Supreme Court Releases Decision on Agents Appearing in Court

The British Columbia Supreme Court has just released a decision, in the case of Ambrosi v. Duckworth, on the right of parties to have people other than lawyers appear in court on their behalf.

The problem arises from s. 15(1) of the Legal Profession Act which says that "no person, other than a practising lawyer, is permitted to engage in the practice of law;" s. 85 of the act makes it an offence, punishable under the Offence Act, to contravene s. 15. The Legal Profession Act offers a few exceptions to this general prohibition:

• a party to an action may represent him- or herself;
• any person who is entitled to vote in British Columbia may represent someone if the narrow criteria of the Court Agent Act apply (if there are fewer than two practising lawyers in town or if there are fewer than two lawyers with offices within 8km of the courthouse);
• a non-lawyer employed by the Legal Services Society may represent someone within the limits of s. 12 of the Legal Services Society Act; and,
• an articled student may represent someone to the extent permitted by the Law Society.

However, regardless of the Legal Profession Act, the court has the inherent right to control its own process and may, on a case by case basis, allow a non-lawyer to represent someone. That was the issue in Ambrosi when the applicant asked the court for leave for someone to speak on his behalf and present his application.

The judge began his analysis by looking at a 2002 case from the Court of Appeal, R. v. Dick (I've put the important bits in bold):

"[6] The Crown raised a preliminary objection ... and brought to our attention several reasons why [the proposed agent] should not be accorded the privilege of audience. We use the word 'privilege' advisedly, there being clear authority for the proposition that, subject to statutory provisions otherwise, it lies within a court's discretion to permit or not to permit a person who is not a lawyer, to represent a litigant in court. In particular we note the judgment of Lord Denning in Engineers' and Managers' Association v. Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service et al. ... where it was said that the discretionary power to grant a privilege of audience to other persons should be exercised 'rarely and with caution' ...

"[7] There are strong public policy reasons for this general rule. Each court has the responsibility to ensure that persons appearing before it are properly represented and (in the case of criminal law) defended, and to maintain the rule of law and the integrity of the court generally. As was said by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Romanowicz ... :

'The power to refuse audience to an agent must be invoked whenever it is necessary to do so to protect the proper administration of justice. The proper administration of justice requires that the accused's constitutional rights, particularly the right to a fair trial, be protected. It also requires the fair treatment of other participants in the process (eg. witnesses) and that the proceedings be conducted in a manner that will command the respect of the community.

'It is impossible to catalogue all of the circumstances in which representation by a particular agent would imperil the administration of justice and properly call for an order disqualifying that agent. Obviously, representation by agents lacking the ability to competently represent an accused endangers all aspects of the proper administration of justice, particularly the accused's right to a fair trial. Other examples where the administration of justice would suffer irreparable harm if an agent were allowed to appear are found in the material filed on this appeal. ... [There may be] situations in which the agent's criminal record or other discreditable acts are such as to permit the conclusion that the agent cannot be relied on to conduct a trial ethically and honourably.'"

To summarize this somewhat:

1. The court has the discretion to allow an agent to represent a litigant.
2. This discretion should be exercised with restraint, and should be exercised in bearing in mind the need to ensure that the litigant is well-represented, the rule of law is maintained and the integrity of the court is preserved.
3. The court should refuse to allow an agent to act when necessary to protect the proper administration of justice. This might be the case where an agent is incompetent or is unlikely to conduct him- or herself in an ethical manner.

Although the applicant presented a number of good reasons why the agent should be allowed to represent him, including the prejudice to his right to a fair hearing, his constitutional right to freedom of expression, his entitlement to appear by an agent of his own choice, and his right to have access to justice, the respondent presented a lengthy body of court decisions reflecting poorly on the proposed agent's past conduct in court. Ultimately, the judge held that:

"[55] I have not been convinced that I should exercise my discretion to allow [the proposed agent] to appear as agent for Mr. Ambrosi. I am satisfied that it would not be in the interest of justice to allow [the proposed agent] to appear as agent. ... I am satisfied that Mr. Ambrosi can afford a lawyer if he wishes, or may even be able to find someone more appropriate to appear as his agent. ..."

Read More

How to Hire a Family Law Lawyer

All right, so you need a family law lawyer. That's too bad. Your question now is this: how do you go about finding and hiring one?



