The Canadian Indigenous Independent Paralegal (CIIP) A Community Focused “Paraprofessional” Services Provider Or Canadian Indigenous Legal Paraprofe
The Conventional Practice of Law
Out of Touch in Providing Access to Justice for Canada’s Indigenous Community in a Dynamic New Legal Services Paradigm
Law and Justice Administration have traditionally been associated with the legal profession and the conventional practice of law. Moreover, a core component of the historic “guild” model that there was a “public interest’ in granting professions monopolies in their respective professional services markets, was imbedded in the practice of law. Law, justice administration and the practice of law must now come to terms with the realities of what is acknowledged as a “new professional services paradigm”,[1] That reality for the hallowed British centric common law system was aptly and emphatically stated in the U.K. Parliament at Westminster in 2005 in what is widely known as the “Clementi Report”. It’s acknowledged as the hallmark document for transformation of the practice of law into a competitive legal services marketplace in common law countries. To quote from the introduction:
The professional competence of lawyers is not in doubt. The caliber of many of our legal professionals is among the best in the world. But despite this, too many consumers are finding that they are not receiving a good or fair deal. [2]
The central theme and underlying tone of that report has been accurately paraphrased by Richard Susskind, the acknowledged guru on where the legal profession is headed in the U.K. and Canada, [3] as follows;
The expertise of a very few is being bestowed upon a few. We seem to have a Rolls- Royce service for the well- heeled minority, while everyone else is walking.[4]
Moreover, the dominant paradigm in legal education is “doctrinaire” thinking. Legal education is doctrine driven. The core subjects of any LLB/JD program are all designed to teach students to think like a certain kind of lawyer; the general practitioner. The core learning experiences in contract, property, tort, criminal, and business law that are the foundations in all law school curricula, are derivatives of a 19th century paradigm reflective of a “genteel” society.[5] There are of course volumes of cases and statutes that have adapted the fundamental principles of those learning experiences to the 21st century. There is even a nascent school of thought in the U.K. legal education academe suggesting that a “socio legal” approach that examines law from a position of power relationships within society be introduced into the law school curricula through discreet subjects to better reflect what is a new “socio-economic, socio-political” paradigm.[6] If and when that is introduced into the mainstream of legal education this will facilitate lawyers and legal services providers learning how to think laterally rather than literally. But, until then, lawyers will continue to be conditioned to think inside a box in an era when an increasing number of legal services needs are in paralegal/ paraprofessional services “niches” outside the box.
There have been a number of studies done in Canada that corroborate the findings of the Clementi Report and validate Susskind’s above observation that are pertinent to Canada’s Indigenous community. Start with the Federal Department of Justice Aboriginal Strategy.[7] It was launched in 1991 with an ambitious mandate to make dramatic improvements to the appalling lack of access to justice by Indigenous people on and off reservations. There has been a litany of conventional community based projects and programs initiated, reviewed, revamped and so on over a 21-year period. The 2016 Aboriginal Justice Strategy Evaluation Final Report contains the following disappointing summation of results; things are getting worse rather than better:
Aboriginal persons account for 21% of adults in remand, 27% of adults in provincial and territorial sentenced custody, 18% of adults in federal custody, 18% of adults on probation, and 20% of conditional sentences, despite representing only 3% of the Canadian adult population according to the 2006 Census. The over-representation of Aboriginal persons in the corrections system is worsening over time, increasing by 2% between 2004-05 and 2008-09[2]. The rate at which the over-representation of Aboriginal persons in the correctional system over time is partly accounted for by the growing Canadian Aboriginal population: the general Aboriginal population in Canada has increased by 20.1% between 2001 and 2006, while the federally incarcerated Aboriginal population rose by 19.7%. However, the population of federally incarcerated Aboriginal women increased by 131% over the same time period of 3].
