This chapter examines how Canadians respond to justice problems, tracing the pathways individuals follow from problem recognition to resolution. Drawing on legal needs survey data, it analyses key stages of the justice journey, including legal capability, access to information and assistance, use of formal and informal dispute resolution mechanisms, and problem resolution across different types of justice problems. The chapter also explores variations in justice pathways across population groups and socio-economic characteristics. By examining how individuals navigate justice processes and access support, it provides a basis for understanding the effectiveness of Canada’s justice system and the extent to which different groups are able to address their justice needs.
Justice Services, Economic Burden and Social Costs in Canada
Abstract
Justice pathways designate the ways in which people seek to resolve their justice problems through formal or informal institutions. Sound and responsive justice emphasises four dimensions of these pathways (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[1]; WJP, 2019[2]):
Whether people have the legal capability to seek a resolution of the problem
Whether they receive professional assistance or advice
Whether they have recourse to a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism
Whether they eventually resolve their justice problem.
This section maps the pathways followed by Canadians in addressing their justice problems by reviewing evidence on these four dimensions of individual responses to justice problems (see Box 3.1).
The section addresses each dimension in a separate subsection, providing a short review of the literature before discussing the results of the study’s estimates for the overall population and for particular groups.
The CLPS, the GSS and other surveys used as primary data sources include questions about the actions taken by respondents to address their problems, the types of assistance sought, and the outcomes achieved.
The study used these questions in order to determine whether respondents:
knew what to do or where to get help at the onset of the problem (legal capability)
received professional support (professional assistance)
had recourse to a resolution mechanism (dispute resolution mechanism)
had resolved their problem at the time of survey (resolution of problem).
Professional support includes services of lawyers, legal clinics and paralegals, as well as community services or trade unions. Dispute resolution mechanisms encompass courts and tribunals, as well as alternative mechanisms such as conciliation, negotiation, or mediation. Direct communication with the other party to a dispute is not considered as a dispute resolution mechanism.
As the various surveys address these questions in different ways, the indicators are not measured in an identical way across problem areas. For instance, legal capability in facing a civil justice problem is defined by the respondent’s knowledge of what to do and where to get help, while in the case of criminal problems it is related to the respondent’s decision to report the incident to the police or other competent authorities (or not to report it deliberately, e.g. because the respondent deemed that it was not worth the effort or did not think that authorities would be helpful in resolving the issue). For justice problems that can be pursued through both civil and criminal justice pathways, such as spousal violence, the study only considered the latter.
As in the case of incidence rates, the study estimated an econometric model determining the contribution of a range of covariates – men/women, age, Indigenous identity, minority status, location, education, and income – to the four indicators of justice pathways. This allows for the identification of disparities in justice pathways between groups of population.
Details of the methodology are provided in Annex A.
The notion of legal capability refers to the ability of individuals to act in an informed manner and respond to their justice problems effectively. It encompasses individuals’ ability to recognise legal issues, understand their rights and responsibilities, know where to find reliable information and advice, and feel confident to take action when facing legal challenges. Legal capability is defined as the set of personal characteristics necessary for an individual to resolve justice problems effectively, as distinct from the institutional factors shaping problem resolution, such the accessibility of justice services or people’s trust in justice institutions (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[1]).
In Canada, a growing array of informational and educational resources aims to support individuals in resolving justice problems. These include public legal education websites,1 legal aid hotlines, self-help guides, community legal clinics (Justice Canada, 2021[3]), and online portals like Steps to Justice. Despite these advancements, previous LNS show that accessing reliable legal information remains a challenge. While the internet has expanded the availability of legal information, many Canadians lack the legal literacy needed to interpret it effectively and the digital divide continues to pose a barrier particularly for low-income and rural populations.
The 2014 LNS offered a thorough assessment of Canadians’ self-reported legal capability (CFCJ, 2016[4]). It found that a significant proportion of respondents reported low capability across all examined dimensions. Almost two thirds of respondents experiencing a problem (65%) considered that they did not understand its legal implications when it first arose. Among those who took no action to resolve their legal issues, many cited reasons directly linked to low legal capability: 35% believed that no action could be taken; 22% were unsure how to proceed; another 22% lacked clarity about their legal rights; and 24% were too afraid to act. In fact, more than half of those seeking legal information relied primarily on personal networks, while only one quarter used internet searches.2
According to the 2021 CLPS data, the share of people with legal capability to address a serious justice problem widely varies according to the problem area (see Figure 3.1). It exceeds two thirds in the case of people experiencing a family or child custody issue. But it is lower than 50% for victims of discrimination and even close to one third for people who experienced a medical treatment issue.
