Toronto Estate Lawyer : Hull & Hull Law Firm : Trust Mediation and Succession Planning : Serving Ontario, Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Access to justice in Ontario is a hot topic and a priority for Attorney General Michael Bryant. In fact, he is the force behind various changes we are seeing in the legal arena that according to Jim Middlemiss (in his article Smile, you’re on CA Camera published in the March 2007 edition of Canadian Lawyer) include the introduction of the Access to Justice Act, 2006 that reforms the justice of the peace system and regulates paralegals.

Another change being made affects the Ontario Court of Appeal where cameras are being allowed in the courtroom for some hearings as part of a pilot project. Now, more than ever, counsel will have to enter this court with robes ironed, hair styled and legal arguments ready. The pressure is on. Not only do counsel have to persuade appellate judges of the merit of their client’s case, counsel has to do it on national television!

While the objective is a worthy one – providing an unobstructed view of our justice system at work – I must admit I am more interested in the impact televised hearings will have on the form and presentation of legal argument. I expect that some lawyers may be unnerved by the watchful eye of the public, some may be eager to make a name for themselves and some may not be fazed at all.

My hope is that it will further add to the caliber of advocacy and professionalism and inspire the public to take an interest.

Until tomorrow,

Natalia Angelini

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A.A. v. B.B. and C.C., a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, caused quite a ripple in the media. 

See articles in The National Post  and The Toronto Star, .

The case dealt with the parentage of a five-year-old boy whose biological father and mother, plus the mother’s spouse (the “spouse”) with whom she had been in a long-term same-sex relationship, all agreed that the spouse ought to be legally recognized as the boy’s mother.

At the trial level, the Judge found that the Court had no jurisdiction to make a Declaration mandating that recognition.

The Court of Appeal overruled the trial decision, finding that the Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction allowed it to grant the Declaration. Parens patriae is an inherent jurisdiction the Court can apply to rescue a child in danger or bridge a legislative gap. The Court used parens patriae on the basis that the applicable legislation, Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act, did not contemplate this situation and therefore had a gap.

Interest groups argued unsuccessfully against the Declaration, while both biological parents and the spouse all wanted it granted.

In any case, the boy now has two mothers and a father.

It will be interesting to see what happens when a biological parent objects to such a request. Presumably, all three parents must provide child support, not only during their lifetimes but also on death if they fail to provide for the boy in their Wills.

Thanks for reading.

Sean Graham