Billions of dollars invested, not a penny lost.

Lawyer, 66, alleges age
discrimination at his firm

THE VANISHING TRIAL

Arbitration: good, fast and cheap—pick two

WHAT’S THAT SMELL?

Are odour units good science?

WORK AND PLAY MOVING

JEREMY HAINSWORTH VANCOUVER Canadian law firms could be xamining their partnership
agreements exposure under
human rights codes after a B.C.
Supreme Court recently upheld
a provincial Human Rights Tri-
bunal (HRT) decision that a
partner was an employee under
the province’s code.

The December HRT decision (McCormick v. Fasken Martineau Dumoulin (No. 2), 2010 BCHRT 347) came after a Vancouver partner alleged age discrimination at his firm and challenged its mandatory retirement policy.

The case pitted Mitch McCormick, 66, against Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, which, like other Canadian firms, required partners to wind down practices at a specific age. At Fasken, that age is 65.

Now, McCormick’s lawyer, Murray Tevlin, told The Lawyers Weekly, Vancouver law firms are taking notice of the case and altering partnership agreements to recognize competence rather than age.

“The issue here is people in
these big, powerful law firms
were never challenged to recog-
nize human rights in their deal-
ings with their older partners,”
Tevlin said. “They somehow
thought they were above or over
the law because of some technic-
ality in partnership law.
“You can’t agree by contract
to contract out your human
rights,” Tevlin said.
Fasken’s website lists McCor-
mick as having represented cor-
porations in the resource, com-
munications and service industries.
“Mitch is sought out for his
knowledge of corporate law, secur-
ities law, secured transactions and
opinions practice,” the site says.
Employees are protected from
age discrimination under s. 13(1)
of British Columbia’s Human
Rights Code. The HRT accepted
that McCormick is an employee
under the code.
In a judicial review of the
HRT’s jurisdiction decision, Jus-
tice Catherine Bruce ruled that
law-firm partners were in fact
employees and subject to B.C.’s
human rights legislation.
According to the HRT ruling,
McCormick alleges that in five
meetings with the Vancouver

Murray Tevlin, who represents a partner challenging his firm’s mandatory retirement policy, says law firms have
“somehow thought they were above or over the law because of some technicality in partnership law.”
ALISTAIR EAGLE FOR THE LAWYERS WEEKLY
See McCormick Page 8
THE LAWYERS WEEKLY
Vol. 22, No. 27 NEWS FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION December 6, 2002
THE LAWYERS WEEKLY
VOL. 22, NO. 27 NEWS FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION DECEMBER 6, 2002
PAGE 9
PAGE 13
Royal weddings, playoffs
cause disruption at work
PAGE 21
Duty to report accident cannot incriminate: OCA
THOMAS CLARIDGE TORONTO

The Ontario Court of Appeal
has upheld lower court rulings
that the Crown claimed had
“the potential to cripple the
investigation of drinking and
driving offences where a colli-
sion has occurred.”
In a unanimous decision, the
court found that when police
want to use information from a
motorist in criminal proceed-
ings, that information “cannot
derive from the duty of the
motorist” mandated by statute,
in this case the requirement in
ss. 199 and 200 of Ontario’s
Highway Traffic Act to report
accidents to a police officer “and
furnish him or her with the
information concerning the
accident as may be required by
the officer.”
Charged with driving while
having more than 80 milligrams
of alcohol in 100 millilitres of
his blood, Stephen Soules of
Calgary was acquitted by
Ontario Court Justice Geoffrey
Griffin, who excluded the breath
results under s. 24(1) of the
Charter because in the absence
of his compelled statements
there was no basis for a demand
that he submit to a roadside
screening test. Justice Griffin
added that the breath results
would also be excluded under
Charter s. 24( 2) because of a
violation of Soules’ right to coun-
sel under Charter s. 10(b) as a
result of the officer’s failure to
give the warning required by R.
v. Prosper, [1994] 3 A.C.R. 236.
In a brief ruling dismissing a
Crown appeal, Superior Court
Justice Wolfram Tausendfreund
held that the trial judge had not
erred in excluding Soules’ state-
ment under s. 24(1).
Writing for the appeal court,
Justice Harry LaForme rejected
arguments by Toronto lawyer
Alan Gold, representing Soules,
that the Crown should not be
granted leave to appeal, on
grounds the issues of law weren’t
See Soules Page 28
THE LAWYERS WEEKLY

VOL. 22, NO. 27 NEWS FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION DECEMBER 6, 2002

Tips on moving offices from the professionals

PAGE 23

Commercial and Residential
Title Insurance Solutions

Commercial and Residential

Title Insurance Solutions [ ] At Stewart Title, we consistently combine comprehensive coverage with unparalleled support for lawyers/notaries. We are dedicated to streamlining your practice and increasing your revenue through our programs and innovative technology solutions.