This over-representation extends to rates of criminal victimization as well: in 2009, 37% of Aboriginal persons self-reported being the victim of a crime, compared to 26% of non-Aboriginal persons[8]
In 2008 the Office of the Auditor General of Canada’s report on First Nations Child and Family Services Program under the auspices of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada noted the following:
Access to and availability of services. First Nations state that funding allocated to provide child welfare services is not adequate. Travel needs alone require a lot of resources as specialized services are located in large urban centres. They also face difficulties in attracting workers, partly because INAC funding is not sufficient to pay competitive salaries and benefits. The situation is worse in remote and isolated communities.[9]
In 2008 Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) undertook an ambitious study to examine the status of its legal services delivery program to the province’s Indigenous community. Core to its findings was corroboration of comparable results by the above noted Aboriginal Justice Strategy:
Barriers to Accessing Justice
Cultural Competency Training of LAO staff and legal aid lawyers
Awareness and knowledge of Aboriginal peoples legal issues, rights, protections and their cultures, customs, practices
Cultural sensitivity based on competently understanding the historic and systematic injustice Aboriginal people have experienced
Lack of Aboriginal legal representation or legal representation that is appropriately informed on the unique needs of Aboriginal clients
Service Issues Identified:
· The logistics of getting to a legal aid office or legal aid service provider from an Aboriginal community is difficult. People who live any distance away from such resources who do not have a vehicle, gas money, flight money or means of transportation are not likely to go to a legal aid office or service provider. This is true whether an individual lives in a remote fly-in community or is 20 kilometers away.
· In northern and southern urban centres public transit either does not exist or where it does exist—it does not extend to First Nation communities or rural Aboriginal communities
· The same problem with physically accessing legal services holds true for attending court. Most of the courts in Ontario are located in cities and towns and not on reserves or in Me?tis homelands.
· Not being able to attend Courts easily results in a higher amount of criminal charges for administrative breaches on release documents or failure to appear charges by Aboriginal people
· There are individuals in Aboriginal communities that do not have telephones or computer access.
· Even where there is computer access, Internet access is not always consistently available---particularly true in remote Aboriginal communities.
· In remote communities and even in communities that are not that geographically far from urban centres, there is a lack of LAO presence on a regular or consistent basis.
In 2014, LAO conducted a five-year review of the above-cited strategy. Not surprisingly, as is the case with the Aboriginal Justice Strategy, it reported that:
Fast Facts:
Between January 2014 and July 2014, Aboriginal clients represented 15 per cent of all LAO’s certificate clients. Of these clients:
? 88 per cent identified as First Nation
? 10 per cent identified as Métis
2 per cent identified as Inuit
The next five years of the AJS: 2013-2018
Over the first five years of the AJS, environmental scans and recent reports highlighted the situation of Aboriginal people in Ontario’s justice system. It remains dire. Aboriginal over-representation in the criminal and child protection systems, the growing young Aboriginal population, and increasing poverty all suggest that the AJS needs to continue.[11]
These are just three of the many examples of “access to justice” issues that are confronting the Indigenous community. They’re illustrative of why 29 of the 94 Truth and Reconciliation Report’s recommendations focus on addressing “access to justice”. They’ve been profiled because of what they demonstrate. The traditional l approach of attempting to provide “access to justice” to Canada’s Indigenous community through applications of the conventional practice of law, the “Rolls-Royce” model, just doesn’t work. Ongoing audits of status quo “access to justice” strategies and initiatives every 4-5 years just provide gloomy renditions of more of the same. To reiterate, the LAO Aboriginal Strategy progress report after five years of operation reports that “access to justice” continues to “remain dire”.
“A Future Law Perspective”
An Architecture and Framework for “Access to Justice” for Canada’s Indigenous Community
The Paraprofessional
The concept and parameters of the 21st century “paraprofessional” are succinctly summarized by, U.K. professional services strategist Richard Susskind, the globally acknowledged guru of “future legal services”. To quote:
The professions are our current solution to the challenge in a society of supporting people who need access to practical expertise. Yet affordable access to this expertise remains inadequate. If the price of keeping the personal interaction is maintaining this status quo, then the personal touch is also an indulgence we cannot afford
----
Instead we might turn, for example, to a Para-professional, someone with sufficient insight into an area of expertise as well as the genuine capacity to empathize. By disengaging the application of expertise from the communication with the recipient (this itself is a type of decomposition, this moves us, in part, away from the traditional model of production and distribution of practical expertise towards the paraprofessional model. In both cases, though, human beings are still involved”[12]
The U.K.
