131434-Law_Society_voices_support_for_sustainable_legal_aid skip to content
Tell a friend Search
Search this site
Advanced Search Home Staff Login About Us News Library Support Us Contact Us Links print friendly Add a news item rss
Back to summary
Law Society voices support for sustainable legal aid
Tuesday, February 13 2007
Organization: Release: Law Society of Upper Canada
TORONTO, Feb. 12 /CNW/ - The Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Gavin MacKenzie, today expressed the Law Society's continuing concern over the need for a well-funded and sustainable system of legal aid in Ontario. "We believe that the right of vulnerable citizens to legal assistance is an important component of the administration of justice in a free and democratic society," the Treasurer said. "Since the Ontario Legal Aid Plan was founded in 1967, the Law Society has recognized that legal aid should be considered a right, not a charitable gift, and that individuals are equal before the law
only if they are assured the option of legal representation."
"More than a million Ontarians benefit from Legal Aid Ontario every year, many of them through our excellent clinic system", he added. "Legal aid also helps many vulnerable Ontarians with family law, criminal law, workers' compensation, immigration, landlord-tenant and other legal issues." "But there are still many thousands of individuals in Ontario who cannot afford legal services and do not qualify for support from the system. The income threshold is far too low - if you earn just over $13,000 a year you are too rich to qualify for legal aid. We are alarmed by the dramatic increase in the number of people who try to represent themselves in court without the benefit of legal representation or advice about their rights.
Others simply give up their right to a fair hearing.
For all of these people,
access to justice is denied."
The Law Society regards the Attorney General's appointment of Professor John McCamus to review legal aid issues and the establishment of a working group with Legal Aid Ontario as important steps toward the development of strategies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of legal aid, including the provision of adequate and stable funding. << FACT SHEET Backgrounder on Legal Aid in Ontario As early as the 1920s, lawyers in Ontario recognized the need for a legal aid system in this province. The need became palpable over the next two decades, and in 1951, Ontario became the first province in Canada to pass legislation establishing an organized legal aid programme. >> Since that time Ontario's legal aid programme has undergone several transformations. Initially, the programme was controlled by The Law Society of Upper Canada (the "Law Society") and financed by the provincial government. Those in need of legal aid services went to their local law association and sought eligibility based on proof of legal and financial need. Only criminal and civil law proceedings were covered at that time. Lawyers provided legal assistance on a volunteer basis and were only paid for disbursements and administrative expenses - not their labour. The voluntary plan was unable to adequately meet the demand for legal aid services, and in 1963, a Joint Committee of the Ontario government and the Law Society was appointed to develop a new system. The Joint Committee recommended a formal system modelled on the legal aid plans of England and Scotland where private lawyers acted for clients on legal aid certificates and were paid for their services. Based on the Joint Committee's recommendations, the Ontario government created the "Ontario Legal Aid Plan" in 1967. It soon became clear that, while low-income individuals needed legal aid certificates in growing numbers, they also needed many legal services that the private bar could not provide. To service those needs, the first "community legal aid clinic" opened in Toronto in 1971. Clinic lawyers focused on poverty law services such as workers' compensation, social assistance, and landlord-tenant disputes. They also worked on community legal education and important law reform and community development initiatives. Initially funded by charitable grants, the clinics began to receive provincial funding in the mid-1970s. Both the legal aid certificate programme and the community legal clinic programme grew substantially throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Several factors - including an economic recession - led to a dramatic increase in the need for legal aid certificates by Ontarians in the early 1990s. That same decade, federal contributions to provincial legal aid programmes were capped. Another review of Ontario's legal aid system was conducted in 1997. The resulting "McCamus Report" recommended the creation of an independent body to govern the Legal Aid Plan. In response, the Ontario government created Legal Aid Ontario ("LAO") - an independent, publicly funded, publicly accountable non-profit corporation that continues to administer the province's legal aid programme today. LAO is the second largest justice agency in Ontario and one of the largest providers of legal services in North America. Every year, LAO serves one million of Ontario's most vulnerable citizens. Its clients often have language and cultural issues, literacy and education issues, or mental health issues. Some clients have drug or alcohol dependency, or may have experienced domestic violence or human rights violations. LAO provides services in a
