The Alberta Court of Justice has decided to rename the reports utilized by judges to assist in understanding the backgrounds of Indigenous individuals facing sentencing, changing the term from “Gladue report” to “Indigenous background report.”
This alteration in nomenclature aims to more accurately represent the purpose of these assessments, without impacting the content or methodology involved in their preparation.
Originating from a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada case involving Jamie Tanis Gladue, the reports offer sentencing judges insights into an Indigenous offender’s personal, familial, community, and systemic context. This includes considerations of how historical events like colonialism and intergenerational trauma may have shaped their circumstances.
Scheduled to be implemented on September 1, the name change follows consultations with members of the Gladue family, Indigenous leaders, organizations supporting Indigenous communities, and other stakeholders closely engaged with the court.
Jackson Mirasty, a criminal defense lawyer from Edmonton, who dedicated five years to crafting Gladue reports, emphasized that these reports serve as tools for judges to evaluate an offender’s moral responsibility in determining suitable sentences. The reports delve into various facets such as experiences with residential schools, childhood adversities, substance abuse, family dynamics, cultural displacement, and involvement with child welfare services.
Mirasty stressed that the objective is not to grant special treatment to Indigenous offenders but to ensure judges consider the contextual factors that may have influenced an individual’s actions. By shedding light on an individual’s circumstances, the reports aid judges in comprehending the impact of these factors on their accountability.
During the report-writing process, Mirasty would engage in interviews with the individuals facing sentencing, probing into aspects like their upbringing, family background, community ties, education, encounters with violence or abuse, and interactions with child and family services. Additionally, insights from family members or other sources offering details on the individual’s past would be incorporated.
While acknowledging the court’s rationale for distancing the reports from the Gladue family name, Mirasty raised concerns about whether the new term “Indigenous background report” accurately encapsulates the reports’ essence. He cautioned that this name change might inadvertently suggest that the factors under consideration are inherent to Indigenous people rather than being outcomes of Canada’s colonial legacy.
The Alberta Court of Justice affirms that the updated terminology aims to use language that is precise, considerate, and respectful while upholding the significance of these assessments. Mirasty anticipates that the name change itself will not impact the sentencing decisions for Indigenous offenders but could influence public perception and disassociate the Gladue family name from reports containing narratives of trauma, abuse, and family challenges.
The court reiterates that despite the new name, the assessment process remains unaltered, with the focus solely on the name modification.