Guelph - When it comes to judicial appointments, politics appear to be influencing selection, according to new research by a University of Guelph political scientist.

Troy Riddell examined 978 judicial appointments between 1988 and 2003 and found at least 30 per cent of judges appointed during the Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien years made donations to the political party in power.

“That seems high, especially when you consider that less than one per cent of Canadians donate to federal political parties,” Riddell said. “Although individuals with political ties can be very fine judges, it does raise concerns that sometimes weaker candidates are appointed because of patronage.”

The study, which is scheduled to be published in the University of Toronto Law Journal in 2008, also shows that most of those judges made a donation within two years of being appointed to the bench.

These results raise larger concerns about the legitimacy of the judicial process, said Riddell.

“Every once in a while you hear stories about people appointed as judges as a reward for their political service,” said Riddell, who worked on the project with Lori Hausegger of Boise State University and Matthew Hennigar of Brock University. “So we wanted to test that out systematically and try to figure out how the selection committees were actually working.”

In response to accusations of partisan influence, the federal government changed the judicial appointment process in 1988 by setting up screening committees, said Riddell. These committees are supposed to objectively evaluate the applications and recommend to the minister of justice who should and who shouldn’t be appointed.

“Patronage appointments were supposed to be addressed with the creation of the screening committees, but that obviously hasn’t happened to a satisfactory degree,” he said.

One possible reason is that, under the current appointment process, the committees screen names provided by the government rather than collect the names of candidates independently, he said.

The issue of patronage appointments is becoming increasingly important as Canadian judges continue to gain more legal authority, he said. Judges now have the power to create policies and strike down laws under the Charter of Rights.

“They have the power to decide on issues ranging from the legalization of marijuana to abortion to healthcare and anti-terrorism. Even in non-charter cases, they make decisions that impact people’s lives.”

"We believe that there is an important issue at stake in terms of the Bureau's ability to conduct appropriate reviews, while ensuring that sufficient remedies remain available if the Tribunal ultimately determines that the merger is likely to substantially lessen or prevent competition," said Melanie Aitken, Acting Senior Deputy Commissioner of Competition. "We are working to ensure that Canadian consumers benefit from lower prices and consumer choice"

The Commissioner of Competition filed an application for an order under section 100 of the Competition Act, on March 22, 2007, to forbid the parties from closing the merger for 30 days while the Bureau continued its review. On March 28, the Tribunal denied the Bureau's request for an extension, rejecting the argument that its ability to remedy potential competition issues will be substantially impaired because it would be difficult to reverse the merger.

The Bureau continues to work diligently to complete its review of the Labatt-Lakeport merger. If the Commissioner ultimately determines that there is a likely substantial lessening or prevention of competition, she can challenge the merger before the Tribunal.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that promotes and maintains fair competition so that all Canadians can benefit from competitive prices, product choice and quality services. It oversees the application of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act.

Each province and territory has developed its own individual legal aid scheme. Structures, operations and eligibility requirements consequently vary from one jurisdiction to the next. For 2005/2006, 11 of the 13 legal aid plans provided data for the report.

Legal aid plans received 780,000 applications for assistance, an increase of 3% from the previous year. About 477,000 applications were approved for full legal aid service. This was up 2% from the year before and represented a reversal of the downward trend seen in the previous four years.

Cases involving criminal matters accounted for slightly more than half of direct legal aid expenditures. The remaining direct expenditures went toward civil cases.

Governments, both provincial/territorial and federal, continued to be the major source of funding for legal aid plans. They contributed $557 million in 2005/2006, or about 90% of total revenues. Client contributions and cost recoveries accounted for 3%, legal profession contributions, 1%, and other sources, 5%.

Approximately 12,000 lawyers from both the private sector and legal aid plans provided legal aid assistance in 2005/2006. This represents an increase of about 10% from the previous year.

"The divestiture of this brand ensures that the market for diaper rash ointment will remain competitive," said Robert Lancop, Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Competition. "As a result, consumers will continue to enjoy the benefits of broad product choice and competitive prices."

