Discarded from the hearings on Bill 92, which concerns the establishment of a specialized tribunal in matters of sexual and domestic violence and on the training of judges, the Court of Quebec and the Judicial Council published their own Tuesday. memory, in which they defend themselves against resisting a “change of culture”.
“The Court of Quebec and the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec are directly concerned by Bill 92. They therefore consider it relevant to present their point of view on its content and the more global context in which it fits, in all respect for the fundamental principle of the separation of powers ”, write the institutions in the press release accompanying their brief.
In recent weeks, the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec and President of the Judicial Council, Lucie Rondeau, has found herself in the midst of a standoff with the Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette. After she expressed her “unease” with Bill 92 in an interview with the To have to, the minister published an open letter in the form of a “rallying call” for the sake of the victims.
From the start of the study of his bill on Tuesday, Minister Jolin-Barrette referred to the comments of Justice Rondeau, who did not rule out the possibility of contesting the bill. “Victims deserve better,” he said. “I want to be very clear: the elected representatives of the Quebec nation not only have the legitimacy to debate and legislate on the specialized tribunal and on the training of judges, but they even have a duty to do so. We have the firm intention of completing this reform, ”he said.
Explanations of the discomfort
In parallel with the will of the government, the Court of Quebec created the Accusations in a conjugal and sexual context (ACCES) division within it. This should make it possible to consolidate cases, improve management and create regional liaison committees bringing together the Court and stakeholders from the social and judicial sectors.
In the brief they published on the Web, the Court of Quebec and the Conseil de la magistrature detail the reasons for their discomfort with the Quebec procedure from the very beginning.
They insist once again on the need to “provoke a split in order to put an end to this erroneous perception that a ‘specialized tribunal’ involves the multidisciplinary services recommended in order to better equip the plaintiffs”. In the Court’s view, the term “specialist” is more appropriate for the integrated service center than the report. Rebuild trust recommend to implement. The Court emphasizes that it “has no control” over certain services affected by the culture change that is proposed to better meet the needs of victims.
The court’s name also made the Court uncomfortable because “the Criminal Code does not provide for an offense of ‘domestic violence’ or ‘sexual violence’,” the brief read. She recalls that the diversity of offenses likely to occur in conjugal or sexual contexts is very great.
It therefore notes an “incompatibility” between its vision – which consists in making the context of the offense the fundamental criterion to direct it to its ACCES division – and that of the bill, which grants the government the possibility of determining, by regulation. , what types of lawsuits are heard by the specialized court.
Judges “keen on” training
The Court of Quebec also believes that Quebec’s desire to impose training on all judges runs counter to the objective of “sound budgetary management and the optimal use of judicial resources for the benefit of citizens”. It ensures that it is not an institution “resistant to change” and stresses that judges “are keen on professional development activities”.
The Court also notes that not all judges are called upon to deal with charges in sexual or conjugal contexts, and it recalls that it opposes the compulsory nature of the training. It is also against the assignment of judges exclusively to cases relating to offenses in a conjugal and sexual context.
Above all, the Court deplores the “false perception” according to which it believes that “the designation“ specialized court ”could be a stigmatizing term for the accused”. “The Court has instead expressed its fear […] that this name implies that the allegation of violence is founded ”, specifies the document.
In his opinion, “the implementation of the recommendations of the Rebuild trust in this chapter cannot be associated with the mission of a tribunal ”. “Such a conception eliminates the mission of a court of justice in our democratic society: that justice be rendered by judges embodying independent, neutral, impartial, competent and honest arbitrators, free from all pressure, interference and influence” , she argues.
The court then denies showing “any resistance to a ‘culture change’ or a lack of empathy”. She says she believes “that she is acting on all the recommendations of the report Rebuild trust which concern it “, even if it does so by retaining a” different name than the one proposed in order to avoid […] mislead the public about its mission or create unrealistic expectations ”.
Uneasiness from the start
The brief also gives an overview of the clashes of visions between the Court, the Judicial Council and the government since the very beginning of work on sexual and conjugal violence.
“Three months before the publication of the report Rebuild trust, the Minister of Justice invites the Court of Quebec to “initiate reflections”, within a working group, as for the advisability of setting up a specialized tribunal ”, write the institutions in their brief. This invitation is considered “premature” by the Court, which wishes “rather to first take cognizance of the report of the group of experts so that their findings and recommendations can provide food for thought”.
When she finally joined the working group of the Ministry of Justice, the Court also pointed out, “from the outset”, her “discomfort linked to the absence of representatives of the Barreau du Québec or of associations of lawyers. defense to this forum ”, it is written in the brief.
The document then underlines that the report of the working group, published in August, “fails, in particular, to present all the reasons” justifying the decision of the Court to create the ACCES Division to respond to the report. Rebuild trust.
The Court also expressed its “disappointment” at having learned through the media that Bill 92 had been tabled.