Jump to content

BlockedQuebecois

Members
  • Content Count

    5895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Posts posted by BlockedQuebecois


  1. 1 hour ago, Trew said:

    I referenced the decision for it's context, rather than it's results. But if you look at the book of authorities following the preamble, you will see various secondary sources referring to access to justice, including:

    Canada. Department of Justice. “The Final Report on Early Case Consideration of the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System”, 2006

    Alberta Justice and Solicitor General. Criminal Justice Division. “Injecting a Sense of Urgency: A new approach to delivering justice in serious and violent criminal cases”, report by Greg Lepp, April 2013

    B.C. Justice Reform Initiative. A Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century: Final Report to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General Honourable Shirley Bond, report by D. Geoffrey Cowper, Q.C., Chair. Victoria: The Initiative, 2012.

    These are the sources that the Court considered, and I don't think it's inappropriate to inject access to justice considerations into a discussion regarding Jordan. That being said, I could easily compile other case law and secondary sources that more clearly address access to justice in the criminal justice system.

    And which of those sources discusses discusses the access to justice issues caused by the “certificates that [defendants] can take to hundreds of lawyers”?

    (I’ll help you, because everyone here knows you haven’t read a single one of those documents – none of them do, because there’s no access to justice issues caused by an excess supply of criminal defence lawyers) 


  2. 12 minutes ago, Trew said:

    My "observations" are based on secondary sources. If you take issue with my observations, I'll happily engage, but you're just trying to be cute.

    I’ll bite: what part of the Jordan decision or  academic commentary on it discusses the access to justice issues caused by the “certificates that [defendants] can take to hundreds of lawyers”? 


  3. 42 minutes ago, Trew said:

    Right, and everyone qualifies for a legal aid certificate. And R v Jordan was released for no reason. And personal injury lawyers accept every case that comes through their door.  

    Those aren’t the issues you identified though. You said that criminal law is hard to break into because there’s so much excess supply of lawyers taking on LA certs, and that PI law is hard to break into because there’s an excess supply of lawyers willing to work on contingency. 

    Think about what you’re saying here. You can’t simultaneously argue that it’s hard to get into an area of law because the supply of lawyers exceeds demand and that there are access to justice issues due to lack of supply of lawyers. 

    There are access to justice issues in criminal law – they’re just separate from the economics of being a solo new call. 


  4. 10 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

    Based on what?

    Because grades are at least somewhat based on non-effort factors such as intelligence, writing ability, etc, and by virtue of the curve most students will get a B or B+ (or whatever a school curves to). 


  5. 47 minutes ago, Trew said:

    The above examples are unfortunate because they engage access to justice issues. 

    Both your examples don’t engage access to justice issues. You’re literally saying that certificate clients have too many competent criminal lawyers to go to and that PI clients are able to get access to justice because of the contingency structure PI lawyers use. 


  6. 2 hours ago, Ambit said:

    If you know what you plan on doing and your future employment doesn't turn on grades, you would be nuts not to. But lots of people are in fields where grades matter for some time. Have a look at the lateral opportunities at big firms or top boutiques - grades are a factor well into your law career. 

    But what I’m saying is that a many law students (I would argue most law students) are just going to get the same grades regardless of their effort level (within reason). If I was a B student who would get a B while gunning it and would get a B while slacking, I’d slack. 


  7. 1 hour ago, easttowest said:

    Non-SCC/ONCA was after Christmas if I remember correctly.

    SCC and ONCA are post Christmas (well into January). I think AB was the only court which had applications due before Christmas, and they required applicants to send their fall grades when they became available. 


  8. 1 hour ago, pzabbythesecond said:

    Those firms were well managed and therefore did phone screenings when warranted? Did you misread what I wrote originally?

    Woah woah woah. Do you mean to tell me that it’s conceivable for some businesses to interview candidates in different ways based on their internal HR philosophy? Crazy. What a world. 


  9. 2 hours ago, erinl2 said:

    Students frequently have an inflated sense of their value to an employer. This thread is no exception. ;)

    Who is talking about value to their employer? Students are worthless. That doesn’t mean they have no leverage. 


  10. 1 hour ago, wtamow said:

    It is probably because they wanted to increase the leverage they already held, which was pretty high.

    It’s really not that high. The students going to a firm like Davies have other options, both in the Toronto market and outside of it. If Davies were to cut pay, or let their pay fall below the street, they wouldn’t be able to attract and retain the talent they do.

    And talent is all a law firm has – nobody is going to Davies because they have a nice painting in their boardroom. 

    Does the balance of power rest with the firm? Absolutely. But to suggest that it’s a truly one sided relationship is just silly. 


  11. 43 minutes ago, Trew said:

    Yeah I don't think Davies decided to raise their student salary the last time they did because students had "leverage" over them.

    What, you think they did it out of the goodness of their hearts? 

    It’s entirely about leverage. Just because an increase isn’t spurred by a threat to unionize or quit doesn’t mean it’s not about leverage.

    • Like 1

  12. 7 minutes ago, Pete said:

    That is the assumption which concerns me, and which I pointed out in my reply to your earlier comment. How long will it be before you're paying the same price for an apartment without an oven, and $100 extra to have one with an oven?

     

    The first sentence in my reply to your earlier comment addressed this issue.

    Sure, if you have no idea how markets work your point makes sense. 


  13. 16 minutes ago, Pete said:

    I'm not challenging your prerogative to remove your oven. I am concerned about unbundled features in Canadian urban apartments becoming the norm. Since Jaggers raised the issue of wasting money, it struck me as odd that they would support a practice that could lead to overcharging consumers for basic features. 

    But nobody is going to pay me 100 bucks a month to take out my oven. Someone will charge me $100 less to rent an apartment without an oven. I’m totally fine with that. 

    Why do you care if other people want to live in apartments that more efficiently use their space? 


  14. 3 hours ago, Jaggers said:

    They are taking the ovens out in new builds. But it’s not that ridiculous. People live in smaller apartments without ovens in dense cities all around the world, and Toronto is becoming one of them. I personally love it.  You don’t need a big house to live happily or even raise a family. 

    And don’t get me started on owning cottages, which I regard as the biggest waste of money out there. 

    What do you do to get out of the city? Rent? Camp? 


  15. 1 hour ago, Mycousinsteve said:

    So you’re saying you didn’t work your ass off to get into university [No], maintain a high GPA [No, and my gpa wasn’t even that high compared to the requirements for other professions], pass the LSAT [No, and you don’t “pass” the LSAT], get into law school [This one I actually did do], maintain good grades in law school [No, law school has yielded far better grades for far less work than undergrad, actually], kill articling interviews [No, if anything I underprepared], work yourself to the grindstone during articling, pass the bar, and now you’re where you are?

    I thought lawyers were supposed to get past the whole woe-is-me-law-school-is-the-hardest-thing-in-the-world complex. Why haven’t you? 

    • Like 3
    • Haha 2

  16. On 6/17/2019 at 9:06 PM, yeeks808 said:

    Does anyone know if the top 10% letters have gone out?

    There are top 10% letters? Is it just for the graduating class? 

×
×
  • Create New...