Open Letter to PCLS Board Re 2015 AGM

Dear Parkdale Community Legal Services (PCLS) Board:

We understand that PCLS will be holding this year’s Annual General Meeting on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 (a copy of the notice to members is available here). We write to raise three concerns regarding the AGM:

1. The AGM structure blocks community-nominated members from joining the board.
2. PCLS is not advising its clients of how to become PCLS members.
3. The AGM should address recent budgetary issues regarding litigation fees and staff turnover.

We explain our concerns in more detail below.

1. The structure you have proposed for the AGM prohibits Parkdale community members from joining the board.

As indicated in the notice, there is only one vacancy on the Board and the Board intends to present a recommended candidate for election. The notice states that this Board-nominated candidate is “to be presented to the members of the Annual General Meeting before any other nominations and is elected by a positive vote for the motion.”

Therefore, not only will the Board’s slate be presented first, but, as the Board stated at last year’s AGM (see one community member’s account of the 2014 AGM here), that member will be elected so long as they receive a single vote.

In other words, there is only one vacancy on the PCLS Board and it will be filled by the Board-nominated candidate. Even though PCLS members are empowered to present their own candidates, the structure you have proposed would mean that by the time a member-nominee is considered at the AGM, the one vacancy on the Board will have already been filled by the Board-nominee.

In both process and result, this proposed system is unfair. Based on the notice, members may invest time and energy into running for the Board and completing the procedural requirements for candidacy. Yet the reality is that no community-nominated member can in fact be elected to the Board. The proposed system wholly blocks community-nominated members from joining the Board.

Importantly, the letter implies that this nomination system is set out “according to the Bylaws of Parkdale Community Legal Services.” Yet there are no provisions in the PCLS Bylaws (available here) for differentiated voting between Board and member nominees.

In fact, we would like to remind the Board that section 19 of the Bylaws provides that the Membership Committee “will develop a recommended slate of candidates for presentation” at the AGM (emphasis added). We do not believe that the “positive vote” system outlined in the Board’s letter reflects the intention of the Bylaws that the Board’s slate be a recommendation (rather than a direction) to voting members in their choice between all nominees.

As a result, there are serious issues with (i) the fact that the Board’s motion occurs before member nominations and (ii) the fact that  Board-nominations require a single vote and member-nominations require elections.

Together, this system prevents community membership in the Board, and thus disregards the intentions and goals of the PCLS Bylaws.This raises a number of serious questions:

1. Who is on the Membership Committee, which the notice states has been tasked with selecting new Board Members? Does this Committee reflect Parkdale’s low-income and racialised demographics? Is this Committee recruiting Board Members who reflect Parkdale’s low-income and racialised demographics?
2. What measures is the Board taking to fulfil section 15 of the PCLS Bylaws, which provides that Board Members “shall reflect the diversity which characterizes the neighbourhoods of Parkdale and Swansea Mews”?
3. When closing files, PCLS students are instructed to note in their closing records whether clients would be a good match for PCLS Board membership. Who is collecting this information, and what is being done with it? Does PCLS invite those clients to join the Board?

2. PCLS is not advising its clients on how to become PCLS members.

We understand that PCLS has not been advising clients — whether new, recurring, or ongoing — of the processes by which they may become members of PCLS. We ask that this be rectified immediately. A yearly notice to existing members is insufficient for ensuring PCLS, in its membership and its operations, reflects the demographics and the needs of the Parkdale neighbourhood.

The apparent failure to recruit new member violates the Bylaws. Section 51 of the PCLS Bylaws provide for the establishment of a Membership and Community Participation Committee, which is meant “to communicate with the residents of the corporation’s service area about the corporation, to recruit members, to serve as a nominating committee for board elections and board committees.”

In light of this disjuncture, we ask:

1. What actions has this Committee taken over the past 12 months to increase community and client membership, and to communicate regularly and transparently with Parkdale residents about changes and activities at PCLS?

3. The proposed AGM would not appear to address critical budgetary issues.

In 2014, the Board hired lawyers from Hansell LLP to represent them in their interactions with community.  Hansell lawyers Brian Calalang, Frédéric Duguay, and Karl Bjurström attended the contested AGM of November 17, 2014.

The last year also also saw significant staff changes at the clinic: we understand that PCLS ended the employment of two full-time staff members in 2014.

These matters raises crucial budgetary issues:

1. How much did it cost to retain Hansell LLP? Out of which budget were the Hansell LLP lawyers paid?
2. Whose decision was it to retain Hansell LLP and why?
3. Is Hansell LLP still retained? If so, for what purpose?
4. Has PCLS ever retained lawyers in the past? If so, for what purpose?
5. How much did ending the contracts of the two staff members cost (including any severance/notice, litigation, or other fees)? Does PCLS intend to replace these positions?  If so, how, when, and with whom?

If an answer to these questions is not possible in advance of the AGM, please confirm that they will be addressed at the AGM itself.

Sincerely,
Concerned Parkdale

GTA Clinics Reject Vision Report’s Three Clinic Model

We are pleased to announce that GTA clinics have rejected the “three clinic” model proposed in the Transformation Project’s Vision Report.

On January 17, 2015, over one hundred staff workers, board members, and community members, representing 13 GTA legal clinics, convened at the “Clinics and Communities Conference,” where they agreed that the proposals provided by the Report  — in particular its proposal to close existing clinics and replace them with three mega service centres — fail to meet the particular needs of the GTA’s diverse clinics and neighbourhoods.

This synopsis provides an overview of the conference’s discussions and potential implications. To see a report-back from KBCLS, click here.

Format

The all-day conference was organized by Kensington Bellwoods Community Legal Services, independently of the Transformation Project and Legal Aid Ontario. Its goal was to explore alternatives to the Vision Report’s current proposals and process. The conference was the first time since the Project started that GTA clinic members (aside from the handful of Steering Committee representatives) have gathered together to discuss their specific needs, challenges, and strengths.

The conference’s first panel featured speakers from four legal clinics (Parkdale, Rexdale, Downsview, and West Scarborough), who outlined the various issues facing their local communities. The speakers highlighted differences and similarities in struggles by low-income communities to access justice across Toronto.

The second panel featured Kathy Laird of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, Josephine Grey of Low Income Families Together, and Mary Jane Mossman of Osgoode Hall Law School, who presented various critiques of the Report and its process. The speakers canvassed the need for pilot projects, such as community hubs, clinic clustering, and resource sharing across catchment borders. They also emphasised the need for provincial policy change and increased clinic funding.

Discussion

The conference provided clinics with a chance to identify and discuss many of the concerns and much of the confusion raised by the Vision Report.

