Judge rejects motion calling for one special constable per courtroom

Special constables working in courthouses across the province saw their motion requesting a minimum of one of their agents per courtroom rejected by a judge this week.

The matter should be decided by a labour arbitrator, Quebec Superior Court judge Jean-François Émond ruled in response to the motion that sought a declaratory judgment requiring the minimum staffing.

The union representing special constables has long said it worries about understaffing in courtrooms in the province.

The concern was raised again following a shooting in a courthouse in Maniwaki, Quebec, in January. A special constable was alone to subdue an 18-year-old prisoner who had just been sentenced and remanded into custody. The teen removed the special constable’s baton from his belt during an altercation and began beating the special constable. The special constable then shot the teen in the head near his nose. He was sent to hospital with the bullet lodged in his neck.

The website of the Bureau des Enquêtes Indépendantes (BEI) says it’s still investigating the incident.

Special constables are peace officers who work in courthouses and other government buildings. They each carry a firearm, pepper spray, a collapsible baton and handcuffs.

The union has denounced the fact that the Justice Department and Public Safety Department are hiring private security guards to bolster protection at courthouses even though the security guards don’t have the same training or power to intervene as the special constables. However, security guards cost less, the union representing the special constables says.

The union sought one special constable per courtroom for criminal and civil matters before the Court of Quebec, for matters before Youth Court and for certain other civil matters.

The union initially sought to have the court declare that the two government departments are not respecting their obligations under the Courts of Justice Act by conferring the work of special constables to private security guards.

However, the judge this week ruled that the case is a labourrelations matter that falls under the special constables’ collective agreement.