Blog Layout

Lawrence Hatfield – Key Note Speaker for the Opening of Court / Red Mass

Aug 16, 2010

AFGHANISTAN AND THE RULE OF LAW

The invitation to the Red Mass announced my topic this morning as the “Rule of Law in Afghanistan.”  As an officer with Hamilton’s Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada, I recently spent 8 months in Afghanistan with another Argyll officer helping to train the Afghan National Army.  Because I am also a personal injury lawyer here in Hamilton, the topic of the “Rule of Law in Afghanistan”, I suppose, seemed an obvious one for a lawyer and a soldier but I am certain that most of you would be hard-pressed, given the almost daily coverage of Canada’s mission, to think that the rule of law had anything to do with Afghanistan.  I will not disabuse you of that notion. My topic is more centred on the rule of law and Ontario than it is on Afghanistan although I will certainly touch upon it.  Imagine: Warring factionalism, invading armies, hostile groups, the widespread use of political violence, the tentative hold of the administration of justice, political instability, and the use of public execution to make brutal examples to an uncertain populace.


Together, they present an image of war-torn Afghanistan and provide the numerous critics of the mission with plentiful and stark evidence to demand an early end to it. But, I am not referring to a far-off place. Rather, I am taking you back to this province and, indeed, to this local area almost 200 years ago. We are coming up to the bicentennial of the War of 1812 and, we are not far from such scenes. Let me set the picture.


In June of 1812 Canada was invaded…. two American armies pushed into Upper Canada, one across the Niagara River another from the Detroit.  Unfortunately some members of the Upper Canadian parliament deserted to the Americans and formed a renegade Corps of Canadian Volunteers that committed depredations throughout this area and burned Niagara-on-the-Lake.  In 1813 Hamilton was under threat of the American army that was pushing across the Niagara peninsula. Hamilton’s last ditch defenses consisted of a rag-tag group of refugees, British military units, local militia, and natives camped around the present site of Dundurn Castle awaiting a final onslaught. Twice during the spring and summer of 1813, American amphibious forces captured the capital York (now Toronto) and liberated the jail.  The situation was tenuous and the outcome in doubt.  In December 1813, the British military administrator of the province decided to hold a special commission on cases of treason in order “to make examples.”  The commission was convened at Ancaster in May 1814 In the end, of the 17 convicted, 8 were executed on 20 July 1814 near the corner of York Boulevard and Locke Street. These men were hanged, drawn, and quartered.


Now, what does this little lesson in local and provincial history have to do with Afghanistan and the rule of law? It provides a point of comparison and a perspective to view our role that is the role of the legal community, within this society.


The invitation to the Red Mass quotes the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms whereby “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law….” Principles that recognize … the rule of law” it’s a phrase that bears repeating. At the same time of our local instability, Napoleon a man who knew something of disorder and order in society but understood clearly, as he put it: There is no authority without justice.”


Canadian soldiers are used to the obvious characteristics of Afghanistan – the heat, the cold, and the incessant wind. You get used to them, you adapt to them, and you endure them. But, there are things that cannot be endured.  There is an old saying that there is no justice without the sword.  This is true but I can tell you that with just the sword, there is also no justice.


In the seemingly endless debate about the mission in Afghanistan, commentators note the need for clean water, proper sanitation facilities, roads and bridges, schools, hospitals, an economy based on something other than opium, and on the list goes. Certain critics want us to concentrate only on these admittedly good things. However, in Kandahar province, this country’s soldiers strive to establish order as a foundation for everything else, for anything else. What is most important? These answers are easy: first is order and a close second is the rule of law. Law which the inhabitants of that country accept over the rule of individuals whether they be tribal chieftains, criminals, or thugs of whatever description who know nothing beyond the sword.


My tour in Afghanistan brought home to me that without the rule of law, there is nothing beyond the rule of force. I have seen it in Afghanistan and I have done my modest bit as a soldier to help that society establish a national army to guarantee order. I want to take a moment to briefly explain my job of helping to train the Afghan National Army also known as the ANA.


