5.11.09 - EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY for COURT REPORTERS
By CRAO
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY in Greater Ottawa area: COURT REPORTER
- Part time or upon availability
- Compensation to be negotiated between court reporter and employer.

For further details and employer contact information, click on EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY.

2.11.09 - New MAG Proposal for Court Reporters
By CRAO
On November 2, 2009, MAG released a Memorandum and Questions/Answers Sheet respecting MAG's new proposal for Court Reporters. Click on COURT REPORTING REVIEW for more information (You will need to scroll down to find Court Reporting Review). You will need to be a member to access this page.

30.6.09 - 2009 CRAO CONVENTION & NEWSLETTER
By CRAO
If you have not yet received the June 2009 issue of For The RECORD, the CRAO Newsletter, check out this sneak preview of "What's Inside", download the complete version by clicking on NEWSLETTER, or contact us at info@crao.ca. Visit us at 2009 CRAO CONVENTION. The CRAO Conventions have been the venue where Court Reporters make new friends and renew past friendships. See pages 6 & 7 of the June 2009 Newsletter to reminisce about the 2008 Convention. Want to carpool to convention? Click on Carpool to 2009 Convention or contact Linda.Fudge@crao.ca. Click on EDIT MY PROFILE to update your contact information and tick off "Yes! Send me the newsletter." at the bottom of your profile page. Forgot your username? Contact us at admin@crao.ca Forgot your password? Click on "Forgot your password?" at the top right-hand corner of the red box titled 'MEMBERS LOGIN". **************************************************************

"For The RECORD..."

15.5.09 - COURT REPORTING SERVICES - KEEPING YOU UP TO DATE- AS OF MAY 2009
By
Hi everyone and welcome to the first release of "Court Reporting Services - Keeping You Up To Date". The team at Court Reporting Services (CRS) is pleased to be assuming the role of operational support for court reporting and transcript production and we will be communicating with you regularly via email to keep you up to date on what is happening with respect to operational support.



Effective immediately, we will be responsible for the creation and updating of relevant manuals, and for addressing operational and policy issues relating to court reporting and transcript production. We will act as the first point of contact for all questions that cannot be answered through the existing manuals or directives. To enable us to respond quickly to all questions, please forward your questions to your supervisor who will be in touch with us through our e-mail box. We are committed to getting back to you, through your supervisor, in a timely way to ensure you have an answer to all operational questions.

Corporate Court Reporting Table
Court Reporting Services will be establishing a corporate court reporting table. Similar to the criminal, civil and family technical tables, a supervisor will be asked to act as a regional representative. This group of regional representatives will come together to discuss existing practices, answer questions and make recommendations to establish operational consistency across the province. Each region has been asked to forward the name of their representative and once this information is received, the corporate court reporting table will be established.

Courtroom Procedures Manual and Transcripts Manual
A committee under the leadership of Gayle Laws, has been reviewing both the Courtroom Procedures Manual (as it relates to court reporting) and the Transcripts Manual with a representative from each region in the province. The good work of this committee has now been forwarded to our team for review and completion. You will see changes shortly to both of these manuals. These updates will come to you as a CSD email update, in a "chapter by chapter" format, with an outline of all changes made. Stay tuned!

The existing manuals are presently located on the CSD intranet website under the tab "Resource Centre" under "Manuals". If you do not have access to the CSD intranet website, your first step is to speak to your supervisor who will arrange for you to be given the required access. These manuals are instrumental in providing you with direction on operational procedures, policy and legislation as it relates to court reporting and transcript production.

When digital recording devices (DRD) began their rollout in various sites across the province, a number of questions arose with respect to what "notes" should be made to support the recordings. These "notes" are referred to as annotations and they are saved and attached to the digital record to assist the reporter when providing a playback and/or in transcript production. To support this request, CRS is working to develop annotation standards that will provide guidance to reporters for both analogue and digital recordings - we are almost there…you can expect a document outlining annotation standards in the very near future!

Directive or Legislative Change
In our updates to you, we will review recent changes to directives, policy or legislation that may relate to court reporting or transcript production. April 1, 2009 you received a directive with respect to public access to court files covered by Criminal Code publication bans - including a cc s. 486.4 or 486.5 publication ban. This directive replaces CSD direction 2007/20 and 2008/06. This new directive advises that as long as there is no other prohibition ban on access, all adult court files and documents except exhibits, that have a Criminal Code publication ban by the court are publicly accessible.

As this relates to transcript production, most transcripts with a Criminal Code publication ban including a cc s. 486.4 or 486.5 are now accessible. However, there are some exceptions as outlined in section 15.3 of the Access to Court Records document.

The Criminal Code provides for exclusion of the public (in camera proceedings) in a number of circumstances, including*:

· s. 486(1) - Exclusion of the public in certain cases
s. 486.5(6) - Judge may hold private hearing to determine whether a publication ban under s. 486.4 and 486.5 should be made
s. 276.1(3) and s. 276.2(1) - Evidence of complainant’s sexual activity
s. 462.34 (5) - Hearing to determine reasonableness of expenses in relation to an application of review of special warrants and restraint orders
s. 672.5(6) - Exclusion of public from all or part of disposition hearing re: Mental Disorder
s. 672.5(10) and s. 672.51(6) - Exclusion of accused and/or certain persons from (Mental Disorder) disposition hearing.
* This list may not be exhaustive
If the public (or specific persons) is excluded under one of these sections or on any other basis where the Court orders that the public be excluded, the court records relating to that part of the proceedings in which the public was excluded should not be made accessible to anyone other than those parties that were exempted from the order (i.e. those participating in the hearing). All other persons requesting access must obtain a court order permitting access.

If the public is excluded from a portion of the proceedings, no access shall be given to any record made in relation to that portion of the proceedings in which the public was excluded. This would include, for example, transcripts, application materials, affidavits, factums for proceedings in relation to s. 276 (Evidence of Complainant’s Sexual Activity) and s.278 proceedings.

It is important that you ensure transcripts with publication bans contain a warning on the cover and on the first page of each volume of the transcript. The Transcripts Manual will be updated with examples to reflect this change in policy. If you have any questions with respect to this directive, please discuss with your supervisor.

For your reference, a link is attached to the 2009/06 directive.
http://intra.csd.mag.gov.on.ca/English/page-1-9999-1_sc106773.html
Looking forward to working with you,
The Court Reporting Services Team

19.11.08 - Fairness to Court Reporters
By
November 13, 2008
Hon. Chris Bentley BY FAX
Attorney General of Ontario
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
Toronto, M5G 2K1
Dear Mr. Bentley:
Re: Fairness for court reporters
I’m writing to inform you of the union’s strongest possible objection to your ministry’s plans for court reporters.
As you know, Grievance Settlement Board Vice-Chair Randi Abramsky found in July 2006 that “the preparation and certification of transcripts was barganing unit work of the court reporters.”
On Oct. 17, your ministry disclosed its planned model for court reporters to the union.
Your ministry’s proposals to split the work of court reporters into two jobs would take away their
work and halve their income. Your ministry proposes to create what are essentially typing pools in eight locations around the province, staffed by shift-workers at an OAD8 classification.
In our view, your ministry’s plans for court reporters amount to nothing more than a deskilling
and devaluing of important work. Our union is, frankly, deeply offended by them.
We believe this radical redesign of court reporting could also have very serious and negative
repercussions on preserving the integrity of the record.
The union put forward proposals including the creation of new Court Reporter and Voice-Writer
positions that recognize the skill and responsibility intrinsic to taking the record and producing accurate transcripts.
Your ministry was not prepared to discuss our proposals and we were not prepared to agree to your harmful and disrespectful plans for court reporters.
As a result, we have no choice but to return to Vice-Chair Abramsky and ask her for assistance.
At our meeting in May, you spoke of your commitment to improving labour relations in your
ministry. Your ministry’s planned “business model” for court reporters is a giant step backwards
for labour relations.
I am asking to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss how we can rectify this situation.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Warren (Smokey) Thomas
President
/mp
cc: MERC Team
Linda Fudge
Helen Haggith
Brian Gould,

10.11.08 - Court Reporters' Negotiations - OPSEU Report to Members
By

Court Reporters Negotiations with MAG hit brick wall; union walks away from table
November 10, 2008

More than two years after Vice-chair Randi Abramsky of the Grievance Settlement Board handed down her decision that “the preparation and certification of transcripts was bargaining unit work of the court reporters,” the employer finally disclosed its planned model to the union’s court reporting team on Oct. 17, 2008. After attempting to negotiate improvements to the model, we gave up on discussions with the Ministry and are returning to Vice-chair Abramsky for assistance.

