A condo can be purchased through e-mail when certain legal requirements are met, New Brunswick’s top court has ruled.

Setting aside a lower court’s decision, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal determined in Druet v. Girouard that writing requirements under the Electronic Transactions Act and the Statute of Frauds, the price, parties, and property, the assumption of an existing mortgage, the payment of closing fees, joinder, and the intent to create legal relations, can, when taken together, make the purchase of a condo through e-mail legally binding.

“As a matter of general principle, we accept that an exchange of emails can satisfy the writing requirement under the Electronic Transactions Act and, correlatively, the Statute of Frauds,” wrote justices Joseph Robertson and Marc Richard with Justice Wallace Turnbull concurring. “Of course, to reach this conclusion, one must apply the principle of ‘joinder.’ We also accept that the parties reached an agreement with respect to the essential terms (the 3 Ps, namely, price, parties and property) and two other matters: the assumption of the existing mortgage and payment of closing fees.”

But in this particular case, the court ruled that the e-mails did not show sufficient legal intent to create a binding contract.

“In short, the e-mails do not represent the type of detailed agreements which have propelled some courts to conclude the execution of a formal document would serve no valid purpose other than to provide one of the parties with a feeble legal excuse for reneging on an agreement,” says the ruling.

Druet and Girouard appeared to be reaching a consensus on the condo’s sale in 2010, but Druet ultimately withdrew her offer to sell the condo, saying her partner, who was vacationing in Peru, did not agree to the purchase price Girouard and Druet had reached.

Girouard brought a motion under Rule 23 to determine whether or not the e-mails constituted a binding agreement and sought compensation from Druet under the Act of Frauds.

The Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick ruled last year that the e-mails constituted a binding agreement between Druet and Girouard and ordered Druet pay $1,000 to Girouard.

“After reviewing the mail, I am convinced that they constitute a binding agreement. The reference to the agreement of purchase and sale was not an indication that there was agreement regarding the conclusion of another contract. The clauses in e-mails is clear and easy to perform,” wrote Court of Queen’s Bench Justice George Rideout. “There is no indication that it was subject to acceptance from Mrs. Druet. It is recognized that there is no closing date, but, given the other clauses, it is reasonable to argue that a reasonable time to complete the purchase or could be implied that the usual practice in the field property, a closing date in mid to late next month, was implied.”

But the appellant court ruled while the Court of Queen’s Bench was correct to determine most of the legal requirements to establish the purchase of the condo had been met, the court was ultimately wrong to dismiss that a formal contract was necessary to make the e-mail agreements legally binding, and allowed Druet’s appeal.

“Moreover, we have concluded Mr. Girouard’s reference to the future preparation of a draft agreement for Ms. Druet’s review is normally interpreted to mean that the parties did not intend to create a binding contract until such time as a formal agreement was prepared and executed,” says the appeal decision. “The reasonable bystander also knows that the exchange of e-mails represents a skeletal contractual framework worked out without the assistance of professional advice . . . more importantly, neither Mr. Girouard nor Mrs. Girouard had ever viewed Ms. Druet’s condominium unit.”

The ruling continues: “Frankly, there is more legal formality surrounding the millions of transactions that occur daily on eBay than what occurred in the present case. Parties to a real estate transaction who are strangers usually fix a closing date, obtain a deposit and, most importantly, sign a formal purchase and sale agreement.”

As a result, the appellant court allowed Druet’s appeal and set aside the motion judge’s order. The court also awarded $3,500 to Druet on the motion in the Court of Queen’s Bench. With regard to Druet’s appeal, the Court of Appeal found Druet is entitled to disbarments only, fixed at $1,500.

Update: May 3, 2012 to change headline and clarify aspects of the ruling.

Alain Perron

Ontario Chief Justice Annemarie Bonkalo has named a new judge to the Ontario Court of Justice this week.

Alain Perron will join the court April 25 in a bilingual position in Parry Sound.

Perron comes from a managing partner position at Wallace Carr Klien & Trenker and practised as an associate in criminal and family law after joining the bar in 1994.

Perron has prosecuted Provincial Offences Act matters for the City of North Bay and has acted as standing federal Crown for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, in the past.

He has also been a part-time prosecutor for the Ministry of Transportation in Nipissing and was deputy judge in the Small Claims Court of the Superior Court of Justice. In his spare time, Perron has also held various executive positions with the North Bay General Hospital and the North Bay Crisis Centre.