The ANA is one of the few success stories in Afghanistan as they are in the process of creating a true professional army. This volunteer army is working hard to overcome traditional tribal and ethic loyalties to create a truly national institution that will eventually enable the country to become self sufficient in its own security. Training the Afghan soldiers was a rewarding experience on two unique levels. First was the personal experience of working daily with the Afghan soldiers. The Afghans are natural warriors who have no shortage of courage but rather lack the training, skills and organization of a professional army.  Often when we were outside of the camp it would be just myself and another Canadian soldier with a company of 200 Afghan soldiers, there is no question that I trusted them with my life.


Many of my Afghan friends and comrades spent much of the time of the Taliban rule living in refugee camps on the border of Iran or Pakistan. They returned at the fall of the Taliban with hope of returning to and building a better country.  They always expressed an appreciation of the assistance we provided. They were impressed that we would leave our country and our families and risk our lives to help them. They are people who have nothing but would literally give you the shirt off their backs. My experience gave me a true appreciation for the Afghan soldier and the Afghan people.


The second rewarding part of my position is that I could see first hand real progress being made with the soldiers I worked with.  Every month the quality and quantity of the soldiers in training increased and even more important is that the Afghan military leaders continued to assume more responsibility over time. By no means is the ANA perfect, they still have a long way to go and Canadian troops in Kandahar are sustaining order while the ANA is building.  With the ANA I believe they are doing it the right way, not the quickest, cheapest or easiest but the most effective and sustainable over the long term.


But with the success of the Afghan Army and the imposition of order must come the rule of law beginning with a professional police force and a legal community dedicated to the principles of the idea of the rule of law.


I have seen a war torn country and I consider myself blessed to live in a country governed by the rule of law and to work in profession, which embodies the reality of the rule of law over the rule of force.  The combination of order, political stability, and the rule of law is rare in the world, and 200 years ago it had not yet sunk firm roots here. Over time, it did, however, it was not perfect but in human society comparison reveals how good it is.


It was accomplished through the work of a group of people dedicated to the principles of the rule of law. A group of professionals including such lawyer/soldiers as Allan MacNab in the 1850s.  Over the course of the 20th century, this profession has striven daily to ensure that these blessings are maintained in our day-to-day life. And, members of this profession have served militarily to ensure the continuance of this way of life.  Members of our legal community have provided the ultimate service and made the ultimate sacrifice.


My own Regiment – the Argylls – was the creation of two soldier lawyers in Hamilton – William Chisholm and Alexander Logie. During the Second World War both of Hamilton’s esteemed infantry regiments Argylls and the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry affectionately known as the Rileys were led by members of the legal profession. In my own regiment I note Captain Mac Smith, a practicing lawyer who months before completing his PhD dropped everything, and took a reduction in rank to join the regiment off to war. On April 8th, 1945 a single bullet found Captain Smith in the final days of the war while he was attempting to cross the Ems River, in Germany…. He died instantly.  A commanding officer of my regiment LCol Fred Wigle, a Hamiltonian and a member of one of Hamilton’s famous legal families gave his life overseas as well.  Another prominent member of our legal community the Honourable Mr Justice and Lieutenant Colonel Hugh Arrell was a wartime commanding officer of the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry he was in fact the CO who brought the Rileys back home to Hamilton at the end of the war.


Members of our profession are noted for their post war military service such as the Honourable Mr Justice Lofchik who as a young man served as a peacekeeper in the Gaza Strip and his son now serves in the Argylls and is currently training to deploy to Afghanistan in the next rotation. Today there are members of our legal community that continue to serve with the Canadian forces. I believe it should be no surprise to anyone here today that Hamilton’s legal community has a proud history of military service.  The concept of service to others in ingrained within this community.  From the early days of Hamilton to the present, the Hamilton’s legal community has an outstanding reputation of service to country and community. Whether it be International scale such as the missionary work of The Honourable Mr Justice Marshal or on the local level of leading the local soccer team members of our profession volunteer their time, their money, and their talents to help make it a better place. They provide leadership in a wide range of local institutions and always the aim is the greater good of the community.


Jokes about lawyers are a dime a dozen and, no doubt, some may nod in agreement with the recent attack upon lawyers published in Macleans. So be it. But, rare is it that there is not a board, an organization, or a charity, in this community that does not include a member of this legal community.  In our profession time is critical, it is measured, billed, docketed and valued and it seems there is just never enough of it. Yet, as a profession, we embody a sense of service…. or duty as we call it in the military – it is just expected.  Law School applicants are advised not to apply without a record of community service, law schools themselves have more student organizations focused on community service than any other faculty and young lawyers are expected to continue this involvement upon entering the profession. It is not just expected but assumed that when you enter law you give back. If I were to name the numerous community groups and charities in the Hamilton area such as the Big Brothers , the United way or the YMCA just to mention a few and asked that people stand if they belonged to them, it would not be long before I had standing audience.  This sense of service of our community I believe is based on the same fundamentals as our service in Afghanistan. I think this esteemed audience understands that. Our Mission in Afghanistan is hard, it is varied, it is multi-faceted and it brings Canadian soldiers into combat for the first sustained time since Korea.


Over the past 30 or so years, Canadians have come to think we can have justice in the world without the sword and when in Afghanistan we draw the sword, many Canadians are shocked and wonder:  whether it is worth it, or whether there is an easier way, or suggest that someone other than Canadians should do it.  How this growing debate will unfold, I have no idea. I will say this.  From our own experience over the past 200 years, we should realize that the combination of order and the rule of law are the fundamental building blocks for everything else, and they don’t come easily, and they do take time. We didn’t achieve it in 5 years or even 50 years but we did achieve it.  Was it worth it? I think about my profession, how I live my life day-to-day, how my wife and I raise our family, and answer yes.  When I hear of Canadians leaving Afghanistan I wonder what would have been Allen McNab”s, Mac Smith”s, or Hugh Arrell”s reaction to such notions.


Personally when I think about it I go back to a quote of Thomas Paine (a philosopher of the American revolution) that was posted in my camp in Afghanistan which I would see every time we left the security of camp to conduct operations. It read: “If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace”


Afghanistan is a country that has had a history of war and turmoil. Afghanistan has been locked in Canada’s 1800s for too long to remember.  The past 30 years have been particularly brutal.  Young AFGHAN soldiers I have trained had no exposure to good government, justice or stability; they have grown up under tyranny, turmoil and war.  From communist rule, to the war with the Soviet Union, to civil war and then the Taliban.  Afghanistan is struggling and needs help.   When people question why should we help Afghanistan.  I go back to that ideal of service to others we cherish in this legal community. This ideal was not lost on one Canadian soldier who wrote:


“Look at the world we live in and think not of your neighbour down the street but think of your neighbour from another country. Think of their children and the plight they exist in each day. Remember this as we soldiers go and do our jobs. Remember that we go, even in the face of imminent danger, we go of our free will. Most with reason and purpose tied to our homes, our love of country…. Support us even in times of hardship. Without our nations’ support, we have no heart, no purpose, and no soul. We, the Canadian soldier”


Private Mark Graham, wrote that in May 2006, three months before he became the 32nd Canadian Soldier to die in Afghanistan and the first Hamiltonian.  Private Graham emphasizes the importance of the support from home and since I have this forum I want to take a moment to acknowledge and give thanks to those who have supported me and my family during my tour in Afghanistan.  I could not but acknowledge my Regiment the Argylls and the many Argyll friends who supported my family and I throughout the tour.  My Argyll comrades in Afghanistan specifically Lt Col Geordie Elms and Captain Carlo Tittarelli. I soldiered with Carlo everyday in Afghanistan he was always there to “watch my back”.  In Afghanistan Carlo also found his calling with the law and just last week started University of Western Ontario law School he asked that I put in a good word for a articling job.  My clients, all supported and none complained. The Hamilton legal community was unwavering it is support, I am certainly grateful for all the accommodations from bench and bar to the disruptions to my legal practice.  The lawyers of Sullivan Festeryga specifically The Honourable Mr Justice Harrison Arrell and Dan Rosenkrantz who supported Shari and I in a very difficult situation.  My friends and colleagues in the Morris Law Group (specifically Sumitra, Alicia and Janice) who shouldered the extra load.  Bill Morris, my mentor, my friend. I was a little disappointed in a recent Hamilton spectator article on employer support for army reservists. It did not do justice to the overwhelming support I have received.  Bill has been one of the biggest supporters of my military career; I still remember the day I went in to ask him about deploying to Afghanistan, after he asked me if I was nuts he did not hesitate in throwing his support behind me.  Bill I truly do appreciate it.  Finally, I thank my wife Shari. She is the real armour of this soldier, she dropped her practice to take over mine, without her steadfast support of me and our young family, I could never have gone to Afghanistan.


