I understand why so many people are so angry.
The legal system in Canada has let down its users, the communities it serves, and its own values of fairness and equality.
So many people now experience the courts or lawyers or the law as a club that excludes them, a tight clique that always looks down on them as “outsiders”, and will never see them as equals or peers.
Five years ago I wrote a blog called “Fire in the Hole” about the Access to Justice crisis in Canada, and why every lawyer needed to care about it. In that blog I described the public and legal system insiders as living in separate “parallel universes”.
Unfortunately, we still are.
Just this week
Two unrelated debates in the last month have really highlighted for me the chasm that continues to exist between the public who need lawyers, and the lawyers who (sort of, under given conditions and at a certain price point) are willing to help.
The first is about so-called “sharp practice” – unprofessional and unethical behaviour by lawyers – against SRLs. Otherwise known as taking unfair advantage. The second is the prospective de-funding (just averted) of Pro Bono Ontario.
- “Sharp practice” by opposing counsel
I welcome Malcolm Mercer’s column for SLAW on this issue, even if I disagree with some of his premises. The first step here is naming what is happening, and believe me that isn’t easy. So thank you for naming it, Malcolm.
I think it is useful to reframe the problem from the perspective of those who are especially negatively affected by it – i.e. SRLs.
Empirical data clearly shows an increase in the use of procedural tactics to “roll” an SRL. Our 2015 study showed a very large increase in summary judgment procedures (including summary judgment applications and motions to strike) in the previous 10 years, and a 96% success rate for procedures brought by represented against unrepresented parties. In recent jurisprudence we are seeing a lot of arguments about “vexatiousness” and “process abuse” (see our forthcoming report from the Self-Represented Litigants Case Law Database on how the courts are developing the idea of litigant “vexatiousness”, and our recent report on the punitive use of costs against SRLs).
A common factor in the complaints we hear at NSRLP about opposing counsel is a lack of courtesy and ordinary civility, often in the service of meaningless posturing. A third (smaller) group of complaints allege fraud and dishonesty on the part of lawyers on the other side. Many of these complaints are credible.
As lawyers, we are capable of getting ourselves endlessly tangled up in debate over “what is sharp practice?” without understanding or accepting any real change. Making a new conduct rule for something that is really about attitudes and values is an old, and not very effective, professional strategy. The real issue here is the cultural norms that Malcolm alludes to.
The norms that see the approach to conflict used by lawyers in the courts as “war”.
SRLs are not “the same” as lawyers – they are not trained to practise “war”, and they are emotionally invested in their own case (naturally). The vast majority of them (confirmed now by at least six studies) are in court alone because they cannot afford lawyers. They see behaviour by counsel (or judges) that demeans, patronizes, and excludes them as yet another way in which they are treated unfairly, and which is intended to cause them to lose the battle. Not really hard to understand.
The important question here is not, “does that behaviour fall within a definition of sharp practice?” (as an SRL might point out, a lawyer-made term), but instead, “how can the profession make it clear to the public that it takes very seriously discourteous behaviour by lawyers and ways in which they exploit the ignorance and vulnerability of SRLs?”
This is about public confidence in the justice system. We need to do something.
- Pro Bono Ontario
There has been an outpouring of surprise and anger resulting from the announcement that Pro Bono Ontario (PBO) would close its three in-court help centres (two in Toronto, one in Ottawa), effective December, due to lack of funding.
In her op-ed last week in the Globe & Mail Jennifer Leitch nails just how perverse it is for government to defund PBO. As she points out, “as a result of the hours donated by legal professionals, the reduction of court proceedings and increased court efficiency, the provincial government saves $10 for every dollar spent on Law Help Centres”.
In a landscape still mostly denuded of ports of refuge for SRLs, and continuing hostility against them from some quarters, the closure of PBO’s help centres is a blow that is hard to overstate for those navigating the courts in these cities without assistance.
Following the announcement that the help centres would close, we have heard from dozens of distressed SRLs, proposing petitions, even hunger strikes, many asking how can it be possible in what is already a crisis of access to justice to take away one of the only sources of practical face-to-face help for SRLs in these major cities?
As we go to press, news is breaking of a temporary reprieve for the help centres, in the form of federal government funding and private donations. A huge relief for many current SRLs, but this issue will be back again…
We have to do more
I am describing an ugly scene. As public anger mounts, the standing of any part of the legal establishment is not looking good.
