canadian access to justice initiatives - cfcj-fcjc · point access to justice roadmap.”1 the...
Post on 04-Jul-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters
March 2017
CANADIAN ACCESS TO JUSTICE INITIATIVES:
Justice DevelopmentGoals Status Report
Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters
This report was prepared by Lisa Moore, Nicole Aylwin and Trevor Farrow of the
Canadian Forum on Civil Justice. It is published by the Action Committee on
Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, Ottawa, Canada, March 2017 with
the support of the British Columbia Ministry of Justice, Justice Services Branch
and Justice Canada.
Comments on this report can be sent to the Action Committee through the
Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, online at <communications@cfcj-fcjc.org>.
FOREWORD
I am both delighted and proud to be able to provide a
brief foreword for this first Action Committee Canadian
Access to Justice Initiatives: Justice Development Goals
Status Report prepared by the Canadian Forum on Civil
Justice with the support of the BC Ministry of Justice,
Justice Services Branch, the Attorney General of British
Columbia and Justice Canada.
The Action Committee’s 2013 final report, A Roadmap
for Change, contains 9 Justice Development Goals that,
if accomplished, would result in significant progress
in filling the large and growing access to justice gap
in Canada. This Status Report is a first but important
step towards measuring our progress and identifying
successes and gaps in our ongoing efforts to improve
access to justice in Canada.
The Canadian Forum on Civil Justice collected data
through a national, bilingual online survey conducted
in late 2016 and early 2017. The survey focused on
how access to justice work being undertaken across
Canada relates to the nine Justice Development Goals
set out in the Roadmap. One hundred eighty-five
organizations representing every province and territory
responded, a staggeringly successful response rate
for this first of its kind survey. Government bodies,
courts, legal regulators, not-for-profits, law schools,
university research centres, legal clinics and Provincial
and Territorial Access to Justice Groups, are just a few
of the types of organizations that helped to inform this
Status Report through their participation in the survey.
This report provides a useful information exchange and
priority development resource and helps make better
known the breadth and depth of the work being done
to improve access to justice. We also hope that it will
be a first step towards providing benchmarks allowing
us to measure our collective progress.
Sincere thanks to Nicole Aylwin, Lisa Moore and Trevor
Farrow and indeed to the whole team at the Canadian
Forum on Civil Justice, to the BC Ministry of Justice,
Justice Services Branch, the Attorney General of British
Columbia and Justice Canada and, most of all, to
everyone and every organization that took the time to
complete the on-line survey. I believe that this report
will be seen as a key element of our access to justice
strategy for years to come.
The Honourable Thomas A. Cromwell
Chair, Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil
and Family Matters
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. NATIONAL SURVEY
Overview 1
Basic Methodology 1
General Information 2
General Activities 8
B. JUSTICE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Goal I: Refocus the Justice System to Reflect and
Address Everyday Legal Problems...13
Goal II: Make Essential Legal Services Available to
Everyone...19
Goal III: Make Courts and Tribunals Fully Accessible
Multi-Service Centres for Public Dispute Resolution...25
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate
Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible...41
Goal V: Create Local and National Access to Justice
Implementation Mechanisms...51
Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible
and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal
Education...60
Goal VII: Enhance the Innovation Capacity of the Civil
and Family Justice System...71
Goal VIII: Support Access to Justice Research to
Promote Evidence-Based Policy Making...76
Goal IX: Promote Coherent, Integrated and Sustained
Funding Strategies...86
ENDNOTES...87
ii
01A. National Survey
A. NATIONAL SURVEY
OVERVIEW
One of the keys to understanding what needs to
be done in the area of access to justice in civil and
family matters is to first understand what is already
being done. That is the goal of this first ever national
survey (“Survey’) on the Action Committee on
Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters’ (“Action
Committee”) nine Justice Development Goals. This
Survey, in support of this first (and hopefully regular)
Status Report (“Report”), is based on the Action
Committee’s A Roadmap for Change report that
offers six guiding principles for change and a nine-
point Access to Justice Roadmap.”1 The purpose of
this Survey and Report is to help inform a national
conversation on the state of access to justice in
Canada with a view to recognizing current initiatives
and identifying areas for future work. The Survey was
conducted by the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice
(CFCJ). This follow up Report was produced by the
Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, under the leadership
of Lisa Moore, Nicole Aylwin and Trevor Farrow.2
BASIC METHODOLOGY
The 128-question Survey (in English and French) was
developed as a national, online questionnaire and was
disseminated through an active social media campaign,
hundreds of direct emails to justice stakeholders,
organizations3 and individuals with a mandate to
address and support work in access to justice, and
through a series of blog posts that were published
on national platforms. For a full reporting of all of
the Survey questions and answers, see Status Report
Working Data Document.4
The Survey launched on 23 November 2016 with an
initial deadline of 9 December 2016. A further extension
was announced via mass email and through social
media for 31 December 2016. Ultimately, access to the
survey remained open until 23 January 2017.”5
The survey was designed with three main paths: courts
and tribunals; access to justice groups or commissions; and
others. It was then organized into the following
topical categories:
I. Introduction
II. General Information
III. Mandate and General Activities
IV. Justice Development Goals6
V. Justice Development Goals – Progress and Influence
VI. Closing
02A. National Survey
The Survey’s
185 respondents
included a
diverse range of
organizations,
groups, government
bodies, institutions,
individuals and
others, with different
mandates, activities,
organizational
structures, scopes
of activity and reach
that contribute in a
variety of ways to
improving access
to civil justice in
Canada.
GENERAL INFORMATION
The General Information section of the Survey was comprised of 7 questions. Its
inclusion in the Survey offered contact details and basic information about the
Survey respondents.7 . A total of 185 respondents recorded answers in the General
Information section of the Survey.
RESPONDENT PROFILES
The Survey’s 185 respondents included a diverse range of organizations, groups,
government bodies, institutions, individuals and others, with different mandates,
activities, organizational structures, scopes of activity and reach that contribute in
a variety of ways to improving access to civil justice in Canada.
Respondents from the following 11 organizational categories (see Figure 1)
participated in the Survey:
• Not-for-profit organizations: 24% or 45 respondents
• Legal clinics: 14% or 25 respondents
• Administrative boards or tribunals: 11% or 20 respondents
• Regulators: 7% or 13 respondents
• Courts: 6% or 12 respondents
• Government organizations and bodies: 5% or 9 respondents
• Private sector businesses: 5% or 10 respondents
• Access to justice commissions (“A2J Groups”): 3% or 5 respondents
• Law schools: 3% or 5 respondents
• University-based research centres: 1% or 2 respondents
• Other: 21% or 39 respondents
6.49% 12
10.81% 20
2.70% 5
4.86% 9
24.32% 45
13.51% 25
2.70% 5
7.03% 13
5.41% 10
Figure 1Choose the category that best describes
your organization
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
Access to Justice Group/Commission
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
Access to Justice Group/Commission (created in response to the Action Committee's recommendation)
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
1 / 3
03A. National Survey
Descriptions provided by respondents in the “Other” category included:
• Law library
• Social and health services organization
• Legal aid service provider
• Charity
• Professional order
• Legal service provider
• Funder
• Accrediting body for mediators
• Pro bono law office
• Ombudsman
• Collective impact initiative
• Volunteer association of law professionals and students
• Legal publisher
2.70% 5
15.14% 28
65.95% 122
0.00% 0
16.22% 30
Figure 2
Is your organization:
Total 185
# Other (please specify) Date
1 Yukon First Nations scope. 1/13/2017 12:22 PM
2 Une portée régionale (Montréal et environs - avec quelques exceptions) 1/9/2017 10:09 AM
3 Primarily Provicial/Territorial, but does accept enquiries from outside of province; especially in area of
interjurisdictional child support
1/6/2017 3:18 PM
4 local municipality 12/20/2016 10:34 AM
5 Municipal and provincial 12/16/2016 8:05 PM
6 Serves the City of Guelph and the County of Wellington 12/14/2016 2:49 PM
7 Municipal/and area 12/8/2016 3:35 PM
8 Local law office 12/8/2016 12:58 PM
9 Non profit in Winnipeg -- seeing women from Winnipeg & Surrounding Areas 12/8/2016 11:19 AM
10 local 12/8/2016 11:19 AM
11 regional- Norman area 12/7/2016 3:51 PM
12 Municipal in scope 12/6/2016 4:56 PM
13 municiple 12/6/2016 4:31 PM
14 Regional 12/6/2016 9:49 AM
15 Toronto based with some international clients 12/5/2016 3:04 PM
16 We serve the City of Winnipeg, primarily 12/5/2016 3:04 PM
International
in scope
National in scope Provincial/Territorial in scope
Local in scope Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
International in scope
National in scope
Provincial/Territorial in scope
Local in scope
Other (please specify)
1 / 2
In response to Survey Question 6 – scope of organization – the majority of
respondents – 66% or 122 – indicated that their scope was provincial/territorial. 30
respondents or 16% chose “other”, 28 respondents or 15% operate with a national
scope and 5 or 3% with an international scope. The 30 respondents describing their
scope as “Other” offered the following characterizations:
• Municipal
• Regional
• County-specific
• City-specific
• First Nations
04A. National Survey
The 122 respondents who indicated that they operate within a provincial/territorial
scope represented all of Canada’s 13 provinces and territories8.
In terms of respondents with a provincial/territorial scope, the following
representative breakdown was indicated:
• Ontario: 33 respondents or 27%
• British Columbia: 21 respondents or 17%
• Manitoba: 17 respondents or 14%
• Québec: 16 respondents or 13%
• Alberta: 14 respondents or 11%
• Nova Scotia: 12 respondents or 10%
• Saskatchewan: 12 respondents or 10%
• New Brunswick: 9 respondents or 7%
• Newfoundland and Labrador: 8 respondents or 7%
• Nunavut: 7 respondents or 6%
• Yukon: 7 respondents or 6%
• Prince Edward Island: 6 respondents or 5%
• Northwest Territories: 5 respondents or 4%
Questions regarding length of operation, staffing and presence on social media
offered a range of responses.
17.21% 21
11.48% 14
9.84% 12
13.93% 17
27.05% 33
Figure 3Please select the
province(s)/territory(ies) that you serve
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
1 / 2
05A. National Survey
3.78% 7
12.43% 23
9.73% 18
11.35% 21
62.70% 116
Figure 4 How long has your organization been in
operation?Answered: 185 Skipped: 0
Total 185
Less than one (1) year
One (1) year to four (4) years
Five (5) years to nine (9) years
Ten (10) years tonineteen (19) years
Twenty (20) or more years
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
Less than one (1) year
One (1) year to four (4) years
Five (5) years to nine (9) years
Ten (10) years to nineteen (19) years
Twenty (20) or more years
1 / 1
Of the Survey’s 185 respondents, 116 or 63% have been in operation for 20 years or
more, 23 or 12% have been in operation from 1 to 4 years, 21 or 11% indicated that they
have been in operation for 10 to 19 years, 18 or 10% indicated that they have been in
operation for 5 to 9 years and 7 respondents or 4% were less than a year old.
The most significant number of the 145 respondents with paid, full-time employees
– 39 respondents or 27% – indicated that they have between 1 and 5 staff members.
Similarly, a slight majority of the 121 respondents with paid, part-time employees
– 61 respondents or just over 50% – indicated that they have between 1 and 5 staff
members.
Figure 5 How many paid employees does your
organization have?
Number of employees
10.34%
15
26.90%
39
18.62%
27
23.45%
34
20.69%
30 145
23.97%
29
50.41%
61
12.40%
15
9.92%
12
3.31%
4 121
Number of employees
a. None b. Less than five (5) c. Five (5) – nine (9)
d. Ten (10) – Forty-nine (49) e. Fifty (50) or more
Full-time Part-time
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
a. None b. Less than five (5) c. Five (5) – nine (9) d. Ten (10) – Forty-nine (49) e. Fifty (50) or more Total
Full-time
Part-time
1 / 1
More than half of the respondents – 79% – indicated that there are no full-time
volunteer employees among their staff and 45% of respondents indicated that there
are no part-time volunteer employees among their staff.
06A. National Survey
Of the 185 respondents, 50 or 27% indicated that they are not active on social media.
A majority of respondents indicated that they are active on one or more social media
platform(s), with Twitter being the most used platform at 64%, followed by Facebook
at 58%. 9% of respondents indicated that they use social media platforms other than
those offered in the answer choices (including WordPress, Vimeo, Google+, Periscope,
RSS feeds, Pinterest, forums and blogs).
86.67% 52
55.00% 33
30.00% 18
18.33% 11
Figure7 What role does the representative of the
general public play?
Total Respondents: 60
# Other (please specify) Date
1 Our entire initiative is family-centred. We seek to involve family members from the outset, particularly in the human-
centred design process.
12/17/2016 4:49 PM
2 Government appoints 6 non-lawyer benchers, fulfill bencher duties. 12/9/2016 5:01 PM
3 volunteer 12/9/2016 12:17 PM
4 volunteer at special events 12/7/2016 3:55 PM
5 must have a public member on any tribunal 12/5/2016 10:27 AM
6 We have a member at large on our board, we have experiential experts on advisory committees 12/2/2016 3:58 PM
7 Report back to their respective groups and organizations 12/2/2016 12:41 PM
8 10 of 15 board members come from the community 12/1/2016 3:40 PM
9 investigation and hearing processes for member regulation 11/28/2016 5:04 PM
10 Practice user design and user testing 11/28/2016 2:28 PM
11 contributes to discussion 11/27/2016 4:39 PM
Sit on the Board Sit on Committee(s) Act in an advisory capacity Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
Sit on the Board
Sit on Committee(s)
Act in an advisory capacity
Other (please specify)
1 / 1
In terms of members of the public, a majority of survey respondents – 60% – indicated
that their governance framework does not reserve a spot for a representative of the
general public. The remaining 40% indicated that members of the general public
primarily occupy positions on their board (87% of respondents who have positions
reserved for members of the general public), followed by committee positions (55%),
advisory roles (30%) and other positions (18%).
Figure 6 How many volunteer staff members
does your organization have?
Number of Volunteer Employees
79.55%
105
12.88%
17
3.03%
4
3.03%
4
1.52%
2 132
45.31%
58
15.63%
20
2.34%
3
14.06%
18
22.66%
29 128
Number of Volunteer Employees
a. None b. Less than five (5) c. Five (5) – nine (9)
d. Ten (10) – forty-nine (49) e. Fifty (50) or more
Full-time Part-time
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
a. None b. Less than five (5) c. Five (5) – nine (9) d. Ten (10) – forty-nine (49) e. Fifty (50) or more Total
Full-time
Part-time
1 / 1
a majority
of survey
respondents –
60% – indicated
that their
governance
framework does
not reserve
a spot for a
representative
of the general
public.
The remaining
40% indicated
that members of
the general public
primarily occupy
positions on their
board (87% of
respondents who
have positions
reserved for
members of
the general
public), followed
by committee
positions (55%),
advisory roles
(30%) and other
positions (18%).
07A. National Survey
27.03% 50
63.78% 118
7.03% 13
0.00% 0
24.32% 45
30.27% 56
57.84% 107
9.19% 17
Figure 8Social Media Tools
Total Respondents: 185
Not on Social Media
Twitter Instagram Snapchat YouTube LinkedIn Facebook Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
My organization is not active on social media
Snapchat
YouTube
Other
1 / 1
08A. National Survey
GENERAL ACTIVITIES
Access to justice relies on the work of many players in the justice system as well as
public and private institutions which contribute to education, support and addressing
legal problems before and after they begin. Questions 14 to 18 of the Survey
concentrate on the areas of focus and the services provided by 148 respondents.9
Public Interest Advocacy
Of the 148 respondents who provided responses about the public interest area(s) of
focus of their organization, 90% indicated that their organization has 1 or more public
interest areas of activity.
The most common areas of focus reported were:
• Low income communities: 79 respondents or 54% of responses
• Self-represented litigants: 75 respondents or 51%
• Aboriginal and Indigenous peoples: 67 respondents or 46%
• Human rights: 65 respondents or 44%
• Mental health: 61 respondents or 42%
• Children/youth: 60 respondents or 41%
Figure 9Please select the public interest area(s) of
focus for your organization (check all that
apply)
No public interest focus
Children/youth
Mental health
Disability
Racialized communities
Immigrant communities
Elderly persons
Women (equality rights)
Human rights
Gender/sexual orientation
Self-represented litigants
Low income communities
Aboriginal and indigenous persons
Civil law reform (non-family)
Family law reform
Other public interest focus
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
09A. National Survey
Legal Services
145 respondents provided responses regarding the type of legal service(s) that they
provide with 63% indicating that they provide 1 or more legal service(s).
The most common legal services provided are:
• Legal information: 71 respondents or 49% of responses
• Legal advice: 48 respondents or 33%
• Legal representation: 45 respondents or 31%
• Document review services: 34 respondents or 23%
• Document creation services: 32 respondents or 22%
• Mediation: 29 respondents or 20%
37.24% 54
31.03% 45
33.10% 48
48.97% 71
20.00% 29
3.45% 5
15.17% 22
23.45% 34
22.07% 32
28.97% 42
Figure 10Please select the type(s) of legal
service(s) that your organization provides
(Check all that apply)
No legal services provided
Legal representation
Legal advice
Legal information
Mediation
Arbitration
Other alternative dispute resolution
Document review services
Document creation services
Other type of legal service
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
My organization does not provide legal services
Legal representation
Legal advice
Legal information
Mediation
Arbitration
Other alternative dispute resolution (e.g. collaborative lawyering, peace-making etc.)
Document review services
Document creation services
Other type of legal service not listed above (please specify)
1 / 2
10A. National Survey
9.66% 14
63.45% 92
62.76% 91
68.28% 99
53.79% 78
26.90% 39
Figure 11Please select the type(s) of community
outreach or engagement activity that your
organization does (Check all that apply)
Total Respondents: 145
# Other community outreach/engagement activity not listed above (please specify) Date
1 Activités d'information auprès des consommateurs, notamment auprès de ceux jugés plus vulnérables, et auprès des
commerçants
1/9/2017 10:29 AM
2 local poverty reduction initiative meetings, work with Indigenous groups, presentations at professional conferences 1/6/2017 3:24 PM
3 Ressources pour tous sur notre site internet 1/6/2017 2:15 PM
4 education/professional development for registrants 12/23/2016 4:10 PM
5 The Lab's initiatives are involved in all of the above. 12/17/2016 4:52 PM
6 director on board of national advisor/advocacy assn for WCB's; director on boards of SK and national admin tribunal
assn's
12/15/2016 10:20 AM
7 presentation on rights, information, community meetings, secondary consultations 12/14/2016 2:53 PM
8 TLABC Cares program - community projects like End Distracted Driving 12/13/2016 2:30 PM
9 Public legal education (through CanLII), legal ethics educational events, foreign trained lawyer educational events,
public advocacy on matters related to the FLSC mandate.
