Judges aren’t popular these days. Some accuse them of taking the place of elected officials: we often speak of “judges’ government” even if, in fact, they only apply laws and charters of rights that have been passed by elected officials.
But in these times of conspiracy theories and fake news of all kinds, we now see that the decisions of judges can become a safe space (in English safe space) for the truth. A place to tell it like it is and debunk fake news and alleged conspiracies.
This is what happened this week in the case of the tramway in Quebec when Judge Clément Samson, of the Superior Court, dissected and downright destroyed the claims of the group Quebec deserves better, which opposes this project.
In a very comprehensive judgment of 85 pages – and which was rendered in record time: the hearings took place at the beginning of December, the judgment this week – Judge Samson responds one by one to the arguments of the opponents. And concludes that nothing in their request justifies the abandonment of the project.
But what is even more interesting is that Judge Samson takes the time to explain why the various conspiracy theories offered by opponents do not hold water. Methodically, with rigor and with all respect.
It must be said that the cause of the group Quebec deserves better was largely based on conspiracy theories. Starting with their assertion that the whole project had been developed against “all the rules of the art in engineering”. Since the opponents just said that, without providing evidence, the judge quickly dismissed this argument.
Another argument of the opponents was that the tramway of Quebec had not been the subject of serious studies, it was the theory of “drawing on a napkins “, a not serious project and carried out in a hurry.
Judge Samson pointed out that the Réseau de transport de la Capitale has been studying a structuring transport network project, including a tramway, since at least 2005. That’s a pretty big napkins.
The judge also dismantles the conflict of interest argument that an engineer who gave his opinion to the Ministry of Transport was then appointed to the board of directors of the Caisse de dépôt et placement, which would then have invested in the only company who could bid for the construction of the tramway.
These are “innuendoes of conflicts of interest that hold with string”, corrects the judge Samson. End of the grand conspiracy theory.
So the judge brought everyone down to earth about the streetcar project and that was a huge service to the community.
During this time, an open conflict is taking place between the Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, and the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec, Lucie Rondeau, on the increase in the time of deliberation of the judges which would require the hiring of several new judges at the Court of Quebec.
We can debate for a long time who is right. But the debate goes far beyond the question of the number of judges in the Court of Quebec.
The reality is that the justice system in Quebec is becoming the twin of the health care system: the problem is not the people who work there and the quality of their work, it’s that we don’t give them more resources.
The system has been neglected for several years and today we are reaping a lack of efficiency while the requirements, the shutdown Jordan on legal delays, for example, are becoming increasingly cumbersome.
It is the Minister of Justice who is responsible for administering the system, and it is clear that this is not one of his priorities.
For example, currently, the clerks of the Court of Quebec are leaving their positions en masse for the municipal courts, where they are considerably better paid. Result: at the Montreal courthouse, only one out of two courtrooms is in operation each day.
This is just one example. As the Chief Justice of the Superior Court recently said, the system “holds together with duct tape !
However, the administration of justice is the responsibility of the Government of Quebec. Mr. Jolin-Barrette’s primary mission must be to make the system work. A system which, when it performs well, gives us pearls, like this decision by Judge Samson.
In the circumstances, the minister’s quarrels with the chief justice seem much more to cover up his failures to fulfill his primary mission than to be a real conflict of principles. In these times when we need the wisdom of judges, the first service that the minister must render to them is to make this “safe space for the truth” work properly.