Sentences with phrase «access laws actually»

But our ballot access laws actually TAKE AWAY voters» choices

Not exact matches

How the Liberals are navigating the two sides in the debate is laid out in more than 150 pages of documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the access to information law that outline how the issue is complicated by existing human rights decisions, the requirement to accommodate workers whose addictions constitute a disability, workers» privacy rights and actually proving impairment, particularly from cannabis.

Every single day Klein makes the choice to NOT protect reproductive rights for the women of New York, to NOT give working families access to great healthcare they can actually afford, and to NOT give our children desperately needed school funding, which by the way, they are owed by law.

A governor who enacts a charter law may find that no school board will actually authorize such schools or allow them access to empty buildings owned by the district.

It is actually in - law quarters attached to our home but with no interior access between dwellings, just its own privat...

We should be looking at how to sell a story about access to justice, judicial independence, or the Rule of Law in a way that does not just reaffirm lawyers» self image, but actually alters awareness and behaviour on a grander scale.

There has been little discussion in the jurisprudence about what the rule of law actually entails, but since the right of access to courts is founded upon it, the principle requires definition and understanding.

Ironically, this same protectionism is actually stifling law firms from innovating and growing as it restricts law firms» access to capital and multidisciplinary talent.

I suspect that the real heavy lifting in enhancing access to justice is a matter of procedural reform — specialized decision - making bodies with extremely simplified procedural rules for specific civil law issues (something that actually already exists in certain areas such as Landlord / Tenant, but could be further improved upon), wider permissions for over-the-counter motions, fewer unnecessary court appearances, fewer procedurally - mandated appearances (e.g., going from a Case Conference to a Settlement Conference to a Trial Management Conference, and possibly further, before you can get to a family law trial), and so on.

As the organizers noted, technology is «leveling the playing field on access to knowledge and subject domain expertise, much of what lawyers actually «do» has come under scrutiny» and so far, «the bar for innovation in law has been painfully low but the shift is happening.»

But if we actually care about the rule of law, and about whether individuals can access and enforce their legal rights, then we need to be more careful in our choice of words so as to create an inclusionary environment where the law can truly work for everyone.

That is why I say that the Law Society is the best entity to strike the best committee to come up with the best recommendations that would actually, not delusionally, best benefit the public by bringing down barriers to access to justice, which barriers are found, on any objective analysis, overwhelmingly on the litigation side of the equation.

Comparing the present matter to Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2014] 3 SCR 31, 2014 SCC 59 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal noted at para. 51 that, whereas the hearing fees in that case «actually bar access to the superior courts» by preventing ``... some individuals from having their private and public law disputes resolved by the courts», the «proper balance» is achieved by the legislature with respect to civil jury fees:

For example, rather than using websites merely to publicize lawyer profiles and contact information, possibly supplemented by an informational blog, lawyers can actually practice law online in a way that enhances consumer access.

My point here is that rather than start ethics reform by randomly introducing less qualified, for - profit law practitioners into the market as specious proof that something is actually being done to improve access to justice, let's tackle the challenges that can and will move the needle; such as, modernization of the court system, increasing legal aid, and modernizing lawyer ethics rules that will enable lawyers and law firms to innovate and modernize the business and practice of law.

And I also think as a legal industry unlike other industries where Artificial Intelligence is more of a threat, you look at transportation and I think there's going to be some real questions there as to what AI and its effects are, but in law, you have the majority of people, who need a lawyer not being able to afford it, and so I think there's this huge leading market and I actually think AI could end up allowing lawyers to do more work being more profitable as a law firm, and I think most importantly, helping further access to justice in that process.

Some of Stuart's friends have pointed out that I trimmed a year from his age (inadvertently) and got wrong just exactly when the Manning and Morrison boondoggle to South Africa actually took place — had I access to digital records of the Canadian Lawyer or Law Times, I would have got more facts right.

With numbers like that, we realized it was possible to learn even more from the experiment and so this year we teamed up with the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family (where JP Boyd is now executive director) to commission a multi-phase evaluation exploring not only what people think about the resource, but how this wikified approach to disseminating legal information actually impacts on outcomes and access to justice.

In spite of the lack of a comprehensive study in Canada to determine: (1) the full range of apps available; (2) what they purport to do; and, (3) whether they can actually improve access to justice, there is a substantial population of law society, commercial, academic, and independent, keen advocates of apps as being the way to the solution to the problem, including displacing some lawyers.

Notably, however, some of those procedural guarantees — such as access to merits review and to access Queensland discrimination laws — are removed in the provisions that are contained in the social security amendments in the NTER legislation and so it is not clear that the Queensland Commission that has been authorised actually complies.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that mere listers can take the mandatory courses for the sole purpose of obtaining valid recognition as a real estate practitioner but have no need to actually understand the nuances of representation or property law; bylaws; mortgages etc., or desire to keep abreast of those because they their sole purpose is to flog access to the MLS system without commitment to the customer.