The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50821
when he attempted to get the funding formula changed, he won. He was a hero in French-speaking Ottawa. It's cases like these that have colleagues like Ronald Caza, a noted Franco-On- tarian lawyer with Heenan Blaikie LLP, commenting: "Pratte is a lawyer who believes very, very strongly that lawyers have an obligation to be the very best they can be both for the client and for the profession." After those notable cases, a political ca- reer loomed. He was close to the Liberals and became a constitutional adviser to Jean Chrétien. In 1993, Chrétien wanted Pratte to run as a Liberal, but party or- ganizers had chosen Matane, a riding far from Ottawa. "I decided not to do it be- cause of my legal career," recalls Pratte. In 1994, the Liberals wanted him again, this time for Ottawa East. "I did think about it, but it didn't work out," he says. Politics was on the backburner and the focus was back on law, even if some cases turned into a circus. In 2005, Pratte rep- resented the CRTC in the famous CHOI censorship case. The CRTC argued radio host Jeff Fillion had been making racist, sexist, and xenophobic remarks on the popular Quebec City station. Ratings were going through the roof. The CRTC had no power to impose fines, only pull the station's licence. It was a tough case. CHOI hired flashy Quebec lawyer Guy Bertrand, French cuffs and all. Bertrand made an unusual move. He showed up at the Gomery inquiry — taking place elsewhere in Ottawa and where Pratte was representing Pelletier in the hear- ing room — and began making his case for CHOI in the corridor outside. It had nothing to do with the Gomery ad-scam inquiry, but Bertrand soon had an angry crowd on his side. It was legal showbiz — Quebec style. Pratte did not take the bait. He stayed inside and waited for the actual CRTC hearing to make his case. He won, even after appeals. Pratte is understandably reluctant to discuss one of his most high-profile situations, representing Pelletier before Gomery, because a case arising out of the commission report is still before the courts. On Jan. 12, 2005, Pratte first accused ntitled-4 1 Gomery of not conducting his commis- sion properly and being biased. Almost a year later, after the report came out, Pratte filed an application in Federal Court to set aside the portions about Pelletier, charging again that Gomery did not handle the commission properly, that there were appearances of bias, and that the evidence did not warrant the conclusion. The case was finally heard in Federal Court in February. A ruling is expected this summer. His successes have been many but not all have drawn unanimous praise. Pratte represented the Canadian Med- ical Association in the famous Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) case. That 2005 Supreme Court decision dealt a Your IP partners Whether arguing before the Supreme Court or preparing an application for the Trade-marks Office, the partners and associates at Dimock Stratton bring experience, perspective, insight, and attention to detail to the job. It's an approach that has won the respect of peers and clients alike and generated the kind of consistent results that recently earned us the distinction of ��� Canadian Patent Contentious Firm of the Year 2008. When you need a top �� partner, contact the team at Dimock Stratton. Dimock Stratton partners from top left to right: Mark Eisen, Henry Lue, Jenna Wilson, Angela Furlanetto, Ron Dimock, Mike Crinson, David Reive, Adrian Kaplan, Bruce Stratton D����� S������ ��� experience. results. 20 Queen W. Ste 3202, Toronto | 416.971.7202 | dimock.com www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com JULY 2008 35 6/6/08 12:53:29 PM