BarTalk April 2023 | Green Justice

Out on the Town

with BC’s Legal Community

Family Law Vancouver Dinner

May 10 | cbabc.org/FamilyLawDinner

CBABC is beyond thrilled to bring this special evening back to share with our colleagues. Justice Bruce Elwood, Supreme Court of British Columbia, is our Keynote Speaker for the evening.

The Lawyer Show – Mamma Mia!

May 10-13 | cbabc.org/LawyerShow

CBABC is proud to sponsor opening night of Mamma Mia!, this year's production of The Lawyer Show – one of Vancouver’s most important legal events and a valued tradition. Watch for special guest, Aleem Bharmal, KC, to take the stage!

Battle of the Bar Bands Vancouver

Jun 2 | barbandsvancouver.ca

The Battle returns to the Commodore Ballroom! The annual fundraiser for the CBA(BC) Benevolent Society is presented by Hunter West Legal Recruitment and CBABC. Don't miss this great night of entertainment!

Vancouver Bench & Bar Dinner

Jun 15 | cbabc.org/BenchBar

CBABC and the Vancouver Bar Association warmly invite lawyers and judges to attend the 37th Annual Bench and Bar Dinner. Join us in paying homage to those who have made outstanding contributions to the cause of justice in British Columbia.

Retirement Celebration for Chief Justice Bauman

Sep 8 – SAVE THE DATE | cbabc.org/CJBauman

CBABC is honoured to co-host the Retirement Celebration for Chief Justice Robert Bauman at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver this September. Tickets go on sale June 1.

Green Justice

Features

6 The Right to a Healthy Environment under CEPA?

Sebastian Ennis

7

Lisa Picotte-Li

9 The “Forever Chemicals”: Dark Waters in Canada?

Rick Williams and Braeden Stang Indigenous Matters

10 Hamlet Versus Petroleum

Carrie Robinson

16 How Northwest B.C. is Advancing Indigenous Reconciliation and Environmental Sustainability

Shelby O’Brien

18 A Look at Current Forestry Trends in British Columbia

Saul Joseph and Melanee Bryniawsky 20

Alanna Mackenzie

From the Branch

APRIL 2023

Volume 35 | Number 2

Columns

From the President

4 Lawyers and Climate Change

Aleem Bharmal, KC

Executive Director

5 Maintaining Our Strengths

Kerry L. Simmons, KC

Indigenous Matters

11 Paradigm Shift in the CFCSA — Indigenous Children Cannot Afford to Wait

Frances Rosner

Guest Column

13 An Interview with The Honourable Justice Marchand

Brandon Hastings and Isabel Jackson

PracticeTalk

24 Is It Really Not Easy Being Green?

David J. Bilinsky

Guest Column

27 The Dangers of Non-disclosure in Family Law

Michael Butterfield

Nothing Official

29 Why I Changed My Mind

Tony Wilson, KC

Isabel Jackson, Committee Chair

Editorial Committee

Tonie Beharrell Eryn Jackson Demola Okeowo Lily Zhang

Brandon Hastings Judith Janzen Josephine Wong

Deborah Carfrae, BarTalk Editor

BarTalk is produced on the traditional and unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

BarTalk is published six times per year by the Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch (CBABC) and is available at cbabc.org/bartalk. This publication is intended for information purposes only and is not legal advice.

CBABC supports more than 7,600 members in British Columbia. We connect our members to the people, knowledge, and skills they need to successfully practice.

BarTalk enquiries, suggestions, and letters to the editor: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch 10th Floor, 845 Cambie Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5T3

t: 604.687.3404

tf: 888.687.3404

e: bartalk@cbabc.org

Membership Enquiries membership@cbabc.org

Contact Updates data@cbabc.org Advertising ads@cbabc.org

© Copyright 2023 The Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch

BarTalk Publication Sales Agreement #40741008

FROM THE PRESIDENT

ALEEM BHARMAL, KC

Lawyers and Climate Change

Over the past two years, two resolutions put forward by concerned lawyers, both confirming the systemic and devastating impacts of climate change and urging the profession to engage with this reality, have been defeated, one at the Canadian Bar Association national level in 2021 and the other at the Law Society of BC in 2022.

Proponents of each resolution argued that lawyers have a duty to consider the risks of climate change, which are as rapidly growing as they are wide-ranging, in properly advising their clients, and that such considerations are not merely “political.”1 2 3

Despite outlin ing the disproportionate effects climate change is having in Canada (at least in terms of rates of warmin g) and the widespread impacts it is having across countless sectors (both nationally and on a global scale), the compelling arguments put forward in support of the said resolutions were not sufficient to sway enough of the profession to allow either of them to pass. Assuming most lawyers accept the scientific consensus on climate change and its causes, why has this not translated into the actions sought by the proponents of the cited resolutions?

Although it might not seem obvious, at first blush, how climate change might affect one’s legal practice, especially when that practice is not more directly linked to environmental issues, it is amazing how

pervasive the impacts of climate change can, in fact, be.

Take my legal practice, for example, which is based entirely in human rights law. During the devastating heat dome we experienced in 2021 (something that was amplified by climate change and is thought to likely become a more common oncein-a-decade occurrence, according to at least one credible study), risk of death was associated with low socioeconomic status, sex and age (according to another credible study).

The latter two factors are cited protected grounds under the BC Human Rights Code and the first factor is presently being strongly recommended to be added as a ground in the recently released landmark BC

impacts on human rights become readily apparent when you dig just below the surface.

It also becomes apparent that to stay on top of my human rights practice I need to be up to speed on the issue of climate change and the ways in which it potentially affects my clients and their legal matters.

As Dr. Carol Liao persuasively stated in her article, “Just as we expect a family doctor to stay up-to-date on the latest pandemic, or a financial advisor to be aware of subprime mortgage risk, professionals are relied upon by the public to educate themselves on and respond to the latest crisis affecting their profession.”4

At CBABC, we strive to remain an indispensable resource in that worthy endeavour, as this latest BarTalk issue can attest.

1 Article in CBA National entitled, The legal profession’s duty to respond to climate change by Meredith James, February 4, 2021, bit.ly/bt0423p4.

2 Article in Law360 Canada entitled, Three reasons why lawyers should engage with climate change by Meredith James & Aladdin Diakun, February 16, 2021, bit.ly/bt0423p1

Human Rights Commission report “From Hate to Hope” on the rise of hate during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yet another study has linked extremely high temperatures to fueling online hate speech. The connections between climate change and its

3 Article in The Tyee entitled, Lawyers Can’t Ignore Climate Change by Dr. Carol Liao, June 15, 2022, bit.ly/bt0423p3

4 Ibid.

Aleem Bharmal, KC president@cbabc.org

... professionals are relied upon by the public to educate themselves on and respond to the latest crisis affecting their profession.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

KERRY L. SIMMONS, KC

Maintaining Our Strengths

Our next steps for a healthy profession

It has long been known that the legal profession attracts individuals who have high standards and expectations for themselves. We are smart, strong in character and want to fix problems and help others. These attributes enable us to withstand the challenges of the practice — one that is acknowledged to be one of the most demanding ways to earn a living and contribute to society.

But it is taking its toll. And we must take a hard look at what we need to do to create healthy lawyers and workplaces.

The National Study on the Wellness of Legal Professionals in Canada is the first Canadian study of its kind. Researchers sought to: gather evidence to determine if there is a problem and the scope of it; identify variations on the level of wellness across the country; explore the causes of poor mental health in the profession; and make recommendations to support wellness among lawyers.

Made possible through a partnership between the Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies and law societies throughout the country, the Université de Sherbrooke research team was led by Dr. Nathalie Cadieux.

The Phase I report revealed high rates of stress, anxiety, burnout, and depression are experienced at particularly high rates throughout the profession. The symptoms of psychological stress include fatigue, irritability, concentration problems, anxiety, and insomnia. These factors affect how we provide services to our clients, and therefore must be a concern to the public, our regulators, the justice system, and ourselves.

The study highlighted that our work environment is a significant contributor to the state of wellness. Emotional demands are high, particularly in areas such as family and criminal law. The hours worked, the overload of work, billable hour demands, and job insecurity about meeting expectations of clients and employers all impact our wellness.

In some ways, none of this is news. For decades, the Lawyers Assistance Program BC, CBABC and the CBA have provided and promoted services, programs, and supports for lawyers for this very reason. And it’s why the Law Society of BC has recently implemented regulatory changes to reduce barriers for lawyers experiencing mental health challenges.

But when the study tells us that 6/10 lawyers are experiencing psychological distress and 24% of us have experienced suicidal thoughts since the beginning of practising law, more of us need to stop and pay attention. Think about those statistics when you look at how many lawyers are in your workplace. Or the lawyers sitting in chambers. Or the lawyers at a conference. 60% are experiencing psychological stress such that it is affecting their work and their health.

We have to stop and take another look at how our profession, our workplaces, our legal and justice systems are structured.

Fortunately, the report offers a suite of recommendations to explore. Here are a few. Improving access to health and wellness support resources and breaking down barriers that limit our professional abilities. Promoting diversity in the profession supported by actual practices and policies to address discriminatory biases. Establishing work practices that include the right to disconnect from the 24/7 communication demands. Implementing actions to humanize the legal profession and deconstruct the myth of a lawyer as superhero. In law school and early practice, better prepare students and lawyers to manage their health in the context of the profession.

Most importantly, the study recommends that we consider the health of professionals to be an integral part of legal practice and a functioning justice system.

