Blogging live from Montreal at the LegalIT 5.0 Conference, the Conference opened with a plenary session on the subject topic, by Richard S. Granat, Co-Chair, eLawyering Task Force, American Bar Association, launched in 2001. Richard founded one of the first virtual law firms in North America and is well chosen to speak on topic. . . . [more]

The employment standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) is found under part III in the Proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation (PIAR), which is slated to become law around July 2011 (not confirmed). This standard requires an organization that is an employer to engage in the proactive identification, removal and prevention of barriers hindering the full participation in employment of persons with disabilities. It also requires that organization to have policies and procedures for establishing individual accommodation plans where barriers cannot be removed proactively, shifting the onus from the individual who needs the accommodation to the person who . . . [more]

Two weeks ago in my post on indexes in law-related e-books I made mention of the 3 new e-book offerings from LexisNexis Canada that are included for free for purchasers of the hard copy.

I have now tested those e-books on my iPad and thought I would pass on my comments.

The three titles are:

– The Practitioner’s Criminal Code, 2011 Edition
– Ontario Superior Court Practice, 2011 Edition
– LegisPratique – Code de procédure civile annoté, édition 2010

The books are in EPUB format and were easy to download and transfer on to my PDA by . . . [more]

On occasion, a party will intentionally contact or attempt to meet with one or more lawyers for the sole purpose of creating a conflict that will prevent the lawyer(s) from acting for another party on a pending matter.

Despite the bad intentions of the individual making these contacts, the lawyer(s) contacted may not be able to act for the other party, especially if confidential information was disclosed.

This behaviour occurs quite frequently in the family law area and in specialized areas of the law where there are a limited number of experts. In smaller communities this can be very frustrating . . . [more]

TV Ontario’s flagship current affairs program The Agenda featured a discussion last night on TV cameras in the courtroom.

Interestingly, only the judge on the panel seemed to be in favour of the idea.

Panel members were:

• Jamie Chaffe, president of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel
• Jean Cumming, editor-in-chief of Lexpert
• Mayo Moran, dean of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law
• William Trudell, chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
• Raymond Wyant, a provincial court judge in Manitoba

. . . [more]

This post will focus on the specific requirements under the AODA Information and Communication Standard. The Information and Communications Standard (Part 11 of the PIAR) focuses on accessible information and communications relating to the provision of goods and services. The definition of “information and communication” is very broad and can include such things as websites, brochures, flyers, invoices, order forms, feedback forms, complaint forms, telephone calls, marketing materials, etc. The main goal of the standard is to promote inclusive design of information and communication platforms and to specify requirements to prevent and remove barriers to persons with disabilities when creating, conveying, distributing, procuring and receiving information and communication to and from your organization.

A week ago we learned that Ontario’s Attorney General is willing to consider putting video cameras in Ontario’s courtrooms, and is:

… prepared to speak with the judiciary about their interest in having the discussion at this point in time, where we would go, and canvass the views of other participants in the justice system.

This statement — hardly a rousing endorsement of video access — came as a result of his interview with Canadian Press reporter Allison Jones, who, through a freedom of information request, had obtained a copy of an evaluation done nearly three years previously of the . . . [more]

Civil litigation accounts for more legal malpractice claims in Ontario than any other area of law. It is also responsible for the second highest percentage of claims costs, after real estate.

From 2000 to 2010, litigation-related claims accounted, on average, for 34 per cent of LAWPRO’s claims count (650 claims per year), and 28 per cent of our claims costs ($17.4 million per year). On average, resolving a litigation claim cost LAWPRO $38,000 over that period.

While the annual number of civil litigation claims has remained relatively consistantly in the 600-700 range over the last 10 years, the cost of . . . [more]

The London Times reported on 10 March that UK litigation lawyers are “bracing themselves” for the “revolution” of hot tubbing which will shortly be run in a pilot trial in Manchester, England.

More formally known as “concurrent evidence”, hot tubbing is a new method of presenting expert evidence at trial. Opposing experts testify in each other’s presence, as members of a panel, and are questioned in each other’s presence in front of the trier of fact.

It seems to be gathering steam in several jurisdictions, other than the US, as a method of reducing cost and delay in civil litigation. . . . [more]

People have not been paying much attention to the application of standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA); however, they are coming soon, are complex and require understanding and preparation. In the first part of this post, we discussed the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service (Ontario Regulation 429/07). Now, will take a look at what’s coming next, the Proposed Integrated Accessibility Regulation.

Michael Carabash, the founder and CEO of Dynamic Lawyers, was recently featured on the television show Dragon’s Den, where entrepreneurs make a a business pitch to a panel of potential investors.

Carabash was selling an interest in his website and legal forms, which seek to provide legal services in a cost-effective manner to the public. The Dragon’s turned down his proposal, but Carabash feels the experience was still worth it.

You can catch a clip from the show here.

  . . . [more]

The Globe and Mail reported today that there’s some dissatisfaction with the way Ontario Court of Appeal Justice David Watt has written a few of his judgments. According to the story by Kirk Makin, “some traditionalists” are upset because the judge has imitated novelists, which, according to some critics, might be okay if you’re Lord Denning judging contract disputes but not where criminal law is concerned.

Makin quotes from a few of Justice Watt’s opinions, including, for example, R. v. Yumnu, 2010 ONCA 637:

[1] Tung Duong and Dung Ton fell out over money owed and product misappropriated

. . . [more]