Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Consumer Product Safety Act, June 2011


Published on

Blakes Regulatory and Litigation & Dispute Resolution Groups discuss the implications of the CCPSA for manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers. Topics include:

An overview of the legislation
Incident reporting
Recall obligations
Litigation risks, including class actions, confidentiality issues, danger to human health or safety, and the precautionary principle

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Consumer Product Safety Act, June 2011

  1. 1. Implications of the New Canada Consumer Product Safety Act Wednesday, June 8, 2011MONTRÉAL OTTAWA TORONTO CALGARY VANCOUVER NEW YORK CHICAGO LONDON BAHRAIN AL-KHOBAR* BEIJING SHANGHAI**Associated Office Blake,Cassels & Graydon LLP
  2. 2. Seminar Index Implications of the New Canada Consumer Product Safety Act Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 TABPresentation Slides ...................................................... 1• Overview: Canada Consumer Product Safety Act Laura Weinrib• Incident Reporting under the CCPSA Alice Tseng• Record Keeping under the CCPSA Laura Weinrib• Recalls under the CCPSA: What’s So New About Recalls? Elizabeth McNaughton• The Precautionary Principle and Enforcement under the Sharon Wong CCPSA• CCPSA and Class Action Risk Robin LinleySpeaker Profiles ........................................................... 2
  3. 3. Tab 1
  4. 4. Implications of the New Canada Consumer Product Safety Act June 8, 2011
  5. 5. Overview: Canada Consumer Product Safety Act Presented by: Laura Weinrib Application• Applies to “consumer products” – applies to products, including components, parts or accessories and packaging, that can be reasonably obtained by an individual for non-commercial purposes (specifically includes domestic, recreation and sports purposes)• Exclusions – excludes products currently regulated under certain specific legislation (e.g., food, drugs, natural health products, medical devices, cosmetics, pest control products, most vehicles, plants, controlled substances) Prohibitions• Prohibition against the manufacture, importation, advertisement or sale of consumer products that pose a “danger to human health or safety” – “danger to human health or safety” is defined as “any unreasonable hazard – existing or potential – that is posed by a consumer product during or as a result of its normal or foreseeable use and that may reasonably be expected to cause the death ... or have an adverse effect on that individual’s health – including an injury... .”• Prohibits packaging, labelling or advertising that is false, misleading or deceptive, as it relates to health and safety
  6. 6. Record-Keeping and Testing• Record-Keeping – document preparation and maintenance requirements for all who manufacture, import, advertise, sell or test consumer products for commercial purposes, to facilitate product tracing• Testing – government can order commercial manufacturers and importers to conduct consumer product safety tests/compile information and provide the results Incident Reporting and Recalls• Incident Reporting – requires manufacturers, importers and sellers to report within 2 days when they have knowledge of an “incident” – “incident” defined to include a defect, recall, erroneous/insufficient label information or occurrence that results or could result in serious injury or death• Mandatory Recalls – Minister of Health given power to order mandatory recalls or other corrective measures where the inspector reasonably believes the product poses a danger to human health or safety Inspection Powers• Broad inspection powers under the Act for purpose of verifying compliance and preventing non-compliance• Health Canada inspectors may: – enter a location in which they have reasonable grounds to believe that activities related to consumer products take place (e.g. manufacturing, importation, advertisement, packaging, storage, testing and sale) – examine, test or take samples of anything found in the location – open a receptacle or package found in the location – examine a document and make a copy of it; take photographs – seize and detain an article – use local computers to examine documents
  7. 7. Offences, Fines and Penalties• Offences – it is an offence to contravene the Act, or any orders made or regulations under the Act• Fines and Penalties – up to $5-million and/or 2 years imprisonment for most offences – unlimited fines and/or up to 5 years imprisonment for certain offences or for knowingly or recklessly contravening the Act, any regulations or an inspector’s order – if company commits offence, its directors, officers and agents who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced or participated in offence could be a party to offence and convicted Administrative Monetary Penalties• The Act creates an Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMP) scheme with a lower civil standard of proof for contraventions of recall or other orders• Maximum $25,000 penalty per violation• An alternative to criminal prosecution What the Future Holds• In force June 20, 2011• Regulations and guidelines to flesh out specifics and processes?• Exemptions for certain activities?• Will significantly alter the regulatory landscape for anyone that manufactures, imports, packages, advertises or sells consumer products in Canada where those products are not exempt from the legislation