On June 26, 2006, the parties announced that Johnson & Johnson would acquire the consumer healthcare business of Pfizer Inc.-- which includes brands such as Listerine, Nicorette, Rolaids, Sudafed, Benadryl and Visine -- for US $16.6 billion.

In Canada, while there are 34 distinct product markets for which at least one of these two parties supplies products, there are only eight in which they currently compete. Following a thorough review, the Bureau concluded that the proposed acquisition would likely result in a substantial lessening of competition in one of these product markets - diaper rash ointment. In the other seven, the merger did not raise significant competition concerns.

Over the course of the examination, the Bureau consulted with consumers and competitors, and cooperated with the United States Federal Trade Commission and the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission.

The agreement provides that if Johnson & Johnson is unable to sell the Zincofax brand as agreed, a trustee will be appointed to complete the sale.

OTTAWA - The Competition Tribunal has ruled that Gestion Finance Tamalia Inc. and its president, Sylvain Leblanc, who operated Les Centres de Sante Minceur, a chain of weight-loss clinics, contravened provisions of the Competition Act dealing with deceptive marketing practices.

In June 2005, the Competition Bureau filed an application with the Tribunal to prevent Mr. Leblanc and a number of companies from making misleading representations to the public regarding a weight-loss method involving a weight-loss device and natural products. The companies implicated were Gestion Finance Tamalia, Gestion Lebski, La Societe de Financement Vanoit, Maigrissimo and 9083-8434 Quebec.

The Tribunal concluded that Gestion Tamalia and Mr. Leblanc made numerous false and misleading representations regarding the Cellotherm device and products known as Cure de depart, Noctoslim, Nopasim, which claimed to produce sensational results.

The Tribunal issued a 10-year prohibition order against Mr. Leblanc and Gestion Finance Tamilia Inc. and imposed administrative penalties of $20,000 and $50,000 respectively.

"The Competition Bureau is vigorously pursuing deceptive claims with regard to weight loss," said Raymond Pierce, Deputy Commissioner. "This is a good decision for consumers who are often desperate for a solution to their weight problems."

Claims about the performance or effectiveness of a product that are not based on adequate and proper testing, or claims which are false or misleading, are prohibited, according to the Competition Act.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that promotes and maintains fair competition so that all Canadians can benefit from competitive prices, product choice and quality service. It oversees the application of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act.

OTTAWA - With respect to a Competition Bureau investigation, on September 11, 2006 the Attorney General of Canada has laid criminal charges of obstruction and destruction of documents against a ventilation company employee in Laval, Quebec.

Joel Perreault, an appraiser with Les Entreprises Promecanic Ltee., has been charged under sections 64 and 65 of the Competition Act with obstructing the course of an investigation and destroying documents during the execution of a search warrant at Promecanic.

The Bureau alleges that between February 22 and March 1, 2006, Mr. Perreault removed and destroyed pages from his agenda that contained information relevant to the Competition Bureau's investigation.

The Competition Act contains provisions which protect the integrity of investigations and proceedings. Penalties for obstruction include a maximum fine of $5,000 or two years in prison, or both. In the case of destruction of documents, the penalties are a maximum fine of $25,000 or two years in prison, or both.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that promotes and maintains fair competition so that all Canadians can benefit from competitive prices, product choice and quality service. It oversees the application of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act.

The Order of the Federal Court of Canada prohibits Sotheby's, headquartered in New York, and Sotheby's Canada, based in Toronto, from committing any offence contrary to the conspiracy and foreign directives provisions of the Competition Act.

The Order also prohibits Sotheby's and Sotheby's Canada from doing any act or thing directed toward the commission of an offence under sections 45 and 46 of the Act, and directs Sotheby's and Sotheby's Canada to maintain and implement compliance measures that will prevent any such future illegal activities. In addition, Sotheby's will post a notice of the Order on its Canadian Web page, and both companies will notify Canadian auction sellers in writing about the Court's Order and pay investigative costs, calculated by the Bureau at just under $800,000.

