'Optimal arrangement' of local jury may have to yield to 'circumstantial practicalities'
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that a jury selected from the panel may not be drawn from the place the trial is to be heard due to circumstantial practicalities.
In Hunter v. King, 2022 ONCA 190, Hunter’s vehicle was struck from behind by King’s vehicle in Brampton. Since King admitted liability, the issue for trial was damages for loss of income. Regional Senior Judge Peter Daley presided over the exit-pretrial conference at the beginning of the civil trial blitz. Since there might be no courtroom available in Brampton, Daley advised counsel that the trial “may be sent” to Kitchener. No party objected to the transfer of the case to Kitchener, nor to the jury being selected from the Brampton panel. The jury favoured the respondent and did not award damages.
On appeal, Hunter argued that the court lacked authority to send a jury selected in Brampton to a trial convened in Kitchener, resulting in an improperly constituted jury.
The appellate court disagreed.
At the outset, there is a presumption of regularity in the logistical and administrative decisions made by local judges, said the court. While prevailing case law states that “the optimal arrangement is that the jury is selected from the panel drawn from the place the trial is to be heard,” the appellate court ruled that this must sometimes yield to circumstantial practicalities.
The appellate court rejected Hunter’s argument that there was a miscarriage of justice due to the lack of jurisdiction. “The trial of a Brampton action about an accident that occurred in Brampton by a jury selected from the Brampton panel and not from a Kitchener panel would not be seen by a reasonable person as a miscarriage of justice,” said the court, adding that only practical negative effect was a longer commute for some jurors. This was no basis for declaring a miscarriage of justice, said the court in dismissing the appeal.
