This week’s guest blog is written by Jana Saracevic. Jana is a former SRL who has worked with NSRLP and supported other SRLs for the past five years. This blog post voices her frustrations with the enormous challenges faced by SRLs, and the impact on them.
Walking Wounded
Indulge me for a moment while I voice my frustrations.
In my wildest dreams, I never expected to become an SRL. During my tenure in the quagmire we call “the Canadian legal system” I thought I had it rough, but having now met other SRLs, and listened to their incredible stories, I realise I was lucky to get out in one piece.
The SRLs I have met through the NSRLP are trying to bring about meaningful changes in this farce of a legal system that pretends to exist to serve the public. Some SRLs are determined to prevail, even to the detriment of their own physical and mental health, to ensure that their struggles are not in vain.
I recall feeling lost, frightened, frustrated, and angry, with nowhere to turn for guidance to help make sense of the legal procedures that were confusing and often acted as hurdles. To this day my experience with the legal system has left an indelible mark on my psyche.
I now understand, in hindsight, that when I was first drawn into the legal system, I had unrealistic expectations. I suspect that most SRLs do.
Why?
- We are being lied to. A2J is not available to everyone. This needs to be addressed as a human rights issue.
- We are led to believe that the legal process is a straightforward and logical path that will allow us to present our situation to a judge, who will then render an unbiased decision. The issue will be resolved fairly, and we will get on with our lives in short order.
I discovered the following:
- The process SRLs must follow is not linear and does not always make sense.
- SRLs lack the necessary training to effectively, efficiently, and accurately navigate the current legal system.
- There is no proper support structure to guide SRLs while they navigate this system.
- The SRL, as taxpayer, is funding a system that is inaccessible to anyone who cannot afford the exorbitant fees of legal counsel. Although lawyers are expected to follow a Professional Code of Conduct, the means available to SRLs to hold them accountable are entirely inadequate.
- Those who dare to make an attempt to enter the legal arena as SRLs are quickly caught in a web of confusing, often illogical and inconsistent legal procedures and processes. (For example, I encountered different document filing procedures at each courthouse.)
- Procedural issues are often poorly explained by court staff or instructions remain unclear. This phenomenon is well explained by another SRL in this blog post.
- The Family Legal Information Centres and other pro bono clinics do not provide sufficient or consistent assistance to help take factual information and turn it into effective legal arguments (or they fail to inform SRLs what a good legal argument consists of).
- SRLs assume that court staff are competent and know what they are doing – but they sometimes make mistakes that can have serious repercussions on a file if they are not caught early. In my own case, two endorsements were incorrectly typed up and thus created major complications which took days to figure out and fix; I have also seen endorsements for other cases incorrectly placed in my file. This is one reason why SRLs become so hypervigilant.
- Documents look deceptively simple to complete, but the minutia of the wording matters: “The Devil is in the details”. Instructions exist, but they are woefully inadequate.
I have observed SRLs who are resilient, intelligent, educated, well spoken, successful in their chosen profession, and in relatively good physical, mental, and financial health when they first started their legal journeys. They were open to learning as they went along and put an inordinate amount of effort into understanding the legal process. They took great pains to ensure that their paperwork was as accurate as possible and tried to meet all legal requirements. They always acted in a professional and courteous manner toward court staff, opposing counsel, and judges. They knew and understood the nuances of their case better than any lawyer ever could.
What I have consistently observed, while providing support to these SRLs, is that after several years of descending into this rabbit hole called the Canadian legal system, something perplexing happens to these previously self-confident people.
They were led to believe our legal system is fair and accessible, but realized somewhere along the line that they were lied to. Feelings of frustration turn into dismay, then disbelief, and eventually anger. This is often accompanied by persistent symptoms of unrelenting anxiety as SRLs realize that they have been duped, and struggle to find a way out of the legal system. SRLs do not expect institutional betrayal of their core values and beliefs as they attempt to get access to justice. This painful realization imprints on the psyche as a moral injury which has lasting effects on physical, emotional, and mental health.
A2J in Canada is a human rights issue that we cannot and must not ignore.
Great summation of the reality facing SRL’S…BRAVO!
This is an amazing blog. It hits the nail. I can vouch for everything it says. I have been wounded by our farce justice system for over 32 years where my Charter rights have been rampantly, systematically and flagrantly violated by the same justice system that is supposed to protect and uphold my constitutional rights.
Agreed. I have been stunned by the willingness of lawyers to lie, of smug courtroom clerks with too much power and too little humility, judges who stink of corruption, favoritism, bias, and gross disregard for well-established law and legal precedent and choosing their self-aggrandizement in its stead.
It is too true that justice goes to the rich, even down to the A2J software that only seeks to exploit those at the very lowest point of their lives. Don’t buy it.
We must turn away from a greedy, corrupt, monetarily-bloated system that self-sustains through its arrogance and cold contempt for all those outside it and create another system of resolving disputes.
