ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Monday 16 May 1994
Courts of Justice Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 136, Mrs Boyd / Loi de 1993 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les tribunaux judiciaires, projet de loi 136, Mme Boyd
Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario
Jean Tanguay, président
Gérard Lévesque, conseiller juridique
Matthew Yeager
Jacob Ziegel
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
*Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
*Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Winninger, David, parliamentary assistant to Attorney General
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1542 in room 151.
COURTS OF JUSTICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES
Consideration of Bill 136, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and to make related amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée et à la Loi sur les juges de paix.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marches): I call this meeting to order. We're here to discuss Bill 136, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and to make related amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act. Before we ask our deputants to begin, there is a motion by Ms Harrington which I will ask her to read.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): This is a matter which has been before the Legislature for the last three or four weeks that we, as the government and the opposition parties, want to deal with as quickly as possible. All three House leaders have agreed to this motion as of this morning. I would like to put it before this committee at this time and ask that you support this motion for our committee to deal with this issue as soon as possible, possibly even May 31, if that can be arranged.
The motion is that the standing committee on administration of justice consider the following:
(a) the role the government of Ontario can play in the control of:
(i) the retail sale of ammunition,
(ii) the private sale of ammunition, and
(iii) ammunition purchased outside the province and country,
including mechanisms available to the provincial government and possibly amendments which the government of Ontario should urge the federal government to introduce; and
(b) community-based crime prevention initiatives which exemplify the partnership required among all members of society in communities throughout Ontario.
The committee will meet for a period of three weeks. Witnesses will be invited to appear before the committee from a list of witnesses selected equally from each of the three caucuses and from the general public to the extent time permits.
I would ask that possibly a subcommittee deal with both the scheduling and the list of witnesses.
The Chair: Okay, we could deal with that. All in favour of the motion? That's unanimous.
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO
Le Président : On va commencer. Bonjour, Monsieur Lévesque et Monsieur Tanguay. C'est un plaisir de vous avoir ici aujourd'hui, l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario. Monsieur Tanguay, voulez-vous commencer ?
M. Jean Tanguay : Oui. Premièrement j'aimerais, au nom de la communauté franco-ontarienne, remercier les membres du comité et sa présidence d'avoir accepté de nous recevoir au tout début de votre session, de vos rencontres avec les différentes communautés en Ontario.
Ça me fait plaisir de revoir certains visages ; ça fait quand même quelques mois que je ne les ai pas vus, mais dans d'autres circonstances, nous avons eu l'occasion d'échanger.
Cet après-midi, je suis accompagné de Me Gérard Lévesque qui, nécessairement, est membre de l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario depuis sa naissance. Il est en même temps aussi membre de l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario. Comme vous le savez, en étant président de l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, je ne prétends pas être un spécialiste dans le domaine juridique. Donc, afin de pouvoir m'appuyer, j'ai demandé à M. Lévesque de m'accompagner.
J'aimerais, avant de commencer, aussi demander au Président du comité de bien vouloir faire une petite correction. Dans le texte que vous avez ici, «standing committee on administration of justice», vous m'avez donné un titre que je n'ai pas. Nécessairement, vous avez dit «Me Lévesque». C'est bel et bien ça ; il est un avocat. Mais moi, je ne suis qu'un simple professeur, donc il s'agirait de dire tout simplement M. Tanguay. Je vous remercie de cette attention.
C'est avec un intérêt que nous avons pris connaissance du projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée et à la Loi sur les juges de paix.
Nous remercions le gouvernement pour avoir tenu compte de la dualité linguistique de l'Ontario lors de la rédaction de plusieurs dispositions de ce projet de loi. Nous espérons que ce débat en comité permettra l'amélioration de certaines dispositions afin de les rendre conformes au fait que le français et l'anglais sont les deux langues officielles des tribunaux de l'Ontario. Nous vous remercions pour cette occasion de participer aux travaux de votre comité et nous souhaitons que vous évaluerez à juste titre nos recommandations.
Par le paragraphe 43(3) du projet de loi, les annexes 1 et 2 de l'article 126 de la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires seraient abrogées et remplacées par une liste énumérant les régions qui étaient déjà mentionnées, d'une part dans la Loi et d'autre part dans un règlement pris en application de cette Loi.
Le paragraphe 43(3) ne change donc pas l'état du droit : il présente le statu quo, c'est-à-dire les endroits de la province où les citoyens peuvent présentement obtenir un jury composé de personnes parlant français et anglais et où une partie peut, sans avoir obtenu le consentement des autres parties, déposer des actes de procédure et d'autres documents rédigés en français.
L'ACFO recommande d'ajouter à cette liste la région de London. Les tableaux de Statistique Canada indiquent qu'en 1991, il y avait 5975 francophones dans l'agglomération urbaine de London. Nous demandons qu'une concentration aussi importante soit inscrite aux annexes de la Loi.
L'ACFO recommande d'ajouter à cette liste aussi la région de Kingston. La communauté francophone de la région de Kingston est vouée à augmenter considérablement, dans un avenir immédiat, à la suite de l'annonce de la fermeture du Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. Il convient donc d'assurer dans cette région un minimum de services juridiques en langue française.
Par l'article 16 du projet de loi, plusieurs articles de la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires seraient abrogés et remplacés par d'autres. Le texte de ce qui deviendrait les nouveaux paragraphes 51.2(3) et (4) de la Loi indique qu'à la suite d'une plainte portée en français ou en anglais contre un juge provincial, la médiation et l'audience du Conseil de la magistrature seraient menées en anglais. Cette situation nous apparaît contraire au statut des deux langues officielles des tribunaux de l'Ontario.
1550
L'ACFO recommande que le texte des nouveaux paragraphes 51.2(3) et (4) soit révisé afin de permettre la tenue de médiation et d'audiences du Conseil de la magistrature dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles des tribunaux de l'Ontario.
Nous constatons que l'article 48 du projet de loi incorporerait à la Loi une partie de la convention cadre avec les juges regroupés sous les associations portant les noms unilingues anglais suivants : the Ontario Judges Association, the Ontario Family Law Judges Association, Ontario Provincial Court (Civil Division) Judges' Association.