12/12/2016 3:05 PM
10 Free law clinic 12/12/2016 1:28 PM
11 We host speakers, conferences, workshops that are open to the public and often free. 12/12/2016 10:54 AM
No communityoutreach or engagement activity
Community
education
Referrals tocommunity and
other social services
Referrals tolegal service
providers
Public
engagement
Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
My organization does not perform community outreach or engagement activities
Community education
Referrals to community and other social services
Referrals to legal service providers (including legal information services)
Public engagement
Other community outreach/engagement activity not listed above (please specify)
1 / 2
Community Outreach and Engagement
145 respondents recorded responses relating to the community outreach and
engagement work of their organization. 90% of respondents indicated that their
organization performs community outreach and/or engagement activities.
• 68% of respondents with a community outreach/engagement focus indicated that
they offer referrals to legal service providers (including legal information services)
• 63% offer community education
• 63% provide referrals to community and other social services
• 54% do public engagement
Other community outreach/engagement activities carried out by respondents
include:
• Local poverty reduction initiative meetings
• Secondary consultations
• Conferences
• Workshops
• Fairs
• Media appearances
11A. National Survey
Research
86 respondents indicated that they carry out research activities.
Areas of research reported by respondents in this category include: access to justice,
administrative law, pro bono legal services, innovation in the law and the legal
profession, global and national trends in law, dispute resolution, property law, estate
law, continuing legal education, reform of justice services, Indigenous access to
justice, transnational law, regulation of the legal profession and others.
Other Areas of Focus
35% of 144 respondents indicated that they have one or more areas of focus other
than those offered in previous Survey questions.
Based on the organizational category of respondents indicating that they have
“other” areas of focus:
• 56% of government organizations mentioned facilitating the reform of justice
services and the regulation of online legal services
• 30% of not-for-profit respondents mentioned facilitating access to and
information from law libraries, systemic appeals and intervention and prevention
of exploitation
• 28% of legal clinic respondents mentioned Indigenous access to justice issues and
government relations
• 80% of law school respondents, not surprisingly, indicated other activities
centered around legal education
• 31% of regulators mentioned issues related to the interactions between law,
society and regulation of the legal profession
40.28% 58
59.72% 86
Figure 12 Please describe the nature of your
organization's research
Total 144
# Description of research activities Date
1 Our research is broad in scope. The researchers of the Winkler Institute often explore different aspects of dispute
resolution. Currently, some of our key research areas are: innovation and dispute resolution; design thinking and the
user focused design of legal services, legal technology and innovative legal education.
1/17/2017 1:14 PM
2 If we conduct any research it is always in the First Nations field for our own self-governing agreements. 1/13/2017 12:27 PM
3 We participate with the Probono Students of Canada program. Students carry out legal research on our behalf. We
have also worked with the Public Interest Law Centre of Legal Aid Manitoba on various cases with a public interest, or
Charter of Rights component. PILC has carried out the research on our behalf and represented our clients on several
matters.
1/11/2017 11:18 AM
4 The Allard School of Law currently employs 39 tenured or tenure track research faculty with scholarly interests in a
wide variety of areas of the law and a focus on both original, significant and high quality academic publication
(international and national) and research dissemination within the broader legal professional community and the
public. The law school also has upwards of 50 students enrolled in its graduate research programs (LLM and PhD).
1/9/2017 4:05 PM
5 Tout récemment, la recherche dans le droits des hommes (droits è l'égalité) dans le cadre du droit de la famille, dans
le cadre des agressions sexuelles commises envers eux, et dans le cadre des fausses accusations de toute sorte.
1/9/2017 9:25 AM
6 Description des activités de recherche Recherches concernant les principes sous-jacents aux politiques publiques
dans les domaines de l'aide sociale, logement, santé mentale, etc.
1/9/2017 9:13 AM
7 Nous effectuons régulièrement des évaluations sur la qualité de nos services. Nous sommes partenaires de
recherches dont une qui porte sur l'accès à la justice.
1/6/2017 4:06 PM
8 Essentiellement, le Barreau du Québec étudie les projets de lois et règlements en vue de soumettre ses
commentaires aux autorités compétentes - défense de la primauté du droit.
1/6/2017 3:15 PM
9 Le Protecteur du citoyen peut décider, de sa propre initiative, de mener des enquêtes à l’endroit de ministères et
d’organismes publics, lorsqu’il constate des situations préjudiciables d’envergure. Nos interventions ont une portée
collective et permettent souvent de corriger un problème qui touche plusieurs personnes ou groupes de citoyens et
d’en prévenir la répétition.
1/6/2017 2:59 PM
My organization does not carry
out research
My organization carries out research (description provided)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
My organization does not carry out research
Description of research activities
1 / 7
12A. National Survey
Figure 14Does your organization have another area
of focus not previously mentioned?
44.44%
4
55.56%
5
8.49%
9
69.77%
30
30.23%
13
40.57%
43
72.00%
18
28.00%
7
23.58%
25
20.00%
1
80.00%
4
4.72%
5
69.23%
9
30.77%
4
12.26%
13
66.67%
6
33.33%
3
8.49%
9
100.00%
2
0.00%
0
1.89%
2
70 36 106
My organization does not have other areas of focus
Yes, my organization has other areas of focus
Government Not-for-Profit Legal Clinic Law
School
Regulator Private
sector
business
University-based
research centre
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
My organization does not have other areas of
focus.
Yes, my organization has other areas of focus (please
specify)
Total
Q8: Government
Q8: Not-for-Profit
Q8: Legal Clinic
Q8: Law School
Q8: Regulator
Q8: Private sector business
Q8: University-based research
centre
Total Respondents
1 / 1
65.28% 94
34.72% 50
Figure 13Does your organization have another area
of focus not previously mentioned?
Total 144
# Yes, my organization has other areas of focus (please specify) Date
1 Information juridique (nous sommes une bibliothèque de droit) 1/11/2017 11:12 AM
2 L'Office répond aux demandes de renseignement des consommateurs et des commerçants. Il consigne les plaintes
des consommateurs et leur donne suite, par diverses activités de surveillance. Ainsi, le personnel de l'Office -
inspecteurs en conformité législative et réglementaire, enquêteurs, juristes- effectue des vérifications, administratives
ou dans les locaux du commerçant, envoie aux commerçants des avis de rappel des dispositions de la loi ou
d'infraction, signifie des constats d'infraction et intente des poursuites pénales. De plus, notre organisation informe les
consommateurs et les commerçants sur les lois sous sa responsabilité par divers moyens: interventions dans les
médias, site Web, publications dans les médias sociaux, formations en ligne, webinaires, etc. Notre organise délivre
des permis dans des secteurs de commerce jugés à risque et effectue de la surveillance en lien avec ces permis.
Notre organisation collabore aussi à des projets visant à favoriser l'accès à la justice, notamment en dirigeant des
consommateurs vers la plateforme de règlement des litiges en ligne PARLe, qui permet aux consommateurs et aux
commerçants de régler leur problème en ligne, avec ou sans l'intervention d'un médiateur accrédité. Enfin, notre
organisation offre des services particuliers aux consommateurs jugés vulnérables, comme les jeunes, les personnes
âgées, les nouveaux arrivants et les personnes à faible revenu. L'Office a notamment collaboré à la mise sur pied du
nouveau cours d'éducation financière qui sera offert aux élèves de 5e secondaire à compter de septembre 2017 et
propose aux parents et aux enseignants du primaire et du secondaire des activités pour discuter de consommation
avec les jeunes.
1/9/2017 10:31 AM
3 Droit administratif 1/9/2017 9:26 AM
4 The Alberta Law Library provides legal information to meet needs of all participants in the justice system, including
judiciary, Crown prosecutors, government lawyers, members of the Bar, members of the public (represented by
counsel or self). It is in the interests of all Albertans that all parties have access to accurate, timely, authoritative
information.
1/6/2017 5:07 PM
5 Barreau du Québec s'intéresse à tous les enjeux de société en lien avec le droit. 1/6/2017 3:16 PM
6 Indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels, justice administrative 1/6/2017 2:59 PM
My organization does not have
other areas of focus.
Yes, my organization has other
areas of focus
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
My organization does not have other areas of focus.
Yes, my organization has other areas of focus (please specify)
1 / 3
• 33% of private sector businesses mentioned issues related to elders, property and
estates
• None of the Survey’s university-based research centre respondents have an area of
focus other than those previously mentioned
13Goal I: Refocus the Justice System to Reflect and Address Everyday Legal Problems
B. JUSTICE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
GOAL I: REFOCUS THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO REFLECT AND ADDRESS EVERYDAY LEGAL PROBLEMS
Essentially every Canadian will experience an everyday legal problem over the
course of their lifetime10 and only a small portion of those problems will be resolved
within the formal justice system.11 Justice Development Goal One from the Action
Committee’s A Roadmap for Change12 proposes a shift in focus primarily from
back-end dispute resolution and more toward front-end education, triage and
the prevention of everyday legal problems. The idea, part of an overall shift in the
current culture of justice, is to try to address everyday legal problems early on and,
where appropriate, outside of courts and tribunals. This shift is based in part on the
development of a far-reaching and comprehensive Early Resolution Services Sector
(ERSS)13 designed to provide early and accessible legal information, education,
services and support.
40.00% 56
60.00% 84
Figure 15 Does your organization provide any
form of public legal education?
Total 140
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
14Goal I: Refocus the Justice System to Reflect and Address Everyday Legal Problems
Figure 16Does your organization provide any
form of public legal education?
25.00%
2
75.00%
6
7.92%
8
45.24%
19
54.76%
23
41.58%
42
8.33%
2
91.67%
22
23.76%
24
20.00%
1
80.00%
4
4.95%
5
61.54%
8
38.46%
5
12.87%
13
55.56%
5
44.44%
4
8.91%
9
37 64 101
No Yes
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Government
Q8: Not-for-Profit
Q8: Legal Clinic
Q8: Law School
Q8: Regulator
Q8: Private sector business
Total Respondents
1 / 1
Public legal education is an important tool for building a robust ERSS. The availability
and distribution of legal information and resources in efficient, effective and
innovative ways at the earliest points of a legal problem increase the opportunity
for such problems to be resolved quickly and with less cost to individuals and the
state. 140 Survey respondents provided responses about their organization’s public
legal education efforts. A majority – 60% or 84 respondents – indicate that their
organization provides public legal education in some form.
Among these 84 respondents, at least 50% or more indicated that they offer public
legal education:
• Legal clinics: 92%
• Law schools: 80%
• Governments: 75%
• Not-for-profit organizations: 55%
• University-based research centres: 50%
Survey responses also reveal an encouraging pattern of widespread efforts to provide
public legal education. More than 50% of respondents in each of the 13 provinces
and territories indicate that they provide some form of public legal education. At
the highest level, this is suggestive of significant work across multiple sectors and in
multiple areas to provide access to legal information and resources that can educate
and assist people who experience legal problems.
The efficacy of the ERSS fundamentally depends on the range of public legal
education resources and services that are available, how these resources promote
More than 50%
of respondents
in each of the 13
provinces and
territories indicate
that they provide
some form of
public legal
education.
15Goal I: Refocus the Justice System to Reflect and Address Everyday Legal Problems
Figure 17 Does your organization provide any
form of public legal education?
29.41%
5
70.59%
12
18.48%
17
30.77%
4
69.23%
9
14.13%
13
40.00%
4
60.00%
6
10.87%
10
No Yes
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q7: British Columbia
Q7: Alberta
Q7: Saskatchewan
1 / 2
understanding and prevent everyday legal problems, and the ways in which this
information is made available to the public. Survey respondents answered several
questions related to the types of public legal education that they provide, the
different mediums that they use to disseminate information and resources, and the
languages for accessing public legal information and resources.
16Goal I: Refocus the Justice System to Reflect and Address Everyday Legal Problems
Answers recorded from 83 respondents confirm that various types of public legal
education are available in Canada. Each of the 10 types of public legal education or
resources listed in the survey are being provided by one of more organization(s),
with the following types of public legal education being the most widely offered by
respondents:
• Identify legal issues: 73%
• Build legal capability: 72%
• Triage legal problems: 51%
The types of public legal education that are being provided by the majority
of respondents in this category collectively provide resources that assist with
understanding what constitutes legal problems, help individuals to develop tools to
resolve problems by themselves, and equip the public with the knowledge necessary
to direct people to the types of information, resources or services needed to address
specific problem(s). These are all important elements that contribute significantly
to early resolution. Other types of public legal education are not made as widely
available by Survey respondents. Less than 50% of respondents in this category
indicated that they provide public legal information or resources related to the
following:
• Civil courts :49%
• Administrative tribunals: 48%
• Prevention: 48%
• Alternative dispute resolution: 42%
• Non-legal aspects of legal problem: 41%
• Policy reform: 28%
• Legal health check-ups: 13%
73.49% 61
72.29% 60
50.60% 42
49.40% 41
48.19% 40
42.17% 35
48.19% 40
40.96% 34
27.71% 23
13.25% 11
33.73% 28
Figure 18What type of public legal education does your
organization provide? (Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 83
# Other type of public legal education not indicated above Date
1 Offre de clinique juridique sur la procédure en droit de la famille. 1/9/2017 9:28 AM
2 Alberta Law Libraries partners with public libraries to offer sessions on basic legal research. Tours are offered to
school groups & other groups/individuals.
1/6/2017 5:07 PM
Information/resources to help people identify legal issues
Information/resources on legal rights or that help build legal capability
Information/resources to help people triage their problem
Information/resources on how the civil court system works
Information/resources on administrative tribunals
Information/resources on alternative dispute resolution options
Information/resources to help people prevent legal problems from occurring
Information/resources to help people deal with the non-legal aspects of their problem
Information on policy reform Legal health check ups
Other type of public legal education not indicated above
0 100 200 300 400 500
Answer Choices Responses
Information/resources to help people identify legal issues
Information/resources on legal rights or that help build legal capability
Information/resources to help people triage their problem
Information/resources on how the civil court system works
Information/resources on administrative tribunals
Information/resources on alternative dispute resolution options
Information/resources to help people prevent legal problems from occurring
Information/resources to help people deal with the non-legal aspects of their problem
Information on policy reform
Legal health check ups
Other type of public legal education not indicated above
1 / 2
17Goal I: Refocus the Justice System to Reflect and Address Everyday Legal Problems
Of equal importance in a discussion about public legal education is the accessibility
of legal information and resources to the public. Language, geographical location,
income level and other factors can present challenges for people trying to access
justice information or services. It is important that these access to justice barriers be
considered and, as it is noted in the Action Committee A Roadmap for Change report,
the services and information that are provided through the ERSS must also “be
responsive to Canada’s culturally and geographically diverse population.”14 The Survey
responses related to the way that public legal education information and resources
are provided are largely encouraging. Of those respondents in this category indicating
that they provide public legal information or resources, over 50% report providing the
following services through the following delivery methods:
• Group settings: 76%
• Online: 63%
• One-on-one: 52%
• Written materials: 51%
75.90% 63
51.81% 43
22.89% 19
50.60% 42
62.65% 52
15.66% 13
22.89% 19
Figure 19How does your organization provide public
legal education? (Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 83
# Other method (please specify) Date
1 Médias sociaux, entrevues dans les médias, formations en ligne, webinaires, participation aux travaux de comités
consultatifs dans les secteurs du commerce de détail et du voyage.
1/9/2017 10:35 AM
2 Chroniques dans des magazines 1/6/2017 3:04 PM
3 Voir section Ressources pour tous de notre site web (www.soquij.qc.ca) 1/6/2017 2:18 PM
4 Branches deliver various in-person eduational opportunities associated with "Law Day" and "Law Week" activities (e.g.
courthouse tours, dial-a-lawyer, lectures on the law)
12/19/2016 10:41 AM
5 differs by initiative. 12/17/2016 5:01 PM
In person, group settings
In person one-on-one consultations
Helpline
Written material
Online
On mobile devices
Other method
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
In person, group settings (lectures, workshops, facilitated discussions)
In person (one on one consultations, counseling or support)
Helpline
Written material
Online
On mobile devices
Other method (please specify)
1 / 2
Fewer public legal education information or resources are offered through helplines
or via mobile devices:
• Helplines: 23%
• Mobile devices: 16%
18Goal I: Refocus the Justice System to Reflect and Address Everyday Legal Problems
Though certainly encouraging, the responses regarding public legal education
and resources indicate that there is still work to be done to improve the types of
information and resources that are available, the ways that they can be retrieved,
and the languages in which information can be accessed. In addition to the public
legal education resources that are currently available, more than half of the 137
respondents who provided responses in this category – 53% – indicate that they are
involved in projects designed to increase public engagement with the justice system
and raise awareness of the access to justice crisis in civil and family matters. This
engagement with the public offers another path to education and information about
everyday legal problems, access to justice and the work that is being done to offer
more information and resources for early resolution.
More than
half of the 137
respondents
who provided
responses in this
category – 53%
– indicate that
they are involved
in projects
designed to
increase public
engagement
with the justice
system and raise
awareness of the
access to justice
crisis in civil and
family matters.100.00% 83
45.78% 38
31.33% 26
Figure 20 In what language(s) do you provide
legal education? (Select all that apply)Answered: 83 Skipped: 97
Total Respondents: 83
# Other language(s) Date
1 Spanish 1/11/2017 11:20 AM
2 French and other languages are limited at this time to staff who speak other languages 1/6/2017 5:07 PM
3 Mandarin 12/22/2016 2:25 PM
4 Translated the Parental Alienation Awareness pamplet into Chinese for Lower Mainland British Columbia 12/19/2016 2:35 PM
5 Web materials can be translated through the website, through google translate 12/14/2016 3:00 PM
6 Our French Common law program is commencing in 2017/18. 12/12/2016 11:09 AM
7 Arabic, Kinyarwanda, Kiswahili 12/8/2016 4:55 PM
8 Our Partners with CWIA provide translators for Legal Education 12/8/2016 1:55 PM
9 Through Indigenous Court Worker assistance occasionally offered in the Tlicho language 12/8/2016 11:30 AM
10 Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, Somali, Urdu, Tamil, Farsi 12/7/2016 5:09 PM
11 High German, low German, Russian, Arabic, Spanish 12/7/2016 2:42 PM
12 We have written materials on some legal topics available in 9 different languages 12/7/2016 11:26 AM
13 Inuktitut, Innuinaqtun - languages of the Inuit in Nunavut 12/6/2016 10:54 AM
14 many other languages for including indigenous languages 12/6/2016 10:40 AM
15 Select legal aid publications are available in a number of languages other than French and English. 12/6/2016 8:22 AM
16 Print materials are also available in Arabic, Chinese (simplified and traditional), Farsi, Punjabi, Spanish, Tagalog,
Vietnamese
12/5/2016 8:53 PM
17 We are connected with diverse PLEI providers and related specialty legal clinics. 12/5/2016 6:16 PM
18 Multiple other languages. 12/5/2016 5:55 PM
English French Other language(s)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
English
French
Other language(s)
1 / 2
While 100% of survey respondents who offer public legal education or resources
do so in English, less than half offer public legal information or resources in other
languages:
• French: 46%
• Languages other than French or English: 31%
47.45% 65
52.55% 72
Figure 21Is your organization involved in any projects designed to increase public
engagement with the justice system and
raise awareness of the access to justice
crisis in civil and family matters?
Total 137
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
19Goal II: Make Essential Legal Services Available to Everyone
Figure 22Does your organization use any new or
innovative legal service delivery methods to
help address the legal services gap? (e.g.
alternative fee arrangements, coaching etc.)
