Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2017

[Scott Glew]

Personally, I believe it actually worked out very well that I was chosen, because I could relate to it very, very closely. For the education package, I was speaking more about maybe what it is to be a juror, what the expectations of the juror are, and what the expectations of their employer, their co-workers, and so on would be as it moved forward.

As we were going through the process, we were shown a kind of hokey video about what a juror is and what the duties are. It was classic 1970s movie filming and so on updated for modern social media. Even an education campaign or an advertising campaign about what it means to do your civic duty as a juror would be beneficial.

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

I'm glad you mentioned that you were able to relate.

Mark, I think you were saying that you need to have an authentic emotional response in order to carry out the duties as well, so it wouldn't necessarily be beneficial to the system to exclude people. Can you speak to what Scott just said? How can we make the vetting process such that you're fit to serve and you're not excluded because you might be sensitive to some of the issues, but at the same time, how can we really find those who might be susceptible...? Do you know what I'm trying to ask here?

[Mark Farrant]

Jurors are pre-screened.

I can only speak to the province of Ontario, but the potential citizen pool is issued a questionnaire in advance, which all are expected to fill out and return. There is a series of questions about reasons you might be excluded or exempted from the trial. One of them is that you have an existing health condition or mental illness. For all intents and purposes, now I would be exempt from future jury service because I have post-traumatic stress disorder. I'm not saying that I would want to exclude myself from jury duty but I would have to disclose that.

My opinion is that with more screening of potential jurors, we might potentially also screen out people who would be appropriate jurors. I wouldn't want to put limits on the ability to have a fair trial by putting in more and more confounders to limit citizens from that potential.

Before this trial, and still today, I was and am a fairly able-bodied person. You bring into the courtroom all of the collected experiences that an individual has in their life. I didn't think that a trial of this kind would impact me, but it did. I would never have said prior to being in the courtroom that I would be impacted by it, but I was.

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

Thank you for that.

You mentioned that they left up a picture for 45 minutes, and you didn't think that was vital to maybe fully grasping what was going on or some kind of information; it was just up there for the sake of being up there.

[Mark Farrant]

I was in what is called a state-of-the-art courtroom. In that case, there are large-scale monitors in front of each of the jurors. There are two very large television screens, one facing the public gallery and another one facing the court. Most of the evidence you're seeing in the trial is displayed on that monitor in front of you.

It was during the crown's closing argument that an autopsy image was purposely displayed on that screen. Again, by that point, I kept thinking to myself, “Why is that image necessary now? It's not going to suddenly be part of my decision-making apparatus as an individual. It's not going to change or create a new opinion for me. I'm not suddenly going to be swayed by this.”

You couldn't look away from it. You couldn't find a place in the room where you could place your eyes to at least hear the summation of the individual delivering the closing argument. All of the jury—and you could feel the energy coming from those around you—were shifting in their seats and feeling the same level of revulsion. Again, in reflection, this wasn't necessary; this was just some kind of showmanship.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Sorry but we're going to go to Mr. MacGregor. You're over six minutes.

Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

One of the privileges of being a member of Parliament is that in my short 10 years so far, I've had the opportunity to meet with many first responders and men and women who serve in our armed forces. As you know, within all the ranks of the first responders within our armed forces, great strides have been made over the last several decades in recognizing PTSD, or what they now like to call operational stress injuries.

When I speak to members, whether they work in the ambulance service, the fire service, or the police, they now recognize that early detection of PTSD and early treatment are very necessary to stop the cascading problems that can happen later on. Really, this is about an investment in a valuable member of their crew. It's an investment in a valuable employee who has an incredible skill set, who puts his or her life on the line to help ordinary Canadians.

In light of that, they recognize that if they don't make those investments first and foremost at an early stage, the costs later on, whether it's in a broken marriage or acting out at work, can be quite tremendous in some cases. These first responders, by the way, volunteer to do their jobs. They willingly entered their service. In light of that fact and in light of the incredibly important role that juries and jurors serve, would you not agree that the state has an incredible obligation to support you should you need it?

To those who may argue that it's a cost issue and who quibble over the cost of this, would you not agree with me that this is really an investment in you for your service, so that when you return to society, the later-on costs, whether in a failed relationship or in the costs that you have to deal with personally...? Would you not agree that we have an obligation here? This is our acknowledgement of the service you've given.

I would like to hear from each of you, because I strongly feel that we need as much testimony from you as possible when we're reflecting back on this testimony to make our recommendations. You occupy this unique spot in our society of having experienced something that no one around this table has experienced.

Again, I would like to hear the thoughts of each of you on that particular point, the obligation the state has to you individually for your service.

[Mark Farrant]

I don't want what happened to me to happen to somebody else, in the sense that I served my civic duty as a juror and then did not have the adequate support post-trial to allow me to come to terms with the imagery and experience that I went through and to be able to return to my life with a sense of normalcy.

