“Silly Anecdotes”: From White Baselines to White Juries in R. v. Chouhan

Authors

Joshua Sealy-Harrington, Lincoln Alexander School of Law, Toronto Metropolitan University

Abstract

This paper explains how the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Chouhan concerning jury impartiality is an illustrative example of “baselines”, or how implicit political positions held by judges govern their legal analysis. It begins with a summary of the background in Chouhan: the issue before the Court (the abolition of peremptory challenges) and how the judgment resolved that issue by constitutionally vindicating the impartiality of systemically white juries (an unfortunate continuation of the Court’s widely critiqued judgment in Kokopenace). Then, the paper analyzes Chouhan through the lens of baselines. First, the paper uses Chouhan to describe what baselines are — that is, by examining both the judgment and hearing, the paper reveals how implicit political positions significantly drove the legal analysis in the case. And, given the political character of that baseline reasoning, the paper briefly critiques the Court in two ways: (1) it critiques Moldaver and Brown JJ. for relying on weak baseline positions, like juries already being diverse (they are not) or Canada not having intractable racial inequality (it does); and (2) it critiques the Court’s recent notice limiting intervention submissions to “legal” issues insofar as that limitation can, perversely, prevent interveners from challenging those weak baselines from which the Court may conduct its analysis. Second, the paper uses Chouhan to describe what baselines do — that is, by examining Moldaver and Brown JJ.’s opinion in Chouhan, the paper demonstrates how judges’ baseline commitments can motivate their reasoning and lead them to make analytical errors. In their opinion, Moldaver and Brown JJ. purport to defer to Parliament while nakedly legislating from the bench — indeed, they rule that their policy preference of ignoring race in jury selection should, “as a matter of law,” take precedence over Parliament’s preference for race-conscious processes. Further, Moldaver and Brown JJ. strawman both jury diversity and peremptory challenges to bolster their position. Specifically, when jurists argue for more jury diversity, Moldaver and Brown JJ. simply respond that no jury can be perfectly diverse, a fallacious response because doing something for jury diversity need not require doing everything. The paper concludes by noting how the continuing relevance of baselines in constitutional interpretation demands ongoing and critical reflection on how Canadian jurisprudence is routinely produced from a baseline of “silly anecdotes”: white subjectivity masquerading as universal objectivity, which institutionalizes white supremacy in law.

Citation Information

Sealy-Harrington, Joshua. "“Silly Anecdotes”: From White Baselines to White Juries in R. v. Chouhan." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 108. (2023).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1437
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol108/iss1/6

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

1 Osgoode Constitutional Cases Conference, "Constituting Courts - Principles from the Criminal Cases" (2022), online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/constitutional_cases/7/ at 21:34.

2 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Chouhan"]. My argument focusses on the issue of jury impartiality canvassed by the Court, though other issues were also present and disputed. See paras. 85-103.

3 Ward Farnsworth, The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking About the Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).

https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226238364.001.0001

4 Ward Farnsworth, The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking About the Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007) at 198.

https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226238364.001.0001

5 Ward Farnsworth, The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking About the Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007) at 203.

https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226238364.001.0001

6 Ward Farnsworth, The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking About the Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007) at 199.

https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226238364.001.0001

7 See Joshua Sealy-Harrington, "The Charter of Whites: Systemic Racism and Critical Race Equality in Canada" in Emmett Macfarlane & Kate Puddister, eds., Constitutional Crossroads: Reflections on Charter Rights, Reconciliation, and Change (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, forthcoming in 2022) at 238-240.

https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774867931-015

8 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter "Charter"].

9 R. v. Kokopenace, [2015] S.C.J. No. 28, 2015 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Kokopenace"].

10 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 74 (S.C.C.).

11 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 1 (S.C.C.).

12 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

13 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 1 (S.C.C.).

14 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 5 (S.C.C.).

15 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 212 (S.C.C.).

16 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 3-5 (S.C.C.).

17 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 284 (S.C.C.).

