DOCSLIB.ORG

Value for Money Assessment St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Value for Money Assessment St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse Value for Money Assessment St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse MAKING PROJECTS HAPPEN: ST. THOMAS CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE - PAGE 1 - MAKING PROJECTS HAPPEN: ST. THOMAS CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE - PAGE 1 - MAKING PROJECTS HAPPEN: ST. THOMAS CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE - PAGE 2 - MAKING PROJECTS HAPPEN: ST. THOMAS CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE - PAGE 3 - MAKING PROJECTS HAPPEN: ST. THOMAS CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE - PAGE 4 - Architectural rendering of the St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse Courtesy of Integrated Team Solutions Highlights of the St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse Courthouse Features The St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse will be a new multi-storey building including: eight courtrooms and three conference/settlement rooms; barrier-free design including providing barrier-free public access to courtrooms, infrared hearing assistance and barrier-free witness stands, jury boxes and spectator positions in courtrooms to ensure equal participation (except within the existing heritage courtroom where spectator positions are limited by the existing design); enhanced accommodation for interpretation including one jury room permanently equipped for simultaneous interpretation and two portable interpretation booths; extensive refurbishment of the Elgin County Courthouse and former Land Registry Office. Environmentally Sustainable A commitment to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Design (LEED) Silver standard, including: focus on energy efficiency; high quality indoor environment through building material selections; green housekeeping practices; MAKING PROJECTS HAPPEN: ST. THOMAS CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE - PAGE 5 - Table of contents Summary ............................................................................................................................. 7 Project description ............................................................................................................ 9 Competitive selection process timeline ...................................................................... 10 Project agreement ......................................................................................................... 11 Achieving value for money ........................................................................................... 14 © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011 MAKING PROJECTS HAPPEN: ST. THOMAS CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE - PAGE 6 - Summary The St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse supports value for money was achieved by delivering the the Province of Ontario’s long-term infrastructure St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse project plan to repair, rebuild and renew the province’s through the AFP process. roads and highways, bridges, public transit, schools and post secondary institutions, hospitals and The value for money analysis refers to the process of courthouses in communities across Ontario. developing and comparing the total project costs under two different delivery models expressed in Over the last six years, the Province has averaged dollar values measured at the same point in time. $10 billion in infrastructure investments per year. Value for money is determined by directly In June 2011, the Province launched its new long- comparing the cost estimates for the following two term infrastructure plan – Building Together. delivery models: The Province expects to continue significant Model #1 Model #2 investments in public infrastructure and will begin by Traditional project delivery Alternative financing and investing more than $35 billion over the next three (Public sector comparator) procurement Total project costs that Total project costs incurred years. would have been incurred by the public sector to by the public sector to deliver the same Infrastructure Ontario plays a key role in procuring deliver an infrastructure infrastructure project with and delivering infrastructure projects on behalf of project under traditional identical specifications the Province. When Infrastructure Ontario was procurement processes. using the AFP approach. created, its mandate included using an alternative financing and procurement (AFP) method to deliver The cost difference between model #1 and model large, complex infrastructure projects. In June 2011, #2 is the estimated value for money for this project. the Province expanded Infrastructure Ontario’s role to deliver projects of various sizes, including ones suitable for an AFP delivery model, as well as other delivery models. The St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse is being delivered under the Province’s alternative financing and procurement (AFP) method. The courthouse will improve justice services in St. Thomas by consolidating the courts of the Superior Court of Justice and Ontario Court of The value for money assessment of the St. Thomas Justice, which currently operate in separate Consolidated Courthouse project indicates locations. The new courthouse, which will be built estimated cost savings of 10.1 per cent or on the site of the existing Elgin County Courthouse, $27.1 million, by using the AFP approach in will have space to accommodate eight courtrooms comparison to traditional delivery. and three conference/settlement rooms. The historic courthouse and the former Land Registry KPMG LLP completed the value for money Office will be extensively refurbished and assessment of the St. Thomas Consolidated incorporated into the new facility. Courthouse project. Their assessment demonstrates projected cost savings of 10.1 per cent by The purpose of this report is