I’m a big sucker for the life hack lists you see all over the Internet, like 100 Life Hacks to Make Life Easier, or 50 Incredibly Useful Life Hacks You Won’t Believe You Didn’t Know. But if you are like me, you still haven’t used Doritos to start a fire, still can’t fold a fitted sheet, and your attempt to use a walnut to fix scratches on your furniture just means it looks like a squirrel had a snack on your scratched furniture.
Right before the December holidays, a Canadian judgment denying an application for pet custody, Henderson v Henderson, captured the attention of the national and international media (including People magazine and the Washington Post). The treatment of the issue in Henderson, like very many of the pet custody cases, was, at turns, somewhat humorous and derisive, implying that the parties were locked in legal battle because the pets were substitute children (“not unusual in such a situation” because the couple was childless). It is written in a conversational style that undoubtedly added to its media appeal (“Dogs are wonderful creatures…But after all is said and done, a dog is a dog.”).
In Henderson, the husband framed his application as an “interim exclusive possession order” for either one of two family dogs, named Willow and Kenya. Justice Danyliuk ruled that “for legal purposes, there can be no doubt: Dogs are property” and child custody principles cannot apply to them. Accordingly, the court was unwilling to make “what amounts to a custody order pertaining to dogs” and furthermore, “this sort of application should not even be put before the court.”
Those on the left are still in a state of shock and dismay following the Donald Trump as President of the United States on November 9, 2016. The late-night comedy shows lately have felt more like wakes than entertainment. Kate MacKinnon on Saturday Night Live (for the last time in her Hillary Clinton get-up) sang Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah, ending with a promise and a call to perseverance: “I’m not giving up and neither should you.” One strategy touted repeatedly by the media this week as part of “not giving up” is to resist the “normalization” of Trump and his administration.
In this context, Hua Hsu of the New Yorker this week suggested that “normalization” is “the ways in which dangerous things come to be viewed as just another part of everyday life…It’s on the late-night talk show, when the comedian giggles as he tousles Donald Trump’s hair, signalling that this madman can take a joke; it’s in the life-style magazine that works to humanize him and those around him.” The danger, he says, is that normalization “shapes our field of vision; it tells a story of the world and its possibilities.”
Lawyers are invested in access to justice. Many see pro bono work as part of their obligations as a member of the profession. Others build access to justice, such as providing unbundled legal services, into the day to day operations of their law firm.
But, should access to justice be built in as part of a lawyer’s ethical responsibilities and regulated by law societies?
The CBA’s Access to Justice Committee’s report, Equal Justice: Balancing the Scales, suggests that law societies could enhance access to justice in a number of ways. For instance:
Can we – should we – foster access to justice through lawyer regulation?
Join the CBA’s next Twitterchat, Can Regulation Advance Access to Justice?, as part of Access to Justice Week organized by TAG - The Action Group on Access to Justice. Hosted by Amy Salyzyn (@AmySalyzyn), a professor from the University of Ottawa, she is an expert in legal ethics, who is currently researching innovative ways to foster access to justice. How can law societies help strengthen the link between access to justice and lawyers’ ethical identity?
Tune into #cbaa2j #a2j2016 on Tuesday, October 18 at 12:00 p.m. ET to join the conversation and find out.
The title of the CBA’s June 27th National Constitution and Human Rights Law Conference, “Pivotal Cases of the Supreme Court of Canada: Reflecting on the Past and ‘Charter’ing the Future,” got me thinking about society’s fascination with predictions, in everything from elections to sporting events. It has even led to a complicated scientific theory involving prediction, called “chaos theory,” creeping into the popular lexicon (case in point: it is the title of an angsty 2008 dramedy starring Ryan Reynolds).
Chaos theory is used to attempt to demonstrate patterns (and hence enable predictability) in complex, dynamic systems where change is nonlinear (sometimes smooth and continuous, and sometimes in quick jumps).
You can see where I am going with this – law, and particularly constitutional law, could be the poster child for these kinds of systems.
Kerri A. Froc is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Carleton University, and a Trudeau and Vanier Scholar.