The Public Relations Committee had been discussing a recognition from members practicing for 35 years or more.The Committee took some time to determine an appropriate token. Once the decision to issue a certificate was made,work began on the design. Sue Baer and Kelly Chiu from the Law Society Libraries were instrumental in that endeavour.

The Law Society Rules provide for a Senior Life Membership to be awarded after 50 years. However, the PublicRelations Committee held the view that 35 years of practice is a significant milestone and should be acknowledged.We are therefore pleased to recognize the following members as the recipients of the first 35(+) years certificates:

Arnold Quentin Agnew, Q.C.Saskatoon

James Gary Anderson, Q.C.Swift Current

Gerald Isadore AverbackSaskatoon

Allan Paul BekeRegina

Dr. Alexander John Beke, Q.C.Regina

Merlis Milton Richard BelsherSaskatoon

Robert Henry BertramRegina

Charles James Walter BissSaskatoon

Joseph Raymond BlaisNorth Battleford

Anthony Ludwig BoryskiSaskatoon

William Zion BrownLa Ronge

Grant CarsonMelfort

Volume 17, Issue Number 3 May, 2004

www.lawsociety.sk.ca

35 Year Certificates

continued on page 2

Irwin Boyd CarsonNipawin

Pab Chinnappa ChettyLloydminster

Donald Reed ChingRegina

Barry Douglas Collins Q.C. (Can)Saskatoon

David Dysart ConroyNorth Battleford

John Douglas Cooper, Q.C.Moose Jaw

Hartmut Herman Dahlem, Q.C.Saskatoon

W. Arliss DellowYorkton

Dorothy Dolores DempseySaskatoon

Roy Albert Dickinson, Q.C.Moose Jaw

Joseph John Anton Dierker, Q.C.Saskatoon

Ian Donald Henry Disbery. Q.C.Regina

Delbert Maurice DynnaPrince Albert

Kristian Albert Eggum, Q.C.Prince Albert

Robert Bruce Emigh, Q.C. (Can)Saskatoon

Gerald Lorne Gerrand, Q.C.Regina

Elton Ronald Gritzfeld, Q.C.Regina

Silas Eugene Halyk, Q.C.Saskatoon

Marvin Wayne HendersonSaskatoon

Harold Theodore Hepting, Q.C.Unity

Victor Michael Hnatyshyn, Q.C.Saskatoon

Ajit KapoorMelfort

Nicholas Andrew Kaufman, Q.C.Regina

Lawrence KorchinSaskatoon

Stanislaus Gabriel KybaYorkton

Terence Anthony Leier, Q.C. (Can)Regina

Paul John LewansAssiniboia

William Patrick MacIsaac, Q.C.Regina

Kenneth Wayne MacKay, Q.C.Regina

Harold Hugh MacKay, Q.C.Regina

Donald Stewart McKercher, Q.C.Saskatoon

Robert Hamilton McKercher, Q.C.Saskatoon

Evatt Francis Anthony Merchant, Q.C.Regina

Robert Wayne Mitchell, Q.C.Dundurn

William Thomas Molloy, Q.C. (Can)Saskatoon

Richard Brockington Morris, Q.C.Regina

Gerald Edward NaylenRegina

Gordon James Keir Neill, Q.C.Regina

Stafford Edmond Francis NimegeersWeyburn

Clifford Michael NimegeersSwift Current

Lyle Oswald PhillipsMoose Jaw

Leo Joseph Francois PinelPrince Albert

William Dent PrestonSaskatoon

Ronald Price-JonesMelfort

Loran Theodore Andrew Priel, Q.C.Saskatoon

Richard Paul Rendek, Q.C.Regina

Robert John Rushford, Q.C.Moose Jaw

Michael Barry Ryan, Q.C.Regina

Lenard Morris SaliCalgary

Garth Walter Sandstrom, Q.C.Saskatoon

Dr. Douglas Albert JosephSchmeiser, Q.C.

Saskatoon

Mayer SchulmanSaskatoon

Dale Mark ScrivensRegina

Gary George WilliamSemenchuck Q.C.

