Thank you for inviting me to appear today.
My comments will be focused on the electronic monitoring provision of the bill and, to a lesser extent, on the education component.
By way of background related to the issue of intimate partner violence, I am a lawyer with experience in child protection and family law, having acted for children’s aid societies, parents, children and Ontario’s Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services.
In terms of experience related to electronic monitoring, my company, Recovery Science Corporation, started an innovative electronic monitoring program in 2010. We provide radio-frequency, GPS and alcohol monitoring. Because the availability of government-funded electronic monitoring programs is limited and inconsistent across the country, our privately paid program filled a need, as evidenced by the fact that our GPS monitoring program for bail developed into the largest such program in Canada, larger than any of the existing government-run programs. That experience gave us a front-row seat as Canadian criminal courts formulated their reasoning and developed a body of case law about the use of electronic monitoring as a bail condition. Based on that background, I have four main comments for your consideration.
My first comment is that, while the bill would require judges to consider the use of electronic monitoring as a condition of bail, it may be worth considering extending the same obligation to all forms of conditional release that a judge may be asked to consider or approve, such as peace bonds, conditional sentences, suspended sentences, intermittent sentences, conditional discharges, probation following a period of imprisonment, and parole.
My second comment is that it may be worth considering whether and how similar obligations can be extended to decision-makers other than judges. For example, when determining their recommendations, whether on bail, the withdrawal of charges in favour of a peace bond or sentencing, and although ultimately subject to a judge’s approval, Crown attorneys make decisions that have a significant impact on whether an individual is released into the community and, if so, under what conditions.
My third comment relates to the availability of electronic monitoring. As I noted earlier, the reason my company’s privately paid program became so successful was that the availability of electronic monitoring is so limited and inconsistent across the country. For example, any particular province or territory may or may not have a government-funded program at all, and when they do have a program, they may have technological limitations, such as only offering one type of monitoring. They may have eligibility limitations, such as only making it available for some forms of community supervision but not others and limitations in the number of cases they can accommodate.
If the intention is to ensure that decision-makers impose an electronic monitoring condition in all appropriate cases, then electronic monitoring needs to be available in all jurisdictions for every form of community supervision and needs to use the form of technology that best addresses the risk factors identified in each case.
My fourth and final comment relates to the judicial education provision of the bill. In addition to promoting general awareness among judges of matters related to intimate partner violence, it may be worth promoting the development of decision-makers' risk assessment skills and promoting practical knowledge of what can and cannot be expected of electronic monitoring. This will help decision-makers recognize the risk scenarios of where the use of electronic monitoring is and is not appropriate and, when using it, help them to craft an overall set of conditions that best addresses the circumstances of the case before them.
Thank you.