Hi All,
Access to sound legal advice is tremendously lacking in the province of Ontario. One does have to put the challenges LAO currently into perspective with what has been observed and reported in CanLII.
Recently, the Toronto Star published an article:
Legal Aid Ontario overwhelmed: Goar
By: Carol Goar Canada, Politics Government, Published on Wed Jul 03 2013
Legal Aid Ontario overwhelmed: Goar | Toronto Star
In Ms. Goar's article she quoted John McCamus, the head of LAO as stating:
There has been a long running question as to how specific litigants are able to obtain a certificate for services. In consideration to the fact that Mr. McCamus is quoted as stating in the article:
One would reasonably question that for matters for which litigants do not meet the thresholds for service would then rely upon making an allegation of "domestic violence" as Mr. MacCamus admits publicly as a requirement they consider.
My recommendation to Mr. MacCamus would be to properly investigate the income and resources available to all Legal Aid Ontario Certificates. To adopt a practice that respects Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules for which "Full and Frank" financial disclosures are required. Certificate Applicants should be required to submit to a full financial disclosure with all financial institutes within Canada.
Simply relying upon the "good faith" of an Applicant in our current financial times may not be reasonable. Especially in family law matters where fear and/or anxiety and/or worry may be driving clients to make unsubstantiated allegations of "domestic violence" to obtain low-cost legal services.
In addition, Mr. MacCamus should really investigate matters in which clients are seeking out "wings" from LAO and strongly consider the wise observations of the Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz that the dynamics of family law when surrounding allegations of domestic violence and conduct of litigants is "all too common, and cry out for judicial awareness".
Maybe, Mr. MacCamus should be instructing his staff and the panel lawyers to better investigate matters prior to issuing a certificate for a "free lawyer" does not end up "dangerous for opposing litigants" on the other side of a panel lawyer.
CanLII - 2011 ONSC 7476 (CanLII)
58. The dynamics on this file are all too common, and cry out for judicial awareness. In a troubled economy we are seeing more self-represented parties in Family Court, and certainly more people with limited finances. Inevitably, these ingredients create greater strains on the administration of justice. Combined with limited judicial resources, the need to encourage settlement and discourage inappropriate behaviour by litigants has never been more pressing.
59. With Legal Aid tightening eligibility rules, it is likely that just about any litigant retaining counsel on a certificate will have trouble paying costs if they lose. [B]But combining a “free lawyer” with a perceived immunity from costs is a dangerous mix. Dangerous for opposing litigants.[/B] Dangerous for children like the child, whose lives are needlessly disrupted by bitter and unnecessary litigation. And dangerous for a Family Court system whose resources are already strained.
60. In the case at bar, the Applicant conducted herself as if her Legal Aid certificate amounted to a blank cheque – unlimited resources which most unrepresented Respondents would be hard-pressed to match. A scheduled 3-4 day trial turned into 17 days, largely because the Applicant fought every issue and pursued every dubious allegation, to the bitter end. She appeared to make up evidence and allegations as she went along. She defied court orders directly impacting on the child, even while the trial was underway. There have to be consequences. Either we sanction this irresponsible and destructive behaviour, or we invite more of the same.
61. Encouraging settlement and discouraging inappropriate behaviour by litigants is important in all litigation – but particularly in family law, and most particularly in custody cases. No litigant should perceive they have “wings” – the ability to say or do anything they want in court, without consequences.
Where was the governance structure of LAO on this file and many others which "are all too common" one has to ask Mr. MacCamus? How does LAO review active certificates? How frequently? What happens to certificate holders whom are actually employed and at significant rates who simply fail to report this fact and have been provided a certificate for making an unproven allegation of "domestic violence"?
Mr. MacCamus there are simple ways to "clip the wings" of clients who are violating the Legal Aid Act of Ontario... Simply by doing proper investigations into the financial situation of certificate applicants, retrieving police incident reports to determine if there is a matter of "domestic violence" and doing much more up-front investigation into the clients they provide funding to.
The best way to govern the money going out the door of Legal Aid Ontario is to gate it right up front and to better manage cases that spiral out of control. In addition, seeking criminal charges against those certificate holders and their legal counsel who are aware of their substantial incomes and financial holdings would be another first step.
The LAO Act specifically talks to the requirements both panel lawyers and certificate holders have for reporting a change in employment/income. It is time to enforce the Act and seek fraud against those who miss represent their financial disclosures and make false allegations of "domestic violence" in an attempt to get a "free lawyer". The provisions are avalible in the LOA Act are in place and anyone whom miss represents their financial position and in addition an allegation of "domestic violence" that is found by the court to be unsubstantiated and results in equal custody should be investigated.
Panel lawyers are required to report on the progress of files. It wouldn't be hard to observe the "all too common" "dynamics" of certificate holders and their possibly negative advocates solicitors conduct. For example, even reviewing the few cases whereby a certificate holder and pannel lawyer bring forward an emergency ex-parte motion and then evaluating the results of that conduct could reveal a lot of potential miss conduct of LAO's funding.
For example, in a matter where a litigant is funded by LAO brings forward an "emergency" ex-parte motion on the basis of "domestic violence" and the matter is cross motioned and custody and access is set by the superior court at 50-50 and full joint custody... This would be a telling pattern of behaviour potentially that the client's allegations may not be genuine or even qualify for the LAO certificate program.
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...ily-law-15139/
LAO should sanction against irresponsible and destructive behaviour by certificate holders and panel lawyers who miss represent finances and "domestic violence" allegations or it will only possibly invite more of the same and erode what little funding LAO does receive. The conduct of certificate holders and panel lawyers who engage in this kind of conduct puts other citizens at risk for not being able to qualify for assistance they actually need because funds are being improperly distributed to those who are not in need and possibly only in need of Mental Health services rather than legal advice.
Good Luck!
Tayken
Access to sound legal advice is tremendously lacking in the province of Ontario. One does have to put the challenges LAO currently into perspective with what has been observed and reported in CanLII.
Recently, the Toronto Star published an article:
Legal Aid Ontario overwhelmed: Goar
By: Carol Goar Canada, Politics Government, Published on Wed Jul 03 2013
Legal Aid Ontario overwhelmed: Goar | Toronto Star
In Ms. Goar's article she quoted John McCamus, the head of LAO as stating:
Even an applicant who meets these income qualifications may not get assistance, he added. “You may be poor, but the criminal cases we cover have to have a likelihood of incarceration. In family law, the case has to involve domestic violence or child custody.”
How poor? An individual must have an income below $10,800 a year. “That’s $208 a week,” McCamus stressed. The threshold for a single parent with one child is $18,000.
My recommendation to Mr. MacCamus would be to properly investigate the income and resources available to all Legal Aid Ontario Certificates. To adopt a practice that respects Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules for which "Full and Frank" financial disclosures are required. Certificate Applicants should be required to submit to a full financial disclosure with all financial institutes within Canada.
Simply relying upon the "good faith" of an Applicant in our current financial times may not be reasonable. Especially in family law matters where fear and/or anxiety and/or worry may be driving clients to make unsubstantiated allegations of "domestic violence" to obtain low-cost legal services.
In addition, Mr. MacCamus should really investigate matters in which clients are seeking out "wings" from LAO and strongly consider the wise observations of the Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz that the dynamics of family law when surrounding allegations of domestic violence and conduct of litigants is "all too common, and cry out for judicial awareness".
Maybe, Mr. MacCamus should be instructing his staff and the panel lawyers to better investigate matters prior to issuing a certificate for a "free lawyer" does not end up "dangerous for opposing litigants" on the other side of a panel lawyer.
CanLII - 2011 ONSC 7476 (CanLII)
58. The dynamics on this file are all too common, and cry out for judicial awareness. In a troubled economy we are seeing more self-represented parties in Family Court, and certainly more people with limited finances. Inevitably, these ingredients create greater strains on the administration of justice. Combined with limited judicial resources, the need to encourage settlement and discourage inappropriate behaviour by litigants has never been more pressing.
59. With Legal Aid tightening eligibility rules, it is likely that just about any litigant retaining counsel on a certificate will have trouble paying costs if they lose. [B]But combining a “free lawyer” with a perceived immunity from costs is a dangerous mix. Dangerous for opposing litigants.[/B] Dangerous for children like the child, whose lives are needlessly disrupted by bitter and unnecessary litigation. And dangerous for a Family Court system whose resources are already strained.
60. In the case at bar, the Applicant conducted herself as if her Legal Aid certificate amounted to a blank cheque – unlimited resources which most unrepresented Respondents would be hard-pressed to match. A scheduled 3-4 day trial turned into 17 days, largely because the Applicant fought every issue and pursued every dubious allegation, to the bitter end. She appeared to make up evidence and allegations as she went along. She defied court orders directly impacting on the child, even while the trial was underway. There have to be consequences. Either we sanction this irresponsible and destructive behaviour, or we invite more of the same.
61. Encouraging settlement and discouraging inappropriate behaviour by litigants is important in all litigation – but particularly in family law, and most particularly in custody cases. No litigant should perceive they have “wings” – the ability to say or do anything they want in court, without consequences.
Mr. MacCamus there are simple ways to "clip the wings" of clients who are violating the Legal Aid Act of Ontario... Simply by doing proper investigations into the financial situation of certificate applicants, retrieving police incident reports to determine if there is a matter of "domestic violence" and doing much more up-front investigation into the clients they provide funding to.
The best way to govern the money going out the door of Legal Aid Ontario is to gate it right up front and to better manage cases that spiral out of control. In addition, seeking criminal charges against those certificate holders and their legal counsel who are aware of their substantial incomes and financial holdings would be another first step.
The LAO Act specifically talks to the requirements both panel lawyers and certificate holders have for reporting a change in employment/income. It is time to enforce the Act and seek fraud against those who miss represent their financial disclosures and make false allegations of "domestic violence" in an attempt to get a "free lawyer". The provisions are avalible in the LOA Act are in place and anyone whom miss represents their financial position and in addition an allegation of "domestic violence" that is found by the court to be unsubstantiated and results in equal custody should be investigated.
Panel lawyers are required to report on the progress of files. It wouldn't be hard to observe the "all too common" "dynamics" of certificate holders and their possibly negative advocates solicitors conduct. For example, even reviewing the few cases whereby a certificate holder and pannel lawyer bring forward an emergency ex-parte motion and then evaluating the results of that conduct could reveal a lot of potential miss conduct of LAO's funding.
For example, in a matter where a litigant is funded by LAO brings forward an "emergency" ex-parte motion on the basis of "domestic violence" and the matter is cross motioned and custody and access is set by the superior court at 50-50 and full joint custody... This would be a telling pattern of behaviour potentially that the client's allegations may not be genuine or even qualify for the LAO certificate program.
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...ily-law-15139/
LAO should sanction against irresponsible and destructive behaviour by certificate holders and panel lawyers who miss represent finances and "domestic violence" allegations or it will only possibly invite more of the same and erode what little funding LAO does receive. The conduct of certificate holders and panel lawyers who engage in this kind of conduct puts other citizens at risk for not being able to qualify for assistance they actually need because funds are being improperly distributed to those who are not in need and possibly only in need of Mental Health services rather than legal advice.
Good Luck!
Tayken
Comment