The Alberta Court of Justice has decided to rename the reports used by judges to evaluate the backgrounds of Indigenous individuals facing sentencing. The term “Gladue report” will now be replaced with “Indigenous background report.”
This change in terminology aims to better align with the purpose of the assessment while maintaining the integrity of the reports in terms of content and research methodology. The origin of Gladue reports dates back to a landmark 1999 Supreme Court of Canada case involving Jamie Tanis Gladue, a 19-year-old Indigenous woman convicted of manslaughter in the death of her partner.
Initially, there was a misunderstanding regarding the applicability of Indigenous sentencing considerations in her case due to her off-reserve residency. However, the Supreme Court clarified that these considerations are relevant to all Indigenous offenders.
These reports offer judges insights into an Indigenous offender’s personal, familial, communal, and systemic background, shedding light on how historical events like colonialism and intergenerational trauma may have impacted their circumstances. The revised name will come into effect on September 1 following consultations with the Gladue family, Indigenous leaders, organizations serving Indigenous communities, and stakeholders collaborating with the court.
Jackson Mirasty, a criminal defense lawyer in Edmonton who has extensive experience crafting Gladue reports, emphasized that these reports are tools to aid judges in assessing an offender’s moral responsibility when determining an appropriate sentence. The reports delve into various aspects of the individual’s life, including experiences with residential schools, childhood trauma, substance abuse, family dynamics, cultural disconnection, and involvement with child welfare services.
Mirasty highlighted that the objective is not to provide special treatment to Indigenous offenders but to ensure that judges consider the contextual factors that may have influenced an individual’s actions. By understanding the individual’s background, judges can better grasp the impact of external circumstances on their decisions.
In the process of preparing these reports, Mirasty conducts interviews with the individual facing sentencing, exploring their upbringing, family history, community ties, educational background, exposure to violence or abuse, and interactions with child and family services. Additionally, he gathers insights from family members or other sources to gain a comprehensive understanding of the individual’s background, a process that often involves revisiting deeply distressing experiences.
While acknowledging the court’s intention to dissociate the reports from the Gladue family name, Mirasty raised concerns about whether the new term, “Indigenous background report,” accurately reflects the true purpose of these assessments. He cautioned that this label might inadvertently suggest that the factors under consideration are intrinsic to Indigenous individuals rather than consequences of Canada’s colonial past.
The Alberta Court of Justice emphasized that the updated terminology aims to use language that is precise, considerate, and respectful while upholding the significance of these assessments. Mirasty noted that the name change is unlikely to impact the sentencing outcomes for Indigenous offenders directly, but it may influence public perception and distinguish the reports from the Gladue family name, which often contain narratives of trauma, abuse, and family challenges.
The court clarified that despite the name change, the assessment process itself will remain unchanged, ensuring the continued relevance and effectiveness of these reports in the justice system.