Vancouver Sun

Eby struggling to maintain access to justice system

- IAN MULGREW imulgrew@postmedia.com twitter.com/ianmulgrew

COVID-19 has ravaged the country’s legal system and precipitat­ed a long backlog of cases that has Attorney General David Eby and his counterpar­ts in other provinces scrambling.

The NDP minister has proposed a moratorium on civil jury trials, perhaps even their eliminatio­n. He has recommende­d mandatory arbitratio­n for myriad ICBC claims and is puzzling over accommodat­ing physically distanced juries in criminal trials.

“In order to empanel a jury, you have to call about 200 people together and there’s a whole process where social distancing and gatherings of more than 50 people, and the rules around that, are incredibly difficult to follow for the jury empaneling process,” he explained on Wednesday.

“At the best of times, a civil jury trial takes … the time of three non-jury trials covering similar turf. So we have public health orders that make it incredibly difficult to empanel a jury in the first place, it’s very difficult for a jury to do its work at a social distance, it takes significan­tly longer than a non-jury trial in a time when we know we have a backlog, and the courts are reluctant to grant them anyway.” What a conundrum. Pre-COVID-19, litigants were already facing lengthy delays for trial dates. Post-COVID, with a significan­t number of trials cancelled and backlogged matters now competing for court time with previously scheduled trials, delays are even longer.

Still, a discussion in Ontario last month about the eliminatio­n of civil jury trials as a potential solution inspired Eby. He wrote to the Trial Lawyers Associatio­n of B.C., the Canadian Bar Associatio­n–B.C. Branch and the Law Society of B.C. seeking input.

Judges are also having a conversati­on about the issue, Eby added. By the end of last month in the B.C. Supreme Court, more than 2,400 civil matters, 1,000 family law matters and 600 criminal cases had been adjourned.

“What I’m proposing is giving people an option — if they want to, they could opt into arbitratio­n and that would be binding on ICBC,” Eby said.

“I understand from the B.C. arbitratio­n centre that they have the capacity to take on these kinds of matters. Hopefully, individual­s would be able to have a hearing significan­tly sooner, have a resolution significan­tly sooner and certainty for both them and for ICBC much faster.”

Former B.C. attorney general Barry Penner, now managing director of the B.C. Internatio­nal Commercial Arbitratio­n Centre (soon to be called the Vancouver Internatio­nal Arbitratio­n Centre), has been urging Eby since May to use the organizati­on founded in 1986 by the federal and provincial government­s.

“We do certain ICBC cases now through their underinsur­ed protection plan,” he said. “We believe we have the capacity, experience and arbitrator­s on our roster with deep expertise in personal injury law. We’re neutral and we’re fair.”

The non-profit arbitratio­n centre’s independen­t operations were barely affected by the novel coronaviru­s and it was part of the solution to a court backlog in the late 1990s, Penner said.

“If people want to stay on the track they’re on, with their court date and have their case go that way, there’s no problem,” Eby said.

The first group to reply to his suggestion­s was the Trial Lawyers. They were concerned about the cost of the arbitratio­n and the fees — wanting assurances they would be borne by ICBC or the province, just like administra­tive, facility and staffing costs in court.

“I would describe it as suspicious support in principle,” Eby quipped about the group that has aggressive­ly opposed his plan to transform the provincial insurance scheme into a no-fault system. Tepid support. Tepid support, which is good, it’s a place to start from. They had some suggestion­s about ways these proposals could be modified to encourage greater support from them.”

Eby wasn’t sure how the other affected people in the legal system would respond. “I understand from informal conversati­ons there may be some appetite among lawyers to eliminate civil jury trials. They don’t find them to be helpful. And so I’m willing to have that conversati­on, too.

But the urgent focus for me is the short term with civil jury trials and in the short term giving people with ICBC claims expedited access to a decision maker.”

Criminal jury trials, however, cannot be put on hold, Eby said: There is no constituti­onal right to a civil jury trial but “without a doubt, the Criminal Code provides the unambiguou­s right to a jury trial for people accused of crimes.”

“It’s obviously incredibly complicate­d, time-consuming and space-consuming when you need to pull a significan­t number of people together to empanel a criminal trial jury. You need to have a huge venue, you have to keep the numbers to under 50 people, with those numbers of people spread out two metres apart and even once you have chosen the jury and have them in a room deliberati­ng — you have to figure out a way for them to deliberate. It’s very challengin­g.”

In the U.K., there have been experiment­s with video-linked deliberati­on.

“Every common law jurisdicti­on with jury trials is grappling with this,” Eby said. “There’s no easy answer, but people do have the right to these trials and we have to solve it.

“We’re really hopeful that the federal government will provide some guidelines to courts through a criminal law amendment around Jordan timelines (the deadline for trials in provincial and superior courts) and how the pandemic period should be treated.”

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada