Today’s blog is written by Michelle Flaherty, labour arbitrator and mediator, and former Vice-Chair, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. With thanks to Margaret Leighton and Leslie Reaume. We anticipate that this will be the first in a series of “Postcards from an Adjudicator”, addressing different issues related to tribunal adjudication.
I understand you have a legal problem, and it’s the kind of issue decided by someone like me: a decision maker who works for an administrative tribunal or board.
I also understand that you intend to represent yourself when you come before the board or tribunal. Administrative proceedings are supposed to be more informal and less like court proceedings – the goal is to allow meaningful participation whether you are represented by a licensed legal representative or not. That’s the goal but, sadly, it’s not always the reality. Representing yourself in any type of litigation can be challenging.
Here are my thoughts to help you understand the process before administrative boards and tribunals, and my role as an adjudicator. I hope this will help you feel more comfortable and confident about representing yourself.
My Role
First thing you need to know: I can’t solve all your legal problems. My powers to provide you with a remedy or solution come from the law or laws that apply to my board or tribunal. I have only those specific powers and do not have a general ability to address all areas of the law, or all the unfairness or inequities you may feel you have experienced.
Second, there are many tribunals and boards. Each has different powers and mandates. You may have a legal problem that no single tribunal can address, which means that you may wish to begin proceedings before more than one board or tribunal. For example, if you lose your job, you may need to go to one decision maker to claim your outstanding vacation pay, and another tribunal if you have been denied employment insurance benefits.
It can be very frustrating to decide what claim or claims to file and where. So, before you begin, you must figure out what the adjudicative board or tribunal has the power to decide. A good place to start is often the board or tribunal’s website. There may be information bulletins and guides, as well as a description of the tribunal and its powers, and links to the relevant legislation and rules – learn as much as you can about the tribunal and the process it will follow to address your matter. This is time-consuming, but it is better than the alternative: learning from me in a hearing that I cannot listen to what you have to say about a part of your claim because it is outside my powers to decide.
Third, in administrative law, each party is responsible for making its case to me. Sometimes people arrive at the hearing expecting me to seek out and speak to additional witnesses or obtain further documents, but that is not my role. You must bring to the hearing all of the information you want me to consider in deciding your case. I cannot present or uncover evidence for you.
Finally, you need to know that I am neutral. Even though you are self-represented and the other side may have a lawyer, I cannot be on “your side”. I understand there is a power imbalance and will do what I can to make sure the process is fair and ensure you are treated with respect. But I must remain impartial. I cannot cross the line and become your advocate.
How I Can Help You
I can provide some assistance and direction to help you to meaningfully participate in the hearing. This is one of the hardest parts of my job and it requires a careful balance. For example, I cannot advise you to object to something the other party is doing or saying, but if you decide to object, I can explain the procedure you need to follow.
In my view, there are some things you should expect (or ask for) from an administrative adjudicator at the hearing. These include:
- An explanation of what the adjudicator has the power to decide.
- An explanation of the legal “test”. What do you or the other side need to prove to be successful? For example, someone seeking entitlement to social benefits may need to show that they have a disability within the meaning of the law that is being applied. “Disability” is defined differently in different statutes, and an adjudicator should direct you to the definition you need to meet for the purposes of your case.
- A description of the hearing process. Which side goes first? Where do you sit? Hearing room practices such as whether you need to stand up when speaking, what to call me, what to do if you have an objection, and what kinds of questions I might ask and when.
- An opportunity to ask questions about the process and to clarify the legal test.
How You Can Help Yourself
Preparation is critical. Make sure you bring your claim before the tribunal or board that has the legal power to address it. Make sure you understand what solutions or remedies the tribunal or board can and cannot give you.
Different tribunals operate differently. Take the time to learn about “your” tribunal. It may be helpful to review previous decisions (what we refer to as “jurisprudence”) made in cases similar to yours. Sometimes the tribunal website will include a link to its decisions. Many decisions are freely accessible in CanLII. (It may be useful to consult NSRLP’s Can LII Primer.)
Ask questions. Having questions ready is part of preparation – and more will come up during the hearing. For example, it is entirely appropriate for you to ask about terminology you are not familiar with, like, “You and the lawyer for the other side keep using the word ‘estoppel’, I don’t understand what that means.” If you didn’t understand something your plumber or your dentist said, you would ask questions and expect an explanation that you can understand. The fact that you have questions doesn’t mean that you are any less intelligent than your plumber, your dentist, or your hearing adjudicator. It just means that you have different knowledge and experiences.