For instance, attendees spoke of a lack of clarity regarding the “endorsement” process. Jack De Klerk (ED of Neighbourhood Legal Services), responded, as Project Co-Chair, that clinics will no longer be expected to formally vote in February. Rather, any future endorsement process will serve as a mechanism for feedback, and not a step towards implementation. This did not fully quell people’s confusion.

Audience members also raised procedural and administrative concerns about the GTA Transformation Project process, including the undisclosed amount of Transformation-related funding that has been allocated to Flemingdon Community Legal Services. Flemingdon’s ED, Marjorie Hiley, is one of the two Project Co-Chairs. Approximately $200,000 to $300,000 of this fund remains unspent.

Audience members noted that the Project needs to — but has thus far failed to — respond to the particularities of Toronto’s different clinics and neighbourhoods. The audience highlighted the inadequacies of the Project’s “one size fits all” approach to the provision of legal aid services.

Next Steps

In considering ways to move forward, it was heartening to hear clinic members state their desire to work more closely with neighbouring clinics. Many staff members acknowledged the need for united advocacy for a fairer social assistance program, in order to systematically address the immense ODSP caseload overwhelming clinics.

Attendees also suggested that the Project may benefit from a reorganization of the Working Group and Steering Group Committees’ structures and decision-making processes. Community groups called for increased community and partner representation at the management level of the Project, while many clinics (including Parkdale) acknowledged a need for more widespread community consultation. Others called for more structural change, suggesting an alternative process of oversight which would be community-driven.

Surprisingly, there was little mention of the increased funding to legal clinics recently announced by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Legal Aid Ontario, which apparently includes funding for 70+ new clinic positions.

As the conference was not a Project-organised event, the meeting did not conclude with any official undertaking by Project members about their next steps. Nonetheless, it was understood that the next Project Steering Committee meeting on February 25, 2015 will address the comments and issues raised at the conference, including the collective rejection of the Vision Report’s proposal to close clinics.

We at Concerned Parkdale are delighted that clinics have clearly shown their strength in numbers and collective action. We look forward to seeing clinics negotiate with the province and LAO for increased, reliable, and sustainable funding to ensure access to justice for all Ontarians. We note that this is a call that has been made of clinics for months now by clinic users, clinic workers, the media, ourselves, KBCLS, Keep Neighbourhood Legal Clinics, Stop Clinic Mergers, the Law Union of Ontario, law professors, and hundreds of Canadians. As of this conference, it seems those calls are finally being heeded, and we are excited to see the outcome.

Mississauga Community Legal Services Rejects Vision Report

On Jan 20, 2015, Mississauga Community Legal Services (MCLS) wrote to the  GTA Legal Clinics Transformation Group Co-Chairs, Jack de Klerk and Marjorie Hiley, informing them that MCLS would not be endorsing the Vision Report’s plans to close clinics. This brings the count of clinics who have formally come out against the Vision Report to three (i.e. including Kensington-Bellwoods and West Toronto).

Please see below for the text of the letter, or download it here.

****

January 20, 2015

VIA EMAIL

Jack de Klerk and Marjorie Hiley
Co-Chairs of the GTA Transformation Group

Dear Jack and Marjorie,

Re: MCLS’ Response to the Vision Report

Please accept this letter as our formal response to the Vision Report, released by the GTA Legal Clinic Transformation (“GTA Transformation”) Project in August 2014.

Background

As you know, in 2013, Mississauga Community Legal Services (MCLS) elected not to participate in the GTA Transformation Project. Instead, MCLS approached transformation differently. When the province announced in 2013 that $10 million would be dedicated to enhancing clinic law services in Ontario, we began a dialogue with Legal Aid Ontario (LAO), the GTA Transformation group, the province, and the public, to bring awareness to the fact that Mississauga and Peel Region were the second-most underserved communities in Ontario when it came to legal clinic funding. MCLS asked LAO that a portion of the new funding from the province be dedicated to address the funding disparity.

We determined that in Ontario, the legal clinic staffing average was one staff person for every 30,000 people. In Peel, it is one staff person for every 80,000 people. We asked for additional funds for Mississauga which would increase the staff dedicated to Mississauga from ten to twenty-four.

As part of this campaign we appeared before the Region of Peel’s Intergovernmental Relations Advisory Committee. As a result, Peel Regional Council sent a letter to the Attorney General supporting our campaign for increased funding and opposing any attempt to merge the two Peel clinics with clinics in Toronto. We also met with the Attorney General and provincial members of parliament. We received letters of support for increased funding from MPP Amrit Mangat, MPP Jagmeet Singh, and Associate Minister Dipika Damerla.

In addition, MPP Bob Delaney presented several petitions to the Legislature signed by a total of over 700 Mississauga residents asking for fair funding for MCLS.

The Vision Report

In August 2014, the GTA Transformation group released its “Vision Report”. It recommended a merger of MCLS and North Peel Dufferin Community Legal Services (NDPCLS) to form one mega clinic to serve Peel and Dufferin County and the creation of 4 other mega clinics in the GTA (three in Toronto and one for York Region). It called for the elimination of clinic offices and the creation of access points to serve the community. It also recommended that this new Peel clinic should have 38 staff to meet the provincial average. Currently, MCLS and NPDCLS have a combined 16 staff.

MCLS is pleased that the Vision Report recognized that Mississauga and Peel are grossly underfunded. Unfortunately the Report does not provide a clear path for Peel to achieve the additional 22 staff. We know that it will not come from the Toronto clinics as they have decided against redistributing any of their current 109 staff to the underfunded 905 regions. The Report states that an increase in staffing for Peel must come from new money from Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

MCLS Will Not Endorse the Vision Report

We have thoroughly reviewed and considered the recommendations in the Vision Report and arrived at the conclusion that we cannot endorse its recommendations for the following reasons:

1) The Toronto mega clinic model does not address Peel Region’s unique service challenges

The mega clinic model creates a one size fits all approach to legal clinic services in the GTA and does not take into account the significant differences between the 905 and 416 population.

The Report assumes that the mega clinic model of over 30 staff per mega clinic for Toronto should also be the same for Peel. As a result, it recommended th ree mega clinics for Toronto but only one for Peel despite Peel having half of Toronto’s population. The Report does not recognize.the significant differences between the two regions. The population and regional differences are enough to support two clinics serving Peel and Dufferin County.

a) Peel’s Population Growth

The Report utilizes data that is almost five years old (2010 tax filer data) in making its recommendation that Peel should have one clinic. This data is out of date and does not take into account current population data. Up to date information is important because the population in Peel is growing at a faster rate than Toronto. In fact, recent information projects that Peel’s population will grow by another 46% over the next 30 years compared to Toronto’s population which will grow by 25% over the same period.

b) Two Separate Transit Systems= Higher Transportation costs

Peel residents are served by two separate transit systems which are less advanced than Toronto’s. Caledon and Dufferin County do not have a transit system at all. Low income residents there must rely on taxis to access services. Therefore, a client travelling from Caledon to Port Credit in Mississauga would need to take a car, Brampton Transit, and transfer to Mississauga Transit just to get there. Toronto has one seamless transit system that permits transit riders to travel to all of its borders using only one fare.