L'ACFO recommande que le comité de l'administration de la justice de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario invite la direction des associations de juges à doter leurs organismes de noms dans les deux langues officielles des tribunaux de l'Ontario.
Le 5 janvier 1994, le premier ministre du Canada confirmait à l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario que le gouvernement fédéral serait grandement favorable à l'octroi de garanties constitutionnelles à la langue française en Ontario. Nous remercions l'AJEFO d'avoir publié le texte de cette lettre dans l'édition du 18 février 1994 du bulletin L'Expression. Remarquez que nous avons ajouté à votre texte la copie de cette lettre parue dans l'édition du bulletin de L'Expression.
Tout au long de la campagne qui a précédé l'élection du 25 octobre 1993, M. Jean Chrétien a indiqué qu'un gouvernement formé par le Parti libéral du Canada n'initierait pas de discussion dans le dossier constitutionnel. Le texte du 5 janvier a le mérite de faire savoir que non seulement le fédéral n'est pas contre le fait qu'un autre palier gouvernemental entreprenne une initiative dans le domaine constitutionnel, mais il s'engage à y répondre favorablement.
Le paragraphe 16(3) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés présente ainsi une invitation permanente à travailler à l'évolution des droits linguistiques :
«16(3) La présente Charte ne limite pas le pouvoir du Parlement et les législatures de favoriser la progression vers l'égalité de statut ou d'usage du français et de l'anglais.»
Afin de favoriser des initiatives à cet égard, l'article 43 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 prévoit une procédure souple : une modification des dispositions constitutionnelles relatives à l'usage du français ou de l'anglais dans une province est faite par une proclamation autorisée par les résolutions du Sénat, de la Chambre des communes et de l'Assemblée législative de cette province, ce qui revient à dire que, pour reconnaître des droits constitutionnels aux membres de la communauté franco-ontarienne, on n'a pas besoin de l'appui de l'Assemblée législative d'autres provinces, par exemple ; il suffit d'avoir une majorité de votes à cet égard à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario et dans les deux chambres du Parlement.
En vertu du paragraphe 46(1) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, l'initiative des procédures d'une telle modification appartient à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario. Le premier ministre de notre province devrait-il s'engager dans cette direction ?
Si on lit l'édition du 26 novembre 1981 du Journal des débats de la Chambre des communes, on peut constater que M. Rae s'est engagé dans cette voie avant même de devenir chef du Nouveau Parti démocratique de l'Ontario et premier ministre de la province. De plus, le 3 décembre 1992, alors qu'il était, au Collège Glendon, l'invité de l'Association canadienne-française pour l'avancement des sciences, M. Rae a affirmé que si le Québec modifiait sa loi sur l'affichage, il serait alors possible pour l'Ontario d'envisager une reconnaissance constitutionnelle des droits linguistiques. Le Québec a modifié cette loi au cours de l'année 1993. C'est maintenant au tour de l'Ontario de poser un geste de nature à favoriser l'harmonie linguistique.
L'ACFO recommande que le comité sur l'administration de la justice invite le gouvernement ontarien à amorcer le processus visant à faire adopter une modification bilatérale octroyant des garanties constitutionnelles à la langue française et à la langue anglaise en Ontario.
Depuis 1971, année où le premier ministre Robarts avait indiqué que l'Ontario adhérerait à des dispositions linguistiques constitutionnelles, notre province a fait un progrès important dans le domaine des services en français. À notre avis, il est possible d'inscrire dans la Constitution un minimum de droits linguistiques pour les citoyens de l'Ontario, sans soulever un débat acrimonieux.
Agir ainsi serait une mesure d'équité à l'égard de la population de l'Ontario et démontrerait un leadership national pour ce qui est de la reconnaissance des droits de la minorité. Cela aurait également comme conséquence de diminuer la possibilité que, à l'occasion du nouveau débat d'unité nationale qui s'amorce au Québec, soit utilisé l'argument à l'effet qu'en matière de droits linguistiques constitutionnels, l'Ontario est en retard de 127 ans sur le Québec.
Monsieur le Président, Mesdames, Messieurs, on vous remercie infiniment de cette oreille attentive.
Le Président : Merci, Monsieur Tanguay. Monsieur Lévesque, est-ce que vous avez quelque chose à ajouter ?
Me Gérard Lévesque : Seulement si les membres du comité ont besoin de clarifications sur un aspect ou un autre de nos recommandations.
Le Président : Okay, on va commencer. Any questions for the deputants?
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The issue with respect to Bill 136 containing language that the council have statutory authority to subpoena documents and witnesses, depose witnesses and hire competent staff is silent in the bill. Is that what you're saying?
Me Lévesque: Could you repeat the question?
Mr Tanguay: What page?
Mr Tilson: Oh, I misunderstood.
Me Lévesque: If I could just clarify, I think sometimes it's not easy to see if the bill changes the act as to a region where we can use both languages for a document to the courts without prior permission of the other side. Actually, the section brought by the bill doesn't give new rights.
C'est le statu quo. On fait juste se remettre dans le projet de loi ce qui est déjà dans la Loi et ce qui est dans un règlement pris en application de la Loi. Ce qui est apporté par l'Association aujourd'hui, c'est d'ajouter deux autres régions où, à notre avis, ce serait important de pouvoir avoir la même possibilité de procéder avec des documents et des jurys bilingues.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Excuse me. Could you repeat that? There wasn't a translation for that in French.
The Chair: It was in English. I'm sorry.
Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): Half of it was in English and the other half was in French.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): She was translating it but it wasn't coming through.
The Chair: Okay. Would you mind repeating that, please?
Me Lévesque : Le projet de loi ne change pas les régions où, à l'heure actuelle, les citoyens peuvent utiliser les deux langues lors du dépôt en cour d'actes de différentes procédures et pour les jurys bilingues. Le projet de loi consolide les régions qui sont énumérées, d'une part dans la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires et d'autre part dans un règlement pris en application de cette Loi-là.
Ce que l'Association propose à ce niveau, c'est d'ajouter deux autres régions où à notre avis le nombre est suffisant pour accorder le droit de déposer de tels documents dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles des tribunaux de l'Ontario.
