The importance of general paperwork, proper documentation and taking complete, accurate and contemporaneous note taking for articling students and lawyers

 By Selwyn A. Pieters B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.

Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created August 08, 2026

R. v. Daniil Matin, 2026 ONSC 3232 https://canlii.ca/t/kld04 appealed to me in an important way: notetaking and record keeping. Like Police officers proper notes and records should be part of the everyday life of a lawyer. Those notes should be accurate, complete and contemporaneous. This becomes even more crucial when the client goes south and you have to defend against an ineffective assistance of counsel claim or a professional misconduct complaint or even a civil action.

The pertinent details are here:

[8]           Mr. Melady, the duty counsel who spoke to Mr. Matin, does not remember his call with Mr. Matin. Relying on his notes, recorded on a duty counsel log form, he said that the police initially left a voicemail at 8:29 p.m. on August 25, 2023. He returned the call at 8:40 p.m., began speaking with Mr. Matin at 8:41 p.m., and the call ended at 8:45 p.m.

[95]      Mr. Melady said he had no memory of the conversation he had with Mr. Matin. ..

...Mr. Melady made no note in the duty counsel log that Mr. Matin was in the hospital and injured.

[103]   In the duty counsel log there is room to add comments regarding the “advice to client” beside each category and for general comments at the end of the form. Mr. Melady made no notes in any of the boxes.

[108]  In terms of note taking the agreement with private counsel requires: that there be "complete, consistent, and professional note taking"

[229]   Mr. Melady failed to properly document his contact with Mr. Matin. His notes are especially deficient given the gravity of the charge faced by Mr. Matin. The lack of notes suggests a failure by Mr. Melady to recognize the importance of his role in providing summary legal advice to Mr. Matin and his evidence suggests a lack of self-reflection regarding whether a more senior lawyer should have responded to the call. His record keeping was seriously deficient.

I agree with the Judge. Notekeeping is very important and is key irrespective of what position one holds in the justice system: even though judges have court reporters in their Court Room they are issued with bench books for good reason. To keep contemporaneous notes of their proceedigns.

I once wrote a memo to one of my articling student and part of it stated:

Notetaking is important when you attend Court with me as that is the most you are doing and getting paid for it. It is essential when I read your notes that they are accurate in terms of any orders, timelines or directions given by a jurist or undertakings made by Counsel.....

I spoke to both you and [] on the importance of proper notetaking. It matters not whether you are a student, lawyer or Judge, in this profession it is key.

The Honourable Marcella Henschel careful thoughts in Daniil Matin points to the importance of proper notetaking, when lawyers are acting as the lifeline for clients: R. v. Rover, 2018 ONCA 745, at para 45, https://canlii.ca/t/hv1v1#par45

Hopefully, the young lawyers will read the decision or this summary. It is unacceptable to not have adequate notes when performing interacting with potential clients or clients.

I had a case where I was able to have the plea that a lawyer had the client into struck as there was no written record to show the client understood and was entering into the plea voluntarily: R. v. Wright 2010 CarswellOnt 8108 (On. S.C.J). In that case Justice Mr. Justice Speyer wrote:

"13 But the real issue is this; was Mr. O.W. informed? Was his plea voluntary and was it unequivocal? And although this is a very tough call for me, I am going to strike the plea because I am not assured that in all of the circumstances, in particular; the lack of written in-structions, that the plea takes place at the last minute, and that what occurred in court in front of me, the hesitation, the reluctance, I am not satisfied about the unequivocal nature of the plea, whatever pressure he may have felt on him."

Adriana Younge Situation in Guyana, An inquest into her death is necessa...

The Guyana Police Force use of a taser and stun gun at Soca and Wine and...

Calvin Brutus v Attorney General of Guyana - a challenge to the the Gov...

The imperative for appointment of a substantive Chancellor of the Judiciary and a substantive Chief Justice in Guyana

By Selwyn A. Pieters B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.

Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created December 21, 2024

The Executive President of Guyana, His Excellency Mohamed Irfaan Ali and the Leader of the Opposition, Aubrey Compton Norton, are required by Article 127 of The Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Chapter 1:01, (the Constitution) to agree on the appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice of Guyana. Two of the highest judicial officers in Guyana's local courts, the highest being the Caribbean Court of Justice (President and other CCJ Judges).  A recorded version is on youtube: Imperative for appointment of Chancellor and CH

Guyana Constitution was amended 2001, by Act No. 6 of 2001, The Constitution (Amendment) (No 4) Act of 2001, Article 127 (1) and (2) of the Constitution require agreement between the Executive President and the Leader of the Opposition on the Jurists to substantively occupy the posts of a Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice of Guyana.

There has been no agreement since 2005 between Executive Presidents (Jagdeo, Ramotar and Granger) and LOO (Corbin, Granger and Jagdeo) on jurists to occupy the positions of Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice of Guyana.

In June 2022, an application was filed in the Supreme Court of the Judicature styled as Vinceroy Jordan v. Attorney General 2022-HC-DEM-CIV-FDA-865. Materials were exchanged by the parties and filed in Court, written and oral arguments were presented and a written judgment was rendered on April 26, 2023. In that decision the Honourable Madam Justice Damone Younge made the following declarations in Jordan, at paragraph 45: 

a.         A Declaration that Article 127(1) of the Constitution creates a mandatory constitutional duty and obligation on the part of the President and the Leader of the Opposition to comply with its provisions.

b.         A Declaration that for as long as there are no substantive appointments to the offices of Chancellor and Chief Justice under Article 127(1) of the Constitution, the President and the Leader of the Opposition are under a continuous mandatory constitutional duty and obligation to engage in a process which results in compliance with Article 127(1) of the Constitution.

c.         A Declaration that notwithstanding that Article 127(1) of the Constitution does not set any timelines for compliance with its provisions, the duty imposed on the Constitutional actors by Article 127(1) of the Constitution must be discharged with all convenient speed.

d.         A Declaration that any protracted or further delay in complying with Article 127(1) of the Constitution is, and would be, inimical to the independence of the Judiciary as set out in Article 122A of the Constitution.

The Court urged the parties to bring life to the declarations would be complied with “all convenient speed.” The Court stressed in para. 41 of its judgment that “no further delay or excuses ought to be countenanced.”

 At para. 43, the Court wrote: 

For too long Guyana has been without substantive office holders for the two top positions in the Judicial arm of the State, a situation which continues to be untenable and unacceptable to the citizenry and inimical to the independence of the judiciary that the Supreme Law of the land provides for. Any further delay in commencing this process should be eschewed so that this "significant blot on an otherwise impressive Guyanese legal and judicial landscape” is not perpetuated further.

Both parties appealed the ruling for various reasons but none of the parties have taken steps to perfect the appeal.

As well, it is not apparent that the President and the Leader of the Opposition has engaged further as required by the Constitution on these appointments.

Progress has been made in the judicial appointments process in Guyana:

1)      There is a fully functioning Judicial Service Commission;

2)      There were 10 judges appointed to the High Court recently;

3)      There were vacancies for six Court of Appeal Justices posted in May 2024. Applications were received, there was the vetting of each qualified candidates, those candidates were interviewed by the Judicial Service Commission and the Executive President has a short-list of suitable candidates from which he can appoint on the advice of the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs.

With the fix in the judicial shortage at both levels of Courts, the building and provision of more courthouses and courtroom facilities and judicial staff nationwide, the order of business in 2025 prior to the government going into election mode should be another meaningful engagement between the Executive President and the Leader of the Opposition in respect to the substantive appointments to the office of Chancellor and Chief Justice.

2024 Human Rights Day: the fight for justice and advancement of human ri...

Venezuela already launched a soft invasion of Guyana

 By Selwyn A. Pieters B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.

Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office

Created December 3, 2023

The Cooperative Republic of Guyana (“Guyana”) / the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (“Venezuela”) border dispute and Guyana’s continued existential threat from Venezuela (Speaking notes)

By Selwyn A. Pieters

Attorney at Law

The demarcation of the Guyana and Venezuela existing boundary was laid down in a final and binding international Arbitral Award October 3rd, 1899 (Boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela (1899)), to which both Guyana and Venezuela are still bound. Venezuela accepted and honoured the border determined by the 1899 Arbitral Award for more than half a century.

The post-independence era has had periods where the Guyana-Venezuela Border Controversy has risen its ugly head and moreso for political mileage on the part of Venezuelan politicians.

 

Venezuela from time to time since the 1962 (during Guyana’s struggle for independence from Great Britain) continue to raise the issue of a claim to Guyana’s territory. Venezuela current claim to Essequibo covers 70 percent or two-thirds of Guyana’s total land mass.

Venezuela and Guyana had armed military conflict when our soldiers removed Venezuelan Forces from Ankoko Island in 1966 and has engaged Venezuelans in respect to Eteringbang twice.

Guyana is 83,000 square miles with a population approximately 750,000. About 90 percent of the population inhabits the narrow coastland area. Our borders are porous. And from time to time there are events involving Venezuelan soldiers and civilians at Eteringbang, Mabaruma, Kaikan, and other areas in the Cuyuni-Mazaruni region of Guyana

In 2016 Venezuela resurrected its claim. The incursion of Venezuelan soldiers near Eteringbang in May 2016, and their firing of weapons at officials of the Guyana Geology and Mines employees forced the government of the day and then then opposition PPP in a bi-partisan move took the case to the International Court of Justice.

The legal issues before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with regard to the claim brought by Guyana was heard. The Honourable Attorney General and an able team of lawyers provided oral arguments in Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) in the International Court of Justice on 22 November 2022 and following before the ICJ. Guyana prevailed on jurisdiction. It is unknown when its final determination will be made. In light of Venezuela's Referendum to be held on December 3, 2023, the ICJ last Friday issued provisional orders so that the status quo ante remains and that Venezela does nothing that would annex the Essequibo Region whilst this matter is under consideration by that Court.

However, what is apparent is Venezuela’s move to settle the border regions of Guyana with its citizens. In a Demerara Waves Online publication of July 18, 2022, Captain Gerry Gouveia, National Security Adviser, was quoted at an AMCHAM Guyana forum setting out the security threats posed to Guyana by persons from Venezuela. He gave a number of examples, including, and I quote: “a lot of non-state actors on our Western border that are terrorizing our business people and challenging our security forces, whether it is orchestrated or not.” And I further quote him: “You could understand the security dilemma we face that in the migrants could be embedded Venezuelan agents and so this is not something that we don’t appreciate, that we are looking at as well as we open our arms with compassion and with humanity.  . . . There are an estimated 60,000 Venezuelans in Guyana now.”

Venezuela with a population of more than 28.2 million person is capable of launching a bloodless takeover of our borders simply by overwhelming our population with Venezuelan settlers, refugees and persons with military-like bearing. In other words, sleeper cells. Deportation of Venezuelan migrants who are not Conventional Refugees or persons in need of protection or persons who are legitimately in Guyana for a proper purpose would not be in violation of International Law, it would be consistent with the laws.

It is possible that Venezuela can launch a soft invasion of Guyana by simply overwhelming its population and resources. Spanish speaking Venezuelan nationals specifically warraus are reported to be amongst the populations of significance who are migrating from Venezuela to Guyana.

Thus, Guyana cannot only rely on the International Court of Justice and its strategic business and military partners to secure its borders but must in its deliberate judgment ensure that the immigration, military, social welfare and policing resources are adequately deployed to interdict, document and deport those who are indeed trafficked to Guyana for purposes that can indeed threaten its security and overwhelm its population.