Some other suggestions:
- You are expected to treat everyone involved in the hearing process with respect, and you should expect to be treated with respect in return. Be polite and avoid raising your voice or using insulting language. If you feel overwhelmed or need some time to collect yourself, feel free to ask for a short break (usually 10 – 15 minutes).
- Avoid interrupting other people when they are speaking. You may not agree with what they are saying, but you will have an opportunity to speak too.
- The adjudicator will mark some documents with exhibit numbers and tell everyone which document has what number. We do this to make sure everyone is referring to the same document. You should mark your copies accordingly.
- Bring extra copies of any documents you intend to refer to at the hearing. Unless they already have a copy, the tribunal and the other party will need a copy of each document. We may also need copies for witnesses.
- I may have to decide issues such as objections or other requests during the hearing. Usually before I decide, I will give all parties a chance to tell me what they think. Once I have made a decision, the hearing moves on and you should not continue to argue the same point.
Good luck as you prepare to represent yourself before a tribunal or board. I know it is challenging, but hope my suggestions will help.
…
Please note that as of today, May 1 2019, we have made some changes to our comment moderation policy. These have been put in place in the hopes of further stimulating useful and positive dialogue around A2J issues. We thank all website commenters for their excellent ongoing contributions to this conversation. Please refer to our blog homepage for details on our moderation policy.
From my past experience, I’ve had better success in court before a judge than before an arbitrator/adjudicator. The informality part can lead to inconsistencies in submitting written evidence. As for cross-examination of witnesses, the represented side has more lead way and can really bully the SRL.
The other side who’s represented by a lawyer can play the arbitrator/adjudicator like a fiddle. They’re both current lawyers so they know each other good and have had after hour BBQs and socials whereas a judge may have left his practice quite a while ago. An arbitrator/adjudicator is not as well versed in human rights accommodations. As for following precedents, that was a hit and miss for me.
Many times, a decision rendered by an arbitrator/adjudicator is final and binding whereas a court motion and trial decision can be appealed.
So 6 sentences is now banned on this site!
Here the author describes the absurdity of the system…different tribunals have different rules. And since the system is so irrational and abusive, be sure to take many hours from work and life to try to figure them out before you come before the tribunal.
So, in summary, the system serves itself, not the people paying the taxes and expecting something for their money. The customer is never right.
Millions of people have lost confidence and trust in the ‘system’; surely we can’t all be wrong.
Yes that sounds like a mediator but that has not been my experience. The mediator I experienced was not neutral and pressured the self represented litigant to accept an unlawful concession. Another tribunal called me a forum shopper for taking each separate issue before the appropriate forum, to discredit me and legitimize the dismissal. There is something very wrong with the legal system that denies those who simply cannot pay for a lawyer.
I paid many lawyers and my life savings are gone, with no apparent recourse. Even when they miss limitation periods and abandon your file without noticewhile sending you invoices, and even when the trial judges call their integrity into question, LawPro steps in to protect them and you never see justice.
Has anyone else noticed how the rules for commenting on this forum have changed so that you cannot entirely explain your situation? Is that yet another effort to suppress the truth … not let anyone write about it.
I put in a comment of 6 sentences and the system said it was too long!
Hello Grace, thank you for your comment. If you visit our main blog page, you will see our updated moderation policy, and our explanation of why we have decided to put a limit on comment length.
The consequence of restricting length is that the truth never surfaces. It doesn’t get into the court record and never to the public. It is reduced to what is then discarded as bald assertions…but that’s the point isn’t it? To make it appear that SRLs have a voice, but that voice is going to be extremely controlled.
Where there are lawyers, nothing changes.
Okay NSRLP, I understand your reason that comments that are to the point and concise may keep the conversation moving and ensure many people read the post and comments. However, I do not understand why you should censor the comments or views, particularly when it concerns the adjudicator’s expertise or failure to familiarize with the relevant policies and guidelines, and the Tribunal Chair’s recommendation of candidates as Tribunal members when those candidates lack familiarity with the relevant policies.
Two of my such comments were censored although NSRLP may call it nicely as “withheld”. A media that respects the freedom of speech, expression and opinion would facilitate the free exchange of information and viewpoints with only narrow exceptions such as the views promote hate or crime. My comments did not fall in such categories, but the NSRLP censored it.