More and more, I understand why the Native Peoples in this country despise Canadian law and law makers. They are eons ahead of the rest of us, and we might follow their lead.
Brilliant commentary. Well said!
.
There will be a “public alternative” down the road. Where there is awareness and will , there will be a resolution in our favour.
.
https://twitter.com/CourtofOpinions
What an excellent piece by Jana Saracevic. We must make everyone see Access to Justice the Human Rights issue that it is.
it is true,,, I now have PTSD. just driving BY the court house makes me anxious. unless I get some legal help,, I simply cannot go back and try to address my case, I have asked for help with it here,, so far no response, I post comments about my experiences on the web site for the Vancouver sun, whenever a story comes up on the judicial system, corruption and or the politicians supporting this farce of a legal system, I am frequently attacked there, and told to stop “bleeting” about my case, EVERYONE,, or so one or two people will claim,, is tired of hearing my illogical stories, Anyone who has the problem of representing themselves is a fool, or so I am told., I am told I am just jealous because they have money and I do not, Honestly,, whether you are IN the court or just out in public,, no one seems interested in hearing about the issues we discuss here, yesterday, I was told by someone who’s online identity is RWH that my dismal view of all of our country is noted, I never said that,, I said the self regulated, Those who are self regulated cannot be trusted to be honest, And that includes our political and legal system. I do not know about the rest of you, but try as I might, I am just exhausted, And dealing with people who lie, overexaggerate, inflate problems etc, is getting harder, especially when they start name calling, Unless this system changes,, we cannot expect the parties IN the system to care or do anything to change anything, Is there still no one interested in helping rectify my case????
It looks like I am not the only one concerned about the self-regulated system. I have already seen two more people similarly concerned about the self-regulated system. Why don’t we form a collective to initiate some public voice against the self-regulated system?
Unfortunately Sandra sometimes there is no longer an opportunity to win, there is only the time to stop losing. You and your story are more important than any justice foregone due to a corrupt process. In fact, the justice of your case still exists, even when you can’t convince those who have made up their minds to disregard it.
.
I’m concerned for you. Please reach out to someone close to you who can help you feel better in the present and for the future, so you can put the past where it is, and move forward with positivity.
.
My best to you. K.
As a parent of an SRL….I was and still am dismayed at how the system is broken—-And the toll that this broken system takes on the lives of SRL’s. They do become the walking wounded.
This could ONLY be explained so well by someone who has walked that SRL journey. So well said
Never have I read such a factual and complete account of the access to justice process for SRL’ s. Determined to prevail and lacking the exorbitant monies needed to be ” legally represented ” we embarked, as SRL ‘s, in an 8 year quest for procedural fairness , for the justice that we are deemed to be entitled to and that is reported to be there for all ; we are still struggling and are convinced that this ‘ justice ‘ claiming to be there for ” all ” is simply non existent ; we have lived all of the facts stated by Jana Saracevic.. !! We have found this system to favor a close knit web of members of the legal community, FOR the legal community and supporting ONLY the legal community . As SRL, s we have spent countless, tortuous hours, days , months, years of sleepless nights, of research into the law, numerous authorities to back our findings, brought them to the fore in face of lawyers , adjudicators, judges, and were faced with either being totally ignored , told ” we do not give advice ” ( when simply asking for explanations ) or in the end, a flagrant denial of laws and clauses by those who are proclaimed to administer these very laws and statutes that are supposed to guide the final decisions . Endorsements by deputy judges simply being looked over by another in the overall approach to a claim, no attention paid to facts as delineated , confirmed in case law . WE ARE NOT STUPID …. but we have no power , and much less in the face of this abuse of power by the legal community of highly paid ” professionals ” , That all of this so called technical legal jargon is being used to gag SRL’s , to flaunt abuse is obvious and a fact . We have been labelled frivolous and vexatious ,wasting the court s time. I submit that If this red tape, money hungry ” justice” , confusing system favoring the initiated were to be simplified and humanized, the court and its loyal members would see its productive time increased and what they call ” wasted time” decreased … This begs the question :”Is that really what is wanted or an empty ” look good wish ” since the result might be less demand for highly paid lawyers .Thank you Jana Saracevic. Never have I felt more affiliation with a complete stranger .
As an SRL I have come to realize how fortunate I am residing in Calgary. It seems both Alberta Court’s and in particular the Calgary Court Centre have reasonably accurate information available to us. On the other hand, two clear and important issues jump out.
Protocol is often broken by “the other side” as a lawyer jumps in and “summarizes” the SRL side and does so poorly and incorrectly. Secondly judges are VERY biased in favour of represented litigants. I have observed two legally identical requests for separating monetary issues from divorce itself, one with the SRL asking for the separation, one opposing. The same judge sided with the represented side both times even though it meant making opposite rulings on the same point in law.