to provide a summary delivering the project using the AFP model, versus of the project scope, the procurement process and what it would have cost to deliver the project using the project agreement, and to demonstrate how a traditional delivery model. MAKING PROJECTS HAPPEN: ST. THOMAS CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE - PAGE 7 - Knowles Consultancy Services Inc. acted as the process. Knowles certified that these principles were Fairness Monitor during the procurement phase of maintained throughout the procurement process the project. They reviewed and monitored the (please see letter on page 3). communications, evaluations and decision-making processes associated with the St. Thomas Infrastructure Ontario will work with the Ministry of Consolidated Courthouse project procurement, the Attorney General to develop the new ensuring the fairness, equity, objectivity, courthouse, which will remain publicly owned, transparency and adequate documentation of the publicly controlled and publicly accountable. MAKING PROJECTS HAPPEN: ST. THOMAS CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE - PAGE 8 - Project description Background Ontario’s public infrastructure projects are guided Job Creation by the five principles set out in the provincial The project will provide a sizeable boost to the regional government’s Building a Better Tomorrow and Ontario economies during construction by directly Framework, which include: and indirectly supporting and creating hundreds of public interest is paramount; jobs. At the peak of construction, it is estimated that value for money must be demonstrable; 120 workers will be on site daily. appropriate public control and ownership must be preserved; Project Scope accountability must be maintained; and The St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse has been all processes must be fair, transparent and designed with environmentally responsible and efficient. sustainable features and will be certified under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Infrastructure Ontario has the task of delivering the (LEED) Green Building Rating System. The design St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse on time and includes a focus on energy efficiency, healthy on budget. The St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse indoor environments and reduced greenhouse gas will be delivered using an Alternative Financing and emissions. Procurement (AFP) delivery model - a public-private partnership model. AFP brings private-sector The new building will have the space to expertise, ingenuity and rigour to the process of accommodate 11 judicial rooms, comprised of managing and renewing Ontario’s public eight courtrooms and three conference settlement infrastructure while shifting risks associated with cost rooms. It will be designed with capacity for and schedule overruns away from the public expansion and internal flexibility to ensure maximum sector. usefulness throughout its lifetime. St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse The St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse features The new St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse will barrier-free design, including: be built on Wellington Street on the site of the barrier-free courtrooms; existing Elgin County Courthouse. The historic infrared hearing assistance; courthouse and the former Land Registry Office will barrier-free witness stand, jury box and spectator be extensively refurbished and incorporated into positions in all courtrooms (except within the the new facility. The new building will consolidate existing heritage courtroom where spectator St. Thomas’s two courts: the Superior Court of positions are limited by the existing design). Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice. The St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse project Consolidating court services into a single location will improve and expand courthouse facilities in will provide a modern, effective and accessible St. Thomas for all users by consolidating all justice courthouse for the community. It will also benefit services in one facility that is designed to provide a court users and the community by allowing for a healthy, productive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brief History of Architecture in N.C. Courthouses
    MONUMENTS TO DEMOCRACY Architecture Styles in North Carolina Courthouses By Ava Barlow The judicial system, as one of three branches of government, is one of the main foundations of democracy. North Carolina’s earliest courthouses, none of which survived, were simple, small, frame or log structures. Ancillary buildings, such as a jail, clerk’s offi ce, and sheriff’s offi ce were built around them. As our nation developed, however, leaders gave careful consideration to the structures that would house important institutions – how they were to be designed and built, what symbols were to be used, and what building materials were to be used. Over time, fashion and design trends have changed, but ideals have remained. To refl ect those ideals, certain styles, symbols, and motifs have appeared and reappeared in the architecture of our government buildings, especially courthouses. This article attempts to explain the history behind the making of these landmarks in communities around the state. Georgian Federal Greek Revival Victorian Neo-Classical Pre – Independence 1780s – 1820 1820s – 1860s 1870s – 1905 Revival 1880s – 1930 Colonial Revival Art Deco Modernist Eco-Sustainable 1930 - 1950 1920 – 1950 1950s – 2000 2000 – present he development of architectural styles in North Carolina leaders and merchants would seek to have their towns chosen as a courthouses and our nation’s public buildings in general county seat to increase the prosperity, commerce, and recognition, and Trefl ects the development of our culture and history. The trends would sometimes donate money or land to build the courthouse. in architecture refl ect trends in art and the statements those trends make about us as a people.