The Full Fledged Paraprofessional Model
The U.K., with the evolution of law clerks and paralegals into a distinct independent licensure category of Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX)[13], among other paraprofessional categories, is, of course, creating what is nothing short of a revolution in creating legal service “niches”. U.K. legal executives are licensed as independent legal services providers. Their educational/training program is designed to provide them with the competencies to provide first step services to clients either as independent legal services providers or in working partnerships with solicitors in the U.K. The consumer makes the choice on which level of service to access and the corresponding professional competency of the legal executive has them counsel the client accordingly either to rely on their services or arrange a referral to a solicitor. The CILEX paraprofessional model is proving to be a resounding success in the U.K. and very much in the “public interest” in providing consumers with “Access to Justice”.
The Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) has introduced a uniform ““Solicitors Qualification Examination (SQE)” program “apprenticeship” qualification model as an alternative to the conventional university LLB degree route to qualify for entry into the profession. The SRA will continue to recognize law schools and the LLB/GDL degrees as sources for legal education, but it is no longer the requisite or even preferred route. To quote from the SQE summary report, “However, “in addition to passing the SQE, new solicitors would need to hold a degree, apprenticeship, (or equivalent)[14].”
The U.S.
The American Bar Association (ABA) Task Force on the Future of Legal Education [15] made the following recommendation as a remedy to fix a market flooded with J.D. degree holders who are long on legal knowledge but lacking in the skills necessary to service emergent law related diverse client needs.
3. Delivery of Law- Related Services by Persons Without a J.D,
The relatively high cost of the services of lawyers has encouraged the development of programs to prepare graduates for practices focused on low- and moderate-income clients. But it has also facilitated the use (or proposed use) of persons who have not received a J.D. to deliver lower-cost legal services. Businesses increasingly use persons other than admitted lawyers, e.g., for compliance work and for expertise in the human resources field.[16]
New York State has taken a tentative first step in licensing independent paraprofessional legal services providers in establishing a “court navigator program”. Aspiring lawyers and related social services providers can be licensed as volunteer navigators. Given the strength and lobbying capability of the New York State Bar, this is ostensibly the starting point into what will in all probability evolve into a distinct licensed paraprofessional. To quote, to illustrate, on the one hand the distinction between a paraprofessional and paralegal and, in addition, the relevance to the nature and type of support that a CIIP would provide to an Indigenous person endeavoring to navigate the court system:
Specially trained and supervised non-lawyers, called Court Navigators, provide general information, written materials, and one-on-one assistance to eligible unrepresented litigants. In addition, Court Navigators provide moral support to litigants, help them access and complete court forms, assist them with keeping paperwork in order, in accessing interpreters and other services, explain what to expect and what the roles of each person is in the courtroom.[17]
The State of Washington illustrates what is the next step in the progression from volunteer to full-fledged “niche” legal services provider. The Supreme Court of Canada conducted a series of studies that concluded there was an appalling lack of “Access to Justice” for mainstream lower income and middle -class Canadians in civil and family law litigation.[18] The State of Washington Supreme Court conducted a similar series of studies and, is the case in all North American jurisdictions, found “Access to Justice” in civil and family law to be a fundamental problem for mainstream residents. It’s taken the requisite remedial step in establishing a “niche” class of independent “Limited Licensed Legal Technicians (LLLT).[19] The State Supreme Court has indicated that the LLLT will be licensed in phases to provide a number of document and non-contested litigation related services to clients in family law matters with a projected expansion into the broader field of civil law; notably elder law as the licensing program and providers mature.
High profile examples in the U.S. that are relevant to the CIIP proposal, because of the “niche” communities they service, are the self-regulated California Association of Legal Document Assistants (CALDA)[20] and Arizona Certified Legal Document Preparers[21]. Both states have sizable primary first generation Hispanic communities who frequently require non-contested legal documentation preparation. In addition, Arizona has a sizable first nations community. Certified document preparers provide accessible and affordable legal documentation services to Hispanic and Indigenous people, among others, who aren’t comfortable in visiting a law office and can’t afford the services of an attorney. Not surprisingly, many first - generation Hispanics who don’t have the combination of academic qualifications and finances to attend law school are predominant as community based certified legal document preparers where they work in a peer supportive environment.
