By Tim Louis

One of my most memorable conversations, from when I was an articling student working for the late Harry Rankin, involved a client concerned about the cost of litigation.

She wasn't concerned about Harry's fee. He was always more than fair and would work on a contingency fee basis whenever the client requested. But it was the potential court costs—such as court filing fees, trial hearing day fees, and jury fees—that worried her.

"This is not the way a justice system should be run," she said.

Harry's response was quick and to the point : "We have a legal system, not a justice system."

As expensive as the court system was then, it has become even worse over the last number of years.

Just recently, in a well-publicized case, victims of the Queen of the North ferry sinking had to abandon their lawsuit on the eve of the trial because they could not afford the exorbitant jury fees.

Their lawyer, to his credit, held a press conference to publicize this fact.

All of the above is not just to complain about the current state of affairs—that is, that it is costly to go to court. I have written this article because—believe it or not—Gordon Campbell and the B.C. Liberal government are about to make it far far worse.

A full new set of court rules are under consideration and appear to be on the verge of being approved by the provincial government without even bringing the matter before the legislature for a vote. These new rules will significantly increase the cost of going to court.

Even more disturbing is a proposal to prevent any case from going to court when you do not have the proof in advance.

Let me explain. While in many cases you have the evidence you need—proof such as a broken arm as a result of an assault or a damaged fender as a result of a motor vehicle accident—there are many cases in which you do not have the evidence to prove your case when you start your lawsuit.

A perfect example would be the case referred to above—the sinking of the Queen of the North. The fact that the ferry had sunk was without dispute. But why it sank was open to question.

For example, was there negligence on the part of B.C. Ferries either in the navigation of the ferry or in proper mechanical maintenance? The question of why certainly could not be established prior to the lawsuit being commenced.

What you had was deceased and injured passengers and a "sunk boat"'. What you didn't have was proof that explained the sinking.

In our present system, you can start your lawsuit, even though you don't have the proof. After you start the lawsuit, you have the right to examine the defendant under oath to get to the truth and proof. In this case, the defendants would have been B.C. Ferries employees.

The new rules no longer will allow you to do this. You will be stopped from even starting a lawsuit unless you have the proof first.

For more information about the proposed new rules, I highly recommend you visit protectingjusticeforbc.org.

Tim Louis is a lawyer and the founder of Tim Louis & Company.