Sentences with phrase «have access to justice because»

A lot of people do not have access to justice because they can not afford it.

Not exact matches

Then the king said to the wise men who understood the times (for this was the king's manner toward all who knew law and justice, those closest to him being Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who had access to the king's presence, and who ranked highest in the kingdom): «What shall we do to Queen Vashti, according to law, because she did not obey the command of King Ahasuerus brought to her by the eunuchs?»

The Press summary of the judgment explains that «The Fees Order is unlawful under both domestic and EU law because it has the effect of preventing access to justice.»

«Juxtaposing the corruption that has recently been exposed to our topic of discussion today, brings so much to deliberate on because it is universally recognized that increased access to justice depends on public confidence in the justice system.

Because of the presence it commands within the justice system overall, legal aid has the potential to play a crucial role in expanding access to justice in Canada.

U of O has, probably more so than other Ontario law schools, a social justice / access to justice bent and I have been critical of the CBA's recent Reaching Equal Justice Report mostly because it is unrealistic and provides little hope for justice / access to justice bent and I have been critical of the CBA's recent Reaching Equal Justice Report mostly because it is unrealistic and provides little hope for justice bent and I have been critical of the CBA's recent Reaching Equal Justice Report mostly because it is unrealistic and provides little hope for Justice Report mostly because it is unrealistic and provides little hope for change.

Because two of the three legal aid sources are predominately supported by lawyers, decision makers should consider the potential impact on access to justice if lawyers were to dramatically reduce their time / financial support of pro bono services and legal aid programs, which is likely as competition increases and the social contract under which lawyers and society have operated Vis a Vis the state sponsored monopoly continues to unwind.

The answer is that this Government has no interest at all in maintaining access to justice because, as the defendant, it sees this as the problem itself.

Many people are hesitant to pursue justice because they are worried about the cost of an attorney, but at Morgan & Morgan, we believe all people should have access to high - quality legal representation.

It may limit access to justice because of the costs and delays associated with its processing, but, as any security expert will tell you, the best way to guarantee that information is protected is to not have it.

Based on the above, the OPC view is that since search engines already engage in the indexing activity and are covered under PIPEDA, they should have the obligation to de-index and takedown «because the problems that need addressing arise from their own actions; and because it promotes access to justice.»

Jordan Furlong: Yeah, it is and folks, if you haven't seen it, look it up because what is basically established is, we talk about the access to justice gap and unmet legal needs, but there is a huge category of simply unrecognized, unrealized legal needs.

Brown said Clarke «used the argument that CFAs would protect access to justice as legal aid is withdrawn for clinical negligence cases, but failed to explain that this access to justice will no longer be as widely available because of the reforms he is proposing to no win no fee agreements».

But, where there isn't one, and there are many areas where there isn't, we have no way to ensure access to justice because it's entirely up to the funder to decide whether they feel like funding that particular area.

Laura, one of the things that I've been trying to figure out is how a legal technician can afford to be cheaper than a lawyer, because we hear that a lot, that legal technicians will help close the access to justice gap.

The steady increase in lawyer numbers nationwide has not solved the access to justice problem, mainly because the underlying economics of law school and law practice have not changed.

We talked about an access to justice gap, but what people are usually talking about is an access to lawyers gap because there is actually no gap in the number of people who have their legal problems solved.

What this is all about though, or at least it should be all about, is that many people do not have access to justice, in large part because they do not have access to the legal services they need.

Perhaps because I often find myself waiting for hours on end to be treated in a walk - in clinic or a hospital emergency room for yet another sports injury, and because I have had little success finding and keeping a family doctor, I've often thought of the frustrating parallels between accessing our justice system and accessing our health care system as an average citizen.

Your analogy to fees being based on good character investigations and demands on the system is weak because such a system would not necessarily contribute to the access to justice crisis.

The only reason we are even contemplating it is because we have «to do something» about access to justice.

Furthermore, some systems exclude costs awards altogether, because costs have an impact on access - to - justice.

In fact, every federal politician should be informed about and have a position on Access to Justice issues in 2015, not least because so many of their constituents are and will be affected.

MLSA continually develops innovative programming to attempt meeting the need, but because of lack of resources and staff, at the end of the day many low - income people with meritorious legal claims have no meaningful access to justice.

