The presentation given by Patrick Cormier at the Education seminar for federal court judges, organized by the National Judicial Institute on October 18th, 2013 in Ottawa, is available online: Judicial Information Security 201
You should hit “Start Prezi” then click the bottom-right icon to view in fullscreen
You may find the final report from the committee chaired by Justice Thomas Cromwell: ACCESS TO CIVIL & FAMILY JUSTICE: A Roadmap for Change
There is a serious access to justice problem in Canada. The civil and family justice system is too complex, too slow and too expensive. It is too often incapable of producing just outcomes that are proportional to the problems brought to it or reflective of the needs of the people it is meant to serve. While there are many dedicated people trying hard to make it work and there have been many reform efforts, the system continues to lack coherent leadership, institutional structures that can design and implement change, and appropriate coordination to ensure consistent and cost effective reform. Major change is needed.
Access reports from the committee chaired by Justice Thomas Cromwell:
Report of the Court Processes Simplification Working Group | French
Report of the Access to Legal Services Working Group | French
Report of the Prevention, Triage and Referral Working Group | French
Report of the Family Justice Working Group | French
One of the opening sessions of Legal IT 7.0, today in Montréal: Patrick Cormier, CCCT’s CEO, addresses electronic signatures.
A clear definition: « A signature is a permanent mark related to an object, a document or electronic data that is:
• associated with a specific person;
• unique to the person;
• proof of an implicit or explicit intention underlying the signature. »
Caution to jurists out there: The signature’s reliability and quality ≠ legal validity of the signature
So… what is an ideal signature? « A signature presenting high levels of reliability and convenience. Achievement of an ideal signature in the electronic world is not easy. With the present state of technology, and inverse relationship exists between convenience and reliability. »
How do we choose an electronic signature solution? The following steps are suggested.
For the complete presentation, be sure to visit the Legal IT 7.0 website (documents and PowerPoint presentations available soon).
Thank you all for attending in person or online; the second edition of the Canadian Forum on Court Technology, co-hosted by the Association of Canadian Court Administrators and the Canadian Centre for Court Technology, was a success! Read the closing address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York.
Canadian Court Technology Is ‘Abysmal’ – The Canadian Press, October 28, 2012
For those of you who have attended the Forum 2012 last October, you’ve had a glimpse of the drafted guidelines. We’re happy to announce the official publication of the Use of Electronic Communication Devices in Court Proceedings, prepared by the Social Media Intellaction Working Group.
“These Guidelines are founded on the “open courts” principle, which requires transparency and accountability in the judicial system to foster public confidence in the administration of justice.”
Additionally, you may be interested in a Canada-wide overview of the Policies on Live Text Based Communications. Furthermore, The Telegram’s article Twitter’s double-edged sword mentions addresses the topic at hand.
An announcement from Patrick Cormier, CEO of the CCCT-CCTJ
Every day, Canadian courts and tribunals help resolve thousands of cases under the rule of law in a civilized, fair, impartial and independent manner. Technology has held, for decades, the promise of increased effectiveness and better efficiency. Ah… The plain enjoyment of one’s day at work when the right information is at your fingertips! If the technology objectives are simple and the outcomes easy to imagine, then why is it so difficult to rejuvenate courts and tribunals with better technology?
We strive for justice on demand that is simple from a litigant’s point of view. For example, simple cases with minor implications from a social point of view should be accelerated by allowing remote appearances of all participants. The formality of physical paper should be dispensed with. Online resources for self-represented litigants should be sufficient to guide a litigant effectively through the administrative aspects of any proceedings. The list goes on!
We aim to promote the development of technology sophisticated courts that are a pleasure to work in for judges, judicial officers, court administrators, lawyers and other participants in court proceedings. Technology used at work should keep pace with social and technological trends, including the use of mobile devices and online connectivity. And yet court technology does not keep pace, for Canadian courts and tribunals, with a few exceptions.
This Fall in Montreal took place Forum 2012, the most important court technology conference in Canada, currently held every second year. During that week, I conducted several interviews with private sector executives. They all voiced the same frustration: it is very difficult to approach courts and tribunals, and even more so than approach governments. They often see “a black wall”, rooted in the independence of the Judiciary, effectively blocking them for making a pitch for their goods and services. Ah well… nothing new you might say… But hold on. Did you know that the frustration, although of a different nature, is equally shared on the other side of that wall?
Judges and court administrators experience the pleasure of sound and fun technology at home. An increasing number of them even bring their iPads at work (for example) after a learning period at home playing and experimenting with these devices. Quickly enough, they find themselves wanting to put them to work. Judicial work. And then they find themselves in a court in which Paper is King, E-Filing is an elusive mirage and court proceedings hopelessly appear to be antagonized against any technology evolution. These judges and court administrators want to leverage better technology. However, evolving technology in several courts and technology is a formidable task, as it requires the simultaneous consideration of many facets: legacy systems and technology, migration challenges, legislative and regulatory barriers, government procurement rules, technology obsolescence cycle… Not to mention, understanding fundamental technology trends, their manifestations and how to exploit them in a sustainable manner in a court context. How can these challenges be met without input from the implementation experts…. from the private sector?
Bridging the chasm defined: enable the public sector to convey a meaningful picture of its technology readiness, challenges and priorities, on one hand; and empower the private sector to meaningfully convey its services and products to courts and tribunals, on the other hand.
How can this chasm be ethically bridged, with due consideration and respect for the independence of the Judiciary and of courts and tribunals?
We at the Canadian Centre for Court Technology – Centre canadien de technologie judiciaire (CCCT-CCTJ) believe this can be achieved through the delivery of six programs:
Considering that public sector funding is insufficient for the CCCT to deliver on these six programs, the CCCT seeks to develop permanent funding options that encompass private sector revenue streams. It is in that spirit that the CCCT Board of Directors authorized the issuance of a Sponsorship Request for Proposal (RFP) published on MERX last Friday. In the period 2013-2014, the CCCT aims to develop its operations in a way that builds clear value both to public and private sector. Some highlights of upcoming developments:
2013 should be an exciting year for court technology in Canada!