No less than 50,000 criminal cases per year could exceed the 18-month deadlines set by the Jordan decision — and possibly be the subject of a request for a stay of proceedings — if judges of the Court of Quebec sit one day. out of two starting in September, as Chief Justice Lucie Rondeau wishes, reveal Department of Justice estimates obtained by The duty.
“We are heading straight for a second episode of the Jordan judgment, and even worse,” says a source familiar with the matter, worried. Questioned on this subject on Friday, the Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, asked the Court of Quebec to “review its decision”.
At the beginning of the year, the Court of Quebec informed the Ministry of Justice of its desire that the judges of its Criminal Division sit one working day out of two – rather than two days out of three – as soon as the start of the school year begins. To mitigate the legal delays that this could cause, the Chief Justice is calling for the appointment of 41 judges.
For the purposes of analyzing Lucie Rondeau’s request, the Ministère de la Justice assessed the impact that the reorganization of the judges’ work would have on court delays. Result: he estimates that in one judicial year, approximately 50,000 of the 170,000 active cases of his Criminal Division would exceed the 18-month ceiling set by the Jordan judgment, according to our information.
In July 2016, the Supreme Court set, in this judgment, the reasonable time for holding a criminal trial at 18 months in the Court of Quebec. However, this calculation does not take into account delays attributable to the defence. This means that the mere fact of exceeding the 18-month threshold would not automatically mark the end of these 50,000 cases, since the accused would have to prove that the delays interfere with their right to have a “fair” trial. and fair”.
By comparison, about 33,000 cases were accumulating delays of more than 18 months when the Jordan decision was rendered. In the following two years, 1,680 motions to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay were brought by defendants seeking to avoid trial.
Still, the potential repercussions of the Court of Quebec’s decision worry Minister Jolin-Barrette. “Like other players in the community, we are very concerned about the impact that the decision taken by the Court of Quebec, without consulting the justice partners, would have on judicial delays,” he said. to To have to. “We urge the Court of Quebec to reconsider its decision. »
Given the ongoing discussions in this case, Judge Rondeau preferred not to grant an interview to the To have to. “It is not appropriate to comment in detail on the multiple angles from which the file is being discussed,” she wrote in an email sent Friday.
She then underlined that the current organization of the work of judges in criminal matters had not changed for 40 years and that it constituted “a major concern which has been the subject, for quite some time now, of reflection and discussion within of our institution. In the opinion of the Court of Québec, the reorganization of the work of judges is “made necessary by the evolution of this function”.
Judge Rondeau said she was waiting for a meeting with the minister. In the meantime, “ongoing discussions with ministry staff include an assessment of the impact of such a reorganization on court timelines, which varies by region,” she added. “The Court of Québec is concerned and aware of this impact and is thus participating in this work in a spirit of collaboration aimed at the gradual deployment of additional resources so that, according to the expectations of the public, it can provide quality services within a reasonable timeframe. . »
Like other actors in the field, we are very concerned about the impact that the decision made by the Court of Quebec, without consulting the justice partners, would have on judicial delays.
The Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, for his part, expressed concern about the will of the Court of Quebec. “This decision causes concern within our institution since it will necessarily have the effect of extending institutional deadlines,” said its spokesperson, Ms.and Audrey Roy-Cloutier.
“While the effect on our ability to meet the caps established by the Jordan decision will not be the same in all courthouses, we must be concerned about any extension of judicial delays in the interest of victims, witnesses, the accused and the population’s confidence in the justice system”, she added, after specifying that “many efforts have been made in a concerted manner by all stakeholders in the justice system. justice to improve judicial delays since the Jordan decision”.
The Legal Services Commission (CSJ), the entity responsible for ensuring that legal aid is provided to eligible individuals, also says it is “concerned about the impact [l’orientation de la Cour du Québec] would have on the increase in judicial delays in general”.
Its secretary general, Mr.and Richard La Charité, informed the To have to that the SCJ had “made its concerns known to the Court” and “expressed its availability to discuss and collaborate in this case”. The CSJ estimates that nearly 75% of the cases heard in the Criminal and Penal Division of the Court of Quebec are made under the cover of the legal aid plan, he specified.
More complex cases
The former president of the Quebec Association of Defense Lawyers Michel Lebrun was startled by the number of cases which, according to the impact study of the Ministry of Justice, would be affected. The Association’s current president, Marie-Pier Boulet, had not responded to our interview request at the time of writing.
“What Justice Rondeau raises is that the cases are more complex [et demandent donc plus de temps aux juges]. And that is an observation that we also made, that we share, ”said Mr. Lebrun. In his opinion, the complexity of the cases is particularly reflected in marital and sexual assault cases, “where the judges render very elaborate decisions” commanding “a much heavier work for the judiciary”.
The possible multiplication of “Jordan judgments” is far from delighting him. “A judgment that ends in a stay of proceedings is a bit of an acknowledgment of failure in the management of a particular file. […] For us, the message of the Jordan judgment is that the state must put in the necessary resources,” he argued.