Showing posts with label access to justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label access to justice. Show all posts

Thursday, May 30, 2013

eCourts in Canada

My post @SlawTips today looks at the calls for technological modernization of Canada's court system.
It may seem like equal parts pipe dream and unscheduled inevitability, but in the context of an acknowledged access to justice crisis in Canada, the call for technological modernization of our nation`s courts seems to be approaching critical mass. 
What will this brave new future look like? How can we ready our practices?
What are the likely features and implications of the eCourts of this possible, not-to-distant future? Assuming that it's not all just science fiction and that these changes really are coming, how can we begin to adapt and prepare - and advocate - for the innovations that may soon be upon us?

Frankly, I was probaby a bit nicer about this topic in my SlawTips post than I needed to be - but Slaw (except for Mitch) is a much nicer place than Wise Law Blog, after all.

To pull fewer punches, the delay in implementing these changes is inexcusable and embarrassing.  This is not rocket science.  All the necessary technologies exist and have existed for quite some time. Many American jurisdictions already have eCourt systems in place. Some Canadian courts, like the Supreme Court of Canada, are already well on the way in this regard.  Other Ontario government services like land registry, corporate registration and corporate search are fully digitized and online.  Yet these long-overdue civil justice reforms, despite numerous starts and stops over the last decade-plus, haven't moved forward an inch.

The systematic failure to achieve digital court reform continues to be a direct cause of unnecessary litigation delays, lost and misplaced documents at courthouses and intolerable environmental waste.  It makes the lives of lawyers, litigants, judges and all "stakeholders" (a word I'd like to banish from the English language) more difficult and stressful.  And it continues to cost our clients money they can't afford.

The time for change is now.

For more, see: eCourts: Prepare for Change

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Developments in Access to Legal Information Online

Here are a couple of items that I've been meaning to mention, each highlighting new ways in which the online world is expanding to provide enhanced access to information and services for the legal profession and the public:
  • Lawline.com recently opened up its entire continuing legal education course catalogue for free access to lawyers. As its press release noted, this unlimited access "is a game changer for the legal industry and online education everywhere."  I am hoping this model may be of interest to the Law Society of Upper Canada, which is amassing an impressive and growing catalogue of videotaped CPD programmes. Wouldn't it be useful for the LSUC to give members easy, on demand online access  to archived CPD video and materials? My thought is that LSUC membership should include unlimited, free access to any video programmes and materials in "the LSUC vault" from one year after original presentation dates. The time has arrived for a CLE portal of this nature in Ontario. 
  • Congratulations are in order for our friend, Omar Ha-Redeye, who joined My Support Calculator as General Manager several months ago. (Omar is also continuing in his own, private law practice with Fleet Street Law). My Support Calculator is an essential new resource for Canadians who find themselves involved in the nation's family court system. Delivering quick, easy and free access to the child support and spousal support "numbers" that separated parents and spouses need to know, My Support Calculator is a near-godsend for Canada's unrepresented litigants - and the judges and counsel working with them.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Friday, June 17, 2011

Chief Justice Warren Winkler at Family Law Summit

Ontario Court of Appeal Chief Justice Warren Winkler has just completed a impassioned speech at the 5th Annual Family Law Summit at Toronto.

Continuing his call for reform to Ontario's family law system, and underlining his postion that the entire system is broken and needs restructuring from the ground up, Mr. Justice Winkler emphasized the need for change now.

Here are Justice Winkler's key, quoteworthy points (reproduced, in part from our live-tweets):
  • The Family law system in Ontario needs reform now. He intended his September 2010 comments as a lightning rod for change to the whole system. He observes that much dialogue has resulted.
  • Trend in Family Law: The well-to-do are opting out of the system and choosing private mediation/arbitration; Others going self-rep (up to 70% in Toronto)
  • Asks if we are trending toward a two-tiered system? Notes Canadians don't like two-tiered systems.
  • Family law system needs affordability, timing, efficiency.
  • He proposes "presumptive judicial mediation" as cornerstone of new system..
  • Justice Winkler's proposal: Triage Judge to handle cases that can't or shouldn't be mediated. The Triage judge will send an immediate message: It "won't be pleasant" for those acting badly
  • Access to justice is a double-edged sword - it can also be used by one party to harass the other. The family justice system should not be permitted to be used to perpetrate wrongful conduct by either party. We must "take the system out of play"
  • Under his proposed new system, every court attendance must be meaningful. Must eliminate wasteful court appearances.
  • Need system of "one family, one judge"
  • Goals of new family law system - Must be cheap, simple, understandable and affordable
  • We have "studied" Unified Family Court far too long. Need UFC's across the Province now.
  • He is committed to getting this change done now, and asks family law bar to help make it happen.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Monday, May 16, 2011

