|
Judges - Workload. R. v. Leonard
In R. v. Leonard (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a criminal appeal, here from a conviction for "possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm without being the holder of an authorization or licence, contrary to s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code".
Here the court considers the workload placed on OCJ judges, and whether it might justify inadequate reasons for decision:[18] The Crown argues that the reasons on the Charter applications met the sufficiency threshold in the context of a busy trial judge of the Ontario Court of Justice providing oral reasons. I do not agree.
[19] The jurisprudence recognizes that the time and workload pressures of trial courts are relevant context when an appellate court is assessing the sufficiency of reasons: Sheppard, at para. 55. That contextual consideration does not shield reasons that foreclose meaningful appellate review.
[20] I am well aware of the heavy workload carried by judges of the Ontario Court of Justice. In recent years that workload has only increased. Amendments to the Criminal Code have resulted in more trials and trials for more serious offences in the OCJ, as well as increased procedural complexity of trials. Layered on top of those challenges is the systemic impact of delays due to the COVID pandemic. Most judges of the OCJ shoulder this burden admirably. They produce reasons that make clear to the parties and the public what was decided and why, and permit meaningful appellate review.
[21] The trial judge’s reasons in this case do not meet that standard. To hold that the reasons in this case are sufficient would do a disservice to the parties to proceedings before the OCJ, to the public, and to the hard work of the other judges of the OCJ.
|
