DOCSLIB.ORG

Thesis Submitted in Conformity with the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Laws (LL.M) Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thesis Submitted in Conformity with the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Laws (LL.M) Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto “The Life of a Reserve”: How Might We Improve the Structure, Content, Accessibility, Length & Timeliness of Judicial Decisions? by Jon Khan A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws (LL.M) Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Jon Khan (2019) “The Life of a Reserve”: How Might We Improve the Structure, Content, Accessibility, Length & Timeliness of Judicial Decisions? Jon Khan Masters of Law Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2019 Abstract This thesis explains how judicial decisions may impact access to justice and how might we make decisions a better source of data while also making them more timely, concise, accessible, and consistent. It examines the historical and theoretical underpinnings of Canadian decisions and the relationship of decision-writing to decision-making. It then discusses the results of an original empirical study of the evolution of British Columbia trial decisions over the last forty years and a survey of Canadian courts. It argues that the current process for writing and issuing Canadian judicial decisions likely does not further the goals of access to justice and may even hinder them. To improve access to justice, it suggests that governments, academics, and judiciaries should rely on human-centered design to design standardized structures and templates for decisions, and it provides a design plan for such reforms and examines the ways judicial independence may impact such reforms. ii Acknowledgments To my advisor—Professor Andrew Green—I would have been rudderless without your direction. Thank you for motivating me to continually think about why judges do what they do and to persistently explore my intuitions about the law and what data can reveal. To my professors who motivated me to think differently about the law and the people who interact with Canada’s legal system—Professors Gillian Hadfield and Dan Ryan—thank you for believing in me and challenging me. You greatly inspire me. To my former professors who wrote reference letters whenever I asked—Professors John Currie, Anthony Daimsis, Joseph Rikhof & Penelope Simons—thank you for your time and support. I cherish all the opportunities you have given me. To my future PhD supervisor—Professor Sean Rehaag—thank you for helping me streamline one step of my data collection and for your support in the PhD application process. I look forward to working together in the future. To my great and patient friend—Jonathan Kroening—thank you for your perspicacity. You truly helped me understand my data and drastically improved my vision. You have a great ability to help people improve themselves and their work. To my close friends who are always willing to read my work and to talk about the law—Tom Posyniak, Lars Brusven & Steven Davis—much of my success this year is because of your help and curiosity. To my fan number one—Nicole Gilewicz—you are my home. Your mind and heart are bigger than any obstacle I could ever face. Thank you for always reading and improving my work; listening to me drone on; and challenging me to remain curious and without silos. I would not be here without you. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vi List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Part I: A brief history of the common law decision and the relationship of decision-writing to decision-making ........................................................................................................................ 4 i. A brief history: accurate, published, written, reasoned decisions and stare decisis were developed as tools to legitimize the judiciary’s role in the UK legal system ..................................... 4 (a) Pre-1750s: accurate, published, written decisions were not a creature of this period ................................ 6 (b) 1750s-1960s: The genesis of the accurate, published, written, reasoned decision ..................................... 7 ii. Another brief history: the requirement to issue reasoned decisions—in certain contexts—is a recent Canadian phenomenon .......................................................................................................... 10 iii. The relationship of decision-writing to decision-making: the key task of “judging” is deciding issues—not writing decisions ................................................................................................ 16 (a) Decisions in the model: decision-writing is a check on decision-making ................................................ 22 (b) Judges as good workers: identifying with the mission ............................................................................. 23 Part II: The evolution of the length, structure, and delivery time of British Columbia trial decisions ....................................................................................................................................... 29 i. Design of the empirical study and explanation of methodology .............................................. 32 ii. Summary of descriptive and predictive analysis ....................................................................... 38 (a) Descriptive conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 38 (b) Predictive conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 45 1. Word count ................................................................................................................................................ 46 2. Delivery time ............................................................................................................................................ 46 iii. Word count, delivery time, and judges’ workload: granular results ...................................... 