1. INTRODUCTION
The Nunavut Legal Services Study was commissioned by the Department of Justice Canada in order to gain an insight into the state of legal service provision in Nunavut; the challenges faced by legal service providers (such as the Nunavut Legal Services Board, counsel, Courtworkers, and public legal education and information [PLEI] providers); the cost drivers associated with legal service provision; the areas where unmet need for legal services exists; and, finally, the ways in which these challenges and unmet needs could be addressed
The request for proposal issued by Justice Canada contained a list of 10 issues to be examined by the research team. These issues and the questions associated with them were arrived at jointly by representatives from Justice Canada, the Nunavut Department of Justice, and the Nunavut Legal Services Board (NLSB). The 10 issues were:
The Nunavut Legal Services Study was carried out by a team of researchers from IER and by Dennis Patterson. The study made use of a variety of methodologies, both quantitative and qualitative, in order to examine the issues raised by Justice Canada. The methodologies used were:
The details of these methodologies and a discussion of any challenges faced by the research team in their application are provided in the following sub-sections.
Maintaining the confidentiality of individual NLSB clients has been a key concern throughout the project. Every effort has been made by the research team to respect confidentiality. In particular:
Over 40 interviews were conducted, both in person and over the telephone (some key individuals were interviewed several times). Interviewees represented a broad range of stakeholders in legal service provision, including:
The questions used during the interview process were based on the questions posed in the original Request for Proposal for the project (these questions are provided in Appendix A). The interview questions and the selection of interviewees were vetted and agreed to by Justice Canada and by the NLSB. A complete list of interviewees is provided in Appendix B.
The interviews were transcribed and then, for key interviews, returned to the interviewees for amendments and revisions in order to ensure that they accurately reflected the respondents' opinions and views.
It should be noted that the original research protocol included interviews with representatives of the Nunavut Social Development Committee (NSDC). However, this organization was disbanded in February 2002, just as the research team was beginning to schedule interviews, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) assumed its responsibilities. Representatives of NTI were invited to participate in the workshop in Iqaluit (see Section 1.2.4) in order to ensure that their opinions were solicited and included in this report.
A number of documents were also reviewed by the research team. Documents were suggested and provided by a number of different sources, including Justice Canada and the NLSB. The following documents were reviewed by the research team:
A file-based research process was designed in order to answer those questions in the request for proposal that were of a more quantitative nature. As with the interview questions, the questions assigned to the file-based research process were vetted and agreed to by Justice Canada and the NLSB.
The following files were reviewed during course of the study:
The initial file-based research process assumed that the research team would have access to the files of clients of the NLSB (and of the NWT Legal Services Board for material prior to July 2000). However, during discussions with Clinic Directors about accessing these files, it became apparent that there were significant concerns on the part of some Directors relating to the confidentiality of client files and the appropriateness of making them available to the research team. In order to address these concerns, and forward the research in a timely manner, alternative sources of data were considered. Upon further examination, the legal aid applications completed by clients were perceived to contain the bulk of the information required. The legal aid applications had the added benefit of being available in two offices (Yellowknife, for those files opened prior to July 2000, and Gjoa Haven for files opened after July 2000), thus facilitating the research process.
The perception of the research team that adequate information could be obtained from the legal aid applications themselves was validated by the team's experience at the NWT Legal Services Board in Yellowknife. In Yellowknife, the team had access to the applications and to the related client files and found that the applications contained all of the relevant data, while the remainder of the client files consisted primarily of transcripts and memos from counsel relating to administrative aspects of the case. Therefore, the team felt confident in basing their research on the legal aid applications rather than on the client files, as originally intended.
Several challenges became apparent during the review of legal aid application files. Some of these relate to the transfer of the files from Yellowknife to Gjoa Haven that occurred in the summer of 2000, once the NLSB had been established and was ready to receive them:
Another challenge faced by the researchers was the volume of files to be reviewed and the lack of an adequate database system to produce the necessary statistical information. In Nunavut there is no equivalent to the Legal Aid Information System (LAIS) used by the Legal Services Board in Yellowknife. The original intent of the researchers was to review all of the legal aid application files in Yellowknife and use a sampling protocol to determine the number of files to be reviewed in Gjoa Haven. However, on arrival in Gjoa Haven, it became apparent that a manual ledger system is in place to manage the filing system. This ledger system tabulates all files opened by type of legal aid requested (criminal, family law, civil, or youth) and indicates whether or not legal aid was denied. Cross-referencing is possible, based on the applicant's name, to a series of summary sheets that indicate why legal aid was denied and what charges were involved. Through use of the ledgers, it was possible to review all of the files in Gjoa Haven, rather than a portion, improving the validity of the data.