The Ministry’s new “business model” takes half the work and the income away from the CR1’s and CR2’s and sets up regional typing pools!

The Ministry wants to split the Court Reporter work into two separate jobs – one position taking the record, the second creating the transcript. These positions would be at the same or a lower classification; the greatest impact would be to the current Court Reporter 2 positions.

The Ministry insists there will be 200 “new” jobs. We have argued there will not be that many new jobs, since the Ministry’s model takes the transcript production away from the Court Reporters and gives it to someone else.

Abramsky stated that transcript production is rightly the work of the court reporter. We feel strongly that the court reporter classification has long been underclassified and that the employer continues to undervalue the skills and responsibility of that work.

Here is what the Ministry is proposing:

Transcript production will NO LONGER be the work of the Court Reporters and will NOT be done in the local courthouses.

Eight regional transcript centres will produce transcripts. Locations are not confirmed but Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto, Newmarket, London, Scarborough and Milton are strong possibilities. Access to that work will be limited to only those who live within that geographic area.

A technology shift with digital recording devices (DRD) and voice activated software in most courts.

The employer will keep the transcript fees. The Ministry wants to keep the current system in place until the new system is implemented in twelve to eighteen months.

There are three positions in the new model:

Electronic Court Monitor

All current CR1’s would be assigned directly to this position with vacant positions filled by competition.

The primary duties would be operating digital recording device in court.

Voice-Writer

These would be full-time positions at the CR3 level, which would be filled by restricted competition.

The primary duties would be taking the record using voice recognition software, editing the rough digital file and forwarding that edited file to the regional transcript centre for final transcript production.

Transeditor

These will be full-time positions at the OAD8 level, which will be filled by restricted competition.

These positions will be working at the regional transcription centres.

This is essentially a typing pool scenario. The sole duty would be producing transcripts, and shift work is anticipated.

The Ministry said they will not direct assign the current CR2’s or CR3’s to any position. These employees would have to compete for the Voice-Writer and Transeditor positions.

All FPT Court Services Specialists will continue as CSS and will provide Electronic Court Monitor duties.

The Ministry anticipates that it would take 12 to 18 months to complete implementation.

We expected that the Ministry would have followed Abramsky’s direction to make transcription work the work of the court reporters. Instead they want to take it away.

What We Tabled
Here is what we proposed:

Two new positions:

Court Reporter

This position would be classified at the Translator 1 level

This would be a full time position, with FPT and RPT options.

The duties would include taking the record using a digital recording device, as well as production of the transcript

Voice-Writer

This position would be classified at the Translator 2 level as a full-time position.

The duties would include taking the record using voice recognition software, rough editing of the file, as well as final transcript production.

Office space would be provided in each courthouse, or in reasonable proximity, to facilitate transcript work.

A retroactive lump sum for each member affected by the Hunt decision. This money is in compensation for retroactive pay and pension contributions since the Hunt decision was rendered.

We also proposed a tariff increase in the interim. The Ministry finally agreed that they would recommend to their principals that the current tariff schedule be “reviewed”, but frankly this is so vague that it’s meaningless. As well, the employer would not entertain any retro payment proposal.

There are serious implications on members’ livelihood. Not only do Court Reporters face losing about half of their income, the wage rate for the transcriptionists at the regional centres is three dollars an hour less than what the CR2’s currently make! The Ministry’s model does little to recognize the importance of court reporting in the judicial system.

The Ministry also told us that their model would also ensure quality control in the production of the transcripts. However, since the Ministry’s model separates taking the record and producing the transcript between two different people in different locations, this means that if the Employer has quality control problems now, it will be nothing compared to the quality control problems they will have in the future!

We pointed out that the employer has better options. The Hunt decision states that transcript work is the bargaining unit work of court reporters.

We could not agree to their proposal. It is for that reason that the team decided to leave the table and will return to Vice-Chair Abramsky.

The parties had agreed to “status quo” for court reporting while the Ministry reviewed court reporting in the province; that agreement expired on June 1, 2008 and there is currently no agreement between the Union and the Employer with regard to the production of transcripts in light of Abramsky's decision.

Your court reporting team:

Julie Weber
Brenda Clapp
Helen Haggith
Linda Fudge
Paul Myers
Ruth Hamilton (staff)
Judith Marion (staff)

31.8.08 - JOIN TODAY! BECOME A MEMBER!
By
CLICK HERE FOR A PRINTABLE MEMBERSHIP FORM MEMBERSHIP FORM

29.1.08 - Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley is looking for input
By
Attorney General seeks civil justice input


Attorney General Chris Bentley
Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley is looking for input from legal associations, lawyers and judges on how to make the civil justice system faster and less expensive. Bentley is holding focussed discussions in communities across Ontario following the release of the Civil Justice Reform Project: Summary of Findings and Recommendations, a commissioned report from the Honourable Coulter Osborne.

The Attorney General began his tour on January 15 in Toronto. He will visit a number of communities across the province over the next two months.

In November 2007, the government released Osborne’s 81 recommendations touching on 18 areas of procedural and substantive law, including small claims, trial management, appeals, technology, civility, unrepresented litigants and proportionality.

To develop his recommendations, Osborne carried out province-wide consultations, researched reforms in other jurisdictions, struck three advisory committees and reviewed over 100 submissions.

The summary report is available on the ministry’s website in both French and English at www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca.

Public comment on the Civil Justice Reform Project: Summary of Findings and Recommendations can be sent to attorneygeneral@ontario.ca.

Reference:

News Release, " Attorney General Seeks Civil Justice Input" online: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General (Jan. 15, 2008).

