Thank you, Minister Bell. At this time, I will ask Ms. Lee, the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Programs, to please present her committee's comments on the review of the bill. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs met to review Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, on June 20th and October 11, 2005, in Yellowknife; on June 22nd in Fort Smith; on June 25th in Hay River; and on June 27th in Fort Resolution.

The committee would like to thank the Minister and all the witnesses who spoke on the bill. The committee heard requests from two presenters that we not approve Bill 5. Ms. Arlene Hache from the Centre for Northern Families expressed concerns that the courts are biased against some groups and mistrust about how the provisions might be applied by judges to declare vulnerable people vexatious litigants and deny them access to the courts.

Ms. Julie McNeice disagreed that any unresolved dispute should be thrown out of the courts on the grounds of vexation, which, as she pointed out, is a subjective term.

The committee was satisfied in its discussions with the Minister that the process is standard for designating someone a vexatious litigant and is sufficiently high to protect individuals' access to the courts. The committee also had a question from Ms. Bernadette Unka, a Fort Resolution resident, about whether these provisions could conflict with treaty rights. The committee put this question to the Minister, who advised us that he did not see the amendment having any unintended implications or applications to treaty and self-government agreements. As the Minister reiterated, this really is about people who advance a position continually and chronically, that doesn't have any merit, before the courts, and it would not be a decision that judges would take lightly.

Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 5 to the Assembly as ready for Committee of the Whole. This concludes the committee's general comments on Bill 5. Individual committee members may have questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. At this time, I will ask the Minister if he would like to bring witnesses into the Chamber.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Does committee agree?

Thank you. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses to the witness table.

Mr. Bell, for the record, could you please introduce your witnesses?

Thank you, Madam Chair. With me today from the Department of Justice are Karan Shaner and Rebecca Veinott. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Minister Bell. General comments to the bill, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a little bill, but it deals with rights of people, which is a very important concept and important thing in our society. It is a bill that will limit people's right to access court in one aspect, in that if a person is found to be vexatious, which is a subjective term, then they will have to make a separate application in order to appear in court again. I think that the committee members, and many people that came to talk to us, are mindful of that fact; and I think when we have any situations like this, it is important for all legislators, like ourselves, to give due consideration to that and make sure that we're doing the right thing by it. I think the important thing here is that the test of determining someone as being vexatious has to be quite high so that innocent people, like what Ms. Hache suggested, people who are not familiar with court proceedings or who are vulnerable or marginalized, are not somehow given unfair treatment in any way. This is something that committee discussed with the Minister a lot during the committee hearing process, but that's outside of this venue. Just for the record, and in the interest of the public, if the Minister could articulate the extent of that test. How narrow is that test for someone to be declared a vexatious litigant? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Minister Bell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's important to reiterate that the bar is very high in terms of this test, the test of whether or not someone is a vexatious litigant. This is not intended to stop those who are coming before the courts with the defence in the case where they are unfamiliar with process, the proceedings in court; they may have what the courts would view as, maybe, unsophisticated defence is the wrong term, but at least are unfamiliar with the proceedings of court. That's not at all the intention here.

This is meant to stop, in the event -- and we don't have any cases before us that have prompted us -- but in the event someone were to come forward time and time again with a frivolous and vexatious case that really had no substantiation and amounted to an abuse of the court process, clogging up the courts and preventing other people from being able to come before the court. So judges, in making this decision, would do so very carefully. They would consider the precedent before them, would look at what has happened in other jurisdictions where this has been made, and we've indicated that there are six provinces and the federal court that currently have this provision. So it is a very high test. Judges would not make the decision lightly, and I'm comfortable that the judges would use this in the manner that we are setting it out for, and use it responsibly. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister Bell. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. During our discussions, we were given, by the department's legal counsel, very specific cases from outside of this jurisdiction that succeeded in having someone declared a vexatious litigant. So just for the record, could I just get that example? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I can ask Ms. Shaner if she would recount that for us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Ms. Shaner.

Thank you, Ms. Shaner. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. Some of the concerns that Ms. Hache brought forward -- and I do respect the work that Ms. Hache does on behalf of people that she works for, and the people that stay at her centre, and I do always take note of suggestions she makes, because she usually makes really good ones -- was that because there are a lot of people in our court system, and I'm sure it's the case in many...I don't know if maybe we have more of them or not, but for those people who come to court unrepresented, and who either cannot afford a lawyer or who don't have a lawyer, how can we give any assurances to those concerns of Ms. Hache that those unrepresented people might be more prone to be declared vexatious litigants, because they don't know how to make their argument without the help of a lawyer. How can we assure them that that's not what this bill would end up doing? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

I think the best assurance that we can give them is that the judges would be bound by the precedent in determining vexatious litigants. So if someone is bringing a court action, and they aren't familiar with exactly how to do that, that the judge is going

to look at the foundation of the case, not whether procedures are being adequately followed. So it really is about the intention. It's about the foundation of the case being advanced, and I think judges would probably consider the fact that someone was advancing the action themselves, and without legal representation, and I think they would allow for more leeway. But I think the best assurance we have is that it's a very high test to meet, and there is a body of precedent in other jurisdictions that speaks to what, in fact, a vexatious litigant is. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. General comments. Detail. Bill 5, an Act to Amend the Judicature Act, clause 1.