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Master L.A. Smart fired off at two lawyers for their lack of civility in the courtroom after an hour-long squabble between the pair during questioning forced one client to leave.

In West Edmonton Mall Property Inc. v. International Stereo Centres Ltd., Smart wrote while it was impossible to determine whether Edmonton lawyer SandeepK. Dhir or E. Mark Keohane was to blame for initiating the squabble, he would resist the urge to award costs against each counsel under Rule 10.49, and instead directed the parties to bear their own costs.

“As one might expect, after reading the transcript, it is simply not possible to determine who is to ‘blame’ for the questioning to deteriorate to such a state that one of the parties felt it necessary to leave,” wrote Smart. “After hearing the arguments and complaints of both counsel, even if there was evidence provided, it is impossible to reconcile what transpired. Frankly, it is disappointing that counsel found it necessary to air their grievances with each other in open court before members of the public. It served only to potentially diminish the public’s respect for the administration of justice while diminishing respective counsel’s reputation and that of the legal profession generally.”

The issue first arose April 13, 2011, when the questioning of Alberta doctor Roger Watson denigrated into several confrontations between Keohane and Dhir.

According to Smart’s ruling, Dhir and Keohane spent nearly an hour in chambers that morning during which they made serious allegations against one another, numerous interjections and objections, statements that questioning was discourteous, and complaints about inappropriate facial gestures. Both also denied that such things were occurring and complained about the other’s ediotrialization of what happened.

The squabble eventually caused Keohane to leave with his client before the questioning was complete.

Shortly after, an application was brought to compel Dr. Roger Watson, and his wife Janet Watson to appear for questioning without further payment of conduct monies and an award of costs for the application. It also called for the costs of the uncompleted questioning to be thrown out on a solicitor client basis.

Keohane did not object to questioning continuing without additional conduct money and an order was given for the Watsons to attend at a date later agreed upon.

Still, Smart was quick to let his disapproval be known as he ordered both clients to bear their own costs.

“When two young children squabble and it is impossible to determine which of them is the culprit, the solution is often to send both to their room. It strikes me that I am dealing with an analogous situation . . . .” wrote Smart.

The Toronto West Detention Centre will be closing. Photo: Joshua Sherurcij

Finance Minister Dwight Duncan’s 2012 Ontario budget calls for reforms to the province’s youth justice system, the Provincial Offences Act, several prison closures, and increased electronic court services to combat the province’s rising deficit.

Billed by Duncan as one of the toughest yet, this week’s budget includes significant cuts to program spending across the board to contain costs by $17.7 billion over the next three years, while increasing revenues by $4.4 billion, all without raising taxes.

In the justice sector, the budget touches on the following:

The youth justice system:

The budget proposes closing the Bluewater Youth Centre in Goderich and downsizing the Brookside Youth Centre in Cobourg and the Cecil Facer Youth Centre in Sudbury. It also suggests reducing the number of transfer payment agencies contracted to supply open custody services.

According to the ministry, the Youth Criminal Justice Act has led to decreased custodial sentences for youth since 2003 and has diverted more youth to community-based alternatives for less serious offences, creating a reduction in demand for youth justice custody, and consequently, the need for several closures.

The Provincial Offences Act:

According to the ministry, uncollected fines related to the POA are a growing problem for the province, adding to a ballooning deficit. To address this, the budget proposes unpaid POA fines be set off against tax refunds issued by the Canada Revenue Agency.

Prison closures:

The 2012 budget confirms the provincial government is moving ahead with fully closing the Toronto West Detention Centre, the Brantford jail, and the Chatham jail in the upcoming years.

According to the ministry, the closures will help “modernize” Ontario’s correctional facilities and create more efficiency within the system. The budget states the closure of the Toronto West Detention Centre will save the province $23 million in 2013-14 and $28 million in 2014-15.

Underutilized prisons in Owen Sound, Walkerton, and Sarnia were closed last year by the province to cut costs, along with a partial closure of the Toronto West Detention Centre.
 
Electronic court services:
 
The budget also suggest the provincial government provide some court services online, including court forms, court document filings, and court fee payments. It proposes provincial courts transition to providing 24-hour online service instead of the traditional daytime hours currently provided. It also suggests a significant overview of the court system is needed to ensure courts are receiving the funding where they need it most.
 
