How to Win Your Court Case by Following 5 Simple Principles

/

I’ve been doing court-based litigation for 26 years. Much of what I do in recent years involves appeals, where I get to deconstruct what sometimes went horribly wrong at trial, even though one would have thought initially that the facts or law favoured the losing party. It’s led me to some general conclusions on how to win (or lose) in court, and the misassumptions that lead litigants - be they civil, family or criminal - down an ultimately self-destructive path to a trial that they lose, potentially resulting in huge adverse consequences for their finances, their professional, personal or family lives, or even their freedom.

Aside from the first principle, these principles are equally applicable to those represented by counsel, or attempting to represent themselves, as sometimes clients with lawyers may be tempted to push their lawyer towards a strategy that simply won’t work, or may need to question the wisdom of a strategy that is proposed to them.

  1. Use a Lawyer or Settle If You Can’t Afford One, as Even Brilliant DIY Will Almost Never Beat a Lawyer

    I’m all for DIY YouTube videos. It’s amazing what one can figure out for home renos, cooking, even health care to some degree. But when it comes to going to court, no matter how smart you are, how much research you do, or how carefully you prepare your case, you’re probably going to lose if you’re up against a lawyer on the other side. And that doesn’t even need to be a brilliant lawyer. Trust me, I’ve seen it time and again in reviewing appeals where self-reps lose at trial, and are then faced with large legal fees on appeal trying to fix the trial problems caused in part by not using a lawyer.

    The main problem with trial court DIY is that you lack objective perspective about your own case, and so become blind to the weakness in your case. Thus you convince yourself that some great case precedent you found online will solve all your problems, while really you should be focussing on whether you have enough evidence to prove or defend your case. Lawyers can provide that perspective. Yes, lawyers are expensive. But if you can’t afford one, you should be considering trying at all costs to settle your case, rather than taking it to trial by yourself, as you’ll probably lose. Even if you shouldn’t lose.

    I’m definitely not writing this to drum up business for lawyers. At least the ones I know in Canada already have plenty of work. Rather, I’m writing to hopefully help at least a few people avoid not just losing winnable court cases, but also getting hit with potentially crippling massive adverse costs awards at trial - in the hundreds of thousands of dollars - as in most jurisdictions in Canada (other than Quebec), it’s a “loser pays” system (except for criminal prosecutions), where you may be on the hook for at least 60% of the winning side’s legal fees, which can be considerable.

  2. Focus on the Relevant Probative Evidence, Not Collateral Facts

    I find in reviewing trial judgments for potential appeals, even the most sophisticated of self-represented litigants (and sometimes even those using lawyers) may have focused on presenting the wrong trial evidence. So if you had a contract, you need to focus at trial on what that contract said, and who might have breached it, rather than on a convoluted explanation of a side agreement that you claim without much proof the parties also concluded. If it’s a family case, you need to be focussing on the best interests of the children from as objective a perspective as possible, not on trying to prove the other person is a “bad” parent by calling a string of your family members to bad mouth your ex-spouse. If it’s a criminal case, focus on whether there really is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal act, not on whether other people might also be guilty of similar acts.

    I’ve seen all the foregoing attempted at trial, through calling a bevy of witnesses that a party somehow thinks will help prove their case for them, while really the judge is thinking to him or herself, why am I even hearing from these people? What does their evidence have to do with the core issues in the case?

    Sometimes litigants will also attempt to introduce into evidence dozens of hours of secret audio or video recordings for exactly the same purposes, thinking that somehow the court will want to review all that material - without transcripts of what is being said prepared in advance - in order to draw some obscure conclusions about misconduct by the other party that is totally irrelevant to the issues being decided by the court. Yes, audio or video could be vital, but it’s rare, and you probably won’t need dozens of hours of it - like a few minutes of video in a personal injury case claiming total disability that the plaintiff was actually out playing competitive soccer.

  3. Evidence is More Important Than Law

    Despite being referred to as a “court of law,” really judges are much more in the business of figuring out the facts based on the admissible evidence than they are on unravelling obscure legal principles. Most law is actually pretty simple - contracts are binding written or oral agreements between two people; torts involve an injury of one person caused by another person; family law fundamentals involve what is fair in splitting up property, earning capacity, and time with children; crimes involve engaging in conduct prohibited by the legislature - but the facts connected to that law can be fiendishly complicated. How is a court that only has the parties in front of it for a few hours or days supposed to understand all the intricacies of a personal or professional relationship that might have spanned decades?

    Thus the key is to give the court cold, hard evidence of the facts that favour your case. This means giving the court a lot more than a “trust me, take my word for it” oral recounting of the facts. It also means more than calling a bunch of your family members to say you never lie, and that the other party can’t be trusted. It means producing every document, email, text message, or diary note you can to support your version of the events, together with truly independent objective witnesses - including experts - to support your side of the case. This may require months and even years of preparation prior to trial, and is nothing you can whip together in a week prior to your case starting.

  4. Understand the Real Legal Issue in Your Case

    While evidence remains more important than law in winning your case, you do also need to determine what the key legal principle is that you’re fighting about in court. That’s not always self-evident.

    So in a contract case, the issue might be whether a contract was ever concluded, rather than whether it was breached. In a family case, the issue might be an uncertain fight over spousal support, rather than a debate over how marital property is to be split up. In a criminal case, the issue might be whether a mental issue rendered the defendant not criminally responsible, rather than whether the Criminal Code was violated.

    To get to this “real” legal issue, it’s usually necessary to list out all the possible issues on a page, and then try to focus on what’s key. Because objectivity is needed for this analysis, just like it is for determining what’s relevant evidence, you’ll need to call in some help.

  5. Pitch to the Judge Why It’s Fair that You Win

    Because the minute details of the facts in some cases can defy the full comprehension of even the smartest and hardest working of judges, I’ve found again and again that judges fall back in their decisions on what would be the fairest outcomes to the parties. They might not explicitly cite “fairness” in their decisions, which can often be cloaked in lengthy quotations from obscure legal precedents, but scratch at the surface, and you’ll usually see fairness is a common thread of judicial decision making.

    What fairness as a driving principle means in practice for trial results is that you can still lose your case even if you have the superior legal argument, and even if the facts seem to be on your side. So just like you need to objectively examine what evidence actually advances your case, you also need to look at the potential spectrum of “fair” results, and then place yourself somewhere within that fairness spectrum.

    Thus contract and family case results, where one party winds up with almost all the money, might not be perceived by courts to be fair, even if the law and facts seem to favour the result. Judges may look for extra obscure legal principles, or focus on seemingly marginal facts, to get to a “fair” result. And if the trial result is fair enough, an appellate court usually won’t overturn it, even if it seems to go against the law the facts, invoking instead deference to the discretion of the trial judge.

    However, you can make fairness work in your favour at trial, or on appeal, even when the law and facts seem to be against you, by finding your own obscure legal authorities and factual references to support a particular result that you can justify in detail to be the “fair” outcome. This won’t always work, but it may work better than you would anticipate.

