Problems With Legal Aid In The Canadian Justice System

n response to the criticisms of those who are anti-judicial activism, “supporters of judicial activism say such activism through judicial review is necessary because it allows the courts to step in and fill gaps in the law where minorities are not protected because of political pressures and where politicians are afraid to legislate” . This raises the argument that judges and the judiciary play a balanced activist legislative role in such a way that it protects the rights of minorities from legislation or regulation imposed by the government. Within our democratic system, legislators will pay attention to what the majority wants and they will pursue public policies, which favour the majority. This leaves minority interests vulnerable to the legislations and regulations imposed by the government. By playing an active role, the judiciary ensures that the rights of the minorities are protected and that law does not contravene with the Charter of Human Rights and the Constitution of Canada. Through this kind of judicial activism, the courts strike a balance with the legislatures role. This is not to say that the judiciary takes on the role of policymaking and the legislature, but rather that both institutions embrace what is referred to as a “dialogue” where there is a balance between judicial decision-making and legislative-executive decision making . However, according to MacKay, “it is legitimate for the courts to engage in a form of judicial policy making so long as they do

My keen interest and aptitude for the legal profession first developed through my involvement in numerous conferences both in Canada and the USA. As the sole representative for Windsor, Ontario in the Rotary Adventures in Citizenship conference in Ottawa, I had the valuable experience of learning the inner workings of Canadian democratic institutions from political leaders and senior officials, such as the Governor-general of Canada. Group discussions with the Speaker enabled me to gain an even greater appreciation for the core democratic values of

One of the challenges the Canadian justice system faces is lack of personnel, specifically police

In today's Australia the price of handling a substantial litigation matter is unobtainable for the average Australian, justice does indeed go to the highest bidder and “Unless you are a millionaire or a pauper, the cost of going to court to protect your rights is beyond you.” George Brandis, shadow attorney-general. To say that justice is earned and reserved for the population of Australia is a myth and it is true that legal aid community centres are grossly underfunded and explicitly for those in dire need of legal aid and do not represent the common Australian, there is no universal legal safety-net unlike the education and health systems.

In common law, judges interpret the law and judge apply it based on precedent from previous cases; compared to civil law which focuses on written legislature. In Canada, judges are given the chance to be activists. If a judge believes a citizen’s rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are being violated, they are given the power to rule against the unconstitutional law made by the elected branches of government; this concept is referred to as judicial activism (Hausegger, Hennigar, & Riddell, 2015, p. 123). Judicial activism ensures the individual rights of each person are upheld, but the concept is controversial. Judicial activism is problematic because it awards an authoritarian level of power to unelected judges, which goes against Canada’s democratic ideology where elected officials decide and vote on the laws (Cameron, 2009, p. 27). I argue that judicial activism should not be a part of Canada’s judicial process because it gives too much power to the courts and disrupts the democratic process of

The Canadian legal system was influenced dramatically by the Persons case, the Napoleonic code and the Magna Carta. First, the Persons case significantly influenced the Law system as known today. The Persons case, which took place in 1926 was regarding Emily Murphy, an Alberta police magistrate, otherwise known as a judge. While judging a case, her ruling was challenged because according to the British North America Act, women weren’t considered “persons.” In order to change this, Emily Murphy along with the Alberta Famous five started the legal process to prove that women were persons in 1928. The Famous five took the government to court, first at provincial level, then the Supreme Court, however they were unsuccessful. In 1929, the women

The supreme court of Canada has overruled numerous laws put forward by the Harper government. In 2010, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was opposed to the Vancouver Eastside supervised injection site. Stephen Harper took a conservative approach to the issue, he said that “we as a government will not use taxpayer’s money to fund drug use” (Rachlis, 2010). The Prime Minister did not recognize the potential benefits to Canadian society as he focused on budgeting, without recognizing the benefit to public welfare that would reduce disease, death and have a rehabilitative effect on participants of the program. Judicial decisions play an influential role in the provisions of the Constitution because their interpretation is essential to understanding and employing it. In this essay I will argue that the traditional role of the judges has evolved into having a determinative function of law, that allows judges to uphold citizen’s rights and preserve justice in Canada. Through analyzing judicial review, I will demonstrate how judge’s role is much more than an interpretation of law through exploring the idea of Charter proofing, integrating public opinion in decisions, production of common law and judicial activism that serve in creating a climate that is adaptive to new issues that may arise and free from arbitrary rule.

