Miranda Desa's Linkedin Analytics

A big thank you to everyone that's responded to our poll for the Ontario Civil Rules Review! If you haven't filled it out yet, and are a litigator in Ontario, it's not too late: https://lnkd.in/gCeEi5KV Help us get a better understanding of when cases are resolving under the current system. We will share our aggregated results here on LinkedIn and with the Working Group and the more lawyers that respond, the more useful the data will be. #CivilRulesReview

We can’t fix what we can’t measure. Right now, one of the biggest challenges for the Civil Rules Review is simple: we just don’t have enough data on how our civil justice system is actually working - especially on when cases are resolving. We all have stories. But stories aren’t the same as stats. We need to turn our lived experiences into real information. That’s why I’m putting together a submission based on data, not just opinions. If you’re a litigation lawyer practising in Ontario, you can help. I’ve created a short survey to gather what’s really happening on the ground. The more voices, the clearer the picture. This matters for anyone who wants a fairer, better, more efficient civil justice system. Your insights—big or small—really do make a difference. If you’ve got a few minutes, I’d be grateful for your perspective. I'd also appreciate everyone's help in liking/commenting/sharing/saving this post so that I can get as many Ontario litigators to complete our poll as possible. Every like, comment and share helps get this in front of more Ontario litigators. Add your thoughts below or pass it on to someone who should have their say. Thank you for being part of this. #CivilRulesReview

I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the Civil Rules Review, and trying to come up with says to improve access to justice in Ontario. If we move forward with witness statements, what if the parties were allowed to opt to cross-examine the witnesses? Instead of discoveries being mandatory, cross-examinations could be optional. The party wanting to cross-examined would have to cover the cost of the reporter and ordering the transcript for both sides. The Rules for cross-examination ought to encourage the parties to exercise more restraint. It could be set up so that the transcript could be relied on by both parties at trial, meaning that asking questions becomes a lot more dangerous as you could be building up the other side's case. The scope of cross-examination is also narrower than discovery, and it doesn't allow the same broad requests for documents. What do you think? Would that help solve some of the issues caused by removing discoveries or would it open up even more new issues?

Ontario Litigators - Please help us collect data on when civil litigation cases are resolving. We need more answers for the poll to be given much weight and time to respond is running out.

The future of civil litigation is changing and your experience can help direct it in the right direction. Will you take a minute and add your voice? Our profession is stronger when we work together. If you're a litigator in Ontario and haven't filled out our short survey yet, we need your help: We’re trying to understand when cases are resolving under the current system. The more responses we get, the more useful the data will be. This information is critical to understand how our system is presently working and is not currently tracked. We will share the aggregated data here on LinkedIn and with the Working Group. Thanks to everyone who’s taken the time already. Your input really matters. #CivilRulesReview #OntarioLitigators #JusticeInPractice