8.11.07 - FPT Contract improvements reached with MAG
By
FPT Contract improvements reached with MAG
FLEX TIME • www.opseu.org • October 17, 2007 1
FLEX
TIME
An OPSEU update for
Flexible Part-time
Court Workers
October 17, 2007
Lengthy negotiations at the table have finally
paid off for Flexible Part Time (FPTs) workers in
the provincial court system.
OPSEU, the Ministry of the Attorney General
and the Ministry of Government Services have
reached agreement in negotiating substantial
improvements to the language in the Collective
Agreement that affects court workers.
Using the results of last winter’s FPT survey as
the cornerstone of our negotiating position,
members of the Joint Dispute Resolution
Committee (JDRC) were able to reach
agreement with the employer.
Significant and positive changes were achieved.
Did we get everything that we wanted? No. But
we think there are some real improvements
here that will see more hours of employment –
and more pay in your pockets.
What did we get? The Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) regarding App. 32 /
Revitalized Work Force will be available for
everyone to review shortly, but in the
meantime these are the highlights:
Change in the Annual Hours Categories
Section 2, App. 32 is changed from five (5)
categories to two (2).
These two categories are :
o Category 1: a minimum of 1000 hours
per annum
o Category 2: a minimum of 1500 hours
per annum
FPTs currently in the 720 category will be
placed in the 1000 category.
FPTs currently in the 1200 and 1400 categories
will be able to choose their placement in either
the 1000 or 1500 category.
Pay for hours worked
Along with your regular bi-weekly pay based on
the minimum weekly hours of your category,
you’ll also receive payment, at straight time, for
hours worked up to 36¼ per week on your
bi-weekly pay as opposed to waiting for the
year end. These hours will count towards your
category.
Overtime
All authorized hours worked in excess of 36 ¼
hours per week will be paid at the time and a
half (1½) rate within two months of the pay
period in which it was worked. You’ll be paid
for the hours you work, as you work them.
These hours will count towards your category.
Year End reconciliation
The 10% overage language still exists, so once
you’ve completed your annual hours category
requirement, additional hours worked will
continue to be paid at straight time when you
work them. At the end of the year your pay will
be reconciled by calculating the number of
hours you worked in excess of 110 per cent of
your annual hours category, less any hours
worked in excess of 36 ¼ per week for which
overtime had already been paid. The remaining
hours will then be further compensated at 50
per cent of your straight time rate.
This means that for every hour that you worked
in excess of 110 per cent of your category
hours you will have been paid at the overtime
rate – straight time when you worked them and
a further payment of half-time at the end of the
year.
Holidays pay
We have clarified the language in Art. 73.1.1 –
Holiday Payment, and have added Art. 47.2 –
Holidays, that takes into account those Holidays
that fall on a weekend.
FLEX TIME • www.opseu.org • October 17, 2007 2
Benefit election and re-election
FPTs will now have the opportunity to opt in or
opt out of the benefits provided for in Art. 64
through Art. 78 inclusive. In so doing, FPT’s
will be accorded the 14% Pay in Lieu, and have
the same benefits as unclassified workers. FPTs
who opt out of benefits may re-elect to have
these benefits:
o three years after they had opted out
o or upon appointment to a different annual
hours category.
There is no change in premium cost sharing.
Court Service Specialist
The new language will place Court Service
Specialists at the highest step in the highest
classification that they work as opposed to the
blended wage that they were receiving.
Court office work
The employer can now assign court office work
to in-court workers to insure their minimum
hours category will be met. This practice will
not have an adverse effect on full time
classified court office staff.
Unclassified workers
After fulsome discussion regarding the use of
unclassified staff in-court, the employer has
renewed their intent to live up to the language
in Appendix 33 of the Collective Agreement
with respect to the reduction of the unclassified
workforce. Further, the employer acknowledges
their intent is not to increase the usage of
unclassified staff or to reduce the work of
classified workers.
Recovery of deficit hours
The employer will make every reasonable effort
to schedule FPTs appropriately. If there is a
shortfall in hours, the deficit hours will be
recovered in the following year from any hours
worked above the employee’s weekly threshold.
Reviews
the Parties agree to waive the one-year reviews
previously negotiated as part of App. 32 and
the subsequent MOS, date Dec. 20, 2005.
Outstanding Disputes and Grievances
The parties agree that all disputes, grievances,
etc, contained in App. A of the MOA are fully
resolved and withdrawn. Disputes and
grievances not listed will continue through the
normal grievance process (Art 22).
This has been a long process but we hope the
wait was worthwhile. There are several people
who need to be recognized for their hard work
and determination, notably JDRC members Julie
Webber and Paul Myers, whose tireless
commitment to the members is evident in the
outcome of the MOA.
Also, we would like to recognize local contacts
in all the courts across the province. It’s a
tough job being the person in the middle, but
you folks were invaluable in sharing information
with the JDRC and the membership. Thank
you!
Ratification
This deal is still tentative – it will be put to the
FPTs to ratify in the near future. If this
agreement is accepted by FPTs most changes
will become effective January 1, 2008.
More information will be made available in the
near future, including the date of the
ratification vote. Check out the FPT webpage
on the OPSEU website at:
http://www.opseu.org/ops/merc/
attorneygeneralappendix25.htm
for information regarding the Agreement and
ratification as it becomes available.
FlexTime is authorized for distribution by
Warren (Smokey) Thomas
President

22.8.07 - Government Implements Recommendations Of Panel On Justice And The Media
By
May 24, 2007

The McGuinty government is taking action on all 17 recommendations made by the Panel on Justice and the Media, in consultation with the judiciary and others, where appropriate. Much progress has been made, and the government is committed to doing all it can to improve mutual understanding and interaction between the justice and media sectors.

Recommendation #1: Access to Court Records

The staff directive covering all of the ministry's policies and procedures governing access to court files, documents and exhibits will be posted on the ministry's website by the end of June to ensure the media and public understand the current direction to court staff

The ministry is mindful of the need to regularly review and update its policies, together with the judiciary, to ensure that appropriate access to court records is provided

The ministry is taking steps to ensure the consistent application of these policies and procedures across the province through regular and ongoing meetings, communications and training of more than 3,800 staff who work in Ontario's courthouses

A new court support college certificate program will include training on justice-media issues to raise awareness among future court workers.

Recommendation #2: Use of Tape Recorders

The restriction on the use of tape recorders in court is codified in the Courts of Justice Act and would require a legislative amendment to remove the restriction. The McGuinty government will consult with the judiciary and is committed to introducing such an amendment

The ministry is conducting a policy review and analysis, and developing options in consultation with the Chief Justices for potential amendments to the Courts of Justice Act to permit the unobtrusive use of tape recorders by lawyers, parties representing themselves and journalists at a court hearing without prior approval of the judge
In the interim, the ministry is consulting with the judiciary on new signage for all courthouses across Ontario that would more accurately reflect the 1989 Howland Practice Direction, which can permit such use without prior approval of the presiding judge.

Recommendation #3: Cameras in the Courtroom

In January 2007, the Attorney General announced an agreement with Chief Justice Roy McMurtry to pilot cameras in the Court of Appeal
A launch is anticipated by summer

The pilot will include real-time webstreaming on the Court of Appeal's website with 90-day archiving to maximize public access. As well, same-day DVD copies of proceedings will be provided to the media twice a day to accommodate newscast schedules

The DVDs may also be used by journalism schools, law schools and other organizations for training and educational purposes.

Recommendation #4: Media Facilities at the Courthouse

A media contact person has been appointed in every Ontario courthouse to provide information and facilitate access to documents and courtrooms. Any media questions or issues that cannot be resolved by counter staff should be raised with these media contacts
Some courthouses have dedicated media workspace. Where there is no dedicated room, the ministry works with local media to accommodate requests on an as-needed basis
For large-scale proceedings, the ministry has created a media information package template that can be tailored for each case. This package includes details on reserved seating, parking, workspace, how to access case documents and transcripts, as well as scheduling, party and counsel information.

Recommendation #5: Media Lock-ups

The Court of Appeal and the ministry are currently discussing the potential for media lock-ups. This recommendation is within the Court's jurisdiction
The Court has begun outreach to the media on this issue.

Recommendation #6: Affordable Access to Court Records

The ministry has halved photocopy fees from $2 to $1 in the Court of Appeal, the Superior Court of Justice and provincially-administered Ontario Court of Justice courts

The ministry has slashed by more than two-thirds the civil file inspection fee in the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice to $10 from $32. Currently, there is no file inspection fee in criminal and family court matters

Copies of judicial interim release papers are provided to accused persons free of charge upon the accused's release

The ministry is reviewing its policy with respect to charging photocopy fees for criminal informations and indictments to accused persons.

