Billions of dollars invested, not a penny lost.

Court ID proposal slammed

CONDOS

Fourteen year old
provisions need to
catch up to reality

CRISTIN SCHMITZ OTTAWA

PAGE 10

Alarms are being raised about a proposed Ontario law that would compel everyone entering, or on, court premises to identify themselves and answer questions—as well as submit to warrantless searches of their person, property or vehicle— when requested to do so by court security.

Lawyers’ groups are demanding that counsel carrying valid Law Society photo identification be exempted at courthouses from the warrantless search provisions of Bill 34, Security for Courts, Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2012.

“In our view it is neither reasonable nor necessary to include lawyers in the search powers contemplated by Bill 34, as it relates to courthouses,” said Robert Zochodne, past chairman of the County and District Law Presidents’ Association.

“A search of the type author-
ized by Bill 34 might well involve
a search of privileged communi-
cations,” including those between
counsel and criminal accused
client, said Zochodne, of Zocho-
dne Bucci in Oshawa. “Bill 34
would authorize the search of
that person’s lawyer…such search
to be conducted by the very per-
sons who are prosecuting him.”
Bill 34 would empower court
security staff, “if it is reasonable
to do so for the purpose of ful-
filling” their security respon-
sibilities, to require anyone
wishing to enter a court house,
or who is already inside of it, to
produce identification, and to
“provide information” to enable
court security guards to assess
whether that person poses a
security risk.

Court staff could also search,
without a warrant, a person on
the premises where court pro-
ceedings are conducted, or who
is entering or attempting to
enter the premises, as well as
“any vehicle that the person is
driving or in which the person is
a passenger, and any other
property in the custody or care
of the person.”
The measures are similar to
the provisions in the Public
Works Protection Act, which was
enacted at the start of the Second
World War and applies to public
buildings in Ontario.

DUTY TO CONSULT
Courts across Canada
shed light on obligation
TECHNOLOGY
The greatest threat
to IT security is already
inside your firm

See Security Page 2

OBA public affairs committee chairman David Sterns says Bill 34 measures are not necessary for courthouse security.

PAUL LAWRENCE FOR THE LAWYERS WEEKLY

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 14

PAGE 20

Toronto sign levy not an indirect tax

INTERNATIONAL

The hurdles of foreign-
trained lawyers

D’ARCY JENISH

A tax on outdoor billboards
imposed by the City of Toronto has
been upheld by the Ontario Court
of Appeal, which found that it was
within the powers of the munici-
pality and that exemptions to the
bylaw are not discriminatory.

The Court of Appeal also overturned a lower court finding that restricted the application of the tax to new signs, in its decision in Out-of-Home Marketing Association of Canada v. Toronto (City) 2012 ONCA 212.

“The powers conferred by the

City of Toronto Act should be
read in a generous fashion so as
to enable the City to meet the
needs of its residents and to pro-
vide them with good govern-
ment,” Justice Robert Sharpe
wrote on behalf of the three-
judge panel.

The sign tax was introduced in 2010 in the final year of then-mayor David Miller’s second term. The bylaw imposing the tax was enacted under powers the province granted the municipality under the City of Toronto Act, to enhance its revenue-raising capabilities.

City officials have estimated
that the tax could generate over
$10 million annually, if applied
to new and existing outdoor
signs and billboards that carry
third-party advertising.

Two divisions of Vancouver-based Jim Pattison Industries Ltd., which owns close to 900 signs and billboards in Toronto, and the Out-Of-Home Marketing Association of Canada (OMAC), whose members own close to 4,000, went to court to try to quash the tax.

See Levy Page 9

City’s revenue-raising
powers to be read in
‘generous fashion.’ THE LAWYERS WEEKLY

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

STB_LW_basebar_03_12v2_STG 3/15/12 4: 24 PM Page 1

PAGE 21

The title insurer that puts you front row, centre

Putting the legal community front and centre has made us the #1 choice with Canadian lawyers/notaries for over a decade. Stewart Title does not support programs that reduce or eliminate the lawyer’s/notary’s role in real estate transactions.