Why it’s time to elect our judges
By Georgialee Lang, canada.com April 28, 2011 8:53 AM Comments (14)
Story
Photos ( 1 )
Georgialee Lang: "The election of judges would raise the public’s awareness of the importance of the judiciary and its role in society."
Canadians like to talk about fixing the criminal justice system, but are we ready for a radical overhaul?
Are we prepared to engage in a vigorous debate about the fundamentals of our justice system, about eschewing the appointment of judges and considering an elected judiciary, in rethinking the way we do justice? A 2007 Canadian poll revealed that 63 per cent of Canadians were in favour of elected judges.
Our appointed judges are forced to wade into highly politicized issues like abortion, euthanasia, polygamy, and the decriminalization of marijuana as litigants challenge the constitutionality of such laws under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Today’s judges are making decisions that should be in the domain of our elected representatives. Do we want a judge in British Columbia rewriting our 121-year-old law banning polygamy? Should an Ontario judge be responsible for the decriminalization of cannabis?
An elected bench would be democratically accountable to the public. Presently the only censure against a trial judge is the Court of Appeal or the Canadian Judicial Council, both institutions that shut out the public. If judges were elected they would undoubtedly be more sensitive to the pulse of the general public and less likely to cling to the ideology of their elite educations.
Elected judges would introduce a transparency to the now-cloistered ritual of judicial appointments, a practice that has been enshrined in Canadian legal history for too long.
The election of judges would also raise the public’s awareness of the importance of the judiciary and its role in society. Citizens who elect their judges may have more confidence in their judges, based on elevated levels of scrutiny from the public and the media. Certainly there would be a greater perception of public legitimacy.
On the other hand, critics of an elected judiciary refer to the “tyranny of the majority” and the possibility of corruption, including the merchandising of votes. A counter to this fear is the glare of the media spotlight that is clearly absent in the appointment of judges.
Japan has achieved a compromise worthy of investigation. In sweeping reforms to its criminal justice system, Japan has adopted a program of elected professional judges and lay judges.
This new model of adjudication consists of three professional full-time judges sitting with six citizen judges who participate as equals in the fact-finding and sentencing of criminals. Three back-up lay judges are also seated in case one or more of the lay judges is unable to continue. Citizen judges are chosen in a manner similar to the selection of Canadian jurors.
Japan has no jury system, so the introduction of the people’s views is an important step to lend credibility to its criminal justice system. While Canada has a tradition of jury trials, the reality is that civil jury trials have priced themselves into extinction and judges without juries hear 90 per cent of Canada’s criminal cases.
Citizen judges are only used in the most serious cases like murder, robbery and other offences that involve death or severe injury. The trials are streamlined so evidence may be heard in a much shorter time.
With extensive cooperation prior to trial between the prosecution and the defence, only the contentious issues are heard. One of the biggest complaints about criminal trials in Canada is the long delay to get them started and the enormous court time required to complete them. A political corruption trial in British Columbia that began with a raid on the legislature ended with a guilty plea after almost eight years in court. The final chapter of this saga saw the taxpayers of British Columbia saddled with the accuseds’ $6 million legal bill.
In a recent Japanese case a panel of nine judges, including six lay judges, convicted and sentenced the driver of a vehicle whose dangerous driving resulted in the death of two innocent victims.
More surprisingly, the panel also convicted the driver’s two passengers for aiding and abetting, by permitting him to drive while in a state of intoxication. The driver received 16 years in prison while the passengers received two years each, although the public prosecutor was asking for eight years.
A preliminary assessment of the effect of lay judges reveals they pronounce more severe sentences on sex offenders, grant probation periods for suspended sentences more often than professional judges alone did, and have garnered fewer appeals of their decisions.
We can create a made-in-Canada justice system to restore pride and trust in our courts.
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
I Quote
When the people are afriad of the government, it is tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people there is democracy and freedom.. Thomas Jefferson
When will we get back to this? Time to change things back!!!!
When will we get back to this? Time to change things back!!!!
Monday, April 18, 2011
An Ontario Family Justice Petition
Here is a link to a petition to fight Ontario Family Justie System, I am going to see if there is one for BC or make one.. please participate
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/6/stop-the-corrupt-family-law-court-of-ontario/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/6/stop-the-corrupt-family-law-court-of-ontario/
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Corrupted Family Servises
Child Protection Services are too corrupt to overhaul and beyond reform..
by Cess Ssec on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 7:28pm
.
Why the government won’t tell you the truth.
April 12, 2011
Child Protection Services along with all other Social Service reform is not possible...
We have no choice, but to shut the entire system down.
There is an undisclosed consensus among the federal, state, and provincial governments of both Canada and the USA that agree that, every social service sector particularly, the “Mental Health Services” and the “Child Protection Services” have been taken over by organized crime.
The knowledge that these “antiquated and defective” organizations cannot serve the public good other than create a profit for their benefactors, are kept secret by those within the government that are aware of the truth.
An ominous fear of massive litigation's, a complete breakdown of the order of public social services and a threat to throw the social service system into chaos is the real reason why our government will not release this information to you.
What this means is that children will continue to be stolen from their families by social services. Then, farmed out for profit to foster homes where they could be raped, starved, deprived, sold as sex toys to the elite, prostituted, sold to pharma-companies for experiments or brought into the system through fraud for adoption.
As long as our government refuses to admit what they know to be factual, our children will remain vulnerable to the child predators that populate Child Protection Services.
In the meantime, family organizations, similar groups, child advocates and parents of means must implement plans to unite as grassroots organizations in order to protect our children and combat this corruption.
Malicious social workers having found to have taken advantage of a “purposely designed weak system” to commit crimes against children for profit, must be brought to justice and prosecuted accordingly.
Nicolas Stathopoulos
Social service crimes researcher
[SSEC] Social Service Economic Crimes (research)
Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved.
by Cess Ssec on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 7:28pm
.
Why the government won’t tell you the truth.
April 12, 2011
Child Protection Services along with all other Social Service reform is not possible...
We have no choice, but to shut the entire system down.
There is an undisclosed consensus among the federal, state, and provincial governments of both Canada and the USA that agree that, every social service sector particularly, the “Mental Health Services” and the “Child Protection Services” have been taken over by organized crime.
The knowledge that these “antiquated and defective” organizations cannot serve the public good other than create a profit for their benefactors, are kept secret by those within the government that are aware of the truth.
An ominous fear of massive litigation's, a complete breakdown of the order of public social services and a threat to throw the social service system into chaos is the real reason why our government will not release this information to you.
What this means is that children will continue to be stolen from their families by social services. Then, farmed out for profit to foster homes where they could be raped, starved, deprived, sold as sex toys to the elite, prostituted, sold to pharma-companies for experiments or brought into the system through fraud for adoption.
As long as our government refuses to admit what they know to be factual, our children will remain vulnerable to the child predators that populate Child Protection Services.
In the meantime, family organizations, similar groups, child advocates and parents of means must implement plans to unite as grassroots organizations in order to protect our children and combat this corruption.
Malicious social workers having found to have taken advantage of a “purposely designed weak system” to commit crimes against children for profit, must be brought to justice and prosecuted accordingly.
Nicolas Stathopoulos
Social service crimes researcher
[SSEC] Social Service Economic Crimes (research)
Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved.
Monday, April 11, 2011
School 1957 and 2009
Subject: HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2009
Sometimes we don't see the ridiculousness of policies until we're confronted with them. These showcase it well, you make the call.
HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2009
Scenario 1:
Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2009 - School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario 2:
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins.. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2009 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario 3:
Jeffrey will not sit still in class, he disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2009 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario 4:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt..
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.
2009 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.
Scenario 5:
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.
2009 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario 6:
Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.
2009 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario 7:
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2009 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated.
Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario 8:
Wally falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Nancy. Nancy hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Wally feels better and goes on playing.
2009 - Nancy is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison... Wally undergoes 5 years of therapy.
This should hit every email inbox to show how stupid we have become!!
Sometimes we don't see the ridiculousness of policies until we're confronted with them. These showcase it well, you make the call.
HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2009
Scenario 1:
Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2009 - School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario 2:
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins.. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2009 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario 3:
Jeffrey will not sit still in class, he disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2009 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario 4:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt..
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.
2009 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.
Scenario 5:
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.
2009 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario 6:
Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.
2009 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario 7:
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2009 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated.
Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario 8:
Wally falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Nancy. Nancy hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Wally feels better and goes on playing.
2009 - Nancy is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison... Wally undergoes 5 years of therapy.
This should hit every email inbox to show how stupid we have become!!
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Finaly a female lawyer with some good logic
Canada Fathers
I really like this writer and its great to she is female, a lawyer and seems to understand our plight with the injustices in the Canadian Family leagl system
here is her blog; http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/
and her web page: http://www.georgialeelang.com/
...
I really like this writer and its great to she is female, a lawyer and seems to understand our plight with the injustices in the Canadian Family leagl system
here is her blog; http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/
and her web page: http://www.georgialeelang.com/
...
Thank you Canada.com
I found this aricle on Sunday April 11th 2011 front page when I went to their website, can you imagine my surprise and happiness to see the media actually looking at such a story? here is what I saw;
" With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter. "
here is the link; http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/real-agenda/story.html?id=4585240
and here is the story copied and pasted "just in case it dissaperas"
http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/images/banner_real_agenda.jpg
Georgialee Lang: "Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse."
Canada’s system of family law is decimating us, one family at a time. With nearly 40 per cent of Canadian marriages ending in divorce, our next government needs to stop the bleeding, financial and emotional.
Our adversarial court system pits husband against wife in a dangerous game that all too often spirals out of control, taking whole families down and destroying children’s lives in the process.
Custody cases are among the worst. Separating parents, usually fathers, are caught in a black vortex, fighting for the ability to remain an active part of their children’s lives, sparring with mothers who too frequently use their hurt and anger to alienate their partners from their children.
To date, our governments have refused to make the changes that most jurisdictions in North America have already adopted: a move to a presumption of joint custody, in which parents continue to participate in their children’s lives on a level playing field. With a rebuttable presumption of joint custody as the law of the land, a significant group of potential family law litigants could bypass the court system.
Regrettably, our system does neither parent any favours. With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter.
Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse.
What Canadians face is a shortage of judges and court staff, who gamely try to administer an underfunded bureaucracy that cannot meet their needs, and a process where the battle lines are drawn before they get there — the beginning of their long wait for justice.
Legislators, law reformers, judges and lawyers have long recognized that court is no place to resolve family law disputes. Ontario’s Law Commission released a report last September entitled “Voices From a Broken Family Law Justice System” decrying longer trials and increasing court and legal fees that are crippling a system that cannot deal with the intense emotional fallout of personal disputes.
In a recent family law case, Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568, Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn of Ontario began his Reasons for Judgment with a feigned cry for help—“Paging Dr. Freud, Paging Dr. Freud”—a provocative introduction to a bizarre family law case that was ill-suited for court intervention. Justice Quinn referred to the “roulette of family law.”
The case took seven days of court time over a period of several months; not unusual since judges are routinely overbooked. Much of the evidence had nothing to do with the two legal issues: a claim to set aside a separation agreement and an allegation that Ms. Bruni had alienated the children from their father. The level of vitriol stunned Justice Quinn, who refused to set aside the agreement and admonished the parties for their childish, bordering on criminal, behaviour. Justice Quinn took the brave step of denying Ms. Bruni spousal support as a rebuke for the wedge she had driven between the children and their father.
My solution? Take family law out of court and move it to Family Centres with a one-stop shopping approach. Provide education, counsellors, child-development professionals, mediators, arbitrators, divorce coaches, parenting coordinators and financial experts. These services should not be free, but should be paid for by those who access the programs on a sliding scale commensurate with their family income. For the poor and working poor, legal aid should be provided.
For those cases that will never settle without judicial intervention, appoint highly experienced judges who want to be there, as opposed to judges who find family law work a grind they would rather avoid.
Is there a political party that will heed the cries of millions of Canadians?
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Share this Article
STORY TOOLS
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Comments (13)
Share this Article
Font:
RegisterLogin or
What Do You Think?
Want to rate posts and get your own personalized user name? Please register an account today!Questions? - Visit our FAQ
Post My Reply
14 comments
Sort:
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:56 AM on April 10, 2011
Thrusting divorce on children is the most common form of child abuse. Its the right of every child to have their parents around and taking care of them for their entire childhood. Have any divorced 'losers' asked their children how they felt? It should be illegal to divorce if there are children under 18. If you are unhappy or just want to start test driving again, wait until the children grow up. That is the sacrifice expected of every parent.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:32 AM on April 10, 2011
Wow! Another well thought-out, thoroughly researched and timely article by Ms. Lang. When will the politicians get it? As soon as we the electorate get energized ton make it Ana election issue. Ms. Lang is doing her part, do yours.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:16 AM on April 10, 2011
Family Centers make a lot of sense to ease the process of divorce - especially when custody of children is involved. But what about prevention? Could these Family Centers offer pre-marriage services? Is it possible to prevent the destruction of Canadian families by giving couples the tools they need to solve their issues? While I agree with the approach of taking this process out of court unless absolutely necessary, the generalizations provided by Me. Lang are tiresome and border on offensive. I agree that fathers are often the ones fighting for more time with their children. Mothers tend to be primary caregivers. But to paint mothers as embittered harridans who want nothing more than to punish their ex and their children is an over-used and inaccurate generalization that has no place in this process. Every woman I know who has faced a custody battle in her divorce has acted honourably with her children's best interests at heart.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:51 AM on April 10, 2011
this is a great idea, just make sure to charge the users for the expense....
start paying to take care of your own children, and I am certainly not paying for your failed relationship.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:32 AM on April 10, 2011
The lawyers (vultures) do not wish to change anything as it is very profitable to remove the assets of clients.
Questionable liens, writs, caveats, judgments and other tools these lawyers use are given to courthouse taxation officers for the purpose of removing the real estate assets of clients who have been bilked by their lawyers.
The divorce act is just another piece of laughable federal legislation being circumvented by lawyers and courts in every province in Canada.
Lawyers should not be able to participate in any real estate transactions and this should be left for other professionals far removed from the national lawyer gangs.
Lawyers govern themselves using Law Societies (self governance) and this is more of a protection racket than anything else.
Law Societies provide no value to Canadians and their self governing power needs to be removed from them.
There are many more courthouse liars than you think.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:25 AM on April 10, 2011
Harper can fix this. He can fix anything. Just ask. http://www.Canada-Elections.blogspot.com
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
9:26 AM on April 10, 2011
Unique among the authors in this series, this woman actually makes sense.
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:57 AM on April 10, 2011
Growing up Iwas kept from my father & & the stories were perpetuated to justify his absense to me. I was 27 before I saw him again. He mwas not perfect but he was my father. I carried resentment to my mothers death. I did not want this for either.
at 27 my waife decided to take advantage of the new divorce laws introducded in the mid 80's. she was stepping outside the marriage and wanted out. I came home to an empty two todlers that were everything to me gone. I was prepared to do anything not to put my children through what I had gone through.
3 years 10's of thousands bankruptcy and 5 lawyers later I found out thatthe system was not fair and I lost contact with my children for ten years.
My children are now grown with their own children. I do not speak poison, but I beg both my daughter and son and spouses not to repat my history again..
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:47 AM on April 10, 2011
The court system right now is very biased against men. I know of a man who is non custodial but tries to be very active in his children's lives. He pays an exorbidant amount of child maintenance every month. Yet another man I know has custody for a very good reason and has had to fight tooth and nail to get any child maintenance and when it did get ordered it was next to nothing. His ex has used the system to the hilt and gets away with it yet hurts the child because the child seens to have no rights in this matter! I was always told the good of the child is always uppermost in the minds of lawyers and judges. I have not seen it yet! What has been shown to be important is the money which would look so much better in the child's education account instead of some lawyer's bank account!
