City Law Centre-Toronto

Justice in a time of GREAT Injustice!

Subsidizing the homeless, handicapped, underemployed and dying. Advertise and share your VOICE with us mark@citylawcentre.info

http://www.scribd.com/jrgenius for the link to IMPORTANT FILES off server. Important downloads. Report HACKING to danah@jrgenius.com

An Ontario lawyer is voicing his frustration at roadblocks to his plan to offer free legal services to Toronto’s homeless. By Helen Burnett-Nichols | Publication Date: Monday, 02 November 2009

Mukhtiar Dahiya doesn’t want to work through an approved organization to get his LSUC fee waived.The people Mukhtiar Dahiya is looking to help aren’t able to afford the services of a lawyer and can’t get legal aid because of a lack of address and identification, he says.

However, he’s not able to offer his services because the Law Society of Upper Canada won’t waive his licence fee if he volunteers on his own rather than through a charity.

Dahiya, previously a lawyer in India, moved to Canada in the 1990s and attended law school in Ottawa. After finishing his degree in 1995, he did his articles in 1996 with a Toronto firm.

However, an accident soon after left him in failing health, leading him to go on disability and not seek admission to the bar at the time. “I was feeling lonely. Because my grandfather was a barrister and my brothers-in-law are barristers, I know nothing other than practising law. So what I did, I started helping homeless people,” he says.

Dahiya went to the law society for permission to write his bar exam in 2006 and was called to the bar in September of that year. He then started going to court to defend the homeless in summary trials as an agent.
However, because he was on disability, he couldn’t afford his insurance or licensing fee.

Last May, Dahiya sent a letter to Gavin MacKenzie, then treasurer of the law society, explaining his situation along with a request for the LSUC to pay his licence fee so that he could “help these people in the street for free as a volunteer lawyer.”

He says he gave assurances that no money or billing would be involved and that if the law society felt he wasn’t competent or he was in poor health, it should appoint him a mentor.

In June 2008, the LSUC amended two of its bylaws permitting lawyers in the 25- and 50-per-cent fee categories who wish to provide pro bono legal services through approved Pro Bono Law Ontario programs to apply for an exemption from paying the full annual fee. The change mirrored the LawPRO exemption for pro bono practice through PBLO.

Subsequently, Dahiya attended a training session for free duty counsel and another on working as a volunteer lawyer run by PBLO.
He says he told them he wanted to start what he calls the City Law Centre to help people who are “shunned by the legal profession.”

“I will involve social workers and I will help them to return to society. This is what I want to do. I’m an old man, 58 years old, [and] I don’t need money. I have seen everything.”
However, he doesn’t want to join a charity in order to launch his services, something he says he’s been told he would have to do.

“I said no, I won’t join any charity because I know what I want to do. Through charity, I cannot achieve anything. Then I’m their employee, then I’m at their mercy. I want to shake things up because these people, they need a special kind of protection and help.”

PBLO executive director Lynn Burns says the organization can’t comment on whether the law society or LawPRO will amend their rules to facilitate individual lawyers wanting to provide pro bono legal services on an ad hoc basis.

She explains that the law society and LawPRO’s provisions for lawyers volunteering through PBLO-approved programs “are predicated on the understanding that these projects operate according to best practices which guarantee the allocation of sufficient administrative resources to adequately train and support volunteer lawyers on the one hand and ensure that clients receive high-quality legal services provided by competent lawyers in an ethical and professional manner on the other.”

A spokesperson for the law society says the LSUC has no plans to change its current rules that are “designed to ensure that clients receive an appropriate level of legal services provided by fully competent and professional lawyers and paralegals.”

At the moment, Dahiya says he is paying 25 per cent of the law society fee in order to keep his licence.

“They say that if you will practise or you will help or you will talk to destitute people in the street, you are practising, you will pay 100 per cent of the licence fee, and you will have to pay insurance, too, which I cannot,” he says. He adds that besides having his fees waived, he wants free space to run his service, likely from the city or provincial government. “The rest I will manage. No money will be involved at any stage.”

In the meantime, Dahiya says he notarizes documents for senior citizens or anybody who can’t afford representation, not as a lawyer but as a neighbour.

“I just don’t represent them in courts anymore. I don’t tell them that I’m a lawyer. I just tell them that I just have a licence and I have two law degrees,” he says.

His preference, however, is to work with the homeless. “They need help, they deserve help, and their constitutional rights are trampled.”