1600
The Chair: Seeing no other questions --
Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a comment. Je vous remercie pour votre députation. Je voudrais dire quelque chose au sujet des recommandations 1 et 2. Comme vous le savez, cette décision est dans le «purview» du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Il nous dira si le cabinet a pris la décision qu'on ajoutera London et Kingston à la liste dans l'annexe de la Loi. Est-ce que vous comprenez ?
M. Tanguay : Oui, nous souhaiterions que vous ajoutiez ou que vous recommandiez d'ajouter London et Kingston dans le projet de loi que vous êtes en train d'étudier à ce moment-ci, car ça encouragerait peut-être davantage le cabinet et le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, M. Pouliot, à précipiter sa décision qui est sur son bureau, ou une possibilité de décision, en fonction de reconnaître ces deux régions comme régions désignées.
Vous avez l'avantage, dans la dimension judiciaire en Ontario, d'avoir cette reconnaissance officielle des deux langues, en Ontario, depuis 1984. Donc, la reconnaissance judiciaire en Ontario a même précédé de deux ans l'implantation ou la déposition ou la création de la Loi sur les services en français en 1986.
M. Winninger : Je comprends. Nous tenterons de refléter la décision du cabinet dans notre projet de loi.
Le Président : Je vous remercie beaucoup pour votre députation aujourd'hui.
M. Tanguay : Est-ce que je pourrais ajouter un demi, dernier commentaire au sujet de la recommandation 3, afin que ce soit bien saisi ? Lorsqu'on parle de médiation, à un certain moment donné nous avons nos droits linguistiques, mais quand ça arrive au niveau de la médiation, on a le droit d'aller dans le petit coin parler en français, s'expliquer en français. Mais quand arrive la vraie médiation, nos droits nous sont enlevés dans la même salle, au même moment, dans un cas de médiation.
Nous aimerions que le comité pense sérieusement recommander ce que moi, comme citoyen franco-ontarien, j'appelle une petite grande injustice. Merci beaucoup.
Le Président : Merci à vous. M. Winninger a quelque chose à ajouter.
M. Winninger : Nous avons envie de coopérer avec le juge en chef pour faire un amendement à ce projet de loi qui peut-être vous satisfera.
M. Tanguay : On vous remercie.
Me Lévesque : On peut noter que c'était un peu équivoque que le projet de loi enlève la discrétion d'utiliser le français alors que, lors de certaines audiences du Conseil de la magistrature, il se peut que toutes les personnes soient bilingues et veulent procéder dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues, surtout que le juge en chef actuel c'est celui qui, en 1984, a fait justement que la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires soit modifiée pour faire reconnaître le français comme une des deux langues officielles des tribunaux. C'était un peut cocasse qu'on lui retire cette possibilité-là par le projet de loi.
Le Président : Merci encore.
MATTHEW YEAGER
The Chair: I would call upon Mr Matt Yeager, criminologist. We welcome you here today. Like the previous speakers, we have half an hour for your presentation. I hope you leave as much time as you can for the different caucus members to ask you questions at the end.
Mr Matthew Yeager: Okay. It's my general approach to be as brief as possible, Mr Chairman.
My interest in this bill is primarily in the disciplinary section of the law as is proposed. As a criminologist and as a clinician, I've had a long-time interest in white-collar or government misconduct, and that's perhaps the main reason I'm here today. As such, I think you'll find my views as a non-lawyer perhaps to be somewhat different than the majority of the witnesses you're going to hear.
At the outset, let me indicate that in general I endorse this legislation and I hope you pass it. Therefore, I would like to just raise a couple of issues that are of interest to me.
Family law is not an area of my special expertise. Nevertheless, I do endorse the committee's creation of a Family Court throughout Ontario. For the purposes of better management, however, I would recommend that the committee combine the two community advisory committees. I don't see any point in having two different community advisory committees. I think you can simply combine them into one committee.
I will return to this issue of resources a little bit later on because I don't think the jurisdiction of a committee devoted to resources should be confined only to Family Court.
With respect to the creation of a Deputy Judges Council, which is found in section 33, I strongly urge the committee to abolish this section in the name of efficiency. The function of such a council is better served if the Ontario Judicial Council is also given jurisdiction over deputy judges sitting in the various small claims courts. Again, I think you can be a little more efficient in this legislation by simply combining some of the committees you've created and collapsing them, because I don't think you need to do this, with respect to the cost implications.
I very much like the creation of a Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, especially the fact that it has seven members who are neither lawyers nor judges. A minor point, however, is that as a criminologist, at this point I don't understand why you have provided that a lawyer must have at least 10 years of bar membership before he or she can be considered for judicial appointment. Why not consider five years to encourage younger members of the bar to apply?
With respect to the Ontario Judicial Council, my first recommendation is that you increase the number of public members on the council from four persons, as proposed in the law, to seven, in order to balance the number of judges and lawyers appointed to the council. I make this recommendation because I think it's consistent with the composition of the appointments advisory committee, in which you have balance, and also because I firmly believe the public needs to have a greater role in the management of the judicial system and in the discipline of judges in the province of Ontario.
Permit me now to turn my attention to the process of investigating a complaint against a provincial or deputy judge. Unless I am misreading the act, it is not clear that the council, as proposed in Bill 136, has grand-jury-like powers to investigate complaints. In my opinion, Bill 136 should contain language in the statute, not leaving it for regulations but in the statute, giving the council statutory authority to subpoena documents and witnesses, depose witnesses, hire competent staff and have staff with backgrounds in investigations.
I say that because the area of white-collar crime and government misconduct is generally one which is extremely difficult from an investigative point of view. Unless you give the council actual statutory authority to subpoena documents and to have some grand jury powers, it will in many cases be very, very difficult for the staff to prosecute an investigation against a judge or a deputy judge where there are accusations of serious misconduct.
With respect to all complaints, it's my opinion that it should be the policy of the council that, at the very minimum, written reasons should be given to each complainant when dismissing a complaint that has been filed. Thus, I disagree with subsection 51.6(11), that the council may dismiss a complaint with or without a finding that it is unfounded. In part, I think this should be done to respond to the complainant as well as to allow other observers to evaluate the work of the council.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): The bell is ringing for a vote.