Another GIANT issue for the naive SRL is perjury. Representatives and their clients clearly lie and nobody seems to care. Not even when it’s obvious.
I have seen this in both civil and criminal cases.
It is little wonder the legal “profession” is held in such contempt by the general public when lawyers are allowed to ignore process and openly misrepresent issues. It is worse when one steps back and realizes the judiciary is complicit in continuing the sham.
In court, there is a blatant – and deliberate – difference between the rights of the wealthy and the rights of the rest of us and it is definitely a human rights issue in Canada.
Representatives and their clients clearly lie and nobody seems to care. Not even when it’s obvious.
GAWD YES. Lie after lie. The Judge will listen ask a few questions – which inevitably lead elsewhere.
IF you go back to it “Well yes SRL, you noted it – opposite counsel replied, you again bring it up… ” – I will consider it…
POOF
I actually went to the Durham Regional Police in Oshawa and after many attempts, with tons of evidence, I finally had them arrest the other side for perjury! Supposedly, this never happens and I was so proud that I had stayed so strong. Well, silly me, the other side who committed perjury got a high powered criminal defense lawyer who explained to the prosecutor that it was all an innocent mistake and that my ex was soooo “litigation fatigued” that it was not done on purpose and therefore not a reasonable expectation of being convicted!
Now, if you look ahead a few months – The family court judge raked me over the coals and said I “orchestrated the respondent’s arrest” She then put a restraining order on me!!! So, there you have it…do you think any police officer will ever arrest for perjury on SWORN court documents in the future? This happened in 2012 and has coloured how I am viewed in the courts. Shame, shame. This is such a disgrace; truth on a sworn document means nothing and there are no consequences for lying on sworn documents. But, the justice system automatically assumes every sworn document is the truth!
We need to come together BUT I have long concluded we can be our worst enemy. Once I joined a group and tried to inform them about what the process/system was like and tried to tell them what has happened and is likely to happen, for instance time and again the CJC took people’s complaint for a joke. They got mad at me and cuss me most disrespectfully for no reason so I just left and decided I will not join a group again. Needless to say I think they found out the hard way that their idea was just too juvenile
But unless we can come together and make government take stock and make the issue of corruption right there in the court rooms an election issue and be serious that unless government more than promise real action (as we outline it-not vague foolishness), then we will campaign in many ridings and seriously threaten their election to the Hill. Until we become a factor to their election they will ignore us
I joined a political party last election and found myself at their policy convention and put forward policy against judicial corruption. The place was full of lawyers who immediately got nervous and voted down my policy. A recently retired judge was there too and he was first to jump up but I stood my ground and managed him. and got to the next level by a fluke. I thought he was going to have a heart attack. He even begged us to meet him outside so he can tell us how to get things done. The nerve! I politely ignored him but my friend who has no darn idea how this works met with him. She was so impressed that “a judge” was going to talk to her. She thought he was actually going to give good advice. She lost focus. One lawyer had the nerve to suggest we need more Legal Aid and wanted to turn my policy submission into one for more legal aid. I stood my ground and said I am not asking for more legal aid and that will not address crookedness in the court room and that more legal aid means more pretense that there is legal help and how it only benefit the legal profession not those in need of legal help
This is my suggestion right here, right now . We form a group and get ready to raise the roof come next election BUT we need DISCIPLINE, good judgement and dedication to the cause most of all we must be rabble-rousers without being seen or behave as rabble- rousers.
BRAVO well said. “They were led to believe our legal system is fair and accessible, but realized somewhere along the line that they were lied to. ”
I am prepare to say that in many cases it is the nature of an “adversarial system”.
BUT I am 100% certain that in all cases there are serious “misrepresentations” by staff, judges, opposing counsel. SOME may be defended as human error. SOME are clearly not.
An SRL’s rights are ONLY respected if and when the SRL is able to state their case five times better than opposing counsel. Rights should not be contingent on an SRL being able to argue five times better in court. “They ADMIT they breached my Charter rights” should be enough. THERE IS THE LIE – IT IS NOT ENOUGH.
YES the SRL “did nothing wrong” and they ADMIT they breached the SRL’s rights
NO the court says the SRL case is 40 pages (with documents) BUT it should be 3/4 of a page… sorry we do not understand the SRL’s theoretical all over the place allegations.
– the SRL is DEAD.
YES the court may not understand – and it will never understand – without a vested interest in understanding the SRL
” without a vested interest in understanding the SRL …AND LISTENING TO the SRL …may I add
Excellent article and well written! One comment, or rather question, I would pose is; is it the public that has the wrong expectation of the justice system? Or is it the justice system that has the wrong expectation of the public? Why is the tail wagging the dog, if it is truly to be a “just” system intended for the good of, and paid for by, the taxpaying public? Particularly when it so inefficiently and ineffectively designed and managed and causing more alleged harm than good? The collateral damage it is causing and costing via medical related expenses as a result of the systemic impact on the public’s health (paid for via OHIP and private insurances), on families financial and emotional health, via asset stripping due to legal and system operational costs, severe cost awards, and alleged loss of assets via improper understanding and often judicial decisions made through misinterpretations of information and through sharp practicing of opposing counsel (particularly an issue against vulnerable unrepresented ), mismanagement of files, and inconsistencies as a result of limited scope, unbundled services and summary advice (which is still far better than nothing). Clients often receive conflicting advice and information causing them to make decisions in fashion with shooting darts at the pub after taste testing a variety of brews. Its a dangerous game of chance.
I couldn’t help but think that the “unrealistic expectations” you had when you started down the legal system rabbit hole, was a silver lining. Why? You wouldn’t have written this if you had known. This is well written and succinct! It really lays it ALL out there for future SRL’s!
WOW! Really well put! Myself? I have been a SRL since 2009 with a brief spell having a pro bono lawyer with a huge heart. I watched carefully, how he did things and then I used his work as a template for my own later on. I have been called vexatious and every name in the book. I have been through 2 family trials as a SRL and twice to the ONCA. One thing about this process is, by the time I was at the Ontario Court of Appeal for the 2nd time, I had learned so much that I was successful! So, I got the decision, but wait, someone has to type up the order properly. OK, so now I have to get the other party to sign it…Right!!! They’re not signing anything from me. (probably would have for a lawyer) To make a long story short, the judgement came out June 28, 2018. Finally got the order by bringing a motion in front of the Registrar at the ONCA. Now, I was one of the lucky ones who managed to get COSTS!!! Well, here it is February 2019, and I haven’t received one penny of costs. (Let’s not forget those costs aren’t a lottery win, it cost a lot to get to the ONCA) I’m on my 3rd motion, back at Superior Court, trying to explain to a judge that FRO does not enforce costs unless the order is written precisely the way FRO’s policy dictates. But what do I know, I’m just a SRL and the judge still says that FRO should be enforcing the costs. I even have an email from the ONCA Registrar stating the costs are NOT to be enforced by FRO. WOW, I got costs, as SRL! But did I really, since I can’t get them enforced and now I’m back spending money trying to get them enforced…the A2J is so out of balance and I truly believe I know more about the actual Family Law Rules than the Judges at this point! You are right, I’m not the person I was when I started down the rabbit hole. I’m beyond disillusioned now, but I’m still fighting for everyone who can’t. And yes, there is a very high cost to my health.
In my comment, I neglected to say that I suffer from PTSD from many years of abuse. I had 2 letters from professionals stating I needed a support person beside me during the trial. My ex objected (abuser) and the Judge made me describe why I might need a support person, even after reading the 2 letters. He then said I could not have a support person sit by me at the table. This really put me at a disadvantage because of the symptoms that are triggered.
I called the Human Rights and was told that a Judge was not subject to the same rules as if someone else had denied me my basic rights! There you have it! No human rights in a courtroom unless the Judge wants to allow it. I have no human rights in a courtroom if a Judge decides otherwise.
Have a similar story although I did get the accommodation but not without it being put on public record. No Human Rights in the courtroom (allegedly!).
WOULDN’T IT BE NICE…?
The courts have a DUTY to consider and apply CHARTER RIGHTS….
Bernard v. Canada (Attorney General), [2014] 1 SCR 227, 2014 SCC 13 (CanLII)
[72] This Court has recently affirmed that “administrative tribunals with the authority to decide questions of law and whose Charter jurisdiction has not been clearly withdrawn have the corresponding authority — and duty — to consider and apply the Constitution, including the Charter, when answering those legal questions”: R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22 (CanLII), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765, at para. 77 (emphasis added). This aligns with the principle that Canadians should be permitted to present their Charter claims in the most accessible forum available, without having to bifurcate claims into separate proceedings (Conway, at para. 79).
I would like to thank Jana Saracevic for this great worded article as it does tell the truth on how bad it is for all SRLs . I would like to add that I just had 3 leave to appeals with the Supreme court of Canada dismissed . On issues /questions of national important & in the public interest ,that pointed out many charter of rights & human rights violations made against me (discrimination because I was a SRL) yet The clerks from the SCC would not even put these human rights issues on the summary description? Were these leaves to appeal dismissed because it was a Judge form Alberta that did all these violations to an SRL ?? You tell me after you read this. http://alberta.newjusticeforthepeople.com/supreme-court-of-canada/ This website also proves everything all the SRLs are saying look around it & read the proof .
Very well written as so many others have said. In my time as an SRL, time and again I wondered why the Family Law Act or the rules of the court mattered as they were both ignored many times.
Again, in the face of a judge, an SRL is even more at the mercy of the court than when two lawyers, neither of whom would find it in their best interests to bring matters to a swift close, are involved.