Gordon S. Campbell is a trial and appellate civil, family and criminal litigator working throughout Canada, based in Ontario. Learn more at www.acmlawfirm.ca.

Indigenous-Crown Diplomacy Success: Negotiating with the Feds and Provinces In & Out of Normal Channels - The Multi-Pronged Approach

/

I was lunching on delectable half-smoked salmon with the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs on the rocky banks of the Skeena River in northern BC where two million sockeye used to make the annual upriver run, wondering how I had gotten through life without ever knowing there was a wondrous middle ground between smoked and not smoked.

We’d just left a Gitxsan smokehouse where the proprietor had explained she already put in a concrete floor and stainless sinks at the insistence of government inspectors, but despaired they were now insisting she could no longer use the wooden poles the Gitxsan had used for millennia to dry their fish, which gave it its distinctive flavour. The Crown had threatened to shut her down if she didn’t switch to stainless steel rods, claiming wood was unhygienic.

It got me to thinking of how frustrating any Indigenous-Crown negotiation could be - no matter how big or seemingly small the issue - as Indigenous peoples' lives could be so changed by intractable Crown thinking. And on how many years it could take to incrementally make progress with federal and provincial Crowns on issues that should be simple to solve.

Do Active Negotiations Really Take a Generation to Conclude or Implement Agreements?

Fairly put, it’s taken some Indigenous peoples centuries to get legitimate issues into active Crown-Indigenous formal negotiations. But it’s easier to precisely quantify how long those formal negotiations have taken to arrive at a successful conclusion or fully implement those conclusions.

While some negotiations like the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement might seem like they were able to be initially concluded within a few years, in reality, decades of implementation and amending negotiations were required after the fact. Even negotiations that endured for a couple of decades like the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement have been rife with ongoing implementation issues due to their complexity.

I’ve always thought Indigenous-Crown relations could be considered domestic diplomacy, as they’re built on nation-to-nation relationships. But international treaties involving 200 signatories may have significantly shorter negotiation timeframes than modern Crown-Indigenous treaties. For example, the British Columbia Treaty Commission (BCTC) process to settle modern Comprehensive Claims in BC (with 65 sets of negotiations) is now at 28 years of negotiations and counting, with only seven claims settled.

I became involved in the BCTC process on its tenth anniversary, which in my naïveté I thought a long time in. There are other Indigenous treaty processes continuing outside BC as well, at varying paces.

My experience with all manner of Indigenous-Crown diplomacy in Canada is that one can get trapped by 30-year generational delay (GD) in reaching or implementing agreements. And we’re not just talking Comprehensive Claim modern treaties, but sometimes issues as simple as working out an Addition to Reserve (ATR). Imagine starting your career on whichever side of the negotiation table, and if you’re lucky you’ll wrap up your career seeing whatever you were negotiating at the start finally being implemented. Interplanetary space missions take less time.

Why a Generation? (There’s No Single Cause)

I couldn’t believe the numbers on time to negotiate and implement when I first became involved in Crown-Indigenous negotiations. I thought I was hearing about aberrations. Or exaggerations. But alas, no.

Why a generation? At least for the negotiations I’ve been involved with, the Top 6 Problems (T6P) explanation is actually pretty consistent regardless of what the issue might be:

  1. not enough money in the pot to go around in specific budget cycles;

  2. not enough bureaucrats to do the work necessary for the approvals;

  3. changes in bureaucrats during the approvals process due to transfers, retirements, and new hires leading to a loss of corporate memory and drift in work plans;

  4. too bureaucratic of an approval process to begin with;

  5. too many governments involved in the approvals;

  6. changes in government during elections stalling final approvals leading to a lack of political will at the Ministerial or Cabinet level.

True, politics on all sides can play a part, but I’ve seen lots of consistent political will on the side of Indigenous peoples all go to waste because the Crowns can’t address all of the foregoing T6P.

What’s to Be Done? (The Solution Isn’t Simply More Money)

While provincial Crown budgets can be a bit tight (if they’re at the table), I’ve never found that of the Federal Crown who it seems (and I was in on the inside for 17 years) can always source significant sums if enough federal political will exists. However, after 25 years in the business, I’ve found that decision delay logjams can suddenly, almost miraculously, disappear at both federal and provincial Crown levels. Not all of them, but more than I would have expected. But I’ve also found that the freeing up of the jam might not come from the anticipated direction, meaning that a multi-pronged strategy is required to get the logs flowing downstream.

Some may perceive there to be only two paths or approaches to freeing up the jam: the bureaucratic and the political. I’ve witnessed the best successes in a truly multi-pronged approach, where you might have a dozen paths forward to choose from, and it’s necessary to nurture every one, nudging each gently along to success, because it’s impossible to accurately predict the direction by which success can be achieved. No matter the issue, that winning multi-pronged approach might involve targeting efforts on multiple appropriate Ministries and elsewhere (listed in order of where you should probably start on Indigenous issues having a legal/political aspect):

  1. REGIONAL FED OFFICE - engage with Federal Regional Office Bureaucrats, as most Federal ministries have at least a few regional offices in addition to HQ staff, and the regional offices have a lot more power than you might think - they’re often the pointy end of the project implementation stick, with far greater knowledge of local communities that HQ;

  2. NHQ FED OFFICE - engage with Federal HQ Bureaucrats (usually in Ottawa or Gatineau), they may have better internal issues processing resources, political connections, or superior access to funding, than the regions;

  3. SPECIAL FED OFFICE - stopping at the regional and HQ offices may still not have you fully covered with the Feds, you might need to also engage with Federal specialized Bureaucrats because the Government of Canada is so vast, so there may be a special office somewhere which operates beyond the normal regional office/HQ command structure, which is devoted to fixing the kind of problem you have (after all my years in government, I’m amazed by the offices I still learn about which have been around for decades but are new to me);

  4. PROVINCIAL OFFICE - engage with Provincial Bureaucrats, the correct ones can be harder to identify than federal bureaucrats if they wear several hats because they are more thinly spread than the feds, but they may have longer tenure in their positions than the feds (because the vast number of positions and geography provides more opportunity to internally transfer around for the feds), and thus be more capable of personally seeing initiatives through to a conclusion;

  5. FED MINISTER POLITICAL - engage with the Federal Minister’s Office, even if direct political engagement is no panacea given there may be hundreds (or even thousands) of other groups regularly lobbying the same Minister’s office about their own issues, so this Ministerial engagement might best be viewed as a top-down push to encourage pulling the bottom up, meaning dragging regional office and HQ bureaucratic engagement a bit out of any rut it might be in, as everyone gets excited when the Minister’s office calls a Director downstairs; Ministerial engagement will be a must where there is a specific Ministerial or Cabinet decision that is a precondition to an issue being solved but (in my experience direct PMO engagement probably won’t help due too their being too much competition, but getting on a Minister’s radar is doable);

  6. FED MP POLITICAL - engage with the Federal Local MP as part of a complimentary feds approach, where the MP might reach out to the Minister, who might, in turn, reach out to his bureaucrats;

