Justice, jury systems in 'crisis' for Ontario First Nations, Iacobucci finds - Macleans.ca

Justice, jury systems in ‘crisis’ for Ontario First Nations, Iacobucci finds


TORONTO – A new report finds Ontario’s First Nations face a justice and jury system “in a state of crisis.”

Former Supreme Court of Canada justice Frank Iacobucci says the problem is particularly acute in the north.

His report makes 17 recommendations aimed at ensuring the cultural values and ideologies of First Nations are better reflected in the justice system.

The province asked Iacobucci to look into the issue in 2011, after criminal trials and inquests ground to a halt over lack of aboriginal representation on juries.

The study finds the problem goes beyond juries to a broader conflict between First Nations and a justice system they say fails them.

Iacobucci says he hopes the report will serve as a wake-up call.


Filed under:

Justice, jury systems in ‘crisis’ for Ontario First Nations, Iacobucci finds

  1. If indians don’t show up for jury duty, or don’t get themselves on the lists, then they aren’t going to be on juries.

    It is tiresome that so many people create so many problems for themselves, and then blame others for their self-inflicted woes.

    • Because that’s the problem. And residential schools, that was their fault?

      You have a sickening lack of humanity.

      • Indians, particularly on reserves, resist being on census, voter, and property tax lists, the typical sources of jury lists. It’s up to them to fix that problem and get onto those lists if they want to take on jury duty.

    • i’m so tired of being called indian when i have never even come close to being in india.get with the modern times and stop being so shallow.i can’t believe they kept calling us indians even after they realized the mistake.

      • The term ‘indian’ is the official one straight from the eponymous Indian Act.

    • It’s certain to be much more complex than that. The article is pretty sparse, but Iacobucci is not likely to use “crisis” if the only issue were a lack of aboriginal jurors; assuming non-aboriginals cannot judge aboriginals if properly instructed would itself be racist, and on that grounds alone I’m pretty sure a former SCC Chief Justice would use less inflammatory language if it were the only issue.
      Maclean’s would do us all a favour if they provided a link or more details, though.

      • SCC justices remain locked into a perversely biased ideology that demands indians or their ‘first nations’ be privileged and favoured in judgments whenever and wherever possible.

        So it would not be surprising to have one use inflammatory language where such language is not indicated.