"The Court's Order addresses the Bureau's concerns that Canadian vendors benefit from competitive prices for international auction services," said Denyse MacKenzie, Senior Deputy Commissioner of Competition. "The Bureau's investigation focused on the harm this international conspiracy inflicted on Canadians."

The companies must also educate their directors, officers, employees and agents about complying with the Competition Act and for five years, each company must provide written proof to the Commissioner of Competition of compliance with the Prohibition Order. They must also provide to the Commissioner any additional information or records requested for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the Order.

The Bureau's inquiry concerned an international conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing auction commission rates, and the effects this conspiracy may have had on Canadian auction sellers between April 1993 and February 2000. Bureau investigators determined that Canadians may have been induced by Sotheby's and Sotheby's Canada to consign their property to auctions in the U.S. and elsewhere for sales subject to the fixed commission rates set by the illegal cartel. No evidence was uncovered that the conspiracy affected auctions held in Canada.

Under section 45 of the Competition Act, it is a criminal offence for competitors to unduly lessen competition in a market by agreeing on prices they will charge their customers. Section 46 of the Act makes it a criminal offence for a company carrying on business in Canada to implement any foreign directive intended to give effect to a conspiracy entered into outside of Canada that would contravene section 45.

TORONTO - Miller Thomson LLP, Canada's tenth largest law firm, has announced that eight lawyers have joined the firm to form a London, Ontario office, effective August 1, 2006. The four partners in the office, F. Glenn Jones, A. Duncan Grace, Anthony G. J. Van Klink and John Downing, are all well known members of the London legal and business community.

Miller Thomson has been actively building its presence in Southwestern Ontario since 2002 when it merged with Kitchener-Waterloo-based Sims Clement Eastman and then subsequently combined with the Guelph firm of Kearns McKinnon in 2003. The London office brings the firm's total complement of lawyers in the region to 48.

The opening of this office continues Miller Thomson's strategy of rapid, yet measured, growth and furthers its objective to provide comprehensive business law services in key markets across the country.

"The range of industries represented in the London market - financial services, real estate, retail, consumer and business products, technology, health care and education, to name a few - are a good fit with our firm's strengths and business model" says Jud Whiteside, Chairman and CEO of Miller Thomson. "By establishing this office, we can offer our clients in London the local support and services they require bolstered by the resources, scope and specialty expertise of a national law firm."

"Miller Thomson has demonstrated an exceptional commitment to this region, and we have been very successful as a result," adds Ric Trafford, Managing Partner of Miller Thomson's Southwestern Ontario offices and a long-time resident of the area. "I am excited about our move into London and very optimistic about our future here."

TORONTO - Mass Engineered Design Inc. and Jerry Moscovitch filed a patent infringement lawsuit on July 7th, 2006 against: Dell Inc., CDW Corp., Tech Data Corp., and Ergotron Inc. The lawsuit alleges that certain of the defendants' multi-display units infringe Moscovitch's US Patent RE36,978, entitled "Dual Display System".

Moscovitch is the founder/owner of Mass Engineered Design Inc., a Canada-based firm producing fully integrated multi-screen display solutions. His dual, triple, quad, and 6-screen systems come in a variety of configurations and flat panel screen sizes, forming a core product line. MASS has an extensive patent portfolio directed to various products such as multi-screen systems.

Moscovitch says he must stop the unauthorized use of his technology, and needs other companies to recognize his intellectual property. He points out he's not the only one losing out. "Business lost over several years could have enhanced the economy - and we could have provided well paying jobs for a lot more people."

Moscovitch's legal representation shows he's very serious: he has retained accomplished patent litigators from Conley Rose PC of Houston and Susman Godfrey LLP, with Max L. Tribble Jr. as Attorney-in-Charge. The lawsuit was filed in Marshall, in the Eastern District of Texas. The companies named as defendants in the lawsuit have not yet answered the complaint.

TORONTO - Canada's home, car and business insurers on June 13 released a study that shows the legal environment in Canada is becoming increasingly uncertain, and that organizations and individuals are more vulnerable to lawsuits than ever before. The study, The Impact of Recent Legal Developments on Liability Insurance, was conducted by researchers at the University of Western Ontario.

