Eric Singer, Chief Legal Officer, Revios Reinsurance, Toronto, Ont. (formerly Senior Counsel, North American Life Assurance Company)
"To say that Eugene Meehan and his Supreme Court team ‘assisted’ us when we were fighting our case in the Supreme Court of Canada would be an understatement. Lang Michener not only acted as our Supreme Court agents for filing and procedural purposes, but he and his team, also provided us with insightful Factum suggestions and logistical support in Ottawa both prior and during the hearing. In addition, they ran us through a number of mock presentations so that we could practise and fine-tune our oral submissions. That we received such a clear and favourable Supreme Court decision was in large part due to the support and assistance of Eugene and his team throughout the entire process.
Eugene, one other thing. The morning of the appeal hearing I discovered I didn’t have my cufflinks with me. You gave me yours. I wore them throughout the hearing. At the end you graciously refused to take them back. I still wear them, my ‘Supreme Court cufflinks’, with pride. When I want to win something important, I put them on."
Palbinder K. Shergill, Shergill & Company, Trial Lawyers, Surrey, B.C.
"Hello Marie-France.
Now that the dust has settled, I just want to send you a short note to thank you for your firm’s excellent assistance during this case. Your expertise and guidance throughout the Intervenor process have been invaluable. I was particularly pleased with your quick response and turnaround time.
I look forward to working with you again in the future."
Andrew J. Hatnay, Koskie Minsky LLP, Toronto
"Before I went to Lang Michener, I was confused and scared by the S.C.C. Lord Chancellor Jeff [Jeff Beedell] taught me how to seek leave with confidence. Because of him, I obtained leave! Thanks Jeff. And his assistant Eugene too."
Alexander P. Watt, Cates Carroll Watt, Kamloops
"We write to provide the most sincere praise of the efforts and quality of work provided to our firm by Marie-France Major. She acted as our S.C.C. agent and in our opinion, made our appeal extraordinary. Her insightful and highly relevant comments, both of a technical and also of a substantive nature, speaks volumes about her abilities. In our opinion, Ms. Major is an inspiration as she is both highly academic and intellectual, but also very approachable, pleasant and a pleasure to work with. We would never consider bringing another appeal to the S.C.C. without her assistance. Her work with us is beyond exemplary. We unfortunately cannot find the words to express our gratitude and admiration for Ms. Major.
We cannot say enough to do justice to Ms. Major’s abilities and hope that this letter only serves to reinforce what we are sure you are already aware of, that she is a brilliant lawyer that is truly an inspiration to us all."
Palbinder K. Shergill, Shergill & Company, Trial Lawyers, Surrey
"Marie-France, now that the dust has settled, I just wanted to send you a short note to thank you for you and your firm’s excellent assistance during this case. Your expertise and guidance throughout the Intervener process have been invaluable. I was particularly pleased with your quick response and turnaround time. It is a shame that we have not yet had a chance to meet face to face. I look forward to working with you again in the future."
Martin Glazer, Martin Glazer Law Office, Winnipeg
"Mr. Beedell, Thank you for all your help. The product was great. It is rare to work with someone as dedicated and thorough as you. I hope to meet you in person some day."
Peter McMahon, MacDonald McMahon, Calgary
"Barb, I wanted to thank you for your help and support in preparing our Response Memorandum. I thought that your comments and suggestions were invaluable in trying to meet the unique tests prescribed by the Supreme Court for a leave application and I have let our client know that your assistance was much appreciated."
Voicemail from D. Smith, Toronto, Ontario
"Eugene, it's D. Smith calling from MacDonald and Partners in Toronto. We just wanted to thank you again for all of the wonderful help that you gave us. I can tell you that without a doubt the time that we spent with you and Marie-France significantly helped our first-time team, and we felt very confident going into the Supreme Court.
We felt like we had a great understanding of what the Court would be doing, and what would be expected of us and it was of tremendous help to us and we very much appreciate it. The appeal was phenomenal, we had a great time arguing it.