CBABC is proud to support our members through professional development and community connections, including Pathways to Lawyer Wellbeing — Inclusive Environments Matter on April 5, and during Mental Health Awareness Week May 1-5. Let’s build on our strengths and together improve our health.

Kerry L. Simmons, KC ksimmons@cbabc.org

SEBASTIAN ENNIS

The Right to a Healthy Environment under

CEPA?

What to watch for in Bill S-5

Bill S-5 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). This article highlights a key feature of that Bill: the right to a healthy environment.

The Bill proposes to amend CEPA’s preamble to recognize that “every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under this Act.” Preambles are interpretive aids that provide important context and policy objectives, but fall short of creating or protecting substantive legal rights. Recognition of a right to a healthy environment arguably marks a shift in policy from measures aimed at preventing or remedying environmental harm to a rights-based framework in favour of environmental health.

However, Bill S-5 proposes cautious implementation of this through the following proposed requirements. The federal government would be required:

„ In the administration of CEPA, to “protect the right of every individual in Canada to a healthy environment as provided under this Act, subject to any reasonable limits”;

„ To develop an “implementation framework” for how the right will be considered in CEPA’s administration, including such things as “principles of environmental justice” and the “principle of intergenerational equity,” as well as the “reasonable limits” to which the right is subject based on social, health, scientific, and economic factors; and

„ To carry out research, studies, or monitoring activities supporting the right to a healthy environment.

These proposed amendments are not the first appearance of the right to a healthy environment in Canadian law. Ontario, Nunavut, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories all have environmental legislation with similar declarations in their respective preambles. In Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights, reference to the right is then limited to its legislative purpose. In Nunavut, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories, the legislation provides for a complimentary public interest statutory right of action to protect the environment from harm or impairment. The Northwest Territories’ Environmental Rights Act further requires a “Statement of Environmental Values,” which is a policy that applies to all decisions and actions by that government that may have a significant impact on the environment. Only Yukon’s Environment Act elevates the right from its preamble to a specific enabling provision, stating “[t]he people of the Yukon have the right to a healthful natural environment.” In addition, Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms expressly protects the “right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.”

Bill S-5 does not propose any substantive provision that provides for the right to a healthy environment, as in Yukon and Quebec. Nor does it provide an independent means of enforcing that right, such as through the statutory causes of actions in Canada’s North. Instead, it requires the federal government to consider the right to a healthy environment in the administration of CEPA through an express policy framework, similar to the Northwest Territories.

Without expressly providing for an independent right to a healthy environment, the impact of Bill S-5 is more limited, and litigants may have to continue to rely on Charter arguments to seek its realization (e.g., La Rose v. Canada). However, the proposed amendments may provide another basis to judicially review CEPArelated decisions.

The federal recognition of a right to a healthy environment is arriving on the heels of significant international recognition. In October 2021 and July 2022, first the UN Human Rights Council and then the UN General Assembly recognized the right to a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” With such momentum internationally, and growing domestic recognition, it will be difficult to ignore the right to a healthy environment in Canada as it increasingly becomes part of our legal tapestry.

At time of writing, Bill S-5 has been referred to the committee stage after second reading by the House of Commons.

Sebastian is a lawyer at Iris Legal, specializing in environmental, natural resources, and Indigenous law, and chair of the CBABC Environmental Law Section.

feature

Technology and Regulatory Oversight

In the aftermath of extreme weather events like floods and fires, there is momentum to build back quickly. When people and communities are displaced, repairs in affected areas become the priority once immediate risks are addressed. Before returning to a site, however, there may still be latent hazards.

Activities such as restoring services to electrical systems or damaged equipment may pose risks like electrical shock, carbon monoxide, and fire. The urgency to repair the damage can strain traditional regulatory services, such as safety inspections, and can result in bottlenecks and delay. Using technology to enhance accessibility, particularly tools like machine learning and remote assessments, can improve regulatory oversight by allocating resources in a structured way.

Leveraging technology to create greater value, however, requires a shift in thinking about regulatory oversight. Gone are the days of enough resources and time to monitor every aspect of compliance. The reality of any quality control program is that regulation and policy rarely move at the pace of crisis. To keep up with what feels like regularly recurring climate disasters, innovative regulatory tools are needed along with the following paradigm shifts.

1. Overseeing bodies cannot see everything. While seemingly simplistic and straightforward, there is a tendency to expect regulators to catch and punish all poor performing actors. But this is not possible.

For instance, even if a police officer was situated in every moving vehicle, there would still be motorists who travel at excessive speeds. There would be fewer speeders than there are today, but it would raise the question of whether the costs of such a regulatory regime are worth the (eventually marginal) benefits. Spot checks of speeders are useful for changing behaviour, but what is the appropriate level of resourcing while also optimizing efficiency?

2. Accepting that overseeing bodies cannot be everywhere at once, risk and reliance become inextricable foundations for effective oversight. In the example above, the cost of having a police officer in every moving vehicle would not generally be acceptable. In contrast, it would be expected that officers are dispatched to areas that have an elevated risk related to speeding. The balance is in how much resources can be expended on quality control versus the confidence that most motorists will abide by the speed limit.

Gaining a clear understanding of risk and behaviour fosters oversight based on reliance rather than control. This can then free up resources for potentially more impactful tools, like engagement and education.

3. The effectiveness of innovative tools may be different from traditional measures. If online stores

were compared to shopping malls in terms of the ability to try on clothes or sample foods, the online option would fail. But if outcome measures are tracked, then digital presence can be successful in a number of ways, such as having greater sales volumes or driving traffic to a brick-and-mortar store. Applying existing measures to new tools may limit their opportunities to be successful because they capture what is already known, not what the possibilities might be.

In the aftermath of extreme weather events, tools like machine learning and remote assessments can expedite repairs while still achieving safety outcomes. For example, it would be inappropriate resourcing to confirm every electrical panel is labeled before people are allowed to return to their homes. It would be prudent, however, to confirm all potential arc faults have been addressed.

By understanding the nature of risks through analysis of aggregated data, in-person resources can be dispatched to areas that have the highest potential hazards. A video call of an unlabeled electrical panel is much the same as an inspector visiting in person. But if an inspector is spared from having to visit in-person to confirm labeling, then they can spend more time looking after potential arc faults. Where risks are lower or within acceptable guardrails, leveraging tools like remote assessments can enable more higher value work while controlling costs, increasing efficiency, and getting people and communities back to safety, quickly.

Lisa Picotte-Li is the director of operations at a provincial safety regulator and adjudicates correction and discipline of federal inmates. The views are those of the author.

advocacy inaction

CBABC is committed to promoting access to justice, protecting the rule of law and advocating on behalf of the legal profession. In recent months, CBABC has spoken out on a number of pressing matters reflecting policy positions developed by our members in all areas of the province across Committees and Sections.

BC BUDGET 2023

Following the release of BC Budget 2023, CBABC acknowledged the provincial government’s commitment to funding 15 Indigenous Justice Centres as proposed in the First Nations Justice Strategy. CBABC has called for funding to support the Strategy’s implementation since its establishment in 2020 to address the over-representation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system.

Unfortunately, there remain critical gaps in funding for justice issues in this year’s budget. Many people in B.C. are impacted by higher costs of living and need important upgrades to the systems and institutions meant to help them. Legal aid funding for B.C.’s most vulnerable and digital access to legal services remain at the forefront of CBABC’s advocacy to ensure that all British Columbians have access to a justice system that is fair, affordable, and effective.

MODERNIZING B.C.’S JUSTICE AND LEGAL SYSTEMS

In February, we delivered a submission encouraging B.C. tribunals to improve their collection and use of user-centered data across the province. We are pleased that the Chair of

\ EMAIL: ADVOCACY @CBABC.ORG

the Circle of BC Administrative Tribunals has responded to invite further engagement.

Our efforts to transform the court system also persist, following the government’s positive response to our recommendation that the Court Services Branch and the courts develop and implement court user surveys. We are currently working with the Ministry and courts to support changes that serve public interest and integrate users’ views.

PRESERVING INDEPENDENCE OF LAWYERS

CBABC continues to advocate for government to safeguard lawyers’ self-regulation and independence, and to facilitate full and transparent discussion regarding any legislative changes that impact lawyers and the people they serve.

We recently wrote to the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General expressing deep concern over unilateral action in the face of an ongoing process regarding Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023. We urged the province to reconsider proceeding with Bill 5 and instead allow the BC Government Lawyers Association’s (BCGLA) application for certification to continue.

Should such policy change be a priority, CBABC called for the government — before advancing legislation to respectfully engage with its employees and allow appropriate time for fulsome discussion.

Fortunately, the government paused the legislation from proceeding in order to have conversations with the BCGLA about the way forward.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Re: “The Trap of Perfection” by Tony Wilson, KC, BarTalk February 2023

“Tony Wilson’s recent article in BarTalk entitled, “The Trap of Perfection” was excellent. Sage and helpful advice for those newcomers to the profession.”

— Scott Nielsen, New Westminster

RICK WILLIAMS AND BRAEDEN STANG

The “Forever Chemicals”: Dark Waters in Canada?

Often referred to as “the next asbestos,” per- and polyfluroakyl substances (PFAS) are a group of over 4,700 synthetic chemicals consisting of a fluorinated carbon chain that have been used for several decades in a variety of applications due to their stability and repellant abilities (ranging from nonstick cookware and water repellant fabrics to cosmetics and firefighting foams). Increasing awareness surrounding the harmful effects of PFAS has led governments of all levels to regulate them and attempt to reduce their use. Coupled with the recent emergence of PFAS-related litigation in Canada, the risks associated with PFAS render them contaminants of concern for more than just the environmental lawyer.

