CPAC is proudly owned by these leading companies
  • Rogers Logo
  • Shaw
  • Videotron Logo
  • Cogeco Logo
  • Eastlink Logo
  • Access Logo

Her Majesty the Queen v. Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario, et al.

   
       Loading CPAC video...    
         
   
   

| video language:    

   
   
Supreme Court Hearings

Her Majesty the Queen v. Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario, et al. (December 12, 2012)
Case # 34317

In four criminal proceedings, the trial judges appointed amicus curiae and set conditions for compensating the amicus.
In one case, the trial judge also put in place a process for monitoring the accounts submitted by the amicus.
The Attorney General conceded on appeal that a court has the power to appoint amicus and to set some terms of the appointment.
The Attorney General stated that the court has no jurisdiction for setting the rate at which amicus should be paid.
The Court of Appeal heard all four appeals together and dismissed the Attorney General’s appeals.

Add new comment

Outburst promotion banner
The CPAC Digital Archive

Daily Programming Highlights


 

Latest Comments

Mak:
All this case and the police actions in this case prove is that the combined Canadian police forces are nothing more than and have no more a
oto:
The Supreme Court of Canada made the correct moral decision, regardless of case law. IBM Canada is paying Dick Waterman approximately $80K
Fredrick Owen Blacklaws:
Was the hearing simply a formality? Had the court made an, irrvocable, decision on the matter prior to the hearing?
Don Dash:
The main issue is that the threatening remarks were made in a place where it is assumed that confidentiality exist? Wasn't he in jail?