Building on existing work, Statistics Canada conducted the Canadian Legal Issues Survey (CSPS) in 2021, which asked people to describe problems or disputes they had experienced over the past three years. The survey was conducted among individuals aged 18 and older in all ten provinces. It is important to note that a legal issue related to legal investigations includes any matter that may have legal implications or a possible legal solution, and is not limited to issues that have been addressed or resolved by the formal justice system. Given this scope, respondents were asked about a number of issues that they do not necessarily consider to be a legal issue. Yet the most poignant report came from a British Columbia man summing up his disappointment at being treated unfairly in court: “I am a First Nations person.” A majority of Canadians (57%) believe that the justice system has not done enough to address prejudice against Aboriginal Canadians. Research Co. and Glacier Media have surveyed Canadians on the current situation, and the results are not great. Across the country, just under three in 10 Canadians (29%) rate the justice system with a score of 8, 9 or 10 – including 32% of men and 31% of those aged 18 to 34. We are encouraged to learn that Manitoba Attorney General Heather Stefanson has stated that her administration is “working hard to improve justice in the province.” But change can take time. What we need immediately is a commitment from people at all levels of the justice system, including those who work for social services, to take concrete and demonstrable steps to increase the level of justice for all those accused of or victimized by a crime.

“What we want for ourselves, we want for others” also applies to criminal and social justice. The ability of citizens to resolve their most serious legal problems in a timely manner is a sign of an effective judicial system. The financial, economic and health costs of unresolved legal issues can add up and negatively impact people`s daily lives, including the impact on their employment, personal relationships, physical and mental well-being, and housing (Currie, 2016; Currie, 2009; Smith et al., 2013). From about 1931 (when Britain stopped legislating for Canada) until 1982, Canadian law operated on a principle known as parliamentary supremacy. According to this concept, there was no higher authority in the Canadian Parliament when it came to deciding what was legal and what was not. Every rule passed by Parliament was the law, and it was. Delays in the justice system are detrimental to all involved – victims, communities and accused. Because of the length of time it takes to get to trial, there are currently more people awaiting trial or sentencing in provincial jails than actually serving their sentences.

Victims and their families often have to wait years for justice and, since the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Jordan, pre-trial charges have been dismissed in some cases due to constitutionally unacceptable delays. Delays and inefficiencies make it difficult for the criminal justice system to focus on the arrest, sentencing and sentencing of serious offenders. The survey describes a country that has no confidence in the ability of courts to behave impartially. Currently, a significant proportion of Canadians perceive the justice system as lenient, elitist, understaffed and biased. High unemployment rates and the inability to find stable housing result in higher incarceration rates for those awaiting trial. When a person is accused of a crime, they are often released on their own. But if they can`t provide an address where they will live, they are more likely to be detained. And once someone is in detention, it`s much harder to get out. At this point, you need a lawyer to represent you at a bail hearing, you still need an address for your place of residence, and there is a legal principle that the defendant must be able to assist in their own defense. I saw a homeless man detained for nearly three weeks for stealing property worth less than five dollars, unable to get bail, or going to court because he could not properly instruct his lawyer due to addiction and mental health issues.

More than two in five Canadians (42 per cent) consider their last interaction with the justice system, which deals with traffic and regulatory issues such as contesting a ticket or parking offence, to be fair, while 20 per cent think it is unfair. The situation changes dramatically when Canadians are asked to assess the criminal justice system. There is no longer a double-digit advance for the concept of impartiality. While 31% of respondents say their last interaction was fair, 26% think it`s unfair – a significant change from what is seen in the other three categories. Among those who acted, the perception of the usefulness of the action varied. For example, seven in ten (70%) who contacted the other party to the conflict said it did not help solve their most serious problem (Figure 2). However, the most useful actions reported included contacting a lawyer (77%), advising friends or relatives (73%), and searching the internet (70%). Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the Canadian justice system is the overrepresentation of vulnerable populations as perpetrators and victims. Some respondents explained why they have such bad memories of their last interaction with the justice system. “The mediation process was designed to force an early resolution,” wrote one Albertan who felt he was treated unfairly in Small Claims Court.

“The company that hurt me got away with it.” Respondents who had not taken steps to resolve their most serious legal problem were asked a series of questions about why. Of the 12% who did nothing, just over half (53%) said they did not believe anything could be done to fix the problem (Table 6). Other frequently cited reasons included that they thought it would make the problem worse (19%), didn`t know what to do or where to get help (18%), and thought the process would be too stressful (18%). Overall, more than half (52%) of Canadians who had a serious problem said they did not understand the potential legal implications when they became aware of their problem. Federal and state laws that affect private rather than public interests are called civil law (not to be confused with the civil law system, see above). Unlike criminal laws, which are designed to protect all Canadians from common dangers, civil laws govern relationships between individuals or businesses. Civil laws generally govern things such as employment contracts, leases, marriages, divorces, wills, and custody agreements, and seek to protect individuals from abuse or exploitation of each other. When a Canadian sues another — which he often does, usually for tort or negligent negligence — it is civil law. The Constitution divides jurisdiction over different types of civil law between the federal and provincial governments.

In Paths to Justice, the first study of legal problems in England and Wales, Hazel Genn defined a justiciable problem as “a case experienced by a defendant that raises legal issues, whether or not it was accepted by the defendant as `legal` and whether or not any action taken by the defendant to deal with the event involved the use of part of the civil justice system.” (Genn 1999). Building on this work, researchers and organizations have continued to identify and measure justiciable problems, commonly referred to as legal problems, serious problems or everyday legal problems. Although Canada is now completely independent from Great Britain, English common law still applies to the country, as well as to the United States and other former British colonies. The common law is essentially a set of centuries-old precedents or interpretations that define many important legal concepts in the English-speaking world – from the definition of “defamation” to what it means to say that a person is “incapable of being tried in court.” These big ideas are expected to remain largely unchanged over time, although judges in Canada often need to help clarify them when particularly complex cases arise (new or clearer precedents arising from some legal cases are often referred to as case law).