As is the case with many hazardous substances, PFAS were once believed to be safe. It has since been shown they are potentially harmful to both humans (having been linked to birth defects and cancer, among other diseases) and the environment. Making matters worse, the stability of the chemical bonds, that make PFAS attractive in the first place, render them largely incapable of breaking down naturally.

As popularized in the 2019 Mark Ruffalo movie “Dark Waters,” the discovery of the harmful effects of these “forever chemicals” has led to the proliferation of PFAS-related litigation south of the border over the past two decades. More than 1,200 PFAS related lawsuits were

commenced in the US in 2021 alone. While the target of this litigation has primarily been PFAS producers (for example, DuPont and 3M), recent class-actions have expanded the focus to distributors and retailers of products containing PFAS.

Until recently, Canada had not seen any reported PFAS-related litigation (likely due, in part, to the fact they have not historically been produced in Canada). However, like most US litigation — it is often only a matter of time. Over the past couple of years, we have seen the emergence of these claims in Canada. This included the 2021 certification of a class-action against the National Research Council of Canada concerning the alleged PFAS contamination of properties surrounding the National Fire Laboratory in Mississippi Mills, Ontario (Egan et al. v. National Research Council of Canada et al., 2021 ONSC 4561, leave refused 2021 ONSC 7265).

Coinciding with the growing litigation, governments around the globe have introduced various measures regulating the manufacture, import, sale, and use of products containing PFAS. In Canada only the most well-known classes of PFAS are currently regulated at the federal level: perfluorooctane sulfonate, perfluorooctanoic acid, and long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids. However, in April 2021, the federal government issued a Notice of

Intent setting out its proposal to more broadly regulate PFAS. At the provincial level, regulation of PFAS has been slow to non-existent with only British Columbia currently regulating PFAS under its contaminated sites regime.

The risks associated with the growing litigation and regulation of PFAS in Canada, should raise flags for more than just environmental litigators. From a transactional perspective, PFAS should be identified as an issue in due diligence and consideration given on how to allocate risk (e.g., through indemnities, price adjustments, reps/warranties). Particular attention should also be paid to whether PFAS is excluded under any

relevant insurance policies, including representation and warranty, pollution liability, third-party liability, etc. Lastly, the risk of PFAS-related exposures leading to health complications (particularly in the firefighting and military professions) represents potential liability that all labour and employment lawyers (and their clients) will want to be aware of.

Given the persistent nature of PFAS the associated risks are an issue that will not be going away anytime soon.

Rick is a partner and National Leader of the Environmental Law group at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. Braeden is a litigation associate at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. Both are based in Vancouver.

Indigenousmatters

CARRIE ROBINSON

Hamlet Versus Petroleum Consultation & Modern Impact Assessment

In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) quashed a decision by the National Energy Board (NEB) because the, now, Canada Energy Regulator (CER), had approved a project for offshore seismic oil and gas exploration while breaching the Crown’s duty to consult Inuit people. The case, Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40, also clarified that parties can rely on the regulatory process to fulfill the duty to consult.

The government’s involvement in the impact assessment (IA) process is prescribed in legislation. The Impact Assessment Act, S.C. 2019, c. 28, s.1 (IA Act) is the federal standard for Canada’s IA regulatory process wherein Aboriginal and Treaty Rights must be considered. The IA Act regulates the “federal process for [IAs] and the prevention of significant adverse environmental effects.” This process requires that certain projects (oil and gas pipelines, electrical transmissions, wind turbines) automatically undergo assessment conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC). These decisions may be overturned by the courts where the Crown’s duty to consult Aboriginal people is not upheld.

An aspect of the regulatory process highlighted by Hamlet is that when the government is relying on the IAAC to uphold the duty to consult, the Aboriginal group involved must know. As in Hamlet, the SCC ordered that the NEB consider the duty to consult or else withhold approval for that particular project. In any event, Hamlet states that “[w]here the regulatory process

being relied upon does not achieve adequate consultation or accommodation, the Crown must take further measures.”

In 2019, the IA legislation was modernized and the IA Act replaced the former federal act of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012). Further, the Canada Regulator Act (S.C. 2019, c. 29, s. 10), (CER Act) resulted in the name change of the NEB to CER. In the IA Act particularly, being federal, subsection 2 (c) specifies that certain impacts on Indigenous peoples are within the jurisdiction of the Act to regulate such as: physical and cultural heritage; use of lands and resources for traditional purposes; historical sites; changes to health, social or economic conditions or matters set out in Schedule 3 of the Act.

The effect of both the modernization of the process and the Hamlet case is surely that principles in overarching instruments, like the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which is cited in the both the IA Act and CER Act’s preambles, must be adhered to in the IA process. When the Hamlet decision was rendered, UNDRIP had not yet been domesticated in Canada. The IA Act and UNDRIP now provide added authority for the government and the courts to step in and provide certainty for parties involved in impact assessments i.e., Indigenous communities and

companies with projects impacting Indigenous peoples. Precedent like Hamlet, thus, compliments the modernization of the environmental regulatory process to the benefit of Indigenous communities. Hamlet reminds us that both parties should be advised that it still must be clear to the Indigenous groups being consulted that the new IA process is being used to uphold the Crown’s duty to consult.

According to Asad Chaudhary, Associate General Counsel at CER on December 14, 2022: “The inclusion of the UN Declaration in our Act, as well as the government-wide application of the UN Declaration Act is critical. It reinforces the need to collaborate with Indigenous communities in everything we do. Meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities makes us a better regulator by supporting better decisions, improved safety and environmental protection and effective issue resolution.”

Chaudhary also noted that the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples also guides the work of the Canada Energy Regulator.

Carrie Robinson is a lawyer and Senior Policy Advisor in the Health Sector of the Assembly of First Nations in Ottawa. She is called to both the Law Society of Ontario and the Law Society of British Columbia.

FRANCES ROSNER

era of the Province controlling child welfare must come to end — and the legislation cannot be passed soon enough.”

In recognition of the ongoing legacy of harm caused by the forced removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities in the child welfare system, the B.C. government has taken significant steps to overhaul the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). Bill 38, the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act, passed on November 24, 2022 — it recognizes the inherent right of Indigenous communities to self-government and made B.C. the first province in Canada to pass legislation enabling Indigenous Governing Bodies (IGB’s) to assume jurisdiction over child and family services.

Importantly, Bill 38 was developed in consultation with Indigenous rights holders, Treaty First Nations, Métis Nation B.C. and IGB’s in keeping with B.C.’s commitments under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) to reconciliation — by removing barriers for Indigenous communities to selfgovernment and by paving the way for IGB’s to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services. Given that Indigenous children continue to be over-represented in the foster care system at a rate of 68% despite comprising less than 10% of the child population in B.C., the changes are welcomed by Indigenous leaders, including Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Union of BC Indian Chiefs: “The colonial

Key amendments include the following: the CFCSA must be administered and interpreted in accordance with Indigenous communities’ inherent right of self-government; enables IGB’s to assume jurisdiction over childwelfare services in accordance with Indigenous laws; strengthens collaborative and consent-based decision-making with Indigenous communities for adoption placements, and ensures that both Treaty First Nations and non-Treaty First Nations have opportunities to exercise jurisdiction in these areas; enables information sharing between the province and IGB’s to assist IGB’s with planning and implementation of jurisdiction; establishes a new child-welfare director in the province to provide guidance and advice to CFCSA directors and their delegates to help navigate a multi-jurisdictional child and family services system; and enables consent based coordination agreements to be made respecting jurisdictional powers under the Adoption Act and CFSCA

The amendments stipulate that jurisdiction may only be conferred on and exercised by IGB’s, a term defined under DRIPA as “an entity that is authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by S. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

In other words, for Indigenous communities to take back jurisdiction

over child and family services — they must be formally recognized as IGB’s. Thus far, despite that we have over 200 First Nations and Indigenous communities in B.C. — we presently have only 11 recognized IGB’s in the province.

That said, the full remedial impact of the amendments will depend greatly on the establishment of IGB’s, the capacity of IGB’s to develop their own child and family services laws, and then the ability to successfully enter agreements with the province or tripartite agreements with the provincial and federal governments. This is clearly not an easy process, as the CFCSA amendments were drafted in part to align with the federal legislation — An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families, that came into force January 1, 2020. The federal Act similarly established a process wherein Indigenous communities recognized as IGB’s could take back jurisdiction through tripartite coordination agreements. More than three years later, we do not have any IGB’s in the province with a ratified coordination agreement. Therefore, while in this waiting period, hopefully stakeholders will amend their practices to comport with the spirit and intent of the changes underway by working diligently toward keeping Indigenous children with their families and in their communities, as children can’t afford to wait.

Paradigm Shift in the CFCSA — Indigenous Children Cannot Afford to Wait

Frances Rosner is a Métis lawyer working as a sole practitioner in Vancouver.

DONOGHUE V STEVENSON

In May 2022, the Law Society of Scotland commemorated the 90th anniversary of the landmark Donoghue v Stevenson case by organizing an online conference. This conference featured notable presenters from around the world, and a collection of papers from the event, entitled “Donoghue v Stevenson — The Immortal Snail — 90th Anniversary Conference Papers,” is now available through CLEBC.