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

The official version of the law (OVL) is “what the legal world would have us believe about itself – is that it is an impartial, neutral and objective system for resolving conflict” (Comack, 2014, p. 11). Prior to reflecting on course material I would have undoubtedly accepted the OVL, however, at this time I believe our Canadian legal system and criminal justice system lack the ability to be impartial, neutral, and objective, therefore requiring considerable changes. The chapters in which utmost enhanced my understanding of the sociology of law were “Theoretical Approaches and the Sociology of Law” by Elizabeth Comack and “Standing Against Canadian Law: Naming Omissions of Race, Culture, and Gender” by Patricia Monture as they explain and demonstrate the inequalities marginalized groups must endure at the hands of the law.

It is believed that while all human kind may have had common beginnings in the millennia past, the course of human history prevents all races from reverting back to that common kind. It is further believed that the racism that subsists in today’s society does not exist in the same manner within Canada. While Canada is an egalitarian society, a close examination would suggest that the blunt historical and social truths of racism that are often smugly denied exist very much in Canadian society and have seeped into the Canadian criminal justice system. The racialization of crime, discriminatory policing, minority overrepresentation in prison populations and a blatant denial of justice are aspects of the system that taint much of its past and create a worried present. This paper argues against the prevalent Canadian defence of egalitarianism by establishing the presence of systemic discrimination within the Canadian criminal justice system.

On the other hand, the appointment of judges shapes Charter interpretation, forcing Canadians to reconsider the people they have given power to and to rethink the Charter’s interpreters’ authority in creating a more “just” society. Hence, while Canada may claim to be progressing in legal thought, the lack of Supreme Court checks and balances proves otherwise. Unlike the politicians

I will be representing on behalf of The John Howard Society of Canada, and advocating on behalf of people who are imprisoned in Canada. I aim to contend the court the recognition of prisoners as right-bearing people, and the need of scrutiny when applying s.1 of the charter to any legislation that arbitrates with the prisoner’s rights. To begin with a brief introduction on our organization’s. The John Howard Society of Canada is national organization that “fills a role in public education, community service, and in pressing for reform in the criminal justice area.” Our mission and core values are, “Effective, just and human responses to the causes and consequences of crime. We are an, “Organization of provincial and territorial Societies comprised of and governed by people whose goal is to understand and respond to problems of crime and the criminal justice system. They are fiscally responsible for the continuance of the work and service of the National Office.”

Since the birth of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms there is growing scrutiny of the Supreme Court of Canada’s role in the intertwinement law and politics. Individuals are noting that courts under judicial review have the capacity to shape law to meet the evolving needs of society (Sharpe, 2003:1). This paper will analyze the emerging issues witnessed in the study of Canada’s judiciary system. The first issue being explored is the concept of “Judicial Activism”. This paper defines “Judicial Activism” with accordance to Britannica Encyclopaedia online as being a phenomenon in which judges take a direct policy-making role, and seem more than willing to strike down legislative or executive actions. (Roosevelt, 2015:1).

John Crawford committed his first murder in 1981, two days before Christmas after meeting a woman at the bar. He was convicted of that murder and was sentenced to jail until 1989 after being paroled. Only 3 years after being given his life back, he took the lives of 3 others. He was finally caught and convicted in 1996 of the 3 murders and got 3 life sentences. If only we had the death penalty, those 3 women would still be alive today. In Canada, the most serious sentence for murder is life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years. In some cases, these criminals are eligible for parole within years of their sentencing. However, that is just not good enough. We cannot allow criminals to run free only years after their previous illegal

Many Australians often report that the civil justice system is too slow, and litigation costs are too high (Productivity Commission 2014). The concepts of timeliness and delay are complex elements of the CJS, involving the delay of courts and government (Reinman & Leighton 2015). It is estimated that 90 percent of cases in a lower civil court will be finalised within six months of commencement (Sourdin & Burstyner 2014). Research suggests that ‘many litigants in the higher courts are dissatisfied as a result of delay, inefficiency and disproportioned legal costs’ (Sourdin & Burstyner 2014, p. 48). A litigant of a recent study claimed that his case took five years to settle, with each dismissal involving more costs (Sourdin & Burstyner 2014). The costs of accessing and securing legal services is one of the main causes preventing people effective access to the justice system (Productivity Commission 2014). As Reiman and Leighton (2015) mention, when it comes to the two parties against one another, it is more likely the one with the higher income will win the case. In saying this, if a person cannot afford to go to court, that will greatly affect whether they receive just outcomes in the criminal justice system (Reiman & Leighton 2015). According to Sanderfur (2009), when people choose not to resolve their disputes through legal professionals, it is often because of financial costs, uncertainty about rights, and that it would take too long. In saying this, parties have the option to resolve their disputes in many ways. This includes through the courts, tribunals, or a relative ombudsmen service (Reiman & Leighton 2015). Each of these options differ in cost and timeliness (Reiman & Leighton 2015). In recent years, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has gained popularity over law suits in state and federal courts (Bergeson 2010). The ADR process