Canadians For Family Law Reform
Bob Law
Lots of talk about recording your own hearing... see below ... can be photocopied for approx $8 at Kwik Kopy ...just send them the link ...well worth the investment! http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/legal_documents/Article-RecordingYourOwnCourtHearing.pdf
Monday, January 30, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Rule 4 : Representation
RULE 4: REPRESENTATION
REPRESENTATION FOR A PARTY
4. (1) A party may,
(a) appear without a lawyer or other representative;
(b) be represented by a lawyer; or
(c) be represented by a person who is not a lawyer, but only if the court gives permission in advance. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (1).
PRIVATE REPRESENTATION OF SPECIAL PARTY
(2) The court may authorize a person to represent a special party if the person is,
(a) appropriate for the task; and
(b) willing to act as representative. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (2).
PUBLIC LAW OFFICER TO REPRESENT SPECIAL PARTY
(3) If there is no appropriate person willing to act as a special party’s representative, the court may authorize the Children’s Lawyer or the Public Guardian and Trustee to act as representative, but only with that official’s consent. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (3).
SERVICE OF AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT
(4) An order under subrule (2) or (3) shall be served immediately, by the person who asked for the order or by any other person named by the court,
(a) on the representative; and
(b) on every party in the case. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (4).
REPRESENTATION OF PARTY WHO DIES
(5) If a party dies after the start of a case, the court may make the estate trustee a party instead, on motion without notice. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (5).
AUTHORIZING REPRESENTATIVE FOR PARTY WHO DIES
(6) If the party has no estate trustee, the court may authorize an appropriate person to act as representative, with that person’s consent, given in advance. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (6).
LAWYER FOR CHILD
(7) In a case that involves a child who is not a party, the court may authorize a lawyer to represent the child, and then the child has the rights of a party, unless the court orders otherwise. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (7).
CHILD’S RIGHTS SUBJECT TO STATUTE
(8) Subrule (7) is subject to section 38 (legal representation of child, protection hearing) and subsection 114 (6) (legal representation of child, secure treatment hearing) of the Child and Family Services Act. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (8).
CHOICE OF LAWYER
(9) A party appearing without a lawyer may choose a lawyer by,
(a) serving on every other party and filing a notice of change in representation (Form 4) containing the lawyer’s consent to act; or
(b) having a lawyer come to court on the party’s behalf. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (9).
CHANGE IN REPRESENTATION
(10) Except as subrule (10.1) provides, a party represented by a lawyer may, by serving on every other party and filing a notice of change in representation (Form 4),
(a) change lawyers; or
(b) appear without a lawyer. O. Reg. 91/03, s. 1.
EXCEPTION, CHILD PROTECTION CASE SCHEDULED FOR TRIAL
(10.1) In a child protection case that has been scheduled for trial or placed on a trial list, a party may act under clause (10) (b) only with the court’s permission, obtained in advance by motion made with notice. O. Reg. 91/03, s. 1.
NOTICE OF CHANGE IN REPRESENTATION
(11) A notice of change in representation shall,
(a) contain the party’s address for service, if the party wants to appear without a lawyer; or
(b) show the name and address of the new lawyer, if the party wants to change lawyers. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (11).
LAWYER’S REMOVAL FROM THE CASE
(12) A lawyer may make a motion for an order to be removed from the case, with notice to the client and to,
(a) the Children’s Lawyer, if the client is a child;
(b) the Public Guardian and Trustee, if the client is or appears to be mentally incapable in respect of an issue in the case. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (12).
NOTICE OF MOTION TO REMOVE LAWYER
(13) Notice of a motion to remove a lawyer shall also be served on the other parties to the case, but the evidence in support of the motion shall not be served on them, shall not be put into the continuing record and shall not be kept in the court file after the motion is heard. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (13).
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMOVE LAWYER
(14) The affidavit in support of the motion shall indicate what stage the case is at, the next event in the case and any scheduled dates. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (14).
CONTENTS AND SERVICE OF ORDER REMOVING LAWYER
(15) The order removing the lawyer from the case shall,
(a) set out the client’s last known address for service; and
(b) be served on all other parties, served on the client by mail, fax or electronic mail at the client’s last known address and filed immediately. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (15).
REPRESENTATION FOR A PARTY
4. (1) A party may,
(a) appear without a lawyer or other representative;
(b) be represented by a lawyer; or
(c) be represented by a person who is not a lawyer, but only if the court gives permission in advance. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (1).
PRIVATE REPRESENTATION OF SPECIAL PARTY
(2) The court may authorize a person to represent a special party if the person is,
(a) appropriate for the task; and
(b) willing to act as representative. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (2).
PUBLIC LAW OFFICER TO REPRESENT SPECIAL PARTY
(3) If there is no appropriate person willing to act as a special party’s representative, the court may authorize the Children’s Lawyer or the Public Guardian and Trustee to act as representative, but only with that official’s consent. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (3).
