Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month wins reduction of payments to ex-wife
By NEAL HALL | Vancouver Sun – 22 hours ago
VANCOUVER - A Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month recently went to court and succeeded in having his payments reduced to his ex-wife.
The lawyer, identified only as C.D. in a B.C. Supreme Court judgment, had urged the court to reduce his monthly spousal support payments to $8,500 a month this year, to be stepped down over the next three years to $5,000 a month.
Until this month, he was paying $11,500 a month to his ex-wife, A.B., plus another $49,000 a year for the educational expenses of his two children.
Justice Susan Griffin decided a more appropriate payment was $10,000 a month for the next 10 years, when the matter can be reviewed.
The judge noted that the ex-wife, a former flight attendant, did not work during the 15-year marriage and stayed home to look after the couple's two children, allowing the lawyer to work long hours and become very successful.
When the couple married in 1990, the lawyer was making $50,000 a year in Ontario.
The couple decided to move to Vancouver in 1994, where the lawyer's career took off, allowing him to earn up to $800,000 a year.
During the last three years, the lawyer has made on average $684,000, which works out to $57,000 per month.
The husband argued his ex-wife was deliberately underemployed.
The wife took an interior design course and has won awards as a "home stager" - selecting furniture and furnishing to stage homes to make them sell quickly.
She hoped to earn $15,000 to $20,000 this year, the judge pointed out.
"Her actions are inconsistent with the suggestion that she has deliberately been underemployed," the judge observed this week in a written judgment.
The judge found the wife lived a modest lifestyle in a 1919 home in North Vancouver, compared to the lifestyle of the husband, who lives in West Vancouver, has another home in Qualicum Beach, has substantial retirement savings and is earning a large income that will allow him to continue to accumulate assets and savings.
"It is very unlikely she will ever achieve self-sufficiency to a degree that overcomes the economic disadvantages of marriage or approximates the advantages the husband gained from the marriage," the judge concluded.
The judge also noted that while she saw no reason information to justify hiding the litigants' names by reducing them to initials, the husband "strongly opposed" having his name made public.
The full judgment is online at: http://bit.ly/ykLDLR
nhall@vancouversun.com
Showing posts with label family justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family justice. Show all posts
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Another good post
Here is another good post from one of my favorite bloggers, Check it out...
Sep
Even Divorce Lawyers Can’t Afford a Divorce Lawyer
Posted September 8, 2011 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law, Judges, Lawyers. Tagged: Family Court, in-person litigants, lay litigants, Queen's Bench, self-represented litigants, Supreme Court. 4 Comments
It should come as no surprise to anyone that most Canadians cannot afford a lawyer. In fact, lawyers often joke that if they had to pay a lawyer, they too couldn’t afford it. Nowhere is this dilemma more obvious than in family courts.
It is now commonplace to see self-represented litigants dueling with lawyers in most of our family courts in Canada. In British Columbia a parent or spouse can apply for custody and child and spousal support in the Provincial Court, which is purposely “user-friendly”. The Provincial Family Courts across Canada have successfully implemented reforms including plain-language court documents that are readily decipherable by lay litigants. The judges in Provincial Court are accustomed to hearing cases without lawyers and graciously assist those who act for themselves.
However, to obtain a divorce or property division, the only venue is each province’s Supreme Court, sometimes called “Queen’s Bench”, a most inhospitable environment for in-person litigants.
In a 2011 survey of Ontario divorce lawyers, conducted by Professor Nick Bala of Queen’s University Law School, he found that 48% of 167 responding lawyers indicated they were seeing many cases with at least one lay litigant and more cases where at some point in the litigation, neither party had counsel.
As family law becomes increasingly more complicated, despite the Canadian government’s sensible introduction of both Child Support Guidelines in 1997 and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in 2006, there are minefields enough for lawyers, never mind those who are forced to act as their own lawyer.
Will a lay litigant understand that in calculating their income for the payment of child support they must consider and understand complex nuances such as the possibility of the exclusion of non-recurring income; the need to include all of their capital gains income in their calculation and not just the portion they see on page two of their tax return; and their ability to deduct business expenses, union or professional dues and carrying costs? I doubt it. Not all lawyers have figured it out yet!
But affordability is not the only reason litigants refuse to retain counsel. There is another group of litigants who believe they can handle their divorce case just as well as a lawyer can. This smaller segment often become serial litigators who, because it costs them nothing, bring multiple frivolous applications, although some would say that lawyers do the same thing! Often when offered pro bono counsel, they decline.