Regina

William James SerneSaskatoon

Marcel Andre Simonot, Q.C.Prince Albert

Henry Louis SiwakPrince Albert

Dale Roland SkeltonRosetown

Emanuel Sonnenschein, Q.C.Saskatoon

Kim Thorson, Q.C.Weyburn

Ronald Douglas ThorstadSaskatoon

Peter Edwin Thuringer, Q.C.Regina

George James TkachRegina

Cornelius Heinrich ToewsRegina

Philip Edward West, Q.C.Prince Albert

Niall Garrett Ardri Wilson, Q.C.Regina

35 Year Certificates

ISC Liaison CommitteeFurther to Ms. Mountain’s article

in the last Benchers’ Digest, theissues list has been posted in theMembers’ Section of the Law Soci-ety website.

SKLESIBy now most members will be

aware of the departure of AbenaBuahene, the Executive Director ofSKLESI. As well Bruce Wiwchar,the Bar Admission Course Director,submitted his resignation effectiveMarch 12th, 2004. He has accepteda position with the Legal EducationSociety of Alberta. We wish Brucewell in his new position.

SKLESI has hired a new Execu-tive Director, Jennifer Fudge, fromNewfoundland via Vancouver. Shecommences her new position effec-tive April 26th, 2004. Details aboutMs. Fudge are included later in thisedition.

In addition, SKLESI has hiredLynn Loewen as Bar AdmissionCourse Director. Lynn had beenworking at SKLESI as ProgramLawyer and was already working ona presentation of the last segment of

the “old” Bar Admission Course totake place in May.

Thanks to the SKLESI staff fortheir hard work and dedication dur-ing this time of transition. Thanksalso to Brenda Hildebrandt who, asPresident of SKLESI, volunteeredcountless hours in the search for anew Executive Director and BarAdmission Course Director.

Rule AmendmentsThe Benchers approved another

amendment to Rule 149A, whichexpands the list of criminal or quasi-criminal charges which students,members and applicants for admis-sion or reinstatement must report tothe Law Society. In addition, thesame individuals must report disci-pline proceedings from othergoverning or regulatory bodies.

Rules 162, 163 and 164 wereadded to give a regulatory frame-work to the May segment of the“old” Bar Admission Course. TheRules are almost identical to theprevious Rules 159 and 160, whichhad governed the Bar AdmissionCourse that had been amended inFebruary.

No-FaultThe Benchers considered the

issue of ongoing funding from theCBA/Law Society Joint Committeeon No-Fault.

Members of the Joint Committeeappeared before the Benchers andpresented a proposed budget for2004 that included funding for theCommittee’s day-to-day expenses,and the Victims Coalition websiteand database. The Joint Committeewas also proposing continued adver-tising to maintain public awarenessof the no-fault issue.

Following a presentation, theBenchers had a lengthy discussion.Recognition of the tremendousefforts undertaken by the JointCommittee was front and centre ofthe discussion. However, it waspointed out that the current govern-ment remains committed tono-fault. Ultimately, it was decidedthat the Law Society funding of theJoint No-Fault Committee wouldend, but that any expenditures ofthe Joint No-Fault Committee in2004 for winding up the Committeewould be paid.

Stuart Eisner MemorialGolf Tournament

The first annual Stuart Eisner Memorial Golf Tournament will be held at the Melfort Golf & Country Club inMelfort on September 2nd and 3rd. There will be an opportunity for golf, drinks and hors d’oeuvres on Thurs-day night and a dinner on Friday night. A fun round of golf on Thursday afternoon is available for people whowish. On Friday, golfers will be able to choose between medal play or Texas scramble format. The cost will be$75.00 per person, of which $49.00 will be dedicated to a scholarship in Stuart’s name.

This will be an opportunity to have some fun, play some golf, meet people you have not seen for a long timeand raise a glass or two in honour of our good friend, Stuart Eisner. Brochures will be available shortly and wewill let you know where and when to send your entry fees.

Amending Documentsby Allan Snell, Q.C.

Highlights of the Meeting of Benchers held April 1st and 2nd, 2004

Willy Hodgson Award

The Law Society of Saskatchewan invites nominations for the Willy Hodgson Award. The award is presented inmemory of C. Willy Hodgson, O.C., SOM, on an annual basis to persons who “exemplify integrity, leadershipand character, and have made or are making outstanding contributions to advancing equity and diversity in legaleducation, the legal profession and/or the administration of justice in Saskatchewan or in Canada”. The firstrecipient of the award was Roger Carter, O.C., Q.C., SOM.