  8. 8. Incident Reporting under the CCPSA Presented by: Alice Tseng Mandatory Reporting Requirement• What is a reportable incident?• When must it be reported? Definition of “Incident”1. An occurrence in Canada or elsewhere that resulted or may reasonably have been expected to result in an individual’s death or in serious adverse effects on their health, including a serious injury2. A defect or characteristic that may reasonably be expected to result in an individual’s death or in serious adverse effects on their health, including a serious injury3. Incorrect or insufficient labelling information or instructions that may reasonably be expected to result in an individual’s death or in serious adverse effects on their health, including a serious injury, or4. A recall or measure initiated for human health or safety reasons by: – a foreign entity – a provincial government – a public body established under provincial legislation – an aboriginal government – an institution of any of the above
  9. 9. Reportable?• Is the event “related” to a “consumer product” that you manufacture, import or sell in Canada?• Does the event meet the definition of an “incident”?• Does the event relate to the normal or foreseeable use or misuse of the product? Timelines• Two days – manufacturer, importer or seller – file incident report• Ten days – manufacturer or importer – file written report Written Report (10 Days)• Shall contain information about: – the incident – the product involved in the incident – any products they manufacture or import that to their knowledge could be involved in a similar incident – any measures taken or proposed to be taken with respect to those products
  10. 10. Confidential Business InformationCCPSA permits disclosure under two circumstances:1. disclosure is to a person/government carrying out functions relating to protecting human health or safety or the environment2. disclosure is essential to address a serious and imminent danger to human health or safety or the environmentConfidential Business Information (cont’d)• Access to Information Act still applies• Test for keeping information confidential is different than under CCPSA Tips for Compliance• Ensure processes are in place to ensure appropriate flow of information within organization about events• Take the time to determine whether an incident is reportable, but be diligent in making this determination• Timelines commence after an incident is determined to be reportable• Consider designating a “Chief Product Safety Officer”• When filing reports, mark as “confidential”, avoid submitting personal information and draft carefully (e.g., include facts, not opinion)
  11. 11. Record-Keeping under the CCPSA Presented by: Laura WeinribGeneral Record-Keeping Requirements• Any person who manufacturers, imports, advertises, sells or tests a consumer product for commercial purposes must prepare and maintain certain documents• Purpose is to improve the traceability of non-compliant products in the event a danger must be addressed• A Health Canada inspector can request access to documents that are required to be maintained Record-Keeping Responsibilities• Retailer responsibilities – record name and address of person from whom consumer product was obtained – record location(s) where product was sold and the time period when it was sold – no requirement to keep documents of consumer transactions or personal information• Manufacturer, importer, advertiser, seller (other than retailer) and tester responsibilities – record name and address of any person from whom consumer product was obtained or to whom they sold, or both, as applicable
  12. 12. Time and Manner of Record-Keeping• Records must be retained for six years after the end of the year to which they relate (unless a different time is specified by regulation)• Relevant persons must keep records at their place of business in Canada• Minister of Health may exempt a person from the requirement to keep records in Canada if minister considers the requirement unnecessary or impractical Exemptions?• In fall 2010, Health Canada conducted a consultation on proposed exemption regulations, which would exempt the recipient of a consumer product where: 1. the consumer product is donated (i.e., given for no consideration) 2. the donation is from a person other than a manufacturer, importer, distributor or retailer• If an item is being donated by a manufacturer, importer, distributor or retailer, the exemption would not apply• More consultations planned for this year Additional Documentation Requirements• Many regulations are being transferred from the Hazardous Products Act to the CCPSA – some of these regulations have additional record- keeping requirements that will continue to apply – these requirements have their own timelines
  13. 13. Recalls under the CCPSA: What’s So New About Recalls? Presented by: Elizabeth McNaughton Recalls Pre-June 20, 2011• “Voluntary” recall• Mandatory recall for food• Mandatory reporting example• Why a mandatory recall power? Recalls as of June 20• Mandatory recall order – danger to human health or safety • unreasonable hazard • hazard existing or potential • normal or foreseeable use of product • causing death or adverse effect on health including injury • acute or chronic adverse effect • short or long term – order to state reasons, time and manner of recall – order manufacturer, importer, vendor – HC can recall if you don’t and at your expense