  7. PROVINCIAL MINISTER POLITICAL - engage with the responsible Provincial Minister’s office, which contrary to my views on the PMO could actually involve parallel attempts to engage with the Premier’s office where it will still be very hard to get anyone’s attention at a Premier’s level (at least in the larger provinces), but as provincial Ministers generally have fewer resources than federal ministers, the Premier’s intervention might be more needed for a larger resource ask;

  8. PROVINCIAL MLA POLITICAL - engage with the Provincial Local MLA, while similar to federal MP engagement, this is part of a complementary approach that might enhance your Ministerial engagement, but definitely won’t replace it and should not be counted upon as a direct conduit to the Minister;

  9. INDIGENOUS ORGS - engage with other Indigenous Peoples and Organizations, at the very least costs of engaged (and maybe later litigation) might be shared, and sometimes an agreement with more than one Indigenous people at the same time may solve a federal or provincial logjam;

  10. MUNICIPAL - engage with municipal governments, even though municipalities won’t have independent status at Crown-Indigenous negotiations tables, for the municipalities wise enough to realize that Indigenous peoples of Canada are economic drivers, coopting their support could unjam provincial government ambivalence to a negotiated solution;

  11. INDUSTRY - engage with industry, as while all Indigenous rights consultations need to be run through the Crown and not directly by industry, coopting industry as a supporter of a particular solution could have its benefits to encouraging Crown agreement;

  12. MEDIA - engage with media as a useful conduit to direct political or public engagement;

  13. PUBLIC - engage with a targeted geography or demographic of “the public,” as attempting to engage the public at large without a targeting strategy may lead to any message being lost in all the competition for public attention.

There are far more than 13 paths to success, I’m just naming the most common ones that I’ve seen work - usually in combination. Greater efforts - and resources - might be required to pursue some paths than others. Thus a cost-benefit exercise needs to be conducted prior to commencing engagement to avoid wasting excess resources on inapplicable or low-value paths, although my message favours spreading resources among as many paths as possible.

My experience has been that brainstorming is needed from the get-go on engagement strategy in order to escape from bureaucratic ruts that can kill agreement and implementation success on Indigenous negotiations for any topic.

Gordon Scott Campbell has served throughout Canada as a negotiator of Comprehensive and Specific Claims, litigator of Aboriginal rights and treaties up to the level of the Supreme Court of Canada, and advisor on Indigenous governance including constitutions. Learn more at www.acmlawfirm.ca.

(Almost) Everything You Need to Know About What the Supreme Court of Canada Thinks of Indigenous and Aboriginal Rights, Treaties and Title in 1,523 Words - And Why We Still Have So Much Work to Do

/

I got fully into the business of Indigenous and Aboriginal rights litigation back on 5 November 1998 when the very gracious Donald Marshall Jr. shook my hand in the Supreme Court of Canada. He had by then been fighting for years in the courts for his rights as a Mi’kmaq to catch and sell $787.10 worth of eels that he and another Mi’kmaq had caught in the waters of Nova Scotia. When the R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 SCR 456 decision was issued a bit under a year later, it shook the foundations of Canadian fisheries regulations in Atlantic Canada. And they haven’t stopped shaking since.

Marshall built on a critical mass of positive 1990s Indigenous rights jurisprudence at the SCC, where in 1996 alone the Court issued six judgments on Quebec and British Columbia fishing rights (2/3rds of which favoured Indigenous peoples). I had just qualified as a lawyer in 1995, so when the SCC added to the ‘96 bounty by releasing its landmark Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010 decision on Indigenous title the following year, it seemed to me there was so much positive momentum that SCC progress on Indigenous rights would never end.

It wasn’t until a few years later when I was sitting in the Delgamuukw Boardroom of the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs in Hazelton, BC, photos of the elders who had testified at the trial gazing down upon me from the surrounding walls, that I came to understand directly from the Chiefs just how capricious SCC Indigenous rights judgments could be for those who had devoted enormous community resources and time to pursue a case, only to be told a new trial was needed after a 374 day (!) trial had already been held. Twenty-four years after the Delgamuukw judgment there still hasn’t been a new trial. And the Gitxsan still haven’t had their title affirmed.

The Tsilhqot’in Nation fared better with their title claim before the SCC 17 years post-Delgamuukw, just as the Gitxsan and Wet’suet'en had arguably fared better in Delgamuukw than the Nisga'a did 23 years earlier in Calder. But having participated in the Tsilhot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700 week-long mid-trial settlement conference in Vancouver hosted by BC’s Chief Justice (a trial which lasted a mere 339 days!), I remain perplexed over what Tsilhot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 had by way of evidence for the SCC to latch onto that Delgamuukw didn’t. Other than 17 years of intellectual evolution on Indigenous title.

In contemplating where the SCC might be headed next on Indigenous rights, I thought some might find useful my take after about 25 years in the business on (almost) everything you need to know about what the Supreme Court of Canada thinks of Indigenous and Aboriginal rights, treaties and title in 1,523 words.

I could write 15,230. Or even 152,300 words. And still not be done. So please just take these 1,523 as a start, which only focus on the rights found in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Fish is Okay, But We’re Not Sure About Selling It

Although there were a string of positive Aboriginal fishing rights SCC cases in the 90s, Marshall seemed to usher in a now more than two-decade-long pause in the Court further advancing such rights. Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band v. Canada, 2011 SCC 56 marked the SCC’s last substantive consideration of Indigenous fishing rights where the Court rejected commercial Aboriginal rights to fish on the northwest coast of BC, thus standing in stark contrast to the 12 years earlier decision of R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 SCR 456 which had found an Aboriginal treaty right for Mi’kmaq to fish commercially for a “moderate livelihood” on the east coast.

Three years before Marshall, 1996 arguably marked the zenith of the SCC’s consideration of not just Aboriginal fishing rights but of any Indigenous rights:

The 1990s had started with R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 SCR 299 rejecting any kind of Aboriginal right to fish pickerel in Ontario for the Mississaugi of Hiawatha First Nation, but four years before that R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 2017 had found for the Musqueam Indian Band that you don’t need a treaty to claim an Aboriginal right to fish.

Hunting For Food is Mostly Okay, But Be Careful Where You Hunt

The same year Marshall was shaking up Atlantic Canada, R. v. Sundown, [1999] 1 SCR 393 had a more modest but positive impact on the Prairies in finding an Aboriginal treaty right for the Cree to build a cabin in a provincial park for purposes of hunting and fishing for food. R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 SCR 771 had earlier held during that 1996 golden year that an Aboriginal treaty right to hunt was somewhat established.

R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 SCR 1025 found during the groundbreaking year of Sparrow that traditional non-commercial cutting of trees, camping and making fires in a park were authorized as an Aboriginal treaty right in Quebec for the Huron band, but R. v Horseman, [1990] 1 SCR 901 found that same year (with the Court split 4-3) that bartering a grizzly bear hide which had been shot in self-defence was not a protected treaty right.

