My Thoughts From the Innovation and Access to Justice Conference
I did it! I finally made it to my first university-related conference that was held somewhere other than my own school! This past summer, while working as a research assistant with the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice (CFCJ) at Osgoode, I heard about the inaugural Innovation and Access to Justice Conference planned for October 2015 in Montreal. I thought the conference would be a great opportunity to contextualize a lot of what I had already learned about access to justice (A2J) through my role at the CFCJ, and also to see first-hand what new and innovative developments were taking place in the A2J arena. Needless to say, I was thrilled when I got the opportunity to attend the conference a few weeks ago!
While my role working with the CFCJ has provided me with an online platform to discuss issues surrounding A2J in Canada and the U.S., and to learn about the many barriers to legal aid service delivery, the conference provided me with an entirely different platform to engage in conversations surrounding A2J issues: mock restorative justice circles, workshops, panel discussions and one-on-one, in-person dialogues.
Before leaving for the conference, a man at the subway station asked me for directions. Normally, I respond with the best directions that I can and go on my way. This time, however, I struck up a conversation with him. I soon learned that he was traveling from Toronto to Barrie to support a friend in court. He justified his travel by saying, “What are you going to do? He’s a friend.” As the conference got underway, a question stemming from this conversation remained at the forefront of my mind: why is going to court so stressful that someone would require support from a friend?
I wanted to know how innovative strategies can be applied to the dispute resolution system to improve it for Canadians engaged in disputes (and those supporting them) so that they might be able to resolve their problems before going to court. And, in circumstances where court is necessary, how can the process be changed to be less stressful and more informative for litigants?
The Innovation and Access to Justice Conference provided an opportunity for lawyers, researchers and A2J stakeholders from all over the country to discuss initiatives aimed at resolving A2J issues. It was also a source of inspiration for innovative strategies and best practices stemming from A2J initiatives in other jurisdictions, provinces and countries. The message was clear: organizations are designing creative and user-focused ways of implementing new ideas in the Canadian legal landscape and A2J is coming.
Over the span of two days in Montreal, I learned first-hand how Canadian organizations are incorporating innovation by interacting with other A2J advocates around the world. Two organizations in particular, MyLawBC (www.mylawbc.com) and the Legal Information Society of Nova Scotia (www.legalinfo.org), have looked for inspiration outside of Canada and successfully integrated it into British Columbia and Nova Scotia, respectively.
Recently, MyLawBC, a website funded by the BC Legal Services Society and designed to help individuals work through their legal issues, partnered with the Hague Institute for the Internationalization of Law (HiiL) to create their own version of a guided pathway for users — a roadmap for diagnosing a legal problem and determining an appropriate solution by answering a series of questions.
The website, to be released early next year, is designed the same way as its older, Dutch brother, named Rechtwijzer. Users will be able to create their own separation agreements and communicate with other parties through an online chat function while they do so. Rechtwijzer currently offers mediation and adjudication for a fee if users get stuck on an issue. MyLawBC won’t offer mediation and adjudication services at the outset but it could be implemented later if the new website is successful.
The first round of user testing for this new initiative took place early this year, followed by a second round of testing this past summer. Although MyLawBC has learned from Rechtwijzer that a guided pathways website for family law disputes can work, the user testing ensured that the website would function in a similar way in British Columbia.
Taking that issue into consideration, it is unclear how British Columbians will react to MyLawBC’s new website. This initiative by MyLawBC provides a viable alternative to the formal legal system. By centralizing the information and resolution process, MyLawBC has created a less stressful process for users. If parties are able to determine their own legal solutions, then there will be little need for them, let alone their support persons, to resolve the issue in court. For the man traveling to Barrie, this could mean that he might not have to make the trek to support his friend in court at all.
Similarly, the Legal Information Society of Nova Scotia (LISNS) has looked abroad for innovative strategies that can be adopted to help to increase its influence in Nova Scotia. They have drawn inspiration from English legal practice as well as New York State courthouses.
LISNS has taken a different approach to improving the dispute resolution process. Unlike MyLawBC, the programs being implemented in Nova Scotia assist people who will be going to court. In this way, the LISNS addresses the difficulty with which people resolve their legal problems through the legal system. Their new Public Navigator Pilot Program places trained volunteers with self-represented litigants to assist them in navigating the court system for the duration of their legal dispute. For LISNS, it has not gone unnoticed that there is an increasing number of people representing themselves in court, for whom a support person can provide emotional and minimal legal support.
Courts are often inaccessible, due to both physical and other types of barriers, ranging from language to cost. MyLawBC and the LISNS have seen some success at adopting and adapting innovative foreign practices into the Canadian justice system landscape, which have provided important benefits for Canadians. These successes offer proof that there are ways that the dispute resolution system can be changed to be less stressful, more informative, and to offer alternatives to going to court. In addition, these two organizations provide concrete evidence that access to justice advocates are working together to design innovative and practical solutions for Canadians.
This article was written by Quin Gilbert-Walters, Research Assistant at the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice.