to justice for the long term. The Advocates’ Society believes that permanent changes to our justice system require careful research, analysis, consultation, and deliberation. “This is a pivotal moment for the Canadian justice system,” said Guy Pratte, incoming President of The Advocates’ Society. “There is no doubt that we are learning a great deal from the changes to the system brought about by necessity during this crisis. We have a unique opportunity to reflect on this experience and use it to enhance the efficiency and quality of the justice system. We must do that while preserving the fundamental right of litigants to have their cases put forward in a meaningful and direct way before courts and other decision-makers.” The Task Force is composed of members of The Advocates’ Society from across the country. They will be guided by an advisory panel of some of the most respected jurists and counsel in our country. The Task Force’s mandate is to provide insight and analysis to assist in the modernization of the justice system. It will be informed by experience, jurisprudence and Canadian societal norms. The Task Force will offer recommendations designed to ensure that the Canadian legal system provides a sustainable, accessible and transparent system of justice in which litigants and the public have confidence.
  • Rt. Hon. Beverley Mclachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of Canada

    Rt. Hon. Beverley Mclachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of Canada

    Published July 2014 Judicial Profile by Witold Tymowski Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of Canada here is little in the early life of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin that would foreshadow her rise to the highest judicial office in Canada. After all, she was not raised in a large cosmopolitan center, but on a modest Tranch on the outskirts of Pincher Creek, Alberta, a small town in the lee of Canada’s beautiful Rocky Mountains. Her parents, Eleanora Kruschell and Ernest Gietz, did not come from wealth and privilege. They were hard- working ranchers who also took care of a nearby sawmill. Chief Justice McLachlin readily admits that growing up, she had no professional female role models. And so, becoming a lawyer, let alone a judge, was never part of her early career plans. Indeed, the expectation at the time was that women would marry and remain within the home. Girls might aspire to teaching, nursing, or secretarial work, but usually only for a short time before they married. Her childhood, nonetheless, had a distinct influence on her eventual career path. Chief Justice McLachlin proudly refers to herself as a farm girl and has often spoken of a deep affection for Pincher Creek. A Robert McInnes painting depicting a serene pastoral scene, appropriately entitled Pincher Creek, occupies a prominent place in her Supreme Court office and offers a reminder of her humble beginnings. That Chief Justice McLachlin maintains a deep connec- tion with her birthplace is hardly surprising. Despite its geographical remoteness, it nurtured its youth with a It grounded her with a common-sense practicality and culture centered on literacy, hard work, and self-reli- the importance of doing your honest best at whatever ance.
  • Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: a 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 Canliidocs 33319 Adam M

    Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: a 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 Canliidocs 33319 Adam M

    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 67 (2014) Article 4 Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 Adam M. Dodek Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Dodek, Adam M.. "Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 67. (2014). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol67/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit* Adam M. Dodek** 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 The way in which Justice Rothstein was appointed marks an historic change in how we appoint judges in this country. It brought unprecedented openness and accountability to the process. The hearings allowed Canadians to get to know Justice Rothstein through their members of Parliament in a way that was not previously possible.1 — The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, PC [J]udicial appointments … [are] a critical part of the administration of justice in Canada … This is a legacy issue, and it will live on long after those who have the temporary stewardship of this position are no longer there.
  • Year in Review

    Year in Review

    2 0 Year in Review 1Supreme 9 Court of Canada Cour suprême du Canada Find the Visit our Like us on Follow us on Supreme website at Facebook at Twitter at scc-csc.ca facebook.com/ twitter.com/SCC_eng Court of Supreme Canada CourtofCanada online! This was the very first photo ever taken of the current judges together. It was taken in the library of the Winnipeg Law Courts on September 23, 2019. © Supreme Court of Canada (2020) Front cover: Grand Hall, Supreme Court of Canada All photos (except pages 8-9, bottom photo on page 16, left-hand photos on page 17, and page 18): Supreme Court of Canada Collection Photo credits: Pages 4-5: Justices Abella and Côté – Philippe Landreville, photographer | Justice Karakatsanis – Jessica Deeks Photography | Justices Gascon, Brown, and Rowe – Andrew Balfour Photography Page 7: Cochrane Photography Page 8-9: True North Sports + Entertainment The Supreme Court of Canada emblem is a symbol of the Court as the highest judicial Page 16: Senate of Canada institution in Canada. It was designed nearly a century ago by the Page 17 - left side, top: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom distinguished Montreal architect Ernest Cormier, and can be found emblazoned Page 17 - left side, bottom: Embassy of Canada to Japan in the marble floor of the Court’s Grand Hall leading to the Main Courtroom. Page 18: Shannon VanRaes/Winnipeg Free Press As its emblem, it represents the Court’s key values of justice, independence, integrity, ISSN 2562-4776 (Online) transparency, and bilingualism. A Message from the Chief Justice When I became Chief Justice just over two years ago, I committed to making the Court more open and understandable, and to enhancing access to justice for everyone.
  • Year in Review Supreme Court of Canada Cour Suprême Du Canada Find the Supreme Court of Canada Online