75.00%
6
25.00%
2
7.92%
8
80.49%
33
19.51%
8
40.59%
41
41.67%
10
58.33%
14
23.76%
24
60.00%
3
40.00%
2
4.95%
5
84.62%
11
15.38%
2
12.87%
13
No Yes
Government Not-for-Profit Legal
Clinic
Law School Regulator Private
sector
business
University-based
research centre
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Government
Q8: Not-for-Profit
Q8: Legal Clinic
Q8: Law School
Q8: Regulator
1 / 2
GOAL II: MAKE ESSENTIAL LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE TO EVERYONEIn the face of everyday legal problems, many Canadians experience difficulties
accessing legal services and/or engaging legal professionals to help address their
problems. Increasingly, justice stakeholders, not-for-profits, regulators, clinics, leaders
in the legal sector and other organizations are being asked to use new, innovative and
cost-effective methods to help bridge the legal services delivery gap and to connect
Canadians with essential legal services.
The second Justice Development Goal from the Action Committee’s A Roadmap for
Change report invites an expansion and improvement in the availability and accessi-
bility of essential legal services.15
Survey responses indicate that new and innovative legal service delivery methods are
being used in most sectors to help address the legal services gap, with the majority
of respondents in the following fields indicating that that they use innovative legal
service delivery methods:
• Private sector business respondents: 63%
• Legal clinic respondents: 58%
Conversely, significantly less than 50% of respondents in several organizational
categories indicated that they do not offer any new or innovative legal service
delivery methods to help address the legal services gap:
20Goal II: Make Essential Legal Services Available to Everyone
• Regulators: 15%
• Not-for-profits: 20%
• Government respondents: 25%
The total number of respondents who are using new and innovative legal service
delivery methods suggests that there is room for overall growth in this area. Only 31%
of a total 137 respondents indicated that they use new and innovative legal service
delivery methods to help address the legal services delivery gap.
68.61% 94
31.39% 43
Figure 23Does your organization use any new or
innovative legal service delivery methods to
help address the legal services gap? (e.g.
alternative fee arrangements, coaching etc.)
Total 137
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
31% of a total
137 respondents
indicated that
they use new and
innovative legal
service delivery
methods to help
address the legal
services delivery
gap.
Figure 24Does your organization use any new or
innovative legal service delivery methods to
help address the legal services gap? (e.g.
alternative fee arrangements, coaching etc.)
52.94%
9
47.06%
8
18.89%
17
No Yes
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q7: British Columbia
1 / 2
21Goal II: Make Essential Legal Services Available to Everyone
In terms of provincial/territorial organizations, 50% or more of the respondents in
several provinces indicated that they are using new and innovative legal service
delivery methods. The use of these services in multiple sectors and by various
organizations signals a move towards more innovative methods of legal service
delivery, with many of these models having only recently been adopted for use in
some sectors. 50% or more of respondents with activities that serve the following
provinces indicated that they use new and innovative legal service delivery methods:
• Nova Scotia: 73%
• Prince Edward Island: 50%
• Alberta: 50%
58.54% 24
21.95% 9
4.88% 2
26.83% 11
58.54% 24
19.51% 8
41.46% 17
Figure 25What types of innovative
models/approaches do you use?
(Please select all that apply)
Limited scope retainers (i.e. unbundled legal services) Alternative billing models
Legal expense insurance Increased opportunities to use paralegal services
Litigation coaching for self-represented litigants Conflict coaching
Legal advice delivery via technology (e.g. Skype or teleconference)
Web-based programs that deliver routine legal services
Online dispute resolution
Holistic service delivery
Other model/approach not listed above
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Answer Choices Responses
Limited scope retainers (i.e. unbundled legal services)
Alternative billing models
Legal expense insurance
Increased opportunities to use paralegal services
Litigation coaching for self-represented litigants
Conflict coaching
Legal advice delivery via technology (e.g. Skype or teleconference)
1 / 3
22Goal II: Make Essential Legal Services Available to Everyone
Respondents who use new and innovative legal service delivery methods to help
address the legal services gap indicated that they do so largely with a variety of
models or approaches.
• Limited scope retainers (including unbundled legal services) and litigation
coaching for self-represented litigants are the most common approaches, with
each being used by 59% of respondents
• Legal advice delivery via technology (e.g. Skype or teleconference): 41%
• Paralegal services: 27%
• Holistic service delivery methods: 27%
• Legal expense insurance: 5%
• Online dispute resolution: 12%
Figure 26What types of innovative
models/approaches do you use?
(Please select all that apply)
Limited scope retainers (i.e. unbundled legal services) Alternative billing models
Legal expense insurance Increased opportunities to use paralegal services
Litigation coaching for self-represented litigants Conflict coaching
Legal advice delivery via technology (e.g. Skype or teleconference)
Web-based programs that deliver routine legal services
Online dispute resolution
Holistic service delivery
Other model/approach not listed above
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0 10 20 30 40 50
1 / 3
23Goal II: Make Essential Legal Services Available to Everyone
A review of the Survey responses based on the organizational category of the
respondent reveals that different organizations use some innovative models and
approaches more broadly than others:
• 100% of government respondents in this category indicated that they use online
dispute resolution
• 75% of not-for-profit organizations indicated that they use new and innovative
legal service delivery models and approaches other than those listed including
pro bono, one-day pop-up legal clinics and restorative justice, and 50% of not-for-
profit respondents use litigation coaching for self-represented litigants
• 77% of legal clinic respondents indicated that they use limited scope retainers and
62% use legal service delivery via technology (e.g. Skype or teleconference)
• 100% of law school respondents in this category indicated that they use holistic
service delivery as well as litigation coaching for self-represented litigants
• 50% of regulators indicated that they use a number of innovative approaches,
including: limited scope retainers, alternative billing models, legal expense
insurance and litigation coaching for self-represented litigants
• 100% of private sector business respondents in this category indicated that they
use limited scope retainers and 80% of private sector business respondents
indicated that they use litigation coaching for self-represented litigants; 80% of
private sector business respondents also indicated that they use alternative billing
models.
24Goal II: Make Essential Legal Services Available to Everyone
A further review of the Survey responses on the use of innovative models and
approaches based on provincial/territorial scope indicates that online dispute
resolution is being used by respondents in every province and territory, and limited
scope retainers are being used by respondents in 12 provinces and territories.
Alternative billing models and legal expense insurance are also being used by
respondents serving a majority of provinces and territories.
Figure 27What types of innovative
models/approaches do you use?
(Please select all that apply)
62.50%
5
25.00%
2
12.50%
1
25.00%
2
50.00%
4
12.50%
1
50.00%
4
25.00%
2
25.00%
2
25.00%
2
37.50%
3
96.55%
28
33.33%
2
16.67%
1
16.67%
1
0.00%
0
50.00%
3
16.67%
1
16.67%
1
0.00%
0
16.67%
1
16.67%
1
66.67%
4
51.72%
15
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
0.00%
0
33.33%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
33.33%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
17.24%
5
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
24.14%
7
66.67%
6
55.56%
5
11.11%
1
22.22%
2
55.56%
5
22.22%
2
33.33%
3
0.00%
0
22.22%
2
22.22%
2
33.33%
3
106.90%
31
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
50.00%
1
6.90%
2
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
13.79%
4
75.00%
6
50.00%
4
25.00%
2
50.00%
4
50.00%
4
25.00%
2
37.50%
3
37.50%
3
25.00%
2
12.50%
1
37.50%
3
117.24%
34
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
13.79%
4
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
33.33%
1
0.00%
0
33.33%
1
17.24%
5
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
13.79%
4
Limited scope retainers (i.e. unbundled legal services) Alternative billing models
Legal expense insurance Increased opportunities to use paralegal services
Litigation coaching for self-represented litigants Conflict coaching
Legal advice delivery via technology (e.g. Skype or teleconference)
Web-based programs that deliver routine legal services
Online dispute resolution
Holistic service delivery
Other model/approach
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0 10 20 30 40 50
Limited
scope
retainers
(i.e.
unbundled
legal
services)
Alternative
billing
models
Legal
expense
insurance
Increased
opportunities
to use
paralegal
services
Litigation
coaching
for self-
represented
litigants
Conflict
coaching
Legal advice
delivery via
technology
(e.g. Skype or
teleconference)
Web-based
programs
that deliver
routine
legal
services
(e.g.
document
automation,
online
forms and
use of
expert
systems
etc.)
Online
dispute
resolution
Holistic service
delivery (e.g.
work in
multidisciplinary
teams to delver
tailored and
holistic
services)
Other
model/approach
not listed above
Total
Q7: British
Columbia
Q7: Alberta
Q7:
Saskatchewan
Q7: Manitoba
Q7: Ontario
Q7: Quebec
Q7:
Newfoundland
and Labrador
Q7: Nova
Scotia
Q7: New
Brunswick
Q7: Prince
Edward Island
Q7: Yukon
1 / 2
25
GOAL III: MAKE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS FULLY ACCESSIBLE MULTI-SERVICE CENTRES FOR PUBLIC DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The third Justice Development Goal of the Action Committee’s A Roadmap for
Change report focuses on the importance of an accessible, multi-service formal
justice system.16 Early resolution outside of Canada’s courts and tribunals, where
appropriate, can offer a cost-effective and timely path to problem resolution.
Notwithstanding this Goal, there is no doubt that Canada’s exceptional network
of lawyers, judges, courts and tribunals remain fundamental to dispute resolution
processes and cases. However, the third Justice Development Goal encourages a
wider range of dispute resolution services and proportional processes being offered
through courts and tribunals that facilitate the creation of more accessible justice
venues that are responsive to the needs of their users.
Of the survey’s 185 respondents, 12 respondents (6% of respondents) indicated that
they were responding on behalf of a court. 20 respondents (11% of respondents)
indicated that they were responding on behalf of an administrative board or tribunal.
Figure 28Please select the category that best
describes the court you work for.
41.67%
5
16.67%
2
33.33%
4
8.33%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
100.00%
12
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
5 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 12
Provincial/Territorial Court Provincial/Territorial Court of Appeal
Provincial/Territorial Superior Court Federal Court Federal Court of Appeal
Supreme Court Other
Court
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Provincial/Territorial
Court
Provincial/Territorial
Court of Appeal
Provincial/Territorial
Superior Court
Federal
Court
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
Supreme
Court
Other (Courts
that
provided
details
provided
for
Other)
Total
Q8: Court
Q8:
Administrative
Board/Tribunal
Total
Respondents
1 / 1
Of the respondents who indicated that they were responding on behalf of a court:
• 5 identified as a provincial/territorial court
• 4 identified as a provincial/territorial superior court
• 2 identified as a provincial/territorial court of appeal
• 1 identified as a federal court
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
26
The “multi-door courthouse”, referenced in the Action Committee’s A Roadmap for
Change report,17 is a formal justice venue that offers multiple avenues for resolving a
legal problem. The 32 combined court and tribunal survey respondents were asked
about the types of front-end, early dispute resolution services that they offer. The
responses suggest that, in several ways, courts and tribunals are shifting towards this
“multi-door”, multi-service model.
Court, administrative board and tribunal respondents indicated that they offer a range
of front-end, early resolution resources onsite, with a majority – 56% of respondents
in this category – indicating that they offer mediation. A slightly smaller number of
respondents – 50% – indicated that they offer legal information resources.
Fewer than 50% of court and tribunal respondents indicated that they provide other
front-end early resolution services onsite:
• 28% indicated that they offer legal referral services
• 28% indicated that they offer other onsite resources, including pre-trial
conferences, informal resolution and case management
• 25% indicated that they offer triage services
• 25% indicated that they offer community referral services
• 22% indicated that they offer conciliation services
• 22% indicated that they offer summary advice
• 16% indicated that they offer pro-bono services
• 6% indicated that they offer student support services
• 6% indicated that they offer mini trials
18.75% 6
50.00% 16
25.00% 8
25.00% 8
28.13% 9
Figure 29 Which of the following front-end, early
resolution resources are available onsite at your
court, administrative board or tribunal?
(Check all that apply)
None
Legal information resources
Triage services
Communityreferral services
Legal referral services
Mediation
Conciliation services
Student support services
Pro-bono services
Summary advice
Mini trials
Other onsite resource(s)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
We do not offer front-end, early resolution resources onsite
Legal information resources
Triage services
Community referral services
Legal referral services
1 / 2
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
27
19% of court, administrative board and tribunal respondents (6 respondents)
indicated that they do not offer front-end, early resolution resources onsite. Based
on respondent type, 75% of court respondents indicated that they offer legal
information services and 75% of court respondents also indicated that they offer
mediation. Conversely, the least offered front-end early resolution resources offered
by the Survey’s court respondents are student support services.
Mediation is the most common front-end early resolution resource offered by the
Survey’s administrative board and tribunal respondents, with 45% indicating that this
resource is available onsite. No administrative board or tribunal survey respondent
offers mini-trials.
10.00% 3
86.67% 26
33.33% 10
30.00% 9
13.33% 4
3.33% 1
66.67% 20
50.00% 15
20.00% 6
16.67% 5
0.00% 0
13.33% 4
Figure 30 Which of the following technology does your court,
administrative board or tribunal use to assist people
in accessing the formal court system?
(Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 30
No technology is currently being used to assist people in accessing the formal court system
Website is used to provide plain language information to users Interactive forms are offered
The court/tribunal uses e-filing
Information and resources are available via mobile applications
Real time court orders can be generated
Teleconferencing can be used for court/tribunal appearances
Videoconferencing can be used for court/tribunal appearances
Internet based conferencing (e.g. Skype) is used for court/tribunal appearances
Social media is used to communicate general information and interact with the public
Online dispute resolution is offered Other technology not listed above (please specify)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Answer Choices Responses
No technology is currently being used to assist people in accessing the formal court system
Website is used to provide plain language information to users
Interactive forms are offered
The court/tribunal uses e-filing
Information and resources are available via mobile applications
Real time court orders can be generated
Teleconferencing can be used for court/tribunal appearances
Videoconferencing can be used for court/tribunal appearances
Internet based conferencing (e.g. Skype) is used for court/tribunal appearances
Social media is used to communicate general information and interact with the public
Online dispute resolution is offered
Other technology not listed above (please specify)
1 / 2
Courts, administrative boards and tribunal respondents indicated that in some ways
their formal justice venues are moving towards being modernized and equipped
with technology that meet some of the needs of present-day society. For example,
a majority of courts, tribunals and administrative boards – 90% – indicated that they
use technology in assisting people to access the formal court system. 87% of court,
tribunal and administrative board respondents indicated that a website is used to
provide plain language information to users, 67% indicated that teleconferencing
services can be used for court or tribunal appearances, while 50% indicated that
videoconferencing can be used for court or tribunal appearances.
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
28
Further, 37% of the 30 court, administrative board and tribunal respondents in this
category indicated that they are pursuing new projects that will introduce technology
into the court or tribunal process. Of these respondents, 27% of courts in this
category indicated that they are pursuing new projects that will introduce technology
into court processes, and 42% of administrative board and tribunal respondents
indicated that they are pursuing new projects that will introduce technology into
tribunal processes.
Less progress appears to have been made in offering other electronic services. Only
13% of court, tribunal and administrative board respondents indicated that they
provide information and resources via mobile applications and only 3% indicated that
they provide a means for real time court orders to be generated. No court, tribunal or
administrative board respondent in this category provides assistance through online
dispute resolution.
Figure 32Is your court, administrative board or
tribunal pursuing any new projects that will
introduce technology into the court or
tribunal process?
72.73%
8
27.27%
3
36.67%
11
57.89%
11
42.11%
8
63.33%
19
19 11 30
Q8: Court 4 4
Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal 9 9
# Q8: Court Date
1 Nous attendons d'obtenir de l'aide du Gouvernement. 1/6/2017 4:24 PM
2 Dépôt de documents en ligne Plus de formulaires interactifs On travaille sur la médiation en ligne en petites créances
et la production d'ordonnance et de procès-verbaux en salle d'audience
1/6/2017 1:55 PM
3 The Court, with the Ministry of Justice, is piloting a project where users would fill in forms pre-populated with data from
the lower court, reducing the need to enter information into Court forms. The Court has been conducting a number of
appeals which involve fully or partially electronic documents in PDF (the e-appeal project). The Court has been
involved in a pilot that seeks to webcast appeals. The Court is looking into the filing of larger electronic documents as
part of its rule reform consultation and as a continuous improvement project. The court continues to work on improving
its already existing "fillable" forms with feedback from external stakeholders, such as the Justice Access Centre.
12/9/2016 5:48 PM
4 New Supreme Court Rules project is nearing completion that will allow for greater use of technology. Also a Smart
Courtroom Pilot Project is being planned.
12/2/2016 1:32 PM
# Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal Date
1 Le Tribunal vise a accroître l'utilisation des technologies dans le futur notamment pour permettre le dépôt de recours.
Nous travaillons actuellement pour recevoir les dossiers des parties par voie électronique et avons commencé la
numérisation de dossiers en plusieurs matières.
1/9/2017 10:00 AM
No Yes
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Court
Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal
Total Respondents
If applicable, please briefly describe the project(s). Total
1 / 2
63.33% 19
36.67% 11
Figure 31Is your court, administrative board or
tribunal pursuing any new projects that will
introduce technology into the court or
tribunal process?
Total 30
# If applicable, please briefly describe the project(s). Date
1 Le Tribunal vise a accroître l'utilisation des technologies dans le futur notamment pour permettre le dépôt de recours.
Nous travaillons actuellement pour recevoir les dossiers des parties par voie électronique et avons commencé la
numérisation de dossiers en plusieurs matières.
1/9/2017 10:00 AM
2 Nous attendons d'obtenir de l'aide du Gouvernement. 1/6/2017 4:24 PM
3 Dépôt de documents en ligne Plus de formulaires interactifs On travaille sur la médiation en ligne en petites créances
et la production d'ordonnance et de procès-verbaux en salle d'audience
1/6/2017 1:55 PM
4 Nous tentons de créer un nouveau système qui sera plus interactif. 1/6/2017 1:31 PM
5 Increasing on line forms and information 12/23/2016 5:49 PM
6 We are establishing a social media plan and implementing that in 2017. 12/19/2016 6:47 PM
7 SharePoint and e-signature. 12/15/2016 4:37 PM
8 Discussions under way for providing access to information via website. 12/12/2016 10:44 AM
9 The Court, with the Ministry of Justice, is piloting a project where users would fill in forms pre-populated with data from
the lower court, reducing the need to enter information into Court forms. The Court has been conducting a number of
appeals which involve fully or partially electronic documents in PDF (the e-appeal project). The Court has been
involved in a pilot that seeks to webcast appeals. The Court is looking into the filing of larger electronic documents as
part of its rule reform consultation and as a continuous improvement project. The court continues to work on improving
its already existing "fillable" forms with feedback from external stakeholders, such as the Justice Access Centre.
12/9/2016 5:48 PM
10 5 year plan to modernise info technology, including secure client portal online 12/5/2016 9:50 AM
11 Do not believe so 12/3/2016 9:32 AM
12 videoconferencing technology for easier, less expensive multi-party negotiations and mediation. 12/2/2016 6:04 PM
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 2
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
29
Courts, Administrative Boards and Tribunals: Public Legal Education Information
59% of court, administrative board and tribunal respondents indicated that they
provide public legal information. Of this 59%, 75% of respondents who identified as
courts provide public legal information and 50% of respondents who identified as
tribunals provide public legal information.
