ONTARIO LAW criticized for ID
requirement in court.................1
SIGN TAX in Toronto upheld by
Court of Appeal........................1
■ Security for Courts, Electricity
Generating Facilities and
Nuclear Facilities Act (2012)
ENVIRONMENTAL HARM not
needed for reporting duty......... 3
TORT KING to be awarded
Mundell medal ......................... 4
GAMBLERS’ LAWSUIT still
going ahead ........................... 23
OPINION
DANIEL BURNETT on tweeting
in the courtroom ...................... 5
FOCUS
Real Property
CONDO ACT in need of
an overhaul ........................... 10
DOING THE deal, far away
from home ............................ 11
RETAINERS AID in client
communication ..................... 12
PAUL LAWRENCE FOR THE LAWYERS WEEKLY
Members of the public line up to go through security screening before entering the Superior Court building in Toronto.
UP ON the roof, things are
looking green ........................ 13
Security
Continued From Page 1
Aboriginal Law
COURTS SHED light on
consultation obligations ........ 14
START TALKING, court tells
government ........................... 15
Powers of person providing
court security
138. (1) A person who is
authorized by a board to act in
relation to the board’s
responsibilities under subsection
137 (1) or who is authorized by
the Commissioner to act in relation
to the Ontario Provincial Police’s
responsibilities under subsection
137 (2) may exercise the following
powers if it is reasonable to do so.
1. Require a person who is
entering or attempting to enter
premises where court
proceedings are conducted or
who is on such premises,
i. to produce identification, and
ii. to provide information for the
purpose of assessing
whether the person poses a
security risk.
2. Search, without warrant,
i. a person who is entering or
attempting to enter premises
where court proceedings are
conducted or who is on such
premises,
ii. any vehicle that the person is
driving or in which the person
is a passenger, and
iii. any other property in the
custody or care of
the person.
BUSINESS & CAREERS
THE BIGGEST IT threats are
often internal.......................... 20
■ Public Works Protection Act
(1939)
BARRIERS ABOUND for
overseas practice................... 21
David Sterns, public affairs
chairman at the Ontario Bar
Association (OBA), predicted
Bill 34 will be constitutionally
attacked, if it passes as is. The
bill’s provisions go against the
open court principle, he said.
“There’s just no rational connection between having to identify
yourself and maintaining security
of the court perimeter,” said Sterns,
of Toronto’s Sotos LLP. “It’s an
intrusion on civil liberties.
“The OBA’s perspective is that
DEPARTMENTS
Careers ............... 21
Classified Ads . . . . . . . . . . 19
Weekly Digest.......... 16
Correction
Definitions
Subscribe to
www.lawyersweekly.ca/subscribe
A story on page 27 of the
April 6 edition of The Lawyers Weekly contained
inaccurate headlines. Complaints to the Law Society of
Upper Canada in 2011 were
up marginally, to 4,867 from
4,801 in 2010. There were
134 hearing notices issued
by the professional regulation division in 2011. The
headlines did not convey
these facts.
RICHES, MCKENZIE & HERBERT LLP
PATENTS, TRADE MARKS, COPYRIGHT, LITIGATION
BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS - PATENT & TRADE MARK AGENTS
PAUL HERBERT, B.SC., PHM., R.PH, LL.B., J.D., PH.D.
DAN HITCHCOCK, B.ENG. (ELEC. ENG.), LL.B.
JEFF PERVANAS, B.A.SC. (ENG. SCI.), LL.B.
BOBBY ATH WAL, B.A.SC. (MECH. ENG.), M.A.SC., LL.B., J.D.
B YRON THOM, B.A.SC. (ENG. SCI.), LL.B.
BRANT LATHAM, B.A.SC. B.SC. (CHEM. ENG.), LL.B.
GARY M. TRAVIS, B.SC. (GEOL.), LL.B.
MICHAEL ADAMS, B.ENG. (MECH. ENG.), B.SC., LL.B.
MICHAEL YUN, B.SC. (BIOCHEM), J.D.
TRADE MARK AGENT MAR TA TANDORI CHENG
2 BLOOR ST. EAST, SUITE 1800
TORONTO, ONTARIO M4W 3J5
ESTABLISHED 1887
TELEPHONE: (416) 961-5000
FAX: (416) 961-5081
E-MAIL: riches@patents-toronto.com
no member of the public should
have to present identification in
order to enter the halls of justice.
There are a lot of reasons why
people would not want to self-
identify. Some of them may be
noble and some of them may not
be. That’s their prerogative.
These are public courts.”
Sterns suggested that requir-
ing people to identify them-
selves, or explain their presence,
could be used by police for data
mining. Would it be permissible,
for example, for security officials
to ask people whether they had
criminal records for violence?
“A lot of things go on in court,
and a lot of those things are of
interest to law enforcement, so
we have concerns that someone’s
presence in a courtroom is going
to be used in a criminal investigation, or used to start a criminal investigation,” he said.
The Criminal Lawyers’ Asso-
ciation also has reservations
about the measures. “Unless
there are individualized grounds
to detain and question a person,
requiring identification is
unnecessary and ripe for abuse,”
said member Howard Krongold
of Ottawa’s Webber Schroeder.
“We accept the need for court-
house security, but this bill gives
the power to identify and ques-
tion citizens, as well as search
their vehicles, simply for trying
to enter a courthouse. Going to
court is supposed to help protect
our constitutional freedoms, not
justify taking them away.”
When Minister of Commun-
ity Safety and Correctional Ser-
vices, Madeleine Meilleur,
tabled Bill 34 on Feb. 22 she
said the bill reflected a “consen-
sus” achieved after the govern-
ment consulted widely.
“I would like to emphasize
that the legislation does not
compel a person entering or
attempting to enter a courthouse
to submit to a search, produce
identification or provide infor-
mation,” Meilleur said in the
legislature. “A member of the
public can simply walk away.”
In an email, Meilleur told The
Lawyers Weekly the bill “may...
undergo refinements” as a result
of legislative committee study
this month. “The government
seeks to balance the desire to
maintain an open and accessible
court against the risk of violence
and crime in the court house,”
she said.
Abby Deshman, director of
the Canadian Civil Liberties
Association’s public safety pro-
gram, has concerns about the
potential scope of the bill.
“There’s no parking lot for our
downtown [Toronto] court-
houses so it looks like it confers
the power to search cars that
are parked on a public street if
that person is attempting to
enter a courthouse.”
Although several of the meas-
ures in the minority Liberals’
little-publicized bill are opposed
by the legal community, they
could become law since the Pro-
gressive Conservatives expressed
their support for the legislation
during second reading debate.
The Ontario government is
also intending to repeal the
Public Works Protection Act, which
applies to any “public work” and
which was invoked to protect
the security perimeter at the
G20 summit in Toronto in 2010.
The courthouse security measures in Bill 34 are contained in
amendments to the Police Services Act. n
Powers of guard or peace
officer
3. A guard or peace officer,
(a) may require any person
entering or attempting to
enter any public work or any
approach thereto to furnish
his or her name and address,
to identify himself or herself
and to state the purpose for
which he or she desires to
enter the public work, in
writing or otherwise;
(b) may search, without
warrant, any person entering
or attempting to enter a
public work or a vehicle in
the charge or under the
control of any such person
or which has recently been
or is suspected of having
been in the charge or under
the control of any such
person or in which any such
person is a passenger; and
(c) may refuse permission
to any person to enter a
public work.