Source: Data from CLPS 2021 and GSS 2019.
The study’s results on the influence of personal factors (see Table 3.1) show that having a low income, being Indigenous, belonging to a visible minority group or living in a rural area reduces chances of being legally capable by 19% to 33% in specific problem areas. In all areas of crime, nearly all survey respondents were classified as legally capable or information on legal capability was missing, so that variations in the probability of legal capability across different demographic groups could not be analysed.3
Recent research demonstrates that inequalities in access to justice due to lack of legal capability, particularly among marginalised groups, are compounded by institutional factors such as fragmented services and inconsistent public legal education.4
Note: The share of GSS respondents estimated not to have legal capability when confronted with a crime is too low for excess probabilities to be reliably estimated.
Source: Data from CLPS 2021.
Canada’s justice sector offers multiple channels for people to obtain professional assistance and resolve disputes. In addition to lawyers, these include independent legal clinics and paralegals public legal aid plans (see Box 3.2), unions and community organisations.5 Professional assistance is particularly critical for people who have limited legal capability. Yet a large share of Canadians still relies on other sources and often on self-help when facing a serious justice problem.
The 2014 CFCJ survey revealed that the majority of those who took any action to address their legal problem used self-help (including the advice of friends and relatives) (CFCJ, 2016[4]). Approximately 28% of respondents sought help from an organisation such as a government agency, a voluntary association or a union. However, while online searches are a frequent self-help strategy, 41% of those who searched online reported that the information they found was unhelpful.
Financial constraints and lack of awareness often deter individuals from seeking professional assistance. Legal needs surveys consistently show that only a minority of individuals with serious legal problems obtain professional assistance (Currie, 2009[5]; CFCJ, 2016[4]). Legal aid underfunding continues to restrict access, particularly for middle-income individuals who earn too much to qualify for public assistance but too little to afford private legal representation (Justice Canada, 2024[6]). Moreover, geographic disparities in legal aid availability mean that national averages may obscure significant regional inequalities in access to justice (Justice Canada, 2019[7]).
Legal assistance in Canada is structured through 13 legal aid plans, which are responsible at the provincial and territorial level for providing legal aid services to individuals who cannot afford a lawyer. Each province or territory administers its own legal aid plan, tailoring services and eligibility criteria to local needs and resources. Delivery models are diverse. Some provinces rely primarily on private lawyers who accept legal aid certificates (the judicare model), while others employ staff lawyers or use a mixed model that combines both approaches. In addition to full representation, legal aid plans provide summary legal advice, duty counsel services (immediate advice to and representation of unrepresented individuals in court) and public legal education.
In addition to providing legal aid services, legal aid plans may also act as funders of community legal clinics – independent organisations that provide legal information advice and sometimes representation, often focusing on areas such as housing, social assistance, human rights and other issues affecting low-income or marginalised communities.
The legal aid system is shaped by a partnership between the federal government and the provinces and territories. The federal government provides direct funding for criminal legal aid in all provinces and territories and for immigration and refugee legal aid in nine provinces. Civil legal aid in the provinces, which covers areas such as family law, child protection, housing, social assistance, and other non-criminal matters, is funded primarily through the Canada Social Transfer, a block transfer payment from the federal government to the provinces and territories. This means that while federal support exists, provinces have considerable discretion in determining the scope and eligibility criteria for civil legal aid services. Federal support for civil legal aid in the provinces is covered under the Canada Social Transfer (CST), which is a block transfer payment provided to each province and territory for post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, and early childhood development and early learning and childcare. Civil legal aid is an eligible expenditure under the CST.
Labour and workplace legal aid is less commonly provided, but there are federal initiatives to offer free legal information and advice to individuals who have experienced workplace sexual harassment, regardless of income. Some legal clinics may also assist with employment standards or wrongful dismissal cases, but this is not universally available.
Source: (Justice Canada, 2024[6])
The 2021 CLPS data provides a more positive image of the availability of professional assistance (Savage and McDonald, 2022[8]). According to the study’s estimates, the share of people receiving professional assistance exceeds 60% of those experiencing a problem for civil justice issues and approaches 40% for crimes, although it varies widely according to problem areas; it is at its lowest for victims of violent crime (particularly sexual assault) and property crime and for people experiencing discrimination and medical treatment issues (see Figure 3.2). It is higher than 70% for people experiencing institutionalised justice problems such as family and child custody, will execution, and housing issues.
