What’s up for debate at the CBA’s annual general meeting?

Canadian Corporate Counsel Association Name Change

The first resolution up for debate this year is a straightforward name change of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association (CCCA). Adopted by the group’s board of directors, it calls for changing the name to the Canadian Bar Association - In House Lawyers (CBA-IL).

The CCCA is a 5000-member strong professional, voluntary organization formed in 1988 to serve as the voice for in-house counsel in Canada. The proposed name change is meant to better reflect and include all the organization’s lawyers representing a single client and to identify the organization with the Canadian Bar Association more closely.

The CCCA engaged a marketing firm to assist in selecting the most suitable option for a new name. It also consulted with French-speaking board members and members of the CBA’s Quebec Branch to ensure the French translation of the name was appropriate. The resolution suggests that the new CBA-IL logo and name be integrated between February and April 2025.

The resolution is sponsored by Heidi Schedler of the Nova Scotia Department of Justice and seconded by Ranjeev Sangra of Ballard Power Systems Inc.

Have your say on the discussion board. 

 

Transparency and Public Accountability in Canadian Sanctions

Countries like Canada use sanctions to conduct international relations by putting pressure on countries to change their behaviour. A resolution brought forward by several sections of the Canadian Bar Association urges the federal government to provide greater predictability and transparency in the application of sanctions so that Canadian individuals or entities can set up compliance plans and procedures.

“Given that Canada’s sanctions regime is enforced by criminal law, clarity is essential to ensure that individuals are aware of their obligations and that any breaches of the sanctions are prosecutable, as any ambiguities will be construed in favour of the accused,” the International Law Section explained in a 2023 letter to the Senate.

Public guidance would align Canada with allied countries that already provide it to their citizens to ensure their sanctions regimes are effective. In addition, timely and transparent explanations for why specific individuals or entities are listed under the economic sanctions regime ensure the principles of justice and procedural fairness are respected.

The CBA also urges the federal government to provide timely responses to sanctions permit applications and ensure response times are effective by instituting service standards. Responses to delisting applications should be made within the statutory timeframe or, in the absence of a statutory timeframe, within a reasonable time.

The government should also be transparent in its reporting on sanctions activities, including the number of applications received, granted, and denied and the number of sanctions-related proceedings before the courts.

The resolution is sponsored by Sean Stephenson at Dentons and seconded by Ryan Pistorius at Gowling WLG.

Have your say on the discussion board.

 

Debate and Consultation on Multipart Legislation

To ensure meaningful scrutiny, debate and public consultation, the National Privacy and Access to Information Law Section has put forward a resolution calling on the CBA to urge the federal government to limit the introduction of multipart legislation that combines substantially different and unrelated subject areas.

The resolution, which stems from recent experiences with Bill C-27 and Bill C-63, was moved by Sinziana Gutiu, past chair of the section, and seconded by David Fraser of McInnes Cooper.

The former, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, proposed replacing Canada’s private sector privacy law and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) — two distinct and unrelated laws.

Despite having wide-ranging implications for various stakeholders with diverse perspectives, Canadians generally, and the Canadian economy, AIDA had no meaningful prior consultation.

The federal government later introduced Bill C-63, known as the Online Harms Act, which included measures to address a range of harmful content online as well as hate speech and hate crimes online and offline.

Part 1 of the bill proposed a new Online Harms Act to create a regulatory regime to hold social media services accountable for reducing exposure to harmful content on their platforms.

Part 2 proposed Criminal Code amendments aimed at hate crimes and hate propaganda offences. Part 3 would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to allow recourse to the Canadian Human Rights Commission against social media users who post hate speech on those services and elsewhere online.

While Part 1 underwent extensive consultation, Parts 2 and 3 raise distinct legal and policy issues, demonstrating the challenges of integrating substantively different matters within a single bill.

The resolution says bundling laws limits opportunities for meaningful scrutiny, debate, and public consultation of each part, and it risks delaying needed reform by requiring the simultaneous consideration of unrelated matters.

This prevents Parliamentarians from expressing support or opposition to specific portions of multipart bills, forcing them to conflate their position on all matters with a question of confidence in the government.

It’s worth noting that in 2013, the CBA supported urging limits on the use of omnibus legislation with the adoption of Resolution 13-04-M.

Have your say on the discussion board.

 

Funding for Access to Information Regulators and Officers in Public Institutions

 A resolution brought forth by the National Privacy and Access to Information Law Section asks that the Canadian Bar Association urge governments in Canada to provide adequate funding and resources for privacy and access to information regulators and to access to information and privacy offices within public institutions.

The resolution, moved by Sinziana Gutiu, past chair of the section, and seconded by David Fraser of McInnes Cooper, states that timely access to public records and transparency in public institutions are essential in an open and democratic society. It notes that the courts have characterized Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial access to information and privacy laws as “quasi-constitutional.”

However, an ever-expanding volume of digital records, underinvestment in information storage and management technologies, and rising access-to-information requests have led to chronic delays. Effectively, this is a denial of timely access to information.

In recent years, privacy and access to information regulators have called for increased funding, streamlined processes, and efficient resource allocation to carry out their mandates effectively.

