By Victoria Woroniak
Communications, Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board
Employers in 14 industry rate codes will be impacted by the transition to the enhanced model and should attend the WCB’s upcoming information sessions.
You are invited to attend a special industry-specific information session for your industry rate code. Sessions will take place February 13-15, 2018. Attend your industry session to learn more about how the WCB’s enhanced rate model impacts your industry and how it will impact the premiums you pay in the future.
- 13-14 sessions are in Regina. Feb. 15 sessions are in Saskatoon. Each session will be approximately two hours long.
- Registerfor your industry session at wcbsask.com/registration. Webinars will be available for all sessions.
- Recordings for each session will also be posted on the WCB’s website after the session ends at wcbsask.com and on the WCB’s YouTube channel.
The Law Society’s Ethics Committee recently released the following Professional Conduct Ruling as guidance for the profession. For your convenience, I’ve listed the ruling below but it can also be found in our Professional Conduct Rulings Database.
Ethics Committee Ruling
Client A complained that Lawyer X was in a conflict of interest in connection with Lawyer X’s representation of Client B, who was Client A’s former spouse, because Lawyer X’s law Firm (“the Firm”) had previously acted for Clients A and B on a litigation file.
The following issue was referred to the Ethics Committee:
Is this a conflict that should have been recognized by Lawyer X to the point that Lawyer X would withdraw their services on behalf of Client B and not act for Client B?
Initially, Clients A and B, who were then married, retained Lawyer Y of the Firm to represent them in a lawsuit against them by Party C concerning title to a piece of real property. The file was subsequently transferred to Lawyer Z of the Firm, who took a number of steps in relation to the litigation.
Client A indicated to Lawyer Z that Clients A and B were planning to obtain a divorce, which Client A characterized as non-contentious, and requested that Lawyer Z draft documents for this purpose, including an interspousal agreement. In an e-mail, Lawyer Z responded to both Clients A and B that after consulting the family law practitioners at the Firm, it would not be wise for the Firm to represent either party in the matrimonial matter “regardless of whether the family law issues are contentious or not.” With respect to the litigation with Party C, Lawyer Z continued:
As for our civil litigation matter, I can keep representing both of you this way however it is not without its complications. If you continue to provide me with uncontradictory instructions on how to proceed with both parties in agreement then I can continue providing services. If we get into a situation where you cannot agree on how to proceed then my ability to represent you is hampered significantly and may result in my having to withdraw. Hopefully we don’t get into that situation. Be aware that since you are on a joint retainer there is no confidentiality between any of us when it comes to anything that could bear upon the litigation.
Following this advice, Client’s A and B ceased to have the Firm represent them. It is unclear from the material whether they sought alternative representation for the purpose of concluding an interspousal agreement, but there is reference to such an agreement being signed.
Approximately 8 months after terminating the Firms services, Client B made contact with Lawyer X for advice about enforcing the provisions of the interspousal agreement. According to Lawyer X, advice was provided to Client B, and Client B made some efforts to negotiate with Client A concerning the provisions of the interspousal agreement and the possible proceeds of the action involving Party C. Later, Client B asked Lawyer X to take a more active role in enforcing the interspousal agreement, and Lawyer X drafted a Petition which was served on Client A. The Petition indicated that Client A and Client B’s divorce had been finalized. In the Petition, Client B asked for maintenance as compensation for Client A’s violation of the interspousal agreement, and for payment and disposition of funds and property payable pursuant to the terms of the interspousal agreement.
Client A filed a complaint with the Law Society after being served with the Petition. In the complaint, Client A indicated that the litigation with Party C was ongoing, and that the piece of property at issue in those proceedings was part of the property to which Client B was attaching a claim in the Petition.
In the response to the complaint, Lawyer X began by outlining the history of the interaction between the Firm and Client’s A and B. A portion of the response included the following statement:
At not time were issues relating to marital discord between Client A and Client B ever discussed. At not time was any information in relation to marital issues discussed, disclosed or advanced. Neither Lawyer Y or Lawyer Z are family law lawyers.
Lawyer X went on to refer to the law concerning conflicts of interest as recently stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39,  2 S.C.R. 649 [CNR], and to rely on that decision in support of the position that no conflict of interest arises from Lawyer X’s representation of Client B in relation to Client B’s matrimonial dispute with Client A.