Articling, Access to Justice, And Lakehead University's New Law School

Two recent related news items - the Law Society of Upper Canada's approval of a potential new law school at Lakehead University and Michael Johnston's remarks upon becoming chairman of the Ontario County and District Law Presidents' Association - made me think about the larger articling process, especially given Mr. Johnston's comments on the matter:
There is a "glut" of students graduating from law schools in Ontario and elsewhere looking for places to article in Ontario, but there are not enough spaces, he noted.

Another critical issue is what Johnston calls the "greying of the bar," the aging of the legal profession's membership, causing concerns over succession.

That's a particular problem in smaller communities, which could soon face a lawyer shortage much as they are now facing doctor shortages.
So what we seem to have here is the legal community recognizing the abundance of graduating law students who cannot find articles, and rushing to create more graduating law students to exacerbate the problem.

Of course, that's a glib summary, but the articling shortfall is very real and getting steadily worse - and it is directly related to Mr. Johnston's other concern. Simply put, articling positions in smaller communities are a relatively scarce resource. For the articling job seeker, this is admittedly partly a case of confirmation bias: articling opportunities in smaller communities are scarce because lawyers operating in those communities don't advertise their articling opportunities widely (if at all).

If you want to put on an economists' hat, this makes sense. There are less opportunities for lawyers in smaller communities by simple virtue of numbers, and articling students are more likely to initially practice in areas where they have articled than otherwise: small-town lawyers are, on some level, thus theoretically disincentivized to hire articling students because of their potential to become competition.

One can argue instead that the problem exists because students are less interested in articling opportunities outside of large cities, and this probably has some merit to it as well - articling jobs in Toronto and Montreal typically pay much better than articling jobs in Medicine Hat or Saint John - but if jobs in smaller communities are advertised, then they will get applicants.

Speaking from personal anecdote alone, one hotly discussed position among third-year students, when I was in school and looking for articling jobs, was a reasonably well-compensated position with a sole practitioner in Kenora who was looking for an articling student to transition into an eventual junior lawyer position. (Given that the advertisement was taken down after a month, I assume he found his candidate.) Given the necessity of articling to join the bar, students will eventually accept any articling position they can realistically afford, or see their upwards-of-$40,000 investment in law school (and usually much more than that) go to waste.

If the articling process is going to remain a valuable part of legal education - rather than be tossed aside as it has been in practically every other jurisdiction in the world - then it has to be readily available to law school graduates. In his comments, Mr. Johnston addresses two major problems facing the legal community: lack of access to legal service by the general public and a shortage of lawyers in smaller communities.

Both of these are issues easily solved in one sentence: increase the supply of lawyers. However, if the articling process is hindering that goal - which increasingly appears to be the case - then it must either be fixed (perhaps by making articling commitments less optional for practicing lawyers than they currently are) or done away with so that some other form of practical legal education for new lawyers can be instituted. Otherwise, the ongoing legal access crisis in Ontario will only grow worse.

(And an aside: the term of chairman of the Association lasts only eighteen months? Does that seem particularly short to anyone else? Crafting policy changes is a task usually costed in years, not months...)

- Christopher Bird, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Carabash Night In Canada

Don't forget to catch our friend Michael Carabash tonight at 8:00 on CBC's Dragon's Den, as he tries to sell the panel on Dynamic Lawyers' innovative legal forms enterprise.

The show was taped quite some time ago. Cudos to Michael for maintaining a strict vow of silence as to the outcome.

Tonight the truth shall emerge, at last.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
UPDATE - March 10, 2011

Now that the verdict is finally in, Michael talks about the outcome and the Den experience at his blog.
- GJW
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Friday, October 15, 2010

Canada: The Rule of Law Index 2010

The World Justice Project's 2010 Rule of Law Index has been released. The project is described as follows:
The Rule of Law Index is a new quantitative assessment tool designed by the World Justice Project to measure the extent to which countries around the world adhere to the rule of law. The Index provides detailed information regarding a variety of dimensions of the rule of law, which enables policymakers and other users to assess a nation’s adherence to the rule of law in practice, identify a nation’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to similarly situated countries, and track changes over time.