Provincially, the 2012 budget also falls on the heels of the federal omnibus crime bill’s passage earlier this month. Rough estimates project the associated costs to the province at $1 billion for new jail facilities and nearly $145 billion in soft costs resulting from the bill. This year’s budget also projects an increase of $68 million in provincial expenses within the justice sector due to legal settlements under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act and “funding for operational pressures.”

Judges must carefully consider flexible sentences for Aboriginal offenders to avoid violating the law, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in an anticipated Aboriginal law decision today, noting the principles established in R v. Gladue have not been met.

Releasing its ruling in R. v. Ipeelee, a pair of cases that explore the issue of differential treatment for Aboriginal offenders highlighted by the court in Gladue, the Supreme Court found factors like cultural oppression, poverty, and a history of abuse in the residential school system must factor heavily into sentencing Aboriginal offenders.

Courts have, at times, been hesitant to take judicial notice of the systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people in Canadian society (see, e.g., R. v. Laliberte, 2000 SKCA 27, 189 Sask. R. 190),” the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a 6-1 majority. “To be clear, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples. These matters, on their own, do not necessarily justify a different sentence for Aboriginal offenders. Rather, they provide the necessary context for understanding and evaluating the case-specific information presented by counsel.”

According to the Supreme Court, Gladue, a 1998 precedent-setting decision that was designed to take factors such as poverty and residential school abuse into consideration in sentencing and shift a disproportionate number of Aboriginal offenders out of prison, has failed to take hold in Canada’s justice system.

“Over a decade has passed since this Court issued its judgment in Gladue. As the statistics indicate, section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code has not had a discernible impact on the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system,” the Supreme Court ruled. “Granted, the Gladue principles were never expected to provide a panacea. There is some indication, however, from both the academic commentary and the jurisprudence, that the failure can be attributed to some extent to a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of both s. 718.2(e) and this Court’s decision in Gladue.”

Ipeelee involved appeals by two separate Aboriginal offenders who were declared long-term offenders and had long-term supervision orders imposed. The central issue in each appeal involved the determination of a fit sentence for a breach of a long-term supervision order in the case of an Aboriginal offender, particularly in determining whether or not the principles of Gladue had any effect.

Manasie Ipeelee, a 39-year-old Inuk man, is decribed in the SCC decision as a lifelong alcoholic involved in a laundry list of thefts, assaults, and sexual assaults. He began drinking alcohol when he was 11 years old, his mother froze to death when he was five years old, and he has been out of jail or in detention since 1985.

Ipeelee was sentenced to six years for a recent sexual assault and a subsequent ten years with a long-term offender designation. The designation meant he could be returned to prison for breaching the designation’s terms.

“In my view, the courts below made several errors in principle warranting appellate intervention. First, the courts reached the erroneous conclusion that protection of the public is the paramount objective when sentencing for breach of an LTSO and that rehabilitation plays only a small role,” the Supreme Court ruled. “As discussed, while protection of the public is important, the legislative purpose of an LTSO as a form of conditional release set out in s. 100 of the CCRA is to rehabilitate offenders and reintegrate them into society. The courts therefore erred in concluding that rehabilitation was not a relevant sentencing objective.”

Frank Ralph Ladue, 49, a member of a small community in the Yukon Territory was 5 when he was sent to a residential school where he was allegedly physically, sexually, emotionally, and spiritually abused, was the appellant in the other case.

After Ladue was released from residential school, he began using drugs and drinking heavily, according to the Supreme Court’s decision. Ladue also amassed 40 criminal convictions, including a number of sexual assaults, and was sentenced to three years in prison for breaking and entering and committing sexual assault.

Ladue was released in 2006 from that sentence and has been jailed for several breaches of his long-term offender order since then.

“The sentencing judge has a statutory duty, imposed by s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, to consider the unique circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. Failure to apply Gladue in any case involving an Aboriginal offender runs afoul of this statutory obligation. As these reasons have explained, such a failure would also result in a sentence that was not fit and was not consistent with the fundamental principle of proportionality,” the Supreme Court ruled.  “Therefore, application of the Gladue principles is required in every case involving an Aboriginal offender, including breach of an LTSO, and a failure to do so constitutes an error justifying appellate intervention.”

The Supreme Court ultimately allowed Ipeelee’s appeal but dismissed Ladue’s appeal. Ipeelee was sentenced to one year in prison, while Ladue’s sentence of one year in prison was left untouched.

