FIRST NATIONS Report of the Independent Review Conducted by REPRESENTATION The Honourable Frank Iacobucci ON ONTARIO JURIES February 2013 ART COURTESY OF KIRK BRANT, 2012 WWW.KIRKBRANT.COM THIS REPORT IS DEDICATED TO THE MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN OF FIRST NATIONS IN ONTARIO WHOSE PERSEVERANCE AND COURAGE IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY AND CHALLENGES CONTINUE TO BE AN INSPIRATION. TABLE OF CONTENTS 6. 2. 1. D. C. 3. 2. 1. B. A. PART III 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. B. A. PART II 7. 4. 3. 2. 1. E. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. B. A. PART I INTRODUCTION APPOINTMENT ANDWORK OFTHEINDEPENDENT REVIEW THE JURY SYSTEM ANDFIRST NATIONS: PAST ANDPRESENT The Representation of First Nations Peoples on Ontario Juries BriefHistory ofJuriesinOntario Work oftheIndependentReview Introduction andExecutive Summary The JurySelectionSystem asitCurrently Operates inOntario Requirement that aJurybeRepresentative Introduction Mandate oftheIndependent Review Preface andAcknowledgements Introduction Introduction History andEvolution ofthePrinciple ofaRepresentative Jury Role andFunctions oftheJury Nishnawbe AskiNation Acknowledgement OntarioCaseLaw onRepresentativeness ABriefHistory oftheJurySystem andtheJurySelection Process inOntario UnionofOntarioIndians MyMandate andWork

Practice ofCourt OfficialsPrior to2001 DeclineintheUseofJuriesfrom theNineteenth to theTwentieth Century Grand Council ofTreaty #3 Issues IdentifiedDuring Visits andMeetings IndependentFirst Nations Historical, Legal andComparative Research Recommendations Practice ofCourt Officials From 2001 On AboriginalLegal Services ofToronto Written Submissions Juries Act (b) SelectionoftheJuryPanel (a) Preparation ofJuryRolls Obligation to IncludeOn-Reserve Residents onOntario’s JuryRoll ...... 34 34 36 26 24 28 28 35 35 32 22 19 13 16 19 19 19 16 13 31 31 15 15 17 17 11 4 6 8 3 2 2 7 1 1

i TABLE OF CONTENTS ii FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 2. 1. B. A. PART IV 2. 1. F.

THE JURY SYSTEM ANDFIRST NATIONS: THEFUTURE Experience inOtherJurisdictions RESULTS OFVISITS ANDMEETINGS INTRODUCTION

First Nations Sessions Experience inOtherCountries MeetingswithGovernment OfficialsandtheJudiciary Experience inOtherCanadianProvinces (f)  (f) (e) Coroner’s Inquests (d) Practical barriersto juryparticipation (c)  (b)  (a)  (c) United States (b) New Zealand (a) Australia (e) OtherProvinces That UseHealthInsurance Records to Compile theJuryRoll (d) Alberta (c) Northwest Territories (b) BritishColumbia (a) Manitoba and First Nations with respect to thejuryroll needs to beimproved Relationship between theMinistry oftheAttorney General that deter First Nations responses Jury questionnaires poseproblems andconcerns system chilltheirdesire to serve onOntariojuries First Nations peoples’perspectives onthejustice (v) Policing (iv) Self-Government (iii) Education (ii) Systemic Discrimination (i) Cultural Barriers (iii)  (ii) New York (i) Alaska of First Nations peopleonreserve are inadequate Current practices for collection ofnamesandcontact information Sending JuryRoll Questionnaires to Areas with SignificantMinority Populations ......

.

. . .

. . . 40 60 60 44 44 50 46 49 54 54 42 42 53 59 38 38 38 58 58 62 62 47 47 55 53 53 53 57 41 61 Appendix F Appendix E Appendix D Appendix C Appendix B Appendix A APPENDICES 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. D. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. C. SUBMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS NANsubmissions Introduction  UnionofOntarioIndianssubmissions Recommendations Respecting Systematic Concerns abouttheJustice System ChiefsofOntariosubmissions Recommendations Respecting JuryMemberCompensation Submissions oftheOffice ofthe Provincial Advocate forChildren and Youth Recommendations Respecting Coroner’s Inquests Submission ofLegal Aid Ontario Recommendations Respecting theReform oftheJurySelectionProcess AboriginalLegal Services ofToronto submissions Committee andMinister’s Advisory Group Implementation ofRecommendations –Establishing anImplementation (b)  (a) Implementation Committee (c) IndependentPapers Commissioned by theUnion (b)  (a) Submissions Following EngagementProcess List ofPoints Raised inMeetingswithFirst Nations with otherGroups andIndividuals List ofFirst Nations Communities Visited andMeetings Introduction Letter to First Nations Coroners Act Juries Act Order-In-Council 1388/2011, dated August 11,2011 . (ii) Interim Recommendations (i) Long term Recommendations and theJustice System “Juries are aCircle ofJustice” Advisory Group to theAttorney General onFirst Nations peoples Submissions Following JuryInformation Forums – , R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3. . . , R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37 ......

.

. . . 149 147 153 101 80 119 64 64 95 70 69 86 89 95 83 83 83 85 92 79 76 87 87 73 77 72 91 81 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INTRODUCTION Treaty 3Council ofChiefs.Thanks are alsodueto IrwinElman,theProvincial Advocate for Children and Canoe andJonathan Rudin.Mythanks alsogoto then Grand ChiefDianeKelly andhercolleagues onthe Austin Acton, theChiefsofOntario, AboriginalLegal Services ofToronto andtheircounsel Christa Big with different experiences. Also, I would like to thanktheUnionofOntarioIndians andtheir counsel which were most important inobtainingtheviews ofFirst Nations membersindifferent contexts and central role inthelaunchingofIndependentReview andorganizing visitsto reserves intheNorth Bentley Cheechoo), theircounsel Julian Falconer, JulianRoy, MeaghanDaniel,allofwhomplayed a include Nishnawabe AskiNation (former DeputyGrand ChiefTerry Waboose andformer Grand Chief 8. all ofyou for your helpandcommitment inthework oftheReview. hospitality andcourtesy to my colleagues andme. Icannotnameyou all,butIcansay Iamindebted to tion for theirinvolvement, sharingtheirexperiences, offering opinionsandsuggestions, and for extending leaders, andeven someFirst Nations students. To allofthem Iexpress my sincere gratitude andapprecia people, includingChiefs,Councillors, Elders,reserve residents, provincial territorial organizations andtheir 7. consequences ofthiswillbevery serious. we asasocietywillallbetheworse offandthemomentum for progress willlikely come to ahalt. The 6. of that history by theGovernment ofOntarioandIcommend themfor that. people. Indeed thesettingupofthisIndependentReview isanexample oftherecognition ofimportance unsound policies,andmost importantlyalackofmutualtrust between AboriginalandNon-Aboriginal Canada ofthetragic history ofAboriginalpeople, withmany examples ofmistreatment, lackof respect, 5. talk isover, what isdesperately neededisaction. reconciliation between First Nations andOntariansgenerally willvanish. more Put directly, thetimefor If we continue the system generally asappliedto First Nations peoples,particularlyintheNorth,isquite frankly inacrisis. Nations peoplesonjuriesthat isofseriousproportions, butitisalsoregrettably thefact that thejustice 4. peoples onjuries. jeopardize thechances ofmakingany real progress ontheissue ofrepresentation ofFirst Nations not onlylurkinthebackground butare alsoofgreat relevance. Inshort,to ignore thisbackground isto system oftheprovince orfor improvements insocialandeconomic programs for First Nations, thesematters the Order-in-Council to beadetailedexamination of, andrecommendations for thereform of, thejustice 3. factors isnecessary willbedealtwithinthisReport. mandate asanIndependent Reviewer ofthesubject.Why that broader inquiryinto theseimportant considerations andramifications from numerous other factors that affect theprincipalquestion of my blush to beanarrow assignment simplyon juryrepresentation assetforth intheOrder-in-Council, triggers question. Soitiswithrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonOntariojuries.What appearsat first manner withoutdealingwiththeinfluences ofmany other factors that impactonthespecific issue in 2. LIVING INRESERVE COMMUNITIES ONJURIESINONTARIO. MORE SPECIFICALLY ITDEALSWITHTHELACK OFREPRESENTATION OFFIRST NATIONS PEOPLES 1. A. THIS REPORT DEALSWITHONEOFTHEMOST VENERABLEINSTITUTIONS INHISTORY, THEJURY. This IndependentReview andReport were largely madepossible through theefforts ofFirst Nations Doing nothingwillbeaprofound shameespeciallywhenthere hasbeenagreater recognition throughout As withmost issues involving First Nations peoples,itisdifficult todealwithone issue inadiscrete However, itshouldbestated at theoutsetthat, althoughtheIndependentReview isnotauthorized by I alsowishto record my gratitude to specificgroups andindividuals for theirinvaluable help. These But ifthisReport anditsrecommendations together withtheirimplementation are putontheshelf, As thisReport willdemonstrate, there isnotonlytheproblem ofalackrepresentation ofFirst PREFACE ANDACKNOWLEDGEMENTS status quo we willaggravate what isalready aserioussituation, andany hopeoftrue

-

1 PART I INTRODUCTION 2 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci the conduct ofmy review andtheformulation ofmy recommendations, asdiscussed below. First Nations individuals onjuries.Anditisthissystemic approach to theissues whichhasguidedmein must betackledifwe are to make any significant progress indealingwiththeunderrepresentation of between Ontario’s justice system andAboriginalpeoplesinthisprovince. Itisthesebroad problems that to asetofbroader andsystemic issues that are at theheartofcurrent dysfunctional relationship arrange for thisIndependentReview to becarriedout.Butanexamination ofthat problem leadsinexorably it raises aboutthefairness ofourjurysystem, that have rightlyprompted theGovernment ofOntarioto on reserves onOntario’s juryroll –isasymptom ofthiscrisis.Itisthat narrow problem, andtheconcerns 15. significantly lower thanthemedianageof rest ofthepopulation. Aboriginal peoplesconstitute thefastest-growing group withinourpopulation, withamedianagethat is as court officials, prosecutors, defence counsel,orjudges. This issue ismademore acute bythe factthat not just onjuries, butamongallthosewhowork intheadministration ofjustice inthisprovince, whether is incrisis.Overrepresented intheprisonpopulation, First Nations peoplesare significantlyunderrepresented, Review that thejustice system, asitrelates to First Nations peoples,andparticularlyinNorthernOntario, in Ontario. AsIstated inthePreface above, ithasbecome clearto meincarryingoutthisIndependent 14. 1. B. to thejustice system andto therelationship between OntarioandFirst Nations peoples. 13. of First Nations peopleswillbesignificantlyadvanced asa result ofour collective efforts. mentioned. Ibelieve Iexpress thesentimentof allconcerned that improvements to thejuryrepresentation 12. the finalization ofthe Report. I thankthemprofoundly. Iwould alsolike to thankNickKennedy andRyan Lax,whogreatly helpedusin whom to work thanthosetwo. They played animmenselyimportantrole inallphasesoftheReview and Metallic, Associate Counsel to theReview. Noonecould have better ormore talented colleagues with 11. are alsodueto Acting DeputyAttorney General MarkLeach for hiscooperation andhelp. setting uptheIndependentReview andcollaborative effort to supportthe Review in every way. Thanks especially Murray Segal,theformer DeputyAttorney General ofOntario, for hisinstrumental role in current Attorney General JohnGerretsen for theircooperation andsupport.Ishouldalsowishto thank 10. consultant onAboriginalissues. in otherjurisdictions,prepared by former Attorney General MichaelJ. Bryant, whocurrently works asa Justice andtheirofficials. We have hadthebenefitofapaperdescribing experiences ofjury role processes Ontario Court Services, theProvincial JuryCentre, andjudgesoftheSuperiorCourt andOntarioCourt of 9. sharing theirgriefwithusandsubmissions oncoroners inquests andrelated matters. whom are family membersofFirst Nation victimswhosedeaths were subjectto acoroner’s inquest, for Youth. Iwould alsolike to thankMarlenePierre, Sharon Smoke, ChrisMooniasandBruce Moonias,allof INTRODUCTION We received considerable helpandcooperation from officials attheMinistry ofthe Attorney General, Finally, Ishouldlike to thankmy team: JohnTerry, Counsel to theIndependentReview, andCandice Much time, effort and commitment hasgoneinto thepreparation ofthis Report by allthoseIhave The problem that isthespecific focus ofthis Report –theunderrepresentation ofindividualsliving We alsoshare adream that thejuryrepresentation changeswill spawn otherneededimprovements This Report will,Ihope, beawake-up callto allwhoare concerned withtheadministration ofjustice For specialrecognition, Iwould like to acknowledge theformer Attorney General ChrisBentley and INTRODUCTIONANDEXECUTIVESUMMARY

it usefulto meetwiththeProvincial Advocate ofChildren andYouth inOntario. thought First Nations offenders. Considering thelargealso demographic we ofFirst Nations Ontario, youth in Jury Centre. We alsometwithsomemembersofthejudiciarywhohave presided over many cases involving with officials from theMinistry ofthe Attorney General, includingthe CourtServices Division andthe Provincial 21. peoples onjuries. solicit feedback onways to address thechallengesassociated withtherepresentation ofFirst Nations set outtheissues identified by First Nations duringtheengagementprocess andposedquestions to organizations, andinterested Aboriginalservice providers, seekingtheirfurtherinput.The discussion paper attached asAppendixFto thisReport, that I sentto allFirst Nations inOntario, First Nation andTreaty 20. of First Nations peoplesonthejuryroll inOntario. helped shapemy understanding ofthesystemic andprocedural issues impactingtherepresentation to acoroner’s inquest. Overall, thecumulative meetingsanddiscussions withevery personinvolved at whichmy team andImetwithsomefamily membersofFirst Nations victimswhosedeaths were subject We alsometwithrepresentatives ofAboriginalLegal Services of Toronto, whoconvened aFamilies Forum The list ofFirst Nations that Ivisited duringthisphaseoftheReview isattached asAppendixEto my Report. Treaty #3,aswell asfour First Nations that are unaffiliated withatribal councilorFirst Nations organization. with First Nations that are membersoftheNishnawbe AskiNation, theUnionofOntarioIndians, Grand Council mostly within theircommunities, andfour First Nation organizations. This engagementincludedmeetings 19. as AppendixDto thisReport. written submissions, oraccommodate acombination ofboth.Acopy ofthiscorrespondence isattached governments andFirst Nations andTreaty organizations inOntariooffering to meetwiththem, receive a mannerthey deemedappropriate. Accordingly, inNovember 2011, Isentaletter to allFirst Nations must beginby introducing theIndependentReview to First Nations andinviting themto participate in and Treaty groups andorganizations intheProvince ofOntario, we determined that the engagementprocess peoples livinginreserve communities asitrelates to juryservice. Given thevast diversity ofFirst Nations best way, inmy view, for meto understand andaccurately definethe systemic issues affecting First Nations 18. cases ormotionsrelating to theissues underreview. for Children andYouth, other service organizations andmembersofthejudiciarywhohave presided over officials oftheMinistry of Attorney General, Ministry ofHealthand Long-Term Care, the Provincial Advocate allow usto meetandreceive submissions from interested First Nations leaders,communities andorganizations, jury roll. After creating awebsite for theIndependentReview, we setoutto develop aprocess that would affected by, thejuries system inOntarioasit relates to the representation of First Nations peoplesonthe Review by developing aprocess to gather information from allofthosewhohave beeninvolved in,orare 17. recommendations: The Order-in-Council, acopy ofwhichisattached asAppendixAto thisReport, directed meto make 16. 2. MYMANDATE ANDWORK I commenced my work inFall 2011 after assembling asmalllegalteam to assist me. We beganthe I was appointed to carryoutthisIndependentReview by Order-In-Council 1388/2011, dated August 11,2011. Hearing from theFirst Nations leadership, people, andorganizations asthefirst order ofbusiness was the Once Ibecamefamiliar withtheissues from theFirst Nations perspective, we metandhaddiscussions Between November 2011 andMay 2012, Imetwiththeleadershipandpeoplefrom 32First Nations, Following theFirst Nations engagementprocess, Iprepared aprogress report andadiscussion paper, (b) (a) communities onthejuryroll; and to ensure andenhance therepresentation ofFirst Nations personslivingonreserve of theAttorney General andFirst Nations onthisissue. to strengthen theunderstanding, cooperation andrelationship between theMinistry

3 PART I INTRODUCTION 4 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci experienced thebenefits to their communities that camefrom thedevelopment ofaculturally-appropriate Having beenintroduced to community-based restorative justice initiatives inprevious years, First Nations self-government, andat thevery least beinvolved indeveloping solutionsto thejuryrepresentation issue. control ofcommunity justice matters asanelementofwhat they strongly believe istheirinherent rightto 29. created, aswell astherightsofindividuals accused ofoffences andtherightsofvictims. respect to therole ofjuriesinthejustice system andtheprocess by which juryrolls andjurypanelsare identified theneed for a focused andsustained education strategy for First Nations communities with same juryroll was usedto selectjuriesfor bothtrialsandcoroner’s inquests. Therefore, most leaders participating inaprocess they know nothingabout.Many First Nations peoplewere unaware that the system inparticular. Itwas understandably expressed that most First Nations individualswillrefrain from 28. to participate inthedelivery of thissystem ofjustice. view thecriminaljustice system asworking against them,rather thanfor them.Itisanaffront to them perceptions, by implication, extend to participation inthejuryprocess. First Nations peoplegenerally created negative perspectives andaninter-generational mistrust ofthecriminaljustice system. Such with thecriminaljustice system, alongwithhistoric limitations ontherightsofFirst Nations people, have have experienced withinthejustice system inrelation to criminaljustice orchildwelfare. These experiences 27. upon themwithouttheirconsent. of any reflection oftheir core principlesor values, andview itasa foreign system that hasbeenimposed seeking retribution andpunishment.First Nations peopleobserve theCanadianjustice system asdevoid to justice isto re-attain harmony, balance, andhealing with respect to aparticularoffence, rather than and laws that underpintheCanadianjustice system. The objective ofthetraditional First Nations’ approach cultural values, laws, andideologiesregarding traditional approaches to conflict resolution, andthe values 26. throughout theengagementprocess. to participate inthejurysystem. Many reasons exist for that reticence, andIheard themrepeatedly residents for thepurposesofjuryroll, thefact isthat many First Nations peopleare plainlyreluctant 25. in Ontario. criminal justice system are necessary conditions for theparticipation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuries During allthesemeetings,onepointwas resoundingly clear:substantive andsystemic changesto the and procedural issues affecting the representation ofFirst Nations peoplesonthejury roll inOntario. communities duringtheengagementprocess played acrucialrole inhelpingmeunderstand thesystemic 24. 3. to translators inearlySeptember 2012 for translation into French, Cree, Ojibway, Oji-Cree and Mohawk. out by my team andme. The Report was substantially completed by theendofAugust 2012 andprovided information received through meetingsandwritten submissions andfurtherresearch andanalysis carried 23. Advocate for Children andYouth inOntario, andLegal AidOntario. of OntarioIndians,theChiefsOntario, AboriginalLegal Services ofToronto, theOffice ofthe Provincial requested through thediscussion paper, includingfrom, amongothers,Nishnawbe AskiNation, theUnion 22. ISSUES IDENTIFIEDDURINGVISITS ANDMEETINGS Second, First Nations peopleoften spoke ofthesystemic discrimination that eitherthey ortheirfamilies We received many written submissions asaresult oftheengagementprocess andthefeedback Aside from theissues regarding themost effective manner to obtainnamesofFirst Nations reserve Following receipt ofwritten submissions inearlyJuly2012, Iprepared my Report basedonallthe Third, First Nations peoplelackknowledge andawareness ofthejustice system generally, andthejury Fourth, First Nations leadersresoundingly andassertively expressed thedesire to assume more My meetingswithFirst Nations leaders,Elders,people, technicians andservice providers from 32 First, First Nations leadersandpeoplespoke abouttheconflict that exists between First Nations’

They were anxiousto seetheresolution ofthisissue sotheinvestigations into thedeaths canproceed. that isrepresentative ofFirst Nations peoplesandwere interested inparticipating incoroner’s inquests. inquests related to thedeath ofafamily memberinstate care, appreciate theimportance ofacoroner’s jury 34. pardon procedures serves to exclude many potential First Nations jurors. with process logistics. Finally, theexistence ofcriminalrecords andlackofknowledge andaccess to of income supplements. Further, community-based supportswere viewed asarequired service to assist allowances for accommodation andmeals;theabsence ofchildandeldercare aseligiblecosts; andlack transportation, where travel arrangements are notpre-arranged by theCourt Services Division; inadequate of First Nations peoples onjuries,particularlyinnorthernOntario. These barriersinclude:thecost of 33. responding to juryquestionnaires. First Nations’ lackofunderstanding ofthejuryselectionprocess androle ofjuriesserved asabarrierto akin to theexemption for federal, provincial andmunicipalelected officials.Finally, it was explainedthat and participation. Itwas suggested that anexemption becreated for First Nations elected leadership, along withtheprovision oftranslation services, would enhance First Nations responses to juryquestionnaires primary languageistheirindigenouslanguage. Itwas suggested that broadening thenumberoflanguages, requirement for juror eligibility, beingEnglishorFrench, isproblematic for First Nations peoplewhose would respond positively, thereby increasing thenumberofeligibleFirst Nations jurors. Third, thelanguage if there were anoptionto declare First Nation citizenship ormembership, many more First Nations people to declare Canadiancitizenship prompts many to answer inthenegative. However, itwas expressed that threat, andthetimeframe offive days for response isthought to beunreasonable. Second, the requirement within five days isviewed as coercive andinappropriately imposingjurydutythrough intimidation and discouraging themfrom responding. First, thestatement ofpenaltyafineorimprisonment for non-response content ofthejuryquestionnaire. There are anumberoffeatures that First Nations peopleidentifiedas 32. First Nations are located. the purposesofjuryroll must beclear, tangibleandconsistent throughout alljudicialdistricts inwhich facilitate suchanapproach. First Nations representatives alsostated that theprocess to collect namesfor First Nations leadersproposed that juryservice oughtto bevoluntary andexpressed awillingness to help challenge becauseFirst Nations governments donottypicallypossess suchalist. Asanalternative, many single source list ofindividualresidents that includesdates ofbirthandaddresses onreserve isareal (formerly Indian andNorthernAffairs Canada)since 2001. The difficultyof creating andmaintaining a regard appearsto berelated to different positionstaken by Aboriginal Affairs andNorthern Development of compiling thejuryroll. Confusion withrespect to theobligations ofFirst Nations governments inthis rights oftheircitizens withrespect to theunauthorized disclosure ofpersonalinformation for thepurposes 31. leaders expressed frustration regarding thelackofenforcement ofFirst Nation by-laws. and under-resourced police services andthelackofsufficient training forthem.SomeFirst Nations perceptions ofthecriminaljustice system. Many First Nations were very concerned aboutthelimited It becamevery clearthat inadequate police services andassociated fundingcontribute to negative 30. called uponto doso. educate peopleaboutthe justice system andtheirresponsibility to become engagedonthejurieswhen level, increased community involvement intheimplementation ofjustice and,finally, anopportunity to the delivery ofjustice inaculturally relevant manner, greater understanding ofjustice at thecommunity restorative justice programs would have multiplebenefits at the community level. Suchbenefitsinclude financial resources andcapacity to be resumed. First Nations leaders were unequivocal that re-introducing approach to justice. However, theseprograms were discontinued owing to fundingcutsandwillrequire A common themeexpressed by First Nations leaderswas concern for theprotection oftheprivacy The engagementprocess alsoidentified many practical barriersthat exist with respect to theparticipation First Nations peoples’willingness to participate inthejuryprocess isalsonegatively affected by the Many First Nations people, specificallythosewhounfortunately are, orhave been,involved in coroner’s Fifth, theissue oflocalpolice services arose inmany discussions throughout theengagement process.

5 PART I INTRODUCTION 6 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci these very comprehensive submissions andrecommendations. 39. improve therelationship between First Nations andtheAttorney General. order to increase confidence inthejustice system; andtheneed to take prompt andassertive steps to outreach andtraining initiatives, especiallyfor youth; measures to address inadequate police services in allocations; therecruitment ofFirst Nations liaisons;revising thejuror questionnaires; meaningful educational, with respect to juror questionnaires andtranslation services; increased juror remuneration andexpense Juries Act of thejustice system innorthernOntario;uniform coordination andimplementation ofsection6(8)the other things:enhancement ofcommunity orrestorative justice programs; improvements to theoperation related to thejuryroll could beaddressed. The matters addressed intherecommendations included,among 38. Nations peoplewithinthejustice system.” peoples onOntariojuries“isbutonesymptom ofalarger problem ofalienation andexclusion ofFirst Nations. AstheNishnawbe AskiNation stated initssubmissions, theunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations process, emphasizing,amongotherthings,theneedto address juryroll reform inpartnershipwith First submissions were consistent withtheviews Iheard from First Nations peopleduringtheengagement the Office ofthe Provincial Advocate forChildren and Youth,and LegalAidOntario. These organizations’ Nishnawbe AskiNation, UnionofOntarioIndians,ChiefsOntario, AboriginalLegal Services ofToronto, helpful anddetailedwritten submissions at theconclusion oftheengagementprocess from sixorganizations: 37. 4. and SuperiorCourt ofJustice sittingsinselectFirst Nations communities. burden onFirst Nations, suchastheuseofvideoconferencing technology for thejuryselectionprocess First Nations peoplesonthesubjectofjuries.Othercreative approaches were suggested to minimize the of Treaty #3to conduct JuryForums in15First Nations could beusedasanongoingmeasure to educate undertaken by theMinistry ofAttorney General andtheUnionofOntarioIndiansGrand Council ration anddiscussion withFirst Nations leadership. Moreover, educational efforts similar to theinitiative understanding to protect theconfidentiality ofsuchinformation, isanapproach worthy offurther explo and dates ofbirthreserve residents, coupled withinformation-sharing agreements ormemoranda of Using thedata heldby theOntarioHealthInsurance Plan(OHIP) asonesource list ofnames,addresses we heard aconsensus view amonggovernment officialsthat significantimprovements are necessary. undertaken programs to educate andinform First Nations communities aboutthejurysystem. However, have undertaken various efforts to reach out to First Nations to obtain residence information andhave to prepare arepresentative juryroll. Court officialsinthe Kenora District, andmore recently Thunder Bay, participation ofFirst Nations reserve residents onjuries,inadditionto obtainingreliable records required 36. initiatives aimedat First Nations andgovernment officials would contribute toimproving the relationship. forward inarespectful relationship. Moreover, partneringwithFirst Nations withrespect to educational to develop aproper juryroll process for First Nations peoplesonreserve isviewed asanecessary step of restorative justice programs asonemeasure to achieve thisgoal.The needfor acollaborative approach Nations seekgreater control ofthejustice system asitappliesto theirpeopleandview there-integration is through agovernment-to-government relationship andaprocess that reflects sucha relationship. First tionship withtheMinistry oftheAttorney General inthecontext ofthejurysystem, andalljustice matters, 35. WRITTENSUBMISSIONS In additionto certain written submissions Ireceived duringtheengagementsessions, Ialsoreceived First Nations leadersunequivocally asserted that theway forward withrespect to enhancingarela I amgrateful for thethoughtandeffort that theseorganizations demonstrated inproviding mewith The submissions offered many recommendations on ways inwhichthe systemic andprocedural issues Government officialswithwhomIspoke echoedtheneed formeasures tosubstantially increase the ; theinvolvement ofFirst Nations peoplesincompiling thejuryroll; increased languagesupports - - 1 (an approach adopted insomeU.S. states to respond to underrepresentation ofminorities onjuries). code, thereby ensuringthat nonresponsive prospective jurors donotunderminejuryrepresentativeness undeliverable orisnotreturned, sendinganothersummonsorquestionnaire to aresident ofthesamepostal held (asisdoneintheNorthwest Territories andAlaska), and,whenajurysummonsorquestionnaire is remote communities, anddrawing jurors from residents living reasonably closeto where thehearingis for juryservice asasupplementalsource list (asisallowed inNew York State), holdingcourt hearingsin recommended beconsidered orstudied for potential useinOntario, includingallowing individuals to volunteer for compiling thejuryroll. The review alsorevealed anumberofpractices inotherjurisdictionsthat Ihave things, that many otherCanadianprovincial governments rely onhealthinsurance records asasource 43. Aboriginal issues. tions prepared by former Attorney General MichaelJ. Bryant, whocurrently works asaconsultant on jurisdictions, Ihadthebenefitofapaperdescribing experiences ofjury role processes inotherjurisdic Canadian provinces, New Zealand, Australia andtheUnited States. Inreviewing law andpractice inother various jurisdictionsthat rely onjuriesandthat have sizeable Aboriginalpopulations, includingother peoples onjuriesisby nomeansexclusively an OntarianorCanadianissue. Rather, thisissue exists in other jurisdictionsto assess what lessons we canlearnfrom them.Underrepresentation ofAboriginal 42. leads inmany casesto out-of-date andotherwiseunreliable information beingusedto compile thejuryroll. obtaining thenamesfrom BandList information, thoughresulting from well-meaning efforts, isadhocand with recent court casesrespecting thismatter that thecurrent reliance by Court Services officialson record available.” section 6(8)ofthe 41. constituted criminalbehaviour. of Aboriginalpeople, andto persecute thecustomary practices ofFirst Nations onthegrounds that they in Canadawere usedat timesasatool to punishwhat theBritishviewed asdisloyal behavior onthepart system ingeneral, hasnotoften beenafriendto AboriginalpersonsinOntario. Indeed,criminaljurytrials Unfortunately, however, thejurysystem asithasdeveloped andoperated inOntario, like Ontario’s justice as afundamentalinstitution intheadministration ofjustice incivilizations dating backto ancienttimes. peoples onOntariojuries.Jurieshave served for generations asthecornerstone ofourjustice system, aswell that ajuryberepresentative, andthehistory andpractice withrespect to therepresentation ofFirst Nations research respecting various issues, includingthehistory ofjuriesandjuryselectioninOntario, therequirement 40. 5.

HISTORICAL, LEGALANDCOMPARATIVE RESEARCH Juries Act Our research focused inparticularontheapplication of, andcaselaw respecting, therequirement in In accordance withparagraph 4oftheOrder-in-Council, Ialsoconsidered thelaw andpractice in I found thisreview ofexperience inotherjurisdictionsto bevery helpful.Itshowed, amongother In additionto theengagementprocess andsubmissions describedabove, my team andIcarriedout , R.S.O. 1990, c.J. 3,s.6(8). 1 Itisclearto measaresult ofthisresearch andinparticularthematerials filedin conjunction Juries Act for the sherriff “to for thesherriffobtainnamesofinhabitants reserve from any -

7 PART I INTRODUCTION 8 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci individuals, including: Attorney General provide broader andmore comprehensive justice education programs for First Nations RECOMMENDATION 6: (ADAG) positionresponsible for Aboriginalissues, includingtheimplementation ofthisReport. RECOMMENDATION 5: input by theImplementation Committee: RECOMMENDATION 4: guards andotherrelated agencies. have contact withFirst Nations peoples,includingpolice, court workers, Crown prosecutors, prison Attorney General provide cultural training for allgovernment officials workinginthejustice system who RECOMMENDATION 3: matters affecting First Nations andtheJustice System. RECOMMENDATION 2: that theCommittee beestablished assoonpractically possible. recommendations andrelated matters. Inview oftheimportance andurgency ofthematter, Irecommend Committee. This Committee would beresponsible for theoversight oftheimplementation ofthebelow could, becauseoftheirbackground orexpertise, contribute significantly to the work oftheImplementation consisting ofasubstantial First Nations membershipalongwithGovernment officialsandindividualswho RECOMMENDATION 1: above, Imake thefollowing 17majorrecommendations. 44. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS As aresult oftheengagementprocess, review ofsubmissions, andresearch andanalysis asdescribed (c) (c) (b) (a) (c) (b) (a) the juryinjustice system andtheimportance ofparticipating onthejury;and languages, that would beusedto educate First Nations individualsasto therole played by commissioning thecreation ofvideoorothereducational instruments, particularlyinFirst Nations a review oftheAboriginalCourt Worker program andanexamination ofresources required to improve theprogram. by criminal,civil,andcoroner’s juries; hensive information onthejustice system, includinginformation respecting therole played developing brochures inFirst Nations languageswithplainwording whichprovide compre the location andscheduleofcourt sittings,andrelated matters. that would cover avariety oftopics, includingtheadequacy ofexisting legalrepresentation, a study onlegal representation that would involve Legal AidOntario, particularlyinthenorth, training for OPPofficers; and board to adjudicate policingcomplaints, andthedevelopment ofmandatory cultural competency operation ofFirst Nations law enforcement programs, thecreation ofanindependentreview forces through enablinglegislation, theestablishment ofaregulatory bodyto oversee the a study onFirst Nations policingissues, includingtherecognition ofFirst Nations police reserves onjuriesandjustice issues; establishing First Nations liaison officers responsible for consulting withFirst Nations theMinistry oftheAttorney General establish anImplementation Committee theAttorney General establish anAdvisory Group to theAttorney General on after obtainingtheinputofImplementation Committee, theMinistry ofthe theMinistry of theAttorney General create anAssistant DeputyAttorney General after obtainingtheinputofImplementation Committee, theMinistry ofthe theMinistry of theAttorney General carryoutthefollowing studies for eventual - jury representativeness. resident ofthesamepostal code, thereby ensuringthat nonresponsive prospective jurors donotundermine questionnaire isundeliverable orisnotreturned, anothersummonsorquestionnaire issentoutto a Committee, consider implementingthepractice from partsoftheU.S., that whenajurysummonsor RECOMMENDATION 11: Committee, consider amendingthequestionnaire sent to prospective jurors to: RECOMMENDATION 10: or memorandums ofunderstanding between OntarioandPTOs orFirst Nations, asappropriate. understanding between OntarioandtheFederal government respecting bandresidency information records, andsteps that mightbetaken to secure theserecords, suchasarenewed memorandum of this database, includingbandresidency information, Ministry ofTransportation information andother in consultation withtheImplementation Committee, consider allotherpotential sources for generating RECOMMENDATION 9: compiling thejuryroll. OHIP database to generate adatabase ofFirst Nations individualslivingonreserve for thepurposesof Committee, undertake aprompt andurgent review ofthefeasibility of, andmechanismsfor, usingthe RECOMMENDATION 8: Youth shouldconsult withPTOs andotherFirst Nations associations. prior to submittingthereport to theImplementation Committee theProvincial Advocate for Children and this report. The Provincial Advocate for Children andYouth shouldprepare areport onthat conference; to focus onspecificissues inthe relationship between youth, juries,andthejustice system, addressed in Children andYouth facilitate aconference ofrepresentative youth membersfrom First Nations reserves Implementation Committee, theImplementation Committee shouldrequest that theProvincial Advocate for RECOMMENDATION 7: (f) (f) (e) (d) (c) (b) (a) (d) five days for the return ofjury questionnaires. provide, through anamendmentto the stating simplythat Ontariolaw requires therecipient to complete andreturn theform remove thewording threatening afine for non-compliance and replacing itwith wording because oftheimportance ofthejuryinensuringfair trialsunderOntario’s justice system; excluded from juryduty;and enable First Nations elected officials, suchasChiefsand Councillors,as wellasElders, tobe make thelanguageassimplepossible; citizens; individual to identifythemselves asFirst Nations membersorcitizens rather than Canadian citizenship requirement under s.2(b) ofthe on thepremise that aFirst Nations memberlivingonreserve inOntariosatisfies theCanadian translate thequestionnaire into First Nations languagesasappropriate; consultation withChiefs,and Court Services officials. representatives, dealingwiththejustice system generally andthejurysystem inparticular, in to participate inintensive summereducation andlegalassistance programs for First Nations considering thefeasibility ofaprogram that would enlist students from Ontariolaw schools withrespect to First Nations youth, inadditionto having ayouth memberonthe theMinistry oftheAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImplementation inconnection withthisreview, theMinistry ofAttorney General andFirst Nations, theMinistry oftheAttorney General, inconsultation with theImplementation theMinistry of theAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImplementation Juries Act Juries Act , for amore realistic periodthanthe current , addanoptionfor First Nations

9 PART I INTRODUCTION 10 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci for minoroffences beingautomatically excluded from juryduty by: Committee, adoptmeasures to respond to theproblem ofFirst Nations individualswithcriminalrecords RECOMMENDATION 14:theMinistry of theAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImplementation providing translation services andby amendingthejuryquestionnaire accordingly to reflect thischange. Committee, consider enablingFirst Nations peoplenotfluentinEnglishorFrench to serve onjuries by RECOMMENDATION 13:theMinistry of theAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImplementation service asameansofsupplementingotherjurysource lists. Committee, consider aprocedure whereby First Nations peopleonreserve could volunteer for jury RECOMMENDATION 12:theMinistry of theAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImplementation (a) (b) (c) (c) considering whether, after acertain periodoftime, anindividualpreviously convicted of certain offences could become eligible again for juryservice. Criminal Code provisions, whichexclude anarrower group ofindividuals; certain offences from inclusiononthejury roll, to make them consistent withthe relevant mnig the amending encouraging andproviding advice andsupportfor First Nations individuals to apply for pardons to remove criminalrecords; and Juries Act provisions that exclude individualswhohave beenconvicted of

roll for thepurposesofempanellingajuryfor acoroner’s inquest. Committee, institute aprocess that would allow for First Nations individualsto volunteer to beonthejury RECOMMENDATION 17: of jurymembercompensation to theImplementation Committee for consideration andrecommendation. consistent withcost-of-living increases, Irecommend that theMinistry oftheAttorney General refer theissue RECOMMENDATION 16: on juries. that would prevent theuseofperemptory challengesto discriminate against First Nations peopleserving process willberewarded withprompt response andactionby theGovernment ofOntario. 47. all ofwhomwere very fair andcandidintheirassessments oftheshortcomings ofcurrent conditions. from thecontributions ofthelawyers whoacted for various organizations andfrom government officials, territorial organizations andtheirleaders,even someFirst Nations students. Ialsobenefitted greatly of many First Nations people, includingChiefs,Councillors, Elders,membersofreserves, provincial 46. 7. 45. the advisabilityofrecommending to theAttorney General ofCanadaanamendmentto the RECOMMENDATION 15: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It ismy sincere hopethat thetrust that First Nations peoplehave invested inthisIndependentReview For acomplete explanation oftherecommendations, seeparagraphs 347 to 386. The preparation ofthisReport would nothave beenpossible withouttheparticipation andassistance inview oftheconcerns Ihave heard andthefact that currentnot jurycompensation is theMinistry oftheAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImplementation theMinistry oftheAttorney General discuss withtheImplementation Committee

Criminal Code

11 PART I INTRODUCTION PART II APPOINTMENT AND WORK OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW 4 3 2 non-jury grounds ofappeal, but adjournedtheappealto heararguments about thejurycomposition unrepresentativeness ofthejuryroll for theThunder Bay District. and thesurrounding legalproceedings, andappealedhisconviction onseveral grounds, includingthe infringed theirrightto arepresentative jury. The defendant in their criminalconvictions onthebasisthat lackofrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoples onjuryrolls had 52. ordered that theinquest bestayed untilarepresentative juryroll iscreated. in theBushieInquest determined that theThunder Bay District’s juryroll was not representative, and establishment ofjuryrolls intheThunder Bay District. Following theCourt ofAppeal’s decision,thecoroner also ordered that theDirector ofCourt Operations appearbefore bothinquests to testify aboutthe had adduced sufficient evidence tojustify aninquiryinto the representativeness ofthejury rolls. The Court Eden for judicialreview. The Court ofAppeal,inadecisionreported as was completed withouttheparticipation ofthePierre family. The DivisionalCourt dismissed theapplications court granted astay oftheBushieinquest butrefused to stay thePierre inquest, whichproceeded and review ofeachcoroner’s decisionandastay oftheinquests pendingthehearingoftheirapplication. The established. Both coroners refused to issue asummons.The Pierre family andNANappliedfor judicial Director ofCourt Operations sothey could find outhow thejury roll intheDistrict of Thunder Bay was 51. listed ontheKenora juryroll. by Nishnawbe AskiNation (NAN)andthat notasinglememberoftheKaschechewan First Nation was that theKenora District juryrolls contained namesofmembersonly14the49 First Nations represented the 2008inquest into thedeaths ofJamie GoodwinandRicardo Wesley Kashechewan (“the Inquest”) on thejuryroll for theDistrict ofThunder Bay. Their concern was prompted by thediscovery madeduring and theAttorney General to express theirconcern abouttheunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoples deaths ofJacy Pierre andReggie Bushie, thefamilies ofthedeceased contacted theOffice ofthe Coroner deaths ofindividualslivinginFirst Nations communities. At thecommencement oftheinquests into the 50. the Court ofAppealfor Ontario. as aresult ofaseriescasesthat arose over thelast several years, two ofwhichhave madetheirway to not onlyto have beenlongstanding, butto have worsened over thepast decade. Itwas brought to ahead Ontario’s First Nations communities onOntario’s juryroll. AsdescribedinthisReport, thisproblem appears 49. TO THISREPORT, DIRECTEDMETO MAKERECOMMENDATIONS: DATED AUGUST 11, 2011. THEORDER-IN-COUNCIL, ACOPY OFWHICHISATTACHED AS APPENDIXA 48. A.

Pierre v. McRae R. v. Kokopenace Ibid Each family –andintheBushieinquest, NAN–asked thepresiding coroner to issue asummonsto the The second setofproceedings arose outofappealsbrought by First Nations defendants to setaside I WAS APPOINTEDTO CARRY OUTTHISINDEPENDENTREVIEWBY ORDER-IN-COUNCIL 1388/2011, The Order-in-Council responds to thefundamentalproblem oflackrepresentation ofmembers The first ofthe recent setofcasesinvolved theempanelmentofjuriesin coroner’s inquests into the MANDATE OFTHEINDEPENDENTREVIEW ), overturned thisdecision. . (b) (a) on thejuryroll; and ensureto andenhance therepresentation ofFirst Nations personslivingonreserve communities Attorney General andFirst Nations onthisissue. to strengthen theunderstanding, cooperation andrelationship between theMinistry ofthe , 2011 ONCA187 at para. 68. , 2011 ONCA536. 2 3 The Court ofAppealheldthat thefamilies ofMr. BushieandMr. Pierre R. v. Kokopenace 4 Pierre v. McRae The Court ofAppealdismissed all learned of the Bushie inquest learnedoftheBushieinquest (alsoreferred to as NAN v. 13 PART II APPOINTMENT AND WORK OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW 14 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci issue ofAboriginalunderrepresentation onOntariojuryrolls andinsettingupthisIndependentReview. and politicalaction,NANhasbeeninstrumental inhelpingto focus publicandjudicialscrutiny onthe and 6 5 issues Ihave beendirected to review. that Ihave gainedthegreatest understanding ofthefundamentalsystemic problems that underliethe government. Itisthrough thisconsultation process, describedindetailthenext sectionoftheReport, organization, andmemberofaFirst Nation aswell asfrom any interested party, includingministries of submissions inwritingfrom any First Nation, First Nations politicalterritorial organization, First Nations in theconduct ofmy review, to holdconsultations with First Nations communities andto invite andreceive 56. interfering inany investigation orcriminalotherlegalproceeding. recommendations regarding thecivilorcriminalliabilityofany personororganization, andwithout duties withoutmakingany findingsof fact in relation to misconduct, or expressing any conclusions or cases. Inaddition,asrequired by paragraph 8oftheOrder-in-Council, Ihave taken care to perform my my recommendations, Idonotreport onormake recommendations withrespect to any oftheseindividual makes reference to thejurisprudence relating to thesematters aspartofthebackground andcontext for criminal investigation orproceeding, inquest orotherlegalproceeding”. Asaresult, althoughmy Report Council states that Ishallnotreport “on any individualcasesthat are, have been,ormay besubjectto a carrying outmy review, andconsequently Ihave notdoneso. For example, paragraph 7oftheOrder-in- 55. issue cannot be realistically addressed withoutconsidering thesebroader systemic issues. the lackofrepresentation ofFirst Nations community members onthejuryroll, Ihave found that this Ontario. Consequently, whileIappreciate that my mandate isfirst and foremost to address theissue of a symptom ofthebroader diseaseailingOntario’s justice system asitrelates to First Nations peoplesin to methat theissue ofunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonthejuryroll inthisprovince ismerely on juries”. my mandate isto probe importantsystemic “the issues surrounding low participation ofAboriginalpeople sentation issue. AstheAttorney General stated inhisfactum filedinthe relationship between theMinistry oftheAttorney General andFirst Nations” inrelation to thejuryrepre recognition intheOrder-in-Council ofthe need to strengthen understanding, cooperation “the and Ontario’s juryroll, andmy recommendations are focused onthat issue. Ontheotherhand,there isa I have beenasked to examine thespecificissue oflack representation ofFirst Nations peopleson 54. described above to theDivisionalCourt andtheCourt ofAppeal.NANalsointervened inthe NAN becameinvolved intheBushieInquest onbehalfofMr. Bushie’s family, andbrought theappeals underrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuryrolls, beganfollowing theKaschechewan Inquest. 49 First Nations Reserve communities inOntario. NAN’s initiatives, aimedat addressing theissue ofthe 53. Court hadnotrendered itsdecision. These appealswere heard together by theCourt ofAppealinMay 2012, butat thetimeofwriting issue. The defendant in  R v. Spiers See para. 5oftherespondent’s factum in The IndependentReview was provided withthesematerials by counsel withthe agreement ofthecourt. I shouldalsonote that theOrder-in-Council expressly directs menotto address certain matters in NAN isthepoliticalterritorial organization representing thepolitical,socialandeconomic interests of The heartofmy mandate isaddressed inparagraphs 5and6oftheOrder-in-Council, whichdirect me, The mandate setoutintheOrder-in-Council isbothrelatively narrow andbroad. Ontheonehand, Spiers 6 (2007), 76 W.C.B. (2d)55(O.N.S.C.J.). AsdescribedfurtherinthisReport, ininvestigating thesesystemic issues, ithasbecome clear appeals.Through itsparticipation inthecoroners inquests, thesubsequentlegalchallenges R v. Spiers appealedherconviction, andalsopursuedthejurycomposition issue. R v. Kokopenance . Kokopenace

and Spiers Kokopenace appeals, -

5 issues. The objectives ofthepreparatory meetingswere to educate theleadershipand community with from thelaw firm Falconer Charney accompanied theNAN representatives to provide legaladvice onthe advice and information required by each First Nation with which we met. NAN’s legal team of two lawyers a NANrepresentative, former Grand ChiefBentley Cheechoo, andatranslator, JerrySawanas, whoprovided by ameetingbetween community representatives, my team, andme. The preparatory team consisted of This approach entailedapreparatory meeting ineachoftheselected First Nations communities, followed adopted by Commissioner Mr. Justice GoudgeintheInquiryinto Pediatric Forensic Pathology inOntario. a proposal for engagement,whichwe accepted. NANproposed anengagementprocess similarto that leading upto thecreation oftheIndependentReview. Accordingly, they were thefirst organization to submit 62. 1. Ontario, we alsothoughtitusefulto meetwiththeProvincial Advocate ofChildren andYouth inOntario. many casesinvolving First Nations offenders. Considering thelarge demographic ofFirst Nations youth in and theProvincial JuryCentre. We alsometwithsomemembersofthejudiciarywhohave presided over discussions with officials from theMinistry ofthe Attorney General, including the CourtServices Division 61. as AppendixFto thisReport. The submissions we received are summarized inPart IVofthisReport. and Treaty organizations, andinterested Aboriginalservice providers, seekingtheirfurtherinput.Itisattached available onourwebsite, andadiscussion paperthat was sentto allFirst Nations inOntario, First Nation representation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuries.Iprepared asummaryprogress report that was made process, andposedquestions to solicitfeedback onways to address thechallengesassociated withthe Report anda discussion paperthat setouttheissues identified by First Nations duringtheengagement 60. as AppendixDto thisReport. written submissions oraccommodate acombination ofboth.Acopy ofthiscorrespondence isattached governments, andFirst Nations andTreaty organizations inOntario, offering to meetwiththem, receive in amannerthey deemedappropriate. Accordingly, inNovember 2011, Isentaletter to allFirst Nations ment process must beginby introducing theIndependentReview andinviting First Nations to participate Nations andTreaty groups andorganizations intheProvince ofOntario, we determined that theengage Nations peopleslivinginreserve communities asitrelates to juryservice. Given thevast diversity ofFirst the best way, inmy view, for meto understand andaccurately definethe systemic issues affecting First 59. members ofthejudiciarywhohave presided over casesormotionsrelating to theissues underreview. and Long-Term Care, the Provincial Advocate for Children andYouth, otherservice organizations, and leaders, communities andorganizations, officialsoftheMinistry of Attorney General, Ministry ofHealth develop aprocess that would allow usto meetandreceive submissions from interested First Nations First Nations peoplesonthejuryroll. After creating awebsite for theIndependentReview, we setoutto have beeninvolved in,orare affected by, thejuries system inOntarioasit relates to the representation of 58. my team andIbeganto develop aplanandengagementapproach for theIndependentReview. Metallic, thenaseniorassociate andnow apartnerwithMaurice Law, Barristers andSolicitors. Together, LLP, was thefirst to join the team aslead counsel. InOctober, we recruited asassociate counsel Candice the legalteam that would supportmy work for theIndependentReview. JohnTerry, apartnerwithTorys 57. B. NISHNAWBE ASKI NATION Once Ibecamefamiliar withtheissues from theFirst Nations perspective, we beganto meetand have Shortly following thepassage ofOrder-in-Council 1288/2011 onAugust 11,2011, Ibeganto assemble As describedat paragraph 53 above, NANhadbeenintensely involved in legalandadvocacy events Hearing from theFirst Nations leadership, peopleandorganizations asthefirst order ofbusiness was We commenced theIndependentReview withaprocess to gather information from allofthosewho WORK OF THEINDEPENDENTREVIEW Following theFirst Nations engagementprocess, describedinmore detailinPart IV, Iprepared aProgress - 15 PART II APPOINTMENT AND WORK OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW 16 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci and Elders.The summaryofthismeetingappearsinPart IVofthisReport. Onigum First Nation, just outside Kenora. EightChiefs ofTreaty #3attended, alongwithtechnical advisors the Grand Council ofTreaty #3submitted aproposal for aone-day meetingthat was heldat Wauzhushk met withmeto discuss theissue oftherepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuries.After thismeeting, 66. 3. to me. The Union’s submission issummarized inPart IVofthisReport. upon theoutcomes oftheAnishinabek engagementsessions asthebasisfor theUnion’s recommendations found inPart IVofthisReport. Finally, theUnionprepared aResearch Report andSubmission that drew Of thesethree sessions, two were convened andonewas cancelled. The summary ofthesesessions is I were invited to attend to discuss theissue oftheunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuries. originally plannedto organize three consultation meetingsat whichFirst Nations individuals,leaders,and discussions. These independentresearch reports are summarized inPart IVofthisReport. Fourth, theUnion research papersattended theengagementsessions to present theirresearch andto contribute to fruitful the knowledge, opinions,andsuggestions ofkey organizations intheregion. The authorsoftheindependent Anishinabek First Nations andinstitutions. Third, theUnioncommissioned external research reports to harness the issue ofthe representation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuriesfor thepurposesofdissemination in First Nations intheIndependentReview. Second, theUnionprepared plainlanguagebackgrounders regarding 65. and proposed to undertake five tasks for theIndependent Review. discussion forums regarding juriesinAnishinabekterritory, theUnionbuiltuponthisprevious work participated inaprevious initiative fundedby theMinistry oftheAttorney General to conduct three an engagementproposal andbudgetonbehalfofitsmembers,whichwe accepted. Having recently 64. 2. sessions are summarized inPart IVofmy Report. I visited duringthisphaseoftheReview is attached asAppendixEto my Report. The outcomes ofthese First Nations communities, Iwas ableto visitten ofthefifteen communities. The list ofFirst Nations that events, suchasinclementweather, deaths inthecommunity, andotherpressing matters that arose in of NAN’s 49 First Nations were identified by NAN to bevisited duringthe Review. Owing to unanticipated Bay, andalsoconsidered factors suchasgeographic location, size, andTribal Council affiliation. Fifteen respectfully andappropriately includedthehomeFirst Nations oftheyoung menwhodiedin Thunder Bay. InselectingtheFirst Nations to beinvolved intheIndependentReview engagementprocess, NAN from NANFirst Nations whodiedwhileattending theDennisFranklin Cromarty HighSchoolinThunder 63. Nations communities to discuss theissues. a second visitwas arranged whereby my legalteam, NAN’s preparatory team, andIattended theFirst ensure that thecommunity was sufficiently prepared for myvisit. Following the preparatory meetings, respect to thejuryrepresentation issue, to address any questions orconcerns that may beraised, andto GRANDCOUNCIL OFTREATY #3 UNIONOFONTARIO INDIANS The thenGrand ChiefofTreaty #3,DianeKelly, andChiefSimonFobister ofGrassy Narrows First Nation As animportantbackdrop to theIndependentReview, Iwant to acknowledge theseven young men First, theUnion assembled asteering committee that designedaprocess to engagetheirconstituent The UnionofOntarioIndians,apoliticaladvocate for 39 AnishinabekFirst Nations inOntario, submitted

insights, andcomments onthesubjectmatter oftheReview. grateful to themany judges,andcourt andgovernment officials,who presented information, data, are required to enhance First Nations inclusion andparticipation onjuriesinOntario. Iamalsoequally been ofgreat benefit to meinwriting my Report anddeveloping the recommendations that, in my view, Independent Review. Their valuable assistance, generous contributions, andinsightfulperspectives have 70. outlined inPart IV. 69. council orFirst Nation organization, whichIgladlyattended. 68. 5. meeting isincludedinPart IVofthisReport. members ofFirst Nations victimswhosedeaths were subjectto acoroner’s inquest. The summaryofthis part ofALST’s proposal involved convening aFamilies Forum at whichmy team andImetwithsomefamily peoples onOntariojuries.ALST’s comprehensive paperissummarized inPart IVofthisReport. The second offers recommendations andsolutions to thecurrent problem oftheunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations part involved thepreparation ofacomprehensive paperthat addresses thejuryrepresentation issue and 67. 4. INDEPENDENTFIRST NATIONS ABORIGINALLEGALSERVICES OFTORONTO Aboriginal Legal Services ofToronto (ALST) submitted atwo-part proposal, whichwe accepted. The first I ammost grateful to alloftheFirst Nations andFirst Nation organizations that participated inthe It isalsoimportantto note that we received submissions from various groups andindividualsas Finally, Ireceived specificmeeting requests from four First Nations that are unaffiliated withatribal 17 PART II APPOINTMENT AND WORK OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT jury system to theterritories itconquered. jury was transplanted to Rome around 451to 450B.C.E., andthere isevidence that Rome brought the questions of fact andlaw, andvoted insecret. Itsjudgmentswere notsubjectto appeal.The Athenian body heldthepower ofappealover civilandcriminalmatters, and,inperforming thisfunction,determined 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 the rightto trialby juryinGreat Britain. civil matters. treasury andreligious bodiesover landownership, andto determine guiltorinnocence incriminaland under aseriesofkingsfollowing William, whoempanelledjuries to resolve disputes between the royal manner ofholdingsallproperty withinthecountry.” William theConqueror summonedjuriesineachcounty to make determinations asto the“value and gathered to conduct inquests andmake determinations onquestions offact andlaw. For example, 1066 C.E. historian, William Forsyth, trialby jurywas unknown intheBritishIslesbefore theNormanConquest in 74. citizen aged30orover “whowas notindebted to thestate andwhosecivilrightshadnotbeenforfeited”. assembly of Athenian citizens, calledthe the seventh century B.C.E. KingSolonestablished two courts, whichwere presided over by ageneral One oftheearliest recorded jury-like bodieswas established by theGreek KingSolonaround theendof found inthe history andmythology ofearlycivilizations, includingthoseofEgypt, Greece, andScandinavia. 73. 1. B. populations. peoples onOntariojuries,andthejuryselectionexperience inotherjurisdictionswithsignificantAboriginal currently operates inOntario, therequirement that ajuryberepresentative, therepresentation ofFirst Nations 72. SYSTEM INGENERAL,HAS NOT OFTENBEENAFRIENDTO ABORIGINALPEOPLEINONTARIO. THAT THE JURY SYSTEM AS ITHAS DEVELOPED ANDOPERATED INONTARIO, LIKEONTARIO’S JUSTICE DATING BACK TO ANCIENTTIMES.UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, AS IDESCRIBEBELOW, ITISCLEAR AS WELLAS AFUNDAMENTAL INSTITUTION INTHEADMINISTRATION OFJUSTICE INCIVILIZATIONS 71. A.