Nominations should include a brief background of the nominee outlining his/her qualifications for receipt of theaward. Nominations for the award should be sent to;

Allan T. Snell, Q.C.The Law Society of Saskatchewan1100 – 2500 Victoria AvenueRegina, SaskatchewanS4P 3X2

Call for Volunteers on the SKLESI Board of Directors

The Law Society of Saskatchewan is seeking volunteers to serve on the Board of Directors of the SaskatchewanLegal Education Society.

Robert Kennedy, Q.C. and Brenda Hildebrandt currently serve on the SKLESI Board of Directors as joint LawSociety of Saskatchewan/Canadian Bar Association representatives. Mr. Kennedy’s appointment expires at theend of June, and Ms. Hildebrandt’s at the end of September. Members interested in volunteering to serve on theBoard of Directors are asked to contact the Law Society office.

Amending DocumentsPart Deux

by Allan Snell, Q.C.

In the March, 2004 Benchers’ Digest, the penultimate paragraph stated “Similarly signing a jurat in the absence ofthe affiant is a false representation. The jurat quite clearly says ‘Sworn Before Me’.”

It has been pointed out to me that it is not uncommon for a witness or an affiant to swear and sign an affidavitbefore the commissioning officer and then leave before the commissioning officer signs the jurat and completesexhibit stamps, etc. This is, in my view, perfectly acceptable. Again, the jurat says “Sworn Before Me” and aslong as it was indeed sworn before the Commissioner, completing the jurat at a later time does not seem to me tobe inaccurate or misleading.

Introducing SKLESI’s New Executive Director, Jennifer Fudge

Jennifer was born and raised inSt. John’s, Newfoundland. Shereceived her Bachelor of ArtsDegree from Memorial University.A lover of travel, she spent sometime living and working in Edin-burgh, Scotland, before completingher degree in 1998.

Jennifer began her career at thePublic Legal Information Associa-tion of Newfoundland as a ProgramCoordinator. In 1999 she moved to

Vancouver to join the People’s LawSchool. As Program Director, Jen-nifer faced the challenge to creatingand managing the Provincial Inno-vations Program. Outside of work,Jennifer enjoys running, reading,and glass painting.

Jennifer’s first day at SKLESI wasApril 26th, 2004. She is very excit-ed about this new position and looksforward to the challenges ahead.

In Memory Of

BRIAN EDWARD SINGER of Regina passed away on April 21, 2004 at the age of 56 years after a coura-geous fight with cancer. Brian was a man of God, a loving and devoted husband, father, grandfather andhonourable professional. Mr. Singer was a member of the Law Society of Saskatchewan since June of 1974 untilhis death, practicing at the law firm of Walker Singer McCannell in Regina.

Mr. Singer is survived by his wife, Donna, his five children, seven grandchildren, his mother, Bonnie and varioussiblings, nieces, nephews and relatives. �

The results of the Report on Equityand Diversity in Alberta’s Legal Profes-sion, released on January 26, 2004,confirm anecdotal evidence of ongo-ing discrimination within the legalprofession in Alberta. The studywas commissioned by Alberta’s JointCommittee on Equality, Equity andDiversity to determine if and howchanges have occurred since severalstudies on equality and diversitywere conducted in the early 1990’s.The findings of the Report were dis-appointing. In areas where previousstudies allowed for comparisons, thesurvey results indicate that discrimi-nation has decreased only slightly inthe past decade.

The objectives of the Report were to:➣ Collect data on the nature and

the extent of bias within theprofession, including discrimina-tion on the grounds of gender,race, disability, and sexual orien-tation; and

➣ Collect information aboutlawyers who are no longer activein the profession and their moti-vations for leaving.

The study found that a large pro-portion of those surveyed weredisillusioned with the profession.The majority of the men and womenwho had left practice in the past tenyears had done so to seek more per-sonally rewarding opportunities, toavoid the adversarial aspect of prac-ticing law, and to find a betterbalance in their personal lives. Halfof the inactive respondents reportedthat, if they could do it over again,

they would have chosen differentprofessions. Among the activerespondents, and in particular theyounger lawyers, there is also a largedegree of dissatisfaction with someaspects of legal practice. These areasinclude long hours of work, a lack ofwork/life balance, the constant drivefor profit, and in some cases, thebelief that discrimination hasimpeded their career advancement.

