Public Commons

Part of Courts

Taking some young guests to court

by M. Monastyrskyj, CELOS researcher

Ontario courtrooms are public, which means anyone can walk in and watch the proceedings. At Old City Hall it is common to see students sitting in on court sessions. On Wednesday November 5, 2008, it was my turn to take a group of young people to court, three of them to be exact: Anne, Percy and Davey. You can read their reports about the visit here.

We agreed to meet at 1:30pm for a 2pm session in courtroom 111. We met early outside the courthouse so that I could tell them what to expect. First, I said they would have to go through a metal detector when they entered the building. Then I pointed out a few things to look out for. I told them about disclosure and said they would probably hear that word a lot. I pointed out that the people with green sashes are justices of the peace while those with red are judges. I briefly explained the roles played by the Crown attorney and duty counsel. I asked if they knew what country gave Canada its court system. Anne knew it was Britain.

At 2, the clerk opened the door and we went into courtroom 111. A few minutes later, another larger group of students sat down next to us. We were in 111 for half an hour. It was the normal 2pm routine. Prisoners appeared by video for a few minutes each and during the occasional delay the court dealt with defendants who were not in custody. Anne made note of the legal terms she was hearing. We did hear the word disclosure a lot.

After half an hour we went next door to 112, also known as plea court because that's where prisoners go to plead guilty. I think there were four men in the prisoners' box. We watched two men plead guilty. One man had stolen some food from a Metro store. He told the judge he was addicted to cocaine. The judge asked him if he had sought treatment. He said he had gone to Narcotics Anonymous. I don't remember the sentence but it was only a few days in jail including time already served. The judge ordered him not to enter any Metro store and to continue going to Narcotics Anonymous meetings. The second man was a student who was arrested after he was caught drinking in violation of a previous court order given after he was found guilty of threatening someone. I don't remember the sentence he was given.

The group of students who had been in 111 with us was also in 112. The judge seeing all the children in court said something about this being "Bring your child to work day." She addressed the adults who accompanied the other students and asked the clerk if there was anything interesting happening in any of the other courtrooms. The judge said "You might have to stick your heads in the doors" to see if anything is going on. The clerk made a phone call and then said there were preliminary hearings in two of the courtrooms on the third floor.

We went upstairs to a small courtroom in which we were very conspicuous. It was a drug case. A police officer was on the stand. The Crown attorney was asking him questions when we arrived. Then the defense lawyer got up and began to ask the officer very detailed questions about his c.v. After a while of this, the judge who had been sitting there seemingly impassive suddenly said in a loud voice: "Are you getting paid by the word?" The defense lawyer tried to explain what he was doing but the judge said that was enough. He said the officer's c.v. would have to stand on its own merits. It wasn't necessary to go over every detail.

Then the judge began to explain in simple language what he was doing. He said that in court there were people who are recognized as experts entitled to give their opinion on certain subjects. He said there are two ways someone can become a court-recognized expert. One way is to have the right academic qualifications. The other is to have experience in the subject. The judge said in his opinion the police officer had enough experience to be recognized as an expert.

As he was saying all this I wondered why he was using such simple language. Surely the lawyers already knew what he was doing. As I was thinking this, the judge said to the lawyers he was explaining this for the benefit of the children in court. He pointed out the Crown attorney who turned around and smiled. A few minutes later, he said in a friendly way, "If you're bored, you can leave at any time." The young people said they weren't bored. In any case, the hearing ended a few minutes later.

---

Court Visit: students' observations of Old City Hall Court, 2008

A.W., a student living in the Dufferin Grove neighbourhood

As part of a grade 10 civics project and partly out of curiosity, I visited Toronto’s courthouse at Old City Hall with my two brothers (thirteen and ten years old) and our guide, Michael, on Wednesday, November fifth, 2008. While on the outing, we observed several court cases, which took place in various rooms around the building.