Source: Data from CLPS 2021 and GSS 2019.
When evaluating the influence of personal characteristics, this study finds multiple pockets with lower-than-average access (see Table 3.2), which, as explained earlier, compound the effects of inadequate legal capability. Visible minorities have a lower probability of receiving professional assistance for medical treatment problems. Low-income people have reduced chances of obtaining professional assistance for debt/money issues and violent crimes to which they are particularly exposed (as shown in Section 2). These contrasted results give an indication of the current limits of the legal aid system. When examining all civil issues collectively, individuals from minority backgrounds, rural areas, lower-income households, and those without university education are less likely to receive professional assistance, while women are slightly more likely to receive such help.
Note: Professional assistance data is not available for domestic violence.
Source: Data from CLPS 2021 and GSS 2019.
Canada’s dispute resolution system is characterised by a shared provincial and territorial/federal framework for civil, criminal and administrative courts, administrative tribunals, as well as extended alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms (see Box 3.3). This subsection explores how people use these diverse dispute resolution channels as part of their pathways to justice.
A consistent finding across legal needs surveys is that the formal judicial system plays a relatively marginal role in people’s overall experience of justice. The 2014 CFCJ shows that only 7% of Canadians who experienced a problem resolved it through the formal justice system (CFCJ, 2016[4]). According to the 2021 CLPS, 9% of respondents contacted a court or a tribunal (Savage and McDonald, 2022[8]) and only 1.0% attended a court session as part of their attempts to resolve their justice problem. The 2025 NJS also found that only 10% of people experiencing a serious problem contacted a court or a tribunal.
Negotiation and mediation are a commonly used dispute resolution method in Canada, particularly in family law, where structured family dispute resolution services have become more prominent in recent years. Yet access remains uneven across provinces and territories.6 The Equal Justice Report highlighted inefficiencies in the formal system that drives demand for ADR, noting how institutional barriers often make traditional legal recourse inaccessible or impractical for many.7 The 2021 CLPS data confirm that concerns about affordability and complexity and limitations in access to legal aid lead to increased demand for ADR (Savage and McDonald, 2022[8]). There are significant disparities in the integration of ADR services within legal aid frameworks, limiting access to alternative pathways for low- and middle-income populations (Justice Canada, 2024[6]).
Canada is a federal constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. Its constitutional framework is set out in the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, which establish the division of powers between federal and provincial governments, the structure of Parliament, and the roles of the executive legislative and judicial branches. The rule of law is a foundational principle ensuring that all government action is subject to legal authority and that individuals are protected from arbitrary state power.
The judiciary culminating in the Supreme Court of Canada acts as the guardian of constitutional rights and the rule of law, holding the executive and legislative branches accountable and ensuring that all laws and government actions comply with constitutional principles.
The court system
The Canadian court system operates under a shared federal-provincial and territorial framework.
Civil justice matters (private disputes including family law, contracts, and property issues) are mostly addressed at provincial (or territorial level). Provincial Courts handle smaller claims, while Superior Courts manage divorce and family property matters, larger disputes and judicial reviews. The Federal Court specialises in areas like intellectual property and maritime law, ensuring national consistency in federal matters.
Regarding criminal matters, the federal government defines offenses and procedures through the Criminal Code and carries out prosecutions through the Federal Prosecution Service. Provinces administer justice, including policing, prosecutions and court operations. Provincial and Territorial Courts handle most criminal cases and preliminary hearings for serious crimes. Superior Courts address major criminal cases (e.g., murder) and constitutional challenges. Each province has a trial level and an appellate court.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the final appellate authority for all areas of law, ensuring national legal consistency.
Administrative tribunals
Federal and provincial administrative tribunals and boards deal with disputes over the interpretation and application of laws and regulations, such as entitlement to employment insurance or disability benefits, refugee claims, and human rights.
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
The Canadian justice system widely encourages alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to provide more people-centred services and more effective problem resolution. A large share of civil cases resolves through negotiation or mediation before trial, reducing court burdens. The continued existence and expansion of mandatory ADR in several jurisdictions, such as Ontario's Mandatory Mediation Program, is evidence of its success in settling a significant number of cases before trial. Courts often refer cases to ADR pre-trial and tribunals incorporate mediation into their processes.