Very well done! I have been a SRL since about 1999. Doesn’t matter how succinctly you present your case or how polite and respectful you are to the Court, you are basically a pain in the butt to most lawyers and yes, even Judges.
In my opinion the biggest problem is with JP’s who in a lot of instances have not even passed the BAR. This leaves them in the position of asking the Crown or the opposing lawyer “FOR THE LAW IN THE MATTER” .
You think they are going to give the Court them any case law to help you, the SLR…think again.
This situation clearly puts the Prosecutor or the opposing counsel in control of the courtroom.
One thing you have to remember …if you have not passed the BAR you are not a member of the club.
The dance of the Court is welcoming only to a privileged select few and you my SLR are just a wallflower.
We/the System are in BIG TROUBLE!
It is far worst than you state in your excellently written article: Even if one does everything right and follows all lawyers advice (and received ILA on everything) for all of their life right up to a trial(s) , it all comes down to the fiat dictated in the end AND whether the process OR the justice(s) were/are biased and or corrupt?
What SRL absolutely need to know; is that EVEN IF if a case has a million dollars in lawyers fees/costs incorporated in it, it still all comes down to whether justice is delivered or not in the end result.
The system has become/is in denial, that it is the clients/customers that have the last say in any business or system. The evidence shows that it NO LONGER seems to matter.
Law is in reality and in effect, at odds with Justice itself. It is shocking and unconscionable.
In the end a justice(s) makes a decision about justice and “what is relevant” and “who is credible” and simply picks from the smorgasbord of case law which side of adversarial caselaw will be utilized to back up the ruling decided on.
One must dig deeper than just from a SRL perspective and realize that THE REAL BIG TROUBLE is so much more deeply rooted in the very core of the issues and human nature.
I am completely convinced that SRL do suffer the most extreme injustices where bias/corruption are concerned, however the real core issues are where the most serious problems lie.
SRL must realize that JUSTICE is extremely difficult to obtain even with the best of legal assistance!
To be sure, the growing number and knowledge of SRL are the biggest threat to the system itself and its leaders SO the real question becomes; who? is going to reform-change WHOM?? in our TRULY ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM???
Whether one analyzes the beginning of a legal problem or the adversarial process or the end result…It is always about Time and Money and who? is serving WHOM?
Delmer O. B. Martin
so now the big question,, what are WE going to do about it?? simply acknowledging the problem is good,, more then most parties in the judicial system or the political system will do,, but without action, our knowledge is for moot, What now??
I hear you loudly and clearly Delmar. My OLRB case is a typical example of what you said. I had an excellent lawyer who did an excellent job and the adjudicator literally tried to teach him a lesson and totally disrespected him. That adjudicator got up and went to the other counsel right in the presence of me and my lawyer an my lawyer could not say a word. My lawyer had begged me to be on my Ps and Qs and I did not want to embarrass him and that was the only reason that adjudicator got away that day because I am just the one to ask him to recuse himself. I decided to co-operate and do as my lawyer asked since I put him in charge of my case. I said I am going to raise those irregularities in the Judicial Review and my lawyer is advising me against it. I know he knows that will make the judge close ranks against me when I otherwise have a good case. I have a hard time not raising a stink about that misbehaviour among others. so it doe snot matter if you have a lawyer for the judges/adjudicators gravitate toward the bigger firms; Those who hold their future in their hands. That is why I think we SRLS need to form a group that holds their future in our hands too. We can do that but we cannot and must not engage in foolishness
Some SRLS have no choice other than to represent themselves because their legal counsel lies to them as was our case. So we paid legal counsel almost $100k to do things that we found out later they did not do including registering an amended statement of defence with the courts, including providing us with the plaintiffs affidavit of documents. It was an exasperating experience as has been the experience of being an SRL. The plaintiffs lawyer consistently blatantly lies to the court & it goes unnoticed, but every word we say is scrutinized. I feel like I’m in the twilight zone here…the evidence we have against the plaintiff is overwhelming, but the courts seem to be able to turn a blind eye on the obvious. The system is unfair and is fixed to provide justice only for the well heeled.
As I said…we have paid dearly to learn that the system exists FOR the courts, supports ONLY the courts and / or the legal community ! that is a given ….
Further to what I’ve previously said about 2019 offering unprecedented promise:
.
If problems you encounter include misconduct on the part of a judge, then there is – in theory – a mechanism to complain.
.
I’ve tested the mechanism available when the judge in question is provincially appointed and I was not surprised by the result. And I let that one go.
.
But I haven’t given up on the complaints I filed (starting in 2010) with the Canadian Judicial Council.
.
Today the online publication, The Lawyer’s Daily, has reported that Chief Justice of Canada and CJC Chair Richard Wagner intends to put to his CJC colleagues in April a proposal that they engage “outside consultants” to “conduct a comprehensive review, including the council’s mission and mandate, its functioning, the types of committees it has and how directions are given internally.”