Canada
Law Societies in Canada have resisted innovative alternatives in legal services to the conventional practice of law. As was the case in the U.K., it’s been the courts and Attorneys General who have forced incremental changes to date. For example, with pressure from the Attorney General, the Law Society of British Columbia (B.C.) has tabled a resolution to create a revamped umbrella self-regulated profession that will enable lawyers, notaries and paralegals to develop a compendium of consumer focused regulated legal services.[22]The Canadian Bar Association (CBA), which like the ABA is representative of the legal services business, has taken the leadership role and been at the forefront in recognizing the need for the Canadian legal profession to shift from the conventional practice of law to innovative legal services providers. The CBA Legal Futures Report; Futures: Transforming the Delivery of Legal Services in Canada[23] retained Susskind as a consultant and supported his above recommendations. To quote:
3.2 ARE LAWYERS THE ONLY PROVIDERS OF LEGAL SERVICES?
Lawyers are not the only individuals in society who provide legal services. Increasingly, other service providers are delivering information and advice to clients in areas traditionally reserved for lawyers [24]
7.10 PARALLEL PROGRAMS FOR NEW STREAMS OF LEGAL PROVIDERS
Other educational providers like colleges, trade schools, and professional development educators may develop complementary education and training programs for the new legal service providers, similar to the development of nurse practitioners in the medical field, hygienists in the dental field, and opticians in the ophthalmology field. To the extent that these new career tracks need to be regulated, regulators or government should endorse the emergence of these educational streams and adopt regulatory mechanisms to protect the public. [25]
That’s the big picture and “Future Law Perspective” for the emergent legal services providers commonly labeled as a “paraprofessional”.[26] When used as an adjective in conjunction with a profession “Para” denotes working beside. Unfortunately, in the legal profession the label “paralegal” has become ill or improperly defined to denote not just working beside, but working under the direction of and reporting to a practicing lawyer in a subservient relationship.[27]
However, there are notable exceptions to the standard classification of paralegal in Canada. These provide both informative insight into how to link niche legal service needs with niche legal service providers and validation for creation of the CIIP.
British Columbia (B.C.) has a robust Society of Notaries Public.[28] The notarial profession has a history that predates the evolution of the legal profession. Notaries were the highly literate trusted document providers and document authenticators to royalty.[29] In the current legal services market notaries continue to function either independently as legal document specialists or as an adjunct function provided by lawyers. [30] In B.C. the notary profession predated the establishment of the legal profession with Captain Cooke bringing a notary with him as trusted document recorder on his initial discovery voyage to the province in 1792.[31]
This short historical note on notaries is relevant in illustrating how a niche legal services provider emerges, functions and evolves in response to a client service need. In the absence and/or limited supply of lawyers in what was a frontier society for much of the 19th and early 20th century in B.C., the notary function grew to provide essential non- contested legal document services to residents that were deemed by governments of the day to be in the “public interest” despite ongoing efforts by the legal profession, once established, to gain monopoly status. It exists to present day and is in the process of evolving into yet another professional phase as a complementary independent “paraprofessional” legal services provider with the established legal profession to provide a compendium of affordable legal services to the public in the interests of “access to justice”. [32]
Paralegals are niche focused independent legal services providers in Ontario[33]. What is now a vibrant regulated “Para-profession” originated as an ad hoc grouping of former police officers who recognized the need for persons convicted of motor vehicle offences to obtain affordable legal representation in first instance court appearances to negotiate settlements that would minimize the loss of points to their drivers’ licenses[34] and not trigger an increase to their automobile insurance premiums.
The dominant provider of this service POINTTS[35] set up convenient store front offices adjacent to traffic courts with convenient evening hours of service. What POINNTS recognized was a need for a first instance service that was “legalese” focused. The service provider did not have to be a legal expert but needed to know the nature and function of motor vehicle traffic offences and how to negotiate settlements with public prosecutors in provincial courts.[36] POINTTS demonstrated the need for a different type of “main street” legal services providers as an alternative, to paraphrase the CBA futures report, to “ the lawyer with the gold plate on the door sitting behind a mahogany desk”. It spurred the evolution of what was initially an ad hoc group of former police officers as unregulated service providers into the spawning of a large-scale full service unregulated independent paralegal industry. An ongoing 20 year acrimonious confrontation between this core group of “niche” legal services providers and the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) over the legal parameters of the “unauthorized practice of law (UPL)” and how a legal profession and independent para-profession eventually came to a workable compromise through leadership by the Attorney General has been well documented[37]
The Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC)[38] is the “the national regulatory body designated by the government of Canada to safeguard users of services provided by Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultants (RCICs) and Regulated International Student Immigration Advisors (RISIAs)”[39] The governing legislation is the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Regulated immigration consultants are niche Paraprofessional service providers who combine the legalese associated with the legislation with professional guidance to prospective immigrants on immigration application and document production issues. Their mandate complements full- fledged immigration lawyers who practice immigration law.