Not surprisingly, while Canada rates well overall, significant deficiencies in ensuring access to justice for the poor are identified. The report notes the access to justice challenge crosses national boundaries, and is a widespread issue thoughout all Western nations:
The greatest weakness in Western Europe and North America appears to be related to the accessibility of the civil justice system. In the area of access to legal counsel, for instance, the United States ranks 20th, while Sweden ranks 17th. These are areas that require attention from both policy makers and civil society to ensure that all people, including marginalized groups, are able to benefit from the civil justice system.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

“There Will Be No Further Bricks and Mortar Courthouses Built after 2015″

Our friend, David Bilinsky summarizes his Take Aways from the Canadian Forum on Court Technology, held in Ottawa last week.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

Thursday, April 15, 2010

The HST Tax is Coming July 1, 2010

The Law Society of Upper Canada's FAQ's address the transition:
Effective July 1, 2010, the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) will be implemented. The HST combines the GST and the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) into a single federally administered tax and work completed by lawyers and paralegals after July 1, 2010, will be subject to the full HST. Lawyers and paralegals should contact the CRA directly ....to confirm how the HST applies to specific legal services and disbursements, and should consider consulting with an accounting or tax professional to discuss how the implementation of the HST will affect their internal accounting and invoicing systems.

We've previously expressed concern at the significant, inflationary impact of this new tax on fees for legal services - see our November 2009 post, The HST Tax on Access to Justice.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

"Nearly Half" of Toronto Court Interpreters Fail A.G.'s Competency Test

A very serious indictment of court interpreters' services in the Toronto area from the Attorney General's offices:

The results of a controversial test for court interpreters in the Toronto area could lead to widespread delays in trials and new grounds of appeal for defendants convicted of serious crimes.

Nearly half of all court interpreters in the Greater Toronto Area, some with more than two decades of experience, were informed this week they had failed a new test administered last year.

Of the 225 people tested, 108 did not receive a passing grade, according to the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General. Many more received a conditional pass. The province declined to reveal exactly how many interpreters met the standard for full accreditation.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Saturday, November 07, 2009

The HST Tax on Access to Justice

Legal services currently are exempt from Ontario's 8% provincial sales tax.

With the Province now poised to impose a whopping 13% Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) that is targeted to apply to legal fees, Slaw's Edward Prutschi considers the negative implications of this tax on access to justice in the Ontario, and eloquently asks why organizations representing the legal profession remain largely silent:
Starting in July 2010 when Ontario’s GST and PST are replaced by the new Harmonized Sales Tax, virtually everything, including legal bills, will be subject to the new 13% HST... To put it simply, legal bills are going up 8% across the board in every area of law purely to cover the tax consequences.
The implications of this tax grab are dire and far-reaching. Access to Justice is directly threatened by this substantial jump in the cost of legal services. Our courts are already struggling with the costs and burdens associated with an increasing number of self-represented litigants who have been driven to stand alone in court by the crushing burden of high legal fees and expensive court proceedings. The HST will have a direct negative impact on the capacity of individuals to have their cases heard in our Province’s courtrooms. The consequences for civil court cases, spousal support claims and child custody issues are serious indeed, but the devastating impact of this tax will be felt most acutely in my area of practice – criminal law.
...So, while lobbyists put the spit shine on their submissions to government as to why a new car, new home, or mutual fund, ought not to be subject to additional taxation, how is it that we lawyers appear to be entirely silent on a direct attack against the public’s ability to access the justice system in which we toil? Time is running out. The tax man cometh.
Ontario's governments of all stripes have always been good at talking the talk when it comes to access to justice. The HST tax, however, will add hundreds - or even thousands - of dollars to the costs of legal services borne by every Ontarian who is involved in a contested family law or civil litigation proceeding.

It is high time for the Ontario government to walk the access to justice walk.

The public cannot simply cannot afford any new tax on legal services. Period.

Legal services must be exempted from the HST. And as Mr. Prutschi suggests, our Law Society and Bar Associations need to get with that programme - fast.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

'Legal Expense Insurance' Coming to Canada?

The Toronto Star reports today that a German firm is seeking federal approval to bring a legal insurance plan to Canada.

