Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m M A R C H 2 0 1 6 17 extradition (i.e., no one can be extradited unless his or her conduct would have constituted an offence that is punishable in Canada) would not have been met. The extradition judge admitted most of the exculpatory evidence and refused to commit M for extradition. The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed this decision. In a complicated 4-3 decision, the SCC agreed with the Court of Appeal. Cromwell writing for the majority (which included McLachlan, Wagner, and Michael Mol- daver) said, in a technical and prolix judg- ment, that consideration of committal for extradition is not a trial where exculpatory evidence can be considered. Justice Rosalie Abella, writing for herself and justices Andromache Kara- katsanis and Suzanne Côté, took a very different and passionate view. "This is a case about three young children who reached out to their mother to rescue them from a violent and abusive father after running away and living several days in an abandoned house. She now faces the possibility of up to 15 years in jail if extradited to the United States for that rescue." This, said Abella, was "Kaf- kaesque." Question: How much passion is a Supreme Court judge permitted? Humanitarian and compassionate relief: Kanthasamy v. Canada Jeyakannan Kanthasamy, a Tamil, left Sri Lanka when he was 16, came to Cana- da, and applied for refugee protection, which was refused. He filed an applica- tion for humanitarian and compassion- ate relief seeking to apply for permanent resident status from within Canada. The officer reviewing his application turned him down. The Federal Court found that the officer's decision was reason- able. The Federal Court of Appeal unan- imously agreed. The Supreme Court thought otherwise. Abella, for the majority, stressed that all relevant humanitarian and compas- sionate considerations in a particular case, including the best interests of a child who would be directly affected by the decision, must be considered and given weight. The officer, said Abella, failed to give sufficiently serious consideration to Kan- thasamy's youth, mental health, and the evidence that he would suffer discrimina- tion if he were returned to Sri Lanka. Moldaver and Wagner dissented. Giv- ing humanitarian and compassionate con- siderations an overly broad interpretation, wrote Moldaver, "risks creating a separate, freestanding immigration process, some- thing Parliament clearly did not intend." Abella, he said, "has not given the Officer's reasons the deference which, time and again, this Court has said they deserve. In her reasons, she parses the Officer's decision for legal errors, resolves ambigui- ties against the Officer, and reweighs the evidence." Question: What happens when Abella, the moral conscience of the court, retires? We can't conclude much from four relatively routine cases. But it does strike me that there's some bad temper in the background, a touch of acerbity, a little less collegiality than there once was . . . . We'll see. Philip Slayton is a best-selling author and former Bay Street lawyer. The Law Society of Upper Canada, founded in 1797, is the oldest and largest of all Canadian law societies. As a self-governing regulator funded through annual lawyer and paralegal fees, the Law Society has a duty to regulate the legal professions in the public interest, to maintain and advance the cause of justice and the rule of law, to facilitate access to justice for the people of Ontario, and to act in a timely, open and efficient manner. Today, the Law Society of Upper Canada regulates, licenses and disciplines Ontario's 48,000+ lawyers and over 6,000 licensed paralegals. Central to the Law Society's primary responsibility for public protection is the effective management of processes of service-related complaints, received from the public and the courts, and the timely investigation and prosecution of more serious regulatory matters concerning unethical/dishonest conduct, competency and capacity. As Executive Director of Professional Regulation, you report to the Chief Executive Officer and are responsible for the strategic leadership and operational management of a sizable staff complement. You are licensed to practice law in Canada, and if licensed outside the Province of Ontario, you are eligible to be licensed to practice law in Ontario under current law society mobility agreements. You have a background in regulatory prosecution and have an impressive track record evidencing strong technical expertise, credibility and trust, and exemplary judgement, communication and interpersonal skills. You have a passion for the law and are attuned to emerging issues, challenges and vulnerabilities of the profession. With a continuous improvement lens, you have an eye to efficient and effective processes, building high performance teams, and engaging diverse stakeholders with openness and transparency. Your accomplishments have demonstrated your ability to successfully lead and manage change in a complex environment. You are able to bring substantive thought leadership to a vision of the future of professional regulation. Please reply in confidence, with a cover letter and current resume referencing the position, to Chris Sawyer, Principal at csawyer@amropknightsbridge.com. We appreciate your interest and will directly contact candidates under consideration. The Law Society of Upper Canada is an equal opportunity employer striving to reflect the population of Ontario. The Law Society welcomes applicants from persons representing the diversity of the legal profession and community. Executive Director, Professional Regulation The future of self-governing professional regulation amropknightsbridge.com To r o n t o M o n t r e a l H a l i f a x Untitled-3 1 2016-02-09 3:27 PM

• Cover