This statement is made advisedly. When immigration consulting emerged as a practice niche the Canadian legal community claimed the consultants were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Moreover, they claimed that the federal government didn’t have the legal authority to authorize and/or license paraprofessionals to provide legal services. Only provincial governments had the power to license legal practitioners pursuant to provincial law society legislation. The end result of an acrimonious all out confrontation between provincial law societies and the federal government over a period of several years only came to an end when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal government did have the power to license providers of legal services that dealt with federal statutes.[40]
Many of the legal services that will be provided by a CIIP Paraprofessional will be subject to federal legislation and entail working with federal administrative agencies. The federal government is well positioned to exercise leadership and be an active player in the eventual formulation of the terms of reference for the CIIP paraprofessional and taking on an oversight role in governance as is the case with the ICCRC
The Architecture & Framework
Proposed Architecture
Lawyers are without a doubt professionals who provide essential legal services to the public in the public interest. However, the practice of law and the legal profession are entwined in a guild that has been granted monopoly powers in a legal services market, that as all the above references indicate, renders them resistant to intrusion by what they envision as a combination as interlopers and competitors to their business. The hallmark “Clementi Report” referred to in the introduction was a unilateral government initiative undertaken in the U.K. as the result of ten years of resistance by the established legal profession to embrace the realities of the 21st century legal services paradigm. The State of Washington Supreme Court unilaterally developed and introduced the above referenced LLLT program over the objections of state attorneys who were opposed because of their fear “they would take work away from lawyers”[41] The Canadian situation mirrors that of comparable regulatory jurisdictions in the U.K and U.S. as the above examples clearly illustrate.
The proposed architecture is a self- regulated Canadian Indigenous Independent Paralegal (CIIP). A comparable model architecture would be the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council(ICCRC).
Rationale:
ü Indigenous people did have a justice system and “access to justice” prior to the implementation of the British common law and provision for self-regulated law societies with monopoly control of the legal services market. CIIP is a “restorative remedy” – giving back to Indigenous people control over a level of legal services that had historically been in indigenous communities- in conformance with the thrust of recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Report.
ü The Canadian indigenous community functions within a governance framework with treaties and customs and conventions that aren’t a natural fit with provincial government and governance structures. Placing the CIIP program in a provincially configured regulatory structure would be a “force fit” designed to accommodate the conventional legal services profession rather than a restorative remedy.
ü The Federation of Law Societies of Canada (FLSC) has demonstrated how provincially regulated lawyers can practice law nation- wide in enacting a “National Mobility Agreement”.[42]A self- regulated CIIP could develop an “Indigenous Independent Paralegal Mobility Agreement” that would enable licensed CIIPs to design and deliver provincial legislative legal services across provincial boundaries in a best fit for band community structures
ü The conventional independent paralegal in place in Ontario under the umbrella and auspices of the LSUC hasn’t created a true “paraprofessional” services model. Independent paralegals are subservient to the LSUC in critical areas of practice that would be core to the legal service needs in remote Indigenous communities.[43] This would be an impediment to a CIIP.
ü Recommendations 4 & 5[44] in the Paralegal Education section and Scope of Practice of the of Five Year Review of Paralegal Regulation Review in 2012 suggest fundamental change to education to raise paralegal education to the true “paraprofessional” category required for a full-fledged complementary level of service to lawyers. These remain dormant four years later and the review recommends expansion of practice be held in abeyance. This would be an impediment to a CIIP program under a provincial law society regulatory regime.
ü This confirms the concerns expressed by the Canadian Competition Bureau on more than one occasion with respect to the natural tendency of a dominant regulator to artificially restrict the service capability of the subservient service provider. “When one group of professionals is reliant upon another group of competing professionals for the ability to practice its profession and the scope of authorized activities, the Bureau is concerned that unfounded quality of service arguments may be used to artificially restrict access to the market in which the professionals compete.”[45]
ü Recommendations on governance/conduct will implement conformance to the conventional practice of law model, which has proven to be ineffective in providing “access to justice” to Indigenous communities.