In the CNR case, the Court distinguished between two situations in which a conflict of interest may arise. The first of these is addressed by the “bright line” rule set out in R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC,  3 S.C.R. 631 [Neil], which spells out that a lawyer or law Firm may not concurrently represent clients adverse in interest without obtaining their consent. Since Client A has not been a client of the Firm for a few years, the bight line rule is not applicable in relation to Client A’s complaint.
The Court also considered the second situation addressed in Neil, where the bright line rule is inapplicable, but where there is some question about a lawyer or law Firm’s continuing obligations to a current or former client. The basic principles governing such a situation are based on the Court’s observations in MacDonald Estate v. Martin, 1990 Can LII 32 (SCC),  3 S.C.R. 1235 at 1243:
In resolving this issue, the Court is concerned with at least three competing values. There is first of all the concern to maintain the high standards of the legal profession and the integrity of our system of justice. Furthermore, there is the countervailing value that a litigant should not be deprived of his or her choice of counsel without a good cause. Finally, there is the desirability of maintaining reasonable mobility in the legal profession. The review of the cases which follows will show that different standards have been adopted from time to time to resolve the issue. This reflects the different emphasis placed at different times and by different judges on the basic values outlined above.
In Neil, at paragraph 31, the Court stated that the question that must be asked when the bright line rule does not apply is whether the concurrent representation of clients creates “a substantial risk that the lawyer’s representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interests or by the lawyer’s duties to another current client, a former client or a third person.”
In the CNR decision, at paragraph 24, the Court observed that the major consideration to be assessed in the case of former clients is the risk that the access to the former client’s confidential information will prejudice the current legal interests of that client. This suggests that the major question to be considered in relation to Client A’s complaint is whether the access Lawyer X and Lawyer X’s law Firm had to the information in the information in the litigation file for Client’s A and B now pose a substantial risk to the legal interests of Client A.
Our conclusion is that the prior representation of Client’s A and B does not in these circumstances create such a risk. Client A has asserted that the property that was the subject matter of the litigation file will also be at issue in the disposition of matrimonial property; if this is indeed the case, the information concerning the nature and status of the property would have to be fully disclosed in that context. There is thus not a substantial risk that Client A’s interests would be inappropriately affected by the information accessible to members of the Firm.
It might be observed that Lawyer Z took a somewhat more cautious approach to the conflict issue, advising Client’s A and B that he could not represent them both in drafting an interspousal agreement, and also that it would be difficult to be sure that Lawyer Z’s continuing carriage of the litigation file would not be affected by their decision to end their marriage. Though we have found that Lawyer X is not in a conflict with respect to representing Client B, the mistaken assumption in Lawyer X’s response to the complaint that there had been no discussion at all of matrimonial issues while Client’s A and B were both clients of the Firm suggests that Lawyer X might have been less likely to create the risk of conflict if Lawyer X had investigated the Firms relationship with Client’s A and B more thoroughly.
The overall finding is that Lawyer X is not in a conflict of interest in relation to representing Client B.
For the third time, Legal Sourcery has won the Canadian Law Blog Award (Clawbie) for Best Canadian Law Library Blog:
Winner: Legal Sourcery. The pride of the Law Society of Saskatchewan, Legal Sourcery continued its top-quality blogging in 2017 with a steady stream of useful content alongside an enjoyable amount of personality and playfulness (earlier this month, they featured “12 Days of Recipes” as a fun December feature). While strictly speaking a library blog, this really could be seen as the go-to source for Saskatchewan legal news.
Congratulation to all the other winners and to the Law Society of Manitoba Library’s blog, Great LEXpectations, for being named runner up in the same category!
Please see the complete list of winners and check out the fantastic posts in many areas of law.
The Law Society and Library staff wishes you a safe and wonderful holiday and all the best for 2018.
Seventeen Saskatchewan lawyers have been recognized with the honourary Queen’s Counsel (Q.C.) designation. Congratulations to all recipients, including the Law Society’s Executive Director, Tim Brown.
“These individuals have shown exceptional merit and contribution to the legal profession and to our communities,” Justice Minister and Attorney General Don Morgan said. “We’re honoured to recognize their hard work by appointing them as Queen’s Counsel.”
The 2017 Queen’s Counsel appointments are:
- Gary Lyndon Bainbridge is with the firm Bainbridge Jodouin Cheecham in Saskatoon. He was admitted to the bar in 1989.
