Proposals - Court Procedure
These proposals let family law lawyers discuss and vote on what changes they think should be made to the law or court procedures. The results can be viewed and shared with legislators and the Courts. The proposals put forth are written by member lawyers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or its administrators. You can view more proposals or make a proposal yourself.
|Ken Proudman of BARR LLP (Alberta)||0 Comments|
One of the justifications for Docket is that each side often fails to communicate prior to court. In many US States they compel settlement meetings, at the outset and/or before each court application. There would be additional rules to address family violence.
94% in favour out of 31 votes
Morning Chambers was always a place where you could get procedural direction, but it was also a place where substantive but basic matters could be dealt with too. Now we have Docket, and Docket Bypass, and I just don't see the point.
52% in favour out of 31 votes
|Ken Proudman of BARR LLP (Alberta)||3 Comments|
It used to be that filing deadlines ran backwards from the special chambers hearing, rather than running from the triggering date when special chambers is booked. Back then, we were able to push clients to negotiate by pointing to all of the money that they'd have to spend on us if they didn't reach a resolution. Now litigants tend to be so focused on meeting deadlines and drafting that there seems to be less negotiation during the first couple of months, and then once there's some breathing room, they've spent so much on lawyers that they seem to be more likely to want to see the decision (a sunk costs fallacy).
96% in favour out of 26 votes