1 / 25

SOAR CONFERENCE 2015 THE GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST DEBATE

Join the exciting debate format at the SOAR Conference 2015, featuring 6 rounds of 8-minute long debates, live audience polling, and thought-provoking resolutions. Engage with legal experts and discuss key issues in the public interest.

mcgonagle
Télécharger la présentation

SOAR CONFERENCE 2015 THE GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST DEBATE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SOAR CONFERENCE 2015THE GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST DEBATE

  2. DEBATE FORMAT • 6 rounds of 8-minute long debates • 2.5 minutes PRO • 2.5 minutes CON • 0.5 minute PRO – rebuttal • 2.5 minutes open discussion with entire panel • – 30-second warning for time limits

  3. DEBATE PAIRS • Kathy Laird and Lorne Sossin • Paul Daly and Freya Kristjanson • Paul Daly and Lorne Sossin • Freya Kristjanson and Kathy Laird • Paul Daly and Kathy Laird • Freya Kristjanson and Lorne Sossin

  4. LIVE AUDIENCE POLLING After each mini-debate, use your BlackBerry, smartphone, tablet or laptop to choose one of the following answers to this question: What is your position on this issue now, and did this change because of the debate? 1. PRO – Unchanged 2. CON – Unchanged 3. NEUTRAL – Unchanged 4. PRO – Changed from Neutral or Con 5. CON – Changed from Neutral or Pro

  5. Resolution for Debate Resolution 1 Resolution 2 Resolution 3 Resolution 4 Resolution 5 Resolution 6

  6. RESOLUTION #1 A tribunal should limit how many cases it resolves without a hearing, because the ADR or mediation process is hidden from public scrutiny and it fails to contribute to the jurisprudence or predictability of the tribunal’s work.

  7. Resolution Selection Home

  8. RESOLUTION #2 The principles of natural justice – as interpreted by the courts – impose undue restrictions on tribunals because tribunals need to be more creative and proactive in managing their case processes and their hearings.

  9. Resolution Selection Home

  10. RESOLUTION #3 The adjudicative independence of tribunal members means that any proper performance appraisal of members will be ineffective and cursory in nature.

  11. Resolution Selection Home

  12. RESOLUTION #4 Members of adjudicative tribunals should be administrative law judges with full security of tenure for life – like the Tribunal administratif du Québec (TAQ) – rather than be appointed for limited terms as in Ontario.

  13. Resolution Selection Home

  14. RESOLUTION #5 Tribunals are running out of excuses about why they are stuck in the analogue world, and they must do much more to harness digital resources to advance public interest and access, including e-filing, live streaming of hearings and online dispute resolution.

  15. Resolution Selection Home

  16. RESOLUTION #6 Tribunals talk a good talk about increasing access to justice for disadvantaged users and unrepresented parties, but they can do much more with their existing resources.

  17. Resolution Selection Home

  18. SOAR CONFERENCE 2015THE GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST DEBATEThe End November 6, 2015 (G. Yee)

  19. Resolution Selection Home

More Related