Canadian jury duty

[phreesh]

I live in Canada and my coworker just got called in for jury duty.

In my limited experience, this is fairly common in the US, with most people getting called in and some doing it multiple times. This is a common television trope. Americans could you confirm/deny this?

In Canada, in my experience, this is incredibly rare. I only know this one person who has ever served. I know many senior citizens who have never served. Canadians, am I living in a bubble or is it really rare to get called in for jury duty?

Assuming my two assumptions are true, what gives? Why is jury duty so much more common in the States? I know we have different legal systems, but am pretty ignorant of the differences. Perhaps we have far fewer jury hearings? Perhaps we have far fewer trials per capita? That’s my guess.

Anyway, I’d love some insight. Thanks.

[md2000]

In Canada it is very rare to get called for jury duty. It happened to me once in 30 years - and then was cancelled. Apparently it was a game of chicken between he defense and the crown over a plea deal, and within a few weeks, someone caved with a month to go.

My wife got called once too, recently - and excused when she asked how it would affect her night course committment.

In Canada the laws were amended to remove that pesky option that our peers can ensure justice is done; I’ve gotten in trouble on other threads for misstating the details, but I believe the current law says that a jury trial is only an option if the maximum sentence is 5 years or more. IIRC, this happened about the time of Trudeau.

there’s also the option of a jury trial depending on how the charges are laid IIRC, I’m sure a Canadian lawyer can chime in with the exact details.

So where the Americans often have jury trials over the most trivial of offenses, Canadian crown prosecutors are insulated from having to allow the real world sentiments of the general public infuse the courtroom with common sense. (I also suspect that a lot of cases are filed as the less serious charges simply to avoid having to allow a perp the opportunity of a jury trial.)

However, Stephen Harper may manage to change this system if he follows through on his threat/promise to make far more crimes result in higher sentences.

Also, if you do not live near one of the larger cities where these major trials are usually heard, you may also not be summoned for jury duy.

[hogarth]

As noted above (with many rhetorical flourishes), jury trials are less common in Canada.

My mother served on a jury once about 20 years ago, but that’s the only person I’ve ever personally known who has been called for jury duty.

[md2000]

Maybe as a counterpoint, how trivial a charge warrants a jury trial in most of the USA? Theft, shoplifting, drug possession?

[suranyi]

Another thing: How are civil cases handled in Canada? In the US, the majority of jury trials nowadays are for civil cases, not criminal. The US is more litigious than Canada, which is probably a factor.

[md2000]

@suranyi

Another thing: How are civil cases handled in Canada? In the US, the majority of jury trials nowadays are for civil cases, not criminal. The US is more litigious than Canada, which is probably a factor.

A lot of the litigation in the USA starts on the premise that, on top of everything else, you owe me a huge amount for medical bills. Not a problem in Canada, virtually no medical bills. You have an acident, what are you going to sue for? IIRC, pain and suffering is not a big money-maker in Canada. Plus, most law societies are hostile to the idea of contingency fees, so you need to be able to afford a lawyer; and if you lose, you pay the other guy’s legal bills in almost every case - something the USA should do. It encourages careful examination of the case before filing.

I recall a class-action attempt a few years ago where the judge basically told the group unless they could post a bond for the amount of the other side’s potential legal bills, he would disallow the case, since it was pretty weak to start with.

[elbows]

I was notified that I was going into the pool, but was never called. Then I moved to a new address. Nothing since. But I do know people who have done it.

[the_Lady]

I have been called twice, but managed to get out of it. (first time I was just 18, getting paid by the hour. Second time I was at the end of mat leave, and didn’t have child care) A coworker was called and considered for a fairly high profile gang murder trial, but was not ultimately chosen.

[Loach]

Yeah I was going to say you also have a large jury pool for civil trials.

I have been called several times during my adulthood. Never got past the “call this number to see if you have to come in” stage. Many years in between each jury notice.

[Esox_Lucius]

I was named to a jury pool once. It was for a limited time (three months, I think) and got called for jury selection just once in that time, and the jury was selected before my number was called. There were about 150 of us in the pool, so the odds of getting picked for actual duty were quite small.

[Sparky812]

I’ve been called twice, the first time I was selected immediately as juror #1 for a week long trial, the second time my name wasn’t called.
I know a large number of people that have been called but excused due to their occupation, student status, politics, personal reasons, etc… Most public servants, doctors, nurses, teachers, etc. are excused because they would best serve the public good remaining at their place of employment.