Recommendation #7: Continuing Professional Education

The ministry is working with the Radio-Television News Directors' Association (Dave Trafford of CFRB and Scott Metcalfe of 680 News), the Advocates' Society, and Legal Aid Ontario to develop and facilitate learning opportunities for professionals and professional organizations.

Recommendation #8: Post-Secondary Professional Education

The ministry has begun approaching law and journalism schools on how best to encourage and facilitate inclusion of justice-media issues in their curricula

We will consult our justice-media education working group for advice as this work unfolds
In addition, Ontario's first court support college certificate program will include training on justice-media issues to raise awareness among future court workers.

Recommendation #9: Public Education

The Ontario Justice Education Network, supported by the ministry, is developing new learning modules on the justice-media relationship for use in high schools across the province.

Recommendation #10: Notification of Publication Bans

The ministry is conducting a cost and technology analysis and will be consulting with the Chief Justices and other jurisdictions to determine how best to proceed.

Recommendation #11: Electronic Access to Court Records

The ministry website now links to weekly Court of Appeal docket information and to judgments of the Court of Appeal, the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice

Research is underway to identify legal, policy and resource issues relating to on-line docket information

In the meantime, the ministry is developing a pilot program to provide electronic docket information in selected courthouses.

Recommendation #12: Online Media Guide

The ministry has developed a "media resources" section on its website that forms the base of a guidebook. This section will host additional materials as they are developed and links as they are identified.

Recommendation #13: Public Justice-Media Website

The "media resources" section of the ministry website was created within days of the release of the Panel's report. It contains information on many of the elements listed in this recommendation, including the roles of all participants in the justice system, the structure of the justice system, hyperlinks to docket information and judgments, and other online justice-media information.

Recommendation #14: Justice-Media Liaison Committee

The Attorney General has established this committee pursuant to the Panel's recommendations. The membership includes:
Sue Sgambati, veteran crime journalist from Court TV Canada
Dianne Wood, justice and courts reporter for the Kitchener-Waterloo Record
The Honourable Justice Russell Juriansz of the Ontario Court of Appeal
The Honourable Justice James Carnwath of the Superior Court of Justice
The Honourable Justice Joseph A. De Filippis of the Ontario Court of Justice
Chief Paul Hamelin of the Midland Police Service, a former president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police
Hilary Linton, a Toronto lawyer and mediator, representing the Ontario Bar Association
Thomas G. Conway, a civil and commercial litigation lawyer in Ottawa, representing the County and District Law Presidents' Association
Ralph Steinberg, a Toronto criminal defence lawyer, representing the Criminal Lawyers' Association
Brian Rogers, a Toronto-based media lawyer
Elizabeth Bucci, counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General's Courts Services Division, who will serve as committee chair
Michal Fairburn, counsel in the ministry's Criminal Law Division
Ellie Sadinsky, director of the ministry's Communications Branch
The Committee met for the first time on May 10, 2007.

Recommendation #15: Press Conference/Public Commentary

The 1998 document, "Protocol Regarding Public Statements In Criminal Proceedings" has been referred to the Justice-Media Liaison Committee for review as recommended.

Recommendation #16: Sub Judice Contempt Rule
Information about the sub judice rule—part of the law relating to contempt of court—is posted on the ministry website in the "media resources" section.

Recommendation #17: Shield Law
The ministry is conducting a legal and policy analysis of the issues involved in shield laws.


- 30 -

Contacts:

Brendan Crawley
Ministry of the Attorney General
Communications Branch
416-326-2210

24.5.07 - Record-editing judge scolded
By


Oversight body issues warning after jurist alters court transcript

May 24, 2007 04:30 AM
Robyn Doolittle
Staff Reporter

A repentant Justice Marvin Zuker acknowledged he committed judicial misconduct when he altered court transcripts in 2005, after learning they were to be used in an appeal case.

As a result, the well-respected family law judge was let off with only a warning yesterday by the Ontario Judicial Council.

The panel could have recommended Zuker's removal, but said his spotless 28-year record, coupled with his apology and emotional stress since the scandal broke, justifies the lesser punishment.

Panel judge Robert Blair said media coverage of the hearing and ongoing attempts by the complainant to have criminal charges laid have taken "a significant toll on Justice Zuker."

Blair also noted Zuker didn't try to hide his corrections, as the original transcript with his handwritten edits is still available.

But disbarred lawyer Harry Kopyto, who made the complaint, called the council's ruling "absolutely outrageous" given the offence.

The controversy began July 29, 2005, after Zuker refused to allow Kopyto to represent his client in family court.

The judge cited Kopyto's reputation for being overly adversarial. It was comments to that effect that Zuker contentiously removed from the transcript, after Kopyto requested a copy in order to file an appeal for his client, Robin Mayer.

Council highlighted 31 transcript edits, although most were for spelling, grammar, punctuation and redundancies — all of which are acceptable corrections. Zuker maintains he deleted the other comments fearing Kopyto would be embarrassed by the remarks should the documents be made public.

It was "an error in judgment and I regret it," Zuker told the hearing.

Kopyto, who was not at the hearing, said yesterday there seems to be a double standard for judges who get in trouble.

"This guy gets the least punishment for what must be one of the worst things a judge can do," Kopyto said. "You and I would be in jail if we changed a court transcript."

Philip Epstein, Zuker's lawyer, said the blunder was a "slip from grace" in an otherwise distinguished career.

As well, the public nature of the hearing has been difficult enough.

After the hearing, Epstein lunged at a Toronto Star photographer who was attempting to take the judge's photo.

"Leave him alone! He's been through enough. Go Marvin," Epstein repeatedly yelled, clutching the camera strap, while Zuker sprinted through an underground walkway.

The tussle continued for several minutes, until the photographer threatened legal action and Epstein put the camera down.

It was a controversial ending to a controversial case.

But Kopyto says he has no intention of stopping.

The renegade legal agent says he and his client intend to sue Zuker, and plan to continue their campaign to have the judge charged with obstruction of justice.

Kopyto is a controversial figure in the Toronto legal community.

In the 1990s, he was disbarred for billing irregularities, but he has continued to act as a paralegal.

Today, cases in which he's involved, including one in which he's suing Toronto police after a justice of the peace kicked him out of a courtroom for dressing too colourfully, have earned him a reputation for being difficult.

1.5.07 - CHEATING COURT STAFF - LETTER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL - FPT PETITION -
By
April 30, 2007

KLEES: McGuinty Government

Cheating Court Staff

( NEWMARKET ) Oak Ridges MPP, Frank Klees stood at the entrance of the Newmarket Co urthouse today, supported by dozens of court staff, who according to Klees, are being abused by the McGuinty government.

Klees called the media conference to make public the conditions under which court staff are being forced to work which, according to Klees, "Would be prosecuted if a private sector employer attempted to treat employees this way.”

The issue is centred on an agreement entered into between the McGuinty government and OPSEU, the union representing the employees under the “Flexible Part-Time” model under the collective agreement negotiated in the Spring of 2005.

"While the intent of that agreement was to provide some stability to the part time staff, the result was the opposite. Hundreds of employees are facing hardship because of the unintended consequences of this agreement," said Klees.