In particular, Alberta’s Reportstates that:➣ Of the active respondents, 92%

of the women and 69% of themen thought that there contin-ues to be a bias or discriminationagainst women.

➣ 39% of the women, 41% of thelawyers of colour, 40% of dis-abled lawyers, and 40% ofhomosexual lawyers had experi-enced discrimination first-handin the profession.

➣ While survey responses fromAboriginal lawyers were negligi-ble, all but one of theAboriginal focus groups reportedthat they had experienced overtand profound discrimination inthe profession.

➣ Forms of discrimination reportedinclude racist and sexist com-ments, denial of opportunities towork on particular files, exclu-sion from opportunities thatwould help an individual to fur-ther his or her career, andnegative career consequences asthe result of being or becoming aparent.

The most important aspect ofAlberta’s recent report is that itidentifies areas for improvement inthe legal profession. The motiva-tion for legal workplaces to creatediscrimination-free environments isboth moral and financial. Discrimi-nation costs firms in terms oflowered productivity of membersand increased turnover. The surveyresults indicate that younger lawyerswant changes to the culture of theirworkplaces, and that they areincreasingly leaving the firms thatrefuse to build positive work envi-ronments. Additionally, firms thatembrace diversity find that they arebetter able to understand and meettheir clients’ needs.

In Saskatchewan, the Office ofthe Equity Ombudsperson is avail-able to help legal workplaces tacklespecific issues regarding discrimina-tion and to design policies that willbuild healthier, more diverse workenvironments. The services of theEquity Ombudsperson are availableto all support staff, articling stu-dents, lawyers, and firms and areneutral and confidential. If youhave questions about establishing ormaintaining a discrimination-freework environment, or wish toreview your work situation in confi-dence, contact:

Judy AndersonOffice of the Equity Ombudsperson

242-4885 (in Saskatoon)1-866-444-4885 (toll-free)

janderson1@sasktel.net

Equity in the Legal WorkplaceBy Judy Anderson, Equity Ombudsperson

LegalCites

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal is an inde-pendent, quasi-judicial body that hears complaints underthe Saskatchewan Human Rights Code that have beenreferred to it by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Com-mission. The Tribunal also reviews, at the request of thecomplainant, a complaint that has been dismissed by theCommission. Decisions of the Tribunal may orderremedies such as compensation for lost wages, damagesfor emotional injuries, and may order preventative meas-ures or anti-discrimination policies.

Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunalhttp://www.saskhrt.ca/index.htm

The hearings of the Tribunal are open to the public.After hearing the evidence presented by the parties, theTribunal issues written reasons. These are available onthe Tribunal’s web site.

Decision IndexTribunal decisions are indexed by category (ancestry,

colour, disability, family status, age, and sex) and by year(2002-2004). The decisions are in HTML format.

Site SearchTo locate a decision by the complainant’s name or to

search for a specific term in the decision there is a sitesearch engine powered by GoogleTM. The search resultsare links to the relevant decisions.

Resources LinkThe Resources link provides access to the text of the

Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and regulations in PDFformat and to a dozen procedural forms in MS Word for-mat for use by complainants and the Tribunal’s members.Other Information

Also available are biographies of Tribunal membersand links to the web sites of the Saskatchewan HumanRights Commission and the Canadian Human RightsTribunal.

By Peta Bates

Centennial 2007by Susan Baer

At the first meeting of the LawSociety of Saskatchewan on Decem-ber 19, 1907, the Saskatchewan LawReports were established as a newseries with Mr. Alexander Ross aseditor to commence with cases start-ing on September 16, 1907. Thetitle page of volume 1 published in1909 describes the contents as“reports of cases decided in theSupreme Court of Saskatchewan,September 15, 1907 to December31, 1908.” The 25 volume set cov-ered cases to 1932 and included

decisions of only superior courts ofSaskatchewan.