  14. 14. Corrective Measures Order• Who? Manufacturer, importer, advertiser or seller• Why? Failure to comply with order to test; failure to recall; product subject to voluntary recall; contravention of the Act• What? Stop manufacture, importation, etc.; “any measure” necessary for product to comply with Act or prevent danger to human health or safety• What else? HC can take corrective measures at your expense Can an Order Be Reviewed?• Request in writing• Short time frame to request – max. 7 days• Order remains in force unless review officer suspends• Order – confirmed, amended, terminated or cancelled Recall Readiness• Recall plan – prepare plan - SOPs – review and update – recall team – training – conduct mock recall• Ensure senior management support for program• Review and update supply agreements
  15. 15. The Precautionary Principleand Enforcement under the CCPSA Presented by: Sharon WongWhat Is the Precautionary Principle?• Main concept: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” (The Wingspread Consensus Statement on the Precautionary Principle)When Must Precautionary Measures Be Taken?• Factors to be considered: – possibility, plausibility or probability – considering costs and benefits – Risk = Probability x Damage
  16. 16. Precautionary Principle Accepted as an Aid to Statutory Interpretation • Supreme Court decision in Spray-Tech v. Hudson (2001) – court had to interpret whether power to pass by-laws ‘to secure health and general welfare in the municipality’ gave Town the power to restrict pesticide use within the Town Spray-Tech v. Hudson (cont’d) • Court upheld Town’s right to pass the by-law, in part based on the Precautionary Principle – “the Towns concerns about pesticides fit well under their rubric of preventive action” • Precautionary Principle accepted as an aid to statutory interpretation Precautionary Principle Intended to Apply to the CCPSA • Preamble to the CCPSA: “Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that a lack of full scientific certainty is not to be used as a reason for postponing measures that prevent adverse effects on human health if those effects could be serious or irreversible;”
  17. 17. Precautionary Principle Intended to Apply to the CCPSA (cont’d)• Definition of “danger to human health or safety” includes any unreasonable hazard – existing or potential – posed by a consumer product as a result of its normal or foreseeable use that may reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on an individual’s health How the Principle Could Be Applied Under CCPSA1. A recall could be ordered if there is only a potential to cause harm even if there is no scientific certainty the harm will occur• A Recall Order can be reviewed by a Review Officer, who will decide based on his or her own assessment of the risk• The Recall Order continues in effect during the review unless the Review Officer decides otherwise – better safe than sorry How the Principle Could Be Applied Under CCPSA (cont’d)• Possibility of judicial review by the Federal Court, but court would likely show great deference to Minister based on the Precautionary Principle, i.e., the Spray-Tech v. Hudson decision
  18. 18. How the Principle could be Applied under CCPSA (cont’d)2) Criminal offence for a person to advertise or sell a consumer product that they know is a “danger to human health or safety” – requirement for Crown to prove “knowledge” may be lessened; could be convicted if the accused knew there was a potential to cause harm What Does This Mean for You?• By expressly including the Precautionary Principle, the CCPSA increases the pressure on industry to be alert for possible dangers and to voluntarily take precautionary measures, even if there is no certainty that the product will cause harm. By being proactive, industry can reduce the likelihood of government imposing a solution by regulation or recall.
  19. 19. CCPSA and Class Action Risk Presented by: Robin Linley Class Action Landscape• Product liability claims seen as the “quintessential” case for class treatment• Low threshold for certification• Frequently follow a recall• However, not all product liability cases will lend themselves to certification - Ernewein v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. [2005] B.C.C.A. Potential Class Action Drivers under the CCPSA• New recall powers (CCPSA, s. 31)• New mandatory reporting obligations• Increased pressure to take corrective action
  20. 20. No Statutory Civil Cause of Action• The Act does not create an independent civil cause of action for breach• However, proof of breach of statute that has caused damage may be evidence of negligence (Saskatchewan Wheat Pool)• Failure to comply with the Act is likely to be used by the plaintiffs’ bar as evidence of breach of the duty and standard of care Waiver of Tort• Disgorgement remedy focused on the defendant’s gains as opposed to plaintiff’s loss (i.e., profits or net revenue)• May exist as an independent cause of action• Waiver of tort is said to offer the advantage that the plaintiff does not need to prove loss Waiver of Tort (cont’d)• Is breach of statute sufficient to support an independent cause of action based in restitution?