"For months, these employees have pleaded to have this agreement restructured, and they've been ignored. Many are single mothers, who incur employment-related expenses, such as childcare and travel expenses, every time they get called in to work, but don't get paid for those hours. The result is financial hardship and stress that is making it impossible for some to cope," said Klees.

Following a meeting with staff two weeks ago, Klees has been focusing attention on the issue in hopes of getting the Attorney General to act.

Klees raised the issue in the legislature, drafted a petition which was circulated to the more than 1400 court staff affected across the province, and delivered a letter to the Attorney General and the Premier last week calling on the government to immediately stop the practice of withholding pay to the affected staff.

According to Klees, more that $115,000.00 is owed to Newmarket Court staff alone since January, and more than $1 million is being withheld province-wide.

"This is an issue that has been allowed to drag on far too long," said Klees. "While the government and the union have been talking about this, people's lives are falling apart. These conditions are unconscionable and must be addressed immediately," said Klees.

LETTER TO HON. MICHAEL BRYANT

26 April 2007


The Hon. Michael Bryant

Attorney General Of Ontario

McMurtry-Scott Building

720 Bay Street

11th Floor

Toronto, ON M5G 2K1



Dear Minister,

Re: Attorney General’s court support staff, Flexible Part-Time Model

You will be aware of the 1,400 members of your court support staff who are working under the “Flexible Part-Time” model under a collective agreement between your Ministry, Management Board of Cabinet and OPSEU that was negotiated in the Spring of 2005.

Under the terms of this agreement, many of your court support staff are working as much as 20 hours and more per week for which they will not be paid until months later. Many of these employees are single mothers with fixed living expenses who incur employment-related expenses such as child care and travel costs for the hours they work but for which they are not being paid.

As a result, many of your employees are finding it impossible to make ends meet, notwithstanding they have earned the money to pay those expenses. The problem is that their money is being withheld by the government under the FPT agreement. To further complicate matters, the make-up pay these employees eventually receive may be lost to taxes by as much as 50% due to the taxation year into which that payment may fall.

Many of these FPT staff are also informing me that the terms of the above agreement and their practical implications were not fully disclosed to them at the time the agreement was proposed for ratification. Many are now left with no choice but to either resign from these impossible working conditions and in many cases are being forced onto the welfare roles by the very government for which they are working hundreds of extra hours for which they are not being paid in a timely manner!

Minister, these employees are calling on you to intervene to ensure that fairness and justice with respect to their working lives are restored to them. They are asking you to take whatever steps are necessary to alter the flawed provisions of the FPT agreement as set out in Appendix 32 and ensure they receive the fair and equitable treatment, and timely pay, they need and deserve as employees of your Ministry and of the Ontario Government.

On their behalf, Minister, I ask you to respond to their legitimate request. Please inform me concerning the steps you plan to take in this respect to ensure that fairness, equity and justice take precedence over this flawed agreement.

Thank you for the immediate and restorative steps I know you will want to take to address this important matter.

Yours sincerely,
Frank Klees, MPP

Oak Ridges

CC Premier Dalton McGuinty
CC The Hon. Gerry Phillips
CC John Tory, MPP

Leader of the Official Opposition

HANSARD

APRIL 30, 2007

PETITION

Court Support Staff

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I present a petition that has been signed by Attorney General employees at the Newmarket courthouse and representing some 1,400 staff across the province. It reads as follows:

“To the Parliament of Ontario;

“Whereas 1,400 members of the Attorney General’s court support staff who are working under the flexible, part-time FPT model, otherwise referred to as appendix 32 under a collective agreement between Management Board of Cabinet, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union negotiated in the spring of 2005, are working hundreds of hours per week in the service of the Attorney General for which they are not getting paid; and

“Whereas under the FPT agreement many court support staff are working as many as 20 hours or more per week for which payment is being withheld and will not be paid until months later; and

“Whereas when the makeup pay does eventually get paid, up to 50% may be lost to taxes because of the taxation year into which the payment may fall; and

“Whereas many of the Attorney General’s court support staff who are being forced to work under these conditions are single mothers with fixed living expenses, who incur employment-related expenses such as child care and travel costs for those hours that they are required to work but for which they are not getting paid; and

“Whereas in many cases these expenses are impossible to pay without the offsetting income which is being withheld by the Attorney General under the FPT agreement; and

“Whereas many of the Attorney General’s court support staff have been left no other choice but to resign from these impossible working conditions and, in many cases, are being forced onto the welfare rolls by the very government for which they are providing hundreds of hours of work for which they are not being paid in a timely manner; and

“Whereas the FPT agreement which is causing such hardship for employees of the Attorney General was negotiated by and entered into between the Ministry of the Attorney General, Management Board of Cabinet and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union causing such hardship for employees of the Attorney General was negotiated by and entered into between the Ministry of the Attorney General, Management Board of Cabinet and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union; and

“Whereas the employees to whom this agreement applies insist that the terms of the agreement and their practical implications were not fully disclosed to them at the time the agreement was proposed for ratification; and

“Whereas these employees affected by this agreement have repeatedly appealed to OPSEU, the Attorney General and the Premier to point out the unfairness of being forced to work hundreds of hours without being paid for that work and the hardship this practice is causing in the lives of many employees; and

“Whereas repeated appeals to the Attorney General and to the Premier that they step in to ensure fair treatment of Attorney General employees are being ignored;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call upon the Premier, the Attorney General and the Chair of Management Board to take whatever steps are necessary to change the offensive provisions of the FPT agreement as set out in appendix 32 and ensure that the Attorney General’s court support staff receive fair treatment as employees of the government and that among other unfair provisions of the agreement, the practice of withholding pay for hours worked cease immediately.”

Frank Klees Statement in the Legislature

April 30, 2007

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On April 26, I raised the issue of the more than 1,400 staff employed by the Attorney General in courtrooms across the province who have been working under impossible conditions since the implementation of the terms of the flexible part-time agreement. The Attorney General and the Premier have been ignoring the pleas of these employees for months, and their union was not able to advance a solution.

Responses that employees agreed to the terms is an abdication of responsibility and don’t do anything to resolve what for many staff are financial hardship and personal stress, not because of lack of employment but because the Attorney General isn’t paying these people for the work they are doing and for which payment is being withheld. At the Newmarket court that translates into an average of $4,000 per employee since January 1. Province-wide, the government is withholding more than $1 million from these employees.

This morning I was joined at the Newmarket courthouse by many of these victims of this unfair agreement. The unintended consequences of that agreement are causing serious harm to hard-working employees. I made public this embarrassing situation, released the letter I delivered to the Attorney General and the Premier last week in which I called on them to act immediately to resolve this matter, and I committed to once again raise this issue in the Ho use today. So, on behalf of the 1,400 staff province-wide, I call on the Attorney General once again to resolve this issue without delay.

© 2005 Frank Klees, M.P.P.
Posted with permission.

18.4.07 - Increased Legal Aid Funding To Provide More Services To Vulnerable Ontarians
By
McGuinty Government Improves Access to Justice
Increased Legal Aid Funding To Provide More Services To Vulnerable Ontarians

TORONTO — The McGuinty government is proposing to improve access to justice for vulnerable people by increasing funding for Legal Aid Ontario by $51 million, as announced in the recent provincial budget, Attorney General Michael Bryant announced today.

"We are strengthening Legal Aid Ontario now and for the future," said Bryant. "We are working to ensure that Legal Aid Ontario remains the strongest and most dynamic legal aid system in the country."

The new funding would enhance access to legal services, helping the most vulnerable Ontarians, including victims of domestic violence. These people might otherwise have to go through complex proceedings involving child support, custody and access cases without a lawyer. As well as supporting access to justice, this funding would address the impact of guns and gang cases and increase the legal aid tariff rate for lawyers.

