Read on Twitter
1. THREAD: Why are sworn affidavits still a thing? I& #39;ve seen no empirical evidence that documents sworn before a notary/lawyer are more reliable. Most tribunals admit unsworn statements & having held 100s of hearings I& #39;ve noticed no difference, credibility-wise. #COVID19 #BCLaw https://twitter.com/BCProvCourt/status/1250529842619125766">https://twitter.com/BCProvCou...
2. But what if people lie? If you& #39;re going to lie to a court or tribunal, it& #39;s unlikely that swearing a document in front of a notary is going to change that. There are serious statutory and common law consequences for misleading a judicial body, including fines/imprisonment.
3. But swearing an affidavit doesn& #39;t hurt, right? It hurts marginalized people. When I interviewed community legal advocates for a forthcoming paper on fee waivers, many pointed to the courts& #39; requirement for a sworn affidavit as a major access barrier for low-income clients.
4. And that makes sense when you think about the requirements for drafting an affidavit (necessitating good literacy skills, if not legal help), plus the cost of swearing the affidavit, and the travel, childcare, and time off work often needed to do so.
5. So what safeguards should we have? Well, we should require parties to acknowledge the consequences of misleading a court or tribunal, either electronically or on paper. We do this at the @CivResTribunal, and after handling over 16,000 disputes, it seems to work well.
6. As decision-makers, we should continue to admit evidence where it is relevant and reliable, regardless of format. We should be alive to the realities of people& #39;s lives, and their access to formal legal services. Credibility determinations should not depend on this access.
