In British Columbia, a recent review of the province’s justice system was a wake-up call, The cost of litigation is prohibitive for most Canadians. The majority earn too much to qualify for legal aid, yet too little to afford a lawyer.. Most policy report cards are part of a shell game to distract the public from real problems and to indicate that since we are measuring performance in area X we must be doing something about it. Part of the old, "we've got someone looking at that" scam from those who rely on the public sector for their money.
The average five-day criminal trial cost more than $56,000 last year, something that's beyond the reach of many middle-class families, experts say. What's more, the longer the case, the more expensive it gets.
As it turns out, Morice received $120,822 from Ottawa in compensation for similar abuse allegedly committed by another man at a residential school in a different town during the same time period he claimed in the civil suit that Furlong had been abusing him. That was just the most significant problem with Morice’s credibility: he also has a long criminal record, mostly for offences of dishonesty,
The high cost of lawyers, combined with the erosion of legal aid and the proliferation of free legal resources on the Internet, has led to the justice system becoming what Julie Macfarlane, a law professor at the University of Windsor, describes as “a completely different universe.” Navigating the courts without a lawyer is a gruelling and daunting experience that has become all too common among Ontario’s growing masses of self-represented litigants.
Vexatious litigants-An Ontario Superior Court judge has drawn upon a new rule of civil procedure to dismiss a motion by a litigant who had “already had his day in court.”
The Canadian justice system caters to only two extremes...the wealthy and the poor. What about those caught in the middle? The administration of justice is brought into disrepute where the financial playing field is tilted...in the civil context, litigants are often priced out of the courthouse. Justice, for that reason, can be out of reach for those of modest means.
So yes, the courts increasingly have reason to fear the public. But installing security equipment in the courts and leaving unjust laws in place is not the solution. My hypothesis is that people were more willing to accept the notion 35 years ago that courthouses were places where justice was done. Today, people are more likely to look at them as places where injustice will be done.
In some cases, the law, properly approached, is clear and all competent judges will come to the same conclusion. However, in many cases there is room for discretion and a judge's background and worldview will make a significant difference in the result.
Students have been metamorphosed into consumers and, correspondingly, professors into customer service representatives. The primary responsibility of the customer service representative is to keep customers happy. Thus, a professor who does not keep students happy has failed and he or she will be savaged in the customer satisfaction surveys sometimes described as "student course evaluations". Making intellectual demands or seeking to apply standards would tend to make consumers unhappy and both have, therefore, been abandoned.
The Court seems finally to have realized that continuation of exclusionary rulings involving derivative evidence will sweep away the last vestiges of faith that Canadians once had in our system of criminal justice. There was a time when the essence of our criminal law was its public nature; a time when it was the particular responsibility of police, prosecutors, and judges to enforce it fairly and impartially; a time when we had peace and order in our communities. It was a solemn constitutional trust responsibly carried out on behalf of law abiding Canadians.
The Court shows scant respect for its predecessors in the last 20 years. In the first years after 1982 the Court stumbled about trying to make sense of its new powers. At every opportunity for fifteen years or more the Court has striven to find a right in the Charter that would extend its free supervision of government action under Section 1. Once it finds a right it will tell governments what they must not or must do. A natural pursuit of power the trend is also profoundly stupid. The Court because of its institutional nature and procedures, as much as from the human frailty of its nine members and its irresponsibility, is incapable of governing the country. Yet still it tries.Whoever may be right about the particular issue, the readiness of the Court to overrule itself presents constitutional law in a slow flux. The Court in the next 20s may show no more respect for the McLachlin court than it shows for the Dickson court. There is an implication that constitutional law is a progressive science with new discoveries regularly made. But chiefly the Court's reasons show conceit. It thinks it has got smarter. In fact it is getting stupider.
Decade old troubles that plague the court, 'same old, same old,' Report finds
The Canadian legal academy as a whole has become complicit in denying Canadians the truth About the appointment processes: Frederick C. DeCoste, professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Edmonton
Not a single student failed, not because students had so much improved, but because faculty standards had so far declined. And now the Law Society too has succumbed; in 1998, it admitted to the bar 27 minority students who had failed the bar admission course. Following what the Law Society called a "lifestyle" interview, it certified these newly minted lawyers to practise on an unsuspecting public. I suppose that the Law Society's attitude is that if the law schools maintain no academic standards, why should we?