Category: Access to Justice Page 5 of 18

Planning is underway to hold Alberta’s first ever Access to Justice week from September 29-October 5, 2019. Alberta will join Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, who each have a week in October dedicated to Access to Justice. In anticipation, this year the Access to Justice Committee of the Canadian Bar Association (Alberta Branch) is taking a week to highlight some of the important initiatives already underway in Alberta. Every day this week they will be posting information about different justice sector organizations in Alberta and the important work they are doing to make access to justice a reality in this province. We would encourage you to check out their website: here.

To mark the occasion, this is a summary of some of ABlawg’s posts from September 2017 to September 2018, that covered important issues on access to justice issues.

The Purposes and Limits to a Client’s Right to A Review of Lawyer’s Accounts

By Clayton Swan

On August 16, 2018

In Access to Justice, Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Clayton Swan

PDF Version: The Purposes and Limits to a Client’s Right to A Review of Lawyer’s Accounts

Case Commented On: Eryn B Logie Family Law v West, 2017 ABQB 339 (Logie QB); West v Logie Family Law, 2018 ABCA 255 (Logie CA).

Recently, the Alberta Court of Appeal addressed an important issue in lawyer-client relations: the right and ability of a client to submit their lawyer’s bill for review. The technical term for this process is ‘taxation.’ The chain of cases that I will discuss begins with a highly contested family law file and a retainer that lasted 3 years. The lawyer-client relationship ended with the client having paid 98.5% of his bill. The client applied to a Master, and received, an order allowing an extension on the time limit for reviewing a lawyer’s bill without being required to provide notice to his lawyer or having to justify his request. The lawyer appealed the order and was ultimately successful in the Court of Appeal. This blog post will focus on the reasons of the Court of Appeal and provide some commentary on what this judgment could mean for both clients and lawyers in the future.

Open Court Principle: ABCA Agrees with Less than Full Disclosure in Some Circumstances

By Jay Moch

On July 9, 2018

In Aboriginal, Access to Justice

By: Jay Moch

PDF Version: Open Court Principle: ABCA Agrees with Less than Full Disclosure in Some Circumstances

Case Commented On: Aboriginal Peoples Television Network v Alberta (Attorney General), 2018 ABCA 133 (CanLII) (APTN)

In 2011, Casey Armstrong was stabbed to death, leading to the arrest of Wendy Scott and Connie Oakes, a Cree woman. Scott pled guilty to the second-degree murder charge, while Oakes decided to undergo a jury trial, which led to her eventual conviction (APTN, at para 4). During Oakes’ trial, Scott acted as a key witness for the Crown. On cross-examination, Scott was questioned about three videotaped statements she had made to the police following her arrest. To highlight the inconsistencies between Scott’s in-court testimony and the police statements, specific small portions of the videotapes were played to the jury and judge. Although only parts of the tapes were shown, the trial judged marked the videos collectively as “Exhibit F for identification” (APTN, at para 5).

Dispensing Speedy Justice: The Supreme Court of Canada & Decisions from the Bench

By Lisa Silver

On May 22, 2018

In Access to Justice, Appellate Practice

By: Lisa Ann Silver

PDF Version: Dispensing Speedy Justice: The Supreme Court of Canada & Decisions from the Bench

Recently, I was asked to comment on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on R v Stephan, 2018 SCC 21. The decision, given from the Bench immediately after the argument of the appeal, took many media outlets by surprise. The media, and to a large extent, lawyers, are not accustomed to speedy decision-making from the Supreme Court. We collectively expect the Court to reserve judgment and then, after months of diligent research and writing, the Court issues an unassuming missive that the judgment will be rendered on X date at Y time. I have often waited at my computer close to the appointed hour in order to immerse myself in the expectation of a new judgment release. For instance, I eagerly awaited the release of R v Marakah, [2017] 2 SCR 608 and R v Jones, [2017] 2 SCR 696, at 9:45 a.m. EST to be first in line to the lines of decision-making, which would, we all hoped, reveal the answers to the perplexing issues raised by the s. 8 issues surrounding the seizure of text messages found on a 3^rd party’s smart phone. True, the Supreme Court could disappoint as reality often does not live up to expectations. But at least we had 200 paragraphs on which to mull over how we should have or ought to have known better. So, when the Stephan decision was rendered so quickly, I began to wonder if this was a trend on the part of the Supremes or whether it was merely my own biases coming into play. I was determined, therefore, to see if in fact the Supreme Court is rendering from the Bench more often than in the past and if so, why.

The Potential Impact of a Quebec Superior Court Challenge on Access to Justice in Alberta

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On August 3, 2017

In Access to Justice, Constitutional

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: The Potential Impact of a Quebec Superior Court Challenge on Access to Justice in Alberta

Blog Post Commented On: “Clash of Courts”, Double Aspect Blog by Leonid Sirota, 23 July 2017

In his brief post entitled “Clash of Courts: Senior Superior Court judges are suing Québec over its provincial court’s jurisdiction; other provinces will be affected if they succeed,” Leonid Sirota focused his readers’ attention on a law suit brought by the Chief Justice, Senior Associate Chief Justice, and Associate Chief Justice of Quebec’s Superior Court (on behalf of all of the judges of that court), against the provincial government, noting that it has received little attention outside of Quebec, and certainly much less than it should. The judges of Quebec’s Superior Court are seeking a declaration that much of the jurisdiction of that province’s small claims court, the Court of Quebec, is unconstitutional because it violates section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by granting the Court of Quebec exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases where the amount claimed is more than $10,000 and granting it powers of judicial review over provincial administrative tribunals. I agree that the case — a startling claim by a group of litigants that need to be taken seriously (even if their method for getting the issue before the courts, i.e., before themselves in the first instance, is unorthodox) — deserves to be noticed and that other provinces, including Alberta, will be affected if their claim is successful.

Category: Access to Justice Page 5 of 18

The 2017/2018 Year in Access to Justice Issues on ABlawg

The Purposes and Limits to a Client’s Right to A Review of Lawyer’s Accounts

Open Court Principle: ABCA Agrees with Less than Full Disclosure in Some Circumstances

Dispensing Speedy Justice: The Supreme Court of Canada & Decisions from the Bench

The Potential Impact of a Quebec Superior Court Challenge on Access to Justice in Alberta