Personal Referrals



If you can, get a referral to one or two specific lawyers. People who can give you referrals include: family, friends and coworkers who have used a family law lawyer in the past (these people are also great for telling you who to avoid); accountants, business valuators and appraisers who have had professional dealings with family law lawyers; and, doctors, psychologists, therapists and counsellors who have been hired by family law lawyers.



These people have all had personal contact with a lawyer and can tell who they liked and who they didn't like, and the professionals will usually have worked with enough lawyers that they may be able to refer you to someone in particular based on your circumstances.



Referral Services


There are several services you can use to find a lawyer, such as directories which lawyers pay to be included, like Canada Law Books' Canadian Law List, directories where lawyers are included based on the opinion of their peers, like Best Lawyers, and open directories like the Canadian Bar Association's excellent Lawyer Referral Service, which will refer you to someone based on your location, language and legal problem.



(I have links to a bunch of local and international lawyer listing and search services in the Links & Resources section of my website.)



The Yellow Pages and the Internet



If all else fails, there's the Yellow Pages, and if the Yellow Pages fails, there's the internet.



The problem with the internet is that you don't know anything about the lawyer you're thinking of hiring except the things they say about themselves, and it's awfully easy to hire a designer to put together a slick website with Flash animations and impressive photography. Doing a Google search for best family lawyer vancouver, for example, is a terrible way to find a lawyer, if only because the rules of the Law Society are supposed to stop us from describing ourselves in ridiculously superlative language like that. (Frankly, the lawyers who really are the best have the professionalism and modesty not to describe themselves in such terms.) You'd probably get a more complete listing of lawyers with a simpler search like family law vancouver or family law nanaimo.



The problem with the Yellow Pages is that the display ads can be very expensive and you're not getting a full picture of your options... unless the picture you're looking for is of a parent walking hand in hand with a child or of a wedding ring lying on a torn family photo. And, like the internet, all you really know about the lawyers is what they say in their ads.



In fairness I may have been somewhat hard on the internet. Lawyer's websites will give you a sense of the firm's personality and any preferred areas of practice, such as children's issues, international and jurisdictional issues, appeal work or complex asset division problems. This is helpful, but it's not a substitute for a personal meeting the lawyer you're thinking of hiring.



(I have links to a bunch of lawyers' websites in the Links & Resources section of my site.)



Meet a Few Lawyers



Now that you've got at least a couple of names, start making appointments. You are making an important and often expensive decision, so meet a few people. You don't need to go with the first person you meet; you're entitled to shop around, and you should shop around.



Most lawyers charge for these initial meetings. Do not assume your meeting will be free or at a discounted rate unless the lawyer advertises that fact or his or her office tells you so. Lawyers are professionals and we bill for our time. If it's free legal advice that you're looking for, and there's nothing wrong with that, you can get it through organizations like UBC's LSLAP program, the Salvation Army's Pro Bono Program or Access Pro Bono.



It's not necessary for you to prepare anything for these meetings, but it can be helpful for you have a list of the important dates (your birthday, your partner's birthday, the children's birthdays, the date you began to live together, the date you married and the date of separation), an idea of what your assets and liabilities are (something approximate will do, you don't need to be precise), and summary of your income and your partner's income.



If litigation is underway, it's helpful to see the documents that started the case (in the Provincial Court, an Application to Obtain an Order and a Reply, and in the Supreme Court, a Notice of Family Claim, a Response to Family Claim and a Counterclaim) as well as copies of whatever orders have been made to date. If you want to hire the lawyer because your partner has made a settlement offer or prepared a separation agreement, bring copies of that too.



If litigation is going to be underway, bring a photograph of your partner for the lawyer's process server, and if you're married, bring a copy of your marriage certificate (the ugly brown thing from the Vital Statistics Agency, not the flowery document you received from your celebrant). If support will be an issue, consider bringing in copies of your three most recent income tax returns (PDF).



Choosing the Right Lawyer



I'm not an authority on this, but it seems to me that what a client ought to be looking to get out of an initial meeting is:

1. an explanation of the law applicable to your problem in language you're comfortable with;
2. an explanation of the options available to you;
3. the lawyer's opinion of the likely range of outcomes; and,
4. an idea of what it'll cost you to retain the lawyer.

On top of that, I expect a client would want to walk out of the meeting with:

5. confidence in the lawyer's knowledge of the law;
6. a sense that you will be able to work with the lawyer;
   
7. some assurance that the lawyer has the time to devote to your case; and,
8. a clear understanding of the terms of the lawyer's services.
   