In “Prairie quires : the history oflaw reporting in Manitoba andSaskatchewan” published in (1993)18 Canadian Law Libraries p. 7 KenWhiteway, Head Librarian at theCollege of Law Library wrote aboutthe Saskatchewan Law Reports:

The series contains some of thebest early judgments of JohnHenderson Lamont who, in1927, became the second prairieincumbent on the Supreme

Court of Canada (Chief JusticeAlbert C. Killam of Manitobaserved on the SCC from 1903 to1905). Also represented is someof the best work of William Fer-dinand Alphonse Turgeon whowas noted for the clarity andconciseness of his judgments.He has been called “the finestwriter of judgments on anySaskatchewan bench”. (White-way quoted from W.H.McConnell, Prairie Justice (Cal-gary: Burroughs, 1980, p. 183).

Finding out more about thesejudges is far more interesting thanknowing that we traded theSaskatchewan Law Reports for a set ofIdaho Law Reports as recorded in theminutes of the Law Society meeting.John Henderson Lamont is probablythe first Law Society ofSaskatchewan member on theSupreme Court of Canada. Amongother events of notoriety, JusticeLamont formed the panel that heardthe famous “Persons Case”, the mostsignificant decision on women’srights in Canada. Justice Lamont infact agreed with Chief JusticeAnglin that the interpretation of“qualified persons” in section 24 ofthe British North America Act didnot include women. Furtherappealed to the Judicial Committeeof the Privy Council, the case wasoverturned and thus allowed women

to be eligible for and to becomemembers of the Senate of Canada.The “Persons Case” involved thefamous five, Irene Parlby, EmilyMurphy, Nellie McClung, HenriettaMuir Edwards and Louise CrummyMcKinney. It is cited as Edwards v.Canada (Attorney General) (1929),[1930] A.C. 124, [1930] 1 D.L.R. 98,[1929] 3 W.W.R. 479, reversing(1928), [1928] S.C.R. 276, [1928] 4D.L.R. 98.

The Centennial Subcommitteereminds you to share your interest-ing stories, anecdotes and amazingfacts about lawyers, judges, andevents in Saskatchewan’s legal com-munity. We would like your stories,pictures, memorabilia, trivia, andideas for celebrating the Law Soci-ety’s 100th anniversary in 2007.The Subcommittee consists of RonKruzeniski, Q.C. as Chair, Beth Bil-

son, Q.C., John McIntosh, Q.C.,Bill Selnes, and David Conroy. Youcan contact any member on the sub-committee or send your commentsto centennial@lawsociety.sk.ca. Welook forward to hearing from you.

For further reading about thefamous five, consult the NationalLibrary of Canada’s website on Cele-brating Women’s Achievements atwww.collectionscanada.ca/femmes/index-e.html or consult your localpublic library.

For further reading about the his-tory of law reporting, consult LawReporting and Legal Publishing inCanada : a History. – Occasionalpaper no. 2. – Kingston : CanadianAssociation of Law Libraries, 1996.Available in the Regina and Saska-toon libraries.

Queen’s Bench Practice Manualby Susan Baer

A companion to the Queen’sBench Rules Annotated is in prepara-tion with the cooperation of severalmembers of the Bar and judiciary.The Queen’s Bench Practice Manu-al (QBPM) takes its inspirationfrom the Manual of Civil practice andprocedure by Calvin F. Tallis, Q.C.,now Mr. Justice Tallis of the Courtof Appeal for Saskatchewan. Com-bining ideas for providingprecedents in the members’ sectionand creating a current version of themanual Justice Tallis wrote in the1970’s precipitated the Queen’sBench Practice Manual project.The QBPM is not intended to be asecond edition of the Manual of civilpractice and procedure but rather theQBPM is borrowing the strengths ofthe practical direction provided inthat manual.

The QBPM is attempting to takethe experiences of seasoned practi-tioners from across the province and

to synthesize their collective knowl-edge in order to:• improve the quality of pleadings

and other court documents pre-pared by Saskatchewan lawyersin an effort to establish stan-dards for the preparation ofdocuments for court,

• to guide new and young lawyersin preparing court documents,

• and ultimately to improve legalservices to the public.

The QBPM will provide younglawyers and sole practitioners withpractical guidance in preparing doc-uments for court. The Manual isnot an attempt to replicate theteachings of the Bar AdmissionCourse or the Practice Checklist butrather should build on knowledgelearned.

The intent is to make the QBPMapplicable across the province. Tothat end, lawyers from across theprovince are participating in the

project, as well as the Queen’sBench judiciary and Registrar. Theproject is in its infancy and it is dif-ficult to predict when thepublication will be ready for release.The plan is to make a textbookavailable for sale, with the prece-dents loaded in the members’section for all members to use.