Higher transportation costs are another barrier to accessing legal services for low income individuals and the Vision Report does not take this into account in recommending that Peel should have only one clinic.

c) Peel lacks the additional supports that are available in Toronto

Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and tenant law make up the majority of clinic work; as such , Toronto’s legal clinics are at a unique advantage. The City of Toronto has significant resources that support the low income population and relieve some of the demand on clinic law services. This support is unmatched by any other region in Ontario. For example, there are 32 community health centres that help low income people submit properly written ODSP applications; this in turn helps increase the number of successful applications to this essential program. In addition, each of these centres has community advocates that support and organize advocacy campaigns to help their clients. In contrast, Peel, with half of Toronto’s population has only three community health centres.

Yet another important resource for Toronto’s low income community is the Federation of Metro Tenants Association (FMTA). The association offers telephone advice and advocacy work for Toronto’s tenants. On average, this organization, which is funded in part by the City of Toronto, provides advice to over 60,000 tenants each year.

In addition, Toronto is home to two student legal aid clinics and 16 speciality and ethnocultural community legal clinics. These clinics specialize in offering focused poverty law services to key disadvantaged groups such as seniors, the disabled, First Nations, African Canadians, etc. These clinics provide complementary poverty law support to the same clients served by the general service clinics in Toronto.

Unfortunately, the Vision Report does not take these unique resources available to Toronto’s low income community into account in its determination that Peel should have only one clinic.

d) Geographic Size

Lastly, the sheer geographic size of Peel Region should be reason enough to maintain the two existing legal clinics. Toronto’s total geographic area is 630 square kilometres compared to Peel and Dufferin County which total approximately 2,732 square kilometres – almost 5 times the size of Toronto – yet, the Vision Report recommends three clinics for Toronto and one for Peel.

2) Access points may not enhance client service

We have not been able to secure any commitments from the GTA Transformation group as to where the new access points will be located. Thus there is no certainty that our office or any satellite office that MCLS currently operates would be maintained in the future to offer services to our community.

The focus on access points as opposed to offices likely means that our clients would encounter greater challenges accessing our services. The Report suggests that access points will focus on using free space that is available at community agencies and using their front line staff to perform client intake and advice.

We are concerned that the quality of intake services will suffer having community staff guide residents on their legal needs as opposed to having trained legal clinic staff provide accurate advice and referrals to clients. Use of community staff also places undue pressure on community agencies to use their resources to provide services that are not part of their core services.

3) Mississauga will have a lesser voice in shaping their poverty law services

Currently, MCLS is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors that sets policy and guides our services. The Board members normally live or work in Mississauga and are the link to our community. A Peel clinic will undoubtedly mean that Mississauga residents and their organizations will have a diluted voice in the larger clinic. Efficiencies in responding to region-specific needs will be lost as the direct link to our community will be diminished.

4) Clinics provide better service with smaller catchment areas

Mississauga is the third largest city in Ontario and the sixth largest city in Canada. Brampton is the ninth largest city in Canada. A Peel mega clinic would automatically create the largest clinic in the province in terms of geographic area covered and population served. With 16 staff, it would serve over 1.3 million people spread across 2732 square kilometres. Without any substantial increase in staffing, this would create, by far, the most underfunded clinic in the province.

MCLS does not believe that Mississauga’s low income residents would be better served by this grand experiment. Communities across Ontario are well served by clinics with smaller catchment areas. For example, Hamilton with a population of approximately 520,000 people is served by a legal clinic of over 25 staff. That clinic is often praised for their innovative approaches in clinic law services. The City of Ottawa has three clinics totalling 29 staff serving its community of one million people and they provide excellent service to their community. These clinics are able to provide focused, effective, and responsive services that can easily be adjusted to meet the needs of the community.

The unique characteristics of the population served by the two Peel clinics would present a challenge for one organization to provide quality front line service. Mississauga is a suburban centre with a large percentage of low income high-rise tenants. On the other hand, the clinic that serves Brampton, Caledon and Dufferin County assists a large number of residents located in rural communities. Therefore, it is our belief that Peel is better served with two clinics serving the sixth and ninth largest cities in the country.

For the reasons that we have outlined, it is our conclusion that the recommendations from the GTA group do not enhance clinic law services for Mississauga’s low income community.

Next Steps

Despite this decision, we want to be clear to you and our stakeholders that we will continue to collaborate and work with our community and social justice partners to innovate and improve poverty law services for Mississaugans living with poverty.

One such collaboration is with the Southwest group of legal clinics with whom we have been a strong participating member for more than 25 years. Last year, MCLS signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to participate as a Member in the Southwest Transformation Project. This Project consists of several initiatives aimed at transforming the way clinic law services are conducted in the Southwest Region. These projects include transforming clinic administrative functions, using the internet and technology to help clients before their problem develops into a crisis, improving services to rural communities, and utilizing social workers in clinic work.

We also continue to add additional services in response to the needs of our community. The new services included representing co-operative housing members on eviction cases now being heard by the Landlord and Tenant Board, helping residents with their Child Tax Benefit concerns, and adding criminal law advice on Thursdays to complement our Family Law Fridays.

Our collaboration with NPDCLS continues to be strong. For example, we have undertaken to offer advice and representation in Worker’s Compensation law to low income residents in Brampton because of that clinic’s lack of capacity to provide service in that area of law. MCLS works collaboratively with the Region of Peel and NPDCLS to help social assistance recipients become eligible for ODSP.

MCLS will continue to modernize the way we reach out to our clients. For example we were one of the first legal clinics to use social media. We started our Facebook page in 2010 by posting local news and legal information important to our community. We were also the first legal cl inic to have a Twitter account and we started our clinic Blog in 2013.

In the last decade, our clinic in recognition of the growing needs of our community established four satellite clinics. In 2005, we began operating a weekly satellite clinic at Malton Neighbourhood Services every Thursday afternoon. In 2013, we opened two satellite clinics in the Western part of Mississauga at the two Eden Community Food Bank locations on Battleford and Unity Drive and added another in Malton at the Seva Food Bank in 2014.

There is a need to continue to innovate and expand our services to those in desperate need in Mississauga. Thanks to the recent investment to Legal Aid Ontario from the Ministry of the Attorney General we anticipate additional funding to help us meet that need. As you know, almost $10 million will be invested into the clinic system budget over the next three years and we expect that MCLS will receive some of this new investment to better serve Mississaugans. As a result, we will be holding community consultations with clients and stakeholders at the end of January to find ways to improve our service.

