Your search

This article is about two ideologies. Welfare-consequentialism holds that government should adopt the policies that can rationally be expected to maximise aggregate welfare. Populism holds that society is divided into a pure people and a corrupt elite, and asserts that public policy should express the general will of the people. The responses of world governments to the coronavirus pandemic have clearly illustrated the contrast between these ideologies, and the danger that populist government poses to human wellbeing. The article argues that welfare-consequentialism offers a vaccine for populism. First, it rebuts populism’s claims about who government is for and what it should do. Second, the pessimism and distrust that make people crave populism can be satiated by successful welfare-consequentialist government. Finally, welfare-consequentialism’s sunny narrative of progress can be just as compelling to people as populism’s dark story has proven to be.

When lawyers elect the leaders of their self-regulatory organizations, what sort of people do they vote for? How do the selection processes for elite lawyer sub-groups affect the diversity and efficacy of those groups? This article quantitatively assesses the demographic and professional diversity of leadership in the Law Society of Upper Canada. After many years of underrepresentation, in 2015 visible minority members and women were elected in numbers proportionate to their shares of Ontario lawyers. Regression analysis suggests that being non-white was not a disadvantage in the 2015 election, and being female actually conferred an advantage in attracting lawyers’ votes. The diverse employment contexts of the province’s lawyers were also represented in the elected group. However, early-career lawyers were completely unrepresented. This is largely a consequence of electoral system design choices, and can be remedied through the implementation of career-stage constituencies. The Law Society’s “benchers” are more demographically diverse than other elite lawyer sub-groups, such as judges, and the open and transparent selection process may be part of the reason. , Lorsque les avocats élisent les chefs de leurs organismes d’auto-réglementation, quel genre de leader choisissent-ils? Quelles sont les répercussions des processus de sélection des sous-groupes d’avocats élites en ce qui concerne la diversité et l’efficacité au sein de ces groupes? Le présent article effectue une évaluation quantitative de la démographie et de la diversité professionnelle du leadership du Barreau du Haut-Canada. Après de nombreuses années de sous-représentation, en 2015, des membres de minorités visibles et des femmes ont été élus dans une proportion représentative de leur importance dans la profession en Ontario. Une analyse de régression permet de conclure que, dans l’élection de 2015, ne pas être de race blanche n’était pas un handicap, et qu’être femme était avantageux en ce que cela suscitait davantage de votes. La diversité des contextes d’emploi des avocats en Ontario était également bien représentée parmi les élus. Par contre, les avocats frais émoulus n’étaient pas représentés du tout, du fait de décisions prises dans la conception du système de vote. Cet inconvénient peut être remédié par la création d’une catégorie correspondant aux étapes de carrière. Les conseillers au barreau du Barreau du Haut-Canada constituent un groupe plus diversifié sur le plan démographique que d’autres sous-groupes d’avocats élites, notamment les juges, ce qui pourrait relever en partie du processus de sélection ouvert et transparent.

Welfarism is the idea that government should always try to make individuals’ lives go better, for them, than they otherwise would, overall. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate welfarism’s compatibility with, and potential to support, the ambitions of person-centred justice. Welfarism is a normative theory applicable to public policy generally, but one which has distinct consequences in the realm of law and legal systems. They are considered just to the extent that they generate the best possible expected welfare consequences for all of the individuals who are affected by them. Welfarism is radically person-centred because it requires lawmakers to treat each individual affected by their work as a distinct locus of value, including those who have been subordinated or ignored., RésuméLe welfarisme est l’idée selon laquelle le gouvernement devrait toujours essayer d’améliorer la vie des individus, et ce, d’une manière à ce que la qualité de vie des individus soit supérieure à ce qu’elle l’aurait été sans ladite intervention gouvernementale. Dans cette voie, l’objectif de cet article est de démontrer la compatibilité du welfarisme avec les ambitions d’une justice centrée sur la personne et son potentiel pour soutenir cette forme de justice. Le welfarisme est une théorie normative applicable aux politiques publiques en général, mais qui entraîne toutefois des conséquences distinctes dans le domaine du droit et des systèmes juridiques. Les lois sont alors considérées comme justes si elles génèrent les meilleures conséquences possibles en termes de bien-être pour tous les individus qui sont affectés par celles-ci. Le welfarisme est radicalement centré sur la personne, car il exige que les législateurs traitent chaque individu affecté par leur travail comme un lieu de valeur distinct, y compris celles et ceux qui ont été subordonnés ou ignorés.