Christopher Pinnington

Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP has been named one of Canada’s Best Employers for New Canadians in 2012.

FMC was the only law firm in Ontario recognized this year and has been awarded in each of the previous three years of the program.

The firm was recognized for its legal professional internship — a six-month paid internship program that provides professional employment experience to foreign-trained lawyers seeking Canadian employment.

“It is a great honour to be recognized as one of the Best Employers for New Canadians in 2012,” said Chris Pinnington, FMC’s chief executive officer. “At FMC, the diverse backgrounds of our team contribute to the excellence of our client service and our ability to find innovative legal solutions to the business challenges of Canadian companies. Creating a welcoming workplace environment where new Canadians can realize their talents and career aspirations is part of the firm’s long-standing commitment to diversity and inclusion.”

The firm was also recognized for its participation in the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council and the Calgary Region Immigrant Employment Council’s Mentoring Partnerships. As part of that program, FMC created a resume and interview workshop program involving more than 40 FMC members.

The Best Employers for New Canadians award is a part of Canada’s Top 100 Employers Project and ALLIES, a joint initiative of The Maytree Foundation and the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation. Both provide employment assistance for immigrants and employers across Canada.

Award winners are selected based on their program offerings, the steps they have taken to reduce employment barriers for recent immigrants, their work in helping new Canadians to have their credentials recognized in Canada, and their training in cross-cultural issues.

“At FMC, we embrace a cross-section of cultures, ethnicities and backgrounds that reflect our diverse community,” said Kate Broer, FMC partner and co-chairwoman of FMC’s National Diversity and Inclusion Initiative. “Diversity and inclusion are an integral part of FMC’s culture and business strategy and our involvement with these programs expands on this belief. We are committed to creating opportunities for new Canadians.”

FMC was also recognized for sponsoring the University of Toronto Faculty of Law’s Internationally Trained Lawyers Program, their partnership with the St. Stephen’s Community House Employment and Training Centre Connections Program to offer six-week unpaid cooperative placements, and FMC’s Boot Camp for Diversity and Inclusion which trains firm members on diversity and inclusion issues within the firm. FMC was also recognized for providing financial assistance to firm members who are recent immigrants to upgrade credentials or skills relevant to their roles within the firm.Forty corporations and businesses from across Canada were awarded in this year’s competition.

Selwyn Pieters and Brian Noble have filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal after a Divisional Court ruling found the pair was not discriminated against during a confrontation with the Peel Law Association four years ago.

Lawyer Selwyn Pieters is appealing a Divisional Court ruling.

Pieters and Noble were awarded $2,000 each in 2010 after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found the Peel Law Association and association administrator, Melissa Firth, discriminated against the pair by asking them to provide identification in the association’s lawyers’ lounge at the Brampton, Ont. courthouse.

The law association sought judicial review of the tribunal’s ruling in Jan. 2011 and last month the Divisional Court ruled in favour of the association, ordering costs of $20,000. Writing in Peel Law Association v. Pieters last month, Justice Sandra Chapnik found the tribunal erred in “unreasonably determining” a case of prima facie discrimination had been established and unfairly placed the onus on Firth to refute the alleged discrimination.

“The undisputed evidence was that Ms. Firth’s duties included asking for identification to confirm the admissibility of persons in the lounge and library. Her position at the hearing was that she acted on this occasion in the context of those duties,” wrote Chapnik. “By improperly reversing the burden of proof, the Tribunal placed her in the difficult position of trying to prove a negative, namely, that her conduct in the performance of her routine duties was not motivated by race and colour. With respect, the Tribunal erred in doing so.”

Pieters and Noble argue in their leave to appeal motion that the Divisional Court erred in granting an application for judicial review, failed to show necessary deference to the tribunal, and failed to recognize the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness.

The two lawyers also argue the Divisional Court erred in finding the tribunal reversed the onus of proof of discrimination, erred in determining a human rights applicant must prove there was an intention or motivation to discriminate, and erred in reinstating the prima facie test for discrimination, while also failing to apply applicable case law.

“The Divisional Court erred in law in granting the application for judicial review, quashing the decision of the Tribunal, dismissing the application to the Tribunal, and awarding costs in the face of these errors,” the motion states. “The issues in this case, which involve the appropriate standard of review, the appropriate evidentiary standard to be applied to cases of discrimination, and the appropriate legal test for finding discrimination, involve questions of public interest and importance. These matters will impact the development of jurisprudence in human rights and administrative law in Ontario.”

