D. Jared Brown has been invited to participate as a judge in this year’s 2018 Davies Corporate/Securities Law Moot Court competition at the Federal Court of Canada.
Recognized as the leading event of its kind in Canada, Davies’ annual Corporate/Securities Law Moot, which will be held on March 9 and 10, provides an opportunity for top students from Canadian law schools to debate current legal issues in corporate and securities law with senior practitioners from Toronto law firms and corporations, regulators from the Ontario Securities Commission and judges. The students are tested on their written advocacy (presented in a factum delivered prior to the competition) and their oral advocacy. Each student is required to argue twice during the competition, once on behalf of the appellant and once on behalf of the respondent.
In years past twelve law schools from across Canada have competed in the two-day event before panels of judges drawn from Davies, the judiciary and the legal and business communities. The two top teams compete in a final round before a five-member panel, which last year consisted of The Honourable Justice Andromache Karakatsanis of the Supreme Court of Canada, retired Supreme Court of Canada Justices Ian Binnie and Morris Fish, The Honourable Justice Robert Sharpe of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and Mr. Grant Vingoe, Vice-Chair of the Ontario Securities Commission.
D. Jared Brown joined, Professor Bruce Pardy of Queen’s Law, Paul Schabas Treasurer of the Law Society, and Paul Saguil, in a panel discussion regarding the Law Society’s new requirement that all licensees prepare a Statement of Principles affirming a duty to promote Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DIE) as a condition of being able to continue practising law in Ontario.
Mr. Brown and Professor Pardy argued that the requirement is unjustified compelled speech and opinion.
Messrs. Schabas and Saguil defended the Law Society measure.
A transcript of Mr. Brown’s comments can be found here:
LSO Panel – Transcript of DJB comments
The Conference Agenda can be found here:
For further information on the Statement of Principles go to http://www.stopsop.ca.
A common misconception is that contempt of a Human Rights Tribunal order will not result in a jail sentence. In fact, contempt of a non-monetary order of a Tribunal has the same effect as contempt of a non-monetary Superior court order. Jail sentences can be handed down in these situations.
I discussed this fact in my opinion on Bill C16, however, I understand that some have taken issue with that possibility.
I have compiled a brief with some examples of jail sentences being ordered where a person is found in contempt of a non-monetary orders of both Human Rights Tribunals and the courts. This list is not exhaustive and in the Superior Court there are hundreds of examples.
Click below for the brief:
Contempt of Non-monetary Orders – Human Rights Tribunals and Superior Court
With respect to the Human Rights Tribunal cases, it should be acknowledged that the individuals in question appear to have fairly reprehensible and offensive opinions, and were flagrantly contemptuous of the underlying orders.
That being said, contempt of a Tribunal order can, and has, resulted in jail sentences. This fact should not be controversial.