Court, administrative board and tribunal Survey respondents provided answers to
a number of questions related to their efforts at building a more accessible and
user-friendly formal justice system. A range of public legal education resources are
available through formal justice venues that provide information that helps users of
the system to better understand legal processes and the dispute resolution options
that are available to them, navigate the justice system and deal with different aspects
of their problems.
Of the court, administrative board and tribunal respondents that offer public legal
information, 79% indicated that they offer information or resources to help people
to identify legal issues, 74% indicated that they offer information or resources on
alternative dispute resolution options, and 58% indicated that they offer information/
40.63% 13
59.38% 19
Figure 33 Does your court, administrative board or tribunal
provide public legal education information?
Total 32
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Figure 34Does your court, administrative board or tribunal
provide public legal education information?
25.00%
3
75.00%
9
37.50%
12
50.00%
10
50.00%
10
62.50%
20
13 19 32
No Yes
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Court
Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal
Total Respondents
1 / 1
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
30
resources to help people triage their problem. Fewer than 50% of court, administrative
board and tribunal respondents offer other types of public legal information on topics
such as:
• Legal rights or legal capability: 47%
• Administrative tribunals: 42%
• Civil courts: 37%
• Non-legal aspects of legal problems: 26%
• Prevention: 16%
• Other (e.g. online videos to help self-represented litigants and procedural
information): 16%
• Policy reform: 16%
No court, administrative board or tribunal respondent offers legal health check-ups.
78.95% 15
47.37% 9
57.89% 11
36.84% 7
42.11% 8
73.68% 14
15.79% 3
26.32% 5
15.79% 3
0.00% 0
15.79% 3
Figure 35What type of public legal education
information does your court, administrative
board or tribunal provide?
(Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 19
Information/resources to help people identify legal issues
Information/resources on legal rights or that help build legal capability
Information/resources to help people triage their problem
Information/resources on how the civil court system works
Information/resources on administrative tribunals
Information/resources on alternative dispute resolution options
Information/resources to help people prevent legal problems from occurring
Information/resources to help people deal with the non-legal aspects of their problem
Information on policy reform Legal health check ups
Other type of public legal education not indicated above
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Answer Choices Responses
Information/resources to help people identify legal issues
Information/resources on legal rights or that help build legal capability
Information/resources to help people triage their problem
Information/resources on how the civil court system works
Information/resources on administrative tribunals
Information/resources on alternative dispute resolution options
Information/resources to help people prevent legal problems from occurring
Information/resources to help people deal with the non-legal aspects of their problem
Information on policy reform
Legal health check ups
Other type of public legal education not indicated above
1 / 1
A majority of court, administrative board and tribunal respondents which provide
public legal information – 95% – indicated that the information they provide is
available online. 69% indicated that it is accessible in written form and a slightly
smaller number – 63% – indicated that they provide public legal information through
in-person, group settings.
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
31
Users of the justice system seek and access information in different ways and offering
multiple avenues to access public legal information is one of the contributing factors
in making court and tribunal processes and procedures more accessible and user-
friendly.18 The increased use of electronic and online platforms, in particular, is
emphasized in the Action Committee’s A Roadmap for Change report.
Based on respondent type, 89% of court respondents indicated that they provide
public legal education online, 78% indicated that they provide public legal education
via in-person, group settings and 78% indicated that they provide public legal
education through written material. No court respondent indicated offering public
legal education via helplines or on mobile devices.
63.16% 12
42.11% 8
21.05% 4
68.42% 13
94.74% 18
10.53% 2
5.26% 1
Figure 36How does your court, administrative
board or tribunal provide public legal
education information?
(Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 19
# Other method (please specify) Date
1 Présence dans les médias 1/6/2017 4:22 PM
In persongroup settings
In personone-on-one consultations
Helpline Written
material
Online On mobiledevices
Other
method
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
In person, group settings (lectures, workshops, facilitated discussions)
In person (one on one consultations, counseling or support)
Helpline
Written material
Online
On mobile devices
Other method (please specify)
1 / 1
As for administrative board and tribunal respondents, 100% indicated that they
provide public legal education online, 60% indicated that they provide public
legal education via written materials, 50% indicated that they provide public legal
education through in-person, group settings, and 20% indicated that they provide
public legal education on mobile devices.
All court, administrative board and tribunal respondents offer public legal information
in English while 79% indicated that they offer public legal information in both English
and French and 11% offer information in other languages, including Mandarin and
Punjabi.
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
32
Figure 37How does your court, administrative board or
tribunal provide public legal education
information?
(Select all that apply)
77.78%
7
33.33%
3
0.00%
0
77.78%
7
88.89%
8
0.00%
0
11.11%
1
136.84%
26
50.00%
5
50.00%
5
40.00%
4
60.00%
6
100.00%
10
20.00%
2
0.00%
0
168.42%
32
12 8 4 13 18 2 1 19
# Q8: Court Date
1 Présence dans les médias 1/6/2017 4:22 PM
# Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal Date
There are no responses.
In person, group settings In person, one-on-one Helpline Written material
Online On mobile devices Other method
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
0 10 20 30 40 50
In person group settings In person one on one Helpline Written material Online On mobile devices Other method Total
Q8: Court
Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal
Total Respondents
1 / 1
100.00% 19
78.95% 15
10.53% 2
Figure 38
In what language(s) do you provide legal
education information?
(Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 19
# Other language(s) Date
1 Limited information in pujabi and chinese 12/16/2016 4:00 PM
2 Evidence can be presented in any language. We have a very extensive interpreter services program. 12/15/2016 4:34 PM
English French Other language(s)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
English
French
Other language(s)
1 / 1
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
33
Courts, Administrative Boards and Tribunals: Services for Self-Represented Litigants
The third Justice Development Goal of the Action Committee’s A Roadmap for
Change also envisions the availability of accessible services for self-represented
litigants through courts, administrative boards and tribunals.19 63% of the combined
30 court, administrative board and tribunal Survey respondents indicated that
they provide specialized assistance for self-represented litigants: courts (82%) and
administrative boards or tribunals (53%).
36.67% 11
63.33% 19
Figure 39 Does your court, administrative board or
tribunal provide any specialized
assistance for self-represented litigants?
Total 30
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Figure 40
Does your court, administrative board or
tribunal provide any specialized
assistance for self-represented litigants?
18.18%
2
81.82%
9
36.67%
11
47.37%
9
52.63%
10
63.33%
19
11 19 30
No Yes
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Court
Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal
Total Respondents
1 / 1
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
34
Court, administrative board and tribunal respondents indicated that they offer a
range of resources to assist self-represented litigants (which potentially could be
coordinated with other services and service providers and be more readily integrated
into the ERSS). A majority of court, administrative board and tribunal respondents in
this category – 66% – use online forms to better assist self-represented litigants and
55% use plain language forms. Fewer respondents in this category – 17% of courts,
administrative boards and tribunals – indicate that they offer specialized training for
court staff on assisting self-represented litigants, and 10% use interactive forms to
assist self-represented litigants.
65.52% 19
10.34% 3
55.17% 16
17.24% 5
34.48% 10
41.38% 12
Figure 41If applicable, what does your court,
administrative board or tribunal do to better
assist self-represented litigants?
(Check all that apply)
Total Respondents: 29
# Other (please specify) Date
1 L'article 104 de la Loi sur la justice administrative (loi constitutive) prévoit que les membres du personnel prêtent
assistance à toute personne qui la requiert pour la formulation d'une requête, d'une intervention ou toute autre acte de
procédure adressés au Tribunal.
1/9/2017 9:58 AM
2 Our tribunal tells people what their process obligations and options are as they arise, with information about
obligations and options
12/16/2016 4:02 PM
3 We strongly encourage self-represented appellants to contact the Advocates Service for assistance. It is a no cost
service through the Government of NB
12/15/2016 10:40 AM
4 In-hearing assistance 12/12/2016 1:30 PM
5 IT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THIS TRIBUNAL 12/12/2016 9:32 AM
6 Our Court forms relationships with external organisations that assist self-represented litigants to help build improved
services (Justice Education Society, Justice Access Centre, etc)
12/9/2016 5:42 PM
7 seminars 12/6/2016 2:44 PM
8 Online guides for the various recourses before the Board 12/5/2016 11:26 AM
9 1 on 1 scheduling conferences for self-rep that explain process and answer questions 12/5/2016 9:49 AM
10 It is possible that the registrar staff also provide additional assistance to applicants by phone. 12/3/2016 9:32 AM
Use online forms Use interactive forms Use plain language forms
Offer specialized training for court staff on assisting self-represented litigants
Provide assistance in preparing court documentation Other (please specify)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Answer Choices Responses
Use online forms
Use interactive forms
Use plain language forms
Offer specialized training for court staff on assisting self-represented litigants
Provide assistance in preparing court documentation
Other (please specify)
1 / 2
Courts, Administrative Boards and Tribunals: Family Law Services and Resources
Court, administrative board and tribunal respondents also reported on the specialized
assistance that they provide for family matters.
73.33% 22
26.67% 8
Figure 42Is there any specialized assistance available
at your court, administrative board or
tribunal for family matters?
Total 30
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
35 37.93% 11
62.07% 18
Figure 44Is your court, administrative board or tribunal
involved in any projects where you work
collaboratively with other organizations/stakeholders
to improve access to justice?
Total 29
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Only 27% of court, administrative board and tribunal respondents indicated that
they offer specialized assistance on family matters, an area identified as one of
particular need.20 Further, only 27% of respondents who identify as courts, tribunals or
administrative boards indicated that they are involved in projects specifically targeted
at improving access to family justice.
Largely because of jurisdiction, all of the projects specifically targeted at improving
access to justice in family law are being carried out by courts, with 73% of court
respondents in this category indicating that they are involved in projects of this
nature. Details provided by court respondents indicate that ongoing projects
focus on a range of family law matters, including case management, streamlining
processes, modernizing family law information resources, and the protection of
children and youth.
73.33% 22
26.67% 8
0.00% 0
Figure 43Is your court, administrative board or tribunal
involved in any projects specifically targeted at
improving access to justice in family law?
Total 30
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
Not applicable
1 / 1
Courts, Administrative Boards and Tribunals: Collaboration and Coordination
A majority of court, tribunal and administrative board respondents indicated that they
collaborate and coordinate with justice stakeholders and others working in different
disciplines.
62% of the 29 court, administrative board and tribunal respondents who recorded
responses related to their collaborative efforts indicated that they are involved in
projects where they work collaboratively with other organizations and stakeholders
to improve access to justice: courts (73%), and administrative board and tribunal
respondents (56%). Collaboration is taking place on a number of fronts with a range
of stakeholders, including volunteer duty counsel, not-for-profit organizations,
research centres, local, regional and national bodies, A2J Groups (see further below,
Goal V), courts, tribunals, and others.
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
36
Figure 45Is your court, administrative board or tribunal
involved in any projects where you work
collaboratively with other organizations/
stakeholders to improve access to justice?
27.27%
3
72.73%
8
37.93%
11
44.44%
8
55.56%
10
62.07%
18
11 18 29
No Yes
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Court
Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal
Total Respondents
1 / 1
Courts, Administrative Boards and Tribunals: Public Engagement
Work to increase public engagement and raise awareness of access to justice issues
by courts, administrative boards and tribunals is needed to help decrease the reliance
on formal justice venues and services and to aid in the resolution of problems that
could otherwise be addressed sooner and through other, less costly methods.
Courts, tribunals and administrative boards can lend valuable and unique insight to
conversations on access to justice issues and can play important leadership roles in
fostering public understanding of justice issues. 48% of the 29 court, administrative
board and tribunal respondents indicated that they are involved in projects designed
to increase public engagement and raise awareness of access to justice issues.
51.72% 15
48.28% 14
Figure 46Is your court, administrative board or tribunal
involved in any projects designed to increase public
engagement with the justice system and raise
awareness of access to justice issues?
Total 29
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
37
Courts, Administrative Boards and Tribunals: Metrics
All justice stakeholders can contribute to access to justice research through data
collection and metrics. 69% of the 29 court, administrative board and tribunal
respondents in this category indicated that there is information related to courts and
tribunals being collected in their jurisdiction.
31.03% 9
24.14% 7
3.45% 1
37.93% 11
0.00% 0
31.03% 9
48.28% 14
3.45% 1
0.00% 0
20.69% 6
Figure 48Is any of the following information collected in
your jurisdiction?
(Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 29
# Other variable not listed above (please specify) Date
1 Extensive data is collected 12/15/2016 4:39 PM
2 The Court's annual report provides many other statistics. 12/9/2016 5:57 PM
3 Times between notice of appeal & hearing; hearing and decision date; classifications of reversals 12/6/2016 12:16 PM
4 Unsure about others 12/3/2016 9:33 AM
5 Number of SRLs attend Family Registry in St. John's, conducted a province-wide survey of SRLs that attend registry
and the type of services they seek.
12/2/2016 1:43 PM
6 Not sure 11/30/2016 5:19 PM
My court/tribunal does not track any of the following Court/tribunal user satisfaction
Court fee per civil case Length of proceedings (for similar matters)
Percentage of case files and records that meet standards of accuracy, completeness, currency and accessibility
Rescheduling of key processing events (e.g. trials, settlement meetings etc.)
Number of self-represented litigants that come before the court/tribunal (in similar matters)
Cost per case (to the court or tribunal)
Other variable not listed above
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Answer Choices Responses
My court/tribunal does not track any of the following
Court/tribunal user satisfaction
Court fee per civil case
Length of proceedings (for similar matters)
Percentage of case files and records that meet standards of accuracy, completeness, currency and accessibility
Rescheduling of key processing events (e.g. trials, settlement meetings etc.)
Number of self-represented litigants that come before the court/tribunal (in similar matters)
Cost per case (to the court or tribunal)
My court/tribunal does not collect data
Other variable not listed above (please specify)
1 / 1
Figure 47Is your court, administrative board or
tribunal involved in any projects designed
to increase public engagement with the
justice system and raise awareness of
access to justice issues?
45.45%
5
54.55%
6
37.93%
11
55.56%
10
44.44%
8
62.07%
18
15 14 29
No Yes
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Court
Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal
Total Respondents
1 / 1
Of these respondents, 55% of courts and 44% of administrative board and tribunal
respondents in this category indicated that they are involved in projects designed to
increase public engagement with the justice system and raise awareness of access to
justice issues. Respondents offered details on a range of projects, including free legal
advice clinics in public venues, reviewing and user-testing online legal services and
materials, and participation in projects to create plain language guides for rules and
procedures.
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
38
Figure 49Is any of the following information collected in your
jurisdiction?
(Select all that apply)
My court/tribunal does not track any of the following Court/tribunal user satisfaction
Court fee per civil case Length of proceedings (for similar matters)
Percentage of case files and records that meet standards of accuracy, completeness, currency and accessibility
Rescheduling of key processing events (e.g. trials, settlement meetings etc.)
Number of self-represented litigants that come before the court/tribunal (in similar matters)
Cost per case (to the court or tribunal)
Other variable not listed above (please specify)
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
0 10 20 30 40 50
My
court/tribunal
does not
track any of
the following
Court/tribunal
user
satisfaction
Court
fee
per
civil
case
Length of
proceedings
(for similar
matters)
Percentage of case
files and records that
meet standards of
accuracy,
completeness,
currency and
accessibility
Rescheduling of
key processing
events (e.g.
trials, settlement
meetings etc.)
Number of self-
represented
litigants that come
before the
court/tribunal (in
similar matters)
Cost per
case (to
the
court or
tribunal)
My
court/tribunal
does not
collect data
Other
variable
not
listed
above
(please
specify)
Total
1 / 2
Based on respondent type, 45% of court respondents indicated that information on
the number of self-represented litigants that come before the court is collected in
their jurisdiction, while only 9% collect information on court user satisfaction, and
information on court fees per civil case.
As for administrative tribunal and board respondents, 50% indicated that information
on the number of self-represented litigants that come before tribunals is collected in
their jurisdiction while only 6% indicated that information is collected on the cost per
case to the tribunal.
Of these respondents, 48% of court, tribunal and administrative board respondents
indicated that information is collected on the number of self-represented litigants
who come before the court or tribunal, 38% indicated that information is collected
on the length of proceedings, 31% indicated that information is collected related to
rescheduling of key processing events (e.g. trials, settlement meetings, etc.), and 31%
indicated that information is collected on court fees per civil case. Less information
is collected on the cost per case (to the court or tribunal): only 3% of respondents
in this category collect this information, and further only 3% of respondents collect
information on court fees per civil case. No court, tribunal or administrative board
respondent in this category indicated that any information on the percentage of
case files and records that meet standards of accuracy, completeness, currency and
accessibility is collected in their jurisdiction.
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
39
Figure 51Is the data collected made available to the following groups?
(Select all that apply)
42.86%
3
42.86%
3
14.29%
1
42.86%
3
0.00%
0
50.00%
10
61.54%
8
38.46%
5
38.46%
5
7.69%
1
38.46%
5
120.00%
24
11 8 6 4 5 20
# Q8: Court Date
There are no responses.
# Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal Date
1 rapport annuel de gestion et autres redditions de compte 1/9/2017 10:02 AM
2 Stakeholders 12/15/2016 4:40 PM
3 Can be made avaialble upon request and was also made public in departmental reports 12/12/2016 9:52 AM
4 Published in annual report (public document), posted on website, and presented to Standing Committee (Mb
Legislature)
12/6/2016 12:18 PM
5 To the extent that it is published in the annual report 12/3/2016 9:33 AM
External evaluators Not made availableThe public Researchers
Other group not listed
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
0 10 20 30 40 50
The
public
Researchers External
evaluators
None of the
above
Other group not listed above (please
specify)
Total
Q8: Court
Q8: Administrative
Board/Tribunal
Total Respondents
1 / 1
Of the court, administrative board and tribunal respondents who recorded responses
related to the information that is collected in their jurisdiction, 55% indicated that the
data is available to the public, 40% indicated that the data is available to researchers,
30% indicated that the data is available to external evaluators, and 25% indicated that
data is available to other groups or individuals (including legislatures, stakeholders
and Standing Committees). 20% indicated that the data is not available to any group
or individual.
Of the court,
administrative
board and tribunal
respondents who
recorded responses
related to the
information that is
collected in their
jurisdiction, 55%
indicated that the
data is available
to the public.
55.00% 11
40.00% 8
30.00% 6
20.00% 4
25.00% 5
Figure 50 Is the data collected made available to the
following groups?
(Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 20
# Other group not listed above (please specify) Date
1 rapport annuel de gestion et autres redditions de compte 1/9/2017 10:02 AM
2 Stakeholders 12/15/2016 4:40 PM
3 Can be made avaialble upon request and was also made public in departmental reports 12/12/2016 9:52 AM
4 Published in annual report (public document), posted on website, and presented to Standing Committee (Mb
Legislature)
12/6/2016 12:18 PM
5 To the extent that it is published in the annual report 12/3/2016 9:33 AM
The public Researchers External
evaluators
Not made available
Other group
not listed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
The public
Researchers
External evaluators
None of the above
Other group not listed above (please specify)
1 / 1
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
40
Figure 53
Is the data available online?