Like I said before, you're entitled to shop around. You're entitled to ask the hard questions and get some honest answers, and if you have any hesitation about who you're thinking of hiring, hire someone else.



A Few Tips for Hiring a Lawyer



Ask how long the lawyer has been practicing law, and how long the lawyer has been practicing family law in particular. Ask about the lawyer's hourly rate and about the things you will be charged for.



There's nothing fundamentally wrong with hiring a junior lawyer. In general, a junior lawyer's lower hourly rate will compensate for any extra time spent researching the law or court processes, and the lawyer will usually have the ear of one or two senior lawyers who can be plied for advice as needed, especially junior lawyers at firms with multiple lawyers.



Unless your case is incredibly complex, with tough tax problems, jurisdictional problems, corporate problems or tort claims, you don't have to hire the most senior lawyer you can find or a partner of the firm. In general, our hourly rates vary with our seniority at the bar, and that usually means that more senior lawyers come with a correspondingly significant hourly rate.



Hiring a lawyer with a reputation as a shark or a bulldog isn't always a good idea, unless you like to spend lots of money in court.



If other people in a firm will be working on your file, ask to meet them as well. In particular, make a point of introducing yourself to the lawyer's main legal assistant, and be friendly.



Be prepared for the lawyer not to be able to take your case. This isn't a slight against you, it's just that most family law lawyers are terribly busy.



If the lawyer you meet can't take your case, get the lawyer's referral to two or three other lawyers. I only ever refer people to lawyers I have a personally high opinion of, and I always make referrals based on who I think would be a good fit for the client and the client's legal problem.

Read More

Law Society Approves Practice Guidelines for Family Law

The Law Society of British Columbia has endorsed a package of best practice guidelines (PDF) recommended by its family law task force with much input from a working group established by the Canadian Bar Association British Columbia. The impetus for these guidelines stems from the Family Justice Reform Working Group's 2006 report, A New Justice System for Children and Families (PDF), which recommended that:

"... the Law Society of BC recognize the changing roles and duties of family law lawyers and develop a Code of Practice for Family Lawyers to give guidance in the balancing of a lawyer’s partisan role with the potential harm it may cause to other family members, especially children."

The guidelines are true guidelines, in the sense that they set out practice standards to be aspired toward rather than a compulsory code of conduct, and what's most interesting about them is that they could easily apply to all participants in the justice system, not just lawyers.

BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR
LAWYERS PRACTICING FAMILY LAW

1. Lawyers should conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive, respectful and seeks to minimize conflict and should encourage their clients to do likewise. (Lawyers are not obliged to assist persons who are being disrespectful or abusive.)

2. Lawyers should strive to remain objective at all times, and not to over-identify with their clients or be unduly influenced by the emotions of the moment.

3. Lawyers should avoid using inflammatory language in spoken or written communications, and should encourage their clients to do likewise.

4. Lawyers should caution their clients about the limited relevance of allegations or evidence of conduct.

5. Lawyers should avoid actions that have the sole or predominant purpose of hindering, delaying or bullying an opposing party, and should encourage their clients to do likewise.

6. Lawyers cannot participate in, and should caution their clients against, any actions that are dishonest, misleading or undertaken for an improper purpose.

7. Lawyers should keep their clients advised of, and encourage their clients to consider, at all stages of the dispute:

a. the risks and costs of any proposed actions or communications;

b. both short and long term consequences;

c. the consequences for any children involved; and

d. the importance of court orders or agreements.

8. Lawyers should advise their clients that their clients are in a position of trust in relation to their children, and that

a. it is important for the client to put the children’s interests before their own; and

b. failing to do so may have a significant impact on both the children’s wellbeing and the client’s case.

9. Lawyers should advise their clients of and encourage them to consider, at all stages of the dispute, all available and suitable resources for resolving the dispute, in or out of court.

These principles all strike me as reasonable. They reflect how I practice family law and how I would like all lawyers to practice family law.

Read More

What's "Without Prejudice" and What's Not

You'll often see certain lawyer's letters marked "without prejudice," and it's not always clear what "without prejudice" means, particularly for people who aren't lawyers. The question has recently come up in a file of mine, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to explain things.

"Without prejudice" protects settlement proposals

Because of the incredible expense and degree of uncertainty involved in trials, lawyers will usually make many attempts to settle a case before it heads to trial. Although settlement efforts can take many forms, the cheapest is correspondence: the exchange of letters setting out the terms on which the lawyer's client would be prepared to settle the case.

As a general but not invariable rule, settling a file means finding a compromise between the parties' positions, which means that neither party gets everything he or she is looking for. Someone who is asking for sole guardianship might compromise and agree to an order for joint guardianship as long as he or she has the children's primary residence; someone who is asking for 70% of the family assets might compromise and agree to take half the family assets as long as spousal support is paid for a certain number of years.

Now, although compromise might be necessary for settlement, the position a party takes to achieve settlement is rarely the position that the party takes at trial. At trial, the person seeking sole guardianship is still going be demanding sole guardianship, and the person after the majority of the family assets is still going to be after the majority of the family assets. But if this is the case, which it usually is, people need a way to communicate settlement proposals without affecting their positions at trial. In other words, if you're suing for twelve 1972 Ford Pintos, you need to be able to propose settlement for six 1972 Ford Pintos and three 1973 Ford Pintos without being held to that position at trial.

This is where "without prejudice" letters come in. Marking a letter "without prejudice" protects the contents of the letter from being disclosed; the letter is being sent without prejudice to the party's position at trial.

To be clear, however, just marking a letter "without prejudice" isn't going to automatically exclude the letter from use at trial. To be excluded, the letter must actually contain a settlement proposal; as our Court of Appeal said in a 1984 case called Belanger v. Gilbert, "not all letters so marked are to be held inadmissible." In another appeal case, Schetky v. Cochrane, from 1918, the court set out what was required to protect "without prejudice" letters:

"... the rule which excludes documents marked 'without prejudice' has no application unless some person is in dispute or negotiation with another, and terms are offered for the settlement of the dispute or negotiation...

"... before the privilege arises two conditions must exist, viz.: (a) a dispute or negotiation between two or more parties; and (b) in which terms are offered"

A "without prejudice" letter that meets this test cannot be put into evidence, whether at trial or as an exhibit to an affidavit.

To be even more clear, it is only the parts of "without prejudice" letters proposing settlement that are protected. A letter that talks about the number of Ford Pintos required to achieve settlement as well as setting hearing dates and the colour of the author's pants, can certainly be be put into evidence about the hearing dates and the author's pants, as long as the portion dealing with the Pintos is blocked out.

Costs

Proper "without prejudice" letters can't even be put into evidence to argue costs after trial, unless the letter contains a statement saying that the author intends to reply on the letter for the purpose of arguing costs. The English Court of Appeal summarized this point in a 1984 case called Cutts v. Head:

"...the court is able to examine and consider such correspondence, where the offeror, in the body of the correspondence in issue, expressly reserves the right to bring the letter to the notice of the judge on the issue of costs after judgment."

(Letters like these are sometimes called Calderbank letters, in reference to the 1975 case from the English Court of Appeal which authorized this narrow exception, Calderbank v. Calderbank.)

Subsequent letters not marked "without prejudice"

Interestingly, the protected status of "without prejudice" settlement proposals also applies to letters written in reply to such proposals that aren't marked "without prejudice." Halsbury's Laws of England says this at volume 15, paragraph 728 of the third edition:

Where the privilege exists, it covers not only the particular letter itself, but also all subsequent parts of the same correspondence on both sides, notwithstanding that they are not expressed to be “without prejudice," unless there is a clear break in the chain of correspondence to show that the ensuing letters are open. Moreover, where a letter offering terms, but not stated to be “without prejudice” is followed by another saying that the communications between the parties are to be “without prejudice” the former letter is protected.

"With prejudice" letters

"With prejudice" letters are different than "without prejudice" letters. Such letters not only deny any claim of protection from production to the court, they say that the letter will be produced to the court.

Of course, because marking a letter "with prejudice" doesn't make the contents of the letter any more true, or any more compelling and persuasive to judge who reads it, it's not entirely clear what is achieved by marking a letter "with prejudice" apart from expressing the author's conviction about the importance or accuracy of the contents.

Summary

1. "Without prejudice" letters allow people to discuss settlement proposals without worrying that their proposals will be held against them later.
2. The phrase "without prejudice" only protects settlement proposals. Marking your laundry list or any other communication "without prejudice" isn't going to stop the document from being used in court.
3. The parts of a "without prejudice" letter that don't talk about settlement can be used in court, as long as the parts which do talk about settlement are blocked out.
   
4. If a "without prejudice" letter is going to be used to argue costs down the road, the letter needs to say so or it can't be used to argue costs.

Read More

Section 15 Reports

"Custody and access reports," "custody assessments" and "section fifteen reports" are some of the names given to reports prepared pursuant to s. 15 of the Family Relations Act. The purpose and scope of these reports can be a bit confusing, because they seem to be treated differently in the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court, because different sorts of people prepare them, and because the scope of s. 15 is really quite broad.

The Family Relations Act

Section 15 says, in part, this:

In a proceeding under this Act, the court may, on application, including an application made without notice to any other person, direct an investigation into a family matter by a person who

(a) has had no previous connection with the parties to the proceeding or to whom each party consents, and

(b) is a family counsellor, social worker or other person approved by the court for the purpose.

(2) A person directed to carry out an investigation under subsection (1) must report the results of the investigation in the manner that the court directs.

I've highlighted the bits that are particularly important for this discussion. Essentially, s. 15 says that the court can order that a report on any family issue be prepared by any person, in whatever manner the court directs, and the court can make an order that a report be prepared on its own initiative or on the application of a party.

Most of the time, people want a s. 15 report for the assessor's recommendations about things like where the children should live most of the time and the optimum parenting schedule. It can happen, however, that people want the assessor to look at a specific problem such as a parent's drinking, mental instability, drug use or personality disorder, and comment on how the issue affects the person's capacity to parent.

Provincial Court

Most of the time, s. 15 reports prepared in matters before the Provincial Court are prepared by family justice counsellors, employees of the Provincial Court who have some training in conducting custody and access assessments, and usually have a background in social work or psychology.

These reports are free but they can take a terribly long time to complete, anywhere from six months to one year or more, depending on which courthouse the parties are at. (Surrey and Vancouver are notoriously overburdened courts.) A private psychologist or psychiatrist could probably get the assessment done faster, but they charge for their work and I'd expect that the cost would start at about $3,000 and go up to $9,000 or more, depending on the circumstances and the scope of the report.

The court can order that a s. 15 report be prepared at the first appearance, at any other appearance before trial and at a family case conference. The court generally won't order s. 15 reports at trial... by then it's too late, and ordering the report would only serve to delay the trial.

Supreme Court

Section 15 reports prepared for the Supreme Court are usually done by private psychologists and psychiatrists. Although they come at a pretty significant cost, they can usually be prepared within three to six months, depending on the issues.

The court can order that a s. 15 report be prepared at a judicial case conference or at any application brought before trial. The court will not order the preparation of a s. 15 report at or on the brink of trial.

Rules of Evidence

In the Supreme Court, s. 15 reports stand as expert evidence. "Expert evidence" is different than other kinds of evidence, because it offers an expert opinion about the best parenting arrangements for the children.

(Normally, the only kind of evidence allowed at trial is evidence of facts: "I saw Ted outside the bank," "I have a blue Chevy Pinto," "last year we went to Chilliwack for Christmas," and so on. Opinion evidence is usually about beliefs, assumptions and conjectures: "aliens live on Jupiter," "my cat is better than your cat," or "Jerry is a bad father." Expert opinion evidence is about an expert's professional conclusions about an issue or question beyond most people's knowledge: "foundations need to be drilled to a minimum depth of 6m in Prince George to avoid frost heaves," "gerbils have an average I.Q. of 15" or "the kinematic viscosity of single non-winter grade oils is measured at a temperature of 100 °C in units of mm²/s.")

As expert evidence, s. 15 reports are often subject to the special provisions of Rule 40A about who is an expert and who isn't, introducing expert reports at trial and cross-examining the person preparing the report. The Supreme Court is usually very strict about how evidence is admitted at trial and how expert reports can be used.

Things are a bit different in the Provincial Court. Rule 11(2) deals with s. 15 reports, and this rule doesn't describe persons preparing s. 15 reports as "experts." In fact, the rule seems to treat s. 15 reports entirely differently than expert evidence, which is dealt with in Rule 11(3) to (8). This is probably why family justice counsellors are able to prepare s. 15 reports for Provincial Court: they are not expected to qualify as experts and s. 15 reports are treated differently than the usual sort of expert evidence.

Views of the Child Reports

Views of the child reports are a kind of s. 15 report in which the assessor is hired to meet with the child and report back to the court or the parents on the child's views and wishes. These reports can be prepared by experts (psychologists or psychiatrists) or by non-experts (lawyers, court workers and so forth). They do not recommend or suggest a certain parenting arrangement; they are primarily geared toward finding out what the child's preferences are, even though there's no guarantee that the court will do what the child wants.