Hello Koba, thank you for your comments. The reason your two comments were originally withheld was not for any content reason, but because taken altogether your comments exceeded our length limit. As you see in our moderation policy, our aim is to foster lots of good dialogue in our comment section – after hearing from some commentators on this issue, and discussion amongst ourselves, we’ve decided that our original limit was too constraining, and we have now doubled it. (We have therefore now approved your earlier comments.) We believe that this new limit will allow for a more reasonable amount of detail, while still keeping comments to a manageable length, making them more likely to be read and responded to. Thanks again for your feedback, and your comments on our posts.
NSRLP has gained reputation as the major and authentic advocate for NSRLP. This is a power, which can be easily abused. It is my request that NSRLP take abundant caution to avoid oppressing SRLs when it attempts to control SRLs. I hope my this comment will be published in its entirety without being censored/withheld.
I am sorry. There made an error in the first sentence of my comment above. When corrected, the sentence should read as “NSRLP has gained reputation as the major and authentic advocate for Self-Represented Litigants”.
Yes, I paid for a lawyer too. I gave them all my savings of $2500 to help with one form. They promised to review. After 3 months I asked for my money back. They refunded less $460, the charge to open a file. No help, no recommendation. All they did was label a file. And good lawyers, god knows where they are, get incensed over bad lawyer stories. They are the gatekeepers to justice and they are not moral enough.
” Billable hours ” is the foundation of so-called justice in our own Congo. A Superior Court Justice once asked me whether I held the same low opinion on all lawyers ? ” Oh no, your Honour I know both of the good ones in Ontario ! “, was my reply.
Yes, our justice system and the arbitration process has predisposed bias towards the represented party and suck up to them while flagrantly disregard the rights of the self-represented party.
In fact, as my evidence shows that it would aid and abet the represented party to pervert the law and highjack justice. It happened to me in both cases under the Canada Labour Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
When I went before the adjudicator regarding my unjust dismissal complaint under the Canada Labour Code the adjudicator refused to stay my complaint unless I accepted the employer’s perversion of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which perverted the course of justice when another adjudicator appointed by the Minister to hear the complaint refused to uphold the Canada Labour Code and instead preferred to comply with the perverted Canadian Human Rights Act. It denied me the equal protection of the law guaranteed in the Charter.
I am so sorry Navi’s for what they did to you.
Navin! So sorry for autocorrect that I did not catch
Firstly, what do everyday problems have in common with legalese? Secondly, pretty well covered with my first submission! Thirdly, a good case as to why everyday problems faced by men and women need to go back to being decided, only when and if needed, through ones peers of butchers, bakers candlestick makers, etc., who can relate to non-conditioned meaningless non-essential abstract non-principled legal statutes! Lastly, you are not neutral and then cannot be impartial as a lawyer member of your already privately incorporated law society and if the other side has a lawyer then that person so called, relying upon my firstly and secondly here, self-representing is being deprived Natural Justice before two lawyer members of the same privately incorporated law society.
Well said…now I wonder how many lawyers and Judges will be sitting in the bushes waiting for your to show up in their court so they can punish you for telling the truth?
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/trauma-patients-dollar50m-lawsuit-against-new-brunswick-returns-to-court/ar-AAARxIA?ocid=spartanntp
The above case pertains to a 81 year old male SLR and shows all the major hurdles this man has had to face in his 13-year struggle for “justice”.
I. too, had hired a few lawyers before I exhausted my savings and had to resort being an SRL. At each court hearing, the judge loved to take a jab at me by saying “I recommend that you hire a lawyer”.
Two reasons for being an SRL: (1) I have no money to pay a lawyer $300 per hour (2) No lawyer will pay as much attention or care about my case than me.
In court, it’s all about the judge choosing the lawyer whose hourly rate is higher than his opponent. In the past, my low rent tier lawyers faced off against corporate lawyers easily charging $500 plus per hour. Of course, I lost all the time.
Yes “hire a lawyer” is regularly offered by everyone who just heard me say “I am living on 1/3 of my former income and used the last of my savings and got nowhere” as though I am invisible. It is their cya for some illogical reason that they alone understand. And if you do have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay, try getting past the “conflict of interest” clause. Big corporations use every lawyer possible for anything so that they corner the market on representation. You can’t find a lawyer who does not conflict out of even considering your case. After trying 20+ lawyers I found the one who said yes, then did nothing. Charging me hundreds of dollars to label a file.