The Chair: I'm sorry; we're just trying to determine whether there's a vote. We assume there is, but we don't know what time. We're just going to check that out. I think we should be in there for a vote. It's best to recess for a brief time.
Mr Yeager: Would you like me to continue or shall I stop?
The Chair: No, please, you should stop. We're going to recess for approximately 10 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1611 to 1627.
The Chair: I'll call this meeting back to order. Mr Yeager, we'll resume where you had left off.
Mr Yeager: Just to basically review, my primary area of interest in this bill is in the judicial disciplines section. I've made a couple of recommendations to the committee.
The first recommendation, just to summarize, is to increase the number of public members from four to seven.
My second recommendation, on page 3 at the bottom, was to give the council statutory authority to conduct what I regard as an appropriate and competent investigation. In the area of government misconduct by judges, it is my opinion, and I think it's an opinion shared by a lot of other bodies that do this work, that a council needs to have subpoena power and the ability to depose witnesses and so forth to prosecute these kinds of matters that are extremely difficult to take on.
Last, I made a comment about simply the integrity of the process. It was my feeling and suggestion to you as committee members that every complainant who files a formal complaint to the council should be entitled to a written answer, especially if their complaint, as will be the case in most of the cases, is dismissed. A member of the public, whether they are a lawyer, a crown attorney or simply a litigant, should be entitled to an explanation as to why their complaint was dismissed. I hope that section I made reference to, section 51.6, will be slightly amended by you in markup so that you will ensure that each complainant does get some kind of response.
I also think it's important to have that so that outside individuals can evaluate the work of the council and examine exactly how many cases are being dismissed, why they're being dismissed, what is the nature of the complaint and so forth. It will give us a better idea to be able to evaluate the integrity of the council since it's assuming this new role.
I confess to being a little confused about all the secrecy in the bill concerning the identity of judges. In subsection 51(6), the council will issue an annual report, "but the report shall not include information that might identify the judge or the complainant." Do you really mean to say that if a judge is formally disciplined by the council or even removed from the bench, his or her name should remain a secret? Similar language can be found in other sections of the bill, particularly with respect to mediators. Except, of course, for actions that are dismissed for cause, the disciplinary system, in my opinion, should be open to the public. Therefore, except for complaints which are dismissed, the identity of a judge who is formally disciplined or removed from office should be made public by the Judicial Council in its annual report.
Again, I think this is simply a matter of having some public accountability to the citizens of Ontario, that if there is a disciplinary problem, the public is entitled to know what the problem was and who was disciplined. By the way, it would be very helpful if the council's annual report contained a summary of the number of complaints filed and their resolution by type of complaint and by type of complainant. Again, this allows for oversight from people who want to examine the work of the council in this new area.
On the issue of holding formal hearings under the act, I would ask the committee to consider adding another word or a similar legal word right before the phrase "exceptional circumstances" to give emphasis to the fact that almost all disciplinary hearings involving judges should be open to the public.
Finally, since it's my understanding that the impetus for this legislation is the result of certain pending actions against a provincial judge from Toronto, I don't understand why section 51.8 has been written to exclude this particular judge from potentially receiving an intermediate punishment other than removal from office. In my opinion, the transition language should be rewritten to permit a recent complaint filed before the bill comes into force to be considered under the new provisions at the discretion of the Judicial Council. You are adding a whole new range of intermediate punishments between dismissal and removal, and it seems to me that if there are pending complaints right now, it would be inappropriate, since you're amending the punishment actions, to not allow those complainants to have some remedy, or at least to have some remedy at the discretion of the Judicial Council.
There are some aspects of this bill that are missing that I think raise some philosophical questions. Let's talk about performance evaluations. One of the strong parts of this bill is the addition in statute of performance evaluations for judges. That's an excellent approach, but I would suggest to the committee that there's a small flaw in the language, particularly with respect to section 51.11, where you prohibit any information from performance evaluations from being allowed to be used in a disciplinary proceeding.
One of the problems that almost all bodies have had in looking at judicial discipline is that they tend to be just reactive -- that is, they tend to simply react to complaints by members of the public or prosecutors, crown attorneys or lawyers -- and sometimes the systems we set up are not proactive.
One of the great things you've done in this bill is put in place a system that has performance evaluations, which potentially enables you to be proactive and to be preventive in attempting to identify judges who may be having some problems and intervening before you even have to bring them before a disciplinary procedure, whether it's because they're disabled or it's because there are other, more serious problems in their conduct. I would ask you as a committee not to prohibit the use of performance evaluation information as possibly being used in a disciplinary proceeding, because that's a way for a council to pursue proactive investigations as opposed to simply relying on whatever level of complaints come in from the public.
A major failing of disciplinary systems for judges is the lack of any resources devoted to public education and assistance in making complaints. Your bill doesn't say much about adequate resources, and I predict this will be a problem in the future. Why not indicate that one function of the Judicial Council is to help citizens file their complaints? You could easily add some language to do that in your law.
There's a philosophical issue here that I'm not totally certain about, but it's an interesting one that you might want to raise in debate in the committee. That is, is it perhaps appropriate for the council to have some jurisdiction over other members in the judicial system? I'm referring here to clerks, bailiffs, court reporters, official guardians and referees. You may want to think very seriously about whether it is a good idea, and it may be a good idea, to amend this legislation so that the council can have jurisdiction over some of the other very significant actors and actresses in this system, not necessarily just provincial judges and/or deputy judges.
Last, I get back to the issue of community resources that I raised initially a few minutes ago under the family law section. It's to simply raise an idea with respect to what would be very, very desirable, and I make reference to title 18 of the United States code, which allows a federal district court judge or even a Court of Appeals judge to request additional information at the time of sentencing by spending additional resources to investigate options in the community.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are spending $52,000 a year to lock up people in the reformatory and over $90,000 a year to lock up juvenile offenders under closed custody in this province. Those costs are probably some of the highest costs throughout Canada. I could tell you as a criminologist what the research says about those costs and those rates of incarceration.
