New scholarship from CALE member Andrew Flavelle Marton published in the Canadian Bar Review on the interesting question of whether the law society can discipline the AG.

Abstract:

The Attorney General is both the minister responsible to the legislature for oversight of the law society and a practicing member of the law society. This dual status raises important questions: Is the Attorney General subject to discipline by the law society? Should she be? This article argues that the Attorney General is immune, absent bad faith, both for prosecutorial discretion and core policy advice and decisions, as well as absolutely immune under parliamentary privilege for anything said in the legislature. The Attorney General enjoys no special immunity otherwise, i.e. for the practice of law outside prosecutorial discretion and for policy and political functions outside core policy advice and decisions. (The Attorney General for Ontario enjoys extended immunity under a statutory provision that is unique to that province.) The article then argues that the Attorney General should generally be subject to discipline to enhance the rule of law and the protection of the public. If some immunity is necessary, that immunity should require good faith.

Link to here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2889089

Message from Canadian Judicial Council:

Ottawa, 30 November 2016 –The Inquiry Committee reviewing the conduct of Justice Robin Camp has presented its report to the Canadian Judicial Council. An Overview of the Report is also available on the Council’s website.

The Inquiry Committee found that Justice Camp committed misconduct while presiding over the trial in R. v. Wagar and placed himself, by his conduct, in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of judge within the meaning of paragraphs 65(2)(b) and (d) of the Judges Act.

The Inquiry Committee found that during the Wagar trial Justice Camp made comments and asked questions evidencing an antipathy towards laws designed to protect vulnerable witnesses, promote equality, and bring integrity to sexual assault trials. The Inquiry Committee also found that Justice Camp relied on discredited myths and stereotypes about women and victim-blaming during the trial and in his reasons for judgment.

The Inquiry Committee has expressed the unanimous view that a recommendation by the Council for Justice Camp’s removal is warranted.

Council will now consider the Inquiry Committee’s report, after giving Justice Camp an opportunity to make written submissions.

After considering all the issues, Council will decide on a recommendation to make to the Minister of Justice of Canada in this matter.

Information about the Council, including the process for public inquiries, can be found on the Council’s website at www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca.

New Supreme Court of Canada case addressing solicitor-client privilege.

Interesting story by CBC News on how mental health and addiction issues impact the legal profession and the public.