Yours truly,

MISSISSAUGA COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
Charmaine Mitchell
Chair, Board of Directors

c.c. Hon. Madeleine Meilleur
Minister of the Attorney General

c.c. Hon. Charles Sousa
Minister of Finance
MPP for Mississauga South

c.c. Dipika Damerla,
Associate Minister of Health and Long Term Care
MPP for Mississauga East-Cooksville

c.c. Bob Delaney, MPP for Mississauga-Streetsville

c.c. Amrit Mangat, MPP for Mississauga-Brampton South

c.c. Jagmeet Singh, MPP for Bramalea-Gore-Malton

c.c. Harinder S. Takhar, MPP for Mississauga-Erindale

c.c. Mayor and Members of Council
City of Mississauga

c.c. All GTA Region Legal Clinic Staff

Open Letter to PCLS re Vision Report Vote

Dear Parkdale Community Legal Services (PCLS) Board:

We understand the PCLS Board has until February 2015 to vote on the GTA Legal Clinics Transformation Project’s Vision Report, which proposes closing Toronto’s existing legal clinics and replacing them with 3 mega centres (page 28).

We write to update you about community calls to reject the Report.

As you know, Ontario’s community legal clinic system is unique in Canada, representing over forty years of reflection, relationship building, and dedication to access to justice. PCLS has been at the forefront of this work, such that clinic users, PCLS members, Parkdale residents, PCLS staff, PCLS students, and supporters are now raising their voices to protect Toronto’s clinics from the threat of closures.

In particular, in October 2014, we delivered to you 45 support letters from Parkdale residents. As well, 250 people have signed an online petition asking you to reject the Report. We encourage you to read the supporters’ comments. Several comments detail the importance of localized clinics like PCLS, including:

I have seen first hand the good work a legal clinic can do. Losing a community legal clinic will force many people to travel far from their homes to access services from people who will not retain the same institutional and personal knowledge of the clinics and staff they are replacing, and many who may not be able to even afford the cost of transit or have mobility issues will simply not be able to access the new MegaClinic’s services, leaving them without any assistance whatsoever. This will further increase the gentrification of the neighbourhood I live in, as mammoth corporations like Metcap and Akelius use unscrupulous and illegal tactics to clear out long-term low income tenants.

Petitioners include clinic users, who describe why the Report fails them:

I have used Parkdale Legal, and their services really helped me. I would not have felt comfortable going to a megaclinic. It was nice going to a place that I knew helped people like me, that knew the Parkdale community.

And, simply:

PCLS saves lives!!!

These messages clearly show the importance of community legal clinics in the lives of so many in Parkdale, at Osgoode Hall, and across Ontario. Yet, to date, we have not received a response to these letters. We request confirmation that you are meaningfully considering this and other community input in your deliberations.

PCLS and the clinic system are not perfect. In 1971, PCLS led the way by innovating legal service provision for marginalized communities, and it should continue to do so. Efforts to improve clinics should be led by user needs. This requires comprehensive consultation with clinic users, clinic staff, and community partners. This also requires collecting and examining empirical evidence about the advantages and disadvantages of various clinic models.

Yet the Vision Report demonstrates little evidence, consultation, or innovation. The Report conducts no serious assessment of recent GTA legal clinic mergers, such as those that created Hamilton Community Legal Clinic or Unison Health Community Services.

The Report also leaves a number of issues dangerously unexplored, including:

1. Where will the access points be and who will be facilitating the services?
2. What evidence is there to suggest that efficiencies can be obtained through mergers?
3. What alternatives to mergers exist?
4. What might we lose by merging? What are the advantages to a localized, community-based model

In short, the Report is neither cutting-edge nor sound; it should be rejected accordingly.

We understand that PCLS’s Executive Director, Ms. Nancy Henderson, has resigned from the Transformation Project Working Group. Why did she leave? Can we interpret Ms. Henderson’s departure as demonstrating that PCLS is withdrawing support for the Report?

If not, we would remind you that, as one of the most active clinics in this city, arguably even this country, a decision to endorse clinic closures (even and especially if PCLS itself is somehow saved) would have severe repercussions across the province. The Report, with its preoccupation with “efficiencies”, was introduced under the threat of funding cuts. Yet both the Ministry of the Attorney General and Legal Aid Ontario have announced increased funding for legal aid. There is no reason to rush into a move that could devastate access to justice throughout Ontario.

Poverty transcends borders. It forces the dislocation of marginalized people. Thus, while the mandate of the Board binds you to the PCLS community (including PCLS users who live outside Parkdale), the scope of your deliberations should not exclude people living in poverty elsewhere in the GTA; the effect of your decision will certainly not be so isolated.

Parkdale is not an island in Toronto, nor does PCLS stand alone in the clinic system. We urge you to join Kensington Bellwoods Community Legal Services and West Toronto Community Legal Services, who have already voted against the Report.

In the alternative, if you are not comfortable voting against the Report at this time, the Board should defer the vote until  at least February 2016 to ensure you can conduct adequate consultation with the Parkdale community.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Concerned Parkdale

PCLS Resigns from Transformation Project Working Group

We have learned that earlier this month, the Executive Directors of Parkdale Community Legal Services (Nancy Henderson) and South Etobicoke Community Legal Services (Julius Mlynarski) resigned from the Transformation Project Working Group.

According to the Project’s Vision Report, the Working Group comprises a handful of clinic EDs, whose role is to “manage the project as directed by the Transformation Project’s Steering Committee” (page 85). The Report states that the Working Group “meets regularly to discuss details and options at each step of the process, including approaches to transformation and consequences of possible recommendations” (page 33).

With PCLS’s and SECLS’s departures, only 5 clinics remain in the Working Group (page 86 of Report):

1. Christie McQuarrie, Executive Director, West Scarborough Community Legal Services, mcquarrc@lao.on.ca
2. Jack De Klerk, Executive Director, Neighbourhood Legal Services, deklerkj@lao.on.ca
3. Jack Fleming, Executive Director, North Peel and Dufferin Community Legal Services, flemingj@lao.on.ca
4. Marjorie Hiley, Executive Director, Flemingdon Community Legal Services, hileym@lao.on.ca
5. Stewart Cruikshank, Executive Director, East Toronto Community Legal Services, cruikshs@lao.on.ca

No reasons have been provided for Ms. Henderson’s and Mr. Mlynarski’s resignations, nor have their resignations been formally announced by the Transformation Project. PCLS also has not yet informed PCLS members about Ms. Henderson’s resignation. Given the lack of information, it is difficult to determine what this change means.

