Well, you've touched an old, old, softer, delicate part in my psyche.
First of all, let me tell you, I believe very strongly in the jury system, and it's because I believe in the wisdom those twelve people bring to their task. However, when you're looking at what almost become the mechanics of some of the complex trials today, maybe my old views about generalist judges and the non-specialization of judges don't hold as much weight as they used to.
I think if you went across the country and asked defence lawyers and crowns, “Do you want specialist judges?”, they would probably say yes. On the other hand, if you then said, “What about Judge X or Judge Y? They are specialist judges in criminal law. Would you like to have them?”, the answer will be no. That's the advantage of the generalist aspect of it.
Certainly in Ontario, during my 29 years on the bench, I think for the most part—90% of the time—we had experienced judges and would assign experienced judges to the complex cases, just as we assign experienced judges to our commercial list to deal with the complex commercial issues, particularly at the motions or the insolvencies.
We have the cadres of specialist judges, and I would like to think that a good chief justice would assign an expert to a complex case. Beyond that, I'd rather not have designations per se so that only certain judges can do certain things, because there are lots of non-complex cases. I, who had a criminal background, have presided in every area of the law—maybe not well, but I've presided in every area—but I wouldn't do the complex ones. I wouldn't go into the commercial list and do a $100-million restructuring.
So I say specialists if necessary, but not necessarily specialists.