  21. 21. Waiver of Tort (cont’d)• “…[R]ecognition of an independent cause of action in waiver of tort would represent a sea- change in the realm of private law. The justiciability of such a cause of action would depend, in large measure, on the creation of entire categories of civil wrongdoing heretofore unknown to law.” Mitigation Strategies• Review information-gathering processes• Review internal communication processes – report handling – staff training – central point of contact• Product tracking, registration and recall plans Mitigation Strategies (cont’d)• Review of existing labels and product literature for compliance with the Act• Distribution agreements – How have the risks and costs of a recall been allocated?• Consider a progressive PR strategy• ADR procedures• Insurance
  22. 22. Tab 2
  23. 23. Laura Weinrib Associate, Toronto Office Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Direct 416-863-2765 Facsimile 416-863-2653 laura.weinrib@blakes.comProfileLaura Weinrib is an Associate practising with the Intellectual Property Group. Her practice emphasizespharmaceutical, medical device, natural health product, food and consumer product law, and themarketing and advertising of these products. Laura has advised clients on such matters as drug, medicaldevice, natural health product, consumer product and food labelling, and other regulatory issues arisingunder Canadian legislation, including licensing and product safety issues. She has also provided adviceregarding clinical trial agreements, contract research organization agreements, promotional programs,advertising, product claims, the purchase and sale of pharmacies, hospital supply agreements, andconsulting and advisory board agreements.Laura also practises in the area of trade-mark prosecution and opposition.Laura was recently seconded on a part-time time basis to the Canadian offices of a major pharmaceuticalcompany where she provided a broad range of legal services as in-house counsel. She has also spenttime working in the Firms corporate practice, where she assisted with a full range of corporate matters.Laura is a graduate of the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto. Prior to law school, she receivedher master of science from the Department of Medical Biophysics, division of experimental therapeutics,at the University of Toronto. While completing her degree, she conducted research and published articlesin the field of gene therapy. Laura also received her bachelor of science from McGill University, whereshe majored in microbiology and immunology.EducationRegistered Trade-Mark Agent, Canada - 2010Admitted to the Ontario Bar - 2004J.D., University of Toronto - 2003M.Sc., University of Toronto - 2000B.Sc., McGill University - 1998
  24. 24. Alice Tseng Partner, Toronto Office Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Direct 416-863-3067 Facsimile 416-863-2653 alice.tseng@blakes.comProfileAlice Tseng is a Partner in the Intellectual Property Group. She graduated from the Faculty of Pharmacyand the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto and is a licensed pharmacist, lawyer and patentagent.Alice’s practice consists primarily of advising companies in the pharmaceutical, medical device andnatural health product industries. She advises these clients on a diverse range of matters, includingpricing and reimbursement (e.g., rebate and pricing restrictions, formulary listing agreements,agreements with hospital buying groups); regulatory matters relating to safety (e.g., recalls, healthprofessional communications, public advisories) or licensing (e.g. of products or establishments); health-care compliance (e.g., Rx&D, PAAB and MEDEC codes of conduct); advertising and marketing programsand trade disputes; public relations activities (e.g., communications to the media); access to informationmatters (e.g., submissions in response to access to information requests, access to informationlitigation); the sale of drugs through Internet pharmacies; and the purchase and sale of pharmacies.Alice is recognized as a highly recommended lawyer in the area of Life Sciences Regulatory by PLC WhichLawyer? 2010.Alice also advises clients in a variety of industries, especially the food industry, on advertising andmarketing issues generally.EducationAdmitted to Ontario Bar - 1998LL.B., University of Toronto - 1996B.Sc.Phm. (Pharmacy), University of Toronto - 1993