The proposed, private insurance plan will cost approximately $500.00 annually, and will provide up to $100,000 coverage for legal fees and adverse costs orders in civil and criminal matters. Family law matters will be excluded.

The Star article notes:

...the federal government's superintendent of financial institutions has been asked to approve a plan that would allow Canadians to purchase insurance premiums for less than $500 a year, which would cover up to $100,000 in legal expenses, including the cost of a lawyer preparing and arguing a case court.

The types of cases covered could include wrongful dismissal and other employment disputes, tax problems, personal injury claims and property fights with neighbours, according to Barbara Haynes, chief executive officer of DAS Canada, the Canadian arm of the German company seeking to do business here.

This sort of plan may represent a positive development in addressing Ontario's chronic access to justice issues, particularly in view of the systematic deterioration of our Legal Aid system.

One wonders, however, how long it will take for taxpayers to demand a genuine "public option" for basic legal coverage. To borrow from a current American buzz-phrase, do you really want an insurance company bureaucrat coming between you and your lawyer?

The question is not just a rhetorical one.

Of course it is a good idea to make some form of financial coverage for legal services available to the public. Unionized auto workers have had basic, pre-paid legal services coverage for quite some time.

Our concern relates to the details, rather than the general concept of this reported proposal:
  1. To what degree will insurance company approvals for specific legal procedures and actions be mandated by any ultimate plan?
  2. Will the right for individuals to the legal counsel of their choice be preserved?
  3. How will solicitor and client privilege be protected if ongoing reports by counsel to the insurer are to be required under an insurance plan?
  4. What will the public's recourse be in the event of questionable denials of coverage?
  5. Perhaps most importantly, how will the privacy of litigants enrolled in such a plan be protected internationally?
Canada's law societies and bar associations must have a place at the table in discussion and planning for these types of legal insurance vehicles.

Such insurance plans could represent a genuine breakthrough.

But we should proceed carefully - if we are heading down this road, let's get it right from the outset.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Levitt's Lament

Employers' lawyer Howard Levitt breaks the "bad news" to his Financial Post readers - Suing Employers Soon to Get Easier.

On Jan. 1, the most dramatic changes to the rules of court since 1985 will be implemented. These rules will disable three of the most valuable weapons in employers' litigation arsenal-- costs, complexity and delay.

The Small Claims Court jurisdiction will be raised to $25,000 from $10,000. The intent is to make legal rights accessible to workers of every strata. The incentive to pursue perceived rights will escalate in this forum, where self-representation is the norm and the costs of losing negligible.

Lawsuits from $50,000 to $100,000 will also become simpler, faster and cheaper. The Simplified Procedure... will be expanded to include claims to $100,000. Until now, these larger claims were subject to unlimited examination for discovery; the new rules restrict them to two hours.

Any lawyer can conduct a journey-man like mediation because much of the work is done by the mediator. Other than trials, which few dismissal cases reach, a lawyer's relative skill is best shown at discoveries. That is where admissions are obtained that result in settlement or make the result a foregone conclusion. Frequently, I have had employees make admissions at discovery that end their cases.

Being cross-examined for hours or days, employees who are less prepared than at trial, face having substantial doubt cast on the veracity of their facts and their principles put under tortuous scrutiny, and often end up dropping the suit or accepting a minimal settlement to avoid a trial. That ability to weaken the employee's resolve is gone under the new rules: Two hours is seldom sufficiently formidable to concede early defeat.

It is time for a new employers' playbook, apparently. What a stunning commentary and public admission as to defence tactics.

It seems the time-honoured strategy of delay, out-spend, out-maneuver and 'interrogate into submission' will have only a limited future in employment law litigation Ontario.

That kind of casts access to justice amendments in a whole new light, now doesn't it?

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Monday, April 27, 2009

British Press Floods Family Courts, Newly Opened to Media

As noted last week, effective today, British media has new-found access to the nation's Family Courts, which had previously been closed to the press.

Times Online obliges with a series of reports from various Family Courts throughout the U.K., including coverage from Central London,  Cardiff,  Manchester, Bath , and this report on a child welfare matter from Haringey Family Court:

If judges and court staff were ready for what has been hailed as a revolution in the family courts, lawyers at Barnet’s Civil and Family Court Centre were slightly taken by surprise by the arrival of the media.

Two cases had to be adjourned while lawyers discussed whether to oppose the admittance of The Times, but both, in the end, agreed — realising that stringent reporting restrictions remain in place.