The papers offer a diverse range of perspectives on the lasting impact of the Donoghue v Stevenson case in multiple jurisdictions, including New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Israel, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Caribbean.

CLEBC is grateful to The Honourable Martin Taylor for involving them in various Donoghue v Stevenson events over the years. The organization’s second publication on the

subject, “Donoghue v Stevenson and the Modern Law of Negligence — The Paisley Papers,” was released after the 1990 conference. Michael Clancy, OBE, WS, of the Law Society of Scotland, organized the conference and facilitated CLEBC’s involvement in the paper collection.

The publication represents an important contribution to legal scholarship and will undoubtedly be of interest to legal professionals and academics alike. It provides valuable insights into the enduring relevance of Donoghue v Stevenson in contemporary legal practice, making it a must-read for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of negligence law.

Read the papers here: cle.bc.ca/dvs

guest

BRANDON HASTINGS AND ISABEL JACKSON

An Interview with The Honourable Justice Marchand

QYOU HAVE DONE A LOT IN YOUR CAREER. WHAT MADE YOU CHOOSE YOUR PATH?

From a young age, I always wanted to be an engineer. I never thought about law. I eventually earned my engineering degree and worked in the oil industry. I was motivated, and my company treated me like gold. On paper, everything was good. But at a certain point, the company released a mission statement, and the lead point was about maximizing return to shareholders. My father was a huge influence on me, and making a difference, public service and caring for others were core values for me when I was growing up. When that mission statement came out, it crystallized that I didn’t have a deep connection to the company’s mission — this wasn’t going to be a personally satisfying career for me over the next 35+ years.

I thought a lot about what I might do instead of engineering; I eventually came to thinking law was the answer. So, I quit my job, and went to law school. As a lawyer, I was most proud of making a difference in my clients’ lives. My work on residential school claims was particularly meaningful. As the claims process was winding down, I began to think about what was next for me. I settled on the idea of judging, because I could continue to make a positive difference in people’s lives. And, I could bring my insights as an Indigenous person to the Bench. I have been fortunate that the stars have somehow aligned again

and again for me, as I was appointed to the Provincial Court, Supreme Court, and finally to the Court of Appeal.

Q: WHAT’S YOUR FAVOURITE THING ABOUT BEING A JUDGE?

As a trial judge, my favourite thing was interacting with the people whose cases were before me. I hoped they felt heard and left the courtroom with a favourable view of the justice system, regardless of the outcome. As an appellate judge, I miss having face-to-face contact with the people whose lives are affected by my decisions, but I know the decisions I’m making now will have an impact on those people and on others. It is rewarding to find good solutions, do my best to articulate the law in a way that real people can understand, and to do it in a way that hopefully shows empathy for the circumstances people are in. It’s about making law accessible to people, and bringing my experiences as an Indigenous person to the role. Those are the things that I’m excited about.

Q: YOU HAVE A UNIQUE VIEWPOINT, HAVING PRESIDED IN PROVINCIAL COURT, SUPREME COURT, AND THE COURT OF APPEAL. WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED MAKES A GOOD LAWYER?

I’ve come to think that the number one thing is to care. People who

honestly care will care enough to prepare. They’ll care enough to put the interests of their client first. They’ll care enough to speak in a language that is accessible to their client. They’ll care enough to really understand their client’s problem, and to find the most cost-effective path to solve it. They’ll care enough to focus on the issues, and not get caught up in things that won’t affect the outcome. And hopefully they’ll care enough to be involved with the profession, to give back to the community, to support other lawyers, and to always act in an ethical fashion. To me, all of these things revolve around how much they care. That’s something that gives me a lot of optimism, because my observation is that most lawyers do care. Sometimes they need some mentorship, feedback, or help to do even better. But they want to do better, they want to do their best, because they care. That to me is the number one thing.

Q: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON INDIGENOUS REPRESENTATION ON THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA?

I think it’s critical to have Indigenous members on the highest court in the country, and I’d like to think the first one will be appointed before long. (Since this interview was recorded, First Nations jurist, Michelle O’Bonsawin, has been appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.)

uuu Click here to read an additional

The Honourable Justice Leonard Marchand was interviewed by Brandon Hastings and Isabel Jackson for the purpose of this article. This excerpt is only a portion of the full interview.

10 Q&A’s.

Keeping You Connected

CBABC Sections show no signs of slowing down thanks to the hard work of your Sections volunteers. Between January and March, Sections hosted over 60 meetings and socials! Check out these popular events:

APPELLATE ADVOCACY: 2022 IN REVIEW

Over 130 attendees joined Katherine McGoldrick, Maya Ollek, and Mark Iyengar to look back on key appellate decisions from 2022. Panelists unpacked case learning points in areas like civil litigation, criminal law, and administrative law.

FOR THE LOVE OF LITIGATION ANNUAL DINNER

Civil Litigation-Vancouver hosted The Honourable Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson, The Honourable Chief Judge Melissa Gillespie, The Honourable Justice Ward Branch, The Honourable Justice Alan Ross, The Honourable Justice H. William Veenstra, and The Honourable Justice

I. Bruce Josephson, KC (Ret’d) at their third annual in-person dinner. Over 160 attendees gathered to celebrate the vicissitudes of their (sometimes stressful) profession.

BUILDING A LEGACY: INTERGENERATIONAL WEALTH TRANSFER

Over 200 members of the Senior Counsel Section learned from Dwight Dee, Steve Youn and Derek Grech on strategies and tips to build generational wealth for adult children, gifting of legacy assets, and how to navigate various transfer issues.

For a look at the great programs ahead, visit cbabc.org/events. To catch up on missed PD content for your practice area, listen to Sections recordings at cbabc.org/Sections

Read All About It!

The Women Lawyers Forum has released their Winter 2023 issue of Connecting Women Lawyers, and the Aboriginal Lawyers Forum just published their Spring 2023 issue of Forum Drum. Learn what’s happening in two of the most active CBABC Sections.

BUILD YOUR PROFILE AND NETWORK

Sections are one of the many benefits of your CBABC membership and an entry point to getting involved with the CBA. Step into a leadership role by joining a Section Executive to bring educational meetings and social events to members. Elections for the 2023/2024 term are underway. For more information on how to get involved, contact a Sections Advisor at sections@cbabc.org today!

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

With newly acclaimed Chair, Sebastian Ennis of Iris Legal, the Environmental Law Section has been busily planning meetings for 2023.

In February, the Section welcomed Luke Dineley and Executive member Jon Chatten to provide an overview of the new soil relocation regime under the Environmental Management Act and Contaminated Sites Regulation as well as practical advice for lawyers advising industrial clients.

In April, the Section plans to shed light on recent “greenwashing” complaints to the federal Competition Bureau, with expert speakers Calvin Sandborn, KC from the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre (ELC) and Andhra Azevedo of Ecojustice. ELC and Ecojustice’s complaint against Keurig regarding claims about its “K-cups” resulted in a $3 million penalty, and Ecojustice and others have recently brought a complaint against Royal Bank of Canada regarding advertising about its commitments to climate action.

May will bring a deep dive into the law of de facto expropriation following the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality. The Section will be joined by Rebecca Jones, counsel for Annapolis.

NATURAL RESOURCES LAW

The Natural Resources Section, in partnership with the Aboriginal Law Sections, jointly hosted an opportunity for over 120 members across B.C. to hear from lead counsel, Maegen Giltrow, KC, about the key decision in Yahey v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 1287.

The Yahey decision is precedent setting. It is the first case in Canada to determine that the Crown breached its treaty promises (Treaty No. 8) through the cumulative impacts of permitting extensive industrial developments such that the way of life protected by the treaty is infringed, and the treaty rights can no longer meaningfully be exercised. British Columbia did not appeal this decision. It remains a landmark ruling that will forever change resource development and land management in British Columbia and across Canada.

SHELBY O’BRIEN

How

Northwest B.C. is Advancing Indigenous Reconciliation and Environmental Sustainability

Prince Rupert is a small city, of 14,000 people, in northwestern British Columbia located within the traditional territory of the Ts’mysen peoples. Prince Rupert is home to Canada’s third largest port, which moves over $60 billion of trade annually and is continuing to grow with $2 billion of development in progress. This critical piece of Canada’s supply chain places Prince Rupert and northwestern B.C. at the forefront of local, national, and global environmental issues.

Efforts to rapidly decarbonize our economy and support global energy transition are directly felt in northwest B.C. The region has been the focus of proposals and projects to export LNG, propane, methanol, wood pellets, and hydrogen. In connection with these proposals to reduce global carbon emissions, there are major efforts to minimize the carbon emissions associated with the developments, primarily through electrification and access to B.C.’s hydroelectric distribution grid.

Major planning and Indigenous engagement are required for new linear infrastructure to support these developments. Understanding the needs and perspectives of the Indigenous people whose territory will be impacted is essential. For example, a 2020 memorandum of understanding was required between Wet’suwet’en Nation hereditary chiefs and the federal and provincial governments about future resource developments following a dispute regarding the $14.5 billion Coastal GasLink pipeline. BC Hydro is considering

plans to construct new multi-billiondollar electricity transmission lines to support industrial power users on the North Coast, including the $18 billion LNG Canada development, mine proposals, and the expansion of the Port of Prince Rupert. Current processes can take 10+ years to approve and construct major pipelines and transmission lines, making it challenging to meet market demands. New approaches are necessary to achieve global decarbonization objectives while also fulfilling Indigenous consultation and federal/ provincial environmental requirements.