SERVICE OF AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT
(4) An order under subrule (2) or (3) shall be served immediately, by the person who asked for the order or by any other person named by the court,
(a) on the representative; and
(b) on every party in the case. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (4).
REPRESENTATION OF PARTY WHO DIES
(5) If a party dies after the start of a case, the court may make the estate trustee a party instead, on motion without notice. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (5).
AUTHORIZING REPRESENTATIVE FOR PARTY WHO DIES
(6) If the party has no estate trustee, the court may authorize an appropriate person to act as representative, with that person’s consent, given in advance. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (6).
LAWYER FOR CHILD
(7) In a case that involves a child who is not a party, the court may authorize a lawyer to represent the child, and then the child has the rights of a party, unless the court orders otherwise. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (7).
CHILD’S RIGHTS SUBJECT TO STATUTE
(8) Subrule (7) is subject to section 38 (legal representation of child, protection hearing) and subsection 114 (6) (legal representation of child, secure treatment hearing) of the Child and Family Services Act. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (8).
CHOICE OF LAWYER
(9) A party appearing without a lawyer may choose a lawyer by,
(a) serving on every other party and filing a notice of change in representation (Form 4) containing the lawyer’s consent to act; or
(b) having a lawyer come to court on the party’s behalf. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (9).
CHANGE IN REPRESENTATION
(10) Except as subrule (10.1) provides, a party represented by a lawyer may, by serving on every other party and filing a notice of change in representation (Form 4),
(a) change lawyers; or
(b) appear without a lawyer. O. Reg. 91/03, s. 1.
EXCEPTION, CHILD PROTECTION CASE SCHEDULED FOR TRIAL
(10.1) In a child protection case that has been scheduled for trial or placed on a trial list, a party may act under clause (10) (b) only with the court’s permission, obtained in advance by motion made with notice. O. Reg. 91/03, s. 1.
NOTICE OF CHANGE IN REPRESENTATION
(11) A notice of change in representation shall,
(a) contain the party’s address for service, if the party wants to appear without a lawyer; or
(b) show the name and address of the new lawyer, if the party wants to change lawyers. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (11).
LAWYER’S REMOVAL FROM THE CASE
(12) A lawyer may make a motion for an order to be removed from the case, with notice to the client and to,
(a) the Children’s Lawyer, if the client is a child;
(b) the Public Guardian and Trustee, if the client is or appears to be mentally incapable in respect of an issue in the case. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (12).
NOTICE OF MOTION TO REMOVE LAWYER
(13) Notice of a motion to remove a lawyer shall also be served on the other parties to the case, but the evidence in support of the motion shall not be served on them, shall not be put into the continuing record and shall not be kept in the court file after the motion is heard. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (13).
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMOVE LAWYER
(14) The affidavit in support of the motion shall indicate what stage the case is at, the next event in the case and any scheduled dates. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (14).
CONTENTS AND SERVICE OF ORDER REMOVING LAWYER
(15) The order removing the lawyer from the case shall,
(a) set out the client’s last known address for service; and
(b) be served on all other parties, served on the client by mail, fax or electronic mail at the client’s last known address and filed immediately. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 4 (15).
Monday, January 16, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Canadians for Family Law Reform
Are you caught in the web of the Family Court legal system? Are you going through "the system" with no apparent end in sight? Are you frustrated that a simple solution is far beyond your reach? Are you just sick and tired of the way the Family Law legal system is being played out with your case. If any of these questions apply to you, then our group may be what you need.
We are a group of individuals consisting of both men and women who have had dealings within the Family Law legal system. We are individuals who became discouraged with the system because of what appeared to be simple matters were actually taking years in court to be dealt with and finalized. The time spend taking vicious tolls on people not only emotionally, but financially as well. With that we became a support group as well as a watchdog group.
We believe there is a system in place that is supposed to be beneficial for parents and children, however the system isn’t working and is creating extreme hardships for all those involved.
Currently with the way that the system is being administered, with some cases it is costing exuberant amounts of money, taking years to be dealt with in court and bringing out the worst by sometimes fabricating the truths pitting one parent against the other.
When all is finally resolved, the true issues, which is mainly division of assets and debts, child custody and access, and support seems to have been put on the backburner rather than being the highlights of the matters at hand.
Because cases are taking years to be dealth with, it is our opinion, being caught within the system, the innocent children are reaping the negative effects.
Our Goals
Is to put major pressures on Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Attorney General who introduced changes that were and are suppose to be beneficial to the parties involved. However it appears that those changes have not been implemented and it appears to be reluctance with introducing these changes.
We want to see the Family Law legal system simplified for parties who can vary Orders without having to go through lengthy and costly court proceedings.
We want to see the Law Society enforcing the Code of Ethics if and when lawyers inadvertently and blatantly show disregard for following the Rules.
We believe that although the clients are signing the documents, namely Affidavits, we believe that sometimes at the advice of his or her council, the client may not want to sign, but believes that he or she is left with no alternative as the court system is a system that is completely unfamiliar and too complex for the client.
