To Those Working in the Public Interest

Notice: I referred readers in this post to Habamus Rodentum Reports for copies of the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding, The Beck Report and other documents. I realized that those reports were archived at this blog. Those reports are now available at Habamus Rodentum Reports under the Heading The Law Society and Legal Aid.

I’ve decided to try something a little different. I’ve long tired of the "Canadian Waltz" a dance a.k.a "the passing of the buck" by politicians and their bureaucrats (this current provincial Liberal government is very good at this, more so than the previous Conservative government, if you can believe it).

So I decided that I would post any letters I send to our politicians so everyone can take a look at it, including the opposition or others involved as public activists. Any organization that purports to "act in the interest of the public" and is legislated to do so, will also get posted.

This letter was sent yesterday to address some outstanding with the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Ministry of the Attorney General. Some of these issues were addressed rrevious letters to two federal Ministers of Justice, Martin Couchon and Irwin Cotler and to one of the Ontario Minister’s of Justice. It was so long ago I forget who it was! All dismissed the concerns. The federal Ministers ignored the concerns about the appointed judge. I guess appointments are all based on merit right? Or was it who you know in the PMO?

Monday July 18, 2005

To the following:
The Honourable Michael Bryant Minister of the Attorney General of Ontario
Mr. Malcolm Heins C.E.O The Law Society of Upper Canada
Ms. Susan Hebitchc/o Mr. W. Michael Adams, Director - Board Member, Services LibraryCo. Inc
Mr. Larry Banak Chai rThe Law Foundation of Ontario
Mr. John Pearson Director of Crown Operations, Central West Region John Sopinka Courthouse, Hamilton
The Hamilton Spectator, Editors

Dear Sirs and Madame:

This letter is regarding public access to law libraries, in particular, the law library at John Sopinka Courthouse in Hamilton Ontario. A written response by all those listed to address the various concerns responsible by each would be appreciated. A copy of this letter will be published at http://www.habamusrodentum.blogspot.com/ and any written responses will also be published.

I was disheartened to learn that the librarian, Chris Kycinsky, the Librarian at the John Sopkinka Court House in Hamilton, refuses access to members of the public who involve themselves in their own legal research.

I understand that the Law Foundation of Ontario grants funding to law libraries and that in 2003, the LFO gave $850,000 to LibraryCo. Inc, in which the John Sopinka Courthouse library, that which Ms. Kycinsky manages, is listed as an association law library receiving LibraryCo. Inc funding.

I also understand they receive money from the Law Society and have by-laws setting their policies by Convocation.Policy rules for an association law library found on LibraryCo. Inc's website lists that an "association law library is open to the legal community (lawyers, judges, law students) and "others".

Ms. Kycinsky identifies "others" as law students. I identify myself as a member of the public who is a legal advocate for myself first and second to others in the community that are marginalized deliberately by the legal community. I have been able to do all this by accessing legal information at law libraries at the universities in the cities I've lived in. In Hamilton, there is no faculty of law, therefore, no public access law library. I was told by Ms. Kycinsky to go to Toronto if I wanted to use a law library.

To give you more indication of Ms. Kycinsky's insensitivity to a class of people that cannot afford justice or legal service in Ontario and have to resort to researching law libraries for themselves; when asked if she would refuse individuals who were too poor to retain a lawyer and had to resort to doing their own legal advocacy she said "absolutely".I was also given an anecdotal story by Ms. Kycinsky that she didn't like the public using the law libraries in British Columbia, where she worked previously because they would ask lawyers for advice.

I guess generalizing gets you everywhere within the legal system. Obviously, B.C. understands the importance of allowing public access to legal information. In my experience using law libraries, I have never had to ask lawyers for advice. The opposite has actually occurred to me because I ended up having law students ask me questions and I ended up knowing more than they did!

I understand that LFO has a mandate and guidelines for giving out those grants. That mandate states: "The purpose of The Law Foundation of Ontario is to advance legal knowledge and to facilitate public access to legal services benefiting the people of Ontario". The funding criteria states: "the LFO funds projects related to Legal Aid, legal education and research and the creation and operation and maintenance of law libraries" and that those requesting grants "must show a direct benefit of the people of Ontario".

If the LFO is giving $850,000 to LibraryCo. Inc only to have one of their associate libraries turn away "others" doing research to benefit themselves and "the people of Ontario" (by way of a class of people), why does the LFO continue to give funding to these sources? Apparently, according to Ms. Kycinsky, the Hamilton Lawyer's Association over-rides the by-laws set by Convocation.