"This is a great day for access to justice in Ontario; in particular this new investment demonstrates the Attorney General's powerful leadership and commitment to access to justice. He is to be commended," said Janet Leiper, Chair of the Legal Aid Ontario Board of Directors. "We are particularly pleased that the Attorney General has spoken directly to the needs of vulnerable families across Ontario and the legal practitioners who make these services available."

Legal Aid Ontario is an arm's length agency of government. The Province is Legal Aid Ontario's largest funder. The new funding would be awarded over three years, including $15 million in 2007–08. The McGuinty government has increased funding to Legal Aid Ontario every year since it took office, something no other government has done in 13 years.

"We are very, very pleased with this budget initiative," said James Morton, President of the Ontario Bar Association. "This will be enough to allow more people to get legal aid assistance and speed up the system."

"With this additional funding for Legal Aid Ontario, the government has assured that more low-income Ontarians will have proper representation in our legal system," said Louise Botham, President of the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

"This announcement is most significant in that it marks the beginning of a new chapter in increasing access to justice for Ontario's most vulnerable," said Paul Kowalyshyn, Chair of the County and District Law Presidents' Association. "The Ontario government is ensuring that those persons in Ontario who require legal aid services the most will now have a much-improved opportunity to receive them."

Increasing funding to Legal Aid Ontario is only one way the new budget works to strengthen Ontario's justice system. Other initiatives designed to offer aid to victims of crime and increase access to justice include:

Investing an additional $8 million over three years in Ontario's human rights system Investing $49 million over three years to expedite the process for compensating victims of violent crime by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and establish new programs to provide services to victims in the immediate aftermath of violent crime, while the current compensation system is being reviewed Passing the Access to Justice Act, which regulates paralegals, to modernize the justice system Funding for 30 additional justices of the peace, in addition to the 74 justices of the peace appointed since October 2003, to help ensure that Ontario courts have adequate resources and improve access to justice. The Attorney General has also appointed 65 judges to the Ontario Court of Justice since taking office.

Legal Aid Ontario Legal Aid Ontario is an arm's length agency that administers Ontario's legal aid system. Its mandate is to promote access to justice across Ontario by providing high-quality legal aid services to low-income individuals in a cost-effective and efficient manner. With an annual budget of more than $300 million, Legal Aid Ontario helps more than one million people each year through certificate, duty counsel and clinic programs. Since its inception in 1999, Legal Aid Ontario has become a vital partner of the justice system in Ontario.

The Development of Legal Aid in Ontario
Pre-1967: There was no publicly funded legal aid system. Lawyers provided limited legal aid without charge.

1967: The Ontario Legal Aid Plan was established. It was financed by the Ontario government and managed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

1996–97: John D. McCamus, a former dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, chaired an independent, comprehensive review of the legal aid system, delivering the report "Blueprint for Publicly Funded Legal Services". It was the first comprehensive review of Ontario's legal aid system in its 30-year history.

1998: The Legal Aid Services Act was passed.

1999: Legal Aid Ontario was established.

2004: Janet Leiper was appointed Chair of Legal Aid Ontario.

2007: The government retained Professor McCamus to update his historic report on legal aid and to investigate ways to review the rates paid to lawyers doing legal aid work. Professor McCamus has now begun background research on developments since his 1997 report. He will work collaboratively with Legal Aid Ontario and will soon set up a process for consultations to solicit the views of stakeholders.

Funding
The government of Ontario is Legal Aid Ontario's largest funder. In the 2007 budget, the Ontario government announced $51 million in new funding for Legal Aid Ontario over three years, including $15 million in 2007–08.

14.2.07 - SUMMARY POINTS OF ONTARIO COURT REPORTING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
By
HELD JANUARY 30, 2007
OSGOODE HALL, ROOM 110, 3:00 p.m. with Court Reporting Review Members

The following is a point-form summary of input and suggestions tabled by all parties at the meeting. If you have any questions or concerns you may e-mail tammy.archer@crao.ca

Brian Garrah - Project Lead, Ministry of Attorney General
Leslie MacLeod - Chair of the Executive Advisory Committee
Marianne Krascic - Policy Analyst


Participants in Attendance:

Fred Sharp - CSRAO President and Director for Centre for Verbatim Studies (to be opened in Toronto)
Kim Neeson - CSRAO Past President and Firm Owner
Clare Humphreys - CSRAO member, Court Reporter at 361 University
Anna Edelhofer - CSRAO member, Court Reporter, 361 University
Lisa Barrett, CSRAO council member, firm owner
Ruth McIver, Vice-President, CRAO, freelance court reporter
Linda Fudge, Past President CRAO, Court Reporter at Brampton Court
Janice Zufelt, Court/Interpreter Scheduler, Whitby Court House
Jennifer, Court Monitor, 361 University
Lisa Cumber, former Vice-President of CRAO
Fatima Concaiceo, Secretary of CRAO, Court Reporter at Newmarket Court House
Kimberley Stewart, Owner of Canadian Centre for Verbatim Studies

- Ontario should be more regulated with regard to provision of transcript and integrity of the record and build standards with current associations
- suggestion that professional development, continuing education and certification be handled by a professional association (CRAO and CSRAO)
- only one way to be a court reporter - to listen to every word, making a decision on how clear it is on the record, whether it needs clarifying in your notes
- pros and cons to each method of court reporting, costs, reliability, but really a matter of becoming well-educated and MAG, Law Society, agencies and court reporting associations should be very much involved in setting those standards
- Ensure there is a court reporter in the courtroom to take the record that certifies the transcript of the proceedings
- understand that as far as accuracy of the court record it is important to have a skilled court reporter, education, mentoring
- The importance of when signing your name that you the reporter are responsible for the transcript, not the proofreader, scopist or typist
- court reporting is a profession and should be recognized as this by the government, not a just "job", but a profession!
- Implement a mentorship program for newly trained reporters
- seeing attrition in shorthand stenotypists
- problem with finding court reporters to mentor is there is a shortage and with tight timelines to produce transcript there is no time to mentor people from a school unless we get more reporters into the system
- need to act fast as
- competitive job market so remuneration should be competitive and this would decrease turn-over of reporters moving on to captioning jobs, private firms and also using the position as a stepping stone into another position within the Ministry
- remuneration based on skill-level
- Flexible Part Time (FPT) is a financial disaster, can’t afford to work that way
- transcript rate increase long overdue and also a need for rates to be addressed for real-time/rough draft, overnight, 2-3 days, 4-5 days as well as regular turn-around time
- pre-authorization of transcript orders prior to trial in order to schedule effectively a reporter who can output the transcript to meet demand and if not, maybe schedule more than one reporter to ensure the demand is met
- difficulty in attracting new skilled trained reporters due to lack of schools
- demand for captioning, CART services for deaf and hard of hearing will only increase and higher demand for these court reporting services will deplete MAG employees and agencies
- only one school in Alberta, Canada and George Brown has on-line course in realtime writing with only one successful graduate in the last five years with others in the program who have done well going right into captioning
- US and Senate have invested millions in the future training of court reporting and 60 million has been invested in education alone because on-line courses are not working with a high drop out rate
- no physical space for logbook storage required as time stamped logged annotated notes are associated with an audio file and stored digitally
- recommendation that annotations be extensive in short form so that information retrieval is easy
- recommendation that because a computer would be installed with digital that there then would be a computer in every courtroom and that the government could install and provide a court reporting software package so that any court reporter using any method, digital recording, voice-recognition or stenotypist could access on one system - would cut down on set up times for equipment - voice writers could log their voice files on to the system, stenotypists could log their steno files

