Category Archives: Ethics and the Legal Profession

Commissioner Trussler Should Recommend Sanctions Against Premier Smith

By: Nigel Bankes and Jennifer Koshan

Matter Commented On: Conflicts of Interest Act, RSA 2000, c C-23 and the Report on Allegations involving Premier Danielle Smith

PDF Version: Commissioner Trussler Should Recommend Sanctions Against Premier Smith

In her report of May 17, 2023, Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler concluded that Premier Danielle Smith had violated section 3  of the Conflicts of Interest Act, RSA 2000, c C-23, when she contacted the Minister of Justice and Attorney General within hours of taking a call from Artur Pawlowski, where she discussed the criminal charges he was facing. However, the Commissioner went on to note that at that point she was making no recommendations “with respect to sanctions against the Premier for consideration of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta” but that she reserved “the right to make recommendations once the Legislative Assembly is back in session” (at 16). Commissioner Trussler also made two additional recommendations. The first was that “[a]ll new Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta attend mandatory training upon election about the structure of Canadian government and the roles of the three branches of government” (at 16). The second was that the Legislative Assembly “consider whether to amend the Conflicts of Interest Act to provide for a stay on any ongoing investigation from the time that the writ drops for an election until the election results are certified” (at 16). Continue reading →

Ethics Commissioner Confirms that Premier Danielle Smith Breached the Conflicts of Interest Act – and a Fundamental Principle of Our Democracy

By: Nigel Bankes, Jennifer Koshan, and Martin Olszynski

Matter commented on: Office of the Ethics Commissioner, Report of Findings and Recommendations into allegations involving Hon. Danielle Smith, Member for Brooks-Medicine Hat, Premier of Alberta, May 17, 2023

PDF Version: Ethics Commissioner Confirms that Premier Danielle Smith Breached the Conflicts of Interest Act – and a Fundamental Principle of Our Democracy

In early January of this year, Premier Danielle Smith participated in a lengthy telephone conversation with Pastor Artur Pawlowski, who was at that time facing criminal charges and charges under the provincial Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7 in relation to the Coutts blockade. Artur Pawlowski recorded a video of that call that subsequently became available to the public. That recording triggered complaints to the Ethics Commissioner under the Conflicts of Interest Act, RSA 2000, c C-23 (COIA) by a private citizen and by Irfan Sabir, MLA for Calgary-Bhullar-McCall and NDP Justice Critic. Continue reading →

A Comment on Bill 14, The Provincial Court (Sexual Awareness Training) Amendment Act, 2022

By: Jennifer Koshan

Bill Commented On: Bill 14, the Provincial Court (Sexual Awareness Training) Amendment Act, 30th Legislature, 3rd Session (Alberta, 2022)

PDF Version: A Comment on Bill 14, The Provincial Court (Sexual Awareness Training) Amendment Act, 2022

On March 30, 2022, the Alberta government introduced Bill 14, the Provincial Court (Sexual Awareness Training) Amendment Act, 2022. This very short Bill imposes the requirement that new applicants for Alberta Provincial Court judicial appointments will have “completed education in sexual assault law and social context issues” before they can be appointed (see s 3 of the Bill, which will amend the Provincial Court Act, RSA 2000, c P-31, s 9.1(2)). People who are already on the appointment eligibility list when the Bill’s amendments come into force must undertake to complete this education after being appointed (s 3 of Bill 14, adding s 9.1(2.1) to the Provincial Court Act). Bill 14 passed Second Reading on April 20, 2022 and is now before the Committee of the Whole. Continue reading →

R v Boudreau: Senior Crown Recused Due to Hostility, “Animus” Toward Accused

By: Amy Matychuk

PDF Version: R v Boudreau: Senior Crown Recused Due to Hostility, “Animus” Toward Accused?

Case Commented On: R v Boudreau, 2021 ABPC 175 (CanLII)

In R v Boudreau, 2021 ABPC 175 (CanLII), Judge F. K. MacDonald for the Provincial Court of Alberta ordered that Mr. Mark Huyser-Wierenga, a Crown prosecutor, recuse himself from conducting a prosecution against the accused, Mr. William Boudreau. Judge MacDonald found that Mr. Huyser-Wierenga’s conduct showed “a lack of objectivity and an inappropriate hostility” to Mr. Boudreau’s defense counsel, Ms. Ellen Sutherland (at para 110). Mr. Huyser-Wierenga also put himself in a position of conflict and conducted himself recklessly or with unacceptable negligence. In this unusual decision, Judge MacDonald issues a stern rebuke to a very senior male Crown prosecutor who not only treated junior female defence counsel discourteously and unprofessionally, but also gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias against the accused by making himself a witness and using hyperbole and overstatement when before the court. Continue reading →

Lawyer Ethics in the Virtual Courtroom

By: Gideon Christian

PDF Version: Lawyer Ethics in the Virtual Courtroom

The COVID-19 pandemic has radically altered the way we live, work, and play. As will be examined below, it has altered the way lawyers conduct litigation. By mid-March 2020, the justice system in Canada (and in most other jurisdictions around the world) was scrambling to change its default ways of doing business – from the service of court documents to hearing of matters before the courts. Within a very short timeline, the courts and the legal profession quickly became open to doing things in a way they have long resisted.

Practice directions emerged overnight permitting parties to electronically file and serve documents. Virtual hearing became the default mode of court hearings in many jurisdictions during the early stage of the pandemic. On March 19, 2020, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales issued a directive that, “[t]he default position now in all jurisdictions must be that hearings should be conducted with one, more than one or all participants attending remotely.”

Soon, in-person hearings gave way to e-person hearings using innovative videoconferencing technologies like Zoom, WebEx, Teams, Skype, GoToMeeting, BlueJeans, CourtCall, etc. For many in the legal profession who were previously familiar with these technologies, the transition was very smooth. For the Luddites who were forced to embrace the change, the transition turned out to be (to their amazement), not as difficult as they had previously thought. They have discovered that legal technology is no rocket science after all. Continue reading →