Welcome to the Canadian Justice Review Board Discussion Forum.

Comment Board

Home | Next Page

Level 0 Records: 25 - 6 New Entry

» Legal Costs «
Post Reply | Display replies to this message (52) from David C Brown
Why has being a party in a law suit become a high-risk for personal bankruptcy? There are a number of reasons which I will summarize as follows: 1. Law firm economics - large law firms particularly live and die by the billable hours. An apparently lucrative file sets many clocks going - senior counsel, two or three junior counsel, articling students, paralegals. I have observed over the years that much of the so-called billable work can be quite useless - repetitive legal research, duplicated activities, simple clerical activities billed over and over again. 2. Excessive process. Reform of court rules has massively backfired. In B.C. a simple application to Chambers, for example, involves publishing a small book. In order to spoon feed judges the rules require what is essentially doing everything three times - what used to be done once. Much of the problem arises from excessive micro-management of the litigation process. Unfortunately all the additional, unnecessary process produces a lot of additional billable hours so there is little protest from the profession. 4. Excessive discovery. This is particularly devastating in family law matters where the disclosure forms are designed for the complications of the average billionaire family. Big cases also invite days and days of examination for discovery - much of which is almost of no relationship to a few core issues. 5. Hugely lengthy trials. Trials that take months and months to complete are totally unnecessary. There is no effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. The judiciary are ultimately at fault here - judges don't have the courage, or are too comfortable with the system, to exclude obviously unnecessary testimony. 6. Fear of being sued for negligence. Fear of being sued themselves obviously encourages litigators to make sure they make sure what is under each and every stone. 7. Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court leads by example with its egregiously academic, full of "tests", one hundred page plus judgments which often read like a 1970's sociology thesis and which invariably end up totally confusing everybody about the law.
Tue 02 Oct 2007 11:40:28 PM EDT

» The Judicial Code of Ethics is a ruse. «
Post Reply from Lloyd Brinson
In my opinion the so-called Canadian Judicial Council "Code of Ethics" should be made law and integrated into the Canada Supreme Court Act. This would make it meaningful and enforceable rather than just something that can be ignored by the judges who hold sway on the Council.
Wed 07 Feb 2007 08:45:08 AM EST

» revise the CJC «
Post Reply from Lloyd Brinson
In my opinion, Mr. Norman Sabourin, the Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC), is not doing his job properly. He rejects valid complaints about judges and does not investigate them properly. His behaviour seems to have the blessing of CJC chairperson McLachlin, who is also the Chief Justice. Judges judging judges is not working. We need a Parliamentary committee for this purpose, one that is elected and that can be held to account by the voters.
Sat 30 Dec 2006 02:08:43 PM EST

» The Justice System in General «
Post Reply from jamie cooper
I have been involved in our Justice System since 1964, first as a law enforcement officer, then as an advocate and para-legal. Over these years I have appeared in most every court in this Country. One common thread runs through this system - as long as there is money to be had - the court will continue to drag out all areas of appeals, expert witnesses, or whatever else is necessary. Once the money is nearly gone, it will be settled. Family Court is one of the worse violators of this practise. Over 8 years to settle visitation rights....WOW..! The best interests of the child is seldom at the heart of this outrageous court system....the child is the rope that lawyers use in their tug of war to drain dollars from both sides ... as for the judge ... well ... ??? There are, no doubt, sincere and good lawyers and judges on both sides...but ask those who are in this system and they will tell horror stories of abuse of process, evidence not considered and even blatant violation of people's rights. We have in southern Ontario several Judges sanctioned and even removed from this court over the past few years. And the abuse continues. Children Aid Societies, which are independent companies, have the ear of the court while the police act as enforcers for this Agency, without regard for the truth until it gets into the court...and the court must protect the system...so the truth is the first casualty of this war. Our entire System of Justice must be overhauled and made more user friendly for the common people. It will take time and effort with even some of those who are the top of this food chain being removed or retrained. But I believe our society is worth it ... It is People who live in this Country...Money just flows through it.
Sat 04 Nov 2006 02:32:35 PM EST

» Judicial System «
Post Reply from D B
-The Harper Government has implemented mandatory sentences for drug dealers, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. -Child molesters and rapists continue to get mere "slap-on-the-wrist" treatment. -White-collar criminals get "house arrest", but there is no real judicial effort to order restitution. Criminals seem able to keep all the assets they swindle, and that is something that does not serve justice. -In my opinion, any person or institution that defrauds others should be prosecuted, yet in case after case it's the victims that are required to spend more money chasing the swindlers. For the sake of the stability of society, these are matters for the police and Crown prosecutors to take seriously, but neither seems to have the resources or interest. A victim never recovers from these horrible experiences, be they violent criminal acts or thefts. It is even more disconcerting to see how courts let such criminals off so lightly. This is not justice and if criminals thought that rather than being coddled by the courts they might instead pay a price and be forced to make full restitution, it would provide a needed deterrent. The entire judicial system must be revamped.
Wed 21 Jun 2006 10:18:48 AM EDT

