Should the ACPM expend resources and intervene in legal cases?
Action to date
Here is ACPM’s experience to date.
We made a significant investment as an active intervener in the Monsanto case. While the case was lost, we may have been influential in having the Supreme Court recognise the case as a national issue.
The Chair of the ACMP’s Advocacy and Government Relations (AGRC) also sent a letter of support, as part of an affidavit, in the ING/Transamerica case. We did not, however, intervene in the case because we felt the issues were too case specific.
ACPM was asked to submit an affidavit in the Buschau vs. Rogers case in British Columbia. Again, we declined because we felt the issues were too case specific.
The question of ACPM’s role in legal cases is a difficult one. As Monsanto has shown, a great deal of time and money can be consumed along the way. In future, it is hoped that a full business case analysis can be done before a decision to invest is made. That analysis should consider both the potential commitment of time and money, as well as the alternative uses of that time and money.