The library is coordinating theproject with some financial assis-tance from the Law Foundation ofSaskatchewan. However, it is thecontribution of the private Bar thatwill make this project a success.The following lawyers and judgesare donating or have donated theirtime and expertise to this project,for which the Library is extremelygrateful. Their contributions aresignificant and must be recognized.Reg Watson, Q.C. is the projectleader and is credited with the origi-nal idea of “updating Justice Tallis’manual.”

The project team(in random order)Reg Watson, Q.C. Brian SchermanKaren PrisciakPaul ElashAl HaubrichBob Kennedy, Q.C.Mike Milani, Q.C.Marty Popescul, Q.C.Al Logue, Q.C.Neil TurcotteJan Kernaghan, Q.C.Tom IrvineChief Justice GereinJustice FoleyJustice M-E WrightJustice MathesonJustice McIntyre

The team members(in random order)Rick DanyliukShaunt ParthevDennis FisherMark KindrachukBarry Hornsberger, Q.C.Robert Richards, Q.C.Neil RobertsonAnne Wallace, Q.C.Bradley HunterGregory Heinrichs, Q.C.Paul MaloneSterling McLeanJames StruthersDon OsmanBill SelnesJustice Peter DielschneiderCathy Tickner

Greg Walen, Q.C.Brent BarillaLucille LambCharita OhashiSuzanne BugeaudSharon PratchlerSusan Amrud, Q.C.Leslie Belloc-PinderKim NewshamBetty Ann Pottruff, Q.C.Nancy DrewCharlene LaFleur-GrahamLaura Sandstrom-SmithJeffrey BrickMorris P. Bodnar, Q.C.Kerry R. ChowDarin C. ChowAaron A. Fox, Q.C.Kearney F. Healy

Lana L. KroganDaryl E. LabachRonald P. PicheJames A. Plemel, Q.C.Michael TochorGreg Swanson

Non-currentmembers(in random order)Gregory Bobbitt, Q.C.Timothy KeeneDiana LeeDale Linn, Q.C.William Holliday

Apologies for any oversights.

Rulings - February, 2004

Chapter III – “Advising Clients” –Amending DocumentsWithout ClientApproval – February2004

This matter was before the EthicsCommittee at both its October 2003and December 2003 meetings.

Facts:Lawyer A’s office prepared a

transfer and attended upon the ven-dor client to execute same. Thetransfer was provided to Lawyer Bpursuant to the uniform trust condi-tion letter. Lawyer A was contactedby Lawyer B for the purchasers toindicate that the purchasers’ desig-nation on the transfer had to beamended to add on the parents ofthe purchaser. Lawyer A advisedthat his client was not available andit would take a couple of days toexecute a new transfer authoriza-tion. The next communicationfrom Lawyer B was that documenta-tion had been submitted to LandTitles Office “Information ServicesCorporation of Saskatchewan”.Lawyer A obtained a copy of thetransfer authorization which Lawyer

B had submitted and amended so asto add on two additional names tothe transfer authorization. Theamendment was not made withLawyer A’s clients’ knowledge orconsent. Lawyer A was concernedabout the practice of documentsbeing amended after delivery.Lawyer B responded that closing thetransaction on a timely basis was inthe interests of both parties so heamended the transfer authorizationreceived from Lawyer A “in theexpectation of receiving deferredapproval” from Lawyer A’s office.Lawyer A was of the view that hisoffice could not approve the amend-ment to the document as once thatdocument was executed by his clientbefore a witness the original signato-ry would have to authorize same ifnot re-sign the document. A rulingwas given in December 2003.

Lawyer A requested that theEthics Committee revisit the issue.Lawyer A asked, “Specifically whena transfer authorization pursuant toThe Land Titles Act has been signedbefore a witness, and the witness hasplaced their signature thereon,attesting to the fact that he or shewitnessed the signator’s signature,(and under The Land Titles Act that

witness is a lawyer, thereby eliminat-ing the need for an Affidavit ofExecution), can a third party amendthat document with, or without, thesignator’s consent, in the absence ofthe attesting witness?”