ROLEANDFUNCTIONSOFTHEJURY Moore, William Forsyth,  Ibid Ibid took pityonOrestes andcast hervote for anacquittal. mortal.” IndecidingOrestes’ fate, the jurysplitwithsixvotes cast for guiltyandsixvotes for notguilty. However, thegoddess Athena mythology speaks of thetrialOrestes, killerofhismotherClytemnestra (thewife ofAgamemnon) asthe“first jurytrialofa Ibid Ibid See Lloyd E.Moore, JURIES HAVE SERVED FOR GENERATIONS AS THECORNERSTONE OFOURJUSTICE SYSTEM, In thispartoftheReport, Idescribeabriefhistory ofjuriesinOntario, thejuryselectionsystem asit The jurysystem aswe know itinOntarioevolved inBritain.According to nineteenth century British The juryasaninstitution hasalongand distinguished history. References to jury-like bodiescanbe BRIEFHISTORY OFJURIESINONTARIO INTRODUCTION ., at 3. ., at 2. ., at 49-50. SeealsoJohnDawson, ., at 36-41. supra 10 Following theNormanConquest, there are several recorded instances ofindividualsbeing note 7at 35. 12 The passage ofthe History of Trial by Jury The Jury:Tool of Kings,Palladium of Liberty A History of Lay Judges , (London: JohnParker andSons,1852) at 54. Magna Carta 13 In1275, trialby jurybecamemandatory incriminalproceedings dikasteria 9 in1215by KingJohniscredited by someasguaranteeing . Service onthe (Harvard University Press: CambridgeMass, 1960)at 289-290. (Cincinnati: W.H. AndersonCompany, 1963), at chapter 1.Greek 11 The jurythat we know today emerged gradually dikasteria was opento any Athenian 8

This

7

19 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 20 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 persons to trial. focus oftheOffice ofthe Coroner shifted to investigating causesofdeath, rather than committing accused people for homicide andcommitting accused personsto trial. after theinstitution ofthecoroner was received inOntario, coroner’s inquests were responsible for indicting mid-nineteenth century. Priorto aseriesoflate-nineteenth century reforms inEngland,whichtook place well 85 to 89, thecoroner system inOntariowas received withtherest ofthecommon law from Englandinthe 77. sentative jury, and,inmy view, are directly applicableinconsidering theissues discussed inthisReport. by theSupreme Court ofCanadain institution; and (5)thejuryhelpsto legitimize thecriminaljustice system. protection against oppressive laws andtheoppressive enforcement of the law; (4)thejuryisaneducational (2) thejuryactsasconscience of the community incriminalproceedings; (3)thejuryisultimate Canada setoutfive majorfunctionsof thejuryinmoderncriminalproceedings: (1)thejury isa fact-finder; In itscomprehensive 1980examination ofthejury system inCanada,theLaw Reform Commission of which, astheSupreme Court ofCanadahasstated, are “as compelling today asthey were centuries ago”. developments in 76. the judge, itcannotcommand publicsupport.” overturned thisdecision,and,insodoing,emphasized that “unless thejurycanactindependentlyof the jurors refused to pay, they were imprisoned. jurors for reaching averdict that was “contrary to theevidence andcontrary to hisinstructions.” frequently usedto repress theQuakers. The judgeaccepted thejurors’ verdict ofnotguilty, butfinedthe time, any religious gathering outsideoftheChurch ofEnglandwas deemedunlawful, andthat law was convict two Quakers (areligious group) of“seditious preaching before anunlawful assembly.” an endto thispractice was the1670 decisionof verdict” (doing sowas considered perjury–lyingto thecourt). the jury. Priorto theseventeenth century, jurors could bepunishedby thecourt for reaching the“wrong 75. the facts, rather thanthedecisiondemandedby thecourt. of juriesto decidequestions offact (andnotlaw), andtheabilityofjuriesto reach theirown decisionon centuries, includingtherightofaccused to challengethecomposition of hisorherjurypanel,theuse in Great Britain.

Granger,    Moore, Theodore Plucknett, transplanted to Canada. Company Ltd., 1984)at 35; where theauthorindicates that changesto thecoroner’s system inEnglandoccurred after theoffice was Christopher Granger, Sherratt, supra Supply andServices Canada,1980). R. v. Sherratt Ibid Ibid Ibid (2001-2002) 111Yale L.J. 1815at 1822. (Toronto: The Law SocietyofUpperCanada, 1959) at 9. Ontario Law Reform Commission, Law Reform Commission ofCanada, Simon Stern, “Between Local Knowledge andNational Politics: Debating Rationales for JuryNullification After Bushell’s Case” R.A. Hughes,“Role ofaJuryinCriminalCase,” inEdson Haines,ed., Similar roles are played by thejuryinacoroner’s inquest. Asdiscussed inmore detailat paragraphs The last pointisparticularlyrelevant given theimportance attributed today to theindependence of While we are separated by centuries from thesefoundational momentsin the history ofthejury, the . . ., at 1823. supra Ibid , [1991]1S.C.R. 509. [ . note 7at 68-69, 82,89. note 21at para. 30. 25 14 Similarchangesfollowed inOntariothrough aseriesof laws enacted duringthenineteenth Many ofthecharacteristics ofmodernjuriesemerged inthefifteenth andsixteenth Bushell’s Case A Concise History of theCommon Law Canadian Coroner Law: ALegal Study of Coroner andMedicalExaminer Systems inCanada Report ontheCoroner System inOntario Sherratt andothersare still reflected inthemodern rationales for thejury system, Working Paper 27: The JuryinCriminalTrials R.v. Sherratt ]. 20 , 23 19 Bushell’s Case theCourt’s majordecisionontheimportance ofarepre Lord Vaughn, ajudgeat theCourt ofCommon Pleas, , 5thed.(The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.: New Jersey, 2011) at 126. Special Lectures of theLaw Societyof UpperCanada1959 15

, by ChairmanAllanLeal (Toronto: Queen’s Printer, 1971) at 11. 24 . In 16 After aseriesofreforms inEngland,the Oneofthemost famous casesputting Bushell’s Case by ChairmanFrancis Muldoon(Ottawa: Minister of 22 These statements were adopted , four jurors refused to (Toronto: The Carswell 17 At that 18 When

- 21

Indians, against whomthey maintainbitter prejudices.” to theArchbishop criticizingthejuries,“The jurymenare allProtestants, enemiesoftheMétisand Rebellion, not onenon-Native personwas triedfor thekillingofMétisandCree warriors. Apriest wrote and thethree Chiefswere sentenced to three years inprison.Despite theNative casualtiesduringthe people after only15minutes ofdeliberations. EightoftheCree menwere sentenced to death by hanging Arrow –alongwitheightotherCree menwere triedfor murder andfound guiltyby ajury ofnon-Aboriginal sentenced to death by hanging.Three Cree Chiefs–ChiefPoundmaker, ChiefBigBear, andChiefOne convicted by ajuryofsixEnglishandScottish Protestants after only30minutes ofdeliberations. Rielwas their peopleofvarious criminaloffences. The Métisleader, Louis Riel, was charged withhightreason and with theMétisandCree for causingtheRebellion, triedandconvicted anumberofprominent leadersand and charges were laidagainst theAboriginalparticipants, juries,comprised ofsettlerswhowere incensed and protest initiated by MétisandCree leaders inWestern Canada.Once theRebellion cameto anend, 80. practices ofFirst Nations onthegrounds that they constituted criminalbehaviour. the Britishviewed as,disloyal behavior onthepartofAboriginalpeople, andto persecute thecustomary instrument ofinjustice. Indeed,criminaljurytrialsinCanadawere usedat timesasatool to punish,what to recall that, from theperspective ofAboriginalpeoplesinCanada,ithasoften beenregarded asan 79. role intheadministration ofjustice. reflecting thebroad appealofaninstitution that enablesmembersofthe community to play a central others like it,hasbeenusedacross humanhistory incivilizations withlittleornotiesto oneanother, the same time, other, more modern,rationales have developed. 78. the death andto make recommendations asto how suchdeaths may beprevented inthefuture. not make afindingofguiltorliability. performing itsfact-finding role, thejuryina coroner’s inquest, unlike incriminalorcivilproceedings, does obsolete. and twentieth centuries, andtheuseofcoroner’s inquests asaway ofsecuringanindictmentbecame 30 29 28 27 26 original investigation, alawyer from Winnipeg assigned to actasCrown Counsel, andajuryofsixmenfrom counsel. Hewas triedby ajudge, who was aCommissioner oftheNorthwest Mounted Police involved inthe took hisown life before trial.JosephFiddlerfaced acompletely foreign system withouttheaidoflegal were brought into contact with non-Aboriginal peopleandthejustice system. Onebrother, JackFiddler, Apparently, thiswas thefirst timetheFiddlerbrothers, whodidnotspeakEnglish,lefttheir community and with murder andbrought to Norway HouseinManitoba, thelocation ofaHudsonBay Trading Post, for trial. their customary roles andresponsibilities. They were arrested by theNorthwest Mounted Police, charged men were asked by the family to perform thistaskandaccordingly claimedto beactinginaccordance with as a“wendigo” orevil spiritthat would bringharmanddangerto thecommunity. The two respected medicine charged withthemurder ofayoung woman whowas possessed withwhat was known by theAnishinawbe withCanadiansocietalvalues ofcriminality.incongruent JackandJosephFiddlerwere fundamentally was of two medicinemenfrom theSandyLake First Nation inNorthwestern Ontariofor acustomary actthat 81.

 Sherratt, supra  . (Ontario: Queen’s Printer, 1994)at 92. Ibid Report ontheCoroner System inOntario, supra Brian M.Brown, Ontario Law Reform Commission, During theengagementprocess for theIndependentReview, Iheard firsthand ofthe1907 prosecution However, inspite oftheimportance andlongevity ofthejuryasaninstitution ofjustice, itisimportant Many oftheearlyrationales for thejurycontinue to inform ouruseoftheinstitution today, whileat A notableexample occurred intheaftermath ofthe1885Northwest Rebellion –anactofresistance ., at 94. 26 Despite thesechanges,thejuryremained “an essential component” ofthemoderninquest. note 21. Poundmaker, BigBear, andthe1885Rebellion Report ontheUseof JuryTrials inCivilCases 28 Rather, itiscalleduponto decideaseriesofquestions related to note 24 at 25. (1999),online:alittlehistory.com 30 29 Itisrevealing that thisinstitution, or , by ChairmanJohnMcCamus

27 In In

21 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 22 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 36 35 34 33 32 31 The languageofthisAct demonstrates thehighregard inwhichtheinstitution ofthejurywas held: commonplace, andthey were introduced incivilproceedings by the1792 introduced theEnglishjurysystem initsentirety to UpperCanada;juries incriminalproceedings were already Constitutional Act 86. As aresult, thejuryandOffice ofthe Coroner were introduced into Canadiancriminal law. – remained theFrench civillaw, butEnglishlaw was adopted for theadministration ofcriminaljustice. that private law inCanada–thelaw ofcontracts, family law, estates and successions, amongotherthings year, KingGeorge IIIofEnglandsignedthe the commonplace. Following theFrench defeat by theBritishinSeven Years’ War, France andBritainsigned of France. Duringthat period,trialby juryincriminalandcivilproceedings doesnotappearto have been perspective ofnon-Aboriginal settlersandtheEuropean powers, aFrench colony governed by thelaw and incoroner’s inquests since at least 1763. Priorto 1763, what isnow Canadawas, at least from the 85. 2. Canadian justice system. and injustice that to thisday continue to influence the attitudes ofFirst Nations people towards the 84. turbing numberofFirst Nations peopleinOntariocanrelate to thecircumstances endured by DonaldMarshall,Jr. person. Given what Ihave heard whileconducting theIndependentReview, Iunfortunately expect that adis miscarriage ofjustice inhiscasewas directly attributable to thefact that DonaldMarshallJr. was aMi’kmaq attention to theissue ofsystemic discrimination inthejustice system. The Royal Commission found that the justice system asadministered by thepolice, investigators, lawyers, Attorney General, andcourts drew national didnotelectto haveprison, in atrialby jury,years 12 theutter failureserved ofthecriminal and murder of on theDonaldMarshall,Jr., Prosecution to betroubled. Aglaringexample oftheseproblems was revealed inthe 83. of theSandyLake First Nation, andcontributes to theiraversion to participate init. forever scarred theFirst Nations perception ofthecriminaljustice system, particularlyamongmembers that “wendigo” killingswere nottolerable andsuchbehavior would bepunished. 82. reduced to life inprison.Beinganelderlyandsickman,JosephFiddlerdiedsoonafterwards incustody. Norway House. JosephFiddlerwas convicted ofthecrimeandinitiallysentenced to death, whichwas later

Graham Parker, “Trial by JuryinCanada”(1987) 8OsgoodeHallL.J. 178 at 178.  Thomas FiddlerandJamesR.Stevens,  Ibid Ibid Ibid Alexander Hickman(Halifax: McCurdy’s PrintingandTypesetting Limited, 1989). The Royal Commission ontheDonaldMarshall,Jr., Prosecution, According to historians whohave examined thistrial,itwas intended to serve asasignalto otherFirst Nations AND THEJURY SELECTIONPROCESS INONTARIO A BRIEFHISTORY OFTHEJURY SYSTEM Juries have beenusedincriminalproceedings inOntariosince 1763, incivilproceedings since 1792, The relationship between theCanadianjustice system andCanada’s Aboriginalpeoplescontinues In 1791, UpperCanada(now Ontario) was dividedfrom Lower Canada (now Quebec) asaresult ofthe I have mentionedtheexamples from Riel,Fiddler, andMarshallto illustrate thestains ofmistreatment Treaty of Paris . Seealso ., at 180. . An Act to Establish Trials by Jury , 1791, and,inthat year, UpperCanadareceived itsown constitution. in1763, whichceded territory inCanadaclaimedby France to theBritish.That same Killing theShamen , UpperCanadaStatutes, 1792, c.2. . 32 AlthoughDonaldMarshall,Jr., whowas wrongfully convicted Royal Proclamation (Manotick,ON:Penumbra Press, 1985)at 73. Digest of Findingsand Recommendations

of1763. 33 The Royal Proclamation stipulated Report of theRoyal Commission Act to Establish Trials by Jury 31 However, insodoing,it , by ChiefJustice T. 35 These changes 34

.

36

- 38 37 chose peoplelivinginthesameneighborhoodto reduce thecosts associated withsummoningjurors. randomly selected for juryservice. Often, asdiscussed inthenext sectionofthisReport, thesheriffsimply it to thesheriff. of thepeace ineachdistrict would compose alist ofprospective jurors (allmalehouseholders) andprovide inquests into thedeaths ofindividuals who diedwhileincustody (thisrequirement remains thecasetoday). a juryfor inquests into deaths by violentornegligentmeansandrequired that ajurybesummonedfor 88. criminal indictmentwas appropriate. Canadian provinces, grand jurieswere alsousedto assess evidence adduced to determine whethera of thecivilcases. the SuperiorCourt) to hearcriminalcasesandcertain civilcases,andothercourts to heartheremainder 87. 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 the legislature passed the book, from whichprospective jurors were drawn. Since thisprocess transferred poorlyinto UpperCanada, Subsequently, theselists were certified by alocaljustice andthenames were transcribed into ajurors’ post jurors lists onthelocalchurch doorfor three weeks, to allow peopleto identifyany errors oromissions. sible for identifying menwhomettherequisite property requirements for juryservice. Constables would well to sparselypopulated UpperCanada.Inlate eighteenth century England,constables were respon for comparatively denselypopulated late eighteenth andearlynineteenth century Englanddidnottranslate be summonedandtaken conformably to thelaw andcustom ofEngland”.However, theselectionprocess to therelative declineintheuseofjury. The Canada that first served asacatalyst for widespread reforms to thejury system, andsubsequently contributed 89. in various ways, The law respecting coroner’s inquests hassince beenmodernized andthe Office ofthe Coroner enhanced Act to amendtheLaw respecting theoffice ofthe Coroner The first formal legislative enactmentgoverning theOffice ofthe Coroner inUpperCanada wasthe1850 It seemsprobable that earlycoroner’s inquests employed juries,since thispractice was common inEngland.

 R.Blake Brown, R.Blake Brown, Seethecurrent OntarioLaw Reform Commission,  J.C.E. Wood, “Discovering theOntarioInquest”(1967) 5OsgoodeHallL.J. 243 at 246. at 44. R. Blake Brown, Act to amendtheLaw respecting theoffice ofthe Coroner (Toronto: The Carswell Company Ltd., 1984)at 15,28. Ibid Ibid An Act to Establish Trials by Jury, ibid See Christopher Granger, In linewiththesereforms, theUpperCanadaLegislature established theCourt ofKing’s Bench(now The process for selectingjurors for trialswas ahighlycontentious politicalissue inpre-Confederation The Office ofthe Coroner was transplanted into Canadawiththeintroduction ofEnglishcriminal law. . ., at 45. jurors shallbesummonedandtaken conformably to thelaw andcustom ofEngland. by aunanimousverdict oftwelve jurors, dulysworn for thetrialofsuchissue orissues, which his Majesty’s courts ofjustice withintheprovince aforesaid, shallbetriedand determined of fact, whichshallbejoinedinany action,real, personal,ormixed, andbrought inany of council andassembly oftheprovince ofUpperCanada,[…]allandevery issue andissues by theKing’s most excellent Majesty, by andwiththeadvice andconsent ofthelegislative is oneofthechiefbenefits to be attained by afree constitution, beittherefore enacted Whereas trialby juryhasbeenlongestablished andapproved inourmothercountry, and Coroner’s Act A Trying Question: The JuryinNineteenth Century Canada 45 Ibid supra 47 buttherole ofthejury(now afive-person jury) remains afundamentalpartof every inquest. From thislist, thesheriff would select36 to 48namesbefore atrial,from which12 were 38 . Jurieswere usedinallofthesecourts. An Act for theRegulation of Juries note 38at 45. Canadian Coroner Law: ALegal Study of Coroner andMedicalExaminer Systems inCanada , R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, attached to thisReport asAppendixC. Act for theRegulation of Juries Report ontheLaw of Coroner . 40

, UpperCanadaStatutes, 1794 c.1. Act to Establish Trials by Jury , 1850, UpperCanadaStatutes, c.56. s by ChairmanJohnMcCamus(Ontario: Queen’s Printer, 1995). in1794, whichprovided that every year theclerk . 39 43 While they have since fallen outofuseinall The 1850Act permitted thecoroner to summon (Toronto: OsgoodeSocietyfor CanadianLegal History, 2009) provided that “jurors shall 37

- 44 46 42 41

23 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 24 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 prosecution. However, thepartiescould still chooseto waive thejuryfor atrialinvolving oneofthose judge for ajury to becalledfor allbutaselectnumberofcivilcausesaction,includinglibeland malicious for thebetter administration of Justice intheCourts of Ontario when itwas requested by oneoftheparties.Five years later, theOntario legislature passed the1873 the the presumption that civiltrialswere to betriedby ajurywas reversed after theOntariolegislature passed proceedings, trialby jurywas theonlyform oftrialrecognized by theCourts ofcommon law. 93. for theuseof juries in theprovinces ofCanadahelpedto assuage fears oftyrannical government andunderminethisrationale and oppressive government. However, theestablishment ofdemocratically elected legislative assemblies the entrenchment ofresponsible government. to thereasons already discussed –highcosts andinconvenience –oneauthorattributes thedeclineto 92. 3. selection inorder to reduce costs. list whowould beanything butsatisfactory jurymen.” the voters’ list asabasisfor selecting possible jurors because, intheirview, “there are many onthevoters’ These property requirements were to remain inplace until1972. The proponents ofthisAct rejected using at $600ormore for peoplelivingincities,and$400ormore for peoplelivingintowns andvillages. Amend theJurors Act bills following theenactmentof1850Act eventually culminated inthepassage in1879 of about theinconvenience ofservingonjuries,once againspurred reform efforts. Aseriesof failed jury reform 91. section –was amajorreason for thejury’s declineinthenineteenth andtwentieth centuries. significantly increased the costs ofthejury system, which–aswillbediscussed inthenext partofthis to thesheriff for juror selection. which created lists ofprospective jurors that were forwarded to theclerkofpeace, andsubsequently including acomplex system for juror selectionthat involved alocal“committee ofselectors” ineachtownship, of the ensure theconvictions ofaccused rebels. The drive towards reform culminated in1850withthepassage 1837 Rebellions, for example, there was widespread beliefthat government officialshadpacked juries to there were increasing callsto strip thesheriffofhispower to appointjurypanels. abusing theirpositionby packingjuriesto ensure specificoutcomes intrials.Between 1800and1850, 90.

 R.Blake Brown, AnAct to AmendtheJurors’ Act R.Blake Brown, R.Blake Brown,  Law Reform Act of 1868 of CivilLitigation Availability” inThe Honourable Mr. Justice Todd L. Archibald &The Honourable Mr. Justice RandallScott Echlin, Ibid Ibid Upper CanadaJurors’ Act of 1850, Act for thebetter administration of Justice inthe Courts of Ontario, The Honourable Mr. Justice Todd L.Archibald &Robert“The L.Gain, Breadth ofCivilJuryTrials inCanada:Their History and The increased costs ofthejurysystem asaresult ofthe1850Act, aswell asgeneral citizen dissatisfaction NINETEENTH TO THETWENTIETHCENTURY DECLINE INTHEUSEOFJURIESFROM The late-nineteenth century marked thebeginningofadeclineinusejuriesOntario. Inaddition The declineintheuseofjurieswas especiallyapparent incivilproceedings. Prior to the1860s,incivil This system generated considerable controversy, ascriticsexpressed concern that sheriffs were Law Reform Act of 1868 ., at 217. ., at 213. Upper CanadaJurors’ Act of 1850 supra supra ibid , 2007 edition,(Toronto: Thomson CanadaLimited, 2007) 139 at 141. at 88. note 38at 144. note 38at 135-138. , S.O. 1868,c.6,s.18(1). . 51 This Act simplifiedjuror eligibility by settingtheminimumproperty requirements . , S.O. 1879, c.14. 56 UpperCanadaStatutes, 1850c.5. Following passage ofthat Act, civilactionswere triedbefore ajuryonly 50 While the1850Act was effective inendingclaimsofpacked juries,it . 49 The 1850Act introduced significantchanges to thejury system, 54 Jurieshadserved asabulwark against oppressive laws 53 The 1879 Act alsosimplifiedtheprocess for juror S.O. 1873, c.8. . 57

This Act required thepermission ofa 48 Intheaftermath ofthe Annual Review 55 An Act to In1868, 52 Act

70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 crimes”, suchasmurder andtreason. offences, summary conviction offences, and hybrid offences. guaranteed therightto atrialby jury. The a more severe Asaresult, punishment”. at aminimum,thosefacing five ormore years imprisonmentare benefit oftrial by jurywhere themaximumpunishment for theoffence isimprisonment for five yearsor has theright“except inthecaseofanoffence undermilitarylaw tried before amilitarytribunal, to the and Freedoms 96. number ofvaluable functionsinthecriminaljustice system”, asIhave discussed above. the Law Reform Commission ofCanadarecommended keeping thecriminaljury, since “itperforms a consequently, many oftheprovisions itmadefor trialby juryremain (withsome changes) today. In1980, by ajuryorjudgesittingalone. before ajudgesittingaloneiftheaccused soelected. types ofoffences, suchasassault ortheftbelow a certain value, were triable by way ofsummarytrial jury was necessary for themost seriousoffences, includingtreason andmurder. Code that could betriedbefore ajudgealoneiftheaccused consented. constituted Parliament ofCanadapassed the the property ofanother, could betriedby ajustice ofthepeace sittingwithoutajury. in 1834whichprovided that certain types of offences, suchasminorassaults andsomecrimesagainst and, following Confederation, by theParliament ofCanada.The UpperCanadaLegislature enacted alaw proceedings. This declinewas largely attributable to aseriesoflaws passed by theUpperCanadaLegislature 95. juries are rarely usedoutsideofanarrow range ofactions,includingdefamation. civil actioncanelectatrialby juryunderthe an injunction,equitablerelief, orrelief against amunicipality. 94. that civiljuriesare appropriate incertain casesandtherefore shouldremain available. Ontario.” we have come to isthat thetrialofcivilcasesby ajuryisprocedure that hasoutlived itsusefulness in Rights recommended that civiljuriesbeabolishedaltogether except indefamation conclusion cases:“the for itsabolitionincivilproceedings. For instance, in1968theOntarioRoyal Commission Inquiryinto Civil causes ofaction.

Seealso  NeilVidmar, “The CanadianCriminalJury:Searching for aMiddleGround” (1999)62Law andContemporary Problems 141 at 146.   (Ottawa: Minister ofSupplyandServices Canada,1980)at 2. Ibid Criminal Code of OntarioandQuebec 2009) at 199. An Act to provide for thesummarypunishmentof Petty Trespasses, andotheroffences Rules of CivilProcedure Courts of Justice Act (Ontario: Queen’s Printer, 1994)at 90. (Toronto: Queen’s Printer, 1968)at 859. Ontario Royal Commission Inquiryinto CivilRights Ibid Criminal Code Law Reform Commission ofCanada, R. Blake Brown, Ontario Law Reform Commission, The useofjurytrialsalso declined incriminalproceedings, thoughnotasprecipitously asincivil Currently, therightsofanaccused to betriedby ajuryare governed by the Currently, civiljuriesare available inprinciplefor allbutasmallrange ofactions,includingactionsfor in1892, whichappliedinallpartsofthecountry. Underthe ., at c.29, s.818. ., at c.8,s.16-17. 59 Criminal Code However, whentheOntarioLaw Reform Commission examined thisissue in1994, itconcluded An Act for more speedytrial,incertain cases,of personscharged withfelonies andmisdemeanors,intheProvinces , , S.C. 1894, c.29, s.783, 786. supra andthe A Trying Question: The JuryinNineteenth Century Canada 58 Since then,notonlyhastheuseofjurydeclined,butthere have alsobeencalls note 66at Part XIX–IndictableOffences, and Part XXVII –Summary Convictions. , R.S.O. 1990, c.43, s.108. , S.C. 1869, c.34. , R.S.C., 1985,c.C-46, s.469. , R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194,s.47.01. Criminal Code Report ontheUseof JuryTrials inCivilCases Working Paper 27: The JuryinCriminalTrials 67 The 1892 70 . Under Asageneral rule, theseoffences must betried by ajudgeandjury by Commissioner JamesChalmersMcRuer, Report No. 1,Vol. 2 Criminal Code Criminal Code Ontario Rulesof CivilProcedure Charter Speedy Trials Act section 11(f), any personcharged section11(f), withanoffence 66 Similarly, young offenders could elect to betried dividesoffences intro three types:indictable remains thebasisfor moderncriminallaw, and, 69 61 , (Toronto: OsgoodeSocietyfor CanadianLegal History, Indictableoffences“the most serious include Before proceeding to trial,thepartiesto a , whichbroadened thescope ofoffences by ChairmanJohnMcCamus, Criminal Code by ChairmanFrancis Muldoon 64 Parliament passed thefirst , UpperCanadaStatutes 1834,c.4. . 62 Canadian Charter of Rights Inpractice however, civil , trialbefore ajudgeand 65 However, certain other 60 63 In1869, thenewly 68

Criminal

25 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 26 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci briefly considered remain live issues today. For instance, theburden andinconvenience ofservingonjuries a judgesittingalone. and March 31,2010, 513criminalindictmentswere disposedofby ajudgeandjury, asopposedto 340by Corporation news story, ofthemore than600,000 criminal charges laidinOntariobetween April1,2009 97. If theAttorney General choosesto proceed by way ofindictment,theaccused canoptto betriedby ajury. offences, andthedecision to proceed asoneortheotherissolely at thediscretion ofthe Attorney General. Finally, hybrid crimes,suchasassault, fraud, anddrugoffences canbetriedasindictmentsorsummary 76 75 74 73 72 71 record, since theirnamesare notcontained in MPAC record. requires thenamesofindividualslivinginFirst Nations communities to beacquired usingany available for sendingout juryquestionnaires. Asdiscussed at paragraph 41 oftheReport, section6(8)ofthe residents withineachcounty anddistrict, andforwards thesenamesto athird partywhichisresponsible of thenumberjurors that willberequired. MPAC selectsnamesat random from thelist ofmunicipal determined, theProvincial JuryCentre informs theMunicipalProperty Assessment Corporation (MPAC) of jurors that willberequired for alljurytrialsintheupcoming year. Once therequired numberhasbeen Court, inconsultation withlocaljudges, provide anestimate to theProvincial JuryCenter ofthenumber 99. Provincial JuryCenter (PJC) inLondon, Ontarioandto localcourt officials. compiling anannualjurors list, thoughinpractice thesheriff’s responsibilities have beendelegated to the districts. Appendix Bto theReport), whichsetsouttheprocess for establishing juryrolls intheprovince’s judicial 98. C. court after beingsummoned. among otherdifficulties,is contributing toanincrease inthenumberofindividualswhodonot attend at a trial,$40for everyday thereafter upto thefiftiethday oftrial,and$100a day thereafter. This lackofpayment, was recently highlighted inthesameCBC story. InOntario, jurors are paidnothingfor thefirst ten days of $5000, andare triedbefore ajudgealone. offences, suchasimpaired driving,carrymaximumpenaltiesofsixmonthsinprisonandfinesup to unless boththeaccused andtheAttorney General consent to atrialbefore ajudgealone.

  transparency seemsto give riseto confusion, andwarrants clarification. publically available source of information identifying Ontario’s jurydistricts orareas, orproviding amapthereof. This lackof Juries Act and theterminology used.Section5(2)ofthe Juries Act . Ibid Criminal Code Ibid Ibid Kazi Stastna, “Jury Duty:Unfair burden orcivicobligation?” The juryisstill animportantpartofourcriminaljustice system. According to a2011 CanadianBroadcasting During thespringofeachyear, we understand that theCourt Services staff at eachlocalOntarioSuperior The machineryofthejurysystem inOntariotoday isgoverned by the1990  AS ITCURRENTLY OPERATES INONTARIO THE JURY SELECTION SYSTEM ., at 147. ., c.C-46, s.787. ., Criminal Code 76 Underthat Act, thesheriffineach county andtheDirector ofAssessment are responsible for establishes two “juryareas,” butdoesnotidentifytherest oftheprovince’s juryareas. Itisregrettable that there isno , R.S.O. 1990, c. J. 3. , supra at c.C-46, s.473(1). note 66at Part XXVII –SummaryConvictions. 75 However, many oftheissues affecting juriesduringthenineteenth century that Ihave Juries Act , R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 680. There seemsto beconfusion asto thedelineation ofjurydistricts, Juries Act 72 There isnorightto ajuryfor asummaryconviction trial. addresses “territorial districts”, whiles.10ofRegulation 680underthe CBC News (8November 2011) online:CBCNews

Juries Act

(attached as 71 Summary Juries Act 73

74

77 list andissues summonsesrequiring themto attend at theplace ofinquest. the namesofpeoplewhomheorshebelieves to be“suitable to serve asjurors at aninquest”from that to provide alist ofjurors livinginthearea where thedeath occurred. The Coroner’s Constable thenselects When thecoroner beginsaninquest, heorsheissues awarrant that requires theProvincial JuryCentre 102. 81 80 79 78 between theQueenandaccused”. of prospective jurors “for cause”,typicallyonthebasisthat theprospective juror willnotbe“indifferent that eithersidecanaskthat certain jurors beexcused. Eithersidecanchallengeanunlimited number defence are given theopportunityunderCriminalCode to challengeprospective jurors, meaning court where thetrialwilltake place for juryselection.Incriminalproceedings, boththeCrown andthe issued asummonsrequiring themto attend at the selected. Those selected for thejurypanelare jury, meaningthewhositsonatrial,willbe The panelisagroup ofpeoplefrom whichthepetit for eachSuperiorCourt when theneedsoarises. the juryrolls compiled by theProvincial JuryCentre 101. Jurypanelsfor trialsare randomly selected from tailored to localneedsandconditions. death took place, since peoplewhoreside inthat area may bebetter ableto make recommendations representative. However, often themembersofacoroner’s jury are selected from thearea where the 51 above, thecoroner suspendedtheBushieInquest after itwas determined that thejuryroll was not the juryroll from whichprospective jurors are drawn hasto be representative; asIdescribedinparagraph that emphasizes trialfairness through arepresentative juryisnotpresent inacoroner’s inquest. Ofcourse, from makingfindingsoflegal responsibility. Asa result, theimperative existing incriminaltrialsparticular the evidence presented to them,notto make afindingofguiltor liability. In fact, coroner’s juriesare prohibited for civilorcriminal trials.The role ofajuryincoroner’s inquest isto make recommendations basedon 103. From thegroup ofprospective jurors, five are chosen to serve ontheinquest. is reason to believe that, becauseofbias,they may notbeableto reach averdict basedontheevidence. civil proceedings, prospective jurors may bedismissed ifservingwould causeunduehardship orifthere to stand asidewithoutproviding areason. given between four and20“peremptory challenges”,meaningthat theprospective juror canbeasked a similarmanner, except onlysixjurors are chosento serve onthe of 12jurors willremain to serve onthepetitjury.The partiesto acivilproceeding selectjurors in of illness orthat service willimposeon themanunduehardship. When thisprocess iscomplete, agroup or district intheprovince. the juryrolls for theupcoming year for eachcounty this information, theProvincial JuryCentre compiles this information to theProvincial JuryCentre. Using on theresponses inthequestionnaires andforwards Centre, compiles thenamesofeligiblejurors based of Finance, actingasanagentoftheProvincial Jury complete andreturn itwithinfive days. The Ministry by MPAC, whoafter receiving aquestionnaire must 100. Questionnaires are sentto allpersonsidentified

Affidavit ofShawn Joy, sworn onJuly 19, 2011, filedinR.v. Kokopenace at para. 5. Coroners Act, RSO1990, cC.37, s.33(2). Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.43,s.108. Ibid.,at c.C-46, s.634. CriminalCode, R.S.C., 1985,c.C-46, s.638(1)(b). Jury selectionfor coroner’s inquests doesnotemphasize randomness inthesame way asjuryselection Juries for coroner’s inquests are alsoselected from thejuryroll prepared by theProvincial JuryCentre. 77 78 Dependingonthetypeofcrimebeingtried,bothsidesare also 79 Prospective jurors canalsoaskto stand asideonthebasis petit jury. 81 80 Asinthecaseofcriminalor

27 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 28 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 85 84 83 82 representative jury. The SixthAmendmentto the United States Constitution provides therightto betried States Supreme Court played animportantrole inthat country indeveloping thesafeguards guaranteeing a sentativeness was notdealtwithextensively by thecourts untiltheenactment ofthe from thejurysource lists ofmany states, especiallyintheSouth.While inCanadatheissue ofjuryrepre long before itdeveloped inOntariooranywhere elseinCanada.Historically, African-Americans were excluded 108. parts oftheReport. available” –aprovision now includedinsection6(8)ofthe names ofmembersFirst Nation communities onthejuryroll by obtainingthosenames“from any record eligible to serve onajury. That sameyear, the for determining eligibilitywas changed,andallCanadianscitizens agedeighteen to sixty-nine years became on themost recent pollinglist registered underthe 1972. Following changesin1972, eligibilityfor jurydutywas determined by whetherapersonwas listed 107. those charged withcriminaloffences. composed ofmemberstheupperclass selected from thesameneighborhood,whosat injudgmentof prospective jurors. Consequently, jurymembershipwas decidedlyunrepresentative. Jurieswere frequently the sheriffselected jurors from asingleneighborhood to minimize the costs associated withsummoning 106. amount, untilthenamesofonehalfpersonsassessed uponsuchroll have beencopied from thesame”. amount onsuchroll andproceeding successively towards thenameofpersonrated at thelowest a list from theproperty assessment roll “commencing withthenameofpersonrated at thehighest citizens. The 1877 likely resulting inthejurypoolbeinglimited to thewealthiest amonganalready narrow poolofeligible were strict; onlymenowning housesorlandwithaminimum rateable value were calledto serve onjuries, value inthecounty where the crimetook place. which required, for example, duringthesixteenth century that jurors own afreehold withacertain minimum The property requirement for juryservice was rooted inthehistory ofthejuryinUnited Kingdom, recent oneinNorthAmerica.Historically, juryservice inOntariowas limited to menwhoowned property. 105. 1. as partofthecontext for therecommendations inmy Report. nevertheless, for meto outlinethebackground to andsomeofthecaselaw respecting representativeness been andcontinues to bedealtwithbefore thecourts andotherbodies.ButIbelieve itisimportant, the juryroll asitappliesto First Nations communities isrepresentative asamatter oflaw; that issue has society, honestly andfairly chosen”. in the1991 modern jury. AsMadamJustice L’Heureux-Dube, writingfor amajorityoftheSupreme Court ofCanada 104. D.

 Lloyd E.Moore, The Jurors Act R. v. Sherratt An Act to AmendtheJurors’ Act OF AREPRESENTATIVE JURY HISTORY ANDEVOLUTION OFTHEPRINCIPLE REQUIREMENTTHAT AJURY BEREPRESENTATIVE Minimum property requirements asacondition for juryeligibilityremained theruleinOntariountil The already smallpoolofpotential jurors inOntariowas furthernarrowed by theselectionprocess. Often, The principlethat ajurymust berepresentative ofafair cross-section ofthecommunity isarelatively The principleofaconstitutional rightto arepresentative juryemerged inUnited States jurisprudence The requirement that ajuryberepresentative isabedrock principlegoverning theformation ofthe R. v. Sherratt , [1991]S.C.J. No. 21at para. 31. , R.S.O. 1877, c.48,s.6. The Jury:Tool of Kings,Palladium of Liberty Jurors Act 85 case, stated, themodernjury“was envisioned asarepresentative cross-section of , R.S.O. 1973 c.81,s.5. provided, for example, that thejuryroll would beestablished by compiling 82 Mymandate asIndependent Reviewer isnotto determine whether Juries Act 83 (Cincinnati: W.H. AndersonCompany, 1963) at 68. The property requirements for juryservice in Ontario Municipal ElectionsAct was amendedto require thesheriff to includethe Juries Act , discussed in more detailinsubsequent

. Ayear later in1973 thissystem Charter , theUnited -

84

have strengthened therightto arepresentative jury. 111. more oftheScottsboro Boys whohadalsobeenconvicted by anall-white jury. v. Alabama and thisexclusion provided asufficientbasis for overturning the conviction. Thesecond case was of African-Americans from thejurysource list inAlabamaimpliedto theCourt that discrimination existed, was appealedandwas overturned by theUnited State Supreme Court. The Court heldthat theexclusion the law. list violated theconstitutional rightofanAfrican-American accused ofacrimeto theequalprotection of first case, accused ofraping two white women. These menwere commonly referred to astheScottsboro Boys. The from juryservice. These caseswere heard concurrently andinvolved nine African-American menwhowere American menby different all-white juriesinAlabama,where African-Americans were systematically excluded 110. decisions, discussed below. come; however, thesepractices were gradually eliminated through aseriesofimportantSupreme Court the country. Southernjurisdictionscontinued to exclude African-Americans from juriesfor decadesto not endthematter, andtheextent to whichAfrican-Americans were excluded from juriesvaried across “effectively (ifindirectly) recognized therightof African-Americans to serve onjuries.” defendants to theequalprotection ofthelaw. the Supreme Court invalidated theWest Virginia law onthebasisthat itviolated therightofAfrican-American At thetime, West Virginia law prohibited African-Americans from servingonjuriesinthestate. Initsdecision, the accused, anAfrican-American, was triedandconvicted –by anall-white jury–ofmurdering hiswife. 109. the jurypool. Court hasuseditto strike down laws andpractices that were aimedat excluding African-Americans from has beeninterpreted by theSupreme Court asguaranteeing therightto arepresentative jury, andthe by “an impartialjuryofthestate anddistrict wherein thecrimeshallhave beencommitted”. 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 Amendment, whichtheCourt hasfound to protect (amongotherthings) therightto arepresentative jury source list. The fair cross-section standard guarantees allthosecharged withanoffence theright to a representative as any measures that are “susceptible to beingusedto exclude” groups ofpersonsfrom thejurylist. forbids theexclusion ofindividualsfrom jurysource lists onthebasisofintentional discrimination, aswell juror lists: theequalprotection standard andthefair cross-section standard. The equalprotection standard of thecommunity”. ed thisconstitutional guarantee asrequiring that thejurybe“chosen from arepresentative cross-section

 AlbertAlschulerandAndrew Deiss,  U.S. Constitution. amend.VI. Ibid Ibid Ibid L.R. 591 at 591. Patterson v. Alabama Norris v. Alabama The University ofChicagoL.R.867 at 893. L.R., Vol. 65,No. 4at 780. AlbertAlschulerandAndrew Deiss, “A BriefHistory oftheCriminalJuryinUnited States” (1994)61 Strauder v. West Virginia Cynthia Williams, “Jury Source Representativeness andtheUseofVoter Registration Lists” (1990)65New York University David Kairys, JosephKadane andJohnLehoczky, “Jury Representativeness: A Mandate for MultipleSource Lists” (1977) California Since thesedecisions,theUnited States Supreme Court hasinterpreted theSixthAmendmentinways that In 1935, theSupreme Court released two seminaldecisionsoverturning theconvictions ofAfrican- The first Supreme Court decisionaddressing thisissue was ., at 598. ., at 596. . 90 Inthat case, oneoftheScottsboro Boys hadbeenconvicted by anall-white jury. The conviction Norris v. Alabama (1935), where theCourt followed itsdecisioninNorrisandsetasidetheconvictions oftwo 95 (1935), 294U.S. 587. Moreover, in1968theSupreme Court decidedin (1935), 294U.S. 600. 93 The Court hassince developed two standards for testing therepresentativeness of (1880),100U.S. 303. (1935), settheprecedent that excluding African-Americans from thejurysource Ibid ., at 894. 88 The decisionin 92 In Thiel v. SouthernPac Co. Strauder v. West Virgina Strauder Duncan v. Louisiana , astwo commentators have noted, (1946)theCourt interpret 91

(1880). 89 that theSixth However, itdid 86 87 This phrase In Patterson Strauder

94

- , 29 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 30 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 mental orphysical disability, conviction ofacriminaloffence, and certain occupational disqualifications. or over, notanordinary resident inthejudicialdistrict, lackoffluency inthelanguageofaccused, a able disqualifications from juryservice: nothaving Canadiancitizenship, nothaving attained theage18 years must bekept at aminimum.” “if arepresentative juryisto beempanelled,thecategories ofpeoplewhoare disqualifiedfrom juryservice jury presuppose that jurors are selected at random from afair cross-section ofthecommunity.” at paragraph 76 above, theLaw Reform Commission ofCanadastated functionsassigned thatto “the the tional principleuntilafter theenactmentof 114. represented infederal jurytrials. lists from predominantly African-American districts meansthat African-Americans continue to beunder there isevidence that African-American underrepresentation onvoters lists andtheunavailability ofresidence it appearsasthoughisstill usedinsomestates to selectthejuriesfor trialsbefore state courts. lists for federal courts, notstate courts. The ‘key man’system hasnotbeendeclared unconstitutional, and representativeness intheUnited States,. However, theJSSA appliesonlyto thecomposition ofjurysource that thevoters list isunrepresentative. This legislation was animportantstep forward inpromoting jury voters lists, thoughthecourts are given thediscretion to supplementthissource withothersifitisdetermined cross sectionofthecommunity.” courts entitledto trialby juryshallhave therightto grand andpetitjuriesselected at random from afair States JurySelectionandService Act way to selectpeoplefor federal jurysource lists, theUnited States Congress in1968enacted the underrepresentation ofminoritiesonjuries. 113. their limited circle ofacquaintances” inselectingpotential jurors. prospective jurors was subjectto thebeliefsandbiasesofkey men,whowould often “draw upon the difficultiesofensuringa representative juryusingthe key man system are apparent; theselectionof would thencompile alist ofprospective jurors basedonthe namesprovided by the‘key man’. who was responsible for submittinglists ofprospective jurors to thejurycommissioner. system. The ‘key man’was aprominent memberofthecommunity, suchasaminister oralocalbanker, to exclude themfrom jurysource lists. Inmany states, prospective jurors were selected usinga‘key man’ 112. eliminate prospective jurors onthebasisofrace. the prosecution to askthat aprospective juror beexcused withoutproviding areason) cannotbeusedto decided that peremptory challengesto prospective jurors (meaningchallengesthat allow thedefence or jury, appliesto proceedings instate courts.

   Language andRepresentativeness Quotas”(2001) 5Texas HispanicJournalofLaw andPolicy 7at 19.  Hiroshi Fukurai, CriticalEvaluations ofHispanicParticipation ontheGrand Jury:Key-Man Selection,Jurymandering, Valerie HansandNeilVidmar, Racial Disenfranchisement intheJurySystem andJurySelection” (1991)22JournalofBlackStudies 196. 389 F. Supp. 2d29;Hiroshi Fukurai, Edgar W. ButlerandRichard Krooth, “Where Did BlackJurors Go? ATheoretical Synthesis of Ibid Ibid United States v. Green v.Batson Kentucky Duncan v. Louisiana Ibid Ibid of SupplyandServices Canada,1980)at 37. Law Reform Commission ofCanada, See JudgeNancy Gertner, “12 AngryMen(AndWomen) inFederal Court”(2007) 82Chicago-Kent L.R.613; Coramae Richey Mann, Outright discrimination against African-Americans andotherminoritieswas nottheonlymeansused It was widelyacknowledged andrecognized by Congress that the‘key man’system resulted inthe In Canada,asInoted above, theimportance ofarepresentative jurywas notrecognized asaconstitu . . ., 40-43. ., at 40. (1986),476 U.S. 79. (1968), 391 U.S. 145. (2005),389 F. Supp. 2d29at para. 23. Unequal Justice: AQuestion of Color Judging theJury 106 The Law Reform Commission recommended the following astheonlyreason Working Paper 27: The JuryinCriminalTrials 104 102 UndertheJSSA, jurors for trialsinfederal courts are selected from (JSSA). The stated policy oftheJSSA isthat “all litigantsinfederal (PerseusUnited Publishing: States, 1986)at 58. 96 101 Finally, in Inresponse to the‘key man’system, andto create afairer Charter 97 (Indianapolis:IndianUniversity Press, 1993) at 172. in1982.However, inits1980working paperdescribed Batson v.Batson Kentucky 100 by ChairmanFrancis Muldoon(Ottawa: Minister

(1986)theSupreme Court 98 United States v. Green The commissioner 105 Consequently,

103 99 Moreover, However, However, United 107 ,

- - - 110 109 108 The Court ofAppealdisagreed; itfound that thedefendant could notestablish that marginally increasing of blackpermanentresidents being excluded, raising thepossibility that thejuryroll was unrepresentative. mistrial shouldbedeclared becausethecitizenship requirement for juryservice resulted inlarge numbers and was charged withillegallysmugglingindividualsinto CanadaandtheUnited States. Heargued that a permanent residents whoare notcitizens from potential juryservice. inclusion onthejuryroll didnot result inunrepresentative juriesby precluding large numbersofblack 119. reason for ensuringthat juryrolls are representative. found that non-citizens donotshare any common characteristics that are relevant to theunderlying certain viewpoints andbeliefsare notsystematically excluded from thejurypool.However, theCourt overturned thisdecision.The Court acknowledged that arepresentative juryisimportantto ensure that agreed that theexclusion ofnon-citizens resulted inanunrepresentative juryroll, buttheCourt ofAppeal the exclusion ofnon-citizens from juryrolls resulted inajurythat was unrepresentative. The trialjudge who was anon-citizen convicted ofvarious offences, sought to have amistrial declared onthebasisthat prospective jurors to Canadiancitizens results inanunrepresentative jury. 118. (A) contexts: thepreparation ofjuryrolls andtheselectionofindividualsto serve onthejury. Ontario casesthat dealwiththeissue ofrepresentativeness. These caseshave arisenintwo different jury rolls asthey relate to membersofFirst Nation communities. Inthis section,Ibrieflydiscuss someother cases – 117. 2. the societythat itserves. justice system. Ajurycannotactastheconscience ofthecommunity unless itisviewed favorably by particular groups from thejurypoolrisksunderminingpublicacceptance ofthefairness ofthecriminal sentative ofthewidercommunity from which they are drawn. Conversely, thewholesaleexclusion of perceive trials,andby extension thelegalsystem asawhole, asbeingfair ifprospective jurors are repre an importantfunctioninmaintainingpublicconfidence inthelegal system. The publicismore likely to implications for society’s perception ofthecriminaljustice system. Impartialandrepresentative juriesplay 116. law inafair andpublichearingby anindependentandimpartialtribunal.As shestated, be triedby ajuryandthes.11(d) L’Heureux-Dube linked theprinciplesofrepresentativeness andimpartialityto thes.11(f) representative juryasaconstitutional principle. Inherreasons for themajorityinthat case, MadamJustice 115.

