Here is our initial letter for LAMDA and WiCCD, which we followed up twice as our memberships grew in the last four months and we added more information about how things were unfolding on the ground. A significant number of vulnerable NCR accused are scrambling to find legal representation because, as we predicted and warned, many defence lawyers are not able to travel to these hearings. For now, here is a link and some excerpts from our open letter which was published in legal media.

First LAMDA and WiCCD Letter to the ORB May 17 2023

Some highlights:

I write today on behalf of these 675 lawyers (and articling and law students) as a result of information that has come to our attention, that after more than three years of virtual review board hearings, the ORB is now planning to convene some hearings in person at psychiatric facilities.

While LAMDA and WiCCD members are pleased to hear that ORB panels will convene in person at the hospitals, we also want to make sure that these will be hybrid proceedings. By this we mean that virtual attendance by some participants who require this accommodation will remain an option at every hearing. As you know, some of our clients had occasionally sought in-person hearings during the pandemic, but this request was rarely made. With the advances in technology that made virtual hearings so successful, our clients and our lawyer members have come to rely on Zoom hearings of this Board, as the default means of hearing for the last three years and more. Virtual proceedings have enhanced access to justice for many, and have allowed our lawyers to continue to represent clients before the Board, despite significant challenges associated with legal aid funding, among other things.

In considering in-person hearing options going forward, we write today to make sure that the perspectives of defence lawyers and our clients are taken into account in determining mode of hearing and virtual access to these hearings. In particular, it is critical that the Board appreciate the reality we currently face as counsel to accused persons before the Board, who are very nearly all legally aided.

It should be noted that the defence bar was not consulted in advance of any decision to return to in-person hearings of this Board, as we were not consulted when the decision to switch to Zoom was made. We now ask for consideration of not only our own predicament, but that of our clients and other justice system participants who may need to appear virtually at ORB hearings. We are very concerned that any proposal to mandate in-person appearances will have a devastating impact on vulnerable clients’ access to justice. Among other things, they would lose their right to be represented by counsel of choice, should their lawyer be unable to continue to represent them in person. This will almost invariably be the case for accused persons whose lawyer would have to travel from out of jurisdiction to attend.