The exclusion from the justice system and the resultant unfairness and humiliation that so many Canadians experience is creating a growing sense of anger. Yet we insiders continue to sleepwalk through our A2J crisis. I am not sure how much longer people will be politely (in a Canadian way) aggrieved before they start to become more visibly angry.
But we can act. We need to face the unfairness and the anger that are created by a (very) unequal system of justice. We need commit to doing something. We need to commit to a multifaceted (there are so many ideas out there) raft of solutions that will require the collaboration of everyone in the justice system: from lawyers to judges to social workers to administrators.
Are you in?
I am most definately in Julie! You and your team are the only quantum of solace in a system where I can substantively say that in Alberta Judges literally hate when they engage a SRL in their courtroom. It is disgraceful (talking from my own and my wife’s personal experience over 12 years).
You are so right when you say something has to be done, Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella is spot on when she said in a recent speech that the public is angry and they remind her of the actor (Peter Finch) in the movie Network where he asked everyone to get off their couches and yell put their windows “I am mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore”. (source: Donald Best website).
I am regularly characterized as a “UCC” or Unreasonable Complainant Conduct in trying to access jusTice. It is a good read from Australia and good to know when presenting a case. Just Google UCC from Australia police department. Knowing what you are fighting against is half the battle.
To be more accurate, the increase in the number of summary trials is purely due to a change in the Rules brought about by the Bench wishing to trim down the number of trials confronting it.
Sure! and the 96% success rate is due to great lawyers versus the “unwashed” illiterate SRL…
It is plain and obvious that lawyers can and do get away with “machinations” that the SRL dares try. Nor can the SRL document and detail those machinations and have much hope of a favourable ruling. Think I am wrong? Look at Pintea v Johns – it took the SUPREME court to get Justice.
In my humble opinion very few of those “machinations” are punished at all – perhaps none in a truly meaningful way.
Connie Brauer – my heart goes out to you, and other family court “victims”. In my case I just suffered house and charter rights abuse – as important as they are, they do not compare to losing your children.
We need a true “PEOPLE’S COURT” Some venue where MERIT is argued not LAW.
People need to stop thinking of the Supreme Court of Canada as supporting SRLs. It is statistically the worst court to expect justice from for an SRL.
.
Below is a table of data on 5500 cases from recent years (starting in about 2007). Despite the fact that SRLs account for more than 20% of applications for leave to appeal, the SCC essentially does not grant any to SRLs. Out of the last 1200 SRL applications only 1 was granted – a token. But, represented parties have a better than 1-in-8 chance to have an appeal heard. You won’t find this data on the SCC’s website because people would likely be shocked to know the SCC takes in about 10 leave to appeal applications per month from SRLs – only to effectively throw them in the garbage.
.
For Files # 32000 – 37500
.
CRIMINAL CIVIL TOTAL PCT
FILED 1565 3848 5413 100%
SRLs 279 964 1243 23%
Represented 1286 2884 4170 77%
.
GRANTED 162 372 534 100%
SRLs 0 1 1 0.2%
Represented 162 371 533 99.8%
.
Pct Granted
SRLs 0% 0.1% 0.1%
Represented 13% 13% 13%
this is finally, an explanation, I applied to the supreme court regarding the admission of dna evidence without examination , without regulation as per court requirement, and without any actual studies to show a REAL error rate, not a statistically likely one,, An actual one,,, I not only was denied, the supreme court of Canada were horribly rude to me. insulting me no end. So,, it would ap0pear what you say is correct, and then they will on occasion also insult and degrade the self represented.
You got that right
really?? trim down the trials?? why is it that most of the ones being trimmed are self represented?? just an accident?? I really do not believe that. it is a personal attack on the self represented, and has been going on now for years,
Whatever anyone may say – the old maxim “Justice is BLIND” appears as the NORM to SRLS “Justice MUST be SEEN to be done” is certainly NOT the case. Access to Justice and all the other platitudes are simply NOT realistic to SRLS.
Pintea v Johns appeared to be a huge step.
It did not take long to be used AGAINST SRLs.
An SRL who works hard to find and argue jurisprudence and authorities ends up being openly mocked by judges.
e.g. Lawyer uses High court rules in lower court. Judge’s decision: “When asked how he (the SRL) would plead if the proper rules were applied, he had no answer.”
What we need is a truly OPEN and ACCOUNTABLE court process
LET THE WORLD KNOW THAT JUDGES ENFORCE the RULE OF LAW
Online courts will be the answer – at least in MANY cases the law is simple and the facts are simple.
e.g. https://civilresolutionbc.ca/how-the-crt-works/
I am not saying it’s perfect – but I hope that it is perfect for many…
and YES
I understand that SRLs are in too many cases liars, contemptuous, etc
I understand that LAWYERS are in MUCH too many cases liars, contemptuous, etc
YES! at the very least ““how can the profession make it clear to the public that it takes very seriously discourteous behaviour by lawyers and ways in which they exploit the ignorance and vulnerability of SRLs?”
Is there ANY single SRL who has NOT faced an affidavit of an opposing lawyer/associate/law student?
This practice violates ethics, jurisprudence and authorities, shields the client, and also gives the impression counsel is testifying via proxy which is improper practice (Williams v Canada (MCI), 2018 FC 100 (CanLII) at paragraph 56).
So why does it keep happening? Why do the courts excuse, allow and even rule FAVOURABLY on motions supported by such affidavits?
Such rulings clearly encourage this practice and do NOT show the issue is taken seriously.
Such rulings are plain and obviously a “Trap for the unwary” SRL who is led to believe that the court will take it seriously.
In my 2017 case, I started to read from my authority on the use of affidavit by counsel – the TWO opposing counsel drowned me out and the adjudicator admonished me for using the words I was reading.
In my (other unrelated) 2018 case, opposing counsel is now using his THIRD affidavit provided by his associate. First time was other defendant’s counsel’s affidavit. SECOND time was his law student’s affidavit.
” _______seriously “? No expletive implied. What word(s) should precede seriously?
Thanks for your work on this. However, all your info is coming from Ontario. I live in NS and have battled the unjust and unequal family law courts for twenty years only to lose everything, all the time.
This inequity is totally egregious and unconstitutional.
Now we have to deal with regional deprivations too.
I can’t even speak up for my rights, as the judge ruled against me for speaking my mind against our abusers and
ordered a permanent judgment against us. It is a total violation of the Charter and my right to free speech.
As long as courts traffic our children to the other spouse and make us pay for everything they could possibly want and as long as they are held unaccountable for depriving us of our children, and as long as Judges sit like Emperors (dictators) on their thrones without any accountability and as long as we can’t appeal because of the expense, exhaustion and the entitled elite who aren’t going to change the order anyway and as long as only Ontario has a voice, we will never have access to Justice!
This is worse than in medieval England when people were dragged through the muddy streets behind ox carts because they spoke out.
We will never be free until we have access to justice in Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need Charter of Rights Courts.
We need trained professionals to advocate for us.
We don’t want to pay.
Why pay when Government holds all the card and deprived us of our Charter rights in the first place??????????????
We need it now and we need to have our day in court.
We need remedies.
When will this happen?
The Guaranteed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a Big Fat Joke in Canada!
No one cares!
I do. I want justice.
I’m mad and I’m bitter!
Actually Connie our research data and our SRL input comes from all over Canada. We are always trying to expand our “reach” and welcome greater participation from NS. The experience for SRLs is remarkably-painfully- similar across regions and provinces
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.” -Lewis Carroll
.
.
What do lawyers and the LSO Complaints system consider unprofessional or unethical behaviour? What does “Sharp Practice” mean if you have stepped through the Looking Glass into Lawyerland? My experience is that the words mean whatever the lawyers and the LSO Complaints system want them to mean.
.
My legal journey began with trying to shield my elderly uncle from the actions of his PoAs, and subsequently became an estate matter. I had legal representation so I dodged most of the procedural bullets which are used to great effect on SRLs, but I was still hit by a variety of other tactics which fit under the ‘outspend-to-victory’ umbrella. In February 2015 I made a formal complaint to the LSO about the lawyer’s tactics. I particularly emphasised the elder abuse aspects because I was concerned about the potential impact of the lawyer’s behaviour on a vulnerable section of the community. After 3 YEARS in the Complaints process, my complaint was referred to a Regulatory Meeting (Nov 2017). I made two subsequent complaints about the actions of the litigators in this matter. One complaint made it to Investigations but was dismissed with no action and the third set didn’t make it out of the Intake section. I certainly don’t feel the LSO has the proper balance between lawyers’ interests and the public interest- especially with regard to vulnerable groups.