Because ABSs have not been in existence all that long and because for much of that time it has been difficult to get approval to operate them, there is today little empirical evidence regarding changes to access to jBecause ABSs have not been in existence all that long and because for much of that time it has been difficult to get approval to operate them, there is today little empirical evidence regarding changes to access to jbecause for much of that time it has been difficult to get approval to operate them, there is today little empirical evidence regarding changes to access to justice.

Even with constraints of the current fiscal realities, or perhaps because of them, legal aid systems have the infrastructure, the expertise and the resources to contribute significantly to expanding access to justice in Canada.

«In the discussion below, I shall identify most of them by initials, because I do not wish to shame them, and because having regard to the entrepreneurial access to justice model that governs class proceedings, it is understandable, but sad, that all the lawyers declined the Sanatorium School RFD brief.»

ABS has a limited potential for increasing access to justice for those with low incomes because as profit - seekers in the market for legal services, ABS entities don't have an economic incentive to do so — there's little ROI for creating innovations or new legal services for that sector.

After all, the WSBA's own Civil Legal Needs Study determined that the # 1 reason poor people had no or limited access to justice was because they did not know how to get access to justice or they did not know they had a problem that could be addressed by the justice system.

Ultimately, this is not a truly fixable problem without a government - sponsored entitlement program — meaning, there is no market solution for fixing access to justice for the poor because the poor have no money and markets run on consumer spending.

Reading about AI on a daily basis is frustrating when there are so many unmet needs of lawyers and we haven't even scratched the surface of helping people who don't have basic access to justice and who can't get representation because of exorbitant legal fees that amount to a person's paycheck.

This has the potential to create a tectonic shift in the access to justice movement because it matches underutilized resources from both side, lawyers that are eager for work and to help, with funds that are currently sitting on the sidelines.

In some constitutional systems, that would be that: it would follow ineluctably that administrative orders incompatible with the right of access to justice would be unlawful — because the constitution would withhold the authority to legislate in breach of such a fundamental right.

Yet one would think that, unlike some of the more abstract problems (say that of public debt and the appropriate level of government spending) which might not affect anyone in particular (important though they are important for us collectively) and so attract few people's attention, the problems of access to justice not only impact real people every single day, but may indeed affect anyone at some point in one's life, whether personal (say because of a divorce) or business.

I can't help but wonder how many innocent persons have been wrongfully convicted because they had no recourse to proper access to justice or because they could only afford substandard legal representation or no no legal representation at all.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the Order would be «ultra vires if there is a real risk that persons will effectively be prevented from having access to justice» because «section 42 of the 2007 Act contains no words authorising the prevention of access to the relevant tribunals».

in some constitutional orders... administrative orders incompatible with the right of access to justice would be unlawful — because the constitution would withhold the authority to legislate in breach of such a fundamental right.

During the hearing, Unison claimed that the introduction of fees had limited employee's access to justice, but the Court went further saying that it had been indirectly discriminatory to women because they launched a higher proportion of discrimination cases.

In outlining its reasons, the Court stated that «the class action is designed to facilitate authors» access to justice while preserving judicial resources and, where appropriate, to effectively sanction acts that would otherwise remain protected from judicial intervention because of the low level of injury when assessed on an individual basis.

However, perhaps a prosecution of a law society under Criminal Code s. 122 for its failure to perform its duties in regard to access to justice by at least trying to solve the unaffordable legal services problem would fail because, even if an official knows that a decision does affect his / her personal interests, there is no offence, «if the decision is made honestly and in a genuine belief that it was a proper exercise of his jurisdiction.

In one final burst of inspiration, I'll leave off with a quote from the baroness: «We have to be the strongest proponents of access to justice because as lawyers, we know how important it is to have a voice and an advocate.»

or being left sitting in a discovery room booked weeks in advance while the apposing counsel is with the disappeared files in another jurisdiction having the case dismissed because you are not there, then please tell me how having a paralegal there with you, waiting to help cross examine the witnesses and examine the evidence, is going to help you access justice?

Certainly, there have been all too many, usually young fathers, come to me in states of depression and desperation because they had been denied access or given very limited access to their child because of a divorce and a bad decision made by the courts and our justice system.

Justice Olney and all the members of the Federal Court found that the common law could not recognise an exclusive native title right to control access because this would conflict with the public right of navigation and Australia's international obligation to permit innocent passage of ships through Australia's territorial seas.