R.v. Sherratt, ONTARIO CASE LAW ONREPRESENTATIVENESS R. v.Laws R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto PREPARATION OFJURY ROLLS As Idiscussed above inPart II,A,theIndependentReview arose inlarge partfrom aseriesofrecent In its1991 In Similarly, in In additionto protecting therightsofaccused, therepresentativeness ofjurieshasbroader R. v. Church of Scientology etal. Pierre v. McRae desirable inthefirst place. tativeness, ajurywould beunableto perform many ofthefunctionsthat make itsexistence the larger community. Indeed,withoutthetwo characteristics ofimpartialityandrepresen its dutiesimpartiallyandrepresent, asfar asispossible andappropriate inthecircumstances, [T]he (1998),41 O.R. (3d)499 (C.A.). [1991]1S.C.R. 509at para. 35. R. v. Sherratt Charter R v. Laws rightto jurytrialismeaningless withoutsomeguarantee that itwillperform andthe (1998),theOntarioCourt ofAppealfound that thecitizenship requirement for decision,theSupreme Court ofCanadarecognized therequirement ofa , 33O.R. (3d)65(C.A.). Kokopenace Charter 108 (1997), theOntarioCourt ofAppealrefused to findthat limiting rightto bepresumed innocent untilproven guiltyaccording to and Spiers appeals–dealingwiththerepresentativeness of 110 The accused inthiscasewas black 109 Inthat case, theaccused, Charter - rightto

- 31 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 32 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 114 113 112 111 statements abouttheconstitutional requirement for juriesto beimpartialandrepresentative. of Canadaupheldthetrialjudge’s decisionbut,asreferred to inparagraph 115above, madeimportant anything that mightrender themnotimpartialasbetween theCrown andtheaccused. The Supreme Court he instructed allprospective jurors that they could notserve onthejury ifthey hadseen,heard, orread for thedeceased’s bodyten monthsbefore thetrial.The trialjudgedeniedthedefence’s request. However, accused. The accused was charged withmurder, andconsiderable mediacoverage surrounded thesearch all prospective jurors dismissed onthebasisthat they were notimpartialasbetween the Crown andthe tional imperative was theSupreme Court’s decisionin 123. (B) of First Nations peoplesonthejuryroll. followed by thesheriff, whileimperfect, represented agood faith attempt to secure the representation denied thedefendant’s challengeto thecomposition ofthejurypanel.The Court found that theprocess reserves inhisjurisdictionbecauseofthehistorically low response rates. The OntarioCourt ofJustice Nations individualsto theroll andalsosentadisproportionately large numberofquestionnaires to the jury roll was unrepresentative becausethesheriffdidnot follow aspecified procedure foraddingFirst R. v. Nahdee 122. would bechosento serve onjurypanels. living onreserves were inscribedonthejuryroll, andthere was a possibility that First Nations individuals responses from alarger numberofjuryquestionnaires. Asaresult, thenamesofFirst Nations people place thenamesofFirst Nations individuals inLambton County onthejuryroll by sendingoutandreceiving unrepresentative. The OntarioCourt ofJustice found that in1994,thesheriffhadmadegreater efforts to of attempted murder, butsoughtto have theconviction setasideonthebasisthat thejuryroll was 121. His failure to dosoresulted inanunrepresentative juryroll, whichwarranted thefindingofamistrial. seek outthenamesofFirst Nations individualslivingonreserves for possible inclusiononthejuryrolls. names ofreserve residents. The Court found that thesheriff failed inhisdutyunderthe leadership failed to reply to thesheriff’s request, andthesheriff tooknofurtheractions to gather the in order to secure thenamesofreserve’s inhabitantsfor juryquestionnaire mailing.However, theband inclusion onjuryrolls. The sheriffhad contacted bandleadershiponFirst Nations reserves inhisdistrict a mistrial onthebasisthat thesheriff failed to secure thenamesofFirst Nations individuals for possible represented onjuryrolls. sheriff ofLambton County had failed to make sufficient efforts toensure that First Nationspeoples were 120. another casewithsubstantially different demographics. a blackpersoncharged withanoffence. However, thisholding doesnotpreclude theopposite findingin result inamaterial increase inthepossibility ofablackindividualbeingselected to serve onthejuryfor the numberofblackpeopleonjuryrolls by eliminating thecitizenship requirement for juryservice would

R. v. Ransley Ibid R v. Nahdee Sherratt SELECTIONOFTHEJURY PANEL In a1994follow-up trialinvolving thedefendant from R. v. Ransley As already noted, thefoundational caseelevating theprincipleofarepresentative juryto aconstitu In . R. v. Nahdee , supra , [1994]2C.N.L.R.158(O.N.C.J.). . , [1993] O.J. No. 2828(O.N.C.J.). 113 InRansley, thedefendant challengedthejury panelcomposed for histrialallegingthat the note 108. (1993) followed ontheheelsofdefendant’s success inhaving amistrial declared in (1993), theOntarioCourt ofJustice declared amistrial after itbecameclearthat the 111 The defendant was charged withattempted murder, butsubsequentlysought Sherratt R.v. Nahdee . 114 Inthat case, theaccused soughtto have , 112 thedefendant was againconvicted Juries Act to actively

-

120 119 118 117 116 115 tried exclusively by themembersofaparticulargroup. community. Moreover, the entirely ofmembersthedefendant’s family andkinwould runcounter to thebroader definitionof nity’ must be definedbroadly ifthejuryis to satisfy its role asademocratic institution. Ajury composed community. The Court disagreed; itwrote that for the purposesofjuryselection,thenotion‘commu the trialinKenora violated his available inSandyLake, andinstead thetrialwas to beheldinKenora. The defendant argued that holding reserve, was accused of various sexual offences andelected atrial by jury. However, trials by jury were not defendant’s community didnotinfringehis 128. a representative juryroll. composed solelyofmemberstheaccused’s community would runcounter to thevalue ofmaintaining ignores theperspective ofthecomplainant andignores entirely theinterests ofthepublic.Indeed,ajury it decidedthat thecultural affinityof the accused cannot predominate, since suchanarrow approach recognized theimportance ofhaving peoplewhoshare thedefendant’s cultural affinityonthejury rolls, selection from thedistrict where heresided. began, argued that hehadaconstitutional rightto betriedby ajuryofhiscultural peersto berandomly 127. sheriff to exclude First Nations individualsaltogether. Nations individuals.However, the“essential wrong” inthiscasewas adeliberate policy on thepartof granting thedefendant amistrial. excluding membersofFirst Nations from jurypanelsresulted inanunrepresentative jurythat warranted 126. defendant witharemedy. the juryroll; however, itdidnotbelieve that thisdistinction was seriousenough to warrant providing the individuals livingoff reserve onthejury roll was different from having individualswholive on reserves on individuals to becalledto serve onajury. The Court acknowledged that thepresence ofFirst Nations off reserve were included. The Court found that First Nations individuals were aslikely asnon-First Nations it found, that althoughthere were noresidents from reserves onthejuryroll, First Nations individualsliving be triedonthereserve where heresided withajurycomposed entirely ofitsresidents. The Court disagreed; all oftheallegedoffences took place onthe reserve where he resided. Heargued that hehadaright to of thedefendant’s individuals livingonreserves inthejurisdictionwhere thecrimetook place didnotconstitute aviolation 125. society aspartialtowards theCrown, thereby tarringtheentire trialwithataintofunfairness. to peremptorily challengethem. the defence, astheCrown’s abilityto stand-aside 48potential jurors far outstripped thedefence’s right unconstitutional becauseitallowed theCrown to challenge, withoutcause, four timesmore jurors than 124.

R.v. Smoke R.v. Bain Ibid R. v. Butler R. v. A.F. Fiddler v. theQueen In In In In In . R. v. Smoke Fiddler v. theQueen R. v. A.F. R. v. Bain R. v. Butler , [1994]O.J. No. 1392 (O.N.C.J.). , [1992] 1S.C.R. 91. , [1984]B.C.J. No. 1915(B.C.C.A.). , [1983]O.J. No. 563, (H.C.J.) (1993), thethen OntarioCourt ofJustice found that holdingatrialby juryoutsideofthe (1992), theSupreme Court ofCanadafound that section634 ofthe (1983),theOntarioHighCourt ofJustice found that theabsence from thejuryofFirst Nations (1984),theBritishColumbia Court ofAppealfound thatpolicy asheriff’s ofintentionally (1994),22C.R.R.(2d)82(O.N.C.J.). Charter rights. Charter (1994),thedefendant was charged withsexual assault and,before thetrial Charter 115 116 117 The Court heldthat thiscould result inajury that was perceived by doesnotprovide arightto betried inaparticularlocation orto be The defendant was charged withvarious counts ofsexual assault, and The Court noted that itispossible for ajurypanelto contain noFirst rights,since thejurywould notbecomposed ofmembershis 119 Charter The thenOntarioCourt ofJustice disagreed. While theCourt rights. 118 120 The defendant, aresident oftheSandyLake Criminal Code was -

33 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 34 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 123 122 121 officials to attempt to create ajury rollthat is properly representative ofthemembers ofFirst Nations recommendations, itisimportantfirst to understand the steps that have already beentaken by provincial problem, which–asIhave emphasized –isdeepandsystemic. Butto provide theproper context to my 134. population butaccounted for only1.3percent ofthejuryroll. judicial district ofThunder Bay, on-reserve residents in2011 madeupapproximately five percent of the these on-reserve residents typicallymake upless thanten percent oftheKenora juryroll. Similarly, inthe a community ofAboriginalpersonsresides more orless permanently) designated asreserves underthe it isestimated that approximately 30to 36percent ofthepopulation live “on reserve” –incommunities 133. northern judicialdistricts ofOntarioare particularlytroubling. emerged from thecourt cases aboutunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations communities inthelarge Nations communities onOntario’s juryroll isaseriousandpersistent problem. The statistics that have 132. 1. E. for having animpartialandrepresentative jury. been setby thejurisprudence, solongaswhat isproposed doesnotrunafoul ofthebasiclegalingredients Ontario could enactprocedures andapproaches that gobeyond theminimumlegalstandards that have 131. for composing thejury, like theprocess for swearing inthejury, suffices to have atrial verdict setaside. or to betriedexclusively by membersofagroup to whichthey belong.Finally, illegalityintheprocess I have stated above, noonehastherightto have individualsfrom aparticulargroup ontheirjurypanel, whole. Inorder to berepresentative, nogroup ofCanadianscanbesystematically excluded. However, as jurors beselected at random from apoolwhosecomposition isrepresentative ofCanadiansocietyasa 130. of peoplelivingonreserve. jury roll. These efforts included contacting bandchiefsandmailingjuryquestionnaires to large numbers efforts were made to obtainthenamesof First Nations individualslivingon reserve for inclusiononthe in place for securingtherepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuryrolls was imperfect, goodfaith was unrepresentative. The SuperiorCourt deniedhischallenge. The Court found that, whiletheprocedure representative. Inhis2012 trial,heonce againattempted to challengehisjurypanelonthebasisthat it Appeal’s decisionin with second degree murder. Histrialhadoriginallybeensetfor 2011, butfollowing theOntarioCourt of with theissue ofAboriginalunderrepresentation onjuryrolls. 129.

INTRODUCTION  filed in R. v. Wareham (#2) “Ruling by Dr. Eden onmotionregarding juryselection,” See paragraphs 53 to 55,andthetablesofdemographic data contained therein, oftheAffidavit ofAmberKhan (January21, 2011)  Having saidallthiswithrespect to thecaselaw onrepresentativeness, from apolicy standpoint, Ibelieve As thecasesdiscussed above make clear, theissue ofunderrepresentation ofmembersFirst In thejudicialdistrict ofKenora, for example, whichmakes upaboutone-third ofOntario’s landmass, Finally, My taskinthisReview is to provide recommendations asto how we canbeginto dealwiththis Certain general principlesemerge from thesecases.The principleofrepresentativeness requires that PEOPLES ONONTARIO JURIES THE REPRESENTATION OFFIRST NATIONS R. v. Kokopenace R. v. Wareham , [2012] O.J. No. 767 (S.C.J.). Pierre v. McRae .

(#2) (2012) is,at thetimeofwriting,most recent judicialdecisiondealing Indian Act , hesuccessfully challengedhisjurypanelonthebasisthat itwas not oras“IndianSettlements”(non-reserve Crown landonwhich Inquest concerning thedeath of ReggieBushie 123 121 The defendant in 122 . But,asdescribedfurtherbelow, Wareham , (September 9, 2011) at para. 18.

was charged

Juries Act But municipalenumeration doesnotcapture residents ofreserves designated underthe on-reserve residents inthejuryroll. Section6(8)ofthe 128 127 126 125 124 from aFirst Nation, whichwas often thecase. used to fulfillthe requirements ofsection6(8),ifthelocal court staff were unable toobtain alist directly a lawful investigation. government institution to Ontariofor thepurposeofadministering orenforcing any law orcarryingout allowing access to, andtheusedisclosure of, personal information underthecontrol ofafederal request to INAC underthefederal First Nation inOntario. Indian andNorthernAffairs Canada(INAC) ofpersonswith registered Indian status affiliated witheach that from at least theearly1990son,Ontarioofficialsbegan to relysubstantially onlists maintained by not clearwhat records were relied onby Ontarioofficials atthat time tofulfillthose requirements. Itappears 137. 3. obligations ofsection6(8)iscurrently dividedamong: or whoactontheinstruction oftheholdersuchassigned powers. is infact carriedoutby various provincial officials who have eitherbeen assigned the powers ofthesheriff 136. Ontario’s juryroll isthemost recent municipalenumeration undertaken pursuantto the 135. 2. to fulfillthat obligation, andthe results ofthoseefforts to date. on-reserve residents onOntario’s juryroll, therecord asto thesteps court officials have taken to attempt communities. Idothat in this sectionby describingthe

 Seeparagraph 13oftheAffidavit ofSheilaBristo dated December 2, 2011, filedin  PRACTICE OFCOURT OFFICIALSPRIORTO 2001  Juries Act designated by theDeputyAttorney General. be exercised orperformed by apersonto whomthepower ordutyhasbeenassigned by theDeputyAttorney General oraperson Juries Act transcript ofthecross-examination ofShaunJoy filed in Access to Information Act See section73(2) ofthe RESIDENTS ONONTARIO’S JURY ROLL JURIES ACT The requirements currently found insection6(8)ofthe As describedat paragraph 99above, the The“to obligation sheriff’s obtainthenamesofinhabitants reserve from any record available” (c) (c) (b) (a) may obtainthenamesof inhabitants ofthereserve from any record available. in thesamemannerasifreserve were amunicipalityand,for thepurpose, thesheriff Indian reserve issituate, thesheriffshallselectnamesofeligiblepersonsinhabiting reserve 6(8) Intheselectingofpersonsfor entryinthejuryroll inacounty ordistrict inwhichan to certify eachjuryroll to betheproper roll prepared asthelaw directs. Directorthe ofCourt Operations for the West Region, whocarriesoutthesheriff’s responsibility on-reserve inhabitants; select theindividualsto receive questionnaires, andprepare andmailthequestionnaires to local judicialdistrict orcounty court staff, whoobtainthenamesofon-reserve inhabitants, enters theeligiblenamesinjuryroll; and the Provincial JuryCentre, whichreceives andreviews thequestionnaires returned and therefore prescribes aseparate process intended to provide for theproportionate inclusionof , , R.S.O. 1990, c. J. 3.,s.6(8). supra note 124 at s.9. The Transcript ofthecross-examination ofShaunJoy filed in OBLIGATION TO INCLUDE ON-RESERVE 128 Courts of Justice Act 127 , R.S.C. 1985,c.A-1. Agreement between Canada andOntariodated July20, 1983,filedasExhibit25 to the Once obtained,the lists were distributed to localcourt offices, where they were These lists were obtainedeachyear by theProvincial JuryCentre by way ofa Access to Information Act , R.S.O 1990, c.43,asamended,whichprovides for any power ordutyofthesheriff to Juries Act R. v. Kokopenace specifiesthat theprimarysource ofdata for creating Juries Act Juries Act pursuantto a1983 Ontario-Canadaagreement . Juries Act states: obligation ofcourt officials toinclude R. v. Kokopenace 125 were first adopted in1973, butitis Responsibility for fulfillingthe R. v. Kokopenace

126 124 Assessment Act Indian Act , at 25-27. . The .

35 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 36 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 134 133 132 131 130 129 very low. For example, thecourt official responsible dutiesinthe forcarryingoutthesheriff’s Kenora for thefirst timethat the response rates from questionnaires mailed to theon-reserve population were contacting individual First Nations communities. Inthelate 2000s,itappearsthat localcourt officialslearned began to become out-dated, aswell asany otherlists they were ableto obtainby writingto orotherwise 142. was theonlyprovince requesting thisinformation from INAC for thepurposespecified. that thisinformation cannotbereleased to you at thistime.” “[d]ue to thesensitive nature andvariability of theinformation underINAC’s control, we have determined pursuant to the INAC noted that federal privacy policiesandpractices regarding therelease ofthiskindpersonalinformation discontinuing itsprevious practice ofproviding lists to theMinistry. Initscorrespondence withtheMinistry, 141. 4. and expanding ontheinstructions that hadbeenprovided inthedirective. directions to localcourt officialsas to how to complywiththe requirements ofsection6(8), restating Court Services Division,andisavailable to localcourt officials.Chapter 7oftheJuryManual provides 140. local court staff to: cations package sentoutto prompt thecommencement ofthesection6(8)work. The directive instructed was distributed annuallyby theProvincial JuryCentre to localcourt staff aspartofanannual communi to itsstaff adirective respecting theperformance dutiesundersection6(8). ofthesheriff’s 139. rates intheKenora judicialdistrict over thelast several years, whichhave beenless thanten percent. stated that thereturn rate for on-reserve residents was approximately 33percent, far higherthanthereturn on-reserve residents thanisthecasetoday. Inhis1994decisionin 138.

 The Affidavit ofSheilaBristo (December 2, 2011), filedin  Ministry oftheAttorney General ofOntario(September 24, 2001). Privacy Act, filed in of theProgram Development Branch oftheMinistry oftheAttorney General Court Services Division.According to theevidence R. v. Fiddler Ibid Letter from DianeLeroux, Coordinator, Access to Information andPrivacy, INAC to LizBoyce, Court Administration Division, The 1996version ofthisdirective, whichwas filedin PRACTICE OFCOURT OFFICIALSFROM2001 ON In 2001, INAC advisedtheMinistry oftheAttorney General’s Court Services Divisionthat itwas From at least themid-1990s on,theMinistry oftheAttorney General’s Court Services Divisioncirculated It appearsthat inthe1990s,provincial officials received more completed jury questionnaires from Following 2001, Ontarioofficials continued to relyonthe2000INAC lists, despite the factthat they That directive hasnow beenreplaced by instructions contained inaJuryManualprepared by the . (e) (e) (d) (c) (b) (a) Kokopenance calculate thenumberofon-reserve questionnaires to besent,usingaprescribed formula; process. provide interim andfinal reports to theProvincial Jury Centre at various points duringthis were responsible; ascertain, check,andconfirm the reserves located inthe county ordistrict for whichthey and prepare andmailthequestionnaires to thesepersons;and perform arandom selectionoftherequired numberof namesfrom best possible “the list”, letters, telephoning, orvisitingthereserves inthearea for whichthey were responsible; attempt to obtainthebandelectoral list, orany otheraccurate list ofresidents, by writing (1994),22C.R.R.(2d)82at para. 101 (O.N.C.J.). R.S.C. 1985,c.P-21. Privacy Act , Iunderstand that versions ofthisdirective were distributed annually. hadchangedsince INAC initiallybeganproviding thelists. R. v. Kokopenace R. v. Kokopenace , isamemorandum dated June25,1996from theDirector , at para. 17. 133 INAC alsonoted intheletter that Ontario R. v. Fiddler 131 , for example, Mr. Justice Stach 132 134 INAC stated that 130 This directive

129

- 140 139 138 137 136 135 additional efforts that hadbeenmadeandprocedures that hadbeenchanged to address theproblems in court heard more evidence than hadbeenheard in and theaccused once againchallenged therepresentativeness ofthejuryroll –the2012 roll thistime. The 147. representative. duty of“diligence”, setoutinthe “deficiencies” heidentifiedinthe processes followed bylocal courtofficials, he concluded thatthesheriff’s the juryroll –aresult hedescribedasa“serious deficiency”. five percent ofthepopulation intheJudicialDistrict of Thunder Bay butaccounted for only1.3percent of that the2011 jury roll was notrepresentative. Henoted that residents ofFirst Nations reserves represented 146. not aware oftheresponse rates from on-reserve individuals,discussed above at paragraph 142. the information; thelists relied onwere generally old,somedating backto 2000;andcourt officials were onlytwoinformation; ofthe15First Nations communities inthe Thunder Bay judicialdistrict agreed to provide efforts to obtainthelists, Court Services Division would then wait to seewhichFirst Nations provided the each First Nations Chiefrequesting anupdated bandelectoral list, followed by atelephone call;after further was notrepresentative. The evidence sheheard was that: court officials wouldsenda faxandletter to 145. was unrepresentative –bothmadefollowing theCourt ofAppeal’s rulingin judicial district juryroll. In2011, there were two separate findingsthat thejury roll for the Thunder Bay district 144. jury roll, response rates for eligibleon-reserve questionnaires have remained very low –5.7 percent for the2008 communities hastheeffect ofincreasing thenumberofeligibleon-reserve residents onthejury roll, maintained by theProvincial JuryCentre suggests that increasing thenumberofmailingsto on-reserve than travel onFriday andstay theentire weekend waiting for theMonday appearance. Althoughthedata appear onTuesdays, rather thanMonday, to enablepotential jurors to travel to Kenora onMonday, rather arranging for advance payment oftravel, accommodation, andmealsexpenses andcallingjurypanelsto court officialsalso tookadditional steps toencourage on-reserve residentparticipation injuries,including questionnaires to besentto theon-reserve population for the2008roll beincreased substantially. Kenora the jurysystem andrequesting updated BandLists. Inaddition,Mr. Justice Stach directedof that thenumber 15 First Nations, meetingwithcommunity leaders,discussing issues relating to Aboriginalparticipation in including acourt interpreter andAboriginalliaisonofficial forOntario’s north west region, travelled to steps to increase on-reserve resident representation. Duringthesummerof2007, Kenora court officials, 143. 2007 juryroll) was 7.6 percent compared to arate of56percent for off-reserve residents. from individualseligiblefor thejuryroll) for questionnaires sentto on-reserve residents in2006(for the judicial district learnedin2007 that therate ofeligiblereturns (i.e. thenumberofreturned questionnaires

ExhibitCoftheAffidavit ofShaun Joy (July 19, 2011) filedin Affidavit ofLaura Loohuizen,  Affidavit ofLaura Loohuizen, filedin respectively. SeeExhibitCoftheAffidavit ofShaun Joy (July 19, 2011) filedin 652 in2010to and684in2011, thenumberofeligibleon-reserve residents addedtodecreased thejuryroll decreased to 41 and43persons jury roll increased from 34to 64persons.Correspondingly, when thenumberofquestionnaires sentto on-reserve residents was roll to 810for compiling the2009juryroll, the numberofeligibleon-reserve residents whoreplied andwere ableto beaddedto the Ibid Inquest concerning thedeath of ReggieBushie;Rulingby Dr. Eden onmotionregarding jury selection For example, whenthenumberofquestionnaires sentto on-reserve residents was increased from 600for compiling the2008jury In 2012, the In thefirst case, Upon learningaboutthesedismalrates ofreturn, Kenora district court officialsbegantakingadditional In thesecond case, acoroner’s inquest into thedeath ofReggie Bushie, theCoroner Dr. Eden alsoheld There have beensimilarissues withunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesontheThunder Bay ., at paras. 25-26. 137 5.7 percent for 2009, 6.3percent for 2010 and6.3percent for 2011. 140 R. v. Wareham (#2) R. v. Wareham (#1) supra note 135 at paras. 103-104. Seealso:Exhibit54, filedin R. v. Kokopenace Nahdee case, discussed above at paragraph 129, camebackbefore thecourt, , MadamJustice Pierce determined that the2011 jurypanelselection test, hadnotbeenmet,andthe2011 jury roll was therefore not at paras. 82-83. R. v. Kokopenace R. v. Wareham (#1) 139 Onthebasisoftheseresults andanumberof R. v. Kokopenace . , includingevidence withrespect to R. v. Kokopenace . Pierre v. McRae 138

, September 9, 2011, at para. 18. . 135 .

136 the the

37 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 38 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 142 141 of thisissue. peoples onjuries,andappearsto betheonlyotherprovince inCanadato have conducted amajorreview 151. (A) lists are usedinotherprovinces to collect thenamesofprospective jurors. on juryrolls, aswell asmeasures undertaken to remedy theproblem. Iwillalsobriefly explain what source In thissection,Idiscuss theexperiences ofotherprovinces withrespect to theissue ofunderrepresentation Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, andhasalsoreceived recent attention from theBritishColumbia Government. concern inanumberofprovinces across Canada.Asdescribedbelow, theissue was dealtwithinManitoba’s 150. 1. some Americanstates, andhow issues ofunderrepresentation are dealtwithinthosejurisdictions. individuals are selected for juryrolls inotherCanadianprovinces, aswell asAustralia, New Zealand and other Canadianprovinces, New Zealand, Australia, andtheUnited States. Inthissection,Idiscuss theways exists invarious jurisdictionsthat rely onjuriesandthat have sizeable Aboriginalpopulations, including of Aboriginalpeoplesonjuriesisby nomeansexclusively anOntarianorCanadianissue. Rather, thisissue law andpractice inotherjurisdictionsto assess what lessons we canlearnfrom them.Underrepresentation 149. F. rate for eligibleon-reserve questionnaires remained very low at 5.6percent. the requirements ofsection6(8),theevidence ofcourt officialsin 148. non-response orchronically ignored requests. Ashestated: due diligence, resourcefulness, ingenuityandperhapspersuasion,rather thanpassively acquiescing to office had satisfied the requirements ofsection6(8)the the 2011 roll. Mr. Justice Platana concluded that, asaresult oftheseadditionalefforts, thesheriff’s

EXPERIENCEINOTHER CANADIANPROVINCES

R. v. Wareham (#2) Ibid EXPERIENCEINOTHER JURISDICTIONS MANITOBA Manitoba hashadextensive experience withtheissue oftheunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations In accordance withparagraph 4oftheOrder-in-Council, Ihave aspartofmy review considered the While theseefforts were sufficient to satisfy Mr. Justice Platana that thesheriff’s office had satisfied The underrepresentation ofindividualsfrom First Nations communities onjuryrolls isaserious ., at para. 23. assistance. While a Native Court Worker to assist inobtaininginformation. Local elderswere contacted for the formal procedure, resourcefulness andingenuityisdemonstrated by theinclusionof was doneinthepreparation ofthe2011 andprevious jurypanels. Beyond the changesto The facts are sufficient to establish that thesheriffdid exercise diligence beyond what in amannerthat was representative ofthecommunity to theextent currently available. I doaccept that, onthefacts before me, the2012 Thunder Bay juryroll was compiled effort to create ajury roll that is representative ofthe community. attempts at includingFirst Nations peopleslivingon-reserve demonstrate areasonable no evidence before meto determine what other“persuasion”mightbeeffective. Their of theirrespective communities, andthoseoffers to meethave notbeenaccepted, Ihave provide lists have beengiven by thebandchiefsandcouncils, theleadersand decision-makers I alsotake into account thenecessity for cultural sensitivity. When direct refusals to , [2012] O.J. No. 767 at para. 54(S.C.J.). Bushie describes the sheriff’s dutyasincluding“possibly describesthesheriff’s persuasion”, Juries Act R.v. Waerham (#2) , includingthat thesheriff exercise 141 142 was that theresponse

148 147 146 145 144 143 rejected twice.” defence accepted alltheproposed Aboriginaljurors, whiletheCrown rejected nine. Two jurors were jurors; inanother, thedefence rejected two andtheCrown rejected 10;inthethird andfinal case, the were rejected through peremptory challenges andstand-asides. “Inonecase, theCrown rejected 16Aboriginal Similarly, ononeday oftheThompson assizes, 35 of41 Aboriginal peoplecalledto serve onthree juries All sixAboriginalpeoplecalledforward were thesubjectsofperemptory challengesfrom thedefence. the fact that itwas inanarea of Manitoba where Aboriginalpeoplecomprise over 50%ofthepopulation. compelling. IntheHelenBettyOsbornecaseinThe Pas, thejuryhadnoAboriginalmembers,inspite of jurors through theuseofstand-asides andperemptory challenges.” found that “itiscommon practice for someCrown attorneys anddefence counsel to exclude Aboriginal and many First Nations individualscannot speakEnglishorFrench. individuals onthebasisthat thecosts of travelling to thecourt andservingonthejuryexceeds theirmeans, records oftheircurrent addresses may notexist. Moreover, exemptions are often granted to First Nations difficult; andFirst Nations individualslivinginurban centres are more likely tobe renters, andtherefore accurate on reserve are less likely to have telephone service at home, andtherefore following upon asummonsis by mail,butindividualslivingonreserve often donothave access to regular mailservice; individualsliving that thesummoningprocedure works against Aboriginalpeopleinanumberof ways: summonsare sent process: thesummoningofprospective jurors andthepre-trial jury-selection process. The Inquiryconcluded 155. sentation. Inquiry identifiedanumberoflogistical problems that remained and contributed to ongoingunderrepre Aboriginalpeoplebeganto“that beproperly represented onthelists ofpotential jurors”. choosing jurors, becauseitincludedFirst Nations individuals.The Inquirystated that itwas only after 1983 to compose jurylists. The Inquiryfound that theuseofprovincial healthrecords was apreferable source for 154. officials were required tosubmitnames drawn from theirelectoral lists. required to submitthenamesofpotential jurors to theCounty Court Judge. After 1971, First Nations participation onjuriesdidnotimprove significantlysince First Nations officials,unlike mayors, were not from potential juryservice. While First Nations individualswere granted therightto vote in1952, their and Métis,were deniedthevote inManitoba between 1886and1952, andconsequently were excluded 153. addresses therelationship between First Nations intheprovince andjuries. of theInquiryexceeds that ofthisIndependentReview, Iwilldiscuss onlythosepartsofthereport that justicethat “the system hasfailed Manitoba’s Aboriginalpeopleonamassive scale.” officer, who was exonerated the next day. The ReportoftheInquirydidnotmince words; itopened by stating reserve to trial,andthe1988death ofthe executive director ofatribalcouncil at thehandsofapolice and AboriginalPeople inresponse to two incidents:a17-year delay inbringinga1971 murder onaFirst Nation 152.

 Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid The AboriginalJustice Implementation Commission at chapter 1. by A.C. Hamilton &C.M.Sinclair. (Winnipeg: Inquiryinto Public theAdministration ofJustice andAboriginalPeople, 1991)online: Public InquiryIntoPublic theAdministration ofJustice andAboriginalPeople, Historically, thejuryroll inManitoba was composed usingvoting lists. However, membersofFirst Nations In April1988,theManitoba government created Inquiryinto thePublic theAdministration ofJustice In 1983,theprovince beganusingcomputerized records from theManitoba HealthServices Commission The Inquiryfound that First Nations individualswere excluded at two stages ofthejurycomposition . . . . ., at chapter 9. 148

Report onAboriginalJustice Inquiryof Manitoba 145 146 At thejuryselectionstage, theInquiry The examples they provide are 143 Becausethescope 144 However, the , Vol. 1

147 -

39 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 40 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 155 154 153 152 151 150 149 the BritishColumbia CivilLibertiesAssociation (BCCLA) began aninvestigation ofthe practices followed 160. concerns that thelist doesnotproperly capture individualslivinginFirst Nations communities. jurors.” section 2,thesheriffmay determine theprocedures thesheriff considersappropriate fortheselectionof disqualified or exempted underthis whilesection8 Act”, states that “[h]aving regard for theprinciplein Section 2oftheAct establishes theprinciplethat “a personhas therightanddutyto serve asajuror unless 159. (B) the discriminatory power inherent to peremptory challenges. to discriminate injuryselectionprocesses. Otherwiseleft unchecked, theamendmentmerely equalizes challenges for theCrown andthedefence. right to stand-aside potential jurors. remedying theasymmetry inpower between thedefence’s rightto peremptorily challengeandtheCrown’s amended section634 ofthe 158. jurors whodonotspeakEnglishorFrench butwhoare otherwisequalified to serve. took place; andthat the from acommunity assimilarpossible demographically andculturally to thecommunity where theoffence where thetrialisto beheld;that intheevent jurors needto bedrawn from elsewhere, they shouldbeselected and stand-asides beeliminated altogether; that jurors bedrawn from within40kilometers ofthe community of First Nations individualsat thejury-selection stage, theInquiryrecommended that: peremptory challenges to asummonshave often donesowell after otherswithregular access to mail).With respect to theexclusion found for thejurypanel(given thelackofaccess to regular mail,First Nations individualswhodorespond community. Italsorecommended that summonsesbeenforced, even where enoughpeoplehave been called cannotspeakthelanguageoftrial),that personmust bereplaced by someonefrom thesame that where thesheriffgrants an exemption from juryservice (for instance onthebasisthat theperson 157. has undesirable effects onthe racial make-up ofjurypanels. However, theInquiryfound that thispower to exclude potential jurors for ‘illogicalorirrational’ reasons in thefollowing manner: 156.

 Jury Act Criminal Code R v. Bain Ibid Report onAboriginalJustice Inquiryof Manitoba, supra (Ottawa: Minister ofSupplyand Services Canada,1980)at 54. . See Law Reform Commission ofCanada, BRITISHCOLUMBIA To address theexclusion ofFirst Nations individualsat the summonsstage, theInquiryrecommended The BritishColumbia It shouldbenoted that, inresponse to theSupreme Court’s decisionin The Law Reform Commission ofCanadadescribedtheimportance ofperemptory challenges In 2011, following OntariojudicialdecisionssuchastheCourt ofAppeal’s decisionin . Jury Duty–OurJustice System DependsOnIt 154 or shedoesnotwishto trythecase. and caneliminate persons for whatever reason, nomatter how illogicalorirrational, he accused canfeel that heorshehassomeminimalcontrol over themake upofthejury that justice must beseento bedone. The peremptory challengeisonetool by whichthe the peremptory challengehasbeenattacked andpraised. Itsimportance liesinthefact Inpractice, thesheriffusesprovincial voters’ lists to selectprospective jurors, , R.S.B.C. 1996Chapter 242, ss. 2and8. , [1992] 1S.C.R. 91. , R.S.C., 1985,c.C-46, s.634 asam.by Juries Act Jury Act Criminal Code Working Paper 27: The JuryinCriminalTrials gives thesheriffbroad discretion increating thejury roll for theprovince. 152 shouldbeamendedto provide translation services for First Nations Parliament replaced stand-asides withequalendowments ofperemptory , online:BritishColumbia Ministry ofJustice to eliminate thepractice ofstand-asides by theCrown, thereby 153 An Act to AmendtheCriminalCode Butthisamendmentdoesnotchangetheunderlyingability 149 note 143at chapter 9. 150 by ChairmanFrancis Muldoon , S.C. 1992, c.41, s.2. R v. Bain

151 , Parliament in 1992

155 butthere are Pierre v. McRae

, 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 Act in theTerritories from theDirector ofMedicalInsurance. 164. and closingopeningstatements. jury panelsby explaining to peoplewhy they have beensummoned,andtranslating evidence, arguments, trials. interpreter training program, consisting ofaneightweek course, withtwo weeks spentfocusing onjury To carrythese reforms into effect, theDepartmentofJustice intheNorthwest Territories established an in theNorthwest Territories whospeaksonlyoneorseveral First Nations languagescanserve onajury. and French. Chipewyan, Cree, SouthSlavey, NorthSlavey, Gwich’in,Inuvialukutin, Inuinnaqtun,Tlicho, Inuktitut, English, Territories’ officiallanguages tositasajuror. 163. travelled throughout the territory to hearcriminalcases. the court to holdingtrialsinthecommunity where acrimetook place andestablished acircuit court that Mr. Justice Sissons, whowas appointed to theNorthwest Territories Territorial Court in1955, committed during thisperiodto improve theparticipation ofAboriginalpeoplesinthejury process. For instance, despite forming anoverwhelming majorityoftheNorthwest Territories population. 1968, Aboriginalindividualsserved onjuries inonly27 ofthe66jurytrialsheldinNorthwest Territories, holding jurytrials.Jurytrialsbecameavailable intheNorthwest Territories in1955. However, between 1955 and 162. (C) opportunity to beincludedinthedatabase.” the Ministry was takingtheextra step to write to First Nations was to ensure that “they were given an that nooneknew theextent to whichFirst Nations individualschoseto beenumerated andthereason on reserves are includedto somedegree intheBritishColumbia database. Heacknowledged, however, base that Ontariosheriffsobtainfrom themunicipalassessment rolls inthat First Nations personsliving database that BritishColumbia sheriffsobtainfrom ElectionsBCissignificantlydifferent fromthe data Band leadersintheprovince requesting theirlists ofpersonsresiding onreserves. Healsostated that the stated that inorder to improve thesheriffs’database, asenior Court Services officialhadwritten toall 161. were beingconsistently includedontheprovincial voters list ordirectly contacted by Sheriffs’Offices. peoples onjuryrolls. Initsletter, theBCCLA stated that itdidnotappearthe First Nations communities concerned that juriesinBritishColumbia mightsuffer from similarunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations British Columbia’s Attorney General, stating that, asaresult ofitsinvestigation, theBCCLA hadbecome by office thesheriff’s inBritish Columbiawith respect toFirst Nations.InJune 2011,the BCCLA wrote to

Christopher Gora,   MarkIsrael, “The Underrepresentation ofIndigenousPeoples onCanadianJuryPanels” (2003) 25Law andPolicy 37 at 42.  Ibid . Jury Act to Justice 156at 161. (July 11,2011) Re. First Nation Underrepresentation onJuryRolls. Jury Regulations, Jury Act, supra Official Languages oftheNorthwest Territories Christopher Gora, “Jury Trials intheSmallCommunities oftheNorthwest Territories” (1993) 13 Windsor Yearbook ofAccess Letter from BarryPenner, Q.C., Attorney General for BritishColumbia to JasonGratl, BritishColumbia CivilLibertiesAssociation NORTHWEST TERRITORIES permitthesheriff to useothersource lists, includingelectoral andassessment rolls. British Columbia’s Attorney General responded to theBCCLA letter inJuly2011. Inhisresponse, he The juryroll intheNorthwest Territories iscomposed by thesheriff, whoobtainsthenamesof residents With itsvast size andlow population density, theNorthwest Territories faces particularchallenges in In 1988,theNorthwest Territories 161 . These interpreters play anumberofroles during trials,includingassisting thesheriffinassembling , R.S.N.W.T. 1988c.5. 160 Consequently, undertheamendedsectionof note 159 at c.J-2,s.8(2). NWT Reg (Nu)034-99, s.3(1). supra note 158at 165-166. 162 Jury Act , online:Northwest Territories Education, Culture andEmployment 159 There are eleven officiallanguagesintheNorthwest Territories: 156 was amendedto permitjurors fluentinonlyoneofthe

163 158 However, theregulations passed underthe

Jury Act , aFirst Nations individualliving 157 Steps were taken 164 The jurylist for

Jury

- 41 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 42 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 170 169 168 167 166 165 province. register maintained for the 169. this sameapproach. Island, Newfoundland andLabrador (andtheNorthwest Territories, asmentionedabove) have adopted source for compiling thejury roll. Saskatchewan, Quebec,New Brunswick, Nova Scotia ,Prince Edward Manitoba’s Inquiryinto Public theAdministration ofJustice andAboriginalPeople describedasapreferable computerized records from theManitoba HealthServices Commission to compose jurylists, apractice that 168. (E) It recommended that Aboriginalpeoplesbeincludedonjurylists. system andAboriginalpeopleswas told that Aboriginalpersonswere notbeingsummonsedfor juryduty. list isrepresentative ofFirst Nations peoples.In1991,anAlbertataskforce examining thecriminaljustice 167. source that thesheriff considers appropriate. municipalities; (b) telephone directories; (c) Henderson’s Directories for municipalities;and(d) any other made from any orallof:(a)lists ofelectors, assessment rolls andotherpublicpapersobtainedfrom rolls, andany otherpublicpapers. information from lists provided by themunicipalproperty officer, includingthelist ofelectors, the assessment 166. (D) the Northwest Territories meritconsideration intheOntariocontext. Aboriginal languages.AsIdiscuss inmy recommendations below, someoftheapproaches adopted in districts; theirperspectives onjustice issues; andthefact that someFirst Nations individualsstill speakonly certain similarities:thesize andremoteness oftheFirst Nations communities inOntario’s northernjudicial 165. which stated: criminal justice system was praised by theManitoba Inquiryinto Public theAdministration ofJustice, nearly allfrom thesamecommunity astheaccused. each trialis“drawn from withinthirtykilometers ofthecourt,” andconsequently prospective jurors are

 MarkIsrael, supra vol. 1(MainReport) (Alberta:Justice andSolicitor General, March 1991)at 44-45to 44-46.Seealsothecomments inMarkIsrael, Justice onTrial: Reportof theTask Force ontheCriminalJustice System anditsImpactontheIndianMétisPeople of Alberta Jury Act Regulation Jury Act Research andStatistics Division, 2000)at 7. The JuryAct Cited inMaryCrnkovich andLisaAddario, OTHER PROVINCES THAT USEHEALTH INSURANCERECORDS TO COMPILE THEJURY ROLL ALBERTA There appearto have beensomeconcerns expressed at various timesasto whethertheAlbertajury While there are significantdifferences between theNorthwest Territories andOntario, there are also Saskatchewan As Idescribedabove inmy discussion oftheexperience ofManitoba, ithas,since 1983,relied on The Alberta note 157 at 41. the attention ofnon-aboriginal people. apply to therelationship between victimandaccused, orlocalfactors that mightescape In aboriginalareas, thosepeoplewould beableto understand thenuances that might direct senseofinvolvement in,andcontrol andunderstanding of, thejustice system. […] This solutionisattractive to us,since itseeksto return to thecommunity involved ina 170 , RSA 2000, cJ-3, s.7. This practice appearsto have beenadopted asaresult ofaproposal initiallymade by theLaw supra , Statutes ofSaskatchewan 1998,c.J-4.2,s.7(1). note 157 at 48. Jury Act , AltaReg. 68/1983. . Saskatchewan’s authorizes thesheriffinthat province to obtainnames for jury rolls using Saskatchewan MedicalCare Insurance Act 167

Inuit Women andtheNunavut Justice System Jury Act The JuryAct empowers theInspector ofLegal Offices to requisitionthe 168 166

Regulation furtherspecifiesthat juryselectionmay be 165 The emphasisoninvolving thecommunity inthe 169

asthesource list for jury rolls inthe , (Ottawa: Statistics Canada,

,

the telephone directory, andany other source considered appropriate by thesheriff. permit thesheriff to look to thelicensed drivers database, themembershiplist ofafrancophone association, the province’s HealthandWellness’ HealthInsurance list. 172. under the following: beneficiariesunderthe 171. register ofthe municipal valuation rolls, BandLists drawn upinaccordance withthe Quebec Act permitsthesheriff to gather thenamesofFirst Nations people livingon-reserve using the electoral roll, butmakes specialprovision for First Nations peoplelivingon-reserve. Inparticular, the 170. beneficiaries underthe Jury Act Reform Commission ofSaskatchewan, whichrecommended initsreport 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 beneficiaries underthe Elections Act multiple source lists to create thejuryroll. Inparticular, thesheriffcan refer to thelist ofelectors underthe 174. Services Payment Act roll by requisitioning from timeto timethenamesofresidents intheprovince registered underthe 173. minorities (includingMi’kmaq)onjuries,inlightofconcerns aboutunderrepresentation. in 1989 alsodealtwiththisissue, encouraging furtherstudy ontheissue ofproportional representation of adoption ofthat practice by thegovernment. The Royal Commission ontheDonaldMarshall,Jr. Prosecution hensive computerized list suchasthemedicalservice insurance list, recommended that theprovince cease choosingjurors from thevoters list andsubstitute amore compre foster greater interest inthejurysystem amongmembersofthat community. of Nova Scotia recommended that educational materials bemadeavailable in theMi’kmaqlanguageto peoples onjurieshasbeengiven someattention inNova Scotia. In1994,theLaw Reform Commission

  at 42.  Law Reform Commission ofNova Scotia, Law Reform Commission ofSaskatchewan, Prospective Jurors Alternate Sources Regulations, Jury Act Jury Act The Royal Commission ontheDonaldMarshall,Jr., Prosecution at 2-3, 5-6,9-10, 21-24 and26-28. Juries Regulations Jurors Act Law Reform Commission ofNova Scotia, New Brunswick Nova Scotia Newfoundland andLabrador Prince Edward Island Quebec , after canvassing potential sources for thejurypool,that thebest available source was thelist of , 1991,S.N.L.c.16,s.14(1). , R.S.P.E.I. 1998,c.J-5.1, s.8. MunicipalElectionsAct , RSQ,cJ-2,s.42. . The Quebec , 1991,motor vehicle registration records underthe Ministère delaSanté etdesServices sociaux . The Nova Scotia , O.I.C. 2000-356 (June 29, 2000),N.S.Reg. 126/2000; . The New Brunswick . 177 Medical Care Insurance Act Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act . UnderthePrince Edward Island Jurors Act . The Newfoundland andLabrador , andregistered owners ofmotor vehicles underthe Medical Services Payment Act Juries Act FinalReportonJuriesinNova Scotia Juries inNova Scotia requires thesheriff to collect thenamesofprospective jurors from Proposals for theReform of theJuryAct Jury Act NLR88/99, s.2. empowers thesheriff to collect names for thejury roll from (Halifax: McCurdy’s PrintingandTypesetting Limited, December, 1989) at 12. , 1999. empowers thesheriff to collect namesfrom lists ofthe (Nova Scotia: June1993) online 178 Additionally, theregulations passed underthat Act 173 . 171 The issue ofrepresentation ofFirst Nations Jury Act . 172 Juries Act (Nova Scotia: June1994)online: Highway Safety Traffic Act , electors underthe , thesheriffacquires names for thejury , SNS1998,c16. 175 Jury Act , (Saskatchewan: December 1979) at 18-20 arecommendation that ledto the Indian Act Proposals for theReform of the allows thesheriff to refer to

174 The Commission also , andthepopulation Elections Act 179 Motor Vehicle Act 176

, andthelist of , electors Health

. - 43 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 44 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 provide more information onthispoint. recommended that peoplebeasked to register asAboriginalwhen they register to vote inorder to general remoteness ofindigenouscommunities andthetransient nature oftheirinhabitants. state’s electoral roll becauseoflow-levels ofeducation andliteracy, healthandsocialconditions, andthe Law Reform Commission, inits2011 report, suggested that Aboriginalsmay beunderrepresented onthat European settlers,since thevoting registration system doesnotrecord race. However, theQueensland that AboriginalsinAustralia are registered to vote inlower proportions thanthoseofthedescendants of country are more likely thanthoseinCanadaortheUnited States to becomprehensive. There isnoevidence 180. in thecommunity shouldhave the proportionately representative ofthecommunity at large; rather, itisenoughthat “all ethnicandsocialgroups sentative ofthewidercommunity”. the criminaljustice system derives itslegitimacy, concept guidingjuror selection.” of Western Australia stated inits2009report, “representation isgenerally considered to betheprincipal 179. number offindingsand recommendations, whichImentionbelow. have includeddiscussions respecting theunderrepresentation ofAboriginals onjuryrolls andmadea have conducted extensive andrecent examinations ofthejurysystem. The reports ofthesecommissions 178. throughout thecountry. the selectionprocess differs across states, resulting in varying degrees ofjury representativeness the sheriff randomly selectsnamesfrom electoral rolls for inclusiononjury rolls. However, theminutiaeof the process ofjurytrial. 177. across thecountry. made to improve Aboriginalrepresentation onjuriesinAustralia, itremains alive issue inallsixstates 176. on AboriginalCustomary Law, theAustralian Law Reform Commission wrote: 175. (A) 2.

QueenslandLaw Reform Commission, Law Reform Commission ofWestern Australia, Law Reform Commission ofNew SouthWales,   Australian Law Reform Commission, EXPERIENCEINOTHER COUNTRIES Ibid (Perth, Western Australia: QualityPress, 2009)at 14. Problems 69 at 71. Ibid Law Reform Commission ofWestern Australia, Michael Chesterman, “CriminalTrial JuriesinAustralia: From Penal Colonies to aFederal Democracy” (1999)Law andContemporary AUSTRALIA Each state exercises general legislative powers over matters ofcriminallaw andprocedure, including As inCanada,thevalue ofarepresentative juryisrecognized inAustralia. AstheLaw Reform Commission The law reform commissions ofthree states –New SouthWales, QueenslandandWestern Australia – Aboriginals have historically beenunderrepresented onjuriesthroughout Australia. Ina1983report More recent publications andlaw reform commission reports indicate that, whileefforts have been Unlike intheUnited States or Canada, voting ismandatory inAustralia. Consequently, voting lists inthat . ., at xxii. it isstill rare for anAborigineto sitonajury. parts ofAustralia where Aboriginesrepresent asizeable proportion ofthepopulation, … therepresentation ofAboriginesonjurieshaschangedlittleinrecent years. Inthose 181 At ageneral level, theprocess for composing thejuryroll issimilarinmost states: Aboriginal Customary Law Research Paper no. 13 182 A Review of JurySelection, ReportNo. 68 According to theCommission, itisthrough itsrepresentativeness that opportunity 184 ButtheCommission alsomadeclearthat ajurydoesnothave to be Report 117–JurySelection 187 supra Selection, EligibilityandExemption of Jurors: Discussion Paper, Project No. 99 The Commission alsofound that Aboriginalsare more likely note 182at 14.Law Reform Commission ofNew SouthWales, to berepresented onjuries(emphasis inoriginal).” 183 andarepresentative juryis“a bodyofpersonsrepre 180 (Sydney: 2008)at 1.21. (Queensland: QLRC,February 2011) at 75. . (Canberra: AGPS, 1983)at para. 590. 186 The Commission Ibid

. 185

- 199 198 197 196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 188 group to ensure that any reforms are successful. promote theimportance ofjuryservice, conducting more extensive research, andestablishing aworking who cannottravel to thecourt eachday ofatrial,creating culturally appropriate educational programs to Aboriginals canattend court whensummoned,makingavailable accommodation nearthecourt for people at improving Aboriginalunderrepresentation, including:makingtransport arrangements to ensure that jury roll. of a‘smart electoral roll’ that would provide amore flexible tool for includingindividualsonthelocal court’s to includingAboriginalcommunities, while theLaw Commission ofNew SouthWales proposed theadoption Law Reform Commission recommended that localgovernments review existing jurydistricts withaview Commission. people onthebasisofcriminalhistory. removed theuniform ten-year disqualification and replaced itwithagraduated scheme for the exclusion of This recommendation was enacted into law by theNew SouthWales from juryservice from ten years for alloffences to two to five years,dependingonthetypeof offence. Commission ofNew SouthWales recommended reducing thenumberofyears that offenders are barred that Aboriginalsrepresent adisproportionate percentage oftheprisonpopulation inAustralia), theLaw Reform resentation onjurypanels.To address theissue ofunderrepresentation as aresult ofpriorconvictions (given 183. of Aboriginaljurors incaseswhere thedefendant was alsoAboriginal. notes that there isevidence inNew SouthWales that someprosecutors have challengedtheinclusion their standing withtheircommunity. have asked to beexcused from juryservice onthebasisthat sittinginjudgmentofanothermay harm know. that Aboriginaljurors hadexpressed discomfort aboutbeingrequired to judge peoplethey didnot Aboriginal underrepresentation. For example, theLaw Reform Commission ofWestern Australia noted 182. to serve onajury. justice system andinprison. because, like AboriginalpersonsinCanada,they are disproportionately overrepresented inthecriminal to serve onajury. Aboriginalsare alsomore likely to bedisqualifiedonthebasisofprior convictions, a lackofavailable accommodation nearthecourt increases thelikelihood that Aboriginalswillbeunable limited andprospective Aboriginaljurors may beunableto travel to thecourt for juryselection.Similarly, fied orwillotherwisenotbecome apartofthejurypanel. For instance, insome states publictransport is 181. summon becausethey are more likely to leadtransient lifestyles. than non-Aboriginals to live outsideofjurydistricts.

QueenslandLaw Reform Commission, Law Reform Commission ofNew SouthWales, MarkIsrael, “EthnicBiasinJurySelectionAustralia andNew Zealand” (1998)International JournalofSociology35 at 44. Law Reform Commission ofNew SouthWales, Law Reform Commission ofWestern Australia, QueenslandLaw Reform Commission, Law Reform Commission ofNew SouthWales, Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Even ifasummonsisissued, avariety offactors meanthat Aboriginalsare more likely to bedisquali The Australian law reform commissions have alsoidentified various cultural factors that may explain Australian law reform commissions have proposed various measures to remedy Aboriginalunderrep ., at 6.148-6.150. ., at 47. ., at 6.57. ., at 11.86. ., at 11.86,11.18-11.19. 192 Similarly, theLaw Reform Commission ofNew SouthWales notes that inthepast Aboriginals 198 Finally, theQueenslandLaw Reform Commission proposed aseriesoflogistical measures aimed 197 With respect to theissue ofAboriginals livingoutsideofthejurydistrict, theQueensland 191

190 Moreover, they are alsomore likely to lackthenecessary languageskills supra supra 193 note 186at 11.38. note 186at 6.14. At thejurypanelselectionstage, thecommentator, MarkIsrael, 196 supra supra supra supra This proposal was alsoendorsed by theQueenslandLaw Reform note 184at 3.19-3.23. note 184at 1.35. note 184at 11.21,11.69. note 182at 94. 199

188 Inaddition,Aboriginalsare more difficult to 189

Jury AmendmentAct 2010 194

, which

195

-

- 45 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 46 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 address where asummons canbesent. in rural areas, andMäoriare more mobilethanothercitizens andare therefore less likely to have apermanent excluded from juriesbecausecourthouses are predominantly located inthecities,whileMäorimostly live Mäori whenthere was aMäoridefendant”. and judgesinterviewed believed that prosecutors “tendedto weed outMäorijurors becausethey were likely to bechallengedby the Crown orby thedefence. likely thanothercitizens to beexcused ordisqualified. Third, once chosen for thejurypanelthey are more ancestry to beregistered voters. Second, once summonedto thecourt for juryselection, Mäoriare more First, jurylists inNew Zealand are drawn from voters lists, butMäoriare far less likely thanthoseofEuropean 187. underrepresentation contributes to ageneral feeling ofalienation from thecriminaljustice system.” to usthat many Mäorifeel very strongly that juriesare notrepresentative ofMäorisociety, andthis discussions as partofthisIndependentReview were raised. AstheCommission stated: “it was emphasized with Mäoripeople, many ofthesameconcerns raised by membersofFirst Nations communities inour people from thissystem hascreated asenseofalienation. IntheNew Zealand Law Commission’s consultations 186. guidelines for excusing jurors to allow jurors to defer theirservice, rather thanbeexcused from italtogether. of thejuryroll inthevenue where thecrimeisto betriedcreates alikelihood ofprejudice; andupdating the question of representativeness inapplications for achangeofvenue where thedemographic composition young peopleandminoritiesto become registered voters; extending judicialdistrict boundaries;considering the representativeness ofjuryrolls (thesource ofjurylists) through outreach campaignsthat encourage recommended anumberofmeasures to make juriesgenerally more representative, including:improving have anequal who are eligibleto serve onjuries,includingthoseyou are younger orolder, orfrom ethnicminorities,do and they provided thefollowing definition:“what is required [for a representative jury] isthat allpersons Law Commission identified‘representativeness’ asoneof four necessary features ofthejury system, underrepresented onjuriesandoverrepresented asdefendants incriminalproceedings. that country in2001 andfound that theMäoripeopleinNew Zealand, like First Nations inCanada,are 185. (B) Reform Commission rejected asimilarproposal. be appropriate, since itwould interfere withtheprincipleofrandom selection. trial judgeto order theinclusionofapersonsamerace orethnicgroup oftheaccused would not among otherthings. racial orethnicgroup oftheaccused owing to thepractical difficulties associated withtheir establishment, of New SouthWales rejected theuseofspecialpanelscomposed largely (or entirely) ofmembersthe sentativeness that have alsobeenrejected by Canadiancourts. For instance, theLaw Reform Commission 184.