In the early days of Indigenous rights litigation of the ‘80s, hunting rights were a 50-50 draw before the SCC, with R. v. Horse, [1988] 1 SCR 187 concluding there was no Aboriginal treaty right to hunt on Treaty 6 private lands, but Simon v. The Queen, [1985] 2 SCR 387 concluding there was an Aboriginal treaty right to possess firearms and ammunition for hunting for the Mi'kmaq.

Trees May Be Okay, But Don’t Sell Them

The SCC has generally been cooler to Aboriginal logging rights than to fishing or hunting rights, other than in the consultation/accommodation realm. While in R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, 2006 SCC 54 Mi’kmaq and Maliseet non-commercial cutting of timber on Crown land for personal use was found to be a protected Aboriginal right, one year earlier in R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, 2005 SCC 43 the SCC had found there to be no right or treaty right to commercial logging by Mi’kmaq on Crown land.

Trade Isn’t Okay

Demonstrating how the SCC can effectively be a destroyer of rights as much as an enabler of them, in Mitchell v. M.N.R., 2001 SCC 33 the Court overturned both Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal judgments favouring an Aboriginal Mohawk right to bring goods into Canada duty-free.

[Ed. note not counting in my 1,523 words: over a decade later I ran a border crossing Aboriginal rights constitutional test case supported by the Mohawks of Akwesasne, where the same Grand Chief Mike Mitchell of the Mitchell case was the most eloquent star witness, but we didn’t even get past the Ontario Court of Justice, in part because of overshadowing by the SCC’s Mitchell judgment even though our new case only involved Indigenous mobility rather than trade: R. v. Shenandoah, 2015 ONCJ 541; background: Fatah, "Canada’s Toughest Border Crossing” The Walrus (2019)].

Title Exists, But Maybe Not For You & We’re Still Figuring Out What It Means

The SCC’s consideration of Aboriginal title has involved some of its most tortured reasoning and procedure, with decades passing between the Court’s major substantive considerations of the issue, which has really only happened three times (with two other cases requiring mention, but in the 1991 case title didn’t get the analysis it deserved and in the 2020 case title was a definitional rather than substantive issue):

  • Calder v. A-G B.C., [1973] SCR 313: Court found 6-3 against Aboriginal title for the Ni’sgaa, but dissent was groundbreaking;

  • Ontario v. Bear Island Foundation, [1991] 2 SCR 570: SCC upheld finding after 130 day trial that Aboriginal “rights" had been extinguished by Robinson Huron Treaty, without much consideration of nature of title;

  • Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010: Aboriginal title does exist, but the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en require a new trial (after a 374-day trial) because of trial judge errors;

  • Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44: Aboriginal title established; while provincial and federal laws may still apply to that land “Once Aboriginal title is established, s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 permits incursions on it only with the consent of the Aboriginal group or if they are justified by a compelling and substantial public purpose and are not inconsistent with the Crown’s fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal group.”

  • Newfoundland & Labrador v. Uashaunnuat, 2020 SCC 4: Court split 5-4 with strongly worded diverging opinions, the majority finding “From the civilian perspective, as it is a sui generis right, Aboriginal title is properly characterized as neither a personal right nor a real right nor a combination of the two even though it may appear to have characteristics of both real and personal rights” whereas the dissent held “Finding that the Quebec Superior Court has jurisdiction to issue a declaration recognizing Aboriginal rights in the part of the traditional territory that is situated in Newfoundland and Labrador would have serious consequences for Canadian federalism.”

So one win on title litigation in close to 50 years for Indigenous peoples, with huge resources required to litigate future cases.

Consultation Has Limits & We’re Inconsistent Over Whether It’s Adequate

While the '90s was the decade of the fishing and to a lesser degree hunting you can catch it but probably not sell it decisions, the decades since could be termed the inconsistent consult/accommodate age:

Thus of the 12 consult/accommodate decided SCC cases to date, 5 could be said to have favoured Indigenous peoples, and 7 favoured the Crown and development proponents.

————

So there you have it. 1,523 words attempting to distill down all the SCC’s threads of thought. If I was to sum it all up in two words, they would be: HUGE INCONSISTENCY. And that’s even when the same judges were on the Court.

And remember these are the cases that were able to grab the coveted brass ring of winning leave to appeal which is required for almost all SCC appeals. That the SCC seems to have dramatically cut back on its Indigenous rights decisions in recent decades doesn’t mean Indigenous peoples are fighting any less for their rights in Canada’s courts. It just means the SCC isn’t prepared to hear those cases already decided by appellate courts below.

It’s quite true that Aboriginal rights, treaties and title are all people specific, place-specific, and thing specific. But if the goal of the SCC as a court which doesn’t deal merely with legal errors in courts below, but rather requires national public importance of issues to be granted leave to appeal, is supposed to guide everyone for the future so that we don’t keep having to come back to the SCC, how is it making out?

The Haida/Taku decisions (which are often spoken of in the same breath, and in consistently positive tones) are emblematic of the impossibility of predicting SCC results. While the Court readily found a duty to consult and almost a presumption of accommodation for the Haida concerning timber cutting, it’s often forgotten that factually there was what could only be termed a very poor consultation for the Taku River Tlingit First Nation on a mining road (I’ve spoken with those in the know), with zero efforts to accommodate the concerns they raised, but the SCC nonetheless thought it all just fine.

The foregoing results suggest the SCC mostly lost interest in hunting and fishing rights after the end of the 90s, lost interest in timber rights after the following decade of the 2000s, will still consider title claims for those with the immense resources necessary to bring title before the Court, will likewise still consider consult/accommodate issues which may require more modest (but still substantial) litigation resources, however the odds are less than 50-50 that the Court will find such rights to be breached (even in those cases for which it is prepared to grant leave to appeal), and will only rarely consider any other type of Indigenous rights claims like trade.

However, given how everyone in the Crown (I was on the inside at the time) was so taken by surprise by decisions like Marshall and Haida Nation which spurred the Crown to unprecedented consequential actions (new offices established, new negotiations commenced, new funding initiated), it can’t be said that attempting to bring Indigenous rights, treaty and title issues before the SCC isn’t worth it. It just takes a lot of resources, and claimants need to live with the reality that the SCC’s actions on both granting leave to appeal and positions deciding cases can’t be predicted in advance.

As we move out a full generation past the Court’s cornucopia of 1990s decisions, perhaps even those decisions will merit reconsideration with new results, just as the Court consistently reconsiders its position a few decades on in civil, criminal and family law. I wonder if the the appointment of the Court’s first Indigenous judge could even mark the dawn of a new age in Canadian Indigenous and Aboriginal jurisprudence.

Gordon Scott Campbell practices Indigenous and Aboriginal law throughout Canada with Aubry Campbell MacLean.