If the Law Society of Upper Canada "exists to govern the legal profession in the public interest". (http://www.lsuc.on.ca/public/) and the Equity Initiatives Department it to "ensure access to justice", by integrating "equity and diversity values and principles into its model policies, services, programs and procedures" then why is Sophia Sperdakos, policy counsel for LSUC condoning the behavior of the law libraries to deny access to legal information to the Ontarian public? Why deny them when they are in a public building such as the John Sopinka Courthouse?

I was told that lawyers fees are the sole support of libraries and the Law Society. They get no government funding. Of course, she didn't mention the Law Foundation's interest from mixed-trust accounts. So if LSUC is solely supported by lawyer's fees, how does that remove the Law Society from a conflict of interest situation? If LSUC counts on sole support of itself by lawyers fees but isn't in a conflict of interest, administering itself on behalf of the public interest, why is the fact that lawyers fees absolve LibraryCo. libraries to allow public access that would serve the public interest, especially in areas where there are no law schools? This doesn't make sense. How can lawyers fees be used to justify the LSUC's existence toact in the benefit of the public interest on the one hand and the same argument to justify non-public access that would benefit the public in another?

Is this just another case of more inadequate, out-of-touch public policy of the Law Society? Of course, LSUC did get government funding for legal aid at one time before their mismanagement of it removed legal aid out of their umbrella.So if Ms. Sperdakos stated herself that LSUC is supposed to govern lawyers in the public interest so why did she deny it when I commented that it was LSUC's mismanagement of the Plan in the early 90's causing the legal aid crisis and forcing convocation to impose draconian and violent legal aid cuts through-out the late 90's?

Instead, she chose to maintain the outdated myth that the only reason they mismanaged the money was that the government ended open-ended funding in 1994 with the Memorandum of Understanding under the Rae government, not because they were using a cash based accounting system instead of the general accepted accounting principles and somehow "lost" $100 million dollars.

We agreed to disagree that the legal aid problem was caused by LSUC's mismanagement of public revenue. $100 million dollars is still "missing" from accounts receivable on the legal aid account, left over from when the law society was managing the money. This is documented on the Auditor of Ontario's website in the Overall Audit Conclusions. http://www.auditor.on.ca/english/reports/en01/302e01.pdf

I have evidence that one of LSUC's lawyers under-represented the value of a home that had a liens on it to cover legal aid certificates to those in LSUC's legal aid accounting department.

How many other lawyers in Ontario under-represented to the Plan in the same manner? I'm thinking a lot given that there is still $100 million missing.

That lawyer's office was also the local legal aid office in the region. He is also the brother of a former federal cabinet minister and appointed to the Bench in 1998 probably with the help of the then federal Minister of Justice, Alan Rock, former treasurer to LSUC when the money crisis started.

I have evidence from another lawyer's account of what appears to be withdrawals from a legal aid certificate after her client was told there was no money left on it and could not file for divorce because of it. Her client ended up in court without a lawyer from refusal of a legal aid certificate against her will, knowing absolutely nothing until she arrived because she was given bad legal advice. That advice was go to court there will be duty counsel there (there wasn’t) and "cry in front of the judge, he'll help you". The justice couldn't care less.

(Perhaps I should post that evidence on this blog?)

There is enough documentation provided to me by the Ministry of the Attorney General's office that can be used in evidence in court (The Beck Report, the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding, both can be accessed at http://www.habamusrodentumreports.blogspot.com/ and the Ministry commissioned report called "A Blueprint for Legally Funded Legal Services in Ontario" see Volumes 2 & 3: "Historical and Analytical Framework and Governance of Legal Aid Schemes". These volumes can be accessed in law libraries or bought through Publications Ontario). These document LSUC's mismanagement, chose harmful public policies instead concerning itself with its own ends (that of its members) and did not in the serve in the public interest.

Why hasn't there been a forensic audit of the accounts receivable in the legal aid account? Why hasn't there been an investigation by the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Auditor's office or LSUC itself when they knew there was a short-fall of approximately $32 million back in 1996? Where is the $100 million still outstanding from collections on the legal aid account? Why hasn't a class action lawsuit been launched against the Law Society for causing so many Ontarians so much harm from over zealous legalaid area directors?

