While Ontario’s chief justices offered a largely sunny view of the state of the province’s justice system during the opening of the courts ceremony last month, Ontario Court Justice Lesley Baldwin offered a more pessimistic outlook in a ruling issued the day before.
The chief justices talked of improvements in technology and new practices that are allowing people greater access to the courts and boosting efficiency. In R. v. Drobotenk
on Sept. 23, however, Baldwin suggested significant problems remain.
She was ruling on Lisa Drobotenko’s bid for a declaration of a violation of her right to a trial within a reasonable time. The charges of impaired operation and refusing to provide a breath sample date back to Aug. 3, 2014, but after multiple court appearances, the parties set a trial date for Nov. 5 and 6, 2015.
While Baldwin found a total delay of 11-1/2 months after accounting for Crown and institutional factors, she took particular umbrage with the suggestion that the trial would, in fact, wrap up on Nov. 6. With three trials scheduled to start in courtroom No. 16 at the courthouse in Milton, Ont., on Nov. 5, she found Drobotenko’s matter wouldn’t conclude the next day. And with two charges at issue and up to 11 witnesses planned, Baldwin suggested the case is an example of the increasingly complex matters that are coming before the court since the days of R. v. Askov and R. v. Morin. As a result, she hinted at the need to rethink how the court assesses delays.
“The vast majority of trials in the Ontario Court of Justice have not been simple one-day matters,” she wrote.
“Time to start the trial is not the same as time to complete the trial. There [is] confusion and distortion of what was being spoken of starting 25 years ago in the case law, and the realities of what is happening in the Ontario Court of Justice in 2015. This has covered-up inexcusable institutional delay in our trial courts. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Attorney General to address these problems. The Court, which has responsibility for trial scheduling, cannot do so without adequate facilities and resources.”
Baldwin, who stayed the charges against Drobotenko, has had a habit lately of expressing her frustrations in her rulings. In this case, her comments offer a welcome look at how the courts are actually working and highlight the need to continue working on trial efficiency and resources.
The chief justices talked of improvements in technology and new practices that are allowing people greater access to the courts and boosting efficiency. In R. v. Drobotenk
on Sept. 23, however, Baldwin suggested significant problems remain.She was ruling on Lisa Drobotenko’s bid for a declaration of a violation of her right to a trial within a reasonable time. The charges of impaired operation and refusing to provide a breath sample date back to Aug. 3, 2014, but after multiple court appearances, the parties set a trial date for Nov. 5 and 6, 2015.
While Baldwin found a total delay of 11-1/2 months after accounting for Crown and institutional factors, she took particular umbrage with the suggestion that the trial would, in fact, wrap up on Nov. 6. With three trials scheduled to start in courtroom No. 16 at the courthouse in Milton, Ont., on Nov. 5, she found Drobotenko’s matter wouldn’t conclude the next day. And with two charges at issue and up to 11 witnesses planned, Baldwin suggested the case is an example of the increasingly complex matters that are coming before the court since the days of R. v. Askov and R. v. Morin. As a result, she hinted at the need to rethink how the court assesses delays.
“The vast majority of trials in the Ontario Court of Justice have not been simple one-day matters,” she wrote.
“Time to start the trial is not the same as time to complete the trial. There [is] confusion and distortion of what was being spoken of starting 25 years ago in the case law, and the realities of what is happening in the Ontario Court of Justice in 2015. This has covered-up inexcusable institutional delay in our trial courts. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Attorney General to address these problems. The Court, which has responsibility for trial scheduling, cannot do so without adequate facilities and resources.”
Baldwin, who stayed the charges against Drobotenko, has had a habit lately of expressing her frustrations in her rulings. In this case, her comments offer a welcome look at how the courts are actually working and highlight the need to continue working on trial efficiency and resources.