Should I Seek Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada? Here Are Your Top 4 Considerations

/

Many involved in civil, family, criminal or administrative litigation may be pretty worn out by the time they get to the “should I seek to leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada?” question stage. It’s quite true there is a law of diminishing returns, where you stand your best shot at winning before a trial court, a significantly reduced (but still plausible) chance before a provincial appellate court, and then a pretty small chance being permitted to proceed in front of the highest court in the land known as the Supreme Court of Canada, because you don’t have a “right” to go to the SCC, you need “leave” (permission) from the Court. Thus it’s a two-stage process: apply for leave first, then appeal if you get leave.

But what my 25 years of being involved with Supreme Court of Canada cases have taught me is that the Court is unpredictable with respect to which cases it grants leave to appeal on. There are some general trends, like criminal cases probably standing the best chance of getting leave because of the way they engage fundamental liberty issues and often involve Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms debates, with family cases probably standing the worst chances of leave likely because the Court wishes to leave it to provincial courts to sort out the largely fact-specific nature of family litigation, with civil and administrative cases landing somewhere in the middle for prospects of successful leave applications.

But if you’ve already got as far as a provincial appellate court at great expense of time and resources, you might be ill-served by not attempting to reach out to the Supreme Court of Canada to see if you can interest it in your case. Although they’ve got a leave grant rate of only about 1 in 10, it’s rare I can say any case has a 0% chance of success because the Court can be full of surprises, and very unpredictable in its results.

For instance, in my SCC case of R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., 2001 SCC 56 which has now been cited 257 times by other cases, I wasn’t at all feeling the love for a leave to appeal application after we lost in the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal which overturned a trial judgment concerning forfeiture of a vessel. But I was overruled, we successfully sought leave, and then we won the substantive appeal as well, with the SCC restoring the trial judgment.

Likewise, in my SCC case of R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 SCR 456, we were perhaps overconfident responding on the appeal as we had won at trial, and won on appeal. But because of what the SCC perceived to be the national public importance of the issues, it granted leave, and then on the SCC appeal overturned both the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and the Nova Scotia Superior Court’s judgments, with a sort of a “what were you people thinking?” kind of analysis that upended existing law, and has now been cited 370 times by other cases, with its results continuing to strongly reverberate throughout Canadian jurisprudence.

But some cases may be more obvious wins on a leave application than others, like my SCC case of Del Zotto v. Canada, [1999] 1 SCR 2, cited only a modest 48 times by other cases, where we had won before the Federal Court, but then lost 2-1 before the Federal Court of Appeal, setting up a clear controversy of essentially two judges versus two judges on the tax issues, where the SCC both gave us leave, and overturned the Federal Court of Appeal’s split decision, restoring the trial judgment.

Even from this small sample of cases, you can detect some trends like trial overturned by appellate court sets up a controversy that might interest the SCC. 2-1 splits at the provincial appellate court level is also likely a controversy that could be of interest. And earth-shaking constitutional issues, or issues of statutory interpretation setting pitting federal and provincial laws against each other, might engage the SCC.

Here are my top 4 considerations when thinking about whether you should seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

1. It’s Your Last Kick at the Legal Can

While litigation of any sort can at times seem endless, the buck really does stop at the Supreme Court of Canada. True, some cases could even make the journey up there more than once. But in theory, there’s some finality once the SCC leave stage has been exhausted.

You may owe it to yourself to make sure you’ve done everything reasonably possible within your power to seek every legal recourse to right the wrong you’ve been litigating over. Once you’ve received a negative decision from the highest appellate court in any province or territory, seeking leave to the SCC will usually be open to you as a last legal recourse option.

2. It’s Really Not that Expensive to Seek Leave to Appeal to the SCC Even Using a Lawyer

Litigation costs always amaze me. And I say that as someone long in the business of litigation. The costs - if I can ask you to trust me on this - aren’t driven by lawyers trying to rip off their clients, but unfortunately by the immense amount of lawyer time litigation can burn. The dozens of court appearances prior to trial. The weeks of time at trial. The thousands of pages of appeal records. And if anything, trials are getting longer, not shorter.

But the Supreme Court of Canada, at least at the leave to appeal stage, is different. You’re only permitted a 20-page factum of legal argument, plus an appeal record where you can include selected materials from the courts below, but there are no mandatory requirements to create bloatware that no one in the Court really has any time or inclination to read. Plus it’s a paper process, where there is no live hearing of argument consuming lawyer time.

If you get leave, an SCC appeal itself can indeed consume lots of lawyer time. But it will usually still consume far less time (and money) than any trial under appeal. And maybe even less than a lower appellate court appeal.

We typically just charge a block fixed fee of $15,000 plus HST and disbursements for SCC leave to appeal applications, which includes lots of analysis and drafting time, to give you an idea of real costs. Which is much less than we would need to charge for any trial or even for provincial appellate court appeals.

We usually figure out the cost for SCC substantive appeals if leave is granted after the leave order, based on the anticipated volume of work. The cost may depend in part on the number of intervenors who need to be dealt with, as SCC cases are often of such national importance that Attorneys General from the provincial or federal Crowns or private organizations will seek to “intervene” to give their take on the legal conclusions they believe the Court should arrive at.

3. You Need to Be Within Your 60 Day Time Limit

While getting to a trial might have taken you years, with your case at times treading water for what seemed like an eternity, appeals are all about ticking clocks. The Supreme Court of Canada’s clock runs out in 60 days after the lower court’s appellate judgment is issued. And that’s 60 days from the decision of that lower court - which might have been an oral judgment on the day of hearing from the bench - not 60 days from when written reasons were issued, which might have come much later.

Equally importantly, the 60 days is all you have to serve and filed a complete leave to appeal application, not just a Notice seeking leave. So your entire factum of legal argument, and all the attachments, need to have been completed. Meaning that if you start calling around for lawyers 57 days after judgment, no one is going to be able to do anything for you.

We typically require at least 30 days to pull together a convincing leave to appeal application, and ideally we’ll get close to 60 days. So you really need to find a lawyer and decide on seeking leave within about 7 days after you lose in your court of appeal.

Sometimes we’re contacted by people who lost their appeal 5 years before, who are now thinking it might worth going to the SCC. If you’re a few days late after your 60 days, and have a really, really good reason for being late, an extension of your time to seek leave to appeal could be possible. But as the weeks pass beyond your deadline, your prospects of extending your time to serve and fie become more and more remote.

4. You Need to Sell an Issue of Public Importance, Not Just a Legal Error

Many quite reasonably but incorrectly think that what should have worked (but failed) at the provincial appellate court of selling “legal error” in the trial court is the way to convince the SCC to give leave. They know you can’t appeal pure errors of fact (though total messes that rise to the level of misapprehension of the evidence can sometimes be sold as errors of law). But they fail to understand that the SCC is not just another error reviewing court.

The Supremes are for the most part a court for issues of public importance, usually of national dimensions. Meaning, you need to sell the Court on not just the lower courts all being wrong in law, but that there are publicly and preferably nationally important issues at play in your cases, where the SCC’s pronouncing on those issues will reverberate throughout Canada, solving all sorts of legal problems for other Canadians as well. So tying in what the courts and legislatures of other parts of Canada are doing (or are confused about) on your issue(s) is key to winning leave. If you can’t work out a (national) public importance angle, you’re not going to succeed on a leave application. Thus examining academic writing, foreign legal policy development, and even international treaties could all be helpful in winding up for making that last legal pitch.

