Session 2

​

Session Breakdown

11:00am-11:45am: Panel

11:45am-12:30pm: Breakout Room Discussion

12:30pm-1:30pm: Lunch

1:30pm-2:00pm: Report-back Discussion

 

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic and recent local emergencies have dramatically affected the lives of citizens across the province. These unprecedented times required the justice sector to quickly pivot to ensure that the people of B.C. had access to the services they needed, even when the traditional methods of service delivery were unavailable. In many cases, this led to the adoption of digital or virtual services, but in others included new, innovative ways of service delivery apart from technology. From both perspectives, we will explore how the sector delivered access to justice through innovation, as well as analyze potential unintended or unexpected consequences arising from these decisions. We will also discuss whether these innovations require further consideration through additional lenses, such as gender and societal equity.

 

Facilitator

  • David Loukidelis, QC, Principal, David Loukidelis QC Law Corporation – Lead Facilitator

 

Panel Members

  • Daniel Darche, Executive Director, Technology Modernization & Strategic Projects, Information Systems Branch, AG
  • Stephanie Melvin, Executive Director, Family Justice Services Division, Justice Services Branch, AG
  • Kevin Conn, Executive Director, Policy & Service Reform, Court Services Branch, AG

 

Breakout Session Discussion Questions

  • How did we innovate to do our work differently?
  • What was the role of technology?
  • How can we leverage investments made in response to the pandemic for future improvements to access to justice?
  • What do we need to keep in mind to be ready for future emergency events?
  • What types of barriers need to be considered on an ongoing basis, and how do we use potential or existing frameworks to ensure equitable access to justice? (eg. considering a GBA+Equity lens)

Additional Questions:

  • Were there incidental accessibility benefits that resulted from the innovation?
  • Did the innovation increase accessibility as anticipated?
  • What sort of challenges were encountered?
  • What potential pitfalls do we need to vigilant of when implementing technology/innovations?
  • What was the citizens experience of this innovation? How can we build on this experience to further improve citizen access to justice?
  • What barriers remain to consistent access to justice? What enablers can be accessed to address these barriers?

 

The Justice Summit maintains the principles of non-partisanship, non-attribution, and respect for organizational and statutory independence. We are grateful that members of the judiciary, including the heads of our three courts, are again joining the Justice Summit.  We appreciate their participation.  We trust, consistent with previous Justice Summits, that everyone will respect that because of the courts’ independent role, the judges and judicial staff are participating as observers and will not be commenting on, endorsing or suggesting policy choices, recommendations or other substantive matters.