After decades of holding such hearings behind closed doors, no one quite knew what to do. John Tughan, counsel for Haringey — the local authority where Baby P died — at least had on him the guidance on admitting the media just issued by Britain’s most senior judge.

But he confessed to Judge Marcia Levy: “I don’t know what our position is . . . I simply don’t know. I was asking for ten minutes to take instructions from the team manager.”

The judge, who was preparing to give an hour-long judgment in a case involving two young children, said that neither their names, nor those of other children involved, could be mentioned; nor those of the parents, nor schools, places or anyone else connected with them that would enable them to be identified.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Divorce Lawyers Alarmed as Media Gains Access to U.K. Family Courts

U.K Lawyers concerned that Open divorce courts will lead warring spouses to 'blackmail.'

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Update on Ontario Small Claims Court Changes

Ontario's Small Claims Courts, which are the busiest civil courts in the Province, will be getting considerably busier on January 1, 2010.

As we noted in our December 11, 2009 post, the arrival of the new year will bring an increase in the Court’s maximum monetary jurisdiction from $10,000 to $25,000 and a significant influx of new, larger cases is likely to follow.

The increased Claim limit has been under consideration for quite some time. In November 2007, former Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, Coulter Osborne, who headed the Civil Justice Reform project committee, submitted his findings and recommendations to the Ministry of Attorney General, including a recommended increase in the monetary limit in Ontario Small Claims Courts proceedings.

The recommendations were intended to enhance access to justice for Ontario residents by reducing the legal costs of litigation, and simplifying the prosecution of smaller, civil actions in the Province.

The changes ahead will bring Ontario in line with British Columbia, Alberta, the Yukon and Nova Scotia, all of which have a $25,000 Small Claims Court limit. Saskatchewan, too, will soon follow suit.

Ontario's Small Claims Court is a branch of the province's Superior Court of Justice. Examples of typical claims filed in the Small Claims Court include actions related to:

  • unpaid accounts for goods or services;
  • unpaid loans and rent;
  • compensation for property damage;
  • wrongful dismissal of employment;
  • damages for personal injuries;
  • damages for breach of contract.

The majority of the cases in Ontario's Small Claims courts are heard by Deputy Judges, who are lawyers appointed to preside, part-time, over hearings conducted at the Court.

The imminent raise in monetary jurisdiction will likely lead to a significant increase in the Court's case loads.

According to the Osborne report, 75,041 new proceedings were commenced in Ontario's Small Claims Court in 2005-2006. By comparison, during the same period, only 63,251 new civil proceedings were commenced the province's Superior Courts.

Of those 63,251 Superior Court cases, 6,555 included claims for amounts between $10,001 and $25,000, and would therefore be typical of cases likely to proceed in the expanded Small Claims Court system.

According to the Osborne Committee, the increased jurisdiction limit is likely to result in a need for additional facilities, court staff and judges.

Toronto, for example, has only one Small Claims Court, housed on one floor in a small office building at 47 Sheppard Avenue East, in the city’s Yonge and Sheppard area. According to a recent Ministry of Attorney General press release, however, a new court house is anticipated to be built in Toronto's west end. Whether the new facility will house a Small Claims Court remains unclear.

No plans have been announced yet for the appointment of additional deputy judges to service the expanded Courts, nor have amendments to the Court's Rules and procedures yet been tabled.

Time is running short for the announcement of such changes.

Potential litigants in these "smaller" $10,000.00 to $25,0000.00 claims already face daunting questions on how to proceed:

  • In which of the Province's courts should new legal proceedings now be commenced?
  • Will it be more cost-effective or strategically wise to simply wait until January to start new claims (so long as no limitation periods will pass in the interim)?
  • If a proceeding is commenced today in Superior Court that will be within the future Small Claims limit, will there be a subsequent requirement to transfer courts?
  • If an action is commenced today for $10,000.00 in Small Claims Court, will it be possible - or simple - to amend a Claim in January to increase the sum requested?

With little, specific guidance from the Attorney General's office as to the transition ahead, access to justice is not benefiting from a current paucity of information.

