Family Violence and Child Support: Abuse, Shared Parenting, and Special Expenses

This article addresses specific sections of the Federal Child Support Guidelines which are particularly problematic for survivors of family violence: (a) section 9 in relation to child support in circumstances of shared parenting time, and (b) section 7 dealing with special or extraordinary expenses. Child support in Canada currently functions as an application-based system within an adversarial context, which creates significant barriers to child support for victims of abuse. In relation to shared parenting, a presumptive reduction in the quantum of child support is likely to exacerbate systemic inequalities and further disadvantage survivors of family violence—disproportionately women and children. This article also questions the existing approach to child support for special and extraordinary expenses and proposes alternatives which would promote access to justice and substantive equality for victims. Applications for child support should not facilitate and reinforce the harms of family violence but should instead promote children’s best interests

Testing Our Faith: Why It Is Important to Study the Complexity of Client Experiences in Family Dispute Resolution

Increasingly across Canada, court-based processes are being recast as forums of ‘last resort’ for family conflict. Studies inviting lawyers to reflect on the success of their collaborative negotiations, mediations, and settlement conferences show optimism—faith that the quality of their clients’ experiences has been more positive, or, at least, less damaging. As researchers, however, we know less about how the parties in the midst of separation and divorce actually experience those processes. The Saskatchewan study described in this article suggests that ‘the inside’ of dispute resolution (DR) processes in family conflict might be as qualitatively painful, negative, and difficult as the inside of court-based ones, and—yet—that people still prefer DR options. Future research needs to explore the emotional complexity of people’s experiences in the justice system. User-focused feedback may test legal professional’s assumptions, making room for authentic acknowledgements of the difficulties and strains which co-exist with the benefits of DR processes. User-focused feedback is also essential to help refine reform agendas in the family law justice arena

Old Habits Die Hard: Precedent, Psychology, and the Admissibility of Forensic Evidence

Forensic evidence, long considered a cornerstone of criminal justice, has faced increasing scrutiny as recent studies and reports expose significant flaws in its scientific foundation. Techniques such as latent fingerprint analysis, microscopic hair comparison, and ballistics matching, which had been widely accepted for decades, are now being challenged for their lack of empirical validation. Reports by the National Research Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology have highlighted the deficiencies in these forensic methods, calling into question their reliability and the weight they are given in courtrooms. Yet despite the growing acknowledgement of widespread issues affecting the reliability and validity of many types of forensic evidence, there are surprisingly few successful challenges to the admissibility of this type of forensic evidence, and when the evidence is challenged, it is often found to be admissible. And while Daubert and Rule 702 mandate that expert evidence be based on reliable principles and methods, many courts have failed to rigorously apply these standards, often deferring to precedent rather than conducting a thorough analysis of the scientific validity of forensic techniques. The article argues that cognitive biases play a significant role in the judicial system\u27s continued acceptance of unreliable forensic evidence. Biases like information cascades, the status quo bias, and the omissions bias can cause judges to favor precedent and established practices, even in the face of new scientific evidence challenging the validity of these forensic methods. The discussion also considers how heuristics, like the bias blind spot, contribute to judges’ reluctance to reject long-standing but scientifically flawed forensic techniques. Notwithstanding these challenges, judicial education on scientific standards, greater diversity on the bench, and a heightened awareness of cognitive biases could help mitigate these issues and promote more rigorous evaluation of forensic evidence in the courtroom

Fair process : an examination of the use of automated decision-making systems in Canadian administrative law through the case study of Canadian immigration

As a result of fast-moving developments in artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools such as machine-learning (“ML”), Canadian scholars have been engaged in a recent, concerted effort to examine how the use of automated (often also termed “algorithmic”) decision-making systems (“ADMs”) by public administration officials may alter traditional decision-making processes. This examination has been focused on exploring the impacts these technologies are having on foundational administrative law principles, primarily through the lens of ex post adjudication and judicial review. This thesis continues this line of scholarship by exploring a specific problematic, how the use of ADMs by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”), is altering the process of decision-making in a way that necessarily creates implications for the way external mechanisms like judicial review, are able to aid in reviewing decisions. This enquiry is driven through doctrinal method, applying a law and technology approach, and applying Michael Adler’s administrative justice theories and typologies. Tracing how decisions have shifted, I argue that failures to understand process are impacting both procedural fairness and reasonableness review. Furthermore, I argue that the ability to understand and interrogate process, as a prerequisite, requires greater transparency, accountability, and structures of ex ante rulemaking. I conclude with a strong recommendation for structural reform aimed at “getting it right the first time” – suggesting a starting point of procedural protections within statute, namely the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and developing procedural code, inviting refinement

Flourishing: A plan to strengthen public legal education and information, the BC PLEI Ecosystem Project

The Public Legal Education and Information (PLEI) Sectoral Planning Project, headed by Dr. Catherine Dauvergne, K.C., was commissioned by the Law Foundation of British Columbia with the goal of making recommendations about how to improve public legal education and information in the province. The project was co-sponsored by the Law Foundation and the province’s Ministry of the Attorney General. We have come to understand this constellation of resources and organizations as the “public legal education and information ecosystem.” There is a wide array of high-quality, easily accessible, clearly written, legal information available in British Columbia. Ecosystem leaders are at the forefront of innovation, and are deeply committed to the communities they serve. Other leaders across Canada have a deep respect for the work done in this province. However, people struggle to locate and understand publicly available legal information. Frontline legal service providers, who often help people understand this information, are stretched very thin and often struggle themselves with highly pressured work and inability to meet their clients’ needs. For those creating and delivering PLEI, a desire for strengthened collaboration and cooperation is strong. This report presents the findings from our research and the 30 recommendations that we believe can address many of the challenges we identified