The research says -- and I'm not talking about what the newspaper articles say -- that we cannot show that if you lock up a lot of people, you're going to have safer communities and lower crime rates. The research doesn't document that. So what you end up doing is spending a lot of money at the end of the system, which is the prisons, the reformatories, and sometimes you don't spend enough money up front where judges could use it to do some other things with people and perhaps better use the community to punish and manage and sanction offenders who come before the judges.
I've taken more time than I deserve. I thank you for your time, and perhaps I can engage some members of the committee in a discussion about at least one or two of my ideas. Perhaps the issue of giving the judicial council subpoena power might prick someone's interest. So I'm here.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Yeager. We have some questions from some members. Mr Tilson, do you have a question?
Mr Tilson: Just on numbers, Mr Yeager, the comments you made recommending that the qualifications to be a provincial court judge be reduced to five years as opposed to 10: My understanding of the principle is that the emphasis is on excellence, which of course is what this bill is all about, the emphasis on excellence. In other words, judges for whatever reason have felt that the more experienced an individual should be, the better; in other words, that five years obviously doesn't have the experience of 10 years.
I guess the other issue with respect to numbers is your comment as to the numbers on the judicial council. I think there are, what, 14 in total?
Mr Winninger: Yes.
Mr Tilson: Mr Winninger said yes. So your recommendation is that the numbers of public be increased to --
Mr Yeager: Seven.
Mr Tilson: As opposed to?
Mr Yeager: Four.
Mr Tilson: I suppose the same principle, what we're requiring, is that individuals, the public, should be more involved: no question. But there's that issue of excellence, that issue of having the most qualified people, the people who understand issues, whether on the bench or on a judicial council. So I guess I'd like you to elaborate on those two issues.
Mr Yeager: Basically, you've opted for a unitary system of discipline; that is, you've combined both the investigatory function and the disposition function in one agency. That's essentially a unitary system of discipline.
1640
To give you an example, there are some states south of the border that have a dual system. They have one agency that investigates and brings the charge and another agency that adjudicates the charge. It's my argument that the extent to which you enhance public participation in this endeavour by selecting public members, as you would carefully select public members for any kind of board that you appoint, including the current judicial evaluation committee, will add legitimacy to the public's belief that this isn't an old boys' club looking after its own interests. I think that's a very serious problem, or at least an image problem, with respect to a disciplinary system. You don't want to give that impression to the public.
Mr Tilson: At the same time, though, of course -- is there time?
The Chair: One last question because we are running out of time.
Mr Tilson: Again, it's the issue of being able to understand, whether you're talking numbers of years that you're on the bench -- quite frankly, I would prefer the 10 as opposed to five, and similarly with the numbers on the Judicial Council. It may well be that to understand complaints, and there could be a whole wide range of complaints, one need be able to understand not only human issues but complicated legal issues. No question there should be representation, but should it be equal?
Ms Haeck: Just a quick query. In making your presentation -- and I was looking through it, scanning it trying to find if you made reference to it in written form or just verbally -- you made the linkage of white-collar crime and government crime and then the judiciary. The way I heard you at one point, it sounded as if the judiciary was sort of part of government. If anything, it's brought home to MPPs on a daily basis that there's a very clear separation between the courts and what happens in this place. I just wanted to clarify in my mind that this is a point you recognize as well.
Mr Yeager: I used the term in a generic sense, but you're correct, and I stand corrected on that distinction. We tend to use the phrase "white-collar crime" to encompass a wide variety of institutions and sometimes we don't separate out the functions.
Mr Winninger: I'd like to thank you for taking what appears to be a great deal of time to consider in detail the provisions of Bill 136. Since Mr Tilson already engaged you in discussion around increasing the number of public members of the Judicial Council, I won't belabour that particular point except to say there is a concern that the judiciary continues to be independent. There is a desire that the judiciary, with public participation, ultimately will have the majority in terms of disciplining its own members. Your view may be slightly different, and it's certainly valuable to have your perspective on that.
Mr Yeager: If you're going to have an equal number of public and lawyer members on the appointments committee, it seems to me it behooves this committee, as a drafting committee, to also recognize that the addition of public members adds legitimacy to the work of the council. I think it's a mistake in this day and age to assume that only professions and members of a profession can regulate themselves. I think it's very, very helpful to have members of the public who can explain this to complainants, who can explain this to the audiences at large in various communities across Ontario.
Although I realize this view is perhaps a little different than most of the witnesses', I hope you understand what the basic thrust of my concern is and what I would like to have you do with this particular piece of legislation during markup.
Mr Winninger: I agree with you in part and I think that's why we did increase the number to four, to provide that very valuable public input in terms of discipline.
In terms of recommendation 4, the Judicial Council has at present, under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the right to subpoena. In fact, I understand that, while not frequently, it has exercised that power under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in the past. So if you haven't already, you might want to take a look at that act and see how the two are interrelated.
In terms of recommendation 6, it is a practice, where a complaint proceeds to a hearing, that the decision will be made in writing, with appropriate reasons. If indeed a judge is removed from the bench, that would have to be done through order in council and with the assent, as I understand it, of the Legislature. So it would be public that the particular judge has been removed from the bench; it would no longer be confidential.
Mr Yeager: I don't think my comments with respect to item 6 pertain so much to formal removals, because that goes to the Attorney General of Ontario. The majority of your complaints will probably result in dismissal, and in my opinion that's probably correct. There are other avenues, such as an appeal to the Court of Appeal, or if there's no jurisdiction, there will be other explanations; some will be harassment. But I think it's extremely important for the legitimacy of the council that you respond to each and every complainant by giving them a reason in writing as to why the case was dismissed and not having language in your statute, as you do now, that says they don't have to do that.
Mr Winninger: We've certainly made a note of your concern, and I thank you for your input. It's been very valuable.
The Chair: Mr Yeager, thank you for taking the time to come and make your presentation to us today.
Mr Yeager: My pleasure.
JACOB ZIEGEL
The Chair: Professor Jacob Ziegel, faculty of law, University of Toronto. Welcome, Mr Ziegel.
Dr Jacob Ziegel: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, mesdames et messieurs. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to come and make a few presentations before you this afternoon. I have prepared a draft brief. Unfortunately, it's not yet in final form, but I will undertake to make a final brief available to you later this week.