Gordon Scott Campbell has appeared on civil, family, criminal and administrative appeals and trials throughout Canada including multiple appearances at the Supreme Court of Canada. He holds degrees in Common Law and Civil Law from the McGill Faculty in law, practices in French and English, and previously served with the Department of Justice Canada and the Constitutional Law Division of the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario. Learn more at www.acmlawfirm.ca.

Quel est le coût réel d'un divorce en Ontario? 5 conseils pour vous économiser de l'argent pour un avocat familial

/

l y a essentiellement deux types de divorce en Ontario : le divorce bon marché et le divorce très dispendieux. La distinction entre les deux est moins évidente que l’on pourrait penser. 

Peu importe à qui vous demandez le type de divorce qu’ils souhaitent, ils vous diront qu’ils souhaitent un divorce bon marché. Mais, ils prendront des mesures qui les mèneront vers le chemin d’un divorce dispendieux.

Un divorce est vraiment bon marché - relativement parlant - si vous n’envisagez pas de vous battre avec votre conjoint sur la dissolution de votre mariage. Vous êtes d’accord sur le partage des biens. Vous êtes d’accord sur la prestation alimentaire matrimoniale. Vous êtes d’accord sur la garde et la prestation alimentaire pour enfant. Vous vous engagez ensuite à mettre ces ententes sur papier, à déposer quelques documents au tribunal, et dans les 12 mois suivant la séparation, vous avez terminé. Voilà. Divorce. Et très peu de frais juridiques.

Un divorce peut devenir très dispendieux si vous ne pouvez pas vous entendre avec votre ex-conjoint sur ces choses ou si un d’entre vous décide d’aller au tribunal afin de laisser un juge décider ce qui est juste. L’ironie de la situation est qu’un avocat expérimenté en droit de la famille vous a sûrement (ou à votre conjoint) le résultat probable d’aller en cour, mais vous (ou votre conjoint) croyez pouvoir faire mieux.

Bien sûr, il est possible qu'une personne des parties soit totalement raisonnable et se retrouve quand même avec un divorce dispendieux parce que l’autre partie n’est pas raisonnable. Donc, essentiellement, vous devez tous deux choisir l’avenue la moins dispendieuse, sinon vous risquez de vous retrouver par défaut avec l’avenue la plus dispendieuse. 

Le droit de la famille est l’un des domaines du droit le plus simple en ce sens qu’il est relativement nouveau et qu’il est régi par de nombreuses lois modernes écrites, plutôt que par de vieilles lois poussiéreuses dont personne ne peut comprendre le sens. Le droit de la famille est essentiellement fondé sur l’équité (comme le partage de la plupart des biens acquis pendant le mariage à parts égales et peut-être le paiement d’une prestation alimentaire matrimoniale en cas d’iniquités de revenu importants) et sur le meilleur intérêt de l'enfant.

Quelle est la différence entre un divorce « bon marché » et « très dispendieux »? Sur le bas de la gamme, une entente de séparation et un divorce peuvent coûter moins de 5 000 $ (plus les déboursés, tel que les frais de dépôt de 632 $ pour un divorce en Ontario). Il se peut que vous trouviez encore moins dispendieux que ça, mais souvenez-vous que tout ce que les avocats ont à vendre, est leur temps, donc moins vous payez, moins un avocat dépensera de temps à négocier et à rédiger votre entente et à s’assurer de mettre les barres sur les T et les points sur les I.

Sur le haut de la gamme, très dispendieux peut vouloir dire entre 50 000 $ et bien plus que 250 000 $! Fou, hein? Je ne dis pas que la plupart des divorces judiciaires atteignent le quart (et même la moitié) du million. Mais plus que vous ne le pensez s’il y a des motions préalables au procès, peut-être des appels interlocutoires, un long procès, puis un appel du résultat du procès. 

Vous pouvez faire le calcul vous-même. Prenez le taux horaire de votre avocat. Multipliez par environ huit pour obtenir un taux quotidien.

Multipliez ce nombre par le nombre probable de jours de procès requis pour un procès entièrement contesté sur toutes les questions. Ajoutez ensuite le nombre de demi-journées de conférence préparatoire au procès et de conférence de règlement à l’amiable qui sont probables. Ajoutez ensuite quelques jours pour les motions préalables au procès. Ajoutez aussi peut-être du temps pour un appel interlocutoire (temporaire). Et peut-être un dernier appel.

Ensuite, prenez toutes ces journées avec les frais d’avocat, et multipliez par environ trois pour le temps de préparation pour le tribunal - tous ces formulaires judiciaires, affidavits, facta d’arguments juridiques, mémoires de conférence relative à la cause, livres d’autorités, correspondance à l’avocat de la partie adverse et le tribunal, les négociations de règlement avec l’avocat de la partie adverse, le témoin au procès et la préparation d’autres éléments de preuve - prendront probablement trois fois plus de temps (et peut-être même plus) que les jours d’audience auxquels ils sont liés. Alors pariez sur trois jours de préparation pour n’importe quel jour du tribunal.

Voilà, vous avez maintenant votre chiffre de 50 000 $ à 250 000 $.

Donc quels sont les conseils pour vous sauver beaucoup d’argent sur un avocat en droit familial?

1. FAITES TOUT CE QUI EST HUMAINEMENT POSSIBLE POUR GARDER VOTRE CAUSE HORS DES TRIBUNAUX

Bien que de nombreux conjoints divorcés se concentrent sur les « trois grands » de la séparation des biens, de la prestation alimentaire et de la garde, il s’agit vraiment des « quatre grands » puisque les frais juridiques pour arriver à la position optimale sur les trois grands facteurs sont tout aussi importants.

Pensez-vous que vous êtes un peu à court du bâton sur les conditions de garde? Ou sur la prestation alimentaire? Ou sur le partage des biens? Demandez à votre avocat de reprendre les négociations. Cela pourrait ne prendre que quelques heures de plus. Si cela échoue, pensez longuement et sérieusement à savoir si cela vaut la peine d’aller en cour, avec les centaines d’heures de temps d’avocat que cela va potentiellement brûler.

Quand on vous dit que vous ne verrez votre enfant qu’une fin de semaine sur deux, lorsque vous pensez qu’il est juste d’alterner les semaines de garde 50-50, cela peut valoir la peine d’aller en guerre devant les tribunaux. Mais soyez sûr que vous avez les ressources pour cette guerre. Ne pas obtenir la voiture Buick d’occasion - ou peut-être la Mercedes encore plus récente - vous pensez que vous avez le droit de? Ça n’en vaut probablement pas la peine.