However, it certainly suggests that Ms. Henderson and Mr. Mlynarski, under direction from their respective Boards, determined that active participation in the Transformation Project did not represent the interests of their clinics. We welcome this as an important step forward and a reflection of the mounting opposition to clinic closures within the clinic system and within the Transformation Project itself.

Yet we note that PCLS has still not openly rejected the Vision Report’s proposal to close PCLS and/or other clinics. We continue to call on Transformation Project members to heed the growing public pressure to re-think the Transformation’s “vision” and to find ways to improve access to justice in Toronto. In particular, we look forward to PCLS rejecting the Vision Report, following the lead of clinics like West Toronto Community Legal Services and Kensington-Bellwoods Community Legal Services.

West Toronto Community Legal Services Rejects Transformation Project

On Nov 29, 2014, West Toronto Community Legal Services wrote to the  GTA Legal Clinics Transformation Project Steering Committee, informing them that West Toronto would not be endorsing the Transformation Project’s plans to close clinics.

Please see below for the text of the letter, or download it here.

***

VIA EMAIL

November 29, 2014

Jack de Klerk & Marjorie Hiley
Co-Chairs, GTA Legal Clinics Transformation Project Steering Committee
DeklerkJ@lao.on.ca
HileyM@lao.on.ca

Dear Jack and Marjorie,

Re: Decision of the Board of Directors of West Toronto Community Legal Services on
the GTA Legal Clinics Transformation Project Vision Report

I am writing to provide you with the decision of the Board of Directors of West Toronto Community Legal Services (“WTCLS”) on the Vision Report for the GTA Legal Clinics Transformation Project (the “Project”).

Overview

The WTCLS Board is firmly committed the clinic-led process to transform and improve the clinic system in the Greater Toronto Area (“GTA”). We believe this is a positive process and we would like continue to play an active role in it. There are clearly opportunities to improve the clinic system in terms of client service, community development, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Although we are supportive of this process, WTCLS cannot endorse the Vision Report at this time. The position of WTCLS can be summarized as follows:

1. WTCLS supports a clinic-led process to transform and improve the clinic system in the GTA;
2. WTCLS supports the principles set out in the Vision Report; 1
3. WTCLS believes large increases in funding are immediately required for the York and Peel/Dufferin regions;
4. Before considering approval of a new clinic model similar to that set out in the Vision Report, WTCLS would require the following:
   1. A framework for delivery of client services including more evidence and detail regarding the “access points.” Such a framework would outline the proposed operating model, roles and responsibilities, and governance structure. This is needed prior to the development of the Implementation Plan;
   2. Concrete evidence, perhaps through pilot projects, that the model would result in efficiencies;
   3. Preliminary information on new funds to be distributed in the near future;
   4. A plan for community-based governance; and
   5. A plan to allow programs such as our housing help program to still be co-located with legal services.
5. WTCLS believes that alternatives must also be considered in more depth, including hubs,
   mergers, pilot projects, and a combination of approaches tailored to different parts of the
   City.

The basis for our position is detailed below.

The Question Posed to the Clinics

We understand the clinics are being asked to approve a vision for a new model for legal aid clinics in the GTA. The clinics are not being asked to approve the specifics, such as the exact number of clinics or the precise catchment areas. The clinics are also not being asked to provide a binding commitment. Once a new model is approved, a transition plan will be developed and clinics will then be asked to sign a binding agreement committing to that plan.2

The dividing line between the “vision” and the “specifics” is not clear. However, generally speaking, WTCLS is being asked to approve a new model whereby the 14 metro clinics are replaced by far fewer but larger stand-alone clinics (between 3 to 5 in number). The objective of the new model is that larger clinics would in theory bring benefits, including administrative savings, increased teamwork, better staff coverage, and so on.

WTCLS Consultation and Deliberation Process

WTCLS has been actively involved in the clinic transformation process at both the management and board level and though consultations with our clients. Our Board has an ad hoc committee dedicated to this issue and it is a standing item on our monthly Board meeting agendas. We have reviewed all the documents produced by the Steering Committee and its Working Group and discussed their contents in depth.

We have also communicated with our clients and community informally, at our AGM, and during a recent well-attended consultation session. We have also communicated with community partners and met with our staff to discuss the project in detail. The position of the Board was informed by the results of these consultations.

The Position of WTCLS

The Process and Principles

As stated, WTCLS is committed to a clinic-led process. We believe clinics are in the best position to understand the challenges of delivering clinic law services and are best suited to assess possible alternative models. WTCLS also supports the principles set out in the Vision Report.3 That said, we do not believe those principles inevitably lead to the conclusion that the 14 metro clinics should be replaced by fewer stand-alone clinics each with approximately 33 staff persons.

Massive Unmet Needs in Peel/Dufferin and York Regions

Large increases in funding for the York and Peel/Dufferin regions are urgently needed. LAO funding has not kept up with the growth in the low income population in these regions.

However the City of Toronto area is also underfunded compared to the rest of the province. In Toronto the average staff to low income population ratio is 3,032 to 1 whereas outside the GTA it is 2,489 to 1.4 Therefore, there is no surplus or unneeded funding in Toronto that could be used to address the unmet needs in the suburban regions. Indeed, clinic services across Ontario are stretched. As recognized in the Vision Report, new funds are needed for the 905 – not a
reallocation from other areas. The unmet need in the Peel/Dufferin and York regions is therefore a separate issue from the question of the best and most efficient model(s) for all clinics in the GTA.

The Model of Larger Clinics

As stated, WTCLS cannot at this time support a new model for Toronto that would replace the existing 14 metro clinics with far fewer but larger clinics. We appreciate the logic behind larger clinics but do not see enough evidence that the theoretical benefits will be realized in practice, that the downsides of larger clinics can be mitigated, or that this is truly the best of all the available options.

Before any conclusion can be made, the following additional information is needed:

1. Will access points work?

Significant unanswered questions relate to the proposed new “access points.” The Vision Report found that clients are drawn predominantly from areas nearby the clinics rather than the areas of highest need. Location matters and physical distance is a significant barrier to accessing services.

Given that the proposed model would result in fewer clinics, spread farther apart and covering wider areas, the efficacy of the proposed “access points” is critical. If the access points do not “work,” our clients will be worse off than before.

The Vision Report contains little information on the access points. We have been told verbally that the access points will involve community agencies providing free space on a periodic basis (e.g. every other Wednesday afternoon) for legal staff to meet with clients. The legal clinic would not have a permanent office at the community agency.

