Page 139

Jan Advocate 2017

THE ADVOCATE ADVOCATE V O L . 7 5 P A R T 1 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7 137 FROM OUR BACK PAGES By R.C. Tino Bel As we start to look forward to summer holidays—or, for litigators and B.C. judges, the potential of summer hearings—we look back to “Entre Nous” (1973) 31 Advocate 266 for the history of, and some arguments against, summer sittings. Throughout these past idle days of summer vacation, could be heard the subdued muttering of the bar about the Attorney General’s announcement that he is considering abolishing those very days. Since the bar seldom voices its opinion above a subdued mutter, it is unlikely that these grumbled disquisitions on the subject of the pros and cons of abolition ever reached the ears of the Attorney General. Let us then discuss those pros and some of the cons. And, let it be confessed that although this paper once announced its support of abolition, the matter does not appear to us now as it appears to have appeared to us then. The nub of Mr. Attorney’s proposal is that he cannot justify the expense of courthouse facilities if those facilities are not used as much as possible, and taking two months off in the summer is not using them as much as possible. This proposition is inarguable. The question however is, whether abolition rests solely upon that proposition. The truth is that some administrative problems will be created by abolition which do not exist now, no more trials in any year will be heard than are heard now, and the trial of cases during July and August will be hedged about with pitfalls nonexistent at other times of the year. The administrative problems revolve around the necessity of everybody to take holidays. Despite bellicose opinion to the contrary, a judge needs


Jan Advocate 2017
To see the actual publication please follow the link above