The Quebec government is addressing the court to prevent the Court of Quebec from reducing the number of hours that judges will spend hearing criminal cases. This decision of the Court is “unreasonable” and will have “serious consequences”, in particular by lengthening the judicial delays, thus risking to lead to another wave of stay of proceedings under the judgment Jordan, he advances .
At the end of December, the chief judge of the Court of Quebec, Lucie Rondeau, indicated to the Ministry of Justice that as of September, the judges of her Criminal Division will sit one working day out of two – rather than two days out of three.
Its objective is to lighten their workload in order to maintain the quality of services to citizens, she said, adding that the judge’s function has changed over the years and that cases have become much more complex. To mitigate the legal delays that the change could cause, the chief judge is asking Quebec to appoint 41 judges.
The Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, is opposed to this reduction in hours – a reduction of 22%, he calculates – and maintains that he tried to change Judge Rondeau’s mind, in vain.
An addition of 41 judges would be an unprecedented increase, underlines Quebec.
Quebec believes it has no choice but to turn to the tribunal. His request will be made in two stages: first, since the September deadline is fast approaching, he wants to quickly have the judge’s decision suspended. Then, he asks outright for the cancellation of this reduction in the hours of the magistrates.
The request, of which The duty became aware, was served on the Chief Justice on Tuesday. The application for suspension could be heard very quickly by a judge of the Superior Court.
A disastrous effect according to Quebec
The government has calculated the impact of the reduction in the hours of magistrates in the courtroom.
According to his figures, it would be 4333 less court hearing days each year. This will delay many criminal trials, he believes.
Quebec is concerned, particularly for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault: “For victims to have confidence in the judicial system, the criminal and penal cases that concern them must at least be handled as quickly as possible. possible delays”, is it written in the procedure.
Quebec thus estimates that 50,000 criminal cases a year could exceed the 18-month deadline set by the Jordan decision of the Supreme Court of Canada — and possibly be the subject of a request for a stay of proceedings — if the judges of the Court of Quebec reduced their time on the bench.
“If this decision is ultimately the source of a stay of proceedings, the victims will suffer the most serious prejudice since the crimes committed will remain definitively unpunished. »
It could also undermine public confidence in the justice system, he adds.
The Minister is not the only one to express his concern according to the procedure, where the reservations and fears of several players in the legal world are mentioned, including the director of the Criminal and Penal Prosecutions Department (DPCP), Patrick Michel, and the president of the Commission des services juridiques, Daniel LaFrance.
As for the president of the Conference of Judges of the Court of Quebec, Judge Serge Champoux, he even resigned in May in protest against this decision by Judge Rondeau. In his letter of resignation, he explains, among other things, that he feels unable to slow down his performance of work knowing the effects that his action will have on the accused, victims and communities.
According to Quebec, the Chief Justice “remains impervious to the concerns raised by the judicial delays that will be caused by her decision, being concerned only with the additional resources that she wishes to obtain and the lightening of the workload of the judges sitting in the Chamber criminal and penal as she wishes, ”we can read in the procedure.
Minister Jolin-Barrette asked the Court of Appeal in July to examine the legality of this unilateral decision by Judge Rondeau, but he is still awaiting his opinion.
Now unable to accede to his request to hire 41 judges within a few weeks — the addition of judges must in particular be the subject of a legislative amendment, and the selection of judges is made after competitions — he asked in June to the Chief Justice to stay her decision, in order to try to find solutions.
Having suffered an end of inadmissibility, he maintains that he had no other choice but to ask the Superior Court to intervene.
“The unjustifiable refusal of the Chief Judge to stay her decision jeopardizes the interests of victims, several defendants and the public”, is it written in the request for justice.