516 V O L . 7 5 P A R T 4 J U L Y 2 0 1 7 THE ADVOCATE
Provincial Court in the region have no or limited duty counsel representation,
the closest FJC is 400 kilometres away and vulnerable parties, including
children, are underserved.
The Northern Navigator is a frontier dispute resolution system designed
for a frontier community. How fitting if it helps lead the way into a new
frontier of family justice for British Columbia.
1. A version of this article was submitted to the Faculty
of Graduate Studies at York University in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for a Masters of Law in
Dispute Resolution at Osgoode Hall Law School.
2. See Michael Trebilcock, Anthony Duggan & Lorne
Sossin, eds, Middle Income Access to Justice
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012).
3. See Julie Macfarlane, The National Self-Represented
Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs
of Self-Represented Litigants (May 2013) at 15,
4. See Deborah L Rhode, Access to Justice (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004), ch 1.
5. See Peter Salem & Michael Saini, “A Survey of
Beliefs and Priorities about Access to Justice of Family
Law: The Search for a Multidisciplinary Perspective”
(2017) 55:1 Fam Court Rev 120.
6. The term “family justice system” has been defined
broadly as including public and private services that
help families with issues pertaining to separation,
divorce or child protection; public institutions such as
the courts, government ministries and the Legal Services
Society; and individual professionals, including
lawyers, mediators, social workers and counselors
who work in these areas. See Family Justice Reform
Working Group, A New Justice System for Families
and Children (Report to the BC Justice Review Task
Force, May 2005) at 12, online: <www2.gov.bc.ca
7. See ibid.
8. See ibid.
9. See Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil
and Family Matters, Meaningful Change for Family
Justice: Beyond Wise Words (April 2013) at 19,
10. DSD focuses on systematically managing a series of
disputes rather than handling individual disputes on
an ad hoc basis. See Nancy H Rogers et al, Designing
Systems and Processes for Managing Disputes
(New York: Aspen, 2013).
11. See Rachel Birnbaum & Nicholas Bala, “Experiences
of Ontario Family Litigants with Self-Representation”
at 6, online: <www.probonostudents.ca/wpcontent/
12. “Access to Justice: Towards a Collaborative and
Strategic Approach” (2012) 63 UNBLJ 32 at 39.
13. See Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil
and Family Matters, Access to Civil & Family Justice:
A Roadmap for Change (October 2013) at 2, online:
14. See Julie Macfarlane, “ADR and the Courts: Renewing
Our Commitment to Innovation” (2012) 95:3
Marq L Rev 927.
15. “The Social Lab: A Bridge over the Implementation
Gap for Justice Reform?”, Slaw (28 February 2014),
reform/> “Bridge over the Implementation
16. See Bethany Knox, A Consideration of a Mandatory
Family Mediation Model under Section 9 of the
British Columbia Family Law Act (MA Thesis, University
of Victoria, 2014) at 13, online: <dspace.
17. (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, reprinted in RSC 1985, App
II, No 5.
18. See M Jerry McHale, “Access to Justice: A Government
Perspective” (2012) 63 UNBLJ 352.
19. Ibid at 364–365.
21. BC Reg 417/98.
22. Ibid, Rule 5(8).
23. See Ministry of Attorney General, Justice Services
Branch, Family Justice Services Division, Evaluation
of the Family Justice Registry (Rule 5) Pilot Project:
Summary (November 2002) at 8, online: <www2.
24. See Ministry of Attorney General, Policy, Planning
and Legislation Branch, Corporate Planning Division
Mandatory Parenting after Separation Pilot: Final
Evaluation Report (October 2000) at 2, online:
25. BC Reg 296/2007.