.
Following as I have very closely the troubles the CJC has brought upon itself, this doesn’t surprise me. This definitely holds promise, but there’s one thing about it that concerns me. Who are they going to engage as “outside consultants”?
.
If Mr. Wagner doesn’t want this exercise to be yet another embarrassment then he’ll take care to ensure that “outside” means what we the public expect it to mean, i.e., none of the CJC’s friends. In fact I’m going to suggest to him that the CJC should not assume sole discretion to determine who these “outside consultants” will be. The question remains though who else should be involved. I’m thinking outside of the box here. How about someone nominated by the NSRLP?
I am glad you are ok with this review, I am not, They will get someone like raybold,, they will look like “outsiders”. but they will be already aware of this activity, The judges of this country and province, are former lawyers, they remain unregulated,, both in the beginning, and as judges, NO accountability, They will not have a conscience if they are operating in this field, Nor are they interested in justice, They like the money, and the position of power, Anyone without this background, will not be able to investigate them,,, They will not know the industry, I am going to ask again,, Julie?? and the gang here,,, what do you think? We all know what is happening,, but what can we do about it,?
I know that I have done everything that is possible for a SRL or citizen to do and nothing works. I put a complaint in about a lawyer copying and disseminating the materials I sent to the Law Society of Ontario, in full confidence for a complaint I had made against the lawyer. The Law Society said they promise full confidentiality from them, but once they send the materials to the lawyer to respond to, it is not their or the lawyer’s responsibility to keep it confidential! So, remember that anything you send in a complaint can then be given to anyone by the lawyer you are complaining about. Ie. Doctor letters, etc.
I have also put in a complaint about a judge being biased in a family trial. It eventually went to Manitoba for an “independent” review. HA Ha Ha…I was told by the judge in the other province that I was just mad because I didn’t like the outcome!
I have been to the media. What do we do? Luckily I have been at this as a SRL for so many years that I accept this is the way it is. Only earlier this week, I ended up in tears again at the filing office.
Yes Sandra and Sheila, you are right!
In addition the legal system is worst than the majority of what I have read on this blog BECAUSE even if a party has ILA Certificates and top tier lawyers from top tier firms with the best experts and has excellent documents and evidence and ILA certificates ALL THE WAY vs. the other side claiming “no independent recollection” to anything with consequences… or claiming immunity …so we are ALL IN BIG TROUBLE! Frankly I am scared that the general voting public will eventually accept socialism just because it is the path of least resistance from a mainstream perspective. I do not believe socialists are willing to do due diligence in their search for well-being. Our systems are already completely corrupt with wealth re-distribution schemes, however none of the individual top elite will share any of the power.
I am more of a historian than a fortuneteller but I do not believe either should run the system. As for me personally I am more and more ready to spill the beans so to say, simply due to the bias and corruption and injustice I have personally witnessed. The system is in denial.
The price for some very key people remaining silent is very VERY HIGH and whenever these individuals DO NOT RECEIVE JUSTICE and or they are left with nothing to lose they can and most will/do become very public and transparent and give full disclosure and become the greatest champions for change/reform we have ever seen in our modern country. Julie M and say Donald Best are excellent examples of insiders (or ex-insiders) who have faced truth and are seeking and advocating for Reform, and I can think of many more. These people are precious and special and I believe they know it is critical that the upper elite must change/reform and not just the insiders and the professionals and the laypersons. However it is the insiders that have the key information and critical evidence that can rock the foundations of the system itself and give it to the people who need it the most!
Delmer O. B. Martin
As stated previously on [insert name here] blog, no system modifies itself in a potentially progressive way without external disruption. The commentary regarding CJC, given it is suggested by the most autocratic figurehead possible, will only secure its labyrinthine and ineffective framework. This will be no different than other “reform” calls from the past.
.
But it may be monumentally disastrous for any SRL who then does ultimately lodge a complaint there after the “reform”.
I understand why there is a general sense of pessimism regarding the prospects of making real progress. My journey started in the year 2000, almost two decades ago. But the problems are as old as the legal system itself.
.
My optimism, such as it is, is attributable to something that was apparent to me two decades ago, because it was an unprecedented development. Just a decade or less before that there was no public access to the Internet, and I was fortunate to have some small roles in its deployment in B.C.
.
Almost one year ago I spent an entire day sitting in a hotel meeting room while a succession of presenters addressed a supposedly “independent” committee charged with completing a “review” of the B.C. Labour Relations Code. I was scheduled to speak last and my slot was moved forward by half-an-hour because another presenter – a lawyer who had heard from me the previous day – bailed out.
.
While I was speaking the entire room – except for me and the three committee members – emptied. No one from the labour relations / labour law communities wanted to hear what I had to say. And neither, despite the show they put on, did the three committee members.
.