Problems abound for all involved in the family justice system in the wake of the impact of lay litigants. Judges who must ensure that justice is both done, and seen to be done, are at the centre of the dilemma. If they provide too much help for an in-person litigant, that litigant’s spouse will see it as an unfair advantage and often, the court Rules that govern court procedures are less stringently enforced when it comes to litigants with no lawyer.
As well, litigants that pay for their own lawyer often become disenchanted with their counsel when they see their lawyer “helping” their estranged spouse who has no counsel. Lawyers are bound to treat participants in the justice system with courtesy and respect, traits that are frequently misconceived as their lawyer being “too friendly” with their opponent. Fee-paying litigants resent their lawyer telling their spouse what the law is or how the court process works.
For lawyers the problems are multiplied. They must walk a fine line in dealing with an unrepresented spouse and must ensure that all communication with an in-person litigant is documented in writing, with no exceptions. Of course, their clients are even more unhappy since it is their clients who pay the bills for the extra time and effort required to work with a lay litigant.
Lay litigants have also been known to send abusive communication to their spouse’s lawyer and from time to time, report their spouse’s lawyer to the Law Society, a complaint which can cost a lawyer hours of wasted time to respond to the often ill-founded allegations.
Is there a cure? They say that recognizing a problem is the first step to solving it. Certainly,the issue can no longer be avoided. It has taken centre stage as a result of lawyers, judges, court administrators, law professors,lawmakers, and the Canadian public decrying the slow demise of Canada’s family justice system.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Sep
Even Divorce Lawyers Can’t Afford a Divorce Lawyer
Posted September 8, 2011 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law, Judges, Lawyers. Tagged: Family Court, in-person litigants, lay litigants, Queen's Bench, self-represented litigants, Supreme Court. 4 Comments
It should come as no surprise to anyone that most Canadians cannot afford a lawyer. In fact, lawyers often joke that if they had to pay a lawyer, they too couldn’t afford it. Nowhere is this dilemma more obvious than in family courts.
It is now commonplace to see self-represented litigants dueling with lawyers in most of our family courts in Canada. In British Columbia a parent or spouse can apply for custody and child and spousal support in the Provincial Court, which is purposely “user-friendly”. The Provincial Family Courts across Canada have successfully implemented reforms including plain-language court documents that are readily decipherable by lay litigants. The judges in Provincial Court are accustomed to hearing cases without lawyers and graciously assist those who act for themselves.
However, to obtain a divorce or property division, the only venue is each province’s Supreme Court, sometimes called “Queen’s Bench”, a most inhospitable environment for in-person litigants.
In a 2011 survey of Ontario divorce lawyers, conducted by Professor Nick Bala of Queen’s University Law School, he found that 48% of 167 responding lawyers indicated they were seeing many cases with at least one lay litigant and more cases where at some point in the litigation, neither party had counsel.
As family law becomes increasingly more complicated, despite the Canadian government’s sensible introduction of both Child Support Guidelines in 1997 and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in 2006, there are minefields enough for lawyers, never mind those who are forced to act as their own lawyer.
Will a lay litigant understand that in calculating their income for the payment of child support they must consider and understand complex nuances such as the possibility of the exclusion of non-recurring income; the need to include all of their capital gains income in their calculation and not just the portion they see on page two of their tax return; and their ability to deduct business expenses, union or professional dues and carrying costs? I doubt it. Not all lawyers have figured it out yet!
But affordability is not the only reason litigants refuse to retain counsel. There is another group of litigants who believe they can handle their divorce case just as well as a lawyer can. This smaller segment often become serial litigators who, because it costs them nothing, bring multiple frivolous applications, although some would say that lawyers do the same thing! Often when offered pro bono counsel, they decline.
Problems abound for all involved in the family justice system in the wake of the impact of lay litigants. Judges who must ensure that justice is both done, and seen to be done, are at the centre of the dilemma. If they provide too much help for an in-person litigant, that litigant’s spouse will see it as an unfair advantage and often, the court Rules that govern court procedures are less stringently enforced when it comes to litigants with no lawyer.
As well, litigants that pay for their own lawyer often become disenchanted with their counsel when they see their lawyer “helping” their estranged spouse who has no counsel. Lawyers are bound to treat participants in the justice system with courtesy and respect, traits that are frequently misconceived as their lawyer being “too friendly” with their opponent. Fee-paying litigants resent their lawyer telling their spouse what the law is or how the court process works.
For lawyers the problems are multiplied. They must walk a fine line in dealing with an unrepresented spouse and must ensure that all communication with an in-person litigant is documented in writing, with no exceptions. Of course, their clients are even more unhappy since it is their clients who pay the bills for the extra time and effort required to work with a lay litigant.
Lay litigants have also been known to send abusive communication to their spouse’s lawyer and from time to time, report their spouse’s lawyer to the Law Society, a complaint which can cost a lawyer hours of wasted time to respond to the often ill-founded allegations.
Is there a cure? They say that recognizing a problem is the first step to solving it. Certainly,the issue can no longer be avoided. It has taken centre stage as a result of lawyers, judges, court administrators, law professors,lawmakers, and the Canadian public decrying the slow demise of Canada’s family justice system.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Great FMEP System
Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, FMEP of British Columbia, Canada
FMEP is a third party interloper debt collector, an extortion racket that is ripping away human rights from the majority of males that are involved.
The majorities that are enrolled into these types of programs have no say and are contracted in without CONSENT.
The bases to any payment program are a statute or act that many provincial courts act upon, but yet, there has been no consent prior to adjudication for any action(s) to commence.
Easy terms to remember for court actions to commence:
Civil Action = Breach of contract – None Exist in the majority of cases.
Criminal Action = Injured Party – There is no injury here, it has to bodily harm.
Now where does this child support payment come in, criminal or civil ?
Is this a democracy or dictatorship ? Based on the above information I just mentioned, what do you think ?
Now if I tell you that you owe me $100 and there is no contract in place, how can you enforce that ?
Yet it happens all the time, without contracts and without consent.
I'm not saying parents of a separation or divorce should not take care of their children, but it is a private affair.
Why should children of a divorced marriage have more than children of a so called intact family unit ?
Let me explain, it is happening, and has been happening for so many years. The woman (which is about 98 % of the time) of a divorced will have primary residence and the non custodial parent is granted access. The woman is allowed to go out and get work and make a certain amount of income, entitled to benefits, tax breaks , collects child support that is not taxable, getting remarried and having another contributor.
So he/she makes a good income, the non custodial parent makes ok “money” and has to pay into the pot of the custodial parent.
Custodial parent = Income 40k per year
Non Custodial parent = 40k per year
Custodial parent = 40k per year plus let say $370.00 per month per child, annual income now is 44,440k per year, and entitled to relief. The consideration of a new contributor is never taking into account. Take into consideration, when married, the mother may be a stay at home Mom and the annual income for the family would have been only 40k per year.
Non Custodial parent = 40kper year minus 4,440k per year = 35,560k per year, not entitled to relief.
Do those numbers make any sense ? And they call it a monthly award, so does the government encourage separation or divorce? Because it seems that way to me, they get an award if they get a divorce. Check the child support guidelines online, yes this may seem a play on words, but isn’t everything a PLAY on words.
Also, the non custodial parent only has "access", what is that ? The non custodial parent has now become a visitor in their child’s life ?
The non custodial parent has a right (100%) to their child, and there should be no adjudication from a private corporation that called themselves PROVINCIAL COURT doing business in Canada.
Yes that is correct, the law society and Provincial courts are a private organization forcing business onto citizens or “persons”. Park your vehicle in front of a court house one day and check out the times of operation, probably would say Monday to Friday from 9:00am to 4:00pm, a business, YES.
Why does this so called society have its own dictionary, and why must you hire a lawyer to decipher it ?
The meanings in their dictionary are not on par with a normal English dictionary. They have purposely created this book to have its own meaning which may look to be the same word, but not have the same meaning.
Look up the legal definition of “person” then tell me if that is what you are, a corporation ?
Are we actually basing anything on LAW, and who’s law is it anyway ? The court system is basing decisions on opinions, and opinions of people doing business as the legislative body. They are making this decision by gaining jurisdiction in a deceptive way.
Yet if you check the criminal code closely, you will see a few sections in there that can rectify these issues, yet, the system will not even recognize their own rules or obey them. I will not get into specific sections of the criminal code that is a whole other topic.
Now, get behind on your “payments” and you are in a world of trouble, drivers licenses suspended, passports revoked, jail time and many other wonderful things. This is cruel and unusual punishment, and for what ? MONEY ? I call it another form of slavery !!!
Several things happen when you fall into a so called category of “dead beat parent”:
1. You either run, which causes you to lose contact with your child, and for what ? The fear of being put in jail. This one comes under section 279 of the criminal code forcible confinement against the persons will. What more is there to say ?
2. You try to make up the “payments” by getting another job, now having even less time with your children or your new family, you basically burn out.
3. You try to negotiate with the non negotiators (FMEP), which leads to more stress.
4. Many men will not come forward for the fear of being called “dead beat” thus putting a strain on their mental health.
5. Forced to take public transit, but if you are self employed, it is impossible to take your tools on public transit.
6. Your credit report gets destroyed.
7. Not entitled to go on vacation, and how could the non custodial parent have a vacation anymore, unless he/she is rich. Does not help getting your passport revoked.
8. You lose your job because of emotional stress.
9. There is an increase in male suicide, out of desperation. Many say men have no emotions when it comes to certain things, so why an increase in suicide ?
There is much more, but the media only exposes what others will see as being unfair to a child or making the non custodial parent look bad to create hatred amongst ourselves. You see this all the time, and now steps in the Attorney General to be the hero in these situations, getting tough on Dead beat parents, everyone laps it up, pathetic we are. If the media is controlled by corporations and if the media can expose issues that will keep the eyes off the corporations so the corporations can gain control and have their way, then they will do it, and are doing it. The children are being used as pawns to exploit humans, fashion, life styles the food they eat, you name it, it is a big target for the media, so why not USE them, just like in our judicial system.
It is stressful enough going through a separation or divorce and trying to start over, and providing for your child, which, if living with the custodial parent has food, a roof over their head and clothing already. Yet the non custodial parent has to sacrifice his/her life to support him/her and pay on top of it. Heaven forbid the non custodial parent gets into a new relationship, so now he/she has to support 2 families.
There are many issues to be dealt with, when you are being deceived right in front of your eyes. Once again, that would be a topic all on its own, to really show Canadians why and how they have been mislead on purpose.
So you see, it is not just about child support, it is about the so called system that its primary goal was to serve and protect. I see none of this happening, only to charge and administer force against a person’s for the purpose of collecting money or control.
Is this how humans were intended to live their lives, under the control of another ?
The government or the system is telling everyone that they are not competent to handle their own affairs, yet clearly many do have the capability to handle their own affairs, PRIVATELY.
The only OBLIGATION you have to your CHILD is to be in his or her life and make sound decisions as a parent that could affect their future and to make sure their needs are met.
Yours Truly,
Remaining anonymous for now ,
Peace
You may contact us by writing to editor@civilrightsblog.org with any comments or ideas for this forum site.
http://civilrightsblog.org/FMEP-BC%20Canada.html
FMEP is a third party interloper debt collector, an extortion racket that is ripping away human rights from the majority of males that are involved.
The majorities that are enrolled into these types of programs have no say and are contracted in without CONSENT.
The bases to any payment program are a statute or act that many provincial courts act upon, but yet, there has been no consent prior to adjudication for any action(s) to commence.
Easy terms to remember for court actions to commence:
Civil Action = Breach of contract – None Exist in the majority of cases.
Criminal Action = Injured Party – There is no injury here, it has to bodily harm.
Now where does this child support payment come in, criminal or civil ?
Is this a democracy or dictatorship ? Based on the above information I just mentioned, what do you think ?
Now if I tell you that you owe me $100 and there is no contract in place, how can you enforce that ?
Yet it happens all the time, without contracts and without consent.
I'm not saying parents of a separation or divorce should not take care of their children, but it is a private affair.
Why should children of a divorced marriage have more than children of a so called intact family unit ?
Let me explain, it is happening, and has been happening for so many years. The woman (which is about 98 % of the time) of a divorced will have primary residence and the non custodial parent is granted access. The woman is allowed to go out and get work and make a certain amount of income, entitled to benefits, tax breaks , collects child support that is not taxable, getting remarried and having another contributor.
So he/she makes a good income, the non custodial parent makes ok “money” and has to pay into the pot of the custodial parent.
Custodial parent = Income 40k per year
Non Custodial parent = 40k per year
Custodial parent = 40k per year plus let say $370.00 per month per child, annual income now is 44,440k per year, and entitled to relief. The consideration of a new contributor is never taking into account. Take into consideration, when married, the mother may be a stay at home Mom and the annual income for the family would have been only 40k per year.
Non Custodial parent = 40kper year minus 4,440k per year = 35,560k per year, not entitled to relief.
