Justice Committee on Feb. 8th, 2018

[Prof. Cheryl Thomas]

Can I first of all let you know that I've just been informed that my connection is going to end at 10 o'clock my time? If I disappear in about an hour's time, that's why.

My research was primarily to test the effectiveness of this new juror notice, but also, in the course of that, to explore the extent to which there is a demand among our existing jurors for some kind of aftercare. We weren't actually exploring the sources of stress; we were exploring the extent to which jurors feel the need to be provided with some means of confidential support following the trial.

As I said, the overall finding is that the overwhelming majority of jurors said they do not require this. However, if there were a general juror helpline, almost a majority of jurors said they would or might use that to discuss things that may relate to stress; for instance, how they felt about serving on the jury or how to deal with other jurors. That indicates some level of stress, I think. They also wanted to use the helpline for things that are not related to this issue, that are much more court procedural issues about how to deal with expenses, when they were going to get paid, and so on.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have a question for you that might be beyond your research, but some of which I think bleeds over here in Canada.

How much of the way the system is run now is still the British “stiff upper lip” approach, which is, do your civic duty, get on with it, have a good mug of tea, and don't be bothered about it?

[Prof. Cheryl Thomas]

I think that's probably more of a myth than a reality these days in England and Wales. We have a very diverse population. I wouldn't say that the population doing jury service is necessarily the classic, “stiff upper lip” British member of the public. Jurors are increasingly requesting information, support, and so on, and I think that's a very good indication that they're not willing simply to be passive participants in the process anymore.

I'll just say one thing. You raised the issue of support for staff, and I would say that a growing issue here is the well-being of and support for judges in our crown courts who are now dealing with, as they would describe it, “a daily diet of sex cases”, and that is becoming quite troubling for them as well.

I speak to them at the Judicial College about juries on a regular basis, and when I raise the issue of the Samaritans for jurors, a number of judges have asked if they could have a helpline for judges as well. The judiciary is looking into that.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you very much, and congratulations for your good work.

To our colleagues at CSA, I'm wondering if you would be able to take a look at your excellent standards for OHSM and let us know where the gaps are. Have you taken a look, and have you listened to or heard from staff or people who are responsible for court proceedings, and the stresses they're facing that the system simply may not be able to account for?

[Candace Sellar]

Just to clarify, do you mean with respect to the psychological health and safety systems?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Absolutely.

[Candace Sellar]

CSA primarily develops the standard. We work with our partners, in this particular case the Mental Health Commission of Canada. They have done an elaborate case study over the last five years since the standard has been out, looking at over 40 participating organizations. I'm talking of ones from the federal government to small and medium enterprises.

The standard really is a continuous improvement model, so you can go through the cycle once, but you're not done. It's a process; it's not a destination. Part of the concept is that, once you complete your first journey through the standard, you've put certain pieces in place; then you evaluate how they're performing, and it's a continuous improvement loop.

Conceptually, we believe that all of the pieces are there. It's put together by the top experts on this topic in Canada, but it's an evolving document. The standards are consistently re-evaluated and improved wherever they're needed to be. We've done the generic workplace document. We're finishing the paramedic one. They're actually working today on it back in Toronto. The student health one is about to kick off, I'd say, in the next couple of months.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

To clarify, just so I can remember the figure and take it away for future reference, you mentioned that a certain number of first responders committed suicide. Over what time frame was that?

[Candace Sellar]

That was last year.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It was 56?

[Candace Sellar]

Fifty-six.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

And when you say front-line service workers, what does that encompass?

[Candace Sellar]

I read it in a report this morning. They only used the classification of first responders, so I would assume it would be your traditional paramedic, fire, and—

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

PMS?

[Candace Sellar]

Yes, exactly.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

[Doug Morton]

Could I just add to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Certainly, Mr. Morton.

[Doug Morton]

Candace mentioned in her presentation that 20% of the 42,000 downloads have been for policing and judicial organizations. As she mentioned, the Mental Health Commission did a report in 2015 summarizing the over 40 organizations that have adopted the standard, or portions of the standard. We would be happy to take a look at that report to see which organizations have downloaded the information, and make it available to the clerk, if that would be helpful.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morton.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for really interesting presentations.

I want to continue with what Mr. Boissonnault was asking you about, if I could, Ms. Sellar.

You talked about the CSA working with the Mental Health Commission of Canada to try to generate these standards that would have been appropriate for various things. You've talked about students, the work you're doing now, workers and so forth. Could you spend a little more time talking about what you understand about the trauma facing jurors? Would there be anything different, or would it simply involve cutting and pasting the various standards that have been applied in those other contexts?

[Candace Sellar]

We had a very similar conversation when the Paramedic Association of Canada approached us with the request to do a sector-specific document on the generic workplace document. In their particular case, the generic workplace document doesn't delve deeply into concepts like post-traumatic stress disorder and some of the severe exposures that paramedics specifically would come into contact with. I'm not a jury expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I would suspect that a lot of the images and experiences that paramedics would experience would be similar to what a juror in a more severe court case might experience as well. I think there would be parallels. I think some of the content would likely be quite similar at a generic level. It's about getting into the specificity of what the jurors' needs would be. That might be a little different.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That's helpful.

Professor Thomas, you talked about the Samaritans across the U.K. and Wales having a free phone service, which I thought was fascinating. Canada has a gigantic geography, four and a half time zones. It's attractive to think that we might take advantage of somebody as we address juror stress, making that service available. Then we would be covering all the jurisdictions and so forth.

First, I'd like you to speak a little more about the experience. Second, you said specifically there was a problem in ensuring that it wasn't just perceived to be a suicide line. How can we make sure it is not limited to that?

[Prof. Cheryl Thomas]

That's a really interesting issue. Within the U.K. there is a perception that the Samaritans are the people you call if you're feeling suicidal. Over the years, brochures for jurors were put in the jury lounges that said that if you want to talk to someone, call the Samaritans. It is true, the Samaritans are not just there for people who are suicidal, but that is the public perception.

First of all, my research showed that most jurors were not aware of those brochures. They're left in the jury lounge. Jurors don't pick them up. They don't read them. Even if they're told about them, they would be reluctant to call the Samaritans because they think they would be wasting the Samaritans' time to talk about the stresses they've had of serving on a jury. The change that's required is simply a name change. What the research found is that if the exact same service by the Samaritans were simply called “Juror Helpline”, a much larger proportion of people would be willing to call it.

We'll be working on that in future, I think, but what we've tried to do in the meantime with the new jury notice is to make it very clear to jurors that the Samaritans are there for everyone, for whatever they want to talk about, no matter how small the issue might be. We've also given them information about the fact that everyone in the U.K. who can do jury service can also seek free counselling via the National Health Service, and most jurors didn't know that.