摘要：We know that members of the public find court forms complex. Less is known, however, about what in particular makes these documents difficult for non-legally trained people to complete. The study described in this article seeks to fill this information gap by deploying a “functional literacy” framework to evaluate court form complexity. In contrast to more traditional conceptions of literacy, “functional literacy” shifts the focus away from the ability to read and towards the ability of individuals to meet task demands. Under this framework, an individual is assigned a literacy level by virtue of the complexity of the tasks that he or she is able to complete. As a result, the framework focuses as much on tasks (and associated documents) as it does on the capacity of the individual. Four different Ontario forms needed to initiate three different types of legal proceedings were examined. The results of the study are described in significant detail in the article. Some of the identified sources of challenge include requirements to: generate information that requires expert legal knowledge; infer the meaning of technical legal terms; and move between multiple information sources (including, for example, searching on a website to find a correct court address). Another set of identified challenges was reflected in “distractors” contained in the court forms that risked confusing the reader, such as broad requests for information or the use of unclear terms. Although the associated court guides provided some guidance on the above types of issues, we found that such guidance was often incomplete and also potentially difficult to access given the overall complexity of the guides themselves. Although proposing comprehensive solutions was beyond the scope of this study, the article concludes with a preliminary discussion of possible solutions, including form redesign, the use of dynamic electronic forms and the provision of unbundled legal services. Nous savons que les membres du public trouvent les formulaires juridiques complexes. Ce qui est moins connu, par contre, ce sont les raisons particulières qui rendent ces documents difficiles à remplir pour les personnes n’ayant aucune formation juridique. L’étude décrite dans cet article vise à répondre à cette interrogation au moyen d’un cadre d’« alphabétisme fonctionnel » permettant d’évaluer la complexité des formulaires juridiques. Contrairement aux conceptions habituelles de l’alphabétisme, l’« alphabétisme fonctionnel » se définit davantage comme la capacité d’une personne de répondre aux exigences d’une tâche que comme sa capacité de lire. Dans ce cadre, on attribue à une personne un niveau d’alphabétisme selon la complexité des tâches qu’elle est capable d’effectuer. En conséquence, le cadre utilisé porte autant sur les tâches (et les documents qui y sont associés) que sur la capacité de la personne. Quatre formulaires requis pour introduire trois différents types d’instance en Ontario ont fait l’objet de cette étude. Les résultats sont décrits en détails assez abondants dans l’article. Parmi les sources de difficulté décelées, mentionnons la nécessité de produire de l’information qui nécessite des connaissances juridiques spécialisées, la nécessité de déduire le sens de termes juridiques spécialisés et la nécessité de consulter de multiples sources d’information (par exemple, faire des recherches sur un site Web pour trouver la bonne adresse du palais de justice). Citons également les « éléments distracteurs » qui se trouvent dans les formulaires juridiques et qui risquent de semer la confusion chez le lecteur, comme des demandes très générales d’information ou l’emploi de termes imprécis. Bien que les guides accompagnant ces formulaires donnent quelques conseils sur les difficultés mentionnées, nous avons conclu que ces conseils étaient souvent incomplets et pouvaient être peu accessibles en raison de la complexité générale de ces mêmes guides. Certes, cette étude ne comprenait pas la proposition de solutions générales mais elle se conclut par un débat préliminaire de solutions possibles, dont une refonte des formulaires, l’utilisation de formulaires électroniques dynamiques et la prestation de services juridiques dégroupés.
其他摘要：We know that members of the public find court forms complex. Less is known, however, about what in particular makes these documents difficult for non-legally trained people to complete. The study described in this article seeks to fill this information gap by deploying a “functional literacy” framework to evaluate court form complexity. In contrast to more traditional conceptions of literacy, “functional literacy” shifts the focus away from the ability to read and towards the ability of individuals to meet task demands. Under this framework, an individual is assigned a literacy level by virtue of the complexity of the tasks that he or she is able to complete. As a result, the framework focuses as much on tasks (and associated documents) as it does on the capacity of the individual. Four different Ontario forms needed to initiate three different types of legal proceedings were examined. The results of the study are described in significant detail in the article. Some of the identified sources of challenge include requirements to: generate information that requires expert legal knowledge; infer the meaning of technical legal terms; and move between multiple information sources (including, for example, searching on a website to find a correct court address). Another set of identified challenges was reflected in “distractors” contained in the court forms that risked confusing the reader, such as broad requests for information or the use of unclear terms. Although the associated court guides provided some guidance on the above types of issues, we found that such guidance was often incomplete and also potentially difficult to access given the overall complexity of the guides themselves. Although proposing comprehensive solutions was beyond the scope of this study, the article concludes with a preliminary discussion of possible solutions, including form redesign, the use of dynamic electronic forms and the provision of unbundled legal services.
