Law Commission of Ontario

Law Commission of Ontario
Name	Law Commission of Ontario
Formation	2006
Dissolved	2019
Type	Commission
Status	Defunct
Headquarters	Toronto, Ontario
Location	Ontario, Canada
Leader title	Executive Director
Leader name	David M. Feldman
Parent organization	Government of Ontario

Law Commission of Ontario The Law Commission of Ontario was an independent, arm's-length public law reform agency established to review and recommend improvements to provincial law. It operated from 2006 to 2019 in Toronto, engaging with stakeholders across Ontario, Canada, and international comparative jurisdictions such as England and Wales, Scotland, Australia, and New Zealand.

History and Establishment

The commission was created following recommendations from such bodies as the Ontario Bar Association, the Law Society of Upper Canada, and panels involving the Canadian Bar Association (Ontario), the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the Institute for Research on Public Policy. Its establishment drew on models including the Law Commission (England and Wales), the Scottish Law Commission, and the Australian Law Reform Commission. Provincial ministers such as the Attorney General of Ontario and premiers from the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and the Liberal Party of Ontario shaped enabling decisions. Founding leadership included academics and practitioners connected to institutions like the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, and the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.

Mandate and Functions

The commission's statutory mandate encompassed law reform, research, consultation, and public education. It undertook projects concerning statutes administered by ministries including the Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario), Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (Ontario), and the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (Ontario). Areas of work spanned civil justice, administrative law, Indigenous law intersecting with the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Duty to Consult jurisprudence, family law touching on precedents like Gonzales v. R.-style decisions, and regulatory modernization influenced by instruments such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and provincial counterparts. The commission also produced materials useful to bodies like the Ontario Court of Justice, the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and tribunals such as the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Governance and Organizational Structure

Governance relied on a board of commissioners drawn from legal academia, judiciary, advocacy organizations, and professional associations including the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Senior staff included an executive director and research lawyers collaborating with centres like the Centre for International Governance Innovation, the Munk School of Global Affairs, and the Institute of Public Law at Canadian universities. The commission partnered with provincial entities such as the Attorney General of Ontario and municipal actors including the City of Toronto as well as national organizations like the Department of Justice (Canada) and international partners like the Commonwealth Secretariat.

Major Reports and Reforms

Notable publications addressed access to justice, administrative law reform, modernization of civil procedures, and Indigenous legal issues. Key reports influenced discussions involving the Superior Court of Justice, reforms paralleling initiatives by the Law Commission (England and Wales), and comparisons with the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. Topics included civil remedies akin to matters in Grant v. Torstar Corp., tort reform considerations related to Donoghue v Stevenson-line doctrines, and administrative law reforms reflecting jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada. Recommendations intersected with statutes such as the Limitations Act (Ontario) and policies of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (Ontario) concerning capacity and consent, and echoed reforms in provinces like British Columbia and Alberta.

Impact and Criticism

The commission influenced policy debates involving stakeholders from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Indigenous organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations, and advocacy groups like Pro Bono Ontario and the Advocates' Society. Its work informed legislative amendments debated in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and guided practice for legal professionals registered with the Law Society of Ontario. Critics from academic forums at places like Queen's University and McGill University questioned its prioritization and resource allocation, while commentators in outlets including the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star debated its independence and policy impact. Comparative scholars referenced practice in the Netherlands and the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice when assessing outcomes.

Funding and Accountability

Funding came from the provincial budget processes overseen by the Ministry of Finance (Ontario), with accountability mechanisms reporting to ministers such as the Attorney General of Ontario and scrutiny by committees of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Financial oversight intersected with provincial audit practices and the work of entities like the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. Upon the commission's closure, debates involved stakeholders including the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and legal societies about legacy, preservation of research archives at repositories like the Canadian Legal Information Institute and university law libraries at University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall.

Category:Organizations based in Toronto Category:Defunct commissions of Ontario