I thank you all for helping me….Afghanistan was an experience that taught me much about soldiering and even more about the priceless gift so often taken for granted by Canadians – the rule of law.


Major Lawrence Hatfield


Hamilton


10 September, 2007

11 May, 2015
We are paying something for nothing. The mandatory accident benefits policy in Ontario provides minimal coverage for the vast number of people injured in car crashes. Presently, over 90% of victims are restricted to payment of a maximum of $3,500.00. They are forced by law to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollar PER YEAR for this coverage. Ask yourself. Would you voluntarily pay $1,000.00 per year of $3,500.00 worth of life insurance? Of course not. But the Government of Ontario forces you to pay for this very poor product. It’s time to speak to your Member of Provincial Parliament. See the full facts here. http://truthaboutinsurance.ca/drs-lazar-prisman-report/
11 May, 2015
The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association has prepared a series of blogs identifying current issues with the recent budget and how it impacts people injured by Motor vehicles. Please read the full blog here. http://otlablog.com/hidden-costs-of-the-provincial-budget/ Part One of a Three-Part Series on the 2015 Ontario Budget Last month, the Ontario Liberal government revealed its latest budget entitled “Building Ontario Up” but what it does to our auto insurance benefits is actually the opposite by significantly slashing benefits available to accident victims. This follows promises that tout more affordable insurance but do not disclose the true cost to those who find themselves in need of the coverage now, and those who will unfortunately need the protection in the future. The rationale of the Liberal government is that the reduced benefits will lower claim costs which will then be passed on to the consumer in the form of savings on premiums. A promise to reduce rates by 15% was made about two years ago but in reality, and by their own admission, has not been realized. It is estimated that since 2013 rates have decreased by only about 7%, and many of us still have not seen that reduction. On the other hand, the cuts to benefits will be effective immediately once the budget is passed. The reduced premiums come at the cost of a 50% slash to (or total elimination of) many benefits that were once part of mandatory insurance coverage prior to the 2010 reforms. The erosion of available benefits is disproportionate to any rate decrease and is unfair to consumers. According to the Liberal budget, “…costs in Ontario’s auto insurance system remain too high,” While a reduction in claim costs is welcomed by consumers and stakeholders alike, it can be achieved through other means. For example, as discussed on the OTLA blog following the release of Justice Cunningham’s review of the Dispute Resolution System late last year, insurers spent thousands of dollars on Independent Medical Assessments which account for roughly 25% of total health claims expenses. Despite this, the Liberal government made the choice to save costs by reducing available benefits rather than regulating insurer practices. The insurance industry has been crying poor through persistent lobbying (that also comes at a great cost), while profits have been on the rise since the initial cuts began in 2010. The latest benefit cuts will surely continue to boost these margins. Data released by the General Insurance Statistical Agency (GISA) suggests a dramatic reduction in Accident Benefit claims from $3.8 billion in 2009 to a low of $1.9 billion in 2012. While claims over the past year were projected to rise to $2.2 billion they are still down overall. This has allowed insurers to reap massive profits at the expense of those who need it most: accident victims. Profits remain high, payments to claimants remain low, and benefits are further restricted with trivial savings that may never end up in the consumer’s pocket. What additional cuts can we expect from this budget? The budget combines the medical and rehabilitation benefit which currently offers $50,000 of coverage and the attendant care benefit which currently offers $36,000 of coverage into one cumulative coverage limit of $65,000 – a reduction of more than $20,000. In the case of the catastrophically injured, attendant care and medical and rehabilitation benefits have been reduced from $2 million to a combined total of $1 million. This begs the question: is a 50% reduction in benefits worth a 7% reduction in premiums to some consumers in Ontario? The real kicker is that Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath – whose party propped up the Liberal minority in exchange for the 15% reduction to