This includes Canada’s Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard, who noted in her 2023-2024 annual report that some institutions have a “persistent culture of secrecy” and ongoing delays in responding to access to information requests. As a result, institutions respond to only one-third of access requests within statutory timeframes.

According to the Office of the Information Commissioner, other issues with the current system include a need for more dedicated teams at institutions that coordinate access requests, challenges managing workloads and individuals juggling multiple responsibilities, slow responsiveness from record-holders, and a general lack of knowledge on how to appropriately handle access requests and fulfill access obligations under the Access to Information Act.

Have your say on the discussion board.

 

Preventing Physical Punishment of Children

A resolution brought forward by the Child and Youth Law Section will ask Canadian Bar Association members to vote to repeal a 2016 resolution that proposed a narrow interpretation of section 43 of the Criminal Code and urge the federal government to repeal that section entirely and make the physical punishment of children illegal.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and experts agree the defence of “reasonable force” under section 43 needs to be repealed to protect children against physical punishment.

At the same time, the resolution asks that efforts be made to increase public education on the issue to build parental competence and reduce the need for intervention in families and the criminal prosecution of parents.

This would keep with changing social norms, as captured in the Joint Statement on the Physical Punishment of Children and Youth, endorsed by over 700 prominent children’s organizations and distinguished Canadians, and the research study by the Fraser Mustard Institute for Human Development Policy Bench. It explores the issue of corporal punishment legislation and concludes that prohibition, paired with public education programs, is the best approach to protect children from harm.

The resolution was moved by Cheryl Milne from the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto and seconded by Wendy Martin White at Phillips Aiello.

Have your say on the discussion board.

 

Enhancing the Articling Experience for New Legal Professionals

Articling is a critical part of legal training, but studies have found it can also present significant challenges for new legal professionals. These include discrimination and harassment and a work culture that places high demands on sustained performance that conflict with work-life balance.

Combined, these factors contribute to high attrition rates among articling students, as noted in the national study on wellness in the legal profession. Many of them consider leaving the profession early.

In October 2024, the Canadian Bar Association launched a survey to gather comprehensive data on the articling experience across the country. Engagement with articling students, lawyers, legal employers, and law societies is essential to ensure articling requirements produce competent lawyers who serve the public interest and uphold the law. Engagement with legal employers is also essential to ensure that training articling students remains a viable and effective strategy for recruitment and retention.

For that reason, the resolution, put forward by Law Students, the Women Lawyers Forum and the Sexual and Gender Diversity Alliance Sections, as well as the Equity and Access to Justice Subcommittees, calls on the CBA to commit to:  

1. Maintaining engagement with lawyers and articling students to identify continuing challenges faced during articling.
2. Engaging, where appropriate, with legal employers to address challenges in hiring, training and retaining articling students, and to develop practical strategies for improving the articling process.
3. Engaging, where appropriate, with law societies to evaluate articling requirements necessary to maintain high standards of lawyer training and public protection.
4. Articulating and presenting recommendations based on insights from the Articling Survey and subsequent engagement activities to enhance the articling experience for new members of the legal profession.

The resolution was moved by Graeme Maitland of Aarbo Fuldauer LLP and seconded by Shauna Gibbons of the Alberta Energy Regulator.     

Have your say on the discussion board. 

 

Non-Adversarial Advocacy and Family Law Standards

The Family Law Section has submitted a resolution asking the CBA to engage the Federation of Law Societies of Canada in amending federal divorce legislation.

The Divorce Act includes obligations to promote the best interests of children, consider family violence, and encourage contemporary best practice in non-adversarial family dispute resolution informed by social science research and legislative changes, as well as obligations to protect the best interests of children and mitigate the harmful impacts of inter-parental legal conflicts.

In 2021, the Family Law Section proposed amending the Model Code to add commentary in Rule 5.1 on non-adversarial proceedings and introduce a new Rule 2.2 on standards of practice for family lawyers.

The Federation of Law Societies is currently reviewing the Model Code and consulting on amendments in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 27th Call to Action but has not yet responded to the CBA’s proposals to amend the text.

This resolution, sponsored by Tracy C. Brown of Brown Law Group in Edmonton and seconded by Eric Sadvari of Kenet Family Law in Toronto, moves that the Model Code be amended to include standards of practice for family lawyers. It also calls for Rule 5.1-1 to be amended with the following text: “5.1 The Lawyer as Advocate Commentary to Advocacy 5.1-1 [1.1] Role in Non-Adversarial Family Law proceeding: In non-adversarial family law proceedings such as negotiation, mediation and collaborative process as well as judge-led dispute resolution and settlement conferences, the lawyer has a duty to consider not only the legal rights and obligations of their client, but also the broader interests of the client, the other party[ies], and the children. The lawyer is encouraged to problem-solve and attempt to reach a consensual resolution to the parties’ conflict.”

Should the resolution be passed, it would reflect growing support within the CBA and the legal profession for modernizing ethical obligations for lawyers. The section suggests that the CBA seek a meeting with the Federation of Law Societies’ model code standing committee by mid-2025, with a plan to develop an implementation work plan for 2026-2027.

Have your say on the discussion board.