I fell into a dizzying well, looking for some kind of support, after the trial was over. All the while, I was seeking out psychologists, interviewing them and hearing, “Well I'm not really qualified. I don't think I can really help you.” Then I would go on to the next one. I had a list of psychologists and as I was going down that list I was thinking to myself, “Why am I doing this? Why am I doing this? This isn't right”. Then I had the sickening sensation, once I started to understand, that this had happened to not only me; it had happened to many people and it had been going on for far too long.

Yes, there are societal implications for people who develop long-standing mental illnesses. I can say it now. I have a mental illness. The fact that I did not spiral down any deeper into some of the sort of negative ill health effects and symptoms that accompany PTSD is a miracle. Jurors are plucked out of their day-to-day lives to perform a civic duty that they don't ask for. It's expected of them. It's part of the price we pay for citizenship within this great country. We owe it to them to support them as part of that service.

[Patrick Fleming]

Early detection is very crucial, because once we're out that back door and we've done our civic duty, all other expenses are our expenses: the lost marriages, the broken relationships—that's all on us. When we have to go seek help, that's out of our pocket. The government is done with us. The province is done with us. Our civic duty is done. We've walked out the back door, but we're the ones pulling into our driveway to what was a nice home and a peaceful home.

I always explain jury duty as a scale. We all lives our lives. We have a balance; we try to balance our life. We have our personal life and we have our careers. We try to balance those things. We always believe that if those are balanced, we have a good life. You throw jury duty in there and that definitely tips the scales. We as individuals don't know how to get that balance again. That's where we need the government to help us with their early detection, so that doesn't happen—not only to us, but to jurors in the future.

[Tina Daenzer]

As I mentioned during my testimony, intimacy between my husband and me came to a dead stall. I was 35 years old at this time, and extremely lucky that he is a very patient man. He gave me all the time in the world. Without the counselling, we never would have gotten our life back. Our life as a family would have ended. There's only so long that somebody will wait.

What I had to watch—those girls being raped and tortured—wasn't just watching evidence; it was sitting in a box where I felt I couldn't do anything to save them. It was excruciating for me. It took me a long time, and the counselling was a tremendous help in getting me back to my life and my family. I would like to say that today I have been married 36 years to this man, and I am so grateful that he was there and so patient.

[Scott Glew]

I'm not special. I don't claim to be. I'm from a small town in the middle of nowhere. I got the support because of where I worked. I just ask the question, why would Bobby in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, or Nova Scotia not get the same support that I was lucky enough to get and receive here in Ontario?

That's what I would look at, just equality across all the provinces. We should put that out there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Khalid, Mr. Cooper, and then Mr. Fraser.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I really want to thank our witnesses today for their very compelling testimony.

I have a question with respect to pre-emptory challenges. It's a way that counsel on both sides can really pick and choose the jurors they want. I'm wondering whether they have the tendency to pick jurors who can relate more to the issue.

For example, Mr. Glew, you mentioned that you have a two-year-old, yet you sat there listening to evidence day after day on the murder of a two-year-old. I'm wondering what is your viewpoint on these pre-emptory challenges that allow counsel to change and play a bit with who sits on jury. How can we fix that, if it needs to be fixed?

[Scott Glew]

For me, there was very little interaction with either the defence or the prosecutor when I was there. They asked several questions about whether I had been on social media, whether I had heard of the trial, and whether I was aware of what had happened. There were no questions as to my background, my marital status, how many children I had, or anything like that.

Whether they get that from a census or whatever, I don't know. I don't know if they have that information, or if it's available. I don't know what investigative process they have to go through. I know that when we first started out, there were 375 people in a room, and we all got a little ticket. They wheeled around the ball and pulled one out. I was the one who won the lottery that day and was on the jury. I was asked three questions, and then I was a juror.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

That's it, unless anybody else has a comment on this.

[Mark Farrant]

I think the selection and challenge process you are speaking of is often unique to the case in court at the time. In the case I ended up on as a juror, our panel was selected within a week, if not just a few days. It was a very quick selection process. The only question we were asked was whether we had a bias towards mental illness and mental health, ironically, because it was an NCR case—not criminally responsible—so the defendant was offering a defence of mental illness to absolve him of the crime.

Patrick can probably speak to challenges and the like at length.

[Patrick Fleming]

I'm not going to really touch on the subject of how they actually get the jurors and summon them. I think a study needs to be done on that—whether it's the census, or how they get their information—but I will say that I saw probably 1,400 potential jurors go through, and I was picked as juror number three.

I tell you, I sat there and I must have watched 1,200 individuals get up there and get their three questions. My case had five defendants in it, so granted, the challenges were greater, as we know, but they know who they want. They have a good idea of who they need, and they go through.... It takes a special person to be what they're looking for, and they know who they are looking for. After 1,200 people had gone by—I can even say after 400—I could tell who was going to own up there, who was going to make the lies, and who was not going. I could almost pick the challenges myself. They know who they want and they know who they need

It takes a special individual to be a juror, and they know who they want.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you to all the witnesses for their testimony.

I know it's very difficult for each of you. All of you talked about the fact that you did receive some help.

In your case, Ms. Daenzer, that was court-ordered and court-provided.

In the rest of your cases, you had to do it on your own.

Obviously, in your case, Mr. Farrant, you lived with PTSD. Your life has changed.

There is no question that for all of you, your lives have changed, in the sense that you will always live with the memories and the horrors of what you endured and witnessed in those trials.

We talked about Ontario having up to eight counselling sessions, and I understand that Manitoba had a process, a debriefing session.

All of you talked about getting help after, but I would be interested in fleshing out a little more what that involved, for you. I understand that everyone's experience is different. Some people are not affected, and some are impacted much more. I would be interested in understanding a little more about what it took, what you went through after the trial to see some semblance of life returning to normal.

[Mark Farrant]

It was an intervention for me, in essence. I knew there was something wrong with me. I was not alien to it, but I was again hoping it would go away. But as I got worse my family became more and more concerned, particularly my wife and my sister. It took somebody to shake me and say that I needed to do something about this, that I needed to seek help, that there was something wrong with me, and that it was okay. I basically broke down and explained that I just couldn't escape these images that I was seeing. They were omnipresent. Walking down the street, on the subway, in a business meeting, I was bombarded by things that I just couldn't get out of my head. I was no longer going out with friends or socializing. Life just got incredibly complicated.

Unfortunately in my case, the first place I called was the courthouse to seek help, and of course, those calls went unanswered because at the time, there was court-appointed counselling, but it had to be issued by a judge. I had to phone. You're almost repeating your story over and over again because every health professional you call, you're explaining yourself, saying, “Here's my story.” You're spending 15 minutes on the phone with somebody trying to get access to some sort of service, to explain your situation, and then they say that actually they can't help you. In the end I went to my GP who just threw up her hands and said she would try to get me in contact with what was then CAMH, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, but that was a year-long waiting list.

Then I was given a list of counsellors, and again, I was interviewing counsellors. I was calling them up and saying this is what I went through. I was baffled that I was even doing this. Again, at the end of the line...“No, I really can't help you. I deal with mood disorders, and I think you might have one, but it's not the mood disorder that I know of and can help you with. I'm not really trained in that. Let me give you the name of somebody.” Then I was phoning them.

It just boggled my mind that I was doing this.

[Patrick Fleming]

I'm usually a pretty strong individual. The first day of court they played a 911 call with horrific screams of one of the victims in the background. From that moment on, I was rattled.

When court did end after 10 months, the overwhelming feeling of guilt and isolation that I put between my family and me was absolutely incredible. This case made me very sensitive. I used to make fun of my wife who would cry watching something on TV; I'd be the type to say, “That's just TV.” Now I'm the one crying. It changed me. It made me very sensitive. As for my seeking help, I didn't think I needed it the first day, or the second day, or the third day. After 10 long months of it, my new career broke me and I knew I needed help.

I sought help. My job only gave me a very limited amount so to keep my family together, to keep my sanity together, I pay out of pocket to see a professional for help, and really that's not fair.

[Tina Daenzer]

Again, as I mentioned, in my case, the counselling was mandated by the court due to Justice LeSage, who after the trial needed counselling himself, as did many of the court staff, including the reporter sitting in the courtroom and pretty much everybody who was a part of that. It's been over 22 years. I still have residual effects. If your 85-year-old granny is standing on the side of the road waving me down to help her with her broken-down car, I ain't stopping. I'm not stopping for anybody. I'm distrustful of most strangers. My family life is back to regular, but as a societal person, I'm highly distrustful of people.

[Scott Glew]

My mom passed away in 1999. I was in a pretty dark place after that and sought grief counselling to deal with the death of a parent. Coming out of the trial, I could feel myself going back into kind of a dark place. I'm not trying to equate the two, but I could feel myself going there. I was self-aware enough and had some coping strategies from the grief counselling after the passing of my mom to kind of deal with that and know to reach out. Obviously, my wife encouraged me to as well.

I was very, very fortunate to find an amazing counsellor right off the bat, who listened to me, sympathized with me, gave me more coping strategies, and was just an amazing person, and to this day I thank her all the time that I talked to her.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks.

Scott, in your presentation you talked about during the trial having, I think it was, a separate break room or separate parking. I was surprised that there wouldn't be a separate break room for jurors. I'm wondering what suggestions we could maybe take on as far as what actually happens during a trial goes. I assume the issue is that if you have interaction with perhaps the victim's family or even the accused's family or supporters, it could be very difficult to get through that and be able to do your job. Can you perhaps touch on some of the suggestions that could come from that observation? And then if anybody else has anything to add, that would be great.