The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50836
regional wrap-up ATLANTIC N.S. law firm helps paddlers go for the gold R itch Durnford is dipping its oar into Olympic sponsorship. The Halifax- based law firm is providing financial support to well-known paddlers Andrew and Ben Russell through to the 2012 Games in London, England. "It's an opportunity for us to support people on a local level," says Murray J. Ritch. That support is much-needed, he adds. Medal-winning paddlers like the Russell brothers train 12 months of the year and take part in competitions that span the globe. "There are a lot of expens- es associated with these competitions," notes Ritch. There is much local pride in the broth- ers. Twenty-six-year-old Andrew and his paddling partner Gabriel Beauchesne- Sevigny raised international eyebrows with their fifth- and sixth-place finishes at the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics. Brother (l to r) Murray J. Ritch, paddlers Andrew and Ben Russell, and Eric Durnford. Ben, 20, sports three gold medals from the 2007 Canadian Sprint CanoeKayak Championships in Ottawa. "These are local kids who train year- round," says Ritch, who competes in tri- athlons across Atlantic Canada. While the Canadian canoe and kayak teams receive support from national sponsors like Mazda, sponsorship for individual competitors is harder to come by. That's one reason why Ritch Durnford stepped up. "By having public participa- tion by us, it may encourage other cor- porate sponsors to get involved and create awareness about the world-class athletes we have here," says Ritch. Giving back, Ritch believes, is central to the part law firms play in their com- munities. "There are a variety of ways you can give back to the community. This is the way we have chosen." It's not just that the 16-lawyer firm is located in the same community as the Russell brothers, or even that Ritch has personally known the athletes for several years, it's also what the two men represent. "They're great role models," he says. "They fit the kind of people we have working here." Like an oar to water. — DONALEE MOULTON donalee@quantumcommunications.ca letters to the editor Taken aback I was taken aback by the editorial call for all "Crowns" who had been involved in jury background checks to be disbarred ["Disbar those bad apples," August 2009]. As a standing agent federal prosecutor in B.C., I worked beside many provincial Crown counsel. They are a fine and honourable group who take great pride in upholding the high standards of their offices. Ontario Crowns must be no different. If there were a widespread practice of researching jurors, I can only conclude it must have been based on a belief in its pro- priety. Jury law is arcane and privacy laws are relatively new. Surely, the degree of moral turpitude associated with unknowingly violating a new and oſten overlooked law should be insufficient to end the legal careers of dozens of dedicated Crown attorneys. These jury checks may well be illegal, but I cannot reach that conclusion from the rea- soning put forward by Philip Slayton in his 6 OC T O BER 2009 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com article in the same issue ["The system has been compromised"]. In fact, his reference to Rule 4.05(1) commentary prohibiting vexatious or harassing investigations of jury panel members or jurors suggests the opposite. Such a rule suggests that a non- vexatious and non-harassing investigation would be unobjectionable. Perhaps the laws of privacy have overtaken past practice and this Rule, but in the days when we lived in small towns, who would not have asked co- workers or friends whether prospective juror "Fred" had a troubled past? While the impropriety of use of certain data sources may now become notorious, those who engaged such use and who believed it proper based on widespread practice should have their fitness to prac- tise based on the state of their knowledge and common practice at the time. David S. Mulroney, Mulroney & Co. Victoria, B.C. Improve, don't dismantle CHRC Though I am not familiar with the case, I think it is important to point out that by Ezra Levant's own account of the facts ["A terrifi- cally whimsical mission," August 2009] John Taylor did not go to jail for having a telephone answering machine with a racist message; he went to jail for showing contempt for Can- ada's legal system, flawed though it may be. That seems entirely appropriate. Personally, I am thankful that we live in a society that has a formal mechanism like the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which attempts to reign in the abun- dance of hatred and racism that we seem to frequently encounter. By analogy, just because the criminal justice system faces the "impossible task" of curbing crime, that is not a good reason to dismantle it. Likewise the CHRC can always be improved, but it should not be dismantled. Will Major, Keshen & Major Kenora, Ont.