In family law, ADR is especially prominent. According to a 2004 national survey of family law practitioners, about 48% of family law cases are resolved by negotiation before trial, 24% through settlement conferences, 11% by mediation and 9% by collaborative family law (Paetsch et al., 2005). Only about 14% are decided by a judge after a hearing or trial and 13% are settled directly by parents without formal processes. In a similar survey from 2016, three quarters of the lawyers report that the cases with clients who have utilised one or more family justice services, in particular mediation, are “somewhat more” or “much more” likely to settle out of court (Bertrand et al., 2016).
In commercial disputes, arbitration is on the rise. The Canadian Arbitration Report 2024 notes a significant increase in arbitration-related cases, with 30% of surveyed law firms reporting a 10–25% increase in arbitration cases from 2020 to 2022 and 14% reporting a 25–49% increase. While the report does not provide a precise national percentage of all commercial cases resolved by arbitration, it confirms that arbitration is an increasingly prevalent method for resolving business disputes in Canada.
Canada’s labour relations framework places a strong emphasis on resolving disputes outside the courtroom through a variety of ADR mechanisms. ADR is embedded in Canadian labour legislation and collective agreements, ensuring that most disputes are resolved without resorting to lengthy and costly litigation. For instance, the Canada Industrial Relations Board uses mediation to resolve labour disputes before formal hearings. Government agencies such as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service play a key role in facilitating ADR in federally regulated sectors.
This study’s estimates confirm previous findings (see Figure 3.3). Access to dispute resolution, whether formal or alternative, is generally low. Out of six people experiencing a serious problem, less than one accesses dispute resolution, except for family and child custody issues, for which the rate of access reaches four cases out of 10, and to a lesser extent housing issues. Approximately one victim of a property crime or a violent crime out of four report their case to law enforcement services, which have been considered as the equivalent of dispute resolution for crimes.
Source: Data from CLPS 2021 and GSS 2019.
Because of the limited number of survey respondents reporting the use of dispute resolution, it is difficult to identify statistically robust differences of access among subgroups of population (see Table 3.3). Urban dwellers appear to have an advantage in accessing dispute resolution for civil issues, particularly housing, and individuals with university education have a similar advantage when addressing criminal matters, particularly property crime.
Note: Professional assistance data is not available for domestic violence.
Source: Data from CLPS 2021 and GSS 2019.
The resolution of justice problems captures the overall effectiveness of the justice system from the perspective of those it serves. When individuals are able to resolve legal needs and justice problems fairly and efficiently, they experience restored stability, empowerment, and trust in public institutions. Resolution not only safeguards rights but also prevents the compounding of related social harms—such as financial insecurity, health deterioration, or family conflict—that unresolved justice problems often trigger (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[1]). At a collective level, effective resolution contributes to social cohesion and economic productivity while reinforcing confidence in the rule of law.8 In this sense, the resolution of justice problems operates as both a measure and a driver of societal well-being: it clarifies rights and responsibilities, strengthens perceptions of fairness, and ensures that legal systems substantively improve people’s lives (Currie, 2016[11]).
Legal needs surveys in Canada reveal that many legal issues remain unresolved or are perceived as unfairly resolved. The 2014 CFCJ survey found that while 53% of respondents reported that their problem had been resolved at the time of the interview, 40% said that it remained unresolved and 7% had abandoned attempts to resolve it (CFCJ, 2016[4]). Among those who did achieve a resolution, 42% perceived that the outcome as unfair. Earlier findings from the 2004 national survey showed that 34% of legal problems remained unresolved, with marginalised communities disproportionately affected (Farrow and Jacobs, 2020[12]). By 2021 only 29% of serious legal issues were resolved – although the disruptions in justice services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic were partly responsible for the low result.
The study’s results show that the share of people who have resolved a serious justice problem, irrespective of whether they considered the outcome fair or not, varies significantly by problem area – but does not reach 50% in any area (see Figure 3.4). Resolution rates are extremely low for issues related to property crimes and violent crimes and reach their highest for cases concerning will execution.
Source: Data from CLPS 2021 and GSS 2019.
