Possible delay in trial of jail staff upsets victim’s mother
The waves of trouble at London’s provincial jail have washed through local courtrooms, provincial tribunals, civil lawsuits, Ontario’s highest court and the provincial legislature.
Now, Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre’s turmoils are reaching the Supreme Court of Canada. Two former EMDC jailers are appealing to Canada’s highest court to throw out the charges against them in the death of an inmate. Lawyers for Leslie Lonsbary and Stephen Jurkus are seeking leave to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear the arguments that would lead to a stay of their charges, based on the length of time it took for a trial to start.
The legal matters are dry to those outside the justice system, focusing on how courts are determining if trials have been delayed long enough to violate the rights of accused. The human element is easier to understand.
Even the attempt to argue the case at the Supreme Court could delay the trial, again, of the two former correctional staff, frustrating the mother of the victim who’s been waiting for years for some closure.
“I don’t think I’ve properly grieved for my son,” Sarnia resident Deb Abrams said. “I’d like to remember the good times. I don’t want to keep remembering how he died.”
An inquest into the death of her son, Adam Kargus, which may result in recommendations and changes at EMDC, can’t happen until all the legal matters are settled, Abrams noted.
“I just keep re-living what happened,” she said. “It’s not that I don’t think about it all the time, but this has put me in such a depression.”
Her son was murdered by his cellmate, Anthony George, overnight on Oct. 31, 2013.
His body was found the next day in the showers, and George pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 2017. Former operations manager Jurkus and former correctional officer Lonsbary were charged in March 2014 with failing to provide the necessaries of life.
The charges were believed to be the first in Ontario against correctional officers over their role in protecting inmates, and sparked protest among correctional staff across the province.
Since then, the Jurkus and Lonsbary case has been marked by delays and appeals based on those delays.
Jurkus and Lonsbary were set to go to trial in May 2017, after a long preliminary hearing, a threemonth wait for the decision about committing them to trial after that hearing, scheduling mix-ups and regular court adjournments. Before the trial could start, their lawyers argued the case had been in the court system too long and their rights to a trial within a reasonable time frame had been breached.
In February 2017, London Superior Court Justice Alissa Mitchell agreed, and the charges were stayed.
The province appealed that ruling and in May, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the province’s stand, ordering the trial back on. The trial was to start in January. But that start date is up in the air, because lawyers for Jurkus and Lonsbary have sought leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court dismisses most leaves to appeal, but its decision to allow or dismiss the leave to appeal could take months and come just before, during or after the scheduled trial.
The trial and the Supreme Court matter shouldn’t be occurring at the same time, Pat Ducharme, Jurkus’s lawyer for the trial and appeal, said in a phone interview. “Something has to give,” said Ducharme of Windsor.
The matter has legal significance because Ontario’s Court of Appeal used an old model that involved “micromanaging” dates in coming to its conclusion, Jill Presser, Lonsbary’s lawyer for the appeal, said in a phone interview.
In 2016, in what’s called the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court set firm limits on the length of time between charges and the anticipated or actual end of a trial.
The Supreme Court ruled that the old ways of determining if a case had dragged on too long were inadequate.
“We need a new model for appellate review that doesn’t go back to past micromanagement,” Presser said. “The provincial Appeal Court needs guidance on how to make Jordan workable.”
I don’t think I’ve properly grieved for my son. I’d like to remember the good times. I don’t want to keep remembering how he died.