Do those numbers make any sense ? And they call it a monthly award, so does the government encourage separation or divorce? Because it seems that way to me, they get an award if they get a divorce. Check the child support guidelines online, yes this may seem a play on words, but isn’t everything a PLAY on words.
Also, the non custodial parent only has "access", what is that ? The non custodial parent has now become a visitor in their child’s life ?
The non custodial parent has a right (100%) to their child, and there should be no adjudication from a private corporation that called themselves PROVINCIAL COURT doing business in Canada.
Yes that is correct, the law society and Provincial courts are a private organization forcing business onto citizens or “persons”. Park your vehicle in front of a court house one day and check out the times of operation, probably would say Monday to Friday from 9:00am to 4:00pm, a business, YES.
Why does this so called society have its own dictionary, and why must you hire a lawyer to decipher it ?
The meanings in their dictionary are not on par with a normal English dictionary. They have purposely created this book to have its own meaning which may look to be the same word, but not have the same meaning.
Look up the legal definition of “person” then tell me if that is what you are, a corporation ?
Are we actually basing anything on LAW, and who’s law is it anyway ? The court system is basing decisions on opinions, and opinions of people doing business as the legislative body. They are making this decision by gaining jurisdiction in a deceptive way.
Yet if you check the criminal code closely, you will see a few sections in there that can rectify these issues, yet, the system will not even recognize their own rules or obey them. I will not get into specific sections of the criminal code that is a whole other topic.
Now, get behind on your “payments” and you are in a world of trouble, drivers licenses suspended, passports revoked, jail time and many other wonderful things. This is cruel and unusual punishment, and for what ? MONEY ? I call it another form of slavery !!!
Several things happen when you fall into a so called category of “dead beat parent”:
1. You either run, which causes you to lose contact with your child, and for what ? The fear of being put in jail. This one comes under section 279 of the criminal code forcible confinement against the persons will. What more is there to say ?
2. You try to make up the “payments” by getting another job, now having even less time with your children or your new family, you basically burn out.
3. You try to negotiate with the non negotiators (FMEP), which leads to more stress.
4. Many men will not come forward for the fear of being called “dead beat” thus putting a strain on their mental health.
5. Forced to take public transit, but if you are self employed, it is impossible to take your tools on public transit.
6. Your credit report gets destroyed.
7. Not entitled to go on vacation, and how could the non custodial parent have a vacation anymore, unless he/she is rich. Does not help getting your passport revoked.
8. You lose your job because of emotional stress.
9. There is an increase in male suicide, out of desperation. Many say men have no emotions when it comes to certain things, so why an increase in suicide ?
There is much more, but the media only exposes what others will see as being unfair to a child or making the non custodial parent look bad to create hatred amongst ourselves. You see this all the time, and now steps in the Attorney General to be the hero in these situations, getting tough on Dead beat parents, everyone laps it up, pathetic we are. If the media is controlled by corporations and if the media can expose issues that will keep the eyes off the corporations so the corporations can gain control and have their way, then they will do it, and are doing it. The children are being used as pawns to exploit humans, fashion, life styles the food they eat, you name it, it is a big target for the media, so why not USE them, just like in our judicial system.
It is stressful enough going through a separation or divorce and trying to start over, and providing for your child, which, if living with the custodial parent has food, a roof over their head and clothing already. Yet the non custodial parent has to sacrifice his/her life to support him/her and pay on top of it. Heaven forbid the non custodial parent gets into a new relationship, so now he/she has to support 2 families.
There are many issues to be dealt with, when you are being deceived right in front of your eyes. Once again, that would be a topic all on its own, to really show Canadians why and how they have been mislead on purpose.
So you see, it is not just about child support, it is about the so called system that its primary goal was to serve and protect. I see none of this happening, only to charge and administer force against a person’s for the purpose of collecting money or control.
Is this how humans were intended to live their lives, under the control of another ?
The government or the system is telling everyone that they are not competent to handle their own affairs, yet clearly many do have the capability to handle their own affairs, PRIVATELY.
The only OBLIGATION you have to your CHILD is to be in his or her life and make sound decisions as a parent that could affect their future and to make sure their needs are met.
Yours Truly,
Remaining anonymous for now ,
Peace
You may contact us by writing to editor@civilrightsblog.org with any comments or ideas for this forum site.
http://civilrightsblog.org/FMEP-BC%20Canada.html
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Why its time to elect our Judges (in Canada)
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
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
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)