24.1.07 - ASSESSMENT OF COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPT PRODUCTION IN ONTARIO
By
The Ministry of Attorney General has recently established a Court Reporting Review, to be completed by the Court Services Division of the Ministry. The overall mandate of the Review is to examine viable options and make final recommendations for a new model of court recording and transcript production in the Courts of Ontario. An Executive Advisory Committee (EAC) with representation from the Ministry and all three levels of Ontario's courts will provide leadership for this important initiative. A copy of the Terms of Reference for the review has been disclosed to the Court Reporters' Association of Ontario in response to being included on the key stakeholders list. With the help of the EAC, the key goals of the review have been identified as follows:

The Court Reporting Review will provide recommendations toward the development of a court recording and transcript production model that promotes:

- the verbatim record is accurately recorded and produced
- Timely production of an affordable transcript
- The use of technology that advances these two goals, and can be smoothly implemented in the many court locations across the province
-The safe and secure storage and retrieval of the court record

As an important stage of the Review, the Court Reporters' Association of Ontario has been invited to provide input into the Court Reporting Review as part of a broader consultation process. The feedback received by all stakeholders will be reviewed by the Project Team and the EAC. A list of stakeholder groups have been provided to the CRAO.

Consultations in January and early February are being conducted. Our first meeting/consultation exercise will be on January 30th in Toronto and five representatives from the CRAO have been given permission by the Assistant Attorney General to participate - Tammy Archer, Lisa Cumber, Fatima Conceicao, Ruth McIver and Janice Zufelt. Materials to facilitate discussion will be sent to us in advance of the meeting and in addition an e-mail address will be available for stakeholder groups to direct additional written input or suggestions.

The Court Services Division states that they look forward to our participation in this important court initiative and that by better understanding the views of a broad range of stakeholders, they can more effectively improve the existing model of court reporting and transcript production to better serve the administration of justice in Ontario.

Key Stakeholders List includes ONE representative from the following:

Court of Appeal, Superior Court, Ontario Court, Legal Aid Ontario, Ontario Crown Attorneys' Association, Association of Law Officers of the Crown, The Advocates Society, Ontario Bar Association, County & District Law Presidents' Association, Criminal Lawyers Association, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, Toronto Trial Lawyers Association, Law Society of Upper Canada, Court Reporters Association of Ontario, OPSEU, Private Reporting Firm, ONE court manager from each of West, Toronto and North regions, Municipal Court Managers Association, Paralegals, Media, Educational Institution - George Brown College.

Scope of the study will include:

- a province-wide assessment of existing court reporting methods, including relating staffing models, recruitment and training associated with each method
- a review of the court reporting and transcription methods and models currently being utilized by other jurisdictions
-a review of the literature in judicial administration on court reporting and transcription production, includng relevant case law (i.e., the Hanneman decision in Ontario).
- proposed options for taking the court record and transcript production, both from a technological and resourcing perspective. Outline of relative merits of each option and identification of related costs.
- Assessment to include a consideration of how the recommended model(s) may differ based on the following factors: type of proceedings, family, criminal, civil, small claims et cetera, seriousness/complexity of case, level of court, self-represented litigants, current production volume of transcripts, overview of staff training options, both internally and externally and development of an implementation plan based on a phased approach.

A dedictated project team reporting through the Corporate Planning Branch in the Court Services Division will be established to conduct consultations, complete research, analysis, evaluation of options, and prepare recommendations for the Executive Advisory Committee' consideration. The project team consists of one project lead, two senior policy analysts and a project assistant.

To ensure a successful outcome, and in particular the acceptance by a variety of justice sector participants of any recommendations for change, an Executive Advisory Commiittee has been assembled to guide the work of the project team. The committee will meet four to six times throughout the duration of the review and includes the following representation:

- Chair - an external consultant with significant expertise in the area of court administration and within the Ontario Public Service
- Judiciary - one representative from each of the Court of Appeal, Superior and Ontario Courts of Justice
- Five representatives from the Ministry
- Expert in the field of Judicial Administration - one external consultant with significant expertise in the area of judicial administration, with an emphasis on court reporting or in-court support.

Duration of the project should be no more than 12 months, commencing September 2006 and ending August 2007. Our association became aware of this assessment in late December after Phase 1 had been completed which was from September '06 to November '06 for project plan development and data collection and research. Phase 2 is from December '06 to February '07 and is for analysis and development of options. Phase 3 is from March '07 to June '07 for consultation on options and to develop recommendations. Final phase, Phase 4 is from July '07 to August '07 to develop the implementation plan.

MEMBERS WISHING TO PROVIDE INPUT OR SUGGESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE COURT REPORTING REVIEW THAT YOU WISH TO BE CONSIDERED AND/OR REVIEWED CAN E-MAIL US. WE WILL FROM TIME TO TIME PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON OUR MEETINGS BUT IF YOU HAVE OPINIONS TO VOICE PLEASE USE THE FORUMS AS AN APPROPRIATE AREA TO DO SO ON THIS SITE. TAMMY ARCHER IS OUR REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS LIST. E-MAIL US AT admin@crao.ca TO HAVE YOUR SUGGESTIONS OR INPUT CONSIDERED.

18.1.07 - McGuinty Government Plans Cameras in Court Pilot Project
By
Attorney General To Usher In A New Era In Access To Justice


TORONTO — The McGuinty government and Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry are implementing a pilot project to put cameras in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Attorney General Michael Bryant announced today.

"Through this initiative, we will be bringing the public directly into our courtrooms via cameras in the court," said Bryant. "In doing so, we will be opening a new window to provide Ontarians with an unprecedented view of our justice system."

The pilot project is in response to a recommendation made by the Ontario Panel on Justice and the Media, which was established by Bryant to promote mutual understanding between the media and the justice system. While cameras are generally prohibited under the Courts of Justice Act, they are permissible for educational or instructional purposes, with approval from the presiding judge and consent from the parties to the proceeding.

An implementation team of Ministry of the Attorney General staff has been struck. The team will work in consultation with the judiciary to determine specific details about how the project will work, including when the cameras will be up and running.

"I'd like to thank the Justice and Media Panel, the judiciary, and particularly Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, for supporting this groundbreaking initiative," said Bryant. "Moving forward, we will continue to work with the judiciary to shine new light on the justice system and usher in a new era in access to justice."

Bryant made today's announcement at the annual Opening of the Courts ceremony, where he and the Chief Justices of the Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario gathered to detail past successes and outline priorities for the coming year.

In his speech, Bryant also highlighted a number of recent government accomplishments, including:

The investment of close to $1 billion over the past three years to construct new courthouses and improve the facilities of justice.
The introduction of the Access to Justice Act, 2006, which will reform the justice of the peace system and regulate paralegals. The Act was passed by the Ontario legislature on October 19, 2006.
Adopting a unique, multifaceted approach to fighting organized crime called Organized Justice.
The introduction of the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006, which will improve and strengthen the promotion, advancement and enforcement of human rights in Ontario. The Act was passed on December 5, 2006.
A transcript of the Attorney General's speech will soon be available at http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca.

6.12.06 - ST CATHERINES - COURT WORKERS LAMENT FPT
By
Printed from www.stcatharinesstandard.ca web site Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - © 2006 St. Catharines Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court workers lament pay cuts

TONY RICCIUTO

Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 01:00

Local News - Clerks and reporters who work at courthouses in St. Catharines, Welland and Fort Erie say they are having difficulty paying their bills since their paycheques were slashed.