47 (a) Word count ................................................................................................................................................ 48 (b) Delivery time ............................................................................................................................................. 50 (c) Judges’ workload ...................................................................................................................................... 52 iv. Limitations and suggestions for further research ..................................................................... 54 v. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 54 Part III: How Canadian courts currently approach the structure, style, and timeliness of decisions ....................................................................................................................................... 57 i. Survey design ................................................................................................................................ 58 ii. Participation ................................................................................................................................. 59 (a) Non-participating courts ........................................................................................................................... 60 (b) Participating courts ................................................................................................................................... 61 iii. Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 62 iv Part IV: How human-centered design could improve judicial decisions’ structure, length, accessibility, content, and timeliness ......................................................................................... 64 i. The background of human-centered design and its use in the legal system ........................... 64 ii. Phase I: develop empathy about how judges write decisions and how people consume them 70 (a) How judges write decisions: the understudied craft of writing decisions ................................................. 71 (b) How people consume decisions: the understudied experience of consuming decisions .......................... 73 iii. Phase II: define the problems of judges and other users .......................................................... 75 (a) Problem one: how might we help judges issues shorter and more timely decisions? ............................... 77 (b) Problem two: how might we help judges write more digestible decisions? ............................................. 78 (c) Problem three: how might we help judges use decision-writing to improve decision-making? .............. 81 iv. Phase III: brainstorm and build ideas—aka “ideation”—for improving decisions’ structure and content
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Canadian Taxpayer Vol41 No10-1Stproof 1..8
    Editor: Arthur B.C. Drache, C.M., Q.C. Pages 73-80 May 17, 2019 Vol. xli No. 10 Minister come to the Island during the election would be P.E.I. Election Produces Minority ªcounter-productiveº. Government ThesurgeoftheGreenswasnosurpriseaspollsformonths had suggested that they were running ahead of the two For the first time since the 19th century, voters in Prince traditional parties and might actually form the govern- Edward Island have abandoned their traditional embrace ment. In the event, the Conservatives finished with 37 of the Island's two-party system, electing a Tory minority percent of the popular vote, followed by the Greens at 31 government and handing the upstart Green Party official and the Liberals at 29. The NDP received just 3 percent. opposition status for the first time. Voter turnout was 77 percent, a five-point drop from the With all polls reporting the Tories had won 12 seats, the 2015 election. Greens held eight, and the incumbent Liberals, led by The election campaign was in stark contrast to that in Premier Wade MacLauchlan, had won six. But MacLau- Alberta. Civility was the rule of the day and even in the chlan lost his own seat. He subsequently announced his leaders' debate, there was more consensus on issues than resignation as head of the party. real debate. The Liberals were seeking a fourth term in office, having Premier-designate Dennis King now faces a task that has repeatedly reminded Islanders that the province's econ- never before been faced by a P.E.I. premier. He needs to omy remains the strongest in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenge & Change
    Canada’s Justice Development Goals: 2020 challenge & change change challenge & This report was prepared by CALIBRATE. Design by Francesca Oprandi calibratesolutions.ca fraoprandi.com The JDGs JDG 1 P. 11 JDG 2 P. 15 JDG 3 P. 20 Address everyday Meet Make courts legal problems legal needs work better 1.1 Educate early 2.1 Focus on legal needs for 3.1 Ensure access to courts 1.2 Prevent everyone 3.2 Promote multi service centres 2.2 1.3 Offer a continuum of services Encourage innovation 3.3 Help people who are 2.3 1.4 Reflect Canadian society Expand scope of legal aid representing themselves 2.4 Focus on access to justice 3.4 Manage cases effectively 3.5 Be accessible and user-focused 3.6 Protect judicial independence JDG 4 P. 23 JDG 5 P. 27 JDG 6 P. 30 Improve Work Build family justice together capability 4.1 Offer a broad range of services 5.1 Establish coordinated efforts 6.1 Educate law students and 4.2 Promote consensual resolution 5.2 Include everyone legal professionals 6.2 4.3 Innovate 5.3 Be bold; Take action Expand justice education in schools 4.4 Restructure family courts 5.4 Work within institutions 5.5 Coordinate across Canada JDG 7 P. 33 JDG 8 P. 36 JDG 9 P. 42 Analyze Improve funding Innovate and learn strategies 7.1 Keep track of what is working 8.1 Develop metrics 9.1 Coordinate to spend 7.2 Share good ideas 8.2 Work with researchers in money well all fields 9.2 Better fund legal aid 9.3 Make sure the money lasts A Message from the Chair 2020 was an extraordinary year.
