It is being touted as a “new vision for justice” to combat a concerning and persistent rise in British Columbians being unable to afford a lawyer.
Lee Nevens, president of the Canadian Bar Association BC Branch, says the organization’s newly published Agenda for Justice 2025 report is a roadmap for government reforms to improve access to justice.
“People in B.C. have a lot of concerns and challenges with family disputes, with discrimination, housing, environmental issues, lots of financial challenges, fears about safety; and what we have tried to do with our agenda for justice is to address those challenges with tangible and specific actions government can take to address those concerns,” said Nevens, citing family law disputes as a primary concern.
“One of the clearest things we are seeing is a significant increase in people going to court without lawyers,” Nevens told BIV.
The report outlines more than 30 recommendations.
Among them is the expansion of legal aid in family law.
All other provinces provide legal aid coverage for divorce, parenting disputes, and spousal and child support, but in B.C. the aid is limited to cases of intimate partner violence, threats to safety or denial of access to children, meaning just 53 per cent of those who apply for aid during a family breakdown are eligible for support.
The association states about 40 per cent of family law cases in provincial court involve a person who is not represented by legal counsel.
The BC NDP government has, however, increased its spending on legal aid since 2017.
From 2013-17 legal aid contributions from the provincial government rose from $75.2 million to $77.6 million. The BC NDP government hiked the amount to $88.6 million in 2018 and spent $122.4 million in 2023.
Criminal cases accounted for $64.9 million of spending whereas family law cases accounted for $36.8 million.
And since provincial court doesn’t have jurisdiction to decide division of assets and debts, the association calls for creation of a so-called “Unified Family Court” where family law disputes take place.
Nevens says self-representation leads to poorer outcomes and causes delays in the system.
The association also targets antiquated court systems, to bring better technological access to the public.
Virtual pre-trial hearings should be implemented, the association argues.
The courts should also move all court records online and allow documents to be submitted online for remote access by judges and court clerks.
Improving technology will especially benefit more disadvantaged remote and rural communities, the association says.
Greater use of the internet would necessitate government to prioritize high-speed internet access for rural and remote communities, the association recommends.
Better access to courts for rural and remote communities would naturally lend itself to better access for Indigenous people.
To that end the association wants incentives, such as a student loan forgiveness program, that encourage new lawyers to set up their legal practice outside cities.
Indigenous people are also struggling to find enough people to write Gladue reports.
Such reports outline to a judge the unique circumstances Indigenous people accused of a crime have faced in their lives as a result of the colonial process.
The demand for these reports has surged, nearly doubling since 2021, yet the number of trained writers has not kept pace, the association says, arguing for more Gladue report training.
The association is also adamant there ought to be special funding for and monitoring of cases involving “two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, non-binary and other sexual minorities (2SLGBTQIA+)” as they face more discrimination than others.
Another recommendation is to collect better data on people in court.
Also included in the report is a statement that takes umbrage with criticism of the court system: “Government and public commentary criticizing judges who make decisions based on the law and facts of the case undermines judicial independence. These unfair attacks weaken respect for the rule of law and put democratic stability at risk.”
The comment is in consideration of maintaining the rule of law and concerns the independence of legal regulations in B.C. will be eroded by the new Legal Professions Act.
The association reiterates its support for the new act, so long as lawyers remain in control of the new regulator.
The Law Society of B.C. is presently challenging the act in a lawsuit, asserting lawyers will not be a strong enough collective on the new board. In doing so independent regulation would be lost, which would be unconstitutional.
The society opposes a transitional board that will be struck to create the new regulator’s first rules, which require consultation and approval from an Indigenous council, to be formed by the Metis Nation B.C. and B.C. First Nations Justice Council.
Bill 21 provides that at least seven of the 13 transitional board and Indigenous council members be Indigenous while there is no requirement they be lawyers.
The BC NDP insists the changes will improve access to justice.