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
8:43 AM on April 10, 2011
You had my attention up until the part that said "let's create a monolithic tax-funded program to assist people in getting a divorce"
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:40 AM on April 10, 2011
What we need to do is to start letting the children have a voice. They know what they need and they also know when and who is using them in this terrible game. I am tired of seeing children hurt because of one vengeful parent!
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:33 AM on April 10, 2011
Long overdue.
thanks again canada.com
" With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter. "
here is the link; http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/real-agenda/story.html?id=4585240
and here is the story copied and pasted "just in case it dissaperas"
http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/images/banner_real_agenda.jpg
Georgialee Lang: "Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse."
Canada’s system of family law is decimating us, one family at a time. With nearly 40 per cent of Canadian marriages ending in divorce, our next government needs to stop the bleeding, financial and emotional.
Our adversarial court system pits husband against wife in a dangerous game that all too often spirals out of control, taking whole families down and destroying children’s lives in the process.
Custody cases are among the worst. Separating parents, usually fathers, are caught in a black vortex, fighting for the ability to remain an active part of their children’s lives, sparring with mothers who too frequently use their hurt and anger to alienate their partners from their children.
To date, our governments have refused to make the changes that most jurisdictions in North America have already adopted: a move to a presumption of joint custody, in which parents continue to participate in their children’s lives on a level playing field. With a rebuttable presumption of joint custody as the law of the land, a significant group of potential family law litigants could bypass the court system.
Regrettably, our system does neither parent any favours. With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter.
Legal aid for family law in Canada is almost non-existent, while refugees and criminal thugs, even terrorists, feast from the public purse.
What Canadians face is a shortage of judges and court staff, who gamely try to administer an underfunded bureaucracy that cannot meet their needs, and a process where the battle lines are drawn before they get there — the beginning of their long wait for justice.
Legislators, law reformers, judges and lawyers have long recognized that court is no place to resolve family law disputes. Ontario’s Law Commission released a report last September entitled “Voices From a Broken Family Law Justice System” decrying longer trials and increasing court and legal fees that are crippling a system that cannot deal with the intense emotional fallout of personal disputes.
In a recent family law case, Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568, Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn of Ontario began his Reasons for Judgment with a feigned cry for help—“Paging Dr. Freud, Paging Dr. Freud”—a provocative introduction to a bizarre family law case that was ill-suited for court intervention. Justice Quinn referred to the “roulette of family law.”
The case took seven days of court time over a period of several months; not unusual since judges are routinely overbooked. Much of the evidence had nothing to do with the two legal issues: a claim to set aside a separation agreement and an allegation that Ms. Bruni had alienated the children from their father. The level of vitriol stunned Justice Quinn, who refused to set aside the agreement and admonished the parties for their childish, bordering on criminal, behaviour. Justice Quinn took the brave step of denying Ms. Bruni spousal support as a rebuke for the wedge she had driven between the children and their father.
My solution? Take family law out of court and move it to Family Centres with a one-stop shopping approach. Provide education, counsellors, child-development professionals, mediators, arbitrators, divorce coaches, parenting coordinators and financial experts. These services should not be free, but should be paid for by those who access the programs on a sliding scale commensurate with their family income. For the poor and working poor, legal aid should be provided.
For those cases that will never settle without judicial intervention, appoint highly experienced judges who want to be there, as opposed to judges who find family law work a grind they would rather avoid.
Is there a political party that will heed the cries of millions of Canadians?
Georgialee Lang is a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator named in “Best Lawyers in Canada.” She blogs at lawdiva.wordpress.com. Her website is georgialeelang.com.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Share this Article
STORY TOOLS
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Comments (13)
Share this Article
Font:
RegisterLogin or
What Do You Think?