57.14%
4
42.86%
3
35.00%
7
46.15%
6
53.85%
7
65.00%
13
10 10 20
Q8: Court 3 3
Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal 4 4
# Q8: Court Date
1 http://courdappelduquebec.ca/a-propos-de-lacour/ statistiques-et-publications/ 1/9/2017 11:05 AM
2 seulement certains sur le site de la Cour et notre rapport public 1/6/2017 2:02 PM
3 www.courts.gov.bc.ca 12/9/2016 5:58 PM
# Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal Date
1 en partie 1/9/2017 10:02 AM
2 Not yet as data collection being designed. 12/23/2016 5:50 PM
3 Annual Report available online and tabled with Yukon Legislative Assembly 12/19/2016 6:48 PM
4 www.appeal.mb.ca 12/6/2016 12:18 PM
No Yes
Court
Administrative Board/Tribunal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Court
Q8: Administrative Board/Tribunal
Total Respondents
If applicable, please indicate the URL/website where the data is available Total
1 / 1
10 court, tribunal and administrative board respondents indicated that the
data that they collect is available online: courts (43%), and administrative
boards and tribunals (54%).
50.00% 10
50.00% 10
Figure 52
Is the data available online?
Total 20
# If applicable, please indicate the URL/website where the data is available Date
1 http://courdappelduquebec.ca/a-propos-de-lacour/ statistiques-et-publications/ 1/9/2017 11:05 AM
2 en partie 1/9/2017 10:02 AM
3 seulement certains sur le site de la Cour et notre rapport public 1/6/2017 2:02 PM
4 Not yet as data collection being designed. 12/23/2016 5:50 PM
5 Annual Report available online and tabled with Yukon Legislative Assembly 12/19/2016 6:48 PM
6 www.courts.gov.bc.ca 12/9/2016 5:58 PM
7 www.appeal.mb.ca 12/6/2016 12:18 PM
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Based on respondent type, court respondents indicated that the data collected in
their jurisdiction is primarily available to the public and to researchers (43% in each
category). 62% of administrative board and tribunal respondents in this category
indicated that the data collected is available to the public, 38% indicated that
the information is available to researchers, and a further 38% indicated that the
information is available to external evaluators.
10 court, tribunal and administrative board respondents indicated that the data that
they collect is available online: courts (43%), and administrative boards and tribunals
(54%).
Goal III: Make Courts And Tribunals Fully Accessible Multi-Service Centres For Public Dispute Resolution
41
GOAL IV: MAKE COORDINATED AND APPROPRIATE MULTIDISCIPLINARY FAMILY SERVICES EASILY ACCESSIBLE
The fourth Justice Development Goal addresses the need for family justice reform
that offers comprehensive, affordable, multidisciplinary and accessible paths to
resolve family law problems. The Action Committee’s A Roadmap for Change report
outlines several important changes and considerations for effective and extensive
family law reform, including progressive, core principles that should direct family law
reform efforts,21 front-end services that are needed, integrated services and programs,
increased dispute resolution options related to family law, restructuring of courts to
better manage family law issues, and modernization, innovation and coordination
of current and non-traditional practices in family law. The Family Justice Services
Continuum22, referenced in the A Roadmap for Change report, also underscores the
need for a reallocation of family law resources to early resolution channels so that
they are more visible and accessible to those who need them.
134 respondents provided responses to a series of questions related to these areas of
proposed development and change in family justice.
60 respondents (or 45% of respondents in this category) indicated that their
organization offers targeted legal or non-legal services or resources to families
experiencing a family law problem.
Of these respondents, 50% of government respondents indicated that they offer
targeted (legal or non-legal) services or resources to families experiencing a family
law problem. Among not-for-profit respondents in this category, 37% offer services
or resources to families experiencing a family law problem; 70% of legal clinic
respondents offer family law services or resources of this nature while 50% of law
school respondents indicate that they offer family law services to assist families. 75%
55.22% 74
44.78% 60
Figure 54Does your organization offer targeted
services or resources (legal or non-legal) to
families experiencing a family law problem?
Total 134
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible
42
Figure 55Does your organization offer targeted
services or resources (legal or non-legal) to
families experiencing a family law problem?
50.00%
4
50.00%
4
8.08%
8
No Yes
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based reseach centre
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Government
1 / 2
of private-sector business survey respondents offer targeted (legal or non-legal)
services or resources to families experiencing a family law problem.23
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible
43
Figure 56Does your organization offer targeted
services or resources (legal or non-legal) to
families experiencing a family law problem?
58.82%
10
41.18%
7
19.32%
17
75.00%
9
25.00%
3
13.64%
12
No Yes
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q7: British Columbia
Q7: Alberta
1 / 2
Though respondents in most provinces and territories indicated that they offer
services or resources to families experiencing a family law problem, less than half of
the respondents in these regions indicated that they offer these services. Nova Scotia
was the sole exception, with 55% of survey respondents in this category indicating
that they offer targeted (legal or non-legal) services or resources to families
experiencing a family law problem.
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible
44
The diversity in the range of services and resources that are being used to help
families who are experiencing a family law problem in Canada presents some
encouraging figures and suggests that in some respects, Canada may be moving
towards offering more accessible and affordable family law options for early problem
resolution.
51.67% 31
71.67% 43
45.00% 27
58.33% 35
31.67% 19
33.33% 20
11.67% 7
Figure 57What type of services or resources does
your organization provide to families
experiencing a family law problem?
(Select all that apply)
Legal advice
Legal information
Legal representation
Resources that help people triage their situation
Early intervention options
Collaborative processes
Parenting coordination
Mediation
Financial advice services
Counseling
Other service or resource
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Legal advice
Legal information
Legal representation
Resources that help people triage their situation
Early intervention options
Collaborative processes
Parenting coordination
1 / 3
The diversity
in the range of
services and
resources that
are being used to
help families who
are experiencing
a family law
problem
in Canada
presents some
encouraging
figures and
suggests that in
some respects,
Canada may be
moving towards
offering more
accessible and
affordable family
law options for
early problem
resolution.
72% of respondents in this category (who offer targeted services or resources to
families) indicated that they provide legal information to families experiencing
a family law problem. This is followed by 58% who provide resources that help
people to triage their situation, 52% who offer legal advice and 45% who offer legal
representation. Collaborative processes, early intervention options and mediation
are offered by 33%, 32% and 22% of respondents in this category respectively, while
counselling is provided by 20% of respondents, parenting coordination is offered
by 12%, and financial advice services are provided by 3% of respondents in this
category.
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible
45
A review of the responses in this category also reveals that there is some variation
in the availability of different family law services and resources through different
organizations. All government respondents who provide services or resources
to families experiencing a family law problem indicated that they offer resources
that help people to triage their problem, while 50% of government organizations
indicated that they offer services or resources in each of the following categories:
legal information, early intervention options, collaborative processes and mediation.
An equal number of government respondents – 25% in each category – offer legal
representation, parenting coordination and counselling while no government
respondents in this category offer legal advice or financial advice services.
Figure 58 What type of services or resources does
your organization provide to families
experiencing a family law problem?
(Select all that apply)
Legal advice Legal information Legal representation
Resources that help people triage their situation Early intervention options
Collaborative processes Parenting coordination Mediation
Financial advice services Counseling Other service or resource
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1 / 3
• A majority of not-for-profit respondents in this category (60%) provide legal
information to assist families experiencing a family law problem, while almost half
that number — 33% — indicate that they provide resources that help people triage
their situation and 27% offer counselling. No not-for-profit respondents in this
category offer legal representation, parenting coordination, mediation or financial
advice services.
• 88% of legal clinic respondents in this category indicated that they provide
legal advice, and a further 88% indicated that they offer legal information. 69%
offer legal representation and 69% also indicated that they offer resources to
help people triage their situation. Conversely, no legal clinic respondent in this
category reported offering parenting coordination or financial advice services to
families who are experiencing a family law problem.
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible
46
Figure 59 What type of services or resources does your
organization provide to families experiencing a family
law problem?
(Select all that apply)
5 6 5 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 26
33.33%
1
66.67%
2
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
66.67%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
66.67%
2
100.00%
3
35.14%
13
50.00%
1
100.00%
2
0.00%
0
100.00%
2
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
27.03%
10
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
0.00%
0
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
33.33%
1
0.00%
0
16.22%
6
57.14%
4
71.43%
5
42.86%
3
71.43%
5
57.14%
4
42.86%
3
42.86%
3
57.14%
4
14.29%
1
28.57%
2
42.86%
3
100.00%
37
0.00%
0
50.00%
2
0.00%
0
50.00%
2
25.00%
1
25.00%
1
25.00%
1
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
50.00%
2
27.03%
10
50.00%
1
100.00%
2
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
16.22%
6
83.33%
5
100.00%
6
83.33%
5
100.00%
6
66.67%
4
66.67%
4
16.67%
1
16.67%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
16.67%
1
89.19%
33
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
100.00%
1
0.00%
0
100.00%
1
0.00%
0
100.00%
1
0.00%
0
8.11%
3
0.00%
0
100.00%
1
0.00%
0
100.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
100.00%
1
8.11%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
100.00%
1
100.00%
1
100.00%
1
100.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
10.81%
4
Legal advice Legal information Legal representation
Resources that help people triage their situation Early intervention options
Collaborative processes Parenting coordination Mediation
Financial advice services Counseling Other service or resource
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0 10 20 30 40 50
Columbia
Q7: Alberta
Q7:
Saskatchewan
Q7: Manitoba
Q7: Ontario
Q7: Quebec
Q7:
Newfoundland
and Labrador
Q7: Nova
Scotia
Q7: New
Brunswick
Q7: Prince
Edward Island
Q7: Yukon
Q7: Northwest
Territories
1 / 2
• All law school respondents in this category offer legal advice, legal information
and legal representation. 50% indicated that they offer resources that help
people triage their situation, 50% offer collaborative processes and 50% provide
counselling. No law school respondent in this category offers early intervention
options, parenting coordination, mediation or financial advice services.
• 83% of private sector business respondents in this category indicated that they
provide legal advice to help families experiencing a family law problem; 83%
also provide legal information. 67% indicated that they offer legal representation
and a further 67% indicated that provide resources that help people triage their
situation. At the lower end, 17% of private sector business respondents offer
financial advice services or counselling.
No organization in this category that identified as regulators or university-based
research centres indicated that they provide family law services or resources.
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible
47
Further examination of family law responses, based in this instance on provincial/
territorial organizational scope, indicates that more than 50% of respondents in
several provinces and territories offer a range of services and resources to assist
families experiencing a family law problem.
• British Columbia. 86% of respondents in this category with activities that serve
British Columbia indicated that they provide legal information, 71% provide legal
advice and 71% provide legal representation. Parenting coordination, financial
advice services and counselling are reportedly the least offered services by
respondents in this category who serve British Columbia.
• Alberta. 67% of survey respondents with activities that serve Alberta indicated
that they provide legal information, 67% provide collaborative processes and 67%
offer counselling. Parenting coordination, mediation and financial advice services
are the least offered services by respondents in this category who serve Alberta.
• Saskatchewan. All respondents in this category with activities that serve
Saskatchewan provide legal information to help families experiencing a family
law problem and resources that help people triage their situation. 50% indicated
that they provide legal advice, early intervention options, collaborative processes,
mediation, parenting coordination and counselling. Legal representation and
financial advice services are the least offered services by respondents in this
category who serve Saskatchewan.
• Manitoba. Equal numbers of respondents (33%) in this category with activities
that serve Manitoba provide legal advice, legal information, legal representation,
early intervention options, collaborative processes, and counselling. Resources
that help people triage their situation, parenting coordination, mediation and
financial advice services are the least offered services by respondents in this
category who serve Manitoba.
• Ontario. 71% of respondents in this category with activities that serve Ontario
provide legal information and a further 71% offer resources that help people triage
their situation. 57% offer legal advice, early intervention options and mediation.
Financial advice services (with 14% of respondents) are the least offered service
by respondents in this category who serve Ontario.
• Québec. 50% of respondents in this category with activities that serve Québec
provide legal information to families experiencing a family law problem; further,
50% indicated that they provide resources that help people to triage their
problems. No respondent with activities that serve Québec indicated that they
offer legal advice, legal representation, financial advice services or counselling.
• Newfoundland and Labrador. 100% of respondents in this category with activities
that serve Newfoundland and Labrador provide legal information to assist families
experiencing a family law problem; further 50% of respondents indicated that
they offer services or resources to families experiencing a family law problem in
each of the following areas: legal advice, legal representation, resources that help
people triage their situation, and mediation. No respondent indicated that they
offer early intervention options, collaborative processes, parenting coordination,
financial advice services or counselling.
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible
48
52.24% 70
47.76% 64
Figure 60Is your organization involved in any
projects specifically targeted at improving
access to justice in family law?
Total 134
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
• Nova Scotia. 100% of respondents in this category with activities that serve
Nova Scotia provide legal information to assist families experiencing a family
law problem; further 100% also provide resources that help people triage their
situation. 83% indicated that they offer legal advice and 83% indicated that
they offer legal representation. 67% indicated that they offer early intervention
options and 67% also offer collaborative processes. No respondent with activities
that serve Nova Scotia indicated that they offer financial advice services or
counselling.
• New Brunswick. 100% of respondents in this category with activities that serve
New Brunswick provide collaborative services to assist families experiencing a
family law problem. 100% also offer mediation and counselling. No other family
law services are reportedly offered by respondents in this category with activities
that serve New Brunswick.
• Prince Edward Island. 100% of respondents in this category with activities that
serve Prince Edward Island provide legal information and they also provide
resources that help people triage their situation. Otherwise, respondents in this
category with activities that serve Prince Edward Island reportedly offer no other
family law service that was listed in the Survey.
• Northwest Territories. 100% of respondents in this category with activities that
serve the Northwest Territories indicated that they provide the following services
or resources to families experiencing a family law problem: legal advice, legal
information, legal representation, and resources that help people triage their
situation. No respondent with activities that serve the Northwest Territories
indicated that they offer any other service or resource listed.
• Yukon and Nunavut. No responses were recorded in this category for respondents
whose activities serve the Yukon or Nunavut.
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible
49
Figure 61Is your organization involved in any
projects specifically targeted at improving
access to justice in family law?
37.50%
3
62.50%
5
8.08%
8
No Yes
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Government
1 / 2
Work on Canadian family law initiatives is ongoing. In addition to the services and
resources that are being provided across organizational sectors and in different
provinces and territories, 48% (or 64 respondents) in this category also indicated
that they are involved in projects specifically targeted at improving access to justice
in family law.
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible
50
Figure 62Is your organization involved in any
projects specifically targeted at improving
access to justice in family law?
35.29%
6
64.71%
11
19.32%
17
66.67%
8
33.33%
4
13.64%
12
No Yes
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q7: British Columbia
Q7: Alberta
1 / 2
Among these respondents, a majority of government, law school and university-
based research centre respondents indicated that they are involved in projects
specifically targeted at improving access to justice in family law and 50% of private
sector business respondents indicated that they are involved in projects that aim to
improve access to justice in family law.
Based on the provincial and territorial scope of respondents in this category, 50%
or more of respondents with activities that serve British Columbia, Saskatchewan,
Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island indicated that they are involved in projects that specifically aim to improve
access to justice in family law.
Goal IV: Make Coordinated and Appropriate Multidisciplinary Family Services Easily Accessible
51Goal V: Create Local and National Access to Justice Implementation Mechanisms
GOAL V: CREATE LOCAL AND NATIONAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS
Goal five of the Action Committee’s A Roadmap for Change report envisioned
the creation of local and national access to justice implementation mechanisms –
primarily in the form of “justice implementation commissions” by 2016. As of the
time of the Survey, Access to Justice Groups (A2J Groups) have been created in each
province and territory.24 Since their formation, each A2J Group has initiated projects
that primarily address areas of jurisdictional priority. While detailing these specific
projects is beyond the scope of this Report, the Action Committee plans to release
an “Innovation Toolbox” that highlights many of the innovative initiatives of these A2J
Groups, as well as other projects from organizations around the country.
40.00% 2
60.00% 3
Figure 63Does your governance framework reserve a
spot for a representative of the general public?
Total 5
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
66.67% 2
33.33% 1
33.33% 1
66.67% 2
Figure 64What role does the representative of the
general public play?
Total Respondents: 3
# Other (please specify) Date
1 commissaire à temps partiel 1/6/2017 2:36 PM
2 Is on the Executive, is the chair of the Communications committee, and is involved in various working groups. 12/5/2016 8:59 PM
Sit on the board Sit on committee(s) Act in an
advisory
capacity
Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
Sit on the board
Sit on Committee(s)
Act in an advisory capacity
Other (please specify)
1 / 1
It is important to acknowledge that of the Survey’s 185 respondents, 5 respondents
provided responses in this Access to Justice Group/Commission section. A2J Groups
were asked to respond to questions that would provide data on their mandate and
governance, areas of key priority, their efforts to coordinate and collaborate, and
how they share information and best-practices both among A2J Groups as well as
with the public.
52Goal V: Create Local and National Access to Justice Implementation Mechanisms
An important part of the Action Committee’s call to action for the provincial and
territorial A2J Groups has been its encouragement to ensure that the general public
is engaged with not just the activities of the A2J Groups but ideally in their
governance as well. Of those that responded to the Survey, 60% indicated that they
reserve a spot in their governance framework for members of the general public
with a majority indicating that members of the general public sit on their board and
occupy other positions.
0.00% 0
100.00% 5
Figure 65Is your A2J Group/Commission involved in any
projects related to public legal education?
Total 5
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Access to Justice Groups: Public Legal Education Information
Access to Justice Group respondents indicated that they are involved in projects
related to public legal education.
60% of respondents indicated that their public legal education projects focus on
information and resources to help people identify legal issues, their legal rights
or resources that help build legal capability. There is slightly less of a focus on
information and resources that help people, prevent legal problems from occurring,
triage their problem, deal with the non-legal aspects of their problem and provide
information on alternative dispute resolution options, with 40% of respondents
indicating that they provide resources that do so.
60.00% 3
60.00% 3
40.00% 2
40.00% 2
40.00% 2
40.00% 2
40.00% 2
40.00% 2
20.00% 1
40.00% 2
Figure 66What type of public legal education do these
projects focus on? (Please select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 5
# Other type of public education project not listed above (please specify) Date
1 enseignements et ressources pour aider les gens à la défense de leurs droits 1/6/2017 2:37 PM
Information/resources to help people identify legal issues
Information/resources on legal rights or that help build legal capability
Information/resources to help people triage their problem
Information/resources on how the civil court system works
Information/resources on administrative tribunals
Information/resources on alternative dispute resolution options
Information/resources to help people prevent legal problems from occurring
Information/resources to help people deal with the non-legal aspects of their problem
Information on policy reform
Other type of public education project not listed above (please specify)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Answer Choices Responses
Information/resources to help people identify legal issues
Information/resources on legal rights or that help build legal capability
Information/resources to help people triage their problem
Information/resources on how the civil court system works
Information/resources on administrative tribunals
Information/resources on alternative dispute resolution options
Information/resources to help people prevent legal problems from occurring
Information/resources to help people deal with the non-legal aspects of their problem
Information on policy reform
Other type of public education project not listed above (please specify)
1 / 2
53Goal V: Create Local and National Access to Justice Implementation Mechanisms
20% of respondents indicated that their public legal information projects focus
on policy reform, suggesting that the promotion of a national access to justice
policy framework is not currently a focus of at least some of the A2J Groups.