Actually an applications Judge I was before recently asking for a transfer of my small claims actions to Ontario Superior Court said the same thing…you should hire a lawyer! The reason for the transfer? The lawyer I sued had missed limitations and abandoned the files after my paying tens of thousands in fees and then thousands in costs because of his behavior. And the small claims Deputy Judge was audio recorded as asking this swindler lawyer “how to get rid of a person’ like me. Clearly the Applications Judge felt I was stupid and after having no recourse whatever to get the legal fees back, wanted me to hand more money to another lawyer who I could not hold accountable…so they don’t mind if you know that they think you are just dirt to them.
Hi Grace, not sure if this helps but, a small claims judge is required to send a claim to Supreme Court if the claim exceeds their limit to adjudicate. By sending your case to Supreme Court he/she has already made a determination – that your claim cannot be decided by them as the value exceeds $35,000.00 as is here in BC. You can petition Supreme Court for a court appointed lawyer to help.
I understand Lorelei, but in my cases my claims are all under the $25,000 limit.
Hi Grace, but your damages against the lawyer for missing deadlines are what the small claims court judge decided put you over the small claims limit. That would be my guess.
No, the two individual small claims actions have not gone to trial yet.
Exactly what happened to me 8 times now. I used a $700 / hr lawyer and he did a great job, but the Deputy Judge simply ignored everything he said, the law, and even the pleadings…
It’s not us that is the problem…it is US who are the victims. Even with a good lawyer who did his job, we lose.
My legal clinic lawyer did an excellent job but the labour board ignored everything we submitted-never even mentioned any of it. Adjudicator even had the nerve to try to blame and throw shade at my lawyer. Adjudicator went over to the lawyer from the big firm and spoke to her privately right there in our presence . My lawyer said nothing but I guess if he did they would have the law society on him. It was disgraceful. Those who tell us we don’t know what we are doing and PITY us should stop. The arguments we make at trials that courts reject are the very same ones (and often less) they accept from great lawyers. Litigants only need to plead facts and anyone can plead that. Legal conclusions are for courts to determine so all their technicalities are just fake reasons to act against us. We are NOT THE PROBLEM: The crooks within the system are. Remove them and problem solved
Yes, the law is to protect the law breakers and not the victims. Our justice system simply do not care for the rule of law. It’s the power, privilege and influence that matters.
In my case the adjudicator, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal preferred to apply s.44 of Canadian Human Rights Act that CIBC bank perverted to defeat the Canada Labour Code.
To defeat the law they considered the criminal act of perverting the course of justice an “agreement” to deny me redress for unjust dismissal.
Guess who appoints the adjudicator in most instances? It’s the Provincial Minister of Justice.
Just like a home inspector recommended by a real estate agent and a physician recommended by your health insurance provider, such a professional must decide for their recommender 9 out of 10 times. If his/her next decision is slated for the little guy/gal, then you won the jackpot!
Judges and arbitrators side with employers and corporations because they create jobs that clothe and feed us, therefore if we sue our former employer for wrongful dismissal, we are viewed as a troublemaker, ungrateful, an anarchist and a malcontent.
But what if our lawyer is a $800 per hour lawyer and the opposing lawyer makes only $500 per hour, whom will the judge/arbitrator side with? If your lawyer is also a Law Society Bencher, you “might” win.
The problem with injustice lies with the corrupt culture of justice system where each level protects the one below including the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Government of Canada has very good intent and the legislation is excellent but those entrusted to uphold the law are simply too corrupt to make any difference.
There is a saying that absolute power corrupts. It rings true with our justice system. The Charter was supposed to remedy the wrongs but failed because the same corrupt judges and arbitrators apply the law.
In fact, my application for Charter remedy was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 on the basis that our judges are above the rule of law called judicial immunity under common law. No judge can be held accountable for their malfeasance except under the Criminal Code.
Therefore, our judges are free to discriminate, practice racism and treat SRL’S with contempt with impunity.
One could argue that Canadian courts are more corrupt/crooked than American courts. A case in point: Whereas in the USA, lawyer’s professional liability is most optional except in Colorado, but in Canada, the self-regulating law societies are the sole insurers and they force lawyers and judges to pay yearly premiums for $2M minimum coverage and they make much ado to the public that hiring a Canadian lawyer protects your interests.