Given the time constraints, I want to confine my remarks to the following and related aspects of Bill 136. I'd like to talk a little bit about the role and structure of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. I want to talk about the promotion of provincial court judges to the General Division bench. Thirdly, I want to talk a little about the provisions in the bill about the remuneration of provincial court judges. Finally, I have a couple of remarks about the appointment of deputy judges to the Small Claims Court.
With respect to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, I want to emphasize from the beginning that I overwhelmingly support the provisions in section 16 to give statutory form to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, established in 1988 on the initiative of Ian Scott, a former Attorney General. In my view, the establishment of the committee and its composition in terms of reference are of key importance for the following reasons.
First, they are a vast improvement on the old system and substitute the criteria of merit and suitability for the patronage system that did so much damage under the earlier systems.
Second, new provisions constitute an important precedent for the other provinces and for the federal government. Third, they enhance public confidence in the integrity, competence and suitability of provincial court judges.
Finally, they rightly emphasize the importance of provincial court judges in the administration of criminal law and family law in the province.
The heart of the statutory provisions lies in the broad representativeness of the members of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, the careful screening and personal interviewing of applicants, the compilation of a short list of candidates for submission to the Attorney General, and the obligation of the Ontario government to limit its appointments to names appearing on the short list.
1650
These criteria may appear commonsensical and self-evident, particularly in a country that prides itself on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, but they're still a long way from being accepted by the federal government in a substantial number of other provinces.
I go on to say in my brief that the vast difference between the system of the advisory committee that's provided for in Bill 136 and the one that obtains at the present time at the federal level is that the federal advisory committees merely serve a screening function, leaving the federal government with maximum discretion to continue to appoint persons as it sees fit so long as they pass a minimum threshold of acceptability, whereas the whole thrust and object of the Ontario committees is to enable the best-qualified individuals to be appointed, best-qualified in the eyes of an independent committee, not as seen through the patronage-driven eyes of the federal cabinet.
What in fact I am urging this committee to do, what I'm urging the Ontario government to do, is not only to take much satisfaction in the Ontario system but indeed to serve to encourage and persuade the federal government to follow the Ontario precedent. I appreciate that one level of government in Canada does not tell the other level of government what it should do, but I think there is a justifiable exception in the area of judges. Ontario judges apply federal law as much as provincial law, just as the federally appointed judges apply provincial law as much as federal law. We pride ourselves in Canada on having an integrated, unitary judicial system. We have a unitary appellate structure whose apex lies with the Supreme Court of Canada.
In short, what I am saying is, it is as important for the provinces to know how judges are appointed at the federal level as it is for the federal government to know how judges are appointed at the provincial level. The two aspects are interdependent. I deem it entirely appropriate for the Ontario government, for this committee, to send a strong message to the federal government saying it's time for the federal government to put its own house in order as well so far as the process for the selection of federally appointed judges is concerned.
Turning to some of the details of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, I do have some relatively minor amendments to offer to section 16 of the act.
First, with respect to the composition of the committee, subsection 43(2) presently provides for nominations by the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario branch, the Law Society of Upper Canada and by the County and District Law Presidents' Association. One important constituency that is wholly omitted is the law professors in Ontario. Obviously I'm biased, but I admit it. It seems to me that they constitute an important constituency. I wish to recommend that they be included among the organizations that should be empowered to nominate a representative to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee.
Some concern has been expressed in some quarters, a concern I share, about the statutory entrenchment that a preponderant number of members of the advisory committee be laypersons. This comes about because of the provisions in clause 43(2)(c), I think, which says that the Attorney General is to nominate seven non-lawyer members of the committee. I think that's too rigid. I would leave the discretion with the Attorney General to appoint seven members, but I don't think he should be confined to non-legal members. I think he or she should have complete discretion as to the selection of members. They may for the most part be laypersons, but he may decide also that there are other highly qualified people with legal backgrounds who'd make admirable members. I think he should be free to make that choice.
With respect to the advertising of vacancies on the provincial bench, section 43(8)4 seems to make it mandatory for the advisory committee to advertise whenever there are vacancies. Again, that seems to be unnecessarily rigid. There may be circumstances where the committee has already compiled such a backlist of highly qualified candidates. There seems little point in advertising again, particularly when it may have advertised within a short span preceding the creation of new vacancies.
My recommendation is that the committee should be left free to dispense with advertising if the committee deems it to be unnecessary in a particular circumstance.
The next idea was the question of the appointment of part-time judges after their retirement. This is also dealt with in section 44(2). The present system is that the Chief Judge of the provincial court, in his apparently unfettered discretion, can decide whether or not to appoint a retiring judge to continue to serve in a part-time capacity. The concern that I have is that where there are personality differences or difficulties between the Chief Judge and a retiring judge, it may give rise to an appearance of bias, an appearance that ought to be dispelled.
My preference therefore would be to leave decisions with respect to the appointment of part-time judges to a small committee comprising the Chief Judge and normally the Attorney General and a nominee of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee.
I now turn to a subject that's received very little attention, at least so far as I know, but I think it's worthy of much more discussion than it has received, and that is promotion of provincial court judges to the General Division of the Ontario Court. I think it's a well-known fact that many provincial court judges do in fact apply for a promotion to the General Division, for a range of reasons -- partly prestige, partly also because the perks and the remuneration are much better for a federally appointed judge than a provincial judge. Salaries are almost 25% higher, the pensions are still more substantially better and of course there is also the measure, the very significant measure, of prestige.
Leaving aside the question of whether there should be such disparity in the terms of remuneration between federally appointed judges and provincially appointed judges, and I'm one of those who has long been troubled by the excessive disparity, there is a question also of the system for promoting provincial court judges. In fact, there really is no proper system. Until recently, it was impossible for a provincial court judge to throw his or her hat into the ring by applying to the commission for judicial affairs.
The federal Minister of Justice recently announced that the system will be changed, that in future elevations would take place informally, by consultations between the Minister of Justice and the provincial Attorney General and the Chief Judge of the provincial court.