All A2J Group respondents indicated that they are involved in projects designed
to increase public engagement with the justice system and raise awareness of
access to justice issues.
Access to Justice Groups: Legal Service Delivery Models
40% (two of the five A2J Group respondents) indicated that they are involved
in projects related to legal service delivery models. Of these respondents, 100%
indicated that they are working on legal service delivery projects that focus on:
• Limited scope retainers (i.e. unbundled legal services)
• Holistic service delivery (e.g. work in multidisciplinary teams to deliver
tailored and holistic services)
• Legal advice delivery via technology (e.g. skype or teleconference)
• Web-based programs that deliver routine legal services (e.g. document
automation, online forms and use of expert systems, etc.)
Further, 50% of respondents indicated that they are working on legal service
delivery projects that focus on:
• Alternative billing models
• Increased opportunities to use paralegal services
• Litigation coaching for self-represented litigants
• Online dispute resolution
No Access to Justice Group respondent indicated that they are working on
legal service delivery projects that focus on legal expense insurance or conflict
coaching.
0.00% 0
100.00% 5
Figure 67Is your A2J Group/Commission involved in any
projects designed to increase public engagement
with the justice system and raise awareness of
access to justice issues?
Total 5
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
All A2J Group
respondents
indicated that
they are involved
in projects
designed to
increase public
engagement
with the justice
system and raise
awareness of
access to justice
issues.
54Goal V: Create Local and National Access to Justice Implementation Mechanisms
60.00% 3
40.00% 2
Figure 68Is your A2J Group/Commission involved in any
projects related to legal service delivery models?
Total 5
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
100.00% 2
50.00% 1
0.00% 0
50.00% 1
50.00% 1
0.00% 0
100.00% 2
100.00% 2
50.00% 1
100.00% 2
0.00% 0
Figure 69 What types of legal service delivery do
your projects focus on?
(Please check all that apply)
Total Respondents: 2
# Other type of legal service delivery model not indicated above (please specify) Date
There are no responses.
Limited scope retainers (i.e. unbundled legal services) Alternative billing models
Legal expense insurance Increased opportunities to use paralegal services
Litigation coaching for self-represented litigants Conflict coaching
Legal advice delivery via technology (e.g. skype or teleconference)
Web-based programs that deliver routine legal services
Online dispute resolution
Holistic service delivery
Other type of legal service delivery model not indicated above
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Answer Choices Responses
Limited scope retainers (i.e. unbundled legal services)
Alternative billing models
Legal expense insurance
Increased opportunities to use paralegal services
Litigation coaching for self-represented litigants
Conflict coaching
Legal advice delivery via technology (e.g. skype or teleconference)
Web-based programs that deliver routine legal services (e.g. document automation, online forms and use of expert systems, etc.)
Online dispute resolution
Holistic service delivery (e.g. work in multidisciplinary teams to deliver tailored and holistic services)
Other type of legal service delivery model not indicated above (please specify)
1 / 1
55Goal V: Create Local and National Access to Justice Implementation Mechanisms
40.00% 2
60.00% 3
Figure 70Is your A2J Group/Commission working on any projects
related to improving access to justice specifically for
people experiencing a family law problem?
Total 5
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
When asked which areas best describe the focus of their family law projects, 40%
of the A2J Group respondents (2 respondents) indicated that they were working
on projects that relate to legal advice, legal information, holistic problem solving
(including financial services and counselling), early intervention options, collaborative
processes and parenting coordination. Only one of the two respondents indicated
that they are working on family law projects that relate to legal representation.
100.00% 2
100.00% 2
50.00% 1
100.00% 2
100.00% 2
100.00% 2
Figure 71Which of the following areas best describes the
focus of your family law projects?
(Please select all that apply)
Legal advice
Legal information
Legal representation
Resources that help people triage their situation
Early intervention options
Collaborative processes
Holistic problem solving
Parenting coordination
Mediation
Financial services
Counseling
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Legal advice
Legal information
Legal representation
Resources that help people triage their situation
Early intervention options
Collaborative processes
1 / 2
Access to Justice Groups: Family Law
Family Law has been consistently identified in both academic literature and policy
reports as an area particularly in need of reform.25 60% of A2J Groups indicated that
they are working on projects related to improving access to justice specifically for
people experiencing a family law problem.
56Goal V: Create Local and National Access to Justice Implementation Mechanisms
0.00% 0
100.00% 5
Figure 72Has your A2J Group/Commission collaborated
with organizations or stakeholders on justice
projects?
Total 5
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Access to Justice Groups: Collaboration and Coordination
100% of Access to Justice Group respondents indicated that they are collaborating
with organizations or stakeholders on justice projects. Of those respondents, 20%
indicated that they have coordinated with organizations or stakeholders at a national
level, 60% indicated that they have coordinated with organizations or stakeholders
at a provincial/territorial level, and 20% indicated that they have coordinated with
organizations at a local level.
0.00% 0
20.00% 1
60.00% 3
20.00% 1
0.00% 0
Figure 73
At what level?
(Please check all that apply)
Total 5
# Other (please specify) Date
There are no responses.
International National Provincial/Territorial Local Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
International
National
Provincial/Territorial
Local
Other
1 / 1
A2J Groups respondents reported collaborating with a wide range of organizations.
100% of A2J Group respondents reported collaborating with government, legal
organizations and academic institutions, while 60% reported collaborating with:
• Medical or healthcare organizations
• Private sector business
• Not-for-profit organizations
• Research organizations
• Individual lawyers
• Courts
• Aboriginal and First Nations organizations
Only 20% of A2J Group respondents indicated having collaborated with mental health
organizations.
57Goal V: Create Local and National Access to Justice Implementation Mechanisms
Access to Justice Groups: Metrics
40% of A2J Groups that responded to the Survey indicated that they have a standard
set of metrics that they use to evaluate projects. However, of those that do collect
metrics, 67% reported that their metrics and the results of their evaluations are
available to the public, although only 33% indicated that these metrics are available
online.
60.00% 3
40.00% 2
Figure 74Does your A2J Group/Commission have a standard set
of metrics that it uses to evaluate its projects?
Total 5
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
33.33% 1
66.67% 2
Figure 75Are the metrics and the results of your evaluations
available to the public?
Total 3
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
66.67% 2
33.33% 1
Figure 76
Are the metrics available online?
Total 3
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
A larger percentage of A2J Groups are actively involved in research projects that
explore the use of metrics in the civil and family justice system more broadly,
with 60% reporting that they are engaged in projects in this area.
58Goal V: Create Local and National Access to Justice Implementation Mechanisms
Access to Justice Groups: Sharing Information with the Public
The most common way that A2J Groups share information with the public is
reportedly via websites with 80% of A2J Group respondents sharing information
this way. Social media follows closely behind websites as a preferred method of
public communications with 60% of A2J Group respondents indicating that they
share information with the public through social media updates. 40% of A2J Group
respondents indicated that they share information with the public through meetings
with the community.
80.00% 4
0.00% 0
20.00% 1
0.00% 0
40.00% 2
60.00% 3
40.00% 2
0.00% 0
40.00% 2
Figure 78How does your A2J
Group/Commission share information with the public?
(Please check all that apply)
Total Respondents: 5
# Other (please specify) Date
Website
Newsletter
Email newsletter
Listservs
Conferences
Social media updates
Meetings with the community
Meetings with other organizations
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Website
Newsletter
Email newsletter
Listservs
Conferences
Social media updates
Meetings with the community
Meetings with other organizations
Other (please specify)
1 / 2
40.00% 2
60.00% 3
Figure 77 Is your A2J Group/Commission involved in any
research projects that explore the use of metrics in
the civil and family justice system more broadly?
Total 5
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
59Goal V: Create Local and National Access to Justice Implementation Mechanisms
20.00% 1
80.00% 4
20.00% 1
60.00% 3
60.00% 3
0.00% 0
40.00% 2
Figure 79How does your A2J
Group/Commission share best practices with
other A2J Groups and similar organizations?
Total Respondents: 5
# Other (please specify) Date
1 the national A2J tribunal committee 1/6/2017 7:59 AM
Listservs
Annual Action Committee Meeting
Social Media
Personal Correspondence
Conferences
Online collaboration software
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Listservs
Annual Action Committee Meeting
Social Media
Personal Correspondence
Conferences
Online collaboration software
Other
1 / 2
Access to Justice Groups: Sharing Information on Best Practices
A2J Group respondents indicated that they use a number of avenues to share
information with other A2J Groups and similar organizations. 80% of A2J Group
respondents indicated that they share information with other A2J Groups and
similar organizations at the annual Action Committee meeting, making this the most
common way to-date by which A2J Groups share best practices. 60% of A2J Group
respondents share information through personal correspondence or at conferences.
20% utilize a listserv and social media to gain knowledge and share information
regarding best practices.
60Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
GOAL VI: PROMOTE A SUSTAINABLE, ACCESSIBLE AND INTEGRATED JUSTICE AGENDA THROUGH LEGAL EDUCATION
Placing a “modern access to justice agenda at the forefront of Canadian legal
education” is the centerpiece of Goal Six of A Roadmap for Change.26 With a
focus on creating educational opportunities that introduce and expand student
knowledge of the needs of all individuals, groups and communities including
aboriginal communities, self-represented litigants, immigrants, and other marginalized
communities, education can help build legal capacity from a young age and will be
an important part of “a new legal reform culture.”27 Though the needs and curriculum
of the organizations that deliver education will be different depending on the context
and student body, promoting a sustainable, accessible and integrated justice agenda
will be key to assisting a public that feels more engaged and empowered to deal with
civil legal problems when they arise.
Access to Justice Education: Formal Legal Education
18 respondents indicated that they offer formal legal education, defined as the
offering of a legal education program that results in either a degree, diploma,
certificate or provides credits toward continuing professional development programs.
Not unsurprisingly, survey results suggest that law schools provide the majority of
formal legal education.
Beyond law schools, the following types of respondents reported offering some form
of formal legal education:
• Regulators (23%)
• Governments (11%)
• Legal clinics (16%)
• Not-for-profits (2%)
No private-sector respondent or university-based research centre reported offering
formal legal education.
87.50% 126
12.50% 18
Figure 80Does your organization offer formal legal education (i.e.
degrees/certificates/diplomas)?
Total 144
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
61Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
Figure 81Does your organization offer formal legal
education (i.e.
degrees/certificates/diplomas)?
88.89%
8
11.11%
1
8.49%
9
97.67%
42
2.33%
1
40.57%
43
84.00%
21
16.00%
4
23.58%
25
0.00%
0
100.00%
5
4.72%
5
76.92%
10
23.08%
3
12.26%
13
100.00%
9
0.00%
0
8.49%
9
100.00%
2
0.00%
0
1.89%
2
92 14 106
No Yes
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Government
Q8: Not-for-Profit
Q8: Legal Clinic
Q8: Law School
Q8: Regulator
Q8: Private sector business
Q8: University-based research centre
Total Respondents
1 / 1
Respondents which provide formal legal education offer a range of degrees,
diplomas and/or certificates:
• 41% indicate that they grant a Juris Doctorate degree
• 29% grant Master of Laws degrees
• 18% grant Doctor of Philosophy in Law degrees
• 24% grant continuing legal education certificates
• 35% grant continuing legal program degrees/diplomas/certificates that satisfy
continuing professional development requirements
Other forms of recognition offered by respondents include: mediation/mediator
training certificates, notary certifications, and various programs that offer credits
towards degree programs.
41.18% 7
29.41% 5
17.65% 3
23.53% 4
35.29% 6
70.59% 12
Figure 82What degrees/diplomas/certificates are granted by
your institution?
(Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 17
# Other (please specify) Date
1 Permis d,exercice de la profession à la suite de la réussite de la formation professionnelle offrete par l'école du
Barreau
1/6/2017 3:17 PM
2 Programme de formation professionnelle nécessaire pour l'obtention d'un permis d'execice de la profession notariale 1/6/2017 11:48 AM
3 Certificate in Tribunal Administrative Justice 12/15/2016 4:36 PM
4 Licence to practice law 12/12/2016 1:31 PM
5 Program of Legal Studies for Indigenous Peoples (the Summer Program) 12/12/2016 11:02 AM
6 Articling student training and education 12/9/2016 5:03 PM
7 While we do not offer the degrees (the College of Law, U of S does) students receive credits through work at our
clinic.
12/2/2016 5:32 PM
8 dual degree with university detroit mercy, commerce and social work joint degrees 12/1/2016 2:42 PM
9 have offered certificates for international study tour participants, and for some local public legal education initiatives as
required
12/1/2016 11:41 AM
10 Accreditation as Family, Child Protection or Elder Mediator 11/29/2016 8:33 PM
11 Certificates for students taking mediation training 11/28/2016 1:47 PM
Juris Doctorate Master of Laws Doctor of
Philosophy
in Law
Continuing
Legal
Education
Certificates
ContinuingLegal
Educationprograms
(continuing professional development)
Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Juris Doctorate
Master of Laws
Doctor of Philosophy in Laws
Continuing Legal Education Certificates
Continuing Legal Education programs to satisfy continuing professional development requirements
Other (please specify)
1 / 2
62Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
Figure 84Does your organization offer targeted
training on access to justice issues?
100.00%
1
0.00%
0
7.69%
1
0.00%
0
100.00%
4
30.77%
4
20.00%
1
80.00%
4
38.46%
5
66.67%
2
33.33%
1
23.08%
3
4 9 13
No Yes
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Not-for-Profit
Q8: Legal Clinic
Q8: Law School
Q8: Regulator
Total Respondents
1 / 1
76% of respondents offering formal legal education indicated that they also offer
targeted training on access to justice issues. All legal clinic respondents indicated
that they offer both formal legal education and targeted training on access to
justice issues, while 80% of law school respondents reported doing so. Only 33% of
regulators indicated that they offer targeted training on access to justice issues.
The majority of respondents who offer formal legal education and targeted training
on access to justice issues serve the 13 provinces/territories.
23.53% 4
76.47% 13
Figure 83Does your organization offer targeted
training on access to justice issues?
Total 17
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
63Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
12 respondents indicated the levels at which they provide access to justice training.
67% indicated that they offer training on access to justice issues at the JD level while
25% indicated that they offer training at the Masters of Laws level. A further 8%
indicated that they provide training at the Doctor of Philosophy in Law level.
66.67% 8
25.00% 3
8.33% 1
41.67% 5
25.00% 3
Figure 86 At what level(s) do you offer training on access to
justice issues? (Please select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 12
# Other (please specify) Date
1 Cours de formation professionnelle aux étudiants détenant un baccalauréat en droit. Formation professionnelle
menant au permis d'exercice de la profession.
1/6/2017 3:19 PM
2 As part of law, and other inter-disciplinary degree programs. 12/2/2016 5:37 PM
3 Sponsor a small externship program with Queen's Faculty of Law, training and capacity building locally on access to
justice needs in family law, and on legal health approaches with primary health care providers
12/1/2016 11:47 AM
Juris Doctorate Masters of Laws Doctor of Philosophyin Law
Continuing
Legal
Education
Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
Juris Doctorate
Masters of Laws
Doctor of Philosophy in Laws
Continuing Legal Education
Other (please specify)
1 / 1
Figure 85Does your organization offer targeted
training on access to justice issues?
25.00%
1
75.00%
3
44.44%
4
0.00%
0
100.00%
2
22.22%
2
0.00%
0
100.00%
2
22.22%
2
No Yes
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q7: British Columbia
Q7: Alberta
Q7: Saskatchewan
1 / 2
64Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
Figure 87At what level(s) do you offer training on access to
justice issues? (Please select all that apply)
66.67%
2
33.33%
1
0.00%
0
33.33%
1
33.33%
1
83.33%
5
Juris Doctorate Masters of Laws Doctor of Philosophy in Law
Continuing Legal Education Other
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Juris
Doctorate
Masters of
Laws
Doctor of Philosophy in
Laws
Continuing Legal
Education
Other (please
specify)
Total
Q7: British Columbia
1 / 3
42% of respondents indicated that they offer training on access to justice issues
through continuing legal education programs, with 25% indicating that they offer
training on access to justice issues at other levels, including through interdisciplinary
programs, externship programs and special programs for lawyers.28
65Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
Access to Justice Education: Non-law Post-Secondary Education
142 respondents recorded responses about access to justice education or resources
that their organization provides to post-secondary students. Of these respondents,
30% indicated that their organization provides access to justice education or
resources to non-law post-secondary students.29
Figure 89Does your organization provide access to justice
education or resources to non-law post-secondary
students?
62.50%
5
37.50%
3
7.62%
8
79.07%
34
20.93%
9
40.95%
43
48.00%
12
52.00%
13
23.81%
25
80.00%
4
20.00%
1
4.76%
5
76.92%
10
23.08%
3
12.38%
13
100.00%
9
0.00%
0
8.57%
9
0.00%
0
100.00%
2
1.90%
2
74 31 105
No Yes
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Government
Q8: Not-for-Profit
Q8: Legal Clinic
Q8: Law School
Q8: Regulator
Q8: Private sector business
Q8: University-based research centre
Total Respondents
1 / 1
69.72% 99
30.28% 43
Figure 88 Does your organization provide access to justice
education or resources to non-law post-
secondary students?
Total 142
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
66Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
The following numbers highlight the percentage of respondents which indicated that
they provide access to justice education or resources to non-law post-secondary
students,
• University-based research centre respondents: 100%
• Legal clinic respondents: 52%.
• Government respondents: 38%.
• Regulators: 23%.
• Not-for-profit respondents: 21%.
• Law school respondents: 20%.
No private sector business respondents in this category indicated that they provide
access to justice education or resources to non-law post-secondary students.
The type of resources that respondents reported offering to non-law post-secondary
students varies. Of the 42 respondents that indicated that they offer resources to
non-law post-secondary students:
• 26% offer course materials (e.g. lecture slides and teaching modules)
• 19% offer conflict resolution training
• 17% offer courses
• 76% offer other resources including placements, workshops, self-help kits,
legal information pamphlets, training modules, and community engagement
opportunities
26.19% 11
19.05% 8
16.67% 7
76.19% 32
Figure 90 What type of resources do you offer to non-law post-
secondary students?
(Check all that apply)
Total Respondents: 42
# Other resources (please specify) Date
1 A week long workshop on access to justice and design thinking 1/17/2017 1:15 PM
2 Practicum placement 1/11/2017 2:46 PM
3 Paralegal training 1/6/2017 5:07 PM
4 week long non credit program for post secondary students 1/5/2017 2:52 PM
5 Website resources available to the public on access to justice topics (e.g. our Equal Justice Report), and "Law Day"
activities open to members of the public (e.g. courthouse tours).