CIIP Legislation
The CIIP will be a self-regulated service provider providing a specified package of legal services. Regulation requires legislation. The proposed legislation would be a federal statute similar in nature to provincial law society legislation. Attorneys General in common law provinces are the guardians of the “public interest” in legal matters. Provincial legislatures have the right to enact legislation that defines the breadth and scope of legal services in their respective provinces.[46] They also have the right to dictate modes and methods of legal services delivery and rights of mobility of legal services providers. The FLSC mobility agreement provides them with a precedent for creation of a national mobility program for CIIP paraprofessionals. The CIIP mobility program will be their opportunity to restore “access to justice” to the Indigenous community in the spirit of the Truth and Reconciliation Report.
Governance
The CIIP will have a governance/oversight structure that reflects the “public interest’ of the Indigenous in having “access to justice” as well as complementing the “public interest” of the Canadian population at large in having a legal services system that adheres to the highest quality level of services. The following is a model for a representative governance body that responds to the “public interest” of the Indigenous community and the general Canadian population.
Justice Canada representative
Indigenous Affairs representative
Federal Judge appointee
A provincial Attorney General appointee
FLSC appointee
Professional Services Ethicist
Educator
CIIP regulatory president
Three Indigenous community appointees
Education
Canadian Indigenous Independent Paralegal
(CIIP)
Or
Canadian Indigenous Legal Paraprofessional
(CILP)
Diploma Certification Program
Or
Self-Regulated Certification Program
The CIIP will be a paraprofessional. They will have professional skills capability but will have the competencies and capability to function beyond the skilled technician level as a “paraprofessional” legal services provider in a legal services niche that where “access to justice” for Indigenous people is at a critical needs level. They will be knowledge managers who are cognizant of Indigenous culture and sensitive to restorative justice principles and practices. The Federal Department of Justice Aboriginal Strategy referred to above has succinctly summarized the critical needs level as
Aboriginal persons account for 21% of adults in remand, 27% of adults in provincial and territorial sentenced custody, 18% of adults in federal custody, 18% of adults on probation, and 20% of conditional sentences, despite representing only 3% of the Canadian adult population according to the 2006 Census.[47]
The LAO study referred to above succinctly summarizes the inability of the conventional practice of law model to address this critical need.
Barriers to Accessing Justice
Cultural Competency Training of LAO staff and legal aid lawyers
Awareness and knowledge of Aboriginal peoples legal issues, rights, protections and their cultures, customs, practices
Cultural sensitivity based on competently understanding the historic and systematic injustice Aboriginal people have experienced
Lack of Aboriginal legal representation or legal representation that is appropriately informed on the unique needs of Aboriginal clients[48]
One of the key principles in remedying systemic discrimination in occupations that are client service focused is to have service providers who are members of the client community. Indigenous persons in mid and high school level education will be motivated to complete their post-secondary education when they see opportunities for them to access a niche in the legal services market as independent paralegal paraprofessionals through affordable and accessible education. The CIIP program can be used as a paraprofessional model for health care and social work applications; other areas in “dire need” of Indigenous entry career opportunities.
The educational program will be designed for delivery through innovative “e-learning” and Massive Open Line Course (MOOC) structures. Indigenous career aspirants in remote communities will have access to affordable paraprofessional education. The CIIP program structure and operational methodology can serve as a model for program design and delivery of other paraprofessional programs. The CIIP program will be an ideal candidate for articulation with a university baccalaureate program. The CIIP diploma/certification will qualify a successful candidate for entry into the third year of a four-year baccalaureate degree program. An academic baccalaureate degree program will benefit from inclusion of students with applied skills and paraprofessional expertise. This represents an ideal opportunity for a university to partner with the primary CIIP program provider and develop an innovative integrated curriculum.