And again our many thanks and please do pass on our kind thoughts as well to Marie-France and your entire elite team, we very much appreciate everyone's help. Thanks so very much."
Letter by John W. Montgomery
Johnston Montgomery, Whitby, Ontario:
"Your help on this has been invaluable. Though I did the writing – which I wanted to do – your incisive strategic recommendations and amendments gave me the crucial confidence that I needed to have an understanding of the process and the players and that I was going in the right direction. Also, your logistical help – with technical compliance, binding, serving and filing – took a load off my mind. Thanks again for your practical and professional assistance."
Letter by Andrew J. Roman
Miller Thomson LLP, Toronto, Ontario:
"This is just a short note to thank you, Marie-France and Jeff for the invaluable advice and assistance you provided to us at both the leave to appeal and the appeal stage of this case. The highly successful final result is in no small measure attributable to the seasoned judgment that lay behind the advice you provided."
Email by John D. Townsend, Q.C.
Cox & Palmer, Fredericton, New Brunswick:
"Your professional and prompt advice is appreciated - you guys remind me of the Pro Golf Tour ad - THESE GUYS ARE GOOD!"
Letter by Donald McLean, of Zimmerman Lawyers, Hamilton Ontario,
sending two accounts to client representative:
"Enclosed are two accounts from Lang Michener. The first relates to the period from November 29 to December 16, 2004. The second relates to the period from December 16, 2004 to January 14, 2005. Both accounts include GST and the second has a few disbursements.
As I understand it, the process began by Ms. Major, working essentially on her own pulling out the relevant facts from the documentation supplied. This involved determining what was brought home to our insureds and reviewing the insurance policies. By working on her own at the outset, a considerable saving was achieved, inasmuch as there was no consultation with us, and, I assume – at least insofar as one was dealing with the relevant facts – there was minimal consultation with Mr. Meehan, Q.C. Ms. Major did a remarkable job in this regard, because it was apparent from the very first draft that she made an incisive analysis of what was relevant and what was not. The other advantage of all of this was that no matter how much input we provided, the case was only going to properly proceed if Lang Michener themselves had a very clear idea of what had occurred and what legal arguments were required. In some measure, this explains why Ms. Major had many more hours on the file. They were clearly very well spent. For, above everything else, she realized that this case was going to turn on the meaning of the word "claim". I can't tell you how refreshing it was to see that she had grasped this issue so clearly and so decisively.
Then what appears to have happened is that Mr. Meehan and Ms. Major worked together at putting together the first draft of the leave to appeal application. Mr. Meehan was of invaluable assistance, inasmuch as he supplied the most important ingredient of all to the leave application, namely the overall direction of how the argument should be framed. Mr. Montigny of our office provided some helpful insights regarding the national importance argument, but ultimately it was Mr. Meehan who was responsible for drafting the leave to appeal application in such a way as to get the judges' attention. My own view is that his deliberately outrageous comments are a refreshing change to the often usual boring legal arguments judges have to read every day. Moreover, it was even more refreshing not to have to read in every paragraph "It is respectfully submitted that…." or words to that effect.
I don't doubt for a moment that there were 17 drafts of the leave to appeal application. But emotionally, there were only three. When we received the first draft, it was immediately apparent that Mr. Meehan and Ms. Major had demonstrated, without any input from us whatsoever, a remarkable grasp of the main issues. Instantly it became apparent that we were all on the same page. We responded to the first draft on or about December 28-30, 2004. In that response, we assisted in rewriting one of the fundamental questions, provided some assistance on some factual matters, urged that the paragraph on discoverability be rewritten, and in a follow up, made a comparison between our facts and Reid Crowther.
