• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Lawyers Allegedly Behaving Badly

All of those possibilities though are very different from what CUPE is saying.

The CIRB has several full time vice chairs who appear to be parts of some panels. I'm sure she'll be live to the perceived conflict and can steer clear of it. I don't think it's realistic to think that a tribunal dealing with industrial relations and necessarily populated with experienced industrial relations counsel or representatives will be able to entirely avoid overlaps like this. Similarly I'm sure to avoid a similar conflict, they won't appoint Paul Moist from their roster to be the Employee Representative member for this particular one given his 12 years as president of CUPE.
Apparently she last represented AC in 2022. Declined to recuse herself.

 
Apparently she last represented AC in 2022. Declined to recuse herself.

Ok, good to know.

The 107 approvals was a rubber stamp- CIRB doesn’t rule those independently of the ministers, so her name on that isn’t consequential. This morning’s “your strike is illegal” notice to CUPE was signed by one of the vice-chairs, not her, so they appear live to the need to avoid perceived conflict of interest.

As I said before, the involvement of former Labour counsel or union execs in CIRB is effectively unavoidable, and so it’s likely to see these overlaps from time to time. The panel at CIRB should exclude anyone with a real or perceived conflict- so her, and the former CUPE president I mentioned who’s also a tribunal member. The panel should rule on the merits and in accordance with the applicable administrative law. If either side comes out of it feeling hard done by, they can file for reconsideration or, more likely go right to judicial review at the Federal Court of Appeal.

I’m definitely not gonna get worked up over CUPE’s inevitable screeching about the fact that a former AC lawyer chairs the board, particularly not when they’re silent about their own former president being there too. I’m increasingly firmly on side with the flight attendants here but I don’t have much time for union theatrics. They can and should win this simply on the merits.
 
Rather than start a new thread, this appears to fit here.

A newly appointed Quebec Superior Court judge is having the constitutionality of his appointment challenged, as he only has seven years at the Quebec bar, below the constitutional requirement of ten. He was previously a lawyer in Ontario, and clerked for justice Bastarche on the Supreme Court.

 
Last edited:
Rather than start a new thread, this appears to fit here.

A newly appointed Quebec Superior Court judge is having the constitutionality of his appointment challenged, as he only has seven years at the Quebec bar, below the constitutional requirement of ten. He was previously a lawyer in Ontario, and clerked for justice Bastarche on the Supreme Court.

Bad link I think.
 
Rather than start a new thread, this appears to fit here.

A newly appointed Quebec Superior Court judge is having the constitutionality of his appointment challenged, as he only has seven years at the Quebec bar, below the constitutional requirement of ten. He was previously a lawyer in Ontario, and clerked for justice Bastarche on the Supreme Court.

Sounds like a fair argument being made. If there’s a basic criteria he doesn’t meet, well…
 
Sounds like a fair argument being made. If there’s a basic criteria he doesn’t meet, well…
Makes one wonder how he got through? There's a pretty heavy vetting process for this. I presume someone along the way considered the rest of his career constituted an equivalency.

🍻
 
Makes one wonder how he got through? There's a pretty heavy vetting process for this. I presume someone along the way considered the rest of his career constituted an equivalency.

🍻

How did a Trudeau scholar who was a personal friend of the PM get appointed?

I suspect the Crown will argue that he has more than ten years as a barrister or solicitor; but the unique nature of Quebec law means that the ten years in the province can't just be waved away.

You'd have hoped that as a now former law school professor / Dean of one of Canada's best known law schools that he would have realized this on his own.

If not, well, I would be leery of any lawyers out of McGill ;)
 
There's a Judicial Appointments Committee for each province which looks at the qualifications on a provincial basis and either "recommends" or "not recommends" each candidate to the minister. After that it's a government decision.

The preliminary question is: what was the recommendation? Everything else flows from there.

🍻
 
Everyone is blind in some areas. Would you think to challenge the legal experience of a law school Sean who clerked for a SCC justice?
 
Back
Top