Cases

Notable Cases

From left to right: Maher Arar and Dr. Monia Mazigh with civil trial team, Julian Falconer (left), Ted Charney (center) and Julian Roy (right)
• Maher Arar et al v. The Attorney General of Canada et al, Action #05-CV-030945
• Hill v. Hamilton Wentworth Police (on reserve in the Supreme Court of Canada)
• Odhavji Estate et al v. Woodhouse et al, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263
• R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128 *
• R. v. P. (M.B.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555
• R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20
• Gnanasegaram v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada (2005), 251 D.L.R. (4th) 340 (O.C.A.)
• Euteneier v. Lee (2005), 260 D.L.R. (4th) 123 (O.C.A.)
• R. v. Spencer (2004), 72 O.R. (3d) 47 (C.A.)
• R. v. Brown (2003), 64 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.) *
• Toronto (Metropolitan) Police Force v. Bromell et al, [2000] O.J. No. 1674 * [Operation True Blue]
• R. v. Budreo (2000), 46 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.)
• R. v. Willis (1994), 90 C.C.C. (3d) 350 (C.A.) *
• Booth v. Huxter (1994), 16 O.R. (3d) 528 (Ont. Div.)
• Black Action Defence Committee and Urban Alliance on Race Relations v. Huxter (1992), 11 O.R. (3d) 641 (Ont. Div.)
• R. v. Kruper, A.L.R.(2d), Volume 45, Part 4, September 15,1986 (Alta. Prov. Ct.) [Julian's first successful Charter challenge as a law student]

Notable Inquests

• Inquest into the death of Lester Donaldson
  [Counsel for Urban Alliance on Race Relations]
• Inquest into the death of Robert Gentles
  [Counsel for the family]
• Inquest into the death of Edmund Yu
  [Counsel for the family]
• Inquest into the death of Wayne Williams
  [Counsel for the family]
• Inquest into the death of Patrick Shand Jr.
  [Counsel for the Family]
• Ipperwash Inquiry
  [Counsel for the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto]

Quotable Quotes

“A VOICE FOR THE POWERLESS: As the son of a Jamaican father and Jewish mother, Julian Falconer knew at an early age what it was like to be an outsider. In retrospect, he was training for his present role as a civil rights lawyer.”

National Post, December 20, 2000

View Full Article

““I have a great deal of respect for the work police do. I'm the first one to admit I couldn't do their job. They have a right to go home to their families. The problem is, they carry a gun and they're licensed to use lethal force. Questions must be asked. It's all about accountability.””

National Post, December 20, 2000

View Full Article

. . . I have a six-year-old son and a 19-month old son. When my six-year-old is 16 years or 17 years of age, I will be encouraging him to engage in democratic debate. He might ask me where was I when this law [Anti-Terrorism Act] was passed that allows people to be summoned to a secret room to be asked about their religious beliefs, I want to be able to say proudly that I was trying to call the attention of the country to the problem. I think that you, with great respect, ought to be saying the same things to yourselves. This is wrong.

Excerpted Statements of Julian Falconer before the Senate Committee on the Anti-Terrorism Act (December 2001)

View Full Article

Excerpted Statements of Julian Falconer before the Senate Committee (December 2001) from Hansard on the Anti-Terrorism Act 38475     0930-1

UNREVISED/NON REVISE
THE SPECIAL SENATE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-36
EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 5, 2001

The Chairman: Good morning. For those who may be watching these proceedings, we are into our third day of hearings on Bill C-36, which is the legislation involving our anti-terrorist measures brought forward by the federal government pass a result of the events which occurred in the United States on September 11 . . .

Mr. Julian Falconer, Senior Counsel, Urban Alliance on Race Relations: . . . As the Senate, you are not ineffective in your work. You are not impotent to Canadian democracy. You have a role to play. That role comes to a head when legislation of this nature, legislation that is potentially more significant than any act passed in the past 50 years in this country, is being considered. I urge you to recommend to the Senate key amendments to this legislation in order to ensure that balance is its hallmark which, as we indicate at page 16 our submission, is governed by a schedule determined, in great respect, by murderers.

. . . Unfortunately, we are in a climate that is rife with panic more than reason; rife with fear, more than any other climate we have faced in decades.

. . . I ask you to consider that the Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Anne McLellan, repeatedly noted that if we do not stop the terrorists getting on the planes, it is too late. With great respect to the Attorney General, these are not the words of rational, slow, and cautious legislative officers. These are words of panic.

She may well be right. Indeed, I think that she probably is right. However, tempering our legitimate security concerns with rational acts is key to this legislation.

. . . I ask you to consider whether it is essential that religious beliefs be on trial. It was not essential for the U.S. Patriots Act. It is not essential for any of the investigation that is have occurred to date.

. . . I ask you to re-consider this. As we get closer and closer to the abyss of this legislation becoming law, we must appreciate that it will be well nigh impossible to roll back mistakes that we make. I ask you as a committee, to take the steps necessary to protect not only the security of the country, but also the key civil liberties under which we live . . . I have a six-year-old son and a 19-month old son. When my six-year-old is 16 years or 17 years of age, I will be encouraging him to engage in democratic debate. He might ask me where was I when this law was passed that allows people to be summoned to a secret room to be asked about their religious beliefs, I want to be able to say proudly that I was trying to call the attention of the country to the problem. I think that you, with great respect, ought to be saying the same things to yourselves. This is wrong. It is not necessary. If it is not necessary, it ought not to happen.