Everyone is in favour of lawyers who provide services pro bono.Glenn Kauth | Publication Date: Monday, 02 November 2009

It’s a motherhood-and-apple-pie issue to which it would be hard to raise objections. With access to justice a growing concern, lawyers who help people for free receive deserved praise.
So, we have people like former Ontario chief justice Roy McMurtry, who is now leading the Ontario civil legal needs project, urging the legal community to do more to facilitate pro bono work.

Other leaders, including a former attorney general, have made similar entreaties. In the meantime, debate has continued over whether to impose a mandatory requirement that lawyers do a certain amount of work for free.

To be sure, there have been signs of progress. Several years ago, Pro Bono Law Ontario started up to help practitioners do good works for people unable to afford representation.

At the same time, the Law Society of Upper Canada adopted a bylaw waiving licensing fees for lawyers wanting to provide services pro bono. Still, access to justice remains a pressing concern.

But as the issue lingers, in walks Mukhtiar Dahiya. For some time, the lawyer has proposed helping Toronto’s homeless population for free. At 58 and with a disability, he doesn’t care about billing clients.

Nevertheless, he has shied away from his street advocacy proposal due to law society and LawPRO rules. That’s because he wants them to cover his licensing and insurance fees to facilitate his practice.

Their policies, however, allow that to happen only if he agrees to work with an approved program through PBLO. Other law societies have similar requirements.

As a result, Dahiya’s proposed good works are going undone. For its part, the LSUC says the rules aim to ensure the lawyers it helps are competent and therefore able to provide appropriate legal services. That’s a legitimate aim given its responsibility to uphold professionalism in the industry.

Still, there should at least be an effort to find an alternative. Dahiya doesn’t want to work through PBLO because, he says, “Through charity, I cannot achieve anything.” His words may be an overstatement, but it is true that there are lone rangers in society whose alternative ways of doing things nevertheless have value.

While there’s no evidence this is the case with PBLO-approved programs, it is a fact that many so-called charitable organizations get caught up with their own interests, such as the administrative minutiae of reporting to funders or raising money through expensive events, rather than helping the people they’re supposed to serve. So, people like Dahiya have legitimate concerns.

Hopefully, then, the legal community will find some way to help him take to the streets. Solutions could include supervision of his work or some sort of formal relationship with the organization he wants to start, the City Law Centre.

It’s possible Dahiya himself is being difficult, so resolving the issue might require compromise on his part, too. But it would be well worth the effort. Dahiya may be on a different track but he wants to do exactly what the profession has been advocating for.

— Glenn Kauth

LSUC seeks balance: CEO
Re: “Compromise could get street lawyer doing good works,” Nov. 2, 2009.

All Ontarians deserve access to justice. The challenge for the Law Society of Upper Canada in the case described in your editorial is to find the appropriate balance between protecting the public while supporting lawyers providing pro bono services.

The law society has facilitated options that achieve that balance. We cannot ignore our mandate to see that clients are protected when provided with legal services.

Malcolm Heins,
CEO, Law Society of Upper Canada
Comments Add New Search

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/200911165799/Commentary/Letters-To-The-Editor

Rose Perri - Legal deception |2009-11-17

I am responding to this editorial. The balance the ceo refers to does not
address the client protection for the homeless and working poor who are in dire
need of client protection, remember that they are also citizens of Canada.
Therefore I find the ceos comments not balanced but biased towards the needs of
vulnerable citizens-especially the homeless. Public interests were not addressed
by the law society for generations. The answer is to modify the law profession
towards democratic ideals.


Victor Fletcher - Publisher |2009-11-17

The street lawyer referred to passed his bar licence years ago.
The CEO of the Law Society claims that pro bono advice is not to be given.
The CEO of the Law Society claims that a balance has been achieved between protecting the public while supporting lawyers providing pro bono services. This claim by the CEO of the Law Society appears to be a blatant falsehood.

Here, on the street, people commit suicide when they are unable to gain access to social services including legal advice


Irene Klein- - ceos comments an obstacle |2009-11-18

The ceos comments are out of touch with reality. The balance he is talking about
doesn't exist much anymore in today's harsh recession and economic climate. Pro
bono advice is more needed then ever-you have to protect the public because most
people today live from paycheck to paycheck, therefore the street lawyer is in touch with reality-without such a safety net, more people will end up on the streets suicidal.


