This week’s blog is written by Dayna Cornwall, Project Manager at NSRLP.
Happy New Year to all our friends and supporters!
To start off 2020 we thought we’d give you a little sneak peek at the exciting things happening at NSRLP now, and in the coming weeks and months.
Starting the new year off right
This past week NSRLP acted as “intervenor” in the Alberta Court of Appeal’s consideration of Johnsson v Lymer, which was argued by our wonderful pro bono counsel, Colin Feasby of Osler Hoskin Harcourt Calgary and Brynne Harding of Bennett Jones Calgary. This case concerns the new “inherent jurisdiction” claimed by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and the court access restrictions placed on those deemed to be “vexatious litigants”. We look forward to the decision in Lymer, which will have important consequences for SRLs.
Any day now…
We’re so excited to launch season 5 of our podcast, Jumping Off the Ivory Tower with Prof Julie Mac, next week! Our award-winning show takes a look at the amazing work of social justice advocates and system disrupters, and we’ve got some wonderful new episodes planned for the coming months. Look out for conversations with Gillian Hadfield and Jordan Furlong about changes (and needed changes) in how legal services are provided; Orlando Da Silva about mental health in the justice sector; and our own Andrew Pilliar about exciting plans for NSRLP West at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. And we’ll have lots of other great topics coming up in this season, from safe injection sites to sexual violence to climate change. Mark your calendar for next Tuesday, January 21st, when we’ll be back with our 50thepisode – Dayna and Julie chat about her induction to the Order of Canada (congrats again, Julie!), as well as plans for the NSRLP in the coming year.
Also coming up next week will be our new Intake Report (2018/19). This is our semi-regular update to demographic and other data on SRLs in Canada (see our 2017 Intake Report here), following Julie’s original research study on self-representation. We’ve combed through the intake surveys filled out by SRL visitors to our website in 2018 and 2019, and will have, as always, some new and interesting trends to report on. Big thanks to Research Assistant Brandon Fragomeni for his great work on this over the last few months.
On the horizon
Over the past year we’ve been working on a very exciting project, funded by a grant from the Canadian Bar Association, updating our existing guides, or “Primers”, for self-represented litigants on many topics. We’ve been working with a wonderful plain language editor, Karen Black, and a great graphic designer, James Compton, to transform these documents into more accessible resources, both in terms of readability and aesthetics. It’s our goal that the Primers will be as useful as possible to the widest range of Canadians, and we’re so excited to launch them this winter! We’re in the final stages of editing, and plan to release them all at once in another month or two, so stay tuned!
Also coming up later in 2020 will be the online launch of our SRL Case Law Database. You may have seen our multiple research reports based on the data that our dedicated Research Assistants have been gathering from cases in Canada where self-representation is a key issue. Our goal is to put the Database itself online, available for anyone to search and download for free, and we’re talking with our friends at CanLII about how we can work together to make this happen. We anticipate that the SRL Case Law Database will be an extremely useful resource for self-represented litigants, lawyers, academics, students, and anyone else interested in Access to Justice and how the courts are coming to terms with some of the consequences of self-representation in Canada. Look for more news on this in the coming months!
And more big news coming…
Next week’s podcast will introduce you to our plans for 2020, and our goals for the future.
Our best wishes for your year ahead: here’s to a just and productive 2020!
i would appreciate some indication; if Johnnson v lymer is another pintea, and the courts ignore this, and no one is further ahead, speaking for myself,, my case has been sitting here, for years,, with no indication that the courts have any problem with kicking me further down the hill, The outright injustice i have been subject to, is a disgrace, No lawyer will touch it,, and no court will hear it, So,, Justice in BC, is not any further ahead then it was when this disgrace of a judicial systems behavior was being carried out, I would really appreciate some indication on how this case, currently being touted as the latest greatest thing,, is going to change MY case, because nothing has done this, Nothing, no case being supported, not meetings with Hadfield, no interviews with Bauman etc etc etc, nothing has changed anything, So what miracle of justice,, may I LOOK FORWARD TO , with this case,
When (perhaps I should say if) the tide begins to turn, there will be many people who will continue to see no restitution for past injustices.
.
One reason the legal and political establishments have so much trouble dealing with the truth is seen in such high profile legal battles as the ones that led to, among other things, the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. That suggestion may seem to be overstated, because SRLs – and others who have endured inadequate legal representation – are not a recognizable group like indigenous people or, for another example, the Japanese / Canadian families whose lives were severely disrupted during and after WWII.