    Year in Review Supreme Court of Canada Cour Suprême Du Canada Find the Supreme Court of Canada Online

    2020Year in Review Supreme Court of Canada Cour suprême du Canada Find the Supreme Court of Canada online Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Visit our website at SupremeCourtofCanada @SCC_eng www.scc-csc.ca Current bench of the Supreme Court of Canada Photo credits: All photos (except photo on page 9): Supreme Court of Canada Collection Page 3: Cochrane Photography Page 9: Speech from the Throne – PMO-CPM Pages 10 and 11: Justices Abella and Côté – Philippe Landreville, photographer | Justice Karakatsanis – Jessica Deeks Photography | Justices Brown and Rowe – Andrew Balfour Photography The Supreme Court of Canada emblem is a symbol of the Court as Page 28: Justices Brown, Abella et Kasirer – the highest judicial institution in Canada. It was designed nearly Justice Andromache Karakatsanis a century ago by the distinguished Montreal architect Ernest Supreme CourtSupreme Canada of Cormier, and can be found emblazoned in the marble floor of the Court’s Grand Hall leading to the Main Courtroom. © Supreme Court of Canada (2021) The emblem represents the Court’s key values of justice, ISSN 2562-4776 (Print) independence, integrity, transparency and bilingualism. Message from the Chief Justice Along with millions of Canadians in 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada found innovative ways to pivot, adapt and persevere through a global pandemic. Our dedicated employees introduced new technologies, streamlined processes and implemented protocols in collaboration with public health authorities to ensure everyone’s safety and health while serving Canadians. I am proud of the Court’s agility and commitment to maintain access to justice throughout a devastating public health crisis.
  • Nomination a La Cour Supreme Du Canada: L'honorable Juge Thomas A

    Nomination a La Cour Supreme Du Canada: L'honorable Juge Thomas A

    Nomination 'a la Cour supreme du Canada: L'honorable Juge Thomas A. Cromwell Supreme Court of Canada Appointment: The Honourable Justice Thomas A. Cromwell Les juges ie ]a Cour supreme du Canada et les The judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and membres de la Facult6 de droit de l'Universit6 the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law have d'Ottawa entretiennent depuis fort longtemps always maintained close personal and profes- d~jA d'6troites relations. La tradition veut que sional ties. It is tradition to hold a welcoming chaque nouveau juge nomm A.la Cour supreme reception for each newly appointed judge to the du Canada soit invit6 A une reception pour Supreme Court of Canada. The Chiel Justice c61bbrer sa nomination. La juge en chef et les and Puisne Judges of the Supreme Court of 2009 CanLIIDocs 61 juges pun~s de la Cour supreme du Canada, les Canada, Deans of the Common Law and Civil doyens des Sections de common law et de droit Law Sections, professors and students are invit- civil de mme que les professeurs et les 6tudi- ed to attend. ants sont toutes et tous convi~s Ay assister. In keeping with this tradition, the Faculty of law Le 26 mars 2009, la Facult6 a de nouveau per- celebrated on March 26, 2009 the appointment pttu6 la tradition, en offrant une r~ception pour of Justice Thomas A. Cromwell, which was [a nomination du juge Thomas A. Cromwell, announced December 22, 2008. As in previous annonce le 22 d~cembre 2008. Tout comme ceremonies for Justices Deschamps, Fish, lors des cArtmonies d'accueil des juges Abella, Charron and Rothstein, the Right Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron et Rothstein, Honourable Madam Chief justice Beverley la tr~s honorable juge en chef Beverley McLachlin made introductory remarks and McLachlin a salu6 le ju~e Cromwell.