Law Times

Page 2 June 22, 2015 • Law Times www.lawtimesnews.com NEWS or six larger organizations. Instead of an average staff of eight, the new facilities would have some 33 employees and offer services not currently available in some areas. The plan initially seemed to meet with some approval from several clinics, although at least one, Kensington- Bellwoods, was highly critical. The working group then asked for written responses from the clinics and by the time they were all in earlier this year, all but three op- posed the idea of consolidation. "The message was pretty clear from the clinics that basically clinic closures were not something that was going to be acceptable," says Newhouse. "The bottom line was we don't like the mega-clinic model but we do like other as- pects of the report." In the spring, the steering committee — which unlike the working group contains representatives from all of the clinics in the Greater Toronto Area — drew up a sort of preliminary work plan along with the leaders of the proj- ect. The work plan featured four main guidelines the au- thors wanted to see in any future transformation proposal: community engagement; access issues and partnerships; expanding areas of law, closing service gaps and ensuring consistent services across the region; and optimizing sys- tems and improving operational efficiency. The work plan makes no explicit mention of consolidating clinics. Subcommittees were then to work out the details of these four guidelines with the intention of approv- ing the complete plan at a steering committee meeting in June. But consensus failed to materialize at the June meeting, according to Newhouse. The transformation project, an effort funded by LAO, has found itself at a critical point, he says, because the merg- er proposal was originally its centrepiece with more fund- ing on hold pending the development of a plan that would be acceptable to the clinics. LAO, however, has now report- edly withdrawn funding for the transormation project due to a lack of agreement among the clinics. "There was a reference in some of the [steering com- mittee] discussions last week to it being at a crossroads right now and that it seems to be a fractured process and maybe it can't go forward," says Newhouse. LAO wanted the working group to come up with a plan that would be acceptable to the clinics by the end of May, says Ne- whouse, but with that date come and gone, the steering committee found itself under significant time pressure. But what happens now is a bit of a mystery, he says, as those involved in the project work to figure out the next steps with the next meeting of the steering committee slat- ed for July 14. The end of the transformation plan, however, doesn't have to mean the end of efforts to reform the deliv- ery of services, he says. "There's still some interest within the transformation project in saying maybe some clinics might merge or something like that," says Newhouse. Alternatively, it's possible that groups of clinics may end up developing their own plans and approach LAO about them independently, he says. "I think it's fair to say that the clinics in Toronto are very, very actively talking amongst themselves about shared initiatives that would be transformative, so to say." Meanwhile, reform efforts are continuing to roll out across Ontario, says Lenny Abramowicz, executive direc- tor of the Association of Community Legal Clinics of On- tario. The process began a couple of years ago, partly under the impetus of the provincial government. "The provincial government was saying, 'We want to invest, we want to know it's not just the same old, same old and people are thinking about better and best ways to do things,' and we were happy to take up that challenge," he says. Some of the activity has involved consolidation in the case of some Ottawa clinics. Others, however, have de- cided against that option. "The vast majority of clinics have decided that's not the route to go and are looking at other options," he says. Some have decided to locate together to share some re- sources such as reception and back-office functions while remaining independent of each other. Others, including a northern clinic that serves a catchment area the size of France, have been looking at how they can better serve and reach out to remote communities, he says. LT Get quick access to Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) when you are in court litigating a case, visiting clients or researching. Spousal Support in Canada, 3rd Edition provides you with a portable quick reference on how the courts presently determine spousal support. Derived from the authoritative Volume 3 of Canadian Divorce Law and Practice, this resource is a convenient way to access the information you need when you are on the go. You'll find expertly written commentary on spousal support under the Divorce Act and the SSAG, including a discussion of trends and cases. The full text of relevant legislation and the entire text of the SSAG are included in the appendix. Highlights of the updates in this new, third edition include: • Lightle v. Kotar (2014, B.C.C.A.) • Powell v. Levesque (2014, B.C.C.A.) • Mew v. Mew (2012, Alta.C.A.) • Buttar v. Buttar (2013, Ont.C.A.) • H. (C.M.) v. H. (J.R.) (2012, N.B.C.A.) • Werner v. Werner (2013, N.S.C.A.) • Z. (R.) v. Z. (D.) (2013, P.E.I.C.A.) • Updated discussion of judicial reception of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, including chart listing, by jurisdiction, appellate decisions dealing with the spousal support guidelines Portable access to Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines Order # 986624-65203 $114 Softcover May 2015 approx. 840 pages 978-0-7798-6624-3 Shipping and handling are extra. Price(s) subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. 00229UF-A48880 Available risk-free for 30 days Order online: www.carswell.com Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 In Toronto: 416-609-3800 New Edition Spousal Support in Canada, 3rd Edition Ann C. Wilton and Noel Semple MacDonald and Partners LLP Clinics seeking options to share services Continued from page 1 accuracy because incon- sistencies and omissions between the written infor- mation and what claim- ants say at their refugee hearings can detract from their credibility. In exam- ining the forms prepared by Jaszi, Waldman said he was able to see they often fell below the standards needed to adequately pre- pare a refugee case. Jaszi couldn't be reached for comment on the allegations. Last week's proceed- ings follow the tribunal's suspension of Hohots last month for five months after which he faces a two-year restriction on representing refugees. In that case, 17 Roma refugee claim- ants had complained Hohots had inadequately prepared them before their hearings. All have since been deported. Asked about the close succession of these cases, Raoul Boulakia, president of the Refugee Lawyers Association, says it was probably not indicative of a trend of increas- ing concerns among refugee lawyers. Instead, he says the pattern is more likely due to "structural changes" at the LSUC, especially when it comes to dealing with allega- tions against refugee lawyers. "The LSUC has tradition- ally been very bad on these cases" and not given them much priority, he says. More recently, he notes, there has been some reform at the LSUC "to make the complaints process more professional, more like a tribunal." The LSUC's move, for example, to engage an expert witness in a hearing against a refugee lawyer is "a huge change from two years ago," he says. "They never would have done that." The hearing panel has reserved its decision with the pro- ceedings against Jaszi scheduled to resume in August. LT refugee complaints Continued from page 1 The recent cases are probably not indicative of a trend of increasing concerns among refugee lawyers, says Raoul Boulakia.

• Cover