In the first courtroom, overseen by a Justice of the Peace, prisoners in the Don jail appeared on a screen to discuss how and when to deal with their individual cases. Sometimes the charges against the defendants were stated, though it was often hard to hear, as there was a large glass box in front of the people questioning the prisoners on the screens. It struck me as odd that we, as Canadian citizens, are allowed to sit in these courtrooms, as part of our democratic but we cannot hear a lot of the information being presented. When they were stated, the charges appeared to be mostly drug-related. The people on the screens were all men and most of them looked quite young (early to mid twenties). The defendants usually asked whether or not their disclosure was ready, which it usually wasn’t. Afterwards, the Justice of the Peace would set a more formal date for the defendants to come into the courthouse in order to either plead guilty, have a formal trial, or have a bail hearing (all of the above would be in front of a judge, and in the case of trial, a jury as well). This courtroom showed me how many cases go on in old city hall on a daily basis. It really is staggering that in just one room, over the period of about 45 minutes, eight different prisoners had to set a date just to come into the courthouse. For me, it really put into perspective how constantly clogged the court system must be.

After about three quarters of an hour, we proceeded to another courtroom. A judge who made decisions for prisoners pleading guilty directed this courtroom. This room was smaller and had better sound, so it was easier to tell what was going on. Three prisoners were brought into a small box in the corner of the room. Each stood up in turn and had their situations explained to the judge. Then, the judge would make a decision, provided the defendants pleaded guilty. The first defendant to stand up was a 47-year-old black man. He lives in the suburbs with his girlfriend and three children, and is battling a crack-cocaine addiction. He was illiterate and in the past had gone for addiction counselling. He was charged with stealing $23 worth of groceries from a Metro store. The defendant pleaded guilty. He claimed he stole the merchandise because he could not afford to buy it. The judge sentenced him to a probation, which stated that the man was not to go into a Metro for one year and that he must return to drug counselling.

The second man pleaded guilty to a charge of failure to comply with a previous probation. The defendant had been ordered not to purchase, carry or consume alcohol or other intoxicating substances. This was ordered because of a death threat the defendant had made against a stranger while intoxicated. Then, the man was spotted and arrested by police after he was seen exhibiting strange behaviour. They later concluded that it had been a result of intoxication. The man had been an alcoholic for 13 years. Besides his alcoholism, the defendant seemed to lead a relatively normal life. He 29 years of age, lives with his parents and is studying philosophy at U of T. It struck me as sad that this man had his whole life ahead of him, but was in trouble with the law because of a drug addiction.

The third man, who looked about 60 years old, did not have his charges stated, and simply asked for a bail hearing. Then, all three men left the courtroom, escorted by two security guards. We moved to a different courtroom.

The last room we visited was a pre-trial involving 1 defendant who was there in person, his lawyer, a judge and a police officer. The defendant had been arrested carrying 8.1 grams of cocaine, a charge that obviously could not be denied. However the reason the defendant was there for this pre-trial was to figure out whether he could also be charged with the trafficking of the drug. To help make this decision, the judge had called in the police officer and had deemed him a ‘drug expert’. This meant that because the cop had had many years of experience working with drug addicts and drugs in general, he now could be given the authority to make an informed opinion about whether or not the defendant in this trial was trafficking the cocaine or simply using it for himself. In the end, the policemen thought that an amount of cocaine as large as 8.1 grams would most likely be used for trafficking, so after brief questioning from the defending lawyer, the judge said that the case would proceed in a formal trial at a later date.

