The Canadian legal system is exemplary in many ways, in
large measure because it is founded on Common Law. The challenge is that many who need access to the system are unable to afford it. It is often posited by
the “system” that more funding is required, this may be partially true, I
assert what is really needed is reconfiguration – process simplification, specialization
and fragmentation.
You know the story, Sally, a teenage Mom by Bill has four
children. Sally is smart but, has a grade ten education, Bill is the quintessential
deadbeat Dad and leaves Sally on social assistance, and takes a good paying
job up north. Bill’s banking the big bucks and Sally is subsisting with four
kids in a two-bedroom apartment. How does Sally get justice and Bill get held
responsible? The sad truth is, too often nothing happens. Sally and the kids
just remain in a very pernicious circumstance.
I had occasion to self-litigate, I have a college education, and there may be sharper tools in the shack, but I can almost always get things
figured out – accessing the Supreme Court of British Columbia was challenging. Deriving
argument, easy, verbalizing my case, easy – negotiating process, difficult –
one finds oneself always looking for the right form OR being careful to avoid
putting “argument” in an affidavit. Of course, there is a need for systematization
and standardization, but one wonders, how arcane is arcane enough. In British
Columbia when Bud Smith was Attorney General, British Columbia “simplified”
legal language – goodbye Latin welcome plain English. This, in and of itself
permitted greater access to judicial process and permitted laypeople to a
greater degree to understand the laws that govern them. This leaves one thing un-remedied
process.
No matter how simple we make the process, and it should be as
simple as possible, there will always be complex legal challenges that require
legal professionals to execute. There are also rudimentary legal processes,
like Sally’s case, that require no legal professional; these processes are able
to be simplified and standardized. Granted there have been some advances in the
delivery of family law, the solution always requires more funding, and more lawyers
on pro bono – what is really needed is a place for Sally to go with less
argument and more solutions.
Sally should be able to stand before a Magistrate – or perhaps
a Master equivalent in the BCSC system, and tell her story. The Master should
then issue the appropriate orders to have Bill tell his side of the story –
then the Master can pass Judgment. The specialized Master would be up to speed
on the idiosyncrasies associated with family law and rule in accord with them.
In this way, all Sally has to do, is phone the BCSC family Master program and
get an appointment – then show up on time with valid identification. Will some
cases offer complications, yes – but the vast majority could be managed this
way. The Master can be the one-stop shop, the master can advise on the process and
give direction on the collection and presentation of the facts. This would be an “entry”
level judicial position or perhaps provision could be made for a “para” judge
or technician that specializes in family law – thereby reducing wage
requirements.
There are many areas of law that could be simplified, one realizes
that there are professionals relying on the system as it is, one realizes that simplifying
the system will effect redundancy – one has to manage so as to ensure that
present people’s interests are cared for and society at large interests are
cared for in the future.
Canada is a great country, governance is required, and law is
governance – we do need, however, to reduce transaction costs in general to
enhance regional advantage. Most importantly, Sally needs justice.
Remember that most often these costs are financed, so in the end they could be triple the original amount - governmental transaction costs really add up, they exist everywhere - oft times they offer no added value. We need to examine this and find ways to balance the interest of service providers and society at large, in Sally's case "transaction costs" preclude even getting due process.
I neglected to point out prior, and was reminded today via commentary on the CBC, that unlike the United States, we pay house purchase transaction costs with "after-tax dollars". So for argument's sake, let's say interest costs take this number to $70,000, and if you're in that highest tax bracket, the overall cost might reach $140,000.
I neglected to point out prior, and was reminded today via commentary on the CBC, that unlike the United States, we pay house purchase transaction costs with "after-tax dollars". So for argument's sake, let's say interest costs take this number to $70,000, and if you're in that highest tax bracket, the overall cost might reach $140,000.
No comments:
Post a Comment