The Forum, which is now located at York University, moved last year from the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Law and is partnered with Osgoode Hall Law School and the York Centre for Public Policy & Law (YCPPL). It is one of the country’s leading organizations devoted to interdisciplinary research on civil justice.

The study, “The Cost of Justice: Weighing the Costs of Fair and Effective Resolution to Legal Problems,” will develop methods to measure what our civil justice system costs, who it serves, whether it is meeting the needs of users and the price of failing to do so. It is headed by Osgoode Hall Law School Professor Trevor Farrow, Director of the Clinical Education Program at Osgoode and Chair of the Board of the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice. Farrow is joined on the lead research team by Co-Research Directors Diana Lowe, QC of Alberta Justice and Chair of the Forum’s Research Committee, Professor Lesley Jacobs of York’s Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies who was also the inaugural Director of YCPPL, and Dr. Mary Stratton who was formerly the Forum’s Research Director.

“There is a significant lack of empirical research on these individual and societal cost questions generally,” said Farrow. “There have been modest attempts internationally and some efforts in Canada, but we very much hope that this will be a groundbreaking study that will really further our collective thinking in this area.”

Cost has long been identified as a key challenge for individuals seeking access to the justice system. In 1996 the Canadian Bar Association Systems of Civil Justice Task Force reported on the lack of reliable information available concerning the costs of the civil justice system. At page 16 of the Task Force Report they observed:

Affordability is a central issue, particularly for lower- and middle-income Canadians.  In addition, the cost of litigation is of concern to all users and taxpayers.  There is also a cost associated with the inefficient use of courts.  First, all litigants should have the benefit of cost-efficient dispute resolution services.  Second, use of scarce public resources should be maximized through an efficient civil justice system.  Proper use of resources today and informed resource allocation in the future depend on the availability of reliable cost data and thoughtful cost/benefit analyses.

The cost of justice research will respond to this need.

The Chief Justice of Canada, The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, describes the value of this research as follows:

Access to justice is the most significant challenge facing the Canadian justice system.  While the problem is a complex one involving the interplay of numerous factors, for too many Canadians cost seems to rise as an insurmountable barrier to access.  This research which will be undertaken by the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice will be essential in helping us understand the true extent of the problem of cost and how it impacts on the justice system.  I believe that it will prove to be of great assistance to the members of the National Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters and all others working to identify concrete solutions to the problem of access to justice.

The research alliance will examine whether the cost of achieving resolution is economically and socially warranted by addressing the following questions:

• How can we better calculate, understand and balance the social value to democratic societies of ensuring an accessible, effective civil justice system against the financial costs of doing so, or the socio-economic costs of failing to provide access?
• What can be done to effectively prevent disputes, and at what costs and benefits?
• What methods are there for limiting or eliminating the need for legal services, through consumer protection, licensing, standard-setting and pro-active regulation, or other innovations identified by the research?
• What can be done to prevent recurring problems for low and middle income Canadians, most especially those who are the most vulnerable?

Osgoode Dean Lorne Sossin described the study as “an extremely ambitious research project that will lead to new knowledge about the costs of justice in Canada and which, in turn, will no doubt drive academic and policy-related thinking here at home and around the world.”

The research alliance is made up of approximately 60 co-applicants, collaborators and partners including leading academics, government departments, law commissions, law societies, bar associations, judicial organizations, public legal educators and other individuals and institutes from Canada and around the world.

Summary of Key Points

“Peace River Judicial District Report”

Summary of Key Points

“Grande Prairie Judicial District Report”

Summary of Key Points

The Forum’s multi-year Alberta Legal Services Mapping Project will be concluding in the New Year, having visited and reported on every judicial district in Alberta.  For information on the Mapping Project, or any of the Forum’s many publicly available research initiatives, please visit the Forum’s on-line resources.

The Board would like to thank the University of Alberta Faculty of Law, the Alberta Law Foundation, the Law Foundation of British Columbia, Alberta Justice and the Forum’s many other funders and supporters for their continued engagement and support.

The Forum looks forward to the exciting opportunities that partnership with the YCPPL and Osgoode will bring to the Forum’s capacity to conduct socio-legal research, particularly a proposed new broad-based international collaboration to research the cost of civil justice in Canada.

We look forward to working with our stakeholders and supporters in the future.

Trevor C. W. Farrow

Chair, Canadian Forum on Civil Justice

Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Some Facts and Figures from the Civil Justice System and the Public

Some Facts and Figures reports on information collected in short questionnaires completed by 293 Civil Justice System and the Public (CJSP) participants. The questionnaires collected basic demographics about participants and information helpful to better understanding public legal information and education (PLEI) needs. As well, this report draws on 121 surveys using adapted interview questions that were completed by members of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice (CIAJ), one of the project partners. Qualitative illustrations are provided to add context to the numerical findings. It is concluded that good communication is both central and essential to an effective and fair civil justice process. Recommendations are offered related to the nine principles of good communication previously identified in the CJSP report Learning from Experiences to Find Practices that Work.

Access to Justice? The View from the Street

This article is based on interview data collected as part of the Alberta Legal Services Mapping Project. Interviews with 17 participants who were currently homeless are joined with reports from legal and social service providers across Alberta to illustrate how the many pathways to homelessness entwine with systems of law and legal issues in many ways. While laws, justice systems and legal services alone cannot resolve the wicked social problems entwined with homelessness, they can and do play a critical role within which there is much room for improvement.

Our thanks to LawNow for allowing us to provide this direct link to the magazine article.

Public Legal Education and Information – The Challenging Mission to Create what the Public Needs

Providing people with easy access to well-designed and effective forms of information and education about legal rights and processes is essential to ensuring access to justice. It is also a challenging mission. This PowerPoint presentation summarizes key findings from the Civil Justice System and the Public project, interspersing public participants’ descriptions of their needs and experiences with the reflections of front-line legal service providers.

“Drumheller Judicial District Report”

Summary of Key Points

“Wetaskiwin Judicial District Report”

Summary of Key Points