Author: Alice Woolley Page 10 of 20

LL.M. (Yale), LL.B. (Toronto), B.A. (Toronto).
Professor. Member of the Alberta Bar.
Please click here for more information.

Case commented on: R v Leonard, 2013 ABQB 531

In R v Leonard, 2013 ABQB 531, Justice Thomas awarded solicitor-client costs against the Crown on the basis that the Crown continued with the prosecution of Leonard after the point where it “should have realized it had no realistic basis to continue” (at para 97). He did so after rejecting an application by the Crown that he should recuse himself. The Crown had argued for recusal because Justice Thomas had tried the underlying criminal case and, in the course of doing so, had reserved jurisdiction to award costs, had suggested that the Crown’s conduct warranted review by the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta, and had emphasized the weakness of the Crown’s case.

The Ethical Problem with the Quebec Charter of Values

By Alice Woolley

On September 14, 2013

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

PDF Version: The Ethical Problem with the Quebec Charter of Values

Policy considered: Quebec Charter of Values

Even prior to this week’s publication of Quebec’s proposed Charter of Values, its prohibition of “ostentatious” religious symbols being worn by public employees had come under heavy criticism. Critics suggested that it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms through its interference with religious freedom. They also suggested that it violated international and domestic human rights laws. On this blog Jennifer Koshan noted the discrepancy between the Charter of Values and the constitutional values recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference (here).

Roundtable on Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

By Alice Woolley

On August 30, 2013

In Access to Justice, Criminal

PDF Version: Roundtable on Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

Cases Considered: Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC 43

On August 13, 2013, Faculty of Law hosted its last Roundtable discussion of the summer. That discussion focused on the Supreme Court of Canada’s August 1^st decision in Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC 43 concerning the compensation to be paid to a lawyer appointed to act as a “friend of the court”, known as an amicus curiae. Participants included faculty members, researchers from the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, JD and graduate students, and a post-doc fellow. What participants found most controversial about the decision was not the court’s 5:4 split on the compensation issue, but rather the court’s unanimity on the inappropriateness — and henceforth, presumably, inability — of courts to appoint amicus curiae to act as de facto defence counsel.

Read More

Why Wreck-It Ralph Went to Law School

By Alice Woolley

On August 29, 2013

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

PDF Version:Why Wreck-It Ralph Went to Law School

Matter commented on: The Ontario Bar Association’s marketing campaign, Why I went to Law School

“I’m bad, and that’s good. I will never be good, and that’s not bad. There’s no one I’d rather be than me.” – Wreck-It Ralph

The Ontario Bar Association’s marketing campaign, Why I went to Law School, has attracted media attention (see National Post article here and Globe and Mail article here) as well as being cogently criticized by Jordan Furlong on SLAW back in February (see article here). I want to add my two cents to that conversation. What I say is informed by two things. First, in my role as Director of Admissions at the University of Calgary I have read some 2000 statements by law school applicants answering the very question posed by the OBA: “Why do you want to go to law school?” Second, as a law professor, and in particular as a law professor interested in regulation of things like lawyer civility, I have thought a lot about how the profession ought to respond to its oft-referenced “poor public image”.

Problem solved? Assessing the Supreme Court’s Latest Statement on the Law Governing Conflicts of Interest

By Alice Woolley

On August 2, 2013

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

PDF version: Problem solved? Assessing the Supreme Court’s Latest Statement on the Law Governing Conflicts of Interest

Case commented on: Canadian National Railway Co v McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39.

On July 5 2013 the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated judgment in Canadian National Railway v McKercher LLP. The case invited the Court to reconsider its “bright line” rule for current client conflicts, as previously set out by the Court in R v Neil, 2002 SCC 70. The bright line rule provides that, absent client consent, a “lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client – even if the two mandates are unrelated” (Neil at para 29, emphasis in original).

Author: Alice Woolley Page 10 of 20

Prosecutorial Discretion and Solicitor-Client Costs

The Ethical Problem with the Quebec Charter of Values

Roundtable on Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

Why Wreck-It Ralph Went to Law School

Problem solved? Assessing the Supreme Court’s Latest Statement on the Law Governing Conflicts of Interest