The worst agreement is better than the best lawsuit.
We have just had another proof of the accuracy of this well-known adage in the judicial community.
Friday, the Court of Quebec and the Minister of Justice of Quebec, Simon Jolin-Barrette, settled their dispute on the work schedule of judges. Quebec challenged before the courts the decision of the Court of Quebec to have its judges sit in the criminal and penal chambers less often. There was thus a risk of having aborted trials because of excessively long delays (the Jordan case).
The Court of Quebec and the Legault government have done what we strongly advise the vast majority of litigants who find themselves before the courts: a compromise1.
The judges of the Court of Quebec had decided to go from 139 to 104 sitting days per year (they deliberate and manage cases the rest of the time) because of the complexity of the cases and the judgments to be rendered. To compensate for lost sitting days, the Court of Quebec calculated that Quebec had to appoint 41 new judges.
Finally, everyone has watered down their wine: the judges will sit 121 days a year until 2025. Quebec will appoint 14 new judges (by September, we hope), and the rest of the days seats lost must be made up for by more efficient case management.
We are happy that this sad saga is coming to an end.
Judicial independence is a cardinal principle of our rule of law, which must be vigorously defended. It is up to the Court of Québec, and it alone, to decide on the work schedule of its judges. She had the right to carry out her reformation.
But with respect for the Court, we are not convinced that such a reform was justified. For 2022-2023, the Court of Quebec was also operating on a schedule of 115-120 sitting days per year (and not 104), we were confirmed on Monday.
The worst agreement is better than the best trial, then. And the agreement reached on Friday is not terrible. It is even interesting.
Quebec and the Court of Quebec have three non-binding objectives (judicial independence obliges). We want to reduce the median time for closing cases from 300 to 212 days, increase the case closure rate from 0.91 to 1.10 (we will close more cases than we open), and increase from 79 % to 88% the ratio of cases that respect the ceilings of the Jordan judgment (a case can exceed the deadline without falling into the water). Quebec will now have reliable statistics to assess these three objectives, which the Court of Quebec has been asking for since 2014.
Let’s not put our heads in the sand: this agreement will not solve all the problems of our criminal justice system. It is the equivalent of a bandage on an open wound.
Criminal justice is a five-headed monster. The Quebec Department of Justice funds the system, the courts administer justice, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions of Quebec or the federal Crown lays the charges, defense attorneys represent the accused, and the federal legislator writes the Code. criminal (which includes procedures).
None of the five heads can solve all the problems of the system alone. For it to work, everyone has to row in the same direction and take responsibility.
Friday’s agreement will not solve two major problems.
First, we need a reform aimed at “modernizing” and “simplifying” the criminal procedure, which is the responsibility of Ottawa. “We are due for a reflection on the criminal procedure,” said Chief Justice Lucie Rondeau in an interview.
Second, there is a lack of support staff, court clerks, court clerks and correctional officers in our courthouses. Because they are underpaid by the Government of Quebec. Court clerks earn $50,000 per year, much less than municipal clerks in Montreal (maximum of $69,000 per year) and those in the private sector.
This problem has persisted for years, without the Legault government doing much to solve it. He gave a temporary bonus of 10%, but it’s clearly not enough2.
It is up to Quebec to solve this problem. And quick.