I can recall getting an email from Eugene saying they were considering our response. What emerged in draft two was virtually an entire new argument. The new argument was extremely well done. We responded to draft two on or about January 3-4, 2005. Time was running out, so there was little time to waste. In our second response, we focused in on the nature of our insurance argument, and in particular, how unique it was. We attempted to narrow the issues between the parties. There was a problem with the Table which needed to addressed. And this time, we actually had a few comments on wording of the draft.
But it was when we received draft three that we really got excited. I can recall sending an email describing this draft as seizing our argument by the throat and polishing it up so that it shone like the rays of the sun. That's how draft three felt. We enthusiastically responded to this third draft on or about January 8, 2005. In particular, the other fundamental question had to be redrafted, to conform, as it turned out, to one of the paragraphs already in the body of the draft. Since this was our last real input into the document, in this response we did concentrate on the wording more than previously.
Thereafter, there were indeed numerous drafts, all mostly of a housekeeping nature. I am sure there were quite a few minor drafts at the end. But in essence, there were really 3 drafts, each quite distinct from one another.
In conclusion, to repeat, I cannot tell how what a pleasure it was for us to have had the opportunity to work with Eugene Meehan, Q.C. and Marie-France Major. I cannot recall an instance in all my years as a lawyer where I felt more in sync with another law firm.
This bill is obviously more than we initially expected. Given that 8 out of 9 leave to appeal applications get turned down, however, we decided to throw everything we had into presenting our argument as best we could. For we will have the satisfaction of knowing, if we are lumped in with the unfortunate 8, rather than being the lone lucky exception, that we left no stone unturned before the bell tolled.
Could you kindly submit this bill for payment and send me a copy of the cheque for our records, so that if our eternal optimism is eventually warranted, we will be in a position of being able to recover our costs from the other side."
Letter from Martin Glazer Law Office, Winnipeg,
to Jeff Beedell:
"Mr. Beedell, Thank you for all your help. The product was great .
It is rare to work with someone as dedicated and thorough as you.
I hope to meet you in person some day."
Letter from Peter McMahon of MacDonald McMahon, Calgary
to Barbara Sinclair:
"I wanted to thank you for your help and support in preparing our Response Memorandum.
I thought that your comments and suggestions were invaluable in trying to meet the unique tests prescribed by the Supreme Court for a leave application and I have let our client know that your assistance was much appreciated."
Letter by Hugh Corbett,
Litigation Counsel Enforcement Branch, Ontario Securities Commission, Toronto, Ontario:
"Over the past year or so, I have had the pleasure of dealing with your Supreme Court Practice Group and with one individual in particular, Jeffrey Beedell. On Friday, October 31, 2003, our matter came to a successful resolution when the Supreme Court dismissed Deloitte & Touche's appeal.
I am writing to convey to you how impressed I have been by the team which Eugene Meehan has assembled. It quickly became apparent to me that a number of individuals, from the court clerks and secretarial assistants to those responsible for the copying and binding of the briefs, contribute to the success of the group. That I received the excellent service that I did was no doubt due in good measure to their behind-the-scenes effort.
Since I dealt with Jeff Beedell the most, I would like to make a few comments about him in particular. From the very beginning, Jeff was very effective in explaining the intricacies of the Court's procedure as well as the less apparent nuances of conducting an appeal in that forum. Jeff handled or oversaw all the logistical aspects of successfully bringing two motions to expedite the leave and appeal processes, dealing with two intervenants, serving and filing all of the required materials and otherwise attending to the process of responding to the appeal in a manner that allowed me to focus entirely on the merits and put all other worries aside. I quickly came to learn that once a matter was in Jeff's hands, he always did what he said he would do, on time or ahead of schedule, in a calm and professional manner. Despite the fact that he was juggling the appeals and leave applications of other clients, the quality of his service to me never wavered.
Jeff also offered well considered advice on the substantive aspects of the appeal, as well as with respect to strategy and tactics. I confess that to this day I remain impressed (mystified?) at how quickly Jeff gained an appreciation of the facts and issues on appeal. Within a week or so of his retainer, he was discussing the issues with me on equal footing. He regularly faxed back insightful comments of draft materials within a day or two. Over the course of my involvement with him, I came to trust his judgment and value his opinion greatly.
Jeff's attention to detail and general helpfulness also extended to matters outside the appeal itself. He was never flustered and was always suitably optimistic. He gave me suggestions about where to stay in Ottawa and ensured that I had all the necessary contact information. He arranged for me to view the courtroom itself prior to the appeal on a day when it was otherwise closed to the public. He allowed me to use a boardroom in your offices when I was in town to examine witnesses in an unrelated matter prior to appeal. On the day of the appeal, he made sure that my parents, who had driven up to Ottawa that morning, were able to get a seat in the gallery and then he sat with them to explain the appeal as it was underway. After the appeal, he arranged for all of the boxes containing my materials to be picked up from my hotel and shipped back to Toronto. Small things in some respects, but greatly appreciated and reflective of a very conscientious counsel.
It was also a pleasure dealing with Eugene Meehan. He was able to very effectively put the appeal in perspective and offered some valuable suggestions. His observations were practical and to the point, delivered with a refreshing dose of humour and candour.
In summary, I cannot say enough good things about the team that Eugene has assembled and the quality of service that I received from Jeff and the other members of the group. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of working with them. I found myself frequently thinking "that's how all lawyers should conduct themselves"."
Robert M. Curtis,
Q.C., McCuaig Desrochers, Edmonton, Alberta:
"I want to express my thanks and give a hearty endorsement of your Supreme Court Newsletter.
In 30 years of practice I have never received a "free" tool of this caliber. In fact, I've never seen anything I could pay for that services the need of a practicing barrister quite so well. All our digests, on-line services and various legal publication services have required that I actually take the time out of my day to actively research a problem. They are, as a group, quite useful publications in their own right, and I mean no criticism of them. I think researching law is becoming even easier, while at the same time there as so many decisions to plod through. But the sad fact remains that when you have a busy practice you simply have little time to efficiently "read the law". Often the result is the most research is passed to a junior practitioner, and we "old farts" seem to learn less and less of how the law is evolving. Until now, most of my information on current cases has come from the regular media, with its inherent limitations.
Your service, on the other hand, is one that is "pushed-out". It comes directly to me each week in an easy to read format. In a few minutes, I can file away in the "little grey matter" snippets on current law in diverse areas and then conveniently put it away in a research folder on my desk. Since your service started, I have sometimes taken a few moments and simply felt more up-to-date. But on the majority of times I have, like I did this morning, clipped out a piece to give to an associate for follow-up because the decision has impacted on a current case of mine.
I like your clean organization and concise explanations, and encourage you to keep it that way. If it got more voluminous, as a bow to fuller content, it could become less useful to practitioners like me. I LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS!
I will, of course, choose you and your firm any time I need a SCC agent. You've clearly shown competence and understanding of what guys like me need."
Extract from letter by K. William McKenzie
Crawford, McKenzie, McLean, Wilford, Anderson & Duncan LLP, Orillia, Ontario:
"First of all thanks for everything. The entire experience was a joy and your guidance throughout was indispensable. You guys are right on your game and so pleasant to work with that I am going to miss this case most for losing the camaraderie we developed. For my part I think you made me better at what I do and I take away memories of first class people — your staff included — a dedication and love for what you do punctuated by what to me is the most important thing in life: a sense of humour.
You have added to my own experience in a most positive way and if what life is about is the stories I sure garnered lots of those.
But most of all I would be sure to want Eugene and Jeff to be with me all the way through.
I had a great time from beginning to end. I made some new friends. My client was happy. I've got pictures. What more can you ask?"
Extract from letter by Don W. MacLeod,Q.C.
O'Brien Devlin Markey MacLeod, Calgary, Alberta:
"Your prompt provision of relevant precedents enabled me to focus on the issues at hand without needlessly having to divert my time and attention to matters of form. Your tactical suggestions were also greatly appreciated.