Finally, in some cases, the information presented in the legal aid application files was not complete or was unclear. In other cases, assumptions had to be made in order to draw conclusions from the data available. All such concerns and assumptions are noted in the discussion of findings, as and when necessary.
The research team reviewed the final dockets and concluded dockets for Nunavut circuit courts, copies of which are held at the NLSB office in Gjoa Haven. These dockets address only the criminal charges before the court, and therefore did not provide information relating to the provision of services in the areas of civil and family law. The circuit court dockets were only available from September 2000 onwards, as it was at that time that Bonnie Tulloch became Executive Director of the NLSB and began the practice of keeping copies of the dockets in Gjoa Haven. Two concerns exist with respect to the data gathered from the final and concluded court dockets:
The research team had initially hoped to conduct a review of the Justice of the Peace (JP) court dockets similar to the review of circuit court dockets described above. However, the team was unsuccessful in obtaining copies of the JP court dockets, even after several attempts. An analysis of the JP court dockets would have been particularly useful in validating the information provided by respondents with respect whether the cases being heard in JP courts are increasing in seriousness. It would also have been useful in identifying the training required to prepare Courtworkers, who are active in JP courts, to play an expanded role.
The research team conducted two workshops after the Preliminary Findings Report was completed and presented to Justice Canada. The workshops were held in Iqaluit on June 20, 2002, and in Cambridge Bay on July 3, 2002.
The purpose of the workshops was:
Ten or more people attended each workshop, representing a wide variety of interests and points of involvement with the Nunavut justice system and with legal service provision. Participants included lawyers for the NLSB and the Crown, Courtworkers, justice committee members, elders, counsellors, probation officers, RCMP officers, social workers, representatives from NTI, and representatives of the Nunavut Department of Justice. Well over half of the attendees at each workshop were women. Young people also attended each of the workshops, and raised particularly concerns with respect to youth and the justice system. Attendance lists for both workshops are provided in Appendix C.
The workshop proceedings and results were recorded through the use of flip charts and note-takers. Participants were able to provide input on all of the topics being researched, and their comments are incorporated throughout this document.
The research team, Justice Canada, and representatives from the NLSB and the Nunavut Department of Justice discussed several ways in which to gather input from actual clients of the NLSB with respect to the user perspective on legal service provision. The primary considerations in evaluating the various methods (face-to-face interviews, workshops, etc.) were the need to maintain the privacy of the individual, the confidentiality of the information obtained, and the existing relationship between the client and the clinic's personnel. The method chosen was a series of client interviews, which were conducted by the staff of the Maliiganik Tukisiiniakvik, under the direction of Debra Ram, Clinic Director.
Fourteen clients were interviewed by the clinic staff, using a series of simple, open-ended questions developed by the research team, focusing on the user experience. These questions are provided in Appendix D. Of the clients interviewed, eight were from Igloolik and the remaining six from Iqaluit. Three of the people interviewed were female. The clients had been involved with the Maliiganik Tukisiiniakvik for a number of different reasons:
The transcripts of the client interviews were provided to the research team and the results have been incorporated throughout this document, under the appropriate subject headings.
The Nunavut legal system is a complicated entity, made up of many different parts, all of which have their own purpose and objectives. These components include, but are not limited to the NCJ, the JP courts, the RCMP, Courtworkers, NLSB counsel, Crown counsel, private practitioners, corrections officers, community justice participants, the RCMP, and Victim Witness Assistants.
All of these components interact with one another and have an influence on each other in a way that makes it very difficult to discuss any one part of the system in isolation. However, the mandate of the Nunavut Legal Services Study is to focus on legal service provision exclusively. Maintaining this focus has proved to be an ongoing challenge to the research team, because of the high degree of interaction between the various parts of the legal system in Nunavut.
Therefore, although every attempt has been made to focus on legal aid provision, Courtworker management, and PLEI, there are sections of this report that deal with the Nunavut legal system as a whole, or with parts of the system other than the NLSB. In these cases, the team has tried to make the link back to the NLSB as explicit as possible.
The final report on the Nunavut Legal Services Study has been organized in a different way from the Preliminary Findings Report. Rather than discuss each of the 10 issues separately, the issues and their component questions have been grouped together into broader sections. This format was chosen in order to avoid repetition, to present the findings in the clearest way possible, and to make explicit the connections between the different issues.
The final report is organized into the following sections:
At the end of each section, with the exceptions of Sections 9.0 and 10.0, a table has been provided, summarizing the key points associated with that section.
The report also contains a number of Appendices, as follows:
The majority of the information provided in this report is the result of activities carried out by the research team. All information from other sources has been cited, either in the body of the document or in the footnotes.
Quotes from the interviewees and workshop participants are interspersed (anonymously) throughout the document. They are highlighted alongside the appropriate sections of this report.