The expansion of the Court will have significant procedural and practical implication that must be addressed by current and future litigants - and legal professionals:

  • the ability of successful litigants to recover partial or substantial indemnity for their legal fees is significantly reduced in Small Claims Courts. Costs awards in the Court are currently capped at 15% of the value of a claim. As a result, the maximum costs award (i.e., on a $25,000 claim) will be $3,750.00;
  • Junior lawyers and articling students will require training in Small Claims Court advocacy. “Firms will have to promote the competency of their articling students to handle these files,” says Joshua Krane, an articling student with Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, in his March 2009 Canadian Lawyer magazine article on the pending changes. “Firms that are successful at doing so may reap the benefits of a vigorous and profitable small claims practice.”
  • As noted, transitional procedures have yet to be announced to clarify whether there will be mandatory or optional transfer to Small Claims Courts of existing Superior Court actions in which $25,000.00 or less has been claimed. Further, the procedures and costs consequences of effecting such file transfers remain undefined;
  • The fate of mandatory mediation in the Court after January 1st is unclear. Mediation has emerged as an extremely effective tool for achieving settlements in many types of Superior Court actions. While Small Claims Courts will continue to require mandatory settlement conferences before Judges and Deputy Judges, these differ in procedure, duration and scope from Superior Court mediations, which are typically convened with private mediators with specific expertise in the subject matter of the claim involved. British Columbia's Small Claims Court Rules provide for differing types of mediation, depending on the amount claimed in a proceeding;
  • Amendments will likely be required to Ontario's Rules of the Small Claims Court to expand documentary disclosure obligations and to enable case management of complex cases;
  • Questions abound as to whether all Small Claims actions will be treated alike under the new system. Will there be different procedural tiers, determined by the sums in dispute, as is the case in B.C.?

Some concern has additionally been voiced as to whether the Court's contingent of Deputy Judges has adequate judicial expertise and training to address the increased complexity of the higher-value cases that will soon be before the Court.

In a February 2009 article, Sun Media legal columnist Alan Shanoff noted that the new $25,000 monetary limit will likely bring larger and more complicated contract cases, defamation suits, and medical malpractice claims to the Court's docket.

As Mr. Shanoff astutely cautioned, "Certainly, the public deserves a full-time professional roster of judges and proper facilities. Let's not trade one set of problems for another."

- Bill Rogers, Shashi Raina and Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Prison Reform, North And South

With parallel discussions on prison and sentencing reform now occurring in Canada and the U.S., a great divide is emerging between the directions of policy-makers here and those south of the border.

As we've previously noted, the New York Times reported on March 24, 2009 that several states, including Colorado, Michigan, Kansas and New Jersey, are closing prisons or adopting sentencing alternatives to reduce pressure on over-stretched state budgets:

Some states, like Colorado and Kansas, are closing prisons. Others, like New Jersey, have replaced jail time with community programs or other sanctions for people who violate parole. Kentucky lawmakers passed a bill this month that enhances the credits some inmates can earn toward release.

Michigan is doing a little of all of this, in addition to freeing some offenders who have yet to serve their maximum sentence.

In an article today, Salon's Glenn Greenwald looks at American prison overcrowding. He lauds a recent Senate floor speech by Virginia Senator Jim Webb, excerpted below:

Let's start with a premise that I don't think a lot of Americans are aware of. We have 5% of the world's population; we have 25% of the world's known prison population. We have an incarceration rate in the United States, the world's greatest democracy, that is five times as high as the average incarceration rate of the rest of the world. There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice. . . . The elephant in the bedroom in many discussions on the criminal justice system is the sharp increase in drug incarceration over the past three decades. In 1980, we had 41,000 drug offenders in prison; today we have more than 500,000, an increase of 1,200%.

Meanwhile, in Canada, federal legislation was introduced this week to lengthen jail sentences by curtailing two-for-one "dead-time" credit for time served by accused persons prior to conviction.

(Whether the legislation represents substantive change or is simply a public relations exercise in window-dressing is a question for another day. This Globe and Mail op-ed elaborates on the specifics of the proposed amendment:

The Criminal Code amendments tabled yesterday would allow judges some discretion (up to 1.5 times credit, with reasons spelled out). That should add predictability and comprehensibility to the system.)

In an editorial today, the Ottawa Citizen addresses the yet-unspoken budgetary questions underpinning this proposed change:

In theory, those accused of committing a crime should wait for trial for as short a time as possible, so they can move on -- either to life outside as an innocent person, or to an appropriate sentence. But when judges saw that delays were causing an accused to spend years locked up in limbo, they started giving two-for-one credit for that time, upon conviction.

