Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2017

[Scott Glew]

Yes, sure. We were in a brand new courthouse in a local municipality. They had lots of areas where they had segregated the jury from basically the rest of the public and the participants in the trial. The one area in which there was...I wouldn't say interaction, because everybody was very respectful about it, but when people were going to have a smoke outside, there was no separate area for them to go to. They were literally across the courtyard or trying to keep a distance. Nobody was listening in or anything like that. We weren't talking about it, but that interaction seemed kind of strange to me. There was also the fact that in the parking lot we were parking with defence lawyers and prosecutors and witnesses. They all had to get to the courthouse. They didn't have to pay for their parking, so they all parked in the same area. When we're designing those things, there may be that opportunity to look at those areas. When you already have the jury segregated for certain things, why not just go that one step further?

Parking was one thing, but another was just how we got out of there. I think Patrick mentioned taking different ways home every night because he thought maybe somebody was following him. You don't know who's out there from the family. You don't know what reporters are around the corner, especially in a smaller municipality. The papers are there. You don't know who is who, so to have that separation would just make more sense and make it a lot easier to deal with.

Does that make sense?

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Okay.

[Mark Farrant]

Imagine being a juror in a criminal trial involving organized crime, in which there are multiple defendants and multiple parties and multiple gangs involved in a highly brutal act. You are driving your car to a small courthouse. You are parking your car next to witnesses from those organized criminal organizations. They're parking next to you. They're sitting there staring at you. They're intimidating you as a juror, because they know you're a juror in that case. They're watching you walk into the courthouse. They have your licence plate number. They know the make of your car. You're a juror sitting in your car, and you can't call anyone in the courthouse to say, “I'm in my car and I'm terrified and I want to come into the courthouse, please” because no one in the courthouse is picking up the phone. It's 8:30 in the morning and there's nobody there. You're sitting there and you're calling and calling, and you're terrified. There are bikers sitting on either side of your car. That's the story from a couple of jurors from different cases across the country. Court officials are parking down below in a secure parkade protected by a barrier and a guard. These individuals have to sit there and wait for the coast to clear. Can you imagine waiting for the coast to clear, and then going into the courthouse? And then months and years later, every time a Harley-Davidson turns over, they're thinking that bike is coming for them.

We owe basic security to individuals in cases like that. It's baffling that it's overlooked. Something so simple can be so devastating to somebody.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Do you have one short question, Mr. Sikand?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Tina, you were saying that there were only two occasions when the judge mandated counselling. This is a completely hypothetical question. If counselling was more readily available, do you think it is something that would happen in every case or a lot more often? Could you give me your sense?

[Tina Daenzer]

No, I don't think so. Not every case is as traumatic as the ones we've sat on. Most people who sit on a jury for a robbery or something don't need any post-traumatic counselling after a trial.

In the cases where it is traumatic, and there is very graphic evidence that people have to watch, I think it should be mandated that it be provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

First of all, thank you so much. Your testimony was profoundly impactful, I think, on all of us and all Canadians who listened to it. I think we all tried to put ourselves in the shoes of a juror in a case like this, and it's hard to do so. We heard about the issues with intimacy, the issues with being suddenly overprotective of your kids because you just see your two-year-old as that two-year-old, or the issues you had in terms of burying yourself at work because you're just not able to cope with what's happening. I think we were all really helped by what you said.

I want to clarify what I heard. Perhaps one of you can tell me.

One of the things I heard listed was education in advance about the obligations of a juror when you first walk into that courthouse or maybe even in the letter that's sent to invite you to report for jury service, something better than a 1970s movie.

Another was that, during the course of the trial, we need a better separation of the jurors and the victims and their families, and the accused and their families.

Also, in certain circumstances, we need counselling during the trial, or at least it needs to be made very clear that it's available to you at the end of the jury day or outside of service, from a court-appointed person who is privy to the issues, who keeps confidentiality, and who doesn't seek to influence you as jurors.

Further, there is ensuring that the various things you have to do during the course of the trial are understood, meaning that I can totally put myself into your shoes when you're a juror, and then, after you leave the courthouse, you're going back to the office to do six or seven hours of work. It's like you were away in negotiations all day, but you come back, and you have 300 emails that have accumulated during the day that you still have to finish today. Then you have child care, and then you have responsibilities at home that you're never getting to. We heard about the need for something to help with that in terms of either employers being obligated to give full pay in addition to allowing you to have your job back at the end of the trial, or alternatively, if we can't amend labour laws, make sure the pay and the supports we provide, such as day care, are available to jurors.

Number five is that we need a clear debrief at the end of a trial to talk to you, not only about the experience, to get lessons learned from that jury, but also to advise you of all of the counselling and other services that will be available to you post-trial.

Number six, whether it's Ontario's eight counselling sessions, or something even more generous, a clear number of counselling sessions should be available to each and every juror at the end of trial.

Is that basically what you guys are suggesting?

[Tina Daenzer]

Yes.

[Mark Farrant]

I think that's very accurate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I appreciate that, and I appreciate all of your testimony.

I'm sure all of the members of the committee would like to come over and talk to you for a few minutes. We have a short session at the end to adopt our budget, so we're going in camera. I will give a seven- or eight-minute break, and then we will resume.

Thank you very much, everyone.

[Proceedings continue in camera]