Ontario's justice system is facing scrutiny as discussions heat up around the potential for prosecutors to pre-approve criminal charges before they are laid by police. This proposal, considering factors like efficiency and case outcomes, aims to address longstanding concerns about the burden on local courts and the high percentage of charges being withdrawn or dismissed.
The idea isn't entirely new; criminologist Christopher Williams had already suggested this approach seven years ago. His extensive research found alarming trends: provinces like Ontario, where police hold the power to lay charges, often see high rates of charges being dropped. Williams said, "My research, in a nutshell, found... you have a very high percentage of cases being stayed or withdrawn. The systems are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of charges, hence producing charges being stayed or withdrawn." His recommendations are being revisited as the coronavirus pandemic has only exacerbated delays and backlogs within the system.
Currently, the Ministry of the Attorney General is examining the feasibility of introducing pre-charge approval of criminal charges—something reported as already occurring on some cases. Presently, after police lay charges, prosecutors review them, assessing whether proceeding is warranted based on the public interest and the prospects of success. A recent investigation by CBC Toronto uncovered troubling statistics: over half of criminal cases between 2022-23 were ended without testifying at trial due to dismissals or withdrawals, marking a 14% increase since the 2013-14 fiscal year. This raises questions over whether current processes are also contributing to overburdened courts and wasted resources, especially concerning serious offences.
The proposed transition to requiring viable commission of charges prior to approval aims to sort out nonviable cases, enhancing efficiency and saving valuable court time. The government has recognized, during past committee discussions, the switch could relieve cases swamping the system, though it also acknowledged the necessity of police support for any changes to be implemented smoothly.
Resistance from police leaders shows it's not just about deadlines; they argue retaining the power to lay charges, even against Crown recommendations, is key to genuine public safety. Paul Pedersen, executive director of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, commented on this dynamic, emphasizing factors such as immediate victim safety and evidence availability: "The decision... makes — quite frankly — isn't one we make when we assess whether to lay charges. There’s much more at stake before then." He points out the importance of their front-line role and their obligation to act based on the evidence they gather.
Despite police pushback, various bodies, including academics, legal aid organizations, and human rights advocates, support the idea of pre-charge screening. These groups argue it could significantly improve the situation, pointing to favorable outcomes observed in other Canadian provinces like British Columbia, where courts have implemented pre-approval protocols for nearly four decades. Stats from B.C. indicate they have encountered significantly fewer instances of charges being stayed and withdrawn than Ontario. The British Columbia Crown Counsel Association remarked on this, with vice-president Jennifer Johnston stating, "If you're stopping at the gate [charges]... one would reasonably anticipate this is going to lead to greater time savings down the line."
There's also discord among Crown representatives themselves. Although most Crown attorneys consulted seem to favor the proposed pre-charge screening system, concerns about efficiency are echoed among their ranks. Donna Kellway, president of the Ontario Crown Attorneys' Association, articulated her worries, emphasizing the economic and labor-intensive aspects involved: "It's very labor-intensive... I worry about public safety when arrests have to be made. A Crown has to be involved already."
Kellway suggests police typically initiate charges with solid prospects of conviction, but insists factors can change early on. At the same time, many professionals stress the urgent need for comprehensive statistics concerning charges laid and their subsequent outcomes—a point underscored by Williams. Notably, Ontario doesn’t track reasons underlying withdrawals or stays, complicates efforts to assess systemic failures or successes across the board. Williams argues the visible long-term advantages from this tracking could benefit the system overall and asserts, "Non-viable charges were reduced, the total volume... was thereby reduced. It allowed the system to focus on real charges."
At this juncture, Ontario weighs the options with competing interests vying for influence over what they perceive as necessary transformations within the province’s criminal justice framework. With voices from police, justice advocates, and legal authority ringing louder, only time will tell how Ontario balances reform against firm public safety principles. The outcome remains uncertain as stakeholders continue discussions, each eyeing what will come next amid pressing demands for change.
