Law Times

November 4, 2013

The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario

Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/203970

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 7 of 15

Page 8 November 4, 2013 Law Times • Focus On Family Law Two reports differ on integrating early resolution services into courthouses BY JUDY VAN RHIJN For Law Times T wo recent reports have identified the need for more early resolution services but have fundamentally different approaches to the delivery model. While the National Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters would see the services integrated with the courts and tribunals, the Law Commission of Ontario believes a separate entry point is essential in order to remove the widespread presumption that the court is a necessary component to every separation. In recent times, reforms of the family law system have been coming thick and fast but in a piecemeal fashion. A consensus has emerged that the time is right for a more co-ordinated national, but not centralized, approach. Following similar innovations in other countries, there's a strong call to shift the starting point for public assistance away from the courthouses. Family lawyer Sarah Boulby of Basman Smith LLP gives an example of the current state of things by referring to the mediation pilot project at the Superior Court in Toronto that provides two hours of free mediation and reduced-fee services for followup sessions. "They are using this to direct people away from the courts and it has been very successful, but people have to go to the courthouse to find out about it." The law commission report, released on July 23, focuses on the early stages of people's interactions with the system. It identifies the reluctance of many people to ap'Lots of people can make proach the courts. It's a important decisions bigger problem in small without getting centres where litigants don't want people to see anywhere near court,' them at the courthouse says Patricia Hughes. for privacy reasons. The law commission's conclusion was that Onfor people with disabilities. "We tario needs multidisciplinary, didn't identify a particular way multi-function centres or net- to structure it," says executive diworks that connect people with rector Patricia Hughes. trusted intermediaries such as "The general idea is that community centres, cultural or- centres linked to the commuganizations or support agencies nity provide referrals or provide ENHANCE your DIVORCEmate experience with TOOLS CLOUD preview. ENJOY the freedom and flexibility of running child and spousal support calculations from anywhere, anytime, on your smartphone, tablet, Mac or PC. No installation required. To get started, visit: www.divorcemate.com DIVORCEmate's full-featured TOOLS CLOUD available Spring 2014. 1.800.653.0925 or 416.718.3461 sales@divorcemate.com Untitled-3 1 www.lawtimesnews.com 4:53 PM 13-10-28 expert assistance. Even the courts are trying to get people away from the courts, so why start there? We are starting at the other end, away from the court. We ask not how do we get away but do we end up at court?" Hughes believes a separate entry point would achieve a cultural shift in the way people deal with their family law problems. "Many people who think about these problems still assume the court is the first line. They are driven there because that's where the services are. There are alternatives such as alternative dispute resolution or lawyers negotiating a settlement, but that's still pretty far into the process. Lots of people can make important decisions without getting anywhere near court." Hughes also notes people are dealing with more than just legal issues at the preliminary stage. "People with family law problems always have other problems. Whether they be mental health issues or unemployment, there is always a cluster of problems. If they come to a centre where they are seen in a holistic way, we can refer them and sometimes provide services onsite. For this, there needs to be a comprehensive structure, not bricks and mortar but a carefully designed system or network." Boulby approves of a focus on setting up centres where people can have their questions on separation answered and find out what steps they need to take. "It doesn't help much to be told you need to pay child support and have a parenting plan. People need more practical help than that. You also need ways to achieve resolution with mediators, counselling support, and duty lawyers available." The proposal to include community centres in the network is getting a mixed reaction. "The advantage is that they are right in the neighbourhoods, but I don't think it would be feasible to deliver many services at that level," says Boulby. "If you just have one person trying to direct people, I don't think it would be enough. It would be hard to train one person to be so effective and even one specialized person at each spot would take quite a lot of resources. It's better to try to direct people via the Internet or the proverbial pamphlet at the community centre to a centre with a lot of resources. Centralizing resources helps you get good, qualified people." Boulby questions why such services couldn't be at the courthouses. The national action committee believes they should be. In its final report in October, it also recommended a multidisciplinary approach but suggested centring the services at the courts and tribunals. It proposed integrating the early resolution service sector, which includes triage, referral services, legal aid, and dispute resolution, into the formal justice system as part of an expanded continuum. It would use community hubs or community service centres to co-ordinate with social and health agencies. The committee endorses the idea of a multi-door courthouse and envisages the courts and tribunals as multiservice dispute resolution centres offering negotiation, conciliation, mediation, judicial dispute resolution, and mini-trials in addition to more traditional services. "We think that gives too much presumption of the court's involvement," says Hughes, whose organization is recommending two pilot projects, one urban and one rural, based in community centres. "It's not an idea that one person would do everything. We would either bring specialties into one place or link them with existing organizations." LT

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Law Times - November 4, 2013