However, if your lawyer committed legal negligence, good luck in hiring another lawyer willing to sue his peer! Even if you were fortunate to hire one, you will be facing judges who don’t want to decide in your favour because their premiums will rise next year!
I hadn’t thought of the ‘premiums’ angle. But the fact that LawPro won’t settle even the clearest of cases, also adds to my suspicion that its all about generating income for the lawyers that LawPro hires to ‘defend’ these disgraceful ‘professionals’.
Let me remind everyone here of an uncommon admission of truth by Justice Abbella, then of the Ontario Court of Appeal, before she advanced to the S.C.C.
” JUSTICE MAY BE BLIND, BUT THE PUBLIC IS NOT ! ”
Of course corroborated by the very comments here and elsewhere.
After feeding your family and pets kick back and GOOGLE – CHARLES FREY LETTER TO CHIEF JUSTICE MCLAUGHLIN; before it disappears AGAIN.
During the Cold War I worked for UNITED STATES ARMY IN EUROPE [ USAREUR ] INTELLIGENCE H.Q., Building 13, Patton Barracks, Heidelberg. Unverifiable reports were not tolerated.
Every comma in the above letter was also verifiable: which was the reason NO ONE ever could afford an objection without making matters worse for themselves.
It contains almost every complaint on this site, and then some. Enjoy !
First of all, many thanks for NSRLP to introduce the series of “Postcards from an Adjudicator”. It helps us understand the view points of the adjudicators.
I appears to me that the adjudicators very well understand that the system is not user friendly but expect that the public must live with that. I do not understand whether the system is for the public or the public is for the system. If public is for the system, then who created that system without the awareness of the public?
I agree, “Administrative proceedings are supposed to be more informal and less like court proceedings – the goal is to allow meaningful participation whether you are represented by a licensed legal representative or not.”
Part of it is to protect the self-represented litigants from the oppressive conduct of the opposing lawyer. Certainly, adjudicators have power to control the procedure and to protect the self-represented litigants from the oppressive conduct of the opposing lawyers, but they do not exercise it. They openly state that is under the law society’s exclusive jurisdiction. The law society states they cannot address such issues as it can be addressed by the adjudicators. In the end, nobody is protecting the self-represented litigants from the oppressing conducts of the opposing counsels.
Informal means no record (transcript) of the hearing is available and since many arbitration hearings are non-appealable, it’s not a better system than through the courts for SRLs.
Sure, it’s a lot less expensive than a lawsuit, but the rules of evidence and are relaxed, cross-examination is curtailed, and the opposing lawyer and the arbitration are peers. SRLs are royally screwed!
The fact is that our judges and adjudicators are too timid and corrupt to stand up for the rights of the unrepresented.
Instead of fulfilling their duty to conduct a fair and impartial hearing they abdicate their duty and become an advocate for the represented party.
They defy the rules of procedural fairness to assist the oppressive represented party to obstruct, pervert and defeat justice. In fact, if you have deep pockets like CIBC bank you can tailor your own law and our justice system will comply with it while it rejects the Act of the Parliament. That is the corrupt state of our justice system.
Most SRLs understand that the adjudicators have to be impartial. Their concern is not that the adjudicator did not take their side but that the adjudicator did not remain impartial.
Having said that the informal procedure allowed for the Tribunals, particularly for the Human Rights Tribunal, allow the adjudicators to conduct active hearing, to question the witness and to apply their expertise. However, in most cases, I found the adjudicators of the Human Rights Tribunal are not even familiar with the relevant Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policies. Even with the submissions of the applicants based on Commission’s policies, they are unable to understand and apply them, despite it is required by the Human Rights Code that their decisions be consistent with the Commission’s policies.
By law, the Chair is required to recommend only those who have human rights expertise as members. However, the candidates he recommended are not even familiar with the commission’s policies. Only god knows for what reasons the Chair recommended candidates that are not familiar with the Commission’s policies as members.
The institution/system is in capable of recognizing and correcting its own flaws but continuously put all the blames on the general public or self-represented litigants who it intends to serve. That is what becoming intolerable to the public or self-represented litigants. We are in the need to create another institution or organization to protect the public from the legal institution/system.
this sort of round and round the bush we go,, outlined above by a post by Koba, is what I found as well, everyone else claims it is the OTHER GUYS job to do whatever is required in the courts, no one ever takes personal responsibility, I believe it is meant as another way of getting rid of the self represented, If paralegals work in the system or not,, unless the system has a change of attitude, the self represented are still screwed, I am very pleased about the nsrp being part of the alberta proceedings about how the courts declare us all vexatious, I am so pleased to see this finally addressed,
Thank God for a handful of exceptions to the complaints here. Perhaps engendered by the endeavours of this dedicated team.