18 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26, Factum of Aboriginal Legal Services at para. 20 (S.C.C.). See also StereoDecisis (podcast), "Joshua Sealy-Harrington on Jury Selection, Diversity and Equality" (2020), online: https://blubrry.com/stereodecisis/69362374/joshua-sealy-harrington-on-jury-selection-diversity-and-equality/ at 8:27 [Stereo-Decisis].

19 Or, in Kent Roach's words, "miscarriages of justice." See Kent Roach, "Juries, Miscarriages of Justice and the Bill C-75 Reforms" (2020) 98:2 Can Bar Rev 315 at 319, 326-329.

20 StereoDecisis (podcast), "Joshua Sealy-Harrington on Jury Selection, Diversity and Equality" (2020), online: https://blubrry.com/stereodecisis/69362374/joshua-sealy-harringtonon-jury-selection-diversity-and-equality/ at 11:28.

21 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 104 (S.C.C.).

22 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 41, 43, 46 (S.C.C.).

23 See R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 105, 112, 231 (S.C.C.). Contra at para. 47. Given that Moldaver and Brown JJ. hold that "the abolition of peremptory challenges will go far to minimizing the occurrence of homogenous juries" (at para. 41), their supplemental analysis of other safeguards is, by definition, obiter.

24 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 83 (S.C.C.).

25 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 74 (S.C.C.).

26 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 105, 109 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1080/14753634.2020.1750098

27 I say implicitly because Martin J.'s reasons never expressly take a position on the net effect of peremptory challenges on jury impartiality - the most she says is that "Parliament was entitled to act on persistent concerns about the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges by abolishing them" (para. 109). But given her endorsement of the reasons of Moldaver and Brown JJ. on this point (see paras. 105, 109) - and given their express position that the net effect of peremptory challenges was undermining jury impartiality (see paras. 41, 43, 46) - Martin J. appears to implicitly take this view as well.

28 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 122-123 (S.C.C.).

29 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 122 (S.C.C.). See also para. 112.

30 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 113-123 (S.C.C.).

31 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 124 (S.C.C.).

32 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 127 (S.C.C.).

33 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 126 (S.C.C.). The closest I could find to this claim was Côté J.'s dissenting opinion, which held that "peremptory challenges are essential to have an impartial jury" (at para. 266). But insofar as she suggested that peremptory challenges are an "irreducible attribute" of trial juries (at para. 256), her argument is not that statutory provisions may, in general, be constitutionalized, but that this particular provision (peremptory challenges) is contained within the Charter right of jury trials, and thus, simply mirrors that right in legislative form. In any event, other passages in Côté J.'s opinion make clear that she is not constitutionalizing peremptory challenges, but rather, scrutinizing whether the consequences of their abolition "are so significant as to as to deprive Mr. Chouhan of the benefit of the trial by jury" (at para. 280). So, viewed in its entirety, her opinion does not appear to advance the strawman position that Rowe J. critiques in his opinion.

34 See, for example, R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26, Factum of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, at para. 17 (S.C.C.).

35 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 143 (S.C.C.).

36 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 153 (S.C.C.).

37 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 201-203 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12346

38 Justice Abella never explicitly refers to her views on peremptory challenges "on balance." But, in my view, such an interpretation is the strongest reading of her reasons because (1) she describes the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges as a "subversion" or "abuse" (paras. 201, 203); (2) she calls them "one of the core safeguards that ensured the impartiality of the jury," "an important trial safeguard for an accused to try to secure representativeness," and "an imperfect, but significant tool for the accused to try to weed out . . . potential bias" (paras. 211, 187, 194); and (3) she suggests that their value is "ineffable" (para. 197).

39 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 153 (S.C.C.).

40 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 60-82 (S.C.C.).

41 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 159 (S.C.C.).

42 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 160 (S.C.C.).

43 For example, regarding challenges for cause she prescribed "more probing questions . . . to properly screen for subconscious stereotypes and assumptions" (para. 160). And regarding the supplementary protections in general she prescribed "actively promot[ing] jury diversity on a case by case basis" (para. 164).

44 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 221-317 (S.C.C.).

45 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 229 (S.C.C.).

46 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 230, 284 (S.C.C.).