I find the system too informal, too calculated to lead to bias, lacking in transparency. It seems to me therefore that provincial court judges should be assured of a more ostensibly fairer system that will consider provincial court judges for potential promotion. I think it's right that they should be considered for promotion, just as it is right that members of the General Division should be considered for promotion to the Court of Appeal.
Once again, this illustrates the point I made earlier about the interdependence between the provincial court judges, the General Division judges and the Court of Appeal judges, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that interdependence, in my view, should be reflected in our systems of promotion as well as in other respects.
My recommendation therefore is that there should be, once again, a small committee -- I emphasize smallness -- that would make recommendations annually to the Minister of Justice about those provincial court judges who are deemed to be -- who have proven, by their performance on the bench -- particularly suited and appropriate for elevation, and not only to the General Division. In some cases, it may be that they should be catapulted straight on to the appellate bench. I appreciate that some may think that I'm being hopelessly Utopian. I don't accept that. I think we may have to break some tradition-bound psychic barriers in our perceptions, but objectively speaking, I believe these recommendations are soundly based.
1700
Let me turn now to a hot topic, the compensation of provincial court judges. What Bill 136 does is seek to entrench a framework agreement negotiated a few years ago between the provincial government and the Association of Provincial Criminal Court Judges.
The expressed premise of this framework agreement is to assure the independence of judges in the Ontario legal system. If this means that judges must not be discriminated against, that their remuneration does not become a political football, I support the propositions wholeheartedly. However, if it means that judges may be treated more favourably than other public employees, then I say I have difficulties in accepting the framework agreement.
In short, what I am saying is that there are really two principles at play when we're talking about judicial remuneration: one is the principle of the independence of the judiciary and the other is the principle of equality before the law.
My concerns are not theoretical. Over the past couple of years, a variety of media commentators throughout Canada have noted the fact that there are some aspects of the remuneration of federal court judges that are very generous and very difficult to justify. I'm not suggesting this is true of the remuneration of provincial court judges in Ontario, but I am saying that it could become true if the framework agreement reproduced in the schedule to Bill 136 is retained in its existing form.
I believe the framework agreement needs to be amended so as to ensure that provincial court judges will not be treated more favourably than other public employees in comparable positions. To this end, I recommend, first, that a new criterion be added to section 25 of the schedule to read, "The salary and benefits paid to other senior public employees."
If you look at section 25 you see that it rattles out a series of criteria, including changes in the cost of living and such things, but there's no reference to comparability. It seems to suggest that somehow one can isolate the remuneration paid to provincial court judges from the remuneration paid to other senior public employees, whether in the federal government, the university or elsewhere. As I indicate here, it seems to me the principle of equality before the law ought to require the remuneration commission to pay attention to this criterion as well as the others.
Secondly, I believe that clause 25(e) ought to be deleted in its entirety. What 25(e) provides at the moment is "That the government may not reduce the salaries, pensions or benefits of judges, individually or collectively, without infringing the principle of judicial independence." That sounds like motherhood. I believe it contains the seeds for much mischief for this reason: Ontario, as well as the other provinces, is going through an extraordinarily difficult financial period. Many of the provinces, including this one, had to roll back existing public employee salaries as well as other benefits. Many commentators have warned us that fringe benefits for employees, both public and private, will either have to be reduced in the near future or that contributions in the form of premiums and otherwise may have to be substantially increased.
As I read clause 25(e), the provincial government would not be able to apply such changes to provincial judges' remuneration without the unanimous consent of all the judges. My understanding is that last year the provincial court judges voluntarily agreed to be subjected to the social contract. I applaud them for their public-spiritedness. My concern is what would happen if on a future occasion, perhaps not so remote, provincial court judges took a different view and decided not to accept cutbacks and reductions that applied to other public employees in comparable positions. I think it would be unacceptable in terms of law, in terms of public policy, that any group of judges, whether here or federally, be treated more favourably than public employees in comparable positions.
It's for this reason that I think the principle of non-discrimination certainly means that judges should not be treated worse than other public employees. I don't think it means that they'd also be treated more favourably, and 25(e) as presently drafted would appear to lead to the suggestion that they may be left off in a better position than other public employees.
Let me conclude with just a couple of words about the last part of my brief, dealing with Small Claims Court and deputy judges. Small Claims Courts have traditionally been treated as the Cinderellas in the Ontario court system. I think this is unfortunate because as far as the overwhelming majority of consumers in Ontario is concerned, Small Claims Courts are the only courts that are accessible to persons with limited means and for small claims. They haven't always served this purpose and I don't think they do serve this purpose now, but this merely emphasizes my concern that the Small Claims Court as a court has been much neglected.
The same applies with respect to the judges who serve on this court. There are only nine full-time Small Claims Court judges in the whole of Ontario for a population of close to 10 million. The rest are served by deputy judges. The system for appointment of deputy judges is, to put it mildly, highly informal. While we have now established a very formal, relatively complex procedure for the selection and appointment of full-time provincial court judges, we have retained a highly subjective and informal procedure for deputy judges.
The recommendation in my brief is that we need to have a more objective, somewhat more formal system in the appointment of deputy judges. Instead of leaving it up to the senior regional judge to make the appointment at his or her discretion, I think we need a small committee so as to give the process some degree of transparency.
Again, the salary paid to deputy judges is abysmal by any standards. My understanding is they only get $230 a day, which on a six-hour day would amount to less than $40 an hour. I think I'm right in saying that plumbers charge substantially more on an hourly basis than would be paid to deputy judges. There's that old refrain, "You pay peanuts and you know what you get." I can't help reflecting that the same may be true of what in my view would be grossly underpaid deputy judges. As far as I know, they're not entitled to any other benefits whatever.
In short, we need to take the Small Claims Court much more seriously. We need to review also the people who administer justice in the Small Claims Courts so as to give the Small Claims Courts and the judges who administer the justice in them a significantly stronger profile than they have at the moment.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr Ziegel. We have time for one question from each member, from each caucus.
Mr Winninger: Just one comment, Professor Ziegel. We haven't met before, but we have spoken over the telephone and it's certainly a pleasure to hear from you again.
