Ian Greene

1. Court Organization and ManagementJanuary 26, 2012User & Client Perspectives on Court Administration Ian Greene

2. Class Organizational Matters • Group Presentations (class web page) • Internships • Students requiring internship for grad diploma: Ahmed, Ahmadi, K., Ahmadi, N., Barakat, Cabral, Chendamarai, Harvey, Kanagasabapathy, Karmali, Khan, Mloka, Motavalli, Segal, Sihra, Stone, Zamir (16) • KhesrauAhmadi leading students doing criminal justice inventory • Baar project: wait until Feb 16 when Carl at class • May be opportunities in summer with Ministry • May be opportunities with Cost of Justice Project (Prof. Jacobs)

3. Guest tonight • Prof. Lesley Jacobs • On sabbatical; past Director of York Centre for Public Policy and Law • Taught this course last year and will teach it from time to time in the future • Involved with bringing Forum on Civil Jutice to York last year • A key investigator in Cost of Justice project

4. Public Participation in the Justice System (Greene ch 2) • Canadian Democratic Audit: A series of books evaluating Canadian political institutions as we start the new century • Elections, political parties, citizens, federalism, advocacy groups, legislatures, communication techology, cabinets & first ministers, courts • I was asked to write the book on Courts • Three benchmarks of the series: inclusiveness, representativeness, and participation • Forced me to look at the courts in a different way

5. Opportunities: Judicial selection Citizen monitoring Courts administration Litigants & witnesses Members of juries Public interest group litigation Expert witness testimony Reality: Still very limited Needs to grow Almost none Ample, but hampered by delays & disrespect Jury system often abused Extensive, but evidence limited Extensive, but evidence misused, misunderstood Participation

6. Administering Justice for the PublicCanadian Judicial Council 2007 • A follow up to “models” report issued in 2006, and that we discussed on Jan 12 • Part of recommendations from 2006 report:

7. Recommendations from Models Report (2006) • Although there are legitimate variations in viewpoints and the strengths of those positions on the issue, concerns about the shortcomings of the executive model of court administration are widely held among the judiciary and this view is shared by some executive officials. • There is significant support for a model of court administration based on limited autonomy for the judiciary within an overall budget for court administration set by the appropriate legislative authority. Support extends further to linking this limited autonomy to the use of an independent commission for the prevention and resolution of disputes related to the overall size of the budget allocated to the judiciary. • There is also a need for a professional court administration with a chief executive officer responsible to the Chief Justice. The existence of a CEO to handle day-to-day operations will be important in ensuring that the judiciary is not preoccupied with those matters and can focus on overall strategic direction of court administration. • This report concludes that an optimal model of court administration would be one which provides the judiciary with autonomy to manage the core areas of court administration while ensuring (by the carefully considered use of an independent commission) that the authority of the political branches over resource allocation is not used arbitrarily.

8. Chapter 1: Judicial responsibility & the courts • Judicial Accountability model works best because action can be taken without the permission of government • Works well in Fed Ct in Australia, many US courts, and in courts in the UK • More judicial responsibility: • Since 2002, fed courts administered by an independent agency. Memorandums of understanding etc giving certain administrative powers to CJ in Ontario, Quebec, BC, Alberta. Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador: Court Management Councils

9. Ch 2: How would it work? • Judicial leadership • Professionalized court services agency with a CAO of court services • Resources: still reliant on government allocations, but judicial consulted • Liaison with stakeholders will improve (Bar, “the community, including organizations representing users of the Courts”, & other branches of gov’t • Benchmarks and strategic objectives • Independent evaluation & assessment

10. Ch 3: transition process • Discussion leading to agreement in principle • Consultation (including review of judge-led systems abroad) leading to an implementation plan. Judges involved at all stages • Court governance plan that includes financial reporting, accountability mechanisms, first year budget, a dispute resolution mechanism • Legislation incorporating the above plan

11. Ch 4: Legislative Authority • Legislation is the best method of implementation • CJ should be granted responsibiltiy for managing the administrative affairs of the court, and this power may be delegated to other judges • The CAO has supervision of staff, under direction of CJ • CAO has “power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the purpose of assisting the CJ” • How would accountability work, given judicial independence?