Threatened
Continued From Page 1
tion of the Treasury Board.”
Provincial Attorney General
Shirley Bond said that, despite
tough economic times, the gov-
ernment is “committed to the
stability and integrity of our
court system.”
Bauman said, in theory, the
three branches of government —
judiciary, legislative and execu-
tive — are equal.
“But in practice,” he said,
“the judiciary is the weakest
branch because it depends
entirely on the other two
branches of government to pay
the salaries of judges and to
provide the critical infrastruc-
ture needed for an effective
superior court system.”
He said the B.C. attorney
general is obliged to provide for
the administration of the
Supreme Court under Section
10 of the Supreme Court Act,
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443 that says:
“The attorney general is respon-
sible for the provision, oper-
ation and maintenance of court
facilities, registries and admin-
istrative services.”
Bauman said that between
2008 and 2012-2013, the Court
Services budget will have been
reduced by 10 per cent.
“The cuts to the Court Servi-
ces’ budget for the Supreme
Court that are in the offing are
cuts to the bone. We have no fat
left in our infrastructure.”
Cuts have meant clerks are
unavailable for court func-
tioning, fewer registry staff are
available and sheriffs cannot
maintain order or protect wit-
nesses, he said.
The stability and integrity of our courts and
judicial system are being slowly eroded by a
lack of funding. We are not at the tipping point
yet, but we are steadily edging towards it.
“
Robert Bauman, British Columbia Supreme Court chief justice
Bauman
absence of a sheriff.”
The government soon added
36 sheriffs.
Bauman said court funding
“must be maintained at least at
the minimum service level
required to protect judicial
independence and give effect to
the rule of law.”
And, he said, judicial
independence is threatened
without proper support staff.
“The court must be able to
ensure that its orders are
enforced and its process is
respected; it must have the
families to move disputes to
mediation and out of court-
rooms,” and a streamlined traf-
fic violations system will move
disputes out of the courts.
“I’m very afraid the govern-
ment is abdicating its respon-
sibility to fund the justice sys-
tem as a deliberate choice. The
premier has been crystal clear
that justice is not a priority.”
He said people are becoming
victims of the system rather
than being helped by it. “When
people start to have no confi-
dence in the justice system, we
revert to a state where might is
right.”
Canadian Bar Association-
B.C. president Sharon Mat-
thews, who was at the speech,
said it was a “cri de coeur” for
the profession to engage the
public.
“It’s a system that is starved
of resources and when you
starve a system of resources, it
doesn’t perform the way it’s
supposed to.”
That, Matthews explained,
has led to the system being open
to criticism and allowed the gov-
ernment to justify funding cuts.
Matthews said B.C.’s government may begin to understand
the situation as a result of
Clark’s promise to fast-track the
cases of those charged in June’s
Stanley Cup riot.
“The courts don’t exist for
the government to prioritize
which goes first.”
She said the government
now has an interest in trying to
move cases quickly through a
system that can no longer move
cases quickly. n
We want to hear from you!
Email us at: comment@lawyersweekly.ca
Child comes first in parent moving case
CRISTIN SCHMITZ OTTAWA
The Ontario Court of Appeal
is reminding trial judges that
children should normally have
maximum contact with both parents, and that a parent’s reasons
for wanting to relocate with a
child may be considered “only in
exceptional cases.”
Berry v. Berry, decided November 14 by Associate Chief Justice Dennis O’Connor and Justices Russell Juriansz and David
Watt, is the latest word from
Ontario’s top court on the vexed
issue of parental mobility.
The panel reversed the trial
judge, who had permitted the
mother’s application to move to
Kingston, Ont. from Toronto
with her four-year-old son.
Noting that this would cut the
boy’s time with his father to
alternate weekends from half
time, Justice Juriansz held that
the lower court failed to
adequately consider the disrup-
tion to the child.
Where applicable, the parent’s reason for
moving, like all factors, should be considered
from a child-centred perspective.
“
Justices Russell Juriansz, Ontario Court of Appeal
each parent as is consistent with
the child’s best interests.”
Aaron Franks of Toronto’s
Epstein Cole, who along with
Michael Zalev represented the
appellant father, said the key
message “is maximum contact is
mandatory to consider, but not
The facts in Berry suggest
that a parent who shares custody
won’t be able to persuade a court
to let her move the child away
from the other parent by reason
that she lacks family support
and can’t function well in her
current location — unless she
can also demonstrate that the
move is “necessary in order for
[the applicant] to meet the
needs of the child.”
Justice Juriansz said Lisa
Berry’s wish to move to Kings-
ton with her son, who has ser-
ious medical issues, and live
with her sister was “understand-
able.” However “the evidence
did not establish that the move
was necessary in order for her
to meet the needs of the child.”
He stressed that “there was no
evidence in this case that she
would be anything but a good
mother to the child no matter
where she lived.”
While being with a happy par-
ent is good for children, “the legal
test focuses on maximizing con-
tact with both parents and mini-
mizing disruption to the child,”
he explained.
