The Nunavut Court of Justice - Formative Evaluation

7. Views on the Overall Effectiveness of the Nunavut Court of Justice


7. Views on the Overall Effectiveness of the Nunavut Court of Justice

7.1. Introduction

Key informants and community respondents, including members of Community Justice Committees, were asked to provide their views on the overall effectiveness of the NCJ in meeting the justice needs of Nunavummiut.

A serious concern held in common by all informants in the justice system, communities, and Community Justice Committees is the lack of programming in the territory. Respondents frequently cited the need for treatment and rehabilitative facilities for offenders and victims, preventative programs for youth, and monitoring and enforcement programming in the form of more probation services in all communities. This is not seen as the responsibility of the NCJ; however, people do understand the gaps have a direct bearing on crime and social problems, as well as on the effectiveness of the Court.

7.2. The Legal Community

There was striking unanimity among lawyers in viewing the Court as a generally strong institution which is doing the best job possible in challenging circumstances. Several lawyers commented positively on the judges' efforts as key policy drivers for initiatives to improve meaningful access to justice within and beyond the Court system.

Most lawyers indicated that the Court still faces major challenges in meeting community expectations; however, most also thought those expectations were extremely high. Some key informants observed that the Court is often a focus for dissatisfaction over broader social issues – particularly issues relating to mental health and related social problems – because the Court, unlike social services, is present in communities to deal with the ultimate fallout of untreated social ills. As noted above, the lack of health, social and education-related resources in the communities hampers the ability of the Court to be fully responsive to needs of community and culture. The lack of probation services is only part of the problem. These challenges are obviously exacerbated by the territory's geography. In general, most lawyers believe that the shortcomings of the Court were related to factors beyond the control of the Nunavut Court of Justice as an institution.

The unified Court structure has been widely accepted and is seen to be a successful innovation to improve the efficiency of justice services in the territory. Few lawyers think the Community Justice Committees are operating at their full potential, although most lawyers do not believe the NCJ has a key role in helping the Committees achieve that potential. Lawyers generally see that the Court is consistent in its effort to consider and use alternatives to incarceration. Personnel associated with the Court – including but not limited to the judges – are generally perceived within the legal community as being quite sensitive to the dynamics of culture and community in Nunavut, though there is clearly room for more Inuit personnel, particularly as lawyers, judges and senior managers. Family law is an area in which it is believed the Court has expanded and improved its services since the Court's inception in 1999. Lawyers perceive that the area of civil justice is one where Nunavummiut continue to have very limited access, with no resident lawyers, no small claims procedures, and few community-based alternatives.

Overall, the Court was highly rated by lawyers in terms of its ability to process individual cases with a relatively high degree of efficiency, fairness and sensitivity. The NCJ is also seen positively with respect to its progressiveness and the steps taken towards change and reform in the interests of better serving Nunavummiut.

7.3. Community Members and Community Justice Committees

Community members who had input to the evaluation generally expressed positive views of the NCJ. There appears to be a certain sense of ownership that has developed since 1999. While expectations are high, as noted above, many community members appear to believe that the Court can solve social problems because it is the administrative institution in which they have most faith and which they respect most highly. In many communities, it is also the administrative body that they see most regularly.

Community respondents frequently cited the compatibility of the Court with the needs of communities. For example, judges were praised for instituting elder and youth panels and for respecting the participants on those panels. Members of Community Justice Committees recognize the importance of the Court – through the Crown prosecutors – permitting cases to be diverted from the Court to the Committees.

Community members do have concerns, however – not explicitly with the NCJ but more generally with the justice system as a whole. As discussed earlier in this report, community residents are often frustrated by the time it takes to process a case. Respondents often define this problem as delays due to inefficiencies in the system, and in many communities, to too few circuits. As noted above, many community members talked of the stress of having to wait for the circuit Court to arrive, possibly months after an incident. Again, this is particularly difficult in domestic abuse cases because it can bring to the fore issues that have been resolved through reconciliation.

Members of Community Justice Committees generally believe the Court is doing a good job but often want more pre- and post-charge cases diverted to their Committee. (Committees recognize that pre-charge diversions are the responsibility of the RCMP.) The same Committees usually want to be able to take on more mediation, although they cite time requirements as a possible hindrance. Committees also say they require training in mediation techniques and more effective administrative support in order to realize their full potential.[46]

7.4. Summary: Overall Effectiveness of the Nunavut Court of Justice

Both practitioners and community residents, including members of Community Justice Committees, see the NCJ as having improved greatly in service delivery since 1999 and as an effective institution that is doing well under very challenging circumstances. While improvements can still be made – for example, more circuits, further decreasing case processing times, and increasing the responsibility of Community Justice Committees – most respondents are satisfied with current standards in the administration of justice and in court operations.

Respondents were unanimously concerned about the lack of community-based programming, including probation services. This is understood not to be the responsibility of the NCJ, and it is generally recognized that the primary issue is a lack of resources. However, practitioners and community members see the problem as affecting the administration of justice.

[46] The desire of Community Justice Committees to take on more responsibility varies by community. In some communities, the Committees are experienced and have the support of community residents; in others, the Committee may be new and relatively inexperienced and thus not comfortable with additional responsibilities in the near future. The Committees included in this review in Pangnirtung, Qikiqtarjuaq, Rankin Inlet and Iqaluit all expressed a desire for more referrals and to handle mediations.