I quite enjoyed my term on a jury but one of my benefits is paid leave while on jury duty, I really sympathized with other jurors who were forced to be there but were losing pay at their own jobs, especially as the trial dragged on and we were almost sequestered for our deliberations.

[hogarth]

@suranyi

Another thing: How are civil cases handled in Canada? In the US, the majority of jury trials nowadays are for civil cases, not criminal. The US is more litigious than Canada, which is probably a factor.

According to the Dep’t of Justice web site, “Most civil cases in Canada are tried by judges without a jury.”

[Northern_Piper]

@md2000

In Canada the laws were amended to remove that pesky option that our peers can ensure justice is done; I’ve gotten in trouble on other threads for misstating the details, but I believe the current law says that a jury trial is only an option if the maximum sentence is 5 years or more. IIRC, this happened about the time of Trudeau.

Yes, you’ve got in trouble before on this topic, not because of minor disagreements about details, but because you’re flat out WRONG!

Here’s my post from the previous thread where you stated your WRONG opinions as facts:

@Northern Piper

@md2000

(IANAL…) Pierre Trudeau’s government basically eliminated the right to a jury trial unless the offense(s) charged was punishable by 7 years or more, IIRC. The commentary at the time was that jury trials were too difficult and expensive, and juries did not always do what the prosecutor wanted; while judges were less likely to be swayed from the letter of the law by details like sympathy and common decency, aka natural justice

md2000, your comment is simply nonsensical and wrong.

The Criminal Code provides that offences can be prosecuted in one of two ways: by summary conviction, or by indictment.

The two main differences between summary conviction and indictment are in the penalty and in the manner of trial. If the Crown proceeds by way of summary conviction, the trial is by judge alone, in the Provincial Court. However, the general rule is that the maximum jail time is six months, as set out in s. 787(1) of the Code:

**General penalty

787.** (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, everyone who is convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to both.

Thus, if the Crown is seeking a penalty of more than six months’ imprisonment, the Crown must proceed by way of indictment.

The basic principle for trials by indictment is set out in s. 471 of the Code:

**Trial by jury compulsory

471.** Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, every accused who is charged with an indictable offence shall be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury.

(My underlining.)

So, the starting point for charges where the accused faces more than six months’ imprisonment is that the trial will be by jury.

Now, that doesn’t mean that all trials on indictment will actually be by jury, because the Code gives the accused, not the Crown, the power to elect trial by judge alone.

This principle is set out in s. 536 of the Code, which provides:

536
(2) If an accused is before a justice charged with an indictable offence, other than an offence listed in section 469, and the offence is not one over which a provincial court judge has absolute jurisdiction under section 553, the justice shall, after the information has been read to the accused, put the accused to an election in the following words:

You have the option to elect to be tried by a provincial court judge without a jury and without having had a preliminary inquiry;

or you may elect to be tried by a judge without a jury;

or you may elect to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury.

If you do not elect now, you are deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury.

If you elect to be tried by a judge without a jury or by a court composed of a judge and jury or if you are deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury, you will have a preliminary inquiry only if you or the prosecutor requests one. How do you elect to be tried?

(My indents and underlining to help make a block of text more readable).

So, it’s up to the accused to elect not to have a trial by judge and jury, not the Crown. And if the accused fails to make an election, the default is again a trial by judge and jury.

(The reference to offences listed in s. 469, by the way, refers to the most serious offences, such as murder, which must be tried in the superior court. It is possible to have a trial by judge alone in those cases as well, but only if both the accused and the Crown consent to trial by judge alone; see s. 473(1).).

Thus, the basic principle of Canadian criminal procedure is that in cases where the accused is facing more than six months’ imprisonment, the accused has the right to a jury trial. The accused can waive that right, but the Crown cannot take away the accused’s right to a jury.

There is only one case where the Crown can override the accused’s election with respect to manner of trial, but it goes the other way: if the accused is facing more than 5 years’ imprisonment and has elected trial by judge alone, the Attorney General can require that the trial be by judge and jury, as set out in s. 568:

**Attorney General may require trial by jury

568.** Even if an accused elects under section 536 or re-elects under section 561 or subsection 565(2) to be tried by a judge or provincial court judge, as the case may be, the Attorney General may require the accused to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury unless the alleged offence is one that is punishable with imprisonment for five years or less. If the Attorney General so requires, a judge or provincial court judge has no jurisdiction to try the accused under this Part and a preliminary inquiry must be held if requested under subsection 536(4), unless one has already been held or the re-election was made under subsection 565(2).