.
But while that comparison may be of somewhat limited value the fact is the legal establishment and its allied political establishment always resist acknowledging the truth about injustice, and we do not have anything like the kind of leverage that was eventually mustered for First Nations litigants, who are still saying their battle is far from over.
I personally see a way forward that is worth a continued commitment. The injustice I claimed to have suffered was one that many other people would judge to be a minor one. But it led to a journey of discovery. That journey would not have begun if I had acquiesced to the pressure to walk away from a union grievance of my workplace termination rather than insist that the arbitration I had been promised would proceed. I got to witness, over two successive days, in rooms rented from two different hotels, how grievance arbitrations are run.
.
One of the things I want to see is that regime opened up to public examination. Sunlight being the best disinfectant. The last time I was in a courtroom the respondent party – the Law Society of B.C. – had succeeded in getting an order that the records of the matter would be sealed and that all courtroom proceedings would be closed to the public. When with some effort we secured a copy of the resulting “oral ruling” an associate posted it online here – http://www.uncharted.ca/images/users/ssigurdur/20141014_gropperj_oral_ruling.pdf . We have a judiciary that would be very pleased to run most courtroom proceedings with the same licence labour arbitrators enjoy.
Well! The NSRLP certainly knows how to bring an entire decade to a powerful close! Sounds like another impactful year ahead! Primers, podcasts, blogs, intervener cases, Julie’s Order of Canada announcement, and so much more! Thank you for all you have done and continued to do with a minimal budget, staff, students and volunteers from across the country! Everyone is “doing their bit” and our Self-represented Litigants community continues to expand as we find and connect with one another. We are each others greatest resources! Keep up the great work everyone! Elizabeth
I want to take this opportunity to share with the NSRLP community something I’ve just learned that I think holds considerable promise.
.
First a question. While I believe the courts have said, at least in respect to most civil litigation, words to the effect that “there is no inherent right to counsel”, did they mean approval of rules that bar certain parties from retaining counsel at their own expense?
.
Are there any such rules – e.g. court rules or provisions in statutes? I think I can name one statute and I’ve just been informed of one party’s intent to challenge that bar to legal representation with a judicial review petition.
.
The statute is the B.C. Labour Relations Code. And my guess is that the same bar is found in all the other provincial labour statutes.
.
The case is one of a union member who was one of several fired by an employer for alleged theft. When she, claiming she was not a party to the theft, retained her own lawyer, the union and the employer opposed that initiative and the arbitrator retained to hear the case agreed that she was not entitled to her own counsel. (That arbitrator is a former labour board Vice Chair – and one of the ones with whom I’ve tangled.) The labour board agreed that he had the right to make that decision.
You may want to read the case, here in Toronto, of Violet Shearer and the Toronto District School Board. Violet is a SRL who set precedent re Unions. This is groundbreaking caselaw that seems to have passed notice … https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc7171/2017onsc7171.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAOVmlvbGV0IFNoZWFyZXIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1
“[4] The Plaintiff submits that her dispute with the Defendants, in its essential character, does not arise from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective agreement and, for this reason, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.”
Courts Decision:
“[34] For these reasons, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.”
🙂
Cheers, Elizabeth
OMG I’m going to use that!!! Thank you! Fighting the BCNU here in BC!!!
After watching the 1st day of the Donald Trump Impeachment trial and reading many blog entries on this NSRLP site along with my own experiences. I have come to the conclusion that the action word of “IMPARTIALITY” should be deleted as from the legal dictionary and our COURTROOMS. It’s outrageous how so many can SWEAR to be “IMPARTIAL” and IGNORE their “OATH OF OFFICE” that is blatantly and a bold-face joke!
“IMPARTIALITY” doesn’t exist anymore and has transformed into a “BEST LIAR” contest and has become its own cottage industry. HOW DID IT GET THIS BAD?
Congrats on the Order of Canada Judy! So well deserved and pleasantly surprised they would give it even when someone has advocated so well for the injustices on the marginalized perpetuated by the establishment – maybe there is hope for this country yet.
