The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50838
REGIONAL WRAP-UP CENTRAL Documents will be disclosed, says N.S. appeal court I t's important to share, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has concluded. The court recently dismissed an application for a stay and deter- mined that the city of Halifax and one of its employ- ees must file disclosing documents. The applicants had refused to provide any disclosure because they contended the court had no jurisdiction in the dispute, which they argued was covered by a col- lective agreement. It was not the conclusion defence counsel had anticipated. "The decision caught me by surprise," said Randolph Kinghorne, a lawyer with the city. The defendants had requested full documentation, he noted. "We're taking the position the court has no jurisdiction; why do we have to undergo this invasion of privacy?" The applicants relied on 1995's Weber v. Ontario Hydro to support their position. That case concludes a labour arbitrator has exclusive jurisdic- tion over any dispute whose "essential character" is governed by terms of the collective agreement. "It was pointed out that Weber was just one case. It's not a fundamental rule. It's fact specific," said Anthony Brunt, a lawyer with Scaravelli & Associates in Halifax who represented one of the respondents. That finding may ripple through the legal com- munity. "It may take the wind out of the sails of Weber," said Brunt. "Everyone says it's the end all be all. It's not. It's arguable." The court is treating this as an access-to-justice issue, said Kinghorne, but "there doesn't seem to be any basis for a full disclosure." The appeal court disagreed. "The case law requires the responding party to 'put his best foot forward' with evidence. Clearly the respond- ing party, to clothe his response with maximum cogency, should have access to the relevant evi- dence possessed by the moving party," Justice Joel Fichaud wrote in his 11-page decision. He pointed out that the disclosure requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure state that "the opposing parties and the court should have the benefit of all relevant evidence from both parties before disposing of the issue." — DM 8 OCTO BER 2011 www. CANADIAN Lawyermag.com APPEAL COURT UPHOLDS REINSTATEMENT OF DISBARRED LAWYER'S LICENCE Q uebec's highest court has upheld a ruling by the province's profes- sions tribunal ordering the reinstatement of a controversial Montreal divorce lawyer disbarred for misconduct more than a decade ago. The unanimous 55-page ruling by the Quebec Court of Appeal confirms the right of one-time celebrity lawyer Micheline Parizeau to practise law after complet- ing a five-year disbarment term — notwithstanding opposition by the Barreau du Québec. Importantly, says one of the lawyers who defended Parizeau, the Aug. 18 ruling recognizes the Tribunal des professions du Québec as a true court of appeal with the power to reverse a deci- sion by the Barreau's Comité des requêtes, a standing committee that reviews contested applications from lawyers seeking to formally re-enter the profession following disbarment. The Tribunal des professions is an administrative body made up of 11 Court of Quebec judges whose self-described mandate is to review decisions rendered by 45 disciplin- ary committees of Quebec's vari- ous professional orders. The Barreau du Québec, acting on opposi- Controversial Montreal lawyer Micheline Parizeau can practise law again. tion to Parizeau's reinstatement by both its syndic and the council of the Barreau de Montréal, had vigorously defended its right to decide if a disbarred lawyer is once again fit to practise law. It lost an attempt before Superior Court Justice Daniel W. Payette on Feb. 4, 2009, to have the Dec. 3, 2008, tribunal ruling ordering Parizeau's reinstatement suspended. But the Barreau succeeded in convincing Superior Court Justice Jean-François de Grandpré that the professions tribunal should defer to its experience and authority. On Nov. 10, 2009, de Grandpré ruled that on re- examining the evidence presented at Parizeau's readmission hearing, the professions tribunal had overstepped its authority. Quebec's high court disagreed, citing the tribunal's assessment that the Barreau's review of Parizeau's application for readmission as "an occasion to prolong a temporary disbarment already served by relying on a faraway past rather than recent proof." Not considering all of the evidence at Parizeau's read- mission hearing was "a serious gap" that led to a "hijacking of the finality of the JeAN-PhiliPPe AllArT