When it came time to address the conduct of the appeal itself, your suggestions with regard to factum formatting, headings and editing were of great assistance. I also found your substantive suggestions and practical tips regarding advocacy at the court to be extremely valuable. Lang Michener's services with respect to reproducing, filing and serving facta and books of authorities was highly efficient, such that I was able to spend more time on refining the argument without having to worry as much as would otherwise have been the case about approaching filing and service deadlines.
I have already recommended Lang Michener's services to a number of other counsel in the Calgary area and will continue to do so as and when I become aware of lawyers having matters pending before the Supreme Court of Canada."
Extract from letter by R.A. (Ravi) Prithipaul
Gunn & Prithipaul, Edmonton, Alberta:
"… your suggestions, substantive and stylistic, were of enormous help....in the drafting of our written materials. Your input was obviously very effective given the outcome of this case.
… Our voice would not have been so clearly heard without your general help."
Extract from letter by Ray C. Rutman to Managing Partner of Lang Michener
Ray C. Rutman, Milner Fenerty, Edmonton, Alberta:
"I have for the past year had the pleasure of working with Mr. Meehan on the above file. Mr. Meehan has been my Ottawa agent at the Supreme Court. I cannot speak too highly of the effort and ability that Mr. Meehan brought to the case. His knowledge of Supreme Court practice and procedure both official and unofficial is nothing short of extraordinary. His suggestions respecting substantive law and elements of advocacy were most helpful throughout.
I have never written a letter such as this respecting another counsel, however I did not feel it appropriate to let Mr. Meehan's efforts go unacknowledged. I am very grateful to Mr. Meehan personally and I have recommended his services to all members of our firm who appear before the Supreme Court."
Extract from letter to Chief Operating Officer of Lang Michener to Lang Michener's Toronto Office
John C. F. Hunt, Black, Sutherland, Crabbe, Toronto, Ontario:
"I have had the great good fortune of dealing with your Supreme Court practice group in Ottawa.
… I indicated to Lang Michener that it would be appreciated if the time and effort expended by your Ottawa office could be kept to a minimum because the work which we were doing was Pro Bono. The Applicant is without resources.
Instead, what I got was a great deal of extremely helpful comment and guidance provided with courtesy, professionalism and a very high degree of skill.
I have little doubt that the possibility that leave might be granted will have been enhanced by the efforts of your Supreme Court practice group.
However, the reason I am writing this letter is to acknowledge not only their skill, but their grace. The account which this office received was for disbursements only and obviously an acknowledgement of the fact that professional responsibility is occasionally a higher calling than a fee account.
I am hopeful that their performance will be a source of pride in your entire firm."
Ravi Prithipaul, President
Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association
Edmonton, Alberta
"I am writing to thank you sincerely on behalf of our Association for the excellent work that you did for us...I know that Mr. MacLeod very much appreciated your guidance and advice. We are of course very pleased with the outcome. Although it is often the case in criminal litigation that we feel obligated to press a point as a matter of principle, it is immensely gratifying to achieve ultimate victory from time to time. Again, thank you."
Susan Ursel, Green & Chercover (voicemail, December 20, 2002)
Toronto, Ontario
"I just wanted to call and leave a personal message for you about our happiness at this decision and our real thankfulness for your involvement and support throughout. It really is extremely meaningful to us to have that support and by gosh it just turned out very well I think for all concerned. I really like the Chief Justice's reasons which I am plowing though as we speak. I wanted to convey that to you as I tried to send you an email but it bounced back. I'm hoping that you are going to get this voicemail message, and hoping you get our email with the press release attached to it so that you can see that we did get one out, it's gone out, it's been distributed. From the bottom of my heart thank so you so much for your help and support in this one. It was a personal case for me, obviously, and an important one to me as a lawyer."
Extract from letter by Frank N. Marrocco, Q.C.
Toronto, Ontario
"I would buy a used car from you."