    [Show full text]
  • Job Description
    GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT JOB DESCRIPTION 1. IDENTIFICATION Position No. Job Title Supervisor’s Position 05-NEW Executive Legal Officer, Court Director of Court Services, Nunavut Court of Administration – Nunavut Court of Justice Justice (05-09972) Department Division/Region Community Location Justice Court Services Iqaluit Nunavut Justice Centre Fin. Code: 05660-01-1-111-0545000-01-???? 2. PURPOSE Main reason why the position exists, within what context and what the overall end result is. The Nunavut Court of Justice (NCJ) is a unified trial court administering justice to the Nunavut territory. The NCJ has a current complement of five resident puisne judges, one Senior Judge and approximately 90 deputy judges recruited from other jurisdictions. The NCJ is a superior court with all the powers and legal responsibilities of both a superior court and a provincial or territorial court. The NCJ has a plenary trial jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters and serves as an Appeal Court for matters originating in the Justice of the Peace Court. The NCJ Court registry also serves as a registry for the Nunavut Court of Appeal and is a receiving agent for the Federal Court of Canada. The court operates on a court circuit model and regularly sits in 25 communities across the Territory. The Executive Legal Officer, Court Administration (“ELOCA”), reports to the Director of Court Services (“Director”). In addition to the tasks and responsibilities assigned by the Director, the ELOCA works in tandem with the Executive Legal Officer, Office of the Senior Judge, to carry out assignments and responsibilities tasked by the Senior Judge and as such, from time to time, is supervised by and receives direction from the Senior Judge.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Tax Journal, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2008
    canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2008) vol. 56, no 3, 661 - 707 The Dividing Line Between the Jurisdictions of the Tax Court of Canada and Other Superior Courts David Jacyk* P r é c i s Le droit fiscal est sans aucun doute l’une des branches du droit les plus exigeantes et les plus complexes au Canada. On pourrait penser qu’en matière de droit fiscal, la question de la juridiction des tribunaux se pose très simplement en ces termes : quel tribunal peut statuer sur les affaires qui concernent l’administration de la législation fiscale? Pourtant, cette question à elle seule a fait l’objet d’un grand nombre de litiges depuis des décennies, devant différents tribunaux de première instance et d’appel partout au Canada, ce qui montre bien la complexité de la question de la compétence des tribunaux dans un état fédéral, et ce, même dans un domaine de droit comme la fiscalité qui est pourtant bien circonscrit. L’abondance de jurisprudence sur la question de la juridiction est particulièrement importante depuis quelques années, et elle comporte plusieurs décisions des cours d’appel qui ont contribué à éclaircir davantage cette question. Ce nouvel éclairage a donné lieu à des développements très appréciés. En reconstituant l’évolution du droit dans ce domaine, le présent article brosse un portrait détaillé et complet du droit et propose une analyse qui s’appuie sur les étapes suivantes : n l’examen de la structure des tribunaux fédéraux et en fiscalité; n la reconstitution de l’évolution de la jurisprudence aussi bien avant qu’après la réorganisation au fédéral du réseau des cours d’appel en fiscalité de 1991; n la prise en compte des décisions des tribunaux provinciaux qui se sont penchés sur cette question de façon indépendante du réseau des tribunaux fédéraux; n la prise en compte de l’ensemble des décisions en matière de rectification, un domaine qui a donné lieu à mon avis à des anomalies, mais des résultats tout de même gérables et prévisibles; * Of the Department of Justice, Ottawa.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019 | Court of Appeal for British Columbia I | Page
