NEW BRUNSWICK court rules
on workers’ benefits.................1
MEDICAL MARIJUANA facing
court challenge ........................1
Groia
Continued From Page 1
■ The Law Society
of Upper Canada
v. Joseph Groia
LAW SOCIETY prosecution of
Joseph Groia in final stage.......1
B.C. REPORT points out flaws
in domestic violence services .. 3
SPLIT DECISION on whether
judge needed to view exhibit ... 5
DECEMBER 1999
First appearance in John
Felderhof trial before
Ontario provincial court
Justice Peter Hryn
SUPREME COURT asked to
hear Timminco appeal .............. 8
Groia
Curry
FEBRUARY 2001
Day 52 of the trial. First
witness ends testimony in
chief
FOCUS
Intellectual Property
PARODY DEFENCE not far
far away ................................ 10
APRIL 2001
The OSC brings an
application to remove
Justice Hryn from presiding
over the trial
TRADEMARK CASE hinges
on confusion........................... 11
PINTEREST RAISES sticky
copyright issues .................... 12
DECEMBER 2003
The Ontario Court of Appeal
upholds Superior Court
decision and rules against
OSC application, but
criticizes conduct of Groia
‘BIOSIMILARS’ POISED to
enter market ......................... 13
Insurance Law
B.C. RETIREES lose battle over
benefits ................................. 14
JULY 2007
Felderhof is acquitted on all
counts by Justice Hryn
COURT RULES on intentional
conduct coverage ................. 15
NOVEMBER 2009
Law Society initiates
misconduct proceedings
against Groia
BUSINESS & CAREERS
PRESERVING E-EVIDENCE a
difficult task............................ 20
FUTURE ATTRACTIONS:
on-demand learning ............... 21
DEPARTMENTS
Careers ............... 22
Classified Ads . . . . . . . . . . 19
Lawddities............. 13
Names in the News. . . . . . . 4
Weekly Digest.......... 16
accused of failing “to treat the
Court with courtesy and respect”
and of communicating in an
“abusive” and “offensive” manner
with the OSC prosecutors.
“The administration of justice
suffered and the public interest
was not well served,” argues
Thomas Curry, a partner at Lencz-ner Slaght, who was retained by
the Law Society as prosecutor.
The long-running disciplinary
hearing, which began before the
panel in March 2010, is the third
legal proceeding where Groia’s
actions during the Felderhof trial
have been scrutinized.
The OSC brought a motion in
April 2001 in Superior Court,
seeking to have Justice Peter
Hryn removed as the trial judge,
arguing that he had infringed the
prosecution’s fair trial rights by
failing to control Groia.
The late Justice Archie Camp-
bell ruled against the OSC, which
then unsuccessfully appealed to
the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The trial resumed before Justice Hryn with a new prosecution
team led by Frank Marrocco, the
then-Treasurer of the Law Society
(Marrocco was named a Superior
Court judge in 2005). Felderhof
was ultimately acquitted of all
counts in 2007 by Justice Hryn.
While the OSC was unable to
remove Justice Hryn, both Justice Campbell and the Court of
Appeal were critical of Groia’s
courtroom actions. The Court of
Appeal stated that Groia engaged
in “rhetorical excess” and made
unfounded attacks about the ethics of original OSC prosecutors
Jay Naster and Ian Smith.
More than a decade later,
Groia continues to display “a lack
of insight,” based on his testi-
mony at his disciplinary hearing,
argues Curry in his written sub-
missions. “First, Mr. Groia’s
regret is that he was criticized,
rather than for his own miscon-
duct. Second, he seems never to
have apologized to the profes-
sion,” notes Curry. “Indeed, Mr.
Groia seemed to have consider-
able difficulty with the word civil-
ity or civil conduct in general.”
In support of its position, the
Law Society’s submissions cite a
2007 legal paper by Michael
Code (now a Superior Court
judge) that suggested “the parties
and the public lose confidence in
the administration of justice”
when there are unfounded
attacks on opposing counsel.
In his defence, Groia’s counsel
Earl Cherniak notes that the conduct of the original trial prosecutors was also criticized by Justice
Campbell, as was that of Code,
who was retained by the OSC in
its attempts to have Justice Hryn
removed as the trial judge.
Code was admonished by Jus-
tice Campbell for questioning
Groia’s honesty during oral argu-
ments at the prohibition motion
in November 2001.
Correction
A story on pages 24 and 28 of
the April 27 issue of The Law-
yers Weekly contained out-
dated information about
interview subjects. Gavin
Hume is past president of the
Law Society of British Colum-
bia. Malcolm Heins retired as
CEO of the Law Society of
Upper Canada on February 1.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Re:“Family law being
shunned?” (The Lawyers
Weekly, February 17, 2012)
Visit us online
end up bearing the blame from
the client for a less than desirable outcome. I also have concerns as to the professional liability aspect.
If practised properly, family
law provides the greatest number of examples of appropriate
and fair resolution of highly
contentious and emotional
matters.
RICHES, MCKENZIE & HERBERT LLP
PATENTS, TRADE MARKS, COPYRIGHT, LITIGATION
David Hart
Langley, B.C.
BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS - PATENT & TRADE MARK AGENTS
PAUL HERBER T, 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 ATHWAL, B.A.SC. (MECH. ENG.), M.A.SC., LL.B., J.D.
BYRON 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 MARTA 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
I am a family lawyer who has
practised for 40 years. A substantial portion of my litigation practice is representing people who
have had unsatisfactory experiences with the collaborative law
process or, alternatively, in
attacking or defending separation agreements which provided
an unsatisfactory resolution to
the dispute of the parties.
The litigation process is
often preferable to the use of
ADR insofar as it imposes a
regime that requires the parties
to address the issues in a realistic manner and imposes penalties as a result of failing to
address issues realistically.
A real problem in family law
is the incursion of lawyers with
little practical experience who
have, in many cases, adopted
family law as a default area.
These practitioners are the
major cause of excessive,
unnecessary and unrealistic
litigation and unjustifiable
cost.
Letters to the Editor should be
exclusive to The Lawyers Weekly.
Include name, address and daytime
telephone number. Please keep
letters under 200 words. Letters
may be edited for length and clarity.
Fax: (905) 479-3758
Email: tlw@lexisnexis.ca