Want to rate posts and get your own personalized user name? Please register an account today!Questions? - Visit our FAQ
Post My Reply
14 comments
Sort:
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:56 AM on April 10, 2011
Thrusting divorce on children is the most common form of child abuse. Its the right of every child to have their parents around and taking care of them for their entire childhood. Have any divorced 'losers' asked their children how they felt? It should be illegal to divorce if there are children under 18. If you are unhappy or just want to start test driving again, wait until the children grow up. That is the sacrifice expected of every parent.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:32 AM on April 10, 2011
Wow! Another well thought-out, thoroughly researched and timely article by Ms. Lang. When will the politicians get it? As soon as we the electorate get energized ton make it Ana election issue. Ms. Lang is doing her part, do yours.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
11:16 AM on April 10, 2011
Family Centers make a lot of sense to ease the process of divorce - especially when custody of children is involved. But what about prevention? Could these Family Centers offer pre-marriage services? Is it possible to prevent the destruction of Canadian families by giving couples the tools they need to solve their issues? While I agree with the approach of taking this process out of court unless absolutely necessary, the generalizations provided by Me. Lang are tiresome and border on offensive. I agree that fathers are often the ones fighting for more time with their children. Mothers tend to be primary caregivers. But to paint mothers as embittered harridans who want nothing more than to punish their ex and their children is an over-used and inaccurate generalization that has no place in this process. Every woman I know who has faced a custody battle in her divorce has acted honourably with her children's best interests at heart.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:51 AM on April 10, 2011
this is a great idea, just make sure to charge the users for the expense....
start paying to take care of your own children, and I am certainly not paying for your failed relationship.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Score: 0
Name withheld
10:40 AM on April 10, 2011
This comment is under review.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:32 AM on April 10, 2011
The lawyers (vultures) do not wish to change anything as it is very profitable to remove the assets of clients.
Questionable liens, writs, caveats, judgments and other tools these lawyers use are given to courthouse taxation officers for the purpose of removing the real estate assets of clients who have been bilked by their lawyers.
The divorce act is just another piece of laughable federal legislation being circumvented by lawyers and courts in every province in Canada.
Lawyers should not be able to participate in any real estate transactions and this should be left for other professionals far removed from the national lawyer gangs.
Lawyers govern themselves using Law Societies (self governance) and this is more of a protection racket than anything else.
Law Societies provide no value to Canadians and their self governing power needs to be removed from them.
There are many more courthouse liars than you think.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
10:25 AM on April 10, 2011
Harper can fix this. He can fix anything. Just ask. http://www.Canada-Elections.blogspot.com
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
9:26 AM on April 10, 2011
Unique among the authors in this series, this woman actually makes sense.
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:57 AM on April 10, 2011
Growing up Iwas kept from my father & & the stories were perpetuated to justify his absense to me. I was 27 before I saw him again. He mwas not perfect but he was my father. I carried resentment to my mothers death. I did not want this for either.
at 27 my waife decided to take advantage of the new divorce laws introducded in the mid 80's. she was stepping outside the marriage and wanted out. I came home to an empty two todlers that were everything to me gone. I was prepared to do anything not to put my children through what I had gone through.
3 years 10's of thousands bankruptcy and 5 lawyers later I found out thatthe system was not fair and I lost contact with my children for ten years.
My children are now grown with their own children. I do not speak poison, but I beg both my daughter and son and spouses not to repat my history again..
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:47 AM on April 10, 2011
The court system right now is very biased against men. I know of a man who is non custodial but tries to be very active in his children's lives. He pays an exorbidant amount of child maintenance every month. Yet another man I know has custody for a very good reason and has had to fight tooth and nail to get any child maintenance and when it did get ordered it was next to nothing. His ex has used the system to the hilt and gets away with it yet hurts the child because the child seens to have no rights in this matter! I was always told the good of the child is always uppermost in the minds of lawyers and judges. I have not seen it yet! What has been shown to be important is the money which would look so much better in the child's education account instead of some lawyer's bank account!
Report Abuse
Score: 0
anonymous
8:43 AM on April 10, 2011
You had my attention up until the part that said "let's create a monolithic tax-funded program to assist people in getting a divorce"
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:40 AM on April 10, 2011
What we need to do is to start letting the children have a voice. They know what they need and they also know when and who is using them in this terrible game. I am tired of seeing children hurt because of one vengeful parent!
Report Abuse
Score: 1
anonymous
8:33 AM on April 10, 2011
Long overdue.
thanks again canada.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)