Noticeboard
| Author | Michael Plaxton |
| Date | 01 July 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712718785082 |
| Published date | 01 July 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
Noticeboard
Michael Plaxton
University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Law reform and source material
Witnesses – Ontario, Canada
Motherisk Commission, Harmful Impacts: The Reliance on Hair Testing in Child Protection, Report,
February 2018, available at <http://motheriskcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/Report-of-the-Mother
isk-Commission.pdf>
In 2015, The Honourable Susan E Lang issued a report in which she concluded that hair-strand drug
and alcohol testing, conducted by the Motherisk Laboratory at the Hospital for Sick Children (in
Toronto, Canada), was systematically ‘inadequate and unreliable’. She recommended a further inde-
pendent review to determine the extent to which the flawed testing affected child protection decisions.
Based on that recommendation, the Ontario government appointed an independent commissioner. Over
two years, the Motherisk Commission reviewed 1,271 cases from children’s aid societies across Ontario,
finding that flawed testing ‘had a substantial impact on the outcome of 56 of them’. In this report, the
Commission reviews the rules governing the admissibility of expert opinion evidence in Canada, and
makes a number of recommendations to ensure its reliability.
Jurors – Canada
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, House of Commons, Improving Support for Jurors in
Canada, Report, May 2018, available at <https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/JUST/
Reports/RP9871696/justrp20/justrp20-e.pdf>
This report from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
considers several possible reforms to the jury system, by way of reducing juror stress. In particular,
the Committee recommends that jurors be provided with an information package setting out: their
roles and responsibilities; the amount of compensation they will be given; the legal concepts and
process; how they can manage conflicts that erupt during deliberations; the potential impact on mental
health; and available support mechanisms and coping strategies. The report also recommends a
relaxation of rules prohibiting jurors from discussing deliberations; suggests t hat jurors should be
provided with additional compensation; and recommends greater provision of psychological support
and counselling services for jurors.
Corresponding author:
Michael Plaxton, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan, 15 Campus Dr, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N5A6, Canada.
E-mail: michael.plaxton@usask.ca
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2018, Vol. 22(3) 317–318
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1365712718785082
journals.sagepub.com/home/epj
To continue reading
Request your trial