» Chief Justice's remarks on the flexible and evolving constitution. «
Post Reply from Howard Glen
The CJ is correct to say that constitutions are not frozen in time, but I disagree with her declaration that judges must amend them. There is a very clear procedure laid out in part 5 of the Charter by which Parliament and the legislatures can amend the Constitution. Since these elected bodies thereby have the authority to flex and evolve the Constitution as they see fit, it follows that these same elected bodies also have the authority to block any flexing or evolving of which they disaprove. If they are wrong on an issue, they will answer for it in the next election. Therefore there is no need for judges to go beyond written law. The people, as represented by their elected representatives, are fully capable in these days of universal literacy and mass communications of steering the Constitution in new directions and do not need well-meaning but overbearing judges to do it for them. Everytime a court goes beyond written law into the vague, misty realm of unwritten law to justify some strange decision, it has succeeded in taking a little more authority from elected representatives, but it has also abused its authority to the same degree. Eventually things will reach the point that the people and their elected representatives will decide to ignore a decision and the justice system will be crippled. The courts will shoulder the blame. For the sake of the justice system and society as a whole, judges should stay with written law, and refrain from strolling in that vague, misty realm.
Fri 16 Jun 2006 10:30:06 PM EDT

» corruption «
Post Reply from David Thomson
The need for judicial review must also include a critical examination of judicial horror stories."Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done." Yours very truly, David Thomson
Wed 14 Jun 2006 11:19:12 AM EDT

» "Scorecards" for Judges «
Post Reply from Arlo Gueswith
I've found a lot of useful information on this site, but I'm having trouble piecing it together. Has anyone developed a summary of decisions by individual judges that could be used to identify the most incompetent judges? I hear a lot of criticism of "the courts" for being too lenient in their sentencing, and of judges who don't always hand out the minimum sentences required by law. I think that publicized "scorecards" would be a good idea. Ultimately, they might bring some more accountability back to the politicians who appoint these judges. As noted elsewhere on this site, public criticism of judges is often done without mentioning the particular judge's name. In addition to having the judge identified explicitly, I'd also like to know who appointed the judge in question. Shouldn't politicians be accountable for their judicial appointments? Can anyone point me to this type of "scorecard" information for Canadian judges? --Arlo
Fri 23 Dec 2005 09:36:51 PM EST

» The Law can be a blunt instrument for the disenfranchised, but a weapon for les autres «
Post Reply from Jim Roache
I am concerned that some financial institutions in Canada are enthusiastically embracing “strategic lawsuits against public participation”, known by the acronym "SLAPP”. Such litigation is brought solely for the purpose of removing controversy from the political arena and silencing fair comment. The internet is a good forum where investor advocates can exchange information and opinions and also discuss questionable financial products or practices. Not long ago, the DOW newswire picked up the story of Investor Advocate Rob Kyle. Mr. Kyle found his website “bumped” by his ‘Internet Service Provider’ (ISP), not once but twice. The DOW newswire described his plight as a ‘Freedom of Speech’ issue. Here in Canada the press ignored it. The “Achilles heel” of the internet seems to be SLAPP. If the threat of a strategic lawsuit fails to rattle blog and website administrators, then there is always the Internet Service Provider (ISP) to target. ISPs are not ‘public advocates’ nor are they in the ‘freedom of speech’ business. Understandably they are not the least bit interested in laying out 100K to prove a point. After all, to the ISP, a web-hosting account is small potatoes, perhaps worth $50-100 a month. Associate Professor Chris Tollefsen ( Faculty of Law , University of Victoria) was quoted in 1994 by The Canadian Bar Review as saying: “ One of the most troubling developments in American public law over the last decade has been the emergence of the SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation") phenomenon. Rapid proliferation of suits of this kind has a chilling effect on citizen participation. The phenomenon has prompted a considerable outpouring of academic and poplar writing. A substantial body of SLAPP jurisprudence has developed, and several American states have now enacted anti-SLAPP legislation”. (C.B.R. 1994 v.73 p.200) In my opinion, the U.S. is attempting to deal with the problem but Canada is certainly not. The Canadian financial services industry spends millions of dollars annually to promote and attract business. The message conveyed in their ads is one of trust and rosy financial outlooks in retirement. This may not be the reality and unfortunately I believe that for the most part, the public has very little idea of the risks and pitfalls lurking in this marketplace. Nor does the public appreciate that the current state of the “justice system” will likely afford them little protection. Although in theory the courts are supposed to provide the public with rights that are laid out in law, as a practical matter, the court process to apply the law to obtain any sort of compensation is cost prohibitive (and I believe the industry knows it). Sadly, when it comes to financial matters, people rarely take time to educate themselves until it’s too late, much like closing the barn door after the horses have run off. The emerging trend to SLAPP investor advocates who attempt to voice fair public comment about the financial services industry ought to be of great concern for every Canadian. Jim Roache, MBA Ottawa, ON
Mon 05 Dec 2005 05:34:03 PM EST