This tentative model for access points raises some important questions, including: (1) Will community agencies have space available for this? (2) How will this impact people with language barriers or mental health issues? (3) What would the impacts be on staff travel time and co-ordination? (4) Why should community agencies be expected to provide space for free? (5) Will this actually improve access? (6) How will clients access service in the more urgent situations typical in housing matters? (7) How would client confidentiality be assured? (8) How would the LAO server be accessed in a secure way from access points? (9) How would conflicts of interest be avoided? (10) How can potential client confusion about the role of the agency vs. the clinic be avoided? (11) How can we ensure that access points will remain stable going forward? And so on.

WTCLS has implemented access points in the past and has encountered a number of significant practical difficulties. Our staff reported isolation, excessive downtime, and difficulty addressing urgent situations, among numerous other problems.

Because access points are the lynchpin of a model involving larger clinics, and could play a significant role in any new model, WTCLS would need guarantees about what they would look like and whether they would work. More research and analysis is required including identifying possible models, assessing them, and looking at case studies.

2. Would bigger clinics be more efficient?

Closing down the 14 Metro clinics will be a massive endeavour with huge costs and negative impacts on our clients. Before moving forward, we need to be sure that it will be “worth it.” At the moment we are not confident that it will be. Further evidence is needed, including:

1. 1. Further staffing analysis: The predicted 18% increase in front-line staff is based on a comparison of currently funded positions with a theoretical number of positions in the new model. We are concerned the analysis does not take into account two issues: (i) Many clinics, including WTCLS, have found savings to hire more staff than the number they are funded for. This is not accounted for in the current analysis. (ii) Legal professionals are more efficient when they work with effective support staff in a well-run office. Our staff believe that the model clinic will require more non-front line staff than currently planned (for administration, reception, and intake) to ensure that legal workers focus on legal work. The theoretical staffing numbers is optimistic and should be revisited.
2. Case studies: Mergers have been implemented on many occasions to increase efficiency, by legal clinics and in other sectors. We would benefit from a fulsome literature review on mergers in general as well as an analysis of clinic mergers, including an analysis on opportunities, challenges and overall costs for comparable mergers.
3. Pilot project: The best evidence that the proposed model will be more efficient would be a pilot project. Before transforming the entire GTA clinic system, it would be best to start with one area and monitor the impact.

3. What funding increases are coming to Toronto?

New funding has been announced for the legal aid system. This could change the proposed model substantially, possibly allowing for 4 or even 5 larger clinics in Metro. The difference between 3 and 5 clinics is significant. But will there really be sufficient funds for 66 additional staff in Metro? Additional funding could also open up other alternatives. More information is needed on this important factor.

4. How will clinics remain connected to the community?

If catchment areas are increased, community connection may be lost. It will be harder to maintain genuinely local representation on boards and clinics may lose the dedicated staff who have built crucial connections with the community. We believe a new model must include a governance framework which ensures community engagement. This is essential and must be in place before WTCLS can provide approval.

One way that our current clinic is connected to the community is with relationships that have been built over many years between staff and community agencies as well as those between staff and our clients. We are gravely concerned that these close connections will be lost in the transition as staff grapple with dramatically expanded catchment areas and their roles within the new system.

5. How can co-located programs be maintained?

WTCLS currently operates a housing support program funded by the City of Toronto. There are obvious benefits to co-locating these services with our legal services. Before proceeding with a vision, other funders need to be consulted and a plan developed to address their concerns. WTCLS would like to see a commitment to take all steps necessary to ensure that these programs have the opportunity to remain co-located with legal services.

6. What about other alternatives, such as hubs, mergers, or multiple solutions?

WTCLS believes that hubs and mergers should not yet be ruled out. The few pages in the Vision Report on alternatives tell only part of the story. To our knowledge, the Steering Committee did not unanimously reject hubs and mergers and the WTCLS members on the Steering Committee have never ruled out these alternatives. In fact, we would like to learn more from clinics such as Rexdale CLS, Unison, Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples, and others. We believe that hubs and mergers deserve a second look.

The Vision Report also makes the assumption that there should be only one kind of clinic in Toronto – i.e. a stand-alone clinic with roughly 33 staff members. WTCLS wonders if any “onesize-fits-all” approach can work for an area as large and varied as the GTA. It may be that one area would be best served by a hub and another best served by a large stand-alone clinic. The best option depends on a variety of local factors, including existing clinics, existing community agencies, transit connections, urban density, and so on. The best plan may involve multiple solutions tailored to the specific areas.

The current vision is based on solving the following “systemic weaknesses”:5

• Poor alignment between needs and resources;
• Irrational catchment areas;
• Inconsistency in the services provided by each clinic;
• Lack of capacity for staffing and human-resources development;
• Inefficient administrative and technological systems;
• Lack of capacity for coordination; and
• A need to increase service levels and efficiencies.

These are important challenges. However, large stand-alone clinics are not the only way to address these. For example, catchment areas could be revised and resources reallocated by amalgamating some clinics and by moving other clinics to a hub model. Inconsistency in services could be resolved with revised funding and new LAO polices. Changes are necessary. The answer is not simply more funding. But we think alternatives such as hubs and mergers may be part of the solution.

WTCLS also believes that the criteria for assessing the options should be expanded. In our consultations with clients and staff we heard of other challenges and opportunities that should be considered. Some examples include the following:

• The benefits of providing legal and non-legal services under one roof;
• Barriers to access for people with mental health issues or language barriers;
• The importance of retaining our staff with deep community connections;
• The importance of building relationships and trust with clients;
• The problems arising from the inability to retain surpluses in keeping with best practices (e.g. difficulties in retaining a rainy day reserve / maintenance and continuity fund to cover leaves of absence);
• Complicated structure for the delivery of legal aid services (e.g. the different access points for different areas of law);
• The possibility of ineffective Boards of Directors;
• The excessively low income cut-off for services and the lack of support for low income persons just above the income cut-off; and
• Legal Aid Ontario’s inefficient electronic systems.
• In sum, although significant progress has been made, we believe the assessment of options is not complete and that the Steering Committee should: (1) reconsider other options such as hubs and mergers; (2) assess the options with a wider set of criteria; (3) consider an approach involving multiple options tailed to the specific location; and (4) consider pilot projects.

Proposed Next Steps

As a next step, we believe the Steering Committee should resume their work on assessing the options, outlining a plan, and drafting a further report.

In the meantime, the GTA clinics should issue a collective demand that LAO immediately fund additional positions in the York and Peel/Dufferin regions. Immediate steps should be taken to address the severe problems in these areas.
Time is also of the essence in addressing the broader transformation. The work done to date is extremely valuable and will provide a solid foundation on which to build. We need to move forward with this work. WTCLS is firmly committed to continuing its active participation in the clinic-led process to improve services for all of our clients throughout the GTA.

