It is not hard to find fault with the Canadian justice system.
Setting a court date to set a court date for the next court proceeding is just one example which appears to be a nonsensical waste of time to an outsider. We can only hope artificial intelligence or new management software will one day be able to address some of the redundancies and scheduling nightmares of the current system.
Despite the challenges, the day-to-day of the court system appears to grind on, in spite of communication issues, with the accused and counsel often appearing uncertain of what is expected of them (can we not get them a handout or something?).
But there has been good news in relation to concerns over repeat offenders, which perhaps have not been well communicated to the public, given some of the actions and discussions around the council table in the past months.
Maybe the justice system is understandably more concerned with getting on with the endless mountain of work it will never be able to surmount rather than sharing the incremental reforms which are improving a complicated system.
It is understandable for the public to be frustrated with what they see as a "revolving door" in relation to repeat offenders, but perhaps this is energy better spent elsewhere.
People still railing against pre-trial release of repeat offenders may not be aware of significant changes which came into effect in January of 2024 when the federal government (yes, the Liberal one), changed the law to help address these concerns.
After the pendulum was seen to swing too far in the direction of protecting the rights of the accused, changes to the rules around bail now mean a lot of what some local politicians are still banging the table about are no longer as big an issue.
A reverse onus now exists for repeat violent offenders and those committing intimate partner violence.
Reverse onus means the accused must prove to the court why they should be released. A person accused of repeat violent crimes, including those involving weapons, or violence against their intimate partner would by default, remain in custody. This is the opposite of most accused, as normally an accused person must be released unless the Crown can show they should remain in custody.
Recently, a case involving charges related to a firearm, intimate partner violence and assault of a peace officer, meant the accused had to present a strong case to prove he should be released. In the bail hearing decision, the judge provided a clear and thoughtful decision in light of all the evidence, which included noting the fact the accused had only recently even become known to the court system and did not have a previous lengthy criminal record, and the judge acknowledged something clearly had changed in the person's life. This was the reverse onus rule in action, and the judge weighed the information and found in favour of public safety.
While there is still more work to do, perhaps what the justice system needs is not more influence from those outside without any real understanding of the system, but instead more supports from the other levels of government to advocate for the real changes which will address the seemingly endless tide of people facing addiction and homelessness. Mental health supports, early interventions for youth and families, better education, and addiction treatment. All of these might be a better place to put the energy being spent on railing against the end result, an overloaded system.
If we were to go down the road of politicians looking to win votes being able to influence court decisions instead of educated professionals who understand the law, we could end up sliding down a very slippery slope indeed. A look at our southern neighbours' supreme court might be the cautionary tale our politicians need to return to focusing on where they can move us forward, not backwards.