The study, conducted by Professors Craig Brown, Jason Neyers and Stephen Pitel, focused on cases and legislation since 1990. It suggests that uncertainty has increased due to several factors, including: expansion of the concept of bad faith and increased potential for punitive and aggravated damages; the development of class actions; and a greater likelihood that someone will be held accountable for another person's actions.

Randy Bundus, Vice-President, General Counsel and Secretary, IBC said: "Insurers have been increasingly concerned that recent legal developments are making it more difficult for them to predict the cost of the insurance they are providing. So IBC sought an independent study to determine the causes of this unpredictability."

One recent case that highlights this unpredictability is Herbison v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (not included in Prof. Brown's study), in which a hunting mishap resulted in a redefinition of the concept of a "motor vehicle accident."

The hunter was driving his pick-up truck across a farmer's field before sunrise when he spotted some movement in the distance. He stepped out of his truck, aimed his rifle and fired at what he thought was a deer. It wasn't. Instead he hit a fellow hunter, wounding the man in the leg. The wounded man, Harold Herbison, sued.

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, which insured the defendant's truck, was also added to the suit. The trial judge dismissed the claim against the insurer because it was the defendant's rifle, not his truck, that caused the injury.

However, the Ontario Court of Appeal overruled the trial judge. The appeal court found that the incident qualified as a motor vehicle accident because the hunter would not have been in a position to shoot the plaintiff if not for the use of the vehicle. Lumbermens was ordered to pay about $900,000.

Bundus said: "If that incident can fall within the definition of car accident under the policy - meaning the auto insurer must pay for the injuries - then what else could be a car accident? Clearly, we've gone well beyond the traditional understanding that a car accident is a collision involving a vehicle. When car owners pay for their auto insurance coverage, should they expect that close to a million dollars of their premiums could be used to pay for a hunting accident?"

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal in Herbison v. Lumbermens. IBC will be seeking intervener status.

Bundus said: "IBC wants to participate on behalf of insurers, and all consumers who pay insurance premiums. We want to show the Court that decisions like this one raise claims costs and generate uncertainty for insurers trying to price their products. When insurers can't predict what sort of claims they might be paying, it's difficult to price the risk.

"At the same time, some plaintiff lawyers will continue to aggressively try to stretch the wording of insurance policies to achieve more and higher pay-outs, and this gets reflected in the premiums everyone will have to pay." Governments have the power, through legislation, to control the costs of liability insurance. Possible changes that have been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions include: protection from lawsuits for good Samaritans; a greater recognition that some recreational activities have inherent risks; and limits on awards for non-economic damages.

Bundus said: "Access to the courts is important, but the trend toward new situations where insurers are made to pay ends up costing all of us. There has to be a balance. Canadians have to decide whether they want this trend to continue or whether there should be some reasonable limits on what can be recovered in a lawsuit."

Insurance Bureau of Canada is the national trade association of the private property and casualty insurance industry. It represents more than 90% of the non-government home, car and business insurance in Canada. To view news releases and information, visit the media section of IBC's website at www.ibc.ca.

TORONTO - The hiring outlook for law firms and corporate legal departments remains positive, a new survey shows. Fifty-five per cent of lawyers surveyed plan to add personnel in the coming year. Only 1 per cent of respondents anticipate reductions in personnel. These results reflect little change from a similar poll conducted in 2005, in which 55 per cent of lawyers projected an increase in hiring and 3 per cent indicated a decrease in staffing. Corporate governance, litigation and intellectual property were identified as the areas of law expected to experience the most growth in the next 12 months.

The survey was developed by Robert Half Legal, a leading staffing service specializing in lawyers, paralegals, law clerks and other highly skilled legal professionals. It was conducted by an independent research firm and includes responses from 300 lawyers among the 1,000 largest law firms and corporations in the United States and Canada; 200 lawyers were polled for the 2005 survey. All respondents have at least three years of experience in the legal field.