Cumulative effects of proposed developments must also be considered. In January 2023, the Government of B.C. announced an implementation agreement with the Blueberry River First Nation, which includes joint planning and partnership with the First Nations for resource stewardship within the First Nations’ territory. The agreement is in response to the British Columbia Supreme Court ruling in Yahey where the Court determined that the industrial development permitted by the Government of B.C. within the First Nations’ territory unjustifiably infringed the ability for the First Nation to meaningfully exercise the rights granted to them under Treaty 8. The agreement includes restoration funding, new ecosystem-based management approaches, and additional information regarding which oil and gas projects in the area can proceed.

While more work must be done, this agreement brings more predictability with respect to how land use decisions can proceed in partnership with affected Indigenous communities.

The Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA) is also working to balance supporting Canada’s trade agenda with environmental sustainability and reconciliation with Indigenous communities. PRPA ensures responsible development through its robust project review and authorization process, which provides proponents and Indigenous communities with clarity surrounding PRPA’s unique role as both a landlord and a regulator. Building values-based collaborative relationships with Indigenous communities and entrenching Indigenous economic participation in the growth of the Port has proved to be a recipe for success. The Port’s recent and future development has and will involve significant partnerships, and early and consistent engagement with affected Indigenous communities.

The healthy ecosystems and significant Indigenous population in northwest B.C. are constant reminders of our collective responsibility to ensure that contemplated projects in the region are leading examples of facilitating global energy transition, environmentally responsible development, and progressive relationships with Indigenous peoples. In my view, the Port’s approach to advance its strategic objectives, almost always in partnership with one or more local Indigenous communities, is a crucial model for Canada to achieve not only environmental sustainability, but over time, Indigenous reconciliation.

Shelby O’Brien, LLB, MBA is the VP, Commercial & Regulatory Affairs and General Counsel for the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

SAUL JOSEPH AND MELANEE BRYNIAWSKY

A Look at Current Forestry Trends in British Columbia

On February 15, 2023, Premier David Eby announced new measures to protect oldgrowth forests in British Columbia, while encouraging innovation in the forestry sector to “deliver good, family-supporting jobs for generations to come.” These measures include increasing the logging deferral of old-growth forests from 1.7 million hectares to 2.1 million hectares, implementing alternatives to clear-cut logging, funding regional forest landscape planning tables with 50 Indigenous Nations, and repealing legislative wording that prioritizes timber supply over ecological values.

Collectively, these measures represent a significant shift in the underlying values of the forestry sector. Those opposed to the change may point to the Fairy Creek protests, increasing mill closures, and other forestry job losses as evidence that the forestry sector cannot be premised on Indigenous rights or conservation. Others may argue that the critics can’t see the forest for the trees: these changes are long overdue and necessary to meet various cultural, economic, social, and environmental values that our forests provide.

The announcement follows other recent developments impacting British Columbia’s forestry sector, including:

„ The passing of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) which, among other things, requires that all legislation be amended in alignment with

the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and provides for Indigenous Governing Bodies to enter into decision-making agreements with the Province of British Columbia (Province);

„ The precedent-setting decision Yahey v British Columbia by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, regarding cumulative effects of industrial development on Aboriginal and Treaty rights; and

„ The Province’s strategic report by Garry Merkel and Al Gorley “A New Future for Old Forests” made through public engagement containing 14 recommendations for oldgrowth management.

While there may be a divided opinion about forestry management, one thing is certain: there is uncertainty in the forestry sector. The Province has not yet provided sufficient guidance as to how the sector may evolve to meet these various and competing goals.

To many, the path is clear: an industry developed in collaboration with Indigenous Nations is the future and the time to take action is now. Stakeholders are bypassing the Province and working directly with Indigenous Nations, proponents are launching Indigenous-led resource planning for Tree Farm Licences (TFL), TFLs are being transferred

directly to Indigenous Nations, and Indigenous Nations are increasingly involved in regulation and decisionmaking through private agreements. These actions are aligned with the principles of UNDRIP and illustrate the progression toward legal certainty, economic reconciliation, and a more resilient forestry sector through meaningful Indigenous involvement and environmental protection.

With the culmination of Yahey, DRIPA, criticisms of old growth logging, and uncertainty caused by Crown inaction, Indigenous authority over forestry activities through private arrangements are certain to continue. This transition raises an

array of questions for the future of forestry regulation: What are the practical implications for Indigenous Nations taking on additional regulatory involvement? How will proponents advance partnerships in areas where forestry has and continues to be contentious? What will regional decision-making look like as more Indigenous Nations assert their inherent jurisdiction through regulation?

All of these questions, and more, sit at the intersection of reconciliation and forestry — two concepts which are necessary roots for a sustainable, strong, and long-lasting economy in British Columbia.

Saul Joseph is a partner at Clark Wilson. Melanee Bryniawsky is an associate at Clark Wilson.

Renovate the Public Hearing Project

The British Columbia Law Institute has just begun a project to reform local-government public hearings. Currently, public hearings give the public a forum to comment on a proposed bylaw regulating the use of land. Critics have questioned whether B.C.’s legislation on public hearings is really advancing public participation and democratic engagement.

Is there a better way to engage the public and reduce pre-development risk and barriers to housing? BCLI seeks to answer this question in the Renovate the Public Hearing Project.

Working with an expert project committee and building on BCLI’s previous study of the origins, development, and current state of the law on public hearings, BCLI will make recommendations for specific reforms to the Local Government Act and related legislation. These recommendations will also draw on an important component of the project: its Reconciliation and Community Listening Exploration Series, which will consider how reforms to the law on public hearings can be aligned with Indigenous governance.

BCLI is grateful to carry out this project with the SFU Wosk Centre for Dialogue and with funding from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

For more information, visit BCLI.org.

ALANNA MACKENZIE

Insuring a Future of Extreme Weather

The last few years have brought unprecedented headlines about extreme weather events across Canada. From atmospheric rivers, heat domes, and wildfires in B.C., to Hurricane Fiona and other catastrophic storms in Eastern and Atlantic Canada, it seems that no province has been spared the devastation of severe weather. As scientific evidence accumulates that anthropogenic climate change is to blame for the increasing severity and frequency of these events, the law will be forced to evolve alongside these novel developments.

Amidst all this change, evolution will occur not only in the insurance industry’s practices but also the legal and regulatory framework that governs it.

According to David Tupper, partner at Blakes, Cassels & Graydon in Calgary, the industry has adapted relatively quickly. “There have certainly been changes. Insurance as a business is pretty dynamic and responds to things in a reasonably quick time,” Tupper says. Insurers have modified the type, extent, and terms of coverage, and they have also anticipated future potential changes arising from climate impacts, in the form of greater third-party liability for example.

On the third-party liability front, insurers see a greater risk exposure as increasing suits are brought against entities such as companies, directors, and officers, and will typically assess and adjust coverage by increasing deductibles, decreasing limits, creating more exclusions, or increasing premiums.

The US has seen greater activity in climate lawsuits than Canada, as it has experienced successive waves of litigation. The first wave involved claims against directors and officers and either alleged misrepresentation or breach of duty to the company. There were also claims brought directly against energy companies that alleged those corporations had contributed toward climate damage. These suits were generally unsuccessful because of US courts’ reluctance to allow litigation designed to change political policies, based on the doctrine of justiciability, and difficulties establishing the causation link between a specific company’s emissions and specific damage.

The second wave had a bit more traction, says Tupper, “driven by emerging science that actually does suggest some methodology to attribute proportionate shares of damages to particular companies.” This could be measured by assessing the carbon output of certain companies within the past 50-70 years — when the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change have occurred — and comparing this to the overall aggregate.

While climate litigation has been much more active in US, it might be on the rise in Canada as well. Municipalities across Canada have recently passed motions on recouping climate change-related costs from

oil and gas companies, such as class action lawsuits.

For insurers, rising climate litigation might mean more battles over whether carbon falls within the definition of “pollution” and is therefore subject to limits or exclusions or coverage for climate lawsuits, says Tupper.

And severe climate impacts mean potential effects to diverse types of insurance policies, including first party coverage, third-party policies, and directors and officers’ liability policies. According to Tupper, extreme weather events have created ripple effects across provinces — for example, after extreme flooding in Calgary in 2013, insurers responded to disputes over damage caused by floodwater by preventing coverage for water travelling over land, which in turn effected the coverage provided to those who suffered losses because of the 2017 floods in Ottawa.

But can the industry not only react and control risk to protect itself, but also proactively be part of solutions to climate change? There is some reason for optimism on this front. Intact Insurance has started the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation, intended to develop solutions to address climate change and extreme weather events. Insurers are not only responding in conventional ways, like increasing their deductibles, but “they are also thinking a bit outside the box,” says Tupper, “about what we can do to better understand climate change generally.”

Alanna Mackenzie practises litigation with Robert Fleming Lawyers. She holds a specialization in Environmental & Natural Resource Law from UBC.

MATT JANSSEN

Obtaining Government Consultation Records

Submitting a freedom of information request (or a federal access to information request) to obtain government consultation records can be a daunting proposition, especially if you’ve never submitted one before. As many First Nations and Indigenous governments have noted, there are also a number of serious issues with access to information and privacy legislation in Canada. In particular, federal and provincial governments retain significant discretion to determine what and how much information to disclose in response to a request — even when that information is critical for Indigenous groups seeking to right historical wrongs committed in the process of colonization. However flawed the system may be, here are some valuable insights that might simplify the process and lead to better, faster results.