The M.O.U entered into with the Rae government wanted balanced certificate distribution to comply with the Legal Aid Act. LSUC gave legal aid directors discretion to deny certificates. It's documented in Blueprint that these area directors denied more than was instructed by Convocation's plan. In turn, they were denying mostly individuals in divorce matters and immigration. In many instances it was not timely to appeal these decisions. The class of individuals being denied were a majority women. Many women suffering psychological abuse by ex-partners were being victimized once again.

I have done a lot of research into this since 1997, the worst year of the cuts and continue to do so but I should not be forced to go to Toronto to get a book that could be available at the John Sopinka Courthouse.

Section 26 of the Charter allows additional rights than those spelled out in the Charter, which includes international law ratified in treaties. One of those treaties is the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). I used those reports listed above in Canada's 2003 review as documentation to show that the provincial government allowed LSUC to discriminate against a majority women due to denial to legal services.

In turn, the U.N. Committee found that Canada has some serious discrepancies with its policies towards women. The U.N. says: Canada you have these problems because of the way your provinces and territories handle themselves. Ontario's legal system contributed to the U.N's concerns and recommendations which to this day have been ignored by the Law Society and this provincial government.

Because LSUC decimated the legal aid system poorer Ontarian's cannot get legal coverage for civil cases, Charter challenges, and particular family law and immigration disputes. Those who cannot afford a lawyer and therefore justice, have to turn to themselves and law libraries to understand how to uphold their legal rights. Forget lawyers. They don't want to handle most cases unless they get a large retainer and have a large dollar amount in settlement fees. And the lawyer referral service is a money grab. Any lawyer I have called from it wasn't helpful. They told me what I already knew, that I wouldnt' get a lawyer.

Where does this money go when LSUC receives it from the public?

How are low income individuals supposed to protect themselves when lawyers won't and basic rights to know and understand one's law are being denied by law libraries systematically refusing access because of their own bigoted attitudes towards low income individuals like Ms. Kycinky's and Ms. Sperdakos' which is just another form of constructive discrimination?

The new contingency law doesn't work for a legal system that believes it to be far too "superior" who "refuse to be like Americans" to use it. Lack of access to legal services forces individuals like myself and others to press private charges with their local Justices of the Peace. And if the Crown refuses carriage of those charges, even if they are supposed to uphold the administration of law and justice, then how are our guaranteed rights under s. 15 of the Charter to have equal benefit of the law protected?

There is a case right now where the Crown's office here in Hamilton won't take carriage of a private charge against possible municipal corruption and hasn't given the public a rationale why.

This is the same Crown region where "The Deal" was struck with Karla Homolka.

I have a number of private charges under various offense clauses of various legislation to be laid. Will I be struck without reasoning when it comes time to assume carriage? Not only would this affect me, but a class of individuals within Ontario who would benefit from the concerns being aired in a court of competent jurisdiction, not in some self-regulated body that does not follow their legislated obligations. And in Ontario there are enough of those.

All my information I researched since 1997 I obtained from law libraries, Ontario's e-laws and some law clinics.

I don't count on the Law Society at all to act on my behalf.

When I made a complaint about a Member of Parliament who is also a member of LSUC after openly and publicly encouraging discrimination against Muslim and non-Muslim women, dismissing their concerns and blaming "women's groups" for "over-reacting" to Ontario's implementation Sharia law in civil proceedings and in divorce cases, those in the complaints department did not immediately apply the Code of Professional Conduct, which has set rules about lawyers in public life.

The Law Society and Minister Bryant have no idea how serious implementing Sharia law could be, let alone allowing it's implementation with the system the way it is now for many women in Ontario. In particular low income immigrant women who don't know what their rights are or are being denied knowledge of them from these various systemic barriers not which of least comes from within their own communities.

I know, because I was within the Muslim community for 10 years, 3 of them being indoctrinated with the Salafist interpretation of Sharia law.And those barriers include something as banal as attempting to get a book explaining how to use U.K. judgements and legislation in Ontario courts under s. 25 of the Evidence Act to oppose Sharia Law was denied to me by Ms. Kycinsky and dismissed with lies by Ms. Sperdakos, a counsel for the Law Society's policy branch no less.

Can anyone please tell me what, exactly, is working in the public interest? Has the Law Society or the provincial government actually taken an impact study of the effects of those cuts on the Ontario public? Has either contacted individuals who have used legal aid, dealt with lawyers within that system or the law society or any difficulties they have had obtaining legal services and get their opinions on it? I have gotten the impression that no one wants to know the painful truth because they aren't interested in listening to the general public, only politicians and lawyers versions of what they think the general public say.

I hope I don't get the usual from the Ministry telling me to "go get a lawyer".