The goal of this article is to better understand the potential of tribunals to improve access to justice in Canada. It begins by defining “tribunals” and “access to justice”, the key concepts of this article. Because tribunals and trial courts are functional alternatives for the resolution of many legal disputes, the article first reviews the merits of trial-level courts in this regard. It then turns to tribunals, reviewing some objective evidence of tribunal excellence in creating access to justice. Four key attributes of tribunals make them advantageous alternatives to trial-level courts for the accessible and just resolution of many types of legal dispute. First, tribunals are specialized instead of having general jurisdiction. Second, tribunals apply teamwork to dispute-resolution, instead of assigning all responsibility to individual adjudicators. Third, healthy forms of accountability are easier to establish in tribunals than they are in courts. This includes accountability of individual members to the tribunal and accountability of the tribunal to the legislature that created it. Finally, tribunals can be designed for maximal performance in creating access to justice, by contrast to courts which, for good reasons, resist design or reform efforts coming from outside themselves. The final Part of the article argues that tribunals can advance access to justice not only by taking on dispute-resolution work that courts would otherwise do, but also by offering authoritative legal vindication of rights that would otherwise be abandoned, or resolved in a completely privatized way. The tribunal promise of accessible adjudication can also be expected to improve the quality of settlements, in terms of upholding parties’ substantive legal rights.

The Civil Rules Review (CRR) has proposed a thorough rewrite of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure. The goal is to make civil litigation speedier, more affordable, and less complex. The CRR's April 2025 Consultation Paper makes dozens of reform proposals, affecting every major phase of the litigation process.   This short paper argues that the leaders of Ontario's civil justice system should take the time to look before they leap. To implement changes by the end of 2025, as proposed by the original Terms of Reference for the Civil Rules Review, would be dangerously and unnecessarily premature. The consultation phase (currently just 10 weeks) should be extended, and a methodologically rigorous empirical evaluation should be conducted. This evaluation should be informed by a solid theoretical understanding of civil litigation’s benefits and costs; the middle section of this paper briefly sketches such a theory.

Tribunals constitute a vitally important part of Canada's justice system, but their place in the Canadian state is fragile and their essential function is misunderstood. This article explains the need for pro-functional tribunal law, which would position tribunals to consistently deliver on their potential. Differentiating tribunals dedicated to resolving legal disputes from non-tribunal agencies that do other work is the key. Differentiation would advance goals related to specialization, the separation of powers, and democracy in Canada. It would allow tribunals to escape the taint of partiality to government. It would also set the stage for a professionalization and depoliticization of tribunal appointment practices, securing tribunals and their users from the type of dysfunction that has recently plagued Ontario. The final Part of the paper argues that the Canada's legislatures, rather than its appellate courts, are the most promising venue for the adoption of profunctional tribunal law.

Noel Semple, 2021 CanLIIDocs 82

Welfarism is the idea that government should always try to make individuals' lives go better, for them, than they otherwise would, overall. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate welfarism's compatibility with, and potential to support, the ambitions of person-centered justice. Welfarism is a normative theory applicable to public policy generally, but one which has distinct consequences in the realm of law and legal systems. They are considered just to the extent that they generate the best possible expected welfare consequences for all of the individuals who are affected by them. Welfarism is radically person-centred because it requires lawmakers to treat each individual affected by their work as a distinct locus of value, including those who have been subordinated or ignored.

Tribunals have great potential to improve access to justice in Canada, and the goal of this article is to better understand this potential. It begins by defining "tribunals" and "access to justice," the key concepts of this article. Because tribunals and trial courts are functional alternatives for the resolution of many legal disputes, the article first reviews the merits of triallevel courts in this regard. It then turns to tribunals, reviewing some objective evidence of tribunal excellence in creating access to justice. Four key attributes of tribunals make them advantageous alternatives to trial-level courts for the accessible and just resolution of many types of legal dispute. First, tribunals are specialized instead of having general jurisdiction. Second, tribunals apply teamwork to dispute-resolution, instead of assigning all responsibility to individual adjudicators. Third, healthy forms of accountability are easier to establish in tribunals than they are in courts. This includes accountability of individual members to the tribunal and accountability of the tribunal to the legislature that created it. Finally, tribunals can be designed for maximal performance in creating access to justice, by contrast to courts which, for good reasons, resist design or reform efforts coming from outside themselves. The final Part of the article argues that tribunals can advance access to justice not only by taking on dispute-resolution work that courts would otherwise do, but also by offering authoritative legal vindication of rights that would otherwise be abandoned, or resolved in a completely privatized way. The tribunal promise of accessible adjudication can also be expected to improve the quality of settlements, in terms of upholding parties' substantive legal rights.