2. SOYEZ ORGANISÉ ET DÉTERMINEZ VOS RÉSULTATS SOUHAITÉS AVANT DE RENCONTRER VOTRE AVOCAT

Déterminez avant de consulter un avocat les détails de ce que vous croyez être juste en ce qui concerne le partage des biens, la prestation alimentaire et la garde. Ne soyez pas vague, vous devez être très, très précis. Et apporter beaucoup de documents avec vous à votre première réunion d’avocat. Idéalement, déposez ces documents avant la réunion afin de rendre  la première réunion plus efficace. Des boîtes de documents ne sont pas de trop. Les avocats sont doués pour balayer rapidement des tonnes de documents, mais ils passent beaucoup de temps à les lire s’ils doivent tirer tous les petits faits d’un client au moyen d’une discussion verbale.

Si l’avocat doit vous demander constamment des documents nouveaux ou manquants, votre facture pourrait augmenter rapidement. De votre côté, demandez à l’avocat de vous fournir la liste des documents requis pour que vous puissiez tout rassembler d’un seul coup. Si vous vous retrouvez en cour, les documents seront souvent beaucoup plus convaincants pour un juge que tout témoignage de vive voix ou toute déclaration sous serment que vous pourriez offrir, parce que les documents sont des éléments de preuve indépendants, souvent antérieurs à la séparation conjugale. Même les messages sur les médias sociaux et les messages textes pourraient être acceptés par un juge de première instance comme des paroles d’évangile; alors que votre parole jurée, pas tellement.

3. NE CROYEZ PAS QUE C’EST UNE BONNE IDÉE DE LANCER UN LITIGE SIMPLEMENT POUR EFFRAYER L’AUTRE PARTIE

Essayer de se frayer un chemin vers une disposition par voie de règlement de succession plus favorable en intentant une action devant un tribunal de la famille, sans les ressources ou la résolution de le faire, c’est comme sortir un revolver .375 Magnum de votre ceinture, sans la sécurité, juste parce que vous avez l’intention de l’agiter autour pour effrayer quelqu’un. Nous savons tous où cela mène. Il en va de même pour le fait d’aller devant les tribunaux et de bluffer.

4. SI VOUS VOUS RETROUVEZ EN COUR, COUREZ JUSQU’À LA LIGNE D’ARRIVÉE LE PLUS RAPIDEMENT POSSIBLE 

Le temps, c’est vraiment de l’argent dans le monde juridique. Trois jours en cour coûtent 1/3 de neuf jours en cour. Alors, faites de votre mieux pour éviter de multiples conférences préparatoires (ou d’autres procédures préparatoires au procès) et de longs procès.

Certains tribunaux essaieront de vous piéger dans la "conférence préparatoire sans fin," afin d’éviter que vous mangiez le temps de procès de cour. Ne laissez pas la cour vous faire ça.

Une fois que vous avez dépassé la « conférence préparatoire » initiale, demandez une seule « conférence en vue d’un règlement à l’amiable ». Essayez d’accélérer toute « conférence de gestion de l'instruction ». Essayez de faire le plus de procès possible sur papier (au moyen d’affidavits et de pièces justificatives) plutôt que par l’entremise de témoins en direct, à moins que la crédibilité ne soit un enjeu de taille. Cependant, vous devez faire confiance à votre avocat quant à la stratégie de présentation de la preuve au procès en fonction de vos circonstances.

En fin de compte, c’est la cour qui décide de la procédure, mais les avocats expérimentés savent comment choisir le bon passage pour passer dans les rapides des règles techniques de la cour et ne pas s’accrocher aux pierres du système judiciaire.

5. N’ESSAYEZ PAS DE FAIRE QUOI QUE CE SOIT SANS L’AIDE D’UN AVOCAT

Oui, je sais que les avocats coûtent cher. Et je sais que l’accent que j’ai mis plus haut sur la relative simplicité des principes du droit de la famille pourrait même vous inciter à croire que vous pouvez comprendre la théorie sous-jacente. Et vous pouvez absolument.

Mais le problème est que vous ne serez pas en mesure de saisir la stratégie et les tactiques nécessaires pour obtenir un bon résultat en temps opportun avant de passer par le processus à quelques reprises. Les avocats ont souvent l’avantage d’avoir des centaines de clients dans le système. En le faisant vous-même, vous auriez besoin de comprendre comment faire les choses correctement la première fois. Et ce n’est tout simplement pas possible.

On me consulte souvent au sujet des appels en matière de droit de la famille devant la Cour divisionnaire de l'Ontario ou la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario (les appels sont une de mes « affaires »), par des gens intelligents qui travaillent fort et qui ont essayé de naviguer dans le processus du tribunal de la famille eux-mêmes, souvent contre un conjoint qui avait un avocat. On ne peut que qualifier les résultats comme désastreux. On ne cesse de le répéter. Le système ne devrait pas fonctionner de cette façon. Je le sais. Mais c’est le cas.

Perte de garde d’enfants devant le tribunal de première instance. Perte de 150 000 $ en biens familiaux en raison d’erreurs de calcul par le tribunal de première instance sur les biens familiaux nets. Le tribunal de première instance a ordonné des paiements de prestation alimentaire matrimoniale alors qu’en fait, les paiements de prestation alimentaire auraient dû aller dans le sens contraire. J’ai vu tout cela.

On me dit souvent que ces gens-là ont commencé avec des avocats, qu’ils les ont abandonnés pour des raisons financières et qu’ils ont été laissés à eux-mêmes. Mais lorsqu’ils sont venus me voir pour faire un appel, ils ont dû payer des frais juridiques beaucoup plus élevés qu’ils auraient eu à le faire au départ pour essayer de garder leurs avocats ou pour embaucher un avocat lors du procès. Tout le monde doit être conscient que la meilleure chance que vous aurez pour un résultat équitable est au procès et non pas en appel.

Ainsi, parmi vos possibilités d’obtenir de l’aide juridique en droit de la famille, assurez-vous de tenir compte de ce qui suit : (1) présenter une demande d’aide juridique, cela ne fait jamais de mal de demander (mais si vous avez un emploi bien rémunéré, vous ne l’obtiendrez pas); (2) prévoir un budget pour les frais juridiques importants, et évaluez soigneusement votre capacité d’emprunter pour ces frais, parce que manquer d’argent à mi-parcours du processus peut être le pire des scénarios; (3) parlez à des avocats qui pourraient être en mesure d’offrir des services juridiques « dégroupés », ce qui comprend parfois le fait d’agir comme « entraîneur » - il s’agit d’un concept plus récent, qui peut produire des résultats mélangés au mieux si vous êtes contraint de vous présenter vous-même devant le tribunal avec seulement un peu de conseils, mais c’est mieux que rien; (4) évaluer soigneusement les avocats dès le début de votre dossier, afin que vous fassiez un choix éclairé et que vous ne saisissiez pas seulement n’importe qui qui pourrait être disponible. Vous ne voulez pas vous retrouver dans une situation où vous avez payé un avocat beaucoup d’argent pour vous aider, puis vous vous êtes brouillé avec cet avocat au milieu de l’affaire, ce qui vous oblige à changer d’avocat, et peut-être à rester dans les limbes pendant des semaines ou des mois pendant que vous essayez de trouver un remplaçant.

