Our top rated* Vancouver judicial case conference lawyers regularly help clients prepare for and attend their family judicial case conferences (“JCC”). Vancouver judicial case conference lawyers know that a JCC is an informal court meeting where a Judge tries to help the parties and their lawyer settle the entire case, settle part of the case and failing these objectives get the case ready for trial and any interim applications. Our judicial case conference lawyers know that only limited procedural and disclosure orders can be made without the consent of both parties. MacLean Law’s Judicial case conference lawyers tell our clients, that without consent, a Judge cannot make substantive orders on issues of family finances such as support or property division nor make orders regarding children.
What is a Judicial Case Conference?
Our experienced Vancouver judicial case conference lawyers are ready to help you prepare for and attend your JCC. Hopefully the case can be settled, the issues narrowed, or failing that an early trial date set. Setting a trial date with one of our skilled Vancouver judicial case conference lawyers, is not a guarantee the matter will be heard at trial. Remember, only 3% cases go to trial which is a good thing, rather booking a trial date often sets an end point to get the case settled.
Our Vancouver judicial case conference lawyers can be reached across BC toll free at 1-877-602-9900 we have 5 offices to make things easier for you to get help. Our offices are located in Vancouver, Richmond, South Surrey, Kelowna and Fort St John BC.
Vancouver Judicial Case Conference Lawyers
The recent Judicial case conference appeal case of Morales v Puri involved our BC Court of Appeal being sharply critical of a judge who made an order on guardianship and access at a judicial case conference. Vancouver judicial case conference lawyers know the judge was doing what they felt would assist the parties but they ran afoul of the clear rules that contested orders on crucial issues cannot be made at a JCC.
Lorne N. MacLean, QC heads our Vancouver judicial case conference lawyers team. MacLean provides today’s blog for our family law clients and the public who may be getting ready for their own JCC.
The BC Court of Appeal website provides their own tidy summary of the case which we have edited for you to make things clear:
Appeal from orders made at a judicial case conference. The judge made orders concerning guardianship and access despite knowing that he lacked jurisdiction to do so as he did not have the parties’ consent. Rule 7-1 (Judicial Cases Conferences) of the Supreme Court Family Rules limits the types of orders that can be made at a judicial case conference without consent.
Validity of the Order Made Without Consent
[23] That a judge conducting a judicial case conference has a limited ability to make non-consensual orders was decided more than nine years ago by this Court inHarrison v. Harrison, 2007 BCCA 120, 64 B.C.L.R. (4th) 318. That case dealt with former Rule 60E of the Supreme Court Rules of Court (Family Law Proceeding—Judicial Case Conferences), the predecessor of the present Rule 7-1 of the Supreme Court Family Rules. Sub-rule 12 set out what could be done at a conference held under Rule 60E. That sub-rule read:
At a judicial case conference, the judge or master may
(a) make any of the following orders, whether or not on the application of a party:
(i) the pleadings be amended or closed within a fixed time;
(ii) a party deliver a list of documents or a statement in Form 89 within a fixed time;
(iii) interlocutory applications be brought within a fixed time;
(iv) examinations for discovery be conducted within a schedule that the court directs;
(v) setting limitations on discovery procedures;
(vi) experts’ reports be exchanged within a schedule that the court directs;
(vii) the parties attend a mini-trial or settlement conference;
(viii) the proceeding be set for trial on a particular date or on a particular trial list, subject to the approval of the Chief Justice, and
(b) make any other order with the consent of the parties.
[Emphasis added.]
[24] In Harrison, the judge conducting a judicial case conference made a declaration under s. 57 of the now repealed Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, that the spouses had no reasonable prospect of reconciliation, a “triggering event” for the purposes of determining and dividing family assets. That declaration was made without Mrs. Harrison’s consent, notwithstanding the fact that it was not one of the types of orders listed in sub-rule 12(a). In holding that the judge should not have made the declaration, Chief Justice Finch stated:
[22] I am therefore of the view that there was no mutual consent to a s. 57 declaration being made at the Judicial Case Conference, and that the case conference judge erred when he said that he did “not need consent” to make the order. It is clear that in the absence of consent, the s. 57 declaration was an order not contemplated by Rule 60E(12), and ought not to have been made at the Judicial Case Conference.
[26] While the judge in the present case acted out of concern for the well-being of the parties’ daughter, his decision to make orders he knew were beyond his authority is troubling. It is axiomatic that judges, like everyone else, are obliged to follow the law. In the present context, this Court’s judgment in Ribeiro v. Vancouver (City), 2004 BCCA 482 at para. 3, 41 B.C.L.R. (4th) 64, is particularly apt. In that case, a judge made an order with respect to the conduct of an examination for discovery for which no provision existed in the then Rules of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In setting that order aside, Madam Justice Southin stated (at para. 3):
Matters of practice and procedure in the court below must be governed by its Rules, and those Rules must be duly enacted under the Court Rules of Practice Act. It is certainly open to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to permit what Mr. Potts says is a very good idea but she has not done so. It is not appropriate for a single judge of the court below to engage in matters of practice and procedure in what I call judicial individualism. The course of the court below is the law of the court and the course has never been to engage in such a practice.
[Emphasis added.]
[27] Also pertinent is the following from Halsbury’s Laws of Canada, Civil Procedure (2012 Reissue) (Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis Canada, 2012), at HCV-11, “Responsibility for Enforcing Law”:
… it is of fundamental importance to the rule of law — and to the public’s respect not simply for the judicial system, but for the entire machinery of government — that the powers and jurisdictions of the judge be discharged, not only responsibly and fairly, but in accordance with the customs and conventions of Canada’s parliamentary democracy, and only as provided by the rules of law governing their employment.
[Emphasis added.]
[28] We cannot condone what occurred. The judge’s decision to disregard the limits on his authority has needlessly increased the costs of this litigation and resulted in the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources in both this Court and the trial court. No doubt, it has caused the parties additional stress, exactly what the judge sought to avoid.
This case serves as a refresher for Vancouver judicial case conference lawyers and their clients on what can and cannot be done at a judicial case conference. We can help you achieve your objectives at a JCC. Call our Vancouver judicial case conference lawyers today at 1-877-602-9900.
*Top Choice Award (2014, 2016, 2017 2018, 2019), Top rated reviews on Google, Yelp, threebestrated, lawerratingz.com. Read more about our awards.