Ruling:In this situation, the witness is

witness to the signature of the signa-tor. The importance of the witness’signature is to establish due execu-tion. It is simply evidenceestablishing that the document wasappropriately signed. What isaccepted as an authorized amend-ment does not need to be witnessedby the original witness because thereis no evidentiary issue about anauthentic execution. The EthicsCommittee is of the opinion that athird party may amend such a docu-ment, with a signator’s consent inthe absence of the attesting witness.The signator may authorize by wayof Limited Power of Attorney theamendment of such documents. Itis the opinion of the Committeethat the lawyer would not need tocall the witness back in order toamend these documents.

Chapter XIX–“Avoiding Question-able Conduct” – Duty to Meet FinancialObligations

Facts:Lawyer D was retained to do work

for Lawyer E’s corporate client.Lawyer D maintains that all of hisinstructions with respect to the cor-porate client came from Lawyer E.All of Lawyer D’s correspondenceand reporting was provided directlyto Lawyer E. Lawyer D admits thathe did speak by telephone with arepresentative of the corporateclient on one occasion. Lawyer Dindicated that the telephone con-versation was a call from arepresentative of the corporateclient to ensure that Lawyer E hadprovided Lawyer D with instructionsand that they were the same instruc-tions the corporate clientrepresentative had relayed to LawyerE. Lawyer D contends that his cor-porate client is and always wasLawyer E throughout. Lawyer Dinvoiced Lawyer E numerous timesfor work and Lawyer E had paidLawyer D’s invoices in the past.Lawyer D indicates that Lawyer Erefused to pay Lawyer D’s mostrecent invoice on the basis that the

corporate client and not Lawyer E,was Lawyer D’s client. Lawyer Dalso notes that Lawyer E did notcontact Lawyer D at any point toindicate that the invoices shouldnot be sent to him, but rathershould be in the name of the com-pany. Lawyer E did not adviseLawyer D that the company was inreceivership until Lawyer D com-menced collection proceedings.

Lawyer E’s position is that he didretain Lawyer D on behalf of thecorporate client to do specific work.Lawyer E retained Lawyer D on hisown behalf and asked that the state-ment of account be issued in hisname. Lawyer E paid this account.It is Lawyer E’s understanding thatthe representative of the corporateclient contacted Lawyer D directlyat some time between August andSeptember 2002. Lawyer E indi-cates that the corporate client hiredLawyer D to do work on a complete-ly different matter. Lawyer Eindicated that he was instructed bythe corporate client representativeto contact Lawyer D with respect tothe status of the work. Lawyer Eadvised the corporate client repre-sentative that the work was fine andthe corporate client representativeasked him to instruct Lawyer D toproceed. Lawyer E did see theaccounts on the corporate client

matter begin to arrive at his office,however, he simply forwarded themon to the corporate client for pay-ment. The corporate client becameinsolvent in 2003 and was unable topay Lawyer D’s account or LawyerE’s. Lawyer E indicates that he hasspoken to the corporate client repre-sentative who states that heretained Lawyer D directly on behalfof the corporation. The corporaterepresentative apparently also indi-cated to Lawyer E that he would nothesitate to testify on his behalf if thematter was to be tried in SmallClaims Court.

Ruling:The facts of this matter are in dis-

pute. This would necessitate acredibility assessment as the crucialfact is whether or not there wasintent.

The Ethics Committee was of theopinion that issues such as this arefor the Courts to decide. The EthicsCommittee, however, would like toadvise Lawyer E to be more carefulin dealing with bills on behalf of aclient, as he may be seen to beresponsible for the bill as “incurredin the course of practice” if he con-tinues to accept bills and forwardsame to his client, rather than advis-ing the lawyer or other third partyto deal directly with the client.

Chapter VI – “Conflict of InterestBetween Lawyer andClient” - LoaningMoney to Clients –April 2004

The Ethics Committee was askedto provide further direction to theLaw Society with respect to the

practice of lawyers loaning money toclients.

Ruling:The Committee reviewed the

matters raised which were a loan toa client as an advance on a potentialpersonal injury settlement and aloan to a client in pursuit of a jointventure. The Committee’s first com-ments were that the loans were not

“papered”, contrary to ChapterVI(d) and Chapter VI(4) of TheCode of Professional Conduct. Aswell, the Committee was of theopinion that there were obviousproblems inherent in “the firm” inquestion having loaned money toclients and recording same via firmrecords. In general, the Committeewas of the opinion that loaningmoney to clients is simply not a

Rulings - April, 2004

good practice, that this practice isrife with problems and that it isstrongly discouraged.

