The Lawyers Weekly - June 24, 2011

Each May, lawyers in Nova Scotia with pooled trust accounts prepare a report on those accounts for financial institutions that, in turn, collect this information on behalf of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC). This year there was a wrinkle.

The wrinkle came in the form
of a letter from the Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce
(CIBC) and others requesting the
release of the names of the
account holders. “This is the first
year that deposit-taking institu-
tions have been required to send
this notice to these depositors,”
Rob McLeod, CIBC’s senior dir-
ector of communications and
public affairs in Toronto, told The
Lawyers Weekly in an email.

SCC ruled that government had no obligation to give reasons

Sponsors
Continued From Page 1

At the same time, Mavi “ contains a helpful analysis as to when a government contract is to be governed by private law, and when it will attract administrative law principles,” Brown said.

He noted Mavi also “affirms
the Baker v. Canada (M.E.I.) fac-
tors [for helping to determine the
requirements of procedural fair-
ness in particular cases: [1999]
S.C.J. No. 39] and provides a
good example of how they are to
be applied to non-adjudicative
administrative action.”
The Mavi case was launched
by eight Canadians or permanent
residents who sponsored family
members to come to Canada, only
to later find themselves owing
thousands of dollars to the Ontario
government because their rela-
tives turned to social assistance
during the sponsorship period
when the sponsors were contrac-
tually bound to pay for all their
relatives’ essential needs.

The respondent sponsors argued that they were unable to foresee or control their relatives’ receipt of social assistance and that they could not afford to repay the government for the money it spent on their relatives.

The Supreme Court agreed
with the respondents that when a
government decides how, and
when, a sponsorship debt is to be
repaid, the Crown owes a duty of
procedural fairness to the sponsor
that takes into account the spon-
sor’s particular personal and
financial circumstances.

Reasons: Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, [2011] S.C.J. No. 30.

Both our clients and yours need the best possible advice and support, every time.

For more than 35 years MSCM has
partnered with Canadian lawyers and law
;rms to deliver insightful and sophisticated
support for both public and private
business. We have 13 partners and
more than 75 skilled and dedicated sta;
who are ready to help you provide
everything your clients need.