.
I am pleased that Malcolm Mercer was willing to open a discussion on these matters with his 22 Nov 2018 SLAW article about SRLs and Sharp Practice. Malcolm’s article acknowledged SRLs’ concerns that they are being dealt with unfairly by opposing counsel and that they feel the Rules of Professional Conduct were written to benefit lawyers; however, he states that he believes the problem with legal ethics is that it was premised on the assumption that all parties are represented. I’ll meet Malcolm halfway on this point. The problems that SRLs are experiencing with procedural tactics being used to “roll” them MAY just be a variant of what Malcolm labels the David and Goliath situation of parties who have unequal resources. But redefining the problem doesn’t RESOLVE it. It also doesn’t address the question of whether the ‘cultural norms’ accepted by the LSO match the broader community’s expectation for self-regulating in the public interest. I obviously have a VERY different view of ethical behaviour from that of the LSO- and perhaps I am the one who is out of line- but the Complaints process is so opaque that it is hard to know. What do other people think?
.
These were my complaints:-
.
The first complaint was about the lawyer who drew up the PoAs, Wills and acted as the estates’ lawyer
1a The lawyer for my aunt (AB) and uncle (UW) did not properly check for capacity when she drafted very unequal Wills which named a niece and her husband as Trustees. AB died 6 months after the Wills were written; 9 months after that UW was diagnosed with advanced Alzheimer’s and 3 months after that UW suffered a massive stroke and died. AB and UW had no children. The Wills they wrote after AB was diagnosed with terminal cancer left UW with less than $200/yr in interest and the right to continue living in the marital home of 50 years. UW was the designated annuitant of $55,000 in RRIFs but did not receive them; instead they were placed in the spousal trust set up by the AB’s new Will.
The LSO found that the lawyer had not conducted proper checks for capacity and should not have acted on a joint retainer. (Sounds good so far.)
.
1b The lawyer had acted against UW’s interests when she did not to advise him to get independent advice about his spousal rights when AB died. She compounded this omission by drawing up Powers of Attorney appointing AB’s Trustees as his PoAs as well as acting as the lawyer for AB’s Trustees. When UW was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, she actively assisted the PoA/Trustees attempts to move him into the first available LTC bed without consulting UW about his care wishes. UW’s long-held still-expressed wishes were to remain in his home.
The LSO found this acceptable behaviour. The LSO advised that they saw no need for UW to be informed of his spousal rights. I was told that the LSO investigator had reviewed the file and decided that UW would not have benefited from an equalisation payment and she could see no grounds on which to challenge AB’s Will. (WHAT?!? The LSO used the file of a lawyer who the LSO had just concluded HAD NOT properly checked for capacity to say that there was no problem with AB’s Will?!? In addition, the LSO was aware that the lawyer claimed that UW hadn’t received his RRIFs because the CIBC had not informed them that he was the beneficiary and that neither she nor the Trustees were aware of the designation until after UW died! …So obviously the lawyer didn’t do a very good job of deposing AB’s Will or checking for capacity- or both!)
The LSO just avoided the issue of the lawyer not consulting her own client before assisting the PoAs/Trustees attempt to move UW into LTC.
.
1c As the lawyer for the Trustees, the lawyer provided false and misleading information about the assets in the estates. She also misappropriated $60,000+ from her trust account for AB to pay the expenses for UW’s estate, including $25,000 paid to the litigators to fight my motion to pass accounts. The Trustees were enriched by this action since they received 1/3 of AB’s estate but 1/2 of UW’s estate- and it was a nice piggybank to fund their litigation.
The LSO determined that there was no evidence that the lawyer had lied. They accepted the excuse of ‘bank errors’ for the inaccurate information provided.