That should have served as an incentive for governments to reduce delays. Instead, Nicholson wants to curtail judges' ability to give two-for-one credit.

Chris Bentley, Ontario's attorney general, likes Nicholson's law. He and others suggest it will help the justice system move faster, because hardened criminals intentionally try to delay their trials, knowing they'll get two-for-one credit. Remove that incentive, and you remove some delays.

...Canadians should welcome the removal of the perverse incentive that two-for-one credit provides for crafty criminals. But we must also be honest about the effect the new law could have on correctional facilities. The assumption behind Nicholson's initiative is that criminals are receiving sentences that are too short. But if sentences are longer, jails will be more crowded -- which means jails will have to be bigger or there will have to be more of them.

As Ontario's attorney general, Bentley should be asking Nicholson where the extra money is going to come from. (emphasis added)

Canada should think-twice before adopting this legislation. There is a lesson to be taken from the American incarceration experiment of recent decades.

The additional monies required by this legislation to lengthen Canadian prison sentences would be significantly better spent on elimination of the systematic delays that impede access to justice in the nation.

That means more courtrooms, more judges and rational funding of alternative sentencing programmes that effectively protect the public, while also promoting the legitimate objectives of deterrence, treatment and rehabilitation.

What we do not need is a legislated rehash of knee-jerk, politically-charged band aids that have been tried, and have failed, elsewhere.

Particularly at a time when we can't afford it.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Ontario Small Claims Court Limit to be Upped to $25,000 in 2010

Significant changes were announced today by Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley that may revolutionize the way civil claims are handled in Ontario's court system.

The amendments, to come into effect in January 2010, will provide that:
  • The monetary jurisdiction of Ontario's Small Claims Courts will increase to $25,000.00 from the current $10,000.00 limit;
  • The streamlined simplified procedures in Ontario Superior Court's will apply in cases where up to $100,000.00 is claimed, up from the current $50,000.00 ceiling.
The new regulations will also establish limits to a party's entitlement to extended examinations for discovery in Superior Court proceedings. Under the proposed legislation, all discovery by a party is to be confined to one day, unless agreement is reached or an Order is obtained permitting extended discovery.

See the Attorney General's news release on the initiative, for additonal backround.

The proposed changes are intended to tackle the access to justice problems that have plagued the Province's court system.  

The Toronto Star reported on the Attorney General's announcement of the new procedures:
"This will provide greater access to justice to all Ontarians and to all Ontario businesses," Bentley said during a news conference at the Law Society of Upper Canada. It was attended by several high-ranking judges and prominent litigators who have been pressing for reforms to the civil justice system to make the cost of going to court more affordable.
I can respect the good intentions behind this initiative.  I am not particularly sold, however, on the notion that a leaner justice system will ultimately prove to be a wiser system. 

Certainly, the Small Claims Court sytem will require a massive overhaul, in terms of infrastructure and court procedures, to prepare for the exponentially more complex and voluminous caseload that lies ahead.  

Will mandatory mediation be preserved for cases in the new system?  Certainly, there has been no tool more effective in achieving expedited and cost-effective dispute resolution.

I'll review the new legislation in entirety before commenting further, but for now, I'm more than a bit skeptical of a civil procedure system that elevates cutting corners to the level of a primary, organizing principle.

Are there really any shortcuts to justice?

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Bits 'N Briefs

It was a busy news week, much of which I spent sneezing, sniffling and snoozing. Here, then, are some of the highlights of stories I didn't get to:

  • Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, Louise Arbour, will be stepping down from her role as United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner on June 30, at the end of her current four-year term at the head of the international human rights agency. Citing family concerns, she noted that relentless criticism of her strong voice against America's use of torture in the "war on terror" was not a factor in her decision against accepting a further four-year term. According to CBC, Ms Arbour said "I am not quitting because of this pressure. On the contrary, I have to resist the temptation to stay to confront it."

  • CCH legal writer Stephanie Mah was good enough to point us to this Toronto Star story, Video helps those who can't afford a lawyer, on a tremendous resource developed by the Alberta Chapter of the Canadian Bar Association. The Association has produced a video, including simulated trial footage, to assist self-representing litigants on the basics of courtroom procedures and etiquette. So far, so good. So, here's the rub: according to the article, the video was "distributed free to every public library and courthouse in Alberta, legal clinics and universities in the province, and all provincial bar associations." Distributed to libraries? Memo to the good elders of the CBA: Post this tape online at YouTube, please (or at least at your site), so people can actually find it. It's 2008, for goodness' sake!

