Law Commons^™

Virtual Justice: A Complex Portrait Of Canadian Self-Represented Litigant Experiences With Virtual Hearings, Jennifer Leitch, Dayna Cornwall, David Lundgren

National Self Represented Litigants Project

“Virtual Justice: A complex portrait of Canadian self-represented litigant experiences with virtual hearings” is the result of a year-long project generously funded through a grant from the McLachlin Fund, with the goal of understanding the experiences of Canadian self-represented litigants (SRLs) with virtual hearings since the onset of the pandemic, when such processes began to dramatically increase and become much more common.

Using a survey and focus groups, we gathered data from many SRLs with experiences across jurisdictions and types of legal matter. The results reflect the fact that SRLs’ experiences with virtual hearings are, in fact, quite varied. Approximately …

Locating And Situating Justice Pal: Twail, International Criminal Tribunals, And Judicial Powers, Sujith Xavier

Law Publications

This paper brings forward Justice Pal's dissenting opinion at the Tokyo Tribunal to add to Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) literature on international criminal law and the rules of evidence and procedure. It is part of a TWAIL effort to scrutinize the everyday practices of international prosecutions through procedural and evidentiary rules. By locating and situating Justice Pal's reasoning within the broader academic literature on dissents in international criminal law, it is possible to illustrate how and why Justice Pal's views were obscured as a relevant dissent. From this vantage point, this paper pursues Justice Pal's legacy as …

The Acquisition Of Scientific Evidence Between Frye And Daubert. From Ad Hominem Arguments To Cross-Examination Among Experts, Lorenzo Zoppellari

OSSA Conference Archive

The Frye and Daubert rulings give us two very different ways to intend the relation between law and science. Through the contributions of Wellman and Walton, we will see how the main method to question the expert’s testimony before a judge deferent to science is to question her personal integrity by using ad hominem arguments. Otherwise, using Alvin Goldman’s novice/expert problem, we will investigate if other manners of argumentative cross-examinations are possible.