Mona White - The ceos comments about pro bono services |2009-11-23

The ceos comments about the mandate to protect the public from pro bono legal
services does not make any sense to me. The failure to elaborate that vague
comment offends the publics right to know what protection is indicated here. Is
the ceo not telling the public his probable bias against helping the underprivileged citizens or the homeless. Give the public a clear cut answer .


Anne Meyer - ceos comment stagnant |2009-11-24

The comments made by the ceo challenges public opinion as to why new ideas are
not accepted for the benefit for the goodwill of its citizens. M. Dahiya
challenges the law society on behalf of a multi cultural diverse society who
work very hard to keep this nation vibrant and alive. To mandate the class
division of people is to contain the progress of civilization. Goodwill is the
solution also new ideas. This is a must agenda otherwise if these principles are
lacking, this nation will fall apart.Give this common sense lawyer Mark that
which he deserves-the right to make this nation work.

r. graham - Unique |2009-11-02

Saw him shoveling destitute/ homeless people during winter on Queen Street
across from law society, Eaton centre and city hall. Shame on law society for
not helping him to do their work - free if this is the case. This Indian is
real. Genius are always misunderstood by mediocre....


Henry |2009-11-02

Not everyone is in favour! I have a strong suspicion that pro bono serves as an
enabler so that the system does not need to be modified. Might be good to let
the system hit the bottom and get so bad that it is finally fixed.


Dana Horochowski - City Law Centre |2009-12-04

I know all too well how the Just Us system has failed society. The Rich pay
their way to freedom. Honesty gets you poor. I am a teacher, black balled from
the Catholic system for speaking the truth and exposing corruption. I am poor
as a result now. I needed legal aid for a lawsuit where I was taken advantage
of and treated like a slave in a barter dog sitting situation. No lawyer for
those who are poor but refuse to go on welfare. I own jrgenius.com but give
away my lessons for free to help those who can't afford solid tutoring. I could
have used someone like Mark Dahiya in my trial. I tried to defend myself.
Mistrial now and awaiting the same legal aid holdups.
Why are the rich allowed to get away with Lying on Police reports and allowed to Perger themselves in
trial?
I may be poor, but I have Integrity and prefer the company of those like Mark Dahiya and his Toronto Street News family.
Peace Dana

HERSTORY by Dana Horochowski

Hell in White PLAYLIST

This is an example of how some people with worldly power and money take advantage of honest citizens and the poor, and believe that they are above the law due to their social status.

York Catholic District School Board, their lawyers and union use power and money to hide corruption in our education system. http://www.holyhealthy.com/

 

Criminal Offence Penalty Chart
Offences against administration of law and justice

Crimes of dishonesty

What is Pergury, False Accusations, Slander, Defamation of Character, Human Rights Violations, Slavery, Lying on Police Reports, Blackmail, Fraud, Contract Killing etc.

^^^

Victor Fletcher - Editor |2009-11-02

Mark Dahiya's experience has pointed him in the right direction.

The homeless are denied access to legal advice -- the Law Society's claims that 'adequate'
services in an organization are required for a lawyer before he can speak for them is the whole point.

So, again there is NO ACCESS for legal advice. The Law Society appears to be content to leave the homeless to sometimes commit suicide as their frustrations drive them to this.


John Legge |2009-11-02

In the provision of services to the homeless and marginalized, great creativity and diversity are essential. Out of the Cold, the Sally Ann, The Good Shepherd Mission, The Fred Victor Mission, the Good Neighbour's Club - all very different services - all quite essential. One size never fits all.

Hey LSUC, if on balance Mark Dahiya's work is reasonable, and judges are grateful for his representation of the powerless, Give him an Office, a Licence, Insurance and after 10 years of good work a QC, an LSM and name a Library after him.


Bruce - How much are these fees? |2009-11-03

It's like $1700, right? Surely we can find 9 of us to fork over $200 apiece. I'm
in for $200. Anyone else?