12/19/2016 10:27 AM
6 FOAJ courses; ASIST training; verbal judo; mental health first aide; 12/15/2016 10:26 AM
7 Experiential training 12/14/2016 3:16 PM
8 We have provided opportunities for post secondary students in Community Engagement courses to do projects under
our supervision.
12/14/2016 2:58 PM
9 Course funding 12/9/2016 5:46 PM
10 mock trial 12/8/2016 4:50 PM
11 Training specific to service providers 12/8/2016 1:55 PM
12 I train indigenous social workers court skills and child protection. 12/8/2016 1:02 PM
13 Public Forums on Access to Justice issues - open to all and advertised toSociology and Social Work students 12/8/2016 9:28 AM
14 protection order assistance, brochures, info for term papers 12/7/2016 4:00 PM
Course materials (e.g. lecture slides,teaching modules etc.)
Conflict resolutiontraining
Courses Other resources0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
Course materials (e.g. lecture slides, teaching modules)
Conflict resolution training
Courses
Other resources (please specify)
1 / 2
67Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
Access to Justice Education: Primary and Secondary Education
140 respondents recorded responses regarding their organization’s participation
in initiatives to facilitate justice teaching in primary or secondary schools. 24% or
34 respondents indicated that that their organization has undertaken initiatives to
facilitate justice teaching in primary or secondary schools.
75.71% 106
24.29% 34
Figure 91Has your organization undertaken any
initiatives to facilitate justice teaching in
primary or secondary schools?
Total 140
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Of those indicating that they have undertaken initiatives to facilitate justice teaching in
primary or secondary schools:
• 13% are government organizations
• 38% are not-for-profit organizations
• 17% are legal clinics
• 40% are law schools
• 15% are regulators
• 22% are private sector businesses
• No university-based research centre respondent indicated that they have
undertaken initiatives to facilitate justice teaching in primary or secondary schools
Figure 92Has your organization undertaken any
initiatives to facilitate justice teaching in
primary or secondary schools?
87.50%
7
12.50%
1
7.77%
8
61.90%
26
38.10%
16
40.78%
42
83.33%
20
16.67%
4
23.30%
24
60.00%
3
40.00%
2
4.85%
5
84.62%
11
15.38%
2
12.62%
13
77.78%
7
22.22%
2
8.74%
9
100.00%
2
0.00%
0
1.94%
2
76 27 103
No Yes
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Government
Q8: Not-for-Profit
Q8: Legal Clinic
Q8: Law School
Q8: Regulator
Q8: Private sector business
Q8: University-based research centre
Total Respondents
1 / 1
68Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
Of the 34 respondents that provided responses regarding the types of initiatives that
their organization has undertaken to promote/facilitate justice teaching in primary or
secondary schools:30
• 47% offer (or have offered) special lectures, workshops or in-class programs
• 38% provide volunteer opportunities related to access to justice
• 35% provide relevant written material
• 26% create material to include in a curriculum
• 21% offer (or have offered) specific course(s) on justice
• 12% offer (or have offered) a specific course(s) on family law
44% of respondents in this category indicated that they have promoted/facilitated
justice teaching through other initiatives, including awareness campaigns about the
importance of justice that targets primary and secondary school students, “Law Day”
presentations, law essay competitions, public legal workshops, theatre presentations
and mock trials.
When the data is broken down by province and territory, it reveals that all provinces
and territories show some activity in this area, with special lectures, workshops and
in-class programs ranking as the most popular ways to contribute to justice education
at the primary and secondary level.31
26.47% 9
11.76% 4
20.59% 7
47.06% 16
38.24% 13
35.29% 12
44.12% 15
Figure 93 Which of the following types of initiatives
has your organization undertaken to
promote/facilitate teaching of justice in
primary or secondary schools?
(Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 34
# Other (please specify) Date
1 Sensibilisation des élus à l'important de la justice et de son enseignement au primaire et secondaire 1/6/2017 3:20 PM
2 In 1998 we asked Abbotsford School District to allow us into primary/secondary schools to teach about parental
alienation and mental illness. We were told not even BC Schizophrenia Society was allowed to provide public health
promotion or justice teaching in public schools. Abbotsford Public health nurses were directly involved in obstructing
this important awareness and prevention training. In 2016, every Gr 1 and 2 teacher in Canada has been talking about
mental health teachings on electronic media. Our initiatives have been wildly successful.
12/19/2016 2:23 PM
3 Various activities carried out by our branches in relation to "Law Day" (e.g. lectures on the law, mock trials,
courthouse tours, open citizenship courts, and contests).
12/19/2016 10:40 AM
4 CBA Law Day presentations 12/15/2016 8:05 PM
5 A rule of law essay writing competition and award. 12/9/2016 5:04 PM
6 Public legal workshops & mock trial 12/8/2016 4:52 PM
Creation of material toinclude in the curriculum
Specificcourseson family law
Specificcourse(s)on justice
Speciallectures,
workshopsor in class programs
Volunteeropportunities
Writtenmaterial
Other0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
Creation of material to include in the curriculum
Specific courses on family law
Specific course(s) on justice
Special lectures, workshops or in class programs
Volunteer opportunities
Written material
Other (please specify)
1 / 2
69Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
Of the respondents which indicated that they have undertaken initiatives to promote/
facilitate justice teaching:
• Governments. 100% of government respondents in this category indicated that
they have promoted/facilitated justice teaching in primary or secondary schools
through the creation of materials to include in a curriculum.
• Not-for-profits. 56% of not-for-profit respondents indicated that they have used
special lectures, workshops or in-class programs to facilitate/promote justice
teaching in primary or secondary schools. 50% indicated that they have used
written materials and 44% indicated that they facilitate justice teaching in primary
or secondary schools through volunteer opportunities. Specific courses on family
law generated the fewest number of responses by not-for-profit organizations in
this category, with 6% indicating that they have used this type of initiative.
• Legal clinics. 75% of legal clinic respondents indicated that they have used special
lectures, workshops or in-class programs to facilitate/promote justice teaching
in primary or secondary schools. 50% use volunteer opportunities, while 25%
indicated that they facilitate/promote justice teaching through the creation of
materials to include in a curriculum and 25% indicated that they facilitate justice
teaching through written materials. No legal clinic respondent in this category
indicated that they use specific courses on family law or specific courses on
justice to promote or facilitate justice teaching at the primary or secondary
school level.
• Law schools. 100% of law school respondents indicated that they use volunteer
opportunities to facilitate/promote justice teaching at the primary or secondary
school level while 50% indicate that they use special lectures, workshops or in-
class programs.
Figure 94Which of the following types of initiatives
has your organization undertaken to
promote/facilitate teaching of justice in
primary or secondary schools?
(Select all that apply)
100.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
3.70%
1
18.75%
3
6.25%
1
18.75%
3
56.25%
9
43.75%
7
50.00%
8
37.50%
6
137.04%
37
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
75.00%
3
50.00%
2
25.00%
1
25.00%
1
29.63%
8
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
50.00%
1
100.00%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
11.11%
3
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
100.00%
2
11.11%
3
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
50.00%
1
50.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
50.00%
1
14.81%
4
Creation of material to include in the curriculum Specific course(s) on family law
Specific course(s) on justice
Volunteer opportunities
Special lectures, workshops or in class programs
Written material Other
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
0 10 20 30 40 50
Creation of material
to include in the
curriculum
Specific
courses on
family law
Specific
course(s) on
justice
Special lectures,
workshops or in class
programs
Volunteer
opportunities
Written
material
Other
(please
specify)
Total
Q8:
Government
Q8: Not-for-
Profit
Q8: Legal
Clinic
Q8: Law
School
Q8: Regulator
Q8: Private
sector
business
1 / 2
70Goal VI: Promote a Sustainable, Accessible and Integrated Justice Agenda through Legal Education
• Regulators. 50% of regulators indicated that they facilitate/promote justice
teaching in primary or secondary schools through the creation of materials to
include in a curriculum. Regulators also indicated that they use methods, other
than those listed in the Survey to facilitate/promote justice teaching at the
primary or secondary school level.
• Private sector. 50% of private sector business respondents in this category
indicated that they facilitate/promote justice teaching in primary or secondary
school through the creation of material to include in a curriculum. 50% also
indicated that they use specific courses on justice and 50% facilitate/promote
justice teaching through special workshops or in-class programs.
Figure 95Which of the following types of initiatives
has your organization undertaken to
promote/facilitate teaching of justice in
primary or secondary schools?
(Select all that apply)
Creation of material to include in the curriculum Specific course(s) on family law
Specific course(s) on justice Special lectures, workshops or in class programs
Volunteer opportunities Written material Other (please specify)
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
71Goal VII: Enhance the Innovation Capacity of the Civil and Family Justice System
GOAL VII: ENHANCE THE INNOVATION CAPACITY OF THE CIVIL AND FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM
Enhancing the innovation capacity of the civil and family justice system will be key to
improving access to justice for all Canadians. Incremental change will not be enough
to ensure that the system remains relevant and responsive. Technology, globalization,
increased diversity and pluralism as well as changing consumer – i.e. justice user –
demands mean that the civil and family justice system must work towards creating
more capacity for agile and innovative services and justice delivery mechanisms.
To achieve such a goal, A Roadmap for Change highlights the need for greater cross-
sectoral collaboration, and more research on innovative and promising practices
as well as on what works and what is needed.32 104 or 78% of respondents in this
category indicated that their organization has collaborated with other organizations
or stakeholders on access to justice initiatives (in civil or family matters). The
percentage of organizations in each respondent category that reported collaborating
with organizations or stakeholders on access to justice initiatives in civil or family
matters range from 50% - 100%.33
22.39% 30
77.61% 104
Figure 96Has your organization collaborated with any
organizations or stakeholders on access to
justice initiatives (in civil or family matters)?
Total 134
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
Law Schools and university-based research centres reported the highest percentage
of collaboration, with 100% of these respondents indicating that they have
collaborated with organizations or stakeholders on access to justice initiatives in civil
or family matters. Legal clinics follow closely behind law schools with 91% of legal
clinic respondents indicating that they have collaborated with organizations for this
purpose. 88% of government respondents reported engaging in collaborations in
order to improve access to justice. The percentage of not-for-profit organizations that
indicate that they have collaborated with organizations or stakeholders on access
to justice initiatives is slightly lower at 73%. 62% of respondents who identify as
72Goal VII: Enhance the Innovation Capacity of the Civil and Family Justice System
Figure 97Has your organization collaborated with any
organizations or stakeholders on access to
justice initiatives (in civil or family matters)?
No Yes
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
1 / 2
regulators indicate that they have collaborated with organizations or stakeholders on
access to justice initiatives; and 50% of private sector business respondents indicate
that they collaborate with other organizations and stakeholder on access to justice
initiatives.
Currently, most respondents indicating that their organization has collaborated
with other organizations or stakeholders on access to justice initiatives (in civil or
family matters) reported collaborating at a provincial/territorial level, with 84%
of respondents doing so. This percentage drops by over half when considering
collaborations at the national level, with 41% indicating that they collaborate at a
73Goal VII: Enhance the Innovation Capacity of the Civil and Family Justice System
Figure 98Has your organization collaborated with any
organizations or stakeholders on access to
justice initiatives (in civil or family matters)?
5.88%
1
94.12%
16
19.32%
17
No Yes
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q7: British Columbia
1 / 2
7.77% 8
40.78% 42
84.47% 87
18.45% 19
Figure 99
At what level?
(Select all that apply)
Total Respondents: 103
# Other (please specify) Date
1 regional 1/9/2017 4:09 PM
2 City 1/6/2017 6:38 PM
3 Municipal 1/6/2017 12:25 PM
4 Parental Alienation Awareness Organization (PAAO). Our website has been read in 66 countries around the globe. 12/19/2016 3:13 PM
5 local - lower mainland BC 12/17/2016 5:10 PM
6 regional and provincial 12/7/2016 4:05 PM
7 Municipal 12/6/2016 5:09 PM
8 Regional 12/5/2016 5:04 PM
9 local/city 12/5/2016 3:14 PM
10 Regional 12/5/2016 2:35 PM
11 municipal and provincial 12/5/2016 8:53 AM
12 local 12/5/2016 2:57 AM
13 Saskatoon 12/2/2016 5:46 PM
14 local 12/2/2016 10:31 AM
15 local agencies 12/1/2016 2:43 PM
16 local and regional 12/1/2016 11:58 AM
17 Municipal 11/30/2016 9:06 AM
18 Municipal through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) 11/29/2016 9:28 PM
International National Provincial/Territorial Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
International
National
Provincial/Territorial
Other (please specify)
1 / 2
national level. Only 8% indicated that they collaborate at an international level.
However, 18% indicated that they collaborate at other levels, including municipal,
regional, local and/or a combination of these.
74Goal VII: Enhance the Innovation Capacity of the Civil and Family Justice System
Figure 100
At what level?
(Select all that apply)
0.00%
0
50.00%
3
83.33%
5
33.33%
2
13.33%
10
10.00%
3
50.00%
15
86.67%
26
20.00%
6
66.67%
50
4.76%
1
19.05%
4
80.95%
17
33.33%
7
38.67%
29
25.00%
1
50.00%
2
50.00%
2
50.00%
2
9.33%
7
12.50%
1
87.50%
7
87.50%
7
0.00%
0
20.00%
15
0.00%
0
50.00%
2
75.00%
3
0.00%
0
6.67%
5
0.00%
0
100.00%
2
100.00%
2
0.00%
0
5.33%
4
6 35 62 17 75
# Q8: Government Date
1 City 1/6/2017 6:38 PM
2 municipal and provincial 12/5/2016 8:53 AM
# Q8: Not-for-Profit Date
1 Municipal 1/6/2017 12:25 PM
International National Provincial/Territorial Other (please specify)
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0 10 20 30 40 50
International National Provincial/Territorial Other (please specify) Total
Q8: Government
Q8: Not-for-Profit
Q8: Legal Clinic
Q8: Law School
Q8: Regulator
Q8: Private sector business
Q8: University-based research centre
Total Respondents
1 / 2
Regardless of the type of organization, collaboration at the provincial and territorial
level is most common, with the following percentage of respondents reporting that
they collaborate at the provincial and territorial levels:
• 88% of regulator respondents
• 87% of not-for-profit respondents
• 83% of government respondents
• 81% of legal clinic respondents
• 75% of private sector business respondents
• 50% of law school respondents
Many respondents reported much lower levels of collaboration at the national level.
50% of government respondents, not-for-profit respondents and private sector
businesses reported collaborating at a national level. 19% of legal clinics reported
national level collaborations.
The exceptions were law school, regulator and university research centre respondents.
The percentage of law school and regulator respondents which reported collaborating
at the national level was 50% and 88% respectively, and 100% of university research
center respondents reported collaborating at a national level.
Collaboration at the international level is less common, reported by:
• 25% of law schools
• 10% of not-for-profits
• 13% of regulators
• 5% of clinic respondents
75Goal VII: Enhance the Innovation Capacity of the Civil and Family Justice System
No government, university research centre, or private sector business respondents
indicated that they coordinate with organizations or stakeholders at an international
level.
Aside from regulators, university research centers and private businesses, all other
types of respondents indicated that they collaborate with stakeholders at other levels.
36.89% 38
25.24% 26
46.60% 48
14.56% 15
Figure 101 Who has your organization collaborated with?
(Select all that apply)
Mental healthorganizations
Medical or health careorganizations
Academicinstitutions
Private sectorbusinesses
Not-for-profitorganizations
Researchorganizations
Government
Legalorganizations
Individuallawyers
Public policyorganizations
Courts
Tribunals
Aboriginal/First Nationorganizations
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Mental health organizations
Medical or health care organizations
Academic institutions
Private sector business
1 / 2
76Goal VII: Enhance the Innovation Capacity of the Civil and Family Justice System
Figure 102Who has your organization collaborated with?
(Select all that apply)
16.67%
1
16.67%
1
66.67%
4
16.67%
1
83.33%
5
66.67%
4
83.33%
5
66.67%
4
50.00%
3
33.33%
2
50.00%
3
33.33%
2
33.33%
2
16.67%
1
50.67%
38
26.67%
8
20.00%
6
36.67%
11
16.67%
5
80.00%
24
23.33%
7
56.67%
17
70.00%
21
46.67%
14
30.00%
9
33.33%
10
20.00%
6
26.67%
8
16.67%
5
201.33%
151
42.86%
9
28.57%
6
47.62%
10
4.76%
1
90.48%
19
23.81%
5
52.38%
11
85.71%
18
38.10%
8
19.05%
4
38.10%
8
19.05%
4
38.10%
8
9.52%
2
150.67%
113
50.00%
2
25.00%
1
50.00%
2
0.00%
0
100.00%
4
50.00%
2
75.00%
3
50.00%
2
75.00%
3
25.00%
1
50.00%
2
25.00%
1
75.00%
3
0.00%
0
34.67%
26
Mental health organizations Medical or health care organizations
Academic institutions Private sector businesses Not-for-profit organizations
Research organizations Government Legal organizations Individual lawyers
Public policy organizations Courts
Aboriginal/First Nation organizations
Tribunals
Other
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Mental health
organizations
Medical or
health care
organizations
Academic
institutions
Private
sector
business
Not for profit
organizations
Research
organizations
Government Legal
organizations
Individual
lawyers
Public policy
organizations
Courts Tribunals Aboriginal/First
Nation
organizations
Other
(please
specify)
Total
Q8:
Government
Q8: Not-for-
Profit
Q8: Legal
Clinic
Q8: Law
School
1 / 2
Respondents across the board indicated that they have collaborated with organizations
and/or stakeholders from a range of domains. However, a significant amount of
collaboration continues to occur between legal organizations, courts and governments,
followed closely by academic institutions, with a smaller percentage of respondents
indicating that they collaborate with Aboriginal/First Nations organizations, medical
or healthcare organizations, or others. Set out below is a further breakdown of the
collaboration data:
• The majority of respondents – 77% – indicated that they collaborated with not-for-
profit organizations
• 68% collaborate with legal organizations
• 64% work with governments
• 49% collaborate with individual lawyers
• 47% collaborate with courts
• 47% collaborate with academic institutions
• 37% collaborate with mental health organizations
• 32% collaborate with research organizations
• 35% collaborate with Aboriginal/First Nations organizations
• 28% collaborate with public policy organizations
• 26% collaborate with tribunals
• 25% collaborate with medical or health care organizations
• 17% collaborate with organizations and/or stakeholders other than those
previously mentioned, including A2J Groups, mediators and the Action Committee
• 15% collaborate with private sector businesses
77Goal VII: Enhance the Innovation Capacity of the Civil and Family Justice System
When examined by respondent type, trends are evident in regards to the types of
collaborations that are most common in different sectors. Government and regulators
for example, tend to collaborate primarily with more traditional legal stakeholders (e.g.
legal organizations, courts, etc.) while not-for-profits, legal clinics and law schools tend
to engage in a wider range of collaborations.34
Government respondents reported primarily collaborating with non-for-profits, other
government bodies, legal organizations, lawyers and courts. An equal percent of
government respondents – 83% in each category – indicated that they collaborate
with not-for-profits and other government bodies, 67% indicated that they have
collaborated with legal organizations, and 50% indicated that they have collaborated
with individual lawyers and courts. Collaborations between government respondents
and mental health and other healthcare organizations are lower, with 17% of
government respondents reporting collaborations with these types of organizations.