    [Show full text]
  • To Access Research Guide 206: How to Find a Will in Court Records
    Archives of Ontario Research Guide 206 How to Find Wills in Court Records Last Updated: July 2021 Courthouse, Kingston, 1923 F 1075-13, H710 M.O. Hammond photographic negatives 1 In this guide ................................................................................................................... 2 Where do I find these records? .................................................................................... 3 What do I need to get started? ..................................................................................... 3 The Records .................................................................................................................. 4 1. How do I find pre to 1793 estate records? ......................................................... 4 2. How do I find estate files or registers between 1793 and 1858? ........................ 4 3. How do I find estate files and registers between 1859 and 1976? ..................... 5 3.1 How do I find an estate file between 1859 and 1930? .................................... 5 3.2 How do I find an estate file between 1931 and 1976? .................................... 6 3.3 How do I find where the succession was processed? ..................................... 7 4. How do I find estate files and registers after 1976? ........................................... 7 Are there related records? ........................................................................................... 8 What are some of the key words in estate files and registers? ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Facilities Review Jury Chair Om the Chair the View Fr
    JFR JUSTICE FACILITIES13 REVIEW AIA JFRJUSTICE FACILITIES13 REVIEW The American Institute of Architects Academy of Architecture for Justice Washington, D.C. Copyright 2013 The American Institute of Architects All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America The project information in this book has been provided by the architecture firms represented in the book. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has no reason to believe the information is not accurate, but the AIA does not warrant, and assumes no liability for, the accuracy or completeness of the information. It is the responsibility of users to verify the information with the appropriate architecture firm or other source. The American Institute of Architects 1735 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 2013 Academy of Architecture for Justice Advisory Group Linda Bernauer, AIA Catherine Chan, AIA, chair Lorenzo M. Lopez, AIA Elizabeth Minnis, AIA, past chair Amy Ann Phillips, AIA AIA Staff Terri Stewart, CAE, managing director, Design and Practice Operations Douglas Paul, managing director, Practice and Knowledge Resources Kathleen Simpson, director, Knowledge Communities Elizabeth Stepahin, manager, Honors and Awards Virginia Ebbert, manager, Architect’s Knowledge Resource Design: designfarm Editor: Janet Rumbarger Cover photos, top to bottom: Rankin Inlet Healing Facility, Richard E. Arnason Justice Center, Waterloo Region Courthouse CONTENTS Jury Members ....................................................................................... iv Court Facilities
    [Show full text]
  • Guilford Courthouse National Military Park Cultural Landscape Report
    guco_front.ai Crop Marks are Black National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Guilford Courthouse National Military Park Greensboro, North Carolina Guilford Courthouse National Military Park Cultural Landscape Report Cultural Resources · Southeast Region Guilford Courthouse National Military Park Cultural Landscape Report Written by John Hiatt Under the direction of National Park Service Southeast Regional Office Cultural Resources Division 2003 The cultural landscape report presented here exists in two formats. A printed version is available for study at the park, the Southeastern Regional Office of the National Park Service, and at a variety of other repositories. For more widespread access, this cultural landscape report also exists in a web-based format through ParkNet, the website of the National Park Service. Please visit www.nps.gov for more information. Cultural Resources Southeast Region National Park Service 100 Alabama St. SW Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 562-3117 2003 Cultural Landscape Report Guilford Courthouse National Military Park Greensboro, North Carolina Guilford Courthouse National Military Park Cultural Landscape Report iv Cultural Landscape Report: Guilford Courthouse National Military Park Contents Figures vii Foreword ix Acknowledgments xi Introduction Management Summary 1 Historical Summary 2 Site Boundaries 3 Scope of Work and Methodology 3 Summary of Findings 4 Site History The Pre-Colonial Setting 7 The Genesis and Settlement of North Carolina, 1663-1770 10 Guilford, 1770-1777 12 The Battlefield Scene,
    [Show full text]
  • Guilford Courthouse: a Pivotal Battle in the War for Independence
    National Park Service Teaching with Historic Places U.S. Department of the Interior Guilford Courthouse: A Pivotal Battle in the War for Independence Guilford Courthouse: A Pivotal Battle in the War for Independence (Guilford Courthouse National Military Park) The morning of March 15, 1781, was clear and cold. A light frost had disappeared under the first rays of the sun, but the ground underfoot was soft and spongy from long winter rains and snows. In the damp woods of what had been an isolated farming community in the Piedmont on a major east-west road through North Carolina, some 4,400 American troops, in various uniforms and country clothes, waited for battle. This backwoods county seat of Guilford Courthouse, North Carolina, was the site of a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War’s decisive Southern Campaign. The engagement set the stage for the region’s liberation from enemy occupation and impelled British general Lord Charles Cornwallis to take the ill-fated road that led him to final defeat at Yorktown, Virginia, seven months later. Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, the nation’s first national park established at a Revolutionary War site, preserves the 220-acre heart of the 1781 battlefield. Among the 28 monuments raised on the battlefield is a memorial containing the graves of two of North National Park Service Teaching with Historic Places U.S. Department of the Interior Guilford Courthouse: A Pivotal Battle in the War for Independence Carolina’s signers of the Declaration of Independence, William Hooper and John Penn. Although Guilford Courthouse is 600 miles south of Philadelphia and Independence Hall, it is appropriate that this monument stands at the site of one of the most important battles of the Revolutionary War.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania U.S
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA U.S. COURTHOUSE 601 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 267.299.7299 www.paed.uscourts.gov Welcome to jury service in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Your participation in the jury system is vital to the American system of justice and is one of the most important privileges of being a U.S. citizen. The Court is grateful for your willingness to serve and trust that you will find your experience rewarding. Please read the following information carefully. However, if after reading them completely, you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 267.299.7299 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. JUROR INFORMATION: You have been summoned for a TWO DAY/1 TRIAL term of jury service. You are to report to the United States Courthouse at 601 Market Street in Philadelphia to Room 2710, the Jury Assembly Room, on the 2nd Floor, at 8:30 a.m. YOU M UST CALL THE JURY INFORMATION SYSTEM AFTER 5:00 P.M. AT 800.829.0189 THE DAY BEFORE YOU ARE TO REPORT FOR FINAL REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS OR CHANGES. YOU WILL NEED YOUR 9-DIGIT PARTICIPANT NUMBER, LOCATED ON YOUR SUMMONS TO THE RIGHT OF YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, TO ACCESS YOUR FINAL REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS. IF YOU ARE SUMMONED FOR A MONDAY, YOU CAN CALL THE JURY INFORMATION SYSTEM AFTER 5:00 P.M. ON FRIDAY. YOU CAN ALSO CALL THE JURY INFORMATION SYSTEM TO CHECK ON THE STATUS OF YOUR REQUEST FOR DEFERMENT OR EXCUSE.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Introduction. .ix The Virtual Courthouse: A Clear Trend … Except for the Human Factor . .xviii A Few Thoughts about Court Architecture. .xix Back to the Future: Renovated, Rehabilitated, Re-Programmed Projects . xx Federal CourTs Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse • Fresno, California . 2 Seattle Federal Courthouse • Seattle, Washington. 6 Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige, Jr., U.S. Courthouse • Richmond, Virginia. 10 United States Courthouse • Jacksonville, Florida. 12 United States Courthouse • Rockford, Illinois . 14 United States Courthouse • Laredo, Texas. 16 United States District Courthouse • Orlando, Florida. 20 United States District Courthouse • Alpine, Texas. 22 United States Federal Courthouse • Bakersfield, California . 24 United States Federal Courthouse • Davenport, Iowa. 26 Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse • St Paul, Minnesota . 