Law Times

Page 6 April 4, 2016 • lAw Times www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT ©2016 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, com - pleteness or currency of the contents of this pub- lication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $199.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at ........... 416-649-9585 or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Kimberlee Pascoe ...............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So .............................................416-609-5838 grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Joseph Galea .......................................416-649-9919 joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe ................................416-298-5077 steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Editor in Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabrielle Giroday Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yamri Taddese Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adela Rodriguez & Jennifer Wright Acting Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steve Maver Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . .Sharlane Burgess Electronic Production Specialist . . . Derek Welford Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes u EDITORIAL OBITER By Gabrielle Giroday Justice delayed Law Times reports this week that a recently resigned assessment offi- cer says the wait times for preliminary appointments for assessments under the Solicitors Act has ballooned to more than 12 months from three months. This is concerning, to say the least. Delayed assessments under the Solicitors Act assessment process can have a variety of troublesome impacts for the parties involved and cause an already arduous and unpleasant process to stretch on even longer. George Argyropoulos, who spent almost eight years as an assess- ment officer before quitting in February, told Law Times it's not fair to have someone waiting a year just for a preliminary appointment. He has a valid point. We reported recently that Ontario lawyers were urging the province to invest after a Superior Court judge labelled wait times for hearings "unacceptably long." "I fully recognize that the profession is currently experiencing a degree of frustration with the delays cropping up in the assessment process under the Solicitors Act," wrote Superior Court Justice Sean Dunphy last month in his ruling in Gilbert's LLP v. Dixon Inc. Not only have wait times for a preliminary appointment leaped to at least 12 months, the number of assessment officers in Toronto has apparently dropped to two full-time employees from nine. The officers who remain have much heavier workloads with ex- pectations they monitor court-recording equipment from court re- porters and deal with more complex matters. The Ministry of the Attorney General needs to examine staffing levels and ensure they are appropriate. A ministry spokesman says efforts to deal with the problem are underway, and "include obtaining assistance from assessment offi- cers in other regions to hear matters until Decem- ber 2016 and recruiting for assessment officers in the near future." Argyropoulos has strong words: "I thoroughly enjoyed my time at the Ministry of the Attorney General, but I'm very concerned and unhappy that the public is not being served in the manner they are entitled to be. For me, it goes back to the basic concept that justice delayed is justice denied." Help cannot come soon enough. Recruitment efforts are paramount to address a bottlenecked process or risk a dire situation growing worse. LT Back to the future for family courts? A s noted recently, the ongoing review by the Law Society of Upper Canada and Justice Annemarie E. Bonkalo into what roles non-lawyers could play in Family Court is long overdue and has prompted some intriguing reaction. Ryerson University's Legal Innova- tion Zone sent over its February brief to the attorney general. It again pointed out the urgent need for a more streamlined, less adversarial, and more affordable pro- cess at Family Court. Theirs is admittedly not a one-size- fits-all solution, but anything that win- nows out simple matters and streams them into an administrative process would be welcome. What LIZ is suggesting is a process outside of the court that runs in parallel before an application is filed. It is suggesting a triage approach similar to the one the AG is piloting in two Family Court projects this sum- mer. Its concept would screen candi- dates for the right fit and safety. It would stress an educative approach, bringing the parties up to speed on their options, and what to expect, not much different from the current Mandatory Informa- tion Programs. LIZ also asks what role could technology better play in stream- lining the process and reducing costs? Indeed, many have asked, but there's little response thus far. As the LIZ report notes, parties aren't interested much in process; they want a result and closure. Admittedly, this is greatly coloured by the emotional factors at play and the need for revenge. Perhaps nothing better il- lustrates the latter than the recent Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556, wherein Justice Alex Pazaratz seared the mother for combatively and obstinately dragging out the matter until combined legal fees hit $500,000. He awarded $192,000 to the father in costs and painstakingly documented his frustration at the process in his written judgment. Jackson v. Mayerle, notwithstand- ing, parties for the most part want cer- tainty. What will a divorce matter cost, how long will it take? The answer today is how long is a piece of string? Toronto family lawyer Don Baker knows the frustration all too well. At 74 years old, he's still practicing at Baker and Baker Family Law, following in the foot- steps of his mother, Anne, who was also a family lawyer. She lived from 1908 to 2005. Last summer, he took the unprec- edented step of writing to senior Family Court Justice George Czutrin, the only time he's felt compelled to write to the bench on a gen- eral matter. "In Toronto, case confer- ences are heard on an average three to four months after an Application is commenced and they are given a specific appointment of a maximum of one hour and held only three days a week," he wrote, adding that in Newmarket it's four months. "Generally, all these matters are urgent as they relate to children and support." In the three to four months before the first case conference, time and resources are invested and hours accumulate to the clients' chagrin. As he points out to Justice Czutrin, it may be time to go back to the future and revisit the concept of masters, lawyers who dealt with the incoming files and set interim support and dealt with residen- tial and custody issues prior to trial or settlement. "Over the years I have seen the deteri- oration in our courts as it related to Fam- ily Law, and it appears to have started with the end of the role of the Masters," Baker noted. "There has also been, in my respectful opinion, a 'dumbing down' of the process apparently for the reason of finding a way to open the system to those who could not afford a lawyer." As such, Baker said inviting the public into the system as unrepresented litigants has been "to put it mildly, a disaster and regrettable." "I would like to begin a conversation with anyone who is interested, includ- ing the Chief Justices as to whether or not the time has come to admit the failure of the system and replaced with the sys- tem that existed 20 years ago," he wrote. "It may seem somewhat backward but maybe that system was far better than what we have now. In the present world of Fam- ily Law, justice is overpriced and action is hampered and delayed by our system." The consensus of all the stakeholders is clear: Speed it up, take the adversarial opportunities off the tables by reverting to an administrative process where pos- sible, educate the parties more fully at ev- ery turn, and offer menu pricing. One hopes the AG and Liberal government are prepared to listen and move quickly on this file as it continues to fester and not just tinker and tweak some more. LT uIan Harvey has been a journalist for more than 35 years writing about a diverse range of issues including legal and political affairs. His e-mail address is ianharvey@rogers.com. Queen's Park Ian Harvey

• Cover