Carol Wolkove - I'm in for $200 |2009-11-03

With respect to the insurance fees, if we can get enough money together to pay them I'm in for $200. Dayiha only needs to pay 50% of the fees as a part time lawyer.


ron - disband law society - colonial institution |2009-11-03

It's not only 50% of $1700 license fee, insurance fee is around $ 3000 a year than Ontario Bar fee, Canadian Bar fee and many more expenses hard to count. History is a proof Law profession in Canada has become a tool of the rich and corrupt in society; Canada will be better off without Barristers and Solicitors.
Mark Dahiya is a temporary measure needed badly in the present degradation the ultimate goal should be to disband colonial corrupt institution Law Society of Upper Canada - blot on the name of democratic Canada.


catherine currie - Homeless Shunned--Not |2009-11-03

I and my colleagues represent homeless people all the time in court. I am frequently appointed as Special Duty Counsel by Legal Aid for the homeless and represent them on bail hearings, trials, etc. and then help them to find homes and services. As well there are any number of criminal defence lawyers who do the same. We pay the LSUC & LPIC fees. Surely these clients are deserving of the same level of professionalism as anyone else accused of a criminal offence.
Criminal law, as practiced by many of us, is for the most part poverty law. However, when the system chooses to continue to put its finger on the scales of justice and tip it by increasing salaries of judges, crowns and police and not funding Legal Aid, it becomes difficult to provide defences for both those
charged with serious offences and less serious crimes. Is the answer to underfunding Legal Aid, pro bono? Many of my homeless clients suffer from major mental illnesses and deserve to be properly represented in court and connected to the health system and housing. In my view the AG should recognize the rights of these marginalized citizens and properly fund Legal Aid so that when the homeless are arrested and before the justice system they can have the benefit of experienced advocacy. Please give credit to the members of the defence bar who have for many years represented homeless people on Legal Aid Certificates which do not cover the overhead of office and liability insurance but do give homeless people the professional legal services they deserve.


Cheryl Bullock - Barrie Victims Against Violence |2009-11-03

When there are people to help the homeless why stop them? The almighty dollar again is in the way..Give Life A Break! Allow this man to help people...Who is he hurting...obviously no one except the receipients of the fees! Open your eyes...these people need help and this man cares...obviously you don't


Rose Perri Mark Dahiyas legal - im for Mark Dahiya |2009-11-04

Mark Dahiyas long time experience as a street legal advocate for the homeless
brought him insight into this antiquated corporate elite law profession which is
useless in todays social environment. Many years of advocacy sharpened his
understanding of the need to revamp the law profession.There are many cases
which he dealt with especially that of abused women and children. There are no
safeguards in place for the vulnerable who by no fault of their own have not the
money for council. In this broken society , the have nots verses the haves will
escallate to the point of frustration therefore leaving society aware that lawyers are useless. In this great recession we are experiencing will only add more numbers of jobless and underemployed to the list of people who drop out or become suicidal. The law profession should be a nation building society not one of greed letting its poor citizens fall through the cracks. The middle class avoid lawyers as if they were robber barons. Once in the justice system, this same system can leave you isolated and on the streets homeless holding a tin cup in your hand. The mistrust is everywhere. Give mark Dahiya what he deserves. I am willing to help in his achieving his goals in any way i can. As a social advocate for the church at trinity square , every vigil i attend i see more deaths on the streets. Stop this death by bureaucracy, let Mark Dahiya achieve his nation building goals. Give him a licence insurance fee and a space in an office of volunteer street lawyers. Help his practice take off in every way possible. His selflessness amazes me. Remember justice delayed is justice denied.- Rose Perri

***

Wishing a very happy and prosperous year 2010 to Toronto’s destitute, TSN volunteers and vendors. Destitute

City Law Centre Lawyers & Associates Practicing Law for Poor People
Our Volunteers Make A Difference- Free Notarization for the Needy
Mark Dahiya, M.A., LL.B. is a member of OntarioBar.

Needed are generous donors to help set-up City Law Centre as a charity to render free legal help to the destitute of Toronto. CLC intends to impart free legal help to street people who are overlooked by the legal profession as they cannot afford lawyers; legal-aid won’t help them as they don’t have an address and bureaucratic papers, etc. On occasion, they commit suicide in the street as a relatively small problem may appear insurmountable to them because of their poverty, health and lack of legal help.

CLC ventures to undertake this challenge only through public donations and refuse to accept grants from any level of government except office accommodations. CLC now accepts applications from retired lawyers, professionals, support staff and others ready to help those
in genuine need as free volunteers in a legal environment without remuneration.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.
Donations of furniture, computers, shelving, filing cabinets will be greatly appreciated.

For Monetary and Building Accommodation- an income tax receipt from Jrgenius INC. will be issued.

Thank you Dana Horochowski danah@jrgenius.com

Contact mark@citylawcentre.info for more details.

Mark Dahiya, M.A.,LL.B. Volunteer Lawyer mark@citylawcentre.info