In a clear and well-reasoned judgment, Brenner said the organization is the wrong one to be launching such a lawsuit, and the remedy it sought is far too sweeping.

"Instead of considering a specific statute or a specific administrative act or expenditure for constitutional compliance, this case would ultimately require the court to define a constitutionally valid civil legal aid scheme and order its provision by the defendants," Brenner wrote.

That isn't going to happen.

For almost two decades, legal aid across Canada has been a growing concern because of government cutbacks.

Provinces have curtailed legal aid services, narrowing the types of cases they cover, raising the eligibility criteria, making it harder to qualify.

At the same time, the federal government assumes no responsibility, with the primary exception of serious criminal matters.

People often have no legal assistance even when critical issues are at stake and no government is accountable.

The legal community fears we are creating a system for the rich and stacking the deck against those without resources, yet extensive lobbying has proved useless.

Part of the problem is bad optics.

While the bar association is probably best-suited to understand and comment on this situation, it can't help but appear self-serving asking governments to give more money to lawyers.

So, in 2002, the bar association decided to launch this lawsuit.

It chose B.C. for the novel test case because of the deep, deep cuts to legal services by the

Liberal government when it first took office.

The association filed a statement of claim in June 2005, alleging the provision of civil legal aid in B.C. is inadequate and those inadequacies amount to breaches of constitution and international human rights conventions. It maintained that coverage was limited, that financial eligibility guidelines excluded many poor people, and that the services provided are too restrictive.

As the voice of some 36,000 members of the country's legal profession, the association said it was the most appropriate party to bring such a suit.

It maintained it was unreasonable to insist that poor individuals -- denied legal aid in cases where they are unjustly evicted or when they are threatened about the custody of their children -- be required to mount constitutional challenges themselves on a case-by-case basis.

In a nutshell, the association wanted court-mandated civil legal aid across Canada with judges deciding what was necessary while taxpayers footed the bill.

Brenner told them to get stuffed.

"In the case at bar, there is no challenge to a specific governmental decision, act, or statute," he wrote last week.

"The case cannot be characterized as raising an issue with respect to the limits of statutory, administrative, or executive authority. The challenge is to the funding, content, administration, operation, and effect of an entire public program that invokes various federal and provincial statutes, ministries, agencies, and non-governmental entities and actors....What the plaintiff effectively seeks ... is to have the court conduct an inquiry on the subject of civil legal aid, define a constitutionally compliant civil legal aid scheme, order the defendants to implement such a scheme, and oversee the process to ensure compliance."

He wasn't going to do that -- and rightly so, that's not the court's job.

There were other ways for this issue to be pursued, Brenner said, and having a court deal with funding problems on a case-by-case basis is certainly one of them.

The association is analysing his decision and considering its options.

I think Brenner slammed the door on their strategy, but that doesn't detract from the point they are raising.

The current legal system is not open to all and is by no means a level playing field for the poor.

The bar association may have lost this round of their fight to get the situation fixed, but reform nevertheless is desperately needed.

imulgrew@png.canwest.com