26 LEXPERT
|
2018
|
WWW.LEXPERT.CA
Jamal, Mahmud Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
(416) 862-6764 mjamal@osler.com
Mr. Jamal's national litigation practice includes the defence of class actions,
banking litigation, constitutional and administrative law, competition/
antitrust, pension, tax, copyright and other regulatory litigation. He has
argued a wide range of cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and trials
and appeals in several provinces.
Hutton, Susan M. Stikeman Elliott LLP
(613) 566-0530 shutton@stikeman.com
Ms. Hutton is a partner in the Competition & Foreign Investment and
International Trade Groups. She advises on all aspects of the Competition
Act, including many complex M&As, as well as on the Investment Canada Act,
trade remedy cases and anti-corruption compliance. She is also a member
of the Competition Policy Council of the C.D. Howe Institute and past Chair
of the CBA Competition Law Section.
Hussey, Dominique T. Bennett Jones LLP
(416) 777-6230 husseyd@bennettjones.com
Ms. Hussey heads the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group at
Bennett Jones and is lead director of the firm's partnership board. Her
practice involves all aspects of IP litigation and dispute resolution including
patent, trademark, copyright, contracts and trade secrets, with particular
emphasis on litigation involving pharma/biotech patents, and trademarks.
Hunter, QC, Clarke Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
(403) 267-8292 clarke.hunter@nortonrosefulbright.com
Mr. Hunter's litigation and ADR practice has embraced Aboriginal,
contractual, fiduciary duty, oil & gas, securities, D&O liability, shareholder
remedies, professional negligence, product liability, IP and tax cases.
He is an ACTL Fellow.
Hughes, Randal T. Bennett Jones LLP
(416) 777-7471 hughesr@bennettjones.com
Mr. Hughes is co-chair of Bennett Jones' Competition/Antitrust group.
He represents clients in domestic and international conspiracy investigations
and prosecutions involving Canada's Competition Bureau and other
competition authorities around the world. He has litigated leading merger
and abuse of dominance cases and represents clients in substantial
civil/class actions in competition matters.
Huff, Pamela L.J. Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
(416) 863-2958 pamela.huff@blakes.com
Ms. Huff's insolvency practice engages the domestic and cross-border
litigation and commercial aspects of work-outs, reorganizations,
receiverships and other security enforcement. She appears before all levels
of court in complex commercial cases. She is the National Practice Group
Leader of Blakes' Restructuring and Insolvency Group.
LEXPERT-RANKED LAWYERS
e Advocates' Society at all levels of the Groia
case, had hoped it would. "We argued for a broader
standard of what constituted civil conduct and we
urged the court to find a national standard, from
which the national practising Bar could take guid-
ance," he says. "But they chose not to do that."
e SCC did address the question to some de-
gree. In its ruling, it noted that, "To achieve their
purpose, it is essential that trials be conducted in a
civilized manner. Trials marked by strife, belliger-
ent behaviour, unwarranted personal attacks, and
other forms of disruptive and discourteous con-
duct are antithetical to the peaceful and orderly
resolution of disputes we strive to achieve."
However, most of the discussions within the
profession, as Armstrong suggests, have likely fo-
cused on the question of zealous (or resolute) ad-
vocacy versus civility. Jeffrey Leon, a Certified Spe-
cialist in Civil Litigation at Bennett Jones LLP in
Toronto, was part of e Advocates' Society pro-
cess that led to the development of its Principles of
Civility. "I believe you can be courageous, fearless
and resolute and still be civil. I don't see them as
being mutually exclusive," he says, adding that his
view is that Groia, whom he knows and respects,
was guilty of the charges.
Leon is concerned, however, that the SCC rul-
ing might be seen by some lawyers as "a get-out-
of-jail card to do whatever they want in the court-
room. [But] I don't think the courts will interpret
it that way and I don't think that's what the Su-
preme Court intended."
e litigators who are most likely to take the
SCC decision as permission to act very aggressively
are those who might fall under the description of
being a pit bull, the kind of lawyer whose main
purpose seems to be to destroy opposing counsel
and their clients. "I definitely think some litigators
have the impression that they have to be pit bulls,
and some clients say that's what they want [in a
lawyer]," says Armstrong, "but my experience is
that you don't have to be that way to be effective."
Although some senior lawyers agree that it
might be unwise and unfair to generalize, they
are concerned that some younger lawyers do not
"[THE GROIA DECISION] HAS SPARKED
A LOT OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION
IN THE PROFESSION ABOUT
CIVILITY. FOR ME, THE BIGGEST
POSITIVE IS THAT IT'S REALLY GOT
PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT [LAWYERS']
TACTICS AND WHAT CROSSES
THE LINE AND WHAT DOESN'T."
SARAH ARMSTRONG; FASKEN MARTINEAU
DUMOULIN LLP