1710
Just in terms of your remarks around subsection 43(8), paragraphs 1 and 2: Paragraph 4, as you may have noted, allows the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee to make recommendations from among candidates interviewed within the preceding year if there is not enough time for fresh advertising and a review process. So there is some discretion allowed the committee there. I take it, though, your point was more general in nature?
Dr Ziegel: I think it's still too rigid. You may have a situation where even within the year, the committee has already advertised with respect to locality, has received a large number of applications, feels satisfied that it has some excellent candidates and may feel that there's not much point in advertising again. I'm not saying they would reach that conclusion; all I'm saying is, if the committee in good faith believes there's not much point in advertising again, it should be free to dispense with advertising. It's a relatively small point.
Mr Winninger: Thank you for sharing your views with the committee.
Mr Chiarelli: I want to thank you for your brief. You certainly have gone over the proposed legislation with a magnifying glass and have given us, I think, some new insights that will be very helpful to us when we look at clause-by-clause. But just very briefly, when you talk about the salary and benefits for provincial court judges and you talk about a comparable senior public employee, can you give me some examples of what you feel a comparable public employee might be?
I sense that judges are almost in a class by themselves in terms of their independence, in terms of their responsibilities within the justice system, and I just wonder what sort of comparative you would look at.
Dr Ziegel: I can give you two. One will be what senior counsel would obtain within the Ministry of the Attorney General, just below the Deputy Attorney General level. Another comparison, which may or may not appeal to you, is what a senior professor would get at a university such as the University of Toronto.
In the provincial context, it would probably lead one to conclude that the current salary being paid to provincial court judges is about the same as a senior counsel within the Ministry of the Attorney General, and I think that's entirely appropriate.
To put it the other way around, I think a senior counsel, particularly one who has served in the Ministry of the Attorney General for 20 years or more, would have a genuine grievance if he or she received less than a provincial court judge who, in many cases, might be younger than senior counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General, say if you were an assistant deputy Attorney General. The converse would also hold true. Likewise, I think I would have some concern if I found that a provincial court judge is getting significantly more than the most senior professor at one of our senior universities.
That's what I mean by comparability. I don't buy it. Let me be frank. I think we ought to be very cautious about this doctrine of judicial independence. If the doctrine of independence means government mustn't interfere so as to influence a judge's decision, of course I'm with it. If it means that judges are to be treated better than anyone else, I'm afraid I have great difficulties in accepting it.
There is a certain impression abroad that if you repeat this slogan of judicial independence often enough, you can secure for judges treatment better than anyone else. I think we've reached the point in Canada where we've become much more sensitive about the issue. I think we're looking for fair treatment and we ought to be looking for non-discriminatory treatment, but judges shouldn't become a privileged group in terms of their remuneration.
Mr Tilson: I have one question, although I must say I can't resist commenting on and I appreciate your advocacy for law professors playing a part in the appointment to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, although I will say that to my knowledge most law professors are members of the Law Society of Upper Canada and many in fact are members of the Canadian Bar Association, so that it's not that they would be unrepresented, I suppose, any more than people in specialized parts of the profession.
It's just a comment which I doubt you'll respond to, but my question has to do with your comments on deputy judges, because this is one of the areas that gives me the greatest concern, specifically where there are claims for under $500 that are not appealable. These people are certainly not doing it for the money. As you say, it's $230-odd. They're not there to make a lot of money. Many of them look at it as charity or whatever. Litigation has got so out of sight, it's one way of dealing with small monetary amounts, although we've now gone up to $6,000, which may make it worthwhile for some lawyers to go, but certainly in those smaller amounts.
I sense you're suggesting that the remuneration of Small Claims Court judges or deputy judges be increased. I have a fear of that as I have a fear for this whole process. In other words, can we afford that sort of thing? We're looking at mediation in other areas as opposed to litigation.
I have spoken to a number of deputy judges who have simply said that when they're doing it for nothing or next to nothing they simply won't put themselves up to that sort of scrutiny, particularly where there are claims under $500 and this is the only way that people will get satisfaction, "I'll go the judge," as opposed to an appeal, which they don't have.
My question is, are you suggesting that the deputy judges or Small Claims Court judges be given a substantial increase in remuneration?
Dr Ziegel: Well, when we're talking about substantial, I would say that something more like $350 a day would be more realistic. It seems to me you have to make up your mind. You either say to a guy, "You'll do it out of a sense of pro bono publico, out of a sense of public service, in which case we'll merely cover your expenses," or you'll say, "No."
Mr Tilson: But $350 won't make any difference to $230.
Dr Ziegel: Well, from $230 to $350 is still $120. There may be some retired people out there who may need to supplement. After all, you don't expect provincial court judges who are serving part-time, after retirement, to serve for peanuts. I suspect they're getting thousands, not just a few hundred. I'm struck by this disparity.
You talk in terms of a limit of $500. My understanding was that the ceiling with Small Claims Court, even outside of Ontario, is significantly higher than $500.
Mr Tilson: No, my understanding is that under $500, the monetary amount, those cases are not appealable.
Dr Ziegel: That's a different point, right? But you're surely not saying that the provincial court judges are only empowered to hear cases where the amount involved is only $500. I think their jurisdiction will be whatever the jurisdiction happens to be in their particular Small Claims Court, which surely will be significantly more than $500.
My remarks on this point were not totally uninformed, because I've had some experience with the Small Claims Court and I've seen how some of the judges in the past have performed there. Let me emphasize that I'm not talking about any present incumbent. I've had some concerns about some of the people who have sat there in the past.
So I think there is some justification for saying, however little or much we pay them -- I'm talking about the process of selection -- I think we ought to be satisfied that they are appropriate people for that particular kind of function.
The Chair: Mr Ziegel, we thank you for coming. Thank you for the suggestions and recommendations you've made to this committee.
Dr Ziegel: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Before we adjourn, I just want to remind the subcommittee members that we will be meeting tomorrow at 3:15 to consider the other matter that we just dealt with, the motion that Ms Harrington has proposed today.
Mr Tilson: Mr Chair, just on that, do I understand that the meeting with the other two groups that are coming will still continue? Am I looking at the right day?
The Chair: That's right. We'll begin at four.
Mr Tilson: We'll begin at four.
The Chair: Yes. The committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1718.