The workers, members of Local 212 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, include court reporters, clerks, registrars, monitors, interpreters and court support officers.

Many say they have been devastated under a new union-negotiated contract, instituted Sept. 26 and in place until at least Dec. 31, 2008.

While the contract improved benefits, it also streamed employees into five different categories.

Each category contains a minimum and maximum number of weekly hours a staffer can be paid for, ranging annually from 720 to 1,500 hours. Because of that, most weeks workers are bringing home less money than what they were used to, causing a real hardship.

"We all love our jobs or we wouldn't be doing this, but when we're working in court and not getting paid, but those hours are banked, that's money out of our pocket," said Carol MacLean, a court reporter in St. Catharines.

The new wage structure affects more than 1,400 employees across the province. "Some people are not making ends meet and we've heard some real horror stories," said Kellie Hillman, a tape management and court reporter.

Some have had to use the food bank, said the St. Catharines resident.

Randie Inman, a bail clerk with 20 years' experience, including 10 in Superior Court, said her paycheque has dropped nearly 40 per cent, or about $500 every two weeks.

19.8.06 - TRUTHS ABOUT DECISION
By
By now some of you may have received a letter from the Union and employer with regards to a recent decision stemming from a grievance filed against MAG by a few court reporters.

At one time we fought as then Freelance Court Reporters to not be encompassed by OPSEU but to be recognized as our own union representing our interests only. The Labour Relations Tribunal found us to be independent contractors but encompassed by the Crown Employee's Bargaining Act and thus we were then part of OPSEU, the only union body representing all Crown persons, contract or staff. Ask yourselves, in whose interests will OPSEU bargain?

Quickly we were given individual contracts with MAG.

In 1995 OPSEU suggested we include transcript rates in bargaining unit. We fought that, realizing OPSEU could bargain our transcript income away in favour of something "better" for their other larger member groups. We were successful in that.

Since then we have been told we will be redundant, being replaced by clerk monitors, being replaced by technology, being replaced by persons ready to kiss butt to be in MAG, and we are still struggling on.

Now, MAG has approached this problem of our income from the back door - transcripts they do not glean income from - and OPSEU has also aproached the problem of not gleaning more dues from that income by fighting on behalf of HUNT et al. Keep in mind, fellow members, that Ms. Hunt was a staff reporter, who received a salary plus the income from transcripts whether typed at home or at the courthouse. It is our understanding Ms. Hunt has since retired..

Now, we face a future of being paid an hourly rate for transcript, and let us not fool ourselves, the Ministry will be charging a greater rate, and OPSEU will be taking even more of our pay amounts in dues, all while our pay will decrease with deductions for benefits, et cetera, when we are on this new Regular Part-time contract. And, Durham College is training the new era of drones as all this transpires.

Happy days are not ahead, Fellow Court Reporters

.

25.5.06 - IS YOUR RECORDING PRESERVED AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE RECORD SAFE ON DVD?
By
How long do recordable DVDs last?

Do you back-up your important work files or irreplaceable photos onto CDs or DVDs for long-term storage? These discs may not last as long as you think, so be sure to read this article on how to best protect your data for the long haul.


by Marc Saltzman


A common email received from Sympatico MSN readers relates to the lifespan of recordable CDs and DVDs.

After all, chances are you're backing up important information onto them – such as work documents, camcorder footage, precious photos, and other non-replaceable files – but the unfortunate reality is these discs may not last more than a couple of years.

Though you won't find a straightforward answer, here's what you need to know:

* Recordable CDs and DVDs should last about 20 to 25 years under ideal conditions (see below), but repeated rewrites on CD-RW and DVD-RW discs may cut this lifespan in half. This is a conservative estimate, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

* Manufacturers claim – but usually don't guarantee – between 75 and 100 years. In April 2006, Kodak announced its new 24-karat gold CD-Rs and DVD-Rs, marketed under the Kodak Preservation line, may last up to 300 years. Prices are $60 for a 25-pack, which includes the Canadian Private Copyright Levy of $0.21 per disc. See www.preservationdisc.com for more info.

* Companies that come up with these numbers put their discs through 'accelerated aging' tests, but they're not entirely accurate as the way the discs are stored and handled can play a major role in its lifespan.

* Many studies have shown that brand-name discs such as TDK, Verbatim, Kodak, Memorex and Sony last longer than cheaper no-name discs, which may only last between 2 and 8 years before corrosion occurs, rendering the discs unreadable.

* The colour of the underside of the disc used to be a common measure of how long the discs will last – platinum lasts longer than gold, which last longer than green – but newer studies show there are too many other contributing factors for this to hold true.

Tips on protecting your data

* Put the disc in a jewel case, fitted envelope or CD wallet and don't touch the underside of the disc as the oil, dirt and sweat from your hands can compromise the integrity of the disc.

* Keep it in a relatively dry and cool environment, and away from windows. This is because humidity, heat and sunlight can prematurely age (or even ruin) your discs.

* Snap on a protective film on the underside of the disc, such as those offered by d_skin (www.d-skin.com), as it will add another layer of protection – and as a bonus they can be left on the disc as you play them in your computer, DVD player, video game system or car stereo.

* Back-up your discs every couple of years and be sure to label them accordingly if you're keeping the originals (e.g. Photos – July 2006).

* It's not a bad idea to invest in an inexpensive external hard drive so you can copy the contents of all your CD-Rs or DVD-Rs for safe keeping. For example, you can pick up a decent 160GB external hard drive for about $150, which can store about 35 DVDs (at 4.7GB each).

19.4.06 - TOP COURT TO REHEAR CONTROVERSIAL COPYRIGHT CASE
By
Top co Top court to rehear controversial copyright case
SOURCE: The Great Library

The Supreme Court of Canada has ordered a rehearing of the appeal in
Robertson v. Thomson Corp., a case involving copyright infringement of
freelancers' material republished in electronic media. This unusual move
will allow the newest member of the court to participate in the decision.

On April 7, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a press release
announcing that the Chief Justice has ordered a rehearing in Robertson v.
Thomson Corp. On the consent of the parties, the court will rehear the
appeal by reviewing the transcript and viewing the videotape of the hearing,
which was held on December 6, 2005. Any questions during the rehearing will
be addressed in writing to counsel for the parties. Counsel will be given
the opportunity to answer and reply in writing in accordance with dates set
by the Registrar.

Mr. Justice John Major, one of the Supreme Court judges who heard the
appeal, retired on December 25, 2005. Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein joined
the court in March 2006. Legal observers believe that the other judges want
to involve Justice Rothstein in light of his considerable expertise in
intellectual property issues.

Robertson v. Thomson Corp. involves a class action for copyright
infringement initiated by Canadian author Heather Robertson against Thomson
Corporation, publisher of The Globe and Mail (the "Globe"), on behalf of the
Globe's freelance writers. Their works were not only published in the
newspaper, but were subsequently reproduced in online databases and CD-ROMs.
The Globe argued that it acted lawfully on the basis that it was exercising
the rights inherent in the "collective work" copyright in the newspaper
under s. 3 of the Copyright Act.

In October 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 ruling, upheld
a Superior Court decision that the Globe's activities prima facie infringed
Ms. Robertson's copyright by republishing her articles in various electronic
media. The appellate court held that this use of her work did not fall
within the newspaper's collective copyright.

In April 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada granted an application for
leave to appeal this decision. There is no indication when the court will
render its judgment in this matter.

THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA - THE GREAT LAW LIBRARY LINK AT
http://library.lsuc.on.ca/GL/home.htm
© The Great Library, 2006