The Future of Advocacy in Canada

The Advocates’ Society The Right to be Heard: The Future of Advocacy in Canada Final Report of the Modern Advocacy Task Force June 2021 Table of Contents Foreword 3 Acknowledgments 4 Executive Summary 6 Part I—The Modern Advocacy Task Force: Genesis, Mandate and Objectives 7 I.1 The Advocates’ Society 7 I.2 The Genesis and Raison D’être of the Modern Advocacy Task Force 7 I.3 The Mandate and Organization of the Modern Advocacy Task Force 8 I.4 The Modern Advocacy Symposium 8 I.5 The Structure of this Report 9 I.6 A Broader Call to Action 9 Part II—The Origins of Oral Advocacy 9 II.1 The Foundations of Oral Advocacy in History and Jurisprudence 9 Overview 9 Discussion 10 Conclusion 16 II.2 Indigenous Perspectives and Oral Traditions 16 Overview 16 Discussion 16 Conclusion 20 Part III—Learning from the Past, Moving to the Future 20 III.1 Learning and Persuasion: An Examination of Other Disciplines and the Legal Experience 20 Overview 20 Discussion 20 Conclusion 24 III.2 Modes of Hearing in Canada and Beyond 24 Overview 24 Discussion 25 Conclusion 29 III.3 Perspectives from Canadian Justice System Stakeholders 29 Overview 29 Objectives 29 Methodology 30 Results of Stakeholder Consultations 31 Conclusion 42 Part IV—The Way Forward: Key Observations and Task Force Recommendations 42 IV.1 The Work of the Task Force 42 IV.2 Key Observations and Principles Informing the Task Force’s Recommendations 42 IV.3 Recommendations: Model Framework for Determining the Mode of Hearing 45 IV.4 Recommendations Regarding Further Action 46 Endnotes 47 Appendix A 59 The Right to be Heard: The Future of Advocacy in Canada | Page 2 Foreword from Guy J. Pratte, President of The Advocates’ Society For most litigants, involvement in the justice system will be a rare and important, if not seminal, event in their lives. It will often culminate in a hearing held at a courthouse. Until very recently, such hearings have almost universally taken place in an actual courtroom where real people (judge, lawyers, litigants, witnesses) gathered together. Whether the courthouse was as impres- sive as the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, or a more modest building in a small town, that courthouse held a certain aura. The delivery of justice in the physical spaces designed for that purpose has always represented our collective effort to capture and reflect the importance of open and transparent justice in a civil society. We could have devised an entirely different system, as some contend we should. Indeed, we could dispense justice in many (if not most) cases by proceedings conducted entirely in writing. This, some believe, would be much more efficient. But even if we were to accept that exclusive reliance on a written process results in equally sound judicial decision-making (a proposition at odds with the limited research and the experience of many judges), such reliance would in any event miss a critical dimension of achieving justice aptly captured in the well-known adage, “justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done”. Indeed, experience teaches that nothing renders an unfavourable decision more acceptable to the losing party than her having been in the courtroom with the judge, able to see and hear that the judge kept an open mind and understood her case thoroughly. That human experience can simply not be duplicated or replaced by exclusive reliance on written advocacy. With the onset of the COVID pandemic, the tradition of oral advocacy conducted in the pres- ence of all participants in the same physical place was upended and often displaced by video technology. The use of this technology to conduct hearings outside of physical courtrooms has allowed judges, litigants, lawyers and the public to “gather” virtually. For some, these new platforms have demonstrated that the old ways of dispensing justice in stuffy courtrooms were not only antiquated, but an impediment to access to justice that should be relegated to the trash heap. There is no denying that the availability of new video technology essentially “saved the justice system” during the pandemic: it allowed for the delivery of justice at a time when health and safety exigencies required alternate means of conducting court proceedings, and did so with relative ease, unthinkable just a few years ago. Its undeniable advantages have led many – judges, litigants and counsel – to support its permanent use, at least for routine and admin- istrative matters and for substantive matters where practical impediments hinder in-person participation. This recent experience, forced upon us by the pandemic, affords us a great oppor- tunity to consider the scope of the permanent use of video technology to improve access to and the administration of justice. As we consider these new possibilities, we should not, in my view, equate virtual reality with reality. It is not. For judges and lawyers who regularly (if not daily) spend their lives in court- houses, the courtroom environment may have become second nature. But that is not so for most litigants and witnesses or even some advocates. The delivery of justice – or at least the good faith effort to do so – is a most profound, important and human endeavour which requires solemnity, transparency, visibility and communication between all individuals involved in the process. To repeat: justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. “Seeing” on video when there is effectively no safe alternative has been a reasonable facsimile, but it is a facsimile. Indeed, in other areas of our lives, the availability of virtual platforms, while undoubtedly The Right to be Heard: The Future of Advocacy in Canada | Page 3 helpful during this pandemic, has served to underscore the critical importance of in-person interaction. In this time of crisis, we have conducted parliamentary activity, primary and sec- ondary school education, religious services, and family gatherings – to give a few examples – remotely. Yet few would say that this remote way of conducting activities of such importance to our civic, community, and personal lives is the “right” way to proceed when we are not in a worldwide pandemic. I, for one, will not choose to have “FaceTime dinners” with friends or family when social distancing measures are lifted and it is again possible to have actual in-person get-togethers. The Report of the Modern Advocacy Task Force readily recognizes the very significant con- tribution that video technology can make to improving the administration of justice, and rec- ommends its permanent use for many matters. The Report also seeks to remind us all that the seeking of justice is, after all, a human endeavour, where the crucible of the actual courtroom allows all to know, hear, and see that we are together involved in that enterprise. Conducting justice in the same room; being able to observe and listen to the judge in the same room; having the witnesses confronting the court and the parties in the same room – few activities are more important to the cohesion of civil society than the meting out of justice by an independent judiciary in a truly public and common setting. In my view, we should think long and hard about its wholesale replacement by reasonable facsimile, except where circumstances genu- inely and reasonably justify it. I hope that, as we seek to learn from the recent pandemic experience, we do not forget entirely the reasons why in-person hearings and oral advocacy have always played such a prominent role in the administration of justice in Canada. Improvements to the justice system made possible by modern technology can and should be made, as the recommendations made in this Report clearly attest. But these changes should not be mistaken as a panacea for the grave challenges of access to justice, nor as an adequate replacement for in-person justice in all, or even most, cases. In-person oral advocacy consecrates the gravity, importance and solemnity with which the administration of justice is ideally imbued. Of course, ideals are just that: they cannot always be realized, and we must bend to the imperatives of pragmatism when the ideal becomes an enemy of the good. But we should never lose sight of the ideal – lest, having lost our beacon, we lose our way altogether. Acknowledgments Since its founding some sixty years ago, The Advocates’ Society has been dedicated to pro- tecting and promoting the right of Canadians to be heard through robust and effective advocacy. Nearly a year in the making, this Report faithfully reflects that commitment. I hope that it will serve as a valuable resource to all those concerned with modernizing our justice system and making it more accessible, without compromising the fundamental values that have informed its legacy. On behalf of our Board of Directors and members of The Advocates’ Society, I would like to acknowledge and express my sincere gratitude to all those who contributed so much of their time, energy and talent to this Report. We especially thank the members of our Modern Advo- cacy Task Force and Modern Advocacy Advisory Group. Guy J. Pratte, Ad. E., LSM President, The Advocates’ Society The Right to be Heard: The Future of Advocacy in Canada | Page 4 Members of the Modern Advocacy Task Force Peter J. Osborne, Lenczner Slaght, Chair Lillian Ying Pan, Q.C., Dentons Canada LLP, Co-Chair, Scott C. Hutchison, Henein Hutchison LLP, Vice-Chair Stakeholder Consultation Sub-Committee Katherine L. Kay, Stikeman Elliott LLP, Vice-Chair Frédéric Plamondon, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt S.E.N.C.R.L./s.r.l. Brian K.

Load more