» Fedral Court Ruling Concerning Cosgrove «
Post Reply from Leo MacDonald
The federal court has ruled in favor of Judge Cosgrove who has claimed that the ability of the Office of the Ontario Attorney General to call for an inquiry amounts to political interference in the justice system. 'A chilling effect' as it has being called. I wonder if the same court would take the same view on political patronage appointments. What sort of detrimental effect does it have on the justice system? Politicians cannot use their office to hold controversial judges accountable, but they can appoint them???
Sat 26 Nov 2005 12:59:39 PM EST

» Justice Gordon Sedgwick's ruling against the Canadian Federation of Students' Charter Challenge no surprise to me .... «
Post Reply from Brian Vincent
It was a waste of time getting to a court ruling. Not only did the “Honourable” Gordon Sedgwick take more than a year to announce his decision, in my view his decision showed a lack of comprehension. More than a year ago the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) argued that an amendment to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) was unconstitutional. The amendment raises the bankruptcy bar from 2 years to 10 years for students, but does not do so for everyone else and I believe that section 15 of the Charter prohibits discrimination on a variety of grounds such as that. So why does Gordon Sedgwick think that this new law is not discriminatory? Well, in my opinion, judges like Sedgwick are simply not the independent thinkers that they pretend to be. Not only do they seem to lack the integrity to act independently (from government policy), they seem to come from such privileged backgrounds that they have no clue what the "average Joe" like myself must deal with. Perhaps this is why I find Sedgwick’s decision so distasteful, especially when he gives such special treatment to people he considers to be from his own economic class, like Dr. Saul Markman, a confess repeat sex offender. Unlike a lot of people, I am not afraid to voice my opinions and I certainly hope that the so-called “Honourable” “Justice” G. Gordon Sedgwick reads this posting. I believe that his ruling in the Canadian Federation of Students case is another affront to the administration of justice.
Wed 17 Aug 2005 09:12:07 PM EDT

» An Indictment «
Post Reply from Chris Budgell
Just stumbled onto your website through a Google search. Have no time to review it tonite but will follow up when time available in two days. I am pursuing what I would term a major indictment against the Canadian judicial and quasi-judicial establishments. This has been in development for 5 years (5 tribunal decisions and 3 superior court judicial review judgements rendered by 16 adjudicators are already online). Only after going through all this did I put together the pieces of the puzzle. The next action should be a tort for misfeasance in public office, naming at least 3 adjudicators. The evidence supporting the tort includes at least 9 items that are online and date back to a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada judgement - Hunt v. Carey and to a November 1992 B.C. legislative debate (Hansard) of a new statutory provision in the Labour Code (Section 13). The language was later (radically) altered to create an entirely bogus "prima facie" standard, but without legislative amendment. The new language was more recently (and falsely) ascribed by the tribunal to the legislature to justify the altered standard. This claim was made in a tribunal decision in 2003 .. a blatant and highly consequential lie. This is a classic example of adjudicators using their proprietary language (in this case Latin) to deliberately bamboozle the public. They created a bogus "prima facie" and have used it to dispose of several hundred cases over the last decade or more. Belatedly they claimed the bogus standard was deliberately created by the legislature. It most certainly was not. It was created in 1994 in a tribunal decision signed by the same adjudicator (now Chair) making the subsequent claim. Regards, Chris Budgell Vancouver, B.C.
Mon 20 Jun 2005 01:51:34 AM EDT