Jack and Marjorie, we appreciate your hard work in addressing the difficult challenges facing the GTA clinics. The Board would be happy to discuss any of the above with you or anyone else involved in the Transformation Process. We hope that we can move forward with openmindedness and a commitment to collaborative change that meets everyone’s needs.

Yours truly,
Kent Elson
For the Board of Directors
West Toronto Community Legal Services

cc. GTA Community Legal Clinics

————

Footnotes

1. This includes both the principles set out in the Memorandum of Understanding for the Project with Legal Aid Ontario (“LAO”) and the additional principles developed by the Steering Committee. See the Vision Report Executive Summary, pgs. 2-3.
2. Vision Report Executive Summary, pg. 2.
3. Vision Report Executive Summary, pgs. 2-3.
4. Vision Report, p. 77.
5. Vision Report, pg. 2.

Concerned Parkdale Welcomes New Board Members

PCLS had its Annual General Meeting (AGM) on November 17, 2014. This is our reportback from that meeting.

At the meeting, PCLS members elected the following four member-nominated candidates to the PCLS Board:

1. beth long
2. Gita Madan
3. Joanna Mullen
4. Diane Rajaram

Meanwhile, the PCLS Board (effectively) appointed the following three Board-nominated candidates to the PCLS Board:

1. Noah Aiken-Klar
2. David Gellman
3. Mercedes Perez

Background

As we previously reported, PCLS initially sought to hold an Annual General Meeting (AGM) on October 29, 2014. However, PCLS members noted there was a lack of proper notice for this October meeting. Those members who were able to attend the Oct 29 meeting moved to add four member-nominated candidates to the Board. The meeting concluded with the PCLS Board announcing it was re-scheduling the AGM to November 17, 2014.

Official notice was sent out for the November meeting. Concerned Parkdale also flyered in the area to encourage a mix of people to attend. There was a turn-out of approximately 80 people.

The November AGM did not feel community-oriented. For instance, breaking with PCLS tradition, there was neither food nor translators at the event. This posed a barrier to low-income and non-English speaking members, who comprise the vast majority of PCLS users.

The meeting also opened with a lengthy warning from the Board to be civil or they would conclude the meeting. Given the Board’s dismissive response to PCLS members’ concerns during the last meeting, it seemed that the Board wanted to encourage a chilling effect on the night’s conversations.

This impression was furthered by the fact that the PCLS Board was joined by lawyers whom the PCLS Clinic Director, Nancy Henderson, had retained. At the PCLS Board presenters’ table sat Desiree Warner (Board Chair), Andrea Margles (Board member), and two lawyers from a downtown corporate law firm, Hansell LLP: Brian Calalang and Frédéric Duguay. A third Hansell lawyer attended the AGM, but did not sit at the presenters table: Karl Bjurström.  PCLS members were informed that the Hansell LLP would be providing the Board with advice throughout the night on corporate law and interpretation of the PCLS Bylaws.

Election of New PCLS Board

After the approval of the 2013 AGM minutes and financial statements, Desiree Warner opened the election of the seven open seats on the Board.

PCLS members were given two separate voting cards:

1. the first contained the names of three Board-approved candidates; and
2. the second contained the names of six member-nominated candidates.

(We note that in October, the three people the Board nominated to the Board were Noah Aiken-Klar, Namgyal Dolker, Mercedes Perez. By November, that list had changed to Noah Aiken-Klar, David Gellman, and Mercedes Perez.)

Members were instructed to first vote on the Board-approved nominees. Desiree Warner stated that each Board-approved candidate needed only one vote to be successfully elected.

A long discussion ensued between members and Desiree Warner about election structure and procedure. As Chair, Desiree Warner pronounced all member motions out of order.

The lawyers from Hansell were then invited to speak by Desiree Warner.  The Hansell lawyers asserted that the Chair was correct in stating that:

• only one vote was required to successfully elect a Board member;
• voting was on a ‘yes’ or ‘abstain’ basis (i.e. no ‘no’ option); and
• the Board-approved candidates were to be voted in first, followed by the member-nominated candidates.

The Hansell lawyers relied on the voting provisions in the PCLS Bylaws and election procedure under Ontario’s Corporations Act.  Many members disagreed with the Hansell lawyers’ interpretation.

Despite opposition from PCLS members, the Board ‘elected’ in all three of its nominees, namely:

1. Noah Aiken-Klar
2. David Gellman; and
3. Mercedes Perez.

This left only four seats on the Board for the six member-nominated candidates, namely: beth long, Gita Madan, Joanna Mullen, Dave Nisker,  Diane Rajaram,  and Oriel Varga.

All six candidates spoke. It was a tough choice for all, but the following four member-nominated candidates were successfully elected to the Board:

1. beth long
2. Gita Madan
3. Joanna Mullen
4. Diane Rajaram

Going Forward

The Board’s insistence on using a sequential voting process (i.e. first the Board-approved candidates, followed by the member-nominated candidates) is very concerning, because it demonstrates a refusal by the Board to meaningfully listen to, engage with, or remain accountable to PCLS members and users.

Despite those structural challenges, PCLS members were able to ensure that several excellent PCLS community members and supporters were able to join the Board. And so, Concerned Parkdale is excited about these new Board members. We are hopeful that this new Board will spark new collaborations and positive changes.

Moreover, the new Board has until February 2015 to decide whether or not to endorse the GTA Legal Clinic’s Transformation Project Vision Report.  We look forward to working with the Board over the coming months to ensure strong community involvement in the process.  We wish all the new Board members the best during their 2-year tenure as PCLS Directors.

Concerned Parkdale Endorses PCLS Member-Nominated Directors

In the lead up to tomorrow’s AGM, Concerned Parkdale is thrilled to endorse the following 6 people to run for positions on the PCLS Board of Directors (in alphabetical order):

1. beth long
2. Dave Nisker
3. Diane Rajaram
4. Gita Madan
5. Joanna Mullen
6. Oriel Varga

Here are their bios!

beth long

• beth long is a resident of Parkdale who moved from Vancouver to article at PCLS in 2000-2001. She spent the next seven years in the community legal clinic system, working as a staff lawyer in four separate clinics (Mississauga, Bracebridge, Neighbourhood Legal and West Toronto). Currently, she is a research lawyer at the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, where she has worked since 2008. Informed and motivated in large part by her own lived-experience, beth’s past efforts as an activist have focused on campaigns to reduce the harms associated with sexual violence, poverty, addiction, homelessness, sex trade work, mental illness, policing and transphobia, among others. beth is passionate about the legal clinic system in Ontario, and she is committed to preserving and enhancing community-based access to legal services for the residents of Parkdale and Swansea who live in poverty. She strongly believes that PCLS’s position on the GTA Transformation proposal must originate in and be shaped as much as possible by the people who actually need and use its services. To that end, as a member of the PCLS Board, beth would work hard to create opportunities for the meaningful participation of community members in decisions concerning the delivery of clinic law services.