The LSO found that lawyer had used her trust account improperly but advised that she was unlikely to commit this error again. (Really?! It is unlikely that another case like this will make it to a Regulatory Meeting, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen. The estates were only $200,000 each so for most people it wouldn’t be worth the legal cost. On top of that, I provided comprehensive documentation including copies of the lawyer’s own trust account statements but it still took 3 YEARS of constant nagging to get an outcome from the Complaints system! Since the lawyer made $20,000+, where is the disincentive? This is just a variation of the ‘Demand letter’ example raised in Malcolm’s article. )
.
The second complaint was about Litigators #2. (The first litigator withdrew.)
2a. The litigators had been complicit in the misappropriation of trust funds, with $25,000 of their $50,000 in fees being misappropriated from AB’s estate. The litigators had advised that AB’s funds had been used and needed to be repaid but ignored my explicit objection to the continued use of AB’s funds in this manner.
The LSO found that there were no issues. They advised that the litigators’ retainer did not extend to estate administration and they were entitled to rely on the Trustees’ and estate lawyer in these matters.
.
2b Throughout the negotiations the litigators reminded me of the rapidly increasingly litigation expense, a behaviour which I found coercive particularly in light of 2a. (The expenses were VERY rapidly increasing with the Trustees paying $650/hr for the principal and $350/hr for the associate litigator!)
The LSO advised that raising costs as a thinking point was common during negotiations and was not coercive or inappropriate.
.
2c The litigators withheld information which materially affected the basis on which we had negotiated settlement. I had raised concerns that tax had not been paid on AB’s RRIFs (~$25,000), bank accounts were missing and assets had been improperly allocated (~$30,000) amongst other concerns. In very rude letter, the litigators advised that they didn’t need my tax advice; that everything else had been done properly; and my lawyer and I should stop wasting money and read the answers they had provided. Time showed that I was right and the litigators were wrong on all points but I was not advised of this until long after the settlement had been signed. The litigators received the correct information in 2014 before the settlement was signed but did not pass it on. I only found out in 2017 when I received documents in response to a second motion which I brought to enforce the settlement.
The LSO response was that the litigators were entitled to rely on the information provided to them by the Trustees and estate lawyer. This apparently extends to the litigators not reading documents which the estate lawyer forwarded to them showing that their earlier assertions were incorrect. (So the ‘cultural norm’ seems to be that litigators have No Care and Less Responsibility.)
.
The third complaint was about the estate lawyer (again) and Litigator #3
3a This was a repeat of complaint 1c, that the estate lawyer had provided false information. The documents I received from the motion to enforce settlement showed that the estate lawyer HAD known that UW was the beneficiary of AB’s RRIFs despite her blaming the bank. The CIBC had provided the correct information and AB’s EAT and final tax were both calculated as if the RRIFs had rolled over to UW, even though the (full preserved) RRIFs weren’t transferred until after UW died.
The LSO dismissed this complaint in the Intake section.
3b Litigator #3 was withholding documents promised by the settlement. He sent invisible attachments on multiple occasions; unilaterally declared that other documents had been provided when they had not; and deemed other promised documentation ‘unnecessary’. He also took the position that the false information provided during settlement negotiations was irrelevant because I had signed the settlement agreement.
The LSO dismissed this complaint in the Intake section.
.
So, I feel like I’ve stepped through a Looking Glass. I’ll close by misquoting Jane Austen:- “I am no longer surprised at the LSO finding only six complaints per year requiring disciplinary action. I rather wonder now at they have any.”
“Sharp practice” by opposing counsel – I think everyone needs to know this:
I am self-represented. I was treated really badly by my Ex’s former lawyer. I filed a complaint with the Ontario Law Society.
The former lawyer sent a copy of everything I had filed confidentially with the complaint. This included private and confidential medical letters to my Ex.
– AT the bottom of the first page of the complaint process are 2 paragraphs regarding CONFIDENTIALITY.
– I tried to file a complaint about the lawyer handing out my my private complaint information to his FORMER client.
– The Law Society refused to accept my complaint.
CAVEAT for everyone who is thinking about filing a complaint about a lawyers behaviour…YOU MAY THINK YOUR FILE IS CONFIDENTIAL, HOWEVER, IT IS NOT ONCE THE LAWYER YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT IS GIVEN HIS COPY OF YOUR COMPLAINT, INCLUDING MEDICAL LETTERS AND PRIVATE INFORMATION.