MarkIsrael, New Zealand Law Commission, The othersbeingcompetence, independence and impartiality.  QueenslandLaw Reform Commission, Law Reform Commission ofWestern Australia, Law Reform Commission ofNew SouthWales, Ibid Ibid at para. 165. Ibid Ibid New Zealand Law Commission, NEWZEALAND The Commission identifiedthethree main reasons for theunderrepresentation ofMäorionjurieslists. The New Zealand Law Commission conducted anextensive study oftheusecriminaljurytrialsin As inCanada,thehistory oftheintroduction ofaforeign legalsystem andtheexclusion oftheMäori However, thelaw reform commissions have rejected more radical suggestions for improving repre ., at para. 165. ., at paras. 136-156. ., at 39. ., at para. 166. supra opportunity note 194at 40. 200 Similarly, theLaw Reform Commission ofWestern Australia found that allowing a to serve (emphasis inoriginal).” supra Juries inCriminalTrials, Report69 note 203 at para. 135. supra note 186at 11.106-11.110. supra supra 210

209 note 184at 1.51-1.53. note 182at 47. Various authorshave alsosuggested that Mäorihave been 202 (Wellington: NZLC, 2001) online: 205 208 Intheirreport, theNew Zealand Law Commission Onestudy reported that several ofthelawyers 201

The QueenslandLaw 203 The New Zealand 207 204

-

206

but like many jurisdictionsinCanada,theAboriginalpopulation is“overrepresented withinAlaska prisons”. 190. (i) Alaska Congress declared themcitizens. people whoretained theirtribalmembershipwere formally excluded from federal juriesuntil1924, when from voter registration lists, lists ofactual voters, andotheravailable sources where necessary. court level, the particular steps ithastaken to dealwiththeunderrepresentation ofminoritiesonitsjuries.At thefederal two Americanstates: Alaska becauseofitssizableAboriginalpopulation; andNew York becauseofthe as well asafederal court system withitsown juryselectionprocess. For thisReport, Iwilldealonlywith 189. (C) individuals, andthat makingchildcare allowances available would helpto remedy thisproblem. difficulties suchassecuringadequate childcare duringjuryservice imposed aparticularburden onMäori made for allotherethnicminoritiesandany othergroup.” stated that “once anexception ismadefor onegroup there isnoreason inprinciplewhy itshouldnotbe unacceptable since itwould runcounter to theprincipleofensuringarepresentative jury. The Commission vote. Tailoring thenumberofMäoriselected for jurylists to thenumberlivinginjurydistrict was similarly some andexpensive, andinstead, greater efforts shouldbemade to encourage more Mäori to register to rejected bothofthesesolutions. for jurylists isthesameas theproportion inthejurydistrict’s broader population. Ultimately, theCommission lists otherthantheelectoral roll to selectpotential jurors, and ensuringthat theproportion ofMäoriselected 188. 219 218 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 and conditions inrural communities. often resulted inAboriginalsfacing anall-white jurywhosememberswere utterly unfamiliar withlifestyles However, since themajorityofstate’s Aboriginalpopulation lives inrural areas, thismodeofselection these citiesfor trial,andto selectajuryfrom residents livingwithinafifteen mile radius ofthetrialsite. 191. considerably from thoseinAlaska’s majorcities. cities are alsohometo thestate’s courts. Needless to say, theconditions andlifestyles intheBushdiffer Bush’)outsideofAlaska’sas ‘the mainpopulation centers ofJuneau,Anchorage, andFairbanks. Much ofAlaska’s Aboriginalpopulation lives inaseriesofabout200smallvillages(referred to collectively

   Jury SelectionandService Act of 1968 Judge Nancy Gertner, “12Angry Men(AndWomen) inFederal Court”(2007) 82Chicago-Kent L.R.613 at 617; New Zealand Law Commission, Ibid Ibid 28 Alaska L.R.246 at 246. 77 61 The University ofChicagoL.R.867 at 884. Ibid Ibid Jeff May, “Alvarado Revisited: Amissing ElementinAlaska’s Quest for Provide ImpartialJuries for Rural Alaskans” (2011) Rachel King,“BushJustice: The Intersection ofAlaska Natives andtheCriminalJustice System inRural Alaska” (1998) Albert AlschulerandAndrew Deiss, “A BriefHistory oftheCriminalJuryinUnited States” (1994) UNITEDSTATES The standard practice inthestate for holdingtrialspriorto 1971 was to transport defendants to oneof The Commission’s study considered two solutionsto Mäoriunderrepresentation onjuries:usingsource There are fifty states intheUnited States, eachwithits own court system andjuryselection process, Alaska’s Aboriginalpopulation represents approximately 16per cent ofthat state’s overall population, Oregon ., at 255. ., at 247. ., at para. 496. ., at para. 173.

L.R. 1at 2. Jury SelectionandService Act supra note 203 at paras. 168-174. , 28U.S.C. §1861. 211 215 Usingsource lists otherthantheelectoral roll would beundulycumber 219 stipulates that namesfor thejurysource list are to bedrawn 212 Inaddition,theCommission found that practical

214 Aboriginal Aboriginal

213 217

These 218 216

- 47 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 48 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 231 230 229 228 227 226 225 224 223 222 221 220 ignorant ofthisright. 18 imposestheonusondefendants to request achangeofvenue withinten days; however they are often certain rural communities are excluded becausethey donotfall withinthefiftymile radius. Moreover, Rule representation onjuriesinAlaska, several commentators have identified remaining difficulties. For instance, 194. court may organize thetrialinacommunity where notrialsite exists butwhichismore representative. that ismore representative; thecourt may draw prospective jurors from beyond thefiftymile radius; orthe practice, thislatter rulemay becarriedoutinthree ways: thetrial venue may berelocated to acommunity cross-section ofsociety, theaccused orthecourt canrequest achangeinthejuryselectionarea. occurred. tive trialsite to analternative trialsite withinthevenue district that isnearest to thesite where thecrime is given therightto move, withinten days ofentering aplea,for thetrialto berelocated from thepresump radius ifthefirst jurypool“fails to fairly represent across-section ofthe community”. chosen; however theaccused isgiven acorresponding rightto have jurors calledfrom theentire fiftymile judge thediscretion to limitthenumberofmilesfrom thecourthouse from which prospective jurors are and requires that jurors becalledfrom withinafifty-mile radius ofeachtrialsite. Second, itgives thetrial on juriesinAlaska. First, itincreases thenumberoftrialssites outsideofthestate’s majorurbancenters Criminal Procedure Rule18. 193. on thejurypaneliscommunity where thecrimeisallegedto have taken place. representing afair cross sectionofthecommunity”. democraticsubstantially impairs“the idealinherent inthenotionofanimpartialjuryasinstitution that substituting membersofonecommunity (inthiscaseChignik)withthosefrom another(Anchorage) In findingthat thethispolicy for selectingjurors was unconstitutional, theAlaska Supreme Court wrote virtually allNative villageswithinthedistrict, thusviolating hisconstitutional rightto animpartialjury”. Alaska Supreme Court by arguing that thejuryselectionprocess “precluded residents from Chignikand found guilty, buthesuccessfully challengedthecomposition ofhisjurypanelinanappealbefore the not asingleAboriginalpersonappeared onAlvarado’s jurypanel,letalonethepetitjury. force at thetime, thejurywas drawn from withinfifteen milesofthesite of thetrial,and consequently, of Anchorage’s population was Aboriginal. Anchorage for trial.The population ofChignikwas at thetime95 percent Aboriginal,whileonly3.5percent community ofChignik,Alaska. Hewas arrested inChignikandtransported approximately 463 milesto senting afair cross-section ofthecommunity”. this practice violated anaccused’s SixthAmendmentrightto betriedby ajurydrawn “from apoolrepre jurors from withinafifteen mile radius ofthetrialunconstitutional. entirely ofnon-Aboriginals, theAlaska Supreme Court in 192.

JeffMay, Devon Knowles,  JeffMay,  Alvarado v. State of Alaska Ibid . Ibid Ibid Ibid 37 Ibid Ibid “Rule 18.Venue: Place for Trial,” Devon Knowles, “From Chicken to Chignik:The Seachfor JuryImpartialityinRural Alaska Native Communities” (2005) Recognizing theseandotherdifficultiesthat arisewhere Aboriginals are triedbefore ajury composed In response to theAlaska Supreme Court’s decisionin Although theimplementation ofRule18hasmadeimportantsteps towards improving Aboriginal Columbia HumanRightsL.R. . ., at 262. . ., at 261. ., at 249. . 228 supra supra Fourth, ifthefiftymile radius ruleisunlikely to result inajurythat is representative ofa fair note 217at 266. note 217at 260. supra note 221at 250. 231 , 486P.2d 891 (1971). 226 235 at 249; 2011-2012 Alaska Rulesof CriminalProcedure Rule18introduces anumberofsteps to helpincrease Aboriginalrepresentation Alvarado v. State 222 Pursuant to Pursuant therulesgoverning theselectionofjuriesin 221 In , 486P.2d 891 (1971). Alvarado 225 Instead, thecommunity that must berepresented Alvarado v. State Alvarado , thedefendant was accused ofrape inthe , online:Alaska Court System 220 , thestate legislature adopted Alaska Inparticular, theCourt found that declared thepractice ofdrawing 227 Third, thedefendant

223 Alvarado was

229 In 224 - 230

- 241 240 239 238 237 236 235 234 233 232 peremptorily challengedallpotential jurors withahuntinglicense. a huntinglicense were found to satisfy thistest, andamistrial was declared becausethedefence counsel gender, orany otherstatus that implicates equalprotection concerns”. the New York Court ofAppealsnoted that courts shouldforbid peremptory challenges basedon“race, than therest ofthecountry’s application ofthoseprecedents. Inits2008decisionin 199. based onsex, whilesomelower courts have addedreligion to thelist. defence counsel andlawyers incivilcases,andwideningthegroup ofprohibitions to includechallenges cases have expanded thisprohibition, wideningthegroup ofpersonssubjectto theruleto include the on theuseofperemptory challenges,banningtheiruseinaracially discriminatory manner. 198. record race inorder to provide more information for furtherstudy. to ensure that prospective minorityjurors are notimproperly excluded andthat juryquestionnaires complete. a one-day trialfor several days, andifthey are notcalled,butwere available, theirjurydutyisconsidered for atrial. In addition,theCommission recommended that measures beputinplace to allow jurors to be“on call” expanding thenumberofsources from whichprospective jurors are selected for thejurysource list. 197. where thedefendant isalsoamemberofminoritygroup. there was evidence ofperemptory challengesbeingusedto exclude minoritiesfrom jurypanelsintrials to face jurieswhere theirpeersare notrepresented. all-white juriesinNew York were aregular occurrence andminoritiescharged withanoffence were likely are significantlyunderrepresent with thecourt system. Inafive-volume report issued in1991,the Commission concluded that minorities to thisday, asabodyto study thisproblem andmake recommendations to improve minorityinteractions system. In1988,theChiefJudgeofNew York created theJudicialCommission onMinorities,whichexists 196. sent out,two-follow upsare immediately sentto non-responders. in theUnited States. New Yorkers canalso volunteer for jury duty, andafter juryquestionnaires have been automatic exemptions for juryservice. At $40perday, thestate pays oneofthehighest juror recipients ofunemployment insurance. cation issued by theDivisionofMotor Vehicles, state income taxfilers, recipients of family assistance, and are drawn from thefollowing five lists: registered voters, theholdersofdrivers’ licenses orotheridentifi 195. (ii) New York

MichaelC.Dorf,   Report oftheNew York State JudicialCommission onMinorities,(1991)19Fordham UrbanL.J. 181at 242.  . v.Batson Kentucky, General Information Questions andAnswers Ibid Ibid Ibid in Fair Cross SectionClaimsMust beExpanded”(2011) 59 Drake L.R.761 at 780-781. People v. Luciano Michael C.Dorf, “Are Hunters aConstitutionally-Protected Group? ANew York JudgeSays Yes” Paula Hannaford-Agor, “Systematic Negligence inJuryOperations: Why theDefinitionof Systematic Exclusion To address theseshortcomings, theCommission madeanumberofrecommendations, including New York State hasdeveloped alineofjurisprudence underthe New York usesamultiplesource list approach to create itsjuryroll. The namesofprospective jurors As aresult oftheU.S. Supreme Court decisionin New York hastaken anumberofsteps inresponse to biasesagainst minoritiesinthestate’s court ., at 244. ., at 238. ., at 237. 236 237 This recommendation, which hasbeenimplemented, meansthat personsmay be oncallfor The Commission’s report alsorecommended strict judicialscrutiny over peremptory challenges supra , 1No. 78 (N.Y. 2008). 476 U.S. 79 (1986). note 239. ed onmany juriesinthecourt system. , online:New York State Unified Court System . 232 The state updates theselists annuallyandhaseliminated all 234 Batson v.Batson Kentucky Moreover, theCommission’s report noted that 235

241 Batson

239 240 233 , theU.S. hasconstitutional limits Inonerecent case, peoplewith The Commission found that rulethat appearsto bebroader FindLaw (9September 2010), online: People v. Luciano

238 Subsequent per diems

, -

49 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT 50 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 246 245 244 243 242 District Court ofEastern MichiganalongsimilarlinesofthoseMassachusetts andKansas, outlinedabove. and co-chaired by JudgeVictoria Roberts, isconsidering reforms to thejuryselectionsystem intheU.S. 203. nonresponsive ones,anexpansion ontheMassachusetts initiative. to someoneinthesamezipcode. “supplemental draw” inwhichtheresponse to anundeliverable summonswillbesendingofanew summons 202. more transient renter population, thejuryroll derived from postal addresses willbeupdated every sixmonths. resident inthesamezipcode.” from any ofthecourt’s three geographic divisionswillspurthecourt to sendanothersummonsto another Massachusetts revised itsjuryplanalongthefollowing lines:“a jurysummonsreturned asundeliverable 201. (iii) SendingJuryRollQuestionnaires to Areas withSignificantMinority Populations do notappearontheotherlists used. volunteers seemsto beausefulway to supplementthemaster source list withnamesofresidents who residents responded to thisinitiative in1993, andseveral hundred to asimilarinitiative in1984. volunteer theirnamesfor themaster jurylist by fillingoutthe form andmailingitback.Onethousand York Rensselaer County Court hasgonesofar asto mail“coupons” to residents, urging individualsto supplement thefive source lists that counties use to compile theirjury rolls. JudgeDwyer oftheNew 200.

   Ibid Ibid 33 DuquesneL.R.39 at 97. . “Why sofew blackjurors?” “Courts Try to Maximize JuryDiversity” Stephanie Domitrovich, “Jury Source Lists andtheCommunity’s Needto Achieve RacialBalance ontheJury”(1994), In 2006,following a2005study by U.S. District JudgeNancy Gertner, theU.S. DictrictCourt of Based onthisinitiative, theU.S. District Court ofKansas amendeditsjuryplanin2007 to includea Currently, anadhoccommittee ofEastern Michiganjudges,appointed by ChiefJudgeGerald Rosen Finally, inNew York State, itispossible to volunteer for juryduty. The list ofvolunteers isusedto . . The Detroit Free Press 243 Also, to keep lists more upto date andto tryto negate theeffects ofa The Third Branch 245 This initiative notonlyincludesundeliverable summonses,butalso (3June2012), online: (July 2007), online:

242

Accepting 246 244 51 PART III THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: PAST AND PRESENT PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE process is attached asAppendixEto thisReport. discussed underthesetopics. The list ofFirst Nations andgovernment officialsImetthroughout this 208. in Ontario. Irefer to thislesson often inthisReport; itsrepetition reflects the centrality ofitsimportance. changes to thecriminal justice system are necessary conditions for First Nations participation onjuries The prevailing message Ilearnedfrom every First Nation Ivisited was very clear:substantive andsystemic who keenly offered theirinsightsandperspectives with respect to thecriminaljustice andjury systems. treated withkindness, generosity, andrespect. Imetmany articulate leadersandpeople, young andold, in many ways, remarkable communities. Without exception, Iwas welcomed into every community and 207. 1. juries inOntario, andoffered theirfull cooperation. experience to dealwiththeproblems that are thwarting theproper inclusionofFirst Nations peopleson judiciary recognized theimportance ofthisReview inproviding information andsuggestions from their must overcome to possess thecapacityto serve asjurors. The government officialsandmembersofthe perspectives regarding culture, responsibilities asleadersoftheircommunities, andthemany issues they residents onreserve are concerned. The First Nations we visited enlightened uswithrespect to theirimportant mechanics ofthejuryselectionprocess andtheefforts to assemble thejury roll inso far asFirst Nations systemic problems First Nations individualsface indealingwiththecriminaljustice system, andalsothe been animportantsource ofinformation andideasthat have assisted megreatly inunderstanding the 206. B. offering my recommendations. government organizations. From thisaccumulation ofexperience andinput,insectionD, Iconclude by judiciary, andinsectionC,thewritten submissions Ireceived from First Nations, non-governmental, and in sectionB,my visitsandmeetingswithFirst Nations people, government officials,andmembersofthe organizations working ontheground. Itisfor thisreason that Ihave goneinto great depthindescribing, 205. PEOPLES CANBEIMPROVED ONONTARIO’S JURIES. PERSONS. THISPART OFTHEREPORT FOCUSES ONHOW THEREPRESENTATION OFFIRST NATIONS INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTIONS,HAS OFTENIGNOREDORDISCRIMINATED AGAINST ABORIGINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MOREGENERALLY, ANDITS COUNTERPARTS ACROSS AVARIETY OFCANADIANAND 204. A. FIRST NATIONS SESSIONS RESULTS OFVISITS AND MEETINGS INTRODUCTION During thecourse oftheIndependentReview, Ihadtheopportunityto visitmany wonderful and, Many common themesarose duringtheengagementsessions, andIsummarize theissues andpoints This taskcannotbeaccomplished withoutsubstantial inputfrom First Nations people, aswell asthe FROM THEFOREGOING, IT ISCLEARTHAT THEJURY SYSTEM INONTARIO, LIKETHEPROVINCE’S The visitsandmeetingscarriedoutduringtheengagementphaseofIndependentReview have

53 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 54 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 247 in anegative way, many First Nations peoplefeel unwilling to participate inthat process. Itisnoteworthy trials require thejuryto make afindingofguiltorinnocence, whichpotentially affects a person’s future the offender andthevictim to a place ofharmony, peace, healing,and reconciliation. Becausecriminal individual anddetermine hisorherfate, thetraditional Aboriginaljustice process was aimedat restoring of theactionsanotherorto direct aperson’s actions.Rather thanjudgeanoffence committed by an participating onjuriesfor criminaltrialsrelates to thecultural teaching that apersonisnotto sitinjudgment 213. this desire inmore detaillater intheReport. traditional values andlaws asamatter ofself-governance withinCanada’s justice system. Iwilldiscuss and desire to work towards areconciliatory modelof justice that respects andincorporates First Nations 212. justice system for First Nations. For example, theRoyal Commission onAboriginal People observed: These sentimentsare notsurprising,asmany experts andauthorshave recognized thefailure ofthe system isseenby many First Nations peopleascontributing to theirown oppression and,therefore, repugnant. in theresolution ofconflict withintheir own communities. To beasked to participate inCanada’s justice either asspectators to orvictimsofthejustice system, whereas historically they were direct participants of historical wrongs have beenperpetrated uponFirst Nations. Today, First Nations peoplesseethemselves resolution infavour ofassimilation into themainstream society, butalsoasamechanismby whichamyriad Nations peoples.The system isperceived notonlyasatool to subjugate traditional approaches to conflict 211. a foreign system that hasbeenimposeduponthemwithouttheirconsent. the Canadianjustice system asdevoid ofany reflection oftheir core principlesor values, andview itas with respect to aparticularoffence, rather thanseeking retribution andpunishment.First Nations observe objective ofthetraditional First Nations’ approach to justice isto re-attain harmony, balance, andhealing approaches to conflict resolution, andthe values andlaws that underpintheCanadianjustice system. The to theconflict that exists between First Nations’ cultural values, laws, andideologies regarding traditional 210. (i) Cultural Barriers system, theissue ofjuryparticipation will not improve. expressed thepositionthat, untilsignificantandsubstantive changesare made to thecriminaljustice discussions withFirst Nations leaders,Elders,andothersduringtheengagementsessions. They uniformly system has played in their lives, culture, values, and laws throughout history. This became very apparent in participation ofFirst Nations peoplesinthejurysystem inOntarioisthenegative role thecriminaljustice 209. (A)

 (Ottawa: RCAP, 1996)at page309. Royal Commission onAboriginalPeople,  Unfortunately, thecriminaljustice system represents deep-rooted painandoppression for many First That beingsaid,however, anumberoftheFirst Nations peoplewithwhomImetexpressed awillingness CHILL THEIRDESIRETO SERVE ONONTARIO JURIES FIRST NATIONS PEOPLES’PERSPECTIVESONTHEJUSTICE SYSTEM Another core traditional First Nations value that often prevents many First Nations peoplefrom One ofthebiggest challengesexpressed by many First Nations leadersandpeopleiswithrespect In theopinionofFirst Nations representatives we met,themost significant systemic barrier to the justice. to suchelementalissues asthesubstantive content ofjustice andtheprocess ofachieving fundamentally different world views ofAboriginalandnon-Aboriginal people with respect rial andgovernmental jurisdictions.The principalreason for thiscrushingfailure isthe Nations, InuitandMétispeople, on-reserve andoff-reserve, urbanandrural -inall territo The Canadiancriminaljustice system hasfailed theAboriginalpeoplesofCanada-First 247 Bridging theCultural Divide:AReportonAboriginalPeople andCriminalJustice inCanada

-

248 services that First Nations communities urgently need. crime prevention, police enforcement, andvictimrehabilitation programs –allcore justice-related first timeandnon-violent offenders. rate ofincarcerated First Nations people, many ofwhom would nototherwisebeincarcerated, suchas pardon canbemade, willperpetuate thesystemic discrimination inthejustice system andincrease the minimum sentences, eliminates conditional sentences, andextends thetimebefore whichapplications for Streets andCommunities Act 218. relevant andimportantconsideration. to First Nations peoplethoseperceptions inform theiropinionaboutthejustice system andthat isthe allegations. Quite frankly, that isnotrelevant. Even ifthey are only perceptions, they are instructive, because 217. often contributes to re-offending. services for offenders upon release from jail to facilitate theirintegration backinto the community, which dignity afforded to First Nations peopleinjail by theguards, andthelackofsupportadequate probation without footwear orsocksinthewinter months.Iwas alsotold aboutthegeneral ill-treatment andlackof people injail.For example, Iwas told ofaFirst Nations accused personbeingreleased from aKenora jail More disturbing were theanecdotes relayed to meregarding inhumanetreatment afforded to First Nations fundamental misunderstandings ofthecriminaljustice process and,consequently, aguiltypleaorconviction. the absence oftranslation services afforded to First Nations peoplewhodonotspeakEnglish,leading to 216. Superior Court ofJustice islocated. they are acommon occurrence andmany cannotafford to travel to larger communities where thenearest once every 60to 90days, resulting inlongdelays. Lastly, remands were mentionedinthecontext that Also mentionedwas thefact that provincial court judgesattend remote First Nations communities only reports were beingproperly prepared, orifthey were even prepared at allfor First Nations offenders. justice system, includingthoseofjurymembers.Aquestion was raised about whethertheso-called these accused personsbelieve they willnotreceive afair trialowing to racist attitudes prevalent inthe that they have never known afriendorfamily memberwho, whencharged, proceeded to trial.Many of but withoutappreciating theconsequences oftheirdecision.Infact, many First Nations individualsexplained crimes pleadguiltyto theiroffences, rather thanelectingtrial,inorder to have theircharge resolved quickly justice isdelivered, andisseento bedelivered, to First Nations individuals.Many personsaccused of various levels, andwhat they clearlyrevealed were pervasive systemic problems withtheway inwhich 215. system asworking against them,rather thanfor them.Itseemscounterintuitive to themto participate init. implication, extend to participation inthejuryprocess. First Nations peoplegenerally view thecriminaljustice negative perspectives andanintergenerational mistrust ofthecriminaljustice system. Such perceptions, by of thecriminaljustice system, alongwithhistoric limitations ontherightsofFirst Nations, have created experienced withinthejustice system asitrelated to criminaljustice orchildwelfare. Negative experiences 214. (ii) Systemic Discrimination system to prevent similartragedies, asmore alignedwiththeircultural understandings andideologies. role ofthecoroner’s jury, which doesnotmake findingsofguiltandwhich recommends changes to a that many First Nations peopleexpressed aninterest inparticipating incoroner’s inquests, viewing the

Safe Streets andCommunities Act Because my review was notaformal witness hearinginquiry, Ididnotascertain thetruthofthese I heard numerous tragic stories ofFirst Nations individuals’experiences withthejustice system at I alsoheard abouttheneedfor court workers inthecommunities to assist withthecourt process, and According to First Nations peoplewithwhomIspoke, there isareal fear that thepassage ofthe First Nations peopleoften spoke ofthesystemic discrimination that eitherthey ortheirfamilies have , SC2012, c.1. , recently enacted legislation that amongotherthingsimposesmandatory 248 Many First Nations peoplebelieve thisAct willreduce fundingfor Gladue Safe

55 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 56 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 250 249 First Nation, Iheard abouttheconsultative role ofEldersinthesentencing ofFirst Nations offenders, that began to integrate First Nations principlesinto thedelivery ofjustice. Inparticular, inSandyLake allowed First Nations to develop acultural approach to justice through theorganization ofjustice committees recalled atimewhentheProvince hadfundedarestorative justice program. AsIunderstand it,thisprogram aspects ofthejustice system intheirrespective communities. First Nations leadersinvarious communities and community members regarding initiatives First Nations hadtaken to assert leadershipover various 223. affecting First Nations peoples. This assessment was not positive: in 222. after recounting thenumerous reports andstudies ontheAboriginaljustice issues, theCourt stated: required to address thecrisiscriminaljustice system presents to First Nations peoples. In 221. and particularlyonjuries,whentheirinteractions withthesystem are anything butpositive, respectful, orfair. court oflaw. Itisunderstandable that First Nations peopleare reluctant to participate inthejustice system, rooms, andcreate anenvironment that lacksthedecorum, respect, andformality ordinarily required for a in arenas ordilapidated community halls.These venues donotprovide adequate space for private interview certain regions must attend court to address theircharges inmake-shift court rooms temporarily housed that compromises thedelivery ofjustice intheNorth.Itwas explained that First Nations individualsin 220. accused’s abilityto properly defend himselforherself. limit access to theirlegalcounsel. These circumstances posechallengesthat compromise aFirst Nation into communities invarying frequency –typicallyevery 60to 90days for oneto two day periods–and system. Asmentionedabove, theremote locations ofFirst Nations require dutycounsel andjudgesto fly that notonlycompromises theirlegalrightsbutalsocompounds theiraversion to participate inthejury communities describedasystemic lackof access to adequate legalservices to defend charges, adeficiency to bethecaseincentral andsouthernFirst Nations communities. The First Nations peopleImetinnorthern 219.

Gladue R. v. Ipeelee R. v. Gladue Since at least 1999, theSupreme Court ofCanada hasrepeatedly recognized theurgency ofmeasures Justice challengesinnorthernFirst Nations communities are distinct andmore drastic thanappears Most recently, theSupreme Court hadanopportunityto assess theimpactofitsearlierdecision Despite thisgrimbackdrop, Iengagedinanumberofpositive discussions withFirst Nations leaders The lackofadequate infrastructure available to housecourt proceedings posesanotherchallenge can beappliedto thesituation today?” As Professor Rudinasks:“IfAboriginaloverrepresentation was acrisisin1999, what term when than ever. Whereas Aboriginalpersonsmadeup12percent ofallfederal inmates in1999 result, theoverrepresentation ofAboriginalpeopleinthecriminaljustice system isworse that sametimeperiod,Aboriginaladmissions to custody increased by 4percent… Asa From 2001 to 2006,there was anoverall declineinprisonadmissions of9percent. During to custody increased by 3percent whilenon-Aboriginal admissions declinedby 22percent… worsened. Intheimmediate aftermath ofBillC-41, from 1996to 2001, Aboriginal admissions representation andalienation ofAboriginalpeoplesinthecriminaljustice system hasonly This cautiousoptimismhasnotbeenborneout.Infact, statistics indicate that theover reveals asadandpressing socialproblem. peoples withinboththeCanadianprisonpopulation andthecriminaljustice system crisis intheCanadiancriminaljustice system. The drastic overrepresentation ofaboriginal for responses to alleviate it. The figures are stark and reflect what may fairlybe termeda These findingscryout for recognition ofthemagnitudeandgravity oftheproblem, and , andthehopefor changesto thecriminaljustice system that would address systemic issues , [1999]1S.C.R. 688at para. 64. , 2012 SCC 13at para. 62. Citations embeddedinthequotation have beenomitted. Gladue was decided,they accounted for 17percent offederal admissions in2005… 250 ���

R. v. Gladue -

, 252 251 27.9 years, whereas themedianagefor theprovince asawholeis38.7 years. 32 percent ofOntarianswere 24 oryounger. were 14oryounger. Incomparison, just 18percent ofOntarianswere 14oryounger, andonlyapproximately Census, almost halfofFirst Nations peopleinOntariowere below theageof24, andalmost 30percent needs to take into account therelative youth oftheFirst Nations population inOntario. Asofthe2006 228. that abetter understanding ofFirst Nations peopleswould leadto better outcomes allaround. jury roll oughtto betrained to undertake theirdutiesinthemost effective way possible. It was thought that allCourt Services staff whoare involved withensuringFirst Nations peoplesare represented onthe that First Nations peopleface onadailybasis.Inadditionto cultural awareness training, itwas suggested officers who workwithFirst Nations ought tobeeducated with respect tothecircumstances and issues 227. and theFirst Nations partnersexpressed aninterest inenhancingandcontinuing withtheJuryForums. peoples inthejustice system generally. These JuryForums appearto have many educational benefits, Ministry ofthe Attorney General andCourt Services, andhow to increase therepresentation ofFirst Nations jury rolls, ways to improve relations, cooperation andtrust between AnishinabekFirst Nations andthe Forums for theAnishinabekFirst Nations, whichaddressed thelackofFirst Nations candidates onthe Union ofOntarioIndianswas created in2009and2010. Together, they hosted three JuryInformation 226. develop jurylists to address theunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonthejuryroll. these information forums andto work withtheMinistry oftheAttorney General to share information and regarding thejuryprocess. The Grand Council ofTreaty #3expressed aninterest incontinuing to deliver Nations located intheKenora JudicialDistrict. The forums focused onproviding outreach andeducation the Grand Council ofTreaty #3to deliver “Community JuryAwareness Forums” to fifteen Treaty #3First 225. created, aswell astherightsofindividualsaccused ofoffences andtherightsofvictims. respect to therole ofjuriesinthejustice system andtheprocess by whichjuryrolls andjurypanelsare identified theneed for a focused andsustained education strategy for First Nations communities with the samejuryroll was usedto selectjuriesfor bothtrialsandcoroner’s inquests. Therefore, most leaders participating inaprocess aboutwhichthey know nothing.Many First Nations peoplewere unaware that system, inparticular. Itwas understandably expressed that most First Nations individualswillrefrain from 224. (iii) Education principles andvalues into thejustice system. First Nation. These are thekindofsteps that are helpfulinmoving towards theintegration ofFirst Nations they deemedtoo importantto end.Iwas advised that Elderadvisorswere alsousedintheAttawapiskat by thelocaljudiciary, andhascontinued, withEldersvolunteering intheface offundingcutsto aprogram originally developed through therestorative justice program. This practice hasbeenadmirably accepted

  &Data=Count&Sex=1&Age=10&StartRec=1&Sort=2&Display=Page>. . 2011 Census statistics are notyet available.

252

57 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 58 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci regarding the lackofenforcement ofFirst Nation by-laws. police services andthelackofsufficient training forthem.SomeFirst Nations leaders expressed frustration of thecriminaljustice system. Many First Nations were very concerned about thelimited andunder-resourced became very clearthat inadequate police services, andassociated funding,contribute to negative perceptions 230. The issue oflocalpolice services arose inmany discussions throughout theengagementprocess. It (v) Policing and theirresponsibility to become engagedonthejurieswhencalleduponto doso. in theimplementation ofjustice and,finally, anopportunity to educate peopleaboutthejustice system relevant manner, greater understanding ofjustice at thecommunity level, increased community involvement have multiplebenefits at the community level. Suchbenefitsincludethedelivery ofjustice inaculturally resumed. First Nations leaderswere unequivocal that re-introducing restorative justice programs would were discontinued owing to fundingcuts,andtherefore willrequire financial resources andcapacity to be that camefrom thedevelopment ofaculturally appropriate approach to justice. However, theseprograms based restorative justice initiatives inprevious years, First Nations experienced thebenefits to their communities be involved indeveloping solutionsto thejuryrepresentation issue. Having beenintroduced to community- community justice matters asanelementoftheirinherent rightto self-government, and,at thevery least, to 229. First Nations leadersresoundingly andassertively expressed thedesire to assume more control of (iv) Self-Government should beprovided to allpartiescharged withtheimplementation ofsection 6(8)ofthe are situated. Assuggested by aparticipantintheengagementprocess, clear guidelines inthisrespect on reserve must beclearandconsistent throughout alljudicialdistricts wherein First Nations communities 236. obtain theinformation required for thepurposesofjuryroll. suggestion that aFirst Nations personbestaffed ineachjudicialdistrict to work withFirst Nations to the representation ofFirst Nations’ reserve residents onthejuryroll. Inaddition,Ireceived avery practical distribution of questionnaires. Itwas thoughtthat suchanapproach would beappropriate to address it was suggested that theProvincial JuryCentre could thenrandomly draw thenamesrequired for the of nameswillingFirst Nations peoplefor thepurposesofjuryroll. From thisFirst Nations juryroll, enter into anagreement withOntarioto train First Nations administrators to create andmaintainlists Nations jurylist. They were oftheopinionthat First Nations would supportanoptionwhereby they would explore theinterest andeligibilityofcitizens, and accordingly, could betasked withmaintainingaFirst on theircommunities. They expressed theview that First Nations’ administrators are best positionedto peoples onjuriesshouldbevoluntary, particularlyconsidering thesocialandeconomic pressures already 235. funding to doso. addresses ofalltheircitizens. SomeFirst Nations Imetexpressed awillingness to dothisifthey received would require financialcapacity to gather andmaintainappropriate, accurate andcurrent records, including First Nations have stated that they would have to devote timeandresources to assemble suchalist. They 234. “Residency” list that contains thenamesandaddresses ofFirst Nation citizens resident onthereserve. Division for the purposesofthejuryroll. Specifically, we didnotlearnofaFirst Nation possessing a there isnolist possessed by First Nations that contains theinformation required by theCourt Services list. Iwas advisedthat electoral lists alsodonotcontain theaddresses ofFirst Nations citizens. Therefore, instances, theCourt Services Divisionhasrequested disclosure oftheFirst Nation’s “Electoral” or“Voters” or offthe reserve. Typically, there isnoindication ofthelocation of residency for eachmember. Insome Court Services contain thenamesofallcitizens ofthat First Nation, regardless ofwhetherthey live on provide theinformation they were seeking.The bandmembershiplists that are typicallyrequested by 233. of individualFirst Nations. to have changeditsposition,choosinginstead to leave thedecisionto discloseBandLists to thediscretion refrain from disclosingany information taken from theIndianRegistry System. Recently, AANDCappears disclosure ofmembershiplists. At onepointintime, INAC was advisingFirst Nations governments to Development Canada(AANDC)(formerly IndianandNorthernAffairs Canada(INAC)) regarding the 232. to what they regard asacompletely foreign process. system was apre-requisite to thedisclosure ofnames.They alsofelt itwas unfair to subjecttheirpeople names, dates ofbirth,and addresses. Moreover, many Chiefsfelt strongly that education aboutthejury obliged to obtaintheconsent oftheircitizens before they could disclosepersonalinformation suchas relates to theirobligation to protect theprivacy oftheircitizens. Many took thepositionthat they were were concerned aboutpreserving theconfidentiality ofbandmembershiplists. The leaders’prevailing concern 231. (B)  OF FIRST NATIONS PEOPLEONRESERVE AREINADEQUATE CURRENT PRACTICES FOR COLLECTION OFNAMESANDCONTACT INFORMATION The majorityofFirst Nations ChiefsandCouncillors Ispoke to throughout theengagementprocess Chiefs alsoexpressed confusion relating to thepositiontaken by AboriginalAffairs andNorthern Many otherFirst Nations leadersandindividuals suggested that theparticipation ofFirst Nations Some First Nations leadersindicated that thelists soughtby Court Services officials wouldnot It hasbecome obvious that theprocess to obtainthenamesandaddresses of First Nations people While aresidency list would beidealfor thepurposesof theOntariojuryroll, itmay notbepractical. Juries Act

.

59 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 60 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci First Nations jurors, my understanding isthat thisservice isnotconsistently offered inotherjudicialdistricts. Division intheKenora judicialdistrict pre-arranges travel, accommodation andmealallowances for potential days. The cost for airfare far exceeds what peoplecanafford out-of-pocket. While the Court Services ways. Travel to urbancentres often requires multiplemodesoftransportation that cantake upto several Transportation from reserve communities to theurbancentres isasignificantchallengein anumberof that First Nations peoples,particularlyinnorthwestern Ontario, must overcome to participate onjuries. 242. (D) has anadverse impactontheirfuture interest inresponding to juryquestionnaires. Division. Itislikely that negative messages are passed to otherpeopleinthecommunity, whichpotentially jury selectionbutnotchosenfor juryservice, withnofollow-up communication from theCourt Services questionnaires. Itwas noted that confusion andmisunderstandings often arisewhenapersoniscalledfor of thejuryselectionprocess androle ofjuries,whichinturnserved asabarrierto responding to jury 241. accompanying instructions posechallengesto First Nations peopleincompleting thejuryquestionnaire forms. juries withtranslation services, ifnecessary. Moreover, thelackoftranslation ofjuryquestionnaires and participation onjuries,itoughtto accommodate peoplewhospeakFirst Nations languagesby equipping their First Nation language. Ispoke withmany First Nations peoplewhostated that ifOntarioseekstheir or French asaneligibilityrequirement for juryservice isproblematic for many whosespoken languageis 240. elected officialsthroughout Canada. time orabilityto beaway from theircommunities andoughtto beafforded thesame exemption asother of occupations that are exempted from juryservice. Itwas stated that elected officialsdonot have the 239. jury service. Nation citizen ormember, they would answer intheaffirmative, andtherefore notbedisqualified from was frequently suggested that ifthere were analternative question askingiftherespondent was aFirst This citizenship issue automatically disqualifiesthemfrom having theirnamesentered onthejury roll. It questionnaire answer inthenegative, orwould answer inthenegative, to theCanadiancitizenship question. fact that, they are First Nations citizens. Asaresult, many First Nations personswhorespond to thejury an eligibilityrequirement to serve asajuror, many First Nations believe very strongly, andare proud ofthe was thequestion regarding Canadiancitizenship. While itisrecognized that beingaCanadiancitizen is 238. charged withanoffence for failing to respond to ajuryquestionnaire. participate. Moreover, we are unaware ofany casewhere anindividualwas finedorimprisoned even system by threat offineand/or imprisonmenthadthe reverse effect and wasa strong disincentive to duty through intimidation andthreat. Itwas often expressed that solicitingparticipation inthejury non-response andthetimelimitfor response asunreasonable, andmore importantly, asimposingjury up to $5000.00, orimprisonedupto six(6)months,orboth.” First Nations view boththepenaltyfor information ontheform, you are committing anoffence. If convicted ofthisoffence, you may befined to return theform withoutreasonable excuse withinfive (5)days of receiving it,orknowingly give false questionnaire forms. First, thestatement ofpenaltyfor non-response ontheform provides “[i]fyou fail 237. (C)  PRACTICAL BARRIERSTO JURY PARTICIPATION THAT DETER FIRST NATIONS RESPONSES JURY QUESTIONNAIRES POSE PROBLEMSANDCONCERNS Lastly, many First Nations participantsintheengagementprocess expressed alackofunderstanding Many First Nations Chiefs,Councillors, andothersraised issues regarding thesubstance ofthejury The second feature ofthejuryquestionnaire to whichFirst Nations peopletook considerable exception In additionto allof the aforementioned obstacles, there exist somevery real logistical barriers Third, many First Nations leadersstated that ChiefsandCouncillors oughtto beincludedonthelist Fourth, Iheard repeatedly that languageposesaconsiderable obstacle. Requiring fluency inEnglish

everyone involved. thing thesepeopleaskfor isfairness, notspecial treatment”. That shouldbeanattainable goalfor Christa BigCanoe, Legal Advocacy Director at ALST,247. emphatically expressed thispoint:“The only and thefamilies are prevented from obtaining answers andthenecessary closure inatimelymanner. coroner’s juries.While thisissue isbeingaddressed inthecourts, coroner’s inquests are placed into abeyance, delay isassociated withthelackofresolution oftheissue ofunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations peopleson have been waiting for asmany asfive years to move forward withtheinquests. Admittedly, muchofthis lack ofrepresentativeness ofany First Nations peoples, andthedelays associated withtheinquest. Families care. The mainconcerns expressed by theparticipantsrelated to thecomposition ofthejuriesandtheir had beenorwere involved incoroner’s inquests to examine thecircumstances ofadeath whileinstate 246. AboriginalLegal Services ofToronto hosted aFamilies Forum –agathering offamily members who of future tragedies that involve First Nations peoples. First Nations peoplesoncoroner’s juriesisviewed to beintegral to theproper resolution andprevention justice system, whichoften come into play inthesetragedies. Therefore, ensuringtherepresentation of stand, better thannon-First Nations people, thesystemic andhistoric issues that are engrained inthe in penalinstitutions andthechildwelfare system. Itwas explained to methat First Nations peopleunder was expressed that thenumberofdeaths willrise, simplyby theexcessive numberofFirst Nations people and by leadersandotherpeopleImet.Many First Nations peopleare dyingwhileinstate care, andafear 245. The importance ofcoroner’s inquests was emphasized by thefamilies involved incoroner’s inquests (E) CORONER’S INQUESTS do notexpunge theircriminalrecord, choosingto live withitinstead. service. However, owing to thelackofinformation andcosts associated withpardon procedures, most people have oldcriminalrecords, many for minoroffences, that excuse themfrom beingeligible for jury of pardon procedures, present asignificantbar to juryservice. They explained that someFirst Nations 244. Finally, First Nations people identifiedthat the existence ofcriminal records, andlackof awareness well asservices for psychological impactsthat may arisefollowing juryservice. service, expressed theneedfor community-based supports,suchasassistance withprocess logistics, as supplements shouldbeavailable. The First Nations people, withwhomIspoke whohadexperienced jury basis. Moreover, for thosepotential jurors whoare employed, First Nations peoplefelt strongly that income expense, orpreferably, children andEldersoughtto accompany thepotential juror onanexpense-paid care expenses oughtto beincludedasanecessary several days, itwas noted that childcare andElder people to beaway from theircommunities for process andjuryservices require First Nations First Nation language. Becausethejuryselection urban centre where theirdominantlanguageisa translation services for peoplewhotravel to the Concerns were alsoraised withrespect to lackof stipends didnotallow for healthy mealoptions. reported that hotels were substandard andmeal dations andmealallowances are notadequate. Itwas 243. First Nations peoplealsonoted that accommo- available credit. to urbancentres becauseoflackresources and service must therefore bepaidpriorto traveljury or all expenses related to thejuryselectionprocess First Nations leadersexpressed theopinionthat

- 61 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 62 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci not repeat thosedescriptionshere. Process as it Currently Operates inOntario”and“First Nations Representation onOntarioJuries”,andIwill on thejuryroll hasalready beendescribedby meinPart IIIunderthesectionsentitled“Jury Selection compilation ofthejuryroll inOntarioandefforts to improve the representation ofFirst Nations persons 253. increase theparticipation ofFirst Nations reserve residents onthejuryroll. heard aconsensus view amonggovernment officials that improvements are necessary tosubstantially We obtainedhelpfulinformation regarding therole ofthekey actors incompiling the juryroll. We also the judiciarywhowere involved inincreasing therepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonthejuryroll. Ministry ofHealth andLong-Term Care, theProvincial Advocate for Children andYouth, andmembersof with officials from theMinistry ofthe Attorney General, CourtServices Division,the Provincial Jury Centre, 252. 2. of Ontarioto closethe‘Knowing andDoingGap’”. 251. regarding First Nations culture, values, andtraditions. education, includingcultural sensitivity training, isalsorequired for Court Services andpolicingofficials to supportservices for First Nations are required. Likewise, First Nations are insistent that increased would serve to improve therelationship. Increased education abouttheprocess for pardons andaccess First Nations peopleinrelation to thejurysystem for bothtrialsandcoroner’s inquests isapriorityand 250. an AboriginalJustice system. Attorney General create a“Round Table” onAboriginalPeople andJustice to design,develop, andimplement Nations, particularlywithrespect to thejurysystem. Onabroader level, itwas alsosuggested that the would signalapositive step towards improving therelationship between theAttorney General andFirst with First Nations leadershipto consider ways to implementsection6(8)ofthe discussed above, suggested apragmatic step inthisdirection; theAttorney General shouldhost ameeting in developing aproper juryroll selectionprocess. Afamily memberwhoattended theFamilies Forum, people expressed theneedfor collaboration between theMinistry oftheAttorney General andFirst Nations also benefittingthecriminaljustice system. Consistent witha restorative justice approach, First Nations 249. appropriate manner, andto return to theimplementation ofFirst Nations restorative justice initiatives. to supportcommunity-based justice initiatives aimedat enhancingparticipation onjuriesina culturally will ultimately trickledown to thejuryroll process. Therefore, First Nations advocate for adequate funding the criminaljustice system to atraditional system ofhealingandreconciliation willhave many benefitsthat over thedelivery ofjustice to theirpeople. They strongly believe that diverting First Nations peoplefrom were initiated inaprevious era andlookto builduponthoseasameansto reclaim authorityandresponsibility approaches to justice asthepreferred approach. First Nations recall therestorative justice programs that control ofthejustice system asitappliesto theirpeopleandcommunities andrely upontheirtraditional all justice matters, isthrough agovernment-to-government process. First Nations want to assume greater enhancing arelationship withtheMinistry oftheAttorney General inthecontext ofthejurysystem, and 248. (F) MEETINGSWITHGOVERNMENT OFFICIALSANDTHEJUDICIARY  AND FIRST NATIONS WITHRESPECTTO THEJURY ROLLNEEDS TO BEIMPROVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHEMINISTRY OFTHEATTORNEY GENERAL In thewords offormer ChiefJonathan SolomonSr. ofKashechewan, “itisupto theAttorney General During theengagementprocess for theIndependentReview, my legalteam andIalsometspoke Most oftheinformation Ilearned from government officialsandmembersofthejudiciary aboutthe It became abundantlyclearthroughout theengagementprocess that education and awareness among First Nations view OntarioandCanada’s investment inFirst Nations restorative justice programs as Every First Nation individualImetunequivocally asserted that theway forward withrespect to Juries Act

. Such a meeting . Suchameeting 255 254 253 Kenora JudicialDistrict, theGrand Council ofTreaty #3,andtheUnionofOntarioIndiansto deliver Jury as mentionedearlier, istheinitiative oftheMinistry oftheAttorney General, Court Services Divisioninthe taken programs to educate andinform First Nations communities aboutthejurysystem. Arecent example, undertaken various efforts to reach out to First Nations to obtain residence information andhave under 258. exploration. with information-sharing agreements ormemorandum ofunderstanding, isanavenue worthy offurther have to explore itslegalobligations inthisregard. Inany event, theOHIPdatabase, coupled potentially for thepurposes ofthejuryroll, theofficialwithwhom wespoke cautionedthat theMinistry wouldalso must beundertaken to test theadequacy ofthesearch results. With respect to disclosure ofinformation order to access healthservices. However, itwas acknowledged that theproper analysis anddata polling cards must berenewed, cardholders are generally required to keep theircards andinformation current in success usingtheproper search criteria, suchaspostal codes anddate range. Becausethenew OHIP While itwas acknowledged that there isnoFirst Nations indicator inthedatabase, searches could yield that theOHIPdatabase could possibly beanimportantadditionaldata source ofnamesfor thejuryroll. 257. somewhat compromised by theexistence ofarelatively large numberoffraudulent cards. be overly helpfulinidentifyingpersonslivingonreserve. Third, thereliability oftheOHIP data baseis a lengthy pursuit.Second, thedatabase doesnotcontain aFirst Nations identifierandtherefore may not require legislative andregulatory changeandtriggeraFirst Nations consultation process and,hence, be First Nations peopleonreserve for anumberofreasons. First, gainingaccess to theOHIPdatabase will the OntarioHealthInsurance Plan(OHIP) database isnotanidealoptionfor thecollection ofnames Care. OfficialsoftheMinistry ofthe Attorney General withwhom wespoke expressed theview that using of obtainingnamesFirst Nations personslivingonreserve from theMinistry of HealthandLong-Term 256. for thepurposesofjuryroll. current positionthat eachFirst Nation may exercise itsdiscretion to disclosetheirBandLists to Ontario disclosing information from theIndianRegistry System to third parties. of thenew Ontario andtheDepartmentofIndianAffairs andNorthernDevelopment with regard to theapplication at therequest ofFirst Nations, coupled withareview oftheinformation-sharing agreement between federal Departmentthat itsdecisionto refrain from furtherdisclosure ofBandLists following 2000came of IndianAffairs andNorthernDevelopment through theIndian Registry System. Itisthepositionof 255. lists orrecords are obtainedthat provide areliable data source for First Nations reserve residents. effective ways to encourage theparticipation ofFirst Nations peoplesinthejury system once adequate is acore problem. Equally, ifnoteven more importantto achieving arepresentative juryroll isidentifying judicial district inaccordance withsection6(8)ofthe Nations peoplesonreserve. Accordingly, obtainingthenamesofFirst Nations residents onreserve ineach This adhocsystem hasproven to beineffective and results inajury roll that isunrepresentative ofallFirst and ultimately the decisions of First Nations to exercise their discretion to disclose a list of reserve residents. identified isadhocand contingent upontheefforts made by court staff to connectwithFirst Nations, 254.

  SeeExhibitDto the Affidavit ofShawn Joy, sworn onJuly 19, 2011, filedin R. v. Kokopenace in See paragraph 14,andExhibit2oftheAffidavit ofAllan Tallman, sworn onSeptember 30, 2011, filedinthe and72See Exhibits71 (Binder6,Tabs 27, 28)to theAffidavit ofLaura Loohuizen, sworn onJuly18, 2011, filed R. v. Kokopenace However, ourdiscussions withofficialswithintheMinistry ofHealthand Long-Term Care suggested As Idescribedabove, until2001, theProvincial JuryCentre obtainedBandLists from theDepartment As describedabove, court officialsinthe Kenora District, andmore recently Thunder Bay, have I understand that theCourt Services Divisionhasconsidered, butnotseriouslypursued,theoption As discussed inthosesections,at present, themannerinwhichpotential First Nations jurors are Privacy Act and , R. v. Spiers R. v. Spiers . 253 In2007 and2009, theFederal Departmentwas advisingFirst Nations against , Court FileNo. C49961 /C48160. , Court FileNo. C49961 /C48160. 255 Juries Act R. v. Kokopenace inaconsistent, reliable, anduniform manner 254 However, itistheDepartment’s .

-

63 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 64 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 256 in theTimmins andCochrane judicialdistricts for atotal of10First Nations associated with NAN. Thunder Bay judicialdistrict, four ofthe15First Nations are partofNAN.I alsovisited withFirst Nations organizational umbrella. Ofthese, Ivisited withthe leadershipandcitizens ofseven First Nations. Inthe NAN explains that ofthe46First Nations situated intheKenora judicialdistrict, 30ofthemfall underNAN’s Timmins, andCochrane. Various First Nations associated withNANare situated ineachofthesedistricts. 263. Addressing criminaljustice inNorthernOntariohasbeenapriorityfor NAN. of alarger problem ofalienation andexclusion ofFirst Nations peoplewithinthejustice system”. First Nations peoplesinOntario’s jurysystem, NANquite rightlystates that theissue “isbutonesymptom previously describedinthisReport. Initsgeneral overview oftheproblem oftheunderrepresentation of 262. for my consideration, whichare dividedinto sixparts. part oftheIndependentReview. Following thecommunity dialoguesessions, NANprepared submissions 261. 1. C. jurors for criminaltrials. that SuperiorCourt judgescould beprovided withdiscretion to require aminimumquantumofFirst Nations of Justice inselectFirst Nations communities, similarto theProvincial Courts. Finally, itwas suggested for juryselection. Itwas alsoproposed that consideration begiven to trialsconducted by theSuperiorCourt some suggested that alternatives to juryselectionprocess shouldbeexplored, suchasavideoconferencing to accommodate regional circumstances anddistinctions, whileproviding certainty ofprocess. For example, leadership andtheMinistry oftheAttorney General. Itwas stressed that solutionsmust besufficiently flexible of First Nations peoplesonjuriesissignificant collaboration and communication between First Nations 260. way toward beginningto ameliorate someoftheproblems describedabove. appropriate space for First Nations peopleto participate inOntario’s justice system, andwillgosome was honoured andfollowed. This isanimportantinitiative that Iwould hopewillprovide aculturally room hasinvolved First Nations peopleandEldersfrom theoutsetandthat every First Nations protocol House. Iunderstand that theprocess to conceptualize, develop, andconstruct theAboriginalHearing House withanAboriginalHearingRoom that willbeasymbolic andrespectful centerpiece ofthenew Court 259. service intheeffort to create theannualjury roll. education, information, and encouragement to First Nations peopleonreserve withrespect to jury these typesofinitiatives, amongothersundertaken, that are criticalto provide regular andon-going hired intheKenora office to provide assistance to CourtServices initsoutreach efforts. Itis precisely fluent onlyintheirindigenouslanguage. Inaddition,aFirst Nations court translator andliaisonperson was the juryprocess. Beginningin2008,juryquestionnaires were produced insyllabics for First Nations people a community personwas trained andhired to undertake adoor-to-door campaignto educate peopleon from theseJuryForums contain usefulrecommendations for improvements. At theRed Rock First Nation, Information Forums inatotal of15First Nations communities in2010 and2011. The reports that resulted

NANSUBMISSIONS Nishnawabe AskiNation, NAN anditslegalteam were key participantsinthecommunity engagementprocess carriedoutas In NorthernOntariothere are four judicialdistricts for whichjuryrolls are prepared: Kenora, Thunder Bay, Part Iisanintroduction ofNANasapoliticalorganization anditsrole intheIndependentReview, as I was alsovery interested to learnoftheproject undertaken inThunder Bay to construct anew Court SUBMISSIONS It was acknowledged by allwithwhomwe metthat thekey to addressing theissue ofrepresentation First Nations andJuriesReview, Systemic Submissions (July 11,2012) at page1. 256

258 257 same cultural contradiction. JoeMeekisfrom theKeewaywin First Nation articulated succinctly: effect ofthejuries’ recommendations to changepolicies,First Nations people would not encounter the 269. in juriesfor criminal trials.NANquotes ChiefAdam Fiddlerfrom theSandyLake First Nation: from judgingtheconduct andbehavior ofothers,thereby instilling astrong senseofreticence to participate system. First Nations’ cultural values andteachings prevent peoplewholive by thosevalues andteachings traditional laws, andnorms,theEuro-Canadian principles andvalues that underlietheCanadianjustice 268. provide abriefoverview oftheperspectives onthesematters from NANandthevarious peoplewe met. essentially aligned withwhat Ihave discussed intheprevious section.Rather thanbeingrepetitive, Iwill on Ontariojuries,whichare substantively similarto what we heard intheengagementsessions andare faced by First Nations peoples.NANoutlineseightbarriersto therepresentation ofFirst Nations peoples 267. lawyers, andbanishedsacred ceremonies. Indians from leaving reserves withoutthepermission oftheIndianAgent, prohibited Indiansfrom hiring they refer to theIndianResidential Schoolspolicy, andearlyprovisions ofthe be avoided inaddressing theunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonOntariojuries.For example, the disadvantages faced by First Nations people. Therefore, thegovernment’s “good intentions” should “good intentions” have resulted incatastrophic legalandpolicy developments that have contributed to 266. development ofarespectful relationship between First Nations andtheAttorney General. lack ofrepresentativeness ofthejuryroll. Moreover, suchanapproach inNAN’s view willalsofoster the system, whichare inextricably linked to thelow response rate to juryquestionnaires andultimately the the Attorney General to address thebroader systemic issues affecting First Nations peoplesandthejustice on-reserve First Nations peoplesonthejuryroll. NANsubmitsthat theresults-based approach willrequire court officialsmake “reasonable efforts”, exercise duediligence, or possess good intentions toinclude focus onobtainingtheproper numberofFirst Nations peoplesonthejuryroll, rather thanonensuring The cruxofNAN’s proposal isthat theapproach to comply withsection6(8)ofthe 265. Part IIIofthisReport. of First Nations peoplesonthejuryroll inOntario. Ihave previously addressed thesecasesinPart IIand 264.

Ibid Ibid Part IVofNAN’s submissions focuses onthepractical and cultural barriersto participation onjuries However, itwas observed that given thenon-retributive nature ofcoroner’s inquests andthepotential Part IIofNAN’s submissions describetherecent litigation inOntarioregarding theunderrepresentation Part IIIofNAN’s Submissions advocates for a“Charter-based approach to juryrepresentativeness”. Cultural barriers NAN submitsthat First Nations’ historic experiences withtheGovernment’s actionsgrounded in . ., at page30. to beincludedinthose juries.That isvery important. deeply; ourkidswhodieinthat river. Icannotexpress how important itis.We have We have heard people talkaboutthosecases.These casesaffect our communities Coroners inquests are very importantfor us.We needto take partinthosesessions. belief system isthat we don’twant to bepartofit.We struggle withit. aspect ofit…Ontheonehand,we are arguing to bepartofthejury, butourfundamental whether what they didisacceptable ornotiswrong. There isafear ofthat. That isone cannot judgethem.To judgethemiswrong. The ideaofsittingonthejuryandjudge traditional ways ofdealingwithissues… You cannottell someonewhat to do, andyou Also it’s partofourtraditional values. We cannotjudgesomebody. We have ourown goes against theBible. There are teachings from theBiblethat we cannotjudgeothers. One of the reasons our people don’twant to be on the jury, it goes against our values. It also . This first obstacle emerges from the conflict between First Nations’ cultural values, 258 IndianAct 257 Juries Act , whichprohibited

oughtto 65 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 66 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci always pleadguilty. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty.” One citizen from Mattagami First Nation stated, “[n]otonce has[friendsorfamily] madeitto trial.They Ontario, whichmore often thannotresult inguiltypleas, asdescribedinPart IV, SectionAofthisReport. identified numerous systemic andseriousproblems withthe way inwhichjustice isdelivered inNorthern 274. “Conveyor for belt” guiltypleas . First Nations participantsfrom community to community repeatedly 262 261 260 259 disturbing, depictionofatypicalday incourt inPickleLake: system. ChiefConnie Gray MacKay oftheMishkeegogamang First Nation provided apowerful, yet and thereciprocal effect isthat First Nations people refuse to participate inany aspectof the justice 275. There isareal perception that thejustice system simplydoesnotcare about First Nations peoples going to hittheguy? Notagoodway to askfor help.” Nation summedupaconstant theme of theengagementsessions: “[w]hy stretch outyour handifyou are as athreat ofjailorfines for failure to respond to ajuryquestionnaire. JoeMeekisofthe Keewaywin First 273. as describedby ChiefRoger Wesley ofConstance Lake First Nation: system. This experience hasadirect correlation to the lack ofinterest inparticipating inthejurysystem, with respect to thepolice andotherauthoritiescompound theirnegative perceptions ofthecriminaljustice Mistrust of police/authorities272. . Consistently negative experiences encountered by First Nations people reflects First Nations’ cultural norms: was eloquentinhisvision for ajustice system that Chief EnoAndersonofKassibonika Lake First Nation rather thanmeaningfulpartnersandparticipantsinit. themselves asobjectsofthecriminaljustice system approaches to resolving conflict. First Nations view traditional andmore peaceful andculturally driven foreign system ofimpositionthat hassubjugated a positive presence intheirlives. They view itasa people donotview theCanadianjustice system as 271. Justice system isanaliensystem. First Nations Nations’ views regarding participation onjuries. First Nations could have acorrelative impactonFirst changes to thejustice system anditsrelationship with NANrepresentatives270. observed that significant

Ibid.,at 35. Ibid.,at 33. Ibid.,at 32. Ibid.,at 31-32. The level ofmistrust isexacerbated by thedirective languageusedinthejuryforms, whichisperceived like they hadachance. it’s tough to seeyoung menandwomen beingputthrough theprocess andnever feeling note, thesystem isfundamentallyflawed for thesepeople. Asaleaderofthis community, something new to thisprovince, becauseitdoesn’t exist for First Nations people… Take That’s what hasto change–we have to have afair opportunity. Fair. Fair justice would be can resolve problems, notajustice system that takes away ourpeople. that we are partof. Ifwe are partofit,we willsupportit…We want ajustice system that It willfeel foreign. Like astranger coming into ourcommunity. Untilwe have astructure Until they incorporate ourprinciples,understanding, ourvalues, we won’t accept it… 260 262 261

259 264 263 meet itsobjective ofdiverting amajorityofcriminalmatters to restorative justice, enablingFirst Nations that if the restorative justice programs were properly resourced, NALSCwould bebetter positioned to to offer thefullscope ofservices to allNAN communities owing to funding constraints. NANproposes 282. an array ofpublicfunders. as restorative justice programs, intheareas ofcriminal andchildwelfare law. Itsprograms are fundedby Treaty 9andTreaty 5territories, provides publiclegaleducation, andcarriesoutlaw reform initiatives, such between NANandLegal AidOntarioto address justice issues intheNorth.Itdelivers theLegal Aid Planin (NALSC) inthedelivery ofjustice inNorthernOntario. NALSCwas created in1990asaresult ofcollaboration 281. privacy rightsofthepeoplethey represent. disclose alist. Most, ifnotall,oftheFirst Nations leadersspoke oftheirdutyto respect andprotect the which acourt officialsought toobtain names from anadministrative assistant after aChief refused to protocol that isowed to elected First Nations leadership. Ananecdote was provided ofasituation in obtain bandorelectoral lists from First Nations isperceived asinappropriate andlackingarespectful 280. obtain pardons to absolve aperson’s criminalrecord. which willonlyincrease withrecent amendmentsto the peoples’ priorconvictions represent asubstantial barrierto theparticipation onOntariojuries;abarrier 279. Nation provided written submissions that summarized thisissue succinctly: substantial education aboutFirst Nations peoples.Following ourmeeting,theKassabonika Lake First accounts from First Nations people, itwas equallyclearthat thejustice system anditsactors require profoundly unfamiliar withthejustice system ingeneral, andthejurysystem inparticular. Basedonthe 278. addressed to encourage First Nations peopleto participate onjuries. in Part IV, SectionBofthisReport, NANmaintainsthat theselogistical andfundingmatters must be realities ofFirst Nations intheNorthgive riseto significantchallenges to juryparticipation. Asdiscussed 277. jury participation. 276.

Ibid Ibid Part VofNAN’s Systemic Submissions address therole oftheNishnawbe AskiLegal Services Corporation Practical obstacles to juryparticipation inremote communities. These experiences underminerespect for thejudicialprocess andare counterproductive to enhancing Criminal records disqualifymany First Nations peoplefrom participating injuries. Lack of education concerning thejurysystem. NAN acknowledges seriouslimitations associated withNALSC’s program delivery, inthat itisunable Lack of respect for First Nations leadership. ., at 36. ., at 35. to change, it’s nolongeracceptable. the walls. It’s awholeshamingprocess, there isnoprivacy for anyone… Somethinghas inside thecourtroom, soyou canhave ameetingthere, oryou are meetingalongsideof full andthebarisfull,sothere isnoprivacy, noconfidentiality. There isamakeshift wall in thelibrary. The lawyers don’thave aroom they caninterview peoplein,ifthekitchen is Any clientwhowants to talkto theirlawyer, ithappensinthekitchen. The judgechanges should betranslated into theaboriginallanguageofcommunity; includingjurynotices. such astherole andrelationships ofjurors needto betaughtandunderstood. Information there isaneedfor community education andawareness aboutthejustice system. Elements system… Just asthere isaneedfor thejustice system to bebetter informed andeducated, People are reluctant to serve [on juries] whenthey donotunderstand ortrust the 263 The mannerinwhichsomecourt officials attempt to Many participantsintheengagementsessions were Criminal Code The geographical andsocio-economic that make itmore difficult to First Nations 264

67 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 68 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci throughout Ontario. NANproposes that theelementsofthisprocess shouldinclude: will promote theimplementation ofsection6(8)the province-wide process to includeon-reserve First Nations residents onthejuryroll. Suchanapproach people onthejuryroll. 287. to address thebasicfailings of thesystem. NANoutlinessomeofthesekey needs: the IndependentReview to highlightthemost pressing issues andpropose recommendations for aprocess no prospect for redressing theunder-representation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuries.Therefore, iturges of First Nations peoplegenerally. NANargues that unless theoverall justice system isaddressed, there is have exposed asystem that fails at itsmost rudimentarylevel andhaslost theconfidence, trust and respect investments to improve theoperation ofthejustice system innorthwest Ontario. Discussions withFirst Nations 286. despite thewithdrawal offundingto supportthisactivity. and Attiwapiskat First Nation ofenablingEldersto sitwiththeprovincial court judgehasproved beneficial, for legalplurality andtheexistence ofdualjustice systems. The existing approach inSandyLake First Nation by creating partnershipswithinFirst Nations onself-governance andjustice, andmakingnecessary room peoples in,andownership of, thejustice system. NANproposes that thisreconciliation canbeachieved reconcile competing worldviews regarding justice isto foster long-term participation ofFirst Nations 285. recommendations to update First Nations, thepublic,andcourts. within areasonable timeframe. Aswell, NANproposes that areporting mechanismbeincludedinthe carry theresponsibility for implementingaparticularrecommendation, withmeasureable benchmarks mend thecreation ofanimplementation process that identifiestheinstitution ordepartmentthat would 284. of theIndependentReview oughtto focus itsrecommendations. 283. Nation jurors intheirparticipation. justice system andtherole ofjuriestherein, andto provide thesupportnecessary to assist potential First for NALSC’s publiceducation mandate to helpFirst Nations peopleinNANcommunities understand the to move towards aculturally specificjustice model.NANalsoproposes that adequate fundingbeprovided Relationships: thecreation of provincial-level infrastructure to managetheinclusionof First Nations Reparations: improvements to thejustice system. Ownership: enhancement of restorative justice programs. In Part VIofitsSystemic Submissions, NANsetsoutbroad areas onwhich,initsview, theReport Implementation: combating skepticism of thereview process. • • • • • • • • remedial measures, asnecessary. collecting, analyzing, andmonitoring thestatistics ofjuryquestionnaires andimplementing relationship; and developing solutionsthrough partnershipscreated that respect agovernment-to-government used, adequate resources are committed andreporting ismandated; of theAttorney General, rather thanlocalcourt officials, toensure the appropriate expertiseis affixing accountability fortheimplementation ofsection 6(8)withthe Assistant DeputyMinister adequate fundingfor theaccused andtheirwitnesses to properly access thejustice system. properly trained languageinterpreters; and adequate legalrepresentation andareview oftheLegal Aidsystem intheNorth; appropriate infrastructure for court hearings; the feasibility ofholdingjurytrialsinremote communities; increased frequency ofcourt sittings,and,inconsultation withFirst Nations leadership, explore NANproposes thedevelopment ofinfrastructure to manageacomprehensive NAN proposes that thegovernment make significant Juries Act NAN states that theway forward to inasystematic andconsistent manner NAN proposes that theReport recom

- and advance recommendations inthisregard. Second, theUnionprovided uswithitsreport entitled“Juries set ofsubmissions following theengagementprocess addressing nineareas that require improvements 291. Nation in1949 and is comprised offour regional areas represented by respective Regional Chiefs. approximate population of55,000 First Nations persons.The Unionwas incorporated by theAnishinabek 290. 2. participation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuries. feedback, NANproposes five measures that are aimed at providing thenecessary support to garner respecting thecontent oftheforms, andfear regarding penaltiesfor notresponding. Asaresult ofthis individuals whoreceived juryquestionnaires. Ofthesepeople, most expressed confusion, concerns meeting First Nations peoplewhoserved onajurywas notcommon. However, there were anumberof 289. in anenumeration process must beconsensual andparticipation ofindividualjurors shouldbevoluntary submits that any approach to enumeration shouldrespect principlesofautonomy; involving First Nations and in-court juryselectionprocess would preempt any legal challengesofimpartialitythejury. Finally, NAN principle ofrandomness would notbeoffended. NAN states that thesubsequentsafeguards oftheout-of-court NAN argues that aslongasufficientnumberofsuitablecandidates are enumerated, thefundamental and self-selectionofthoseindividualswhohave theability, willingness, andcapacityto serve asjurors. does notlieinincreasing thenumberofjuryquestionnaires sentto First Nations people, butrather inoutreach actual representation ofFirst Nations peoplesonthejuryroll. The solutionto enhancingactualrepresentation this approach would enhance theeligiblereturn rate ofquestionnaires sentto First Nations and,therefore, governments begiven theopportunityto become directly involved injuror enumeration. NANargues that 288. UNIONOFONTARIO INDIANSSUBMISSIONS We received three maingroups ofsubmissions from theUnion.First, theUnionprovided acomprehensive Support: ensuringtheparticipation of First Nations peoplesonjuries. Involvement: First Nations participations injuror enumeration. The UnionoftheOntarioIndiansisanadvocate for 39 AnishinabekFirst Nations inOntariowithan • • • • • that alignsprohibited criminaloffences withspecific offences containedinthe Exclusions basedoncriminalrecord could beaddressed through anamendmentto the Languages Act to juryeligibility, which would bealignedwiththeofficiallanguages recognized bythe also suggests amendingthe Interpretation services for First Nations jurors would enhance thepotential for participation. NAN and Eldercare responsibilities. arrangements for travel. Enhanced income supportsare required for matters suchaschildcare a designated personfrom thelocalCourt Services Divisionoffice shouldmake allthenecessary or othersimilartechnology to reduce travel for thejuryselectionprocess. Where travel isrequired, supports could take theform ofincreased financial resources orimplementing video conferencing Travel andincome supportsought to beenhanced to alleviate thehardship oftraveling. Such Division would assist inclarifyingquestions regarding theprocess. participation. Additional supportresources intheform ofacontact personwithintheCourt Services initiate contact withFirst Nations withaview to solicitingvoluntary participation, rather thancoerced Contact policies andpractices shouldberenewed to transform themannerinwhichcourt officials regarding First Nations peoples andcultural andpoliticalprotocols to reduce alienating interactions. organizations. Likewise, aneducation initiative isrequired for officialsofthe CourtServices Division and therole ofjurors. Itshouldbedeveloped inconsultation withFirst Nations governments and legaleducationPublic shouldbecarriedoutfor First Nations peopleregarding thejurysystem . Juries Act to includeaFirst Nations languageas aqualifyingcriterion NAN recommends that First Nations Duringtheengagementprocess, Criminal Code Official Juries Act .

69 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 70 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 266 265 that Ontario increase fundingto First Nations administrations for programs andservices to address physical and outsideofpenalinstitutions to thoseoffenders who require it.Specifically, theUnion recommends injustices endured by First Nations peoples.They propose that healthsupportsbeavailable bothinside peoples inOntariojailsislargely attributable to healthissues generated over theyears by thehistoric 297. cultural competency training, includingintheareas ofFirst Nations’ rights,laws, andby-law enforcement. Director could beinvolved inthisinitiative. Finally, itrecommends that OPPofficers receive mandatory review board to adjudicate complaints. The Unionsuggests that theOffice oftheIndependent Police Review currently nomechanismto review inappropriate conduct, theUnion proposes thecreation ofanindependent established to oversee theoperation ofFirst Nations law enforcement programs. Second, becausethere is services andenhance publicconfidence intheirdelivery. First, itsuggests that a regulatory bodybe 296. or preferably, fundFirst Nations to develop theirown policinglaws. recommends that OntarioandCanadawork collaboratively to develop First Nations Policing legislation, not secured by enablinglegislation, soitsexistence andfundingare vulnerable to elimination. The Union relationship withlaw enforcement. However, currently First Nations policingisadiscretionary program, 295. programs andrelated work. 294. to address justice issues that affect them. of improving therelationship ofFirst Nations andthejustice system, whileempowering thecommunities that First Nations currently have for thejustice system. Therefore, thisrecommendation hastwinbenefits their own affairs. Onthebroader scale, community justice projects reduce fear, confusion, anddistaste projects have apositive impactonFirst Nations becausethey enablethemto rebuild jurisdictionover to diverting First Nations individualsfrom penalinstitutions andpromoting healingandrecovery, these of community justice projects asapartnershipbetween First Nations andthejustice system. Inaddition 293. the role ofjuriesandtheassociated processes. cultural competency inthecourts andproviding more publiceducation to First Nations communities on First Nations peoplesonjuries,Ontarioshouldtake steps to improve thejustice system, includingincreasing restorative justice programs, court workers, andcourts. Third, inorder to encourage theparticipation of increase confidence inthejustice system. Examples oftheseinstitutions includethepolice, diversion and their own justice-related institutions asameansto reduce thenumberofpeopleinjail,whichwillturn Anishinabek values andinterests. Second, AnishinabekFirst Nations prefer to develop andimplement system becauseitisapartoflarger justice system that isperceived asforeign, unfair, anddevoid of process. First, AnishinabekFirst Nations are generally apathetic aboutbecoming involved inthejury 292. (A) discuss eachofthesesubmissions below. papers that address theissue oftherepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonOntariojuries.Ibriefly which Idescribedabove at paragraph 226oftheReport. Third, theUnioncommissioned three independent are aCircle ofJustice”,

UnionofOntarioIndians,  Within theAnishinabek Nation, November 2009to February 2010 Union ofOntarioIndians, SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING ENGAGEMENT PROCESS Health First Nations justice projects. The Unioninitssubmissions identifiesthree prevailing messages that arose from theengagement Policing. The Unionsubmitsthat certain tangiblemeasures shouldbetaken to improve First Nations police The Unionrecommends that Ontario provide additional fundingandsupportfor community justice . The Union’s Women’s Council holdstrong beliefsthat theoverrepresentation ofFirst Nations The Unionreports that First Nations police programs positively contribute to First Nations’ Submissions onBehalfof theAnishinabekNation to theIacobucci Review Juries are aCircle of Justice –ReportontheOntarioJuryInformation Forums Conducted 265 whichitprepared following theJuryInformation Forums conducted in2009, 266 The Unionreports that itsFirst Nations membersview thedevelopment (Spring2010). , at page5. making recommendations for change. motivating factor for potential First Nations jurors, whowould seeitasanopportunityto take partin benefits ofdisclosinglists for thepreparation ofthejury roll. The nature ofa coroner’s inquest isalsoa timely manner. Anassertive educational campaignwould serve to inform First Nations leadershipofthe work withCourt Services to ensure that coroner’s inquests into First Nations deaths are convened ina process. This typeofinformation could motivate First Nations leadershipto discloseBandLists andto juries for criminaltrialsissomethingthat isunknown to most peoplewhoparticipated intheengagement 304. otherwise impoverished demographic. Union againsuggests that juror compensation beincreased to serve asaneconomic inducement to an question asto whetherthecommunity agrees to share theirmembershiporresidency list. Finally, the suggests includinganongoingplebiscite ontheelectoral ballotscast by individual voters that posesa an “opt in”process whereby individualFirst Nations peoplewould volunteer to serve. The Unionalso is notanappropriate way to obtainlists from First Nations. The Unionrecommends theconsideration of the challenge. Inrecommending avariety ofoptions,theUnionstresses that a“one size fitsall”approach civic dutyto serve onjuries,encouraging ChiefsandCouncils to share information withCourt Services is 303. Attorney General explore optionsto convene court proceedings onFirst Nations reserves, where possible. those whoare required to appearfor selectionbutare excused. Concurrently, theUnionproposes that the of theseobstacles, theUnionrecommends adrastic increase inthecompensation rates for jurors, including disincentives andbarriersto juryparticipation, particularlyfor alengthy jurytrial.To alleviate some distance between reserves andcourts locations, andthein-court juryselection process are serious 302. removed by achallengefor cause, challengeswhichmay besometimesmotivated by racist intent. that theAttorney General investigate alternatives to thecurrent system that allows potential jurors to be of First Nations judgesappointed to thebench,especiallyto appellate courts. The Unionalsorecommends to participate onjuries,theUnionproposes that Ontariomake concerted efforts to increase thenumber 301. Court ofCanada’s raise specialcircumstances –ascurrently provided duringsentencing inaccordance withtheSupreme be given to incorporating into thecriminaljustice system theopportunityfor aFirst Nations accused to of theChildren’s Lawyer, andChildren’s AidSocietyworkers. The Unionalsorecommends that consideration competency training for police, court workers, Crown prosecutors, prisonguards andemployees, theOffice measure to address theseissues, theUnionrecommends theimplementation ofmandatory cultural and assumptions permeate thejustice system –from policingto courts to the penalinstitutions. Asone 300. First Nations leadership. of electoral lists orotherinformation regarding bandmembership, andsharingthisinformation with 299. peoples livingonreserves. a schoolcurriculumregarding thejustice system, includingthejuryprocess asitrelates to First Nations regional organizations. To specificallytarget youth, theUnionproposes that OntarioandCanadadevelop designed andimplemented incollaboration withtribalcouncils, Provincial Treaty Organizations orother people to participate inthejuryprocess. The Unionrecommends that educational efforts becreatively generally, andthejurysystem specifically, willdispelmany misunderstandings andencourage First Nations 298. monitored by acivilianoversight committee. available to offenders whileincustody andduringtheparole process, andsuggests that theseservices be and mentalhealthissues. Italsorecommends that provincial penalinstitutions increase rehabilitation services Juries Education The Unionalsoemphasizes theimportance ofclarifyingtheprivacy issues concerning disclosure Travel andexpenses. Options for improving andupdating juryrolls Coroner’s inquests. Racism andspecialcircumstancesRacism . To instill greater confidence inthejustice system andincrease thewillingness ofFirst Nations people . The Unionstates that informing andeducating First Nations peopleonjustice matters Gladue The fact that ajuryfor acoroner’s inquest isselected from thesame juryroll as decision–priorto sentencing andas early ashisorherfirst court appearance. The socio-economic conditions ofmost First Nations reserves, thegreat . Many First Nations individualsbelieve that racist misconceptions . AlthoughsomeFirst Nations peopleappreciate their

71 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 72 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci Ontario Justice System Procedural Recommendations Ways to increase thenumberofFirst Nations jurors the Unionprepared areport that contained thefollowing recommendations. deliver JuryInformation Forums to theFirst Nations associated withtheUnion.Following thoseForums, 306. (B) and coroner’s inquests to ensure theparticipation ofFirst Nations peoplesinthelatter. maximize effectiveness. Italsosuggests that Ontario consider separating jury rolls for criminaltrials specifically. Itsuggests that Ontariopartnerwithtribal councils andPTOs intheireducation efforts to importance ofjuryrolls generally, andtherepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesoncoroner’s inquests 305. SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING JURY INFORMATION FORUMS --“JURIES AREACIRCLEOFJUSTICE” The Unionrecommends that Ontarioeducate First Nations ChiefsandCouncils regarding the As previously explained, theUnionpartnered withtheMinistry oftheAttorney General in2009to • • • • • • • • • • • • • • for past criminaloffences. Provide information andassistance to thoseFirst Nations citizens whowant to obtainapardon Provide culturally appropriate aftercare treatment for jurors whorequire it. the courthouse. process, regardless ofwhetherthey are selected for dutyorreside withinacertain radius of Provide for travel expenses for allpotential jurors whoare required to attend theselection Provide nominalremuneration for juryduty. to beajuror. Remove therequirement for Anishinabekjurors to swear anoath ontheBibleortake anoath Provide anoptionto identifyFirst Nations citizenship onthejuryform. Remove thereferences to penaltiesfor non-response onthejuryform. Provide translation services intheFirst Nations languages. languages ofOdawa, Ojibway, Delaware, Pottawatomi, Chippewa, AlgonquinandMississauga. Develop ajurysummonsform specific to AnishinabekFirst Nations andproduce itintheFirst Nations would becharged withselectingpotential jurors for thejuryroll. Develop adistinct process for theselectionofFirst Nations jurors withinwhichFirst Nations and compile thejuryroll. Create thepositionofAnishinabekNation Sheriff, orasimilar role, who would liaisewithFirst Nations strategy for dissemination ofinformation regarding thejuryprocess. The Ministry andtheAnishinabekNation shouldwork collaboratively to develop apromotional Organize JuryInformation Forums inall40AnishinabekFirst Nations. use, protection andstorage oftheinformation. negotiate anagreement to develop aprocess to obtainBandLists andestablish protocols for the For thepurposesofjuryroll, theAnishinabekNation andMinistry ofAttorney General should

267 Relationship Building Eligibility Accessibility Education andOutreach that someexpressed curiositytowards thejurysystem. Mr. Sandymadethefollowing recommendations. were pugnacious,negative, colonial andcontrary to theircore cultural beliefs.That beingsaid,hestated were uninterested inservingonjuriesbecausetheirexperiences andperceptions ofthejustice system based onwhat helearned. Justice System”, ElderErnieSandyinterviewed many First Nations peopleandmaderecommendations 307. (C)

ErnieSandy(Traditional Teacher, Elder), INDEPENDENTPAPERS COMMISSIONED BY THEUNION Paper by ElderErnieSandy • • • • • • • • • • • to supportoffenders. Enhance fundingfor theAboriginalCourt Worker program andFirst Nations justice workers Ontario justice system andto provide supportfor jurysummonsforms andrelated documentation. Appoint aliaisonpersonto work withAnishinabekFirst Nations to provide information aboutthe process, mutual admiration professional, ofeachother’s cultural andpersonalqualities canbefostered. Establish aFirst Nations citizen advisorybodywithintheAttorney General’s office. Through this of AboriginalAffairs andNorthernDevelopment. Request alist ofthenameseligibleFirst Nations individuals from thefederal department through theselectionprocess. Encourage First Nations citizens to actively pursuetheirrightto sitonajury, even ifexcluded Create ajuror orientation program to prepare individualsfor thejuryselectionprocess. community memberswithanemphasisthat noformal education isrequired to sitonajury. Encourage “kitchen table”dialoguebetween court workers, leadership, andFirst Nations of informing First Nations peoplegenerally. importance ofparticipation, to beusedasaneducation tool inschoolsandfor thepurposes Produce avideothat explains thejurysystem inaFirst Nations context andemphasizes the with thetimingfor majorpoliticalgatherings intheprovince. The Attorney General’s office shouldhost a conference onthejury system that isaligned who work closelywithFirst Nations citizens. delivered, withtheassistance ofEldersandguest speakers, to key personnelandjustice lawyers Develop acomprehensive “First Nation culture andhistorical awareness” sensitivityprogram use ofaslogan.For example, “You canmake adifference insomeone’s life asajurymember”. First Nations citizens abouttheimportance inservingonajuryandcould be promoted withthe communities by First Nations justice workers. The focus oftheseprograms shouldbeto educate Develop outreach programs regarding thejuryselectionprocess to bedelivered inFirst Nations 267 The views heheard reflected the recurring themethat First Nations people . Inhispaper, “Recommendations from First Nation Citizens inOntario First Nation Citizens inOntarioJustice System March 23,2012.

73 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 74 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 269 268 313. criminal justice system asameansto encourage theparticipation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuries. legal principles.Alternatively, Ms.Restoule suggests incorporating Indigenouslegalprinciplesinto the Tribal Courts asaprocess ofreconciliation for theapplication ofcommon law andAnishinabekNation as coroner’s inquests. Shealsoproposes thecreation ofamodeljustice basedupontheAmerican areas ofthejustice system, includingcriminaltrialsfor summary, hybrid, andindictableoffences, as well zations inaculturally appropriate mannerin23First Nations communities should beexpanded to other 312. matters anddevoid ofAnishinabeklegalprinciplesorcultural values. a criminaljustice system that isperceived to becontrary to Anishinabekoriginal jurisdictionover justice I heard throughout theengagementprocess –that there isaprofound mistrust of, andalienation from, justice system andthejuryprocess. individuals from 15First Nations regarding thecriminal interviewed Restoule Ms. Symptom?”, or Problems “Recommendations from JuryRoll Selection– 311. and produce adiscussions paperfor review by theFirst Nations andgovernment officials. Indians andotherorganizations, andthat theconsultations shouldincludewomen, youth, andelders, held withChiefsandCouncils, aswell aswithcitizens, through forums provided by theUnionofOntario system, andthat aneducational campaignbeimplemented. Herecommends that theconsultations to be that continuous andmeaningfulconsultations occur withFirst Nations withrespect to changesto thejustice 310. include thefollowing elements: and provide accommodations for First Nations peopleto participate inthejuryprocess. This planshould 309. participate in thejurysystem. submission isthat improvements to the justice system for Anishinabek citizens may increase their willingness to 308.

Karen R.Restoule, Mike EsquegaSr. (NorthernSuperiorRegional Elder), Paper by Karen Restoule. Ms. Restoule proposes that existing Community Justice Programs delivered by First Nations organi Ms. Restoule’s recommendations specific to thejury system include: Mr. Esquega alsorecommends that Ontarioenter into aProtocol Agreement withFirst Nations to ensure Paper by ElderMike EsquegaSr. (NorthernSuperiorRegionalElder). Mr. Esquega recommends that Ontariodevelop andimplementanactionplanto acknowledge, support • • • • • • a supportsystem for thoseattending theselectionprocesses; consideration ofaminimummandatory numberofFirst Nations citizens (or afullpanel); selection; the useofceremony inthecourt process,jury including to thejuryselectionprocess; a process to educate andconsult withFirst Nations individualswhenthey are subpoenaed in thecommunity ofanaccused personoraneighbouringFirst Nation. provisions to respond to financialandcultural concerns, suchas considering holding court oversight oftheselectionprocess to ensure itsfairness; and Jury RollSelection–Problems orSymptom? For herpaper 268 269 The dominantthemeoftheseinterviews isconsistent withwhat

Anishinabek JurySelectionProcess

, March 23,2012. The central message ofMr. Esquega’s , 2012

-

Accessibility Education Resources Partnership withFirst Nations First Nations Legal Principles • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Elders shouldbeincludedinany legalprocess involving acitizen oftheAnishinabekNation. this IndependentReview. recommendations regarding thejuryroll selectionprocess and/or justice system stemming from Anishinabek Nation leadershipshouldbeincludedinthedevelopment andimplementation ofany is involved incriminalorciviltrials,whetherasanaccused oravictim. a feast and/or relevant ceremonies shouldbeheldwhenany citizen oftheAnishinabekNation system, andthejustice system asawhole, particularlywhenAnishinabekcitizens are involved. traditional legalprinciplesoftheAnishinabekNation shouldbeincorporated withinthejury for necessary equipment shouldbeprovided to First Nations oftheAnishinabek Nation. process should bemadeavailable to theFirst Nations involved viavideoconferencing andresources where itisnotpossible to host thelegalprocess withintheAnishinabekNation territory, the First Nation oftheaccused orvictim,withintheAnishinabekNation territory. where possible, criminalorciviltrialsandcoroner’s inquests should beheldwithinthe between acriminalorciviljuryversus aninquest juryshouldbeemphasized inthematerials. deliveredand inpartnershipwiththeAnishinabekNation andlocalschoolboards. The distinctions youth that seekto create awareness oftherole ofjuries.These initiatives shouldbedeveloped there shouldbepubliclegaleducation initiatives targeted towards First Nations peoplesand in partnershipwiththeAnishinabekNation. judiciary, legal,andadministrative staff, andsuchinitiatives shouldbedeveloped anddelivered training shouldbeprovided for allindividualsworking withinthejustice system, includingthe Independent Review. resources shouldbeprovided to implementtherecommendations stemming from this jury duty. adequate resources shouldbeprovided to accommodate thefamilies oftheindividualsattending territory to reduce costs substantially. Further, criminalorciviltrialsandcoroner’s inquests shouldbehosted withinAnishinabekNation adequate resources shouldbeprovided to citizens oftheAnishinabekNation attending jury duty. be madeto theprocesses and trust to bebuiltover time. Ministry ofthe Attorney General andtheAnishinabekNation, allowing for amendmentsto meetings andceremonies shouldbeheldevery year to reaffirm commitmentsbetween the and theAnishinabekNation. an ongoingrelationship shouldbemaintainedbetween theMinistry oftheAttorney General or civiltrialsandcoroner’s inquests. Elders shouldbeconsulted regarding theirrole andlevel ofparticipation withincriminal

75 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 76 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci cultural context oftheoffender’s background. argue that thesereports create abiasagainst First Nations offenders by failing to consider thespecific as atool to establish that First Nations offenders are at ahighriskof re-offending. The Chiefs ofOntario the risksofreoffending, asserting that these reports are often used by theCrown incriminalproceedings that First Nations seek.They describetheuseofcrimogenicriskassessments that are designedto assess circles that imposeconventional criminalprocedures andsentences, contrary to thehealingattributes Eurocentric bias.They alsodescribehow traditional healingcircles have essentially become sentencing officers often perform adisservice toFirst Nations offenders becausetheir reports arewritten witha Chiefs state that, rather thanprovide theproper context to determine anappropriate sentence, probation attention given to thepreparation of family unit,asitcausestherelocation ofmany First Nations children. They raise theissue ofinadequate 316. principles andtraditions. traditions andcustoms andthefailure to reconcile theCanadianlegalsystem withFirst Nation legal justice system iscurrently failing First Nations peoplesthrough thesubversion ofFirst Nations legal The ChiefsofOntariocite several examples that they view assymptomatic oftheways inwhichtheCanadian must beaccompanied by the broader objective oferadicating systemic discrimination inthejustice system. in thisprocess, isthat theencouragement ofparticipation ofFirst Nations peoplesinthecourt system 315. Review andpledgedhisfullsupport. it relates to First Nations peoples.Former ChiefToulouse recognized theimportance oftheIndependent and recommendations for changesto thecurrent process for theassembly ofthejuryroll inOntario, as 314. 3. Outreach Strategy Eligibility Language CHIEFSOFONTARIO SUBMISSIONS The primarythemeofthesubmissions oftheChiefsOntario, like that ofotherswhohave participated The Chiefsview Canadianchildwelfare law asincongruous withtheFirst Nations concept ofthe In aletter dated June4,2012, former OntarioRegional ChiefAngusToulouse submitted histhoughts • • • • • • for acoroner’s inquest. the eligibilityrequirements for servingonacriminalorciviljuryshoulddiffer from those the criteria ofhaving nopriorcriminalrecord shouldbereconsidered. Many First Nations individualsdonotidentifyascitizens ofthesejurisdictions. the CanadaandOntariocitizenship criteria for juryroll selectionshouldbereconsidered. instances where video-conferencing isemployed. selected to participate onajury, aswell asthefamilies affected by thetrialorinquest, including translation andinterpretation services shouldbemadeavailable to allFirst Nations individuals It isimportantto ensure thisstrategy is“catchy.” there shouldbeanoutreach strategy specificallygeared towards engagingFirst Nations youth. Nation, inorder to ensure that materials are culturally appropriate. an outreach strategy shouldbedeveloped anddelivered inpartnershipwiththeAnishinabek Gladue reports (pre-sentence reports) by probation officers. The

representation ofFirst Nations peoples onjuries. ALST hasbeenactively involved inlitigation that hasconsidered andisconsidering theissue of the ensure Aboriginalclientsreceive equitabletreatment inandaccess to thejustice system. Inparticular, representation ofAboriginalclientsincoroner’s inquests, inquiries,criminal litigation, andadvocacy to Aboriginal community for over 21years. This organization hasgainedsubstantial experience through the 322. 4. systemic issues plaguingthecriminaljustice system. government relationship between First Nations andtheGovernment ofOntarioasameansto address the 321. psychological effects. individuals to complete juryforms, attend at atrialorcoroner’s inquest, anddealwithpost-jury duty meals by theMinistry oftheAttorney General; andtheprovision ofsupportservices to enableFirst Nations peoples onjuriesthat require particularattention: thepayment oftransportation, accommodations and cultural differences. Inaddition,they identifytwo practical barriers to theparticipation ofFirst Nations peoples inthejurysystem istherecognition andaccommodation ofFirst Nations legaltraditions and 320. 319. judicial services. within thedelineated regions andto maintainrelationships withFirst Nations onjustice matters and each treaty region orjudicialdistrict, could bemandated to collect information from theFirst Nations officials toaddress First Nation issues and intergovernmental relations. Thesepositions,appointed toserve 318. engendered adeepmistrust by First Nations peoplesofthejustice system. result inahigherresponse rate to juryquestionnaires dueto thebroader systemic issues that have health cards. Inany event, they observe that simplyidentifyingtheidealdata source willnotnecessarily First Nations peoples,asthey note that many First Nations peoplesinremote communities donothave peoples, theChiefsofOntarioargue that thisdata source, ifusedalone, would notcapture allon-reserve Health Insurance Program information asasource ofnamesandaddresses for on-reserve First Nations residents for thepurposesofjuryquestionnaires. With respect to theoptionofdrawing uponOntario 317. ABORIGINALLEGALSERVICES OFTORONTO SUBMISSIONS The ChiefsofOntarioaddress theissue ofthecollection ofnamesandaddresses ofon-reserve The ChiefsofOntarioconclude theircomments by reinforcing theneedfor arespectful government-to- The ChiefsofOntariorecommend that theAttorney General’s office includedesignated First Nations The ChiefsofOntarioadvance four specific recommendations with respect to thejury forms: Aboriginal Legal Services ofToronto (ALST) isamulti-service legalagency that hasserved Toronto’s The ChiefsofOntariomaintainthat theparamount factor for increasing theparticipation ofFirst Nations • • • • First Nations peoplesto participate aspotential jurors. translation services: Increased andadequate translation services could helpto encourage so that theirtraditional role andcultural integrity inthecommunity ispreserved. exemption from juryservice: Itisrecommended that Eldersbeexempted from juryservice within theCanadianconstitutional andcommon law framework. program that targets youth, designedto inform themoftheirlegalandcivilrightsduties Governments, regional organizations ortribalcouncils to fundandprovide aneducational the Province ofOntarioandtheFederal Government work collaboratively withFirst Nations encourage First Nations membersto complete andsubmitforms: Itisrecommended that both Canadian citizenship andoften donotpossess evidence ofsuch. person’s citizenship ofaFirst Nation. Itwas explained that someFirst Nations donotrelate to Citizen v. First Nations: Itisrecommended that thejuryforms includeaquestion relating to a

77 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 78 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 270 at paragraph 154,namesofallManitoba jurors are selected by data drawn from theprovincial health peoples onOntariojuries,ALST recommends Ontariofollow the Manitoba model,underwhich,asInoted 329. on thejuryroll. within Court Services isnotthe appropriate meansto address therepresentation ofFirst Nations peoples judicial districts to comply withsection6(8),ALST submitsthat theexercise oflocalauthorityanddiscretion Referring to theevidence ofactionstaken by localCourt Services officialsinthe Thunder Bay and Kenora relied uponlikely contained names, withoutdistinction, ofFirst Nation citizens who reside offthe reserve. decision in of the 328. will participate inthejurysystem. bers oughtto beinvolved inthedecision-makingthat will,ineffect, determine whetherbandmembers with AANDCrely onthefederal Departmentto address thismatter. Finally, ALST argues that bandmem upon disclosure, just asAANDCmust consider privacy issues. Those First Nations that have lefttheirlists control oftheirmembershiplists, they willhave to consider theprivacy interests oftheirmembersindeciding by AboriginalAffairs andNorthernDevelopment Canada(AANDC).OfthoseFirst Nations that have regained membership lists andthoseFirst Nations that have chosento leave theirmembershiplists to bemaintained of reasons. First, ALST draws thedistinction between thoseFirst Nations that control andadminister theirown that First Nations peoplesare represented onthejuryroll inOntario. They take thispositionfor anumber peoples onjuries,ALST states that usingBandLists isnotthemost effective mannerinwhich to ensure 327. occur through aproper understanding ofthehistoric, cultural, andcontemporary contexts. juries represent theAboriginalpopulation isintegral to remedying thecircumstances by whichsuchdeaths deaths that will occur whileincustody, coroner’s inquests are ofgrowing importance. Ensuringthat inquest the numberofAboriginalpeoplesinpenalsystem isunrelenting, thereby increasing theprobability of 326. excessive imprisonmentofAboriginalpeoples. from participation intheCanadianjustice system, arguing that thelatter isafactor that contributes to the correlation between theoverrepresentation ofAboriginalpeopleinthepenal systems andtheirexclusion justice system andtheunderrepresentation ofon-reserve First Nations peoplesonthejuryroll. Itnotes the 325. discrimination undersection15ofthe accused personbeingtriedby ajurythat isdrawn from anunrepresentative juryroll potentially faces justice system hasbeenmost recently affirmed byCanada’s highest courtin in thecriminaljustice system. They note that systemic discrimination against Aboriginalpeopleinthecriminal jury dutyandthat aproperly representative juryisparticularlyimportantfor Aboriginalaccused persons 324. jury roll isproperly representative ofFirst Nations peoples. from whichto draw on-reserve First Nations names,norhave sufficient efforts beenmade toensure the obligations demandedby section6(8)ofthe proposition, ALST isoftheview that theissue ofjuryrepresentation arisesfrom thefailure to fulfillthe is beingbreached by thelackofrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonthejuryroll. Asageneral 323.

R. v. Ipeelee Following itsreview ofrecent litigation respecting theissues ofrepresentation ofFirst Nations ALST addresses theconnection between thehistoric exclusion ofAboriginalpeoplefrom theCanadian ALST frames theissue ofjuryrepresentativeness asoneoffundamentaljustice, whichthey assert ALST questions thelackofconsistency withrespect to Ontario’s efforts to comply withsection6(8) In lookingforward at ways to remedy thecurrent problems oflackrepresentation ofFirst Nations ALST asserts that First Nations peoplewhoreside onareserve have therightto beconsidered for ALST alsoaddresses theconnection between thecoroner’s process andthejuryroll issue. Because Juries Act Corbiere v. Canada , 2012 SCC 13. . ALST contends that Ontariofailed to assess theimpactofSupreme Court ofCanada’s , preventing Court Services personnelfrom appreciating that thelists they Charter Juries Act . . They note that there isnoconsistent source list R.v. Ipeelee 270 andthat an -

271 Relationships Training General (i) Long term Recommendations activities. The recommendations are asfollows: 330. though noexplanation for thisexception was given. found that thisapproach adequately addressed therepresentation issue, withtheexception ofWinnipeg, registry. ALST notes that theManitoba Justice Inquiry, to whichIhave alsoreferred to at paragraph 154,

 Vol. 1by A.C. Hamilton &C.M.Sinclair. (Winnipeg: Inquiryinto Public theAdministration ofJustice and AboriginalPeople, 1991) online: The AboriginalJustice Implementation Commission at chapter 19. Public InquiryIntoPublic theAdministration ofJustice andAboriginalPeople, ALST makes anumberofrecommendations, categorizing themaseitherlongterm orinterim • • • • • • clear andconcise directives to regional Court Services offices in relation to: creation ofamapthat depictsjudicialdistricts andtheFirst Nations communities situated withinthem. Aboriginal service agencies andwomen’s groups. strategic outreach to First Nations leadership, tribalcouncils, political andterritorial organizations, communications training for staff ofthe Court Services DivisionandCrown lawyers. » » » » and incarceration, inquest issues, cultural andlived experiences: includes general information abouteachFirst Nation, history ofexclusion, overrepresentation aboriginal cultural competency training for Court Services staff, Coroners andtheir counsel that attributes oftheFirst Nations intheirrespective judicialdistricts. mandatory training for Sheriffs to familiarize themwiththe composition, politicalandcultural » » » » » » » » » » » » regularly updated. sustainable and transferrable; and adequately funded developed by orwithFirst Nations the Court Services DivisionandCoroner’s Office. a policy that prioritizes therepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonthejuryroll within the Court Services Division;and human resource policy onhiring,retaining andpromoting First Nations employees within population; recruiting First Nations staff in regions where there isahighpercentage ofFirst Nations standards ofcommunication andoutreach to First Nations communities andpeoples; 271

Report onAboriginalJustice Inquiryof Manitoba ,

79 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 80 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci Inquest Recommendations Court Services DivisionandSheriffs (ii) Interim Recommendations Outreach Legislative Changes Coroner’s Services • • • • • • • • • • • • • as analternative to legislative change, Ontarioshouldseekto enter into aMemorandum of create anequalsystem for alljurors. and inclusiononthejuryroll, theresults ofwhichshouldguidelegislative change. research approaches from otherjurisdictionsthat address First Nations access to justice organizations regarding juries. regional andinvestigative coroners shouldmeetwithFirst Nations governments andpolitical on inquest juries. outreach to First Nations governments andcommunities to explain theimportance ofrepresentation was to order thesheriff to produce alist ofjurors from aproper jury roll. case-by-case basis,similarto what theCourt ofAppealrecommended in The Coroner shouldexplore what steps canbetaken to implementa representative juryona roll, rather thanunnecessarily delaying theinquest. with thevictim’s family to explore whether they want to proceed inany event oftheexisting jury In thecaseofanunrepresentative juryroll, theCoroner shouldmake direct efforts to communicate outreach strategy. tribal councils andpoliticalterritorial organizations aspartofarobust communication and Court Services staff shouldmake efforts tobuild relationships withFirst Nations communities, with First Nations for theimplementation ofsection6(8). changes shouldbemadeto thejurymanualto setoutaspecificprotocol regarding engagement competency andcommunication training appropriate for dealingwithFirst Nations peoples. governance systems, theimpactof of the shouldbeprovidedtraining to all Sheriffsand court staff that 6(8) are involved inimplementingsection Law SocietyofUpperCanadathat addresses therepresentation issue. Ontario shouldsponsoraContinuing Professional Development course certified by the directed at thegeneral publicandlegalprofessionals. a publicawareness campaignshouldbedesignedinconsultation withFirst Nations peoples and agenciesfrom eachjudicialdistrict that contains First Nations reserves. an implementation committee shouldbecreated that includes First Nations governments lists from theIndianRegistration system ofFirst Nations reserve residents. Understanding withAboriginalAffairs andNorthernDevelopment for theprovision ofannual Juries Act . Training shouldincorporate ahistorical overview, information onFirst Nations Indian Act on BandLists andvoters lists, andcultural Pierre v. McRae,

which

Justice System. it iswell-positioned to actasaresource for First Nations youth asthey advocate for changeinOntario’s citizens ofOntario and Canada.The Provincial Advocate’s office states that given its roleinrightseducation, appreciate that they possess certain definablerights by virtueof beingFirst Nations citizens, as well as in changingthesystem to better serve theirrightsandinterests. First, youth must come to understand and 337. according to theProvincial Advocate, withthenecessary supports,thischallengeismanageable. motivation onthepartofFirst Nations youth to become involved inreformative change. However, confidence intheir own ability to make sounddecisions. The confidence deficit effectively impedes decision-making regarding matters that affect theirlives. Such exclusion serves to underminetheir 336. and otherinjustices, many First Nations youth feel disempowered to effect any sortofchange. committed by government inrelation to First Nations’ culture, language, loss of land,racism, discrimination of services, like cleanwater, healthcare, food securityorsafe housing.Coupled withthehistorical wrongs come to feel apathetic towards the“system” becausethegovernment hasfailed to provide themost basic process that hedescribesasneedingto overcome a“confidence Many deficit”. First Nations youth have 335. barriers to First Nations youth andtheircommunities insofar asparticipation onjuriesisconcerned. to move forward withitsrecommendations that focus oneducational processes to address thesystemic aimed at inclusionofyouth inthejuryprocess. The Provincial Advocate’s office expressed a commitment with whomithadpreviously worked to seektheirperspectives andopinionsregarding potential reforms 334. prevention approaches andalter perceptions that barwillingness to participate onjuries. overrepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesinthejustice system andto lendtheir experience to address it isimperative that First Nations youth beinvolved increating solutionsto thejurysystem to counter the over-policing are matters that inoneway oranotherburden the life ofanAboriginalyouth. Accordingly, system, unemployment andunderemployment, lackofeducation, history ofphysical andsexual abuse, and Provincial Advocate explains that ganginvolvement, highrates ofsuicide, contact withtheyouth justice formative changesto thejustice system ifFirst Nations peoplesare to participate inthejuryprocess. The 333. in custody compared to theirnon-Aboriginal peers. It istheview oftheProvincial Advocate that Aboriginalyouth are almost eighttimesmore likely to be worsen over thecoming decade, andOntarioalready hasthethird highest incarceration rate inCanada. of theoverall Canadianpopulation. According to theProvincial Advocate, thesestatistics are likely to 16.7 percent to 19.7 percent oftheprisonpopulation inCanada,whilethey represent onlyfour percent 332. for therightsandinterests ofFirst Nations children andyouth. caregivers abouttherightsofchildren andyouth.” Aspartofhismandate, theProvincial Advocate works children andfamilies andthosewhoprovide themwithservices and;educate children, youth andtheir and partnerwiththemto bringissues forward; encourage communication andunderstanding between Legislative Assembly ofOntario. Hismandate isto “provide anindependentvoice for children andyouth youth inthejuryeducation process. The Provincial Advocate isanindependentofficer appointed bythe 331. 5.  ADVOCATE FOR CHILDRENANDYOUTH SUBMISSIONS OFTHEOFFICEPROVINCIAL The Provincial Advocate suggests anumber of ways to empower First Nations youth to willinglyparticipate The Provincial Advocate for Children andYouth madesubmissions respecting arole for First Nations By way ofcontext, theProvincial Advocate notes that First Nations peoplescurrently represent The Provincial Advocate identifiesaninitialchallengein working withFirst Nations youth ina reform The socio-economic challengesfaced by Aboriginalyouth create adire picture that begsfor trans In preparing hissubmissions, theProvincial Advocate’s office recruited a group ofFirst Nations youth Also contributing to theconfidence deficitisthe pattern of exclusion ofFirst Nations youth from

-

81 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 82 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci laws, values, andapproaches to therestoration ofharmony andjustice andhow that canbeappliedina Gladue exercise theircivicengagement.Moreover, sentencing optionsavailable through theapplication ofthe principles are properly appliedto Aboriginaloffenders isa way inwhichFirst Nations youth canpositively 272 341. youth to reinforce thecommitment to move towards systemic change. recommends that astrong mentorship relationship befostered between Justice officialsandFirst Nations First Nations youth to strategize onthedevelopment anddelivery ofjuryeducation workshops. Hefurther 340. subject ofcoroner’s inquests. First Nations peoplesinprisonsandthecircumstances by whichthelives ofFirst Nations peoplesare the be baseduponthe the justice system. The Provincial Advocate asserts that any systemic reform ofthejustice system must tool that demonstrates theresolution ofconflict andthe return to harmony. This isapositive exercise of daily setting.Beinginvolved inacommunity’s restorative justice process can beaninvaluable teaching therein asatool to entice young peopleto become active inthereform process. Ensuringthat the 339. the broader community and,inparticular, thejuryprocess. cultural values andnorms.Once seeninthat context, First Nations youth canthenapplythisconcept to the numberofyouth that are taughttheimportance ofcivicengagement,inthecontext ofFirst Nations’ way to instill motivation for active community engagement.The community isstrengthened by maximizing contribute to theircommunity inameaningfulway by applyingtheirlived experiences canbeaneffective explain anindividual’s obligation to thejuryprocess. Educating First Nations youth abouthow they can 338.

R. v. Specific recommendations proposed by theProvincial Advocate include: The Provincial Advocate stresses theimportance ofthe The Provincial Advocate advances theconcept ofcivicengagementasaneffective framework to As afirst step, theProvincial Advocate recommends initiating adiscussion that brings together • • • • •

Gladue principlespresent anopportunityfor young peopleto learnabouttheirFirst Nation’s traditional involvement injuryservice that isalignedwithacultural approach to civicengagement. barriers for First Nations young peopleandadultschangesthat are necessary to promote a review ofthecurrent juryrecruitment andselection process beconducted to identifythe First Nations people. First Nations people are informed ofhow juryservice cancontribute to delivering justice for framework to transform thejuryprocess. Earlyeducation isakey strategy to ensure that young to develop educational activities,andparticipate inaprocess to helpdevelop asystemic policy young peoplebeprovided withanopportunityto work withtheProvincial Advocate’s office the participation ofyouth inthejuryprocess. Provincial Advocate’s office andthejustice system to create amentorship modelthat encourages First Nations young peoplebeprovided withtheopportunityto work with theirElders,the Convention ontheRightsofChild. system that isfair andjust intheireyes andanchored intheirrightsundertheUnited Nations leadership to develop recommendations that are specific to what isneeded to create ajustice the Provincial Advocate’s Office workinpartnershipwithFirst Nations youth, communitiesand process inimproving theconditions that influence thedelivery ofjustice to First Nations peoples. and concerns aboutOntario’s justice system andbeeducated regarding therole ofthejury First Nations young peoplebebrought together sothat they canshare theirknowledge, questions , [1999]1S.C.R. 688. Gladue principles.Reforms must befocused onremedying theoverrepresentation of Gladue 272 caseandtheprinciplesespoused Gladue

273 taken by the Government to implementmy recommendations. For thesereasons, Ihave taken theunusual Nations community andresult inlittleornomeaningfulchanges ifthere are notearlyandconcrete steps have gathered dust ontheshelf, Iamacutely aware that thisReport willbegreeted cynically by theFirst for implementation will behollow. Becausemuchofthenumerous past reports relating to Aboriginalpeople 347. of preliminary observations. 346. 1. D. paragraphs 281,and282provides legalservices to 49 First Nations intheNANgeographical territory. Aski Legal Services Corporation certificate andadvice lawyer program, which,asalready discussed at paragraphs Aboriginal people. Legal AidOntarioalsonotes that insupportingAboriginalinitiatives, itfundstheNishnawbe- of Legal Aid certificates for criminalmatters, youth criminalmatters andchild welfare matters are issued to aid applicantswere issued to thosewhoidentifiedasAboriginal.Moreover, between 11percent and15percent 345. in keeping withthe people comply withmandatory professional standards particularto Aboriginallaw andtherelevant factors services, whichhasincludedensuringthat legalcounsel whoare assigned legalaidwork for Aboriginal Aboriginal community. To meetthesegoals,Legal AidOntarioestablishes annualinitiatives totheir improve people onitsmanagementteam, increasing Aboriginallegalrepresentation, andimproving services to the improve services to Aboriginalpeopleby removing barriersto accessing justice, includingAboriginal engaged withAboriginalpeopleandservice organizations inOntario. The goalsofthestrategy are to 344. accused may incurasentence ofincarceration. criminal cases,itisonlyauthorized to provide assistance where there isastrong likelihood that the non-profit corporation that provides legalservices to low income peopleinOntario. been inexistence since 1998pursuantto the 343. to justice for Aboriginalpeoples;afact reflected inthedevelopment ofitsAboriginalJustice Strategy. its AboriginalJustice Strategy. Generally, Legal AidOntariorecognizes theimportance ofenhancingaccess 342. 6.

INTRODUCTION

Legal Aid Services Act SUBMISSION OFLEGALAIDONTARIO RECOMMENDATIONS First, itmust beemphasized that recommendations withoutclearandspecificprocedures, anddetails By letter dated July30, 2012, Legal AidOntarioprovided asubmission for my consideration regarding Legal AidOntario provides statistics that indicate that ten percent ofthecertificates given to legal The submission beginsby providing thebackground ofLegal AidOntario, whichexplains that ithas Before settingforth specific recommendations, Ibelieve it worthwhile to provide anumber Legal AidOntario’s 2008AboriginalJustice Strategy was bornoutofaconsultative process • • of First Nations young peopleinthejuryprocess. substandard housing,lackofeconomic opportunity, andviolence play inhinderingtheparticipation processes andeducation approaches. More must bedoneto understand theimpactpooreducation, a socialindicator lensbeapplied to identifythebarriersthat must beaddressed indeveloping and traditional healingapproaches ofFirst Nations communities, builtuponthe pation onthejuryprocess to thedevelopment ofjustice modelsthat are reflective ofthe values outreach andeducation program that linkstheimportance ofcommunity involvement andpartici the province develop simplifiededucational materials onthejuryand court process andaprovincial Gladue , S.O. 1998,c.26. decisionandthepreparation of Legal AidServices Act Gladue asanindependentyet publicly-funded Reports. 273 With respect to Gladue principles.

- 83 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 84 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci mentation Committee may well wishto consider someofthemastheCommittee deemsappropriate. from various groups andindividualsthat have beensummarized above. Ihave donesobecausetheImple study orconsultation withFirst Nations. Inaddition,Igreatly benefitted from the myriad of recommendations they may require somefinetuning at theimplementation stage, ormore substantially, furtheranalysis or 353. and improvement are to beachieved. responses, term but they are longer for not to ones be ignored be systemmay if progress justice the to with thesebroader issues. Someoftheseissues relating deal which recommendations forth put to compelled the question systemof from justice jury howrepresentation. the impacts arise that issues Accordingly, I feel be derelict inmy dutyastheIndependentReviewer to avoid any discussion oftheneedto address serious undeniable fact. Irealize that my review isnotaboutreforming thejustice system ofOntario, butIwould with problems arisingfrom thejustice system’s treatment ofmembersFirst Nations generally. This isan problems withimproving therepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonjuriesare inextricably connected 352. between theMinistry andFirst Nations. of libertyandincreased distress for First Nations peoplesandafurtherdeterioration intherelations considers theexpenses involved by thepresent approach. This isapartfrom thegreater potential for loss of doingnothingwilllikely bemore thanthecosts ofimplementingtheserecommendations, whenone of thematter shouldnottrumpthosefundamentalprinciplesinany material way. Moreover, thecosts said, whenprinciplesofjustice andfairness for thousandsofpeopleare involved, thefinancialaspects as Ican,have taken financial considerations into account inmakingthe recommendations. With that 351. matters to beleftto theImplementation Committee, asdiscussed below. recommendation practically cannotbeimplemented at thesametime. However, theseare examples of mendation. Alternatively that particularrecommendation mightbedeferred since, asmentioned,every modify therecommendation inaway that reduces costs whilenotchangingthesubstance oftherecom on furtheranalysis, these prove to befinanciallydifficult, I wouldsuggest that consideration be given to should bemadebasedonwhat Ihave heard orobserved to improve thejuryrepresentation situation. If, of Ontario’s financial condition, isthe following approach. Ihave made recommendations that Ibelieve the improvement intherepresentation ofon-reserve First Nations peoplesonjuries,whilebeingrespectful 350. take thefinancialsituation into account in putting forth recommendations. perform thosetasks.However, theterms ofthemandate asstated intheOrder-in-Council callfor meto costs oftherecommendations. The IndependentReview team hasneitherthecapacitynorexpertise to 349. the sectiononImplementation ofRecommendations that follows. I anticipate willbecarried outby theImplementation Committee anditssupportstaff, whichIdescribein recommendations willneedto beprioritized, andmilestones andtargets scheduled.This ispartofthework is nomagicbulletthat canprovide aninstantaneous solution.Consequently, theimplementation ofvarious time. Itisalsoabundantlyclearthat resolving theissues onjuryrepresentation isgoingto take time. There 348. page inmy Report into action. includes recommendations for establishing bodiesthat willbeinstrumental inturningthewords onthe step ofbeginning–rather thanending–my recommendations withthesectiononImplementation, which I realize that many ofmy recommendations will involve costs, butIwould like to say that asmuch Fourth, itbecameapparent almost immediately from thestart oftheIndependent Review that the Fifth, inlisting my recommendations, Idonotwishto implythat they are complete inevery way, as Third, inmakingrecommendations, itisvirtuallyimpossible for meto calculate orestimate thefinancial I believe that thebest way to comply withtheterms ofreference, andto make recommendations for Second, itisobvious that alltherecommendations listed below cannotbeimplemented at thesame

-

- Justice System. setting upofanAdvisory Group to theAttorney General onmatters affecting First Nations andthe the establishment ofanImplementation Committee withgovernment and First Nations membersandthe 359. To meettheimplementation partofmy mandate, Ihave two major recommendations to putforward: Nations onthisissue”. the understanding, cooperation andrelationship between theMinistry oftheAttorney General andFirst the representation ofon-reserve First Nations peoples onjuries,itcallsfor recommendations “tostrengthen extent, recognizes implicitlythisstate ofaffairs. Inaddition to calling for recommendations to enhance First Nations that muchwillever come outofthisIndependent Review. The Order-in-Council, to some the justice system are widespread withinFirst Nations communities. That cynicism includes doubtsamong 358. the broader systemic challengesthat have beenidentifiedinthe course oftheIndependent Review. of responding notjust to theproblem ofunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations individualsonjuries,butto quickly to create –inpartnershipwithFirst Nations inOntario–bodiesthat caneffectively beginthe work on implementation. Idosoinorder to emphasize thefundamentalimportance ofthegovernment moving Asnoted intheintroduction above, Ihave decidedto beginmy recommendations withthissection 357. 2. General asoutlinedbelow. recommended themodelsofImplementation Committee andtheAdvisory Group to theAttorney- Nations goingforward indealingwithjustice andjuryrepresentation issues. To recognize this,Ihave government-to-government relationship that must underlietherelationship between OntarioandFirst incorporates anunderlyingrespect for cultural, traditional, andhistorical values that are different. Itisthis reinforced my beliefintheimportance ofemphasizingagovernment-to-government relationship that history reveals asadversaries. First Nations dohave governments, andthisIndependentReview has 356. To my mind,themodelrelationship between thetwo groups shouldbepartnersrather thanwhat proposals andmutualeffort are required. trust hasto beearnednotproclaimed. Concrete below willachieve nothing.Andthat respect and mutual trust for eachother, therecommendations Without buildingafoundation ofmutualrespect and co-existence between Aboriginalsandnon-Aboriginals. to foster arelationship ofharmony andenlightened have diminishedover time, muchmore isneeded Although theevils ofracism anddiscrimination government orprivate institutions orindividuals. non-Aboriginal Canadians,whetherthelatter are of mistrust anddisrespect between Aboriginaland judge, too often Ihave seenevidence orexamples as alawyer (inbothpublicandprivate practice) and 355. Inmy experience dealingwithAboriginalissues more fundamentalisrequired. of First Nations peoplesonjuries,somethingeven would goalongway to enhancingtherepresentation all oftherecommendations below are desirable and 354. Finally, andmost importantly, whileIbelieve

AN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ANDMINISTER’S ADVISORY GROUP IMPLEMENTA As frequently mentioned,cynicism and mistrust ofjuryparticipation alongwithsimilarconcerns about TION OFRECOMMENDATIONS —ESTABLISHING

85 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 86 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 366. approval pursuantto ManagementBoard guidelines andestablished Government ofOntarioprocedures. independent Crown agencies.The budgetsandexpenses for theCommittee’s work would besubjectto 365. of anExecutive Director whocould come from thepublicservice. of arenewal for anadditionalterm. Asmallsecretariat would needto beassembled withtheappointment 364. involve secondments from existing Ministry oftheAttorney General staff andothersasappropriate. 363. its business. It may bethat approximately seven to ninemembersistheappropriate range. to thework oftheCommittee, yet smallenoughto avoid difficultyinschedulingmeetingsand conducting it shouldbelarge enoughto includeindividualswhocancontribute from theirexperience andqualifications 362. youth referred to inparagraph 228. youth representative ontheCommittee could bringto it,given thedramatic demographic increase of because oftheseriousissues facing First Nations youth andtheimportance oftheperspective that a individual whocould beaFirst Nations youth representative. Sucharepresentative would bevaluable of someonewithauniquebackground orexpertise that shouldberepresented ontheCommittee isan and First Nations andincrease thechances ofgreater acceptance withintheFirst Nations. Anexample seriousness oftheMinistry oftheAttorney General to improving therelationship between the Ministry 361. urgency ofthematter, Irecommend that theCommittee beestablished assoonpractically possible. the implementation ofthebelow recommendations andrelated matters. Inview oftheimportance and to thework oftheImplementation Committee. This Committee would beresponsible for theoversight of officials andindividualswho could,becauseoftheirbackground or expertise, contribute significantly mentation Committee consisting ofasubstantial First Nations membershipalongwithGovernment 360. (A) IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Having First Nations membershipthat issubstantial andnotmere tokenism would underscore the I donotwishto specifytheexact numberofpeoplewhowould serve ontheCommittee except to say The Committee willneedto have asupportgroup, whichshouldnotbelarge innumber, andcould The Committee memberswould bepaidpursuantto provincial practice for boards ofdirectors for The Committee would beappointed by theAttorney General for athree year term withthepossibility The Implementation Committee would beresponsible for suchthingsas: RECOMMENDATION 1: (f) (f) (e) (d) (c) (b) (a) and related matters. receiving periodicreports from Ministry officialsonimplementation of recommendations of recommendations andchangesthat are deemedimportantby theCommittee to make; issuing annual reports to theAttorney General onprogress madeintheimplementation to theDeputyAttorney General for approval; and developing andtransmitting recommendations ofthe Committee for implementation measurable targets asappropriate; developing atimetablefor implementing therecommendations withmilestones to achieve of theMinistry to achieve acooperative andcollaborative working relationship; ensuring there isaproper liaisonwiththeDeputyAttorney General andotherofficials establishing protocols for meetings,decisionmaking,andrelated matters; Irecommend that theMinistry oftheAttorney General establish anImple

- 372. from participating inOntario’s justice system. are alsotaken at thesametimeto respond to thesystemic issues that have prevented First Nations peoples can onlybemadeinimproving therepresentation ofFirst Nations peoplesonOntario’s juryroll ifsteps 371. 3. meaningful improvements for First Nations peoples. between First Nations andtheMinistry oftheAttorney General, andeven better still to positive and beyond thesignalingstage of achangedcommitment, butcould well leadto animproved relationship facing First Nations. The effective working oftheImplementation Committee and Advisory Group willgo an importantandmuchneededchangeinthecommitment ofMinistry officials toimprove thesituation General willnotby that alonesolve alltheconcerns that have beenoutlinedinthisReport, butitwillsignal 370. restorative justice inthejustice system. Accordingly, that could beapointfor discussion by theAdvisory Group. the agendaitems for suchagroup. We heard muchfrom First Nations peopleabouttheimportance of General since itwould bepresumptuous ofmeto goany further. Inasimilarvein, Idonotwishto prescribe General. Iwould leave otherdetailsfor theGroup, suchasmembership, to thedetermination by theAttorney 369. far asFirst Nations peoplesare concerned. begin areal pathway to improve elementsofthejustice system that for too longhave beenignored as but beaneffective mechanism for the Attorney General to receive valuable inputfrom First Nations to First Nations leadersandpeoplewithonemajorproviso: theAdvisory Group shouldnotbewindow dressing and wisdomofthosedirectly affected, namelyFirst Nations. In my view, this would be welcomed by the required onmany fronts, includingatop down approach for theAttorney General to seekthecandidadvice friend to First Nations”. This situation hasbeenarrived at over many years ofneglect,andaresponse is have reached thecrisisstage. AsoneseniorOntariogovernment official toldus:“justice hasnotbeena 368. Nations peoplesonjuries. Nations onjuryissues butalsoonjustice system concerns that are related to theparticipation ofFirst Group would notonlyunderscore thecommitment oftheMinistry to improve theirrelationship withFirst the Attorney General onmatters affecting First Nations peoplesandtheJustice System. 2011 establishing my mandate, Irecommend that theAttorney General establish anAdvisory Group to 367. (B)  CONCERNS ABOUTTHEJUSTICE SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTINGSYSTEMATIC  ON FIRST NATIONS PEOPLESANDTHEJUSTICE SYSTEM ADVISORY GROUPTO THEATTORNEY GENERAL As Ihave repeatedly emphasized throughout theReport, itisclearto methat meaningfulprogress These systemic issues include: The recommendations to setupanImplementation Committee andanAdvisory Group to theAttorney RECOMMENDATION 2 The Group could beasked to meetperiodicallybutat least twice ayear asdecidedby theAttorney As Ihave already mentioned,Ibelieve that relations between thejustice system andFirst Nations • • • • • juries willlessen. are made to thejustice system thenthereticence ofFirst Nations individualsto participate on but onthepositive side, I heard orread somecommentary to theeffect that ifpositive changes resulting invirtuallyautomatic guiltypleas; the problem ofinadequate legalrepresentation ofFirst Nations individuals,particularlyinthenorth, the almost universally-held view ofFirst Nations individualsthat thejustice system isalienorforeign; discriminatory publicreaction to First Nations complaints; instances ofmistreatment ofFirst Nations inmates inprison,general disrespect by police and the systemic racism that unfortunately still appearsto bepresent inourjustice system, including conflict between First Nations andEuro-Canadian approaches to criminaljustice; : To address paragraph 1(b) oftheOrder inCouncil 1288/2011 onAugust 11,

Creating this

87 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 88 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 373. In order to address thesesystemic issues, Irecommend that: • • • • for eventual inputby theImplementation Committee: RECOMMENDATION 4: peoples, notepisodic,adhocorlimited to certain groups ofpeople. and broadly available to allpersonsworking inthejustice system whohave contact withFirst Nations of suchtraining myself asaformer judge. However, thistraining must beconsistent, comprehensive prosecutors, prisonguards andotherrelated agencies. system whohave contact withFirst Nations peoples,includingpolice, court workers, Crown the Attorney General provide cultural training for allgovernment officials workinginthejustice RECOMMENDATION 3: for First Nations individuals,including: of theAttorney General provide broader andmore comprehensive justice education programs RECOMMENDATION 6:after obtainingtheinputofImplementation Committee, theMinistry these districts publiclyavailable. transparency regarding jury districts inOntario, theADAG shouldbeasked to make amapof Attorney General asdirected. Asanexample ofhis/herrole, noting theconfusion andlackof involved inproviding inputthrough him/herto theCommittee andto theadvisorygroup to the should beamemberoftheImplementation Committee, andhis/hercolleagues would beactively and juryrepresentation, aswell asissues withthejustice system, asdeemedappropriate. This person already intheMinistry. The ADAG would have ongoingresponsibility for matters affecting First Nations Report. General (ADAG) positionresponsible for Aboriginalissues, includingtheimplementation ofthis RECOMMENDATION 5: should besubmitted to theImplementation Committee for review andrecommendations. by Ministry staff, of course in consultation withFirst Nations. Ultimately the studies and review These studies andreviews neednotbelong,drawn-out initiatives, andcould becarriedout (c) (b) (a) I appreciate that acertain level ofcultural training isalready provided, having beenthebeneficiary required to improve theprogram. a review oftheAboriginalCourt Worker program andanexamination ofresources Ontario’s geographical anddemographic conditions are very similarto thesetwo jurisdictions; other improvements implemented by thestate ofAlaska outlinedinparagraph 193. Northern and thedefendant hastheabilityto challengetherepresentativeness ofthejurypool,among Similarly, inAlaska thejurypoolisdrawn from residents within50milesofremote courthouses locations anddrawing juryrolls exclusively from residents within30kilometres ofthecourt. should bepaidto thepractice intheNorthwest Territories of holdinghearingsinremote tation, thelocation andscheduleofcourt sittings,andrelated matters. north, that would cover avariety oftopics, includingtheadequacy ofexisting legalrepresen a study onlegalrepresentation that would involve Legal AidOntario, particularlyinthe cultural competency training for OPPofficers; and review board to adjudicate policingcomplaints, andthedevelopment ofmandatory operation ofFirst Nations lawthe enforcement programs, thecreation ofanindependent forces through enabling legislation, theestablishment ofaregulatory bodyto oversee a study onFirst Nations policingissues, includingtherecognition ofFirst Nations police This official wouldneedasmallsupport group that could draw onthe expertiseofofficials after obtainingtheinputofImplementation Committee,of theMinistry

theMinistry oftheAttorney General carryoutthefollowing studies the Ministry of theAttorney General create anAssistant DeputyAttorney Particular attention

- database ofFirst Nations individualslivingonreserve canbecompiled. will overcome theseprivacy and other logistical issues, so that an appropriate comprehensive anaccurate between First Nations andOntario, First Nations governments will cooperate to findpractical solutionsthat the basisofarelationship ofmutualrespect andconsistently withthegovernment-to-government relationship and that they give due respect to First Nations’ autonomy. Myhopeisthat iftheseissues are pursuedon mentation Committee describedabove, that they take into consideration interests ofindividualprivacy, challenges becarriedoutcollaboratively withPTOs andFirst Nations andcoordinated through theImple 375. and return juryquestionnaires whenthey receive them,andto serve onjurieswhensummonsed to doso. data base, itisclear that muchmore needsto bedoneto encourage First Nations individualsto complete information beingused to compile thejuryroll. Inadditionto obtaininganaccurate andcomprehensive from well-meaning efforts, isadhocandleadsinmany cases to out-of-date andotherwise unreliable current reliance by Court Services officialsonobtainingthenames from BandList information, though resulting access to adatabase that contains anup-to-date record ofthenamesindividualslivingonreserve. The adequately represent First Nations individualsonthejury roll. Itisclearthat steps must betaken to obtain current practices followed by Court Services officials to compilethejurylist are notachieving resultsthat 374. 4.  OF THEJURY SELECTIONPROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTINGTHEREFORM As withmy recommendations respecting systemic issues, itiscrucialthat approaches to deal with these There isaconsensus shared witheveryone withwhomImet,includinggovernment officials,that the • (c) (c) (b) (a) with PTOs andotherFirst Nations associations. to theImplementation Committee theProvincial Advocate for Children andYouth should consult for Children andYouth shouldprepare areport onthat conference; priorto submittingthereport between youth, juries,andthejustice system, addressed inthisreport. youth membersfrom First Nations reserves to focus onspecific issues inthe relationship that theProvincial Advocate for Children andYouth facilitate aconference ofrepresentative member ontheImplementation Committee, theImplementation Committee shouldrequest RECOMMENDATION 7:With respect to First Nations youth, inadditionto having ayouth (d) on thejury;and the role played by thejuryinjustice system andtheimportance ofparticipating First Nations languages,that would beusedto educate First Nations individualsasto commissioning thecreation ofvideoorothereducational instruments, particularlyin the role played by criminal,civil,andcoroner’s juries; comprehensive information onthejustice system, includinginformation respecting developing brochures inFirst Nations languageswithplainwording whichprovide jurysystem inparticular, inconsultation withChiefs,andCourt Services officials. for First Nations representatives, dealingwiththejustice system generally andthe schools to participate inintensive summereducation andlegalassistance programs considering thefeasibility ofaprogram that would enlist students from Ontariolaw within theirpurview; The liaisonofficers couldbetasked with holdingJuryInformation Forumsonthe reserves their roles; thisprogram would bedeveloped by theMinistry oftheAttorney General. a training program to provide themwiththebackground information necessary to perform for theirliaisonwork andwould beFirst Nations people. The officers wouldalsoundergo on juriesandjustice issues. establishing First Nations liaisonofficers responsible for consultingwithFirst Nations PTOs, otherassociations, andFirst Nations. carried outwiththeinputofImplementation Committee, butalsoinconsultation with It isimportantto emphasize that alloftheeducation initiatives above would have to be The officers wouldbe assigned approximately 15 reserves

The Provincial Advocate

- 89 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 90 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 376. In order to address theseissues, Irecommend that: • • • • • renewed memorandum ofunderstanding between OntarioandtheFederal government respecting information andotherrecords, andsteps that mightbetaken to secure theserecords, suchasa for generating thisdatabase, includingbandresidency information, Ministry ofTransportation Nations, inconsultation withtheImplementation Committee, consider allotherpotential sources RECOMMENDATION 9:inconnection withthisreview, theMinistry ofAttorney General andFirst the useofOHIPdatabase willbeimplemented onanurgent basis. by whichFirst Nations namescanbeaddedto juryrolls. Itismy hopethat, ifitproves feasible, for thepurposesofcompiling thejuryroll. for, usingtheOHIPdatabase to generate adatabase ofFirst Nations individuals livingonreserve tation Committee, undertake aprompt andurgent review ofthefeasibility of, andmechanisms RECOMMENDATION 8: would notoffend the randomness principle. of theAttorney General andtheImplementation Committee would wishto besatisfied that this Nations peoplesinOntario. By supplementing otherjurysource lists inthismanner, theMinistry overlook certain individuals,andcould serve asimilarlyvaluable purposewith respect to First in New York State asaway to supplementjuryrolls drawn from several otherlists that might volunteer for juryservice asameans ofsupplementingotherjurysource lists. mentation Committee, consider aprocedure whereby First Nations peopleonreserve could RECOMMENDATION 12:theMinistry oftheAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImple jurors donotundermine juryrepresentativeness. is sentoutto aresident ofthesamepostal code, thereby ensuringthat nonresponsive prospective jury summonsorquestionnaire isundeliverable orisnotreturned, anothersummons orquestionnaire mentation Committee, consider implementingthepractice from partsoftheU.S., that whena RECOMMENDATION 11:theMinistry oftheAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImple (f) (e) (d) (c) (b) (a) Implementation Committee, consider amendingthequestionnaire sentto prospective jurors to: RECOMMENDATION 10:theMinistry oftheAttorney General, inconsultation withthe First Nations, asappropriate. band residency information ormemorandums ofunderstanding between OntarioandPTOs or the current five days for the return ofjury questionnaires. provide, through anamendmentto the because oftheimportance ofthejuryinensuringfair trialsunderOntario’s justice system; stating simplythat Ontariolaw requires therecipient to complete andreturn theform remove thewording threatening afine for non-compliance and replacing itwith wording to beexcluded from juryduty;and enable First Nations elected officials, suchasChiefsand Councillors,as wellasElders, make thelanguageassimplepossible; than Canadiancitizens; Nations individualto identifythemselves asFirst Nations membersorcitizens rather Canadian citizenship requirement unders.2(b) of the on thepremise that aFirst Nations memberliving onreserve inOntariosatisfies the translate thequestionnaire into First Nations languagesasappropriate; theMinistry oftheAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImplemen This appearsto meto bethemost promising means Juries Act , for amore realistic periodthan Juries Act , addanoptionfor First This ispractised

- - - 274 recommendation. refer theissue ofjurymembercompensation to theImplementation Committee for consideration and is notconsistent withcost-of-living increases, Irecommend that theMinistry oftheAttorney General 379. ofthepresent provision ofnocompensation for thefirst ten days ofjuryservice. I have heard onthesubjectanupward adjustment appearsto bewarranted, asdoesareconsideration sufficient timeor resources to examine this issue withthethoroughness itdeserves. However, from allthat for thereal costs incurred by aprospective juror for childcare orEldercaseexpenses. We have nothad 378. figures hadrisenwithinflation, they would have stood at $57.92, and$144.81 attheendof 2011, respectively. $100 perday after the49th day, hasbeeninplace since 1991.Considering theConsumer Price Index, ifthese 377. 5.

 RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTINGJURY MEMBERCOMPENSATION . Consumer Price Index, historical summary The current compensation for jurymembersof$40perday from the11thto 49th day ofatrial,and We heard many concerns expressed aboutthelow levels ofcompensation aswell asfailure to reimburse RECOMMENDATION 16:Inview oftheconcerns Ihave heard andthefact that current jurycompensation • • • (b) (a) with criminalrecords for minoroffences beingautomatically excluded from juryduty by: mentation Committee, adoptmeasures to respond to theproblem ofFirst Nations individuals RECOMMENDATION 14:theMinistry oftheAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImple accordingly to reflect thischange. to serve onjuriesby providing translation services andby amendingthejuryquestionnaire mentation Committee, consider enablingFirst Nations peoplenotfluentinEnglishorFrench RECOMMENDATION 13:theMinistry oftheAttorney General, inconsultation withtheImple of Aboriginalpeopleonjuries. Inquiry report recommended the abolitionofperemptory challengesto avoid theunderrepresentation through discriminatory useofperemptory challenges.It shouldalsoberecalled that theManitoba Report isimplemented to itsfullest, First Nations juryservice could still besignificantly undermined challenge isbeingusedinadiscriminatory manner. The pointofthisisthat, ifevery changeinthe are ableto supervisetheexercise ofperemptory challenges,ifajudgeisoftheopinionthat the First Nations peopleservingonjuries. to the Committee theadvisabilityofrecommending to theAttorney General ofCanadaanamendment RECOMMENDATION 15:theMinistry oftheAttorney General discuss withtheImplementation (c) offence. with priorconvictions are barred from juryservice for two to five years, dependingonthe certain offences could become eligibleagain for juryservice. considering whether, after acertain periodoftime, anindividualpreviously convicted of Criminal Code certain offences from inclusiononthejury roll, to make them consistent withthe relevant amending theJ for pardons to remove criminalrecords; and encouraging andproviding advice andsupportfor First Nations individualsto apply Criminal Code provisions, whichexclude anarrower group ofindividuals; uries Act that would prevent theuseofperemptory challengesto discriminate against , online:Statistics Canada provisions that exclude individualswhohave beenconvicted of Apractice that hasdeveloped intheU.S. by whichjudges

In New SouthWales, people

- -

274

91 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE 92 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci a coroner’s inquest. First Nations individualsto volunteer to beonthejuryroll for thepurposesofempanellingajuryfor General, inconsultation withtheImplementation Committee, institute aprocess that would allow for 385. as well astheuniqueobjectives ofacoroner’s inquest. jury roll for acoroner’s inquest iscompatible withthedistinct way inwhichacoroner’s juryisempanelled, for criminaljuries befurtherconsidered by theImplementation Committee. Butvolunteering to beonthe volunteering for jurydutyexists inNew York State). That iswhy Ihave recommended that volunteer service this may raise issues ofrandomness inthecontext ofacriminalorciviltrial(though,asIhave pointed out, that someFirst Nations individualsmighthave aninterest involunteering for juryduty. Iunderstand that 384. the context ofcoroner’s inquests. the issue ofunderrepresentation ofFirst Nations individualsonjurieshasbeenparticularlyprominent in not want to underestimate theimportance ofFirst Nations individualsservingoncriminaljuries,Inote that to hearthesefamilies’ stories duringtheforum organized by AboriginalLegal Services Toronto. While Ido as theindividualwhosedeath isbeinginvestigated, take partinthecoroner’s inquest jury. Iwas very moved inquests have astrong andcompelling interest inhaving First Nations individuals,ideally from samecommunity 383. for theaccused andCrown to challengejurors andhave themremoved from thelist. in particular, whichemphasizes theimportance ofrandom selectionandprovides procedural protections them to attend at theplace ofinquest. This process issignificantlydifferent from thecriminaljury process she believes to be“suitable to serve asjurors at aninquest”from that list andissues summonsesrequiring area where thedeath occurred. The Coroner’s Constable thenselectsthenamesofpeoplewhomheor he orsheissues awarrant whichrequires theProvincial JuryCentre to provide alist ofjurors livinginthe civil juryselectionprocess. AsIdescribedat paragraph 102 above, whenthe coroner beginsaninquest, criminal andciviltrials,theprocess by which thecoroner selectsajuryisdistinct from thecriminaland 382. to learnabouthow thecoroner’s juryprocess works andexpressed interest inbecoming involved. expressed reluctance to engageinthe“judging”involved inbeingonacriminaljury, they were interested by First Nations communities. Myexperience inspeakingwithFirst Nations individualswas that, whilethey consistent withwhat hasbeendescribedto measthetraditional way inwhichjustice hasbeenadministered certain questions andmakingrecommendations, asopposedto makingfindingsofguilt,is remarkably 381. consideration for at least four reasons. 380. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTINGCORONER’S INQUESTS First, asdescribedat paragraphs 102 and103 above, therole played by coroner’s juriesinanswering Second, althoughmembersofcoroner’s inquest juriesare drawn from thesamelist asjurors for Third, itisapparent that thefamilies ofFirst Nations individualswhoare thesubjectofcoroner’s RECOMMENDATION 17:For alloftheabove reasons, Irecommend that theMinistry oftheAttorney Finally, Iheard duringtheengagementprocess andinthesubmissions ofanumberparticipants The issue ofimproving First Nations representation oncoroner’s inquests isworthy ofspecial

93 PART IV THE JURY SYSTEM AND FIRST NATIONS: THE FUTURE APPENDIX A Reviewer andauthorized to conduct suchareview; Frank Iacobucci beappointed asan Independent THEREFORE, itisordered that theHonourable terms ofreference for suchareview; AND WHEREAS itis desirable to setoutthe and are, ormay bedesirous ofthesamegoal; WHEREAS otherFirst Nations have been, communities initsterritories; rolls ofFirst Nations personslivingonreserve Reviewer to enhance therepresentation onjury the Ontariogovernment andtheIndependent as apoliticalterritorial organization to work with WHEREAS Nishnawbe AskiNation hasresolved and onasystemic basis; roll andto dosoindependentlyofgovernment persons livingonreserve communities onthejury individual to review theprocess for including of thegovernment’s executive functions,an Queen inrightofOntario, andinthedischarge pursuant to theprerogative ofHerMajesty the desirable to authorize underthecommon law, WHEREAS ithasbeendetermined that itis inclusion onthejuryroll; living onreserve communities for potential prescribes theprocess for selectingpersons WHEREAS subsection6(8)ofthe the process for preparing thejuryroll; governs thejuryprocess inOntario, including WHEREAS the Council, orders that: advice andconcurrence oftheExecutive the Lieutenant Governor, by andwiththe On therecommendation oftheundersigned, Juries Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3,

ORDER INCOUNCIL Juries Act

O.C./DÉCRET 1388/2011

DÉCRET leur éventuelle inclusionsurlaliste desjurés; personnes vivant dansdesréserves envuede les jurys ATTENDU QUEleparagraphe 6(8)dela la liste desjurés; jurés enOntario, ycompris lapréparation de chap. J.3) régit leprocessus desélectiondes ATTENDU QUEla décrète ce quisuit: et avec leconsentement duConseil exécutif, soussignée, lelieutenant-gouverneur, surl’avis Sur larecommandation delapersonne à procéder àcet examen; à titre d’examinateur indépendantetautorisé l’honorable Frank Iacobucci soitnommé EN CONSÉQUENCE, ilest ordonné que le cadre deréférence d’unexamen dece genre; ET ATTENDU QU’ilest souhaitabled’énoncer aspiré, aspirent oupeuvent aspirer aumême but; ATTENDU QUEd’autres Premières nations ont situées sursesterritoires; des Premières nations vivant dansdesréserves représentation, surleslistes dejurés, desmembres l’examinateur indépendantpouraccroître la travailler avec legouvernement del’Ontarioet en tantqu’organisation territoriale politique, de ATTENDU QUENishnawbe AskiNation arésolu, gouvernement etsurunebasesystémique; la liste desjurés etce, indépendammentdu des personnesvivant dansdesréserves sur un particulieràexaminer laprocédure d’inclusion le cadre desfonctions exécutivesgouvernement, du de SaMajesté laReine duchefdel’Ontario, et dans d’autoriser, encommon law etselonlaprérogative ATTENDU QU’ilaété déterminé qu’ilest souhaitable prescrit leprocessus desélectiondes Loi surlesjurys (L.R.O. 1990,

Loi sur

95 APPENDIX A 96 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci c. b.  a. 4.  3.  2.  b. a. 1.  MANDATE Honourable Frank Iacobucci beasfollows: AND THAT theterms ofreference for the order to make recommendations: for alljurytrialsandcoroners inquests, in roll from whichpotential jurors are selected Nations personslivingonreserve onthejury legislation andprocesses for includingFirst systemic review andreport onany relevant

The IndependentReviewer shallconduct a August 31,2012. to theAttorney General nolater than deliver hisfinal report and recommendations the review inanexpeditious mannerandshall The IndependentReviewer shallconduct and First Nations inOntario. challenging fiscal context for government developed shouldtake into account the goals describedabove, any recommendations While promoting theachievement ofthe Reviewer shall: In conducting thereview, theIndependent practices. any relevant legislation, andidentifybest conduct interjurisdictional analysis, including practices andpast practices; communities onthejuryroll; and of First Nations personslivingonreserve review theexisting legislation andprocesses, to ensure andenhance therepresentation transcripts relating to publiclegalproceedings; jury rolls inasystemic context, andany reports relevant to thismandate, including issue. Attorney General andFirst Nations onthis and relationship between theMinistry ofthe review andconsider any existing records or to strengthen theunderstanding, cooperation

b. b. a. 1.  MANDAT Frank Iacobucci soitlesuivant : ET QUElemandat del’honorable c. b. a. 4.  3. 2.  de faire desrecommandations visantce quisuit: jury ettoutes lesenquêtes ducoroner, danslebut les jurés potentiels pourtous lesprocès devant la liste desjurés àpartirdelaquellesontchoisis Premières nations vivant dansdesréserves sur pertinentes envued’inclure desmembres des sur lesdispositionslégislatives etlaprocédure examen systémique etprépare unrapport L’examinateur indépendantprocède àun général auplustard le31août2012. final etses recommandations auprocureur promptement àl’examen etremet son rapport L’examinateur indépendantprocède nations del’Ontario. face legouvernement etlesPremières conjoncture fiscaledifficileàlaquelle font formulées devraient tenir compte dela buts énoncés ci-dessus, lesrecommandations Bien qu’elles visentàfavoriser laréalisation des indépendant : Dans lecadre desonexamen, l’examinateur pratiques à suivre. pertinentes, etdétermine lesmeilleures notamment desdispositionslégislatives procède àuneanalyse interterritoriale, nations vivant dansdesréserves; liste desjurés, desmembres desPremières actuelles etpassées; procédure envigueurainsiquelespratiques garantir etaccroître lareprésentation, surla examine lesdispositionslégislatives etla général etlesPremières nations ence qui et lesrelations entre leministère duProcureur aux procédures judiciaires publiques; systémique, etlestranscriptions relatives compris leslistes dejurés dansuncontexte existants quiserapportent àsonmandat, y concerne cette question. consolider lacompréhension, lacollaboration examine etétudielesdossiers oulesrapports

10.  RESOURCES 9.  8.  7.  6.  5.  to acriminalinvestigation or cases that are, have been,ormay besubject Reviewer shallnotreport onany individual In fulfillinghismandate, theIndependent on First Nations communities. First Nations communities, includingattendances private meetingsandholdconsultations with information orrecords to him,holdpublicand/or Reviewer may request any personto provide In conducting thereview, theIndependent proceedings. investigations orcriminalother legal organization, andwithoutinterfering inany the civilorcriminalliabilityofany personor conclusions orrecommendations regarding in relation to misconduct, orexpressing any duties withoutmakingany findingsof fact The IndependentReviewer shallperform his make thereport available to thepublic. printed versions. The Attorney General shall Mohawk at thesametime, inelectronic and English, French, Cree, Ojibway, Oji-Cree and printing, andshallensure that itisavailable in release andberesponsible for translation and legislation, andinsufficientquantity, forpublic Protection of Privacy Act pursuant to the ensure that thereport isinaform appropriate, General, theIndependentReviewer shall In delivering hisreport to theAttorney party, includingministries ofgovernment. a First Nation aswell asfrom any interested zation, First Nation organization, memberof Nation, First Nation political territorial organi receive submissions inwritingfrom any First The IndependentReviewer shallinvite and shall bereimbursed for reasonable expenses by the Ministry of the Attorney General. They duties at reasonable remuneration approved considers necessary inthe performance ofhis may retain suchcounsel, staff, or expertise he the Attorney General theIndependentReviewer Within abudgetapproved by theMinistry of Freedom of Information and andotherapplicable

-

7.  6.  5.  10.  RESSOURCES met lerapport àladispositiondu public. électronique quepapier. Le procureur général ojibway, ojicrietmohawk ettantsursupport même temps enversion française, anglaise, cri, En outre, ilfait ensorte qu’ilsoitdisponibleen et doitenassurer latraduction etl’impression. d’exemplaires suffisantpoursadiffusionpublique privée l’accès àl’information etlaprotection delavie forme appropriée, conformément àla son rapport auprocureur général sousune 9. L’examinateur indépendantveille àremettre 8.  pénale, d’une poursuite pénaleoud’uneautre peuvent faire l’objet d’uneenquête, notamment des causesparticulières quifont, ontfait ou indépendant nedoitpasfaire rapport sur procédure judiciaire. Dans lecadre desonmandat, l’examinateur y compris serendre surplace. avec descollectivités desPremières nations, ou àhuisclosetengagerdesconsultations documents, tenir desséances publiques de luifournir desrenseignements oudes indépendant peutdemanderàtoute personne Dans lecadre desonexamen, l’examinateur poursuites pénales. ou desprocédures judiciaires, notammentdes organisme etsansintervenir dansdesenquêtes civile oupénaledetoute personneou de tout ou derecommandations quantàlaresponsabilité matière d’inconduite niformuler deconclusions fonctions sans tirer deconclusions defait en L’examinateur indépendants’acquitte deses ministères dugouvernement. de toute partieintéressée, ycompris des membre d’unePremière Nation ainsique organisation desPremières nations, detout politique desPremières nations, detoute nations, detoute organisation territoriale reçoit desobservations écrites desPremières L’examinateur indépendantdemandeet par leministère duProcureur général. Les selon larémunération raisonnable approuvée juge nécessaires àl’exercice desesfonctions avocats, dupersonneloudesexperts qu’il indépendant peutretenir lesservices des ministère du Procureur général, l’examinateur Dans lecadre d’unbudgetapprouvé parle etauxautres loisapplicables,etennombre Loi sur

97 APPENDICES 98 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci independence ofthereview. may carryouthisdutiesandshallrespect the fullest extent sothat theIndependentReviewer tions, assist theIndependentReviewer to the subject to any privilegeorotherlegal restric- commissions oftheGovernment ofOntarioshall, 14. Allministries andallagencies,boards and and Guidelines. with ManagementBoard ofCabinetDirectives funding recommendations shallbeinaccordance in thereview withoutsuchfunding.Any such issues andwho would beunableto participate who have information relevant to the systemic Attorney General regarding fundingfor parties mendations to theAttorney General ortheDeputy 13. The IndependentReviewer may make recom- he IndependentReviewer shallfollow 12. he IndependentReviewer shallestablish and 11. the public. to promote accessibility andtransparency to maintain awebsite anduseothertechnologies T to follow them. his dutiesunless, inhisview, itisnotpossible he considers necessary intheperformance of policies inobtainingotherservices andgoods Guidelines andotherapplicablegovernment Management Board ofCabinetDirectives and T Cabinet Directives andGuidelines. accordance withManagementBoard of incurred inconnection withtheirdutiesin

et ilsrespectent l’indépendance del’examen. façon qu’ilpuisse s’acquitter desesfonctions leur concours àl’examinateur indépendantde gouvernement del’Ontarioprêtent sansréserve tous lesorganismes, conseils etcommissions du restriction légale, tous lesministères ainsique 14. Sousréserve detout privilègeoudetoute autre de gestion du gouvernement. aux directives etauxlignesdirectrices duConseil Ces recommandations doivent être conformes ne seraient pasenmesure departiciperàl’examen. systémiques etqui,àdéfaut dece financement, renseignements serapportant auxquestions financement despartiesquidétiennent sous-procureur général ence quiconcerne le recommandations auprocureur général ouau 13. L’examinateur indépendantpeutfaire des 12. ’examinateur indépendantsedote d’unsite 11. promouvoir l’accessibilité etlatransparence. Web etutilised’autres technologies pour L de sesfonctions. services qu’ilestime nécessaires àl’exercice le cadre del’obtention desautres bienset politiques applicablesdugouvernement dans gestion dugouvernement ainsiquelesautres directives etleslignesdirectrices duConseil de possible, l’examinateur indépendantsuitles À moinsque du gouvernement. et auxlignesdirectrices duConseil degestion leurs fonctions, conformément auxdirectives frais raisonnables engagésdansl’exercice de personnes retenues sefont rembourser les , àsonavis, cela nesoitpas

99 APPENDICES APPENDIX B 6.  3. INELIGIBLE OCCUPATIONS INELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS JUROR or sheresides. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.2;2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). is eligibleandliableto serve asajuror onjuriesintheSuperiorCourt ofJustice in thecounty inwhichhe 2. ELIGIBLE JURORS ELIGIBILITY Sched. G,s.22;2001, c.8,s.206. “regulations” meanstheregulations madeunderthisAct. (“règlements”) R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.1;1997, c.43, l’évaluation”) appointed by theCorporation to betheDirector ofAssessment underthisAct; (“directeur de “Director ofAssessment” meanstheemployee oftheMunicipalProperty Assessment Corporation whois “county” includesadistrict; (“comté”) 1. DEFINITIONS Subjectto sections3and4,every personwho, (1)The following personsare ineligibleto serve asjurors: In thisAct, Every personengagedintheenforcement oflaw including,withoutrestricting thegenerality ofthe 5.  4. Every barrister andsolicitor andevery student-at-law. 3. Every judgeandevery justice ofthepeace. 2. Every memberoftheSenate, the House ofCommons ofCanadaortheAssembly. 1. Every memberofthePrivy Council ofCanadaortheExecutive Council ofOntario. (c)  (b) isaCanadiancitizen; and (a) resides inOntario; in practice andevery coroner. Every legallyqualifiedmedicalpractitioner and veterinary surgeon whoisactively engaged or more, in theyear preceding theyear for whichthejuryisselected hadattained theageofeighteen years CONSOLIDATION PERIOD:FROMJUNE30, 2010 TO THEE-LAWS CURRENCY DATE. LAST AMENDMENT: 2009, C.33,SCHED. 2,S.38.

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTERJ.3 JURIES ACT

101 APPENDIX B 102 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci TRANSMISSION OFRESOLUTIONS c. J.3, s.5(2). and thetotal number that shallbeselected from territory without municipalorganization. R.S.O. 1990, ensuing year, thesheriffshallfix totalnumberofpersonsthat shallbeselected from municipalities, Inaterritorial(2) district, after determining thenumberofpersonsthat willberequired for service during the NUMBER OFJURORSINDISTRICTS for theensuing year for thecounty, 5. (1)The sheriff for a county shallonorbefore the15thday ofSeptember ineach year determine NUMBER OFJURORSONROLL DUTY OFSHERIFF PREPARATION OFJURY ROLLS 4. INELIGIBILITY FORPERSONALREASONS 1994, c.27, s.48(3). this Act orany predecessor thereof isineligibleto serve asajuror inthat year. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.3(4); has attended court for juryservice inresponse to asummonsafter selectionfrom theroll prepared under (4) Every personwho, at any timewithinthree years preceding theyear for whichthejuryroll isprepared, PREVIOUS SERVICE the proceeding oractionmightbetried.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.3(3). criminal proceeding orhasaninterest inanactionisineligibleto serve asajuror at any sittingsat which (3) Every personwhohasbeensummonedasawitness orislikely to becalledasawitness inacivilor CONNECTION WITHCOURT ACTION AT SAME SITTINGS (2) Repealed: 1994,c.27, s.48(2). Apersonisineligibleto serve asajuror who, officers ofa courtofjustice. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3,s.3(1);1994,c. 27, s.48(1);1997, c.4,s.82. department for thepurposesofsubsection41 (1)ofthe institutions orlockups, officers, sheriff’s police officers, firefighters who areregularly employed by afire foregoing, sheriffs, wardens ofany penitentiary, superintendents, jailersor keepers ofprisons, correctional (c)  (b)  (a) thenumberofjurors that willberequired for eachsittingsoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice; (b)  (a)  Sched. C,s.1(1). the aggregate numberofpersonsthat willbesorequired. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.5(1);2006,c.19, the dutiesofajuror; or has aphysical ormentaldisabilitythat would seriouslyimpairhisorherabilityto discharge has subsequentlybeengranted apardon. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.4;2009, c.33,Sched.2,s.38(1). of any otherAct; and the numberofpersonsthat willberequired for selectionfrom thejuryroll for thepurposes has beenconvicted ofanoffence that may beprosecuted by indictment,unless theperson

Fire Protection andPrevention Act, 1997, and

receipt thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.6(5). and truthfullycomplete thereturn andshallmailitto thesheriff for the county withinfive days after (5) Every personto whomajuryservice notice ismailedinaccordance withthissectionshall accurately RETURN TO JURY SERVICE NOTICE R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.6(4). in themost recent enumeration oftheinhabitants ofthecounty undersection15ofthe The juryservice notice(4) to apersonunderthissectionshallbemailedto thepersonat theaddress shown ADDRESS FORMAILING number fixed undersubsection5(2) to beselected from municipalities.R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.6(3). together betreated inthesamemannerasacounty from whichthenumberofjurors required isthe (3) Inaterritorial district for thepurposesofsubsection(2),all the municipalitiesindistrict shall APPLICATION OFSUBS.(2)TO MUNICIPALITIES INDISTRICTS by theenumeration. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.6(2). selection inthemunicipalitybearsto thetotal numbereligiblefor selectioninthecounty, asdetermined same proportion to thetotal numberselected for thecounty asthetotal numberofpersonseligiblefor and thenumberofpersonsselected from eachmunicipalityinthecounty shallbearapproximately the enumeration oftheinhabitants county undersection15ofthe Director ofAssessment at random from personswho, from information obtainedat themost recent (2) The personsto whomjuryservice notices are mailedunderthissectionshallbeselected by the SELECTION OFPERSONSNOTIFIED provided for inthissection.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.6(1). the numberofpersonsineachcounty specifiedinthesheriff’s statement, andselected inthemanner and aprepaid return envelope addressed to thesheriff for the county, to bemailed by first class mail to service notice, together withareturn to thejuryservice notice intheform prescribed by theregulations 6. JURY SERVICE NOTICES (3) The sheriffshall forthwith uponmakingthedetermination undersubsection(1) certify andtransmit, (1) The Director ofAssessment shallineachyear onorbefore the31st day ofOctober causeajury (b) (a) at thetimeofenumeration, resided inthecounty andwere Canadiancitizens; and (b)  (a) to theDirector ofAssessment, (i)  of eighteen years ormore, intheyear preceding theyear for whichthejuryisselected, are oforwillattain theage (ii) astatement ofthenumbersjuryservice notices to bemailedto personsinthecounty; and of jurors underclause(1)(a).R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.5(3);2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). to thelocalregistrar oftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice, acopy ofthedetermination for thenumber in thecounty intheensuingyear, and a copy ofthedetermination declaringtheaggregate numberofpersonsrequired for thejuryroll Assessment Act , Assessment Act

.

103 APPENDIX B 104 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 2006, c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). from theroll where itappearssuchpersonwillbeunableto attend for juryduty. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.8(3); (3) The sheriffmay, withthewritten approval ofajudgetheSuperior Court ofJustice, omitthename OMISSION OFNAMES (2) The juryroll prepared undersubsection(1)shallbedividedinto three parts,asfollows: ENGLISH, FRENCHANDBILINGUAL JURORS R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.8(1);1994,c.27, s.48(4). eligible for jury service, to beentered inthejuryroll alphabeticallyarranged andnumbered consecutively. name, address andoccupation ofeachpersonmakingsuchareturn, whoisshown by thereturn to be 8. ENTRY OFNAMESINJURY ROLL R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.7. 7. SHERIFF TO PREPARE JURY ROLL of thereserve from any record available. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.6(8). as ifthereserve were amunicipalityand,for thepurpose, thesheriffmay obtainthenamesofinhabitants is situate, thesheriffshallselectnames ofeligiblepersonsinhabitingthe reserve inthesamemanner (8) Intheselectingofpersonsfor entryinthejuryroll inacounty ordistrict inwhichanIndianreserve INDIAN RESERVES to thepersonsshown onthelist. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.6(7). proceeding asproof, intheabsence ofevidence to thecontrary, ofthemailingjuryservice notices without proof oftheoffice orsignature oftheDirector of Assessment, receivable in evidence in any mailing andthelist received by thesheriffpurporting to be certified bytheDirector of Assessment is, arranged alphabeticallyto whomjuryservice notices were mailedunderthissectionforthwith after such (7) The Director ofAssessment shallfurnishto thesheriff for the county alist ofpersonsinthe county LIST OFNOTICES GIVEN the notice ororder, ordidnotreceive the notice ororder untilalater date. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.6(6). in goodfaith, through absence, accident, illness orothercausebeyond hisorhercontrol didnotreceive after theday ofmailingunless thepersonto whomthenotice ismailedestablishes that heorshe, acting (6) For thepurposesofsubsection(5),notice shallbedeemedto have beenreceived onthethird day WHEN SERVICE DEEMED MADE (1)The sheriffshallopenthe returns to juryservice notices received by thesheriffandshallcause The sheriffshallineach year prepare a roll calledthejury roll inthe form prescribed by the regulations. 3.  2.  1.  read andunderstand English. A partlisting thepersonswhoappear, by thereturns to juryservice notices, to speak, read andunderstand French. A partlisting thepersonswhoappear, by thereturns to juryservice notices, to speak, read andunderstand bothEnglishandFrench. 1994,c.27, s.48(5). A partlisting thepersonswhoappear, by thereturns to juryservice notices, to speak,

c. J.3, s.12;2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). drafted andreturned orsuchgreater orlesser numberasinhisorheropinion isrequired. R.S.O. 1990, to thesheriff for the return ofsuch number ofjurors asthesheriff has determined as the number tobe 12. ISSUANCE OFPRECEPTS JURY PANELS sheriff. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.11(2). (2) The namessuppliedto thejuryroll underthissectionshallbeentered thereon andcertified by the CERTIFICATION OFADDITIONSBY SHERIFF R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.11(1). rolls for thethree nearest preceding years for whichthere isajuryroll orcertified copy thereof in existence. there isnojuryroll for theyear inexistence, thesheriffmay supplynamesofeligiblejurors from thejury 11. ADDITIONS TO ROLLBY SHERIFF jury roll untilthedates sofixed. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.10;2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.2(1). to suchdate astheChiefJustice considers appropriate andmay authorize thecontinued useofthelatest extend any timesprescribed by thisAct inconnection withthepreparation ofthejuryroll for thecounty 10. EXTENSION OFTIMES Sched. C,s.1(1). for certification for such reasons asheorshe considers sufficient.R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3,s. 9; 2006,c. 19, the certification to ajudgeoftheSuperior Court ofJustice, butajudgeofthe court may extend thetime the sheriffshall certify the roll to betheproper roll prepared asthelaw directs andshalldeliver notice of 9. CERTIFICATION OFROLL R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.8(6). collector’s roll prepared for schoolpurposesandmay obtain namesfrom any otherrecord available. have recourse to thelatest pollinglist prepared andcertified for such territory, and to any assessment or territory withmunicipalorganization inthenumbersfixed undersubsection5(2)and for thepurposemay Inaterritorial(6) district, thesheriffshallselectnamesofeligiblepersonswho reside inthedistrict outside SELECTION FROMUNORGANIZEDTERRITORY c. J.3, s.8(5). with respect to theadditionaljuryservice notices requested by thesheriff to bemailed.R.S.O. 1990, forthwith carryoutsuchrequest andfor suchpurposesection6applieswithnecessary modifications (5) Uponreceipt ofarequest from thesheriffundersubsection(4),Director ofAssessment shall SUPPLYING OFSUPPLEMENTARY NAMES c. J.3, s.8(4). notices andforms ofreturns to juryservice notice asintheopinionofsheriffare required. R.S.O. 1990, (4) The sheriffmay request theDirector ofAssessment to mailsuchnumberofadditionaljuryservice SUPPLEMENTARY NAMES Assoonasthejuryroll hasbeencompleted butnotlater thanthe31st day ofDecember ineachyear, (1)Where there are nopersonsornotasufficientnumber ofpersonsonthe proper jury roll,orwhere AjudgeoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice may issue precepts intheform prescribed by theregulations The ChiefJustice oftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice may, upontherequest ofthesheriff for a county,

105 APPENDIX B 106 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci or written onit,andthesheriffshallthenproceed to draft thepanelofjurors. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.17(2). ballots asthere are numbersonthejuryroll, allowing onenumberto eachballot,whichnumbershallbeprinted required, and shallprepare asetofballotsuniform andconvenient size containing thesamenumberof (2) The sheriffshallthenappend to suchtitle orheadingalist ofnumbersfrom “1” forward to thenumber BALLOTS FORDRAFTINGPANEL heading shallsetforth thenumberofjurors to bereturned. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.17 (1). as suchpanelisthefirst, second, third orsubsequentpaneldrafted from suchjury roll, andthetitleor heading for thelist ofjurors to bereturned, to whichheorsheshallfixan appropriate numberaccording 17. HOW SHERIFFTO PREPARE APANEL sheriff. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.16. the juryroll inthepresence of ajustice ofthepeace whoshallattend uponreasonable notice from the and place at whichthepanelofjurors willbedrafted, and thesheriffshalldraft thepanel by ballotfrom 16. SHERIFF TO DRAFTPANEL roll inthemannerhereinafter mentioned. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.15. panel list ofthe namesofthejurors contained inthejuryroll, whosenamesshallbedrafted from such 15. HOW SHERIFFSTO DRAFTPANELS OFJURORS for thepurpose oftheadditions,section11applies.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.14(2). forthwith thereafter summonthem, andwhere there are notasufficient numberofjurors onthejury roll number ofjurors inthemannerprovided by thisAct, andshalladdtheirnamesto thepanellist, andshall (2) The sheriff, uponthe receipt ofanorder undersubsection(1),shall forthwith draft suchadditional DUTY OFSHERIFFAS TO DRAFTINGADDITIONALNUMBEROFJURORS number ofjurors. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.14(1);2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). the sittingsofcourt, by order underhisorherhandandseal,may direct thesheriff to return anadditional 14. ADDITIONAL JURORS (3) Eachsetshallfor allpurposesbedeemedaseparate panel.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.13(3). EACH SETASEPARATE PANEL every juror specifyat what timehisorherattendance willberequired. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.13(2). (2) The sheriffshalldivide suchjurors into asmany setsasare directed, andshallinthesummons to SHERIFF TO DIVIDEJURORSINTO SETS or shethinksfit.R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.13(1);2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). direct thesheriff to return suchnumberofjurors insuchnumberofsetsonday for eachsetashe panel for asittingsoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice besummonedinmore thanoneset,thejudgemay 13. TWO ORMORESETS OFJURORS Every sheriff to whomaprecept for the return ofjurors isdirected shall, to suchprecept, return a Uponreceipt oftheprecept, thesheriffshallpost upinhisorheroffice written notice ofthe day, hour (1)AjudgeoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice, after theissue oftheprecept, at any timebefore orduring (1) Before proceeding to draft apanelof jurors from ajuryroll, thesheriffshall prepare aproper titleor (1) Where ajudgeoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice considers itnecessary that thejurors to form the

record checkundersubsection(1)asisrequired for the purposesofthissection.2009, c.33,Sched.2,s.38(2). indirectly, useanddisclosesuchpersonalinformation respecting apersonwhoisthesubjectofcriminal (3) Subjectto any restrictions orconditions setout intheregulations, thesheriffshall collect, directly or COLLECTION, USEANDDISCLOSURE OFPERSONALINFORMATION BY SHERIFF Sched. 2,s.38(2). by thesheriffbefore he orshefinalizes thejurypanelonwhichpersonis tobeincluded.2009, c.33, (2) Acriminalrecord checkconcerning apersonthat isrequested undersubsection(1)shallbeobtained TIMING Information Centre database, be conducted concerning theperson.2009, c.33,Sched.2,s.38(2). regulations, request that acriminalrecord check,prepared from national data ontheCanadianPolice section 18or18.1 for inclusiononajurypanel,thesheriffmay, inaccordance withthissectionandthe 18.2 CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK (2) When ajury panelisbeingdrafted undersubsection(1), NON-APPLICATION OFCERTAIN REQUIREMENTS may useany electronic orotherautomated procedure to accomplish thesameresult. 1994,c.27, s.48(7). 18.1 AUTOMATED PROCEDUREFORDRAFTINGPANEL panel list shall beretained inthecustody ofthesheriff. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.18(4). attested by thesignatures ofthesheriff, deputyandthe justice orthesheriff’s ofthepeace, andsuch deputyandthejusticeor thesheriff’s ofthepeace, present at suchdrafting, shallthenbe recorded and obedience to whichithasbeendrafted, thedate andplace ofsuchdrafting, andthenamesofsheriff, (4) The panellist soalphabeticallyarranged andnumbered, withashortstatement oftheprecept in IDEM (3) Repealed: 1994,c.27, s.48(6). R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.18(2). jury roll, andeachnameshallbethereupon marked by deputyuponthejury thesherifforsheriff’s roll. occupations shallthenbe transcribed by thesheriff, witha reference to thenumberofeachnameon (2) The namesofthepersons sodrafted, arranged alphabetically, withtheirplaces ofresidence and PANEL LIST of thejustice ofthepeace. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.18(1). 18. DRAFTING OFPANEL (1) The sheriffshalldraft thepanel by drawing at random theballotsfrom a container inthepresence (b)  (a)  (1)For thepurposesofconfirming whether clause4(b) appliesin respect ofapersonselected under (1) Instead offollowing theprocedure describedinsections15to 18to draft apanelofjurors, thesheriff notice neednotbeposted assetoutinsection16; and (4),isnotrequired. 1994,c.27, s.48(7). the participation ofajustice ofthepeace, asreferred to insection16andsubsections18(1)

107 APPENDIX B 108 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci any suchpanellist. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.20. litigants oraccused personsortheirsolicitors, uponrequest andpayment ofafee of$2,withacopy of copy thereof inhisorhercustody by litigants oraccused personsortheirsolicitors andshallfurnishthe deputy,sheriff’s shallpermittheinspection at all reasonable hoursofthejury roll andofthepanellist or of thecourt for whichthepanel hasbeendrafted, andduringsuchperiodoften days, thesheriff, orthe the justice ofthepeace mentionedinsection16,orby any otherperson,untilten days before thesittings and serve thejurysummons,shallnotbedisclosedby thesheriff, deputy, thesheriff’s officer, clerk, or by lock andkey by thesheriff, and except inso far asmay benecessary inorder to prepare thepanellists, 20. SECRECY OFJURY ROLLANDPANEL R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.19(2);2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). there are notfurthersittingsinthat year, inapanelto bereturned for asittingsintheyear next following. this Act, suchpersonshallbeincludedinapanelto bereturned for asittingslater intheyear or, where but unless a judge oftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice directs otherwiseanddespite any otherprovision of (2) The sheriffmay excuse any personsummoned for ajurysittingsontheground, EXCUSING OFJURORS R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.19(1). to draft andsummonadditionaljurors underthisAct, suchtwenty-one days service isnotnecessary. least twenty-one days before theday uponwhichthepersonisto attend, butwhenthesheriffisdirected ordinary mailanotice inwritingtheform prescribed by theregulations underthehandofsheriff at 19. SUMMONING JURORS21DAYS BEFOREATTENDANCE REQUIRED NOTICE in respect oftheperson,sheriffshall, (5) If, onreview ofaperson’s criminalrecord check,thesheriffdetermines that clause4(b) applies REMOVAL ANDREPLACEMENT respecting, (4) The sheriffmay enter into anagreement withapolice force that isprescribed by the regulations AGREEMENT WITHPOLICEFORCE (1)The sheriffshallsummon every persondrafted to serve onjuries by sending to theperson by The juryroll andevery list containing thenamesof jurydrafted for any panel shallbekept under (b) that servingasajuror may causeserioushardships orloss to thepersonorothers, (a) ofillness; or (c)  (b) remove theperson’s name andotherinformation from thejuryroll for theapplicableyear; and (a) remove thepersonfrom thejurypanelonwhichpersonwas to have beenincluded; (b)  (a) thepreparation ofacriminalrecord checkby thepolice force for thepurposesofthissection;and panel to replace thepersonwhowas removed. 2009, c.33,Sched.2,s.38(2). draft, inaccordance withsection18or18.1, asthecasemay be, anotherpersonfor thejury of thecriminalrecord check.2009, c.33,Sched. 2,s.38(2). the collection, useanddisclosure ofpersonalinformation by thepolice force for thepurposes

to whichtheperson belongs.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.23(1). ground that service asajuror isincompatible withthebeliefs orpractices ofareligion orreligious order 23. RELIGIOUS REASONS EXCUSING OFJUROR 1994, c.27, s.48(8);2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.2(2). panels ofjurors, includingpanels established by divisionundersection22,bemerged into asinglepanel. 22.1 MERGER all purposesbedeemedaseparate panel.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.22;2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). for asittings of theCourt bedividedinto two ormore sets asheorshemay direct, andeachsetshallfor 22. DIVISION OFPANEL at thesittings.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.21(4). mentioned insubsection(3)unless heorsheissatisfied that there isnoprisonerincustody awaiting trial (4) Inthecaseofasittingsfor thehearingofcriminalproceedings, thesheriffshallnotgive thenotice SHERIFF MUST ASCERTAIN THAT THEREARENOPRISONERSINCUSTODY day specifiedinthenotice. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.21(3). summoned to serve asajuror that attendance at thesittingsisnotrequired orisnotrequired untilthe otherwise, as heorsheconsiders expedient, notifyintheform prescribed by theregulations eachperson of jurors isnotrequired ornotrequired untilalater date, thesheriff shall forthwith by registered mailor (3) Subjectto subsection(4),where, uponreceipt ofsuchnotice itappearsto thesheriffthat the attendance NOTICE TO JURORS such later day asisspecifiedinthenotice. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.21(2). sheriff inthe form prescribed by the regulations that the attendance ofthejurors isnot required until least five cleardays before theday uponwhichthesittingsis to commence, give notice inwriting to the upon whichthesittingsisto commence, theappropriate officer determined undersubsection(1)shall, at (2) Where thebusiness ofthecourt doesnotrequire theattendance ofthejurors untiladay after theday POSTPONEMENT OFDATE FORATTENDANCE OFJURORS R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.21(1). to thesheriffin form prescribed by the regulations that the attendance ofthejurors isnot required. shall, at least five cleardays before theday uponwhichthesittingsis to commence, give notice inwriting a precept hasbeenissued, 21. COUNTERMAND WHERE NOJURY CASES ATTENDANCE OFJURORSPOSTPONED ORNOT REQUIRED (1)Apersonsummonedfor jurydutymay beexcused by ajudgefrom service asajuror onthe (1) Where there isnobusiness requiring theattendance of a juryat asittingsinrespect ofwhich A judgeoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice whoconsiders itnecessary may direct that thejurors summoned (b) theCrown Attorney, where thesittingsisfor thetrialofcriminalprosecutions, (a) thelocalregistrar, where thesittingsisfor thetrialofactions;or A judgeoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice who considers itnecessary may direct that two ormore

109 APPENDIX B 110 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci the county, andshallbeeligibleaccording to thisAct. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.25;2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1 (1). manner heretofore usedandaccustomed, andthejurors shall,asheretofore, bereturned from thebodyof returned for thetrialofany suchissue, andthereturn to any precept, award ororder shallbemadeinthe return ofajuryfor thetrialofany issue before thecourt, orfor amendingorenlarging thepanelofjurors authority asheretofore inissuing any precept, orinmakingany award ororder, orally orotherwise, for the 25. SUPERIOR COURT OFJUSTICE MAY ISSUE PRECEPTS AS HERETOFORE of thepanelto which they are added.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.24 (4). the remaining jurors constitute thepanel,andjurors recalled orresummoned underthissectionform part (4) Where jurors have beenreleased from service ortheirservice hasbeenpostponed under this section, CONSTITUTION OFPANEL were released. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.24 (3). service at any othersittings,heldconcurrently withorimmediately following thesittingsfrom whichthey (3) Jurors released from service at asittingsunderthissectionmay beresummoned by thesheriff for TRANSFER TO ANOTHER PANEL summoned for thesittings.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.24 (2). (2) The judgepresiding at thesittingsmay release from orpostpone service ofany numberofjurors RELEASE DURING SITTINGS for thesittings. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.24 (1);2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). at any timebefore thesittings,release from orpostpone service ofany numberofjurors summoned 24. RELEASE BEFORE SITTINGS RELEASE AND TRANSFEROFJURORS Sched. C,s.1(1). and theapplication to beexcused may bemadeto thesheriff. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.23(3);2006,c.19, (3) Apersonsummonedfor juryservice may beexcused undersubsection(1)or(2), APPLICATION FOREXCUSING next following. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.23(2). a panelto bereturned for asittingslater inthat year orinapanelto bereturned for asittingsintheyear of apersonexcused bepostponed andthat despite any provision ofthisAct, thepersonbeincludedin and thejudgemay excuse thepersonfrom allservice asajuror, orthejudgemay direct that theservice (2) Apersonsummonedfor jurydutymay beexcused by ajudgefrom attending thesittingsonground, ILLNESS ORHARDSHIP (1)Where jurors are summonedfor ajurysittings,judgeoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice may, (b) onorafter theday for attendance, by thejudgepresiding at thesittings, (a) before theday for attendance, by any judgeoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice; (b) that servingasajuror may causeserioushardships orloss to thepersonorothers, (a) ofillness; or Subject to thisAct, theSuperiorCourt ofJustice andthejudgesthereof have thesamepower and

the summonsofsheriff. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.28;2009, c.33,Sched.2,s.38(4). assessment ofdamagesdirected by thejudgepresiding at thesittingsandshallattend for service upon 28. SELECTION OFJURIESINADVANCE the sameresult. 2009, c.33,Sched.2,s.38(3). section 27 to selectajury, any electronic orotherautomated procedure may beusedto accomplish 27.1 AUTOMATED PROCEDUREFOREMPANELLING JURY INCIVILCASES other cards orpapersremaining therein. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.27 (3). or by leave ofthecourt, discharged, andshallthenbereturned to thecontainer there to bekept withthe jury hasgiven initsverdict, andithasbeenrecorded, oruntilthejuryhasbeenby consent oftheparties, (3) The cards orpaperscontaining thenamesofpersonssodrawn andsworn shallbekept apartuntilthe NAMES DRAWN TO BEKEPTAPART, ETC. the issue orto assess thedamages.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.27 (2). names beingnoted intheminute book oftheclerkcourt, shallbesworn, andshallbethejuryto try remain asfair andindifferent, andthefirst sixjurors so drawn, appearingandapproved asindifferent, their further numberuntilsixjurors are drawn, whodoappear, andwho, after alljust causes ofchallengeallowed, name, andif any juror whosenameissodrawn doesnotappearorischallengedandsetaside, thensuch six ofthecards orpapers,oneafter another, causingthecontainer to beshaken after thedrawing ofeach open court, causethecontainer to beshaken soassufficiently tomixthenames,andshallthen draw out (2) Where anissue isbrought onto betried,ordamages are to beassessed by ajury, theclerkshall,in HOW THECLERKISTO PROCEEDTO DRAW NAMES c. J.3, s.27 (1). provided by thesheriff for that purpose, andheorsheshalldeliver it to theclerkof court. R.S.O. 1990, and thenamessowritten shall,underthedirection ofthesheriff, beput together ina container to be as nearlymay beofthe form andsize following: occupation, andnumberon thepanellist, shallbewritten distinctly by thesheriffonacard orpaper, 27. EMPANELLING JURY AT THETRIAL DRAWING JURY AT TRIAL 2006, c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). entered for trialnotlater thansixcleardays before thefirst day ofthesittings.R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, s.26; 26. WHEN ACTIONS TO BEENTEREDFORTRIAL ACTIONS TRIEDBY JURY Ajurymay beselected inaccordance withsection27 or27.1 at any time before thetrialofanissue or Subjectto any order ofajudgetheSuperiorCourt ofJustice, actionsto betriedby ajuryshallbe (1) The nameofevery personsummoned to attend asajuror, withtheperson’s place ofresidence, Where atrialisinrespect ofacivilproceeding, instead offollowing theprocedure describedin 15.  MERCHANT OF LOT NO. 11,INTHE7THCON. OFALBION DAVID BOOTH

111 APPENDIX B 112 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci officer orservant ofthe corporation is, forthat reason, liable tochallengeasajuror. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3,s.34. 34. RATEPAYERS, OFFICERS,ETC., OFMUNICIPALITY MAY BECHALLENGED right ofchallengeextends to theCrown whenaparty. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.33. on theother, may challengeperemptorily any four ofthejurors drawn to serve onthetrial,andsuch 33. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGESINCIVILCASES of eligibilityisagoodcausefor challenge. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.32. 32. LACK OFELIGIBILITY CHALLENGES default ofevery juror whohasnotattended untildischarged by thecourt. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.31. of jurors returned to thesittings was drafted opposite thenamesof jurors, thenon-attendance or 31. THE SHERIFFTO NOTE ONROLLSNAMESOFJURORSWHODONOT SERVE returned upontheprecept. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.30(2). (2) Where afulljurydoesnotappear, thenamesofpersonssoreturned shallbeaddedto thepanel ADDING NAMESOFSUPPLEMENTARY JURORS shall return suchpersonsto serve onthejury. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.30(1). able personsofthecounty thenpresent, orwhocanbefound, as willmake upafulljury, andthe sheriff court may command thesheriff to nameandappoint,assupplementaryjurors, somany ofsuchother a fulljury, by challengeofany oftheparties,juryislikely to remain untaken for default of jurors, the 30. IF AFULLJURY DOESNOT APPEARSUPPLEMENTARY JURORSMAY BEAPPOINTED appear andare approved asindifferent. 2009, c.33,Sched.2,s.38(5). remaining membersofthepreviously selected juryandthenew juror orjurors, asthecasemay be, who case may be, inhisorherplace, inwhichcasetheissue shallbetriedorthedamagesassessed withthe court, to retire andmay causeanotherjuror to beselected inaccordance withsection27 or27.1, asthe selected jurywhombothpartiesconsent to withdraw orwhomay bejustly challengedorexcused by the (2) Despite subsection(1),unless apartyobjects,thecourt may order any juror from thepreviously SAME with ajurypreviously selected to tryany otherissue orto assess damages.2009, c.33,Sched.2,s.38(5). 29. SEVERAL CAUSES MAY BETRIEDINSUCCESSION WITHTHESAME JURY (1)Despite sections27, 27.1 and28,unless apartyobjects,thecourt may tryany issue orassess damages Inaproceeding to whichamunicipalcorporation, otherthanacounty, isaparty, every ratepayer, andevery Ifapersonnoteligibleisdrawn asajuror for thetrialofanissue inany proceeding, thewant Inany civilproceeding, theplaintifforplaintiffs,ononeside, andthedefendant ordefendants, Immediately after thesittingsofcourt, thesheriffshallnote onthejury roll from whichthepanel (1) Where afulljurydoesnotappearat asittingsfor civilmatters, orwhere, after theappearance of

37. REGULATIONS 1994, c.27, s.48(9);2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). order residents ofthejuryarea whoare summonedfor jurydutyto attend at acourt outsidethejuryarea. (2) Ifthere are nocourt facilities inajuryarea, aregional seniorjudgeoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice may COURT FACILITIES of thisAct. 1994,c.27, s.48(9). 36.1 JURY AREAS to attend. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.36(3). (3) Ajuror isnotentitledto fees orexpenses inrespect ofdays that heorshedoesnotisrequired WHEN FEESPAYABLE R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.36(2). (2) The sheriffshall keep a record ofthepayment of fees to jurors for attending sittingsofa court. RECORD OFFEESPAID record thosewhoare present orabsent.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.36(1). any otherbusiness isproceeded with,callthenamesofjurors, officer andthesherifforsheriff’s shall 36. LIST OFJURORSTO BECALLED ATTENDANCE ANDFEES R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.35 (2);2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). under the of Justice there shallbepaidto thelocalregistrar oftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice suchsumasisprescribed (2) With every record entered for trialofissues orassessment ofdamagesby ajuryintheSuperior Court SUMS TO BEPAID WITHRECORD WHENENTEREDFORTRIALINJURY CASES 35. FEES PAYABLE TO JURORSANDJUSTICES OFTHEPEACE PAYMENTS UNDER GENERAL (1)Suchfees andallowances asare prescribed underthe The Attorney General may make regulations, (b)  (a) prescribing any form required orpermitted by thisAct to beprescribed by theregulations; (b) (a) every juror attending asittingsoftheSuperiorCourt ofJustice; and (1) The clerkofthecourt officer orthesheriffsheriff’s shall, attheopeningof courtand before (1)Ajuryarea established underclause37 (c) shallbetreated asaseparate county for thepurposes 35 (1);2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). thejustice ofthepeace inattendance for eachpaneldrafted undersection16.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s. requiring andprescribing theform ofthecertification orauthentication ofentries therein; prescribing themannerofkeeping juryrolls andlists ofjurypanelsandrecords thereof and Administration of Justice Act ADMINISTRATION OFJUSTICE ACT

, andtherecord shallnotbeentered unless suchsumisfirst paid.

Administration of Justice Act shall bepaidto,

113 APPENDIX B 114 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci subsection (3).R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.38(5). as proof, intheabsence ofevidence to thecontrary, ofthefacts stated therein inany prosecution under certified by thesheriffis,without proof oftheappointmentorsignature ofthesheriff, receivable in evidence (5) Astatement asto thereceipt ornon-receipt ofa return to ajuryservice notice purportingto be CERTIFICATE AS EVIDENCE in thetimerequired. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.38(4). the absence ofevidence to thecontrary, that thepersonrequired to mailitto thesheriff failed to doso within five days from thedate onwhich it was required by this Act to bemailed,such failure isproof, in (4) For thepurposesofsubsection(3),where thesheriff fails to receive a return to ajuryservice notice EVIDENCE OFNOT MAILING for aterm ofnotmore thansixmonths,orto both.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.38(3). is guiltyofanoffence andon conviction isliable to afineofnotmore than$5,000 or toimprisonment (3) Every personwhoisrequired to complete areturn to ajury service notice andwho, IDEM 1990, c.J.3, s.38(2). by thisAct, isguiltyofanoffence andon conviction isliable to afineofnotmore than$5,000. R.S.O. (2) Every sheriff, orclerk registrar ofa court, who refuses to perform any dutyimposedonhimorher IDEM for aterm ofnotmore thantwo years, orto both. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.38(1). is guiltyofanoffence andon conviction isliable to afineofnotmore than$10,000 or toimprisonment 38. OFFENCES (1)Every personwho, (b) knowingly gives false ormisleadinginformation inthereturn, (a)  (c)  (b) falsely certifies any roll orpanel; (a)  (c)  (b.2) prescribing apolice force for thepurposesofsubsection18.2(4); (b.1)  any juryroll orpanel,except inaproper procedure underthisAct, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.37; 1994,c.27, s.48(10);2009, c.33,Sched.2,s.38(6,7). influences or attempts to influence theselectionofpersons forinclusioninoromission from establishing juryareas, consisting ofpartsexisting counties, for thepurposesofsection36.1. by subsection6(5);or thereof except inaccordance withthisAct; without reasonable excuse fails to complete thereturn ormail itto thesheriffas required wilfully makes orcausesto bemadeany alteration inany roll orpanelinany certified copy setting outrestrictions orconditions that applyto thecollection, useordisclosure ofpersonal information by thesheriff, for thepurposesofsubsection18.2(3);

by thebreach oftheobligation. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.41 (2). (2) Anemployer whofails to comply withsubsection(1)isliableto theemployee for any loss occasioned LIABILITY OFEMPLOYER FORBREACH of absence. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.41 (1). absence beganand withoutloss ofseniorityorbenefitsaccrued to the commencement oftheleave with alternative work ofacomparable nature at notless thanhisorherwages at thetimeleave of employee’s return, theemployer shallreinstate theemployee to hisorherposition,provide theemployee with orwithoutpay, sufficient forthepurposeofdischarge ofthe employee’s duties,and,uponthe 41. LEAVE OFABSENCE FROMEMPLOYMENT the course ofthetrialorconduct ofthe action.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.40(3). action orisotherwiseineligibleasajuror intheaction,norto anything that may properly take place in (3) This sectiondoesnotapplywhere ajuror isalsoapartyto oraknown witness orinterested inthe EXCEPTION WHEREJURORISAPARTY OR WITNESS of theAttorney General. 2006,c.21,Sched.C,s.114. register for alimited time, by theSuperiorCourt ofJustice uponmotionat theinstance andinthename suspended, orhishernamemay beerased from theregister oftheLaw Societyorremoved from the have hisorherlicence underthe (2) Asolicitor, barrister orstudent-at-law whoisguiltyofsuchoffence may, inaddition to any otherpenalty, REVOCATION ORSUSPENSIONOFLICENCE,ETC. or thingrelating thereto. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.40(1). knowingly, directly orindirectly, speaksto orconsults withthejuror respecting suchactionorany matter or duringthesittingsat any timeafter ajuror onthejurypanelfor suchcourt hasbeensummoned for trialormay betriedinthecourt, orbeingthesolicitor, counsel, agentoremissary ofsuchperson,before 40. IDEM, TAMPERING WITHJURORS 39. CONTEMPT OFCOURT (1) Every employer shall grant to anemployee whoissummonedfor juryservice aleave ofabsence, (d)  (c)  (b)  (a)  Every personisincontempt ofcourt who, withoutreasonable excuse, (1) Every personisincontempt ofcourt who, beinginterested inanactionthat isorto beentered not beendulydrawn uponthepanelinmannerprescribed inthisAct; or being asheriff, wilfullyempanelsand returns to serve onajurypersonwhosenamehas or beingthere calleddoesnotanswer to hisorhername; having beendulysummoned to attend onajury, doesnotattend inpursuance ofthesummons, and returned whohasnotactuallyappeared. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.39. or after appearingwilfullywithdraws from thepresence ofthecourt; or being aregistrar orotherofficer wilfully records theappearance ofapersonsosummoned being ajuror orsupplementaryjuror, after having beencalled,ispresent butdoesnotappear, Law SocietyAct to practise law orprovide legalservices revoked or

115 APPENDIX B 116 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.44(2). deemed to beproperly selected for thepurposesofservice ofthejurors inany matter orproceeding. (2) Subjectto sections32and34,ajurypanelreturned by thesheriff for thepurposesofthis Act shallbe PANEL DEEMEDPROPERLY SELECTED 44 (1). roll isnotaground for impeachingorquashingaverdict orjudgmentinany action.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s. balloting anddistribution ofjurors, thepreparation ofthejuryroll orthedrafting ofpanelsfrom thejury 44. OMISSIONS TO OBSERVE THISACT NOT TO VITIATE THEVERDICT Act. R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.43. or authority, practice orform isrepealed oraltered, orisinconsistent withany oftheprovisions ofthis any practice orform inregard to trialsby jury, juriesorjurors, except inthosecasesonlywhere suchpower 43. SAVING OFFORMERPOWERS OFCOURT ANDJUDGESEXCEPT AS ALTERED R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.42;2006,c.19, Sched.C,s.1(1). type ofsubsections139 (2)and(3)ofthe room andjuryrooms andinthegeneral entrance hallofthecourt houseprinted copies inconspicuous 42. POSTING UPCOPIES OFS.139 (2,3)OF than three months,orto both.R.S.O. 1990, c.J.3, s.41 (3). on conviction isliableto afineofnotmore than$10,000 or to imprisonment for a term ofnotmore because oftheemployee’s response to asummons,orservice asajuror, isguiltyofanoffence and (3) Every employer who, directly orindirectly, PENALTY FORREPRISALS (1)The omission to observe any oftheprovisions ofthisAct respecting theeligibility, selection, (b) threatens to imposeorimposesonanemployee any pecuniaryorotherpenalty, (a) threatens to causeorcausesanemployee loss ofposition, oremployment; or The sheriffshall at thesittingsofSuperior Court ofJustice for trials by jurypost upinthe court Nothing inthisAct alters, abridgesoraffects any power orauthoritythat any court orjudgehas, Criminal Code CRIMINAL CODE (Canada) andsubsection40(1)ofthisAct.

117 APPENDIX B APPENDIX C c. 5,s.15(1,2);2009, c.15,s.1(1). includesanorgan“tissue” orpartofanorgan. R.S.O. (“tissu”) 1990, c.C.37, s.1;1999, c.6,s.15(1);2005, “spouse” means aperson, pathologistes”) “pathologists register” meanstheregister ofpathologists maintainedundersection7.1; (“registre des another jurisdiction;(“pathologiste”) of Canadaasaspecialist inanatomical orgeneral pathology orhasreceived equivalent certification in “pathologist” meansaphysician whohasbeencertified by the Royal College ofPhysicians andSurgeons seil desurveillance”) “Oversight Council” meanstheDeath Investigation Oversight Council established undersection 8; (“Con meanstheSolicitor“Minister” General; (“ministre”) minière”) meansaminingplantasdefinedinthe “mining plant” “mine” meansamineasdefinedinthe (“médecin légiste”) Surgeons ofCanadainforensic pathology orhasreceived equivalent certification inanotherjurisdiction; “forensic pathologist” meansapathologist whohasbeencertified by the Royal College ofPhysicians and légiste enchefadjoint”) “Deputy ChiefForensic Pathologist” meansaDeputyChiefForensic Pathologist for Ontario;(“médecin “Deputy ChiefCoroner”meansaDeputyCoroner for Ontario;(“coroner enchefadjoint”) “Chief Forensic Pathologist” meanstheChiefForensic Pathologist for Ontario;(“médecinlégiste enchef”) “Chief Coroner”meanstheChiefCoroner for Ontario;(“coroner enchef”) 1. DEFINITIONS (1) InthisAct, (b)  (a) to whomthedeceased was marriedimmediately before hisorherdeath, (iii)  (ii) were together theparents ofachild,or (i) hadcohabited for at least oneyear, his orherdeath, ifthedeceased andtheotherperson, with whomthedeceased was livinginaconjugal relationship outsidemarriageimmediately before CONSOLIDATION PERIOD:FROMJULY 1,2012 TO THEE-LAWS CURRENCY DATE. (“conjoint”) had together entered into acohabitation agreement undersection53 ofthe LAST AMENDMENT: 2009, C. R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTERC.37 CORONERS ACT Occupational HealthandSafety Act Occupational HealthandSafety Act 33,SCHED. 18,S.6.

; (“mine”) Family Law Act ; (“installation ;

- 119 APPENDIX C 120 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.3(7). Revised Statutes ofOntario, 1970, shallbedeemedto have beenappointed inaccordance withthisAct. (7) Allpersonsholdingappointmentsascoroners under APPOINTMENTS CONTINUED area inwhichthecoroner willordinarily act.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.3(6). (6) Acopy oftheorder appointing acoroner shallbesentby theMinister to theCrown Attorney ofany CROWN ATTORNEY NOTIFIED OFAPPOINTMENT the area namedintheappointment.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.3(5). and continuation inoffice ofa coroner issubject tothe conditionthat heorsheis ordinarily resident in (5) The Lieutenant Governor inCouncil may by regulation establish areas ofOntarioandtheappointment RESIDENTIAL AREAS (4) Acoroner may resign hisorheroffice inwriting.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.3(4). RESIGNATION licence ofacoroner for thepractice ofmedicine isrevoked, suspendedorcancelled. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.3(3). (3) The College ofPhysicians and Surgeons ofOntarioshallforthwith notifytheChiefCoroner where the CHIEF CORONER TO BENOTIFIED (2) Acoroner ceases to holdoffice on ceasing tobealegallyqualifiedmedical practitioner. 2005,c. 29,s.2. TENURE R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s. 3 (1). to becoroners for Ontariowho, subjectto subsections(2),(3)and(4),shallholdoffice during pleasure. 3. APPOINTMENT OFCORONERS nal court ofrecord. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.2(2). (2) The powers conferred onacoroner to conduct aninquest shallnotbeconstrued ascreating acrimi INQUEST NOT CRIMINALCOURT OFRECORD powers anddutiesofcoroners withinOntarioisrepealed. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.2(1). 2. REPEAL OFCOMMON LAW FUNCTIONS EFFECT OFACT (2) Areference inthisAct to thebodyofapersonincludespartperson.2009, c.15,s.1(2). INTERPRETATION OFBODY (1) Insofar asitiswithinthejurisdictionofLegislature, thecommon law asitrelates to thefunctions, (1) The Lieutenant Governor inCouncil may appointoneormore legallyqualifiedmedicalpractitioners

The Coroners Act , beingchapter 87 ofthe - for Ontariowhoshall, 7. CHIEF FORENSICPATHOLOGIST ANDDEPUTIES services underthis Act. 2009, c.15,s.3. de médecinelégalel’Ontario, thefunctionofwhichshallbeto facilitate theprovision ofpathologists’ 6. ONTARIO FORENSICPATHOLOGY SERVICE C.37, s.5(2). and shallperform suchotherdutiesasare assigned to himorherby theChiefCoroner. R.S.O. 1990, c. (2) Aregional coroner shallassist theChiefCoroner intheperformance ofhisorherdutiesintheregion DUTIES of Ontarioasisdescribedintheappointment.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.5(1). 5. (1)The Lieutenant Governor inCouncil may appointacoroner asaregional coroner for suchregion REGIONAL CORONERS 2009, c.15,s. 2(4). Deputy ChiefCoroner, subjectto any limitations, conditions and requirements setoutinthedelegation. (3) The ChiefCoroner may delegate inwritingany ofhisorherpowers anddutiesunderthisAct to a DELEGATION c. 15,s.2(3). Coroner iftheChiefCoroner isabsentorunableto act oriftheChiefCoroner’s positionisvacant. 2009, for Ontarioand aDeputyChiefCoroner shallactasandhave allthepowers andauthorityoftheChief (2) The Lieutenant Governor inCouncil may appointoneormore coroners to beDeputyChiefCoroners DEPUTY CHIEFCORONERS 4. CHIEF CORONER ANDDUTIES (1) The Lieutenant Governor inCouncil may appoint a forensic pathologist to beChief Forensic Pathologist (1) The Lieutenant Governor inCouncil may appointacoroner to beChiefCoroner for Ontariowhoshall, The Minister shallestablish theOntarioForensic Pathology Service, to beknown inFrench as Service (c) conduct programs for theinstruction ofpathologists whoprovide services underthis Act; (b) superviseanddirect pathologists intheprovision ofservices underthisAct; (a) beresponsible for theadministration andoperation oftheOntarioForensic Pathology Service;  (f) (e) prepare, publishanddistribute acode ofethicsfor theguidance ofcoroners; (d)  (c) conduct programs for theinstruction ofcoroners intheirduties; (b) supervise, direct andcontrol allcoroners inOntariotheperformance oftheirduties; (a) administer thisAct andtheregulations; by theLieutenant Governor inCouncil. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.4(1);2009, c.15,s.2(1,2). perform suchotherdutiesasare assigned to himorherby orunderthisany otherAct or attention ofappropriate persons,agenciesandministries ofgovernment; bring thefindingsand recommendations of coroners’ investigations and coroners’ juries to the

121 APPENDIX C 122 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci Council may beappointed underPart IIIofthe (4) Suchemployees as are considered necessary for theproper conduct oftheaffairs oftheOversight EMPLOYEES positionisvacant.chair’s 2009, c.15,s.4. act asandhave allthepowers andauthorityofthechairifisabsent orunableto actorifthe be thechairandoneormore members oftheOversight Council to bevice-chairs andavice-chair shall (3) The Lieutenant Governor inCouncil may designate oneofthemembers theOversight Council to CHAIR, VICE-CHAIRS shall beappointed by theLieutenant Governor inCouncil. 2009, c.15,s.4. (2) The composition oftheOversight Council shallbeasprovided intheregulations, andthemembers MEMBERSHIP Council andin French asConseil desurveillance desenquêtes surlesdécès. 2009, c.15,s.4. 8. OVERSIGHT COUNCIL suspended orcancelled. 2009, c.15,s.3. if thelicence for thepractice ofmedicineapathologist whoisonthepathologists register is revoked, (2) The College ofPhysicians and Surgeons ofOntarioshallforthwith notifytheChiefForensic Pathologist NOTIFICATION RELOSS OFMEDICALLICENCE Chief Forensic Pathologist to provide services underthisAct. 2009, c.15,s.3. 7.1 PATHOLOGISTS REGISTER out inthedelegation. 2009, c.15,s.3. Act to aDeputyChiefForensic Pathologist, subjectto any limitations, conditions andrequirements set (3) The ChiefForensic Pathologist may delegate inwritingany ofhisorherpowers anddutiesunderthis DELEGATION unable to actoriftheChiefForensic Pathologist’s positionisvacant. 2009, c.15,s.3. the powers andauthorityoftheChiefForensic Pathologist iftheChiefForensic Pathologist isabsentor Chief Forensic Pathologists for Ontarioand aDeputyChiefForensic Pathologist shallactasandhave all (2) The Lieutenant Governor inCouncil may appointoneormore forensic pathologists to beDeputy DEPUTY CHIEFFORENSICPATHOLOGISTS (1) There ishereby established acouncil to beknown inEnglishastheDeath Investigation Oversight (1) The ChiefForensic Pathologist shallmaintainaregister ofpathologists whoare authorized by the (e)  (d)  by theLieutenant Governor inCouncil. 2009, c.15,s.3. perform suchotherdutiesasare assigned to himorherby orunderthisany otherAct or of services underthisAct; prepare, publishanddistribute acode ofethicsfor theguidance ofpathologists intheprovision Public ServicePublic of OntarioAct, 2006 . 2009, c.15,s.4.

and dismissal oftheChiefCoroner andtheChiefForensic Pathologist. 2009, c.15,s.4. (3) The Oversight Council shalladviseandmake recommendations to theMinister ontheappointment ADVICE ANDRECOMMENDATIONS TO MINISTER matters setoutinsubsection(1),asmay berequested by theOversight Council. 2009, c.15,s.4. (2) The ChiefCoroner andtheChiefForensic Pathologist shallreport to theOversight Council onthe REPORTS TO OVERSIGHT COUNCIL by advisingandmakingrecommendations to themon the following matters: 8.1 ADVICE ANDRECOMMENDATIONS TO CHIEFCORONER ANDCHIEFFORENSICPATHOLOGIST FUNCTIONS OFOVERSIGHT COUNCIL by theLegislature for that purpose. 2009, c.15,s.4. (9) The money required for theOversight Council’s purposesshall bepaidoutoftheamountsappropriated EXPENSES 2009, c.15,s. 4. requested andmay alsosubmitadditionalreports onthesamematters at any timeonitsown initiative. activities undersubsection8.1 (1),at any timeandtheOversight Council shallsubmitsuchreports as (8) The Minister may request additionalreports from theOversight Council onitsactivities,including ADDITIONAL REPORTS Governor inCouncil andshallthenlay thereport before theAssembly. 2009, c.15,s.4. including itsactivitiesundersubsection8.1 (1),to theMinister, whoshallsubmitthereport to theLieutenant (7) At theendofeachcalendaryear, theOversight Council shallsubmitanannualreport onitsactivities, ANNUAL REPORT for any purpose. 2009, c.15,s.4. (6) The chairshalldetermine thenumberofmembersOversight Council that constitutes aquorum QUORUM Oversight Council’s powers andperform any ofitsduties.2009, c.15,s.4. (5) The chairmay authorize oneormore membersoftheOversight Council to exercise any of the DELEGATION (1) The Oversight Council shalloversee theChief Coroner andtheChiefForensic Pathologist 7. Any othermatter that isprescribed. 2009, c.15,s.4. 6. Compliance withthisAct andtheregulations. 5. The exercise ofthepower to refuse to review complaints undersubsection8.4(10). 4. Appointmentanddismissal ofseniorpersonnel. 3. Qualityassurance, performance measures andaccountability mechanisms. 2. Strategic planning. 1. Financialresource management.

123 APPENDIX C 124 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci (3) Acomplaint about thefollowing matters shallnotbedealtwithunderthissection: MATTERS THAT MAY NOT BETHE SUBJECTOFACOMPLAINT (2) The complaint must beinwriting.2009, c.15,s.4. FORM OFCOMPLAINT a person,otherthancoroner orpathologist, withpowers ordutiesundersection 28.2009, c.15,s.4. 8.4 RIGHT TO MAKEACOMPLAINT COMPLAINTS 2009, c.15,s. 4. administration ofthisAct orthe (2) Anindividualdescribedinsubsection(1)may discloseconfidential information for thepurposesof EXCEPTION under thisAct. 2009, c.15,s.4. confidential allinformation that comes to hisorherknowledge inthe course of performing hisorherduties 8.3 CONFIDENTIALITY a quorum.2009, c.15,s.4. committee that constitutes aquorumfor any purpose, andmay determine that onememberconstitutes (4) The chairofthecomplaints committee shalldetermine thenumberofmemberscomplaints QUORUM more membersofthecommittee. 2009, c. 15, s.4. (3) The chairofthecomplaints committee may delegate any ofthefunctionscommittee to oneor DELEGATION chair ofthecommittee. 2009, c.15,s.4. (2) The chairoftheOversight Council shalldesignate onememberofthecomplaints committee to bethe CHAIR c. 15,s.4. regulations, ofmemberstheOversight Council appointed by thechairofOversight Council. 2009, 8.2 COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE 3. 3. 2. Acoroner’s decisionrespecting theschedulingofaninquest. 1. Acoroner’s decisionto holdaninquest orto notholdaninquest. (1) There shallbeacomplaints committee oftheOversight Council composed, inaccordance withthe (1) Every memberandemployee oftheOversight Council andofthecomplaints committee shallkeep (1) Any personmay make acomplaint to thecomplaints committee aboutacoroner, apathologist or at the inquest. 2009, c.15,s.4. A coroner’s decisionrelating to theconduct ofaninquest, includingadecisionmadewhilepresiding

Regulated HealthProfessions Act, 1991 orasotherwiserequired by law.

to review acomplaint referred to himorherif, inhisorheropinion, (10) Despite subsections(4)and(5),theChiefCoroner andthe ChiefForensic Pathologist may refuse REFUSAL TO REVIEWACOMPLAINT Oversight Council. 2009, c.15,s.4. writing to thecomplainant, thecoroner orpathologist who isthesubjectofcomplaint, andthe or anotherpersonorganization under subsection(8),thecommittee shallpromptly give notice in (9) Ifthecomplaints committee refers acomplaint to theCollege ofPhysicians andSurgeons ofOntario NOTICE OFREFERRAL to theCollege orthat otherpersonor organization. 2009, c.15,s.4. organization that haspower to dealwiththecomplaint, thecomplaints committee shallrefer thecomplaint appropriately dealtwithby theCollege ofPhysicians andSurgeons ofOntario oranotherperson (8) Ifthecomplaints committee isoftheopinionthat acomplaint aboutacoroner orpathologist ismore SAME the complaint. 2009, c.15,s.4. complaint andthat thecommittee considers istheappropriate personororganization to dealwith with powers ordutiesundersection28to apersonororganization that haspower to dealwiththe (7) The complaints committee shallrefer every complaint aboutaperson,otherthancoroner orpathologist, REFERRAL TO OTHER PERSONSORBODIES the ChiefCoroner ortheChiefForensic Pathologist. 2009, c.15,s.4. (6) Subjectto subsection(8),thecomplaints committee shallreview every complaint madeabout COMPLAINTS ABOUTCHIEFS Pathologist shallreview every suchcomplaint. 2009, c.15,s.4. other thantheChiefForensic Pathologist, to theChiefForensic Pathologist andtheChiefForensic (5) Subjectto subsection(8),thecomplaints committee shallrefer every complaint aboutapathologist, COMPLAINTS ABOUTPATHOLOGISTS 2009, c.15,s.4. other thantheChiefCoroner, to theChiefCoroner andtheChiefCoroner shallreview every suchcomplaint. (4) Subjectto subsection(8),thecomplaints committee shallrefer every complaint aboutacoroner, COMPLAINTS ABOUTCORONERS (c)  (b) thecomplaint doesnotrelate to apower ordutyofacoroner orapathologist underthisAct; or (a) thecomplaint is trivialorvexatious ornotmadeingoodfaith; exercise orperform, thepower or dutyto whichthecomplaint relates. 2009, c.15,s. 4. the complainant was notdirectly affected by the exercise orperformance of, orthe failure to

125 APPENDIX C 126 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci at the end ofeachcalendaryear. 2009, c.15,s.4. (16) The complaints committee shallsubmitanannualreport on itsactivitiesto theOversight Council ANNUAL REPORTS TO OVERSIGHT COUNCIL subsection (14)if, initsopinion, (15) The complaints committee may refuse to review acomplaint pursuantto a request madeunder REFUSAL TO REVIEWACOMPLAINT ONREQUEST as thecasemay be. 2009, c.15,s.4. Pathologist, asappropriate, ontheresults ofthereview orthedecisionto notreview thecomplaint, complainant, thepersonwhoissubjectofcomplaint andtheChiefCoroner ortheChiefForensic promptly after completing itsreview ordecidingto notreview thecomplaint, report inwritingto the committee review thecomplaint andthecomplaints committee shallreview thecomplaint andshall, by theChiefCoroner ortheChiefForensic Pathologist, heorshemay request inwritingthat thecomplaints is notsatisfied withthe results ofthe review ofthe complaint orthedecision to not review the complaint Forensic Pathologist, andthe complainant orthecoroner orpathologist whoisthesubjectofcomplaint (14) Ifacomplaint ismadeaboutacoroner orpathologist, otherthantheChiefCoroner ortheChief REQUEST FORREVIEWBY COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE review thecomplaint, asthecasemay be. 2009, c.15,s.4. complaint, theOversight Council andtheMinister ontheresults ofthereview orthedecisionto not to notreview thecomplaint, report inwritingto thecomplainant, thepersonwhoissubjectof the (13) The complaints committee shall,promptly after completing itsreview ofacomplaint ordeciding SAME results ofthereview orthedecisionto notreview thecomplaint, asthecasemay be. 2009, c.15,s.4. the complainant, thepersonwhoissubjectofcomplaint andthecomplaints committee onthe review ofacomplaint referred to himorherdecidingto notreview thecomplaint, report inwritingto (12) The ChiefCoroner andtheChiefForensic Pathologist shall,promptly after completing hisorher REPORTS AFTERREVIEWORDECISIONTO NOT REVIEW (11) Despite subsection(6),thecomplaints committee may refuse to review acomplaint if, initsopinion, SAME (c)  (b) thecomplaint doesnotrelate to apower ordutyofacoroner orapathologist underthisAct; or (a) thecomplaint is trivialorvexatious ornotmadeingoodfaith; (c)  (b)  (a) thecomplaint istrivialorvexatious ornotmadeingoodfaith; exercise orperform, thepower or dutyto whichthecomplaint relates. 2009, c.15,s. 4. exercise orperform, thepower ordutyto whichthecomplaint relates. 2009, c.15,s.4. the complainant was notdirectly affected by the exercise orperformance of, orthe failure to the complainant was notdirectly affected by the exercise orperformance of, orthe failure to Pathologist; or the complaint doesnotrelate to apower ordutyoftheChiefCoroner ortheChiefForensic

(2) Where apersondieswhileresident oranin-patient in, DEATHS TO BEREPORTED and circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.10(1). and where apolice officer isnotifiedheorsheshallinturnimmediately notifythe coroner ofsuch facts shall immediately notifyacoroner orapolice officer ofthe factsandcircumstances relating to thedeath, 10. (1)Every personwhohasreason to believe that adeceased persondied, DUTY TO GIVEINFORMATION investigation orinquest. 2009, c.15,s.5. or thecriminalinvestigation branch oftheOntarioProvincial Police provide assistance to acoroner inan (2) The ChiefCoroner inany caseheorsheconsiders appropriate may request that anotherpolice force SAME out thecoroner’s duties.2009, c.15,s.5. available to thecoroner theassistance ofsuchpolice officers as are necessary forthepurposeofcarrying 9. POLICE ASSISTANCE on itsown initiative. 2009, c.15,s.4. shall submitsuchreports asrequested and may alsosubmitadditionalreports asdescribedat any time or onaspecific complaint or complaints aboutaspecificperson at any timeandthe complaints committee (17) The Oversight Council may request additionalreports from thecomplaints committee onitsactivities ADDITIONAL REPORTS (1) The police force having jurisdictioninthelocalitywhichacoroner hasjurisdictionshallmake (c) Repealed: 1994,c.27, s.136 (1). (b)  (a) Repealed: 2007, c.8,s.201 (1). (g) undersuchcircumstances asmay require investigation, from any(f) cause otherthandisease;or (e) (d) suddenlyandunexpectedly; (c)  (b) by unfair means; (a) asaresult of, during pregnancy or following pregnancy in circumstances that might reasonably beattributable thereto; from diseaseorsickness for whichheorshewas nottreated by alegallyqualifiedmedicalpractitioner; (v) malpractice; (iv) misconduct, or (iii) negligence, (ii) misadventure, (i) violence, approved undersubsection9 (1)ofPart I (Flexible Services) ofthat Act; a children’s residence underPart IX(Licensing) ofthe Child andFamily Services Act orpremises 127 APPENDIX C 128 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 2009, c.15,s.6(4). immediately give notice ofthedeath to acoroner and thecoroner shallholdaninquest uponthebody. section 16.1 ofthe (4) Where apersondieswhiledetainedinand onthepremises ofadetention facility established under DEATH ONPREMISESOFDETENTIONFACILITY ORLOCK-UP c. 15,s.6(4). subsection (2)appliesasifthepersonwere aresident ofaninstitution namedinsubsection(2).2009, but whilenotonthepremises orinactualcustody ofthefacility, institution orplace, asthecasemay be, (3) Where apersondieswhile, YOUTH CUSTODY FACILITIES DEATHS OFFPREMISESOFPSYCHIATRIC FACILITIES, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS, c. 15,s.6(3). inquest ought to beheld,thecoroner shallholdaninquest uponthebody. 2007, c.8,s.201 (2);2009, the circumstances ofthedeath andif, asaresult oftheinvestigation, heorsheisoftheopinionthat an and, ifthecoroner isoftheopinionthat thedeath oughtto beinvestigated, heorsheshallinvestigate 2007 (2.1) Where apersondieswhileresident inalong-term care hometo whichthe DEATHS INLONG-TERM CAREHOMES c. 8,s.201 (1);2008,c.14,s.50;2009, c.15,s.6(1);2009, c.33,Sched.8,s.11;2009, c.33,Sched.18,s.6. hold aninquest uponthebody. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.10(2);1994,c.27, s.136 (1);2001, c.13,s.10;2007, result oftheinvestigation heorsheisoftheopinionthat aninquest oughtto beheld,thecoroner shall of thedeath to acoroner, andthecoroner shallinvestigate thecircumstances ofthedeath and,ifasa the personincharge ofthehospital,facility, institution, residence orhomeshallimmediately give notice (d)  (c) committed to aplace oftemporary detention underthe (b) committed to acorrectional institution; (a) apatient ofapsychiatric facility; (h)  (g) Repealed: 1994,c.27, s.136(1). Repealed: 2009, c.33,Sched.18,s.6. (f) (e) apsychiatric facility designated underthe (d)  applies,thepersonincharge ofthehomeshallimmediately give notice ofthedeath to acoroner referred to inclauses(a)to (g), a publicorprivate hospitalto whichthepersonwas transferred from afacility, institution orhome Supports to Promote theSocialInclusionof Persons withDevelopmental DisabilitiesAct, 2008 whether inaccordance withsection88ofthe committed to secure oropencustody undersection24.1 ofthe a supported group livingresidence oranintensive supportresidence underthe Police Services Act oralock-up, theofficer incharge of the facilityorlock-up shall Mental HealthAct Youth CriminalJustice Act Youth CriminalJustice Act ; Young Offenders Act Long-Term Care HomesAct, (Canada) orotherwise, Services and (Canada); or

(Canada), ;

upon thebody. 2009, c.15,s.6(4). program shallimmediately give notice ofthedeath to acoroner andthecoroner shall holdaninquest program withinthemeaningofPart VIofthe (4.8) Where apersondieswhilebeingrestrained andwhilecommitted oradmitted to asecure treatment DEATH WHILERESTRAINED INSECURETREATMENT PROGRAM the coroner shallholdaninquest uponthebody. 2009, c.15,s.6(4). charge ofthehospital,ascase may be, shallimmediately give notice ofthedeath to acoroner and Disorder) ofthe facility withinthemeaning ofthe (4.7) Where apersondieswhilebeingrestrained andwhiledetainedinonthepremises ofapsychiatric DEATH WHILERESTRAINED ONPREMISESOFPSYCHIATRIC FACILITY, ETC. a coroner andthecoroner shallholdaninquest uponthebody. 2009, c.15,s.6(4). (4.1), (4.2),(4.3)and(4.5)donotapply, thepeace officer shallimmediately give notice ofthedeath to (4.6) Ifapersondieswhiledetainedby orintheactualcustody ofapeace officer andsubsections(4), OTHER DEATHS INCUSTODY he orsheisoftheopinionthat thepersonmay nothave diedofnatural causes. 2009, c.15,s.6(4). the circumstances ofthedeath andshallholdaninquest uponthebodyifasaresult oftheinvestigation of theinstitution shallimmediately give notice ofthedeath to acoroner andthecoroner shallinvestigate institution and whileintheactualcustody ofapersonemployed at theinstitution, theofficer incharge (4.5) Where apersondieswhilecommitted to acorrectional institution, whileoffthepremises ofthe DEATH INCUSTODY OFFPREMISESOFCORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION is located inacorrectional institution, subsection(4.3)doesnotapply. 2009, c.15,s.6(4). lock-up, place oftemporary detention orplace orfacility designated asaplace ofsecure custody that (4.4) Ifapersondiesincircumstances referred to insubsection(4),(4.1) or(4.2)onthepremises ofa NON-APPLICATION OFSUBS.(4.3) c. 15,s.6(4). the investigation heorsheisof theopinionthat thepersonmay nothave diedofnatural causes.2009, shall investigate thecircumstances ofthedeath andshallholdaninquest uponthebodyifasaresult of officer incharge oftheinstitution shallimmediately give notice ofthedeath toa coroner andthe coroner (4.3) Where apersondieswhilecommitted to andonthepremises ofacorrectional institution, the DEATH ON PREMISESOFCORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION upon thebody. 2009, c.15,s.6(4). or facility shallimmediately give notice ofthedeath to acoroner andthecoroner shallholdaninquest with section88ofthe place ofsecure custody undersection24.1 ofthe (4.2) Where apersondieswhilecommitted to andonthepremises ofaplace orfacility designated asa DEATH ON PREMISESOFPLACE OFSECURECUSTODY notice ofthedeath to acoroner andthecoroner shallholdaninquest uponthebody. 2009, c.15,s.6(4). under the (4.1) Where apersondieswhilecommitted to andonthepremises ofaplace oftemporary detention DEATH ON PREMISESOFPLACE OFTEMPORARY DETENTION Youth CriminalJustice Act Criminal Code Youth CriminalJustice Act (Canada), theofficer incharge of the psychiatric facilityorthe personin Mental HealthAct (Canada), theofficer incharge oftheplace shallimmediately give ChildandFamily Services Act (Canada) orotherwise, theofficer incharge oftheplace Young Offenders Act orahospitalwithinthemeaningofPart XX.1 (Mental (Canada), whetherinaccordance , thepersonincharge ofthe

129 APPENDIX C 130 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci by afuneral director doesnotapply. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s. 14. examination and,insuchcaseaprovision inany Act orregulation requiring embalmingandpreparation 14. TRANSPORTATION OFABODY OUTOFONTARIO FORPOST MORTEM or externally, untilthecertificate required by subsection(1)hasbeenissued. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.13(3). Ontario shallembalmormake any alteration to thebodyorapplyany chemicalto thebody, internally (3) Nopersonwhohasreason to believe that adeadbodywillbeshipped ortaken to aplace outside EMBALMING, ETC., PROHIBITED therefor. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.13(2). (2) Anapplicantfor acertificate undersubsection(1)shall pay to the coroner such fee asisprescribed FEE FORCERTIFICATE there exists noreason for furtherexamination ofthebody. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.13(1). in Ontarioto any place outsideOntariounless acertificate ofa coroner hasbeenobtained certifying that 13. SHIPMENT OFBODIESOUTSIDE ONTARIO R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s. 12(2). (2) The juryorcoroner, asthecasemay be, shallview thewreckage at theearliest momentpossible. VIEW TO BEEXPEDITED necessary. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.12(1). until thejuryat theinquest hasviewed it,orthecoroner hasmadesuchexamination asheorsheconsiders wreckage andplace oneormore police officers incharge ofitsoas to prevent persons from disturbing it death by violence inawreck, thecoroner may, withtheapproval oftheChiefCoroner, take charge ofthe 12. POWER OFCORONER TO TAKE CHARGEOFWRECKAGE by awarrant. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.11. section 10shallinterfere withoralter thebodyoritscondition inany way untilthecoroner sodirects 11. INTERFERENCE WITHBODY in any action,proceeding orprosecution. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.10(6). evidence asproof, intheabsence ofevidence to thecontrary ofthefacts stated therein for allpurposes be certified by the coroner iswithoutproof oftheappointmentorsignature ofthe coroner, receivable in (6) Astatement asto thenotification ornon-notification ofa coroner underthissection,purporting to CERTIFICATE AS EVIDENCE hold aninquest uponthebody. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.10(5);2009, c.15,s.6(5). project, miningplantormineshallimmediately give notice ofthedeath to acoroner andthecoroner shall or inaconstruction project, miningplantormine, includingapitorquarry, thepersonincharge ofsuch (5) Where aworker diesasaresult ofanaccident occurring inthecourse oftheworker’s employment at OR INCONSTRUCTION PROJECT, MININGPLANTORMINE NOTICE OFDEATH RESULTING FROMACCIDENT AT No personwhohasreason to believe that apersondiedinany ofthecircumstances mentionedin (1) Subjectto section14,nopersonshallaccept for shipmentorshiptake adeadbodyfrom any place (1) Where acoroner hasissued awarrant to take possession ofthebodyapersonwhohasmet A coroner may inwriting authorize thetransportation ofabodyoutOntariofor

post mortem

purposes oftheinvestigation may, (2) Acoroner whobelieves onreasonable andprobable grounds that to dosois necessary for the IDEM 16. INVESTIGATIVE POWERS been removed from Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.15(5). has beendestroyed inwholeorpartislyingaplace from whichitcannotberecovered orhas (5) Acoroner may proceed withaninvestigation withouttakingpossession ofthebodywhere thebody NO WARRANT for allorany partofhisorherinvestigation orinquest. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.15(4). (4) Subjectto theapproval oftheChiefCoroner, acoroner may obtainassistance orretain expert services EXPERT ASSISTANCE the ChiefCoroner. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.15(3);2009, c.15,s.7(2). (3) After theissue ofthewarrant, noothercoroner shallissue awarrant orinterfere inthecase, except JURISDICTION or direct any coroner to doso. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.15(2). in section10andnowarrant hasbeenissued to take possession ofthebody, heorshemay issue thewarrant (2) Where theChiefCoroner hasreason to believe that apersondiedinany of thecircumstances mentioned IDEM investigation as,intheopinionofcoroner, isnecessary inthepublicinterest to enablethecoroner, coroner shallissue awarrant to take possession ofthebodyandshallexamine thebodyandmake such there isreason to believe that thepersondiedinany ofthecircumstances mentionedinsection10, the 15. CORONER’S INVESTIGATION (1) Where acoroner isinformed that there isinhisorherjurisdictionthebodyofapersonand that (1) Acoroner may, (c)  (b)  (a)  (b)  (a) examine ortake possession ofany deadbody, orboth;and (c)  (b) to determine whetherornotaninquest isnecessary; and (a) to determine theanswers to thequestions setoutinsubsection31(1); circumstances. 2009, c.15,s.7(1). of theinvestigation. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.16(2). seize anything that thecoroner hasreasonable grounds to believe ismaterial to thepurposes to collect andanalyze information aboutthedeath inorder to prevent furtherdeaths insimilar grounds to believe thedeceased personwas, priorto hisorherdeath; inspect any place inwhichthedeceased personwas, orinwhichthecoroner hasreasonable or hercircumstances andreproduce such copies therefrom asthecoroner believes necessary; reasonable grounds for believing thebodywas removed. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.16(1);2009, c.15,s.8. inspect andextract information from any records orwritingsrelating to thedeceased orhis enter andinspectany place where adeadbodyisandany place from whichthecoroner has

131 APPENDIX C 132 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci other goodandsufficient reason.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.17(1). the investigation may becontinued orconducted more conveniently by that othercoroner orfor any 17. TRANSFER OFINVESTIGATION 2009, c.15,s.9. coroner specified by theChief Coroner, whoshallthendetermine whetherornotaninquest isnecessary. (4) Apersonappointed undersubsection(1)shallreport hisorherfindings to theChief Coroner ora REPORT or holdaninquest. 2009, c.15,s.9. (3) Apersonappointed undersubsection(1)cannotdetermine whetherornotaninquest isnecessary LIMITATION a personappointed undersubsection(1)asifheorshewere acoroner. 2009, c.15,s.9. (2) Subjectto subsection(3)andtheregulations, thisAct applieswithnecessary modifications to SAME the investigative powers anddutiesofacoroner. 2009, c.15,s.9. 16.1 APPOINTMENT OFPERSONSWITHCORONERS’ INVESTIGATIVE POWERS ANDDUTIES with aninvestigation. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.16(6). a coroner intheperformance ofhisorherdutiesapersonauthorized by thecoroner inconnection (6) Nopersonshallknowingly, OBSTRUCTION OFCORONER authorized orrequired by law to disposeofitotherwise. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.16(5). after theconclusion oftheinvestigation or, where there isaninquest, oftheinquest, unless thecoroner is officer forsafekeeping andshall returnit totheperson from whomit wasseized assoonis practicable (5) Where acoroner seizes anything underclause(2)(c), heorsheshallplace itinthecustody ofapolice RETURN OFTHINGSSEIZED the requisite beliefshallbethat ofthecoroner personally. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.16(4). powers underclauses(2)(a),(b) and(c) but,where suchpower isconditional onthebeliefofcoroner, authorize alegallyqualifiedmedicalpractitioner orapolice officer to exercise allor anyofthe coroner’s (4) Acoroner may, where inhisorheropinionitisnecessary for thepurposesofinvestigation, IDEM all orany ofthecoroner’s powers undersubsection(1).R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.16(3). (3) Acoroner may authorize alegallyqualified medicalpractitioner orapolice officer to exercise DELEGATION OFPOWERS (1) Acoroner may at any timetransfer an investigation to anothercoroner where inhisorheropinion (b) furnishwithfalse information orrefuse orneglectto furnishinformation to, (a) hinder, obstruct or interfere withorattempt to hinder, obstruct orinterfere with;or (1) The ChiefCoroner may appointany person,inaccordance withtheregulations, to exercise

coroner shallsoadvisetheCrown Attorney. 2009, c.15,s.11. have diedof natural causes,thecoroner shalladvisetheregional coroner ofthat opinion andtheregional 18.1 CORONER’S REPORTIFDEATH SUSPECTEDNOT OFNATURAL CAUSES 2009, c.15,s.10. children, brothers andsisters ofthedeceased andto hisorherpersonalrepresentative, uponrequest. and ofany otherexaminations oranalyses ofthebodycarriedout,shallbeavailable to thespouse, parents, set outinsubsection31(1),andsuchfindings,includingthe relevant findingsofthe unnecessary, showing for eachcasethecoroner’s findingsof facts to determine theanswers to thequestions (4) Every coroner shallkeep arecord ofthecasesreported inwhichaninquest hasbeendetermined to be RECORD OFINVESTIGATIONS it isnecessary intheinterests ofpublicsafety to doso. 2009, c.15,s.10. to theattention ofthepublic,orany segmentofthepublic,if ChiefCoroner reasonably believes that may includepersonalinformation asdefinedinthe (3) The ChiefCoroner shallbringthefindingsand recommendations ofa coroner’s investigation, which DISCLOSURE TO THEPUBLIC 2009, c.15,s. 10. deaths incircumstances similarto thoseofthedeath that was thesubjectofcoroner’s investigation. (2) The coroner may make recommendations to theChiefCoroner withrespect to theprevention of RECOMMENDATIONS Statistics Act forthwith transmit to thedivision registrar anotice ofthedeath intheform prescribed by the to theChiefCoroner asignedstatement settingforth brieflythe results oftheinvestigation, andshallalso 18. INQUEST UNNECESSARY of thebody. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.17(4). briefly the result ofhisorherinvestigation andany evidence to prove the fact ofdeath andtheidentity report ofthe (4) The coroner whotransfers aninvestigation to anothercoroner shalltransmit to that othercoroner the TRANSMITTING RESULTS OFFIRST INVESTIGATION transfer, andtheChiefCoroner shallassist inthetransfer uponrequest. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.17(3). (3) The coroner whotransfers aninvestigation to anothercoroner shallnotifytheChiefCoroner ofthe NOTIFICATION OFCHIEFCORONER manner asifheorshehadissued thewarrant to take possession ofthebody. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.17(2). (2) The coroner to whomaninvestigation istransferred shallproceed withtheinvestigation inthesame INVESTIGATION ANDINQUEST (1) Where thecoroner determines that aninquest isunnecessary, thecoroner shallforthwith transmit If thecoroner isoftheopinion,basedonhisorherinvestigation, that thedeceased personmay not . 2009, c.15, s. 10. post mortem examination ofthebody, ifany, andhisorhersignedstatement settingforth Freedom of Information andProtection of Privacy Act post mortem examination Vital

, 133 APPENDIX C 134 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci the ChiefCoroner considers proper. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.24; 2002, c. 33,s.142;2009, c.15,s.15. an investigation oraninquest, direct that abodybedisinterred underandsubject to suchconditions as that Act, theChiefCoroner may, at any timewhere heorshe considers itnecessary for thepurposesof 24. CHIEF CORONER MAY DIRECTTHAT BODY BEDISINTERRED 23. 2006, c.24, s.2(1). died inthecircumstances describedinclauses72.2 (a),(b) and(c) ofthe 22.1 INQUEST MANDATORY 22. quence oftheinquest beingheldotherwisethanonorafter aview ofthebody. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.21. relating to coroners andcoroners’ inquests applieswithsuchmodifications asare necessary in conse held by thecoroner makingthe report orby suchothercoroner astheChiefCoroner directs, andthelaw Chief Coroner whomay direct aninquest to beheldtouching thedeath, inwhichcaseaninquest shallbe Ontario, aninquest cannotbeheldexcept by virtueofthissection,heorsheshallreport thefacts to the the bodyislyinginaplace from whichitcannotberecovered, orthat thebodyhasbeenremoved from holding ofaninquest but,owing to thedestruction ofthebodyinwholeorpartto thefact that 21. WHERE BODY DESTROYED ORREMOVED FROMONTARIO generality oftheforegoing, shallconsider, regard to whethertheholdingofaninquest would serve the publicinterest and,withoutrestricting the 20. WHAT CORONER SHALLCONSIDER ANDHAVE REGARDTO 19. DETERMINATION TO HOLDANINQUEST Where acoroner hasreason to believe that adeath hasoccurred incircumstances that warrant the Where thecoroner determines that aninquest isnecessary, thecoroner shall, (c)  (b)  (a) whetherthematters described inclauses31(1)(a)to (e) are known; (b) holdaninquest. 2009, c.15,s.12. (a) Repealed: 2009, c.15,s.13. Repealed: 2009, c.15,s.14. Despite anything inthe When makingadetermination whetheraninquest isnecessary orunnecessary, thecoroner shallhave A coroner shallholdaninquest underthisAct into thedeath ofachilduponlearningthat thechild the avoidance ofdeath insimilarcircumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.20. the likelihood that thejuryonaninquest mightmake usefulrecommendations directed to and of theresults oftheinvestigation andofthegrounds uponwhichthecoroner madethat determination; forthwith notifytheChiefCoroner ofthat determination andgive theChiefCoroner abriefsummary an inquest; and the desirability ofthepublicbeingfullyinformed ofthecircumstances ofthedeath through Funeral, BurialandCremation Services Act , 2002 oraregulation madeunder Child andFamily Services Act

-

. the inquest bereopened. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.27 (2);2009, c.15,s.17(2). as ifheorshehaddetermined that aninquest was unnecessary, buttheChiefCoroner may direct that arising outofthedeath, thecoroner shalldischarge thejuryandcloseinquest, andshallthenproceed (2) Where duringaninquest apersonischarged withanoffence underthe IDEM held, thepersoncharged isnot a compellable witness. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.27 (1);2009, c.15,s.17(1). death, an inquest touching thedeath shallbe heldonlyuponthedirection oftheChiefCoroner and,when 27. WHERE CRIMINALOFFENCECHARGED (3) The decisionoftheChiefCoroner isfinal.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.26(3);2009, c.15,s.16. DECISION FINAL the person’s agentorinwriting.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.26(2). giving thepersonrequesting theinquest anopportunityto state hisorherreasons eitherpersonally, by Chief Coroner to review thedecisionandChiefCoroner shallreview thedecisionofcoroner after making therequest may, withintwenty days after thereceipt ofthedecisioncoroner, request the (2) Where thefinaldecisionofa coroner undersubsection(1)is to notholdaninquest, theperson REVIEW OFREFUSAL c. 6,s.15(3);2005,5,(4). is to notholdaninquest shalldeliver thereasons therefor inwriting.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.26(1);1999, writing withinsixtydays ofthereceipt oftherequest ofthecoroner’s finaldecisionandwhere thedecision reasons, eitherpersonally, by theperson’s agentorinwriting,andthecoroner shalladvisethepersonin inquest, and the coroner shallgive thepersonrequesting theinquest anopportunityto state hisorher sister orpersonalrepresentative ofthedeceased personmay request thecoroner inwritingto holdan 26. REQUEST BY RELATIVE FORINQUEST any reason, theChiefCoroner may direct anothercoroner to continue theinquest. 1994,c.27, s.136(3). (3) IftheChiefCoroner isoftheopinionthat acoroner isunableto continue presiding over aninquest for DIRECTION TO REPLACE CORONER Chief Coroner may direct that oneinquest beheldinto allofthedeaths. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.25(2). (2) Where two ormore deaths appearto have occurred inthesameevent orfrom acommon cause, the INQUEST INTO MULTIPLE DEATHS c. C.37, s.25(1). do soormay intervene to actascoroner personallyfor any oneormore ofsuchpurposes.R.S.O. 1990, possession ofthebody, conduct aninvestigation orholdaninquest, ormay direct any othercoroner to 25. DIRECTION BY CHIEFCORONER (1) Where apersonischarged withanoffence underthe (1) The ChiefCoroner may direct any coroner inrespect ofany death to issue awarrant to take (1) Where thecoroner determines that aninquest isunnecessary, thespouse, parent, child,brother, Criminal Code (Canada) arisingoutofa Criminal Code (Canada)

135 APPENDIX C 136 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci circumstances. 2009, c. 15,s.18. conduct any examinations andanalyses that theChiefForensic Pathologist considers appropriate inthe (7) The ChiefForensic Pathologist may direct apathologist orany otherperson,thanacoroner, to DIRECTION OFCHIEFFORENSICPATHOLOGIST the circumstances. 2009, c.15,s.18. than acoroner to conduct suchother examinations andanalyses asheorsheconsiders appropriate in (6) The pathologist whoperforms the OTHER EXAMINATIONS ANDANALYSES (5) Apathologist whoexercises apower undersubsection(4)shallnotify, NOTICE TO CORONER warrant willbeissued to himorherundersubsection(1)may, has beennotifiedofthedeath by a coroner orpolice officer andwho reasonablybelieves that a coroner’s (4) The pathologist to whomthewarrant isissued or, ifnowarrant hasbeenissued, apathologist who POWER TO EXAMINE BODY 2009, c.15,s. 18. (3) The pathologist to whomthewarrant isissued shallperform the PATHOLOGIST’S DUTY to whomthewarrant isissued, to conduct suchexaminations andanalyses. 2009, c.15,s.18. coroner considers appropriate inthecircumstances ordirect any person,otherthanthepathologist (2) Acoroner may at any timeduringaninvestigation conduct examinations andanalyses that the OTHER EXAMINATIONS ANDANALYSES a 28. POST MORTEM s. 27 (3);2009, c.15,s.17(3). may holdaninquest andthepersoncharged isacompellable witness at theinquest. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, offence charged hasbeenfinallydisposedoforthetime fortakinganappeal has expired, the coroner (Canada) arisingoutofthedeath andthecharge orany appealfrom aconviction oranacquittal ofthe (3) Despite subsections(1)and(2),where apersonischarged withanoffence underthe WHERE CHARGEORAPPEALFINALLY DISPOSED OF post mortem (b)  (a) thecoroner whoissued thewarrant; or (b)  (a) enter andinspectany place where thedeadbodyisandexamine thebody;and (1) Acoroner may at any timeduringaninvestigation issue awarrant for apathologist to perform the bodywas removed. 2009, c.15,s.18. will beissued. 2009, c.15,s.18. if nowarrant hasbeenissued, thecoroner by whom thepathologist believes thewarrant enter andinspectany place from whichthepathologist hasreasonable grounds for believing examination ofthebody. 2009, c.15,s.18. EXAMINATION post mortem examination may conduct ordirect any personother post mortem examination ofthebody. Criminal Code

opinion that asecond orfurther (3) If, after a FURTHER Forensic Pathologist, theChief Forensic Pathologist. 2009, c.15,s.18. regional coroner and,ifthepathologist whoperformed the the pathologist whoperformed the any otherexamination oranalysis undersection28shall forthwith report hisorherfindingsinwriting to (2) Aperson,otherthanthepathologist whoperformed the SAME Pathologist, theChiefForensic Pathologist. 2009, c.15,s.18. with standing at the inquest for thepurpose. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.30(2). (2)The Minister may berepresented at aninquest by counsel andshallbedeemedto beaperson COUNSEL FORMINISTER c. C.37, s.30(1). by himorhershallattend theinquest andshallactascounsel to thecoroner at theinquest. R.S.O. 1990, which itisto beheld andtheCrown Attorney orabarrister andsolicitor orany other persondesignated 30. CROWN COUNSEL examination ofthebody. 2009, c.15,s.18. advise theChiefCoroner, andtheChiefCoroner shallissue awarrant for asecond orfurther coroner and,ifthepathologist whoperformed the examinations oranalyses that heorsheconducted to thecoroner whoissued thewarrant, theregional forthwith report inwritinghisorherfindingsfrom the 29. REPORTS OFPOST MORTEMFINDINGS the ChiefForensic Pathologist. 2009, c.15, s. 18. pathologist to whomthewarrant isissued appliesto thepathologist assigned to theinvestigation by pathologist namedonthecoroner’s warrant, andinthat case, every reference inthissection to the whose nameisonthepathologists register to perform the (10) The ChiefForensic Pathologist may at any timeduringaninvestigation assign anotherpathologist ASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER PATHOLOGIST pathologists register. 2009, c.15,s.18. (9) The coroner may issue awarrant undersubsection(1)onlyto apathologist whosenameisonthe PATHOLOGIST FROMREGISTER analyses. 2009, c.15,s.18. or personsinperforming the (8) The pathologist whoperforms the ASSISTANCE (1) The pathologist whoperformed the (1) Every coroner before holdinganinquest shallnotify theCrown Attorney ofthetimeandplace at POST MORTEMS post mortem examination ofabodyisperformed, theChiefForensic Pathologist isofthe post mortem post mortem post mortem post mortem examination andinconducting any otherexaminations and post mortem examination ofthebodyisnecessary, heorsheshallso examination, thecoroner whoissued thewarrant, the post mortem examination may obtaintheassistance ofany person post mortem examination ofabodyundersection28shall post mortem post mortem post mortem examination isnottheChiefForensic examination andfrom any other examination inplace ofthe examination isnottheChief examination, whoconducted post mortem

137 APPENDIX C 138 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci (4) Repealed: 2009, c.15,s.19(2). c. C.37, s.33(3). appoint somany persons thenpresent orwhocanbefound aswillmake upajuryoffive. R.S.O. 1990, (3) Where fewer thanfive ofthejurors sosummoned attend at theinquest, the coroner may name and IDEM c. C.37, s.33(2). the constable shallsummonthem to attend theinquest at thetimeandplace appointed. R.S.O. 1990, subsection 34(2)five personswhoinhisorheropinionare suitable to serve asjurors at aninquest and (2) The coroner shalldirect aconstable to selectfrom thelist ofnamespersonsprovided under JURORS 2009, c.15,s. 19(1). 33. JURIES absence ofthepublic.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.32. Code security mightbeendangered orwhere apersonischarged withanindictableoffence underthe 32. INQUEST PUBLIC (5) Where ajuryfails to deliver aproper finding itshallbedischarged. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.31(5). FAILURE TO MAKEPROPERFINDING (4) Afindingthat contravenes subsection(2)isimproper andshallnotbe received. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.31(4). IMPROPER FINDING similar circumstances orrespecting any othermatter arisingoutoftheinquest. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.31(3). (3) Subjectto subsection(2),thejurymay make recommendations directed to theavoidance ofdeath in AUTHORITY OFJURY TO MAKERECOMMENDATIONS matter referred to insubsection(1).R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.31(2). (2) The juryshallnotmake any findingoflegal responsibility or express any conclusion oflaw onany IDEM 31. PURPOSES OFINQUEST (1) Where aninquest isheld,itshallinquire into thecircumstances ofthedeath anddetermine, (e) by what meansthedeceased cameto hisorherdeath. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.31(1). (d) where thedeceased cameto hisorherdeath; and (c) whenthedeceased cameto hisorher death; (b) how thedeceased cameto hisorherdeath; (a) whothedeceased was; An inquest shall beopento thepublicexcept where thecoroner isoftheopinionthat national (1) Every inquest shallbeheldwithajurycomposed offive persons.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.33(1); (Canada) inwhichcasesthecoroner may holdthehearingconcerning any suchmatters inthe Criminal

and selectionofjurors isnotaground for impeaching orquashingaverdict. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.36. 36. JURY IRREGULARITIESNOT TO AFFECTOUTCOME the juryroll. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.35. of personswhohave received fees for service asjurors at inquests andthenumberofeachsuchnameon 35. REPORT TO SHERIFFREJURY SERVICE C.37, s.34(8). below three, bedeemed to remain properly constituted for allpurposesoftheinquest. R.S.O. 1990, c. to serve, thejuryshall,unless the coroner otherwisedirects andifthenumberofjurors isnotreduced cause orisexcluded ordischarged by thecoroner undersubsection(6)or(7)isfound to beineligible (8) Where inthecourse ofaninquest amemberofthejurydiesorbecomes incapacitated from any CONTINUATION WITHREDUCEDJURY other reasonable cause, continue to act,thecoroner may discharge thejuror. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.34(7). (7) Where inthecourse ofaninquest thecoroner issatisfied that ajuror shouldnot,becauseofillness or EXCUSING OFJURORFORILLNESS render averdict inaccordance withtheevidence. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.34(6). coroner believes there isalikelihood that theperson,becauseofinterest orbias,would beunableto (6) The coroner presiding at aninquest may exclude apersonfrom beingsworn asajuror where the EXCLUSION OFJURORWITHINTEREST on thegrounds ofillness orhardship. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.34(5). (5) The coroner may excuse any persononthelist from beingsummonedorfrom servingasajuror EXCUSING FROMSERVICE not serve asajuror at aninquest uponthedeath ofapersonwhodiedtherein. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.34(4). (4) Anofficer, employee orinmate ofahospitaloraninstitution referred toinsubsection10(2)or(3)shall IDEM or shallserve asajuror at aninquest. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.34(3). (3) Nopersonwhoisineligibleto serve asajuror underthe ELIGIBILITY their ages,places ofresidence andoccupations. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.34(2). number specified by the coroner, taken from thejury roll prepared underthe (2) Uponreceipt ofthewarrant, thesheriffshallprovide thelist containing namesofpersonsinthe IDEM taken from thejuryroll prepared underthe held to provide alist ofthenamessuchnumberpersonsascoroner specifiesinthe warrant 34. LIST OFJURORS On orbefore the31st day ofDecember ineachyear, thecoroner shalladvisethesheriffofnames The omission to observe any ofthe provisions ofthis Act ortheregulations respecting theeligibility (1) Acoroner may by hisorherwarrant require thesheriff for thearea inwhichaninquest is to be Juries Act . R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.34(1). Juries Act shallbesummonedto serve Juries Act , together with

139 APPENDIX C 140 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci c. 19, Sched.C,s.1(1);2009, c.33,Sched.9, s.3(1). conditioned for appearance to give evidence. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.40(3);1997, c.39, s.4(2);2006, required, or, inthediscretion ofthejudge, to bereleased on a recognizance (with orwithoutsureties) in custody asthejudgemay order until theperson’s presence asawitness at theinquest isnolonger be apprehended anywhere withinOntarioandforthwith to bebrought to theinquest andto bedetained the judgemay, by awarrant intheprescribed form, directed to any police officer, causesuchwitness to under thissectionuponapersonandthat, (3) Uponproof to thesatisfaction ofajudgetheSuperiorCourt ofJustice oftheservice ofasummons BENCH WARRANTS signed by thecoroner. 2009, c.15,s.22. (2) Asummonsissued undersubsection(1)shallbeintheform approved by theMinister andshallbe FORM ANDSERVICE OFSUMMONSES relevant to thesubject-matter oftheinquest and admissible. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.40(1). 40. SUMMONSES 39. SERVICE OFSUMMONSES 38. MAJORITY VERDICT (2) The jurors are entitledto askrelevant questions ofeachwitness. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.37 (2). QUESTIONS 37. VIEW OFPLACE JURY’S DUTIES,POWERS (1) The juryshallview any place that thecoroner directs themto view. 2009, c.15,s.20. (b) theperson’s presence ismaterial to theinquest, (a)  (b)  (a) to give evidence onoath oraffirmation ataninquest; and (c)  (b)  (a) by personalservice; A verdict orfindingmay be returned by amajorityofthejurors sworn. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.38. A summonsto ajuror orto awitness may beserved, (1) Acoroner may require any personby summons, 2009, c.15,s. 21. by sendingitby registered mailaddressed to theplace ofresidence oftheperson summoned. the requirements ofthesummons;and such personhasfailed to attend orto remain inattendance at aninquest inaccordance with of residence withanyone whoappearsto beanadultmemberofthesamehousehold;or to produce inevidence at aninquest documentsandthingsspecified by the coroner, by leaving acopy, inasealedenvelope addressed to thepersonsummoned,at hisorherplace

informed ofhisorherrightsundersection 5ofthe to criminate thewitness, itisthe dutyofthecoroner andoftheCrown Attorney to ensure that thewitness is (2) Where itappears at any stage oftheinquest that theevidence that awitness isaboutto give would tend RIGHT TO OBJECTUNDER giving suchevidence. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.42(1). or otherproceedings against himorherthereafter takingplace, otherthanaprosecution for perjuryin given by awitness at aninquest shallbeusedor be receivable inevidence against thewitness inany trial lish hisorherliabilityto civilproceedings at theinstance oftheCrown, orofany person,andnoanswer witness upontheground that hisorheranswer may tend to criminate thewitness ormay tend to estab 42. PROTECTION FORWITNESSES (3) may bemadeoutofthevictims’justice fundaccount. 2006,c.24, s.2(2). (4) Subjectto theapproval ofManagementBoard ofCabinet,payment of thecosts describedinsubsection PAYMENT subsection 5(1)ofthe counsel inconnection withtheinquest paidoutofthevictims’justice fundaccount continued under the personmay applyto theMinister to have thecosts that thepersonincursfor representation by legal designates aspouse, same-sex partnerorparent ofthe victimasapersonwithstanding at theinquest, (3) Ifthecoroner inaninquest into thedeath ofavictimasdefinedinthe COSTS OFREPRESENTATION (2) Apersondesignated asapersonwithstanding at aninquest may, RIGHTS OFPERSONSWITHSTANDING AT INQUEST directly interested intheinquest. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.41 (1);1993, c.27, Sched.;1999, c.12,Sched.P, s.2. person asawithstanding at theinquest ifthecoroner findsthat thepersonissubstantially and 41. PERSONS WITHSTANDING AT INQUEST 1990, c.C.37, s.40(5). purposes oftheinquest andsuchcertificate may beaccepted by thejudgeasproof ofsuch facts. R.S.O. the judgefacts relied onto establish that thepresence ofthepersonsummonedismaterial for the (5) Where anapplication undersubsection(3)ismadeonbehalfofacoroner, thecoroner may certify to CERTIFICATE OFFACTS c. C.37, s.40(4). (4) Service ofasummonsmay beproved by affidavit inanapplication undersubsection(3).R.S.O. 1990, PROOF OFSERVICE (1) Ontheapplication ofany personbefore orduringaninquest, thecoroner shalldesignate the (c)  (b) callandexamine witnesses andpresent arguments andsubmissions; (a)  (1) Awitness at an inquest shall be deemedto have objected to answer any question asked the with standing andadmissible. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.41 (2);2006,c.21,Sched.C,s.104(1). conduct cross-examinations ofwitnesses at theinquest relevant to theinterest oftheperson with standing; be represented by apersonauthorized underthe Victims’ Billof Rights CANADA EVIDENCEACT , 1995. 2006,c.24, s.2(2). Canada Evidence Act Law SocietyAct . R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.42(2). to represent theperson Victims’ Billof Rights , 1995

- 141 APPENDIX C 142 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci document filed certified bythe coroner. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.44(5). document filed,ormay furnish to theperson producing itorthepersonentitled to itaphotocopy ofthe may authorize thephotocopy to befiledin evidence intheplace ofthedocumentfiledand releasethe it orentitledto itmay withtheleave ofthecoroner, causethe documentto bephotocopied andthecoroner (5) Where adocumenthasbeenfiledin evidence at aninquest, the coroner may, orthe personproducing PHOTOCOPIES be admitted asevidence at aninquest. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.44(4). (4) Where thecoroner issatisfied as to theirauthenticity, a copy ofadocumentorotherthingmay COPIES 1990, c.C.37, s.44(3). purposes for whichany oral testimony, documentsorthingsmay beadmitted orusedinevidence. R.S.O. (3) Nothinginsubsection(1)overrides theprovisions ofany Act expressly limitingtheextent to or CONFLICTS (2) Nothingisadmissible inevidence at aninquest, WHAT ISINADMISSIBLE INEVIDENCEAT INQUEST c. C.37, s.44(1). the coroner may comment ontheweight that oughtto begiven to any particularevidence. R.S.O. 1990, proof asare commonly relied onby reasonably prudentpersonsinthe conduct oftheirown affairs and anything undulyrepetitious oranything that thecoroner considers doesnotmeetsuchstandards of relevant to thepurposesofinquest andmay actonsuchevidence, butthecoroner may exclude admissible asevidence inacourt, 44. WHAT IS ADMISSIBLE INEVIDENCEAT INQUEST ADMISSIBILITY OFEVIDENCE (1) isnotentitledto bepresent except whenthat witness isgivingevidence. 2006,c.21,Sched.C,s.104(2). (2) Where aninquest isheldintheabsence ofthepublic,apersonadvising awitness undersubsection SAME without leave ofthecoroner. 2006,c.21,Sched.C,s.104(2). under the 43. RIGHTS OFWITNESSES TO REPRESENTATION (b)  (a) that would beinadmissible inacourt by reason ofany privilegeunderthelaw ofevidence; or (b) any documentorotherthing, (a) any oral testimony; and (1) Awitness at aninquest isentitledto beadvisedasto hisorherrightsby apersonauthorized (1) Subjectto subsections(2)and(3),acoroner may admitasevidence at aninquest, whetherornot 1990, c.C.37, s.44(2). that isinadmissible by thestatute underwhichtheproceedings ariseorany otherstatute. R.S.O. Law SocietyAct to advisehimorher, butsuchpersonmay take nootherpartintheinquest

proper to prevent abuseofitsprocesses. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.50(1). 50. ABUSE OFPROCESSES FURTHER POWERS OFCORONER of theinquest. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.49. 49. ADMINISTRATION OFOATHS 1990, c.C.37, s.48(2). every suchconstable shalltake oath oraffirmthat heorshewill faithfullyperform hisorherduties.R.S.O. in thelocalitywhichaninquest isheldshallprovide apolice officer forthepurpose and,before acting, of assisting thecoroner inaninquest and,ontherequest ofthecoroner, thepolice force having jurisdiction (2) Acoroner may appointsuchpersonsasconstables asthecoroner considers necessary for thepurpose CONSTABLES evidence. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.48(1). inquest andbefore actingshallmake oath oraffirmthat heorshewilltrulyand faithfully translate the person to actasinterpreter for awitness at aninquest, andsuchpersonmay besummonedto attend the 48. INTERPRETERS INTERPRETERS ANDCONSTABLES order ordirection andmay usesuchforce as is reasonably required for that purpose. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.47. or direction, andevery peace officer socalleduponshalltake suchactionasisnecessary toenforce the such order ordirection, thecoroner may callfor theassistance ofany peace officer toenforce the order sary for themaintenance oforder at theinquest, and,ifany persondisobeys orfails to comply withany 47. MAINTENANCE OFORDERAT INQUEST to beheld.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.46. shown to thesatisfaction ofthecoroner that theadjournmentisrequired to permitanadequate hearing 46. Aninquest may beadjournedfrom timeto timeby thecoroner ofhisorherown motionorwhere itis ADJOURNMENTS public. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.45(2);2009, c.15,s.23. that thecoroner may prohibit thetranscribing ofallorany part ofevidence taken intheabsence ofthe be doneorunless any otherpersonrequests acopy ofthetranscript andpays thefees therefor except (2) Itisnotnecessary to transcribe theevidence unless theChiefCoroner orCrown Attorney orders itto TRANSCRIPTION OFEVIDENCE he orshewilltrulyandfaithfully record theevidence. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.45(1). coroner andapproved by theCrown Attorney andwhobefore actingshallmake oath oraffirmation that 45. TAKING EVIDENCE A coroner may make suchorders orgive suchdirections at aninquest asheorsheconsiders neces (1) The evidence uponaninquest orany partofitshallberecorded by apersonappointed by the (1) Acoroner may, andifrequired by theCrown Attorney orrequested by thewitness shall,employ a The coroner conducting aninquest haspower to administer oaths and affirmations forthepurpose (1) Acoroner may make suchorders orgive suchdirections at aninquest asthecoroner considers

-

143 APPENDIX C 144 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci at theinquest to thelawful owner orpersonentitledto possession thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37, s.52 (2). (2) After aninquest isconcluded, thecoroner shall,uponrequest, release documentsandthingsputinevidence RELEASE OFEXHIBITS 2009, c.15,s.26. transmit acopy oftheverdict andrecommendations to theCrown Attorney. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.52 (1); the Crown Attorney orChiefCoroner hasordered itto betranscribed, to theChiefCoroner, andshall 52. RETURN OFVERDICT CONCLUSION OFINQUEST had beenguiltyofcontempt ofthecourt. R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.51. offered indefence, punishortake steps for thepunishmentofthat personinlike mannerasifhe orshe who may beproduced against oronbehalfofthat personandafter hearingany statement that may be tion onbehalfofandinthenamecoroner, inquire into thematter and,after hearingany witnesses the coroner may state acaseto theDivisionalCourt settingoutthefacts andthat court may, onapplica 51. CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS 50.1 RULES OFPROCEDUREFORINQUESTS adviser. 2006, c.21,Sched.C,s.104(3). witness, ordoesnotunderstand andcomply at theinquest withthedutiesandresponsibilities ofan Act (3) Acoroner may exclude from ahearinganyone, otherthanapersonlicensed underthe EXCLUSION OFREPRESENTATIVES being asked are irrelevant, undulyrepetitious orabusive. 2009, c.15,s.24. relation to whichthewitness hasgiven evidence orwhere thecoroner isoftheopinionthat thequestions that thecross-examination ofthewitness hasbeensufficient todisclosefullyand fairlythe factsin (2) Acoroner may reasonably limitfurthercross-examination ofawitness where thecoroner issatisfied LIMITATION ONCROSS-EXAMINATION Where any personwithoutlawful excuse, , advisingawitness ifthecoroner findsthat suchpersonisnot competent properly to advisethe (c)  (b)  (a)  (1) The coroner shallforthwith after aninquest return theverdict orfinding,withthe evidence where The ChiefCoroner may make additionalrulesofprocedure for inquests. 2009, c.15,s.25. for contempt, have beencontempt ofthat court, does any otherthingthat would, iftheinquest hadbeenacourt oflaw having power to commit inquest; or on beingdulysummonedasawitness orajuror at aninquest makes default inattending at the any question to whichthecoroner may legallyrequire ananswer; or or herpower orcontrol legallyrequired by thecoroner to beproduced by thepersonorto answer legally required by thecoroner to betaken ormade, orto produce any documentorthinginhis being inattendance asawitness at aninquest, refuses to take anoath orto make anaffirmation

Law Society

- (2) The Minister may make regulations, SAME 56. REGULATIONS ANDFEES six months,orto both.R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.55. conviction isliableto afineofnotmore than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term ofnotmore than 55. OFFENCES R.S.O. 1990, c.C.37, s.54. document isinvalidated by reason ofthelackaseal,even thoughthedocumentpurportsto besealed. 54. SEALS NOT NECESSARY duty. 2009, c.15,s.27. power ordutyfor any allegedneglector default intheexecution ingoodfaith ofany suchpower or a dutyunderthisAct for any actdoneingoodfaith intheexecution orintended execution ofany such 53. PROTECTION FROMPERSONALLIABILITY (f) prescribing theform(f) ofawarrant for thepurposeofsubsection40(3); (e) prescribing thecontents ofoaths andaffirmations required orauthorized bythis Act; (d)  (c)  (b) prescribing limitsonthepowers ofpersonsappointed undersection16.1; (a) respecting theappointment ofpersonsundersection16.1; (g)  defining“restrain”(f) for thepurposeofsubsections10(4.7) and(4.8); (e) respecting themaking,referral andreviewing ofcomplaints undersection8.4; (d) prescribing matters for thepurposeofparagraph 7ofsubsection8.1 (1); (c)  (b) prescribing powers anddutiesoftheChiefForensic Pathologist; (a) prescribing powers anddutiesoftheChiefCoroner; No actionorotherproceeding shallbeinstituted against any personexercising apower orperforming Any personwhocontravenes section10, 11,13orsubsection16(6)isguiltyofanoffence andon (1) The Lieutenant Governor inCouncil may make regulations, In proceedings underthisAct, itisnotnecessary for apersonto affixaseal toadocument,andno at inquests; of theOversight Council; providing for theselecting,recording, summoning,attendance andservice ofpersonsasjurors prescribing thecomposition oftheOversight Council andofthecomplaints committee for thepurposesofsubsection34(6); prescribing matters that may begrounds for disqualification becauseofinterest orbiasofjurors analyses undersection28.2009, c.15, s.28(1);2009, c.33,Sched.9, s.3(2). obtained inperforming apost mortem examination of a bodyorconducting examinations or governing theretention, storage anddisposaloftissue samples,implanted devices andbodyfluids

145 APPENDIX C 146 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci of theministry oftheMinister. 2009, c.15,s.29. (2) Where theMinister approves aform andrequires itsuse, theform shallbeavailable onthewebsite SAME 57. FORMS (4) Part III(Regulations) ofthe NON-APPLICATION OF and may provide for theadjustment ofsuchfees andallowances inspecialcircumstances. 1997, c.39, s.5(2). (3) The Minister may setfees andallowances for coroners for services performed underthisorany otherAct CORONERS’ FEESANDALLOWANCES (1) The Minister may approve forms for thepurposesofthisAct andprovide for theiruse. 2009, c.15,s.29. (b) therulesofprocedure for inquests madeby theChiefCoroner undersection50.1. 2009, c.15,s.28(2).  (a) (h)  (g)  pathologists undersection7.1 ortheauthorization ofpathologists to provide services underthisAct; or any rulesmadeby theChiefForensic Pathologist respecting themaintenance oftheregister of College ofPhysicians andSurgeons ofOntario. 2009, c.15,s.28(1). Ontario amongtheChiefCoroner, theChiefForensic Pathologist, theOversight Council andthe about coroners, pathologists andothermembersoftheCollege ofPhysicians andSurgeons of information withinthemeaningof requiring andgoverning thedisclosure, collection anduseofinformation, includingpersonal allowances inspecialcircumstances; with coroners’ investigations andinquests andproviding for theadjustment ofsuchfees and prescribing fees andallowances that shallbepaidto personsrendering services inconnection LEGISLATION ACT, 2006 Legislation Act, 2006 Freedom of Information andProtection of Privacy Act , PART III doesnotapplyto, ,

147 APPENDIX C APPENDIX D Frank Iacobucci Sincerely, www.firstnationsandjuriesreview.ca. Ilook forward to meetingwith you inthe very nearfuture. For furtherinformation, pleasevisitthewebsite for theIndependentReview at you have any questions, comments orconcerns respecting the process. encouraged to follow upwitheitherMr. Terry orMs.Metallicifyou wishto participate inthisprocess, orif at Torys LLPandCandice S.Metallic,ofMaurice Law Barristers &Solicitors asAssociate Counsel. Pleasefeel Throughout theIndependentReview process, Iwillbesupported by alegalteam ledby JohnTerry, apartner receive written submissions, convene orattend meetings,orengageinacombination oftheseapproaches. considering theneedsofyour organization andtheparameters ofthisprocess. We would bepleasedto member communities, andlookforward to discussing themost effective means by whichthis could occur, you willbeinterested inparticipating inthisprocess. Iwelcome your involvement, ortheinvolvement ofyour important matter andobtainaninformed view oftheissues related to First Nations andthejuryroll. Ihope I amkeen to meetwithFirst Nation organizations andcommunities inthenext few monthsto discuss this and First Nations inthisregard. on theprovincial juryroll andstrengthening therelationship between theMinistry oftheAttorney General establishing a process for anIndependentReview withtheobjective ofenhancingFirst Nations’ representation advocate for asystemic review ofthecreation ofthejuryroll. The Government ofOntariohasresponded by inquests over thelast several years, adevelopment that hasprompted someFirst Nations’ organizations to The matter ofFirst Nations’ representation onOntario’s juryroll hasbeenraised incertain trialsandcoroners’ the Attorney General ofOntarioonorbefore August 31,2012. which potential jurors are selected for alljurytrialsandcoroners inquests. Myreport willbesubmitted to the process for inclusionofFirst Nation peopleslivinginreserve communities ontheprovincial juryroll from Attorney General andtheGovernment ofOntarioto examine, report andoffer recommendations regarding I would like to take thisopportunityto introduce myself astheIndependentReviewer appointed by the RE: IndependentReview ofFirst Nations Representation onOntario’s JuryRoll November 9, 2011

Tel 4 Frank Iac www.torys.com Fax 4 Tel 4 M5K 1N2Canada Tor Box 2 79 W Suite 3000 onto, Ontario 16.865.8217 16.865.0040 ellington St. W. 16.865.7380 70, TDCentre obucci

149 APPENDIX D APPENDIX E 1. Grand Council Treaty 3 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Nishnawbe AskiNation GROUPS ANDINDIVIDUALS FIRST NATIONS ANDOTHER LIST OFENGAGEMENT SESSIONS Wauzhushk Onigum Keewaywin SandyLake Kassabonika Lake MooseCree Webequie Mushkeegomang Poplar Hill Constance Lake Mattagami Kasheshewan SachigoLake Meeting withthenGrand Chief Chief Solomon(inToronto) representatives, students Chief &Council, community Chief &Council Chief &Council justice committee Chief &Council, Elders, representatives Chief &Council, community probation officer, lawyer Chief &Council, justice worker, community representatives Chief &Council, representatives Council, community and justice committee community representatives, Chief &Council, Elders, representatives Council, Elders&community Assembly Bentley CheechooandNAN Deputy ChiefTerry Waboose, Several meetingswith,then, OFFICIALS THAT ATTENDED Elders, andtechnicians of8Chiefs,Councilors,Gathering Forbister Diane Kelly andChiefSimon

Written Submission Written Submission SUBMISSIONS Written Submission Written Submission 151 APPENDIX E 152 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci Judges Judiciary Provincial JuryCentre Court Services Division Ministry ofAttorney General Government for Children andYouth Provincial Advocate Services Toronto Aboriginal Legal Organizations Pikwaknagan Six Nations Chippewas ofSaugeen Akwesasne Independents 2. 1. Union of OntarioIndians Garden River Toronto

Meeting withlegalcounsel Teleconference withofficials Counsel (retired) Meeting withAssistant Crown officials, Kenora Meeting withCourt Services Services, Northwest Region Meeting withDirector ofCourt and otherofficials Meeting withlegalcounsel Advocate, legalcounsel andstaff Meeting withProvincial b.  a.  Chief &Council Chief &Council Chief &Council Justice Department Chief &Council, and technicians Councilors from 5First Nations, of1Chief,Gathering an Elderandtechnicians of3Chiefs, Gathering and OntarioCourt ofJustice Ontario SuperiorCourt ofJustice Meetings withjudgesfrom the of Legal Services Several meetingswithDirector involved inCoroner’s Inquests Families Forum ofthose

3 written presentations Written presentation Written Submission Written Submission Written Submission 153 APPENDIX E APPENDIX F Frank Iacobucci Sincerely, any comments orsubmissions by nolater thanMay 25,2012. order to meetthedeadlinefor meto complete my report, Iwould begrateful ifyou would provide mewith the otherissues discussed andpointsraised inthedocument,orany otherissues relevant to my review. In I encourage you to provide mewithyour comments orsubmissions inresponse to thesequestions, any of as alist offollow-up questions relating to someofthoseissues. that describesthepointsraised through my dialoguewithFirst Nations, organized underfive issues, as well to give your inputonsomefollow-up questions that Ihave. Inorder to dothat, Iencloseashortdocument feedback on what Ihave heard duringtheseconsultations andprovide you withanadditional opportunity As we move from theconsultation phasetoward thereport-writing stage ofmy review, Iwanted to give you other interested groups to discuss thisvery seriousissue. Nations leadersandcommunity members,treaty organization representatives, judges,court officialsand now completed most ofthose consultations, having traveled throughout theprovince to meetwithFirst next several monthsto obtainaninformed view oftheissues related to First Nations andthejuryroll. Ihave I explained at thetimethat Iwould bemeetingwithFirst Nation organizations andcommunities over the potential jurors are selected for alljurytrialsandcoroners inquests. for inclusion of First Nation peopleslivinginreserve communities ontheprovincial juryroll from which General andtheGovernment ofOntarioto examine, report andoffer recommendations regarding theprocess Last November, Iwrote to you to introduce myself astheIndependentReviewer appointed by theAttorney Points RaisedThrough DialoguewithFirst Nations andFurtherQuestions RE: IndependentReview ofFirst Nations Representation onOntario’s JuryRoll – April 20, 2012

Tel 4 Frank Iac www.torys.com Fax 4 Tel 4 M5K 1N2Canada Tor Box 2 79 W Suite 3000 onto, Ontario 16.865.8217 16.865.0040 ellington St. W. 16.865.7380 70, TDCentre obucci

155 APPENDIX F 156 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci THAT DETERFIRST NATION RESPONSES ISSUE #3:JURORQUESTIONNAIRES POSE PROBLEMSANDCONCERNS INFORMATION OFFIRST NATIONS PEOPLESONRESERVE AREINADEQUATE ISSUE #2:CURRENT PRACTICES FORCOLLECTION OFNAMESANDCONTACT CHILL THEDESIRETO SERVE ONONTARIO JURIES ISSUE #1:FIRST NATIONS’ PERSPECTIVESONTHEJUSTICE SYSTEM POINTS RAISEDTHROUGH DIALOGUE WITHFIRST NATIONS MANDATE OFINDEPENDENT REVIEW REPRESENTATION ONONTARIO’S JURY ROLL INDEPENDENT REVIEWOFFIRST NATION II. I. I.

c) List ofexemptions from jurydutyought to includeelected First Nation leadership b) a)  c)  b)  a)  f) e)  d) Lackofeducation aboutandawareness ofthejurysystem c)  b)  a)  of thejuryroll Improve relationship between First Nations andMinistry oftheAttorney General inthecontext Systemic challengesto First Nations representation onOntario’s juryroll for trialsandcoroner’s inquests Inadequate policingservicesInadequate andfundingcontribute to negative perceptions ofthecriminaljustice system justice doesnotaccord withtraditional First Nations principlesofattaining harmony andbalance Competing values, ideologiesandlaws withrespect to achieving justice, i.e. Canadiansystem ofcriminal membership list orvoters list Residency vs. membership–Aspecificlist ofon-reserve residence is required, rather thanthefull requirements are notsupported Self-government objectives for community basedjustice initiatives andancillaryresource/capacity and compound theproblem pressures. First Nations’ administrators are best positionedto solicitinterest Voluntariness ofFirst Nation participation isrequired given extent ofexisting socialandeconomic Justice challengesinnorthernFirst Nations communities are distinct --e.g. lackofaccess -- of notice) isperceived asimposingjury duty through intimidation andthreat Penalty for non-response (fineorimprisonment)withinunreasonable timelimit(five days of receipt of thewholecriminaljustice system, includingjury duty including addresses, for juryroll purposes The requirement to declare ‘Canadian’citizenship prevents participation ofmany First Nations peoples First Nations seekcapacityto gather andmaintainappropriate, accurate andcurrent records, Systemic discrimination –negative experiences have shapedadverse perspectives andmistrust

AND FIRST NATIONS WITHRESPECTTO THEJURY ROLLNEEDS TO BEIMPROVED ISSUE #5:RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHEMINISTRY OFTHEATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUE #4:PRACTICAL BARRIERSTO JURY PARTICIPATION f) Better culturalf) sensitivitytraining isneeded for thoseinvolved inthejustice system e)  d) c) b)  a) Needfor collaboration between theMinistry oftheAttorney General andFirst Nations h) Criminalrecords andlackof awareness ofpardon procedures present abarto service g) Lackoftranslation services whileinurbancentres creates hardships f) e)  d) Employment income supplementsmay berequired, whennecessary c) Childcare expenses must beincludedasanecessary expense b) Accommodations andmealallowances are notalways sufficient a) g) Confusion andmisunderstanding may arisewhensomeoneisempanelledbutnotchosenfor ajury  f) e) Lackoftranslation ofquestionnaires andinstructions posechallengesto completing forms d)  are neededby thosewhoparticipate injuries questionnaires Community-based supports,suchasassistance withprocess andpostjury service psychological effects, Lack ofunderstanding ofthejuryselectionprocess androle ofjuriesprevent response to jury All expenses related to thejurysystem must bepaidpriorto travel dueto lackofresources andcredit justice initiatives participation onjuriesinaculturally appropriate mannerandto implementFirst Nation restorative Proper fundingisrequired to supportcommunity basedjustice initiatives aimedat enhancing Increased education required for provincial officials regarding First Nations’ culture, valuesand traditions Nations whoincurhighertravel costs which,inturn,furtherinhibitsparticipation people canafford outofpocket. Transportation presents asignificantbarrier tonorthernFirst significant amountsoftime (several days insomecircumstances) and costs are beyond what Transportation –travel to urbancenters often requires multiplemodesoftransportation that occupy needs to beimproved Education andawareness ofjurysystem for bothtrialsandcoroner’s inquests amongFirst Nations First Nation language–juriesoughtto beequippedwithtranslation services, ifnecessary More education aboutprocess for pardons andaccess to supportservices for First Nations isrequired English orFrench-speaking requirement is problematic for many whoseprimarylanguageistheir

157 APPENDIX F 158 FIRST NATIONS REPRESENTATION ON ONTARIO JURIES: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci 4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEENFIRST NATIONS ANDMINISTRY OFTHEATTORNEY GENERAL 3. PRACTICAL BARRIERS 2. JURY FORMS 1. ON-RESERVE RESIDENCY NAMEANDADDRESS INFORMATION FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS a) What steps would you recommend betaken to improve thisrelationship? b)  a)  d)  c)  b)  a)  d)  c) Shouldbandlist information beprovided? b) ShouldOHIPinformation beused? a) How shouldthisinformation becollected? First Nations leadership? Are there any exemptions from juryservice that shouldbeincluded inadditionto exempted in order to encourage participation? form whichaskswhetheranindividualisaCanadiancitizen? What kindsoftransportation, accommodation, mealsorothercosts shouldbepaid for Should theforms askwhetheranindividualis“First Nations” asopposedto thecurrent or dealingwithpost-jury psychological effects shouldbeprovided? For example, shouldthepenaltiesfor non-response bemodifiedinsome way? What kindsofcommunity supportsfor completing juryforms, attending atrialorinquest, How canFirst Nations membersbeencouraged to complete andsubmittheforms? First Nations participation? and provide itto theMinistry oftheAttorney General? If theform stated that atranslator could beprovided for ajuror, would that improve Should First Nations communities collect thisinformation themselves

Her Majesty the Queen -and- Clifford Kokopenace Court File No: 35475

Appellant Respondent

Supreme Court of Canada On Appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario

AFFIDAVIT OF DEPUTY GRAND CHIEF ALVIN FIDDLER

FALCONERS LLP Julian N. Falconer LSUC# 29465 R 10 Alcorn Avenue, Suite 204 Toronto, ON M4V 3A9 Tel: (416) 964-0495 Fax: (416) 929-8179

Counsel for the Proposed Intervener, Nishnawbe Aski Nation