安大略省民事诉讼规则第2.1条:在促进司法公正的同时回应无理取闹的诉讼?

G. Kennedy
{"title":"安大略省民事诉讼规则第2.1条:在促进司法公正的同时回应无理取闹的诉讼?","authors":"G. Kennedy","doi":"10.22329/WYAJ.V35I0.5691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the first three years of the operation of Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule”), which allows a court to very summarily dismiss litigation that is “on its face” frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive. The author explores the history of and rationale for the Rule, in the context of the access to justice crisis in Ontario, and in light of the perceived inadequacy of alternative mechanisms for addressing the dangers raised by vexatious litigants. He then reviews all 190 Rule 2.1 decisions decided between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017, with the goal to provide guidance for future lawyers and judges considering using the Rule. This is followed by an analysis of the effects on access to justice of the Rule, in terms of providing speedy and cost-efficient resolution of actions on their merits. The author concludes by considering how the Rule should be used in the future – doctrinally, institutionally, and ethically. His conclusions are hopeful. The Rule is powerful, and its use should prompt some pause in judges and lawyers. By and large, however, the Rule has been very well employed. It has resulted in immense savings of time and financial expense and many cases model fairness to vulnerable parties. In rare instances where the Rule’s (attempted) use has been inappropriate, costs in terms of delay and financial expense are usually minimal. The Rule is ultimately an inspiring example of how civil procedure can be amended to facilitate access to justice.","PeriodicalId":56232,"journal":{"name":"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure: Responding to Vexatious Litigation While Advancing Access to Justice?\",\"authors\":\"G. Kennedy\",\"doi\":\"10.22329/WYAJ.V35I0.5691\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article analyzes the first three years of the operation of Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule”), which allows a court to very summarily dismiss litigation that is “on its face” frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive. The author explores the history of and rationale for the Rule, in the context of the access to justice crisis in Ontario, and in light of the perceived inadequacy of alternative mechanisms for addressing the dangers raised by vexatious litigants. He then reviews all 190 Rule 2.1 decisions decided between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017, with the goal to provide guidance for future lawyers and judges considering using the Rule. This is followed by an analysis of the effects on access to justice of the Rule, in terms of providing speedy and cost-efficient resolution of actions on their merits. The author concludes by considering how the Rule should be used in the future – doctrinally, institutionally, and ethically. His conclusions are hopeful. The Rule is powerful, and its use should prompt some pause in judges and lawyers. By and large, however, the Rule has been very well employed. It has resulted in immense savings of time and financial expense and many cases model fairness to vulnerable parties. In rare instances where the Rule’s (attempted) use has been inappropriate, costs in terms of delay and financial expense are usually minimal. The Rule is ultimately an inspiring example of how civil procedure can be amended to facilitate access to justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22329/WYAJ.V35I0.5691\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22329/WYAJ.V35I0.5691","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文分析了安大略省民事诉讼规则第2.1条(“规则”)的前三年运作情况,该规则允许法院非常迅速地驳回“表面上”无聊、无理取闹和/或滥用的诉讼。作者探讨了该规则的历史和基本原理,在安大略省诉诸司法危机的背景下,并考虑到解决无理取闹的诉讼当事人所带来的危险的替代机制的不足。然后,他审查了2014年7月1日至2017年6月30日期间做出的所有190项规则2.1决定,目的是为未来考虑使用该规则的律师和法官提供指导。然后分析《规则》对诉诸司法的影响,即根据案情迅速和经济有效地解决诉讼。作者最后考虑了该规则在未来应该如何使用——从理论上、制度上和伦理上。他的结论充满希望。这条规则是强有力的,它的使用应该会促使法官和律师三思。不过,总的来说,这条规则得到了很好的运用。它节省了大量的时间和财务费用,并在许多案件中对弱势方进行了公平对待。在极少数情况下,规则的(尝试)使用是不适当的,在延迟和财务费用方面的成本通常是最小的。该规则最终是一个鼓舞人心的例子,说明如何修改民事诉讼程序以促进诉诸司法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure: Responding to Vexatious Litigation While Advancing Access to Justice?
This article analyzes the first three years of the operation of Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rule”), which allows a court to very summarily dismiss litigation that is “on its face” frivolous, vexatious, and/or abusive. The author explores the history of and rationale for the Rule, in the context of the access to justice crisis in Ontario, and in light of the perceived inadequacy of alternative mechanisms for addressing the dangers raised by vexatious litigants. He then reviews all 190 Rule 2.1 decisions decided between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2017, with the goal to provide guidance for future lawyers and judges considering using the Rule. This is followed by an analysis of the effects on access to justice of the Rule, in terms of providing speedy and cost-efficient resolution of actions on their merits. The author concludes by considering how the Rule should be used in the future – doctrinally, institutionally, and ethically. His conclusions are hopeful. The Rule is powerful, and its use should prompt some pause in judges and lawyers. By and large, however, the Rule has been very well employed. It has resulted in immense savings of time and financial expense and many cases model fairness to vulnerable parties. In rare instances where the Rule’s (attempted) use has been inappropriate, costs in terms of delay and financial expense are usually minimal. The Rule is ultimately an inspiring example of how civil procedure can be amended to facilitate access to justice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Triumph of the “Therapeutic” in Quebec Courts: Mental Health, Behavioural Reform and the Decline of Rights The Influence of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on Canadian Jurisprudence in the First Decade Since its Ratification Students in Name Only: Improving the Working Conditions of Articled Students Via the Application of the BC Employment Standards Act People With Disabilities Need Lawyers Too! A Ready-To-Use Plan for Law Schools to Educate Law Students to Effectively Serve the Legal Needs of Clients With Disabilities as Well as Clients Without Disabilities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1