P.W.'s report

On Wednesday, November the ninth I visited old city hall with my brother, sister and Michael, our guide for the day. We first visited a room where the court showed a live video stream from the Don jail. The point of this exercise was to check the criminal’s disclosure and schedule a court visit in person or even a trial. In my opinion, the procedure went well and went quite quickly. The second room we went to was where people made their guilty pleas. There were three convicts pleading guilty in the court, a judge, two Justices of the Peace and three assistants. The first convict who stepped up was a man who had stolen various food items from a grocery store. He was sent on probation, which seemed fair to me because it was just a simple case of shoplifting. The second convict was there because he broke his probation. I did not understand what the third man was there for. One of the Justices of the Peace got up, and spoke with him and he left. After that we preceded to courtroom M2 on the third floor, where there was a preliminary hearing going on. We entered the courtroom just as a lawyer was defending his client by trying to convince the judge that the certified “expert” (in this case the expert was a cop who has been working with drugs and crack-cocaine all his career) was not experienced enough to give his opinion on the matter. The defendant was found with 8.1 grams of crack-cocaine (an amount worth 2500$) on his person and was accused of not only possession of crack-cocaine but also trafficking of the drug. At first Davey (my brother) and I did not get what was going on but the judge saw this and explained it to us (I didn’t expect that!). The judge seemed very bored (so bored he was playing around on his office chair!) and that’s not very good if you’re the defendant because the judge did not seem to have much interest. After about half an hour of discussion the prosecutor had enough evidence and the judge decided there should be a trial. I thought that the judge should have been more attentive, but did a good job overall. In conclusion I think our court system works pretty well but not the best it could be.

D.W.'s report

Michael took my sister, my brother and me all on a tour around the courthouse. The first room we went to was people on TV screens arranging other appointments in person and occasionally asking for disclosure. I didn’t like the first room. The second and third rooms were really interesting. In the second room, people were pleading guilty. In one of the cases, a man stole various items from a grocery store while a different man had an addiction to alcohol. I found every story very interesting. In the third room there was a preliminary round for someone carrying 8.1 grams of crack cocaine. The judge called in a cop that is an expert on drugs. The judge was really bored so he took time to explain to us about what was going on. All together I thought that the court is run well.

---

The Courts of Justice Act on the subject of public access to courts:

71. The administration of the courts shall be carried on so as to,

(a) maintain the independence of the judiciary as a separate branch of government;

(b) recognize the respective roles and responsibilities of the Attorney General and the judiciary in the administration of justice;

(c) encourage public access to the courts and public confidence in the administration of justice;

(d) further the provision of high-quality services to the public; and

(e) promote the efficient use of public resources. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

The Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.43 sets out the court structure in Ontario. It defines the matters that are heard by the different courts - the Court Of Appeal, Superior, Divisional, Family and Small Claims Courts and the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Court). It also deals with the following:

- who makes the rules of procedure for the different courts

- how courts are managed and administered

- court proceedings.

Part V of the Act states clearly that courts are public bodies who are to serve us, the public, and use using public resources efficiently:

'''PART V
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS'''

71. The administration of the courts shall be carried on so as to,

(a) maintain the independence of the judiciary as a separate branch of government;

(b) recognize the respective roles and responsibilities of the Attorney General and the judiciary in the administration of justice;

(c) encourage public access to the courts and public confidence in the administration of justice;

(d) further the provision of high-quality services to the public; and

(e) promote the efficient use of public resources. 2006, c. 21, Sched. A, s. 14.

Part VII, which governs court proceedings, has a subsection entitled “Public Access”. This section sets out the general rule that all court hearings are public, but clearly leaves a judge the discretion to deviate from this principle in instances where s/he thinks that there is the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person. In this case, the information about a closed hearing may be disclosed except where the judge has expressly forbidden this.

Photographs or audio recordings taken within the court room, or upon entering or leaving the court room, are forbidden. This prohibition applies to pictures taken in the court building of anyone whom it could reasonably be believed is there for a hearing. A judge can, however, give his/her permission to permit a photo or recording.

The law specifically notes that there is nothing which prohibits a person from “unobtrusively taking hand-written notes or sketches at a court hearing”.

'''PART VII
COURT PROCEEDINGS'''

Public Access

Public Access

Public hearings

135.(1)Subject to subsection (2) and rules of court, all court hearings shall be open to the public.

Exception

(2)The court may order the public to be excluded from a hearing where the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person justifies a departure from the general principle that court hearings should be open to the public.

Disclosure of information

(3)Where a proceeding is heard in the absence of the public, disclosure of information relating to the proceeding is not contempt of court unless the court expressly prohibited the disclosure of the information. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 135.