I encountered a fair, tough, highly discerning Mediator during my Landlord Tenant Tribunal. She evicted the tenant and adjudged his arrears to be 5360, which indicates that I am more than patient, at 750 per month, all inclusive, with also internet and T.V., and a terrace overlooking our river. Charles Frey
Glimpses of hope are on the horizon, when a black, single mother of two can take on a Bay Street law firm specializing in personal injuries, rousing 1,800 others [ no typo ] in a class action suit carried by a sole practitioner, well ‘off Broadway’, in Kensington Market.
Much jostling, appeals, etc. resulting in a 4 million settlement without a trial and its devastating PR for such firm. In addition to 1 million in costs and a 10,000 honorarium for the initiator.
Almost makes the story of David and Goliath credible. Apologies for my frequent foot prints. Google with relevant key words. The STAR shows a picture of that valiant woman.
As someone with an invisible disability, I am grateful when an insider takes the time to explain a process to me in a clear, easy to read and understandable way.
It is helpful to hear an insider define their role and their limitations in relation to the laws they must follow. If the laws are not followed, the public loses faith in the system.
So many self-reps face very real biases. Their experiences define why public faith is waning.
My takeaway from Michelle’s blog is that the processes are complex even for the adjudicators.
Her explanation is intended to unpack our expectations and help us better understand what is expected of us alongside what she, as an adjudicator, has to work with, for us to do better.
What if adjudicators were to have feedback questionnaires filled out by participants, helping adjudicators to also do better?
When we all know better…we do better.
Hi Elizabeth, I am not sure if this fits, but, mediators are often lawyers. Lawyers have a code of ethics and professional standards. When a mediator is regularly presented with unethical, as in the failure of the system to treat the public fairly, then they have an ethical and regulated responsibility to act, to advocate. Not just to further explain to the bewildered how the unfair rules work.
A lawyer’s ethics, practices, behaviour and standards must adhere to each province’s Code of Professional Conduct unless that lawyer is a big wig with the Law Society.
I have a joke, with my labour board hearing the adjudicator literally ruled that my employment contract is not worth the piece of paper it is written on> He also ruled that doing my job of dealing with a horrid case of workplace harassment (as stated in my contract) was the last straw that told my employer that the employment relationship was un-tenable. He even called me a thief and published that apparently without knowing (but I think he knew exactly what he was doing) and he did this without any evidence whatsoever. All he kept saying “I accept the evidence (so word-of-mouth) of the employer. Funny think is according to my contract those talking to him were not and did not represent my employer but were those directly involved in the severe case of harassment. It is a funny one guys and it is set for judicial review hearing later this year at Divisional court with some respondents seeming lost their marbles and have not filed their response even now after the dead line has passed. Hold on to your seats and try to attend and be entertained
Let’s see if you can top this one: In a defamation action, a witness that would have been good for me had he testified when we asked him to was too scared to be sued by the defendants to testify so we did not subpoena him. The defendant’s lawyer subpoenas this witness but calls this witness the night before and threatens him that if he testified to threats he had received in 2010, he would be sued, etc. The witness refuses to come to court. My lawyer contacts him and convinces him that he will be protected if he tells the whole truth. The witness comes to court, tells the truth. The truth includes telling the Judge that the defendant’s lawyer had called him the night before and told him not to testify to actual events in 2010. Its all in the transcripts.
What does the Judge do? In his decision he deals with the witness tampering with this statement “The witness is not a shrinking violet”. That’s it, nothing more. NO KIDDING!
Yes, in my case the adjudicator aided an abetted CIBC Bank to pervert s. 44 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to defeat the Canada Labour Code to deny me the hearing of my unjust dismissal complaint which the Minister of Labour had referred to him to be adjudicated pursuant to the Code.
Instead of upholding my constitutional right to the equal protection of the law guaranteed under s.15(1) of the Charter, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal defended, sanctioned and condoned the criminal act of obstructing, perverting and defeating justice as an “agreement”.
It shows that in Canada law is not the law. It is the power, influence and the size of your pockets that matter. Thirty seven years later the Charter is failing the marginalised and disadvantaged.