We want to see the Family Law legal system as a more fair and reasonable system that would reflect how parents would contribute to their children as if the family system had not broken down.
Our Objectives
We want to see changes that are beneficial to the people who are dealing with matters within the Family Law legal system.
We want to make sure that the Attorney General’s introduction of Family Law Reform in Ontario Backgrounder is implemented and applied in the court systems within Ontario which would improve the family law justice system to make it faster, more affordable and less confrontational.
We want to make sure that lawyers who claim that “they appreciate the opportunity to work with government to improve the justice system” actually do adhere to their quotes.
We want lawyers to be held accountable who unnecessarily prolong court cases in order to line his or her own pocket book as opposed to doing what is in the best interest of the family once there is a breakdown between couples.
We want to make sure that each time a client attends a lawyer’s office, it is documented exactly what the issues are, how they will be dealt with, what will be the costs to the client, what is the time frame in which it will take to resolve the matter, what costs will be incurred by the client, and other alternatives, time allowances and costs available.
We want to see the Law Society of Upper Canada holding solicitor’s accountable when the Code of Ethics has been blatantly ignored and financially penalized for his or her own wrongdoing.
We want to see the government acting accordingly if in fact it is determined that the Rules and/or Backgrounder information is not being followed.
We want to make sure that trust is rebuilt within the legal system and fairness is given to all parties. It is a known fact that the public has heard from Judges, Lawyers and Individuals (add footnotes) asserting his or her disgust with the way some solicitors promote him or herself whether in the courtroom or outside of the courtroom to where comments of unnecessary proceedings are being heard in a courtroom that could have easily been heard and resolved outside of the courtroom saving valuable time and monies not only for the justice system to where it is administered and heard, but for the clients as well.
We are a group of individuals consisting of both men and women who have had dealings within the Family Law legal system. We are individuals who became discouraged with the system because of what appeared to be simple matters were actually taking years in court to be dealt with and finalized. The time spend taking vicious tolls on people not only emotionally, but financially as well. With that we became a support group as well as a watchdog group.
We believe there is a system in place that is supposed to be beneficial for parents and children, however the system isn’t working and is creating extreme hardships for all those involved.
Currently with the way that the system is being administered, with some cases it is costing exuberant amounts of money, taking years to be dealt with in court and bringing out the worst by sometimes fabricating the truths pitting one parent against the other.
When all is finally resolved, the true issues, which is mainly division of assets and debts, child custody and access, and support seems to have been put on the backburner rather than being the highlights of the matters at hand.
Because cases are taking years to be dealth with, it is our opinion, being caught within the system, the innocent children are reaping the negative effects.
Our Goals
Is to put major pressures on Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Attorney General who introduced changes that were and are suppose to be beneficial to the parties involved. However it appears that those changes have not been implemented and it appears to be reluctance with introducing these changes.
We want to see the Family Law legal system simplified for parties who can vary Orders without having to go through lengthy and costly court proceedings.
We want to see the Law Society enforcing the Code of Ethics if and when lawyers inadvertently and blatantly show disregard for following the Rules.
We believe that although the clients are signing the documents, namely Affidavits, we believe that sometimes at the advice of his or her council, the client may not want to sign, but believes that he or she is left with no alternative as the court system is a system that is completely unfamiliar and too complex for the client.
We want to see the Family Law legal system as a more fair and reasonable system that would reflect how parents would contribute to their children as if the family system had not broken down.
Our Objectives
We want to see changes that are beneficial to the people who are dealing with matters within the Family Law legal system.
We want to make sure that the Attorney General’s introduction of Family Law Reform in Ontario Backgrounder is implemented and applied in the court systems within Ontario which would improve the family law justice system to make it faster, more affordable and less confrontational.
We want to make sure that lawyers who claim that “they appreciate the opportunity to work with government to improve the justice system” actually do adhere to their quotes.
We want lawyers to be held accountable who unnecessarily prolong court cases in order to line his or her own pocket book as opposed to doing what is in the best interest of the family once there is a breakdown between couples.
We want to make sure that each time a client attends a lawyer’s office, it is documented exactly what the issues are, how they will be dealt with, what will be the costs to the client, what is the time frame in which it will take to resolve the matter, what costs will be incurred by the client, and other alternatives, time allowances and costs available.
We want to see the Law Society of Upper Canada holding solicitor’s accountable when the Code of Ethics has been blatantly ignored and financially penalized for his or her own wrongdoing.
We want to see the government acting accordingly if in fact it is determined that the Rules and/or Backgrounder information is not being followed.
We want to make sure that trust is rebuilt within the legal system and fairness is given to all parties. It is a known fact that the public has heard from Judges, Lawyers and Individuals (add footnotes) asserting his or her disgust with the way some solicitors promote him or herself whether in the courtroom or outside of the courtroom to where comments of unnecessary proceedings are being heard in a courtroom that could have easily been heard and resolved outside of the courtroom saving valuable time and monies not only for the justice system to where it is administered and heard, but for the clients as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)