Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Your eminent jurists

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:21pm - 0 Comments

The office of Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has announced the three eminent jurists charged with arbitrating for the committee of MPs reviewing Afghan detainee documents. They, with their various letters of significance are: the Honourable Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, C.C., G.O.Q., the Honourable Frank Iacobucci, C.C., Q.C., and the Honourable Donald I. Brenner, Q.C..

Official biographical details after the jump. The NDP has already scheduled a news conference for later this afternoon in response, perhaps for the purposes of restating their objections to the involvement of Justice Iacobucci.

The Honourable Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, C.C., G.O.Q., was appointed to the Superior Court of Quebec in February 1973. Madame L’Heureux-Dubé was elevated to the Quebec Court of Appeal in October 1979, and was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, on April 15, 1987. She retired from the Court on July 1, 2002. Madame L’Heureux-Dubé was appointed Companion of the Order of Canada on May 8, 2003 and is a past President of the International Commission of Jurists. She is a member of several International legal associations and has published extensively in the areas of International law and human rights.

The Honourable Frank Iacobucci, C.C., Q.C., joined Torys LLP as Counsel in September 2004 after retiring as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Mr. Iacobucci had been Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada and Deputy Minister of Justice following a distinguished career in academia. From September 2004 to July 2005, he also served as Interim President of the University of Toronto. Mr. Iacobucci has received numerous awards, honours and other recognitions in Canada, the United States, England and Italy. He is a Companion of the Order of Canada.

The Honourable Donald I. Brenner, Q.C. was a judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court for eight years and then its Chief Justice for nine years, before joining the legal firm Farris, Vaughan, Wills and Murphy, in September, 2009, as Senior Counsel. Prior to joining the B.C. Supreme Court in 1992, Mr. Brenner had a distinguished career as a practising lawyer who specialized in the fields of aviation, professional indemnity, and products liability law.

Tags: Afghanistan, Claire L'Heureux-Dube, detainees, documents, Donald I. Brenner, Frank Iacobucci, torture, transfers

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Prop up Diana Ross in front of them and you would have somethin!

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Stewart_Smith………funny!

Orson Bean

Having any objection to Frank Iacobucci is asinine and ignorant. Anyone familiar with his career will tell you his credentials and integrity are first-rate. He's one of the top legal minds that this country has produced. If the NDP objects to him, that will merely be yet another reminder of why the NDP should not be allowed to run a lemonade stand, never mind a country. They're clowns.

http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

"Having any objection to Frank Iacobucci is asinine and ignorant."

I only have one question that requires clarification. Why, exactly, would he have originally taken on the job as an extra-parliamentary party to the whole mess before the speaker made his decision? His history indicates that he must have known he had no authority to hand down any judgement in that situation, yet he allowed himself to take the work.
tobyornotoby

If he's so first rate why did he let himself get used by the Conservatives in their partisan ass covering?

Shouldn't Iacobucci have counselled that an intervention by him would supplant the role of parliament? Shouldn't he, as a former Supreme Court Justice, have suggested they appoint an inquiry before a sitting judge with terms of reference that ensured independence, rather than retaining counsel to defend the point of view of one party to a disagreement?

Whether it was a momentary lapse of judgement or whether he's some kind of anti-disclosure hawk in Supreme's clothing, or actually partisan doesn't matter. He ought to have known that joining one side of a partisan political dispute would undermine at least the appearance of independendence, and it's arrogant of both him and the Harper Government to carry on as if that hasn't happened.

Orson Bean

You've completely misconstrued Iacobucci's appropriate role as a lawyer and jurist in this case. He was retained by somebody to do something, in his capacity as a legal expert. You're taking issue with the political and parliamentary context of that retainer. Really your problem is with what the Harper government chose to do, because you preferred that they call an inquiry. I don't disagree with that view. But that's different from saying that Iacobucci did anything inappropriate from a legal or ethical point of view. He was retained to do something, and had he done it (reviewed documents for their appropriateness for disclosure), I have no doubt, based on his stellar record as a legal scholar and jurist, that he would have done an excellent job. Iacobucci was not retained to advise the government on whether they should have retained him in the first place, or whether they should have done something else, such as call an inquiry.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I understand your point, but posit that it hadn't gotten that far. I suggest that Iacobucci took the role presuming that it was something Parliament had, if not specifically approved, not specifically rejected. Your point holds sway if Parliament had specifically rejected that solution. But they didn't–they negotiated a different settlement instead, at least as I understand what went on.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

So then Iaccobucci didn't look at any documents, didn't draw any conclusions and didn't get paid?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I don't know. But I also don't really see what difference that would make. Even if he did, he wasn't overriding the supremacy of Parliament, is all I'm saying. Also, just because someone works for the government, that doesn't mean they accept their ideology. You can be completely non-partisan, or even a devoted Liberal/NDP/Green/Bloc fan and still do good work for the Conservatives.