First, try to determine what information you would like to obtain. This may seem counterintuitive, but focusing in on the scope of records you are interested in will greatly benefit the person inevitably tasked with searching for those records. Consider the name or the file number of the project you’re interested in, your timeline of interest, a particular geographical region or the names of any other parties involved. Being precise may result in a quicker and more accurate response. It may also reduce costs, as additional processing fees can apply if the request leads to an overly large or complex disclosure.

Once you’ve got an idea of the kinds of records that you may be requesting, it may be tempting to jump right into the freedom of information request process, but you may save yourself plenty of time and energy by taking two additional steps first:

Research published freedom of information requests. The B.C. and federal governments publish submitted freedom of information requests as well as the disclosures made pursuant to those requests in online databases. If someone has already made a freedom of information request that covers the material that you are interested in, you may not need to proceed with making your own request. Reviewing past requests may also help uncover the contact information for people who may be able to assist with your search.

lead to prompt disclosure of relevant information without having to resort to the formal freedom of information request process.

If after taking these steps you conclude that making a freedom of information request is still necessary, the online freedom of information request database may still be helpful as a repository for precedent requests.

Before submitting a freedom of information request, you may want to check to ensure that the information you are seeking is not excluded under legislation. There are few exclusions to the types of materials the government is required to provide pursuant to a freedom of information request, but you don’t want to go through the freedom of information request process only to learn that the information you’re seeking cannot be provided to you! For example, court records and communications or draft decisions of a person acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity are exempt from freedom of information requests.

Reach out to the government ministry or Crown corporation that might have access to these records. Different ministries and Crown corporations take different approaches to dealing with informal information requests, but these requests can often

A formal freedom of information request can be submitted online from the British Columbia or Government of Canada websites. The online form walks you through the requirements step by step and provides some guidance along the way. Despite its issues, freedom of information requests remain an important source of information for First Nations and other groups who may seek government consultation records.

Matt Janssen is an associate at First Peoples Law LLP. He thanks Kate Gunn and Mark Verner for their contributions.

... federal and provincial governments retain significant discretion to determine what and how much information to disclose.

communitynews

Let us help you find your way.

TIPS FROM

CLBC for Your Green Law Niche

Whether your work involves natural resources law, regulatory approvals, or advocating for the rights of people disproportionately affected by environmental harm, it’s important to know you have access to Courthouse Libraries BC’s (CLBC) collections and services to back you up. We support lawyers working in the field of environmental law and justice. Ask us about:

„ Research assistance from our reference librarians (in-person, by phone, or by email);

„ Free document delivery of excerpts from our print or digital collection, sent directly to your inbox;

„ Access to a broad collection of borrowable books, which can be loaned and returned for free via regular postal mail;

„ In-branch public access computers loaded with premium databases like LexisNexis and Westlaw;

„ Remote access to products like HeinOnline, which contains over 1,500 law journals plus digital access to more than a century worth of historical legislation, available to Law Society of BC members.

Explore the tapestry of commentary sources and primary law that comprises our environmental law collection. We can help identify the netletters, digests, tribunal decisions databases, and other specialty resources to help you refine your research. For lawyers just getting into this work, you can remotely access the Irwin Law ebook, Environmental Law, which serves as a good primer. Deeper resources, such as the LexisNexis® Environmental Law NetLetter, The Newsletter of the Canadian Institute of Resources Law, and many more can be accessed using the premium subscriptions in our branches — or by getting in touch with CLBC.

If you’re already working in the area of environmental justice, or thinking about taking on these types of cases, consider reaching out to us at CLBC. We’re here to help.

JORDAN ARDANAZ AND SERIN REMEDIOS

Engaging Indigenous Environmental Governance

With the coming into force of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act1 in 2021 and the ongoing implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Declaration Act),2 Canada and British Columbia have sought to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the Canadian legal framework. Central to this is the recognition of Indigenous jurisdiction over environmental governance.

The jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples to steward and manage their lands, waters, and resources is derived from their own legal orders, which have existed since time immemorial and are recognized under UNDRIP. The environmental governance practices of modern Indigenous governments are often directly informed by their respective Indigenous legal orders. In the Canadian legal context, there is increasing certainty regarding the role of Indigenous nations in regulating activities within their territories pursuant to their own Indigenous legal orders.

For example, in British Columbia, the provincial government is currently undertaking measures pursuant to the provincial Declaration Act Action Plan to give force and effect to Indigenous legal orders and jurisdiction over environmental governance. Such measures include, among other things, aligning provincial laws with UNDRIP, entering into relationships with Indigenous governments that recognize legal pluralism and cooperative federalism, and co-developing clear frameworks for shared decision-making.

Section 7 of the Declaration Act enables the Province to enter into

agreements with Indigenous governments to jointly exercise statutory decision-making power and/ or to obtain their consent prior to the exercise of statutory decisionmaking power. The first decisionmaking agreement under Section 7 was signed in June 2022 by Tahltan Central Government and the Province to support the Tahltan Nation’s consent-based process regarding the environmental assessment of the proposed Eskay Creek Mine.

In addition to Section 7 agreements, the Province has entered into several other agreements with Indigenous governments, including co-management and reconciliation agreements, which recognize and give effect to Indigenous jurisdiction and environmental governance.

For private entities, it is important to understand this shifting regulatory landscape, particularly, with respect to environmental impacts. Increasingly, proponents are prioritizing relationships with Indigenous nations and recognizing their jurisdiction and environmental governance, including through stronger commitments to partnership and respect for Indigenous jurisdiction. Under the current landscape of UNDRIP implementation, the content of such relationships generally includes commitments to implement forms of Indigenous environmental governance, parallel to British Columbia or Canadian regulatory law, such as:

„ Processes that respect the free, prior, and informed consent standard under UNDRIP;

„ Enhanced project oversight and management roles for Indigenous governments;

„ Permitting processes that flow through Indigenous governments; and

„ Commitments to implement Indigenous-led assessment and management practices.

There are several recent examples highlighting such relationships between Indigenous nations and industry participants in British Columbia. Notably, the recent agreements between the Squamish Nation and Woodfibre LNG; the

St’kemlúpsemc te Secwepemc Nation and New Gold Inc; and the Yaqit ʔa·knuqli’it Nation and NWP Coal Canada Ltd each demonstrate commitments by each proponent to implement decision-making processes to align their projects with the environmental governance standards expressed by each respective partner Indigenous nation.

From a practical perspective, building such relationships not only provides a strong basis for development within Indigenous territories, but also bolsters regulatory certainty for proponents navigating a legal environment that increasingly emphasizes reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

Jordan Ardanaz and Serin Remedios, Miller Titerle Law Corporation.

‘

1 SC 2021, c 14.

2 SBC 2019, c 44.

DAVID J. BILINSKY

Is It Really Not Easy Being Green? Green can be cool and friendlylike

r I’m green and it’ll do fine It’s beautiful, and I think it’s what I want to be... r

— Music and lyrics by J. Raposo, recorded by Kermit the Frog.

Ihad occasion to go to the Vancouver Law Courts just the other day. On entering, I glanced over to my right. Up against a wall in the reception area was a sign that said, “Free Binders!” standing up against a stack of empty, black, three ring binders. My heart sank. Here we are, almost 20 years since B.C. led the world with the high-tech Air India trial in Courtroom 20 in Vancouver, we are still conducting trials and hearings with binders of paper documents. I asked myself, “Why is this still occurring? Haven’t the benefits of paperless trials been amply demonstrated? Why are we here in B.C. so slow to the mark?”

Writing in Lawyer Monthly in 2019, David Jackson, SVP for Business Development for CaseLines, made the case for paperless hearings and how digital transformation in the courts can benefit both lawyers and clients.

In 2016, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service introduced plans to transform the UK’s justice system through paperless working. The digital vision has been delivered across the criminal justice system in what Justice Minister Lucy Fraser recognized as a huge success: “The Digital Case System is a great example of the benefit technology is bringing to our courts and tribunals. Not only has it saved a staggering amount of paper,

but it is making a real difference to legal professionals up and down the country every single day.”

The Ministry of Attorney General and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have also introduced CaseLines. It enables filed court material to be accessible by the Judiciary electronically prior to a scheduled hearing. CaseLines is a secure, cloud-based e-hearing platform that allows litigators to upload, store, review, search, mark-up, share, and present court documents virtually.

CaseLines allows judges, parties, court staff, and self-represented users to securely access the system from any location,

CaseLines and others. They are now years ahead of B.C.

Of course, we have our own paperless BC Civil Resolution Tribunal. However, the paperless revolution in our courts stops there.

There is much to be done. We need to drag trials out of the 16th century and start to take advantage of the benefits that information technology can bring to the courts. Following in the tracks of the UK and Ontario, we need leadership to champion greening our court systems. We will need Continuing Legal Education courses for lawyers and others on overcoming reluctance and how to use any new system. Law schools have a role here in teaching students about paperless and other technologies that can bring about efficiency and effectiveness changes. But mostly the change must start with each of us in recognizing that the time for change is here and no longer taking the status quo for granted. As Kermit says, “while it’s not easy being green, I think it is what we want to be.”

on any device with a full audit trail of all user actions. It can grant time restricted, file restricted, and redacted case access, with user specific views, for juries or witnesses.

Ontario is now using CaseLines province-wide. There are courses and other information hosted by the courts and resources from the Law Society of Ontario on how to use

Email: daveb@thoughtfullaw.com

David J. Bilinsky is the principal of Thoughtful Legal Management, a technology and practice management consultancy and is the former Practice Management Advisor, Law Society of British Columbia.

