Courthouse Libraries BC New and Notable

CLE Practice Points: Ethical Issues for Legal Support Staff in Family Law

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:10:00 GMT

In this paper written for the recent CLEBC course Family Law Basics for Legal Support Staff 2012, author Edna M. Ritchie focuses on a few areas where ethical issues arise in a family practice.

The full collection of course materials is available in print at the library.

Organizing in the Family Law Community

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:20:00 GMT

John-Paul Boyd's BC Family Law Blog comments on the effects the new Family Law Act has had on the family law community:

"The new Family Law Act has spurred somewhat of movement toward organization among the family law community. In some cases, like that of the BC Hear the Child Society, existing groups have been prodded into action, and in others, like those of the BC Collaborative Roster Society and the yet-to-be-named family law arbitrators association, new groups are organizing themselves from scratch."

CBABC Responds to BCSC Ruling on Civil Court Fees

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Thu, 24 May 2012 17:35:00 GMT

The Canadian Bar Association BC Branch released comments on a May 22, 2012 Supreme Court of BC decision that ruled civil hearing fees unconstitutional (see this previous news item by Courthouse Libraries BC). The media release explains the CBABC's involvement in the case and states:

"The CBABC views the decision in Vilardell v. Dunham as a welcome confirmation of the right of everyone to equal access to justice. Mr. Justice McEwan has declared hearing fees unconstitutional and in so doing found that the fees, which escalate to over $600 per day, are an impediment to the courts for all but those who are well to do ... . In the current context of justice reform, the decision is a comprehensive and compelling review of the legal principles that direct how government and the courts must interact to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.”

You can read the Reasons for Judgement here.

Popular law blog SLAW has summarized the Reasons for Judgement and published selections here.

Landmark BC Ruling in Vilardell v. Dunham Finds Hearing Fees Unconstitutional

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Wed, 23 May 2012 07:00:00 GMT

Yesterday, May 22, 2012, Mr. Justice McEwan of the BC Supreme Court handed down a lengthy, 432 paragraph decision concluding that the hearing fees in the 2009 family law trial of Vilardell v. Durham,, in particular paragraph 14 of Appendix C Schedule 1, as they were under the former Supreme Court Rules, are unconstitutional.
A copy of Mr. Justice McEwan's decision was made available through Erik Magraken's blog, and is also available here.
The judgement has caught the attention of media, including Ian Mulgrew of the Vancouver Sun, for its strong criticism of the provincial government's approach to legal funding.
The case is unique for the fact that other major legal organizations in the province took an intervenor role in the proceeding hoping to influence the outcome of the application by the plaintiff, herself represented by the head of Access Pro Bono BC, Jamie MacLaren, to challenge the constitutionality of the hearing fees. The BC branch of the Canadian Bar Association, represented by the current BC branch president Sharron Matthews, and the Trial Lawyers Association of BC, represented by Darrell Roberts QC, intervened and took a position on side with the plaintiff. The Attorney General of British Columbia was invited as an intervenor, and was also represented in the application.

Canada Proclamation

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Fri, 18 May 2012 07:00:00 GMT

Sections of the following act were brought into force:

Financial System Review Act, S.C. 2012, c.5

Please see Canada Proclamations or contact us for details.

Supreme Court of Canada Decision: Regulation of labour relations

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Fri, 18 May 2012 07:00:00 GMT

The Supreme Court of Canada released the following decision on May 17, 2012:

Tessier Ltée v. Quebec (Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail), 2012 SCC 23
; File No.33935 (Whether stevedoring activities form integral part of federally regulated undertaking —
Whether company’s employees governed by federal or provincial occupational health and safety legislation)

Supreme Court of Canada Decision: Determining causation of manslaughter

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Fri, 18 May 2012 07:00:00 GMT

The Supreme Court of Canada released the following decision on May 18, 2012:

R. v. Maybin, 2012 SCC 24; File No.34011

(When does an intervening act by another person sever causal connection between accused’s act and victim’s death, thereby absolving accused of legal responsibility? — Whether it was open to trial judge to find that accused’s assaults remained a significant contributing cause of death despite intervening act.)

CLE Practice Points: Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Thu, 17 May 2012 22:14:00 GMT

In this paper written for the recent CLEBC course Commercial Arbitration, author Ludmila B. Herbst outlines some of the issues that arise in relation to interpretation of arbitration agreements.

Ministry of Justice Creates New Resources for Family Law Act

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Thu, 17 May 2012 21:09:00 GMT

John-Paul Boyd's Family Law Resource Blog points us to some new resource materials created by the Ministry of Justice for the new Family Law Act, accessible at www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/family-law/index.htm

Boyd gives a partial breakdown of the contents on his blog, noting that the material include a table of concordance between the new Family Law Act and the old Family Relations Act, and questioning if and how the documents will be used to interpret the new legislation in court.

Supreme Court of Canada Decision: Credibility of Witnesses

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Wed, 16 May 2012 07:00:00 GMT

The Supreme Court of Canada released the following decision on May 11:

R. v. R.P., 2012 SCC 22; FILE NO.34038 (Credibility of witnesses — Trial judge holding
that testimonial evidence as whole did not raise reasonable doubt that accused guilty on
charge of indecent assault with regard to incidents that had occurred more than 30 years
earlier — Whether verdict unreasonable)

BC Proclamation

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Wed, 16 May 2012 07:00:00 GMT

The following act was brought into force:

Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act, SBC 2011, c. 22

Please see BC Proclamations or contact us for details.

Hearings this Week at the SCC

Courthouse Libraries of BC — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:57:00 GMT

Scheduled hearings at the Supreme Court of Canada for the week of May 14 to May 18, 2012.

To view a summary describing the case and issues, click on the name of the case.

May 15, 2012
Her Majesty the Queen v. Richard Cole
Charter of Rights — Criminal law — Unreasonable search and seizure — Reasonable expectation of privacy — Employer issued computer — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the accused possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in his employer-issued work computer without due regard to the ownership of the computer, and the explicit employee use policies that established no such reasonable expectation of privacy — Should a diminished expectation of privacy in an employer-issued work computer impact upon the determination of whether there is a s. 8 Charter breach by law enforcement officials who are subsequently provided the computer by the employer — Whether the legal analysis undertaken by the Court of Appeal in relation to the admissibility of the tendered digital evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter creates an impossible hurdle for law enforcement

May 16, 2012
Brendan David Aucoin v. Her Majesty the Queen

May 17, 2012
Brian Cuthbertson, et al. v. Hassan Rasouli by his Litigation Guardian and Substitute Decision Maker, Parichehr Salasel
Legislation – Interpretation – Health Care – Withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment -- Whether there is a special category of medical decisions taken at the end of a patient’s life to which established medical standards of care do not apply – Whether patient consent is required under any circumstances to the withholding or withdrawal of treatment that the patient’s doctor is not prepared to offer or to continue to offer – Whether a patient’s right to personal autonomy is engaged by a decision to withhold or withdraw life support or other measures required to sustain life when death is otherwise imminent – If life support or similar measures can legally be withheld or withdrawn, what process must first be followed by doctors and what redress is available to patients or substitute decision makers in the event of a conflict -- Whether the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, SO 1996, c. 2, Sch. A, changed the common law of consent to treatment -- Whether Court of Appeal erred in adopting an unreasonable interpretation of the Health Care Consent Act that requires physicians to breach an applicable medical standard of care – Whether the law of informed consent confers upon patients a right to insist upon the continuation of a particular treatment when a medical standard of care requires it to be withdrawn.