Regrettably, as asserted in Jack v. Jushef (1 S.C.R. 87), the prospect of securing a genuinely fair hearing, where the authentic truth is presented to a fact finder, such as a judge or jury, who then applies the law, is increasingly challenging in Canada. Consequently, legal cases involving individuals unable to afford adequate legal representation and present the genuine truth may, and likely do, result in injustices characterized by false facts, misapplication of the law, and unjust outcomes.

Specifically, in the Jack case, the Supreme Court articulated:

[1] The paramount challenge to the rule of law in Canada today is ensuring access to justice. Trials have become more expensive and protracted, rendering them beyond the financial means of most Canadians, whether seeking redress or defending against a lawsuit. The absence of an effective and accessible means to enforce rights poses a threat to the rule of law. The common law’s development is hindered without the public adjudication of civil cases.

[2] There is a growing recognition that a cultural shift is imperative to establish an environment conducive to timely and affordable access to the civil justice system. This shift involves streamlining pre-trial procedures and shifting the focus away from conventional trials toward proportional procedures tailored to each case’s needs. Our justice system’s balance between procedure and access must reflect modern reality, acknowledging that new adjudication models can be fair and just.

In an effort to make justice accessible for Canadians, the justice system itself is undergoing restructuring with the introduction of ‘summary processes.’ These processes aim to reduce bureaucratic hurdles, among other impediments, that hinder the affordability of representation, affecting the capacity of many average Canadians to afford and, consequently, access justice.