Lawyers were asked, "Do you expect the number of lawyers employed with your law firm or corporate legal department to increase, stay the same or decrease in the next 12 months?" Their responses:

<< 2006 2005
---- ----
Increase ............................................ 55% 55%
Stay the same ....................................... 41% 41%
Decrease ............................................ 1% 3%
Don't know .......................................... 3% 1%
---- ----
100% 100%

Lawyers were asked, "In your opinion, which one of the following areas of law will experience the most growth in the next 12 months?" Their responses:

Ethics and corporate governance ..................... 25%
Litigation .......................................... 23%
Intellectual property ............................... 19%
Real estate ......................................... 8%
Bankruptcy .......................................... 5%
General corporate/commercial ........................ 5%
Employment law ...................................... 2%
Other ............................................... 7%
Don't know .......................................... 6%
----
100%


"In corporate legal departments, ongoing regulatory requirements; corporate expansion, both organic and through mergers and acquisitions; and a larger business advisory role for in-house counsel are creating demand for experienced lawyers," said Charles Volkert, executive director of Robert Half Legal. "More companies are looking to their lawyers to not only handle legal and regulatory matters, but also consider overall business objectives and identify potential revenue opportunities with minimal risk."

Volkert added that litigation and intellectual property continue to generate significant case work for law firms. "Legal professionals who demonstrate a proven track record in high-demand practice areas may receive multiple employment offers in the current market. Many firms are offering enhanced compensation and benefits to attract top candidates and retain existing staff."

Osborne has represented GM on high-profile strategic transactions for more than 20 years. As general counsel, he will replace Tom Gottschalk, who will continue as executive vice president, law and public policy.

Osborne heads the corporate practice at Jenner & Block, focusing on representing public companies in mergers and acquisitions and securities transactions. He has represented GM in the disposition of Hughes Electronics, the spinoffs of Electronic Data Systems, Hughes Defense and Delphi, and the sale of National Car Rental. He also has represented GM in public offerings of stock and debt securities.

"We are fortunate to be able to recruit as general counsel a lawyer with the background, expertise and deep knowledge of GM that Bob Osborne brings," Wagoner said. "I have come to value his judgment and advice, and certainly respect him as a professional of utmost integrity."

Osborne, 51, has been with Jenner & Block since 2002, and previously practiced corporate law for 23 years in the Chicago office of Kirkland & Ellis. He is a member of the adjunct faculty of the University of Chicago Law School.

He graduated from Harvard College in 1976 and Harvard Law School in 1979. He will report to Wagoner and Gottschalk, and will be a member of the Automotive Strategy Board.

Action") and Kenneth Elliott et al. v. Boliden Limited et al., court file no. 98-BN-07157, Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Ontario Action").

In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached provincial securities statutes concerning the disclosure of information in the Prospectus related to a tailings dam at Los Frailes, Spain, which collapsed on April 25, 1998. The defendants deny any liability and deny that any plaintiff or any class member is entitled to any relief. The courts have not ruled on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims or the defendants' defences.

The plaintiffs have entered into a settlement agreement with Boliden Limited, Trelleborg International BV and Trelleborg AB (the "Settling Defendants"), which is subject to the approval of courts in British Columbia and Ontario. A copy of the Long Form Notice of Proposed Settlement is available at www.kleinlyons.com.

You should read this notice if you acquired common shares (or installment

receipts) in Boliden Limited, as offered by a prospectus dated June 10, 1997 (the "Prospectus"), in one of the provinces of Canada other than New Brunswick or Alberta, and retained all or part of these shares on April 25, 1998. You will be a class member and, if settlement approval is given, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement (defined below) unless you opt out.

Objections to the Proposed Settlement: All persons who object to the Settlement Agreement are requested, but are not required, to provide written notice to Class Counsel by April 17, 2006 at Klein Lyons, Barristers & Solicitors, Attn: Doug Lennox, Suite 1100, 1333 West Broadway, Vancouver BC V6B 4C1, telephone 1-800-216-1383, fax 604-874-7180, e-mail, dlemox@kleinlyons.com, explaining the reason for their objection, and advising whether they intend to appear at one or both of the approval hearings and providing a mailing address, telephone number or e-mail address where they may be contacted.