En général, les avocats ne sont pas dans l’entreprise (en particulier l’entreprise de droit de la famille) pour vous arnaquer. Mais vous devez vous rappeler que chaque courriel que vous envoyez à votre avocat peut vous coûter 37,50 $ ou plus (6 minutes de temps facturable, qui est le bloc de facturation minimum commun, pour un avocat qui facture 375 $/heure). Et ces 37,50 $ peuvent rapidement s’additionner. Tout comme les messages téléphoniques que vous laissez. Tout comme faire un suivi avec vous pour les documents financiers que vous avez de la difficulté à rassembler.

Votre objectif devrait être de gérer votre avocat de la manière la plus efficace possible, et non de vous faire gérer par votre avocat. Il est nécessaire d’examiner chaque choix en matière de droit de la famille du point de vue du « divorce vraiment bon marché » afin de bien comprendre le coût réel d’un divorce en Ontario (ou ailleurs).

Gordon S. Campbell est avocat en droit de la famille en Ontario. Pour en savoir plus, visitez www.nofearfamilylaw.com.

Devrais-je faire appel de ma condamnation ou de ma peine criminelle?

/

Dernièrement, plusieurs clients éventuels me posent une question très courte, mais très importante: « devrais-je faire appel? ». Dans cette courte phrase se retrouvent plein d’espoirs, de peurs et de réalités. Dans ce blog, j’essaierais d’adresser certaines de ces inquiétudes pour vous.

LES ESPOIRS D’APPEL

L’espoir fondamental est que l’appel améliorera les résultats du procès. Lorsqu’un client me demande quelles sont leurs chances sur un appel, je dois officiellement leur dire : « Ça dépend ». Ça dépend de la loi et des faits à leurs procès. Ça dépend aussi de la direction que les vents d’appel judiciaire soufflent au Canada au cours d’une année particulière pour les enjeux juridiques en question.

Cependant statistiquement, je peux leur dire qu’environ le tiers des appels en matière criminelle ont une réussite à certains égards, selon les données de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario. Le fait que les appels en matière criminelle ont un taux de réussite plus élevé que les appels en matière civile (où vous n’avez qu’une chance sur quatre) est conforme au fait que les tribunaux veulent faire tout en leur pouvoir pour protéger les droits des accusés contre les condamnations injustifiées ou les violations graves des droits.

L’espoir qu’un appel fera complètement disparaître les accusations a besoin d’être géré. Un appel réussi veut probablement dire l’ordre d’un nouveau procès. Ce n’est pas un mauvais résultat puisque la condamnation est renversée, mais vous devez être préparé psychologiquement et financièrement pour un autre procès. La Couronne ne procédera pas toujours à un nouveau procès, mais vous devez quand même vous préparer.

Les appels réussis sont plus directs : soit la Cour d’appel remplacera elle-même une peine appropriée, soit (moins souvent) renverra l’affaire au juge du procès pour une révision de peine en se fondant sur les bons principes juridiques. Une nouvelle peine sera au moins un processus relativement rapide par rapport à un nouveau procès.

Il est plus rare qu’une cour d’appel renverse une condamnation criminelle et procède elle-même à un acquittement - plutôt que de laisser la cour de première instance réexaminer si un acquittement est justifié au cours d’un nouveau procès - mais cela se produit.

LES PEURS DE FAIRE APPEL

Vous vous demandez sûrement si les choses peuvent empirer en faisant appel. Dans des cas criminels, la réponse est probablement pas. La Couronne fera rarement un contre-appel simplement parce que vous avez commencé les procédures d’un appel puisque les appels fait par la Couronne exige un fort intérêt public. Donc, le fait de commencer des procédures d’appel de votre condamnation ou de votre peine signifie habituellement, au pire, que vous serez coincé avec le résultat du procès si vous perdez, et non pas que vous serez reconnu coupable d’infractions supplémentaires ou que votre peine sera augmentée. De plus, en matière criminelle, la règle générale veut que la Couronne ne réclame ni n’adjuge les dépens. Ce qui veut dire que vous ne pourrez pas récupérer vos frais de services juridiques si votre appel est un succès et que vous ne risquez pas non plus les frais de services juridiques de la Couronne si vous perdez.

LES RÉALITÉS DE FAIRE APPEL

Un appel vous coûtera une grande somme additionnelle d’argent après que vous ayez peut-être déjà dépensé pas mal d’argent pour votre défense criminelle au procès. Le coût de l’appel pourrait être supérieur ou inférieur au coût de votre procès, dépendant de la durée de votre procès ainsi que la complexité et le nombre d’enjeux en appel.

En plus, vous devrez budgéter pour les coûts des transcriptions, qui est plus ou moins 500 $ par jour pour la première copie. Pour les prochaines copies officielles, les coûts diminuent. Vous avez habituellement besoin de 5 copies afin de procéder à la Cour d’appel, mais le nombre précis dépend du nombre de juges qui présideront l’appel ainsi que les règlements de la cour.

Le côté positif des coûts d’un appel est qu’ils sont beaucoup plus faciles à prédire à l’avance que les coûts d’un procès. Les avocats spécialisés en appel criminel vous factureront habituellement des frais fixes pour l’appel, y compris les frais de déplacement et les débours autre que les transcriptions afin que vous puissiez décider à l’avance si, selon vous, ça en vaut la peine. L’aide juridique de l’Ontario (AJO) financera des appels qui ont de bonnes chances de succès; si vous êtes financièrement admissible (le seuil de revenu est assez bas), le processus consiste à trouver un avocat d’appel qui fournira d’abord une opinion à AJO, et ensuite, un comité d’AJO décide de fournir ou non du financement.

Donc, devrais-je faire appel? Je dirais que la réponse est définitivement « OUI » si votre cas n’est pas totalement désespéré (ce sont rares), s’il y avait un gros inconvénient au jugement  (l’acquisition d’un casier judiciaire, purger une longue peine d’emprisonnement, payer une amende importante ou la confiscation de biens considérables), si vous pouvez vous le permettre, et s’il y a une base juridique pour l’appel. Vous devez comprendre que le processus d’appel n’est pas un nouveau procès et que les arguments juridiques plutôt que factuels prédominent en appel. Vous ne pouvez pas faire appel simplement parce que vous n’aimez pas le résultat du procès; vous devriez retenir les services d’un avocat qui peut élaborer une justification juridique solide pour expliquer pourquoi le procès a déraillé et pourquoi une cour d’appel devrait faire quelque chose à ce sujet.

Gordon Scott Campbell est un avocat crimininaliste qui représente des clients pour des accusations de nature criminelle, des audiences sur la réglementation et la conduite professionnelle, des procès et des appels dans tout le Canada jusqu'au niveau de la Cour Suprême du Canada. Il a déjà été le procureur de la Couronne fédérale et est l'auteur du livre Le manuel juridique de l'enquêteur (Yvon Blais, 2010). Pour en apprendre plus, visiter www.defenceeast.com et www.proconductlaw.com.