According to court documents, Firth had approached Pieters, Noble, and articling student Paul Waldron in May 2008 inside the association’s lounge, asking them for identification. The lounge is only open to lawyers, and Firth routinely asked lounge members for identification. Pieters, Noble, and Waldron were not robed at the time, but were each wearing business suits.

Pieters told Firth asking the group for identification was akin to racial discrimination, and felt the group was singled out for identification from a small group of other lounge members based on their race.

Firth later told her supervisors of the confrontation and was encouraged to post signs in the association’s lounge and library informing all users identification would be requested unless they were robed.

The trial of a man accused of abducting, sexually assaulting, and murdering 8-year-old Victoria (Tori) Stafford will begin today in London, Ont.

Michael Thomas Christopher Stephen Rafferty, 31, who pleaded not guilty to first -degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault causing bodily harm Feb. 29, will appear before Superior Court Justice Thomas Heeney, where the Crown is expected to open their case and call their first witness.

The trial will take place before 12 jurors made up of nine women and three men who were selected Feb. 29 and March 1. It is expected to last for several months and may continue into June. Originally anticipated to take place in Woodstock, it was moved to London after it was thought that Rafferty wouldn’t get a fair trial in the town he shared with Stafford.

Rafferty was arrested with his girlfriend, Terri-Lynne McClintic, 21, a month after Stafford disappeared and has remained in police custody since.

Stafford was last seen April 8, 2009 in Woodstock, Ont. after she planned to take her first walk home from Oliver Stephens Public School alone.

In an agreed statement of facts in R. v. McClintic, McClintic claimed she was high on Oxycotin pills when she began speaking with Stafford about dogs and promised the blonde haired, blue eyed girl she could see a puppy called Precious if Stafford followed her to a local retirement home parking lot.

McClintic claimed she then drove to a remote location, but stopped to pick up garbage bags and a hammer along the way, according to the statement.

Nearly three months later Stafford’s remains were found in Mount Forest, Ont., roughly 200 kilometers from where she was last seen alive. Stafford was identified through dental records. According to the agreed statement of facts, along with her remains, provincial police found parts of a headband, a Hannah Montana T-shirt, and a pair of butterfly earrings Stafford had returned to her classroom to grab shortly before leaving school to walk home. An autopsy determined she died from multiple blunt force trauma. It is believed Stafford died the same day she was abducted.

McClintic pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in April 2010 and was sentenced to life in prison. She may be eligible for parole in 25 years and is expected to testify at Rafferty’s trial as early as Friday.

Stafford’s disappearance marked the largest investigation in Ontario Provincial Police history and led to changes to when the province’s Amber Alter system is used to notify the public about possible child abductions.

“With the loss of Victoria, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people felt a tremendous loss worldwide. Victoria was a very beautiful eight-year-old child, and an innocent little girl who put a smile on every face she met,” Stafford’s father, Rodney Stafford said in a victim impact statement filed in court. “No matter the sentence set down for this heinous crime, nothing will ever be close to satisfying the feeling of the loss of your child. Forced into my life. You can not prepare for it, you can only do your part to seek justice for what has happened, and make others aware that predators are in fact out there. Not just here, but everywhere.”

The International Law Office has awarded a whole gamut of Canadian lawyers with its Client Choice Awards.

The awards, which surveys senior corporate counsel only, recognizes winners globally and honours both individuals and law firms for their contribution to the legal profession.

McMillan LLP was selected as Canada’s winning law firm this year. Winning law firms were selected through an ILO subscriber survey of corporate counsel and were assessed for the depth of their team, response time, quality legal advice and billing transparency, among other criteria.

Sander Grieve

Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP partner Sander Grieve was the only Canadian winner in the capital markets category to receive the Client Choice Award 2012 and is the national co-chairman of FMC’s mining group. Apart from practising in public markets finance and mergers-and-acquisitions, he also acts for a wide range of issuers, underwriters, and agents in both international and domestic securities issues. Currently, Grieve focuses on global mining and precious metals in his practice.

“The support of my clients is essential to my business; that they have taken time out to recognize my efforts is the highest professional praise I could hope for,” said Grieve.

Evans, who has worked with FMC since 1999, also was an exclusive Canadian winner this year in the litigation category. Evans’ litigation practice focuses primarily on banking, securities, professional liability, and fraud. He often appears before all levels of court in Canada and practices heavily in auditor’s liability and securities matters.