Michael Trebilcock's superb new book was published on March 8th, 2022. Just the week before, something happened that shows just how important this monograph is. Just across the street from Trebilcock's office at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law is Queen's Park, the seat of the Ontario Legislature. On February 28th, the Government introduced Bill 88 there. The Bill was entitled The Working for Workers Act, and mostly pertained to employment standards for digital workers. However, tucked at the end of the Bill was legislation on a completely different topic. Schedule 5 would have abolished the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners of Ontario. Since 2006, this entity had regulated practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture in the province. No consultation or warning preceded the surprising move to eliminate the College. Practitioners of Chinese Medicine, and the College itself, apparently learned about this plan on the same day as the rest of the province. It took the press and the Opposition a few days to notice what had been proposed. Questioned in the Legislature a few days later, Minister of Health Christine Elliot stated that abolishing the regulator would "allow more individuals to get back into the business of practising traditional Chinese medicine." The College's examinations and disciplinary proceedings would be replaced by an optional registration regime, under a regulator also charged with overseeing personal support workers. The licenses issued by the College to people who had passed the exams would henceforth have no legal significance. Premier Doug Ford, in a press conference later that day, blamed the College’s decision to administer licensing exams in English or French only, given that many aspiring practitioners were only fluent in Mandarin or Cantonese.

Is litigating the best interests of a child a contradiction in terms? This portfolio dissertation asks this question with regard to child custody and access disputes, in which separated parents contest for the rights and responsibilities of parenthood. It is axiomatic that children's interests are doctrinally supreme when their parents litigate about them, but do civil procedure and settlement practices in these cases also put children first? The dissertation responds to this research query using quantitative and qualitative empirical methodology. It draws both on a statistical analysis of reported cases and on the author's interviews of family law professionals in Toronto and New York City. The empirical findings are contextualized in a review of the relevant doctrine and scholarship from the legal and mental health disciplines. The first two articles make positive and normative claims about custody and access litigation in developed common-law jurisdictions; the remaining three focus on the settlement-seeking procedures which family courts apply to these cases. The Conclusion to the Portfolio draws from the articles to argue that, while litigating the best interest of a child is not a contradiction in terms in every custody or access case, the contours of the existing system are more reflective of adult interests and resource constraints than they are of children's interests. A family court is necessarily a civil justice system in the common law tradition, and can therefore only ever be a weak and inefficient servant of children's interests. However, the Portfolio does call for a cost-neutral procedural reform in the shape of a "grand bargain" between judges and parents. If parents yield power to judges within the adjudicative courtroom, and if judges in turn yield power to parents within the settlement-seeking conference room, the system will be brought more in line with its noble aspiration to pursue the best interests of the children involved.

When parents separate and cannot agree about parenting arrangements for their children, a state-authorized neutral party must resolve the dispute. Two groups of neutral professionals perform this function in many western jurisdictions. The first group is judges, who are entrusted with the ultimate decision-making authority. The second group is custody and access assessors, who are generally psychologists, psychiatrists, or social workers. This thesis compares the processes by which these two groups of professionals make the decisions, and analyzes the interface between them. It then presents the results of empirical research about the extent to which Ontario judges accept custody and access recommendations from social worker assessors employed by Ontario's Office of the Children's Lawyer. The central finding was that the judges and assessors agreed only about half of the time. Possible explanations for this finding are explored, and its significance is analyzed in the context of the existing literature.

Review of Michael Trebilcock, Paradoxes of Professional Regulation: In Search of Regulatory Principles. Canadian Business Law Journal, Vol. 67, page 247. This review considers the regulation of professions through an examination of Michael Trebilcock's new book. The key themes include risk arising from service-provision, alternatives such as licensing and registration, and the political economy of occupational regulation. Trebilcock's book combines the virtues of "thinking like a lawyer" and "thinking like an economist."