Prohibition against photography, etc., at court hearing

136.(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no person shall,

(a) take or attempt to take a photograph, motion picture, audio recording or other record capable of producing visual or aural representations by electronic means or otherwise,

(i) at a court hearing,

(ii) of any person entering or leaving the room in which a court hearing is to be or has been convened, or

(iii) of any person in the building in which a court hearing is to be or has been convened where there is reasonable ground for believing that the person is there for the purpose of attending or leaving the hearing;

(b) publish, broadcast, reproduce or otherwise disseminate a photograph, motion picture, audio recording or record taken in contravention of clause (a); or

(c) broadcast or reproduce an audio recording made as described in clause (2) (b). R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 136 (1).

Exceptions

(2)Nothing in subsection (1),

(a) prohibits a person from unobtrusively making handwritten notes or sketches at a court hearing; or

(b) prohibits a lawyer, a party acting in person or a journalist from unobtrusively making an audio recording at a court hearing, in the manner that has been approved by the judge, for the sole purpose of supplementing or replacing handwritten notes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 136 (2); 1996, c. 25, s. 1 (22).

Exceptions

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a photograph, motion picture, audio recording or record made with authorization of the judge,

(a) where required for the presentation of evidence or the making of a record or for any other purpose of the court hearing;

(b) in connection with any investitive, naturalization, ceremonial or other similar proceeding; or

(c) with the consent of the parties and witnesses, for such educational or instructional purposes as the judge approves.

Offence

(4)Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 136 (3, 4).

---

Court documents are public

The Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.43 sets out the court structure in Ontario. Part VII, which governs court proceedings, has a subsection entitled “Public Access”. This section sets out the general rule that all court documents are public, but clearly leaves the judge the discretion to deviate from this principle in instances where s/he thinks that there is the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person. In this case, the information about the hearing may be disclosed except where the judge has expressly forbidden this.

Public Access

Public hearings

135.(1)Subject to subsection (2) and rules of court, all court hearings shall be open to the public.

Exception

(2)The court may order the public to be excluded from a hearing where the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person justifies a departure from the general principle that court hearings should be open to the public.

Disclosure of information

(3)Where a proceeding is heard in the absence of the public, disclosure of information relating to the proceeding is not contempt of court unless the court expressly prohibited the disclosure of the information. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 135.

The law expressly states that the public has access to any document filed in a civil proceeding (where one person or organization sues another), including the court list of judgments, unless the court orders that a document is to be sealed and not part of the public record.

Documents public

137.(1)On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any document filed in a civil proceeding in a court, unless an Act or an order of the court provides otherwise.

Sealing documents

(2)A court may order that any document filed in a civil proceeding before it be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public record.

Court lists public

(3)On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to see any list maintained by a court of civil proceedings commenced or judgments entered.

Copies

(4)On payment of the prescribed fee, a person is entitled to a copy of any document the person is entitled to see. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 137

---

A guide to visiting a court in Toronto

Toronto court locations and phone numbers

Entering the court house - When you visit at court room at Old City Hall or at College Park, you have to pass through a metal detector. You are asked to place any metal objects you have with you (keys, coins, etc.) into a small blue basket which then goes through an X-ray machine. If you set off the metal detector, a court officer will pass a wand over you to find out what caused the detector to go off. Sometimes people forget to remove coins or keys from their pocket or they have some other small metal object on them.

Court room 101, Old City Hall - This small court room is located in the basement of Old City Hall. Almost every defendant who appears in this court is in custody. Bail hearings (also called "show cause") are held in this court room. Cases are often transferred (traversed) from here to other court rooms.

Court room 111, Old City Hall - This is the set-date court. It's a bit of an assembly line, with most cases taking 5 minutes or even less. People facing charges appear before a Justice of the Peace to have a court date set. Most of the people who appear here are not in custody, but some are. Prisoners are led up the stairs that are located in front of the public benches, into a glassed-in box. Sometimes you can hear the waiting prisoners thumping on the floor downstairs. Prisoners also appear here via video.