The Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters has been busy coming up with solutions to the problems plaguing Canada’s justice system.
In a series of reports, the committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell offers a series of recommendations aimed at increasing access to justice and improving court efficiency in Canada. The four working groups looked at simplifying court processes; access to legal services; prevention, triage, and referrals; and family law reform.
Given the need to consider the issues on a national basis, the reports are broad. One recommendation, for example, suggests programs “that provide low cost or free dispute resolution services should be developed in each Canadian province and territory.” Ontario, of course, moved on this issue in family law a couple of years ago with its so-called four pillars reforms that expanded access to court-based mediation and dispute resolution services. While it’s clear the province could go further by, as the family law working group recommended, proceeding with mandatory mediation, the province has already been active on the issue. As the committee reports point out, so have several other provinces. The committee is obviously recommending an expansion of those services to all courts, although it would be nice to know which models work best.
Other recommendations focused on technology. That’s a particularly relevant area for Ontario, a jurisdiction that has been woefully slow to introduce digital services to the court system. “Jurisdictions not presently using e-filing should actively consider adopting this technology,” states the report from the court processes simplification working group.
It’s fairly obvious advice but it provides a good reminder of Ontario’s failings and the need for it to get aggressive in rectifying its repeated unsuccessful attempts at implementing an electronic document-management system.
One area where the committee makes a fairly specific recommendation is on pro bono legal services. “It is the recommendation of the [court processes simplification working group] that a target date be set by which there will be a cell of volunteer lawyers in as many courts as possible across the country,” the report states. That’s a useful suggestion. Ontario, of course, already has such services available through programs such as Law Help Ontario, although finding ways to expand it would be welcome.
Pro bono, however, is a fairly easy thing to suggest as it doesn’t really call for new money and is simply a way to encourage lawyers to volunteer their time. Many people will do that, but pro bono doesn’t negate the need for systemic change. As such, while the committee reports offer good suggestions, the broadness of the areas they cover means they’re hardly a detailed roadmap for fixing the justice system. The challenge, then, is for those who have the power to make changes to implement the most urgent recommendations.
—
Glenn KauthFor more, see "
Ontario lagging in court technology."
