For #BlackHistoryMonth , I’m posting 1 case or article per day on the interaction between race, culture, and the law. These cases serve as inspiring examples of lawyers using the law to advance racial justice issues. They also reveal how much work remains ahead of us. A Thread:

Feb 1 - Parks, 1993 ONCA-Famous for creating the race-based challenge for cause, Parks also allows Js to take notice of racial bias in cdn society in many contexts

Parks is also widely credited w starting the (overdue) judicial conversation about race in the administration of criminal law. Parks allowed black defendants to ask jurors proscribed Qs to screen for racial bias. That was groundbreaking in Canada in 1993.

Feb 2 - Wilson 1996 ONCA - hot off the heels of Parks comes the ONCA’s judgement in Wilson, which held that refusing to grant a motion to challenge jurors for racial bias was an appealable error that would effectively guarantee a new trial. In Wilson, a trial judge sitting in ...

Whitby refused to permit a racial bias challenge, holding that racism might exist in Toronto, but he had never seen it in Whitby. The judge noted that he “expected” statistics would show that Black people were acquitted as often white people & that he had never personally “seen”

...a jury verdict influenced by racism. The TJ’s thoughts and opinions didn’t cut it for the court of appeal, which held that racism was not confined to toronto and accused people did not have to prove it existed in order to challenge juries. Wilson made Parks the default:

Holding that, the Parks question “with the appropriate modification should be allowed in any trial in Ontario where the accused is black.” But how effective is the Parks question? What does “appropriate modification” mean? More on that tomorrow.

Feb 3 - Douse, [2009] OJ No 2874 – Parks permitted counsel to ask jurors: “Would your ability to decide this case w/o bias, prejudice or partiality be affected by the fact that the accused is a Black man?” The Q remained relatively unchanged until 2009-Not nec. for lack of trying

(see e.g., R. v. Gayle, 2001 ONCA) and not for lack of academic criticism. In Douse, a group of notable counsel (now-justice Donald McLeod, @mirzalawyer and @MoriahLaw) argued for an expanded challenge with an out-of-court survey and several multiple choice Qs.

J. Durno allowed the Parks Q w a multiple choice answer & did not permit the survey. Douse (SCJ) introduced the multiple choice Q, Valentine (2009, ONCA) endorsed it,& in Patel (2014, SCJ - shout out to Clay Ruby @Nader_Hasan_law) a 6-Q multiple choice challenge was approved.

It took Cdn crts over 20 years to modestly expand the Parks doctrine. And even with these advancements in the law and social science evidence that the Parks question may be ineffective, Parks remains the standard Q in Cdn courts almost 30 years later.