number of different ways, including certificates, duty counsel, community legal clinics, public legal education, alternative dispute resolution, and self-help materials. Individuals seeking legal aid are still subject to a review of both their financial circumstances and the type of legal problem they are facing. In some cases, clients are required to make some financial contribution to the cost of their legal services. To be clear about whom LAO is assisting, LAO indicates that an individual will probably be eligible for legal aid if their net annual income is at or below $13,068. What Ontario lawyers perceived in the 1920s, what the Joint Committee expressed in the 1960s, and what many people experience first-hand in Ontario courts every day, is that individuals are equal before the law only if they are assured the option of representation by counsel. In a democratic society, everyone should be able to participate fully in society and have their rights protected. Canada has an adversarial justice system that anticipates two roughly equal parties presenting their cases before a judge in a court of law. What happens if there is an imbalance of power between the two parties? When an Ontarian cannot afford to hire a lawyer,
an imbalance of power exists,
especially
when the state is one of the parties,
as in criminal law and child protection cases. Legal aid attempts to correct this imbalance by providing low-income individuals with legal representation. The legal aid system contributes significantly to ensuring the potential for equal protection and benefit of the law for the poor and disadvantaged in our society. Like its predecessors, LAO continues to grapple with funding pressures while the demand for services continues to rise. Many factors influence the demand for legal aid services. In addition, LAO has never achieved predictable, inflation-protected funding. Numerous cost-saving and other initiatives have been implemented by LAO and by the government - from diversion programs in criminal law, to the expansion of settlement conferences in family law, to wider use of duty counsel - in an effort to reduce legal aid costs. While these initiatives have been valuable in many cases, they have not put LAO on a sound financial footing. << For more information about The Law Society of Upper Canada, please see our website at:www.lsuc.on.ca. >>
1999-2008 Pro Bono Net. All rights reserved. Disclaimer
The Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to open some documents on this site. (If you are using a screen reader that does not support PDF format, copy the PDF link, and use the Access Adobe online form to convert this file to HTML text.) PBN-Web1 969
Attorney General administers the Law Society Act Attorney General, guardian of the public interest RUNS Responsibly Unaccountable Nuances Schematics 13. (1) The Attorney General for Ontario shall serve as the guardian of the public interest in all matters within the scope of this Act or having to do in any way with the practice of law in Ontario or the provision of legal services in Ontario, and for this purpose he or she may at any time require the production of any document or thing pertaining to the affairs of the Society. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (1); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (1); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 13. Admissions (2) No admission of any person in any document or thing produced under subsection (1) is admissible in evidence against that person in any proceedings other than proceedings under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (2); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (2). Protection of Minister (3) No person who is or has been the Attorney General for Ontario is subject to any proceedings of the Society or to any penalty imposed under this Act for anything done by him or her while exercising the functions of such office. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (3); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (3).
AIRRIA Accountable is Responsible Responsible is Accountable Facts must have root 2 take root God Coherency "Catch 22" must have semblance 2 catch doG chase tail
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112431371/Would-a-Government-Appointed-Court-of-CompetentJurisdiction-Independent-Judiciary-Be-Appropriate-to-Protect-Us-From-Appropriating-Governments An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available. 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law
without discrimination and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. 31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority 32. (1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province. LIAISON 5
Legal illegal Aid Inherent Schematic Obtrusive Nuances www.Docket13.com Time to sync the forked tongue tines Rule of Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law. Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with, publicly disclosed laws, adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy. According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include
a clear separation of powers,
legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectation and
equality of all before the law.
The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that "the phrase the rule of law has become
meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over- use" GO POE General Over-use Proclamations Only Elusivity publicly disclosed laws 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,
of no force or effect. http://www.scribd.com/doc/149878237/They-of-the-Material-World-Cannot-Touch-the-Spirit-of-theLaw-as-It-Is WW III World Wide Invisible Invincible Inalienable
The Bar must be absolutely independent of the government Law Society as must the Judiciary When justice a scary proposition Who ya gonna call? http://www.scribd.com/doc/158800845/Why-Do-Whistleblowers-Blow-Certain-to-Lose-Against-theWinds-Spin-Powered-by-the-Oscillating-Majority Ghost busters