I appealed this to the COMPLAINTS RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER and they agreed that once the complaint and all documents are given to the lawyer, he/she may give to whomever they please!
YOUR COMPLAINTS TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO ARE NOT CONFIDENTIAL.
Hello Sheila
The Law Society’s very cavalier disclosure of your confidential information to the lawyer who was the subject of your complaint is another example of the LSO Complaints process’ lawyer-centred bias and the total lack of respect for SRLs/ members of the public.
.
What was the LSO’s justification for sharing your private and confidential medical information, other than a ‘Because We Can’ attitude arising from the consent clause at the end of the LSO Complaint form? (And that consent is something which it appears you need to sign in if you want your complaint looked at.) And, even if the LSO had redacted the private and confidential medical information, why is it considered appropriate to share the ENTIRE file? The LSO investigator may need to share SELECTED information when seeking the lawyer’s response; however, handing over the whole file sounds more like prepping the lawyer’s side for their responses- (or alternatively as an assignment in a Creative Writing course:- ‘Please write a story which explains your actions including the events set out in the scenario provided by Ms X’).
.
If this is the way investigations are handled then the very high dismissal rate of complaints submitted by the public is not surprising. After all, writing an internally coherent account isn’t very difficult if the lawyer is provided with all the complainant’s documents, particularly since the complainant doesn’t get feedback from the process. (The LSO position is that Section 49.12 of the Law Society Act prohibits the disclosure of information obtained during the investigation process. This prohibition includes both the responses of the lawyer AND EVEN THE QUESTIONS WHICH WERE ASKED DURING THE INVESTIGATION!)
The access to justice problem is Canada-wide (in fact it’s global). It is advantageous to those who are determined to maintain the status quo to create as many silos as possible. Each of the provinces / territories is a silo. Each court and each tribunal is a silo. Etc.
.
Here in B.C. we are hearing today our Attorney General David Eby bemoaning the “crisis”. Well I’m tired of hearing that word. Give it a rest please.
.
From very early in my now long train of challenging the system I’ve focused, much more than most people, on language, on terminology. I’ve also been very cautious about the terminology I’ve used in articulating my claims.
.
My suggestion that some of what I saw appeared to meet the definition of conspiratorial conduct got just the reaction I expected. And that didn’t faze me at all. It’s part of the record. We have a Quebec Court of Appeal justice who is fond of calling us “querulous litigants” and talking about the possibility of using drugs to treat us.
.
Just now I went to CanLII and searched on two terms, separately and together: “sharp practice” and “bad faith”.
.
I’m alleging bad faith on the part of a considerable number of individuals and entities, including e.g. the Canadian Judicial Council.
.
Yesterday I followed up what is posted here – https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/332/2018/04/Chris-Budgell.pdf – with another submission responding to a second invitation. I’m hoping it too will be published. I’ve named about a dozen or so individuals. I could have named many more.
.
If this does go online I don’t anticipate that any of them will expressly respond.
.
Here’s how I’ve ended that submission:
.
” I’ve named already more than a dozen people.
.
If individuals challenging powerful institutions, as I have done, perceived consistent good faith conduct, then I think we would speak highly of such a community. It is precisely because we see consistent bad faith conduct that we perceive an institutional bias, one I say is, in the final analysis, contemptuous of the public interest and the rule of law.”
It is a fact that if a judge has a “Judicial Discretion” choice between a SRL and a Lawyer the Judge will favour the Lawyer everytime. No sarcasm intended, but perhaps it ought to be renamed “Judicial Discrimination”, with respect.
I am sure that we all have the ultimate respect for the “Rule of Law” and the “Judicial System” as opposed to living in an autocracy? Similar to the respect our neighbours to the south have for the office of The Presidency, but not so much towards the occupier of the seat.
Any right minded reasonable person will tell that every sphere or endeavour we rely on is only as good, fair and honest as the people administering it!
It’s apparent our justice or legal system or whatever nomenclature you choose to call it, is broken!
It is chilling in how well this post and subsequent comments, echo the thoughts of 100’s of people whose legal nightmares I have heard over the last 10 years.
Clearly the brutality of the adversarial mindset has dictated the manner in which SRL have been “othered” as less than and are treated as annoying, vexatious, outsiders, that have literally the become the “enemy” deserving of being beaten to a pulp by legal procedure, that doesn’t remotely address the facts or provide viable people centered solutions in the lives of Canadian citizens.