47 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 284 (S.C.C.).

48 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 260 (S.C.C.). This was, likewise, the focus of the BCCLA's intervener submissions at the oral hearing. See R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 (S.C.C.) (oral hearing), Intervener Submissions of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=39062&id=2020/2020-10-07--39062-38861&date=2020-10-07 at 2:32:02.

49 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 262 (S.C.C.). See also Kent Roach, "Juries, Miscarriages of Justice and the Bill C-75 Reforms" (2020) 98:2 Can Bar Rev 315 at 349-351.

50 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 263 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.53766/Agroalim/2020.26.50.16

51 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 261 (S.C.C.).

52 Kent Roach likewise makes this connection between systemic racism and jury underrepresentation. See Kent Roach, "Juries, Miscarriages of Justice and the Bill C-75 Reforms" (2020) 98:2 Can Bar Rev 315 at 328, 333-35, 337, and 356.

53 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 272 (S.C.C.).

54 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 272 (S.C.C.).

55 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 272 (S.C.C.).

56 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 272 (S.C.C.).

57 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 287 (S.C.C.).

58 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 228 (S.C.C.). See also paras. 264 and 288.

59 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 316 (S.C.C.).

60 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 27 (S.C.C.).

61 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 316 (S.C.C.).

62 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 4 (S.C.C.).

63 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 124 (S.C.C.).

64 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 33 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added].

65 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 114 (S.C.C.).

66 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 163 (S.C.C.).

67 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 272 (S.C.C.).

68 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 114 (S.C.C.).

69 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 272 (S.C.C.).

70 See, for example, Justice Giovanna Toscano Roccamo, Report to the Canadian Judicial Council on Jury Selection in Ontario (June 2018), online: https://cjc-ccm.ca/cmslib/general/Study%20Leave%20Report%202018%20June.pdf at 11-12.

71 R. v. Kokopenace, [2015] S.C.J. No. 28, 2015 SCC 28 at paras. 17, 28 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s15005-015-1483-9

72 Criminal Lawyers' Association, "Submissions on Behalf of the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) to the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Studying Bill C-75" (2018), online: https://criminallawyers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CLA-submission-Bill-C75-August-2018.pdf at 5 and 7; Julian Falconer, "The Kokopenace Judgment: A Case of Mistaken Identity" (2015) 36:2 For the Defence 18 at 20, online: https://www.falconers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/The-Kokopenace-Judgment-ACase-of-Mistaken-Identity.pdf; Tim Quigley, "Kokopenace: Charter Rights to Jury Representation for Aboriginal Accused are Obliterated for Expediency" (2015) Criminal Reports (Articles) 99; Vanessa MacDonnell, "The Right to a Representative Jury: Beyond Kokopenace" (2017) 64 Crim. L.Q. 334; "Indigenous Bar Association Calls for the Inclusion of First Nations on the Jury Rolls in Ontario" Nation Talk (June 16, 2015), online: http://nationtalkdev1.com/story/indigenous-bar-association-calls-for-the-inclusion-of-first-nationson-the-jury-rolls-in-ontario; Amar Bhatia et al., "Reconciliation and the Constitution: A Transcript of the Roundtable" (2017) 81 S.C.L.R. 273 at 298-299.

73 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 19 (S.C.C.).

74 Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), [2020] S.C.J. No. 28, 2020 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Fraser"].

75 Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), [2020] S.C.J. No. 28, 2020 SCC 28 at para. 62 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1093/itnow/bwaa041

76 R. v. Kokopenace, [2015] S.C.J. No. 28, 2015 SCC 28 at para. 128 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2015.13

77 See e.g. Kent Roach, "Juries, Miscarriages of Justice and the Bill C-75 Reforms" (2020) 98:2 Can Bar Rev 315 at 332.

78 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 41, 43, 46 (S.C.C.).

79 As noted above, this is implicit in Martin J.'s reasons when paras. 41, 43, 46, 105, and 109 are read together.

80 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 124 (S.C.C.).

81 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 211 (S.C.C.).

82 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 266 (S.C.C.).

83 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 12 (S.C.C.).

84 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 16 (S.C.C.).

85 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 16 (S.C.C.).

86 See, for example, Michael Spratt, "The Alberta government is ripping apart legal aid" Canadian Lawyer (August 5, 2022), online: https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/the-alberta-government-is-ripping-apart-legal-aid/368785; Jacques Gallant, "How the underfunding of legal aid is clogging up the justice system" Toronto Star (July 9, 2018), online: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/07/09/how-the-underfunding-of-legal-aid-is-clogging-up-the-justice-system.html.

87 See, for example, Jacques Gallant, "Too many Indigenous and Black people are in Canada's prisons. Here's how the parties will - or won't - fix that" Toronto Star (September 4, 2021), online: https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal-election/2021/09/04/too-many-indigenous-and-black-people-are-in-canadas-prisons-heres-how-the-parties-will-orwont-fix-that.html.

88 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 117 (S.C.C.), per Martin J.

89 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 17 (S.C.C.), per Moldaver and Brown JJ.

90 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 37 (S.C.C.).

91 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 77 (S.C.C.).

92 R. v. Spence, [2005] S.C.J. No. 74, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 458 at para. 1 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Spence"] [emphasis added]..

93 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 61 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added].

94 Appellant's Submissions in R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 (S.C.C.) (oral hearing), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastviewwebdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=39062&id=2020/2020-10-07--39062-38861&date=2020-10-07 at 13:03.

95 Appellant's Submissions in R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 (S.C.C.) (oral hearing), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastviewwebdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=39062&id=2020/2020-10-07--39062-38861&date=2020-10-07 at 18:21.

96 Intervener Submissions of the South Asian Bar Association in R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 (S.C.C.) (oral hearing), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=39062&id=2020/2020-10-07--39062-38861&date=2020-10-07 at 3:05:58-3:07:10.

97 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 19 (S.C.C.) (internal pinpoints removed) [emphasis added].

98 Supreme Court of Canada, "November 2021 - Interventions" (2021), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/ar-lr/notices-avis/21-11-eng.aspx.

99 Supreme Court of Canada, "November 2021 - Interventions" (2021), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/ar-lr/notices-avis/21-11-eng.aspx at paras. 2-3.

100 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at paras. 42, 114, 124, 162, 272 (S.C.C.).

101 Credit to Kent Roach for raising this important point.

102 See Joshua Sealy-Harrington, "The Charter of Whites: Systemic Racism and Critical Race Equality in Canada" in Emmett Macfarlane & Kate Puddister, eds., Constitutional Crossroads: Reflections on Charter Rights, Reconciliation, and Change (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, forthcoming in 2022) at 244 citing various paragraphs in Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), [2020] S.C.J. No. 28, 2020 SCC 28 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774867931-015

103 Ward Farnsworth, The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking About the Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007) at 199.

https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226238364.001.0001

104 See, for example, Canada (Attorney General) v. Kattenburg, [2020] F.C.J. No. 965, 2020 FCA 164 at paras. 40-46 (F.C.A.).

105 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 50 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaees/2021/v39i530581

106 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 9 (S.C.C.).

107 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 16 (S.C.C.).

108 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 9 (S.C.C.). See also para. 50.

109 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 26 (S.C.C.).

110 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 26 (S.C.C.).

111 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 27 (S.C.C.).

112 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 74 (S.C.C.).

113 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 633.

https://doi.org/10.1202/0002-8894(1985)046<0633:TROBMO>2.3.CO;2

114 See, generally, Nova Scotia, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution, Volume 4: Discrimination Against Blacks in Nova Scotia, A Research Study (Halifax, 1989), online: https://archives.novascotia.ca/pdf/marshall/4-1-BlacksStudy.pdf; Cynthia Petersen, "Institutionalized Racism: The Need for Reform of the Criminal Jury Selection Process" (1993) 38:1 McGill L.J. 147; Frank Iacobucci, First Nations Representation on Ontario Juries: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by The Honourable Frank Iacobucci (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2013), online: https://wayback.archive-it.org/16312/20210402055517/http://www.attorney.general.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/iacobucci/First_Nations_Representation_Ontario_Juries.html; Ebyan Abdigir et al., "How a broken jury list makes Ontario justice whiter, richer and less like your community" The Star (February 16, 2018), online: https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/02/16/how-abroken-jury-list-makes-ontario-justice-whiter-richer-and-less-like-your-community.html.

115 Cynthia Petersen, "Institutionalized Racism: The Need for Reform of the Criminal Jury Selection Process" (1993) 38 McGill L.J. 147 at 149.

116 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 250 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2021.1963084

117 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 251 (S.C.C.).

118 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 252 (S.C.C.).

119 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 253 (S.C.C.).

120 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 (S.C.C.), Factum of Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa at para. 1, citing Lord Devlin, Trial by Jury, Hamlyn Lecture (1956) at 164.

121 See, for example, R. v. H. (A.D.), [2013] S.C.J. No. 28, 2013 SCC 28 at paras. 123-126 (S.C.C.); R. v. Barton, [2019] S.C.J. No. 33, 2019 SCC 33 at paras. 72-73 (S.C.C.)

https://doi.org/10.23865/noros.v33.1804; R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 at paras. 228, 230 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927622001751; Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, [2014] S.C.J. No. 21, 2014 SCC 21 at para. 127 (S.C.C.); Wilson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2015] S.C.J. No. 47, 2015 SCC 47 at para. 27 (S.C.C.); R. v. Paterson, [2017] S.C.J. No. 15, 2017 SCC 15 at para. 31 (S.C.C.). Credit to Marie-Michèle Simard from Power Law for her research assistance on this point.

122 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 73 (S.C.C.).

123 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 216 (S.C.C.).

124 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 108 (S.C.C.), per Martin J., citing House of Commons Debates, Vol. 148, No. 300 at 19605.

125 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 43 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added].

126 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 84 (S.C.C.): "The role of the courts in the Charter analysis 'is to protect against incursions on fundamental values, not to second guess policy decisions . . .' ."

127 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 81 (S.C.C.).

128 See e.g. Kent Roach, "Juries, Miscarriages of Justice and the Bill C-75 Reforms" (2020) 98:2 Can Bar Rev 315 at 327.

129 Kent Roach, "Juries, Miscarriages of Justice and the Bill C-75 Reforms" (2020) 98:2 Can Bar Rev 315 at 331.

130 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 164 (S.C.C.).

131 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 200 (S.C.C.).

132 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 164 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added].

133 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 74 (S.C.C.).

134 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 74 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added].

135 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 40 (S.C.C.).

136 Likewise, Martin J. rejects this strawman: "It is obvious that Parliament had no intention of requiring judges to guarantee that every jury represents a 'national ideal of Canadian diversity . . . irrespective of the particular diversity of the local community' (reasons of Moldaver and Brown JJ., at para. 75)." R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 117 (S.C.C.).

137 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 162 (S.C.C.).

138 Kent Roach, "Juries, Miscarriages of Justice and the Bill C-75 Reforms" (2020) 98:2 Can Bar Rev 315 at 355.

139 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 33 (S.C.C.).

140 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 43 (S.C.C.).

141 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 80 (S.C.C.).

142 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 186 (S.C.C.).

143 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 163 (S.C.C.), per Abella J.

144 Credit to Kent Roach for pointing out this link.

145 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 81 (S.C.C.).

146 Indeed, Côté J. seemingly recognizes this similarity in her opinion when she observes how peremptory challenges "give accused persons the opportunity to try to obtain more representative and diverse juries." R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 226 (S.C.C.).

147 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 114 (S.C.C.), per Martin J. "Many systemic factors distort the composition of the roll, the composition of those who show up for jury duty, and the composition of those ultimately selected for the petit jury, leading to underrepresentation of certain groups at all stages."

148 Intervener Submissions of the South Asian Bar Association in R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 (S.C.C.) (oral hearing), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/casedossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=39062&id=2020/2020-10-07--39062-38861&date=2020-10-07 at 3:09:12-3:10:47 [emphasis added].

149 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 31 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added].

150 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 19 (S.C.C.).

151 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 19 (S.C.C.).

152 See, generally, Russell Robinson, "Perceptual Segregation" (2008) 108:5 Colum. L. Rev. 1093.

153 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 81 (S.C.C.).

154 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 42 (S.C.C.).

155 See, for example, Ekos Research Associates, "National Justice Survey: Canada's Criminal Justice System" (2017), online: https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/jus/J4-52-2017-eng.pdf.

156 See, for example, Sarah Wilkins-Laflamme & Sam Reimer, "Religion and Grassroots Social Conservatism in Canada" (2019) 52:4 Can. J. of Pol. Sci. 865. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000544

157 Justice Giovanna Toscano Roccamo, Report to the Canadian Judicial Council on Jury Selection in Ontario (June 2018), online: https://cjc-ccm.ca/cmslib/general/Study%20Leave%20Report%202018%20June.pdf at 11.

158 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 (S.C.C.) (oral hearing), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=39062&id=2020/2020-10-07--39062-38861&date=2020-10-07 at 10:14.

159 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 2 (S.C.C.). See also para. 20.

160 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 79 (S.C.C.).

161 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 15 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added].

162 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 114 (S.C.C.), per Martin J.: "Many systemic factors distort the composition of the roll, the composition of those who show up for jury duty, and the composition of those ultimately selected for the petit jury, leading to underrepresentation of certain groups at all stages."

163 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 187 (S.C.C.), per Abella J.: "peremptory challenges were an important trial safeguard for an accused to try to secure representativeness from what can be unrepresentative random selections."

164 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 272 (S.C.C.), per Côté J.: Although the processes established in compliance with Kokopenace aim to deliver a representative jury, they are not results-focused and do not guarantee that a jury roll's composition will be in any way proportionate to that of the general population (para. 39). In practice, this leads to jury rolls that are under representative of racialized and other marginalized persons.

165 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 39 (S.C.C.).

166 Patricia J. Williams, The Alchemy of Race and Rights (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1991) at 11.

167 Alexis Hoag-Fordjour, "White is Right: The Racial Construction of Effective Assistance of Counsel" NYU L. Rev. (Forthcoming 2023).

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4283230

168 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 48 (S.C.C.), citing R. v. Find, [2001] S.C.J. No. 34, 2001 SCC 32 at para. 43 (S.C.C.).

169 See, for example, Scot Wortley, "Justice for all? Race and perceptions of bias in the Ontario criminal justice system - A Toronto survey" (1996) 38:4 Can. J. of Crim. 439.

https://doi.org/10.3138/cjcrim.38.4.439

170 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 81 (S.C.C.).

171 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 20 (S.C.C.), citing R. v. Yumnu, [2012] S.C.J. No. 73, 2012 SCC 73 at para. 71 (S.C.C.).

172 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 49 (S.C.C.), citing Charles Lawrence III, "The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism" (1987) 39:2 Stan. L. Rev. 317 at 331. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228797

173 Charles Lawrence III, "The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism" (1987) 39 Stan. L. Rev. 317 at 326.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1228797

174 Charles Lawrence III, "The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism" (1987) 39 Stan. L. Rev. 317 at 331.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1228797

175 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 193 (S.C.C.), per Abella J., citing R. v. Spence, [2005] S.C.J. No. 74, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 458 at para. 1 (S.C.C.).

176 Ward Farnsworth, The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking About the Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007) at 198.

https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226238364.001.0001

177 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 61 (S.C.C.).

178 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 16 (S.C.C.).

179 Charles Lawrence III, "The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism" (1987) 39 Stan. L. Rev. 317 at 326.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1228797

180 Alexis Hoag-Fordjour, "White is Right: The Racial Construction of Effective Assistance of Counsel" NYU L. Rev. (Forthcoming 2023). See also Kent Roach, "Juries, Miscarriages of Justice and the Bill C-75 Reforms" (2020) 98:2 Can Bar Rev 315 at 319: "the legal community should confront the reality that our jury system is not immune to colonialism and discrimination."

181 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 198 (S.C.C.), per Abella J.