The dispute between the union and management at Canada Post is affecting this law firm more deeply than we expected.
When Canada Post management first suspended mail delivery on June 15, 2011, the consensus among lawyers regarding the dispute seemed to be that there would be only a minor inconvenience. After all, in the 21st century, we have (or are supposed to have) various alternative means to communicate. Besides the obvious email and fax, we can also use commercial couriers. (Social media such as Facebook and Twitter are not used for routine legal correspondence because of the lack of security.)
However, as outgoing mail piles up beside my desk, it’s becoming clear that practising family law without reliable mail delivery is beyond the “minor inconvenience” that we first expected.
Although our firm does take credit card payments, clients who prefer to pay by cheque must now deliver them either in person or by courier, rather than by mail. For clients who work full-time and are unable to deliver the funds in person, it can be quite burdensome to pay an additional $20-$30 just to have the cheque delivered.
Similarly, the disbursement of trust funds, which is done exclusively by cheque at this firm, has been put on hold except where the recipient is willing to pay for alternative delivery services.
Paying vendors has also become nearly impossible. Because many service providers are small to medium-sized companies, cheques remain the most cost-effective way to pay. It is simply impractical to explore alternative payment methods given the amounts payable and the likelihood of timely resumption of mail delivery services.
For many public institutions and offices, correspondence by mail remains the default method of communication. For example, court orders are almost exclusively delivered by mail once they have been signed by the judge. With Canada Post delivery suspended, people aren’t able to receive their divorce orders and may have to delay their plan to remarry.
Correspondence with other institutions relying heavily on mail are similarly frustrated. These institutions include Legal Aid Ontario, the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the Social Benefits Tribunal, the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, and the Office of the Registrar General, just to name a few. Although some of these institutions do accept incoming messages by fax, their outgoing messages are largely delivered by mail.
Finally, the timely delivery of routine correspondence and reporting letters becomes an issue, even in the era of the internet. Often, the reporting letters contain documents that may be too large in volume to be delivered electronically or contain original documents that must be physically delivered to the client.
The cost of alternative delivery for routine correspondence is approximately 20 or more times greater than that of ordinary mail. For example, a standard letter under 30 grams costs 59 cents by mail but at least $10 for overnight delivery, depending on the distance. For items that are not urgent, we telephone the client advising them of the delay. However, for items that are time-sensitive, we often have no alternative but to pay private couriers for timely delivery.
What’s your experience with the mail delivery disruption? Feel free to leave a comment.
The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) Not Compellable to Provide Services… for Now
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that the courts ought not to compel the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to provide service without giving the OCL an opportunity to decide whether it would become involved.*
Under the Courts of Justice Act,^ at the request of a court the Children’s Lawyer “may” act as the legal representative of a minor who is not a party to the proceeding.
On the one hand, historically the Superior Court has “parens patriae” jurisdiction (the public power to intervene against negligent parents) to protect minors who are otherwise unable to fend for themselves. On the other, the statutory language is merely permissible and not mandatory. Whether the OCL is compellable to provide services by orders of the court has been subject to debate.
As a matter of policy, the OCL are involved in child protection proceedings. Therefore, the residual parens patriae jurisdiction will only be invoked in matters involving custody and access.
Although the Court of Appeal declined to rule on the very point of whether the OCL is compellable to provide services under the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal reasoned that given the limited resources available to the OCL, it is improper to order the OCL to provide services prior to making a request as contemplated by the legislation.
The judge of the first instance ought to have made the requests first, without intervening in the OCL’s discretion to provide services. If the OCL declines to act, the court may further request that the OCL reconsider its decision. Only after all available remedies are exhausted should the courts consider exercising their parens patriae jurisdiction.
*Bhajan v. Bhajan, [2010] ONCA 714, (2011) 104 O.R. (3d) 168
^R.S.O. 1990, c. C43, as am. ss. 89(3.1)
This blog is provided for your reference only and is not a substitute for the law. The law may have changed since the publication of this article. This article is not legal advice and should not be regarded as such.