Category: Slaw Columns

A Charter Right to Advise – Even Without a License?

Noel Semple

Slaw.ca Access to Justice Column, February 2 2023

Found online at: https://www.slaw.ca/2023/02/02/a-charter-right-to-advise-even-without-a-license/

A new American case, Upsolve v. James, suggests that freedom of expression might protect the right of non-lawyers to offer legal advice.

In both Canada and the USA, lawyers have a near-monopoly on legal advice. If anyone tells someone else how the law would apply to their circumstances, the first person is probably deemed to be “practicing law.” That is something that only lawyers are allowed to do.

Continue reading “A Charter Right to Advise – Even Without a License?” →

Justice Denied: Constitutional Remedies for Systemic Delay

Noel Semple

Slaw.ca Access to Justice Column, December 14 2022

Found Online at https://www.slaw.ca/2022/12/14/justice-denied-constitutional-remedies-for-systemic-delay/

Justice Delayed

Suppose you run a small widget-making business in Ontario. You sent crates of widgets worth $100k to a customer, but they refuse to pay. They say there’s something wrong with the widgets, but you know this isn’t true and you can prove it. The good news is that contract law obliges your customer to pay you, and procedural law allows you to seize their assets to satisfy the debt if they don’t. The bad news is that, if you sue and the other side plays hardball, it will probably take at least four or five years to get the matter to trial. By that point, the mounting toll of wasted hours and legal fees may well have led you to abandon your claim, or settle it for pennies on the dollar. If you do persevere, there’s a good chance your defendant will have disappeared or gone bankrupt by the time you get your judgment.

Continue reading “Justice Denied: Constitutional Remedies for Systemic Delay” →

What Makes a Settlement “Bad”? Harvey Weinstein, Jeremy Diamond, and the Limits of Private Resolutions

Noel Semple

Slaw.ca Legal Civil Procedure Columm, October 18, 2022

Found online at: https://www.slaw.ca/2022/10/18/what-makes-a-settlement-bad-harvey-weinstein-jeremy-diamond-and-the-limits-of-private-resolutions/

“A bad settlement is better than a good trial.” Every year, I pass along this old lawyer saying to students in my Civil Procedure and Legal Ethics classes. The idea is that pushing on to a hearing is expensive, risky, and time-consuming. Even a far-from-ideal settlement might be better overall.

Thus, lawyers must “advise and encourage” clients to settle their disputes so long as there is a “reasonable basis” to do so, according to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Courts and tribunals strongly encourage settlement with mandatory mediation, cost incentives to settle, and judicial pretrials among other mechanisms.

Of course, I hasten to add in class, bad settlements are not always better than the alternative. What can make a settlement bad enough that lawyers, legislators, and judges should refuse to accept it?

Continue reading “What Makes a Settlement “Bad”? Harvey Weinstein, Jeremy Diamond, and the Limits of Private Resolutions” →

On a Slow Train to Nowhere: Paralegal Family Law Practice in Ontario

Noel Semple

Slaw.ca Legal Ethics Column, August 11, 2022

Found online at: https://www.slaw.ca/2022/08/11/on-a-slow-train-to-nowhere-paralegal-family-law-practice-in-ontario/

Every year, tens of thousands of Ontarians go through divorce or separation. Should these people have access to family law services provided by non-lawyers? What if these service-providers were paralegals trained in family law, insured, and regulated by the Law Society of Ontario?

Continue reading “On a Slow Train to Nowhere: Paralegal Family Law Practice in Ontario” →

Online and In-Person Hearings: The Best of Both Worlds

Noel Semple

Slaw.ca Civil Procedure Column, June 9, 2022

Found online at: https://www.slaw.ca/2022/06/09/online-and-in-person-hearings-the-best-of-both-worlds/

For a while during the pandemic, online hearings were the only option for courts and tribunals. Justice was done on Zoom, or else it wasn’t done at all.

Now, as we emerge from the age of Covid (knock on wood!), online vs. in-person is a recurring controversy across Ontario’s justice sector. After the Superior Court of Justice ordered most contested family law matters to return to court, a group of family bar lawyers organized in defence of the online option. By contrast, the Landlord and Tenant Board is insisting on fully online practice, while the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario states that “going digital has been a failure” and calls for a return to in-person hearings. The online vs in-person controversy is also litigated on a case-by-case basis. For many civil trials, in the absence of party consent an expensive procedural motion may be necessary to resolve the question of online vs. in-person.

Continue reading “Online and In-Person Hearings: The Best of Both Worlds” →