  25. 25. Elizabeth L. McNaughton Partner, Toronto Office Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Direct 416-863-2556 Facsimile 416-863-2653 elizabeth.mcnaughton@blakes.comProfileElizabeth McNaughton is a Partner in the Intellectual Property Group. She is involved in all aspects ofCanadian law affecting food, drug, cosmetic and medical device law; advertising and marketing,including product claims and labelling; privacy; and trade practices. Elizabeths practice emphasizesassisting corporations involved in the marketing of goods and services to comply with Canadian legalrequirements. Elizabeth advises major multi-national organizations on compliance with Canadian privacyrequirements and has been involved in helping to structure major Canadian promotions of goods andservices.Elizabeth is recognized in The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory, The 2011 Lexpert/American LawyerGuide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada, PLC Cross-border Life Sciences Handbook 2010 and LawBusiness Researchs The International Whos Who of Life Sciences Lawyers 2011. In The Best Lawyers inCanada 2011, she was voted by peers as one of the leading advertising and marketing lawyers inCanada. Elizabeth is also recognized in the life sciences-regulatory area as a highly recommendedindividual, and Blakes as a highly recommended firm, in PLC Which Lawyer? 2010.Elizabeth is a past chair of the Canadian Bar Associations Marketing Practices Committee and a pastmember of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Food and Drug Law Journal.Elizabeth has written extensively on a wide range of marketing and advertising law topics and hasspoken on such topics at seminars in Canada and the United States. Elizabeth is a member of Canadianand United States professional organizations in the promotion law and intellectual property law areas andhas served on committees of such organizations.EducationRegistered Trade-Mark Agent, Canada - 1980Admitted to the Ontario Bar - 1972LL.B., University of Toronto - 1970B.A. (Hon.), Queens University - 1967
  26. 26. Sharon Wong Partner, Toronto Office Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Direct 416-863-4178 Facsimile 416-863-2653 sharon.wong@blakes.comProfileSharon Wong is a Partner practising commercial litigation and regulatory law with an emphasis on energyregulation. She has represented a broad range of clients in respect of a variety of commercial disputes,including product liability, breach of contract claims, construction claims, negligence and shareholdermatters. She has also acted in a number of administrative law and regulatory matters, principally beforethe Ontario Energy Board (OEB).In recent years, Sharons list of clients has included EPCOR Utilities, Capital Power Corporation, SpectraEnergy/Union Gas, RBC Energy Services, Imperial Oil, UBS Energy Commodities, Cinergy Solutions,TransAlta Energy, BP Canada Energy, Canadian Hydro Developers, Greater Toronto Airports Authority,Canada Lands Corporation, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, and NestléCanada.Sharon was a part-time instructor for two years for the trial advocacy course at Osgoode Hall Law School- York University, and has been an instructor on several occasions in the intensive trial advocacyprogram for lawyers and at Osgoode Hall Law School professional development programs.Sharon has appeared as trial and appellate counsel before all levels of courts in Ontario and beforevarious federal courts and tribunals. In addition to representing her clients interests in court, Sharonalso works closely with her clients to develop practical and cost-effective solutions to their problems,including through mediation and arbitration.Representative Matters Representing Union Gas and Dawn Gateway Pipeline Limited Partnership at the OEB in regulatory proceedings related to the development of the Dawn Gateway Pipeline, in which the OEB granted a new form of complaints-based, lighthanded regulation, never before used in Ontario; also representing Union Gas in the Natural Gas Electricity Interface Review proceeding in which the OEB decided to refrain from regulating a large portion of Unions natural gas storage business, and also acting for Union in subsequent OEB proceedings relating to the allocation of natural gas storage capacity in Ontario Provided regulatory advice to EPCOR Utilities Inc. and Capital Power Corporation in respect to Capital Powers C$500-million initial public offering of its common shares. Capital Power was established by EPCOR Utilities Inc. to hold its power generation assets and to access additional capital necessary for its growth to become a leading North American independent power producer Canadian Renewable Energy Corporation (successfully obtained leave from the OEB in two proceedings for the construction of electricity transmission lines and also to expropriate land to build the transmission line) UBS Commodities Canada Ltd. v. Ontario Electricity Financial Corp. (successfully represented UBS in a C$4-million breach of contract claim against the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation
  27. 27. relating to a contract to administer approximately 90 electricity power purchase contracts and tomanage the resale of that electricity into Ontarios electricity market)Provided regulatory advice in respect of a competitive bid to acquire multiple hydroelectricgenerating facilities in OntarioRepresented a major Canadian electricity trader in a dispute with Ontarios Independent ElectricitySystem Operator (IESO) over settlement creditsRepresented a distributor of barbeque grills in respect of a safety recall, liaising with HealthCanada and advising on liability issues, and representing them in arbitration proceedings againstthe overseas fabricator of the grillsCity of Kingston v. Ontario Energy Board (acting for Union Gas in respect of a dispute relating to amunicipal franchise agreement to operate gas pipelines in the city of Kingston, initially before theOEB, then on appeal to the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal)City of Sudbury v. Union Gas (acting for Union Gas in respect of the interpretation of municipalfranchise agreement, before the Ontario Superior Court and then on appeal to the Ontario Court ofAppeal)Octagon Capital Corporation (securities regulation, disciplinary matter before Investment DealersAssociation)V Limited v. Former Shareholders of RT (successfully recovered over C$2-million in a privatearbitration proceeding against former shareholders based on breach of representations andwarranties in a share purchase agreement)Heritage Education Funds Inc. v. Canadian Property Holdings Inc. (interpretation of a leaseagreement before the Ontario Superior Court)Stork Werkspoor Canada Limited v. Canadian Blower/Canada Pumps Limited, and others (productliability case in respect of cooling coils installed on Canadian Naval Frigates)Inco Limited v. Howden Group Canada Limited and Hatch Associates Ltd. (product liability case inrespect of equipment manufactured for Inco.)Ahmadiyaa Abode of Peace v. Essroc Canada Inc., and others (construction litigation in respect ofan high-rise apartment building)Innvest Real Estate Investment Trust v. J. Stuart Hall & Associates, Grant Morden, and others(construction litigation relating to a hotel property in Ottawa)Meade v. Caspian Investments Resources Ltd. (stock options, injunctions and breach of contract)Tigney Technology Inc. v. Swedish Tobacco Co. (arbitration under the International CommercialArbitration Act, subsequently appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal)Apotex Inc. v. Plantex USA Inc. (breach of contract claim in the Ontario Superior Court)Tecumseh Fuels v. Imperial Oil (breach of contract claim in the Ontario Superior Court)1547107 Ontario Inc. v. Imperial Oil (breach of contract, injunctions)
  28. 28. Zander v. Imperial Oil (negligence claim with allegations relating to a defective mechanical door) Footitt v. Gleason (oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act) Nestlé Canada Inc. v. Borgh Dairy (breach of contract under a distributors agreement)EducationAdmitted to the Ontario Bar - 1988LL.B., University of Toronto - 1986
  29. 29. Robin Linley Partner, Toronto Office Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Direct 416-863-3047 Facsimile 416-863-2653 robin.linley@blakes.comProfileRobin Linley is a litigation Partner. He has a broad commercial litigation practice that includes anemphasis on product liability law, class actions and aboriginal law.In the area of product liability law, Robin has acted for manufacturers in the defence of serious personalinjury cases involving allegations of failure to warn, negligent design, manufacture and testing of medicaldevices, pharmaceutical products, as well as automotive and consumer goods. Robin also providesproactive advice to manufacturers and others in the distributor chain on product warnings and recalls. Heis actively involved in the Firms class action practice and is currently involved in the defence of anumber of high-profile class actions in this area.Robins commercial practice includes representing both plaintiffs and defendants in disputes involving awide variety of areas, including breach of restrictive covenants, breach of warranty, professionalnegligence and breach of commercial contracts generally.In the area of aboriginal law, Robin represents and advises both First Nations and non-First Nationsclients in cases related to the "duty to consult."Robin speaks at conferences and writes regularly on topics germane to his areas of practice. He is amember of the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Defence Lawyers Association and the DefenceResearch Institute. He is a former member of the Adjunct Faculty at Osgoode Law School, where hetaught an upper-year course in contract remedies. A member of the Firms Pro Bono Committee, Robin isa firm believer in the positive benefits that pro bono work can generate for those involved in it.Prior to joining Blakes, Robin received a B.C.L. degree from Oxford University in England, where hestudied law as a British Chevening Scholar.Reported CasesBoulanger v. Johnson & Johnson [2007] O.J. No. 179 (S.C.J.) (QL)SimEx Inc. v. IMAX Corp., [2005] O.J. No. 817 (S.C.J.) (QL)BNY Capital Corp. v. Katotakis, [2005] O.J. No. 813 (S.C.J.); affd O.J. No. 640 (C.A.) (QL)EducationAdmitted to the Ontario Bar - 2002B.C.L., Oxford University - 2002LL.B., Dalhousie University - 2000B.A. (Hon.), Queens University - 1996