“This award is particularly meaningful as it reflects the views of my clients,” said Evans. “Strong, time-tested client relationships are the foundation of our success as lawyers. I am honoured to have been recognized by my clients and ILO.”

Mark Evans

The Norton Rose Group was also selected as an ILO Client Choice Award winner in the international category this year. Individually, Charles Hurdon, a partner at Norton Rose Canada LLP, was awarded in the employment category along with six other members of the Norton Rose Group who took home individual prizes globally.

Hurdon specializes in employment and labour law and has experience representing and advising employers in executive employment agreements, executive compensation and executive terminations. He also practices in occupational health and safety and has assisted employers in developing health and safety programs.

Other individual Client Service Award winners across Canada include:

•    Eric Carmona, partner Stikeman Elliott LLP, in the Commercial Property category
•    Roger Taplin, partner McCarthy Tétrault LLP, in the Energy & Natural Resources category
•    Shawn HT Denstedt, partner Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in the Environment category
•    Sandra Abitan, partner Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in the Insolvency & Restructuring category
•    Marion Bailey-Canham, partner Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, in the Intellectual Property category
•    Sylvain Cossette, partner Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, in the M&A category

The London-based ILO selected winners for their client care and quality of service based on client reviews and independent research. Specifically, the award honours lawyers who add significant, real value to their clients’ business in a way that sets them apart from other lawyers in the same market. Lawyers and law firms were also evaluated on their quality of legal advice, communication skills, and use of technology. Winners were chosen from more than 2,000 individual assessments received from corporate counsel in 64 jurisdictions worldwide.

The ILO awards research team also conducted interviews and additional research to establish the shortlist of award winners. Categories for this year’s individual awards included arbitration, banking, corporate tax, public law, and white-collar crime, among others.

Award winners were announced in Canada Feb. 23.

Updated version of story posted at 1 p.m.

Don Drummond, Ontario economist and author of the report.

Economist Don Drummond has released his report on the state of Ontario’s finances this week, making several key recommendations to Ontario’s justice system in an effort to protect the cash-strapped province from a potential rise to $411 billion in predicted debt over the next several years.

The report’s recommendations include:

1.    Improving evidence-based data collection to achieve better outcomes in justice programs.

2.    Increasing the use of the Justice On Target program to assist with the reduction of custody remand, and implement evidence-based approaches to increase efficiency in the field of family law and family courts.

3.    Expanding diversion programs for low-risk, non-violent offenders with mental illness as an alternative to incarceration.

4.    Reviewing the core responsibilities of police to eliminate their use in non-core duties. This review would include an examination of alternative models of police service delivery. Criteria for the review would include determining the relative costs of the various security providers and an evaluation of their respective comparative advantages.

5.    Using alternative service delivery for non-core services within correctional facilities, where feasible.

6.    Continuing the process of clustering adjudicative tribunals across the Ontario Public Service.

7.    Examining integration opportunities and consolidate where possible public safety training in policing, fire services and correctional services, which are currently delivered individually through their respective colleges.

8.    Having the justice sector continue to work with Infrastructure Ontario to use alternative financing and procurement to assist in replenishing its capital infrastructure.

9.    Improving co-ordination between federal and provincial governments in areas such as justice policy and legislation, law enforcement and correctional services.

10.    Negotiating the transfer of responsibility for incarceration for sentences longer than six months to the federal government.

If the recommendations are not implemented, Ontarians could expect to see further deterioration of its courthouses and facilities. Courthouses will also be plagued by an increasing workload. Drummond estimates the federal omnibus crime bill will require an additional $22 million per year in additional costs.

“Moving forward, the justice sector faces fiscal challenges that will need to be addressed to bend down the cost curve for justice services,” the report says. “Key challenges facing the sector include compensation, increasing remand costs, infrastructure costs, the impact of federal legislation and greater expectations from the public for justice-related services.”

According to the report, Ontario is grappling not only with an increasingly strained court system but also overcrowded provincial jails, as well as an increase in family court matters.

“The public expects more from its justice system than it previously did...The justice sector will need to transform its service delivery and find efficiencies while ensuring public confidence.” Drummond said in the report. “Ontario’s finances do not yet constitute a crisis, and with early strong action a crisis can be averted.”

To view the complete report, visit the Ontario Ministry of Finance's web site.