- Leanne Marie Bellegarde is the Director of Diversity and Inclusion at PotashCorp. She was admitted to the bar in 1993.
- Timothy James Brown is the Executive Director of the Law Society of Saskatchewan. He was admitted to the bar in 1992.
- Kimberly Ann Earing is the Legal Director of Legal Aid Saskatchewan, Northern Office. She was admitted to the bar in 1996.
- Jennifer Edith Fabian is the Registrar and Executive Legal Officer at Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan. She was admitted to the bar in 1983.
- Dennis Jay Fisher is a partner with Scharfstein Gibbings Walen Fisher in Saskatoon. He was admitted to the bar in 1992.
- Joel Patrick Friesen is a partner with the firm Anderson and Company in Swift Current. He was admitted to the bar in 2007.
- Jordan Patrick Hardy is with MLT Aikins in Regina. He was admitted to the bar in 1996.
- Timothy Peter Paul Hawryluk is a partner at the firm Robertson Stromberg in Saskatoon. He was admitted to the bar in 2002.
- Marianne Margaret Kramchynsky is with the Rosthern office of Balicki Parchomchuk Sherdahl Hunter. She was admitted to the bar in 1988.
- Meghan Rachel McCreary is a partner with MLT Aikins in Regina. She was admitted to the bar in 1999.
- Joni Ann MacKay is with the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission. She was admitted to the bar in 1978.
- Evatt Francis Anthony Merchant is with the Merchant Law Group and current president of the Canadian Bar Association, Saskatchewan Branch. He was admitted to the bar in 1998.
- Joanne Carol Moser is with the firm Richmond Nychuk in Regina. She was admitted to the bar in 1994.
- Mary Ellen Wellsch works with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice Legislative Services. She was admitted to the bar in 1980.
- Todd Jay Wellsch has been the Regional Crown Prosecutor in Yorkton since 2011. He was admitted to the bar in 1984.
- John Charles Will is senior partner at Behiel, Will and Biemans. He was admitted to the bar in 1986.
For more information, please see the Government of Saskatchewan news page.
On the ninth (business) day of Christmas, the Law Society staff gives to you:
Grandma’s Delicious Butter Tarts
1 lb of lard
5 cups of flour
2 tbsp of brown sugar
1 tsp of salt
½ tsp of baking soda
Blend ingredients well with a pastry blender. Sprinkle 2 tbsp of vinegar on top and blend with a fork. Put 1 egg in a measuring cup and whip with a fork. Fill with cold water to make 1 cup (may not need all of this). Blend well with dry ingredients. Roll out thin and use a glass or cookie cutter to cut into circles. Place dough circles in a muffin tin. Makes 58 to 60 tarts.
2 eggs well beaten
1 cup of brown sugar
3 tbsp of butter
½ tsp of vanilla
1 cup of raisins, currants or chopped walnuts/pecans
½ tsp of vinegar or lemon
2-3 tbsp of syrup
Mix all these ingredients in a bowl and put this raw mixture in the raw dough and bake 325° to 350° until done. Triple the filling recipe to make 58 to 60 tarts.
Photo credit: Kelly Laycock
During Access to Justice Week, CLASSIC invites consideration of what “Access to Justice” means and could or should mean
“Access to Justice” as a term has gained in popularity over the past few years. Actual implementation, or doing anything beyond terminology is far more difficult than talking about “Access to Justice”. For those of us who work in the “justice” field, it is not unlikely that we hear this term on a weekly, if not daily basis. CLASSIC’s mission statement speaks to social justice rather than access to justice. We updated it to reference social justice because our goal is a just society, rather than mere access to legal systems. This distinction is very important particularly as the term “Access to Justice” has become so trendy. “Access to Justice” means different things to different people and CLASSIC does not want to risk others attributing their subjective thoughts about this topic to CLASSIC or the people we work with.
The vision that guides CLASSIC is “CLASSIC works toward a just society that is supported by a fair legal system”. A just society is not one where folks merely have lawyers or legal help with their matters – though this would be a major accomplishment. Rather, a just society is one that is equitable and where all members of our community enjoy equally the protections and benefits created through the legal system and beyond. CLASSIC challenges everyone reading this to consider what “Access to Justice” means to you, and what it could or should mean. The people CLASSIC works with do not consider justice to have been served when a new form makes their participation easier in court, at a point in a legal process, or otherwise (though this is important too!). Rather all people want to be treated as human beings who deserve dignity and respect.