    ANNUAL REPORT Court of Appeal for British Columbia 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 MESSAGE FROM CHIEF JUSTICE BAUMAN 03 REGISTRAR’S REPORT 07 STATISTICS 22 PLANNING, PRIORITIES, AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMITTEE 28 RULES AND PRACTICE COMMITTEE 31 TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 35 EDUCATION COMMITTEE 37 JOINT COURTS TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 38 JUDICIAL ACCESS COMMITTEE 40 LAW CLERK COMMITTEE 41 LIBRARY COMMITTEE 42 MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL 45 CHANGES TO THE COURT’S COMPLEMENT 53 STAFF OF THE COURT OF APPEAL 56 APPENDIX 1 - CIVIL STATISTICS 2007 – 2019 57 APPENDIX 2 - CRIMINAL STATISTICS 2007 – 2019 58 APPENDIX 3 - COMBINED STATISTICS 2007 – 2019 Annual Report 2019 | Court of Appeal for British Columbia i | Page MESSAGE FROM CHIEF JUSTICE BAUMAN The only constant in life is change, but courts are steeped in tradition. What is the value of ceremony, solemnity, advocacy, and independence when the legal problems British Columbians face are increasingly complex and the cost of legal services is already out of reach for many? Does tradition simply serve as an unhelpful anchor, preventing the court from navigating the seas of change? My answer is no. Rather than weighing the court down, these guiding principles, judicial independence being first among them, promote institutional resilience and allow the court to adapt to changing circumstances. At this point in our history, courts are grappling with questions of policy related to changes in social In a free and norms, new technology, demands for data transparency, and threats to privacy. Do courts need to democratic society, the respond to these changing conditions? Absolutely. In fact, courts and the advocates who work in them tradition of judicial must take a leadership role in mapping the way forward.
    [Show full text]
  • Nunavut Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal Rules
    Nunavut Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal Rules Approved by the Court of Appeal XX DRAFT NUCA #3 Starts at rule # Division 1: Interpretation and Application 1 What this part applies to 1 Definitions 2 Application of civil appeal rules 3 Division 2: Starting an Appeal 4 Permission to appeal 4 Self-represented appellants 5 How to start an appeal 6 Service of the application for permission to appeal or notice of appeal 7 Method of service 8 Variation of a sentence 9 Appeals of conviction and sentence 10 Division 3: Appeal Documents 11 Preparation of Appeal Record 11 Contents of Appeal Record – conviction appeals 12 Contents of Appeal Record – sentence appeals 13 Format of Appeal Record 14 Factums in criminal appeals 15 Contents of factums 16 Format of factums 17 Other appeal documents 18 Division 4: Scheduling Oral Argument 19 Scheduling oral argument 19 Speaking to the List 20 Adjournments 21 Division 5: Applications 22 Bringing Applications 22 Application for permission to appeal 23 Judicial interim release 24 Application to admit new evidence 25 Application to reconsider a previous decision 26 Application to restore 27 Summary determination of appeals 28 Division 6: General Rules 29 Presence at appeals 29 Duties of counsel 30 Abandonment of appeals 31 Restoring criminal appeals 32 New trials 33 Scope of sentence appeals 34 Judgment in appeals 35 Requirements for all documents 36 Forms 37 Coming into force 38 Forms CRA-A to CRA-K Nunavut Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal Rules These Rules are made by the Court of Appeal under section 482 of the Criminal Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Court File Number: 37878 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL of MANITOBA) B E T W E E N: NORTHERN
    Court File Number: 37878 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA) B E T W E E N: NORTHERN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY Appellant (Respondent) - and - LINDA HORROCKS and MANITOBA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Respondents (Appellants) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA COUNCIL OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL TO EMPLOYERS, CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, DON VALLEY COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, and THE EMPOWERMENT COUNCIL Interveners FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT, LINDA HORROCKS (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) Paul Champ / Bijon Roy Champ & Associates Equity Chambers 43 Florence Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0W6 T: 613-237-4740 F: 613-232-2680 E: [email protected] [email protected] Solicitors for the Respondent TO: The Registrar Supreme Court of Canada 301 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0J1 AND TO: Pitblado LLP Supreme Advocacy LLP 2500-360 Main Street 100-340 Gilmour