28 Warren E. Burger United States Federal Courthouse — Interim Courthouse • St. Paul, Minnesota. 30 appellaTe CourTs Connecticut Appellate Courthouse • Hartford, Connecticut. 34 DC Court of Appeals • Washington, DC. 36 Harris County 1910 Courthouse • Houston, Texas. 38 John Adams Courthouse • Boston, Massachusetts. 40 New York State Court of Appeals • Albany, New York. 44 Ohio Judicial Center • Columbus, Ohio. 46 Old Post Office / Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District • St. Louis, Missouri. 48 Pennsylvania Judicial Center • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 50 Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Complex • Denver, Colorado . 52 General JurisdiCTion CourTs Brooklyn Supreme and Family Courthouse • Brooklyn, New York. 56 Berkeley County Judicial Center • Martinsburg, West Virginia . 60 Calaveras County Courthouse • Andreas, California . 62 Clark County Regional Justice Center • Las Vegas, Nevada. 64 Clay County Courthouse • Green Cove Springs, Florida. 68 Cumberland County Justice Center • Burkesville, Kentucky. 70 El Paso County Terry R.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Name of Property Historic Name Ottawa County Courthouse Other Names/Site Number 2. Location Street & Number 102 East Cent
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 10-90) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM 1. Name of Property historic name Ottawa County Courthouse other names/site number 2. Location street & number 102 East Central __________________ not for publication N/A city or town ___Miami ______________________________________ vicinity N/A state Oklahoma___________ code OK county Ottawa _______ code 115 zip code 74354 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Ottawa County Courthouse Ottawa County, Oklahoma Page 2 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination _____ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property .X meets _____ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant __ nationally __ statewide X locally. ( N/A See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of certifying official Date Oklahoma Historical Society/ SHPO State or Federal agency and bureau In my opinion, the property _____ meets ___ does not meet the National Register criteria. ( See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau 4. National Park Service Certification I, hereby certify that this property is entered in the National Register __ See continuation sheet, determined eligible for the National Register __ See continuation sheet, determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register other (explain): ____________ lignature of Keeper Date of Action USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Ottawa County Courthouse Ottawa County, Oklahoma Page 3 5.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 18 Judges; Appointed for Life Composed Of: Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the Virgin Islands
    United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 18 Judges; Appointed for Life Composed of: Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the Virgin Islands The Circuit Courts have their name because early in the nation’s history, the judges of the first courts of appeals visited each of the courts in one region in a particular sequence, traveling by horseback and riding “circuit.” These courts of appeals review matters from the district courts of their geographical regions in the U.S. and from certain federal administrative agencies. A disappointed party in a district court usually has the right to have the case reviewed in the court of appeals for the circuit. The judges who sit on the courts of appeals are appointed for life by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The judge who has served on the court the longest and who is under 65 years of age is designated as the chief judge, and performs administrative duties in addition to hearing cases. The chief judge serves for a maximum term of seven years. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals for • There is no docketing fee for a direct bankruptcy ap- the Third Circuit peal or a direct bankruptcy cross appeal, when the U.S. Courthouse fee has been collected by the bankruptcy court in 601 Market Street accordance with item 14 of the Bankruptcy Court Philadelphia, PA 19106-1790 Miscellaneous Fee Schedule. (215) 597-2995 • This fee is collected in addition to the statutory fee www.ca3.uscourts.gov of $5 that is collected under 28 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Second Circuit Court of Appeals Denied the New York City Police