Canadian Indigenous Independent Paralegal
CIIP
Diploma Certification Program
Or
Canadian Indigenous Legal Paraprofessional
Semester 1
1. Foundations of Canadian Law
2. Truth and Reconciliation - Indigenous Culture
3. The Indian Act
4. Indigenous Law
5. Liberal Studies – An indigenous perspective
Semester 2
6. Communications & Technology
7. Criminal Justice- Federal and Provincial Offences
8. Community & Restorative Justice
9. Court and Tribunal Sentencing Principles and Practice
10. Provincial Offences & Summary Conviction Advocacy
Semester 3
11. Crime Prevention through Community Development
12. Legal & Sentencing Report Writing
13. Sentencing Representation
14. Gladue
15. Parole Board Policy and Procedures – Indigenous applications
16. Practicum – Pre- sentencing counseling and post offence supervision
Semester 4
17. Paraprofessional Ethics Principles & Practices
18. Youth Justice & Youth pre-sentence and post sentence counseling
19. Post release counseling and supervision
20. Parole Board Practice
21. Practicum
[1] Richard Susskind, Daniel Susskind Oxford, The Future of the Professions, Oxford University Press. (2015)
[2] The Future of Legal Services: Putting Consumers First. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty, October, (2005) at P.7.
[4] Ibid 1 at P33.
[5] Andrew Sanders, Poor Thinking Poor Outcome? In The Futures of Legal Education and the Legal Profession. Ed. Hilary Sommerlad et al. Portland Oregon. Hart Publishing (2015).
[6] Id
[7] www.justice.gc.ca/ajs
[8] www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cp-pm/eval/rep-rap/11/ajs-sja/p2.html
[9] 2008 May Report of the Auditor General of Canada – Chapter 4- First Nations Child and Family Services Program Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Exhibit 4.1
[10] Legal Aid Ontario. The Development of Legal Aid Ontario’s Aboriginal Strategy. (June 20, 2008). At P11.
[11] Legal Aid Ontario Aboriginal Justice Strategy (2015)
[12] Richard Susskind, Daniel Susskind Oxford, The Future of the Professions, Oxford University Press. (2015)
[13] www.cilex.org.uk
[14] Ibid at P. 5.
[15] www.americanbar.org ? ... ? Task Force on the Future of Legal Educationwww.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba.../aba_legal_education.html
[16] Id
[17] https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/housing/rap.shtml
[18] www.cfcj-fcjc.org/action-committee
[19] Paula Littlewood, Stephen Crossland, Alternative Legal Service Providers: Filling the Justice Gap in Paul A. Haskins, Ed. The Relevant Lawyer. Chicago. American Bar Association. (2015)
[20] Calda.org/
[21] https://www.azcourts.gov/cld/Legal-Document-Preparers
[22] https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=3845
[23] Canadian Bar Association. CBA Legal Futures Initiative. Futures: Transforming The Delivery of Legal Services in Canada. August, 2014
[24] Id at P 19
[25] Id at P62
[26] Ibid 1 ( Analysis and perspective on the role of the paraprofessional as a dominant emergent service provider is one of the major topics discussed and analyzed in detail in the text).
[27] www.bcparalegalassociation.com/. See also: www.paralegals.org/
[28] Www.notaries.bc.ca/
[29] James A. Brundage, The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 2008. an
[30] N.P. Ready, Brook’s Notary (13th edition) Sweet Maxwell (2009).
[31] www.mortgagesbyliz.ca/Blog.aspx?ID=rgutFlrI97
[32] www.lawsociety.bc.ca/docs/home/blog/MOU-Notaries.pdf
[33] www.ontarioparalegalassociation.com/
[34] R v Lawrie & Pointts Ltd. - CanLII
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1987/.../1987canlii4173.html
[35] www.pointts.com/about-pointts/
[36] Disclosure. John G. Kelly, author of this section researched and wrote a Masters in Judicial Administration thesis on the POINNTS “Access to Justice” model and had access to POINNTS executive and client files.
[37] www.lsuc.on.ca/media/may1304_paralegal.pd
[38] www.iccrc-crcic.ca/
[39] IRCC Annual Report 2015
[40] Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, 2001 SCC 67, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113
[41] Ibid 18.
[42] flsc.ca/national-initiatives/national-mobility-of-the-legal-profession
[43] Report to the Attorney General of Ontario. Report of Appointee’s Five-Year Review of Paralegal Regulation in Ontario. David J. Morris (2012) at P15
[44] Id
[45] Competition Bureau of Canada public letter dated January 25th, 2007 to Paul Dray Chair of the Paralegal Standing Committee of Ontario
[46] Simon Chester, Canada The Road to Reform, Chapter 15 in The Relevant Lawyer, Reimagining the Future of the Legal Profession. Ed. Paul Haskins. Chicago. American Bar Association. (2015).
[47] Supra 6
[48] Supra 8.