When accounting for individual factors influencing outcomes, the study finds – as for previous indicators of justice pathways – that visible minorities, Indigenous people and people with lower education or low income levels are at a disadvantage when it comes to solving their justice problems (see Table 3.4). Disparities are particularly stark for crime victimisation of visible minorities and Indigenous people. These results come as a confirmation of the persistence of systemic inequities within the justice system, which has been documented in particular in regarding the treatment of racialised individuals in criminal justice processes (Justice Canada, 2019[7]; Justice Canada, 2020[13]; Justice Canada, 2022[14]).
Note: Professional assistance data is not available for domestic violence.
Source: Data from CLPS 2021 and GSS 2019.
References
[4] CFCJ (2016), Everyday legal problems and the cost of justice in Canada, Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, https://cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default/files//docs/AGE%20-%20Everyday%20Legal%20Problems%20and%20the%20Cost%20of%20Justice%20in%20Canada.pdf.
[11] Currie, A. (2016), “Nudging the Paradigm Shift: Everyday Legal Problems in Canada”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2825507.
[5] Currie, A. (2009), The Legal Problems of Everyday Life: The Nature, Extent and Consequences of Justiciable Problems Experienced by Canadians, Department of Justice Canada, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rr07_la1-rr07_aj1/rr07_la1.pdf.
[12] Farrow, T. and L. Jacobs (2020), “The monetary costs of everyday legal problems and accessing access to justice”, in Farrow, T. and L. Jacobs (eds.), The Justice Crisis: The Cost and Value of Accessing Law, UBC Press, https://www.ubcpress.ca/asset/56500/1/9780774863599_excerpt.pdf.
[10] Justice Canada (2026), Canada’s Court System, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/02.html.
[6] Justice Canada (2024), Legal Aid in Canada 2022-2023, Department of Justice Canada, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/aid-aide/2023/docs/2024-legal-aid-in-canada-2022-23-eng.pdf.
[14] Justice Canada (2022), State of the Criminal Justice System: Impact of COVID-19, Department of Justice Canada, https://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/state-etat/2022rpt-rap2022/pdf/RSD-2022-SOCJS_Covid-19_Report-en.pdf.
[3] Justice Canada (2021), Legal Clinics in Canada: Exploring Service Delivery and Legal Outcomes Among Vulnerable Populations in the Context of COVID-19, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/clinics-cliniques/docs/rsd_rr2021_legal-clinics-in-canada-en.pdf.
[13] Justice Canada (2020), State of the Criminal Justice System: Focus on Women, Department of Justice Canada, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/jus/J12-8-2020-eng.pdf.
[7] Justice Canada (2019), State of the Criminal Justice System: 2019 Report, Department of Justice Canada, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/state-etat/2019rpt-rap2019/state-etat.pdf.
[9] Justice Canada (2015), Canada’s System of Justice, Department of Justice Canada, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/jus/J2-32-2015-eng.pdf.
[15] Mathews, J. and D. Wiseman (2021), Shifting the Paradigm: Exploring Opportunities for Community Justice Help, Department of Justice Canada, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/jus/J4-112-2022-eng.pdf.
[1] OECD/Open Society Foundations (2019), Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9a36c-en.
[8] Savage, L. and S. McDonald (2022), “Experiences of serious problems or disputes in the Canadian provinces, 2021”, Juristat, Vol. 42, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2024/statcan/85-002-x/CS85-002-42-1-eng.pdf.
[2] WJP (2019), Measuring the Justice Gap – A People-Centred Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the World, World Justice Project, https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP_Measuring%20the%20Justice%20Gap_final_20Jun2019_0.pdf.
← 1. See for instance https://www.cleo.on.ca and https://educaloi.qc.ca.
← 2. See (Currie, 2016[11]). The figures do not add to 100% as several responses could be chosen.
← 3. Victims of crime are classified as legally capable if they have reported the issue to the police or other competent authorities or deliberately decided not to do so. Under this classification, nearly all victims of property crime and violent crime are categorised as legally capable. For victims of domestic violence, the information on the reasons for which some victims choose not to report their experience is not available. For details, see Annex A.
← 4. The Ad Hoc Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group (2021); (Justice Canada, 2024[6])
← 5. This includes community justice help, a range of assistance schemes provided by non-lawyers in community-based settings in areas such as health, disability, workers’ rights, immigration, social services, etc. See (Mathews and Wiseman, 2021[15]).
← 6. Ad Hoc Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group (2021).
← 7. Canadian Bar Association (2014).
← 8. Rule of Law report.