(Disponible uniquement en anglais)
Tuesday, November 10, 1999, 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Conference call
Present
- Robert Richards, Q.C. (Chair)
- Shawn Greenberg (Vice-Chair)
- Paul McDonald
- Sylvie Roussel
- Jack Watson, Q.C.
- Joan Bercovitch (Staff Liaison)
Introduction
Bob Richards welcomed all Committee members to the first conference call of the Supreme Court of Canada Liaison Committee for the 1999–2000 year. He offered a particular welcome to Sylvie Roussel who is the newest member of the Committee. Bob indicated that the Committee’s history is to come together around the yearly meeting with the Court. He thought that the Committee would appreciate an early opportunity to consider any issues that may arise in advance of that meeting, and that is the purpose for this conference call.
The agenda for the call is:
- role and mandate of the Committee;
- update on Project 2000, including amendments to Section 65 of the Supreme Court Act;
- notice to the profession regarding interveners;
- follow-up to the May 1999 commitment to provide the Court with feedback on Supreme Court of Canada headnotes;
- criticism of the Supreme Court;
- meeting of the Committee in Brandon, Manitoba; and
- Bulletin survey.
1. Role and Mandate of the Committee
Bob asked Joan to read for the Committee the current mandate of the Supreme Court Liaison Committee. He indicated that he had asked the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada for her views on the Committee’s current and potential role.
The Committee decided it was content with the broad and undefined frame of reference for its mandate. The Committee recognizes the need for it to work more closely with the Ottawa Agents’ Committee and to be aware of the issues that are raised before that Committee. Committee members are comfortable with how the Committee has approached its mandate to date, recognizing that from time to time substantial issues or policy matters will require a more proactive response.
Action: Bob agreed to ask the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada whether the Committee could be copied on issues being raised with the Agents Committee.
2. Project 2000
- Bob reviewed the current status of the Supreme Court’s initiative on amending the Supreme Court Act and Rules. The Committee understands that the project to amend the Act has been shelved. The Supreme Court has recently completed a comprehensive set of drafting instructions on the Rules, which has been forwarded to the drafting unit at the Department of Justice. Once this draft is turned into legislative language, it will be circulated for comment. The Committee agreed to consider how to approach the Rules amendments once they are circulated by the Court.
- Section 65 – Shawn reviewed the status of the Project 2000 Sub-committee of which she and Jack are members. The Sub-committee is currently reviewing Section 65 regarding discretionary stays, and Shawn indicated that they are at an impasse, pending further information and discussion.
Action: Shawn agreed to circulate a draft of the proposed response to the Court on Section 65 to the broader Committee for its comments. Sylvie agreed to provide to Shawn the views of the Agents Committee on Section 65.
3. Notice to the Profession Regarding Interveners
Bob asked whether the CBA or the Committee itself should express a view to the Court regarding how the Court should apply the new directive. Committee members indicated that the practice directive is not surprising. The Court process on intervention requests is similar to that indicated in the practice directive and has been for the last few years. There has not yet been a noticeable change in how the Court is handling intervention requests. The Committee agreed to table this matter until it meets with the Court. If, at that time, experience indicates an inappropriate or too severe cutting off of intervener status or oral argument, the Committee may decide to indicate a position to the Court.
4. Supreme Court of Canada Headnotes
Bob asked the Committee whether there is a need to follow up on its May 1999 commitment to the Court to review the headnotes.
Action: Jack agreed to draft a short letter to the Court, and will forward that letter to Joan for circulation to Committee members.
5. Criticism of the Court
Bob asked whether the Committee should nudge the CBA to be more proactive in supporting the Court when it is faced with undue criticism. Paul mentioned the Marshall decision as an example of terrible media coverage of the Court and of a misapprehension of the role and function of the Court.
Action: Joan reviewed the CBA’s judicial independence communications kit and agreed to forward copies of the kit to Committee members.
Joan also indicated that the CBA is very open to receiving suggestions for possible media responses to undue criticism of the Court and invited Committee members to provide those to the President, through her, should the situation arise. The Committee agreed to keep this matter as an agenda item for further meetings.
6. Brandon 2000
Committee members are considering their availability to attend a meeting in Brandon in February 2000.
Action: Joan will canvass Committee members for their availability.
7. Supreme Court of Canada “Bulletin” Survey
A survey was circulated to all members of the Committee by the Supreme Court.
Action: Committee members agreed to review the survey and to advise Joan if they believe that there are features within the survey that should be addressed by the Committee.
Adjournment
The conference call started at 2:00 p.m. and ended at 3:20 p.m.