Quebec loses a first round before the courts: a judge refused to temporarily suspend the decision of the chief judge of the Court of Quebec who wants her magistrates to spend fewer days a week hearing criminal cases.
Chief Justice Lucie Rondeau advised the government last December of her decision and has now implemented it. Since September, the judges sit every other day, rather than two days out of three, the rest of the time being used to study cases and write judgments. This change is necessary because the tasks of judges have become considerably more complex over time, she explained, stressing the need to deliver “quality justice. »
The Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, asked him to reconsider his decision, which he deplores and criticizes.
He is of the opinion that this will have the effect of increasing the delays before criminal cases are heard, making victims wait even longer and risking leading to stays of proceedings from which offenders will benefit. He argued that the change is equivalent to a loss of 4,617 days of hearings.
Chief Justice Rondeau was aware that this change risked increasing the height of the backlog. To overcome this difficulty, she asked Quebec to appoint 41 new judges. The government countered that the appointment process, which in this case includes a legislative amendment, could not be done so quickly and certainly not before September.
In short, when the Chief Justice refused to budge, the government went to court to ask her to immediately suspend this decision on judges’ work schedules. He also filed a request to have it canceled for good.
After hearing their arguments, Judge Pierre Nollet of the Superior Court dismissed Quebec’s request.
In his decision dated November 3, he recalled that the request for a stay is an “exceptional” measure. which aims to prevent irreparable harm from occurring during the legal process, while waiting for a final judgment to settle the matter.
One of the prejudices raised by Quebec is the increase in delays in criminal court and the postponement of cases. Judge Nollet retains from the evidence that the Court of Quebec was already undermined by long delays before the judge’s decision, and that if the rolls must be undone and redone, there will also be postponements of cases in this case. criminals.
When damage is really serious, you have to be diligent, insists the magistrate, who notes that Quebec has let a lot of time pass before filing its request for suspension of the judge’s decision.
Emphasizing the “weakness” of the Quebec government’s arguments, he recalled that when the government adopts a law, it is presumed to be in the public interest. This is also the case for decisions made by a chief justice – a “senior judicial official” in a role “similar to that of a minister”, writes Judge Nollet. It was therefore up to the government to demonstrate that this decision was not made in the public interest.
And then, Quebec is asking for a reprieve but has not demanded a return to the situation that prevailed before. What use will a reprieve be if we don’t know what path the judge will choose?, he asks before deciding: “The reprieve doesn’t solve anything. »
He therefore rejects the request. But this is not the end for the government: the Court must now hear the case on the merits during a trial. Judge Nollet said he was willing to hear the request quickly.