Canadian Lawyer

10 J U L Y 2 0 1 7 w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m Paralegals in court considered in Saskatchewan S o, you get a $300 or $400 ticket for speeding or some other traffic offence in Saskatchewan (or many other provinces). You think maybe you have a defence. But hir- ing a lawyer will cost way more than paying the ticket. Your alternative is to either represent yourself or just suck it up and pay the fine, and possibly get some demerit points. A lot of people in the legal profession find that unfair and uncomfortable and worry about access to justice in traffic courts and elsewhere. Those concerns are just some of the reasons why Saskatch- ewan has become the latest province to take a long, hard look at paralegals. It has struck a joint Ministry of Justice and Saskatch- ewan Law Society committee called by the somewhat ungainly name of the Legal Services Task Team. Over the next year, it will consult with the public, lawyers and other legal service providers. The committee intends to go way beyond exploring the possibil- ity of paralegals in traffic court. Saskatchewan Justice Minister Gordon Wyant says, "We know there is interest in new ways to access and provide legal services." Saskatchewan Justice's director of legislative services, Darcy McGovern, says, "The idea of expanding legal services has been gaining traction with the government and the legal community over the past couple of years." Right now, the Saskatchewan Legal Profession Act provides that only a lawyer may appear before a court or offer legal advice. That leaves paralegals — or potential paralegals — nowhere to go in Saskatchewan. Definitions vary, but paralegals tend to be legally trained non-lawyers who in some provinces, notably Ontario, can go before certain courts or tribunals and represent clients on minor, generally non-criminal matters, including traf- fic violations. Paralegals' fees are substantially lower than what lawyers charge and make the possibility of fighting relatively minor matters a realistic option for clients of ordinary means. Regina lawyer Jeremy Ellergodt of McKercher LLP has worked with paralegals and sees them as potentially cost-effective alternatives in traffic court "or small claims court . . . that's an area where a paralegal could assist someone in preparing a case or possibly settling a matter." Ellergodt believes paralegals would \ AT L A N T I C \ C E N T R A L \ P R A I R I E S \ W E S T REGIONAL WRAP-UP P R A I R I E S the animating principles of Jordan in the disciplinary context, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the courts weighing in to offer direction to tribunals in the near future," he says. In the decision, the panel considered Blencoe v. British Columbia, a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision, in order to determine whether delays would warrant a stay of proceedings in adminis- trative tribunals. That decision's analysis specified two grounds for determining whether a stay was warranted. These were if an "inordin- ate or clearly unacceptable delay impugns the fairness of the hearing" or if the delay causes significant harm to the lawyer or stigma to the lawyer's reputation. Naymark says this approach also involves parsing who is to blame for the delay. He says the tribunal's hands were tied by the jurisprudence, but it remains to be seen whether courts will decide that administrative tribunals should adopt sim- ilar tests such as that in Jordan or continue to use the earlier style of analysis. "It's inevitable that this is going to be a subject of attention," he says. "The Divisional Court is going to be hearing about this if not from the law soci- ety tribunal then from some other, and it's going to go up, at least to the Court of Appeal, if not the Supreme Court." Neuberger, however, says he doubts the issue will go up through the courts as the test in Blencoe is an appropriate test for administrative discipline tribunals, as it does not set out the arbitrary timelines of Jordan. "It is more a balancing of the evidence and factors, which I think is a healthier way to look at delay issues." The law society first started investi- gating Savone in 2007 and commenced proceedings against him in 2011. The law society alleged that Savone had knowingly participated in fraudulent real estate transactions. After refusing an initial motion for a stay because of delay and his original requests for dis- closure, a hearing panel found he had knowingly assisted in the fraud and revoked his license. Savone appealed to the law society's appeal division, which ordered a new hearing as the hearing panel had erred in dismissing Savone's request for additional disclosure. The Divisional Court then echoed that decision, dismissing an appeal by the law society of the appeal division's finding. Lawyers said this Divisional Court decision could push the law soci- ety to rethink its approach to disclosure in disciplinary proceedings. Brian Radnoff, one of the lawyers representing Savone and a partner at Lerners LLP, says his client is consider- ing his options. "We're pleased that we finally have disclosure of the files from the law society that were ordered to be disclosed," he says. — ALEX ROBINSON Daniel Naymark Law society ordered to disclose privileged information Continued from page 9

• Cover