James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Articling student cannot represent an accused on an impaired-over 80 trial
R. v. Mejia 2010 ONCJ 179 holds that R. v. Moran [2008] O. J. 2564 the maximum punishment for the offence increased to 18 months and articling students are limited to offences with punishment not exceeding 6 months.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Justice Bourque's obiter brings up some interesting questions on the rights of non-lawyers to appear before courts. His Honour seems quite attune to the financial realities of many clients that appear before his court. What I believe he is saying is that many accused persons cannot afford to hire a lawyer but also will not qualify for legal aid. That leaves them with the option of hiring a non-lawyer, such as a student or paralegal, or representing themselves. From the court's perspective, it would be much preferable to have some form of representation than to conduct an unrepresented trial.
The problem, though, is that LSUC must draw a line somewhere. If a student can appear on these "super-summary" matters, then what about paralegals? How about someone with some legal knowledge that has not been to law school or became licenced as a paralegal? If the agent is capable then they would still be preferable to someone representing themselves.
The next thing I wonder is whether the same principles can be applied to other areas of practice such as appearances before tribunals and the performance of solicitor services.
His Honour was, however, willing to draw the line at articling students as evidenced by his statement that the student is nearing the end of the process to become a lawyer and is being supervised by a lawyer.
Post a Comment