Supreme Court justice has initiated an unexpected hearing into whether provincially imposed fees for legal proceedings are constitutional after a plea from a woman who lost a custody case. The B. They were blamed earlier this year for the collapse of a lawsuit involving the family of victims in the Queen of the North ferry sinking. The judge was taken aback, mainly because he thought Victoria always demanded the fees up front.
In this instance they were being billed. It seems to me to be a matter of some general importance, however. He said he was alive to the issue and the import of these questionable tariffs, especially in light of a Nova Scotia case that found similar hearing fees that increased with the length of the trial to be unconstitutional. In that decision, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court said: "Reasonable fees for services initiating and continuing litigation are valid so long as they are not increased in number or amount as to effectively 'impede, impair or hinder' access to the courts.
Lawyers for the attorney-general, the law society, the trial lawyers and the bar association met with McEwan this week and agreed there were important constitutional issues at play.
These are two ordinary people, both good, capable parents of regular means. The couple met in in Nottingham, England, and came to Canada in late when he landed a teaching job in the statistics department at the University of British Columbia.
Both are now in their early 40s. Since coming to Vancouver, however, their relationship spiralled downhill until the couple was not talking directly to each other, though they continued to live together. They communicate primarily through e-mail. Both presented their arguments before McEwan without lawyers because the cost of legal representation for a day trial was exorbitant.
