Sentences with phrase «hearing fees»

And courts themselves have a responsibility to keep trials short, thus reducing the amount of hearing fees due.

This appeal dealt with a constitutional challenge to the rules regarding exemptions from court hearing fees.

[t] he right of the province to impose hearing fees is limited by constitutional constraints.

This, it seems to me, is the problem with hearing fees.

The fee for issuing claims such as discrimination and unfair dismissal was # 250 with a further hearing fee of # 950.

The plaintiff had sought to be relieved of hearing fees, or fees for the use of the courtroom.

A British Columbia Court of Appeal judge has ruled the «impoverished» should not be the only ones exempt from court hearing fees in civil cases and the exemption to pay should be broadened.

The provincial authority under s. 92 (14) to maintain the courts could not be used to impair the court in its ability to fulfill its proper role, which is what hearing fees did by imposing a financial deterrent to use of the courts.

This dynamic was at issue in Vilardell where the Attorney General of British Columbia defended court hearing fees on the view that going to court is a form of consumer choice in a «user pay» environment.

In order to make a claim, claimants would be required to pay an issue fee of either # 160 or # 250, which then went up to # 230 or # 950 to pay for hearing fees.

An amended statement of claim was filed asking for relief under the impoverishment rule and a declaration hearing fees infringed a right of access to justice, offending the rule of law and was inconsistent with the Constitution.

The Court of Appeal found that, were it not for the power of the courts to grant exemptions from paying hearing fees, the fees would be an «unconstitutional impediment to justice.»

When I commented on the oral arguments in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59, the B.C. hearing fees case, I argued that although there was a good deal of support among the various parties and interveners for the proposition that it was section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, that rendered (excessive) court fees unconstitutional, this argument was problematic.

He «take [s] exception to the majority striking down the British Columbia hearing fee scheme on a novel reading of s. 96 and the rule of law» (par.

The BC hearing fees regime, the Chief Justice holds, does not pass this test.

The income from hearing fees is potentially substantial.

We had hoped that the Court of Appeal would give greater consideration and weight to the reasoning in Pleau v. Nova Scotia, where the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia declared hearing fees unconstitutional because they put an escalating price on court time and are purposefully designed to hinder or impede access to the courts.

The Chief Justice rejects the distinction that the appellants and some interveners defended at oral argument between hearing fees and fees of other kinds (such as filing fees) which courts in every province levy.

Mr. Justice McEwan has declared hearing fees unconstitutional and in so doing found that the fees, which escalate to over $ 600 per day, are an impediment to the courts for all but those who are well to do,» said Mr McPhee.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that while the Province has the power to levy hearing fees, they can not do so in a way that deprives litigants of access to the superior courts.

[45]... when hearing fees deprive litigants of access to the superior courts, they infringe the basic right of citizens to bring their cases to court.

The Court of Appeal found hearing fees do pose an unconstitutional obstacle to the courts for many people, including the middle class, without adequate provision for those who are unable to afford them.

West Coast LEAF had argued hearing fees in family law cases have an unequal impact on women because they are less likely to have the resources to afford them than men.

«Importantly, the court recognizes that women in family law cases, aboriginal persons, those with disabilities, and recent immigrants are disproportionately impacted by the current hearing fee system,» said Kasari Govender, executive director and co-counsel for West Coast LEAF.

Because of women's unequal economic status, they are less likely to be able to afford hearing fees than men are.

Although the province can establish hearing fees under its power to administer justice under s. 92 (14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the exercise of that power must also comply with s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which constitutionally protects the core jurisdiction of the superior courts.

His position is an absolutist one — since hearing fees are not prohibited by the constitutional text, they are permissible, whatever their consequences.

The governments that defend B.C.'s hearing fees regime point to the exemption for the needy as its essential redeeming feature.

Raising appeal hearing fees to # 800 was an unequivocal attack on the rule of law, and on the principle that justice is for all, not only for the rich.»

(Indeed, the case that gave rise to the BC hearing fees challenge, Vilardell v. Dunham, 2012 BCSC 748, involved a self - represented defendant.

§ implement an overall fee of # 565 for either way cases deemed suitable for summary trial where the defendant elects Crown Court and the case does not proceed to trial, but with the fee split between litigation and advocacy; enhance the lower and higher standard fee in the magistrates» court; abolish the committal hearing fee;

It is important to note the fees in question were as existed under a version of the Supreme Court Rules that was repealed and replaced in 2009; hearing fees continue to exist (at least to the point of yesterday's ruling) but are reduced.

The time for payment of the lovable hearing fee on all three CPR tracks is being brought closer to trial but the system of refund of the whole or part of the fee on settlement or discontinuance is axed.

Alas, claimants on the small claims track whose hearing fee of between # 25 and # 335 inc may exceed the amount of the claim, lose out.

British Columbia is currently the only province that levies substantial hearing fees ($ 800 per day after the 10th day of hearings), and while the province's Rules of Civil Procedure already allow them to be waived for the «impoverished» or «indigent,» V did not strictly fall under these categories.

West Coast LEAF argued that hearing fees violate women's equality and security rights and the principles of fundamental justice, and should be struck down on that basis.

This case began as Vilardell v Dunham, a family law case that addressed the constitutionality of daily hearing fees.

Since the enlarged exemption applies to all court fees and not only hearing fees, we see this practical outcome as a significant step forward in access to justice for low - and middle - income litigants.

The constitutionality of hearing fees depended on an exemption which effectively removed that barrier to access.

First and foremost, our client was delighted to be finally granted relief from paying some $ 3,600 in accumulated hearing fees.

[w] hat makes hearing fees constitutionally suspect is in their potential to impede persons who can not afford them.