Victory for Access to Justice as Supreme Court of Canada Upholds Certification Decision in 'Market Timing' Class Action

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzie Chiodo
2020 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 21-67
Author(s):  
Gerard J. Kennedy

Through a survey of 90 lawyers with litigation experience, the author sought to determine the effects of recent amendments to Ontario procedural law [2010 Amendments] and a leading Supreme Court of Canada case [Hryniak] interpreting those amendments. The results were mixed. Most respondents viewed Hryniak and the 2010 Amendments as, overall, positive. But this was hardly a unanimous view. While Hryniak has certainly had effects, most respondents viewed the effectiveness of Hryniak and the 2010 Amendments to be limited, as other factors have intervened or remained as access to justice obstacles. While there was some perception that a culture shift has begun to emerge, the extent of that culture shift has been restricted. The responses did not lack all hope, but they ultimately suggest that the battle for access to civil justice must continue to be waged on multiple fronts.


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Dana Phillips

In 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada issued itsdecision in Canada (AG) v Downtown EastsideSex Workers United Against Violence (SWUAV).1Th e case centered on whether or not thoseinvolved in protecting vulnerable sex workershave standing to challenge the criminalizationof prostitution-related activities on their behalf.SWUAV represents a signifi cant break with previousjurisprudence on standing: it saw the Courttransform its vision of public interest standing,viewing it for the fi rst time as an access to justiceissue.


2020 ◽  
pp. 111-121
Author(s):  
Geneviève Saumier

Arbitration is well established in Canada. All jurisdictions have implemented the 1958 New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Arbitration and equivalent legislation for domestic arbitration. This generally supportive legal landscape for arbitration is often at odds with access to justice for consumers. As a result, several jurisdictions in Canada have adopted legislation to guarantee consumers’ access to local courts, including through class actions, notwithstanding the inclusion of arbitration clauses in their contracts. The constitutional division of powers in Canada entitles each province to adopt its own policy, leading to diversity across the country with regard to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. In this paper, the author examines the tension between general support for arbitration and differentiated treatment of consumer arbitration in Canada. To that end, the author examines relevant legislation in several provinces (including Quebec and Ontario) as well as recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada (Dell Computer (2007), Telus (2011) and Wellman (2019)). The 2020 decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Uber may signal a new openness toward extending protection to other vulnerable contracting parties such as employees.


2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 929-947
Author(s):  
Emmanuelle Richez ◽  
Erin Crandall

AbstractThis article analyzes an important discretionary power of the Supreme Court of Canada, the ability to award costs. With the use of an original data set, we explore trends in costs awarding in public interest litigation at the Supreme Court from 1970 to 2012. Our findings suggest that, over time, the Court has tended to favour nongovernment parties over government parties where the former are less likely to pay costs when they lose and more likely to receive costs when they win. In these cases, costs orders were more likely to benefit public interest litigants, such as nongovernmental organizations, than individual litigants and businesses. Together, these findings suggest a sensitivity to access to justice concerns when making costs orders, though some may argue that this sensitivity by the Court does not extend far enough.


Author(s):  
Jean-Gabriel Castel

SummaryIn Canada Post Corp. v. Lépine, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the lower Québec courts’ refusal to recognize an Ontario judgment approving an out-of-court settlement of a class action that included Québec residents. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada did not extend to the non-resident plaintiff members of the class the jurisdictional test applicable to defendants. The decision was based on the lack of procedural fairness accorded to the non-residents. The Court also rejected a literal interpretation of Article 3164 of the Québec Civil Code, which requires that the foreign court must have had jurisdiction in accordance with Québec rules, including the doctrine of forum non-conveniens. To apply this doctrine is not compatible with inter-provincial and international comity as it defeats the liberal approach taken by the Civil Code with respect to the recognition of foreign judgments. This settles a long-lasting controversy. As a result of this decision, enhanced procedural fairness has become the best defence available to non-resident, non-attorning plaintiffs in inter-provincial and international class actions. Finally, the Court hoped that, in the spirit of mutual comity, the provincial legislatures would develop more effective methods for managing jurisdictional disputes involving national class actions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 275
Author(s):  
Dedi Putra

The implementation of court in Indonesia has not fulfilled as expected because any parties involving in court has a lack of capacity, consistency, and integrity to provide legal service seriously. Some people assume that court services are not still optimal. To settle the problems, the Supreme Court just has officially issued Regulation No. 1 of 2019 regarding the Administration of Cases and Legal Proceedings in Courts via Electronic Means on 8 August 2019. This regulation is believed as an appropriate solution to face those problems. To elaborate more, this study illustrates a judicial reform in Indonesia, e-court, and access to justice, the conception of e-court including the performance of e-court and its drawbacks and challenges in the digital era. The research method uses normative research by approaching legal review and literature study. The technique of primary data collection applies Supreme Court regulation while means of secondary data are collected from concept or theory as set out under bibliography. Judicial reform in Indonesia is indicated by issuing new regulation regarding e-Court and e-Litigation, the implementation e-Court itself has been attributed to 32 courts consisting of general religious, and state administrative courts. Through e-Court, access to justice more transparent and accessible. Besides, justice seekers have no worries regarding distance issues as of e-Court may allow them to fight in court without face to face. Parties have no doubt relating to the acceleration of court to settle any dispute in Indonesia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document