So, far from giving the Crown the power to deny the accused a right to a jury, the Code says that in certain cases the Attorney General may insist on a trial by jury.

And what does Pierre Trudeau have to do with any of this? well, nothing with respect to these provisions of the Criminal Code. They aren’t new - they were the law before he became Prime Minister and continued to be so after he left office, without any change.

The only thing Mr Trudeau had to do with jury trials was to ensure that the right to a jury trial is enshrined in the Constitution, in s. 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

**Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

11.** Any person charged with an offence has the right
…
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

In other words, Mr Trudeau turned what had been a statutory right to a jury into a constitutional right, to bar Parliament from taking away the right to a jury trial, in cases where the potential punishment is more than 5 years.

Hardly the action of someone with “Dictatorial tendencies” - to entrench the right to a jury trial in the Constitution.

So to summarise:

1. The Charter guarantees the right to a jury trial for any offence where the penalty is more than 5 years;

2. Parliament has gone further than the constitutional minimum and has provided that anyone who tried by indictment (generally speaking, an offence carrying more than six months imprisonment) has a right to a jury;

3. A jury trial is the default for indictable matters;

4. It’s the right of the accused to elect not to have a jury trial in indictable matters;

5. The Crown cannot take away the right to a jury; in certain cases, the Crown can compel a jury trial;

6. Trudeau did not take away any rights to a jury trial; he entrenched the right to a jury for offences of more than 5 years’ imprisonment in the Charter, as a constitutional guarantee.

md2000, please stop spreading misinformation!

[Northern_Piper]

Link to the previous thread: A question about jury dismissals; my post is post 17

[Northern_Piper]

@md2000

So where the Americans often have jury trials over the most trivial of offenses, Canadian crown prosecutors are insulated from having to allow the real world sentiments of the general public infuse the courtroom with common sense.

Another WRONG statement, md2000 - as discussed above, Crown prosecutors are not insulated from having juries - if they charge by indictment (generally an offence of more than 6 months’ imprisonment), the accused has the right to a jury.

(I also suspect that a lot of cases are filed as the less serious charges simply to avoid having to allow a perp the opportunity of a jury trial.)

And do you have anything to back this up, other than your own speculation and prejudices? you know, like a cite or something that shows any scintilla of reality-based knowledge?

[Northern_Piper]

@suranyi

Another thing: How are civil cases handled in Canada? In the US, the majority of jury trials nowadays are for civil cases, not criminal. The US is more litigious than Canada, which is probably a factor.

It depends on the jurisdiction. There are no civil jury trials in either the Federal Court or the Province of Quebec. In all the other provinces and territories, there is a right to a jury trial in some civil matters, and it is an option in some other civil matters. Exactly how it works will depend on the laws in each province and territory.

[Northern_Piper]

@md2000

Plus, most law societies are hostile to the idea of contingency fees

Another WRONG statement by md2000.

To quote wikipedia on contingency fees:

Canada

Contingent fee agreements are legal in some provinces of Canada (Alberta, British Columbia (except in family law cases involving child custody or access),[3] Ontario[4] and Quebec among others). In other Canadian provinces, an attorney may collect a percentage of recovery in case of a victory but must charge an hourly fee otherwise.

To those four provinces specifically mentioned, I would add Saskatchewan, which also allows contingency fees. When you add those five provinces together, they have 89.1% of the Canadian population (Source: Wikipedia: List of Canadian Provinces and Territories by Population), so contingency fees are very common in Canada.

[mnemosyne]

Thank you, Northern Piper that was very informative.

[foolsguinea]

I don’t think jury duty is really that common in the USA, either. I had an acquaintance who was called in once; she bragged about getting excused by claiming to have several friends on the police force.

[SpoilerVirgin]

@foolsguinea

I don’t think jury duty is really that common in the USA, either.

According to this Harris Poll, 65% of Americans have been called to jury duty, 44% have attended, and 24% have actually served on a jury. In my office, which pays for 180 days of service, many people have served. I personally have been called 4 times and served twice, once on a civil case, and once on a criminal (first degree murder) case. Although the average trial lasts only a few days, both of my cases lasted about six weeks.