It should be noted on April 15, 2019 in Santiago, Chile in what is known as the “Lima Group declaration”, several Latin American Countries “Agree that Venezuela is experiencing a humanitarian, political, economic and moral crisis generated by the illegitimate and dictatorial regime of Nicolás Maduro, which constitutes a threat to international peace and security, with regional and global effects.” The rule of law in Venezuela under President Maduro is honoured in the breach rather than the observance.

Venezuelans, including the Venezuelan President himself, Nicolas Maduro, has up the ante (particularly on with the referendum, inflammatory rallies and speeches on social media and amassing troops at the Border with Guyana). The stakes are high given Guyana’s recent economic shift as an oil producing country. This is not a diplomatic exercise on Venezuela’s part nor is it an exercise in which it will abide by the orders of the ICJ, it is an exercise that potentially can destabilize investor confidence in Guyana, cause Guyanese citizens grave unease and discomfort and indeed set the stage for a soft invasion. The very legitimacy of the Venezuelan government questionable.

We as Guyanese have to stay woke and stay engaged. This is the time for all Guyanese to support our government in its fight against this existential threat from Venezuela and its President Nicolas Maduro.

 

Attorney General of Guyana, Sarah Browne, Vikash Ramkissoon v. Christopher Jones & Speaker of the National Assembly

 Electronic Copy of the Full Judgment of the Guyana Court of Appeal in  Attorney General of Guyana, Sarah Browne, Vikash Ramkissoon v. Christopher Jones & Speaker of the National Assembly Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2021

Desmond Morian v. Attorney General of Guyana Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2016 Order of the Court of Appeal 

Desmond Morian v. Attorney General of Guyana  (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2016, 23rd January 2020) - Transcript  Guyana Court of Appeal

Desmond Morian v. Attorney General of Guyana Ian Chang C.J. decision (2015-HC-DEM-CIV_CM-55, 19th February 2016

Ethical Conduct in Public Officer - meeting the test of rectitude

 No one really is above the law, however that law is defined. As persons in the public eye, where as a Judge, Adjudicator, lawyer, Police Officer, Government Minister or even Influencer, we can be subjected to excessive scrutiny in terms of our actions and/or omissions. Obviously, it calls for some risk management in our personal and professional lives. In my professional life we call it "defensive lawyering", which means dotting the i's and crossing the T's. In our private lives it involves risk management or avoiding situations that can embarrass our profession, employer, family and friends. if one is living a risky lifestyle the odds of things going terribly wrong is greater given the obvious pitfalls.

This calls for an understanding that we are under a greater level of scrutiny. I know that as a lawyer of prominence whose images are flashed on televisions and who appears in newspapers and the internet more often that I like. It means that I can't do some of the things I would like to do or go to some of the places where I can socialize with people that I like.

I also know that as a Black man with dreadlocks if things go south I would be held to a higher standard: See, for example, Law Society of Ontario v. Guiste, 2023 ONLSTH 59 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jwx9r>. See also my writings on the plight of Black lawyers in Selwyn Pieters, “Lawyer Regulation, Race and Justice: An updated Look at LSUC disciplinary matters involving Black and Visible Minority lawyers.” Selwyn Pieters : A Blog That is Organized Around the Lawyering Experience of Criminal and Human Rights Lawyer Selwyn Pieters and Things that Interest Him!!!!! (blog)12 December 2014, <http://selwynpieters.blogspot.com/2014/12/an-updated-look-at-lsuc-disciplinary.html> and Selwyn Pieters “Lawyer Regulation, Race and Justice”; Law Society of Upper Canada v. Selwyn Milan McSween, 2012 ONLSAP 003 <http://selwynpieters.blogspot.com/2014/12/an-updated-look-at-lsuc-disciplinary.html>

The task therefore is for us to recognize this and in so doing for us to meet the test of rectitude because we are constantly under public scrutiny.

Race Anti Black Racism and the weaponization of Criminal Justice System