 |
| John L. Hill |
Last year, on June 4, this bill passed its third reading in the Senate. It had been reviewed by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI). The Moncion bill, known as S-252, was then sent to the House of Commons before being enacted into law. However, S-252 perished with the call of a national election, necessitating its recent reintroduction in the Senate.
The designation of the second week of May as National Jury Duty Appreciation Week is a gesture that, while seemingly commendable, raises legitimate concerns about the priorities and effectiveness of public policy and civic recognition. While the jury system is viewed by many as an essential component of democratic governance and justice, proclaiming an entire week to “appreciate” jurors risks being more symbolic than substantive. A critical examination of this observance reveals that it does little to address the systemic issues facing jury duty and may even obscure the need for more meaningful reform.
One of the primary criticisms of National Jury Duty Appreciation Week is that it attempts to gloss over real and persistent problems within the jury system. In complex criminal cases, such as those involving charges of murder or drug conspiracy, proceedings can drag on for weeks. Juror compensation is notoriously low, often far below minimum wage, making it difficult for low-income individuals to serve without experiencing financial hardship. Employers are not always required to provide paid leave for jury duty, prompting many potential jurors to seek exemptions. Simply dedicating a week to “appreciate” jurors does nothing to address these issues. If policymakers truly valued jurors, they would advocate for fair compensation, job protection and logistical support, such as childcare and transportation assistance.
Declaring a week for jury duty appreciation can also be seen as a form of civic tokenism. Rather than fostering deeper engagement with the legal system or promoting broader civic education, this week usually involves little more than superficial thank yous, social media posts or ceremonial statements. Such gestures may even serve to appease public demands for structural changes by creating the illusion of progress. Genuine appreciation for jurors would require integrating civic education into school curricula, making the jury selection process more transparent, and ensuring that jury pools accurately reflect the population.
One might expect that, with the proliferation of special days and weeks dedicated to honouring particular causes, introducing yet another special week would render it meaningless. Beginning the week before Mother’s Day, we are invited to participate in Puppy Mill Action Week. The second week in May is already designated for Brain Injury Awareness Week. Later in the month, we observe Queer and Transgender Asian American/Pacific Islander Week. It would be unfortunate if certain communities failed to gain recognition due to the overwhelming number of special causes. In championing a special week, we must ensure that it does not get lumped in with other specialty concerns, which could invite criticism that it is merely a meaningless pat on the back to a group worthy of real praise.
National Jury Duty Appreciation Week also reflects a broader trend of being selective in recognizing other aspects of Canadian civic life. Why, for instance, is there no comparable week of appreciation for public defenders, courtroom interpreters or low-level clerks who ensure the justice system operates effectively? Focusing exclusively on jurors, many of whom may be reluctant participants, can suggest a misplaced prioritization that does little to foster holistic respect for the judicial process. Genuine reform would involve acknowledging and supporting the entire ecosystem of individuals who uphold justice, not just those at the most visible level.
While expressing gratitude is never inherently wrong, National Jury Duty Appreciation Week serves as an example of a well-intentioned initiative that may do more to mask problems than solve them. If the goal is to strengthen the jury system and encourage civic participation, the focus should shift from symbolic gestures to tangible reforms. Juror compensation, access, diversity and education are the areas that warrant serious attention, not just a week of appreciation. Until those systemic issues are addressed, National Jury Duty Appreciation Week will remain an empty celebration, underscoring the gap between rhetoric and reality in our civic life.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the [True Crime] Story (AOS Publishing). The Rest of the [True Crime] Story has been shortlisted for a prestigious Brass Knuckles Award, which is the Crime Writers’ of Canada’s prize for best nonfiction crime book of the year. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.