SR Vol 25 No 1, January 2007 - Nova Scotia Barristers' Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MassageTherapyRoma McInnisBSc. Kin., RN, RMT7037 Mumford Road, Halifax, NSPH (902) 453-1525 | FAX (902) 453-1571located within PERFORMANCE PHYSIOTHERAPYsecondly, that pursuant to its regulations, the Board was authorized tomake rules governing “practice and procedure”. The Court of Appealheld that the regulations authorized the Board to regulate its practiceand procedure and “on a case specific basis, to direct that an expertwitness be discovered.” (paragraph 23) (emphasis added)I am not aware of any authority that would suggest that principlesof natural justice would not be sufficient to enable the SmallClaims Court to order pre-hearing disclosure in the appropriatecircumstances. However, if such an authority were identified orestablished hereafter, it should be addressed with an amendment tothe Small Claims Court Regulations, not to establish hard and fastpre-hearing procedures, but to specifically give the court jurisdictionto regulate its own procedure as it sees fit. There is now compellingauthority that such a regulation could be relied upon to support theCourt’s use of an appropriate procedure on a case specific basis. Thiswould maintain the informality of the Court, where appropriate, andenable the Court to order disclosure, where necessary.The effective application of such a fluid system is an art which canonly be applied by dedicated adjudicators who can devote a greatdeal of time and energy to the important task with which they arecharged.Just like youTranscontinental plays an activerole in the communities in whichit operates. The concept of socialresponsibility is solidly rooted inour corporate culture, and it has aspecific focus on the crucial areasof law, health, education, cultureand community development.At Transcontinental, respect isa core value that defines all ourrelationships.Proud printers of“The Society Record” and “The Law News”.For complete printing solutions in Atlantic Canada please contactKellie or Jenny at 1 866 857-7468 or on atlantic.sales@transcontinental.caPrinting • Direct Marketing • Publishing • Distribution • Web solutions34 The Society Record
In Defence ofSmall ClaimsCourtOn April 1, 2006 the financial limit for the Small ClaimsCourt increased from $15,000 to $25,000. The increasebrought concerns that the new limits would enable “deeppocketed” corporations and their lawyers to oppress “the little guy”,who could not afford legal representation. 1 Coupled with theseconcerns is a tendency on the part of members of the Bar as well asthe Supreme Court to want to impose more formal procedures onthe Small Claims Court, perhaps on the reasoning that a financiallimit that approaches the industrial average wage requires adoption ofmore formal procedures. 2 Finally, there have been suggestions that theLegislature ought to fund the recording of hearings so that judges onappeal could evaluate the fairness of what took place at a hearing.I suggest here that these concerns are misplaced. Increases in thefinancial jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, in fact, help rightthe balance between “deep pocketed” corporations and “the littleguy”. Attempts to introduce more procedure would only decreaseaccess to justice (both substantive and procedural). And finally,money spent on recording hearings would be better spent on otherchanges to the Small Claims Court that would better improve thepublic’s access to justice.What characterizes the procedure and practice of dispute resolutionin the Small Claims Court? There is a brief description of theclaim, and then the Court assigns a date for the hearing at the timethe claim is issued – a date that is usually only a few months (atmost) away. There is no pre-hearing disclosure or discovery. Thereare no default judgments. The rules of evidence at the hearing arerelaxed. 3 There are no formal rules of procedure, other than theoverarching requirement that claims “are adjudicated informally andinexpensively but in accordance with established principles of lawand natural justice.” 4 And finally, there are no party and party costs.This system – which resembles that of labour arbitrations – providesbetter accessto justice forthe poor, theworking class,W. Augustus (Gus) Richardson, Q.C.AD+REM Alternative Dispute Resolution Services Inc.and indeed for larger segments of the middle class than the complexformality of the Supreme Court. Why? Because it dispenses withmuch that is unnecessary, employs a “procedure” that minimizesthe cost of legal representation (if it is chosen), encourages its mostproductive use (when it is employed), and finally, levels the playingfield between represented and unrepresented parties in court.One of the most obvious differences between the Small ClaimsCourt and the Supreme Court is the former’s lack of disclosureand discovery. The criticism that is sometimes leveled against sucha system is that it constitutes “trial by ambush”. This analogy ismisleading.In a true ambush one side is taken totally by surprise by the other.In the scenario beloved by “B” movie directors, soldiers marchingthrough a narrow defile are suddenly fired upon by attackers whoseexistence is revealed only with the first bullet. The presence of theattackers (and the fact that a battle is about to occur) comes as acomplete surprise to the hapless victims.Such a scenario hardly characterizes what happens when a disputeends up in the Small Claims Court. Most lay litigants know whatthe other side will say and produce by way of documentation. Theyhave been living the “case” (and fighting with the other side aboutit) as active participants, and have been phoning and meeting andwriting letters and emails back and forth to each other for weeks ifnot months before they decided to sue. The documents they arrivein court with are the documents they have been exchanging fromthe start. They may be outraged at what the other side says, but theyare not surprised.January 2007 35
Page 2 and 3: Forensic Engineering Servicesfor Ci
Page 4 and 5: We’ve MovedYour one-stop shop has
Page 6 and 7: BRIEFSj u d i c i a l p o r t r a i
Page 8 and 9: BRIEFSS k i l l s c o u r s ephotos
Page 10 and 11: LLPGO NORTH!Davis & Co. LLP has bee
Page 12 and 13: BRIEFSE q u i t y O f f i c e / R R
Page 14 and 15: societynewsadmissions & professiona
Page 16 and 17: Feedback from theFrontlinesWe asked
Page 19: Has SCC, with the new ceilingof $25
Page 22 and 23: C O N T I N U I N G P R O F E S S I
Page 24 and 25: 24 The Society RecordCourtroom No.
Page 26 and 27: Alberta Bound!Where energymeets peo
Page 28 and 29: CAs do so much more.Sometimes even
Page 30 and 31: 1-866-299-1299 • Completely Confi
Page 32 and 33: You bethejudgeQ:A :Does Small Claim
Page 36 and 37: In short, pleadings, disclosure, an
Page 38 and 39: SummationSmall ClamsNo MoreIvividly
Page 40: Financial Strength Ratings: Demotec

SR Vol 25 No 1, January 2007 - Nova Scotia Barristers' Society

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?