The judges of the Court of Quebec will continue to sit less often this fall, to the chagrin of the Legault government. The Superior Court of Quebec refuses to suspend the Chief Justice’s controversial decision to reduce the number of days on the bench of judges of the Court of Quebec in criminal and penal matters.
Posted at 2:53 p.m.
The political standoff between the Minister of Justice Simon Jolin-Barrette (also Attorney General of Quebec) and the big boss of the Court of Quebec has been continuing discreetly in court for a few weeks. Quebec is asking for a stay of the decision of the chief judge, an exceptional measure. In a judgment dated November 3, but made public on Monday, Judge Pierre Nollet of the Superior Court rejects this request.
The ratio of days sat by the judges is at the heart of the dispute. For a long time, the judges of the Criminal and Penal Division hear cases two days out of three and deliberate in their office on the third day. However, the chief judge of the Court of Quebec Lucie Rondeau has reorganized the schedule of judges this fall. Result: the 160 criminal and penal judges (out of 308) now only sit every other day.
This reorganization leads in practice to the loss of 4617 days of hearing, we note in the judgment. The government of Quebec thus fears that this decision will quickly lead to an explosion of judicial delays exceeding the ceilings set by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision. To compensate for this loss, Chief Justice Rondeau is calling for the addition of 41 new judges. However, Quebec refuses to consent to this request and considers it impossible to create so many positions so quickly.
Chief Justice Rondeau justifies this new schedule because of the increase in the workload of judges over the years, particularly because of the numerous Charter applications, the increase in unrepresented persons and the need to render more rigorously reasoned written judgments.
A report produced by a retired judge in November 2021 also highlights the explosion of challenges to police investigation techniques. The judges must then analyze several hours of electronic surveillance during their period of deliberation.
It should be noted that the salary of judges of the Court of Québec went from $254,518 to $310,000 on 1er last July.
“What is the ministry doing in this regard? »
Faced with the deadlock in discussions between Quebec and Lucie Rondeau, Minister Jolin-Barrette turned last summer to the Court of Appeal as part of a reference to prevent the application of the new judges’ schedule. At the same time, the Attorney General of Quebec (AGQ) asked the Superior Court to impose a stay pending the decision of the Court of Appeal.
However, the bar is very high for granting a reprieve. The plaintiff must demonstrate that “irreparable harm” would be caused without the intervention of the Tribunal. The AGQ thus attempted to demonstrate that the decision of the Chief Judge would inevitably increase delays. According to projections by the Department of Justice, only 31,775 cases will be closed if the stay is not granted, almost half as many as normal.
However, Judge Pierre Nollet of the Superior Court was not convinced by the AGQ’s arguments. Even before Chief Justice Rondeau’s decision, “much greater systemic delays” existed, he points out. The median age of active cases increased from 217 days in 2017-2018 to a projected 329 days in 2021-2022 even before the schedule change.
“What is the ministry doing in this regard? Despite all the measures put in place and exposed in the evidence of the PGQ, the median age of active causes explodes. The mere fact that the Decision risks causing additional delays cannot establish irreparable harm distinct from that which already exists without the Decision,” analyzes Judge Nollet.
PHOTO MARCO CAMPANOZZI, PRESS ARCHIVES
The Minister of Justice Simon Jolin-Barrette, during the return to justice last September.
The PGQ has therefore not demonstrated that “fundamental rights” were “really at stake” by the decision of the chief judge, argues Judge Nollet. Also, the existence of irreparable harm caused by this decision has not been established, although the increase in legal delays leaves “little doubt”, he argues.
Suspending the new ratio would also be contrary to the public interest, added Judge Nollet. Since the cases are already set under the new schedule, the roles would have to be changed, which will necessarily lead to postponement requests. “Postponing a cause already fixed will certainly be even more devastating,” said Judge Nollet.