Having faith in our justice system is the serious and costly mistake that we all make. How can we protect other public members from making this same mistake by being misled by the government and legal professionals to have faith in the justice system?
we need to get public support, it seems they ignore us otherwise, who will run a story about what is happening to us,, the self represented, Mr Mulgrew just ran his story of Gillian Hadfields, presentation,, and did not mention one thing about how they are mistreating the self represented, We need to go public, if anyone knows a reporter willing to do so,, that is what needs to happen, we need to have our mistreatment go public,
Our justice system is committing the biggest fraud against the very people it is support under the disguise of equality, fairnes and impartiality when they do not exist unless you possess power, influence and deep pockets.
I would have never gone to court knowing what I know today about the corrupt state of our justice system.
The only way to protect others from becoming a victim of judicial fraud is for media to expose the truth but they simply don’t care because it doesn’t affect them.
Allen, you didn’t whether you have a physical or a mental disability. From my experience, people with a very visible physical disability were treated with kids’ gloves. Judges would bend over backwards to accommodate them.
With “invisible” mental disability/disorder, such people are treated as second class handicapped people and they experienced scorn and contempt from judges and lawyers.
I feel we should get together and form a group to approach the media. As a group we will be heard and listened to. We should go online and spread the truth about our corrupt justice system.
I also thought that participants should be able to provide feedback on the performance of the adjudicators. When participants are expected to persuade the adjudicators with their arguments, I wonder why adjudicators should not be expected to persuade participants with the reasons for their decisions.
Participants’ feedback may be limited to whether they are convinced that the adjudicator was impartial, and if not, why they believe that the adjudicator was biased. The feedback may be used only for the purpose of improving the services.
How long it will take for a comment to be moderated?
Hello Koba, we have a very small team at NSRLP and a great deal of work, and are unable to moderate comments more than once a day, Monday-Friday.
Hi Lorelei,
Perhaps you could quote the statute, code of conduct and paragraph and/or caselaw you are refering to. That information might be helpful.
If anyone is interested in this information:
1. Re Jurisdiction of Law Societies & Courts:
The Supreme Court of Canada said in Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, [2013] 2 SCR 649, 2013 SCC 39:
16] Both the courts and law societies are involved in resolving issues relating to conflicts of interest — the courts from the perspective of the proper administration of justice, the law societies from the perspective of good governance of the profession…In exercising their respective powers, each may properly have regard for the other’s views. Yet each must discharge its unique role. Law societies are not prevented from adopting stricter rules than those applied by the courts in their supervisory role. Nor are courts in their supervisory role bound by the letter of law society rules, although “an expression of a professional standard in a code of ethics . . . should be considered an important statement of public policy”: Martin, at p. 1246.
2. Re client’s rights to their file:
Divisional Court in Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (2003), 66 O.R. (3d) 692 (applies ‘McInerney’ to lawyers’ files (see footnote 18) at:
para. [88] “every client of every … lawyer in Ontario possesses [the right to] access to the information in the lawyer’s file, not by discretionary decision, but as of right, subject only to very limited exceptions ….”.
Cheers
Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth, as so many have pointed out, just because one lodges a complaint with the provincial law society does not mean they will be treated fairly. In my case I lodged a very serious complaint against my union appointed lawyer for conflict of interest. That lawyer was protecting the unions interest not mine and I regularly objected. Then sent the formal complaint.?their finding was that this very high profile lawyer had suffered enough from the complaint process and therefore had learned his lesson. Despite me quoting his code of ethics and standards of practice and cases he worked on that were in direct conflict. So yes, it is all in their code and standards of practice. Just like mine say, as a nurse, I must advocate for the vulnerable. That is my regulatory duty. No different for a mediator who regularly sees the inequity and does nothing to object or advocate.
Somewhat tangential to this topic – people (lawyers, adjudicators, and SRLs) should listen to all the episodes of Michael Lewis’s “Against the Rules” Podcast series. Just Google it or look it up on your own podcast service. Also, NSRLP should consider interviewing Michael Lewis for his insights in the the context of the issues here.
.
On topic: The problem with adjudicators of all sorts is they think it imperative to sit in the middle – and that is always going to fail to achieve a truly just outcome. Instead, step into the shoes of each party and look at things from their perspective. This will help you find common ground as well as justice from the parties’ individual perspectives. However, be aware this approach may engender real feelings of empathy for the underprivileged person and these will need to be suppressed. Otherwise, you might end up with a just and humane outcome – rather than what you see as a just one that splits the baby in two. (Listen to the Lewis Podcast series to understand this last bit)
Israel’s King Solomon only threatened to divide the contentious child into two. His wisdom knew the real mother would rather lose custody of her beloved child to the imposter mother than have her child slain.
There’s a saying that a settlement is a good one if neither side is happy. A so called impartial arbitrator is seldom neutral if he is being paid by a corporation or government. He knows which side his bread is buttered. If he decided too many times for the little guy, he will no longer be an arbitrator. It will be for little guy: L, L, L, W, L, L, L, L, L and L.
There is a doctrine called judicial immunity that not only applies to judges but to arbitrators as well in that you cannot sue them for their verbal conduct in court/arbitration hearing.
They may call you an idiot, laugh at your disability, mock your clothing or even show partiality toward the other side. They cannot be sued for financial compensation. You could appeal a judge’s decision and you can lodge a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) where the gatekeeper Sabourin guy will decide whether to review your complaint. You could also complain to your Law Society which is usually a waste of time. SRLs are being screwed left and right by the corrupt Canadian Justice Sytem!
I am familiar with this doctrine, I believe Mr Trudeau senior brought this in, He thought it would prevent governmental meddling in legal matters, He forgot to consider the inherent dangers of absolute power, The problems are not from the outside,, it is from the lack of character from the judges themselves, Once they start warming that seat,, they forget to remember the public have rights,, We need a good old fashioned French revolution,. We will ask here,,, how do we rid ourselves of these grandiose ” emperors without clothes”.
Judicial immunity is a common law doctrine which the Attorney General of Canada and Ontario used as a weapon to defeat my constitutional right to obtain Charter remedy guaranteed under s.24(1) of the Charter, despite the the fact s.52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, says that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution has no force or effect.
Yet, the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal for Ontario defied the Constitution Act, 1982 to consider the doctrine of judicial immunity to apply Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss my proceeding for Charter remedy on the basis that it was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of court process simply because it implicated our justice system.
then this is the way the courts have been labelling us all vexatious to rid themselves of us, This is the piece of legislation we need to change or remove, I have no idea how,
You cannot change this from within. The system belongs to a for-profit corporation (call themselves ‘government’).
In 1976 we were given the right to self-determination in politics and we can set up a government of the People run by the People…a Republic. Thus all Judges are elected, there are then common law courts and NO corporate lobbying and corporate interference. If corporations want their commercial courts, they can have them, but human beings have their republic and run it for human beings.
on the 14 of may, I attended the speech by Gillian Hadfield on the judicial issues mentioned here, I applaud some of it,, but the appeal court judges who were there did not seem enamored of her suggestions, Her approach was to focus on the business benefits of serving the public and bringing the cost of legal services down, Also,, the dismanteling of the law societies,, and the independent regulating of the lawyers, I have a bit to say about how this went,, I will try to put it in the best form, before I continue,,, suffice it to say,, it went over poorly, I was the only self represented in the room, I was fortunate to have a member of leaf, step forward to corroborate what I was saying about how the judicial system treats the self represented, But largely,, I got the impression, the sooner I shut up, the better, Lawyers did not want to hear,, nor respond to, any of the legal systems behaviors to block access to the justice system that I described, I will provide more information later,
While you can’t sue them because of judicial immunity, you can sue their boss/agency. So you can sue the Labour Board or Human RIghts tribunal. You MUST always file complaint against them when they misbehave because more than one complaint carry weight and they will eventually act against that rogue. So let’s pile on the complaints
During the late 80s I was obliged to sue my own alcoholic, rapacious, incompetent, VERY WELL-CONNECTED, best-selling and traitorous lawyer who gratuitously communicated my position to the opposition in an extant, charged for, four page letter. The CANADIAN LAWYER shortly thereafter published its lead article JUDGING THE JUDGES: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE MARGINAL, having canvassed ” 400 Greater Toronto Area, senior lawyers “.
One Justice was voted 58th of then 58 on the formerly Supreme Court of Ontario bench. Pursuant to the old commercial: give it to Mikey; Mikey eats anything, he was assigned to my case.
I hired a rooky lawyer from a firm itself in trouble with the LSUC. He too sold me, in return for a career-advancing job offer by the firm defending my erstwhile lawyer: just for starters, allowing them 8, instead of one EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY, at ca 6,000 +. I would trust the Gambinos more than our entire system !