That is apparent from the report – https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/332/2018/10/Labour-Relations-Code-Review-Panel-Report.pdf – they eventually produced, that doesn’t even acknowledge the issues I raised. But also now online are my two written submissions. Scroll down here – https://engage.gov.bc.ca/labourrelations/written-submissions/ – to find them.
.
In the second one I’ve named a dozen or so people. And I’ve used the term “bad faith” very deliberately. Just as Donald Best has said about his case I know that no one is going to try suing me.
.
And some of them by now probably realize that simply ignoring me isn’t going to be a winning strategy either.
.
I’m out of time on this computer, so more later.
Chris quite frankly I could not care less what the CJC does or who it appoints for its “process. My issue is our process should not be CJC’s process. It is beyond time that elected government gives us a process independent of the CJC. Government ought to makes judges accountable by giving litigants who appear before a judge or with a lawyer about to be appointed to the judiciary within a certain time period say 10 years – and give us the right to a say as to whether that person is appointed or assigned higher judicial office and have us present more than our opinion off course so for example present court transcripts (and stop have judges in Alberta review and revise transcripts when we apply for them).
Once I brought a complaint about a very out of order “senior clerk” (eg. a master is a senior clerk) and all agencies deny jurisdiction. Most astounding of all the Judicial Appointments Secretariat told me they do not deal with Judicial Appointments (you heard right) and I must go to the Governor General’s Office. I did after telling the GG’s office I know I am being played with but I am doing as I was told. off course they directed me back to Judicial Appointments Secretariat and they just ignored me. But Mr bad senior clerk knew I was all over the place with his name and misdeed
I agree that we need to see the CJC replaced – by an agency the judges themselves don’t control. The CJC was a mistake when it was created in 1971.
.
And, as it was created by Parliament – by adding provisions to the Judges Act – we need Parliament to effect its replacement. I’ve put this to a good many parliamentarians but if any of them are receptive to that idea we’ve seen no evidence of that so far. Therefore I think what Chief Justice Wagner is proposing is an opening we should not ignore.
.
Logically I would expect “outside consultants” who are going to do a thorough job would want to hear from the public. Similar exercises in the past, e.g. The Way Forward – http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_FuturesReport_20021129_en.pdf – have never offered the public a voice.
.
I highly recommend reading that report. See in particular the discussion of, and recommendation for creating, a “Chairperson’s Advisory Group” which, nominally at least, was created – see https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/news_en.asp?selMenu=news_2004_0922_en.asp – but evidently never did anything productive. One of the report’s authors, the Honourable Michael MacDonald, has just retired from the bench, and I think it is possible that he’s chosen to do so now at least in part because of his involvement in the CJC. They are in trouble and I think they know it.
Here is the real problem: the Court is a 100% for-profit enterprise, comprised of those chosen by a corporate, for-profit government — the corporate actors have ensured that there are no common-law courts.
It is a joke in most cases to call it the practice of law. Judges routinely make up their own laws, even ignore SCC decisions. Lying and witness tampering has been normalized.
Solution: we need a de jure government to replace the evil corporatocracy run by the foreign OWO and we need a return of the common law court where real people decide real issues without all the BS brought by lawyers and Judges.
Unfortunately you’re mixing up legal history somewhat in your points.
.
However, your points suggest two components to achieving the intended result, which I agree with as a whole: 1) We the people can elect our own damn judges (the US does it); and 2) In order to see how elected judges are doing (and behaving), both live and archived video access to civil proceedings (if not others) should be mandatory (the US does it).
I think the recognition “A2J in Canada is a human rights issue that we cannot and must not ignore”, as commented in the article and endorsed in the comments, is a right step forward. This allow us to take the issue to United Nations if the domestic institutions do not properly address this issue. In this regard, the article 14 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states in part:
“Article 14. 1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Just because someone is self-represented their right to equal treatment before the courts and tribunals and their right to hearing by a fair, public, competent, independent and impartial tribunal cannot be deprived. When these rights are violated, we can file complaint with the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee. However, there is a precondition that the complainants must first exhaust all the domestic procedures. In most cases, when the case is taken to the Supreme Court of Canada but the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue, a complaint to the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee can be made. This requires strategic litigations or intervening in the appropriate cases.
I think we have to go on this route rather than sitting and waiting that our domestic institutions will address the access to justice issue. Who else are interested in taking this path?
My feeling is that until we ban together in large numbers and speak as one voice, each individual effort will never ever be powerful enough to bring the swift grand change needed. There must be substantial united public outcry that cannot be ignored.
Absolutely true. Each lone voice is ignored. While I laud the hard work, time and Herculean efforts of the people devoted to this site – it is clear that we, the UNrepresented are losing ground. Pintea v Johns was very quickly “turned on its head” in many courts. Mention it and an SRL will be deemed “knowledgeable” and held to a higher standard. Say whatever you may – that is what it looks like. JUSTICE is NOT seen to be done. YES many judges are sympathetic to the UNrepresented – but we are still losing ground. our voices are simply ignored, “re-framed” and worse used against us.