auto premiums – has publicly opposed the proposed changes stating, “…if you are talking to the insurance industry, they are going to try to paint it in a way that looks like they are really struggling. I don’t think anyone in this room believes that for a minute and I certainly don’t.” She went on further to say that “…in 2010 the (Liberal) government made changes to the policies around insurance and all that did, instead of creating an opportunity for reductions, is it created an opportunity for insurance companies to pocket more money.” So what has the Liberal government and the insurance industry offered the public in exchange for the slashing of benefits? A mandatory discount for winter tires. Think about that the next time you’re shopping for a set of Michelins. This blog post was contributed by Michael Giordano, Junior Partner and Monty Dhaliwal, Associate Lawyer of Sal Guzzo LL. B.
23 May, 2014
Ontario auto insurance: How much worse can things get for victims? Changes in 2010 created windfall profits for insurers by slashing coverage for the vast majority. We need to restore fairness and impose a moratorium on further reductions in coverage! In September 2010, the Ontario government introduced sweeping changes to auto insurance in response to pressure from the insurance industry to contain injury costs despite the industry’s long-standing failure to address systemic fraud in the system. The MIG: Minor Injury Guideline for victims The main feature of the so-called reforms was the MIG – the Minor Injury Guideline. What did it mean? Coverage for the vast majority of policyholders was slashed from $100,000 for medical and rehabilitation treatment to the paltry level of $3,500 maximum for medical and rehab needs following an accident. The MIG currently captures up to 75 per cent of all accident victims in Ontario, often without regard for the seriousness of the injuries involved. OTLA members report that many clients in the MIG typically exhaust their maximum benefit of $3,500 very quickly, leaving them without access to needed treatment. Clients are often forced in the Minor Injury category despite having injuries that could not reasonably be considered as “minor” e.g. serious fractures and brain injuries. The MIG: Major Income Generator for insurance companies It’s really no surprise what happens when premiums are increased and insurance payments are dramatically reduced for most injured accidents victims. In fact, the “good news” for insurance companies started to become apparent almost immediately. Here’s what one insurance CEO quipped, perhaps a bit too candidly, mere months after the changes: “We are starting to see the benefits of the 2010 auto reforms in Ontario, which is combining with our recent focus on proactive broker management and underwriting discipline to generate stronger results.” The early trend that this CEO was talking about here materialized and, by the end of 2012, total auto insurance claims were down more than 20 per cent or a reduction of $4 billion. The tally for auto insurers was more than $3 billion in profits in the first two years following the 2010 changes. Early indications for 2013 indicate that auto insurance companies in Ontario continue to enjoy strong results to this day. It should come as little surprise to anyone that insurance companies are doing extremely well under this model: then again, you can’t lose when you’re charging more and paying out a lot less. Ontario, now the worst coverage in the country As a result of the September 2010 changes, Ontario emerged as the only jurisdiction in the country with a special category of insurance for so-called “minor” injuries. And, significantly, Ontario has the lowest level of compensation for this category of injury. Even the insurance industry’s own data supports this contention with average claims payouts down dramatically from previous levels and more claimants than ever being captured by the MIG. But how much worse can things get for victims? Once again, columnist Alan Shanoff has documented the steady slide in coverage over the past few years in Ontario. Read his comments here. He ends his article this way: “One thing is certain. The current system can’t get much worse for accident victims. Victims need timely, adequate accident benefits even more than they need premium cuts.” Help make things better for victims! As a candidate, here’s how you can help ensure that the system doesn’t get any worse for victims: Demand that your party impose a moratorium on further auto insurance coverage reductions It’s time for our politicians to stop worrying about how to allow insurance companies to make more money, and start concerning themselves with how to restore fairness in our automobile insurance system.
Share by: