Task Force on Courthouse Facilities Survey Report REGION OF SUDBURY

Transcription

1 Task Force on Courthouse Facilities Survey Report REGION OF SUDBURY Group 3 APPENDIX ATTACHED

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS REGION OF SUDBURY SUMMARY: SUPERIOR COURT (SUDBURY) SUMMARY: REPORT: ONTARIO COURT (SUDBURY) SUMMARY: REPORT:

3 County or District: Sudbury Superior Court of Justice 155 Elm Street, Sudbury, Ontario Reported on by: Collaborating Parties: Edward James Conroy Patricia Lynn Meehan Regional Senior Justice Jan Gordon Sgt. J. Bignucolo Chief A. McCauley Ontario Court of Justice 159 Cedar Street, Sudbury, Ontario Reported on by: Collaborating Parties: Sgt. J. Bignucolo Edward James Conroy Chief A. McCauley 1

4 County or District: Sudbury Summary: Six completed survey questionnaires were received from the, providing details on one Superior courthouses (Sudbury) and one Ontario courthouse (Sudbury). Separate parties answered each questionnaire. The is approximately 7,500 square miles. The sites of the courthouses are described as adequately suited to the needs of the local population. A practical solution would be immediate plans to integrate the two sites and create a larger, safer building at the Elm Street location. Encroachment on the use of the facility for the administration of justice by other government or private users is perceived as a problem in the Superior Court. Superior Court (Sudbury) Problems are described as arising from insufficient administrative space and inadequate security in the building. The Crown attorneys offices are inadequate to meet existing needs. There are security issues relating to the holding facilities. The overall level of security in the courthouse is described as poor. There are also an insufficient number of lawyer-client meeting rooms in this courthouse. A lack of free parking is a problem for courthouse users. There are health and safety issues associated with this facility. A Legal Aid office is required and the library is inadequate for current needs. Ontario Court (Sudbury) This courthouse seems to be adequate to meet existing needs. The holding facilities are inadequate and the insufficient number of cells is a security issue. With respect to the future needs of these courts, the majority of respondents suggested a consolidated courthouse facility would better accommodate the needs of the Region of Sudbury. It is, however, more cost effective to renovate the existing building and to maintain the two separate courthouses. 2

5 County or District: Level of Court: Courthouse Address: Sudbury Superior Court of Justice 155 Elm Street, Sudbury Summary: Three parties reported the courthouse is in declining general repair. Interior facilities are in adequate repair and are adequately maintained. With respect to offices and facilities, the Crown attorneys offices are inadequate to meet existing needs. There are an insufficient number of lawyer-client meeting rooms in this courthouse. There are health and safety issues associated with this facility. Disabled access is alternately described as adequate and poor. A Legal Aid office is required and the library is inadequate for current needs. Another specific problem with respect to the facility relates to security in the building. There have been ineffectively handled security-related incidents during the past three years. There are security issues with respect to the holding facilities. The overall level of security for courthouse staff, Crown officers, judges and lawyers is generally described as poor. The judges have to travel through public halls packed with people to come to the courtrooms. In family law cases, where people are sometimes volatile, that is frightening on occasion. In terms of future needs, although a new, consolidated courthouse would be ideal, an addition to the existing facility would meet the needs of the. However, consultation with courthouse users on the design and planning of such an addition is necessary to ensure adequate facilities. If any additions or renovations are to be done or considered, there must be representatives from the local Bar Association included in the process. They are the individuals together with the judiciary who can best assess needs, use of space, etcetera. We have a fairly new space for the Ontario Court of Justice, but no lawyers were consulted when the space was designed. Problems such as lack of areas for others who work at the courthouse, such as parental support workers and CAS workers, have meant problems with the space. 3

6 Report: 1. Use of this Courthouse Three parties reported the courthouse is used for criminal, family law and civil matters. One party reported it is used for criminal and civil matters only. There are no user statistics available. 2. External Features and Repairs The courthouse is not a historical/heritage building. Three parties reported it is in declining repair, while one party reported it is in good repair. Internal aspects of the building used by the public (excluding courtrooms and washroom facilities) are in adequate repair. Three parties reported housekeeping is adequate and one party reported it is poor. 3. Ownership and Control The building is owned by the Ministry of the Attorney General and operated by the Ontario Realty Corporation. The facility is not subject to a lease. One party reported there have been renovations in the last 10 years, while two parties reported there have been no renovations. One party reported there are renovations planned in the next two years and three parties reported there are no planned renovations. Two parties reported there is no user committee for the facility, while one party reported there is a user committee and the local law association is a member. It is unknown if the user committee has been effective in addressing the courthouse s needs as it was only recently implemented. Two parties reported the relationship between the lawyer users of the facility and the Ontario Realty Corporation is bad and one party reported it is reasonable. Issues involving encroachment on the use of the facility for the administration of justice include: The Municipality may be looking at using the facilities to prosecute municipal offences. There is insufficient room at present and to have an additional entity using the same facility would compound the problem; Pension appeals, Labour Board and inquests are being held at this courthouse. The top three issues related to the facility were described as follows: Lack of space; There is little security for judges, lawyers and the existing security is inadequate; The building is old, cramped and becoming more congested. There is no expectation on the part of the respondents that the any of these issues will be resolved in the next three years. 4

7 4. Courtrooms Two parties reported there are five Superior Courtrooms available in the facility, one party reported there are four Superior Courtrooms and one party reported there are three and a half Superior courtrooms. Three parties reported there are two Ontario Courtrooms available in the facility and one party reported there are four Ontario Courtrooms. Two parties reported none of the courtrooms are shared, while one party reported four courtrooms are shared. Three parties reported courtroom facilities are insufficient to accommodate reasonable growth and demand and one party reported they are sufficient. Superior Courtroom A is described as adequate. Two parties described the disabled access, air-conditioning and private exit for the judge as poor. One party described the jury box, retiring rooms for the judge, cleanliness, acoustics, clerk/reporter facilities, prisoner box, general appearance and state of repair and electronic security for the judge as poor. Aspects of the facility that are described as non-existent include a private exit for the accused in custody, phones for the clerks and video-conferencing facilities. Superior Courtroom J is described as adequate. Two parties described the prisoner box, public seating capacity, general appearance and state of repair, acoustics, disabled access, air-conditioning and private exit for the judge as poor. One party described the jury box, witness box, cleanliness, counsel table and electronic security alarm for the judge as poor. Aspects of the facility that are described as non-existent include a private exit for the accused in custody, retiring room for the judge, phones for the clerks and videoconferencing facilities. Two parties described the private exit for the judge as nonexistent, while one party described it as poor. One party described the electronic security alarm for the judge as non-existent, while one party described it as poor. Superior Courtroom L is described by one party as adequate only with respect to the bench and counsel table. Two parties described the counsel table, prisoner box, retiring room for the judge, acoustics and disabled access as poor. One party described the airconditioning, clerk/reporter facilities, jury box, witness box, public seating capacity, general appearance and state of repair and cleanliness as poor. Non-existent amenities include phones for the clerks and a private exit for the accused in custody. One party described the private exit for the judge as non-existent, while one party described it as poor. One party described the electronic security alarm for the judge as non-existent, while one party described it as poor. One party described the video-conferencing facilities as poor, while two parties described them as non-existent. Superior Courtroom G or H is described as adequate. One party described the cleanliness, acoustics and disabled access as poor. Two parties described the bench, counsel table, clerk/reporter facilities, witness box, general appearance and state of repair and air-conditioning as poor. Three parties described the public seating capacity as poor. Aspects of the facility that are described as non-existent include a retiring room for the judge, private exit for the accused in custody, phones for the clerks and videoconferencing facilities. One party described the prisoner box as poor, while two parties 5

8 described it as non-existent. One party described the private exit for the judge as poor, while one party described it as non-existent. One party described the electronic security alarm for the judge as poor, while one party described it as non-existent. Only two parties reported on the Ontario Courtrooms. Ontario Courtroom B was described as adequate. Both parties described the counsel table, general appearance and state of repair, acoustics and disabled access as poor. One party described the bench, clerk/reporter facilities, jury box, witness box, prisoner box, private exit for the judge, cleanliness and air-conditioning as poor. Non-existent amenities include a retiring room for the judge and a private exit for the accused in custody. One party described the electronic security alarm for the judge as poor, while the other party described it as nonexistent. One party described the phones for the clerks as poor, while the other party described them as non-existent. One party described the video-conferencing facilities as adequate, while the other party described them as non-existent. Ontario Courtroom C was described as adequate. Both parties described the counsel table, electronic security alarm for the judge, general appearance and state of repair, acoustics and disabled access as poor. One party described the bench, clerk/reporter facilities, witness box, prisoner box, public seating capacity and cleanliness as poor. Non-existent amenities include a retiring room for the judge. One party described the private exit for the judge, private exit for the accused in custody and phones for the clerks as poor, while the other party described them as non-existent. One party described the video-conferencing facilities as non-existent, while the other party described them as poor. 5. Lawyer-Client Meeting Rooms Three parties reported there are lawyer-client meeting rooms in the courthouse,, while one party reported there are none. The number of lawyer-client rooms is inadequate to meet reasonable demand. Two parties reported the rooms are reasonably proximate to the courts, while one party reported they are not. Two parties reported they provide reasonable privacy, while the other party reported they do not. One party reported they are reasonable furnished, while two parties reported they are not. 6. Jury Facilities There is not a jury room for each court equipped for jury trials. Jury rooms do not have a private entrance to the courtroom. Two parties reported they are inadequate in size. One party reported they are inadequately furnished. Jury rooms have washroom facilities. Two parties reported the jury uses public facilities in the courthouse, while one party reported they do not. Two parties reported there is a jury room available that is adequately furnished, while one party reported there is not. There is basically only one jury room for the entire courthouse. The jury is exposed to the public when entering or exiting the courtrooms. 6

9 Two parties reported the jury uses facilities in common with other users of the courthouse and this presents a problem. Lawyers and the public use the hallway and there is little security for the jury or for lawyers when using the jury room or barrister s lounges. The public has access to all areas of the courthouse except for some judge s offices, Crown offices and cells. 7. Public/Witness Accommodation Seating for the public and witnesses outside the courtrooms is insufficient. Persons in custody are required to pass through a public area to access courtrooms. Two parties reported there are refreshment facilities, consisting of vending machines, in the courthouse, while two parties reported there are none. They are inadequate for the public s needs. A coffee room or something would be helpful. A cafeteria would be nice but likely will never be put in because of the lack of space in the existing building. Two parties reported men s and women s washroom facilities are adequate, while two parties reported they are poor. One party reported there are public access problems associated with this facility. Wheelchairs must completely circumnavigate the building to get back door access. The courthouse is accessible by public transit and adequate paid parking is available within a reasonable distance. The lack of free parking presents a problem. It can be expensive for lawyers, client and particularly jurors and witnesses. If the parking area is full, there is little or no other parking. One party reported there are health and safety issues associated with this facility with respect to air-conditioning gases, moulds, former asbestos and frayed carpets. 8. Accessibility for Disabled Persons Two parties described disabled access as adequate and two parties described it as poor. The building has a functioning elevator. 9. Holding Cells Two parties reported there are four holding cells in the courthouse,, while one party reported there are three cells. There are separate facilities for men and women, segregated cells, segregated facilities for holding youth in custody and washroom facilities. One party reported the holding cells are in an adequate state of repair,, while one party reported they are in poor repair. Two parties reported there is direct private access to the courts from the holding facilities. There is a security issue with respect to these holding facilities. Almost any prisoner who wished could run or attack a witness or counsel. One party reported there are adequate conference facilities for private, secure solicitor-client meetings,, while the other party reported there are no such facilities. 7

10 10. Lawyers Facilities There is a lounge or similar space for the exclusive use of lawyers and there are private phone facilities for the lawyers. Separate gowning facilities are available for men and women. The men s facility has both locker and washroom facilities. One party described it as generally adequate, in an adequate state of general maintenance, while two parties described it as generally inadequate, in an inadequate state of general maintenance. The women s facility has no washroom facilities. Two parties reported the women s facility has lockers, while one party reported it does not. Two parties described it generally inadequate and one party described it as in an adequate state of general maintenance. 11. Judges Chambers/Facilities One party reported the courthouse has eight judges chambers, one party reported there are seven chambers and one party reported there are five. Two parties reported none of the chambers are shared, while one party reported one chamber is shared. Only one party reported it is adequate for the needs of the Superior Court judges and the Ontario Court judges. Two parties reported the number of judges chambers is insufficient to accommodate reasonably foreseeable growth, while one party reported it is sufficient. Only one party reported they are inadequately furnished. The judges chambers do not provide for secure access to and egress from each court. 12. Crown Attorney Offices The building houses offices for the Crown attorneys, which do not accommodate current needs. Crown attorneys, witness protection people and clerical staff are falling over each other and storage is non-existent. There is a need for more witness rooms and victim s rooms. There are currently no plans that will be implemented within the next three years to accommodate existing needs. The Crown facilities have a separate office security system. It is unknown if it is operated after hours but it is considered inadequate by the Crown s office. 13a. Other Administrative Space/Use: Court Administration The courthouse contains administration offices, which are adequate to meet existing needs. The administrative facilities are better than those of anyone else. 13b. Other Administrative Space/Use: Court Reporters Offices Two parties reported there are court reporter offices, which are adequate to meet existing needs. One party reported there are none. 13c. Other Administrative Space/Use: Duty Counsel One party reported there are duty counsel facilities, which are inadequate for existing needs. There are basically three rooms in various areas of the courthouse which re used witnesses, lawyers, clients, duty counsel, etc. Often they are in use for one thing when 8

11 needed for another. Sometimes used for prisoners. There is no Family Law Information Centre. 13d. Other Administrative Space/Use: Legal Aid A Legal Aid office is required and does not exist in the building. 13e. Other Administrative Space/Use: Victim/Witness Assistance Program There is a Victim/Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) office, which is inadequate to meet current needs. There is no witness room in the facility. The courthouse cannot currently accommodate integrated justice facilities. 13f. Other Administrative Space/Use: Media There is no media room and one is required. 14. Libraries The courthouse has a library facility. Two parties reported it is needed and used by members of the Bar, Crown attorneys and the Bench. One party reported it is not required. A librarian works on-site and computer facilities are available. There is insufficient space within the library for lawyers to work. One party reported it is adequate to meet existing needs, while two parties reported it is not adequate. The space allotted for the library is insufficient for the number of persons utilizing same. There is also insufficient space to house necessary books and information. The County and District Law Association and the jointly administer the library. One party reported there are current issues with respect to utilization of space by the library. The lawyers would like additional space to work, meet with clients, witnesses, etc. and for the library. 15. Other Security Matters Two parties described the overall level of security as poor for judges, courthouse staff and the general public. One party described it as poor for Crown officers, lawyers and persons under custody. One party described it as very poor for lawyers. Every class of user must mix with every other class of user in tight hallways. Two parties reported there is an issue with respect to court security for the Bar, Crown attorneys, the judiciary, court staff and the public. One party reported there is an issue with respect to court security for the police. There is no metal detector and police are regularly posted at the building. Security officers do not service the courthouse 24-hours a day and there is no burglar alarm system. Two parties reported there are insufficient court security officers on duty. Security systems and resources have not diminished during the past three years. 9

12 Ineffectively handled security- related incidents have occurred during the past three years. Some exhibits have gone missing and some have ended up stored in inappropriate places. 16. Prospects and Future Needs Three parties indicated a new, consolidated facility would be ideal to meet the needs of the ; however, an addition to the existing building would suffice. It would certainly be more convenient for judges, lawyers and staff, not to mention the public, if Sudbury had one courthouse at one location which included all the needed facilities. To do so would improve the administration of justice and certainly lessen confusion amongst the member of the public. It is, however, more cost effective to renovate the existing building and to maintain the two separate courthouses. It is unlikely this requirement will be met within the next five years. It may be cynical, but we are so used to being passed over in Northern Ontario when it comes to courthouse facilities, that there is little belief or faith that things will improve. One party suggested an addition to the existing courthouse would accommodate existing needs. There is not enough space in the existing facility. We have the room (land) for an addition and given the age of the building and the problems, an addition should be built. A new courthouse would be nice but an addition would be less expensive and likely address most needs. With respect to future needs, we require an addition, either up or out or use outdoor courtyard space between two wings of the building and join the two wings. We need additional modern courtrooms with judges rooms attached and lawyers or witness rooms attached or nearby. The law library needs to be expanded and security much improved. 10

13 District or County: Level of Court: Courthouse Address: Sudbury Ontario Court of Justice 159 Cedar Street, Sudbury Summary: The courthouse building is in a declining state of repair and interior facilities are in adequate repair. The facilities appear to be adequate to meet existing needs, however, the survey for this courthouse was only partially completed. There is a security concern with respect to the holding facilities as they are in poor repair and there are an insufficient number of cells. 11

14 Report: 1. Use of this Courthouse One party reported the courthouse is used for criminal, family law, civil matters and small claims. One party reported it is used for criminal, family law and civil matters. There are no user statistics available. 2. External Features and Repairs The courthouse building is in a declining state of repair. Internal aspects of the building used by the public (excluding courtrooms and washrooms) are in adequate repair and housekeeping is adequate. 3. Ownership and Control The building is publicly owned by a provincial ministry and operated by the Ontario Realty Corporation. The facility is not subject to a lease. One party reported the building has been renovated in the last 10 years. Renovations are planned for the next two years to add a new spousal abuse court. There is a user committee for the facility and the local law association is a member. It has only recently been implemented and it is unknown if it has been ineffective in addressing the needs of this facility. There are no issues involving encroachment on the use of the facility for the administration of justice. The top three issues related to the facility were described as follows: Both courthouses should be under one roof; Interview rooms are almost non-existent; There is not a sufficient number of holding cells. There is no expectation on the part of the respondents that any of these issues will be resolved in the next three years. 4. Courtrooms One party reported there are four Superior Courtrooms in the facility, while one party reported there are three Ontario Courtrooms. Courtroom facilities are not sufficient to accommodate foreseeable growth and demand. Only one party reported on the courtrooms. Ontario Courtroom Number One is described as adequate. The witness box, prisoner box, phones for the clerks, video-conferencing facilities, acoustics and disabled access are described as poor. Non-existent amenities include an electronic security alarm for the judge. Ontario Courtroom Number One is described as adequate. The witness box, prisoner box, electronic security alarm for the judge, public seating capacity, phones for the clerks, 12

15 video-conferencing facilities, acoustics, air-conditioning and disabled access are described as poor. Non-existent amenities include a private exit for the accused in custody. 5. Lawyer-Client Meeting Rooms Information on lawyer-client meeting rooms was not reported. 6. Jury Facilities Not applicable. 7. Public/Witness Accommodation Information on the sufficiency of seating for the public and witnesses outside the courtrooms was not reported. Women s washroom facilities are adequate. Information on men s washroom facilities was not reported. There are refreshment facilities, consisting of vending machines, available to the public in the courthouse. The facilities are inadequate for the public s needs. Few restaurants nearby and those are difficult to find for strangers to the area. Long days spent in court sometimes, with not much available except soda beverages. The courthouse is accessible by public transit and adequate paid parking is available within a reasonable distance. The lack of free parking presents a problem. With limited resources, users have to use metered parking on surrounding streets. There are no health and safety issues associated with the facility. 8. Disabled Access Disabled access is described as adequate. The building is a multiple level facility and has a functioning elevator. There are no public access problems associated with this facility. 9. Holding Cells There are three holding cells in the courthouse in a poor state of repair. There are separate facilities for men and women, segregated facilities for holding youth in custody and washrooms facilities, but no segregated cells. There is direct private access to the courts from the holding facilities. There is a security issue with respect to these holding facilities. Not enough cells. There are adequate conference facilities for private, secure solicitor-client meetings. 10. Lawyers Facilities Information on lawyers facilities was not reported. 11. Judges Chambers/Facilities Information on judges facilities was not reported. 13

16 12. Crown Attorney Offices The building houses offices for Crown attorneys. Information on whether they are adequate for existing needs was not reported. 13. Other Administrative Space/Use Information on other administrative space was not reported. It is unknown if the courthouse can currently accommodate integrated justice facility requirements. 14. Libraries Information on libraries was not reported. 15. Other Security Matters There is no metal detector in the courthouse. There are police officers are posted at the building. Information on other security matters was not reported. 16. Prospects and Future Needs Information on prospects and future needs was not reported. 14