…a close knit society FOR the legal community, supporting ONLY the legal community
what about a class action lawsuit?? I don’t know if we can sue the legal institutions that would have to hear the action,, but a class action something??
Based on the old adage of the courts ibi jus, ibi remedium: where there is a right, there is a remedy
In my opinion, the facts support a case to sue the provincial Attorney General in small claims court or the Human Rights Tribunal. e.g. $2,501 in Small Claims Court.
A SINGLE TEST CASE in TORONTO would cost $75 to file on three very narrow issues:
1. Clear discrimination(Reasonable Apprehension of Bias) – natural justice and procedural fairness. Obviously SRL are not treated equally. The AG is responsible for ensuring the Administration of Justice.
2. Charter Violations – and damages pursuant to S24
3. ibi jus, ibi remedium: where there is a right, there is a remedy – plain and obviously the current SYSTEM has the effect of denying justice.
APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE – I have to spend time on properly enunciating the claim.
This is just a rough framework.
A loss would not cost much, and could be appealed.
A win serves as a “template” for use by tens of thousands – and the “damages” claim WILL be significantly higher.
ANY Charter violation is a minimum of $2000 dollars.
Courts have held that CHARTER violations are to be determined at a trial.
I do not live in Toronto – but I will help ANYONE in Toronto, who wants to try.
I have considered a class action – but the first “TEST” case is the simplest.
Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice (2013):
Institutional redesign Institutional redesign is the second cluster of access to justice conceptions in Macdonald’s taxonomy. It focuses on the “actual performance of the courts, their procedures, and their organization” as the primary issues of concern. 35 Reforms proposed or adopted under this conception include: (i) changes to the civil justice process (e.g. small claims courts, class actions); 36 and (ii) government-created administrative tribunals (e.g. human rights commissions, the landlord-tenant bureau) an
Yes Sandra and we should not care how it ends. It definitely would shake up the ones who do not abide by their oath of office.
I have been thinking all this while to get a Class Action for those declared vexatious (in Alberta); For instance only in one instance did the AG get notice in accordance with the Act and in that instance the AG played a gangster role by ganging up on the SRL. The judge did not need the AG to assist in carrying out the declaration. To think the AG was there and acted against a person who had brain injury and really did nothing but brought a case to court
Also just about all the instances in Alberta, the person did nothing vexatious AND the Act is UNCONSTITIONALLY vague and over broad and cannot stand up to legal debate. Needless to say we could argue that authority (to curtail any citizens right to take a case to court should not be given to judges but an elected person
I even tried to get lawyers interested but they all ducked. off course they do not wish to get on the wrong side of the judiciary or legal profession
One can apply for a permit to organize a peaceful march to Queens Park. Start at Osgoode Hall, past the courthhouses on University Ave., turn onto Bay Street past Attorney General’s office, back to University to Queens Park when Legislative Assembly is sitting (see link below to calendar) Event liability insurance should likely be considered (?) Just throwing it out there to anyone willing and able to organize. Numerous public interest groups might be invited to participate (ie. Veterans / Disabled / Housing community / Welfare / Taxpayer Orgs / Liberteran orgs / Human Rights / Disabled / Racialized communities / LGBTQ / Wrongfully Convicted / Sexual Assault Survivors /.First Nations Communities and so forth). Not sure of all the logistics required. Just making the suggestion. See Legislatlative Assembly of Ontario website for schedue: https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/parliamentary-calendars. Add a petition campaign. Collect signatures.for issues.to be heard.at Queens Park. Involve local MPPs and other community leaders to participate. Just thoughts to consider.
Hello E. It looks like you have a great idea and the knowledge to implement it. If you just provide advice, I and other interested members will be able to follow it. However, for many of our members, it is difficult to help with the funding for the same reason why they are compelled to self-represent. I believe conducting such events will help show our solidarity and to raise a collective voice. In order to do this, I think the first step is to create a committee of interested members. I wonder if NSRLP can help us form such a committee consisting of interested members as we cannot communicate with other members directly.
I believe if we gather such a diverse group we and our specific cause (access to justice for self-represented ) will be lost in the whole shuffle. We should plan as you suggested but others are coming as supporters not with their myriad of issues otherwise we are no further than where we are and where we started-square one
Think like parades. Access to Justice being the issue / theme. Invite each community to raise 3 key, focused, Access to Justice issues they face. A2J affects each one of our communities. If you want to make a serious powerful impact you need serious powerful turn out in numbers. 1000s to 100s of thousands across the country. United, we stand. Alternatively keep it narrow and see what happens.
Point taken. Though it will water down the whole SRL issue it would be favourable to have other groups raise same issue of access to justice rather than free for all issues. I can see that working out