The views expressed herein are strictly those of David Bilinsky and do not reflect the opinions of the Law Society of British Columbia, CBABC, or their respective members.

We need to drag trials out of the 16th century and start to take advantage of the benefits that information technology can bring to the courts.

The Law Foundation of BC is moving May 1

The Law Foundation’s new office will be located at:

1500-675 West Hastings Street

Vancouver, B.C.

V6B 1N2

Situated on the shared lands of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples, this will be both the Foundation’s physical address and mailing address effective May 1, 2023. The Foundation’s phone number and other contact information remain unchanged.

The Foundation is grateful to everyone on the staff team who has contributed to this move by helping with space selection and design, packing, and other logistics.

“Moving is a huge undertaking, but we are excited to be in a space that better reflects how we work as a team. While we will retain some private offices and confidential meeting spaces, we are prioritizing flexible spaces that fit with a collaborative way of working at our organization,” says Andrea Gutierrez, the Foundation’s Director of Operations. “We are looking forward to being in a space that supports connection, and teamwork, and that we can easily configure for different types of meetings.”

The Foundation’s office will continue to be open to the public by appointment only. For up-to-date contact information visit: lawfoundationbc.org.

ROBIN PHILLIPS AND SHARON SUTHERLAND

Creating the Environment for Consensus

Through legislation and statements on reconciliation, the Province of B.C. has recognized the need to work government-togovernment with Indigenous Nations on environmental assessments. These assessments often generate disputes among parties, including proponents, the Crown, and Indigenous Nations. While the Crown has yet to fully embrace prior and informed consent before approving a project, environmental legislation (like the Environmental Assessment Act, 2018) does provide space for collaborative dispute resolution aimed at reaching consensus.

Nonetheless, provincial legislation remains imposed on Indigenous Nations and dispute resolution processes may themselves import assumptions similar to those that give rise to disputes. Even with a clear intention to find a collaborative process that respects all Nations’ values, assumptions may be embedded in the legislation or in underlying colonial legal practice. Such assumptions might include perspectives impacting the selection of facilitators, timing and location of discussions, inclusion or exclusion of participants, and many more fundamental aspects of process design.

As an example, misunderstandings in environmental assessment processes frequently relate to the scope of project impacts. Project proponents may understand impacts narrowly, believing that they should not be responsible for anything other

than direct effects of the project. This approach frequently downplays interactions between a project and preexisting impacts in the region, and may ignore the reality that impacts do not arise in isolation.

Differences of perspective thus result between project effects described by a proponent and a Nation’s understanding of how they will be experienced. For example, a proponent may determine that a project will affect a local marine environment and will assess impacts locally. This local scope may fail to take into account associated detrimental impacts to harvesting downstream; impacts that are frequently intergenerational. Consensus as to the scope of project impacts is essential to reaching consensus on appropriate mitigation, offsetting, and accommodation measures.

Similarly, disagreements can arise when a proponent identifies only biophysical project effects. However, Indigenous culture, language, and identity are tied to a Nation’s lands, waters, animals, and resources, such that impacts on the former also affect the latter. For a Nation that has fished in a particular location since time immemorial, intergenerational teaching may be negatively affected by a project affecting the location. Language may be tied to certain areas in a territory, which in turn may be permanently altered if the landscape is modified by industry. One cannot

assume a Nation may simply move elsewhere and be unaffected.

In looking to resolve these disagreements, process choice and process facilitator may significantly affect the content and scope of discussion. For example, if a facilitator assumes particular topics are relevant (or irrelevant) based on assumptions grounded in the Crown’s legal system and laws, differing perspectives may be allowed no space for discussion. To genuinely embrace consensus seeking, the Crown and proponents must not impose pre-conceived ideas on how to design the process.

When collaboratively seeking to reach consensus, issues need not be con-

fined to the four corners of what may be reviewable by a court or identified by a proponent as “valued components.” Unfettered from assumptions, truly collaborative dispute resolution empowers parties to engage in more open dialogue, leading to solutions neither side might contemplate independently. Ultimately, it is worth the time to develop a flexible process giving voice to Indigenous perspectives and knowledge. The benefits are better projects, improved relationships and, ideally, less adverse impacts on Indigenous rights

Twitter: @mediatebcsoc

LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/mediatebc

Robin Phillips is a lawyer and mediator at JFK Law. Sharon Sutherland is Executive Director of Mediate BC.

MICHAEL BUTTERFIELD

The Dangers of Non-disclosure in Family Law

Family law ethics

THE PROBLEM

It is impossible to reach a fair and reasonable settlement of a family law matter without adequate disclosure. Both Statutes and Rules required disclosure, but these are too often ignored to the detriment of the weaker party and children.

The insidious nature of non-disclosure was characterized by Justice Fraser in Cunha v. Cunha, 1994 CanLII 3195 (BC SC). He wrote, “Non-disclosure of assets is the cancer of matrimonial property litigation.”

He continues, “It discourages settlement or promotes settlements which are inadequate. It increases the time and expense of litigation. The prolonged stress of unnecessary battle may lead weary and drained women simply to give up and walk away with only a share of the assets they know about, taking with them the bitter aftertaste of a reasonably-based suspicion that justice was not done. Non-disclosure also has a tendency to deprive children of proper support.”

The injustice wrought by non-disclosure goes beyond individual cases. Justice Fraser continues, “Not only is it a matter of doing justice in any particular case, it is also a matter of general interest.”

WHAT SHOULD LAWYERS DO TO FIX THE PROBLEM?

First, lawyers should ensure their clients understand and comply with disclosure rules.

Lawyers are not mouthpieces for their clients. While they hold professional

obligations to their clients, they also hold obligations to the courts, justice, and the greater community. Neglecting these obligations can lead to reputational damage and professional misconduct issues.

Lawyers should ensure proper F8 Financial Statements, are prepared fully and accurately. Where required documents are not included, they should provide an explanation for the deficit.

Failure to fully disclose can result in a negative inference against your client. They can also adversely effect costs.

Special attention should be given to the provisions of the F8 that require business owners to attach:

(ii)a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the corporation and every related corporation does not deal at arm’s length. (Rules of Court Rule 5-1(1):

This requirement is often missed. However, it is essential in determining what expenses paid by a business should be factored back into the party’s income. (FCSG 18(2))

A lawyer should exercise due diligence when taking instructions and obtaining information. It is critical not to swear F8s or affidavits that are misleading or patently untrue. You must review all of the information with your client to ensure that

they affirm all of the statements being made.

The professional misconduct records are replete with examples of where lawyers “knew or should have known” that information they are putting before the court is inaccurate, misleading, or untrue. Relying on your client’s assertion of truth does not negate the need for due diligence.

The obligation to provide disclosure is ongoing. If opposing counsel requests information, counsel has an obligation to obtain and disclose this information in a timely fashion. Lawyers often get into trouble by failing to respond to such enquiries. This can be sharp practice especially if the lawyer knows, or ought to know, that this inaction will frustrate disclosure.

Lawyers often get into difficulty when they are asked questions by the Court similar to those asked by opposing counsel. Being asked by the opposing counsel puts the lawyer on notice. If counsel has failed to exercise due diligence, they will be unable to answer the Court’s question. Lawyers have to be very careful not to guess or make misleading representations.

Lawyers should ensure their clients understand court orders and comply with any disclosure requirements. Failure to comply may result in your client being held in contempt.

CONCLUSION

Even in an adversarial system, lawyers play a crucial role in ensuring fairness. Disclosure is an obligation that lawyers are professionally required to facilitate.

If your client refuses to take your advice and evade disclosure, be especially careful that you do not participate in this injustice.

Michael Butterfield is a Victoria-based lawyer and mediator. He has extensive experience in high conflict/high-value family law cases in which disclosure is a prominent challenge.

CBABC Conferences

FAMILY LAW CONFERENCE

Dive into the nuances and psychology that stir up your family law practice, expand your knowledge and skills, and enjoy leisure and fine dining opportunities to connect with colleagues. 12 CPD hours

April 27-28, 2023

Sparkling Hill Resort & Spa, Vernon

Explore: cbabc.org/family

Sponsored by:

CENTRAL VANCOUVER ISLAND SOLICITORS’ CONFERENCE

The 8th annual conference creates opportunities for central Vancouver Island lawyers to network while discussing local practice issues and the latest updates in the legal profession through a central Island lens. 5 CPD hours

May 10, 2023

Coast Bastion Hotel, Nanaimo

Explore: bit.ly/CVISC23

Sponsored by:

NORTHERN B.C. LAW TALKS

Stay ahead of the shifting legal landscape for lawyers in the North. Panelists take a closer look at remote practice issues, developments on the regulation of the profession, trauma-informed practices, and lawyer well-being. 5 CPD hours

May 5, 2023

Ramada Hotel, Prince George

Explore: bit.ly/NBCLT23

WILLS & ESTATES CONFERENCE

Build your knowledge and expertise in the planning side of wills and estates practice. Thought leaders discuss identifying and dealing with undue influence in wills and estates planning, making the case for alternative fee structures, and more. Attendees can network during an evening dinner and social. 6 CPD hours

June 3, 2023

Hilton Vancouver Airport, Richmond Explore: bit.ly/WEC0623

Equality, Diversity & Inclusion

DIVERSITY ON THE BENCH | May 16 | bit.ly/bc23div01w

Hear from representative of our Provincial Court, the Judicial Council, and the federal Judicial Advisory Committee about their personal experiences, reflections on the importance of a diverse bench, and their journey through the application process

DIVERSITY ON TRIBUNALS | May 25 | bit.ly/bc23div02w

Considering a decision-making role in your legal career? This unique annual event brings together firsthand experiences from tribunal members to help you navigate the application process as the case for increased diversity on our tribunals continues to grow strong

BUILD YOUR PROFILE

CBABC is developing our 2023/2024 Conference Schedule. If you have a topic of interest and would like to explore being a conference speaker, contact Sanjit Purewal, Manager, Professional Development at pd@cbabc.org. Bonus: Earn up to 3-hours of CPD credit for delivering a 1-hour conference presentation!

