|
In
Ontario We Use An
Adversarial System
of
Justice. "Its'
Time For change"
The
Law Society of Upper
Canada is a self
regulated body. Who are
not subject to a public
watch dog. Maybe
it is time the Attorney
General of Ontario to
appoint one?
WHO
IS THE WATCHDOG FOR
JUSTICE IN
ONTARIO?
WITH
LITTLE OR NO REGARD FOR
JUSTICE OR THE SOCIAL
INDIGNITIES THE RULES
CAN CAUSE VICTIMS OF
CRIMES AND ABUSE IN
ONTARIO.
THE
RULES ALSO DENY THE
RIGHTS OF CITIZEN OF
CANADA TO CHOOSE WHO
THEY WISH TO REPRESENT
THEM! THIS IS
STRICTLY IN VIOLATION OF
THE 'CANADIAN CHARTER OF
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND
THE CONSTITUTION OF
CANADA.
IN
A DEMOCRACY YOU NEED
CHECKS AND BALANCES TO
ENSURE THE RIGHTS OF ALL
CITIZENS ARE PROTECTED
IN ALL PHASES OF
GOVERNMENT.
THE
RULES FOR OBTAINING
JUSTICE IN ONTARIO
APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN
MANIPULATED BY LAWYERS
TO MAKE MONEY WITH
LITTLE REGARD FOR
JUSTICE.
TAKE
A LOOK AT THE RULES FOR
CIVIL PROCEDURES AND SEE
WHAT SOCIAL INDIGNITIES
THEY CAN CAUSE THOSE WHO
CANNOT AFFORD A
LAWYER. LAWYERS
CAN CHARGE OVER $500.OO
PER HOUR TO BE
REPRESENTED IN THE
COURTS.
The
court system of Canada
is made up of many
courts differing in
levels of legal
superiority and
separated by
jurisdiction. Some
of the courts are
federal in nature while
others are provincial or
territorial. More
Why
should Ontarians not have
the right to choose who
they wish to represent
them in the
courts? The
current procedures to
not permit this
choice. Is this in
violations of the
Constitution and the
Canadian Charter of
Rights and
Freedoms?
Our
system for justice dates
back to the Roman
Empire. Some
writers trace the the
process to the medieval
mode of trial by combat,
in which some litigants,
notably women, were
allowed a champion to
represent them. More
A
justice system fit for
the 21st century
(author unkown)
There is clearly much
that we can be proud
of – investigators,
prosecutors and judges
are clearly and
demonstrably
independent of
government, ordinary
citizens are involved
as members of the jury
in trials in the
courts and there is a
very strong
presumption that
proceedings must be
public.
However, as the 'public'
we must raise our
expectations in the
21st century.
When it comes to
justice, the public
can no longer be
satisfied with a
justice system that is
process driven by what
appears to be
corporate
driven. We must
demand a justice
service that is not
only capable of
delivering justice in
every case as
effectively and
efficiently as
possible but which is
also underpinned by
core quality. That is
quite a
challenge. But
it is a challenge we
must meet.
Core quality standards
will also provide
greater public
scrutiny. A modern
prosecution service
needs to be
accountable, visible
and transparent. The
days of decisions
being made by
desk-bound prosecutors
behind closed doors
are long gone. Now we
explain our charging
decisions and give
detailed reasons when
we decide not to
prosecute. I recognize
that not everyone will
agree with all our
decisions, but at
least they can now
understand how they
have been reached. We
have also taken the
decision to
release material used
in court to the media
so that the public can
follow and understand
what has happened in
court in a much more
obvious way –
attending court should
not be the only way of
delivering open
justice, the public
should be entitled to
access criminal
justice through their
newspapers and on
their screens.
Greater public
scrutiny will also
shine a powerful torch
on some criminal
justice issues ripe
for reform. We are
still far too reliant
on paper files.
Core quality standards
for prosecutors will
allow us to proceed
with confidence. They
will also allow the
public to judge us by
results.
|