There are very serious problems in the BC courts and the perversion of justice as can be seen by the comments on this Vancouver Sun article of this past Saturday:
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/ian-mulgrew-fake-news-no-excuse-to-keep-cameras-out-of-court
The open court principle in BC continually gets subverted. Transcripts and recordings are altered or parts removed when a judge says something false or ethically wrong and after realizes someone is going to listen to the recording or order a transcript. Judges operate in a black box and do not want any scrutiny or accountability whatsoever – cover-up is the modus operandi the judges use.
yes,, judges DO operate like this John. I did try to make comment on this in the paper,, The more members of the public made aware of exactly what is happening in our courts,, the better, I sure hope you got the chance to do the same, Mulgrew appears to have finally caught on to what is really going on, congrats on someone with the courage to call them out, We need a new system for appointing judges,, and no more no accountability for them,
Early in my trajectory of appearances as an SRL I heard from others that recordings and transcripts were being doctored. That struck me then as very unlikely, but what I’ve since seen myself suggests that it is certainly possible that some of those claims were valid.
.
I only ordered one transcript myself, and that was years ago. From what I recalled of the hearing it appeared to be accurate and complete. However, my experiences include being told (in 2003) by the BC Court of Appeal registrar that I could not order a transcript of a hearing – before three judges – that had resulted in what I had previously won being overturned, because it had not been recorded.
.
I felt 2019 was a significant year in the battle between the legal establishment and the citizenry. 2020 is going to be more significant. According to an article published yesterday in The Lawyer’s Daily (but now only accessible to subscribers) Justice Minister David Lametti is getting ready to introduce legislation amending provisions in the Judges Act. The article seemed to suggest that the judges – the CJC – will likely get what they want, including parliamentary approval of the Executive Director’s gatekeeper role. If that happens then I would say it is a significant step in the process of changing Canada from a country that has a powerful juristocracy to one that IS a juristocracy.
Spot on Chris, Canada is indeed a JURISTOCRACY. Think about it, we have 9 unelected appointed lawyers who decide if you’re entitled to your DEMOCRATIC Charter Right to a fair hearing. EQUALITY and BENEFIT of THE LAW is a juristic decision not a DEMOCRATIC decision of impartiality.
That’s why whichever political party is in power appoints members of their own party. A perfect example of this is the USA unbridled actions of Donald Trump stacking the COURTS with Republican appointments. The same thing is going on in CANADA under the stealth of darkness. The appointment process is indeed badly broken and absolutely defies section 15 (1) of the Charter and the CJC’S “ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF JUDGES” Chapter 6 “IMPARTIALITY”
Unbridled power contains the seeds of its own destruction.
.
I’m not much concerned about Donald Trump because I have no influence over what happens in the U.S. I remain focused on the power wielded by the Canadian juristocracy.
.
This blog entry speaks about a case challenging restrictions placed on “vexatious litigants”. Go to this link – https://lordreading.org/newsletter/newsletter-october-2010/ – and search on the two terms “vexatious” and “querulous”. If I recall correctly it was the NSRLP that introduced me to the term “querulous litigants”.
.
The Lord Reading Law Society is again of some interest to me because two speaking engagements by judges – the soon to retire Chief Justice of Quebec and the SCC’s Justice Russell Brown (with his colleague Rosalie Abella in a supporting role) have been cancelled or “postponed”. Why? I think it’s reasonable to suspect they are beginning to realize there is a systemic problem with these engagements with privileged communities.
I spotted some very interesting news today about more insider dealing. I found two unconnected articles dated January 31, one about the appointment of two new senators, both of whom are going to be hearing from me, and the other one found here – https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/cjc-revises-ethical-principles-for-judges-with-input-from-public-legal-community/325704 – about the CJC’s ongoing review of its “Ethical Principles for Judges”. That second article identifies the members of the CJC’s committee that has been conducting the review. One of them is Brent Cotter, one of the two new senators. You can search on “Brent Cotter” and “Judith Keating” to find information about them including the media articles about their appointments.
.
Cotter is a longstanding member of Canada’s “legal ethics” community. He was one of the four authors of a book published in 2017 – https://store.lexisnexis.ca/en/categories/shop-by-jurisdiction/federal-13/lawyers-ethics-and-professional-regulation-3rd-edition-skusku-cad-00623/details . One of that book’s other authors, Richard Devlin, along with another legal ethics expert, Amy Salyzyn, commented about the CJC’s ethics review on Slaw on January 28 – http://www.slaw.ca/2020/01/28/judges-need-ethics-rules-not-just-ethical-guidance/ .
.
Given what I know about the CJC, I don’t think anything it is capable of producing is going to improve the access to justice situation in this country.