Your search
Results 193 resources
-
“Personal plight” is the sector of the legal services industry in which the clients are individuals, and the legal needs arise from disputes. This article proposes that competition among personal plight law firms is suppressed by three demand-side phenomena. First, consumers confront high search costs. Identifying competing law firms willing and able to provide the needed services often requires significant expenditure of temporal and psychological resources. Second, comparable price and quality information about firms is scarce for consumers. Both of these factors impede comparison shopping and reduce competitive pressure on firms. A third competition-suppressing factor is observed in tort legal service markets, where offerings are typically priced on a contingency basis. Contingency fees have relatively low salience to consumers, and this reduces consumers’ willingness to negotiate and comparison-shop on the basis of price. This analysis is supported by the author’s empirical research with Ontario personal plight lawyers as well as the existing literature. The article concludes by suggesting possible consequences of this analysis for regulatory policy.
-
This paper provides a conceptual intervention through an analysis of the myths surrounding agricultural citizenship and migrant work that underlie the temporary foreign worker program in two settler countries: Canada and Israel. The paper offers a brief insight into the ideologies around farm work that informed the colonisation and dispossession of Indigenous peoples and the expropriation of non-citizen labour. It begins with a historical overview of how agriculture was used as a tool of colonisation even as settlers struggled to cultivate Canadian lands because of the seasonal nature and the persistent lack of labour. From the time of Confederation, agriculture began to be intimately tied with immigration policies culminating in the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) that persists to this day. The paper then expands the analysis to Israel to show how other settler nations have also followed similar ideological and policy trajectories. The paper illustrates how racial capitalism intertwines with settler colonial practices discursively and institutionally through immigration policies.
-
14 — Notes and Comments
-
The statutes that govern the legal profession across the country reserve the practice of law for lawyers, giving rise to lawyers’ claim to a monopoly over legal services. However, those same statutes, and many others, also allow non-lawyers to engage in practice-of-law activities. Non-lawyers provide legal assistance, advice, and representation across Canada in a range of settings. The privilege of self-regulation imposes on law societies a duty to govern in the public interest. The public interest is often cited to support lawyers’ monopoly, which is a useless fiction. Arguments by lawyers to restrict or limit non-lawyers’ provision of legal services are essentially quality arguments. This article asserts that lawyers’ claims for a monopoly are inconsistent with both the extent and quality of non-lawyer legal service provision in Canada.
-
Law societies in Canada have long been granted the privilege of self-regulation by the state – a privilege that comes with a statutory duty to govern in the public interest. There exists an access to justice crisis in this country. More must be done to address unmet legal needs. There is nothing new in this, but law societies across Canada are reluctant to implement at least one ready solution. Ontario introduced paralegal regulation over ten years ago with the promise that it would increase access to justice. Evidence suggests that it has done so. Yet no other Canadian jurisdiction is prepared to regulate paralegals as independent providers of legal services. Law societies’ continued resistance to the regulation of paralegals is contrary to the public interest. This paper argues that to alleviate the access to justice crisis, it is time to regulate paralegals.
-
In its 2008 decision in R v Kapp, the Supreme Court of Canada gave broad effect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom's ameliorative program provision, section 15(2). The Supreme Court's decision signalled that a government respondent's declaration that a program is “ameliorative” may shield it from further scrutiny under section 15(1). This Women's Court of Canada judgment takes the opportunity to reformulate the approach to section 15(2). Although the Charter provides express protection of ameliorative programs, such programs have sometimes been challenged by members of advantaged groups claiming “reverse discrimination.” We argue that such “equality regressive claims” should be caught by section 15(2). However, for challenges to “under-inclusive” programs, deference to the government on the development of ameliorative programs may perpetuate disadvantage experienced by excluded disadvantaged groups and should not be similarly shielded. This decision develops a contextual approach to section 15(2) that ensures that it does not become a loophole through which government respondents can avoid fulsome Charter scrutiny of claims of under-inclusivity. We outline a test that not only encourages government to take affirmative action but is also narrow enough to subject genuine equality claims to section 15(1) review.
Explore
Author / Editor
- Ali Hammoudi (2)
- Anneke Smit (4)
- Annette Demers (1)
- Beverly Jacobs (3)
- Brian Manarin (5)
- Christopher Waters (10)
- Claire Mummé (6)
- Danardo Jones (1)
- Daniel Del Gobbo (7)
- David Tanovich (11)
- Gemma Smyth (6)
- Irina Ceric (4)
- James Yap (2)
- Janice Makokis (1)
- Jasminka Kalajdzic (10)
- Jeff Berryman (5)
- Jillian Rogin (1)
- Joshua Sealy-Harrington (4)
- Kristen Thomasen (2)
- Laverne Jacobs (9)
- Lisa Trabucco (2)
- Margaret Liddle (2)
- Mita Williams (3)
- Muharem Kianieff (3)
- Myra Tawfik (3)
- Noel Semple (16)
- Pascale Chapdelaine (9)
- Paul Ocheje (4)
- Reem Bahdi (5)
- Richard Moon (5)
- Sara Wharton (5)
- Shanthi E. Senthe (3)
- Sujith Xavier (15)
- Tess Sheldon (8)
- Vasanthi Venkatesh (5)
- Vicki Jay Leung (5)
- Wissam Aoun (5)