Analysis of Reference Re Supreme Court Act: the Implied Currency

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Analysis of Reference Re Supreme Court Act: the Implied Currency Analysis of Reference re Supreme Court Act: Th e Implied Currency Requirement for Quebec Seat Appointees to the Supreme Court Daryl Barton* Introduction ther, the number of Supreme Court judges was increased from the initial six to seven in 1927; Th e Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-1 judg- when increased to nine in 1949, the number ment in March 2014, ruled that an appointee to reserved for Quebec appointees increased from one of the three Quebec seats on the Supreme two to three. Th e core sections of the Act relevant Court must be either a current Quebec Supe- to eligibility for appointment to the Supreme rior Court judge or a current Quebec lawyer of Court are sections 5 and 6: at least ten years’ standing. Reference re Supreme 1 Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 [Reference] determined 5. Any person may be appointed a judge who that the phrase “from among” in section 6 of the is or has been a judge of a superior court of a 2 Supreme Court Act [Act] implies that Supreme province or a barrister or advocate of at least Court appointees to the reserved Quebec seats ten years standing at the bar of a province. must be current members of one of the desig- nated Quebec legal institutions. Th e judgment 6. At least three of the judges shall be appointed also affi rmed that any change to the composition from among the judges of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court, including the eligibility or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that conditions of appointees, is constitutionally pro- Province.4 tected.3 A synthesis of textual, contextual, and purposive analysis is hereinaft er used to review the Reference. Textual analysis Background Th e preposition “among” is commonly used to designate inclusion of one or more particulars Since the Act was established in 1875, it has in a class. Typically, both the particulars and the required that a minimum number of appointees class are assumed to currently exist unless indi- to the Supreme Court of Canada have experience cated or implicated to be otherwise. Ascription of with one of three specifi ed Quebec legal institu- implied current tense (“currency”) to the phrase tions. Th at stipulation refl ects recognition that, “from among” is common both in legal writing since Confederation, Quebec has used a system and in less formal uses of language. To cite an of law derived from the French civil code that is example from a Canadian law statute, consider substantially diff erent from the British common Nunavut’s Legislative Assembly and Executive law system adopted by the other provinces. Fur- Council Act: Constitutional Forum constitutionnel 19 3. Th e Legislative Assembly consists of 22 among” the LLBs having at least fi ve years of members, each elected to represent one teaching experience at Canadian law schools, or constituency in accordance with the Nunavut where appointees to a provincial sports hall of Elections Act. fame must be selected “from among” that prov- 60. (1) Th e Executive Council of Nunavut is ince’s athletes, former (that is, presently inactive) composed of the following members: members of the referenced classes of Canadian university law teachers and provincial athletes (a) a Premier chosen from among the members are impliedly, yet unambiguously, eligible.7 of the Legislative Assembly and appointed by the Commissioner on the recommendation of Unlike these fi ve examples in which the evi- the Legislative Assembly . .5 dently unambiguous meaning of the sentence containing “from among” can be accurately In this context, no apparent ambiguity results interpreted solely from the text of that sentence, in section 60(1)(a) from omitting the word “cur- section 6 cannot be accurately interpreted as rent” before “members” because “members” an isolated sentence because its fi rst use of the clearly implies current members. Although sec- phrase “the judges” refers to another section. tion 3 to some extent explicates the implied cur- Th erefore, a purely textual interpretation of sec- rency of members, absent section 3 the meaning tion 6 is impractical. of “from among” in section 60(1)(a) is satisfacto- rily clear because it is commonly understood that membership in a legislative assembly changes Contextual analysis regularly and includes only members selected in the most recent election. Expanding the scope of the analysis of section Another representatively unambiguous use 6 to include contextual considerations involves of the phrase “from among” in a statute involving examination of other sections and earlier ver- implied currency occurs in the federal Competi- sions of the Act. Examining the relevant sections tion Tribunal Act: in the original text and in the 1886 amended ver- sion is instructive. Th e original 1875 Act states 3. (2) Th e Tribunal shall consist of the eligibility requirements for all Supreme Court appointments in a single section using only one (a) not more than six members to be appointed sentence. from among the judges of the Federal Court by the Governor in Council on the 4. Her majesty may appoint . one person, who 6 recommendation of the Minister of Justice . is, or has been, a Judge of one of the Superior Provided no other sections of this legislation Courts in any of the Provinces forming part of the Dominion of Canada, or who is a Barrister create contextual ambiguity, “from among the or Advocate of at least ten years’ standing at the judges” may be interpreted with near certainty Bar of any one of the said Provinces, to be Chief as referring exclusively to the class of current Justice of the said Court, and fi ve persons who judges. are, or have been, respectively, Judges of one of the said Superior Courts, or who are Barristers Similarly, informal use of “from among” to or Advocates of at least ten years’ standing impliedly refer to only current members of the at the Bar of one of the said Provinces, to be referenced class is common. A baseball team Puisne Judges of the said Court, two of whom manager who selects a starting pitcher “from at least shall be taken from among the Judges of among” the team’s pitchers has only the pitchers the Superior Court, or Court of Queen’s Bench, on the current team roster to choose from. or the Barristers or Advocates of the Province of Quebec.8 Nonetheless, using “from among” to impliedly refer to both current and former mem- Section 4 of the 1875 Act contains two eli- bers of the referenced class is hardly rare. Where gibility conditions for Supreme Court appoint- a law faculty selects a new faculty member “from ments: (1) membership in specifi ed institutions, 20 Volume 24, Number 1, 2015 one of which includes a minimum experience supersedes the presumed common sense of the proviso (institution condition), and (2) current original. Because the wording of section 5 of the or former membership status (status condition). current version of the Act is a mere textual revi- Section 4 states a general rule for applying these sion of the corresponding 1886 statute, “ten years’ two conditions to Supreme Court appointments, standing” continues to mean, per section 5, that followed by a particular rule for applying them to a former lawyer having ten years of nonconsecu- Quebec seat appointees. tive bar membership is eligible for appointment. In section 4 of the original version, and in Th e original ambiguity of the phrase “from sections 5 and 6 of the current version, the phrase among” in reference to Quebec seat eligibil- “from among” is not the only potentially ambig- ity was not altered by the 1886 amendments, uous wording. Also ambiguous, and doubly and remains in the current version’s text. Th at so in the original section 4, is the word “stand- this ambiguity exists was disputed in both the ing” in the phrase “of at least ten years’ stand- majority judgment and the minority dissent. ing.” Assuming “standing” means “duration,” it is Although the majority and minority gave section uncertain in the 1875 version whether the dura- 6 incompatible interpretations, they described tion of at least ten years must be (1) consecutive its meaning as, respectively, “plain” and “abun- or merely cumulative, and (2) current exclusively dantly clear”.10 On the contrary, that the intended of the former. Consider the 1886 amendments to meaning of section 6 in the current 1985 ver- section 4: sion is ambiguous has been amply attested to by the opposing interpretations off ered by various 4.(2) Any person may be appointed a judge experts.11 of the court who is or has been a judge of a superior court of any of the Provinces of In section 4 of the original 1875 version, the Canada, or a barrister or advocate of at least general rule clearly states that a lawyer appointee ten years’ standing at the bar of any of the said as a puisne judge not representing Quebec must Provinces. be a current lawyer (“are Barristers or Advo- cates”). As a result, the issue of whether the par- 4.(3) Two at least of the judges of the court shall be appointed from among the judges of ticular rule phrase “from among” implies cur- the Court of Queen’s Bench, or of the Superior rency for Quebec seat lawyer appointees does not Court, or the barristers or advocates of arise in the 1875 version because the general rule the Province of Quebec.9 has already established that currency is required. Th e 1886 amendment to the general rule changes Although perhaps diminishing the original lawyer appointee eligibility for non-Quebec seats precision of the word “standing”, section 4(2) to include both former and current lawyers (“is resolves the second uncertainty by changing the or has been .
Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, Chief Justice of Canada and of the Supreme Court of Canada, Is Pleased to Welcome Mr
    SUPREME COURT OF CANADA PRESS RELEASE OTTAWA, January 8,1998 -- The Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, Chief Justice of Canada and of the Supreme Court of Canada, is pleased to welcome Mr. Justice Ian Binnie to the Court. He stated: “I am very pleased that in the legacy of our late colleague, John Sopinka, another member of the Court has been selected directly from the legal profession. It is important that this Court always be aware of the realities of the practising Bar so that we do not lose sight of the practical effect of our judgments. I am sure that Mr. Justice Binnie, who is counsel of the highest standing in the profession, will make a very valuable and lasting contribution to this Court.” Chief Justice Lamer spoke to Mr. Justice Binnie this morning to congratulate him on his appointment. Mr. Justice Binnie has indicated that he will be available to commence his duties at the Court as of the 26th of January. However, he will not be sitting that week, nor during the two following weeks as the Court is in recess, in order that he may prepare for the Quebec Reference case which will proceed, as scheduled, during the week of February 16th. Mr. Justice Binnie’s swearing-in will take place on February 2, 1998 at 11:00 a.m. in the main courtroom. Ref.: Mr. James O’Reilly Executive Legal Officer (613) 996-9296 COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE OTTAWA, le 8 janvier 1998 -- Le très honorable Antonio Lamer, Juge en chef du Canada et de la Cour suprême du Canada, a le plaisir d’accueillir M.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgressing the Division of Powers: the Case of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
    Transgressing the Division of Powers: The Case of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement Christa Scholtz and Maryna Polataiko Abstract In 1975, the Bourassa government received legal advice that the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement exceeded provincial jurisdiction. Legal counsel advised the constitutionality of the Agreement be secured through formal constitutional amendment. No such amendment was sought. Based on authorized access to Premier Bourassa’s archived dossier on the Agreement’s negotiation, this article sets out the following: 1) why the provincial government sought to encroach on federal juris- diction; 2) the strategic means employed to insulate the Agreement from s. 91(24) litigation; and 3) provincial negotiators’ views on how judges would approach the Agreement going forward. This article confirms theoretical expectations about when governments might coordinate to transgress federalism’s division of powers: a high probability that courts would find a transgression occurred, and a high political cost should governments not coordinate on a transgression strategy. Keywords: federalism, James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, constitutional law, division of powers, judicial politics, bargaining Résumé En 1975, le gouvernement de Robert Bourassa a reçu un avis juridique qui stipulait que la Convention de la baie James et du Nord québécois transcendait les compétences provinciales. Le conseiller juridique a donc recommandé de garantir la constitutionnalité de cette Convention au moyen d’un amendement constitutionnel
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • “Canada” on the Supreme Court in 2016
    DRAFT | CPSA 2017 Please don’t cite without permission Competing Diversities: Representing “Canada” on the Supreme Court in 2016 Erin Crandall | Acadia University Robert Schertzer | University of Toronto The Supreme Court oF Canada’s (SCC) inFluence on politics and public policy – from deciding human rights cases to adjudicating Federal-provincial disputes – has long placed it in the spotlight oF political actors and watchers alike. Seeing the Court as activist or restrained, as siding with the Federal government or as balanced in its Federalism case law, as anti-democratic or the guardian oF the constitution, are all hallmarks oF the debate about its place in Canadian politics. Underpinning these debates is an often-critical focus on the justices’ themselves, the process by which they are selected, and the virtually unFettered power Prime Ministers have had in appointing individuals to the bench. In August 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau clearly established his position within this debate by announcing a new way to choose SCC justices. Along with promoting more transparency and accountability in the process, the key elements oF Trudeau’s proposed reForms were to ensure that all future justices were functionally bilingual and that they represent the diversity of Canada (see Trudeau 2016b). In line with these new objectives, one oF the First things Trudeau highlighted in his announcement was a willingness to break with the convention of regional representation on the bench and move toward an open application process. With the upcoming retirement of Nova Scotia Justice Thomas Cromwell in September 2016, questions immediately emerged as to whether the government would deviate from the tradition of having one of the nine justices on the SCC come from Atlantic Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul J. Lawrence Fonds PF39
    FINDING AID FOR Paul J. Lawrence fonds PF39 User-Friendly Archival Software Tools provided by v1.1 Summary The "Paul J. Lawrence fonds" Fonds contains: 0 Subgroups or Sous-fonds 4 Series 0 Sub-series 0 Sub-sub-series 2289 Files 0 File parts 40 Items 0 Components Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................Biographical/Sketch/Administrative History .........................................................................................................................54 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................Scope and Content .........................................................................................................................54 .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The New Process for Judicial Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada
    THE NEW PROCESS FOR JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Anthony Housefather Chair FEBRUARY 2017 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons SPEAKER’S PERMISSION Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate and is not presented as official. This permission does not extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this permission or without authorization may be treated as copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. Authorization may be obtained on written application to the Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not constitute publication under the authority of the House of Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes briefs to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, authorization for reproduction may be required from the authors in accordance with the Copyright Act. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of Commons and its Committees. For greater certainty, this permission does not affect the prohibition against impeaching or questioning the proceedings of the House of Commons in courts or otherwise. The House of Commons retains the right and privilege to find users in contempt of Parliament if a reproduction or use is not in accordance with this permission.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Society of Upper Canada Archives
    The Law Society of Upper Canada Archives Paul Lawrence fonds PF39 Prepared by: Carol Hollyer, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Biographical Sketch Immediate Source of Acquisition Scope and Content Series Descriptions: PF39-1 Photographs of lawyers, judges and events PF39-2 Photographs of Canadian Bar Association conferences PF39-3 Miscellaneous photographs PF39-4 Index Paul Lawrence fonds PF39 Biographical History Paul J. Lawrence served as freelance photographer for the Ontario Lawyers Weekly and The Lawyers Weekly from 1983 to 2000. Immediate Source of Acquisition The records in this fonds were acquired by The Law Society of Upper Canada from Paul Lawrence in October of 2001. Scope and Content 1985-[2001?]; predominant 1985-1998 ca. 63,500 photographs : b&w and col. negatives ; 35 mm and 6 x 6 cm 105 photographs : col. slides ; 35 mm 3 photographs : col. prints ; 13 x 18 cm and 21 x 25 cm 2 cm of textual records Fonds consists of photographic negatives and slides created and accumulated by Paul Lawrence while a freelance photographer for The Ontario Lawyers Weekly and The Lawyers Weekly from 1983 to 2000. The photographs depict individual lawyers and judges from across Canada, most of which are from Ontario although a substantial number are from British Columbia. His subjects include lawyers practicing in all areas of the law, from prominent lawyers in large firms to sole practitioners, judges from various courts, as well as federal and provincial Chief Justices. Subjects also include individuals from political and business circles associated with the legal profession. Also depicted are various legal events from across the country, such as Canadian Bar Association conferences and Canadian Bar Association – Ontario events.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Judicial Nomination Processes and the Press: ‘Interesting, in a Sleepy Sort of Way’
    Oñati Socio-legal Series, v. 4, n. 4 (2014) – Law in the Age of Media Logic ISSN: 2079-5971 Canadian Judicial Nomination Processes and the Press: ‘Interesting, in a Sleepy Sort of Way’ ∗ DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN Schneiderman, D., 2014. Canadian Judicial Nomination Processes and the Press: ‘Interesting, in a Sleepy Sort of Way’. Oñati Socio-legal Series [online], 4 (4), 685-708. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2511239 Abstract Most of the recent appointees to the Supreme Court of Canada have participated in a new Canadian judicial nomination process initiated by the current Conservative government. As originally formulated in early policy platforms, the process was intended to mimic features of US Senate judicial confirmation hearings and so would highlight the distinction (popular in US political discourse) between ‘applying’ and ‘making’ law. This led to widespread fears that any new public process would politicize judicial appointments and functions at the Supreme Court. The process turned out to be much more tepid than anticipated and so raises questions about what Canadians may have learned as a consequence of this new nomination process. This paper undertakes a qualitative analysis of reporting of four nomination processes from a select number of Canadian newspapers. The main object is to determine the degree to which readers might have been alerted to the distinction between law and politics or, put another way, between judicial activism and restraint. It turns out that this framing was not dominant in the coverage and that, instead, distinctive Canadian political preoccupations, like language politics, got channeled through this new political opportunity structure.
    [Show full text]
  • SCAI Annual Report 2014-2015
    2014-2015 ANNUAL REPORT National Advisory Committee In 2014-2015, the Supreme Court Advocacy Institute completed its eighth year The Honourable Frank Iacobucci, of service, during which it continued to provide counsel appearing for argument C.C., Q.C., Chairperson before the Supreme Court of Canada with rigorous practice sessions. The The Honourable Gérald V. La Forest, C.C., Q.C., Honorary Institute’s advocacy program aims to increase the effectiveness and quality of Chairperson advocacy before the Court by simulating for counsel the experience of oral The Honourable Peter Cory, C.C., argument before the highest court. A panel of seasoned Supreme Court C.D. Q.C., Honorary Chairperson advocates listens to counsel’s argument and offers candid and constructive The Honourable John C. Major, C.C., Q.C., Honorary Chairperson feedback to help maximize counsel’s opportunity to present informative and effective oral submissions. The Honourable Michel Bastarache, C.C., Honorary Chairperson The Honourable Louise Charron, During the past year, the Institute provided free, non-partisan advocacy sessions C.C., Honorary Chairperson in approximately 49% of cases before the Court, including in 74% of appeals The Honourable Ian Binnie, C.C., from Quebec, 61% from Ontario, and 27% from British Columbia. Counsel from Q.C., Honorary Chairperson both government and private practice used the Institute’s advocacy program in a The Honourable Marie Deschamps, C.C., Honorary Chairperson wide range of civil and criminal appeals. They included both seasoned advocates and first-time counsel before the Court. The Honourable Morris J. Fish, Q.C., Honorary Chairperson The Honourable Louis LeBel, Sixty-six (66) lawyers donated their time as advocacy advisors for their Honorary Chairperson colleagues, offering advice based on their own experience before the Court.
    [Show full text]