78Goal VIII: Support Access to Justice Research to Promote Evidence-Based Policy Making
GOAL VIII: SUPPORT ACCESS TO JUSTICE RESEARCH TO PROMOTE EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY MAKING
There is no doubt that an increase in targeted, evidence-based research is needed if
we are to efficiently and effectively move forward with meaningful, sustainable, and
strategically sound access to justice reform efforts, which is goal eight of the Action
Committee’s Roadmap for Change.35 Several recent national organizations have made
the strong case for such research.36
Data Collection by Organizations
Of the 133 survey respondents recording responses to this question, 110 or 83% of
respondents indicated that that their organization collects some form of data.
The majority of respondents that collect data reported collecting data related to use
of their organization’s services, with 68% indicating that they collect data/information
on the individual members who use their organization’s services and 52% indicating
that they collect data/information on the number of visitors to their organization’s
website.
Less than half (48%) collect demographic information on members who use their
organization’s services and 39% collect data on user satisfaction. Legal clinics
and governments come in at the high-end of this percentage with 61% and 57%
of respondents respectively reporting that they collect data/information on user
satisfaction. Private businesses and regulators are reportedly at the lower end, with
13% and 23% respectively reporting that they collect similar data.
17.29% 23
67.67% 90
48.12% 64
26.32% 35
39.10% 52
Figure 103Does your organization collect data on the following?
(Please select all that apply)
We do not collect data
Number of individual members who use your organization's services
Demographic information on members who use your organization's services
Average length of time that matters take to be resolved
User satisfaction (with your service)
Average cost that users pay to use your service
Data on most/least used services
Number of unrepresented parties who use your services
Resolution rates
Number of visitors to your organization's website
Number of hard copy materials distributed
Other type of data
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
We do not collect data
Number of individual members who use your organization's services
Demographic information on members who use your organization's services
Average length of time that matters take to be resolved
User satisfaction (with your service)
1 / 3
79Goal VIII: Support Access to Justice Research to Promote Evidence-Based Policy Making
Figure 104
Does your organization collect data on the following?
(Please select all that apply)
We do not collect data Number of individual members who use your organization's services
Demographic information on members who use your organization's services
Average length of time that matters take to be resolved User satisfaction (with your service)
Average cost that users pay to use your service Data on most/least used services
Number of unrepresented parties who use your services Resolution rates
Number of hard copy materials distributedNumber of visitors to your organization's website
Other type of data
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
1 / 3
Very few respondents (11%) indicated that they collect data on the average cost that
users pay to access their services or on the number of unrepresented parties who use
their services.
26% indicated that they collect data and information on the average length of time
that matters take to be resolved and a smaller percentage (17%) indicated that they
collect data and information on resolution rates. When broken down further by
organization type, the percentage of respondents who report collecting data on the
average length of time that matters take to be resolved range from 0% – i.e. they
do not collect data on time to resolution (private business respondents) – to 54%
(regulators) indicating that they do collect data of this kind.
These percentages are lower when it comes to tracking the average cost that users
pay for services. 25% of law schools, 15% of not-for-profits, 14% of government
respondents, 9% of legal clinic respondents and 8% of regulators report that they
gather data on costs of this type. No private businesses reported collecting data on
the average cost of their services.
80Goal VIII: Support Access to Justice Research to Promote Evidence-Based Policy Making
24% of organizations did report that they collect other types of data, including
contact with the accused for criminal matters, the number of electronic documents
sent, social media analytics and interactions, feedback on the usefulness of services or
information in addressing problems, data on legal needs, Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs), outcome measures, types of legal issues experienced, legal representation,
referral source, law reform activities, records of advice and others.37
Organizations in every province and territory reported collecting data of some
sort and the breakdown of the types of data collected is consistent with the data
above. That is, in all provinces and territories higher percentages of respondents
report collecting general data on people who use their services and visit their
websites, with lower percentages reporting on categories such as user satisfaction,
average cost of their services, and specific data on self-represented litigants using
their services, etc.38
Figure 105Does your organization collect data on the following?
(Please select all that apply)
17.65%
3
64.71%
11
41.18%
7
29.41%
5
47.06%
8
11.76%
2
29.41%
5
5.88%
1
23.53%
4
64.71%
11
35.29%
6
0.00%
0
35.29%
6
79.31%
69
8.33%
1
83.33%
10
50.00%
6
50.00%
6
50.00%
6
33.33%
4
41.67%
5
8.33%
1
33.33%
4
66.67%
8
33.33%
4
0.00%
0
33.33%
4
67.82%
59
10.00%
1
70.00%
7
30.00%
3
30.00%
3
60.00%
6
10.00%
1
40.00%
4
10.00%
1
30.00%
3
60.00%
6
30.00%
3
0.00%
0
40.00%
4
48.28%
42
15.38%
2
84.62%
11
53.85%
7
15.38%
2
46.15%
6
23.08%
3
30.77%
4
7.69%
1
23.08%
3
46.15%
6
23.08%
3
0.00%
0
30.77%
4
59.77%
52
34.78%
8
60.87%
14
43.48%
10
4.35%
1
39.13%
9
8.70%
2
26.09%
6
13.04%
3
17.39%
4
47.83%
11
26.09%
6
0.00%
0
21.74%
5
90.80%
79
9.09%
1
90.91%
10
63.64%
7
27.27%
3
54.55%
6
9.09%
1
36.36%
4
9.09%
1
9.09%
1
72.73%
8
9.09%
1
0.00%
0
27.27%
3
52.87%
46
28.57%
2
71.43%
5
57.14%
4
14.29%
1
28.57%
2
14.29%
1
28.57%
2
0.00%
0
14.29%
1
57.14%
4
42.86%
3
0.00%
0
28.57%
2
31.03%
27
9.09%
1
72.73%
8
72.73%
8
18.18%
2
27.27%
3
18.18%
2
54.55%
6
27.27%
3
18.18%
2
81.82%
9
27.27%
3
0.00%
0
45.45%
5
59.77%
52
33.33%
2
66.67%
4
33.33%
2
0.00%
0
33.33%
2
16.67%
1
33.33%
2
0.00%
0
16.67%
1
50.00%
3
33.33%
2
0.00%
0
33.33%
2
24.14%
21
16.67%
1
83.33%
5
50.00%
3
16.67%
1
50.00%
3
16.67%
1
50.00%
3
0.00%
0
16.67%
1
83.33%
5
50.00%
3
0.00%
0
50.00%
3
33.33%
29
20.00%
1
80.00%
4
40.00%
2
0.00%
0
40.00%
2
20.00%
1
40.00%
2
0.00%
0
20.00%
1
60.00%
3
40.00%
2
0.00%
0
40.00%
2
22.99%
20
20.00%
1
80.00%
4
60.00%
3
0.00%
0
40.00%
2
20.00%
1
40.00%
2
0.00%
0
20.00%
1
60.00%
3
40.00%
2
0.00%
0
40.00%
2
24.14%
21
20.00%
1
80.00%
4
40.00%
2
0.00%
0
40.00%
2
20.00%
1
60.00%
3
0.00%
0
20.00%
1
60.00%
3
60.00%
3
0.00%
0
40.00%
2
25.29%
22
16 62 41 24 33 9 25 11 16 45 18 0 20 87
We do not collect data Number of individual members who use your organization's services
Demographic information on members who use your organization's services
Average length of time that matters take to be resolved User satisfaction (with your service)
Average cost that users pay to use your service Data on most/least used services
Number of unrepresented parties who use your services Resolution rates
Number of hard copy materials distributedNumber of visitors to your organization's website
Other type of data (please specify)
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
We do
not
collect
data
Number of
individual
members who
use your
organization's
services
Demographic
information
on members
who use your
organization's
services
Average
length
of time
that
matters
take to
be
resolved
User
satisfaction
(with your
service)
Average
cost
that
users
pay to
use
your
service
Data on
most/least
used
services
Number of
unrepresented
parties who
use your
services
Resolution
rates
Number of
visitors to
your
organization's
website
Number of
hard copy
materials
distributed
Number of
hard copy
materials
distributed
Other
type of
data
(please
specify)
Total
Q7: British
Columbia
Q7: Alberta
Q7:
Saskatchewan
Q7: Manitoba
Q7: Ontario
Q7: Quebec
Q7:
Newfoundland
and Labrador
Q7: Nova
Scotia
Q7: New
Brunswick
Q7: Prince
Edward Island
Q7: Yukon
Q7: Northwest
Territories
Q7: Nunavut
Total
Respondents
1 / 1
81Goal VIII: Support Access to Justice Research to Promote Evidence-Based Policy Making
66.36% 73
27.27% 30
6.36% 7
Figure 106Is the data collected by your organization
available online to the public?
Total 110
No Yes Data is available to
the public but not
accessible online
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
Data is available to the public but not accessible online
1 / 1
Making Data Public
27% of respondents indicating that they collect data also indicated that the data that
they collect is available online to the public. 6% indicated that the data is available to
the public but it is not accessible online.
27% of
respondents
indicating
that they collect
data also
indicated that
the data that
they collect is
available online
to the public.
When examined by province and territory the percentage of respondents which
reported making the data they collect available to the public online ranges from 50%
(New Brunswick and Québec) to 18% (Manitoba).
82Goal VIII: Support Access to Justice Research to Promote Evidence-Based Policy Making
Standardized Metrics, Evaluations and Benchmarks
47% of the 133 respondents who recorded responses related to their use of metrics
indicated that their organization has a standard set of metrics or benchmarks that it
uses to evaluate its own activities.
47% of the 133
respondents
who recorded
responses related
to their use of
metrics indicated
that their
organization
has a standard
set of metrics
or benchmarks
that it uses to
evaluate its own
activities.
52.63% 70
47.37% 63
Figure 109 Does your organization have a standard set
of metrics (benchmarks) that it uses to
evaluate its own activities?
Total 133
No Yes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Answer Choices Responses
No
Yes
1 / 1
The following percentage of respondents indicated that they have a standard set of
metrics or benchmarks that they use to evaluate their own activities:
• 54% of regulator respondents
• 50% of private sector business respondents
• 51% of not-for-profit respondents
• 50% of university-based research centre respondents
• 50% of law school respondents
• 43% of legal clinic respondents
• 29% of government respondents
Figure 108 Is the data collected by your organization available
online to the public?
64.29%
9
28.57%
4
7.14%
1
19.72%
14
72.73%
8
27.27%
3
0.00%
0
15.49%
11
55.56%
5
22.22%
2
22.22%
2
12.68%
9
No Yes Data is available to the public but not accessible online
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Data is available to the public but not accessible online Total
Q7: British Columbia
Q7: Alberta
Q7: Saskatchewan
1 / 2
83Goal VIII: Support Access to Justice Research to Promote Evidence-Based Policy Making
Figure 110 Does your organization have a standard set of
metrics (benchmarks) that it uses to evaluate its own
activities?
71.43%
5
28.57%
2
7.14%
7
No Yes
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q8: Government
1 / 2
84
Figure 111Does your organization have a standard set of metrics
(benchmarks) that it uses to evaluate its own activities?
41.18%
7
58.82%
10
19.54%
17
50.00%
6
50.00%
6
13.79%
12
No Yes
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Yes Total
Q7: British Columbia
Q7: Alberta
1 / 2
When looking at the data through a provincial/territorial lens, British Columbia
had 59% of respondents in this category indicating that their organization has a
standard set of metrics or benchmarks to evaluate its own activities. Closely behind
is: Alberta (50% of respondents), Saskatchewan (50% of respondents), Québec (45%
of respondents), and Nova Scotia (45% of respondents). In the remaining provinces,
organizations that indicated that they have a standard set of metrics or benchmarks
range from 39% (Ontario) to 14% (Newfoundland and Labrador).39
Goal VIII: Support Access to Justice Research to Promote Evidence-Based Policy Making
85
Figure 112How does your organization share information about
successful programs and practices?
(Please check all that apply)
Website Newsletter (paper) Email newsletter Listservs Conferences
Social media updates Meetings with the community
Meetings with other organizations Scholarly papers Other
Government
Not-for-Profit
Legal Clinic
Law School
Regulator
Private sector business
University-based research centre
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Website Newsletter
(paper)
newsletter
Listservs Conferences Social
media
updates
Meetings with the
community
Meetings with other
organizations
Scholarly
papers
Other
(please
specify)
Total
1 / 3
How Information is Shared
Survey respondents indicated that their website is the primary medium for sharing
information about successful programs and practices with 76% of respondents in this
category indicating that they use this method. Paper newsletters are used by 22% of
respondents, while 49% indicated that they use email newsletters. 17% of respondents
who share information about successful programs and practices do so using a listserv,
46% share information at conferences, and 66% use social media updates. 36% use
meetings with the community, 64% share information about successful programs and
practices through meetings with organizations, and 19% indicated that they share
information about successful programs and practices through scholarly papers.
Goal VIII: Support Access to Justice Research to Promote Evidence-Based Policy Making
86Goal IX: Promote Integrated, Coherent and Sustained Funding Strategies
GOAL IX: PROMOTE INTEGRATED, COHERENT AND SUSTAINED FUNDING STRATEGIES
As recognized by the Action Committee,40 funding is important if meaningful and
sustained progress is to be made on many if not all of the access to justice initiatives
canvassed in the Survey. However, for this first national Survey of this kind, it was
determined that funding strategies – the focus of the ninth Goal – would not be
canvassed. This will be an important area for further consideration in future surveys
and reports of this kind.
87Endnotes
ENDNOTES
1 Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and
Family Matters, Access to Civil & Family Justice: A
Roadmap for Change (Ottawa: Action Committee on
Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, October 2013), online: CFCJ <http://www.cfcj-fcjc. org/sites/default/ les/docs/2013/AC_Report_English_ Final.pdf>
[Roadmap for Change].
2 For more information on the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, visit www.cfcj-fcjc.org.
3 In many instances in this Report, Survey respondents are referred to as “organizations”. This term collectively applies to Survey participants who represent bodies, groups, commissions, schools, institutions, centres, committees, businesses, as well as other entities and is not intended solely to refer to any collective that identifies strictly as an organization.
4 See online: CFCJ <http://www.cfcj-fcjc.org/action-committee>.
5 Respondents were able to complete the Survey over any number of days during this period and were instructed not to clear their browser history if they intended to complete the Survey in more than one sitting. It was estimated that the Survey would take approximately 20 minutes to complete, subject to the respondent’s organizational category and their responses to several screening questions.
6 Questions were asked in relation to eight of the nine Justice Development Goals. No Survey questions were included that related to the ninth Justice Development Goal: “Promote Coherent, Integrated and Sustained Funding Strategies”. It was determined that initiatives around this goal would be explored at a different time.
7 Questions 1, 2 and 3 were single textbox questions that required respondents to input their contact details. Due to the confidential nature of this Survey, the responses to these questions are not reported on here. Questions 4, 5, 6 and 7, focusing on the nature of the organization, offered multiple choice options. With the exception of question 5 – “How long has your organization been in operation”— all questions were mandatory. The response chosen for question 6 – “Is your organization … International in scope, National in scope, Provincial/Territorial in scope, other (please specify)”— determined whether the respondent was asked to indicate the province or territory that they serve. For respondents who did not identify their scope as “Provincial/Territorial” in Question 6, the General
Information section of the Survey was limited to 6 questions, rather than 7.
8 There were also several respondents who indicated combinations of geographical scope, including: city and international, city and county, provincial/territorial and interjurisdictional, municipal and provincial and city and regional.
9 The 37 respondents who indicated that their responses were submitted on behalf of a court, tribunal or A2J Group were directed to other survey questions that were framed to better understand the nuances of their organizational structures and efforts.
10 See e.g. Trevor Farrow et al., Everyday Legal Problems
and the Cost of Justice in Canada: Overview Report (Toronto: Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, 2016) online: CFCJ <http://www.cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default/files/Everyday%20Legal%20Problems%20and%20the%20Cost%20of%20Justice%20in%20Canada%20-%20Survey.pdf>.
11 A Roadmap for Change, supra note 1.
12 A Roadmap for Change, supra note 1, at 11.
13 Ibid at 11.
14 Ibid at 13.
15 Ibid, at 14.
16 Ibid, at 15.
17 See e.g. Ibid at endnote 107.
18 Ibid at 16.
19 Ibid at 16.
20 Ibid at page 19; see also Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, Prevention,
Triage and Referral Working Group, Responding Early,
Responding Well: Access to Justice through the Early
Resolution Services Sector (Ottawa: Action Committee
on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, April 2013) online: CFCJ <http://www.cfcj-fcjc.org/collaborations>.
21 Ibid at 17. Core values and principles listed in A
Roadmap for Change include conflict minimization, collaboration, client-focus, empowered families,
88Endnotes
integration of multidisciplinary services, timely resolution, affordability, voice, fairness, safety and proportionality.
22 Ibid at 17.
23 No regulators and no university-based research centres in this category offer legal or non-legal services or resources to families experiencing a family law problem.
24 See Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil
and Family Matters, Action Committee Meeting of the
Provincial and Territorial Access to Justice Groups
(Ottawa: Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil
and Family Matters, July 2015) online: CFCJ <http://cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default/files//docs/ac_meeting_web_ktl03.pdf>.
25 See e.g. A Roadmap for Change, supra note 1; Law
Commission of Ontario, Increasing Access to Family
Justice Through Comprehensive Entry Points and
Inclusivity Final Report, online: LCO <http://www. lco-cdo.org/family-law-reform-final-report.pdf> [LCO
Family Report, 2013]; Law Commission of Ontario,
Towards a More Efficient and Responsive Family Law
System Interim Report, online: LCO <http://www. lco-
cdo.org/family-lawreform-interim-report.pdf>; Family
Justice Working Group Report; John Paul E. Boyd and
Lorne D. Bertrand, Selfrepresented Litigants in Family
Law Disputes: Views of Judges of the Alberta Court
of Queen’s Bench, online: CRILF <http://www.crilf.ca/Documents/Self-represented%20 Litigants%20-%20Views%20of%20Judges%20-%20Apr%202014.pdf>.
26 Roadmap for Change, supra note 1 at 21-22
27 Ibid at 21.
28 For a further breakdown of this data by province and
territory, see Status Report Working Data Document,
supra note 4.
29 For a further breakdown of this data by province and
territory, see ibid.
30 For a breakdown of this data by province and
territory, see ibid.
31 For a breakdown of this data by province and
territory, see ibid.
32 See A Roadmap for Change, supra note 1 at 22.
33 For a breakdown of this data by province and
territory, see Status Report Working Data Document,
supra note 4.
34 For a full breakdown of various reported innovation
collaborations, see ibid.
35 Roadmap for Change, supra note 1 at 23.
36 See e.g. Canadian Bar Association, Reaching Equal
Justice Report: An Invitation to Envision and Act (Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, November 2013) at
144; A Roadmap for Change, supra note 1 at 23.
37 For a breakdown of data collection methods by
organization type, see Status Report Working Data
Document, supra note 4.
38 For a full breakdown of this data by province, see
ibid.
39 To see full breakdown of this data by province and
territory, see ibid.
40 See A Roadmap for Change, supra note 1 at 23.
top related