Dave Nisker

• David Nisker is a 3rd year law student and recent graduate of the Parkdale Community Legal Services student intensive program in the Housing Division. He also worked at the clinic following his placement until early September, 2014. He currently resides in the clinic’s catchment area, and has partaken in many community initiatives surrounding the tenant rights. He also organizes with the Network for the Elimination of Police Violence and the Stop Racial Profiling committee of the Law Union. David recognizes that despite recent turmoil inside of PCLS, and with plans to close clinics, that we all believe that PCLS is a very important place for the residents of Parkdale. He believes that it is important to strengthen community legal clinics across the city and province by building on 40+ years of achievements and lessens. As a prospective Board member, David is interested in improving the student, staff, and client experiences at PCLS as well as the clinic’s overall efficacy. His business background and his valued current relationships and experiences at the clinic give him a great balance and perspective for serving on the Board of Directors.

Diane Rajaram

• TBA

Gita Madan

• Gita Madan is both a resident of and an employee in the Parkdale community. She is running for the Board of Directors because she believes that she is very well positioned to represent the interests of community members, particularly low-income residents who rely on the services of PCLS. Gita is a high school teacher, with a specialization in the area of Urban Education. She is currently a graduate student at the University of Toronto (OISE), where she studies the impacts of changes in school disciplinary policy on the most marginalized students in our education system. Gita is also very involved in the community and active in a number of local organizations and grassroots initiatives. This includes working as a food literacy educator at FoodShare, serving on the organizing collective of the Toronto Time Bank, and as a member of CLAY, a collective of legal-minded individuals who use popular education to engage the public in legal education.

Joanna Mullen

• I have resided in Parkdale since 2012. I articled at Parkdale Community Legal Services from 2012-2013. I now work as a staff lawyer at Unison Health and Community Services, an organization that serves the community in the former city of York. As a resident of Parkdale, I am aware of the changes within the community due to gentrification. deportation, and poverty. I am concerned about how these changes are impacting the clients of PCLS. I hope that as a Board Member I can listen to the concerns of Parkdale residents and the staff at PCLS to ensure that the clinic continues to work to achieve justice and equality for all.

Oriel Varga

• As a Board member, I bring with me a wealth of experience. I have an extensive background in organizing campaigns and creating grassroots projects. As a student in Workers’ Rights Division at PCLS, I worked closely with the Parkdale community and the Workers’ Action Centre. Today, I continue to work on issues impacting Parkdale. Most recently, I have been organizing to oppose the GTA Transformation Proposal. This plan threatens to close 13-14 community clinics for three mega-centres. As a PCLS board member, I will work hard to ensure PCLS (and 13 other clinics) remains open. I aim to bridge the gap between the board and staff and make sure the PCLS board listens to the Parkdale community. I will ensure PCLS is a leading edge legal clinic with a philosophy of community-based lawyering, rooted in the Parkdale community, for the next 40 years!

We note that, pursuant to PCLS Bylaws, all six PCLS members above were nominated by two PCLS members each before 5PM on Thurs, Nov 13. Each nominee received confirmation from PCLS of the timely submission of their nomination packages (both the nominations and the consents to the nominations).

We look forward to voting in these six incredible community members and advocates at the AGM tomorrow (7PM, Mon, Nov 17 at Bonar-Parkdale Presbyterian Church)!

We also note that, according to the notice that some PCLS members received from the current PCLS Board, the three Board-nominated nominees are:

1. David Gellman
2. Mercedes Perez
3. Noah Aiken-Klar

Note that the above list no longer includes Namgyal Dolker, whom the Board nominated on Oct 29; David Gellman appears to have been now nominated by the Board in Namgyal’s stead.

If you are a PCLS member who has not yet received your notice of the AGM, please contact Robert Routh at PCLS: 416-531-2411 x 224 / routhr@lao.on.ca.

Reminder: AGM on Mon, Nov 17 at Bonar-Parkdale Church

Update: You can download here a copy of the notice that PCLS members began receiving today about next Monday’s AGM.

PCLS will be having its AGM on Monday, Nov 17 at 7PM at  Bonar-Parkdale Presbyterian Church.

If you aren’t already a member, make sure you submit your membership application by Tues, Nov 11 if you want to vote at the AGM. Encourage your friends and neighbours to become PCLS members too!

If you don’t know if you’re a member or not or if you’ve not yet received notice from PCLS about the AGM, contact Robert Routh at PCLS: 416-531-2411 x 224 / routhr@lao.on.ca

On Monday, we will confirm the election of the following member-nominated Directors:

1. Diane Rajaram
2. Joanna Mullen
3. Dave Nisker
4. Oriel Varga

We will also confirm the election of the following Board-nominated Directors:

1. Noah Aiken-Klar
2. Namgyal Dolker
3. Mercedes Perez

Right now, this is the PCLS Board:

1. Andrea Margles: amargles@krmc-law.com
2. Amar Bhatia: abhatia@osgoode.yorku.ca
3. David Gellman: David@davidgellman.com
4. Desiree Warner: desmwarner@gmail.com
5. Faisal Bhabha: fbhabha@osgoode.yorku.ca
6. Jen Danch: jen.danch@gmail.com
7. Mercedes Perez: mperez@swadron.com
8. Noah Aiken-Klar: naikenklar@otf.ca
9. Richard Haigh: rhaigh@osgoode.yorku.ca
10. Shelley Gavigan: gavigan@osgoode.yorku.ca
11. Two PCLS staff – non-voting
12. One Osgoode/PCLS student – non-voting

We were glad to learn on Friday that the PCLS Board has postponed its vote on the Transformation Project from late 2014 until February 2015 (exact date and process to be announced by PCLS). This is a great win! We look forward to continuing the dialogue about how to ensure clinic users and community members guide conversations about the provision of legal aid services. Only your presence and contributions can ensure we have meaningful community consultation.

See you Monday!

PCLS Board Will Not Vote on Transformation Project until February 2015

Update: You can download here a copy of the notice confirming the new date for the Transformation vote.

Great news! The PCLS Board has announced that it will be postponing its decision on the GTA Transformation’s Vision Report (i.e. whether or not to close 16 Toronto community legal clinics and replace them with 3 mega centres) until February 2015!

We look forward to working with the PCLS Board in the intervening months to ensure that the perspectives of clinic users and community members guide conversations about how their legal aid clinics should provide legal aid services. This adjournment represents an opportunity to hold meaningful, accessible, and transparent consultations with community members about the how legal aid clinics can best serve users.

Stay tuned for updates on how this postponement is affecting other GTA clinics!