  • In an important affirmation of the law of "implied undertakings," the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on March 6, 2008 that B.C. police and prosecutors may not have access to civil discovery evidence given by a Vancouver daycare centre operator, Suzette Juman, in a negligence suit against her. Ms. Juman is being sued by the parents of a 16 month-old child who allegedly suffered seizures and brain injury while in the daycare facility's care. Criminal investigations are also pending as a result of the incident. Mr. Justice Ian Binnie delivered the court's unanimous ruling, which overturned a contrary decision by the B.C Court of Appeal: "Information obtained on discovery, including information thought by one of the parties to disclose some sort of criminal conduct, is subject to the implied undertaking. It is not to be used by the other parties except for the purpose of that litigation." For the full text of the Court's ruling, see: Juman v. Doucette, 2008 SCC 8.

  • The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal as to the constitutionality of Bill 104, a Quebec language law that regulates which students can be enrolled in English-language education in the Province.

  • In other Supreme Court of Canada news, the Court has refused to hear Karlheinz Schreiber's appeal against deportation. As a result of a deal with Canada's Justice Department, however, Mr. Schreiber will nonetheless be allowed to temporarily stay in Canada to appear at a pending parliamentary inquiry into his business dealings with former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

  • Finally, Objections 2.0. - New spin on a never-ending debate. The argument in Minnesota regarding cameras in the courtroom has taken a modern turn: "One of the judges' concerns I have heard raised about cameras in the courtroom is the specter of the "unshaven blogger" coming in with cell phone camera at the ready. Apparently the judges are worried about being made to look sinister or downright ridiculous by a slip of the tongue or out-of-context snippet of dialogue winding up as a video posted on a blog or YouTube." See: Judges wary of the 'unshaven blogger' from Minnesota Lawyer Blog

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

B.C. Court of Appeal: No Fundamental Right to Civil Legal Aid

The British Columbian Court of Appeal expressly ruled yesterday that Canadians have no fundmental right to government-funded legal aid assistance in civil matters.

Madame Justice Mary Saunders delivered the Court's Reasons for Judgment: which upheld the September 2006 dismissal of a B.C. court action by the Canadian Bar Association "to force governments to provide adequate civil legal aid to poor people,"

Access to legal services is fundamentally important in any free and democratic society. In some cases, it has been found essential to due process and a fair trial. But a review of the constitutional text, the jurisprudence and the history of the concept does not support the respondent's contention that there is a broad general right to legal counsel as an aspect of, or precondition to, the rule of law.

Costs were also awarded against the C.B.A.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Law 21 and Articling for Law Grads in Ontario

Jordan Furlong, lawyer and editor-in-chief of the Canadian Bar Association's National magazine has a new blog, Law21, that came to my attention via Connie Crosby.

How can he miss, with a provocative profile teaser like this?

In the 21st century, the practice of law is shaking loose from its traditional moorings and heading out into uncharted territory. Opportunities abound, but so do pitfalls. Most of the old rules won’t apply anymore, while some will matter more than ever.

Welcome to the new legal profession, powered by collaboration, innovation, and client service. This is your front-row seat.

Mr. Furlong's comprehensive analysis of the Law Society of Upper Canada's current task force review of Ontario's bar admision and articling processes is a must read (Part 2 is here).

On the topic of articling, I'll quickly opine that it is nothing short of nutty to propose an abolition of the articling requirement for law school graduates.

If the primary issue is that articling jobs are hard to find, surely the Law Society brain trust can bang heads with the Attorney-General's office, Ontario's private law firms, the Legal Aid Plan and the various, cash-starved community legal assistance clinics throughout the Province to create numerically unlimited, supervised articling placements (pro-bono or subsidized) that will actually do something about the chronic access to justice difficulties in this Province.

I personally can't imagine where I would have been on day one of my law practice in 1986 absent the benefit of the mentorship I received during my own articles from Douglas Lissaman, Gordon Atlin and Richard Belsito. Twenty-plus years later, I am still influenced by their lessons and very different philosophies.

The practical apprenticeship component of legal training in this Province is not just an anachronistic throwback to a kinder, gentler era - it is a necessary step in preparing new professionals for practice in the real world.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE