Bill 14, Access to Justice Act, 2006

Transcription

1 Bill 14, Access to Justice Act, 2006 AMO Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy April 26, 2006 Association of Municipalities of Ontario 393 University Avenue, Suite 1701 Toronto, ON M5G 1E6 Canada tel: fax: website:

2 Introduction: AMO Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy Bill 14 Good morning ladies and gentlemen, my name is Brian Rosborough. I am the Director of Policy of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It is a pleasure for me to be here today with this Committee. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario AMO is, I believe, well known to the Committee members. AMO represents Ontario s municipal governments and advocates on behalf of those governments and the property tax payers and citizens they represent. AMO well understands the need for improved access to justice. We are very supportive of the intended outcomes of this Bill in terms of modernizing and improving the public s access to the justice system including improvements to the Justice of the Peace system. We appreciate the hard work of this Committee to achieve that end as well as its members appreciation of the particular challenges facing the municipal sector in helping to deliver justice to our citizens. I plan to comment on only two of the Bill s six Schedules for two reasons. First, this Committee will hear from our sister associations that specialize in delivering justice-related services. Second, AMO strongly believes that while this Bill contains many important provisions, one Schedule is long overdue and must be brought forward immediately. Given this, we are thankful for the opportunity to share our perspectives on Bill 14 with you. Page 1

3 Responding to the Proposed Legislation: For years AMO and others have advocated the need to address the critical shortage of Justices of the Peace. This shortage has resulted in case backlogs, cases dropped, and losses in revenue to municipal governments as a result of fine payments. Most importantly, this shortage has compromised access to the justice system for the residents of Ontario. AMO has been joined by the Municipal Court Managers Association of Ontario, Municipal Law Departments Association of Ontario, Prosecutors Association of Ontario, Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards in advocating for more Justices of the Peace to be appointed across Ontario. However, despite our best efforts, few appointments have been made over the years. Moreover, even after a Justice of the Peace is appointed there is a significant training period, which still leaves municipalities with a void. Worse still, even if a Justice of the Peace is appointed, it does not guarantee that they will be working on Provincial Offences Act (POA) issues - many letters received from the Attorney General indicate that bail hearings and warrants get priority over POA offences. Minister Bryant's office has suggested that the budget does not exist to support the hiring of Justices of the Peace - but under the transfer agreements signed between municipalities and the Attorney General after the POA transfer, a formula was created for municipalities to pay the costs of the Justices of the Peace used for POA offences. Shortages also exist due to scheduling, illness, workload responsibilities, and retirements. Unfortunately, this chronic shortage has a profound impact on Ontario s municipalities. As a result of the lack of Justices of the Peace and the consequent backlog of cases being tried, we may both be in breech of the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between the Province and municipalities since it indicates that: "the confidence of the public in the justice system must be maintained through every effort by all parties. To this end, open access to the system and a fair and timely process must be assured". Page 2

4 The shortage of Justices of the Peace also results in police officers waiting for hours to meet with a Justice of the Peace on urgent warrant issues - this waiting time results in fewer police officers on the street and added costs for municipalities. Citizens are not being served - some accused persons are held beyond 24 hours since there is not a Justice of the Peace available for remand/release. When cases are thrown out due to delay, municipalities stand to lose millions of dollars in uncollected POA fines. All of this is in spite of the fact that the funds exist to hire Justices of the Peace because municipalities pay the Province for the court time of Justices of the Peace on POA offences. In sum, more Justices of the Peace must be immediately assigned to meet the shortage. So that is why today we are making but one request if it is not the Committee s will to expedite the passage of this Bill in its entirety, it should recommend to separate and fast-track the time sensitive issue of Justice of the Peace appointments from the legislation. Separate Schedule B: AMO originally wrote Attorney General Bryant and the leaders of both opposition parties in March with the request to separate and fast track Schedule B. The main reason for this was we believe the proposals contained in Schedule B are fairly straightforward and could bring immediate relief to Ontario s POA courts unlike the remainder of Bill 14, which is complex and may be potentially contentious. We suggest that by separating Schedule B, the Legislature could provide immediate relief to a pressing concern while allowing adequate time for discussion of the remaining sections of this important piece of legislation, if warranted. AMO is very pleased that Schedule B contains proposed changes to make the appointment process for Justices of the Peace more transparent, the inclusion of minimum qualifications for Justices of the Peace, the ability for retired Justices of the Peace to be hired on a per diem basis to hear specific matters including POA offences, and the provision for an expanded Justice of the Peace Review Council. Page 3

5 These changes will enable municipalities greater access to Justices of the Peace to specifically preside over POA offences. Since municipalities already pay an hourly rate when Justices of the Peace preside over POA cases, this will not result in new costs but will provide access to a wider Justice of the Peace pool to clear up case backlogs. Moreover, the new generation of Justices of the Peace will be better prepared for the challenges that face them. We urge all three parties to lend their support to the changes proposed in Schedule B. Schedule E: While we remain committed to our request for Schedule B to be separated and fasttracked, I would also like to briefly comment on two other areas within Schedule E that affect the municipal sector. AMO supports the proposal to allow POA witnesses to provide testimony electronically. We believe this could help solve the problem of law enforcement officers not always being available to appear in court. This additional flexibility could help alleviate dropped cases and ensure valuable police resources are perhaps better dedicated to community initiatives. AMO also supports the ability to utilize alternative mechanisms for resolving disputes about municipal by-laws concerning parking violations. Conclusion: The proposed changes in Bill 14 are a good first step towards improving the efficiency of the justice system in this province, and AMO looks forward to working with the government to develop the supporting regulation. I ve already let you know our position; simply, we want Schedule B removed from this legislation so it can be quickly passed and communities can acquire the Justices of the Peace they so urgently need. We believe it is imperative to move quickly to enact Schedule B in order to provide immediate relief to the Provincial Offences Act court system by enabling the appointment of per diem Justices of the Peace. Page 4