» Accused Murderer «
Post Reply from Ephie Housh
I am a neighbor of a man who has been charge with gunning down his wife at a Brampton school last December. He has been accused of first-degree murder, but a judge granted him bail until he goes to trial on the charges. I believe that people facing such serious accusations almost never get out of jail early. The judge ordered an electronic monitoring system that, in this province, was developed for low-risk non-violent offenders. I believe that the accused should have been considered a mentally unstable flight risk. Our community is outraged and the people of this province should be outraged as well. Persons charged with violent crimes are a risk to our communities. The judge's decision is a slap in the face to violence against woman and children. What can we do to change this law, both for our own protection and in memory of this woman who was murdered? Ephie Housh
Mon 11 Apr 2005 02:09:59 PM EDT

» legalization of gay marriage «
Post Reply | Display replies to this message (1) from jeff chiacchieri
I am an American living and working in Ontario. I am honored to be a resident of this country. I would like to remain so and be proud to raise my children here as Canadian citizens. Although I do not have a problem with gay marriage, I do have a problem with Prime Minister Martin's claim that it is unconstitutional not to change the definition of marriage so as to include same sex unions. Arguably the unconstitutionality is to be found in Mr. Martin's determination to force this new ideology on the whole of Canadian society. Rather than having a free and open political debate, what we see is an improper use of the court's opinion in efforts to subvert, coerce and displace the views of the majority. Every time Mr. Martin uses judicial review to further his agenda he erodes the constitutional function of parliament and its supposed supremacy. He did not run his election campaign on that platform and therefore he arguably has no public mandate or authority to behave this way. Laws that arise from "judicial supremacy" are, in my opinion, the cause of many of the moral, social, and economic problems we currently face. Martin says Ottawa has to act, but the proper way to do that is to hold a referendum and let the people speak.
Mon 14 Feb 2005 11:14:13 PM EST

» Oh, Canada «
Post Reply from Donald Berg
We can see how Paul Martin is now being handled with kid gloves at the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal. Are they simply wasting more tax dollars with this? Are the people "at the top" actually going to make restitution or face jail? If not, they ought to stop this mockery of justice and save our tax dollars. This government and the justice system continue to thrive on higher salaries, perks, personal agendas, etc., through mismanagement. What a sad, sad shameful country we now live in. Minority interests run the show but all taxpayers must pay the price. A great many Canadians gave their lives in two wars to preserve a heritage and traditional values that have now all but vanished. Sad and shameful. OH, CANADA!
Mon 14 Feb 2005 01:12:05 PM EST

» Cosgrove «
Post Reply from Eddy Rusling
I am outraged that the current McGuinty government has asked for an inquiry of Justice Cosgrove. I believe that Judge Cosgrove is not afraid to admit that the trial was not proceeding properly. I would have done the same thing as he did. I believe that the Ontario Court of Appeal did not read the original trial record properly. Sincerely, Eddy Rusling
Mon 07 Feb 2005 08:44:49 PM EST

» The Charter Revolution and the Court Party «
Post Reply | Display replies to this message (1) from Brian Lemon
Stimulating observations on something that is being missed: The "All Powerful Majority" in Canada doesn't exist any more, replaced by a collection of "Suffering Minorities" who are joined by the principle of equality for all (whatever that means). If the participation in all the various groups are added up, very likely, they represent that 51% of the population that bog down free expression and individual rights.
Fri 28 Jan 2005 10:39:52 AM EST

» Principles of Canadian government «
Post Reply from Maurice L. Fuller
In the US, the Jeffersonian principle of the government ruling by the consent of the governed and Lincoln's definition of democracy as "of the people, for the people and by the people", has, at least in theory, influenced how Americans look at their government. There is no enunciation of similar principles, that I am aware of, that provides a foundation for a relationship between Canadians and their government. The long struggle in Canada for "Responsible Government" seemed to assume a government that was under the control of the Canadian governing elite, the political aristocracy. Have we ever had this debate, historically? If so, when and where? If not, is it not time?
Wed 19 Jan 2005 04:52:12 PM EST

» EQUALITY FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS «
Post Reply | Display replies to this message (1) from steve
The gay marriage decision should be that of the Supreme court of Canada. It should not be left up to the politics of the Country to decide if myself or others should be treated equal. I do not want my life hanging in the balance by some uninformed, uneducated, predjudice, bias people. If the Constitution say's that all peoples should be treated equal then that includes me and other gay and lesbians and that should also include all benefits and privledges of hetrosexuals. Anything other than 100% equality is wrong and anyone who respects equality or human rights would understand that. Steve Tiveron Toronto, Ontario
Wed 12 Jan 2005 11:04:37 AM EST

» Sponsorship Scandle «
Post Reply from Rosina Simon
Justice John Gomery should also look into the Toronto Waterfront project.
Thu 18 Nov 2004 04:03:53 PM EST