Street Winnipeg, MB R3C 4H6 Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Per: William S. Gardner, QC Per: Marie-France Major Robert A. Watchman Todd C. Andres T: 204-956-0560 T: 613-695-8855 F: 204-957-0227 F: 613-695-8580 E: [email protected] E: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Solicitors for the Appellant Agent for the Appellant Manitoba Human Rights Commission Gowling WLG 700-175 Hargrave Street 2600-160 Elgin Street Winnipeg, MB R3C 3R8 Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3 Per: Sandra Gaballa Per: D. Lynne Watt Heather Unger T: 204-945-6814 T: 613-786-8695 F: 204-945-1292 F: 613-788-3509 E: [email protected] E: [email protected] [email protected] MLT Aikins LLP 30-360 Main Street Winnipeg, MB R3C 4G1 Per: Thor J.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles and Practice of Legal, Ethical and Professional Responsibility
    Principles and Practice of Legal, Ethical and Professional Responsibility [2016] DAVID C. DAY, Q.C. Lewis, Day St. John’s, NL EXPLANATORY NOTES [1] Each entry in the Detailed Table Of Contents of this annotated anthology—of principles and practices of legal, ethical and professional responsibility—is hyperlinked to the text of that entry included in the anthology. An annotation to the text of an entry, included in the anthology, is identified by “Editor’s Note”. [2] The text of each entry included in the anthology is, in turn—with few exceptions—hyper- linked, by the designation [Full Text], to the full document from which each text was excerpted. In some instances, the full document has been reproduced in the anthology. PROGRAM PRESENTATION Presenting at the 2016 National Family Law Program, based on this anthology, will be Trudi L. Brown, Q.C., Victoria Barrister and Life Bencher of the Law Society of British Columbia, and David C. Day, Q.C., St. John’s Barrister and Master of Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court. ACKNOWLEGEMENT Gratefully acknowledged, for transcribing, formatting, and hyperlinking of this annotated anthology; verifying the currency of all judicial decisions, and producing both appendices to Part 1.0 – INTRODUCTION, is Kelly A. Hall, the senior legal assistant of the anthology author and editor for 19 years. David C. Day, Q.C. 01 June 2016 PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF LEGAL, ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY [2016] ______________________________________________________________________________ DAVID C. DAY, Q.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome Once Again to the Polar Barrister!
    THE POLAR BARRISTER Winter 2013 Newsletter Welcome once again to the Polar Barrister! The Executive and staff of the Law Society of Nunavut are pleased to announce the return of The Polar Barrister. Through this newsletter we hope to provide regular updates from the Law Society, the Judiciary, the Law Foundation, the Nunavut Branch of the CBA and our members. We welcome news and submissions from the members! EXECUTIVE (2012-2013): President - Arthur Yuan, Iqaluit Vice President - Stephen Mansell, Iqaluit Secretary - Mark Mossey, Iqaluit Treasurer - Clare Henderson, Cambridge Bay ADMINISTRATION: Chief Executive Officer - Nalini Vaddapalli Administrator – Sandra Stekel Administrator – Gloria Putumiraqtuq Law Student – Stephanie Gauvreau Law Student – Anthony Mattila In this Edition : . Updates from the Executive . 2012 Holiday gathering pictures – Iqaluit & Rankin Inlet . Standing Column from the Nunavut Court of Justice – Meet the Judges’ Chambers Staff . New Professional Development Requirements . Standing Committees Report – Membership & Admissions Committee . Nunavut Law Foundation – Recent Initiatives . Nunavut Lawyers Assistance Program (NuLAP) – New Partnership with ASSIST . CBA NU Branch – AGM, New Executive and Justice Cromwell’s visit . Practice directive no 45 & 2013 Membership Cards . Notice to the Profession – Representation of Residential Schools Survivors . News from the Nunavut Court Library . First Air Corporate Rebate Updates from the Executive The 2012 -2013 Executive established a list of Priorities for the short and long terms that includes, for example, establishing an Inuktitut Telephone Hotline, establishing a Continuing Professional Development Policy, establishing an Investment Policy and Reserve Fund Policy, making progress on the Access to Justice issue, developing an employee benefits policy and a policy manual and developing bar exams for Nunavut.
