28 LEXPERT
|
2017
|
WWW.LEXPERT.CA
MacGregor, Ian Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
(613) 787-1120 imacgregor@osler.com
Mr. MacGregor's practice focuses primarily on tax litigation and dispute
resolution. He has appeared before all levels of court including the Supreme
Court of Canada and was appointed to the Queen's Council in 1989. He
teaches at the University of Ottawa Law School on the topics of Taxation
and Business Associations and speaks frequently on tax matters, and has
co-authored a number of publications.
Lussier, AdE, Sylvain Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
(514) 904-5377 slussier@osler.com
Mr. Lussier's practice focuses on commercial, administrative and
constitutional litigation, including aspects pertaining to Aboriginal rights and
environmental law. He is involved in numerous class actions and shareholder
disputes, appears before all levels of federal and provincial courts,
commissions and governmental boards, including commissions of inquiry.
Lowenstein, Larry P. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
(416) 862-6454 llowenstein@osler.com
Mr. Lowenstein is a senior litigation partner and former Chair of Osler's
National Litigation Department. His practice focuses on complex litigation
and arbitrations at trial and on appeal. Recent engagements have involved
recognition and enforcement matters, class actions, corporate governance
matters, securities litigation and enforcement, fiduciary claims, contested
mergers and acquisitions.
Lisus, Jonathan C. Lax O'Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP
(416) 598-7873 jlisus@counsel-toronto.com
Mr. Lisus focuses on commercial disputes as trial and appellate counsel in
courts across the country including the Supreme Court. He is a Fellow of the
ACTL, IATL and a member of the Chief Justice of Ontario's Advisory Committee
on Professionalism.
Linder, QC, Peter T. Peacock Linder Halt & Mack LLP
(403) 296-2282 plinder@plhlaw.ca
Mr. Linder, QC, is a founding partner of Calgary's premier litigation boutique,
Peacock Linder Halt & Mack LLP. Recognized as one of the Top 25 Trial
Lawyers in Canada and Lawyer of the Year: Appellate Advocacy, with leading
rankings from Chambers and Partners Canada, Benchmark, Lexpert,
Best Lawyers and Who's Who Legal and peer rated for High Professional
Achievement by Martindale-Hubbell.
Lenczner, QC, Alan J. Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith
Griffin LLP (416) 865-3090 alenczner@litigate.com
Widely acknowledged as one of Canada's leading litigators, Mr. Lenczner
has applied his advocacy skills to yield precedent-setting decisions in
nearly every area of civil litigation. Drawing on four decades of experience in
complex litigation matters, he appears regularly before courts at all levels
across the country. He has appeared as counsel before the High Court and
the Court of Appeal in the UK.
LEXPERT-RANKED LAWYERS
In 2014, federal court judge Michael Phelan
ruled against the government, which had wanted
the plaintiffs to use their real names in court. Re-
ferring to the plaintiffs as "patients" and not sim-
ply "users," he noted that to identify them would
expose their medical and health information to
others. "Disclosing their identities discloses that a
course of treatment has been prescribed for them
by a medical doctor, and that they suffer from seri-
ous health conditions and symptoms," he wrote.
"Identifying the Plaintiffs by name or infor-
mation that discloses their personal identity also
discloses that they have or are likely to have medi-
cal marihuana in their homes — something that
Health Canada itself saw as a serious safety and
security risk."
Two years later, however, a compromise was
reached regarding the anonymity issue. e Feder-
al Court of Appeal accepted the defendant's con-
tention that several individuals on the plaintiffs'
side were willing to publicly identify themselves,
so the matter could proceed with a named repre-
sentative plaintiff. "e Court noted that Justice
Phelan le open the possibility of going back to
court 'if ever the identification of a class represen-
tative proves to be impossible,'" Naudie wrote in a
blog co-authored by his colleague, Sarah McLeod.
"is case introduced a requirement of necessity
into the consideration of whether a class action
can proceed with an anonymous representative
plaintiff. is decision suggests that, if necessary,
a class action can proceed without naming and
identifying a representative plaintiff."
A twist to the anonymity question arose in a
class action in 2010 between Tim Hortons and
some franchisees, says Scott Kugler, leader of the
class actions group at Gowling WLG (Canada)
LLP. "Some franchisees wanted to support the
[named] plaintiff but they wanted to do so anony-
mously because they feared backlash [from the
defendant]." ey weren't permitted, but again,
the issue of anonymity came into play. Although
Kugler, like other class-action lawyers, can imag-
ine circumstances in which anonymity might be
"IF THE REPRESENTATIVE
PLAINTIFF IS ANONYMOUS,
OTHER MEMBERS MIGHT
ASK HOW THEY WOULD
BE ABLE TO KNOW IF [THAT
PERSON] CAN ADEQUATELY
REPRESENT THE REST
OF THE CLASS."
By Monique Jilesen; Lenczner Slaght
Royce Smith Griffin LLP
