Not exact matches
In our view, the principle that a
litigant should be able to see and
hear all the evidence which is seen and
heard by the
court determining his case is so fundamental, so embedded in the common law, that, in the absence of parliamentary authority, no judge should override it,
at any rate in relation to an ordinary civil claim, unless (perhaps) all parties to the claim agree otherwise.
«Imagine a
court hearing where a witness enters the courtroom and one of the
litigants in the case approaches the witness and says «This doesn't affect your testimony
at all, but here's $ 800,000 for you if this case happens to go my way.»
Alan Macek, an intellectual property lawyer
at Dimock Stratton LLP, points out that the federal
courts also
hear immigration and citizenship cases where the tariff - based system offers predictable costs for individual
litigants and improves access to justice.
Indeed, even the respondent, as well as some of the other provinces, conceded that
at some hypothetical level,
hearing fees would be so high as to prevent superior
courts from having any
litigants before them, thus infringing this core jurisdiction, although they argued that the fee regime
at issue was not problematic in this way.