Your search

There is a growing disconnect and alienation between lawyers and the legal profession in Canada. The etiology of this discontent is complex. One cause, which is the focus of the paper is philosophical in nature. It concerns the role morality of the profession and what I posit is a disconnect between the role lawyers want to pursue (i.e. a facilitator of justice) and the role that they perceive the profession demands they play (i.e. a hired gun). In my opinion, this perception is a mistaken one. Given the paucity of Canadian research and reflection on ethics and professionalism, we have created an ethic of lawyering that finds expression in American stories, fears and academic criticisms. I argue in the paper that over the last 15 years, we have been engaged in a process of role morality reconstruction. Under this reconstructed institutional role, lawyers are problem-solvers whose mandate is to seek justice not only for their client but also for the broader legal, social and political system within which they operate. In other words, I contend that an ethic of client-centered zealous advocacy has slowly begun to be replaced with a justice-seeking ethic that seeks to give effect to law's ambition. Part II of this article provides the basic foundations of my reconstruction thesis. In the first section of Part II, I define role morality and defend it as the beacon of ethical reflection rather than jettisoning it in favour of an approach that relies on personal responsibility or morality. The next section attempts to trace the evolution of our understanding of the public interest. As the legal profession has always attempted to ground itself in the public interest, how the profession conceives of it will largely determine how it, and its members, should conduct themselves. The final section of Part II attempts to provide the evidence of this reconstructed role morality by exploring statements from leading members of the profession, recent ethics jurisprudence and by examining equality and harm prevention principles in our codes of conduct. Like any large bureaucratic institution, the profession will inevitably be slow to respond to its new identity and the changing set of norms and values that go with that identity. The required institutional changes are beyond the scope of the paper. However, Part III does address how lawyers can on an individual level give effect to this evolving role morality by adopting a pervasive justice-seeking ethic and by engaging in identity lawyering that is consistent with the interests of justice.

This article critically examines emerging public participatory processes and rhetoric about their ability to increase participatory democracy. The author questions the assumption that participatory democracy is an adequate goal for North American democratic decision-making processes; rather, both government and ADR practitioners should consider the potential of diversity-based democratic theory to inform participatory processes. The author draws from several emerging democratic and ADR theories to form a series of recommendations to incorporate diversity-based practice, thus improving the quality of democratic participation.

The issue of racial profiling has finally begun to attract the attention of the Canadian media; courts; human rights commission; the Canadian Bar Association; and, the academy. The focus has been on racial profiling defined as the use of racialized stereotypes of the usual suspect as the basis for suspect selection. Less attention,however, has been given to cases where race forms part of the description of a suspect provided by the victim or witness. Through the use of narrative, the article examines how race-based suspect descriptions have been misused by the police in Canada. The narratives also reveal the devastating collateral damage when the police use race in any manner in suspect selection. This damage includes widespread harassment, intimidation, false arrests, violence, death, stigmatization and an engendering of mistrust. Given the misuse, the article recommends including suspect descriptions in the racial profiling prohibition where race is used as the dominant characteristic. After considering whether there should be a complete prohibition on using race in suspect descriptions, the article examines current constitutional standards to protect against misuse and proposes a new dominant feature constitutional test.

In this article, the administrative law decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada during the 2004-2005 term are reviewed. These decisions addressed four major issues: i) exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction between competing adjudicative bodies; ii) the right to independent adjudication; iii) standard of review; and iv) expertise and deference. Questions relating to exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction occupied the most significant part of the Supreme Court's administrative law energy during the 2004-2005 term. The author analyzes these decisions on jurisdiction, paying particular attention to the many divides between the members of the Court. She argues that the decisions on jurisdiction ratione material between competing tribunals reflect a contest of two administrative law values that have become central to the Canadian administrative state: expertise and expediency. The Supreme Court's approach, which tends to privilege expediency, may have the effect of denying litigants the opportunity to obtain the most appropriate resolutions to their disputes - resolutions that benefit from the expertise and experience of the tribunals themselves. She also highlights the value of including the individual litigant's view of the dispute in the search for its essential character and possible parameters to the essential character test. Finally, the author discusses the issues related to interpreting legislative intent that arise in the cases concerning the right to independent adjudication and core expertise.

This paper compares and contrasts American and Canadian efforts to regulate debit cards. The paper begins by outlining significant differences between the two approaches arguing that Canadians do not enjoy the same level of protection as do their American counterparts with respect to its provisions governing unauthorized transactions, dispute resolution and its enforcement mechanisms.

In the recent case of Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a condominium association’s refusal to permit Orthodox Jewish unit-owners (the appellants) to construct succahs on their balconies, as part of the Jewish festival of Succot, breached their freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Because the restriction of religious practice was imposed by a non-state actor, the Canadian Charter of Rights was not applicable. However, the majority judgment of Iaccobucci J. was clear that “the principles … applicable in cases where an individual alleges that his or her freedom of religion is infringed under the Quebec Charter” are also applicable to a claim under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.