Chapter XV –“Responsibility to theProfession Generally”– Unprofessional Correspondence –April 2004

The Committee reviewed severalpieces of correspondence betweenLawyer W, other members andclients, excerpts as follows:

“I am tired of your client’s pater-nalistic attitudes. What is yourclient going to do next, drop offboxes of groceries at my client’sdoorstep (contrary to the restrainingorder) and produce store receipts toclaim the same as credit towards hisspousal support obligations?”

“It appears that your client hasbeen attracting these Court sanc-tions at both the Chambers andPre-Trial Conference stages. Isthere something about the messagefrom the Court that your client doesnot understand?”

“Your client, operating personallyand as Company X will be reportedto the two National Credit Bureaus,being Trans Union of Canada Inc.and Equifax, I am sure with yourclient’s expertise and alleged abun-dant grace of God that he will beable to continue his mortgage bor-rowings without difficulty.”

Ruling:The Committee would like to

remind Lawyer W not to makeintemperate comments in profes-

sional correspondence regardless ifdealing with difficult clients, adver-sarial counsel or otherwise.

Chapter V – “Impartiality andConflict of InterestBetween Clients” –Acting for anEstranged Couple onTwo Separate Matters– April 2004

Issue:The Committee was asked by the

Professional Standards Committeeto review a conflict issue. Lawyer Aattended with Mr. R to change hiswill which would adversely affectMrs. R while Mrs. R was attendingwith his lawyer/partner on anothermatter.

Ruling:The Committee agreed that in

this situation, Lawyer A was likely“off-side” the strict conflict of inter-est rules as set out by the SupremeCourt in R v. Neil. It was the opin-ion of the Committee that thissituation would constitute a conflictof interest in light of the interpreta-tion provided by the Supreme Courtof Canada in R v. Neil. However,the Committee was of the opinionthat this was a “technical breach”and was satisfied with Lawyer A’sexplanation in these particular cir-cumstances in his response to thecomplaint. The Committee directsno further action with respect tothis matter.

Chapter IV – “Advising Clients” –Wrongfully RegisteredWrit – April 2004

Facts:Client Z complained about

Lawyer Z in that a writ was wrong-fully registered against his land as hewas not the correct debtor. Whenhe followed up with Lawyer Z hecomplained that she did not takeresponsibility and remove the Writ.Lawyer Z provided information tothe Law Society to indicate that shehad reviewed the matter, spoke withClient Z, expected him to get backto her and was not dismissivetowards him.

Ruling:The Ethics Committee recom-

mended that the ISC LiaisonCommittee speak to ISC about aninformational package for the publicon how to discharge writs wrongful-ly registered against their property.The Ethics Committee was of theview that the public will inevitablybe affected more often by such writsdue to the province-wide registrysystem. The complainant will beadvised that the Law Society willfollow up with ISC regarding thePublic Relations value in providingsome sort of informational packageto the public. The Committee sug-gests that a potential Benchers’Digest article might be helpfuldependent upon the success of theISC Liaison Committee on thisissue.

BENCHERS’ DIGEST

Published by:The Law Society of Saskatchewan

1100, 2500 Victoria AvenueRegina, Saskatchewan

Canada S4P 3X2Telephone (306) 569-8242

Fax (306) 352-2989e-mail: reception@lawsociety.sk.ca

Lawyers Concerned for LawyersProvides to Saskatchewan lawyers and their family members:

• CONFIDENTIAL assistance in effectively dealing with problems;

• the services of an INDEPENDENT professional consultant;• services provided without charge

For confidential information and assistance call 1-800-780-5256, Regina 352-0680 or

Saskatoon 956-5738 or 956-5735

Equity Ombudsperson

The Office of the Equity Ombudsperson is committed to eliminating both discrimination and harassment in thelegal profession.

If you are a support staff, articling student or lawyer within a law firm, you can contact the Equity Ombudsperson, Judy Anderson, for advice, information and assistance. All information is confidential.

This office is not a lawyer referral service and cannot provide legal advice.

Call toll free: 1-866-444-4885.

This office is funded by The Law Society of Saskatchewan.