    Case 20-2789, Document 444-1, 02/16/2021, 3036417, Page1 of 18 20-2789(L) Uniformed Fire Officers Association et al. v. de Blasio et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 16th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, 6 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION; 11 UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF 12 GREATER NEW YORK; POLICE BENEVOLENT 13 ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 14 INC., CORRECTION OFFICERS’ BENEVOLENT 15 ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 16 INC., SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, 17 LIEUTENANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, 18 CAPTAINS ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION, 19 DETECTIVES’ ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION, 20 21 Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 22 Case 20-2789, Document 444-1, 02/16/2021, 3036417, Page2 of 18 1 v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Multi-Door Courthouse Is Open in Alberta: Judicial Dispute Resolution Is Institutionalized in the Court of Queen's Bench
    University of Alberta THE MULTI-DOOR COURTHOUSE IS OPEN IN ALBERTA: JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION IS INSTITUTIONALIZED IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH by John Daniel Rooke A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws in Dispute Resolution Faculty of Law © John Daniel Rooke Spring 2010 Edmonton, Alberta Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Libraries to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research purposes only. Where the thesis is converted to, or otherwise made available in digital form, the University of Alberta will advise potential users of the thesis of these terms. Examining Committee Supervisor: Dr. Russell Brown, Faculty of Law Committee Member: Dr. Russell Brown, Faculty of Law Committee Member: Shannon K. O'Byrne, Faculty of Law Committee Member: Dr. Greg Anderson, Faculty of Political Science DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my spouse, Gayle Rooke, M.A. - especially for her tremendous assistance during the analysis phase on my empirical research and her outstanding patience during the trying time of writing the Evaluation Report (as discussed infra) and this thesis. ABSTRACT Based on the analysis of the empirical research data from a Survey Questionnaire completed by 374 lawyers and 197 clients who participated in 606 judicially conducted Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) sessions (JDR Program) in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (the Court) in the year ending June 2008, the author’s judicial experience, and legal literature research, it is asserted that the Court’s JDR Program has become an integral, normative, and institutional part of the resolution of disputes litigated in the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Courthouse Update Courthouse
    Courthouse Update Issue 5 | Winter 2018 New Toronto Courthouse Successful Proponent Announced On February 22, 2018, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of the In this Attorney General announced that EllisDon Infrastructure has been awarded the contract to design, build, finance and maintain the new issue: Toronto courthouse. Although there have been a number of exciting project milestones, this is the most exciting and significant so far. P. 2 The EllisDon Infrastructure team includes: Upcoming Milestones Developer: EllisDon Capital Inc. Constructor: EllisDon Design Build Inc. IO Project Page Design Team: Renzo Piano Building Workshop and NORR Limited Architectural Facilities Management: EllisDon Facilities Services Inc. and SNC Renderings Lavalin O&M P. 3 Financial Advisor: EllisDon Capital Inc. Introducing the NTC Design Team P. 4 Site Update Ask Us! Brought to you by Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of the Attorney General 2 New Toronto Courthouse Update | Winter 2018 Upcoming Milestones Mid-March 2018: Design development will resume April 2018: Groundbreaking event Spring 2018: Site activities will include setting up a site office, renewing the hoarding around the site, and preparing the site for construction Fall 2018: Construction start IO Project Page For ongoing, up-to-date information about the project, visit the NTC Architectural renderings courtesy of Renzo Piano Building Workshop 3 New Toronto Courthouse Update | Winter 2018 Introducing the NTC Design Team Renzo Piano Building Workshop (RPBW) Renzo Piano Building Workshop is an international architectural practice with offices in Paris, Genoa and New York. The studio is led by 11 partners, including its founder, the architect Renzo Piano, who won the Pritzker Prize in 1998.
    [Show full text]