TONY WILSON, KC

Why I Changed My Mind B.C.’s Indigenous Cultural Competency Program

In January this year, 51 Alberta lawyers signed a petition that called for a Special Meeting of the Law Society of Alberta to rescind a Rule that required all Alberta lawyers to take an Indigenous cultural competency course called “The Path” or face penalties, including suspension. In early February, more than 3400 Alberta lawyers logged into the Special Meeting. 864 lawyers voted to repeal the Rule and 2609 voted to maintain it. The resolution’s proponent said he had no issues with the course in question but opposed to it being mandatory.

Well, some full disclosure on my part is in order. While I was an elected Bencher in 2019, that was precisely my position when a resolution was debated to introduce a mandatory Indigenous cultural competency training program for B.C. lawyers, and I wrote a Minority Report with respect to that position. At that time, I had no problem with such a program being introduced. I just had a problem with it being mandatory.

But that was then, and this is now. I have since realized that I was not only wrong, but I was on the wrong side of history. So I changed my mind.

In June 2020, a 26-year-old Indigenous woman named Chantel Moore from the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation moved to Edmundston, New Brunswick and was visited by a police officer for what was called a “wellness check,” as a result of troubling messages a friend had seen on her Facebook page. Apparently, Ms. Moore may have thought an intruder had broken into her apartment, so she picked up a kitchen knife and threatened

the officer. The officer was equipped with pepper spray and a baton but instead of using them, he chose to shoot Ms. Moore four times until “the threat was no longer present.” Even if he was threatened with a knife, he didn’t “wing her” in the leg or in the shoulder like they do on TV cop shows. He didn’t use his baton or his pepper spray. Instead, he fired four bullets into her and killed her: in a “wellness check” of all things.

Also in 2020, Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation was tackled and repeatedly punched by an RCMP officer, who had approached Chief Adam regarding an expired license plate. During his arrest (and some verbal altercations between Chief Adam and the police), an officer ran at him at full speed, knocked him down and repeatedly punched him while shouting “Don’t Resist” (which is as ironical as it is reprehensible). Fortunately, the tackle and beating were captured by a dashcam video for the entire world to see. His scarred and bloodied face was featured in the US, UK, and European media and the RCMP looked more like KGB thugs than a respected Canadian police service. Charges against Chief Adam were subsequently dropped, but one has to wonder if they would’ve been dropped had there not been a dashcam filming the clear abuse of force by the police. This echoes something Will Smith said in 2016, which was prophetically repeated in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd by members of the

Minneapolis police: racism isn’t getting worse, it’s getting filmed.

Despite comprising 5% of Canada’s population, something like 30% of Canada’s prisoners are Indigenous and 55% of the prison population in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are Indigenous. In 2017, a CTV news analysis found that an Indigenous person in Canada is over 10 times more likely to be shot and killed by a police officer than a white person. Between 2017 and 2020, 25 Indigenous people were shot and killed by the police. And these statistics don’t include incarceration and shootings of other visible minorities such as Black Canadians.

I’m well into B.C.’s course on Indigenous Cultural Competency, which I imagine is similar to that offered in Alberta. It’s extremely well done. It’s interesting. It’s balanced (even when balance wasn’t always necessary). It discusses, in historical terms, what colonialism did to the First Nations populations of B.C. in a factual and nonjudgmental way.

And it’s something that should be mandatory among all B.C. lawyers.

Tony Wilson, KC is a Vancouver Franchise Lawyer, a Life Bencher of the Law Society, and an Adjunct Professor at TRU Law School. Over the past two decades, he has been a regular columnist for The Globe and Mail, Canadian Lawyer, and other publications. This is his 20th year writing “Nothing Official” for BarTalk, and as everyone should know by now, the opinions expressed in “Nothing Official” are his alone and do not reflect the views of the Law Society, the CBABC, or their respective members.

barmoves

Who’s Moving Where and When

Keri Bennett joined DLA Piper (Canada) LLP as counsel to their Employment and Data Protection, Privacy, and Cybersecurity groups in their Vancouver office.

David McCormick joined Legacy Tax + Trust Lawyers’ Tax Litigation practice group. He will represent clients in tax-related disputes related to CRA reassessments of income tax and excise taxes.

Seema Lal joined Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP to their firm. Seema practises in the Construction and Infrastructure and Commercial and Business Litigation practice groups.

Max Walker was promoted to partner in Lawson Lundell’s Tax group on January 1. Max was called to the British Columbia Bar in 2016.

Brendan J. Craig was promoted to partner in Lawson Lundell’s Real Estate group on January 1. Brendan was called to the British Columbia Bar in 2014.

Aaron Pearl has been promoted to partner in Clark Wilson’s Estates & Trusts and Elder Law groups. Aaron works with clients on matters of estate litigation.

Paul Kressock was promoted to partner in Lawson Lundell’s Litigation & Dispute Resolution group on January 1. Paul was called to the British Columbia Bar in 2015.

Maris Holmes has been promoted to partner in Clark Wilson’s Strata Property group. Working with strata corporations and property managers, she helps to resolve a myriad of concerns in the communities that people call home.

Scott Lucyk was promoted to partner in Lawson Lundell’s Litigation & Dispute Resolution group on January 1. Scott was called to the British Columbia Bar in 2019.

Sean Tessarolo has been promoted to partner in Clark Wilson’s Insurance, Fraud & Asset Recovery, and Business Litigation groups. Sean’s service portfolio includes commercial litigation, and shareholder and director disputes.

Zachary Murphy-Rogers has been promoted to partner in Clark Wilson’s Estates & Trusts and Elder Law groups where he maintains both a litigation and solicitor’s practice.

Bar Moves space is at a premium and available for free to members on a first-come first-served basis, so send your Bar Move (max. 30 words) and a high-resolution headshot photo to bartalk@cbabc.org now.

TO VIEW ALL BAR MOVES, GO TO CBABC.ORG/BARMOVES

Ari Shack joined Miller Thomson as counsel in its Vancouver office’s Corporate and M&A group.

Andrew Stewart has been promoted to partner in Clark Wilson’s Capital Markets, Securities, Mergers & Acquisitions, and U.S. Capital Markets groups.

Power Chen joined Miller Thomson as an associate in its Vancouver office’s Corporate and M&A group.

Mark S. Oulton joined Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson LLP as a partner. His practice is general commercial and administrative litigation with a focus on forestry and natural resource related matters.

Jesse Wray joined Miller Thomson as an associate in its Vancouver office’s Corporate and M&A group.

Anastasiya Sadovska has joined Clark Wilson as an associate with the Family Law group.

Colin Luke joined Lawson Lundell as a partner in their Corporate Commercial, Corporate Finance & Securities and Mergers & Acquisitions groups. Colin was called to the Alberta Bar in 2003.

Darcy Wray joined Miller Thomson as a partner in its Vancouver office’s Corporate and M&A group. Darcy has extensive experience in corporate mergers, acquisitions and reorganizations, including purchases and sales of business enterprises.

Dylana R. Bloor joined Lawson Lundell as senior counsel in their Litigation & Dispute Resolution group. Dylana joined the firm as part of Petraroia Langford’s merger with Lawson Lundell.

Impress your brand to BC’s lawyers

As a trusted voice in the legal community, CBABC offers unique opportunities to reach B.C. lawyers across multiple CBABC platforms, including our magazine, e-newsletters, job board, conferences and events.

BarTalk

More than a Magazine. A destination for BC Lawyers

BarTalk is the magazine for the legal profession in BC. Published six times a year, BarTalk not only covers hot-topics but addresses all aspects of practicing law in today’s ever-changing landscape. Print, digital, and online advertising placements available to showcase your brand.

CBABC Job Board

The premier destination for BC legal careers

Recruiters and firms alike confidently post on this ‘Go To’ platform to maximize exposure of their available legal opportunities to 7,600+ CBABC members. Leverage two ways: Job postings or banner advertising on our highest traffic webpage.

CBABC News + Jobs

Current events in the legal community delivered weekly

Tap into more than 6,400 subscribers who eagerly await our weekly newsletter to land in their inboxes. Packed with news, events, PD and exclusive job opportunities, News + Jobs is an excellent vehicle to get your brand message direct to the legal community.

Event & Conference Sponsorship

Identifying the right opportunities for your business

Position your business in front of your target audience through sponsored in-person, virtual or hybrid events. Whether your goals are networking, product demonstration, thought leadership or brand awareness, CBABC offers opportunities at annual section and industry events, PD workshops and targeted conferences.

Bundle + Save.

Strategically place advertising across multiple platforms or throughout the year and save on your overall advertising package. Additional discounts are offered for CBABC member firms, registered non-profits and recruitment agencies. Contact us to talk about your current marketing objectives.

cbabc.org/ads | ads@cbabc.org