Lawyers criticize cuts to Legal Aid Ontario

A number of lawyers spoke out in support of Legal Aid Ontario at Queen’s Park, saying the provincial government has released incorrect figures that are misleading the public about the number of clients it serves.

Lawyers criticize cuts to Legal Aid Ontario
Dana Fisher says there is no evidence to support figures the premier and attorney general used to explain cuts to Legal Aid Ontario.

A number of lawyers spoke out in support of Legal Aid Ontario at Queen’s Park, saying the provincial government has released incorrect figures that are misleading the public about the number of clients it serves. 

The lawyers — Dana Fisher, a Legal Aid Ontario lawyer and Society of United Professionals spokeswoman, Raoul Boulakia, president of the Refugee Lawyers Association, Ivana Petricone, policy counsel at the Association of Community Legal Aid Clinics, and Katharina Janczaruk, vice president of the Ontario Association Of Child Protection Lawyers — said Legal Aid Ontario is not serving 10-per-cent fewer clients than it was in 2013, as was claimed in a letter sent by the Ontario provincial government to justify budget cuts.

On April 12, Ontario Attorney General Caroline Mulroney sent a letter to CEO David Field stating there would be a cut of $163 million to Legal Aid Ontario’s budget. It was also announced with the provincial government’s 2019 budget on April 11. The letter also stated that, despite an extra $86 million in funding since 2013, the number of clients served each year by LAO has decreased by more than 100,000.

“LAO is unsustainable in its current state,” said Mulroney in the letter. Ontario Premier Doug Ford also echoed that figure when he phoned in to the Alan Carter Show on Global News radio show on April 22 and said, “There is more money being spent on lawyer fees and less cases [at the LAO].” 

After going through LAO annual and quarterly reports and the most recent auditor general’s report, Fisher said there is no evidence to support what the premier and attorney general are saying. She said the auditor general found there was a 23-per-cent increase in the number of certificates issued by LAO between 2013 and 2018.

“That is indisputably more clients represented and not less,” says Fisher.

Petricone said that 95 per cent of her organization’s funding went to salaries for people providing those legal services, so in spite of Ford’s and Mulroney’s concern about fewer people being looked after, the cut of LAO’s budget will certainly mean fewer are served.

“We are funded in such a way that there is no fat; almost everybody who works in a clinic sees a client [and] provides direct service. . . . It will mean we have to lay off workers and clinics,” she said.

The lawyers also disagreed with the figures used by the province.

Fisher said the LAO “provided service and representation” to 13,000 more people in 2017-2018 than in 2013-2014. Fisher said Mulroney has not provided a source for her claim that the LAO served more than 100,000 fewer clients in 2017-2018 than in 2013-2014.

“This claim is not true,” says Fisher. “Whether or not Doug Ford knows that, the statement is inaccurate. He has misled Ontario.”

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Legal aid investments save governments money all over the world, Canadian researchers find

New real estate law podcast begins by tackling cannabis regulations

80% of legal employers prefer technical skills to personality

Torys’ Linda Plumpton named to American College of Trial Lawyers

Pressure mounts for immigration lawyers working with Latin American clients

$100K prize offered by Canadian legal tech start-up

Most Read Articles

OPP charges former tax lawyer with fraud and obstruction of justice

New facets of pure economic loss rule could have huge implications for businesses

Does solicitor-client privilege protect information shared with a legal app?

Court addresses the denial of dependent support for egregious conduct