Although it probably seems that these reports don't have a great deal of utility, in fact they are very helpful when a dispute is primarily focused on parenting issues, especially in the context of settlement discussions at case conferences. Parents can be profoundly influenced toward reason by a third-party's report of their children's wishes.

When these reports are prepared by experts, the expert will sometimes administer some tests to determine the child's truthfulness and honesty, and the expert may look at difficult issues such as whether the child has been alienated from a parent or whether the child has been coached to have a certain preference.

Non-experts don't have the special skills to administer tests like that or to give opinions about whether a child has been influenced by a parent or alienated against a parent. As a consequence, while their reports are much more limited in scope and usefulness, they are generally much cheaper and faster to obtain than expert's views of the child reports: you're not paying for an expert and the assessor isn't going into an expert's level of detail.

There is another difference between expert's and non-expert's views of the child reports that has to do with the previous discussion about evidence. Expert's views of the child reports are expert evidence that can be used in both the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court. Although non-expert's views of the child reports can be used in the Provincial Court because of the special provisions of Rule 11(2), non-experts won't meet Rule 40A's test for admissibility and can't be used as evidence in the Supreme Court.

Summary

Section 15 is really quite broad. It can be used to make an application for almost any kind of report in a family law case... (I was about to say "except for medical reports and financial reports," but nothing in s. 15 really limits the sort of report the court can order to just issues about children, does it?) ...but is most often used to get an assessment of the parenting arrangements that would be best for the children.

Custody and access reports can take a lot of time to process in the Provincial Court but they are usually free. Custody and access reports can be had much more quickly in the Supreme Court, but since they're done by private psychiatrists and psychologists they can be very expensive.

Views of the child reports are an underused species of s. 15 report, and are usually must faster and cheaper to obtain than custody and access reports, particularly where the report is prepared by a non-expert. They do not have the same persuasive effect on the court that custody and access reports have, however, and non-expert views of the child reports may not be admissible in Supreme Court matters.

Read More

New Code of Professional Conduct in Force in January

The new Code of Professional Conduct (PDF), the primary ethical guide governing the conduct of lawyers in British Columbia, will be in effect on 1 January 2013. The new Code will replace the Professional Conduct Handbook, which has provided guidance to lawyers for the last twenty years.

According to an article published in the Law Society's newsletter Benchers' Bulletin, the rational for the new Code stems from the need to harmonize ethical standards among the provinces and territories to allow lawyers to more easily practice in multiple jurisdictions. The Code is based on a model code of conduct developed by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada which has already been adopted in Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.

The Benchers' Bulletin article gives the impression that not much has changed between the Handbook and the new Code:

"The BC Code has been designed as a reference tool to help assist lawyers and the Law Society in answering those ethical questions. The ethical guidelines familiar from the Handbook have been preserved in the BC Code, but they have been expressed in a way that is expected to make it easier for the profession to use. 

"'The principles are the same, but the manner of expressing those principles is better,' said [Gavin] Hume. He describes the Handbook as a kind of 'statutory' document, similar to legislation. The BC Code, on the other hand, provides a rule and then additional commentary on how the rule operates."

Family law lawyers already grappling with the new Family Law Act, new regulations and new rules for the Supreme Court and Provincial Court will be grateful for the relative modesty of the change.

Read More

Time Running Out to Complete Important CBA/NJI Survey

A few weeks ago, the Canadian Bar Association distributed an invitation to members of its family law section to participate in a survey being conducted by the National Judicial Institute. Time is running out; the survey will close on Friday 14 December 2012.

The NJI is the primary national organization providing continuing judicial education and the survey is timed for use at the Institute's family law seminar in February 2013. The survey is of particular importance for family law lawyers as it concerns the most difficult of all problems, the enforcement of orders and agreements for access. According to the introduction to the survey,

"This survey is intended to canvas family law lawyers’ opinions on the enforcement of orders and agreements dealing with custody and access. Bearing in mind that the bench has little if any influence over legislative reforms, do the available mechanisms work well or poorly? Could they be made to work better or should they be scrapped and other mechanisms implemented in their place? In particular, how effective are current remedies pursued through the courts?"

If you are a lawyer practicing family law to any significant extent, please complete the survey. It is relatively short and likely won't take more than 15 minutes to complete.

The survey, which is intended for lawyers only, can be found here: survey closed.

Read More