How much longer will the public agree to continue funding a system that has utterly failed to accommodate their needs as a vulnerable group of SRL up to the point of undue hardship?
If the legal system does not serve or support the needs and rights of average citizens and by extension those of the collective, if it doesn’t fulfill its highest purpose of building a fair and just society, if it isn’t even considered to be an “essential service”, why are tax payers paying for it?
Outside of being what I imagine is a hefty source of revenue for the system, since we are otherwise clearly not welcome in our own public courts, a new system is in order.
Abuse flourishes behind closed doors. For the public good and in the name of transparency and fairness, all court proceedings need to be filmed by both parties.
Citizen Court Monitoring
http://moderncourts.org/citizen-court-monitoring/
Ron Ford
Unbelievable comments: I filed an action in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on April 26, 2018. The defendants include both Provincial and Municipal governments. Though the evidence I have of their negligence is overwhelming, they chose to drag me through the courts. Fortunately, as a retiree, I have the time to spend researching and attempting to understand the NS Civil Procedure Rules.
Though the Provincial Department has been somewhat responsive, the Municipal lawyer has been quite contemptuous and non responsive. Though Pleadings closed on June 30, 2018 I still do not have their documents, and my requests go unanswered. Discovery is scheduled for the end of February 2019. In July, I hired a lawyer on a ‘limited scope basis’, (a good move), to assist when required.
My opinion is that lawyers and law firms ‘juggle’ as many cases as they can possibly handle in order to generate maximum revenue, and no one gets served adequately. Every time they get back to a file, they have to get back up to speed and things become protracted into eternity.
When you say:
“We need to commit to a multifaceted (there are so many ideas out there) raft of solutions that will require the collaboration of everyone in the justice system: from lawyers to judges to social workers to administrators.”
Please remember to include Government in that list. It was the failure of the Ontario government to continue funding that threatened the Pro-Bono Ontario Law Help Centers, and that wisdom of the Federal government that stepped in with bridge funding to keep them open. If Access to Justice is not seen as an election issue, at ALL levels of government, then even the (inadequate) systems in place now (Legal Aid, Legal Clinics, PBO, etc.) risk disappearing due to lack of funding.
Just as provincial medical care is not limited to those earning less than minimum wage, governments should not limit Legal Aid to those who are in abject poverty. Thinks about how many questions get asked about health care during elections … if voters asked as many questions about fixing the justice system, there would be more political will for reforms that could make Court rules and procedures more simple (or at least more clear!) and funding that would make Court assistance more accessible.
What about sharp practices between lawyers. You got litigators who enjoy being on the edge and solicitors who run from conflict. You do not have to be a SL to be treated badly.
I am posting this on behalf of my husband, who started a self represented action regarding improper building processes resulting in damage to the building of the house. the first question that was decided to be heard separately,, was the issue of statute of limitations, The ruling was in my husbands interpretation incorrect, according to the legislation,, new stuff just brought in here a few years back. He decided to appeal to the supreme court of BC. He hired a lawyer to file it properly for him, he was told he would need the transcripts,,,they would not be too expensive as the decision was not a verbally released one,,, but a written one, Today he was just told by his lawyer that, costs for the transcript were appearing to be much higher in price in what appears to be because of a backlog,, and because they will not have it ready for filing in time, he will have to file for an extension,, at a cost of 1000. And you cannot get the records anywhere else because the Chilliwack BC courthouse will not accept any other transcript but theirs,, they have a monopoly on the production of transcripts,,,,, the price for the transcripts will be 2035, earlies delivery date appears to be the second week in January. Now I ask you,, is this the way justice or access to it is supposed to work??? why is this the only transcript acceptable,, and why is this so expensive?? necessitating a court application for postponement. this is like being held up on the court house steps,,, AND that is what is happening here in BC law, crooks at every stage waiting with both the gun and the bag, for all the money they can skim., More to follow on this,
Sharp Practice !! Why is it that a SRL is called a vexatious litigants but when a Lawyer does the same they are not called vexatious litigants & it has to be watered down to Sharp Practice ?? 2 different set of defintions for those belonging to a society & the public ?? When will this form of discrimination change ?