    [Show full text]
  • Citation: R. V. Lange, 2015 YKTC 43 Date: 20151127 Docket: 14-00138 Registry: Whitehorse
    Citation: R. v. Lange, 2015 YKTC 43 Date: 20151127 Docket: 14-00138 Registry: Whitehorse IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF YUKON Before His Honour Judge Luther REGINA v. MARK LEWIS LANGE Appearances: Noel Sinclair Counsel for the Crown Gordon R. Coffin* Counsel for the Defence REASONS FOR JUDGMENT [1] LUTHER T.C.J. (Oral): This case is not about the system failing Mark Lange; rather, it is about how Mark Lange failed himself. [2] The Crown has fulfilled all the statutory requirements to proceed with the dangerous offender application. Volumes have already been written about this offender by psychiatrists, psychologists, other health professionals, probation officers, corrections personnel, teachers, social workers, and others. We have the benefit of an excellent Gladue report from Mr. Mark Stevens. *Mr. Coffin was counsel of record throughout the proceedings but was discharged by Mr. Lange on the day of judgment. At the request of the Court, Mr. Coffin graciously remained as the judgment was read. R. v. Lange, 2015 YKTC 43 Page 2 [3] From pages three to five of that report, Mark Stevens talks about the early upbringing of Mr. Lange in some considerable detail. Life Circumstances Mark Lewis Lange was born on 3 September 1975 at the Whitehorse General Hospital. His mother is M.H. Both Mark and his mother are citizens of the Na-Cho Nyack Dun First Nation in Mayo. Mark has no idea who his father is, and his mother either won’t tell him or doesn’t know. “Me and my mother, we don’t talk—we don’t even like each other,” says Mark.
    [Show full text]
  • COURT of APPEAL of YUKON Citation: the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun V
    COURT OF APPEAL OF YUKON Citation: The First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun v. Yukon, 2015 YKCA 18 Date: 20151104 Docket: 14-YU752 Between: The First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, The Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, Yukon Chapter- Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Yukon Conservation Society, Gill Cracknell, Karen Baltgailis, The Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Respondents (Plaintiffs) And Government of Yukon Appellant (Defendant) And The Gwich’in Tribal Council Intervenor Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman The Honourable Madam Justice Smith The Honourable Mr. Justice Goepel On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of Yukon, dated December 2, 2014 (The First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun v. Yukon (Government of), 2014 YKSC 69, Whitehorse Docket 13-A0142). Counsel for the Appellant: J.B. Laskin, J. Terry, J. Roth, M. Radke Counsel for the Respondents: T.R. Berger, Q.C., M.D. Rosling, C.P.S. Riley Counsel for the Intervenor: J. Langlois Place and Date of Hearing: Whitehorse, Yukon August 20, 21, 2015 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia November 4, 2015 Written Reasons by: The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman Concurred in by: The Honourable Madam Justice Smith The Honourable Mr. Justice Goepel The First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun v. Yukon Page 2 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 4 II. FACTS ............................................................................................................ 4 Umbrella Final Agreement .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of British Columbia
    ` Annual Report 2019 Supreme Court of British Columbia www.bccourts.ca TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE .......................... 1 JURISDICTION OF THE COURT ....................................................................... 13 CHANGES TO THE COURT’S COMPLEMENT ...................................................... 16 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE .............................................................................. 24 CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE .............................................................................. 25 CRIMINAL LAW COMMITTEE ........................................................................ 26 EDUCATION COMMITTEE ............................................................................ 28 FAMILY LAW COMMITTEE ........................................................................... 30 JOINT COURTS TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE ....................................................... 32 JUDICIAL ACCESS POLICY WORKING COMMITTEE .............................................. 33 LAW CLERKS COMMITTEE ........................................................................... 35 LIBRARY COMMITTEE ................................................................................. 37 PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ....................................................................... 38 JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT .................................................................. 40 MASTERS OF THE SUPREME COURT ............................................................... 49 REGISTRARS
    [Show full text]